Acknowledgements There is a quote by Michael Hyatt that states, “Each day is filled with thousands of opportunities to change the story of our lives.” Three years ago when I had the opportunity to go back to school and earn my teaching certificate, I never thought it would lead me to earning my master’s degree in Education. This opportunity has changed the story of my life and has taught me many valuable lessons I would not have learned otherwise. First I would like to thank Dr. Nadia Wrosch for her guidance and support with my project. Her positive encouragement and feedback helped me become a better student, writer and teacher. I also want to thank Dr. Mower and Dr. Byrne for their time and effort they have put in on my behalf. It was a privilege to work with three great educators. My greatest thanks go to my family. Thank you to my husband Shawn who supported this adventure 100%. I appreciate the hours spent proofreading and editing my paper, fixing dinner, cleaning the house, and driving kids around, all so I could seize this opportunity. Thank you to Ethan, Keaton, Olivia and Kennady who had to help around the house, fix dinner, do laundry, and sacrifice time with their mother so I could complete my masters. I hope they can see that anything in life is possible through hard work and the love of a wonderful family. Examining the Implementation of Scripted Curriculum 3 Table of Contents NATURE OF THE PROBLEM ………………………………………………………………….7 Literature Review…………………………………………………………………………8 Scripted Curriculum History………………………….……...............…..….……9 Theory of Scripted Curriculum……………………………….…..….………..…13 Benefits of Scripted Curriculums………………………….….…..………...……14 Challenges of Scripted Curriculum…………………………………………....…15 Implementation……………………………………………………..…..…......…17 Fidelity……………………………………………………..……...…..…18 Quantity………………………………………………….….....…...……18 Quality……………………………………….……………..…….…..….19 Adaptation….……….…….…….…….……………….……….……..……....…20 Summary………………………….…….…….…….….…….…….……..….…....…….21 PURPOSE…………………….…….…….…….…….…….…….…….…….…….…..….……23 METHOD……………………………….……………………………………….………………23 Participants……………………………………………………….…….……..…………24 Procedures………………………………………………………………….…..……......25 Data Analysis Procedures.……………………………………….…….……...……...….26 FINDINGS………………………………………………………………….…….…..….…...….27 Teaching the Scripted Program to Fidelity………………….…….…….…….…...…….27 Modifications……………………………………….……………..….....…...……..……34 Pressure to Teach Program to Fidelity…………………….…….…….…..…….….……37 Effectiveness of Scripted Program………………………….……………………..….…38 Examining the Implementation of Scripted Curriculum 4 Teachers’ Feelings, Philosophies, and Beliefs about the Program…………..….....….…38 DISCUSSION…………………………………………………….…………………….…..…....40 Teachers’ Philosophy, Beliefs, and Educations………….………………….….….…....40 Negotiating the Scripted Program…….…………….….…….….….…..…..…….……..42 Training Need in Scripted Program………………..….……….….……..…..….………43 Adaptations or Modifications……….…….……..……..…….…………….….….….…44 Limitations……………………………………….……………………..….….….….….44 Further Research and Recommendations…………….…………...….….……….....…..45 Conclusions………………………………..…….…….…….….………………………45 REFERENCES ……….……….…….…………...…….….…....….…...…….…….…….…….46 APPENDICES Appendix A: IRB Approval …………..…….…….…….…….….……………………..52 Appendix B: Focus Group and Interview Questions ………..…….…….……..…….…53 Examining the Implementation of Scripted Curriculum 5 List of Tables Table 1. Data Collection Method and Participant Teaching Background. .................................. 24 Table 2. Sections Taught. .............................................................................................................. 30 Examining the Implementation of Scripted Curriculum 6 ABSTRACT The adoption of scripted phonics programs to promote literacy for young readers has become progressively more widespread. Scripted curricula have been developed with the claim that these programs contain research-based material proven to help children learn to read. However, the effectiveness of the scripted program depends upon the teacher implementing the program to fidelity. The purpose of this project was to study the fidelity with which teachers teach a scripted phonics and spelling program. For this study fidelity is broadly defined as following the program as prescribed or directed. Qualitative focus groups and an interview was used to research how closely teachers follow and teach the scripted curriculum to fidelity or if they make modifications. Six teachers participated in this research. One focus group contained 3 new teachers who had taught the program for one year. The other focus group contained 2 experienced teachers who have taught the program for five years. The interview was an experienced teacher who taught the program for five years. The overall theme or findings that emerged from the discussions were teachers implement scripted program to fidelity to the best of their knowledge and training. However, it is a balancing act or a “give and take” between teaching the program to fidelity, teaching the program in the time allotted, and meeting the need of their students. The teachers’ philosophy and attitude towards the program also affected to what degree the program was taught to fidelity. Examining the Implementation of Scripted Curriculum 7 NATURE OF THE PROBLEM Reading is a fundamental skill every child must develop. Children who reach the end of third grade with low literacy skills most likely will not read well and will struggle in their academic career (Sloat, Beswick, & Willms, 2007). In order to help children become proficient in reading, scripted curricula have been developed with the claim that these programs contain research-based material proven to help children learn to read. Scripted curriculum is based on an instructivist approach in which concepts are taught in a structured teaching environment using an explicit format. Learning happens because of adequate teaching presentations and practices (McMullen & Madelaine, 2014). However, the effectiveness of the scripted curriculum is based on many factors. The teacher’s implementation of the material, teaching style, fidelity in which they follow the program, the teacher’s interpretation of the curriculum, and the decisions made related to teaching the curriculum (Pease-Alvarez & Samway, 2008). A teacher's experience and perspective on mandated, scripted reading program can influence the fidelity in which the program is taught (Pease-Alvarez, Samway, & Cifka-Herrera, 2010). In order for scripted programs to be successful and retain the efficacy of the programs, teachers need to be committed to implementing it with fidelity. Fidelity is defined as ‘‘the degree to which teachers and other program providers implement programs as intended by the program developers’’ (Quinn & Kim, 2017, p. 1190). The way the material is presented may be the cause of the student not learning the material (Engelmann, 1980; McMullen & Madelaine, 2014; Shelton, 2010). Many scripted curriculum packages have been shown to be successful and to fail; what seems to be the critical factor is the skills and attitudes of the teacher (Topping & Ferguson, 2005). If teachers implement the Examining the Implementation of Scripted Curriculum 8 research-based scripted curriculum with high fidelity it is more likely they will have an improved outcome (Harn, Parisi, & Stoolmiller, 2013). Therefore, if teachers do not follow the curriculum with fidelity as designed, success may be less likely to occur. Given the number of research-based curriculum programs used in schools today, it is important to examine how closely teachers follow and implement scripted programs or make adaptations that may influence the outcomes for students. Maintaining fidelity to core program components is important, but the role adaptation plays on the effectiveness of the scripted programs are unclear. By focusing solely on fidelity higher reading results should be achieved. However, teachers may adapt the program in ways that will increase student engagement and proficiency while maintaining integrity to the theory of the scripted program (Kim, Burkhauser, Guryan, Kingston, & Aleman, 2017). LITERATURE REVIEW Reading proficiency has a significant impact on a child’s future. Children who do not learn to read proficiently by the end of third grade will most likely struggle with reading for the rest of their academic career and fall behind in other academic areas (Bratsch-Hines, Vernon-Feagans, Varghese, & Garwood, 2017). Reading failure has been linked to students dropping out of high school; ending up in the criminal justice system, and living in poverty (Education Digest, 2010). Desperate to prevent reading failure, the adoption of scripted literacy programs have become more widespread. Scripted curricula have been implemented into classrooms, especially in Title 1 schools, with the claim that these programs contain scientific research-based materials and instructional practices proven to help children become proficient readers (Parsons & Harrington, 2009). Examining the Implementation of Scripted Curriculum 9 With the increased use of scripted curricula, this paper will review the history of scripted curriculum, and how it became more prevalent in schools today. It will discuss the theory behind scripted curriculum and the benefits and challenges of this type of direct instruction. It will also examine the importance of implementation. The success of any scripted programs relies on how it is taught and if it is implemented with fidelity. However, educators argue that modification or adaptations are necessary to fit the needs of the students (Kim, et al., 2017; Quinn and Kim, 2017). Scripted Curriculum History Scripted curricula have been around for 25 to 30 years (Chamberlain, 2006). In 1965 President Lyndon B. Johnson introduced the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA). This law “provided financial assistance to local educational agencies serving areas with concentrations of children from low income families to expand and improve their educational programs” (Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965, Pub. L. No. 89–10, 79 Stat. 27). This federal legislation provided funding for special programs, textbooks, and library books used in low-income and urban schools. The purpose of the act was to find the best ways to teach children living in poverty and close the achievement gap between students of different backgrounds (Standerfer, 2006). The strong push for scripted curricula began when the National Reading Panel (NRP) released their report in 2000, based on the analysis of 100,000 studies done on how children learn to read. The NRP determined the basic literacy skills are phonemic awareness, word recognition, fluency, vocabulary, and text comprehension (NRP, 2000). The study also concluded the most effective means of reading instruction was explicit and systematic phonemic awareness and phonics instruction (Milosovic, 2007). Phonemic awareness and phonics skills Examining the Implementation of Scripted Curriculum 10 that are taught by a systematic approach use curriculum with a specific sequential set of phonics elements, and direct instruction that is precise and unambiguous (Mesmer & Griffith, 2005). This systematic approach is the basis of scripted standardized programs. Scripted