Transcript Restructuring: What We Know About the NCLB Options

Statewide
Systems of
Support: The
Work of the RCCs
2007 Institute for School Improvement and Education Options
Mid-Continent Comprehensive
Center
http://www.mc3edsupport.org/
Belinda Biscoe
MC3 Contributors
Belinda Bisco Assistant Vice President, College of Continuing Education,
and Director, Mid-Continent Comprehensive Center, The University of
Oklahoma
Stan Johnson Assistant Commissioner, Missouri Department of
Elementary and Secondary Education, Division for School Improvement
Donna Richardson Associate Director, Mid-Continent Comprehensive
Center, the University of Oklahoma
Ellen Balkenbush Missouri-embedded Technical Assistance Liaison, MidContinent Comprehensive Center, University of Oklahoma
Patricia Fleming Missouri Technical Assistance Coordinator, Mid-Continent
Comprehensive Center, the University of Oklahoma
3
Missouri: One State’s
Story
Background
Missouri Department of Elementary and
Secondary Education (DESE)
•
•
•
MC3’s Service Delivery System
MC3’s Organizational Structure
Missouri’s Evolution of State Support
Process: Opportunity Knocks and the
Conversation Begins





Needs Sensing
Role of DESE and its Regional Professional
Development Centers (RPDCs – intermediary
agencies) in school improvement efforts
Challenges in creating a seamless statewide system
of support
Taking Stock Retreat I – partnering for change
Role of content Center on Innovation and
Improvement (CII)
Process – Creating a Critical Mass



CII and MC3
Continued challenges and barriers
Taking Stock Retreat II
–
–
Setting the Stage
Expected Outcomes



creation of a common understanding of the components of
the current state system of support and how these function;
clarification roles and responsibilities of service providers,
both what is and what needs to be;
identification of barriers impeding the operation of a seamless
system, with recommendations for overcoming these
hindrances;
Process – Creating a Critical Mass
–

Expected Outcomes (continued)
 identification of consistent processes for determining
commonly agreed upon effective, evidence-based practices,
programs, and strategies; determination of who is
responsible for delivery and providing support roles;
 development of mechanisms that ensure commitment to the
4 levels of networking (communication, cooperation,
coordination, collaboration) between and among all service
providers; and
 articulation of next steps to (a) invite feedback from end
users regarding retreat outcomes, and (b) implement
recommended new directions.
Recommendations
Progress – Staying the Course

Addressing challenges and barriers
–


9
Next steps
Accomplishments to date
Lessons Learned
New England Comprehensive
Center
http://www.necomprehensivecenter.org/
Adam Tanney, RMC Research Corporation
New Hampshire:
Working Sma-tah, Not Ha-dah:
Building Internal Capacity to Improve
New Hampshire Department of
Education’s System of Support
The Challenge at NHDOE




Many industrious individual activities but no
coherent theory of action unifying them
Increased expectations for support added to
a structure designed to monitor
SSOS function spread across three divisions
All SSOS responsibilities conferred to one
team
Four theme’s guided NECC’s work:
1.
2.
3.
4.
Using research-based models
Thinking systemically to create
coherence and improve efficiency
Enhancing communication practices,
and
Leveraging institutional authority.
What NECC Did and How It Built
Capacity




Helped NHDOE take stock of all it was doing
Worked with NHDOE to coordinate
monitoring tools
Convened a regional SSOS meeting
Presented and evidence-based model—
Reville’s components
What NECC Did and How It Built
Capacity (continued)




Gained buy-in from top leadership
Addressed a theory of action
Identified current activities, organized them
according to Reville’s components, and
solicited objective observations
Modeled effective communication skills
Lessons Learned

Using models

Improving communication

Leveraging institutional authority

Thinking systemically
Mid-Atlantic Comprehensive
Center
http://www.macc.ceee.gwu.edu/
Ryan Tyler
Creating a Vision in
New Jersey
The Context

Background:
–
–
–
MACC Service
Delivery System:
Focus Areas
MACC
Organizational
Structure
The NJ Department
of Education:
Evolution

Crafting the Vision-two
key initiatives for
providing support:
–
–
School level
(Restructuring Schools)
District level (New
Jersey Quality Single
Accountability
Continuum)
Restructuring Schools






