National Network of State School Improvement Leaders
http://www.centerii.org/leaders
Statewide Systems of Support: Responses to Select Questions 9/1/09
Based on recorded session and post-webinar investigation
On California’s Statewide System of Support
What kinds of analyses do you use at the Regional System of District and School Improvement (RSDSS) to assist LEA and School efforts to eliminate mis-assignments of certificated personnel?
Fred Balcom (CA): One of the things that we do is to go in and look at teacher distribution data. The issue of ensuring highly qualified teachers is operated from within a different division of the California Department of Education. They look at the various personnel distributions of teachers at the higher performing and lower performing schools in the district and make recommendations to the district about the assignment. We work with districts to attract and retain high quality teachers and part of that effort is to actually get teachers put in the right places. We did a brief analysis and found that teachers that are not highly qualified are likely to be relatively inexperienced, possibly teaching out of assignment, and teaching in low-performing, high-needs schools with concentrations of disadvantaged students they are not properly equipped or supported to teach. So we are very heavily invested in identifying where those conditions exist and using our RSDSS and State teams to identify and work to correct that.
Polling results from the webinar show most State Education Agency (SEA) respondents use a layered approach for program improvement than not.
Results (Total responses = 39) / Percentagesa. Use a layered approach (n = 15) / 38%
b. Does not use a layered approach (n = 4) / 10%
No answer (n = 20) / 51%
Why did California adopt a layered approach to its systems of support, rather than a direct approach?
Balcom: California adopted the layered approach to its systems of support due to the sheer volume of schools that were involved. We recognized early on that direct state intervention in schools and bypassing districts, or only tangentially involving districts was insufficient to effect change. We also recognized that there was a very large talented pool of educators that we can tap, and that the professional education resources at the department were limited.
Polling results from the webinar show most SEA respondents focus their SEA support both on LEAs and schools rather than just schools or only LEAs.
Results (Total responses = 41) / Percentagesa. Schools only (n = 4) / 10%
b. LEAs only (n = 2) / 5%
c. LEAs and schools (n = 21) / 51%
No answer (n = 14) / 34%
What are the advantages in focusing on program improvement to LEAs and schools in the way California has designed it?
Balcom: While we support both LEAs and schools, we primarily focus on systemic change at the LEA level with some efforts that deal with schools. Based on our earlier, solely school level efforts, we found that, due to principal turnover, and in some cases staff turnover, change had to be continually renewed, rather than becoming institutionalized. By focusing on LEAs, much more so than schools, we are able to create a system that supports individual school change. By addressing the seven structural elements that we identified, we have found that the leadership at the LEA level has the ongoing capacity to support each individual school.
What training or professional development is provided to the coaches that work with school teams?
Balcom: We conduct periodic meetings with our DAIT providers and share with them recent findings from research, and also provide them the opportunity to share with each other effective results that they are having with LEAs that they serve. Many of these providers are also within our county regional structure, and so have independent ongoing opportunities for professional development.
On Virginia’s Statewide Systems of Support
What is included in the district-level web conferences that occur periodically? What are the processes and/or classroom instructional strategies?
Kathleen Smith (VA): We do both—there were about twenty practices that we were concerned about. The division/school district-level web conferences have a specific focus and we ask the districts to go back and talk about the indicators that were discussed during. These are on the web site for the Virginia Foundation for Education Leadership (www.vassp.org).
Please describe the efficiency reviews in Virginia? What is involved? What are some of the components (e.g., focus groups, a large review team, etc.) that may affect the costs?
Smith: Most of these are available in documents prepared by MGT of America, Inc., for various school districts. These documents show reviews that look at everything from finances to staffing ratios, curriculum, and instruction. The reviews have been completed in districts now over a period of about five years and allow the school division (also known as the school district) to pay the money up front. These documents are available on the Virginia Department of Education (VA DOE) web site at http://www.doe.virginia.gov/VDOE/efficiencyreview.html.
Does VA DOE use a common framework to guide the efficiency reviews?
Smith: Yes. Each has about 20 chapters and each chapter is exactly the same in every district. The chapters serve as the framework. One chapter might talk about budget, another about instructional capacity, and another about delivery of instruction. There is a very specific framework in the reviews.
Polling results reveal that the majority of SEA respondents (35 percent) at the webinar have neither the capability to view the school improvement planning process ongoing throughout the year in all of the schools that the SEA is working with from the desktop, nor regularly report the progress of initiatives undertaken by low-performing schools to improve the results of student achievement, not just the results, to the state board of education (SBE). Only one state does both and one state has only a desktop dashboard. Eight states regularly report the progress of schools’ initiatives to the state board of education.
Results (Total Responses = 40) / Percentagesa. Desktop dashboard of schools’ improvement planning process (n = 1) / 3%
b. Regular reporting of initiative progress to SBEs (n = 8) / 20%
c. All of the above (n = 1) / 3%
d. None of the above (n = 14) / 35%
No answer (n= 16) / 40%
What are the advantages for VA DOE to have a desktop dashboard on the school improvement planning progress for all schools and regular reporting on school initiatives’ progress to the State Board of Education?
