Governments

**In ****The New Meaning of Educational Change ****Chapter 13 - "Governments" p. 236 Fullan states: ** **"Governments can push ****accountability, ****provide ****incentives ****(pressure and supports), and/or ****foster ** **capacity building." ** ​ Identify an initiative introduced at the local, state and/or national level and discuss how accountability, incentive, and capacity building structures were framed and whether the design helped or hindered the implementation.

Connecticut Accountability for Learning Initiative (CALI) is a state initiative that has been developed to offer a model of state support to districts/schools. It will support the process of continuous school and district improvement with the goal of closing Connecticut’s achievement gaps.

The CSDE had to respond to the No Child Left Behind Law, which requires every school to make adequate yearly process (AYP). As part of the state’s response to NCLB, it created CALI using scientifically researched based findings that showed evidence those schools with student populations including high rates of poverty and high percentages of ethnic minorities can achieve high academic performance.

The CALI initiative provides districts/schools that are designated as “in need of improvement” with extensive professional development through many training modules. As the state sites these districts/schools as “in need of improvement” SCDE educational consultants form a partnership with priority districts and become part of the process in creating a three-year district improvement plan (DIP), which holds the district accountable in many ways. The DIP must be a detailed plan with SMART Goals, including an action plan that delineates adult work and result indicators, which are closely monitored. As an incentive, schools/districts that are identified as being “in need of improvement” and schools in priority districts can access CALI professional development for free. All of the modules are specific and provide all educators with a clear focus of what needs to be done in order to improve student achievement. All of the training modules are 2-3 days long and provide educators with valuable information. Priority districts have taken advantage of this training and have been supported in many other ways as well, in order to ensure proper use of all modules being used during data teams, daily instruction, and in all aspects to improve student learning, growth and development. Title I districts sited as Priority Districts have as become Demonstration Schools. Demonstration Schools are provided with executive coaches and data team facilitators for a minimum of two years to help the school achieve it’s maximum potential.

Like all new initiatives, CALI has caused many educators to change the typical way of doing things in schools and to prioritize needs based on student achievement. As a principal of a Demonstration School and a school that has recently been removed from the list of schools “in need of improvement” I can attest to the high level of stress this initiative caused in the beginning of it’s’ implementation. Many RESC’s were providing the training and at times, trainers were conveying different messages, which caused confusion among teachers because teachers were attending different trainings. However, as we began to implement the modules in our school, many of the kinks have been worked out and we continue to see positive changes. Some of the CALI modules are excellent, but a few need revamping and the state is fully aware of this need and is currently addressing the areas of concern.

Overall, I believe CALI is an effective model of state support to districts and schools. It has established standards which will help educators grow as professional learning communities and build district and school capacity. It has helped districts establish a clear focus on student achievement and accelerate the closing of Connecticut’s Achievement Gaps. Enza Macri - 11/18/09

