District Response to Program Improvement Accountability Sanctions and Technical Assistance in California - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

Loading...

PPT – District Response to Program Improvement Accountability Sanctions and Technical Assistance in California PowerPoint presentation | free to download - id: 68c3d9-MzQ4N



Loading


The Adobe Flash plugin is needed to view this content

Get the plugin now

View by Category
About This Presentation
Title:

District Response to Program Improvement Accountability Sanctions and Technical Assistance in California

Description:

District Response to Program Improvement Accountability Sanctions and Technical Assistance in California December 1, 2011 CERA Presentation Presented by: Theresa ... – PowerPoint PPT presentation

Number of Views:26
Avg rating:3.0/5.0
Slides: 28
Provided by: Stepha89
Learn more at: http://www.cera-web.org
Category:

less

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

Title: District Response to Program Improvement Accountability Sanctions and Technical Assistance in California


1
District Response to ProgramImprovement
Accountability Sanctionsand Technical Assistance
in California
December 1, 2011 CERA Presentation
Presented by Theresa Westover and Mary Stump
2
Evaluation Context
  • Federal ESEA mandates increasing sanctions for
    districts not making AYP.
  • In addition, ESEA requires states provide provide
    technical assistance to all LEAs identified for
    improvement (NCLB, PL 107-110, TI, Sec 1116(c)
  • California Sanction F/Corrective Action 6
    Curriculum AB 519
    Chaptered in 2008
  • Required independent evaluation 2009-12
  • Evaluation focus DAIT Process and Student
    Achievement Changes Mixed Methods
  • Cohort 1 43 Districts in PI Year 3 assigned
    corrective action 6 in 2008-09 their DAITs
  • Cohort 2 30 Districts in PI3, assigned
    Corrective Action 6 in 2009-10 their DAITs

3
Program Improvement The Top-Down Accountability
Era
4
Todays focus
  • Brief look what districts are in program
    improvement and focus of evaluation
  • How the DAITs engaged with their districts
  • What actions the district and DAIT took - the
    focus of the improvement efforts
  • The barriers and facilitators encountered along
    the way

5
Cohort 1 Districts in PI (N43)
  • Broad geographic and size range

6
PI3 Districts High Need Students, Less
Experienced Teachers
  • PI3 districts have more disadvantaged students
    than do districts that are not in PI
  • Within PI3 districts, those with DAIT treatment
    appear to have the most disadvantaged students in
    California
  • Districts with assigned DAITs have a
    significantly different teacher workforce in
    terms of average and median experience levels and
    certification rates.
  • (Details in Year 1 Report, available at
    cees.ucdavis.edu)

7
There are significant disparities in poverty and
ELL designations between PI districts
Non-PI Districts
PI 1 Districts
PI 2 Districts
All PI 3 Districts
PI 3 Districts No Aid
PI 3 Districts TA
PI 3 Districts Contracted DAIT
PI 3 Districts Assigned DAIT
8
PI3 districts service more Hispanic and fewer
white students
Non-PI Districts
PI 1 Districts
PI 2 Districts
All PI 3 Districts
PI 3 Districts No Aid
PI 3 Districts TA
PI 3 Districts Contracted DAIT
PI 3 Districts Assigned DAIT
9
Methods and Data (Year 2 Report)
  • For each of the 43 Cohort I districts we
  • Analyzed weaknesses and recommendations in the
    capacity studies
  • Issued surveys to both the DAIT providers and the
    Districts
  • Interviewed both the DAIT provider and the
    District leadership team
  • Response rates for surveys and interviews 100
    for DAIT providers, close to 90 for districts

10
Qualitative data
  • CEES selected areas of evaluation inquiry
    based on
  • legislation requirements
  • the guidelines provided by CDE to DAIT providers
    (the DAIT strands)
  • Californias 9 Essential Program Components
    (EPCs) http//www.cde.ca.gov/ta/lp/vl/essentialcom
    p.asp

11
DAIT Process in California
12
DAIT Recommendations in Capacity Studies
13
DAIT engagement
  • 97 of providers remained engaged in their
    districts for 2 or more years
  • Over 90 agreed on surveys that the DAIT
  • Effectively diagnosed district needs priorities
  • Provided support for the LEA plan/addendum
  • Was provided access and information needed to
    understand district needs
  • Was able to effectively engage the district
    leadership to address needed changes
  • Most providers met at least monthly w/ district
    and reported having successfully established open
    cooperative relations

14
Focus of improvement efforts
  • Open ended interview responses indicated that
    high priority areas for improvement included
  • Supports for English learners (50 mentioned)
  • Focus on math curriculum/instruction (33)
  • Data based decision making/data systems (40)
  • These areas were reflected in survey ratings as
    showing improvement over the 2 years

