Introduction
What is Consolidated Planning?
The following explanation is intended to answer this essential question. In addition, planners will gain an understanding of the general requirements of consolidated planning, the benefits of it, potential barriers to overcome in order to realize the full benefit of the process, and strategies incorporated specifically to help overcome the barriers to effective planning. Although the complete title of the process is Consolidated Planning and Needs Assessment Process, it is also referred to by the shortened title of Consolidated Planning.
CONSOLIDATED PLANNING IS
Viewed as a “School System Improvement Plan” that is accomplished by a team of individuals appointed by the Director of Schools.
If this process is coordinated and facilitated by the Director, it will more likely ensure that planning for Federal Programs is not done in isolation from other planning efforts and improvement initiatives occurring in the school system. It is strongly recommended that the Director play an active and dominant role to engage all responsible decision makers in district-level planning. This type of involvement can reduce the possibility of fragmented or duplicated efforts or unintentional gaps in services.
One plan at the system level can then drive actions in a coordinated way. The Federal Programs funding application can be completed and submitted to the SDE to meet the requirements of federal- and state-funded programs. In addition, numerous other funding applications can be developed using this same system level needs assessment information and action plans.
Required for all Federal Programs, but should include all other program areas in a district even though they are not currently funded through this process.
This point reiterates the previous one—the intent of Consolidated Planning is to engage all key decision makers who have budgetary and operational responsibility for delivering services to children especially those students most at-risk of not meeting state standards. Representation from all additional programs is highly recommended and strongly encouraged. This means that participation should include such representation as Special Education, Vocational, Technology, Professional Development, Preschool, etc.
Not a new process to many of Tennessee’s school systems.
This process has been required in some systems since about the 1997-98 SY. The mandate targeted schools and systems that did not make their required Title I gains. The systems that came together to plan collaboratively started to see the impact of their collective actions. These systems had first-hand experience to prove the benefits of consolidated planning. Prior to this mandate, various programs and initiatives required certain (and often duplicated) information in order to receive funds. These individual plans targeted specific groups or
programs, but did little to help educators deal with the realities in schools and classrooms where students and programs or services were not neatly segregated.
Perhaps of the most significance is that teachers want what Consolidated Planning can achieve—immediate availability of all opportunities in ways that benefit students and teachers. Strong assistance and support structures are in place to link the needs of the classrooms and schools to available resources at the school and district levels. Teachers are required to address all sorts of situations and students in a single setting with little time to think through various requirements and guidelines. Understandably, teachers’ last concern is with specific program requirements when they are faced with twenty-something students with diverse needs, interests, and backgrounds.
A top-down and a bottom-up process.
Consolidated Planning begins top-down from the systems’ beliefs, mission, and priority goals. It also is a bottom up process building from the school level data, analysis, and identification of student needs. It is a dynamic relationship with continual interaction between the two levels of planning. There is mutual responsibility at both levels for engaging in the planning process in the most effective ways.
It is the system level that has the responsibility for taking a broader view and looking across all schools to see how to best support the schools in meeting identified needs. In a like manner, it is the school-level, the level closest to the students, where the major decisions are (and should be) made about how best to meet needs. There is a collective focus on identifying needed resources to provide services at individual schools and at the district level to increase student achievement across all school settings.
A consistent process with School Improvement Planning.
By design, these two planning processes, Consolidated Planning and TSIP, incorporate the same major components. For example, at both levels, needs as well as strengths are identified. Needs are outcomes of the process and become the targets of action planning. Strengths are also identified to target those areas where achievement levels should be maintained and even strengthened promoting continued growth.
Also at both the school and district levels, analysis of contributing or root causes is undertaken to help planners gain insight into obstacles or barriers. The thinking is that these barriers must be addressed, minimized, or circumvented in order to realize maximum learning for all student groups. After these steps are accomplished, planners then identify effective current actions to continue and new research-based actions to initiate. Actions occur at both the school and system levels to better ensure desired outcomes. The Consolidated Plan, if accomplished on a broad basis, is then considered the system improvement plan. [Note: The Consolidated Plan may be referred to as a strategic plan in that it does address policy and allocate resources, two criteria of strategic plans.]
A means for supporting individual schools’ plans to meet student needs by identifying resources and funding to carry out their plans.
Needs common to several or all schools are given attention and support in the Consolidated Plan for the system. Specific needs of individual schools continue to get attention and support, but not on a system-wide basis. With the school as the unit of change, the planning process becomes one of allocating and using resources to meet identified needs.
