Presentation on theme: "How NW States Support NCLB Identified SINI Deborah Davis, Unit Director Center for School & District Improvement, Northwest Regional Educational Lab."— Presentation transcript:
How NW States Support NCLB Identified SINI Deborah Davis, Unit Director Center for School & District Improvement, Northwest Regional Educational Lab
Institute of Education Sciences Fast Track Studies (11 from NWREL) Utilize currently available evidence on the issueUtilize currently available evidence on the issue Conduct analyses of local, regional, or national data or original investigations to clarify the nature of the issueConduct analyses of local, regional, or national data or original investigations to clarify the nature of the issue Draw on region-specific investigations or studies that apply scientifically valid methods, if feasibleDraw on region-specific investigations or studies that apply scientifically valid methods, if feasible Produce a policy or research brief within 12 monthsProduce a policy or research brief within 12 months
Fast Track Study Topics Four types of Literacy CoachingFour types of Literacy Coaching Professional Development Science and MathematicsProfessional Development Science and Mathematics Supplemental Educational Services and Parent ParticipationSupplemental Educational Services and Parent Participation Literacy Coaching & Student Achievement Under Reading FirstLiteracy Coaching & Student Achievement Under Reading First How Districts in Need of Improvement are addressing corrective action statusHow Districts in Need of Improvement are addressing corrective action status Title IIB Mathematics and Science Partnerships in the Pacific NorthwestTitle IIB Mathematics and Science Partnerships in the Pacific Northwest
IES/NWREL Studies Randomized Controlled Trials (2) -five year duration -OMB approval required Topics of current studies: -Efficacy of HS Literacy program (CRISS) -Efficacy of 6+1 Trait writing program
How NW States are supporting schools in need of improvement (SINI) Descriptive study in two parts: 1. Region-wide description of states’ responses to SINI with statewide systems of support 2. Case study of Washington state’s early efforts
Data sources used in this study For regional report: State accountability workbooks, templates, procedures, schedules, and reportsState accountability workbooks, templates, procedures, schedules, and reports Semi-structured, interviews with SEA leadersSemi-structured, interviews with SEA leaders Other documents taken from SEA Web-sitesOther documents taken from SEA Web-sites
Nationwide In 2006: 8,446 schools in need of improvement8,446 schools in need of improvement 1,624 districts in need of improvement 1,624 districts in need of improvement --Archer, 2006
Fall 2007 Title 1 Schools & Number of SINI Not met AYP for 2 or more years years SchoolImpmt. Yr 1 SchoolImpmt. Yr 2 CorrectiveAction Yr 3 PlanRestruc-turing Yr 4 Restructuring Yr 5 Alaska2412112853 Idaho43645120 Montana866332 Oregon196931 Washington2835172111
NCLB Foundation of this Work NCLB Act of 2002 Title 1A Section 1116 (14)(A) State Educational Agency Responsibilities— Make technical assistance available to schools identified for school improvement, corrective action, or restructuring; Title 1a Section 1117(a)(1) System for Support--Each state shall establish a statewide system of intensive and sustained support and improvement for LEAs and schools receiving funds under this part (Title 1A) System for Support--Each state shall establish a statewide system of intensive and sustained support and improvement for LEAs and schools receiving funds under this part (Title 1A)
NCLB Sec. 1117 (a) (4) (A) SEAs statewide systems of support are required to have three essential components: School Support Teams Distinguished Educators “Additional Approaches”
Literature Review “A robust literature based on the most effective process for transforming schools does not yet exist.” U.S. Department of Education “There is some consensus that the process is not a “one size fits all” proposition.” Mazzeo & Berman, n.d.
State Systems of Support There is a wide variation of response to the same requirements. -36 of 50 states provided school support teams -33 of 50 states provided technical assistance -23 of 50 states brokered external support -14 of 50 states conducted educational audits --Gray-Adams, et.al., 2006
Alaska For 2006-2007 Audits conducted schools in restructuring status in districts that are also in corrective actionAudits conducted schools in restructuring status in districts that are also in corrective action State writes plans for districtsState writes plans for districts For 2007-2008 Piloting a system of support based on external facilitators working with districtsPiloting a system of support based on external facilitators working with districts
Idaho 2006-2007 2006-2007 School-wide Solutions Teams made up of Distinguished Educators working with Middle SchoolsSchool-wide Solutions Teams made up of Distinguished Educators working with Middle Schools Principal Academy of Leadership for Middle SchoolsPrincipal Academy of Leadership for Middle Schools System is ramping up to provide assistance to first schools in Corrective ActionSystem is ramping up to provide assistance to first schools in Corrective Action2007-2008 Investigating having “Capacity Builders” in schools and districtsInvestigating having “Capacity Builders” in schools and districts
Montana 2006-2007 Effort similar to Washington’s—based on the Kentucky system & “Creating Sacred Places” NISBA CurriculumEffort similar to Washington’s—based on the Kentucky system & “Creating Sacred Places” NISBA Curriculum Scholastic Audits in 33 schools conducted by school support teamsScholastic Audits in 33 schools conducted by school support teams “Call to Greatness” symposium for principals, supts., and board members in SINI“Call to Greatness” symposium for principals, supts., and board members in SINI2007-2008 School Coaches begin working with schools in restructuringSchool Coaches begin working with schools in restructuring
Oregon 2006-2007 Regional School ImprovementRegional School Improvement Coordinators serving as part of SST for 2 years, approximately 1 day a week in SINI Coordinators serving as part of SST for 2 years, approximately 1 day a week in SINI ESDs as fiscal agent to create regional networkESDs as fiscal agent to create regional network2007-2008 Continuation of previous effortsContinuation of previous efforts
Washington School Improvement Assistance Program (2001-present) School Improvement Assistance Program (2001-present) Legislature gave 800K for Cohort 1 in 2001-02, continues to provide supportLegislature gave 800K for Cohort 1 in 2001-02, continues to provide support State-approved school improvement processState-approved school improvement process Educational audit process first step of 3 year commitmentEducational audit process first step of 3 year commitment School Improvement Facilitators for 3 yearsSchool Improvement Facilitators for 3 years Partnerships with WASA, AWSP, WEAPartnerships with WASA, AWSP, WEA 65 SIFs working with Cohorts 5-765 SIFs working with Cohorts 5-7
State support Is a state-level decision that depends on: -numbers of schools / districts in need -accountability system and proficiency requirements -additional resources, i.e., from legislatures, partnerships, etc.
