Archived Information

  -----------------------------------------------------------------------
  [Planning and Evaluation Service]{.smallcaps}

  -----------------------------------------------------------------------

![](media/image1.jpeg)

**[Comprehensive Regional Assistance Centers Program:]{.smallcaps}**

**[Final Report on the Evaluation]{.smallcaps}**

**[Volume II: Case Studies of Center Services to State and Local Sites
and Case Studies of Collaborative Activities]{.smallcaps}**

[2000]{.smallcaps}

![](media/image2.wmf){width="1.5152777777777777in"
height="1.632638888888889in"}

  ----------------------------------- -----------------------------------
  **[U.S. Department of               **[Office of the Under
  Education]{.smallcaps}**            Secretary]{.smallcaps}**

  **[Doc. #2000-20]{.smallcaps}**     
  ----------------------------------- -----------------------------------

This report was prepared for the U.S. Department of Education under
Contract Number 94053001. The views expressed herein are those of the
contractor. No official endorsement by the U.S. Department of Education
is intended or should be inferred.

**U.S. Department of Education**

Richard W. Riley

*Secretary*

**Office of the Under Secretary**

Judith A. Winston

*Under Secretary*

**Planning and Evaluation Service**

Alan L. Ginsburg

*Director*

**Elementary and Secondary Education Division**

Ricky T. Takai

*Director*

September 2000

This report is in the public domain. Authorization to reproduce it in
whole or in part is granted. While permission to reprint this
publication is not necessary, the citation should be: U.S. Department of
Education, Office of the Under Secretary, Planning and Evaluation
Service, Elementary and Secondary Education Division, *Comprehensive
Regional Assistance Centers: Final Report on the Evaluation.*

*Volume II: Case Studies of Center Services to State and Local Sites and
Case Studies of Collaborative Activities*, Washington, D.C., 20202.

To order copies of this report, write:

ED Pubs

Education Publications Center

U. S. Department of Education

P. O. Box 1398

Jessup, MD 20794-1398;

via fax, dial (301) 470-1244;

or via electronic mail, send your request to: <edpubs@inet.ed.gov>.

You may also call toll-free: 1-877-433-7827 (1-877-4-ED-PUBS). If 877
service is not yet available in your area, call 1-800-872-5327
(1-800-USA-LEARN); Those who use a telecommunications device for the
deaf (TDD) or a teletypewriter (TTY), should call 1-800-437-0833.

To order online, point your Internet browser to:
[www.ed.gov/pubs/edpubs.html](http://www.ed.gov/pubs/edpubs.html).

This report is also available on the Department's Web site at:
www.ed.gov/offices/OUS/eval/.

On request, this publication is available in alternative formats, such
as Braille, large print, audiotape, or computer diskette. For more
information, please contact the Department's Alternate Format Center
(202) 260-9895 or (202) 205-8113.

**COMPREHENSIVE REGIONAL ASSISTANCE CENTERS PROGRAM:**

**FINAL REPORT ON THE EVALUATION**

**Volume II: Case Studies of Center Services to State and Local Sites**

**and Case Studies of Collaborative Activities**

Policy Studies Associates

Washington, D.C.

Prepared for:

U.S. Department of Education

Office of the Under Secretary

2000

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

Many people contributed to the development of the case studies in this
volume of the report. We would like to thank the staff in our case study
sites who hosted our visits, participated in in-depth interviews, and
reviewed early drafts of these case studies. We would also like to thank
the Comprehensive Center staff who helped identify case study sites and
participated in interviews themselves. Without the cooperation of all
these professionals, this volume would not have been possible.

We would also like to thank the following current and former colleagues
who conducted site visits and drafted these profiles:

> Anne M. Castle Mari Parker
>
> Lara Fabiano Ellen M. Pechman
>
> M. Bruce Haslam Derek L. Riley
>
> David Kauffman Michael C. Rubenstein
>
> Catherine T. Kelliher Karen P. Walking Eagle
>
> Mary S. Leighton Jessica K. Wodatch
>
> Dan Odenwald Catherine Zudack

Catherine Kelliher, David Kauffman, and Dwayne Smith edited this volume
of the report. Benjamin Lagueruela and Kimberly Thomas provided valuable
production support.

