2007 Institute for School Improvement and Education Options

Statewide Statewide Systems of Systems of Support: The Support: The Work of the Work of the RCCsRCCs

Mid-Continent Mid-Continent Comprehensive CenterComprehensive Center

http://www.mc3edsupport.org/

Belinda Biscoe

MC3 Contributors

3

Belinda Bisco Assistant Vice President, College of Continuing Education, and Director, Mid-Continent Comprehensive Center, The University of OklahomaStan Johnson Assistant Commissioner, Missouri Department of Elementary and Secondary Education, Division for School ImprovementDonna Richardson Associate Director, Mid-Continent Comprehensive Center, the University of OklahomaEllen Balkenbush Missouri-embedded Technical Assistance Liaison, Mid-Continent Comprehensive Center, University of OklahomaPatricia Fleming Missouri Technical Assistance Coordinator, Mid-Continent Comprehensive Center, the University of Oklahoma

Missouri: One State’s Missouri: One State’s StoryStory

Background

Missouri Department of Elementary and Secondary Education (DESE)

• MC3’s Service Delivery System• MC3’s Organizational Structure• Missouri’s Evolution of State Support

Process: Opportunity Knocks and the Conversation Begins

Needs Sensing Role of DESE and its Regional Professional

Development Centers (RPDCs – intermediary agencies) in school improvement efforts

Challenges in creating a seamless statewide system of support

Taking Stock Retreat I – partnering for change Role of content Center on Innovation and Improvement

(CII)

Process – Creating a Critical Mass

CII and MC3 Continued challenges and barriers Taking Stock Retreat II

– Setting the Stage– Expected Outcomes

creation of a common understanding of the components of the current state system of support and how these function;

clarification roles and responsibilities of service providers, both what is and what needs to be;

identification of barriers impeding the operation of a seamless system, with recommendations for overcoming these hindrances;

Process – Creating a Critical Mass

– Expected Outcomes (continued) identification of consistent processes for determining commonly

agreed upon effective, evidence-based practices, programs, and strategies; determination of who is responsible for delivery and providing support roles;

development of mechanisms that ensure commitment to the 4 levels of networking (communication, cooperation, coordination, collaboration) between and among all service providers; and

articulation of next steps to (a) invite feedback from end users regarding retreat outcomes, and (b) implement recommended new directions.

Recommendations

Progress – Staying the Course

Addressing challenges and barriers– Next steps

Accomplishments to date Lessons Learned

9

New England Comprehensive New England Comprehensive CenterCenter

http://www.necomprehensivecenter.org/

Adam Tanney, RMC Research Corporation

New Hampshire: New Hampshire: Working Sma-tah, Not Ha-dah: Working Sma-tah, Not Ha-dah: Building Internal Capacity to Building Internal Capacity to Improve Improve New Hampshire Department of New Hampshire Department of Education’s System of SupportEducation’s System of Support

The Challenge at NHDOE

Many industrious individual activities but no coherent theory of action unifying them

Increased expectations for support added to a structure designed to monitor

SSOS function spread across three divisions All SSOS responsibilities conferred to one

team

Four theme’s guided NECC’s work:

1. Using research-based models

2. Thinking systemically to create coherence and improve efficiency

3. Enhancing communication practices, and

4. Leveraging institutional authority.

What NECC Did and How It Built Capacity

Helped NHDOE take stock of all it was doing Worked with NHDOE to coordinate

monitoring tools Convened a regional SSOS meeting Presented and evidence-based model—

Reville’s components

What NECC Did and How It Built Capacity (continued)

Gained buy-in from top leadership Addressed a theory of action Identified current activities, organized them

according to Reville’s components, and solicited objective observations

Modeled effective communication skills

Lessons Learned

Using models

Improving communication

Leveraging institutional authority

Thinking systemically

Mid-Atlantic Comprehensive Mid-Atlantic Comprehensive CenterCenter

http://www.macc.ceee.gwu.edu/

Ryan Tyler

Creating a Vision in Creating a Vision in New JerseyNew Jersey

The Context

Background:– MACC Service

Delivery System: Focus Areas

– MACC Organizational Structure

– The NJ Department of Education: Evolution

Crafting the Vision-two key initiatives for providing support:

– School level (Restructuring Schools)

– District level (New Jersey Quality Single Accountability Continuum)

Restructuring Schools

During the 2004-05 school year, NJDOE conducted scholastic audits to 99 schools for being identified for School Improvement II.

