1 / 32

How NW States Support NCLB Identified SINI

How NW States Support NCLB Identified SINI. Deborah Davis, Unit Director Center for School & District Improvement, Northwest Regional Educational Lab. Institute of Education Sciences. Fast Track Studies (11 from NWREL) Utilize currently available evidence on the issue

odysseus-carr
Télécharger la présentation

How NW States Support NCLB Identified SINI

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  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 6+1 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 state’s 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. Fall 2007 Title 1 Schools & Number of SINI

  9. 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)

  10. 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”

  11. 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.

  12. 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

  13. 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

  14. 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

  15. Montana 2006-2007 • Effort similar to Washington’s—based 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

  16. 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

  17. 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

  18. 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.

  19. Data sources for case study Washington’s 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

  20. 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

  21. 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 areas—summer institutes, support for leadership

  22. 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

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

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

  25. 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

  26. 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

  27. 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

  28. 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

  29. A Caveat Subgroup performance increased…we 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.”

  30. Considerations for Policymakers • Process takes longer than 3 years—having 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

  31. 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?

More Related