programs that focus on direct and systematic instruction claim to close the achievement gap between children of poverty and those who are more affluent (Ede, 2006). Standardized scripted curriculums were also implemented into classrooms due to changes in federal legislation. In January of 2001, President George W. Bush reauthorized the ESEA and announced his bipartisan education reform act, No Child Left Behind (NCLB). Like the ESEA, the main purpose of NCLB is “to ensure that all children have a fair, equal, and significant opportunity to obtain a high-quality education" (Pub. L. 107-110, Title I, 1001, 115 Stat. 1439, 2002). The concern was that too many children living in low socio-economic conditions were being left behind and not receiving an adequate education (NCLB, 2001). For example in 2001, the National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) showed that only 32 percent of the nation’s fourth-graders performed at or above the proficient achievement level in reading (National Assessment of Educational Progress [NAEP], 2001). To address this problem, NCLB introduced an increased accountability for schools, school districts and States, and emphasized using scientific based-research to identify best practices (NCLB Parent Guide, 2003). The No Child Left Behind Act also placed a strong emphasis on reading. Every child would be proficient in reading by the end of the third grade (NCLB, 2001). Based on the research founded by the NRP, NCLB specified that scientifically research-based reading programs must be established in kindergarten through third grade in Title1 schools (Pub. L. 107-110, 1201, 115 Stat. 1535, 2002). NCLB provided schools funding for reading programs on the condition they are “scientifically based” reading programs (Ede, 2006). These “scientifically Examining the Implementation of Scripted Curriculum 11 research-based” programs were promoted as the solution to reading inequalities and intended to ensure children in low-performing, high poverty schools would become proficient readers. The NRP defined “scientifically research-based” reading programs as those who incorporated explicit and systematic instruction in phonemic awareness, phonics, fluency, vocabulary, and comprehension. The NCLB Parent Guide, published in 2003 by the U.S. Department of Education, stated that “teachers across different states and districts have demonstrated that scientifically based reading instruction can and does work with all children” (NCLB Parent Guide, U.S. Department of Education, pg.15). The No Child Left Behind Act also required states to implement statewide accountability systems (NCLB Act of 2001, U.S. Department of Education, 2002). States were required to annually test all students in grades 3-8 in reading and mathematics based on state standards. Progress objectives were set, and if over time schools failed to meet their adequate yearly progress (AYP), then school improvement plans, corrective action, and restructuring could all happen to ensure the school gets back on track to meet state standards (NCLB Act of 2001, U.S. Department of Education, 2002). The implementation of state standards, benchmarks, and grade-level expectations led to mandated standardized curriculum. The standardized curriculum was the solution to prepare all students equally for the annual statewide testing (Ainsworth, Ortlieb, Cheek, Pate, & Fetters, 2012). NCLB focused on accountability and high stake testing which lead to teachers being told what, when and how to teach their students. However, evidence demonstrated that increased testing did not improve reading achievement, and may have had a negative impact on the learning environment in low-income schools (Dennis, 2017). The NCLB’s requirements became “increasingly unworkable for schools and educators” (US Department of Education, ESSA, p. 1). Examining the Implementation of Scripted Curriculum 12 Therefore, in 2015, President Barack Obama signed into law the Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA), a reauthorization of the ESEA, which replaced NCLB (U.S. Department of Education). The ESSA granted flexibility to the states in regarding how to educate their students. States are still accountable through annual statewide assessments that measure students' progress but have the flexibility to decide how they will increase equity, improve the quality of instruction, and improve outcomes for all students. Under the ESSA, the policy still requires that curriculum programs are scientifically research-based or evidence based. School districts are continuing to use scripted researched-based programs to meet this requirement (ESSA, 2015). Common Core State Standards Initiative (CCSSI) in 2010 also brought about standardized commercial curriculum. The CCSSI was led by the National Governors Association (NGA) Center for Best Practices and the Council of Chief State School Officers (CCSSO) to establish consistent educational standards across the states (Burns, 2012). The purpose of the CCSSI was to “define the knowledge and skills students should have within their K–12 education careers so that they will graduate high school able to succeed in entry-level, credit-bearing academic college courses and in workforce training programs” (NGA Center & CCSSO, n.d., para. 4). The adoption of these standards changed the curriculum being taught in K-12 grades. Standardized tests were given to monitor the student’s proficiency of the common core standards; therefore standardized curriculum was developed to meet these testing standards. School districts purchased commercial curriculum products aligned to the publishers’ criteria of what mattered most in the core standards (Eppley, 2015). Teachers were expected to implement with fidelity the commercial curriculum in their classroom. The programs were designed to control teaching and learning in classrooms and prepare students for high-stake tests (Eppley, 2015). Examining the Implementation of Scripted Curriculum 13 The CCSSI also caused curriculum in K-12 grades to be more consistent and rigorous (Timberlake, Thomas, & Barret, 2017). States who adopted the CCSSI had high expectations for all students. In order to ensure equal access to curriculum content, curricular modules in English Language Arts (ELA) and mathematics were offered to help schools and school districts (Timberlake, et al., 2017). It states on the CCSSI website, “Teachers know best about what works in the classroom, that is why these standards establish what students need to learn but do not dictate how teachers should teach” (NGA Center & CCSSO, n.d., para. 1). However, many school districts and schools felt the need to purchase scripted programs on the claim that the curriculum scope and sequence would meet the needs of all students. A one-size-fits-all approach became common in public schools (Tienken, 2013). Theory of Scripted Curriculum The theory behind scripted curriculum is all children can learn with well-designed instruction. Predetermined skills are taught in sequence and order which leads to better understanding (Yoon, 2013). Standardized scripted curriculum is created based on research with careful attention paid to sequencing skills so that students learn skills in a linear, cumulative way, with built-in feedback and assessments (McMullen & Madelaine, 2014). Engelmann, an early childhood educator, theorized that children learn by breaking tasks into small steps through explicit teacher-led instruction at a brisk pace. If children did not learn the skill after explicit instruction, it was not the child’s incapability it was the result of inadequate teaching. Engelmann believed breaking skills down into smaller more manageable components and teaching them in sequence produces faultless instruction which led to maximum student learning (McMullen & Madelaine, 2014). Examining the Implementation of Scripted Curriculum 14 Scripted curriculum is taught using an explicit format in a structured teaching environment (McMullen, & Madelaine, 2014). This explicit and systematic instruction is also referred to as Direct Instruction (Hughes, Morris, Therrien, & Benson, 2017). Direct Instruction (DI) curricular materials are structured with clear and unambiguous examples at an appropriate instructional level (Stockard, Wood, Coughlin, & Rasplica Khoury, 2018). A meta-analysis done on the effectiveness of Direct Instruction Curricula determined that “learning is enhanced only when the information presented is explicit, logically organized, and clearly sequenced” (Stockard, et al., 2018, p. 502). The study also concluded that exposure to DI could substantially reduce current achievement gap between socioeconomic groups (Stockard, et al., 2018). Benefits of Scripted Curriculums There have been considerable debates over scripted curriculum programs. Those in favor of scripted programs believe it provides structure and order in the classroom using consistent, reliable instruction (Holcomb, 2005; McMullen & Madelaine, 2014). Scripted programs are designed to move at a fast pace with active student participation. Students know what to expect and have many opportunities to respond chorally. A study conducted by Cooke, Galloway, Kretlow, and Helf, (2011) showed students had more on-task instructional opportunities during a phonics lesson when a script was used compared to when there was not a script (Cooke, et al., 2011). Students often make reasonable misconceptions because teachers’ explanations are unclear and haven’t been carefully prepared. Scripted programs ensure that teachers are instructing students in an efficient and unambiguous way (Hazell, 2017). Scripted programs can be beneficial for teachers. Teachers may not always have the time or resources they need to create their own lessons. A pre-set standardized curriculum provides teachers with planned lessons and assessments that are clear and easy to follow. These programs Examining the Implementation of Scripted Curriculum 15 require less preplanning and set-up work for teachers. “A scripted format removes the onus of curriculum decisions from the teacher so that they can instead focus on instructional delivery and student success” (McMullen & Madelaine, 2014, p. 139). Corrective feedback found in scripted materials allows teacher to give timely feedback. Errors made by students can be addressed immediately, with teacher modeling and continuing to ‘model’ the skill until it is learned (McMullen & Madelaine, 2014). Scripted curriculums are also valuable to new teachers and paraeducators. Teachers who have little experience find scripted reading programs helpful because they provide a teacher’s guide and lesson plans (Dresser, 2012). Well-designed curriculum can provide new teachers a better conceptual understanding of the subject and can help improve their quality of instruction (Siuty, Leko, & Knackstedt, 2018). For example, to teach children how to read, one must be knowledgeable in phonological awareness skills and a basic understanding of language structure. Studies indicate that some teachers lack the basic skills related to beginning reading instruction (Crim, et al., 2008). Most scripted reading programs are explicit and systematic in phonemic awareness and place an emphasis on phonics, fluency, vocabulary, and comprehension which can increase a student’s success in reading (Ede, 2006). These scripted