January 2009

A publication of the Texas Comprehensive Center at SEDL

Volume 2 Number 4 pdf version 1.5 MB

Responding to Changing Conditions

By Stella Bell, EdD

"We must become the change we want to see."
Ghandi

 

In the Working Systemically approach, the capacity to respond to changing conditions is a critical competency; education systems today must adapt to a myriad of demographic, societal, economic, political, and cultural changes. Pressure on school and district staff to improve the quality of education for all students comes from federal legislation, state accountability systems, district expectations, and parental aspirations. Within the context of school improvement, change is almost a way of life.

Hall and Hord (2006) describe change as a process, not an event. School improvement is complex, and even well-designed improvement efforts can fail unless district and school leaders take responsibility for responding to changing conditions. In dealing with change and school improvement efforts, districts and schools need to

• recognize the importance of strong leadership for change,
• anticipate and deal with the impact of change, and
• maintain support for changes.

Patterson (2000) asserts that for any kind of significant change to be successful it must first have a foundation on which it can be initiated and sustained. As districts and schools provide support for change, they must anticipate and deal with the impact of change. Patterson states that the more substantive the change, the harder it is to foresee problems that may arise. Pechman and Fiester (1994) identified seven challenges that persistently confront leaders during the implementation of schoolwide improvement efforts. These challenges include adequate time to learn new roles, communication and involvement, moving beyond reduced class size, adequate preparation for new resources, including parents and community in change efforts, stabilizing change, and achievement variability.

In the Working Systemically approach, successful districts and schools continuously respond to these challenges through a culture of collecting, interpreting, and using data to inform and document necessary changes. A data-focused culture helps detect changing conditions and allows for a timely response.

It also reveals the system’s capacity for building relationships, creating coherence, and ensuring continual professional learning—all important competencies for systemic improvement.

The essence of implementation is behavior change (Fixsen, Naoom, Blasé, Friedman, and Wallace, 2005). Behavior change implies an ability to have courageous discourse about values and beliefs to address issues or concerns. School cultures (e.g., socio-economic and political) can affect school environment and improvement efforts, but strong, effective leadership provides stability and sustainability to support changes.

Schwahn and Spady (1998) present five ideas to remember in creating and sustaining an environment that supports productive change:

1. People don’t change unless they share a compelling reason to change.
2. People don’t change unless they have ownership in the change.
3. People don’t change unless their leaders model that they are serious about the change.
4. People are unlikely to change unless they have a concrete picture of what the change will look like for them personally.
5. People can’t make a change, or make it last, unless they receive organizational support for the change.

In School Leadership That Works: From Research to Results, Marzano, Waters, and McNulty (2005) provide insight into leaders’ responsibilities related to first-order changes in schools (i.e., gradual, incremental changes as opposed to drastic and dramatic second-order changes). The authors cite the top three responsibilities in first-order change—ranked by factor analysis—which leaders must consider while managing the daily life of a school: monitoring and evaluating, culture, and ideas and beliefs. We are reminded of the importance of the leadership roles learned within the Working Systemically approach: communicating clear expectations, building capacity, and monitoring and reviewing progress.

By monitoring and responding to changing conditions, successful districts and schools can manage improvement efforts more effectively to ensure increased student achievement and meet the accountability provisions of NCLB. In School Turnarounds: Actions and Results (Brinson, Kowal, & Hassel, 2008), the authors identify turnaround school success stories that can both act as a valuable roadmap and provide affirmation that public education can successfully meet the educational needs of all students.

Successful district and school improvement efforts can be accomplished by recognizing the importance of strong leadership for change, anticipating and dealing with the impact of change, and maintaining support for change in systemic work by responding “proactively and not reactively” to changing conditions. Through exploration of the five phases of Working Systemically and in planning for and adapting to change, a campus improvement plan can become a “live” working document rather than sitting on a shelf collecting dust.

References:

Brinson, D., Kowal J., & Hassel B. (2008). School turnarounds: Actions and results. Lincoln, IL: Public Impact, Academic Development Institute.

Cawalti, G., & Protheroe, N. (2003). Supporting school improvement: Lessons from districts successfully meeting the challenge. Alexandria, VA: Educational Research Service.

Fixsen, D.L., Naoom, S.F., Blasé, K.A., Friedman, R.M., & Wallace, F. (2005). Implementation research: A synthesis of the literature (FMHI Publication #231). Tampa, FL: University of South Florida, Louis de la Parte Florida Mental Health Institute, The National Implementation Research Network.

Hall, G.E., & Hord, S.M. (2006). Implementing change: Patterns, principles and potholes (2nd ed.). Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon.