The Milford School District piloted several reading programs last year in a few elementary schools, then chose to implement one of the programs district-wide in all kindergarten through grade 2 classrooms. The following is a description taken from the program of choice website: " Wilson Fundations for K-3 is a phonological/phonemic awareness, phonics and spelling program for the general education classroom. Fundations is based upon the Wilson Reading System® principles and serves as a prevention program to help reduce reading and spelling failure. Rather than completely replace core curriculum, Fundations provides the research-validated strategies that complement installed programs to meet federal standards and serve the needs of all children. Teachers incorporate a 30-minute daily Fundations lesson into their language arts classroom instruction. Fundations lessons focus on carefully sequenced skills that include print knowledge, alphabet awareness, phonological awareness, phonemic awareness, decoding, vocabulary, fluency, and spelling. Critical thinking, speaking and listening skills are practiced during Storytime activities. Furthermore, targeted small group intervention is available for students in the lowest 30th percentile. Fundations is recommended as part of a total literacy solution, including a literature-based language arts program and a Wilson Reading System® intervention and intensive program." A realistic theory of action was not developed for this implementation. This program was mentioned in an over-arching literacy theory of action, but the program implementation did not have its' own theory. A guiding coalition was not created. Principals and reading teachers in all elementary schools were not trained together prior to the implementation of the program. There was no consistency in which to "roll out" the program in each of the schools. When asked questions by teachers in each building, principals and reading teachers answered differently. Distractors abound; the teachers union is very strong and have been fighting the implementation of the program claiming lack of adequate training before implementation and added work responsibilities. This program comes with inherent targets, but they do not always match the targets that we set for our individual students according to GLE's and the RtI model. For example, the program claims to meet the needs of all children, however it is a very slow-paced program and does not meet the needs of our above average learners. What is a teacher to do with the above average children when the district has mandated whole class instruction, 30 minutes per day, using Fundations? Capacity has not been built. Professional development for this program was initiated very late for some of our teachers and then continued in November but it was like putting the cart before the horse. The PD in November should have been done in August prior to implementing the program. There has not been much positive pressure associated with Fundations. Little attention has been paid to teachers who have valuable insights about the implementation thus far. The lack of response to teacher concerns has caused further disenchantment with this program. Finally, Fundations is not the only new initiative for primary teachers this year. The //dots// were not //connected// with //key complementary components//. Too much has been imposed on these teachers at once. We have implemented RtI for literacy, changed our universal assessment from DIBELS to AIMSWeb, and each building has been forced to dictate teachers schedules with little flexibility.
 * A local initiative that is not working:**
 * What went wrong?**

Fundations has some functional and necessary components for the primary classroom. However, it has not been implemented effectively and must be reviewed to determine which students it will most benefit. If the above mentioned structures were used, they would have helped the implementation process. R. Lacobelle
 * Summary:**

//** Identify an initiative introduced at the local, state and/or national level and discuss how accountability, incentive, and capacity building structures were framed and whether the design helped or hindered the implementation. **// In June 2009, the Beginning Educator Support Team (BEST) program was abolished. A Mentor Assistance Program (MAP) Task Force met for several months and prepared a legislative bill. In October 2009, this bill passed as Public Act No. 09-6 and this included the initiative, Teacher Education And Mentoring (TEAM) Program.
 * Educational Initiative Overview**

TEAM is a beginning teacher program that includes guided teacher support and coaching through the completion of five learning modules. TEAM differed from BEST because the goal is to individualize the two year plan for each beginning teacher. The Connecticut State Department of Education (CSDE) is working with the Connecticut Education Association (CEA) and local districts to meet the goal. Although TEAM is currently being implemented, it is a modified version. During the 2009 – 2010 academic year, all stakeholders are working together to develop modules, establish the program guidelines, and organize information / data. Full implementation will take place next year. The CSDE, RESCs, Higher Education Institutions, CEA, local and regional boards, schools, and teachers are the identified stakeholders and each group is responsible for various steps. For example, the CSDE must set goals and distribute funds to local districts. RESCs and Higher Education Institutions are expected to offer training to mentors and administrators, CEA and local associations will provide representation on district committees. Local districts must develop a three year plan, form a district committee, and recruit and pair mentors. Schools are required to administer the state on-line assessment to all beginning teachers, organize mentoring matches by grade, department, etc, and submit an annual report to coordinating committee. All mentors must attend training, provide 50 hours of support over two years, and work with beginning teacher to develop individual plan. And, of course, the beginning teacher is required to work with mentor and complete activities. These are some examples of the responsibilities assigned to each stakeholder group and there is a “checks and balances” system in place to hold all accountable for their assigned tasks. The primary incentive is to support new educators and to ensure their success in the classroom. All stakeholders are will learn through the experience because each group will play a vital role in the certification process. For example, mentors will all receive new training as a result of the implementation of TEAMS. In addition, the BEST program reportedly did not have the long-lasting desired impact. It was shared that beginning teachers often focused on the final portfolio project in the second year instead of the learning and reflective process. The incentive for all is to create a program that truly supports the intense work of a beginning teacher by helping them examine classroom managment, lesson and unit design, instructional and assessment methods, and professional practices. It promises to be a more comprehesive approach to teacher support.
 * Accountability **
 * Incentive **

