A r c h i v e d  I n f o r m a t i o n

Background

The Nine-Site Program Improvement Initiative was launched in 1990 to examine how sustained technical assistance at the school site can contribute to Chapter 1 program improvement. The Department of Education (ED) was particularly interested in examining the process and seeing the effects of changing the way Chapter 1 technical assistance has been traditionally provided, which has been through work of a non-intensive nature at the State and school district levels.

Under this initiative, the Department of Education provided additional resources to the Chapter 1 Technical Assistance Centers (TACs) and Rural Chapter 1 Technical Assistance Centers (RTACs) to provide sustained assistance to schools identified as needing program improvement in nine sites around the country. The sites included: Baltimore, Chicago, Detroit, Los Angeles, Dade County (Florida), Pike County (Kentucky), a cluster of schools in Iowa, nine schools in six districts in Mississippi, and seven schools administered by the Bureau of Indian Affairs. Technical assistance activities began in the 1990-91 school year and ended at the close of the 1992-93 school year.

This evaluation examined the features of the technical assistance services as well as outcomes during the third year of the initiative. Findings from an earlier formative evaluation of activities during the second year of the initiative are included in this report as well.

Key Findings

• The sites were not predisposed to use technical assistance for several reasons. Identification for Chapter 1 program improvement (meaning the process that identifies schools that did not show achievement gains for Chapter 1 students) did not generate much sustained interest or commitment. Other reform initiatives, particularly in urban areas, competed with the 9-site effort.

• The intensity of participation in the initiative was modest. Approximately one-third of the schools originally participating in the initiative dropped out by the third year. In that year, the average amount of assistance to individual schools was 40 hours. In three sites, schools received assistance every month, whereas in the other sites schools received assistance sometimes as few as two or three times during the year.

• The primary purpose of the assistance was to transmit information. Assistance usually included training in new instructional practices, help with program administration, and help related to local or state initiatives. The assistance strategies that were most ambitious focused on grounding teachers in the research and rationales underlying whole language, literature-based language arts, and the teaching of problem solving and other advanced skills in mathematics.

• Strategies for organizing assistance and the results varied greatly. TACs/RTACs achieved economies of scale by serving groups of schools in the same activities. In Iowa, assistance involved teams of teachers and administrators from each school, who participated in a series of activities connected to a clear framework. In sites where a clear content focus and a well-defined strategy guided assistance, the effect was likely to be cumulative.

There were four positive outcomes of the initiative:

• In all sites, there was evidence of increased understanding of Chapter 1 regulations and requirements, achievement test data, and new instructional techniques.

• In several sites, participation in technical assistance appeared to contribute to increased collegiality and professional confidence among teachers.

• In two sites, technical assistance contributed to changes in district administration of Chapter 1.

• In all sites, educators who were familiar with the technical assistance services gave them high marks for quality and responsiveness to local concerns and they appreciated the opportunity to develop long-term relationships with the TACs/RTACs as well as the opportunity for at least limited follow up visits.

Despite these positive outcomes, a central finding of this evaluation is that the technical assistance had a limited impact in the participating schools. The study identified four reasons for the lack of impact:

• Assistance was linked to program improvement, an unpopular and incompletely understood federal mandate, with the result that it was difficult to initiate the technical assistance activities and there was little interest in and commitment to them once they began.

• Technical assistance content and strategies were, for the most part, determined by the TACs/RTACs and local administrators, with little or no input from teachers.

• Technical assistance was not strongly linked to other reform initiatives or local visions of how Chapter 1 schools might be better.

• There was limited support and encouragement for teachers to participate in the assistance activities or to work on related improvement tasks.

The report concludes that if the Department of Education wants to use school-level technical assistance to help to fundamentally redesign education for disadvantaged students, it should consider the following options:

1. Through competitive procurements and revamping reporting requirements, give assistance providers incentives to go beyond conveying information about successful practice to foster professional development of teachers.

2. Create a technical assistance network that connects to and leverages state and local support for professional development linked to new standards and content.

3. Create an assistance network organized primarily around themes or topics, rather than categorical programs, and including both process and content specialists.

4. Integrate new technologies into the technical assistance network.

5. Support capacity building for the providers of technical assistance.

Copies of The Third-Year Evaluation of the Nine-Site Program Improvement Initiative are available by writing the Planning and Evaluation Service, Office of the Under Secretary, U.S. Department of Education, 400 Maryland Avenue, S.W., Room 3127, Washington, DC 20202-8240 or calling (202)401-0590.

-###-

Return to Elementary and Secondary Education Page

mail to esed@ed.gov

Last update September 1996 (swz).