Catherine T. Kelliher

Katrina G. Laguarda

CONTENTS

> [Page]{.underline}

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS iii

CONTENTS v

THE COMPREHENSIVE REGIONAL ASSISTANCE CENTER PROGRAM AT A GLANCE vii

OVERVIEW: CASE STUDIES OF COMPREHENSIVE CENTER SERVICES TO STATES

AND LOCAL SITES 1

Comprehensive Center Services to States

> Hawaii 5
>
> Maryland 17
>
> Massachusetts 29
>
> Mississippi 39
>
> New Mexico 49
>
> New York 59
>
> Texas 69
>
> Comprehensive Center Services to Local Sites
>
> Cognitively Guided Instruction 81
>
> Kingston Unified School District 95
>
> Mountainview School District 107
>
> North Carolina ESL Clusters 119
>
> The Reading Success Network in San Bernardino and Orange Counties,
> California 133
>
> Richmond Elementary School 147
>
> Riverside Public Schools 161
>
> Snowbank School District 171

OVERVIEW: CASE STUDIES OF COLLABORATIVE ACTIVITIES BETWEEN AND AMONG
COMPREHENSIVE CENTERS AND OTHER TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE PROVIDERS 185

> Civil Rights Project 189
>
> Comprehensive School Reform Demonstration Program 193
>
> Data Strategies Initiative 199
>
> Reading Success Network 203
>
> Self-Assessment Guide for Excellent Services (SAGES) for Children and
> Youth in Homeless Situations 207
>
> Services to Rural Areas in Comprehensive Center Region IX 211
>
> Services to the Pacific Region 215
>
> Superintendents' Policy Institute 219

**The Comprehensive Regional Assistance Centers Program at a Glance**

The Comprehensive Regional Assistance Centers help states, school
districts, and schools meet the educational needs of children served
under ESEA. As of September 2000, 15 regional centers are being operated
under cooperative agreements by the following grantees. Telephone
numbers and Web addresses follow their names and locations.

**Region I (Connecticut, Maine, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, Rhode
Island, and Vermont):** New England Comprehensive Assistance Center,
Education Development Center, Inc., Newton, Mass., (800) 332-0226,
www.edc.org/NECAC/.

**Region II (New York):** New York Technical Assistance Center, the
Metropolitan Center for Urban Education at New York University, New
York, N.Y., (800) 4NYU-224 or (212) 998-5100,
www.nyu.edu/education/metrocenter/nytac/nytac.html.

**Region III (Delaware, District of Columbia, Maryland, New Jersey,
Ohio, and Pennsylvania):** Region III Comprehensive Center at the George
Washington University, Center for Equity and Excellence in Education,
George Washington University, Arlington, Va., (800) 925-3223 or (703)
528-3588, r3cc.ceee.gwu.edu.

**Region IV (Kentucky, North Carolina, South Carolina, Tennessee,
Virginia, and West Virginia):** Region IV Comprehensive Center at AEL,
Appalachia Educational Laboratory, Inc., Arlington, Va., (800) 755-3277,
www.ael.org/cac/.

**Region V (Alabama, Arkansas, Georgia, Louisiana, and Mississippi):**
Southeast Comprehensive Assistance Center, Southwest Educational
Development Laboratory, Metairie, La., (504) 838-6861 or (800) 644-8671,
www.sedl.org/secac/welcome.html.

**Region VI (Iowa, Michigan, Minnesota, North Dakota, South Dakota, and
Wisconsin):** Region VI Comprehensive Assistance Center, University of
Wisconsin-Madison, Madison, Wis., (888) 862-7763 or (608) 263-4220,
www.wcer.wisc.edu/ccvi/.

**Region VII (Illinois, Indiana, Kansas, Missouri, Nebraska, and
Oklahoma):** Region VII Comprehensive Center, University of Oklahoma,
Norman, Okla., (800) 228-1766 or (405) 325-1729, region7.ou.edu.

**Region VIII (Texas):** STAR (Support for Texas Academic Renewal)
Center, Intercultural Development Research Association, San Antonio,
Tex., (888) FYI-STAR, www.starcenter.org/.

**Region IX (Arizona, Colorado, Nevada, New Mexico, and Utah):**
Southwest Comprehensive Regional Assistance Center, New Mexico Highlands
University, Rio Rancho, N.Mex., (505) 891-6111,
www.cesdp.nmhu.edu/swcc/.

**Region X (Idaho, Montana, Oregon, Washington, and Wyoming):**
Northwest Regional Educational Laboratory's Comprehensive Center, Region
X, Northwest Regional Educational Laboratory, Portland, Ore., (503)
275-9500, www.nwrac.org.