During the 2004-05 school year, NJDOE conducted
scholastic audits to 99 schools for being identified
for School Improvement II.
Analysis of scholastic audits to plan for providing
technical assistance to 56 schools as they entered
Restructuring.
Areas of strength
Areas for improvement
Leverage points for change
Next, NJDOE needed to identify priority areas to
target for improvement efforts.
Restructuring Schools

In What Works in Schools: Translating Research Into Action,
Marzano reviews the research on key factors of school
improvement and identifies five important areas of school
practice:
–
–
–
–
–

Guaranteed and Viable Curriculum,
Challenging Goals and Effective Feedback,
Parental and Community Involvement,
Safe and Orderly Environment,
Collegiality and Professionalism.
Finally, NJDOE needed to identify some specific strategies for
improving school practice in the priority areas.
–
MACC is assisting NJDOE with identifying promising practices in
the priority areas, complete with descriptions, tools and
supporting resources.
New Jersey Quality Single
Accountability Continuum


NJDOE has developed a district-level
accountability system (NJQSAC) that includes a
review of key district practice, known as the
District Performance Review (DPR).
MACC is working with NJDOE to train and
support SEA facilitators who will guide districts
through the NJQSAC process:
–
–
–
–
Prioritizing Needs and Identifying Strategies ,
Developing District Improvement Plans,
Supporting the Implementation of the District
Improvement Plans, and
The evaluation and revision of the District Improvement
Plans.
Lessons Learned
Importance of:
 Vision for supporting schools and
districts
 Building individual and
organizational capacity
Great Lakes East Comprehensive
Center
http://www.learningpt.org/greatlakeseast/
Jayne Sowers
Moving from Compliance
to Assistance in Indiana
Technical Assistance Goal #1 for the
Indiana Department of Education

Years 1 and 2: To articulate and
implement policies and processes for
assisting districts in corrective action and
as feasible for those in improvement.
The Background: The SEA and
Potential Supports
Great Lakes East Comprehensive Center
Indiana State Manager
Indiana Department of Education
Division of Compensatory Education/Title I
- Assistant Superintendent
- Director of Title I
- Associate Director of Title I
Potential Supports Within the
State
(1) State
Superintendent
(4) School Leadership
Teams (SEA developed)
(2) Other SEA
Divisions
(5) Expert Principals
and Teachers
(3) Educational Service
Agencies/Centers
(6) Higher
Education
The Process: New Policies,
Procedures, and Supports
Year 1 - Assistance to SEA and
LEAs
a. Corrective action sanction: new
curriculum
b. District improvement plans – 1
workshop
Year 2 – Assistance to SEA and
LEAs
a. District improvement planning – 2
workshops
b. More definition to “curriculum” and
the processes
c. New template for improvement plan
for better alignment
d. Evaluation and recommendations
for 18 district plans
Year 3 – Assistance to SEA and
LEAs
a. Set of 7 tools: curriculum and
curriculum processes
b. District improvement planning – 2
workshops
c. Evaluation and recommendations
for 52 district plans
d. Curriculum mapping and aligning –
3 workshops
e. Training of curriculum coaches
f. Creating an academy to train
school leadership teams
The Progress: Building a SSOS Inside and
Outside
Compensatory Education/Title I
Year 1 (2005-06)
Year 2 (2006-07)
2. Other SEA
Divisions
Year 3 (2007-08)
2. Other SEA
Divisions
Language Minority & Migrant
Exceptional Learners
Program Development
School Assessment
Principals Leadership Academy
High School Redesign
Center on Innovation &
Improvement
5. Expert Principals
& Teachers as
Coaches
???
Potential Sources of Support
(1) State
Superintendent
(3) Educational Service
Agencies/Centers
4. School
Leadershi
p
Teams
(6) Higher
Education
Lessons Learned in Indiana
1. Provide assistance yet build self-sufficiency through
awareness and use of multiple supports to the SEA.
2. Move the focus from compliance to assistance through
rethinking the roles of the SEAs and the LEAs.
3. Serve as a critical friend through careful listening at all
levels of education and asking the hard questions, if
needed.
4. Nothing happens without strong, trusting relationships.
Each time a new person is introduced to the work time is
required for trust to be gained.