Midcontinent Research for Education and Learning McREL

1
Presentation toVirginia School Boards
Association Annual Meeting Presented by Laura
Lefkowits, McREL Director of Policy
Initiatives November 13, 2003Williamsburg, VA

• Mid-continent Research for Education and Learning
  (McREL)
• 2550 South Parker Road, Suite 500Aurora,
  Colorado 80014Phone [phone]www.mcrel.org

2
About McREL

• Nonprofit, nonpartisan
• Based in Aurora, CO
• 28-member Board of Directors
• 100 staff members
• 35 years of education research, development,
  service

3
Public Engagement Why?

• Our communities need to
• Understand
• Accept
• Adopt

the idea that ALL students can achieve high
academic standards, if no child is to be left
behind.
4
Diffusion Theory

• The study of the adoption of or the refusal to
  adopt new ideas.
• From Everett Rogers, Diffusion of Innovations,
  1983

5
The Adoption Process

• Many individuals play a role
• Many factors impact the rate of adoption
• Leaders in adoption not always in traditional
  leadership roles

6
The Innovation Adoption Decision-Making Process

• There are five stages in the process to adopt an
  innovation.
• Knowledge An individual understands what it is,
  how it works, and why it works. (Cognitive)
• Persuasion An individual forms a favorable or
  an unfavorable attitude toward the innovation.
  (Affective)
• Decision An individual engages in activities
  that lead to a choice to adopt or reject an
  innovation.
• Implementation An individual puts an innovation
  to use.
• Confirmation An individual seeks reinforcement
  for the innovation decision already made.
• Diffusion of Innovation, Rogers. 1983

7
Adopter Categories
People fall into one of five categories of
adopters or non-adopters. Innovators
Venturesome, eager to try new ideas. The
innovator must be able to cope with the high
degree of uncertainty about an innovation at the
time they make the decision to adopt. They are
risk takers and are willing to accept an
occasional setback. Early Adopters Respectable
and are more integrated into the social system
than are innovators. This group includes the
largest number of opinion leaders. These are the
people to check with before using a new
idea. Early Majority Deliberate but adopt new
ideas just before the average member of a social
system. They seldom are viewed as opinion
leaders. Late Majority Skeptical and often make
a decision or adopt a new idea as an economic
necessity or in response to pressure from peers
or others. Laggards Traditional and offer
almost no option to leadership. Their focus is
mostly on the past. Diffusion of Innovation,
Rogers. 1983
8
Adopter Categories
People fall into one of five categories of
adopters or non-adopters.
34
34
13.5
16
2.5
EarlyAdopters
Early Majority
Late Majority
Laggards
Innovators
Diffusion of Innovation, Rogers, 1983
9
Attributes of Innovations and their Rate of
Adoption
The rate of adoption of innovations is influenced
by how they are perceived. Following are the
attributes that contribute to adoption. Relative
Advantage The degree to which an innovation is
perceived as being better than the idea it
supersedes. Compatibility The degree to which
an innovation is perceived as consistent with the
existing values, past experiences, and needs of
potential adopters. Complexity The degree to
which an innovation is perceived as relatively
difficult to understand and use. Trialability
the degree to which an innovation may be
experimented with on a limited basis. Observabilit
y The degree to which the results of an
innovation are visible to others. Diffusion of
Innovation, Rogers. 1983
10
Questions for Discussion

• When considering what it will take in your
  community to ensure that all students achieve
  high standards, who are the Innovators? Early
  adopters? Saboteurs?
• How should leaders frame improvement initiatives
  so that stakeholders buy in?

11
Public Engagement How?
A Nationwide Dialogue on Standards Based Education
12
Leaving No Child Behind
How can we help all kids achieve high academic
standards?

• A Nationwide Dialogue on Standards-based Education

13
Background

• McREL at forefront of standards-based education
  for more than a decade
• Have seen growing debate over the purpose uses
  of standards
• People agree with standards in principle, but
  have different notions of what they mean in
  practice
• No Child Left Behind is raising the stakes
• Educators need to engage communities in dialogue
• What it will take to help all kids achieve high
  standards?
• What trade-offs are we willing to make to achieve
  this goal?

14
About the Process

• Based on National Issues Forums
• Simple format asks participants to deliberate
  choices trade-offs
• Used in communities school districts nationwide
• Through dialogue, community members identify
• Common ground
• Areas of biggest differences
• Areas where more information is needed
• Areas where action can be taken
• Has been used to deliberate many topics, such as
• Purposes of education
• Parent involvement
• School safety
• Can become a regular way to engage communities
• San Jose (CA) Unified School District
• Bridgeport, CT

15
Emerging Themes

• Where the public stands on standards
• Standards are meaningless without tests, but
  accountability should be based on more than just
  test scores
• True accountability makes schools more responsive
  to parents communities, not to outside
  officials
• Parents students are a crucial yet often
  missing part of most accountability systems
• The biggest problems with public schools have
  little to do with standards or academics

16
Emerging Themes (cont.d)

• Public support for low-performing schools
• People in urban areas were generally less
  satisfied with and less supportive of their
  schools than people in non-urban areas
• People support public schools more in principle
  than in practice
• Loss of public support for public schools may be
  related to a larger loss of community
• People would like to be more involved in their
  schools, but often feel shut out

17
Tradeoffs Deliberated

• Need for external resources vs. desire for local
  control
• Educator accountability vs. student parent
  responsibility
• Desire for place-based curricula vs. the reality
  of student mobility
• Back-to-basics vs. educating the whole child

18
Our Deliberation Framework

• Choice One Help students achieve high standards
  through quality testing and accountability
• Choice Two Help students achieve high standards
  by providing needed resources support
• Choice Three Help students achieve high
  standards by maintaining flexibility local
  control

19
Small Group Discussions

• Which choice or approach is closest to your own
  view and why?
• What are the pros cons of each approach?
• What are the tradeoffs of each approach?
• Is there a fourth approach? Another way to help
  all kids achieve high academic standards?

20
Summing Up

• Have we discovered any common ground?
• What were our important areas of disagreement?
• What questions concerns need more attention?

21
Working Together

• How can schools, parents and the larger community
  do a better job of working together to make sure
  standards work as well as possible for all our
  students and that we are doing all we can to help
  them succeed?

22
Next Steps

• Is there anything you as individuals might do or
  do differently as a result of tonights
  conversation?
• What would you like to see happen to follow up on
  todays conversation?
• Aspects of todays conversation we should spend
  more time on?
• Other subjects we should discuss?
• Include more people in the conversation?

23
Dialogue Outcomes

• Guidance for local leaders policymakers
• Community awareness of challenges educators face
• Community willingness to pull together to help
  schools
• Local reports compiled into guidance for
  policymakers educators nationwide
• (www.nationaldialogue.org)

24
Dialogue Materials Services

• Participant guides
• Moderator guides
• Dialogue starter videos (English Spanish)
• Training on how to organize moderate community
  dialogues

25
For More Information

• Visit www.nationaldialogue.org
• Contact
• Laura Lefkowits
• McREL
• 2550 S. Parker Road, Suite 500
• Aurora, CO 80014
• llefkowits_at_mcrel.org
• 303.632.5535