**Region XI (Northern California):** Region XI Comprehensive Assistance
Center, WestEd, San Francisco, Calif., (800) 645-3276,
www.wested.org/cc/.

**Region XII (Southern California):** Southern California Comprehensive
Assistance Center, Los Angeles County Office of Education, Downey,
Calif., (562) 922-6343, sccac.lacoe.edu.

**Region XIII (Alaska):** Alaska Comprehensive Regional Assistance
Center, Southeast Regional Resource Center, Juneau, Alaska, (888)
43-AKRAC or (907) 586-6806, www.akrac.k12.ak.us.

**Region XIV (Florida, Puerto Rico, Virgin Islands):** Region XIV
Comprehensive Center, Educational Testing Service, Tampa, Fla., (800)
756-9003, www.ets.org/ccxiv.

Region XV (Hawaii, American Samoa, Federated States of Micronesia, Guam,
Republic of the Marshall Islands, Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana
Islands, and Republic of Palau): Pacific Comprehensive Regional
Assistance Center, Pacific Resources for Education and Learning,
Honolulu, Hawaii, (808) 441-1300, www.prel.org.

OVERVIEW: CASE STUDIES OF COMPREHENSIVE CENTER SERVICES TO STATES AND
LOCAL SITES

To better understand the nature, intensity, and effects of Comprehensive
Center services to customers, Policy Studies Associates, Inc., (PSA) of
Washington, D.C., conducted case studies of center services to state and
local sites (districts, schools, or groups of schools). PSA selected
case study sites from nominations made by PSA staff members, in
consultation with Comprehensive Center staff, after the initial phase of
site visits to the Comprehensive Centers. For each region, PSA site
visitors nominated at least one state and one local site in which the
Comprehensive Center had worked intensively and where we might
reasonably expect to observe the effects of center services at the time
of the data collection. Because we were interested in studying the
effects of Comprehensive Center services on individuals and
organizations, we limited our sample to those cases where the centers
had been working intensively enough and for long enough to produce
effects.

From a group of 34 nominations, PSA selected a sample of seven states
and six local sites. The sample, which was approved by the U.S.
Department of Education (ED), was selected with attention to the
following criteria:

-   Variation in geographic and demographic characteristics.

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   Technical assistance that reflects the key priorities of the
    Comprehensive Centers program, including enhancing states' and
    districts' capacities to deliver high-quality technical assistance
    in support of Elementary and Secondary Schools Act (ESEA) programs,
    and improving student achievement in reading or mathematics.

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   For state case studies, variation between multi-state Comprehensive
    Center regions and single-state regions.

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   For local case studies, sites that serve high proportions of poor
    children.

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   Variation in the kinds of services delivered to local sites.

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   Variation in the type of customers served.

The seven state case study sites include:

1.  Hawaii: The Region XV Pacific Comprehensive Regional Assistance
    Center provides services to the Hawaii Department of Education. The
    assistance can be classified as (1) direct services to teachers,
    administrators, Title I staff, and state education agency (SEA)
    staff; (2) research, data, and connection to other organizations,
    individuals, and resources; and (3) collaboration and consultation
    regarding the planning and implementation of activities.

2.  Maryland: The Region III Comprehensive Center organizes its
    assistance to the Maryland State Department of Education through two
    state liaisons. Technical assistance activities include training and
    professional development for school staff and administrators;
    support to the SEA around grant applications; sponsoring and leading
    meetings; disseminating research; and developing products and tools
    to meet specific needs.

3.  Massachusetts: The Region I New England Comprehensive Assistance
    Center supports the reform efforts of the Massachusetts Department
    of Education through strategic assistance in the areas of schoolwide
    reform, data-driven decision making, and literacy. The state relies
    on the center to strengthen state processes for carrying out
    reforms.

4.  Mississippi: The Region V Southeast Comprehensive Assistance Center
    provides assistance to the Mississippi Department of Education (MDE)
    and the state's Regional Service Centers (RSCs) through a state
    liaison with close ties to the SEA. The center's services include
    activities designed to build the capacity of MDE and RSC staff to
    deliver technical assistance; consultations; and workshops,
    trainings, and conferences.