The Consolidated Planning process is complex, interactive, and multi-directional. Interchanges between the schools and the district occur a various points in the process. The district uses information from school plans and other sources to develop the final district Consolidated Plan. This district plan then serves as the basis for the application for various state, federal, and other funds.
A coordinated plan, which allocates all Federal Programs’ resources to prioritized student needs.
All Federal dollars are budgeted to focus on high-priority needs. Needs are related to student-achievement of every student group including those non-academic needs that have been shown to negatively impact maximum student learning. No one knows better than educators--resources are scarce and Consolidated Planning allows educators to allocate the available federal (and other) resources to the highest priorities.
A way to provide opportunities for educator and public involvement, input, comment, and feedback.
If appropriately structured and implemented, Consolidated Planning is a vehicle for broadening the perspectives of all stakeholders. Engaging in the process allows each participant to look beyond his or her individual areas of concern and influence. The intent is to decrease what has traditionally been called “turf battles.” In these times of heightened accountability, educators must find ways to focus all stakeholders on common, not individual goals. Consolidated Planning is one way many systems are finding their focus because it provides a structured forum that promotes more effective communication across a wide range of programs and services.
Cyclical providing a longer-term structure for continuous improvement and ongoing renewal.
For continuous improvement to happen, the culture of the school community must be one that promotes professional risk-taking, reflection, and problem-solving. Those engaged in Consolidated Planning need to be willing to make some difficult decisions, but those decisions must be made based on adequate and accurate information and on what is best for all the students. In addition, planning takes a longer-term approach. It is a cyclical process of analyzing data, identifying challenges and priorities, exploring and understanding root or contributing causes, developing plans, taking action, evaluating and adjusting action, and then beginning the process all over again. Thus, there are long-term goals, but addressed on a yearly basis by adequate yearly progress.
A key element in systematic, comprehensive school system and school improvement and continuous growth.
Because Consolidated Planning is a comprehensive process that elicits the best thinking of many key stakeholders, it is one that has greater potential for meeting the needs of all students. Once significant and positive results are seen because of these efforts, the expectation for continued success increases. Stakeholders begin to see this work as an opportunity to create their own destiny by aligning plans and actions with their own needs.
Strong and lasting “buy-in” and commitment for
achieving increasingly higher expectations is generated.
BARRIERS
In order for Consolidated Planning to achieve the intended positive outcomes, it is important to have a clear understanding of possible obstacles or barriers to effective planning. Many of these barriers were suggested by Tennessee educators who previously completed the Consolidated Planning process.
VARIOUS BARRIERS TO EFFECTIVE CONSOLIDATED PLANNING include . . .
- resistance to giving up individual program resources, power, and control—defending turf.
- traditional practices of isolated efforts, programs, and decisions because of limited understanding of issues and concerns across the school system—lack of coordination.
- lack of experience (and possibly willingness) in collaborating across programs—lack of cooperation.
- school system perceptions about the ways they must comply with new mandates—incomplete information.
- an organizational history of reacting to problems with “quick fixes”—limited history of long range planning.
- habit of making intuition- or opinion-based decisions rather than data-based decisions—decisions based on “cardiac assessments.”
- reluctance to make information and plans known to others—don’t let the bad news be known.
- smorgasbord or “wish list” approach to program planning and professional development rather than a needs based approach—based on adult needs, not student needs.
- limited improvements from previous change efforts result in educators’ perceptions that current change efforts will have limited impact of students or professional situations—“We’ve tried this before . . . and it didn’t work then.”
- a history of “In the Box” thinking and a desire to maintain the status quo where known practices are repeated without looking to promising, research-based practices—“We’re doing fine. And besides, what can they tell us about how to deal with our kids?”
- a “This Too Shall Pass” mentality causing individuals and groups to exhibit defensive routines which thwart positive progress—“I’ll think I’ll just wait until this requirement goes.”
STRATEGIES
With potential obstacles in mind, several strategies have been incorporated in the Consolidated Planning process to minimize, eliminate, or circumvent the identified barriers.
CONSOLIDATED PLANNING STRATEGIES to overcome the barriers include . . .
- understanding, acknowledging, attacking, and persisting to overcome the resistance to change.
- focusing planning efforts specifically on the needs of students, families, and educators across the school system.
- establishing effective means of communication and collaboration.
- developing strategies to solicit and use input from stakeholders.
- not hiding problems or information that could be conceived as negative—in other words, telling the “truth.” This may not come easy because it requires the examination of existing programs and resources to determine their effectiveness.