programs can help teachers build their own understanding of phonological awareness, and language skills, and help teachers improve their own literacy instruction. Scripted curricular provides support to new teachers in decisions making and implementing best practices (Siuty, et al., 2018). Challenges of Scripted Curriculum Those opposed to scripted curriculum programs believe they have had a negative impact on the teaching profession. Critics feel mandated scripted programs have not allowed teachers to use their education or professional knowledge, do not allow for creativity or critical thinking, is Examining the Implementation of Scripted Curriculum 16 time consuming, not engaging, and fail to meet the goal of increased proficiency (Dresser, 2012; Eslinger, 2014; Margolis, & McCabe, 2006; Parker, 2015; Milosovic, 2007). Those against scripted curricula believe it mandates what and how teachers teach and has not allowed them to use their education or professional knowledge. Scripted programs are often mandated by administration to be followed exactly, which causes teachers to follow the program submissively, unreflectively, and unresponsively (Margolis, & McCabe, 2006). Teachers are often caught between teaching the scripted program to fidelity or making adaptations based on their professional knowledge to meet the needs of their students (Dresser, 2012). Scripted programs overshadow highly effective teachers’ professional knowledge and judgement (Griffith, 2008). Mandated scripted curriculum also causes teachers to lose their autonomy, their “professional freedom to balance between personality, training, experience and the requirements of the specific educational context” (Parker, 2015, p. 21). Teachers believe they can make a difference in a student’s life. When teachers are not able to use learned best practices or strategies, such as differentiated instruction, inquiry-based learning or hands-on learning, it takes away their ability to make a difference (Eslinger, 2014). Teachers required to use scripted programs do not have the autonomy be an effective teacher or respond to students’ progress or needs by using other instructional methods (Parsons, & Harrington, 2009). Scripted programs, and DI, are teacher-centered rather student-centered. Successful instruction is not only skill-based, rote memorization, but includes a higher order of thinking (Eslinger, 2014). Scripted programs do not require students to think critically, or draw from background knowledge. Scripted curriculum is created for a generic group and is unlikely to meet the needs of all students. Learning is not identical for every child; therefore the teacher Examining the Implementation of Scripted Curriculum 17 needs the flexibility and creativity that allows them to meet the individual needs of the children (Milosovic, 2007). Students learn when curriculum is relevant to their lives and is personally interesting to them. When students can relate they are actively engaged in the pursuit of knowledge (Ede, 2006). Scripted programs also take away valuable instructional time from other subjects. With the emphasis on accountability and high stake testing the reallocation of time and resources have been taken from other subjects, such as science, social studies, arts, music, and physical education and given to areas such as reading and math that use scripted curricular (Eslinger, 2014). To teach scripted programs to fidelity, it could take up to three hours a day to complete a lesson (Milosovic, 2007). Therefore, it does not allow time for other subjects which contribute to the child’s overall learning (Ede, 2006). It is debated if scripted curriculum, implemented with fidelity, improves reading achievement. According to Dennis (2017), a focus on fidelity to core scripted programs provided little evidence that reaching achievement improved or closed the achievement gap between poor and advantage students. Research also showed that students in schools where scripted programs were taught lagged behind in reading compared to students in schools that did not use scripted programs (Dresser, 2012). Milosovic, (2017) showed favorable results using DI scripted programs when teaching native English speaking students. However, the effectiveness of the scripted programs level off after the second grade (Milosovic, 2007). Implementation Regardless of the different perspectives on scripted curricular, the success of any scripted curriculum relies on how it is implemented. Implementation is defined as what a program includes when it is taught in the particular setting (Durlak and DuPre, 2008). Durlak and DuPre, Examining the Implementation of Scripted Curriculum 18 (2008) described three out of eight factors that affect the implementation process; (1) Fidelity, the extent to which the lesson taught corresponds to the original intended program; (2) Quantity, the amount of the original program material that was taught; and (3) Quality, how well the essential parts of the program was taught. Implementing research-based scripted curriculum in real world classrooms as intended can be challenging, however understanding the factors that affect implementation is important for a successful outcome. Fidelity. Scripted programs need to be implemented with fidelity to be effective. Fidelity is when the teacher adheres to the program’s ideals envisioned by the developers (Quinn & Kim, 2017). “Teachers are not expected to diagnose, prescribe, design, or innovate.” (Quinn & Kim, 2017, p. 1191). Following the program with fidelity helps determines if the program is achieving the desired results. Poor fidelity may lead to the question if the research-based practices were truly in place (McMaster, et al., 2014). “Program fidelity is a cornerstone of scripted programs, and developers assert that teachers must maintain fidelity for their programs to be successful” (Duncan-Owens, 2009, p. 27). When programs fail, the blame is usually attributed to a lack of fidelity. Teachers’ beliefs and instructional philosophies contribute to how they implement the curriculum, especially if their personal goals for instruction are different from those mandated from a particular program. If the teachers’ instructional philosophy matches the instructional approach of the program, the program will more likely be implemented with higher fidelity (Durlak & DuPre, 2008). Quantity. In order for a research-based scripted program to be effective, core components of the program need to be taught (McMaster, et al., 2014). In order to maintain the program’s integrity, teachers must be committed to implementing the entire curriculum as Examining the Implementation of Scripted Curriculum 19 instructed (McMullen & Madelaine, 2014). When teachers do not understand or agree with the theory of the curriculum and do not believe the program will improve achievement as promised, they are less likely to implement the instruction (Lee & Min, 2017). Quality. The quality of instruction, how it is delivered, relies on the teacher. Their perceptions, beliefs, and values, or what one may consider their “buy-in,” are key components for the success of the program (Lee & Min, 2017). Based on their prior experiences and understanding of the program’s requirements, teachers have different levels of “buy-in” towards the program. Teachers with strong self-efficacy, “the belief that one can bring about desirable changes and obtain valued outcomes through effort,” (Lee & Min, 2017, p. 376) are more willing to learn and make changes to their instruction when new programs are introduced. When teachers believe that their actions and decisions can positively influence student outcomes, their self-efficacy increases. On the other hand, if they feel their hands are tied by mandates that restrict their ability to make individualized instructional decisions for their students, then their self-efficacy may be compromised (Enderlin-Lampe, 2002). Teachers are more willing to support and implement mandated scripted curricular when professional development is given (Griffith, 2008). Teachers need to be provided the purposes and structures of curriculum and taught instructional techniques that support the core of the program (Penuel, Phillips, & Harris, 2014). According to Penuel, et al. (2014), “teachers’ primary task is to ‘translate’ their professional learning experience into the classroom in ways that are faithful to the meanings and structures of the curriculum” (p. 754). Teachers need to be supported in using these programs as “educative structures rather than as fail-proof scripts” (Dennis, 2017, pg. 396). Examining the Implementation of Scripted Curriculum 20 Adaptation Schools purchase scripted programs to be implemented with fidelity; however, teachers argue that to be successful, they need the flexibility to adapt the program’s instructional practices to fit the needs of the students (Quinn & Kim, 2017). Adaptation is defined as any modification or change made to the original program (Kim et al., 2017). Modifying or altering the scripted curriculum introduces the possibility that the program may be less effective (Quinn and Kim, 2017). However, researchers believe that some adaptations are acceptable and compatible with fidelity (Kim et al., 2017). Allowing adaptations can improve the instructional practices and the needs of the students (Quinn and Kim, 2017). Two studies (McMaster et al., 2014; Quinn and Kim, 2017) researched the effects of teachers’ adaptations on scripted reading programs. The first study by Quinn and Kim (2017) randomly assigned 27 schools to either follow READS, a summer literacy program, to core fidelity in which teachers were expected to faithfully implement program procedures, or use an adaptive approach where teachers had the opportunity to adapt the programs components to better meet the needs of their students. McMaster et al., (2014) studied the implementation of PALS, Peer-Assisted Learning Strategies, for reading. The study followed a fourth grade teacher as she was trained on the program, as she implemented it with fidelity, and as she was allowed after a period of time to make modifications to noncore components. Both studies concluded that before adaptive changes could be made, the program must be implemented with fidelity. This gave teachers time to learn the core components of the program and master the curriculum to be taught proficiently (Quinn and Kim, 2017; McMaster et al., 2014). After the fidelity period, teachers were then prepared to make structured adaptations because they had the foundational knowledge and skills of the program necessary to make effective adaptations (Quinn and Kim, Examining the Implementation of Scripted Curriculum 21 2017). Quinn and Kim, (2017) stated “fidelity-focused and structured adaptive approaches can form an effective scaffolded sequence of program implementation” (Quinn and Kim, 2017, p. 1217). McMaster et al., (2014) also concluded that adaptations or modifications made to curriculum programs should be done one component at a time. Modifications made should be implemented with consistency and fidelity. If the modifications are inconsistent and not accurate, it will be difficult to determine if the changes improved academic achievement. Adaptation can have a positive effect on teacher morale (Kim et al., 2017). If teachers are involved the decision-making