5.  New Mexico: The Region IX Southwest Comprehensive Regional
    Assistance Center supports the reform agenda of the New Mexico
    Department of Education and tailors services to best address the
    state's needs. The center provides services to the state's 11
    critically low-performing schools; training to the state's school
    support teams; and assistance with grant applications.

6.  New York: The Region II New York Technical Assistance Center
    organizes its staff around the New York State Department of
    Education's organization. Three regional teams serve different parts
    of the state, and one team serves the SEA directly. Center
    activities include assistance with federal program integration;
    support to the Title I and Comprehensive School Demonstration
    Programs; and building state and local capacity for reform.

7.  Texas: The Region VIII Support for Texas Academic Renewal (STAR)
    Center provides services to the Texas Education Agency and the SEA's
    technical assistance arm, the Education Service Centers (ESCs). The
    center delivers training to ESC, district, and school staff,
    disseminates research and center products, and collaborates with ESC
    staff on various projects.

In the case of the six local case study sites, PSA changed the names of
districts and schools so that individual respondents could not be
identified. The local case study sites include:

1.  [Cognitively Guided Instruction (CGI)]{.underline}: The Region VI
    Comprehensive Assistance Center sponsors training institutes in CGI
    for educators across the country. CGI is a mathematics program based
    on problem solving for students in grades K-3. The center hosted
    three five-day institutes between summer 1998 and summer 1999.

2.  [Kingston Unified School District]{.underline}: The Region XI
    Comprehensive Assistance Center helped the Kingston Unified School
    District make a districtwide transition to schoolwide programs. The
    center also offered consultation on federal programs and capacity
    building and leadership training for school teams and principals.

3.  [Mountainview School District]{.underline}: The Region X
    Comprehensive Center provided an array of services to this small
    district located on an Indian reservation. The center's services
    included assistance in developing a Title I schoolwide program,
    disaggregating student achievement data, and aligning curriculum
    with state and local standards.

4.  [North Carolina English as a Second Language (ESL)
    Clusters]{.underline}: The Region IV Comprehensive Center at the
    Appalachia Educational Library (AEL) provides services related to
    ESL instruction to 23 districts in North Carolina. The districts
    were organized geographically into three clusters. The center
    organizes its training around the Lab School model.

5.  [The Reading Success Network (RSN) in San Bernardino and Orange
    Counties, California]{.underline}: The Region XII Southern
    California Comprehensive Assistance Center delivers training related
    to the RSN through each of its eight partner county offices of
    education. Approximately 150 to 175 of the 211 schools in the
    network reside in San Bernardino and Orange Counties.

6.  [Richmond Elementary School]{.underline}: Richmond Elementary School
    is one of six model schools selected to receive intensive services
    from the Region XIV Comprehensive Center. The center has helped the
    school implement its Continuous Progress model, enhance instruction
    to bilingual and migrant students, and involve teachers in the
    Reading Success Network sponsored by the Region XIV Comprehensive
    Center.

7.  [Riverside Public Schools]{.underline}: The Region VII Comprehensive
    Center worked with Riverside Public Schools to train teams of
    teachers and administrators from schools with high populations of
    limited English proficient students in various instructional
    strategies. The center also facilitated the district's involvement
    in the Reading Success Network.

8.  [Snowbank School District]{.underline}: The Region XIII Alaska
    Regional Comprehensive Assistance Center assisted the Snowbank
    School District in developing Alaska Onward to Excellence (AOTE).
    Through AOTE schools form leadership cadres, which set goals for
    student performance, use data to assess schoolwide progress, and
    guide the development and adoption of educational programs.

The case studies examine a center's portfolio of products and services
to the state or local site and how the center's and site's interactions
have progressed over time. PSA site visitors worked with a site contact
to identify the parameters of the case and appropriate respondents. In
cases where the Comprehensive Center had worked with a large number of
schools in a local site or a large number of intermediate agencies at
the state level, we selected a sample of schools or agencies on which to
focus during the site visit. Once the parameters of the case had been
set, PSA worked with the site contact to schedule interviews with both
customers and potential customers of the Comprehensive Centers.

During the spring and summer of 1999, PSA conducted two-person visits to
each state and local site. Site visitors, guided by case-specific
protocols, interviewed a range of individuals in each site with
different roles, responsibilities, perspectives, and experiences.
Respondents included individuals who received direct services from the
center, as well as those who had not had direct contact with the center
but who were knowledgeable about their organization's use of external
assistance to achieve its reform goals. Finally, PSA interviewed
Comprehensive Center staffeither in person or via telephonewho were
actively involved in providing services to the site.

