Across the PreK sites, the consensus of staff and AmeriCorps members was that the MRC program had been
implemented successfully. Existing programming and structures in place at the site enabled smooth integration into the classroom. Increased experience and familiarity with the MRC program over time facilitated success and buy-in with staff. Time constraints were cited at the most common challenge experienced by sites in implementing MRC, thus making it difficult to fit all required components of the literacy rich schedule into the day or to input student data. Other
challenges common to the PreK sites were engaging students, particularly ELL students, and experiencing technical issues with the OnCorps database. Most sites did not report challenges working with members in the current school year. However, the PreK sites identified a number of site-specific suggestions to improve MRC training, refine implementation processes, and increase communication with lead teachers and Internal Coaches.
1. Perceptions on How Well MRC is Implemented
All sites stated that MRC was implemented successfully. Four sites believed that existing programming and structures in place at the school (such as Head Start standards) allowed MRC to be smoothly integrated into the classroom. One site noted that “the school had already laid the foundation; and, so teachers see MRC as another tool to use to get kids proficient.” Two sites, with faith-based and cultural programming, both believed that MRC was flexible enough to be incorporated alongside existing programming: a Christian pre-school24 and an early childhood center that incorporated
Native American cultural components into its curriculum. Staff at five sites believed that increased experience and familiarity with the MRC program facilitated success and buy-in—the longer the program was in place, the more comfortable teachers and staff grew with it. At three sites, former AmeriCorps members were retained to teach in the classroom, continuing the use of components of MRC and leading to teacher buy-in. Two sites noted that the parent engagement component of MRC had been particularly beneficial for the students.
2. Challenges Encountered
a. Challenges encountered implementing the MRC program
Challenges implementing MRC were generally related to time constraints. Members at six sites struggled to fit all required components of the literacy rich schedule into their classroom schedules each day and collect and input student data. This was a challenge even for full-day programs. For Educator Corps members at four sites, it was especially difficult to attend required MRC trainings throughout the year, as this required finding substitute coverage. Internal Coaches at three sites also found it difficult to balance coaching and oversight of members with their other responsibilities.
Some sites struggled to engage students in the interventions. Three sites experienced challenges engaging ELL students in MRC interventions. However, one of these sites addressed this problem by engaging the ELLs from Day 1 of the school year. One school had issues with implementing the program because of lack of student readiness. Teachers at one school, though not the Internal Coach, members or principal, believed that the interventions were too rigid for younger students. Especially during the initial years of implementation, members reported frustration when student progress was slow. Members at two sites shared that an important part of managing this frustration was learning to “meet students where they are” in terms of their abilities.
Other challenges related to technical issues with the OnCorps database. Several sites mentioned frequent glitches with passwords and logins and noted that MRC staff had been less responsive to these issues this year than in years past. Staff at these sites attributed this to the rapid and significant expansion of the program, which took place this school year.
Other school-specific challenges included insufficient teacher buy-in to the MRC program and lack of time to focus on member recruitment. The Internal Coach at another site noted that many teachers had to change their way of thinking and teaching as a result of MRC program participation, “which can be difficult”. At one site, staff shared that a challenge was the discrepancy between the IGDI assessment and the language immersion component of the program. Students’
responses were considered incorrect for picture naming if they used the Ojibwe term, which penalized them for Ojibwe language development, an important part of the site’s early childhood curriculum.
b. Challenges encountered working with members
Most sites did not report challenges working with members in the current school year. In past years, lead teachers at four sites had to work with Community Corps members to clarify expectations related to classroom demeanor and responsibilities, especially concerning student behavior management and modification. Staff at one site noted that it took some time for new Community Corps members and teachers to build a trusting relationship when working together to implement MRC.
c. Suggestions for improvement or changes
Internal Coaches and members were asked to provide recommendations that could improve MRC implementation and potentially improve student results. Their recommendations are listed below:
i. AmeriCorps members’ service hours: Provide members with more assistance and ideas to meet
their service hours, which is especially challenging in PreK settings that are not full day.
ii. MRC training
Integrate IGDI training into Summer Institute to facilitate more expedient benchmarking. Hold trainings on non-school days so that sites do not have to find substitute coverage for
teachers.
Integrate a practical component in training that spells out members’ day to day responsibilities and common issues faced, including behavior management.
iii. MRC implementation
Revisit IGDI assessments to ensure reliability for younger and ELL students.
Provide greater support and flexibility for accommodating ELL students’ needs, especially for Read at Home.
Include lead teachers in student progress meetings even if the lead teachers are not AmeriCorps members.
Provide sites with more financial support for Internal Coaches.
If MRC is helping with recruitment of members, conduct on-site assessments to better match members with sites.
For sites that successfully implemented MRC for several years, reduce number of meetings between the Internal Coach and Master Coach.
iv. Communication
Ensure that the Internal Coach is located physically in the building in order to better respond to members’ needs.
MRC program staff should copy Internal Coaches on communication to members to ensure consistency.
Consider sharing student data from the previous year at the beginning of each school year to demonstrate student progress to teachers and obtain their buy-in to the program.