Essentially, the TEAM program creates different opportunities for districts, schools, and teachers. It has definitely created a sense of excitement and positive energy. Interestingly, teacher certification will now primarily reside at the district or regional level as opposed to the state level. In theory, there are increased opportunities for many to get involved. It remains to be seen if this new initiative will help or hinder the teacher preparation and support. //-Michelle Coogan//
 * Capacity Building Structures **

I'd like to choose the new law on suspensions and expulsions that took effect July 1st. As far as accountability, the state made it very clear they expected districts to lower the numbers of students suspended or expelled, especially in the minority and special education populations. They did this providing a color coded "map" of districts as red (in trouble), green (OK), or yellow (caution). It was clear they expected districts to meet the targets and get in the "green" by requiring a detailed written plan as to how the district would address lowering the percentages for suspensions and expulsions. For incentives, the provided a document explaining the law and rationale and how to change practice. Sanctions would include a visit by a SDE representative and progress monitoring. Districts had one year to make some significant changes to their practice. While the accountability and incentive were clear; I don't feel the capacity building was thought through. This was evident after the districts complained that to restructure their discipline would require more personnel and money and the law was pushed back from 2008 to 2009. Our district began to change discipline consequences based on the law and began instituting other consequences that did not remove students from class. This required the district to provide an after school bus so that students could be required to stay for detentions. Teachers needed to feel that students were receiving strong enough consequences so that they felt supported. Parents needed to be educated on the changes. I don't feel that law-makers always take into account the implications that such laws have on districts and the time needed to change practice. (Jan Saam)

The US Department of Education released this week the final guidance for the Race to the Top grant application. Unlike with past major federal reform efforts, such as NCLB, the feds appear to be taking into consideration the factors that Fullan found to be crucial for successful reform. Under NCLB, the federal government pushed accountability but offered little to no financial support for states and districts nor did it foster capacity building. Under Race to the Top, accountability is still a key factor. One of the major pieces of the application revolves around revising teacher and principal evaluation systems. However, the State is required to have a plan to assist districts in implementing this reform and to provide professional development. And, there is a great financial incentive for districts to comply—Connecticut alone is eligible to receive up to $175 million over three years. In addition, local buy-in is a key component to the application. A district must literally sign-on to the state's reform plan in order to be eligible to receive the federal funds. In addition, greater points are given to the application the more signatures the state can obtain from various stakeholders at the local level-- including superintendents, school board chairs, and local union representatives. It is too early to say whether this approach will be successful but, it is certainly creating interest across the state by a wide variety of stakeholders in the education sector. (Jen Widness)

In the State's introduction of Cambridge and Doug Reeve's "accountability system", it was evident that the Data Team work that was slowing being implemented in schools was the "choice meal". This initiative was definitely going to be used to "push accountability, provide incentives (pressure and supports), and/or foster capacity building". The accountability incentive and capacity building structure were framed as a means to increase academic achievement and close the achievement gaps in Districts which implemented the "Data" system with fidelity. This system would also help Administrators and District personnel identify teachers who needed assistance in instruction (pressure and supports). Through the training being offered, Districts would also be able to identify key personnel to be certified in the three modules of the "Data System" (Data Driven Decision Making and Data Teams, Common Formative Assessments and Effective Teaching Strategies); thus, enabling the material to be turnkeyed in the District at a faster rate by training large numbers of staff that could not be accommodated by the CALI sessions being offered. Last, but not least, the stigma of being a District/School "in need of improvement" would be erased if all structures were implemented and monitored with fidelity.

