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

Section IV
High-Quality Technical Assistance
and Support for Schoolwide Planning

ESEA makes various kinds of assistance available to schools during the year-long schoolwide program planning period. Section 1117 of Title I, Part A calls on state education agencies to establish comprehensive and integrated systems of—intensive and sustained support and improvement—for schools that choose the schoolwide option. This support ensures that schoolwide programs receive the technical assistance they need to assess student needs and devise strategies so that all students meet high state standards. In addition, the law encourages universities and federal and state regional service centers to collaborate in helping schools initiate schoolwide programs.

Major types of technical support include school support team (SST) systems, distinguished educators, distinguished schools, and other agencies.

School Support Team Systems

School support team systems vary widely. Most include a core group of teachers and administrators who have successfully implemented changes in their own schools. Other members may include technical assistance consultants, university experts, and community advocates. The teams use their combined expertise to help peers who are just beginning the schoolwide process.

No two SSTs function alike; each is influenced by state and local mandates and arrangements. Therefore, such issues as who organizes the teams, criteria for team membership and standards for selection, the time commitment of members, and reimbursement arrangements vary from state to state. This section describes three examples of effective SSTs.

Good SSTs do share many qualities. All members are seasoned practitioners with diverse experiences, talents, and perspectives. They possess many skills that they have applied in different circumstances and contexts. Team membership is not fixed; a team may include teachers, pupil services personnel, and representatives from Comprehensive Centers and Regional Educational Laboratories who have helped schools implement successful schoolwide programs. Members are conversant in the research relevant to schoolwide programs and can use research evidence to recommend changes in instructional methods, to form community partnerships, or to improve student assessment.

Support teams can give school planning teams fresh ideas and feedback on the planning process. Some schools use SSTs to provide professional development or identify resources for changing instruction and organization. After a schoolwide plan is finished, support team members can review the school's progress and help revise the plan.

Example 1: Texas SSTs. School officials in Texas worked through the state's 20 regional education service centers to test their design for SSTs before sending the teams out to schools in large numbers. One finding stood out: Establishing an atmosphere of trust and mutual respect is the first order of business if a school's staff is to participate in the kind of self-assessment needed for comprehensive school improvement.

In the Texas design, schools that were slated to receive help from an SST first hosted a "pre-visit" from the designated SST coordinator; later, the entire team visited the school. Although the SSTs addressed different issues depending on local needs, they structured their initial visits to help the school through the early planning phases and to bolster the school's decision-making capacity. After the initial visit, support team members conferred with school staff by telephone, helped them obtain materials and resources, and paid follow-up visits as needed. As the support team validated the accomplishments, challenges, and autonomy of the schools they assisted, they modeled important attributes of change agents and facilitators that school-based team leaders soon learned (Ginsberg, Johnson, & Moffett, 1997, pp. 6-7).

The Texas process yielded several different SST models, each of which reflected local needs and incorporated emerging lessons. Across the board, however, support teams found they could be immediately helpful to schools in the following areas (Ginsberg, Johnson, & Moffett, 1997, p. 10):

• Facilitating the development of strong partnerships among schoolwide program stakeholders

• Determining the kind of planning process schools need to develop their schoolwide plan

• Reconceptualizing how Title I and other federal, state, and local programs can work together to support state and local school reform efforts

• Appreciating the school's responsibility to ensure that all children have access to the services they need to meet challenging academic standards

• Helping schools identify research-based strategies that support comprehensive school reform

• Promoting sustained, intensive, high-quality technical assistance that improves the capacity of school staff to work effectively in a schoolwide program

• Identifying measures schools can use to assess needs, academic progress, professional expertise, and capacity building

• Establishing ongoing mechanisms for gauging student progress and for adapting the schoolwide program accordingly

• Developing the management framework that allows school staff eventually to run the schoolwide program on their own

Example 2: Colorado SSTs. The Colorado Department of Education (CDE) elicits nominations for school support teams from school and state agency staff, higher education personnel, private consultants, and others. After being screened, eligible candidates attend a three-day inservice session on the roles and responsibilities of a school support team member, schoolwide reform and change, and other topics pertaining to successful schoolwide programs. After candidates complete the inservice, the CDE selects SST members and distributes profiles of their education and work experience to schools planning schoolwide programs.

As school teams begin schoolwide planning, they review the SST profiles to identify potential team leaders. They then can either contact the CDE for more information or notify the individual directly. Either way, school staff and the team leader confirm arrangements with the CDE.

Once the team leader is confirmed, he or she may begin working with the school. The team leader contacts and meets with the district Title I director to review the district's goals, philosophy, structure, and any other relevant information about programs or policies. It enhances coordination if other federal program directors also participate in this meeting. The team leader then meets with school staff to help with planning. After the school has completed its internal analysis and identified its schoolwide goals, the team leader and school staff identify other team members whose knowledge and skills will be instrumental in developing a schoolwide plan.

After each visit, the team prepares a report and submits it to the CDE. These reports enable the state agency to monitor the effectiveness of SST activities. The state department of education also sponsors monthly SST meetings so members can discuss support activities at individual schools, identify areas of concern, and review CDE policies and procedures. CDE personnel also shadow support teams throughout the year to ensure that teams and schools are working together effectively.

Support team assistance does not end when the CDE approves a school's plan. During the first year of implementation, SST members help schools pilot, evaluate, and revise (if necessary) the plan's components. Again, during this phase, teams document their visits for the CDE so the state agency can tailor its professional development and other support activities to address the needs of Colorado schools.