process they are more invested and committed to teaching the program. If teacher are satisfied with the program, morale is higher, the school culture is better, which leads to better student outcomes (Kim et al., 2017). Adaptations also allow teachers to increase the program’s effectiveness locally and sustain the program over time (Quinn and Kim, 2017). Research by Durlak and DuPre (2008) suggested that “fidelity and adaptation frequently co-occur and each can be important to outcomes” (p. 341). Fidelity to a program is never 100% which shows teachers often implement part of the scripted curriculum but modify another part. Adaptation is inevitable and the debate should not be if there should be fidelity or adaptations but how to find a balance between fidelity and adaptation (Durlak & Dupre, 2008). SUMMARY Elementary schools have implemented research-based curriculum programs to improve reading proficiency. These programs are becoming more widespread in schools due to federal requirements and increased pressure for higher academic achievement. How these programs are implemented often determine their effectiveness. A teacher’s knowledge, perceptions, beliefs, Examining the Implementation of Scripted Curriculum 22 values and “buy-in” affect the effectiveness of implementation (Lee & Min, 2017). Maintaining fidelity to core program components is important to achieve success. If the program fails, it is often blamed on poor fidelity. Teachers however argue that to be successful, they need to make adaptions to these programs to meet student needs (Quinn and Kim, 2017). Focusing solely on fidelity is not enough to achieve higher results (Kim et al., 2017). Adaptation is defined as any change made to the program (Kim et al., 2017). Many researchers consider adaptions as failure of fidelity (Durlak & DuPre 2008). A qualitative study done by Durlak and DuPre (2008) shows better implementation occurs when teachers have a say in the decision-making process and can make some adjustments. Adaptations may improve the program if implemented correctly (Kim et al., 2017). Durlak & Dupre, (2008) suggest a balance between fidelity and adaptation needs to be found. Examining the Implementation of Scripted Curriculum 23 PURPOSE The goal of primary educators is to help children develop basic literacy skills to become proficient readers. If these skills are not developed, children may have life-long difficulties in reading (Golightly & Snyder 2017). In order to achieve reading proficiency by third grade, schools have adopted scientifically research-based programs that claim to improve children’s reading skills. If followed with fidelity, these programs are proven to help children learn to read. If these programs are not followed with fidelity and not implemented as intended by the program developers, lower outcomes may occur. Teachers play a critical role in the success of scripted curriculum programs. Following the scripted curriculum with fidelity or making adaptations could be affected by a teacher’s experience, professional learning, teaching philosophy, knowledge, and training of the program. The purpose of this project is to study the fidelity with which teachers implement a scripted phonics and spelling program in a northern Utah school district. This study will focus on the different ways that teachers deliver the scripted phonics and spelling program. Questions guiding this research are: 1. How closely do teachers follow the scripted curriculum and teach it to fidelity? 2. Why do teachers choose not to follow a scripted curriculum to fidelity? 3. What types of modifications are made to the scripted curriculum by teachers? 4. Do attitudes about program fidelity and beliefs about the program affect instruction? METHOD The qualitative methods of focus groups and interview were used to gather data on how teachers implement and deliver a lesson from a scripted phonics program. Two focus groups and one individual were interviewed to see if scripted programs were followed with fidelity and what Examining the Implementation of Scripted Curriculum 24 modifications or adaptations are made. The first group consisted of teachers who are new to teaching the scripted program. The second focus group consisted of teachers who have had three or more years of experience teaching the scripted program. The interview was an experienced teacher who had taught the scripted program for five years. PARTICIPANTS Participants for this study were first grade elementary teachers gathered from three different elementary schools within a northern Utah public school district. Purposeful sampling was used to select the participants. Participants were selected based on their experience and number of years they have taught the scripted program, refer to Table 1. The years of teaching experience range from one to twenty seven years of teaching experience. The scripted phonics program in the study has been implemented in the district for five years. Table 1 Data Collection Method and Participant Teaching Background Type Experience Teacher Focus Group Interview Professional Phonics Program T1 1 1 1 T2 1 1 1 T3 1 2 1 T4 1 27 5 T5 2 25 5 T6 2 20 5 Note. Method used for data collection whether interview focus group 1 or 2. Participants’ teaching background, which includes the number of years of teaching experience, and number of years teaching the scripted phonics program. Examining the Implementation of Scripted Curriculum 25 PROCEDURES To examine how teachers implement and deliver scripted programs, the researcher obtained IRB approval which is found in the Appendix A. Permission was given from the school district to do the study. The participants completed consent forms for their participation in the focus groups, and interview. Questions for the focus group and interview were developed by the researcher and approved by the IRB committee. The discussions in the focus groups were a semi-structured format. Participants were asked key questions that explored how scripted curriculum was implemented or modified. Questions for the focus groups and interview can be found in Appendix B. Participants were allowed to respond in detail and additional questions arose as the discussion progressed. The additional questions that came about were questions that asked specific details on how each section of the program was taught. Those additional questions can be found in Appendix B. The focus groups and interview discussions was audio recorded along with notes taken. One focus group consisted of three teachers, T1, T2, T3, who are new to teaching and new to the scripted phonics program. The other group consisted of two experienced teachers, T4, T5, who have taught the program for more than three years. The third experienced teacher, T6, could not meet at the same time as the group, so therefore was interviewed at a later date. The phonics program contains 129 scripted lessons. Each lesson contains nine to eleven sections to be taught with every fifth lesson a written and oral assessment. The program also includes a fluency piece and intervention section but is not currently being used by any of the teachers interviewed. The teachers were asked to teach lesson 12 and come prepared to discuss how they taught the lesson. Lesson 12 was chosen because it was the first lesson a new concept Examining the Implementation of Scripted Curriculum 26 was taught. The previous lessons were all review from kindergarten. Focus group 1 lasted 45 minutes and focus group 2 lasted 35 minutes. The individual interview lasted 25 minutes. DATA ANALYSIS PROCEDURES The response data gathered from the focus groups and interview were analyzed to gain insight on how the teachers viewed and taught the scripted phonics program. The data gathered was reviewed to identify if the scripted phonics program was taught to fidelity or if modifications and adaptations were made. If modifications were made, response data was collected through notes to tell why and what adjustments were made. The responses were also studied to see if teachers felt they are more effective if they follow the scripted program to fidelity or if they felt modifications to the program were necessary to meet students’ reading needs. The responses given by the teachers were listened to and reviewed to find similarities and differences on how they taught the scripted program. Charts were made to categorize how each section of the program was taught by each teacher. Once the data was categorized on how each teacher taught the scripted programs, tallies were made to see who taught each section as directed or who made modifications. Tallies were also made for parts of the scripted program that was not taught at all or what parts of the sections were left out. The data was frequently listened to and notes were taken to find connections and themes that came about as the teachers discussed their beliefs, experiences and attitudes about the scripted phonics program. As the themes were identified, a chart was made to manage the data and connect the ideas, content, and quotes to each theme. Examining the Implementation of Scripted Curriculum 27 FINDINGS The purpose of this project was to study the fidelity with which teachers implemented a scripted phonics and spelling program in a northern Utah school district. This study focused on how closely teachers followed the scripted curriculum and if they taught it to fidelity, why teachers choose not to follow a scripted curriculum to fidelity, what types of modifications were made to the scripted curriculum, and if the teachers’ attitudes about program fidelity affect their instruction of the program. The overall theme or findings that emerged from the focus groups and interview were the teachers tried to implement the program to fidelity to the best of their knowledge and training. However, it was a balancing act or a “give and take” between teaching the program to fidelity, teaching the program in the time allotted, and meeting the needs of their students. The teachers’ philosophy and attitude towards the program also affected to what degree each section of the program was taught to fidelity. There were five themes that emerged from the responses. Teaching the Scripted Program to Fidelity Participating teachers were asked to refer to lesson 12 from the scripted phonics program. The average lesson from the scripted phonics program contains 11 sections. Each section is directed to be taught as whole group and no time limit or how much time each section should take is given in the direction of the script. Lesson 12, which taught the new concept “suffix s,” did not include the handwriting or spelling tile section that most lessons contain. The learning objectives stated in the scripted program for lesson 12 were to teach the students the following concepts: plural, root word, suffix s, twin consonants, temporary sight words, period title, exclamation point and author and illustrator. Examining the Implementation of Scripted Curriculum 28 The first section of the lesson was the alphabet activity. The students were asked to say the alphabet as they touched their toes. As an alternative activity they could recite the alphabet while doing a karate punch. No time was given on how long to spend on the alphabet review. Phonological/phonemic awareness was next and students were asked to identify the medial sound in a