15
Changes in implementation of EL/ELD supports
Practice/Policy Percent Full/Substantial Implementation 2008-09 Percent Full/Substantial Implementation 2009-10 Change
Administrative procedures to implement and monitor district ELD programs 45.2 80.5 35.3
All teachers participate in ELD/SDAIE professional development 53.6 73.8 20.2
District ensures that teachers use SBE adopted/approved materials for ELD 58.5 81.0 22.5
District ensures that ELs have access to grade level core instruction in Math 75.6 97.0 21.4
16
Changes in data systems/data-based decision making
Practice/Policy Percent Full/Substantial Implementation2008-09 Percent Full/Substantial Implementation2009-10 Change
District administrators regularly use data to monitor student progress 47.6 83.3 35.7
District has a system of regular data collection to determine the effectiveness of its academic program 69.0 92.9 23.9
All teachers are provided collaboration time specifically for examining student data to inform instruction 61.9 88.1 26.2
District staff adhere to established criteria for student entry and exit into interventions 35.7 64.3 28.6
17
Overall Changes in Implementation Ratings (4
point scale, with 4full implementation)
18
Barriers and Facilitators
  • Research in organizational change and
    district/school improvement demonstrate that
    organizational change takes time and needs to be
    responsive to contextual factors.
  • Interviews confirmed that the district
    improvement efforts are highly contextual not
    only the content of work but the way it was
    undertaken and the success, or lack thereof, of
    the efforts

19
District leadership factors
  • Tenure of district leadership (Supt cabinet)
  • Leaderships willingness to engage in reform
  • Leadership style
  • Existing relationships among district staff,
    between district staff and school board, teacher
    unions and other stakeholders
  • Change in district leadership over the course of
    the engagement

20
District history, setting, and culture
  • Tradition of school site accountability to
    district
  • History of student achievement, mobility
    demographics
  • Location size of district
  • Responsiveness to external pressure/mandates
  • Culture around expectations for student
    achievement and student subgroups

21
Local stakeholders
  • Local political climate and relations among
    stakeholder groups
  • School Board stability, level of involvement in
    district policies and practice, political
    positions
  • Teacher union contractual language, relationship
    w/ Board and district, history of negotiations w/
    district
  • Legal actions

22
District resources, management and structures
  • Fiscal resources
  • Human resources e.g. expertise, staffing levels
  • Existing structures and practices
  • Data assessment systems
  • Practices around monitoring classroom instruction
  • Communication accountability structures
    districtschools
  • Allocation of responsibilities among district
    staff

23
Most significant changes
  • Supports for under-performing students, esp. ELs
  • Improved instructional materials in ELA Math,
    including teacher administrator PD
  • Teacher support coaches, professional learning
    communities (PLCs)
  • Data systems and use of data for decision making

24
Sustainability
  • Unclear at this point
  • Districts/DAITs identified a number of threats
  • Fiscal crisis is a major threat to sustainability
  • Shifting priorities back from district to school
    level
  • Lack of on-going support and accountability for
    change once DAIT is gone

25
Preliminary Recommendations
  • Continue to support district level capacity
    building and technical assistance
  • Increase or maintain accountability structures
    for both districts DAITs
  • Assess district readiness for change and act more
    quickly to intervene when necessary
  • Educate stakeholders especially local boards
  • Simplify and consolidate federal and state
    mandated reporting requirements
  • Provide additional support and resources to
    assist district capacity building

26
Resources and Information About Program
Improvement in California
  • 1. California Department of Education
  • CDE Website for PI http//www.cde.ca.gov/ta/ac/ti
    /programimprov.asp and specifically for PI3
    resources http//www.cde.ca.gov/ta/ac/ti/pileares
    ources.asp
  • CDE/SBE criteria for determining level of LEA
    need for technical assistance
  • EC Section 52055.57(d)
  • Criteria identified in Item 16 on the SBE
    Agenda--November 18-19, 2009 Web page at
    http//www.cde.ca.gov/be/ag/ag/yr09/agenda200911.a
    sp
  •  
  • 2. California Comprehensive Center at WestEd
  • Webinars, history and assessment instruments
    http//www.cacompcenter.org/cs/cacc/print/htdocs/c
    acc/esea-requirements.htm
  •  
  • 3. Center for Education and Evaluation Services,
    UC Davis - Theresa Westover USC Rossier School
    of Education, Katharine Strunk.
  • Interim Evaluation Reports on AB519 Enactment
    of Corrective Action 6 in California
    http//education.ucdavis.edu/select-publications-a
    nd-reports
  • 4. The Use and Efficacy of Capacity-Building
    Assistance for Low-Performing Districts The Case
    of Californias District Assistance and
    Intervention Teams Paper prepared for the Annual
    Research Conference of the American Education
    Finance and Policy Association, March 23-25,
    2011. www.aefpweb.org/.../Strunk_Westover_and_McEa
    chin_AEFP_2011
  •  

27
Contact Information
  • Theresa Westover
  • tnwestover_at_ucdavis.edu
  • 530-754-9523
  • Mary Stump
  • mlstump_at_ucdavis.edu
  • 530-752-2809
  • For more information, please visit the Center for
    Education and Evaluation Services website at
    cees.ucdavis.edu
About PowerShow.com