Even though this design of the "Data" initiative merits a positive approach, there are underlying issues that affect a large Dstrict with limited resources. For example, the lack of substitutes to cover classrooms adds a deterrent to staff needing to attend the training sessions. Due to a lack of coverage, when a school has an in-house training session, it is sometimes difficult to address all participants needed. Scheduling of grade and/or subject area common planning time for teachers imposes another deterrent for some buildings to provide a continuity of training and/or discussion. In the present state of the economy, the lack of resources to provide additional staff to assist in the implementation is an obstacle that should also be noted. Last, but not least, there is still friction with the Union on some issues. Even though the Union has been trying to collaborate with the Distict on the implementation of this initiative, there is still push back when common planning time is used for the purpose of a Data Team Meeting.

With the implementation hindered in some schools, it is evident through State Test scores which schools have been able to reap the rewards of this initiative. It has also shown that some schools have reached a "plateau" (Fullan, p. 245) and are not trying to reach the next stage because they are comfortable with their standings. While others are still struggling to make the five percent gain that has been mandated by the Superintendent to move the District towards achieving gains.

Even though the design is meant to help the implementation of this initiative, the external factors have hindered the progress. In successful schools, it has been the leader's ability to use the principles of "inclusive, facilitative orientation", "institutional focus on student learning", "efficient management" and "combined pressure and support" (Fullan, pp. 160-161) to accomplish the success that is associated with the fidelity of implementation of this initiative. Denise

The state of CT is in the process of revamping the beginning teacher program, (BEST) and is currently in the early stages of developing the new TEAM program. Since it is in the developmental stage districts are being informed about the process and time line. Unlike BEST, the TEAM initiative places the burden of accountability on the individual districts. This poses several problems. Each district must decide how to review the modules, either in district or at a regional site. It isn’t clear how the state will ensure that each district upholds the same standards. The state is in the process of developing training sessions for mentors and districts. Training will begin sometime in December and continue throughout the spring. Mentor’s will be paid $500.00 to mentor one new teacher for each year. The state is holding mentors accountable by requiring that they log a minimum of 10 hours per module on a state website, a total of 50 hours over a two year period. The mentee must also sign off on this. The accountability factor is an improvement over the BEST program and long overdue. The hope is that all new teachers will be mentored and given the same opportunity for success. The implementation will be slow. Second and third year teachers will be required to submit 2 modules during the 2010-2011 school year. Since the state only has one module developed at this time it is unclear if mentors will be ready to help their mentees come September 2010. This new model is a mentoring model therefore training for mentors is critical to the program’s success. At this point training is limited to one full day for update training.  Districts also have a lot of work to do developing their individual induction programs. The success of this initiative remains to be seen. Marianne Johnson

 The Beginning Educator Support and Training Program (BEST) was designed as a form of support and assessment for beginning teachers. This state mandated program was required successful completion in order to advance from an initial to a provisional level certification. Although the program was implemented to raise expectations for quality teacher performance, BEST fell short in the area of sustainability. Expectations and requirements for a “passing score” have varied throughout the program. For some time, portfolios and videos in literacy and numeracy were required for elementary teachers. Last year, this changed to literacy or numeracy with no video component. Additionally, the requirements for passing were also changed. On the surface, BEST appeared to be serve the needs of the state by creating a program that would both support and assess beginning teachers. BEST also provided leadership opportunities for experienced teachers to serve as mentors, seminar leaders, and scorers. However, changes in expectations, requirements, and budgets hindered the sustainability and the future implementation of the program. It will be interesting to follow the developments of the new TEAM initiative and whether or not it is sustainable. (Heather Wachter) Positive Behavior Support (PBS) and Response to Intervention (RTI) are two examples of government initiative for the improvement of student achievement. As all encompassing initiatives, both PBS and RTI are designed to focus schools on how to be held accountable for effective instruction and improved behavior of all students. For example, the amount of instructional time lost because of out of school suspensions in CT during 2007 was over 250k days. During these suspensions students did not receive any direct instruction. Most of these suspensions were for “policy violations.” A deeper examination of this data shows that students who were among those suspended out of school were less likely to be proficient in all areas of standardized testing. Thus, the CT General Assembly passed legislation mandating that schools do whatever they can to keep students in school unless they pose a threat to the greater school community. With this in mind, schools can no longer suspend students and then not take any ownership of low achievement. So in a sense, accountability is that schools are forced to examine data and not make anecdotal judgments about why students are not being successful. With this in mind, both PBS and RTI are not initiatives or programs, but they are a process for educators to follow to address barriers to learning. I don’t believe that either have sufficient support. Simply providing educators with professional development is not enough. For example, as the administrator responsible for my building PBS team, the district has agreed to pay for release time and related expenses so teachers can collaborate on how to better deliver instruction through RTI and improve behavior via PBS. This is good for the 10 members of the team, but how does the team effectively translate our grasp of PBS and RTI to the other 200 staff members which includes teachers, support staff, custodians and security. Technology is also another aspect of support that has not necessarily been helpful. For example, my district has an “RTI Database” that teachers, counselors and administrators are supposed to regularly update the various interventions provided for students not meeting success. Teacher’s finding the time to update the database is a challenge. PBS also has a data collection program titled “SWIS.” “SWIS” also does not correspond with “Powerschool” and therefore might require a double entry of disciplinary data. “Districts can work those details out on their own” was essentially the answer received when this issue was brought up in discussion. Unfortunately districts have already paid the fee associated with the licensing agreement of “SWIS” before knowing whether or not it could be used in conjunction with already existing student management systems. Capacity building under RTI and PBS is best defined based on the development of common language within a school and how that common language can define the culture and climate of a school. A positive climate and culture of a school can transcend leadership. For example, tier one interventions should be nearly the same in all classrooms in a school and simple redirections of minor behavioral infractions might better solve a situation then a referral to the assistant principal. In both examples, student achievement and time on task are what is most important. (Scott Clayton)