word. No time limit was set for this section in the script but six sets of words were given to practice the phonological/phonemic skill. The instructions did say to continue with additional words as time permits. Daily letter and sound review was next and students practiced the letter deck, keyword picture deck, and sight word deck of cards. The script instructed this to be a quick review, having the students saying the name and sounds of letters, diagraphs, and their keywords words orally. Sight words are also reviewed orally. The spelling review followed the daily letter sound review and is done on the worksheet. Ten different sounds are reviewed daily. The teacher says a sound, the children echo the sound, name the letter or letters that make the sound, and then writes the letter or letters that make the sound. The script then directs the student to set the worksheet aside to use later in the lesson. The new skills section is next and the new concepts or learning objectives are taught. In lesson 12, suffix s, root word, plural, twin consonants, new sight words were all taught. The lessons directs what to say, what questions to ask, and gives you specific examples to use. No time line is given for this section either, however it is the longest section in the lesson. After the new skill is taught, the application and continual review provide additional practice to prepare for what will be on the rest of their worksheet. When the review is completed, students turn back to the worksheet where they practice spelling words, coding words, (coding is where they write a breve, macron or other symbols above a letter or groups of letters to help Examining the Implementation of Scripted Curriculum 29 them remember their sound), or match letters or blends to pictures. The back of the worksheet is homework that is directed to be sent home and returned the next day. Following the worksheet the decodable reader should be introduced. Before reading the decodable reader in lesson 12, print awareness needed to be taught. The concepts of sentence, period, title, exclamation point, author and illustrator all should have been reviewed before reading the story. When you begin reading the decodable, the script directed you to read pages one and two and then ask a question. The script continued with questions to be asked as you read. Next students should read the script independently and color the pictures in the book. While the kids are coloring the teacher should spend some time listening to each child read his or her reader. Lesson 12 did not contain spelling with letter tiles or handwriting. Other lessons in this program do contain those sections. Spelling with letter tiles are when individual spelling tiles are given to students and they are asked to spell words that go along with the phonic concept they are learning in the lesson. The handwriting section gives students detail instructions on how to write a lower case and upper case of each letter. Children are to skywrite the letter first, and then the worksheet contains a section to practice their handwriting. Not all lessons contain all of the sections. The teachers were first asked to identify what sections they taught their students from that lesson. Table 2 shows the sections they taught. Examining the Implementation of Scripted Curriculum 30 Table 2 Sections Taught New Teachers Experienced Teachers Lesson Section T1 T2 T3 T4 T5 T6 Alphabet Activity T E E P E P Phonological Phonemic Awareness P E P P P P Daily Letter and Sound Review T T T T T T Spelling Review T T T T T T Spelling with Letter Tiles NA NA NA NA NA NA Handwriting NA NA NA NA NA NA New Skills T T T T T T Application and Continual Review T T P P P P Worksheet T T T T T T Homework P P P T P P Decodable Reader M M M M M M Weekly Assessment T T T T T T Note. Sections in the scripted program, and how each teacher taught the section. The T indicates they taught the whole section as directed to fidelity. The P indicates they taught part of the section to fidelity and did not teach all that was directed. The M indicated they modified or changed what was directed in the script. The E indicates they eliminated that section and did not teach it at all. NA indicates the section did not apply to this lesson. During the discussion, the teachers indicated there was too much information to teach in the 60 minute time allotted for the program. T1 stated, “I wish someone from the district would tell us what we could and could not eliminate from the scripted program. In order to teach other subjects we have to eliminate or modify some of the content.” T6 said, “Seasoned teachers cannot get through all the content in the lessons.” All agreed they could not teach the whole program and had to choose daily what they would and would not teach. The teachers stated they Examining the Implementation of Scripted Curriculum 31 could eliminate both the alphabet activity and the phonemic awareness due to the fact they are required to use another ten-minute scripted program to teach those concepts; however T2, a new teacher, was the teacher only teacher who completely eliminated those sections. The others partially taught what was directed in the script. All agreed the important key components to teach to fidelity were the daily letter and sound review, spelling review, new skills, worksheet and weekly assessment. The new skills section contained the new concepts or learning objectives, and all the teachers felt it was the main component to teach. The daily letter and sound review, spelling review, and worksheet gave the students the daily phonics practice they needed. The assessment was the only piece of the program that was directed by the district to give weekly. If given a choice, T1, T2, T5, and T6 would not give the assessment. The assessment is designed to test the skills taught the previous week. The four teachers agree the time between teaching the skill and assessing the skill is too long therefore, misconceptions are harder to address the longer the misunderstanding occurs. When asked if they follow the script exactly, all of the teachers said they felt attached to the script the first year they taught the program. T2 who has had a year of experience teaching the program said, “now I do not read from the script, I have the script there as a reference.” Similarly, T1 expressed, “I don’t feel as attached to it either now I know the concept behind it. However, I do read more of the script now because it phrases it better than I can.” T1 also felt that following the script as directed, reduces student confusion and prevents additional problems from occurring. The experienced teachers who have taught the program for five years all commented that they followed the script but do not read it word for word. When asked if they followed the script to fidelity in lesson 12, all the teachers felt they followed the script closely, but did not read it or say all the content exactly as directed. For Examining the Implementation of Scripted Curriculum 32 example, the lesson directed the teacher to give the students a gingersnap cookie and ask if they each got as many as they wanted. None of the teachers brought cookies for their students. Instead some just asked what the difference between cookie and cookies were, and some just asked the difference between snap and snaps, and did not refer snap to a cookie. They all followed the script and read the exact words when they taught the definition of “suffix s.” They all followed to fidelity how to “code” or mark a “suffix s” when seen in a word. They also taught as directed the new concept of twin consonants and how to code a twin consonant. The new skills session was closely followed to exactness by all the teachers. The teachers felt if they left anything out of the new skills section, it was only minor, unimportant things such as an object lesson to catch their attention at the beginning, or not using the sight word dictionary that is provided for each student and having them mark off each word when it is introduced. T6 is the only teacher out of the six teachers interviewed that used the sight word dictionary provided. The other teachers felt it was just too time consuming to have students highlight the sight words in the dictionary. The teachers demonstrated less fidelity to the Lesson 12 script when it came to the application and continual review, worksheet, and homework sections. In these sections the teachers felt once again due to time they needed to eliminate some content. The experienced teachers did one or two examples from the application and review section, while the newer teachers felt they needed to do all the practice examples. T3 stated, “I know I cannot teach the entire lesson, but I feel I need to do every example to make sure my students understand the concept. I feel guilty cutting things out.” All agreed the worksheet needed to be done, however there were differences on the order the worksheet was done and if it was done whole class or as individuals. The homework is directed in the script to be done at home and brought back the next Examining the Implementation of Scripted Curriculum 33 day. T4 followed the program as directed, while the other teacher did the homework in class. When asked why the teachers did the homework in class, the experienced teachers, T5, and T6, stated they started the program as directed but were not getting the homework returned. The new teachers, T1, T2, T3, said they just followed what was already happening in their school when they started to teach the program. The teacher that follows the script and sends the homework home as directed, said she receives over 85% of the homework back each day, therefore it saves her time from doing it in class, and that time can be spent on other subjects. The scripted phonics program is designed so every fifth lesson is an assessment. This assessment reviews the skills and concepts taught the previous week to see if the students are retaining the information. When asked if the teachers give the assessment, all responded yes that they were required by the district to give the assessment. T1, T2, and T6 use these assessments to form reading intervention groups, while the other teachers, T3, T4, and T5 use the assessments to see which concepts may need to be retaught individually, small group or whole class. The program also provides decodable readers that allow the student to incorporate the phonics skills they are learning into their reading. When asked if decodable readers are being used, all responded yes, but not as directed by the scripted program. The program directs the decodable reader to be used to teach print awareness and comprehension. The script asked the students to identify punctuation, the title, the author and illustrator, capitalization and vocabulary. Then the script has an “understanding the story” or comprehension section. None of the six teachers follow the script. Each read the decodable book, T1, T2, T6 read it as a group, but do not feel there is enough content to have a good comprehension discuss. T4 uses it when students are finished with any work and have extra time. T3, and T5 are directed by their reading coach to read the decodable three times, once echoing reading, choral reading, and partner reading. Examining the Implementation of Scripted Curriculum 34 Modifications As lesson 12 was