Institute of Education Sciences. (2008). Turning around chronically low-performing schools (NCEE 2008-4020). Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Educational Evaluation and Regional Assistance.

Marzano, R., Waters, T., & McNulty, B. (2005). School leadership that works: From research to results. Aurora, CO: Mid-Continent Research for Education and Learning.

Patterson, W. (2000). Change for good: Staying the course. High School Magazine 7(7), 5–6, 8–9.

Pechman, E., & Fiester, L. (1994). Implementing schoolwide projects: An idea book. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education, Planning and Evaluation Service.

Schwahn, C., & Spady, W. (1998). Why change doesn’t happen and how to make sure it does. Educational Leadership, 55(7), 45–47.

"Not everything that is faced can be changed. But nothing can be changed until it is faced."
James Arthur Baldwin

TEA Update

By Haidee Williams

In response to the U.S. Department of Education’s increased emphasis on the coordination of Title I and Title III services, the Southeast Comprehensive Center (SECC) held a regional institute on November 5–7, 2008. The Texas Education Agency (TEA) was invited to share how these two programs are coordinated in Texas. Attending the institute were six teams of state education agency staff representing Alabama, Georgia, Louisiana, Mississippi, South Carolina, and Texas. They assembled to explore research-based practices for meeting the needs of English language learners and to ensure that the appropriate support and resources are available to achieve this objective.

The SECC invited TEA’s Title I School Improvement Director, Anita Villarreal, and Title III Director, Christina Villarreal, to share how their two programs work together to meet the educational needs of children in Texas with limited English proficiency. Anita and Christina were asked to provide insight into what collaboration looks like at TEA; some of the successes and challenges in collaborating with other programs; the processes, structures, and programs that were put in place to promote collaboration effectively within the state agency; the leadership actions that were taken to promote collaboration within the state department; the level of support available within the state to promote collaboration; and how this collaboration has made a difference for English language learners in Texas. A panel of representatives from each of the states responded to questions and shared their experiences in collaborating and coordinating Title I and Title III services.

On the third day of the institute, state teams worked together to reflect on the information shared, evaluate their current status, and discuss possible next steps. A comprehensive planning template, developed by the U.S. Department of Education, guided the conversations. Our thanks to TEA, Anita, Christina, and others from TEA who attended, on their willingness to network with other states and share experiences.

Top of page

Working Systemically and School Support Team Update

By D’Ette Cowan, EdD

Although originally released in 1963, these lyrics from Bob Dylan’s hit song continue to ring true today. There’s no doubt that we, as part of the statewide system of support, often feel “drenched to the bone” with change. Here, at the beginning of 2009, with change on our minds, we’ve elected a new president and the state legislature has just convened. Undoubtedly both of these political events are going to result in some change in our work.

In a more immediate sense, we’d like to share some changes that those of us from the Texas Comprehensive Center (Texas CC) have witnessed in ESCs across our state as we’ve worked with them to implement systemic change and train school support teams.

• Some ESCs are beginning to change the way they are providing technical assistance and professional development to districts and schools. These ESCs have redesigned internal structures and processes for re-allocating staff and increasing internal communication among themselves to promote increased coherence in the assistance they provide.
• Many ESCs report that the tools and processes provided in the Working Systemically approach have been useful in facilitating and deepening the conversations that district and school leaders are having with one another. The nature of these conversations is an important factor in changing the professional culture that is foundational to ongoing innovation and improvement.
• Some ESCs report substantial progress in changing the way district and school leaders are interacting on a day-to-day basis. Structures for meeting regularly to focus on specific, concrete actions for achieving their identified goals and objectives have helped to promote a shared sense of responsibility for accomplishing the improvement work.
• Many ESCs have increased their awareness of the research that underlies resources and processes the Texas CC has shared. Making these resources available, along with suggestions for using them, has helped districts and schools change their focus to the “main thing” (i.e., student learning). The resources have also been useful in planning research-based strategies that can begin the improvement process.

These are just some of the positive changes we are seeing in the course of our work with ESCs. Although not one of them is attributable entirely to the support provided by the Texas CC (for many of them were already in progress), it is reassuring to know that these changes are likely to have tangible positive impact on districts and schools, and thereby, ultimately, on the students we serve.

And, speaking of change, the Texas CC will be substituting one of the remaining on-site visits to each ESC with a videoconference. This adjustment was made as we became aware of the time allocation needed for site visits, on the part of both the Texas CC and ESC staff. We are eager to promote the use of time- and budget-saving technology in this way.