Analysis of scholastic audits to plan for providing technical assistance to 56 schools as they entered Restructuring.

Areas of strength Areas for improvement Leverage points for change Next, NJDOE needed to identify priority areas to

target for improvement efforts.

Restructuring Schools

In What Works in Schools: Translating Research Into Action, Marzano reviews the research on key factors of school improvement and identifies five important areas of school practice:

– Guaranteed and Viable Curriculum, – Challenging Goals and Effective Feedback, – Parental and Community Involvement, – Safe and Orderly Environment, – Collegiality and Professionalism.

Finally, NJDOE needed to identify some specific strategies for improving school practice in the priority areas.

– MACC is assisting NJDOE with identifying promising practices in the priority areas, complete with descriptions, tools and supporting resources.

New Jersey Quality Single Accountability Continuum

NJDOE has developed a district-level accountability system (NJQSAC) that includes a review of key district practice, known as the District Performance Review (DPR).

MACC is working with NJDOE to train and support SEA facilitators who will guide districts through the NJQSAC process:

– Prioritizing Needs and Identifying Strategies ,– Developing District Improvement Plans,– Supporting the Implementation of the District

Improvement Plans, and– The evaluation and revision of the District

Improvement Plans.

Lessons Learned

Importance of:Vision for supporting schools and

districtsBuilding individual and

organizational capacity

Great Lakes East Comprehensive Great Lakes East Comprehensive CenterCenter

http://www.learningpt.org/greatlakeseast/

Jayne Sowers

Moving from Moving from Compliance to Compliance to Assistance in Indiana Assistance in Indiana

Technical Assistance Goal #1 for the Indiana Department of Education

Years 1 and 2: To articulate and implement policies and processes for assisting districts in corrective action and as feasible for those in improvement.

The Background: The SEA and The Background: The SEA and Potential SupportsPotential SupportsGreat Lakes East Comprehensive Center Indiana Department of Education

Indiana State Manager Division of Compensatory Education/Title I - Assistant

Superintendent - Director of Title I- Associate Director of Title I

Potential Supports Within

the State (1) State

Superintendent(2) Other SEA

Divisions

(3) Educational Service Agencies/Centers

(4) School Leadership Teams (SEA developed)

(5) Expert Principalsand Teachers

(6) Higher Education

The Process: New Policies, Procedures, and Supports

Year 1 - Assistance to SEA and LEAs

a. Corrective action sanction: new curriculum

b. District improvement plans – 1 workshop

Year 2 – Assistance to SEA and LEAs

a. District improvement planning – 2 workshops

b. More definition to “curriculum” and the processes

c. New template for improvement plan for better alignment

d. Evaluation and recommendations for 18 district plans

Year 3 – Assistance to SEA and LEAs

a. Set of 7 tools: curriculum and curriculum processes

b. District improvement planning – 2 workshops

c. Evaluation and recommendations for 52 district plans

d. Curriculum mapping and aligning – 3 workshops

e. Training of curriculum coaches

f. Creating an academy to train school leadership teams

The Progress: Building a SSOS Inside The Progress: Building a SSOS Inside and Outsideand Outside

Year 1 (2005-06)

Compensatory Education/Title I

4. School Leadersh

ip Teams

Center on Innovation & Improvement

???

Exceptional Learners Year 2 (2006-07)

2. Other SEA Divisions

Language Minority & Migrant

Year 3 (2007-08) School Assessment

Principals Leadership Academy High School Redesign

Program Development2. Other SEA Divisions

5. Expert Principals

& Teachers as Coaches

Potential Sources of Support

(1) State Superintendent

(3) Educational Service Agencies/Centers

(6) Higher Education

Lessons Learned in Indiana

1. Provide assistance yet build self-sufficiency through awareness and use of multiple supports to the SEA.

2. Move the focus from compliance to assistance through rethinking the roles of the SEAs and the LEAs.

3. Serve as a critical friend through careful listening at all levels of education and asking the hard questions, if needed.

4. Nothing happens without strong, trusting relationships. Each time a new person is introduced to the work time is required for trust to be gained.