reviewed, the teachers made modifications but felt the modifications did not change the content or learning objectives of the lesson. The modifications made were eliminating sections the teachers felt were covered by other instruction, rearranging the sections for better classroom management, and teaching the decodable books to their training and knowledge or how school administration directed them to teach the books. Modifications were also made on the quantity of the program taught. Part of a section or all of the section was eliminated because too much content was given in the script and could not be taught in the 6o minutes allowed by the district to teach the program. All of the teachers except for T1 rearranged the sections of the scripted program for better classroom management. For example, T2, T3, T4, T5, and T6 changed the order in which the key component sections are taught. If it is taught in the order as directed, the students review past content and do part of the worksheet. Then the new skill is taught and the rest of the worksheet is finished. The modifications made by these teachers were to teach all the new skills and then complete the worksheet as a whole class. The five teachers felt once the students were given the worksheet, they continued to draw or play with it during the new skills section; therefore they had their students’ best attention if they did the whole work sheet at the end. T2, T3, and T5 taught both the daily letter and sound review, and the new skills while students sat on the rug, and then had the students go to their desk for the spelling review and worksheet. T4 had their students at their desk for the whole lesson. T6 taught part of the new skills section that contained the new sight words first, and then followed the rest of the sections, with worksheet section being last. All of the teachers slightly rearranged the lesson, with the rationale that the changes would enhance classroom management. Examining the Implementation of Scripted Curriculum 35 Teachers also modified the decodable reader section of the scripted program. T6 did not use the decodable reader the day she taught the lesson. She saved the decodable reader for the next day as a review of what was taught the day before. Additionally, she did not follow the script as directed. She read the readers as a whole group and then had her students circle the sight words and highlight the phonic concepts that were taught. T2 did not use the comprehension questions for the decodable readers. She felt there was not enough good content in the reader to discuss comprehension. T4 read the book as a group and then has students keep the books in their desk and read them when free time comes about. T4 stated she did not always do the decodable readers when she first started this program, but now feels they are a critical piece of the program. She said, “It is how they put their phonics skills into practice.” T3 and T5 read the decodable readers with each lesson but read them as directed by their literacy coach. They read each book three times, first time they echo read, then choral read and lastly they partner read. They both read and discuss with the whole class the three comprehension questions on the back of each decodable book. T3 and T5 are directed by their literacy coach to read or reread a decodable each day whether or not it is directed to read a decodable book in the lesson. All of the teachers choose or were directed to do something different with the decodable readers and did not follow the program to fidelity. When asked if they enhanced the scripted phonics program lesson with additional content, each teacher replied that they had not. However, some teachers replied that they enhanced the lesson with learning strategies. For example, T2, T3, T5, and T6 did add silly songs, actions and clever sayings to help students remember the phonics rules. For example, when doing the daily oral letter review, the teacher and the students draw a box in the air when they say the suffixes. This reminds the students to code a suffix with a box. This was not directed to do in the script; Examining the Implementation of Scripted Curriculum 36 however one teacher from the district that was not interviewed came up with the idea and shared it with the experienced teachers. T1, T2, and T3 learned those actions from T5, and T6 and now do the hand actions during the oral letter review to help remind their students how to code a suffix. T2 and T3 use songs they created to help their students remember spelling and coding rules. When asked if any other modifications were made with the scripted program, T1, T2, and T6 all from the same school modify the assessment given every fifth lesson. The assessment is instructed to give the first four sections as a whole group written test, but the last 4 sections need to be given individually with oral answers. Due to the lack of time, these teachers give the assessment as a whole group and have the students write their answers on the individual section, instead of having them say it orally to the teacher. T1 felt like they were not assessing the skill correctly by having the students write their answer. She stated, “It is a totally different skill to write an answer versus being able to say the answer orally.” Although she does not agree with it, T1 does give the assessment as her team directs her to do because her team uses the assessment to form reading intervention groups. By giving the assessment the same way as her colleagues, every first grade student in their school is evenly assessed. T3 and T5 expressed they liked to do the individual section of the assessment because they could see if their students understood and applied the phonics concepts taught. They may skip sections of the individual section if they knew their student was already proficient in that area. Another modification made to the assessment was the comprehension section. In the instructions it directs for the student to read the sentences and answer the question or draw a line to the picture that matches the sentences. T1, T2, and T6 read the sentences to the students and then have them answer the questions. They feel they are assessing comprehension not how well Examining the Implementation of Scripted Curriculum 37 they read. T3 stated, “I let them try to read the sentences on their own. If they get the question wrong, I have them read it to me. If they cannot read it I read the sentences to them and then see if they can answer the questions correctly. I will mark it correct if they can tell me the right answer after hearing the sentence read to them correctly.” All the teachers agree that they are assessing comprehension and not reading, but T3, T4, and T5 believe the students need to try to read and comprehend the sentences on their own. Pressure to Teach Program to Fidelity The question was asked if they felt pressure from administration or other teachers to teach the scripted phonics program exactly as it is directed. T1, a new teacher, said yes she felt pressure to teach the whole program as directed. Overwhelmed with the amount of content she was asked to teach, she asked a “higher authority” what to do, and was told everything needed to be taught. T2, also a new teacher, had a different experience. Her fellow teachers and administration helped her focus on what skills or concepts where important and if time was limited to focus on certain areas and skip less critical parts. The other four teachers did not feel pressure to teach the program to exact fidelity. However, T4 commented that teachers should be professional, and follow the program as directed. When asked how much time the teacher took for the scripted program, all the teachers said they were instructed by the district to teach the phonics program for 60 minutes. T4 however teaches in a dual immersion setting therefore she only has time for 30-40 minutes at the most for the lesson. TI expressed her concern that the first year she taught the program there was not a time limit set, and she took over one hour and thirty minutes to teach the program. The experienced teachers agree they could spend two hours on the program, but feel one hour is enough to teach the important concepts of the program. Examining the Implementation of Scripted Curriculum 38 Effectiveness of Scripted Program When asked if the scripted phonics program was helping their students become proficient readers, five out of the six teachers said no. T1, T2, T4, T5 and T6 all felt phonics was a foundational skill that helped students learn to read, but did not make them proficient readers. They stated there were many other components such as fluency, comprehension and reading books on their level that needed to be added to make a proficient reader. T6 concluded, “This is a structured way for teachers to approach all the foundational phonics skills, this is not reading, but skills that are needed for reading.” T1 stated, “this is phonics, this is not reading, phonics is not the same as reading. Just because you are good at phonics does not mean you can read.” She concluded, “The script is nice, but I am just banking information and rules into the students’ heads, and the students are not involved.” T3 felt the opposite of the other teachers. She felt it was effective because it taught the students how to blend and put sounds together. She stated, “Without knowing the sounds of vowel digraphs, constant digraphs, trigraphs, blends, combinations, ghost letter digraphs, vowels, and constants, how will they sound out a word they do not know?” T3 also stated that reading is putting sounds together to make words, and if phonics skills are not taught, children will become rote readers and memorize words. Teachers’ Feelings, Philosophies, and Beliefs about the Program Participating teachers were asked their thoughts and feelings about the scripted phonics program. Experienced teachers, T4, T5, and T6 all expressed how much they love the program now. Prior to the scripted phonics program being implemented, the district had no phonics program. If phonics were taught, they had to come up with their own phonics lessons. T4 stated: I resisted scripted programs. I had not had any experience with them and wasn’t sure what it looked like or how it worked. I was willing to try it though because I had been Examining the Implementation of Scripted Curriculum 39 coming up with my own phonics to fill in the gaps. Now I love this phonics program. I believe as professionals it is our job to learn, and not say no I am not going to do it, or I don’t love it, I’ll do my own program I found on Pinterest. I see it happening. This is the program they asked us to use to fidelity. If we use it to fidelity then you can see if it works and you can have an opinion if it works or not. T6 expressed how much she personally learned about phonics from the scripted program. She expressed, “I was a struggling reader and needed the skills taught in this program when I was a child.” New teachers T2, and T3 also loved the program because it gave them directions and showed them what to do and say. T2 expressed, “I would not have known where to begin teaching phonics if I had to do it on my own.” T1 did not express the same love for the program as the others. Upon further questioning, T1 did not share the same teaching philosophies as the other five