The case studies begin by describing state and local contexts for
reform, including the site's progress in carrying out Elementary and
Secondary Schools Act reforms, and how the center and site established
their relationship. In addition to highlighting the center's portfolio
of products and services, the case studies explore how center services
were planned, the relative benefits of the center compared with other
technical assistance providers, and the center's and site's plans for
continuing work. The case studies conclude with a discussion of
Comprehensive Center effects, including customer satisfaction, increased
capacity for technical assistance, increased awareness and understanding
of ESEA programs, improved teaching and learning, and barriers to the
delivery of high-quality, effective technical assistance.

Comprehensive Center Services to States

Hawaii Department of Education

This case study describes services provided by the Pacific Comprehensive
Regional Assistance Center to the Hawaii Department of Education (HDOE).
In addition to the state of Hawaii, the Pacific Center, located at the
Pacific Resources for Education and Learning (PREL), serves American
Samoa, the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands, the Federated
States of Micronesia, Guam, the Republic of the Marshall Islands, and
the Republic of Palau. The Pacific Center enjoys a close relationship
with PREL, and the two organizations frequently share staff and
resources. At HDOE, the Pacific Center and PREL are often referred to
interchangeably. The Pacific Center's services to HDOE have been
primarily in the areas of Title I, English as a Second Language (ESL),
and Even Start.

I. State Context

The state of Hawaii operates its public school system as both a local
education agency (LEA) and a state education agency (SEA), distributing
public education monies directly to Hawaii's 250 public schools.

The state is divided into seven regional districts---four on Oahu and
three that include the islands of Hawaii, Kauai, and Maui. Each district
has a superintendent, a school renewal specialist, and several resource
teachers. The state's schools face challenges related to a high-poverty
and high language-minority student population.

**[Reform Goals and Initiatives]{.underline}**

HDOE's reform agenda revolves primarily around its strategic plan, which
resulted from a comprehensive needs assessment conducted in 1998. The
plan identifies five priority areas: (1) refining the Hawaii content and
performance standards and providing standards-based curricular and
instructional support; (2) developing assessment and accountability
systems; (3) developing a comprehensive student support system; (4)
modernizing administrative support services; and (5) redefining school
governance and school structures.

Hawaii's Title I program provides extensive and intensive support to
schools and addresses these priority areas through its seven
district-based "linkers." The linkers work full-time in the roles of
state agent, district Title I program director, and resource teacher and
connect the geographic regions with HDOE. For schools identified in need
of assistance, the linkers train, monitor, advise, broker services, and
assist with planning, networking, assessment analysis, evaluation,
curriculum development, and schoolwide implementation. According to one
SEA staff member, "We have worked hard with the Title I schools on
assessment. This will be good for standards-based reform in Hawaii
because the Title I schools will have already begun thinking seriously
about assessment." In Title I schools implementing Comprehensive School
Reform Demonstration (CSRD) models, the linkers work closely with
school-based School Support Teams, which oversee school improvement
efforts and are composed of the principal, teachers, school renewal
specialists, and district resource teachers.

###### Implementation of ESEA Reforms

SEA staff noted that the reauthorization of ESEA in 1994 had promoted
dramatic changes in the state's implementation of federal programs.
Specifically, the state is more concerned with student outcomes and
coordinating federal programs than before 1994. According to one staff
member,

> My job has changed since reauthorization. Before, Title I was more
> concerned with regulations and processes. We monitored more. Now, we
> are looking at outcomes. We ask, 'Are the kids achieving?' Title I has
> always been focused on high-poverty \[students\], but now we are
> focused on the achievement of high-poverty kids. Now we tie our
> efforts to standards.

The coordination of federal programs in Hawaii is facilitated by
consolidated planning and monitoring, which staff think help promote
comprehensive assistance to districts and schools. For example, one
staff member pointed to new links between the Title IV program and other
federal programs. "In the past, Title IV was isolated, but that changed
after we started submitting a consolidated plan. \[Title IV\] is now
more included and integrated with other efforts," he said. Another
added, "Title IV helps kids feel safe in school, both physically and
emotionally, and leads to academic success. The emphasis is now more on
comprehensive assistance. The state is focused on raising student
achievement and on helping teachers teach all kids."