Smith: Having this tool [dashboard on schools’ improvement planning progress] available at the desktop is helpful in many ways. It allows staff time to be used more efficiently than searching for files. Continuity is very important in working with these schools. All schools and districts now use the same form, have the same common language and are required to document and monitor in the same common way. The SEA and the LEA are better connected and transparency in the LEA’s actions is evident using the tool. The reporting to the State Board of Education has been a key strategy in the implementation of the SEA improvement efforts. It holds schools and districts to a higher level of accountability and serves as a lever to push a sense of urgency to the district level.
Polling results show that 13 out of 39 (or 33 percent) SEA respondents at the webinar have at least two of the following SSOS components:
a. Uses coaches or distinguished educators to work with schools.
b. Requires the district to attend ongoing training regarding how to support schools in improvement and plan effectively for this purpose and requires the district to train lead teachers and principals.
c. Requires district staff to participate in and/or lead the school’s improvement team.
d. Uses a quarterly monitoring tool that focuses on the students who failed the assessments.
Two SEA respondents report that they have all of the components in their system.
Results (Total responses = 39) / Percentagesa. Uses coaches or distinguished educators (n = 5) / 13%
b. District must attend ongoing training, plan effectively for school improvement and train lead teachers and principals (n = 0) / 0%
c. District staff must participate in and/or lead school’s improvement team (n = 1) / 3%
d. Use a quarterly monitoring tool (n = 2) / 5%
e. At Least two SSOS listed above (n = 13) / 33%
f. All of the above (n = 2) / 5%
No answer (n = 18) / 46%
Since VA DOE has all of the above, is there a particular way the system is set up that emphasizes one of the components more than others, or is the way the components are configured amplify their effects so that the combination of all the components is greater than the sum of their parts?
Smith: This is a good point and a great question. This is a systemic reform effort and with that said, the combination of all of the components is greater than the sum of the parts.
How does Virginia maintain consistency in requiring districts to attend ongoing training?
Smith: It has to be the same people each time and in each of the component parts. The three people that attend the webinars for the district and the schools should be the same. The same two facilitators or faculty are consistent throughout the year. It might be a retired superintendent and a retired assistant superintendent from the Virginia Foundation of Educational Leadership that lead the group through a series of discussion questions. For consistency, they also have their coaches attend the webinars. The coaches have been in the schools. They know what is really going on in the school. That is one way we get them to be open and frank about their practices and what they need to improve in.
What training or professional development is provided to the coaches that work with school teams?
Smith: We provide ongoing training throughout the year. We have selected only the best administrators with a proven track record of success in high –poverty schools. Monthly, these professionals come together and meet as a learning community. Not only do we discuss research, but we discuss how and what needs to be the focus for the next month. It is very cyclic. At the beginning of the year the focus is on classroom management. In October, it changes to instruction. In November, we focus on assessment and remediation. And the cycle continues throughout the year.
Resource Commitments to Systems of Support
Approximately what was the commitment in time and dollars to develop your training for your school and district improvement coaches? Is there a sustainability or succession model in place where you continually recruit and train new coaches?
Smith: We continually train our coaches and bring them in to train them once a month. We have about 15. Each of those days cost about $400 apiece. The cost is about $4000 per coach per year per school. In addition, there is the initial training of five days at $2000.
Balcom: Our system is a little bit different. We bring our Regional System of District and School Support (RSDSS) members together approximately once a month for a two-day meeting. The more intense providers–the District Assistance and Intervention (DAIT) providers have had two, two-day trainings with another coming up. They start with a week-long training in validation and norming experience. Each of those DAIT people brings a team of five to seven people. It is a significant commitment of our time to coordinate and bring these people together to make sure they are all on the same page.
Assessing Classroom Teaching Practices
Do you assess classroom teaching practices from the State level?
Balcom: We do not; in fact, because that is one of the pieces that must be allowable under the Race to the Top Funds that student performance data can be included in teacher evaluation. We now have legislation proposed by our Governor to make that possible. Before that has not been possible.
Smith: No, we do not. We do train our principals to assess classroom teaching practices. In fact that is the work that is being done at the school level with the principal and the lead teacher. That is not our role, but clearly the role of the principal and district. We will work with the district and the principal on how to do that and it is included in the Leadership Training.
Improving the Instructional Core
There is a growing belief that SEAs, in their capacity building role, should focus on improving the instructional core. We borrow from Richard Elmore to define the instructional core as, "the teacher and student in the presence of content." This is intended to de-emphasize plans and structural changes and emphasize classroom teaching and learning practices. We believe that resources and tools to improve the instructional core would address:
· Aligning curricula with standards;
· Establishing a core program of explicit, systematic instruction;
· Enhancing direct instructional time;
· Instructional pedagogy, including classroom formative assessment;
· Student academic interventions;
· Professional development, including support for professional learning communities;
· Coaching networks;
· Instructional supervision;
· Protocols for looking at student work and using data; and