“Vision without action is merely a dream. Action without vision just passes the time. Vision with action can change the world.”
Joel Barker

Top of page

ESC Highlights

ESC 1: A PLC in Disguise

Submitted by Luule Moreno, Lisa Conner, and
Yvonne Caldwell

The Region 1 Education Service Center (ESC), located in Edinburg, deep in South Texas, serves 42 school districts/charters. The service center has long been the leading provider of professional development and technical assistance to the 533 campuses in the region. The last few years have seen a gradual shift in the service delivery model of professional development being offered by the ESC, from one of workshop delivery to a more systemic approach to school improvement. In an effort to meet the unique needs of the campuses involved in school improvement, the service center formed school support teams for assisting low-achieving campuses using the Working Systemically approach. Based on the initial success of this approach, the service center today has created ten district support teams in order to support all of the districts/charters in Region 1 who choose to participate.

The Division of Instructional Support at Region 1 ESC is comprised of over 100 educational specialists in content and program areas. This year, based on the success of the Working Systemically approach, all members of the division are organized into school district support teams. Each team has representatives from content and program areas. The school districts are assigned to the teams, with each team having 3–5 districts. The primary work of the school support team is to assist the district in choosing one critical area of need that the support team could assist with this year.

The work of the district support teams is also based on the Working Systemically approach. The ESC has provided “in-house” professional development to share the Working Systemically approach and the tools with the entire ESC team. Building the capacity of all members of the team has allowed the ESC to provide the framework of Working Systemically in a customized, onsite, job-embedded format to all school districts within
Region 1.

The ESC staff members involved in the project share the successes as well as challenges during weekly team meetings. Monthly, the team provides a “status” update from each team facilitator to discuss the work being done in the district and any challenges being presented that the group, as a whole, might assist in solving. The staff reports that this evolution of the service delivery model is not more work, but, rather, a new way of organizing the work. In the past, the professional development seemed to be targeted at fixing pieces of a system, rather than working on the system. During our recent division meeting, we experienced a significant “ah ha” moment. Without specifically intending to, our ESC Division of Instructional Support has become a professional learning community…
…A PLC in disguise!

ESC 2: Helpful Tips & Tools

Submitted by Andi Kuyatt and Joel Trudeau
ESC Region 2, located in Corpus Christi, has worked diligently to find resourceful ways to ensure that all schools who have missed AYP are receiving services in their identified areas of need. The Working Systemically/School Support Team at Region 2 uses a free tool provided by Google to enter and track data regarding ESC support offered to its districts and campuses. These data can be viewed by all ESC team members to ensure that a campus is receiving focused, data-driven services and not falling through the cracks.

Region 2 has set up a database to record weekly visits by the ESC staff, record how the support was coordinated and conducted, and the reason for the visits to the campus. Campus visits are intended to support or assist with leadership training, curriculum training and monitoring, and/or attention to compliance issues. These data can also be viewed in graph form so that staff members can show which campuses are receiving support, to ensure that no campus is left behind.

The online tool is user friendly and customizable. These are some of the features of the Google tool:

• Use of a G-Mail account from www.google.com, which is free
• Ease of set up, which allows multiple choice lists, drop down selections, comments and more
• Team members can log on with an ID and password for security
• Ability of the software to keep track of information in spreadsheet form
• Ability to create graphs from data

Region 2 ESC team member Joel Trudeau will be happy to help anyone who would like assistance in setting up a tracking system with this program. Please contact him at joel.trudeau@esc2.us or call 361-561-8504.

“The key to change is to let go of fear.”
Rosanne Cash

Top of page

“It often takes more courage to change one’s opinion than to stick to it.”
Geoffrey F. Abert

Reaching Out to Diverse Learners

A Changing Nation

The National Council of Teachers of English reports that in the past 30 years the foreign-born population of the U.S. has tripled. More than 14 million immigrants moved to the U.S. during the 1990s, and another 14 million are expected to arrive before 2010. These numbers have led to reports about an emerging and underserved population of students who are English language learners (ELLs). According to the 2000 census, 47 million people in the U.S.—or 18% of the population—speak a language other than English at home. By 2030, this number will increase to 40.

ELLs currently number over 5 million and represent approximately 10% of the K–12 student population. The amount of resources dedicated to supporting this group is growing; however, a significant performance gap still persists between ELLs and their non-ELL peers.

How can ELLs meaningfully engage in content? How can we measure ELLs’ English language proficiency and academic content knowledge? What is a viable assessment approach that can be applied across language groups?