Race to the Top is interesting legislation in a variety of ways, but especially regarding the aspects of “ pushing accountability, incentives, and/or foster capacity building.” It introduces accountability in teacher and principal evaluation by requiring states to tie the process to student performance. The competitive grant structure certainly provides incentive for states to commit to the required changes. In Connecticut, local school districts are required to sign up and there is incentive for local boards to have their teacher unions sign alongside the Board of Education. I understand the competitive aspect is spurring innovation as states find ways to make these changes happen, but I feel there is a lack of capacity to do so. I feel the capacity to create a reliable and valid teacher and principal evaluation model tied to student performance is seriously lacking. While I strongly support the concept, I have concerns about such a system in practice. Another capacity issue is the structure of states and their local boards of education. States such as Connecticut are structured under local control, mostly on a town-by-town basis. Other states are more powerful at the state level and will have an easier time implementing the required changes for RTTP. I feel that the competitive nature of RTTP, while spurring innovation, gives great advantage to certain states based on their structure, and encourages states to shoot for innovation while they may not have the time and foresight to build the capacity for such change. (Jason Daly) An area of concern in the field of education pertains to the severity and complexities of the achievement gap. This gap shows great disparity in academic skills of language, literacy and numeracy (as indicated by performance on the Connecticut Mastery Tests) among suburban/urban communities, racial/ethnic subgroups, English Language Learners and students receiving special education services. What we know about the achievement gap is that there are huge disparities in access to learning and school readiness before children even begin kindergarten. In fact, many of the health-risk factors exist from birth, and often are hardest hit in our already struggling urban districts. I am interested in the efforts that the State Department of Education is taking in examining these factors and finding ways to provide early intervention to children and families before these children enter school. It is obviously a commitment extends into a multitude of state agencies such as Children and Families, Social Services, etc. Currently, a committee combining consultants from Education, the Department of Children and Families, the Child Advocacy Group and other vested parties meet regularly to find ways to prepare all children for kindergarten. By using the Results-Based Accountability process, the State Department of Education is looking at statewide trends and program performance. For the last few years, kindergarten teachers are state mandated to complete a fall and spring Kindergarten Inventory. The inventory is completed by the classroom teacher for each child demonstrating a performance level ranging from 1 to 3 on the domains of Language Skills, Literacy Skills, Numeracy Skills, Physical/Motor Skills, Creative/Aesthetic Skills and Personal/Social Skills. Teachers differentiate the performance of each domain by determining how often/consistent a child demonstrates these skills and with how much instructional support is needed by a classroom teacher. In the spring, the kindergarten teachers complete another survey that demonstrates the skills that their kindergärtners have mastered as they exit Kindergarten, reported using the same domains and performance levels. For the first time, we are learning about the children that enter and exit our Kindergarten programs. This is an example of government working hard towards accountability for our earliest learners. If you are interested in this topic, two of my colleagues published a data bulletin that examines the Kindergarten class of 2006-2007. They examined a host of risk factors for children in this group and examined data on the differences in age of entrance, at risk indicators at birth etc. @http://www.csde.state.ct.us/public/cedar/databulletins/index.htm.