teachers. T1 felt that teaching phonics was not the key component in teaching children how to read. In her college education she was taught a more whole word approach, therefore she felt the 60 minutes directed to spend on teaching this scripted phonics program could be better used. The other five teachers however, all had the philosophy that phonics is a foundational skill students need to learn in order to learn how to read. When asked if they had received training prior to teaching or implementing the scripted program, all of the teachers said no. No official training was given when the program was first introduced into the district. There was what the experienced teachers considered a “work meeting.” They read over the first five lessons and as a group discussed ideas, thoughts and concerns. The new teachers said they received no training either, they just watched a more experienced teacher teach a lesson and learned from their example. If they had a question they would ask the more experienced member of their team. All expressed training would have been Examining the Implementation of Scripted Curriculum 40 helpful because all were overwhelmed with the program because it had so many components and information. DISCUSSION This study explored how first grade teachers implemented a district-mandated and highly scripted phonics curricular program. Studies have shown that the success of scripted curriculum depends on the skills and attitude of the teacher (Topping & Ferguson, 2005). If teachers implement the research-based scripted curriculum with high fidelity it is more likely they will have an improved outcome (Harn, Parisi, & Stoolmiller, 2013). The findings in this research suggest that teachers are willing to implement scripted programs to fidelity if they understand and believe in the philosophy and concepts of the program. The findings also showed how teachers have to consistently negotiate between what is asked to be taught and the time they are allotted to teach it. Findings also showed teachers are asked to teach scripted curriculum with little say in the matter and inadequate training. Teachers’ Philosophy, Beliefs, and Education All the participants in this study implemented part of the scripted program to fidelity. None of the participants in the study followed the scripted program to exact fidelity, however certain sections were taught with higher fidelity than others. The new skills section where phonics skills and rules where taught was the highest section taught to fidelity. This raises the questions why some sections were taught with higher fidelity than to others. This finding coincides with the research by Durlak and DuPre, (2008) that states if the instructional philosophy of the teacher matches the instructional approach of the program, the program will more likely be implemented with higher fidelity. Five of the six teachers believed that phonics Examining the Implementation of Scripted Curriculum 41 was a foundational skill needed to learn how to read therefore they were more willing to teach this section to fidelity. In this study one common theme heard among the teachers was the fact they could not teach all the content in the time they were allocated to teach the scripted program. Teachers had to constantly choose between what to teach and what to eliminate. This suggests that the teachers’ personal teaching philosophy affects what they choose to teach or chose not to teach. For example, the teachers who believed phonics is a foundational skill needed to learn how to read taught the new skills section to fidelity. The new skills section taught phonics rules and sounds. Although all but one of the teachers agreed that phonics was a necessary foundational skill for reading, it was surprising to find that all but one teacher said that this program did not make their students proficient readers. When asked if they would not teach the scripted phonics program if they had a choice, T2, T3, T4, T5, and T6 said they would still continue to teach the phonics program, but they believed the phonics program alone is not making them proficient in reading. T1 would not teach the phonics program if given a choice. She would spend less time on phonics and more time on fluency, and comprehension. T2, T3, T4, T5, T6 agreed that fluency, comprehension and reading practice needs to be added to phonics to make proficient readers. With that being said, the fluency piece and comprehension sections of the scripted phonics program were not being used. The district had purchased other programs for them to use for those reading components. I believe this shows as educators we pick and choose from various programs on what we believe will best educate our students. Therefore, it is hard to prove that fidelity to the program is the key to the success of the program. Often we say and think we are following the program to fidelity, but in reality, we are not. Examining the Implementation of Scripted Curriculum 42 The findings in this study also is similar to those founded by Siuty, et al, (2018) which states that scripted programs can help teachers build their own understanding of phonological awareness, and language skills, and help teachers improve their own literacy instruction. Many of the teachers in this study commented on how much they personally learned from teaching the scripted phonics program. The scripted phonics program also provided support to new teachers who were unsure what to teach. The scripted phonics program provided the new and experienced teachers guidance in the decision making process of what phonics skills to teach and how to teach those skill. Negotiating the Scripted Program Findings in this study also showed how teachers have to consistently negotiate the script. Time did not allow them to teach everything to fidelity. This leads to the question; can a scripted program be successful if only half of the program is being taught to fidelity? The teachers in this study loved the scripted phonics program because it taught their students the basic phonics, phonemic awareness, and spelling. They felt the program was proficient in phonics, and making students better spellers, but did not feel it made them an overall proficient reader. This study also coincides with Ede, (2006) concerns that a one-size-fits-all approach does not reflect sound teaching practices. Teachers need the freedom to construct lessons that will be of high interest and meet the need of unique group of students. Many studies have claimed that scripted curricular takes away a teachers’ autonomy, their “professional freedom to balance between personality, training, experience and the requirements of the specific educational context” (Parker, 2015, p. 21). This study showed that teachers needed to use their training and experience to negotiate a scripted program. The teachers used their professional judgment to know what to eliminate and what to teach. Without Examining the Implementation of Scripted Curriculum 43 understanding the theory behind phonics, they could have made poor decisions. All of the teachers in this study agreed on the same key sections that needed to be taught to fidelity. It was their education and experience in teaching literacy that helped them identify the most effective components. Many teachers commented that after teaching the program once, they were able to negotiate better the second time between the demands of the scripted program and the lack of time they had. Training Need in Scripted Program In this study the teachers received no official training in the scripted phonics program. All of the teachers expressed they would like training on how the program was to be administered. One teacher felt it would have been helpful if she knew from the author how she envisioned the program to be taught. All of the teachers commented that is hard to teach a program to fidelity if every teacher is interpreting the program a different way. Also of interest, the reason why some sections were not taught to fidelity was because that was how it had always been done in their school. New teachers followed the lead of the experienced teachers and the experienced teachers learned from each other. If training would have been provided, would all of the sections be followed to fidelity? Adaptations or Modifications In a study by Quinn and Kim, (2017) teachers argued that to be successful they needed to make adaptions to these programs to meet student needs. Focusing solely on fidelity is not enough to achieve higher results (Kim et al., 2017). In this study, I was surprised to find that the adaptations made to the scripted phonics program were sections being eliminated. My initial prediction was teachers who were successful in teaching this scripted program were adding additional materials to help their students become proficient readers. However, that was not the Examining the Implementation of Scripted Curriculum 44 case. These teachers did not have the time to teach all the content provided therefore did not even try to add additional content. Limitations Limitations for this study were the small sample size and the fact that only first grade teachers participated in the focus group. The scripted phonics and spelling program is taught kindergarten through second grade, so therefore teachers from other grades could have brought additional insight to the program. Two focus groups were conducted. One focus group was new teachers, while the other focus group was experienced teachers. One experienced teacher could not attend the time of the experienced focus group so therefore was interview by herself. If she had participated in the group additional insight could have been produced. Only lesson 12 of the scripted phonics lessons was reviewed. Reviewing other lessons in the program could have produced additional modifications or adaptations. This study was limited to one scripted program being implemented within one school district. If this study was to include other school districts who implemented the same scripted program, fidelity to the program and adaptations may be different. Further Research and Recommendations This research was conducted in a focus group setting where teachers explained how they taught and if the scripted program was taught to fidelity, and in an individual interview. To learn more about how scripted programs are taught, classroom observations could have been done to see if the script was being followed exactly. Examining the Implementation of Scripted Curriculum 45 Assessment results could also be collected from the scripted program and compared to see if those teachers who are teaching the program to fidelity have higher assessment results than those who are making modifications. Conclusion In conclusion, the teachers in this study taught the scripted program to their definition of fidelity within their time constraint, and within the direction of their school district. Sections of the scripted programs were modified by the teachers due to time constraints, and teaching philosophy. While other sections of the program were eliminated because other programs were purchased by the school district to cover those concepts. Scripted phonics curriculum is purchased by many school districts as tool to help children learn how to read. Program developers ensure that if the program is followed to fidelity the program will be successful. Teachers in this study were willing to implement scripted programs to fidelity if they understood the content and believed in the philosophy and theories behind the program. The findings showed when teachers have to consistently negotiate between what is asked to be taught and the time they are allotted to teach it, they will eliminate those sections that do not match their teaching philosophy. This study also concluded that teachers still need to use their professional judgement when teaching a scripted program. Teachers have to negotiate between teaching the program to fidelity, teaching the program to meet their students need, and teaching the program to the time constraints they have. Without their professional experience and education, teachers could not make wise decisions when teaching scripted programs. Examining the Implementation of Scripted Curriculum 46 REFERENCES Ainsworth, M. T., Ortlieb, E., Cheek, E. H., Pate, R. S., & Fetters, C. (2012). First-grade teachers' perception and implementation of a semi-scripted reading curriculum. Language and Education, 26(1), 77-90. doi:10.1080/09500782.2011.618540 Bratsch-Hines, M. E., Vernon-Feagans, L., Varghese, C., & Garwood, J. (2017). Child skills and teacher qualifications: Associations with elementary classroom teachers’ reading instruction for struggling readers. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 32(4), 270-283. doi:10.1111/ldrp.12136 Burns, L. D. (2012). Standards, policy paradoxes, and the new literacy studies: A call to professional political action. Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy, 56(2), 93-97. doi:10.1002/JAAL.00108 Chamberlain, S. P. (2006). Sharon Vaughn: The state of reading research and instruction for struggling readers. Intervention in School and Clinic, 41(3), 169-174. doi:10.1177/10534512060410030701 Cooke, N. L., Galloway, T. W., Kretlow, A. G., & Helf, S. (2011). Impact of the script in a supplemental reading program on instructional opportunities for student practice of specified skills. The Journal of Special Education, 45(1), 28-42. doi:10.1177/0022466910361955 Common Core State Standards Initiative Mission Statement. Retrieved from http://www.corestandards.org Crim, C., Hawkins, J., Thornton, J., Rosof, H. B., Copley, J., & Thomas, E. (2008). Early childhood educators' knowledge of early literacy development. Issues in Teacher Education, 17(1), 17-30. Retrieved from http://www.caddogap.com/periodicals.shtml Examining the Implementation of Scripted Curriculum 47 Dennis, D. V. (2017). Learning from the past: What ESSA has the chance to get right. The Reading Teacher, 70(4), 395-400. doi:10.1002/trtr.1538 Dresser, R. (2012). The impact of scripted literacy instruction on teachers and students. Issues in Teacher Education, 21(1), 71-87. Duncan-Owens, D. (2009). Scripted reading programs: Fishing for success. Principal, 88(3), 26-29. Durlak, J.A., & DuPre, E.P. (2008). Implementation matters: A review of research on the influence of implementation on program outcomes and the factors affecting implementation. American Journal of Community Psychology, 41(3/4), 327–350. doi:10.1007/s10464‐008‐9165‐0 Ede, A. (2006). Scripted curriculum: Is it a prescription for success? Childhood Education, 83(1), 29-32. doi:10.1080/00094056.2006.10522871 Engelmann, S. (1980). Toward the design of faultless instruction: The theoretical basis of concept analysis. Educational Technology, 20(2), 28-36. Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965, Pub. L. No. 89–10, 79 Stat. 27. Enderlin-Lampe, S. (2002). Empowerment: Teacher perceptions, aspirations and efficacy. Journal of Instructional Psychology, 29(3), 139. Eppley, K. (2015). Seven traps of the common core state standards. Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy, 59(2), 207-216. doi:10.1002/jaal.431 Eslinger, J. C. (2014). Navigating between a rock and a hard place: Lessons from an urban school teacher. Education and Urban Society, 46(2), 209-233. doi:10.1177/0013124512446221 Every Student Succeed Act, US Department of Education. https://www.ed.gov/essa Examining the Implementation of Scripted Curriculum 48 Griffith, R. (2008). The impact of a scripted reading program on teachers' professional spirits. Teaching and Learning, 22(3), 121. Harn, B., Parisi, D., & Stoolmiller, M. (2013). Balancing fidelity with flexibility and fit: What do we really know about fidelity of implementation in schools? Exceptional Children, 79(2), 181-193. doi:10.1177/001440291307900204 Hazell, W. (2017). The rise of the scripted teacher. The Times Educational Supplement, (5266) Holcomb, S. (2005). Reading by the script: What's all the fuss about? NEA Today, 23(5), 22. Hughes, C. A., Morris, J. R., Therrien, W. J., & Benson, S. K. (2017). Explicit instruction: Historical and contemporary contexts. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 32(3), 140-148. doi:10.1111/ldrp.12142 Kim, J. S., Burkhauser, M. A., Quinn, D. M., Guryan, J., Kingston, H. C., & Aleman, K. (2017). Effectiveness of structured teacher adaptations to an evidence‐based summer literacy program. Reading Research Quarterly, 52(4), 443-467. doi:10.1002/rrq.178 Lee, S. W., & Min, S. (2017). Riding the implementation curve: Teacher buy-in and student academic growth under comprehensive school reform programs. The Elementary School Journal, 117(3), 371-395. doi:10.1086/690220 Margolis, H., & McCabe, P. P. (2006). Motivating struggling readers in an era of mandated instructional practices. Reading Psychology, 27(5), 435-455. doi:10.1080/02702710600848023 McMullen, F., & Madelaine, A. (2014). Why is there so much resistance to direct instruction? Australian Journal of Learning Difficulties, 19(2), 137-151. doi:10.1080/19404158.2014.962065 Examining the Implementation of Scripted Curriculum 49 McMaster, K. L., Jung, P., Brandes, D., Pinto, V., Fuchs, D., Kearns, D., . . . Yen, L. (2014). Customizing a research-based reading practice: Balancing the importance of implementation fidelity with professional judgment. The Reading Teacher, 68(3), 173-183. doi:10.1002/trtr.1301 Milosovic, S. (2007). Building a case against scripted reading programs. The Education Digest, 73(1), 27. National Governors Association Center for Best Practices & Council of Chief State School Officers. (2010). Common core state standards for English language arts and literacy in history/social studies, science, and technical subjects. Washington, DC No Child Left Behind Act, Pub. L. 107-110, Title I, 1001, 115 Stat. 1439, 2002. No Child Left Behind Act, Pub. L. 107-110, 1201, 115 Stat. 1535, 2002. Parker, G. (. R. (2015). Teachers' autonomy. Research in Education, 93(1), 19-33. doi:10.7227/RIE.0008 Parsons, S. A., & Harrington, A. D. (2009). Following the script. The Phi Delta Kappan, 90(10), 748-750. doi:10.1177/003172170909001014 Pease-Alvarez, L., & Samway, K. (2008). Negotiating a top-down reading program mandate: The experiences of one school. Language Arts, 86(1), 32-41. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/41962317 Pease-Alvarez, L., Samway, K. D., & Cifka-Herrera, C. (2010). Working within the system: Teachers of English learners negotiating a literacy instruction mandate. Language Policy, 9(4), 313-334. doi:10.1007/s10993-010-9180-5 Examining the Implementation of Scripted Curriculum 50 Penuel, W. R., Phillips, R. S., & Harris, C. J. (2014). Analyzing teachers' curriculum implementation from integrity and actor-oriented perspectives. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 46(6), 751-777. doi:10.1080/00220272.2014.921841 Quinn, D. M., & Kim, J. S. (2017). Scaffolding fidelity and adaptation in educational program implementation: Experimental evidence from a literacy intervention. American Educational Research Journal, 54(6), 1187-1220. doi:10.3102/0002831217717692 Shelton, N. R. (2010). Program fidelity in two reading mastery classrooms: A view from the inside. Literacy Research and Instruction, 49(4), 315. doi:10.1080/19388070903229404 Siuty, M. B., Leko, M. M., & Knackstedt, K. M. (2018). Unraveling the role of curriculum in teacher decision making. Teacher Education and Special Education, 41(1), 39-57. doi:10.1177/0888406416683230 Standerfer, L. (2006). Before NCLB: The history of ESEA. Principal Leadership, 6(8), 26. Sloat, E. A., Beswick, J. F., & Willms, J. D. (2007). Using early literacy monitoring to prevent reading failure. The Phi Delta Kappan, 88(7), 523-529. doi:10.1177/003172170708800711 Stockard, J., Wood, T. W., Coughlin, C., & Rasplica Khoury, C. (2018). The effectiveness of direct instruction curricula: A meta-analysis of a half century of research. Review of Educational Research, 88(4), 479-507. doi:10.3102/0034654317751919 Snyder, E., & Golightly, A. F. (2017). The effectiveness of a balanced approach to reading intervention in a second grade student: A case study. Education, 138(1), 53. Tienken, C. H. (2013). Dissect, design, and customize the curriculum. Kappa Delta Pi Record, 49(1), 9-11. doi:10.1080/00228958.2013.759823 Examining the Implementation of Scripted Curriculum 51 Topping, K., & Ferguson, N. (2005). Effective literacy teaching behaviors’. Journal of Research in Reading, 28(2), 125-143. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9817.2005.00258.x Why reading by the end of third grade matters. (2010). Education Digest, 76(1), 27. Yoon, H. (2013). Rewriting the curricular script: Teachers and children translating writing practices in a kindergarten classroom. Research in the Teaching of English, 48(2), 148-174. Examining the Implementation of Scripted Curriculum 52 Appendix A: IRB Approval Examining the Implementation of Scripted Curriculum 53 Appendix B: Focus Group and Interview Questions Focus Group and Interview Questions 1. What are your initial thoughts/feelings about the scripted phonics program? Have they changed since beginning implementation? Why or why not? 2. What training have you received prior to teaching and implementing this program? 3. Do you feel pressure from the administration or other teachers to teach the phonics program exactly as it is directed? 4. Looking at lesson #12, how closely did you follow and deliver the scripted phonics lesson? 5. Did you teach each section of the phonics lesson? Why or why not? What was the reason for not teaching a particular section? 6. Looking at lesson #12, what types of modification did you make? 7. If modifications were made, why did you make those modifications? 8. Do you make modifications on a regular basis? Why or why not? 9. Do you add additional material to the scripted curriculum? 10. How much instructional time do you spend teaching the scripted phonics program each day? 11. Do you give the weekly phonics assessment as directed by the program? How do the results of the weekly assessment affect your teaching? 12. How effective do you feel the scripted phonics program is in helping your students become proficient readers? Examining the Implementation of Scripted Curriculum 54 Questions from the Focus Group 1. Do you feel more comfortable teaching the program now? 2. What were the tricks learned when teaching the program? 3. Do you read aloud the comprehension passages or sentences? 4. How do you manage your spelling tiles? 5. How much time do you spend on handwriting with this program? 6. What did you learn in your “work meeting” with other teachers about the program?