- developing processes for pulling together a wide range of pertinent information to enable stakeholders to make data-based decisions.
- resisting the temptation to jump to solutions before understanding problems, which has traditionally resulted in buying “packaged programs.”
- developing a school system culture that promotes inquiry and action research.
- promoting a culture that views weaknesses as opportunities for growth and celebrates professional risk taking as a means to move ahead.
- enhancing feelings of professionalism as educators work together to create their own destiny, rather than simply adhering to directives from others who may not understand the context.
- celebrating success and monitoring progress—both privately and publicly.
CONSOLIDATED PLANNING can be a way to reinforce educators’ and stakeholders’ sense of efficacy—to strengthen beliefs in their ability to make a difference in the lives of our students. It can be a way to create success expectations—to begin an upward spiral of continuous progress and increasingly higher levels of student academic success and positive attitudes towards learning.
FORMULA PROGRAMS
Programs Required To Be Included in the Consolidated Planning & Needs Assessment Process
Title I, Part A, Improving Basic Programs Operated by LEAs
Title I, Part C, Education of Migratory Children
Title I, Part D, Programs for Children and Youth who are Neglected, Delinquent, or At Risk
Title II, Part A, Teacher and Principal Training and Recruitment
Title II, Part D, Enhancing Education Through Technology
Title III, Part A, English Language Acquisition, Language Enhancement, and Academic Achievement
Title IV, Part A, Safe and Drug Free Schools and Communities
Title V, Part A, Innovative Programs
Title VI, Part B, Subpart 2, Rural and Low Income School Program
And Other Programs as may be designated by the Secretary of Education
COMPETITIVE PROGRAMS
Competitive grants as they become available
Goals for Tennessee’s Consolidated Planning & Needs Assessment Process:
To communicate our system’s beliefs about student learning and our priority mission of assisting students in reaching their full learning potential.
Our beliefs are translated into a few clear priorities and goals. Educators and stakeholders understand the goals and actions, the rationale behind them, and how they fit together, thus avoiding fragmentation and a “this too shall pass” mentality.
To enable every school system to achieve high standards for all students, especially those students considered most in danger of not meeting state standards.
Learning Expectations are clearly defined; appropriately challenging for all student groups; and are increased steadily and incrementally. NCLB has set our timeline--by SY 2014, all students will perform at the proficient or advanced levels in reading, language arts including writing and in math.
To establish effective lines of communication and two-way information sharing within our entire system.
Educators and stakeholders are well informed and are regularly asked to provide input and opinions about important, relevant matters. Engaging parents and other stakeholders is an important expectation of NCLB. Effective, two-way communication is critical to productive engagement.
To enrich our school system culture as one that values collaborative teamwork & shared decision making.
Decisions are based on what is best for all our students—and those closest to the students are actively engaged in the decisions. Parenting adults and community members are productive partners with educators in making decisions.
To monitor system and school progress consistent with Tennessee’s single accountability system by tracking a range of data about student performance.
Student performance data are accurate, up-to-date, understood, and used by educators. Data are broad-based using a variety of academic as well as affective indicators, are disaggregated to show the impact on specific student groups, and are longitudinal to identify trends. Formative evaluation data give clear indications of results in terms of student performance and attitude.
To addresses high priority student needs strategically and comprehensively.
Action Plans focus on significant Root Causes and address specific elements of Curriculum, Instruction, Assessment, & Organization at the system and school levels.
To provide a balance of pressure and support to those actively engaged in implementing actions.
Pressure is evident by formative assessments, benchmark expectations, and regular monitoring to ensure forward action. Support is in the forms of effective professional development, technical assistance, facilitation, resources, and partnerships with school board and community members.
To restrain from adopting quick fix programs.
Thoughtful and systematic understanding of challenges occurs before implementing research-based, proven practices or by creating adaptations to meet specific local needs and conditions
To engage leadership at all levels in proactive problem-finding.
Collaborating and information sharing should help detect dysfunctional components or processes. Flexibility and reasonably quick response time is evident in implementing needed actions.
To ensure the school system’s capacity to support long term change and reform.
We will create viable approaches to building our own leadership capacity (i.e., hiring, training, and retaining high-quality educators). Capacity building is any process that increases the capability of individuals to produce or perform—in this case as leaders in schools and in classrooms. Capacity building involves giving individuals knowledge, providing opportunities for them to make decisions, and empowering them to act. It enables educators to carry out their tasks to the best of their ability because they have the knowledge, skills, dispositions, feelings, and perspectives to positively impact teaching and learning. Individual capacity is influenced by organizational capacity.