-DD The initiative under my consideration is the USDE Reading First Grant realized at the state level. ** Accountability: ** At the state level, SDE did not require Reading First schools to be measured against each other; data was kept quiet – schools/districts were measured only against themselves. The outcome accountability that determined whether districts could continue with the second extension of the grant was whether districts could successfully disseminate grant findings/changes in implementation to district non-grant schools. ** Incentives (pressures & supports): ** Pressure to drop schools from the grant if changes were not made occurred twice. The leverage from SDE resulted in changes that the schools through their on impetus could not achieve. Support from SDE was virtually non-existent (other than stated above); support needed in the form of Fuller’s volunteer Turnaround Program from the Capacity Building section would have been excellent. ** Capacity Building Structures: ** · Professional Development: monthly state-wide conferences and annual nationwide conferences built capacity – but would have been better linked to **//ID/Share//**//, **Turnaround Program** and **Case Study**// · Improvement Plans: it was a mistake not to have these written annually; when we reapplied for the grant – an amazing amount productive analysis was done with links to an action plan. This would have been done better had it been annual under the direction of SDE and shared among grant districts. · **// Identifying and Sharing Effective Practices //** : this was not well enough done at the state level; SDE was able to identify best practices – but never figured out a plan to systematically get them replicated. State-wide, grant personnel from schools and districts received stand and deliver PD -- but actually getting best practices into other schools failed. · Develop Resource Material: untold resources were available; almost to the point that there was a surplus of material, and so many different kinds of materials that they became a distraction. <span style="color: navy; font-family: Symbol; mso-bidi-font-family: Symbol; mso-fareast-font-family: Symbol; msobidifontfamily: Symbol; msofareastfontfamily: Symbol; msolist: Ignore;">· **// Conduct Case Studies of Districts with Good Results //** : this is closely related to ID/Sharing Effective Practices, which I consider a formalization of recognizing effective practices and resultant increases in student achievement <span style="color: navy; font-family: Symbol; mso-bidi-font-family: Symbol; mso-fareast-font-family: Symbol; msobidifontfamily: Symbol; msofareastfontfamily: Symbol; msolist: Ignore;">· **// Build Assessment Literacy //** : a short-coming on the part of SDE; again, there were schools and districts with assessment best practices, but SDE was unable to **//ID/Effectively Share//** these practices. <span style="color: navy; font-family: Symbol; mso-bidi-font-family: Symbol; mso-fareast-font-family: Symbol; msobidifontfamily: Symbol; msofareastfontfamily: Symbol; msolist: Ignore;">· **// Lead Literacy Teachers //** : this was well done by SDE relative to the grant – but part of building Lead Literacy Teacher capacity that SDE missed was relative to **//Assessment Building//** especially relative to **//ID/Sharing Effective Practices//.** <span style="color: navy; font-family: Symbol; mso-bidi-font-family: Symbol; mso-fareast-font-family: Symbol; msobidifontfamily: Symbol; msofareastfontfamily: Symbol; msolist: Ignore;">· Turnaround School Program: SDE missed this one; we should have, as school/district/cross-district grant teams been provided with, and participated in, this type of initiative. This would have been genius – rescuing under implementation of the grant and providing capacity building within a cadre of teachers, reading specialist, language arts consultants, and school, district and state administrators. (JFreeman)