Data sources for case study Washington’s School Improvement Assistance Program: Evaluation Report for Cohort I (Baker, et al, 2004)—teacher survey results for each school by respondent and role groupEvaluation Report for Cohort I (Baker, et al, 2004)—teacher survey results for each school by respondent and role group Evaluation Report for Cohort II (Leffler, 2005)– teacher survey results, tallied by school and individual schoolEvaluation Report for Cohort II (Leffler, 2005)– teacher survey results, tallied by school and individual school 2001-2006 WASL scores for all schools2001-2006 WASL scores for all schools Phone interviews with principals and SIFsPhone interviews with principals and SIFs
Overview WA State System of Support School Support Teams: Teams conduct educational audits (currently called School Performance Review) Distinguished Educators: Each participating school is assigned a School Improvement Facilitator (SIF) “Additional Approaches” including: Assessment of readiness to benefitAssessment of readiness to benefit Professional development for staffProfessional development for staff Leadership development for principalsLeadership development for principals
Critical Program Components The role of the SIF— provided “unbiased, impartial, & substantial feedback…” and consistency through change process Educational Audit (School Performance Review)—appeared to increase readiness of staff “sometimes the truth hurt and we had to swallow it.” Professional Development linked to improvement areas—summer institutes, support for leadership
Critical Success Factor FOCUS ON TEACHING AND LEARNING Learning goals in placeLearning goals in place Use of data to inform instructionUse of data to inform instruction Professional learning teamsProfessional learning teams Resistant teachers encouraged to move onResistant teachers encouraged to move on
Critical Success Factor LEADERSHIP District administrationDistrict administration PrincipalPrincipal School Improvement FacilitatorSchool Improvement Facilitator The school improvement teamThe school improvement team
Critical Success Factor CLEAR AND SHARED FOCUS ON IMPROVEMENT Data collection and data useData collection and data use Instruction aligns with state standardsInstruction aligns with state standards Resources align with improvement goalsResources align with improvement goals
Critical Success Factor PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT Delivered Onsite and Within Professional Learning Communities off-siteDelivered Onsite and Within Professional Learning Communities off-site Aligned with school improvement goalsAligned with school improvement goals Research-based practicesResearch-based practices Immediately applicable to classroomImmediately applicable to classroom
Critical Success Factor READINESS TO BENEFIT Assessing readiness is ongoing endeavorAssessing readiness is ongoing endeavor Fierce conversations about beliefs, attitudesFierce conversations about beliefs, attitudes Willingness of staff to change their practicesWillingness of staff to change their practices Openness to dialogue about practiceOpenness to dialogue about practice
Emphasis on Sustainability of Improvement Efforts “School improvement is a process not an event.” Stability of staff and administration appeared more often in successful schoolsStability of staff and administration appeared more often in successful schools Follow-up funding for PD and/or SIFFollow-up funding for PD and/or SIF Ongoing role for school improvement teamOngoing role for school improvement team
Results Based on 2005-2006 WASL data, a total of 47% are no longer SINI: Cohort 1 12 out of 25 are no longer SINI12 out of 25 are no longer SINI Cohort 2 6 of 13 are no longer SINI6 of 13 are no longer SINI
A Caveat Subgroup performance increased…we did not conclude it was due to participation in program. “There is just no way to know how these schools would have performed if they had not participated in the program.”
Considerations for Policymakers Process takes longer than 3 years—having strategies for 5+ years may sustain effortsProcess takes longer than 3 years—having strategies for 5+ years may sustain efforts Identify and build readiness to benefitIdentify and build readiness to benefit Target coherent systemwide programs and fundingTarget coherent systemwide programs and funding Train leadership at building and district levelTrain leadership at building and district level Match external facilitators to school needs and principal characteristicsMatch external facilitators to school needs and principal characteristics Focus on the classroom levelFocus on the classroom level
Questions for Future Research How do states and districts assess and build schools’ readiness to benefit from intensive improvement efforts?How do states and districts assess and build schools’ readiness to benefit from intensive improvement efforts? How do states create integrated systems of support to ensure that improvements are sustained?How do states create integrated systems of support to ensure that improvements are sustained? What are the most effective ways to build the capacity of districts to support their schools?What are the most effective ways to build the capacity of districts to support their schools?
Your consent to our cookies if you continue to use this website.