The No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 (NCLB) clearly sets forth that state and local education agencies, as well as schools, are responsible for addressing the needs of ELLs. Under Title III of the act, these entities are held accountable for “increases in English proficiency and core academic content knowledge of limited English proficient children…” Both Title I and Title III of the act declare that ELLs must be held to the same challenging academic standards in reading, mathematics, and science as non-ELLs. Furthermore, NCLB requires each state to establish English language proficiency (ELP) standards that reflect the language necessary for proficiency in English, as well as academic achievement, and to create assessments aligned with those standards.

An effective standards-based accountability system requires the development, alignment, and proper use of high-quality standards and assessments. It is necessary to distinguish between what students know and what they do not know in regard to both English language skills and academic content. Only if teachers possess this knowledge can they plan effective classroom instruction to meet the needs of their students with limited English proficiency.

References:

National Council of Teachers of English. (2008). English language learners. Retrieved December 18, 2008, from http://www.ncte.org/library/NCTEFiles/Resources/PolicyResearch/ELLClips.pdf

No Child Left Behind Act of 2001, Public Law 107–110; 107th Congress.

A Framework for High-Quality English Language Proficiency Standards and Assessments

was developed by the LEP Partnership, which was supported by the Assessment and Accountability Comprehensive Center (AACC), to provide states with information that both facilitates and supports state standards and assessment systems. The LEP Partnership, formed in 2006, consisted of the U.S. Department of Education, the AACC and twenty states, including Texas.

The framework was developed as a tool to help ensure that states’ ELP standards and assessments effectively support their efforts to ensure that ELLs attain English language proficiency and meet the same academic achievement levels as their peers. It provides criteria to help guide the development and implementation of English language proficiency (ELP) standards and assessments and to ensure their quality. The framework is intended to be a resource to state departments of education, state policymakers, test developers, technical assistance providers, and the research community.

For more information about this framework, please contact
Dr. Edynn Soto
WestEd, Assessment and Accountability Comprehensive Center
Email: esato@WestEd.org
http://www.aacompcenter.org/pdf/references_framework_brief.pdf

The framework is not yet available in its final stage. However, the above link will lead you to a brief, which explains the purpose, uses, and organization of the framework. The complete framework is expected to be released soon and will be available at www.aacompcenter.org

The Teaching Tolerance Web site,

a project of the Southern Poverty Law Center, includes stories and suggestions to help us change the way we interact with our families, friends, and neighbors, whether we are at work, at school, or in public. This site provides stories of those who have encountered everyday bigotry and what they said, or didn’t say, about it. You can access the section of the site focused on suggestions for students and educators at Speak Up: What Can I Do at School?
http://www.tolerance.org

Theme-Related Resources

Shaping Beliefs and Attitudes: A Handbook of Attitude Change Strategies

A report from The Principal’s Partnership, written by Howard Johnston of the University of South Florida, reminds us that “a positive attitude is a prerequisite for meaningful school change.”
http://www.principalspartnership.com/protools.html

SEDL’s Resources for School Change and Improvement

On SEDL’s Web site there is a wide array of free resources that focus on change and school improvement.
http://www.sedl.org/pubs/free_school_improvement.html

 

Other Resources

The SEDL Letter

The SEDL Letter is SEDL’s institutional magazine. This quarterly publication examines issues of concern to schools and districts, covering national and regional trends, research, and promising practices. You can view it online or sign up to receive the publication by mail.
http://www.sedl.org/pubs/magazine/

Resources from the U.S. Department of Education

The U.S. Department of Education provides resources for parents, students, teachers, and administrators. Links to the four target groups can be found in the upper left corner of the Web site, just under the agency logo. In the section targeted to administrators there are resources suggested by the department regarding

• leading and managing a school,
• strengthening teacher quality, and
• working with parents and community.

There are other topics to be found here as well.
http://www.ed.gov/admins/landing.jhtml

“Change in all things is sweet.”
Aristotle

 

Resources From the Content Centers

National High School Center

Preparing High School Students for Successful Transitions to Postsecondary Education and Employment. (NCEE #2008-4027).

M. Bangser (2008, August). Washington, DC: National High School Center.
This 24-page brief reviews lessons from studies of selected policies and programs designed to improve students’ preparation for postsecondary pathways. The brief places special emphasis on ways to help those who traditionally face substantial barriers to success, including low-income students, minority students, and students with disabilities.
http://www.betterhighschools.org/docs/PreparingHSStudentsforTransition_073108.pdf

Center on Innovation and Improvement (CII)

A Call to Restructure Restructuring: Lessons From the No Child Left Behind Act in Five States.

