How NW States Support NCLB Identified SINI - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

Loading...

PPT – How NW States Support NCLB Identified SINI PowerPoint presentation | free to download - id: 677ac3-YTU4Z



Loading


The Adobe Flash plugin is needed to view this content

Get the plugin now

View by Category
About This Presentation
Title:

How NW States Support NCLB Identified SINI

Description:

How NW States Support NCLB Identified SINI Deborah Davis, Unit Director Center for School & District Improvement, Northwest Regional Educational Lab – PowerPoint PPT presentation

Number of Views:6
Avg rating:3.0/5.0
Slides: 33
Provided by: davisd
Learn more at: http://www.wera-web.org
Category:

less

Write a Comment
User Comments (0)
Transcript and Presenter's Notes

Title: How NW States Support NCLB Identified SINI


1
How NW States Support NCLB Identified SINI
  • Deborah Davis, Unit Director
  • Center for School District Improvement,
  • Northwest Regional Educational Lab

2
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

3
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

4
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 61 Trait writing program

5
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 states early efforts

6
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

7
Nationwide
  • In 2006
  • 8,446 schools in need of improvement
  • 1,624 districts in need of improvement
  • --Archer, 2006

8
(No Transcript)
9
Fall 2007 Title 1 Schools Number of SINI
Not met AYP for 2 or more years?  School Impmt. Yr 1 School Impmt. Yr 2 Corrective Action Yr 3 Plan Restruc- turing Yr 4 Restruc turing Yr 5
Alaska 24 12 11 28 53
Idaho 43 64 5 12 0
Montana 8 6 6 3 32
Oregon 19 6 9 3 1
Washington 28 35 17 21 11
10
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)

11
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

12
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.

13
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

14
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

15
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

16
Montana
  • 2006-2007
  • Effort similar to Washingtonsbased 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

17
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

18
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

19
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.

20
Data sources for case study
  • Washingtons 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

21
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

22
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
    areassummer institutes, support for leadership

23
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

24
Critical Success Factor
  • LEADERSHIP
  • District administration
  • Principal
  • School Improvement Facilitator
  • The school improvement team


25
Critical Success Factor
  • CLEAR AND SHARED FOCUS ON IMPROVEMENT
  • Data collection and data use
  • Instruction aligns with state standards
  • Resources align with improvement goals

26
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

27
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

28
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
  •  

29
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

30
A Caveat
  • Subgroup performance increasedwe 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.

31
Considerations for Policymakers
  • Process takes longer than 3 yearshaving
    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

32
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?
About PowerShow.com