The work described on this Web site emerged from research and development carried out by a succession of collaborative teams of practitioners and researchers (Goldenberg, 2004; Goldenberg & Gallimore, 1991; Goldenberg & Sullivan, 1994; Saunders, Goldenberg, & Gallimore, 2004; Saunders, O’Brien, Marcelletti, Hasenstab, Saldivar, & Goldenberg, 2001; Saunders & Goldenberg, 2005;Tharp & Gallimore, 1988).

Like many others, these researchers had concluded that conventional professional development might increase teachers’ content and professional knowledge, but fail to have any impact on classroom practices. The researchers concluded that Sarason was right when he argued schools need to be places of learning for teachers as well as students (Sarason, op. cit. pp. 123-124). Stable settings for teachers and administrators to collaborate and learn together were essential to turn rhetoric about change into changed practices in the classroom (Tharp & Gallimore, 1988).

Research and development of Getting Results occurred in two phases. First, a series of school-based interventions. These phase-one studies included: (1) a ten-year series of studies in a laboratory school serving under-performing Native Hawaiians (Tharp & Gallimore, 1988); (2) a case study of a single school in an immigrant Latino community (Goldenberg & Gallimore, 1991); and (3) a long-term school improvement project that produced substantial changes in teaching and significant improvements in student achievement at a single elementary school in Southern California (Goldenberg, 2004; Goldenberg & Sullivan, 1994). This six-year project, conducted in a school serving primarily Latino children and families, shifted the school from being the lowest achieving school in the district to surpassing district averages on both standardized tests and performance-based assessments. A detailed case study of this project is described in Goldenberg (2004).

Phase Two in the development of Getting Results was a scale-up study of the fully-specified GR model. This prospective study, while quasi-experimental, produced clear and reliable achievement gains on standardized assessments in a group of nine schools that were significantly greater than gains made by a group of six comparison schools (McDougall, Saunders, & Goldenberg, 2007, in press; Saunders & Goldenberg, 2005; Goldenberg, Saunders, & Gallimore, 2004). A five-year prospective, longitudinal scale-up study of was conducted (Saunders, Goldenberg, & Gallimore, 2004; 2007). Nine low-performing schools that provided learning teams for administrators as well as teachers significantly outperformed demographically similar schools on high-stakes testing (McDougal, et al., 2007; Saunders, et al., 2007). Starting out well below, the learning teams schools even surpassed a rising district average.

The features and summative evaluation of the learning teams framework that emerged from the longitudinal study are described in a White Paper and a separate document describing the theory of action. A formative evaluation of the effects of learning teams on teachers and schools was conducted by McDougal, Saunders, and Goldenberg (2007). A detailed case study of a single school that successfully implemented learning teams is presented by Saunders and Goldenberg (2005).