SEA staff noted that ESEA reforms have forced them to communicate
regularly and function cohesively. "Programmatically, we are all on the
same wavelength. We share offices and ideas about accountability,
standards, and assessments. We all do any monitoring visits as a group,"
said one respondent.

II\. Establishing the Relationship

###### The Center's History with the State

The Pacific Center has been involved with the SEA since the its
inception in 1995 because:

\(1\) Hawaii is the only state in its geographic region; (2) both
entities are located in Honolulu; and (3) the state is receptive to help
from the center. However, the center also facilitates its relationship
with HDOE by assigning one staff member to be the primary service
provider and liaison for the state. This individual---a former SEA
employee---relies on her contacts to keep abreast of recent decisions
and issues, which she does through her attendance at Board of Education
and internal department meetings.

In addition, before the formation of the Comprehensive Centers, HDOE
worked with RMC Research Corporation---one of the Pacific Center's
partners---in RMC's capacity as a federal Title I Technical Assistance
Center. As a center partner, RMC continued working closely for two years
after the center's inception, at which point the state requested less
help, and a full-time center staff became available for Title I
assistance.

[**Planning Services**]{.underline}

Center staff are involved in the planning of services to varying
degrees, depending on the needs of SEA staff and the nature of the
services being provided. In some cases, the center is included from the
very beginning---during or following a needs assessment---while in other
cases, PREL staff are consulted further along in the planning process to
provide feedback and suggestions on workshop agendas and getting
products ready for distribution, for example. Respondents from HDOE
noted that there was room for improvement in planning, particularly with
the Title I program.

One respondent described the process when the Pacific Center is involved
in planning from the beginning:

> The planning process for PREL activities typically begins with my
> monthly meetings of district ESL people. During those meetings, I see
> data indicating particular needs in our program. . . . Especially when
> the needs involve Pacific Islanders, I will ask for help from PREL.
> They will come and talk with me and the district personnel and look at
> the data. After spending some time analyzing the situation, PREL calls
> to meet with me to discuss their thoughts. During that meeting, they
> will ask how they can be of help**.** Then we plan something out, such
> as last month's video teleconference on ESL issues.

The Pacific Center tailors services to be the most beneficial to the
state, particularly when the SEA and the center jointly determine what
the center will provide and how it will integrate with the state's
reform efforts. As one respondent explained,

> The services we receive from PREL are custom made. They don't give us
> one-shot events from outside. Rather, they sit down and talk with us
> and school staff to plan. They seek to understand our needs and
> expectations. . . . \[For example\], for the middle school that wanted
> help with their reading program, \[a PREL staff member\] and I went to
> the school for planning. The school pulled all the teachers together
> and arranged the logistics. Then \[she\] and I went and sat with the
> principal and others. \[She\] helped identify what they had in mind,
> what they needed, their expectations, and so on. Then we all worked
> together to establish an agenda. The PREL service fits into that
> agenda.

Several SEA respondents noted that the center typically works directly
with school staff when planning its services to schools. Often, center
services to schools are coordinated with the state Title I linkers,
although other SEA staff members wanted increased communication about
service to schools. In response to SEA requests, the center intends to
keep interested administrators informed of and involved in school-level
service planning.

III\. Services to the SEA

[**Portfolio of Products and Services**]{.underline}

Rather than being focused on several large, self-contained projects,
center assistance is spread through many events and people. For the most
part, assistance revolves around ongoing relationships with individuals
at all levels of the educational system, and types of services range
from long-term, sustained assistance to financial support to building
the state's capacity to deliver technical assistance. Nevertheless,
center services can be classified into three areas: (1) direct services
to teachers, administrators, Title I linkers, and state administrators;
(2) research, data, and connections to other organizations, individuals,
and resources; and (3) collaboration and consultation regarding planning
and implementation of activities. SEA staff did, however, highlight
initiatives in which the center was particularly involved.

###  **ESL/Title VII.** The center uses its expertise in Pacific cultures and languages to create useful products, provide consultation, and make presentations for SEA staff. For example, the PREL newsletter, which shares recent research and information about education in the Pacific, is an excellent resource, according to several respondents. PREL has also translated materials for non-English speaking parents related to school enrollment, insurance, emergency information, and school performance. In order to smooth ESL students' transition into the Hawaii educational system, the center sent these materials throughout the Pacific region for families with school-age children moving to the state.