C. Scott (2008, September). Washington, DC: Center on Education Policy.

This report synthesizes findings from the Center on Education Policy’s ongoing study of state restructuring practices and variations in California, Georgia, Maryland, Michigan, and Ohio. The report ends with several recommendations directed at the federal, state, and local levels. Restructuring reports for each state are available at the following Web site.
http://www.cep-dc.org/index.cfm?fuseaction=document_ext.showDocumentByID&nodeID=1&DocumentID=248

Supplemental Educational Services Under NCLB: State Implementation for Students With Disabilities.

E. Ahearn (2007, October). Alexandria, VA: National Association of State Directors of Special Education.

Project Forum surveyed state directors of special education about the inclusion of students with disabilities in supplemental educational services (SES) in their state. This document, prepared by Project Forum at the National Association of State Directors of Special Education (NASDSE), includes background on the SES program, a report of the results of the state survey, and observations and conclusions.
http://www.projectforum.org/docs/SESUnderNCLB-StateImplementationforSWD.pdf

The Center on Instruction (COI)

Leading for Reading: An Introductory Guide for K-3 Reading Coaches [K-3]

Portsmouth, NH: Center on Instruction
This suite of resource materials is designed to prepare school-based reading coaches who work with teachers to improve reading instruction in kindergarten through grade three. The materials support a 4- or 5-day professional development event, although they can be used in alternate formats. The materials include three components: a participant’s guide for use in the workshop sessions and as a long-term resource for attendees, a facilitator’s guide to provide information for session leaders (e.g., speaker notes, activity instructions), and a PowerPoint slide presentation with embedded video clips that illustrate practical application of the content.
http://www.centeroninstruction.org/resources.cfm?category=reading&subcategory=materials&grade_start
=0&grade_end=3#176

A Synopsis of a Synthesis of Empirical Research on Teaching Mathematics to Low-Achieving Students [1-12]

S. Baker, R. Gersten, and D. Lee (2002). Portsmouth, NH: Center on Instruction.

The authors synthesized findings from 28 years of research on interventions for students struggling in learning math. The Center on Instruction’s synopsis highlights the key findings from this synthesis and outlines recommendations for practice that follow the findings.
http://www.centeroninstruction.org/resources.cfm?category=math&subcategory=&grade_start=&grade_end=

The Assessment and Accountability Comprehensive Center (AACC)

Framework for High-Quality English Language Proficiency Standards and Assessments: Brief

San Francisco, CA: Assessment and Accountability Comprehensive Center

See the column on “Reaching Out to Diverse Learners” to learn more. This resource can be accessed and downloaded as a PDF via the AACC Web site at http://www.aacompcenter.org/cs/aacc/print/htdocs/aacc/resources_sp.htm

“If you don’t create change, change will create you.”
Anonymous

Final Regulations to Strengthen No Child Left Behind

The U.S. Department of Education hosted a Technical Review National Teleconference on November 13, 2008 to discuss the Title I regulations announced on October 28, 2008.

The discussion was led by department officials who were involved in developing the regulations and who are helping states, districts, and schools implement them. The discussion focused on regulations related to high school graduation rate, supplemental educational services, and public school choice.

See the PowerPoint presentation used during the teleconference
http://www.ed.gov/policy/elsec/reg/title1/11-13-08-conference-call.pdf

http://www.ed.gov/policy/elsec/reg/title1/11-13-08-conference-call.ppt

For more information about the Title I regulations announced October 28, 2008, please visit the Final Regulations for Title I page.
http://www.ed.gov/policy/elsec/reg/title1/telcon.html

From the Doing What Works Web site

Educators across the nation are helping students gain proficiency in mathematics and reading by the year 2014. The Doing What Works Web site is designed to support educators as they learn about ways to make use of research-based practices. The site provides examples of implementation tools that educators can use in their schools and classrooms.

Since 2002, the Institute of Education Sciences has shared information about practices that research shows are effective. This free resource, from the U.S. Department of Education, provides useful information to educators across the country. Each of the topics on the Doing What Works Web site is supported with research-based practices that can help meet challenges in the classroom. http://dww.ed.gov/

 

Top of page

 

Next Issue’s Theme

The next four issues of the Texas Focus will examine the responsibilities of school support teams (SSTs). As described in federal guidance, SSTs are responsible for assisting schools with the following four functions:

(i) Conducting a comprehensive needs assessment
(ii) Designing, implementing and monitoring the improvement plan
(iii) Checking progress of school personnel
(iv) Providing additional recommendations

The next issue will focus on Function i: Conducting a comprehensive needs assessment.

 

Top of page