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 issue Conduct 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 feasible Produce a policy or research brief within 12 months

Fast Track Study Topics

• • • • • • Four types of Literacy Coaching Professional Development Science and Mathematics Supplemental Educational Services and Parent Participation Literacy Coaching & Student Achievement Under Reading First How Districts in Need of Improvement are addressing corrective action status Title 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 reports Semi-structured, interviews with SEA leaders Other documents taken from SEA Web-sites

Nationwide

• •

In 2006: 8,446 schools 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 

Alaska Idaho Montana Oregon Washington

School Impmt. Yr 1

24 43 8 19 28

School Impmt. Yr 2

12 64 6 6 35

Corrective Action Yr 3

11 5 6 9 17

Plan Restruc turing Yr 4

28 12 3 3 21

Restruc turing Yr 5

53 0 32 11 1

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)

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 action • State writes plans for districts For 2007-2008 Piloting a system of support based on external facilitators working with districts

Idaho

• • • 2006-2007 School-wide Solutions Teams made up of Distinguished Educators working with Middle Schools Principal Academy of Leadership for Middle Schools System is ramping up to provide assistance to first schools in Corrective Action • 2007-2008 Investigating having “Capacity Builders” in schools and districts

Montana

• 2006-2007 Effort similar to Washington’s—based on the Kentucky system & “Creating Sacred Places” NISBA Curriculum • • Scholastic Audits in 33 schools conducted by school support teams • “Call to Greatness” symposium for principals, supts., and board members in SINI 2007-2008 School Coaches begin working with schools in restructuring

Oregon

• • 2006-2007 Regional School Improvement Coordinators serving as part of SST for 2 years, approximately 1 day a week in SINI ESDs as fiscal agent to create regional network • 2007-2008 Continuation of previous efforts

Washington

• • • • • • School Improvement Assistance Program (2001-present) Legislature gave 800K for Cohort 1 in 2001-02, continues to provide support State-approved school improvement process Educational audit process first step of 3 year commitment School Improvement Facilitators for 3 years Partnerships with WASA, AWSP, WEA 65 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 group Evaluation Report for Cohort II (Leffler, 2005)– teacher survey results, tallied by school and individual school 2001-2006 WASL scores for all schools Phone 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 benefit Professional development for staff Leadership 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 place Use of data to inform instruction Professional learning teams Resistant teachers encouraged to move on

Critical Success Factor

• • • •

LEADERSHIP District administration Principal School Improvement Facilitator The school improvement team

Critical Success Factor

• • •

CLEAR AND SHARED FOCUS ON IMPROVEMENT Data collection and data use Instruction aligns with state standards Resources align with improvement goals

Critical Success Factor

• • • •

PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT

Delivered Onsite and Within Professional Learning Communities off-site Aligned with school improvement goals Research-based practices Immediately applicable to classroom

Critical Success Factor

• • • •

READINESS TO BENEFIT Assessing readiness is ongoing endeavor Fierce conversations about beliefs, attitudes Willingness of staff to change their practices Openness 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 schools Follow-up funding for PD and/or SIF Ongoing 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 SINI Cohort 2 6 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 efforts Identify and build readiness to benefit Target coherent systemwide programs and funding Train leadership at building and district level Match external facilitators to school needs and principal characteristics Focus 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 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?