Example 3: New York SSTs. Like Texas, New York State organizes its school support teams through statewide regional networks. It uses both full-time staff and part-time consultants, who are often practitioners from schools or recently retired principals or teachers who volunteer on the teams.

In schools that are taking the first steps toward change, support team members help assess needs and strengths and guide site councils and teams through planning. In schools with planning experience, support teams identify research-based instructional practices, help integrate those practices into classroom and school activities, and suggest continuing evaluation mechanisms. The SEA recruits and selects SST members on the advice of a statewide, practitioner-based advisory committee. All candidates have experience and success in schoolwide improvement efforts.

Niagara Falls (New York) City Schools turned to its Regional Coordinating Center to help prepare 13 schools to institute schoolwide programs. The district had previously adopted "total quality management" (TQM) as its strategic planning mechanism, so it used TQM to coordinate schoolwide and district planning. The school system combined its ESEA resources with state and local funds to underwrite a districtwide renewal process that began with training for school board members and district administrators, followed by training for principals and their quality site councils.

Niagara Falls's school system first connected schools to state-sponsored assistance teams and then provided its own local support as the planning went forward. Gaskill Middle School principal Gary Meyers reports:

We had liaisons at the state level, called "angels." If you needed help with your schoolwide program, they helped you get a plan off the ground. The angels were available at statewide conferences to help write strategic plans, understand standards, and [interpret] effective practices.... Also, when we were planning, the district sent someone here to help us. They gave us statistics that aligned our instruction with the state tests and helped us identify the skills we needed to focus on...based on our New York State School Report Card.

According to Cynthia Bianco, Niagara Falls's assistant to the superintendent of schools, all schools in the district now have fully integrated their ESEA programs. "We. . . weave these programs together strategically into a seamless web of support. . . Each one is value added to the basic program. . .Title I is not discrete from Title II or Title IV."

Distinguished Educators, Distinguished Schools, and Other Technical Assistance

Along with SSTs, states are identifying distinguished educators and school officials who can help schools plan schoolwide programs. Distinguished educators usually are staff from schools with exemplary schoolwide programs in which children have made substantial progress toward the state's performance standards. Distinguished educators offer intensive and sustained consultation to schools that are farthest from meeting performance standards or developing schoolwide programs. They may serve as members of planning teams or work with planning teams and school staff when special issues arise.

Distinguished schools are schools that exceed the state's definition of adequate progress for three consecutive years and exemplify continuous improvement and achievement. Staff from these schools become mentors for teachers in other schools that are developing schoolwide programs. In return for helping other schools to improve their programs, distinguished schools may receive funds for their own education programs, participate in special projects or professional development opportunities, or recognize and reward exemplary performance among their own staff.

In some cases, districts pool federal, state, or local resources to propel schoolwide planning. The Flint Hills Special Education Cooperative (FHSEC) in Emporia, Kansas, combined funds from seven school districts to create a regional resource to assist participating schools and districts. From participating districts, the FHSEC convened a leadership team of teachers, principals, and central office administrative staffs. Over the course of a year, the school representatives developed a strategic plan with organizing themes for each school's comprehensive planning process.

The participating schools conducted their own needs assessments and devised school-level plans reflecting their own accountability to the regional strategic planning goals. In working and team-building meetings throughout the summer and school year, FHSEC technical experts help the school and district teams to combine resources from multiple funding sources and refocus their instructional programs on students rather than on programs. Several schools are using multi-disciplinary, school-based "child study teams" as a mechanism for understanding individual student needs and for changing teaching and learning to promote high expectations for student achievement.

In one school, the FHSEC team is developing alternative assessment strategies that teachers can use to understand students' educational needs. Multi-disciplinary teams continuously assess every child in the school. Classroom teachers (including special educators and ESL/migrant specialists), diagnostic specialists, counselors, social workers, and psychologists meet for four hours a week to assess each student's academic progress, brainstorm intervention strategies, and plan the in-class assistance each student will receive. Parents and community members also serve on the team. The team analyzes and assesses students' needs and then designs, monitors, and modifies interventions as needed. This approach connects support services personnel with teachers and allows the team to build on each member's strengths, creating better services and opportunities for students.

The federal government also supports regional agencies that assist schools and districts. Those with the greatest expertise in schoolwide programs are Regional Educational Laboratories (RELs), Comprehensive Centers (CCs), and Research and Development Centers (R&D Centers). Universities, colleges, and professional associations also provide technical assistance to schools and districts. For more information, see the resource section of this volume.

think about this. . .

Good Technical Assistance Builds a School's Own Capacity

At Lincoln Elementary School in Grants Pass, Oregon, strategic planning began almost two years before the schoolwide plan was implemented. After the schoolwide team—including the principal, various staff, and parents—met with Oregon's distinguished educators and consultants from RMC Research Corporation's regional Technical Assistance Center, Lincoln adopted the Oregon/RMC four-step planning process for school improvement. Planners assessed and prioritized needs and defined a mission. The team surveyed the staff and community, examined research, involved parents in data analyses and decision making, and set accountability standards based on reviews of students' work. Members attended national and statewide meetings and contacted university professors to learn more about developing assessment strategies.

"We looked at things holistically, kind of like weaving a rug," a team member reported. The staff—not outsiders—defined the plan but periodically revisited the RMC-recommended process. Before the plan was finalized, more data were gathered, priorities were reorganized, and the whole plan was readjusted by the site council. Every fall and spring, the school updates its plan. "Our focus is on growth rather than on raw scores or arbitrary figures," explained consulting teacher Diane Mease.

-###-

[Section III-Planning Schoolwide..Change]

[Section V-Sustaining Schoolwide Programs through...]