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?