The center has also been directly responsible for building the knowledge
and skills of ESL and Title VII practitioners. First, the center planned
with the SEA to co-sponsor a teleconference on ESL issues for ESL
teachers, specialists, resource teachers, and administrators. The center
handled the logistics and convened a panel of outside experts and SEA
staff. The teleconference was carried on the University of Hawaii's PBS
station so that individuals throughout the region could participate.
Second, the center held a work session for 30 resource teachers and
specialists on the languages and culture of the Pacific, as well as
strategies for working with students from these areas. Third, the center
helped sponsor training for district and school staff in Language
Assessment Scales (LAS), which measure language proficiency. The
center's assistance was grounded in a theoretical understanding that
language consists of four components---phonology, lexicon, syntax, and
pragmatics---and that open-ended methods are useful for assessing
literacy skills. Fourth, the center has given technical assistance to
state and local Title VII staff on bilingual issues.

***Title I.*** To foster the implementation of reform at the school
level, the center works closely with Title I linkers. In fact, center
assistance to schools is typically provided in association with the
linkers. The center has sponsored several workshops and training
sessions for the linkers and, with the linkers, similar activities for
school-level staff. As one linker noted, "Any assistance to schools is
seen as a partnership between us and PREL." As a result of their close
relationship with the linkers, the center is able to provide informal,
quick services, such as gathering information and resources.

The center's work in Title I is based on research and models of
effective schoolwide planning. It has also partnered with the linkers to
work with Title I schools to implement the Reading Success Network (RSN)
and CSRD, both of which have strong research foundations. Moreover, the
center, relying particularly on the expertise of RMC staff, has built
the capacity of the state to implement Title I schoolwide programs.
Although the center worked initially with the state Title I
administration to develop a strategic process for implementation, it
later shifted its focus to school-level implementation. More recently,
the Center helped organize a School Support Team conference, which was
led by RMC staff, and a CSRD model showcase.

***Even Start.*** The Pacific Center works with the state's Even Start
coordinator to help local Even Start projects conduct their own
evaluations using program data and classroom assessments. Through
ongoing consultation with the SEA, the center is helping to institute
the new evaluation structure, which requires Even Start teachers to
collect, analyze, and write about data from their local programs.
Together, the two entities have planned and provided training sessions
to teachers to foster a basic understanding of evaluation, data
collection, analysis, and report writing. The center also plans to
review the local evaluation reports, make recommendations to improve the
process, and help draft an action plan for further training.

***Facilitative Leadership*** ***Workshop***. Several individuals
highlighted the Facilitative Leadership workshop as being particularly
helpful and responsive to a request for assistance in helping schools
develop grade-level benchmarks. The workshop provided SEA Title I staff,
including the linkers and other resource teachers, the opportunity to
improve their ability to present material, train participants, and
facilitate change at the school level. Center staff later conducted this
workshop for district superintendents, school specialists, and literacy
resource teachers as well. Similarly, center staff provided the resource
teachers with two workshops and follow-up in needs assessment.

###### 

***Respecialization in Special Education (RISE)**.* The center provided
financial support to HDOE to implement the RISE program, which started
in 1990 in response to teacher shortages in special education. The
program is being implemented in five training sites on four islands and
utilizes video conferencing to overcome geographical barriers. The
center's financial assistance enabled resource teachers to travel to
other islands to conduct classroom observations, which respondents said
helped improve their own teaching and their students' learning.

###### Goals and Objectives for Continuing Work 

The HDOE highly values the center for its expertise, connections,
resources, and services, and the SEA would like the center to continue
to connect it with events and individuals operating on a national scale.
One staff member noted that the center is "aware of regional meetings.
Often, we need to go to the mainland to find speakers, but PREL can help
with contacting and contracting." Several HDOE staff members hoped the
center would better define its scope of work with the SEA. One staffer,
who valued center services, sought clarity about the range of services
available from the center and the process for requesting and receiving
services. Other respondents pointed to specific areas in which they
would like PREL to assist them: technology; training on grant writing;
implementing programs and developing materials for ESL students; and
overall school reform.

The center does not plan to radically change its work with HDOE;
however, it does plan to continue working more closely with schools,
particularly Title I schools identified as failing to meet adequate
yearly progress and those participating in the RSN. Although the center
has shifted its emphasis to the school level, it intends to maintain and
improve communication with the SEA. According to a center staff member,
because of the current needs and context of reform in Hawaii, "There may
be some change in the topics of conversation and focus of our efforts,
but we will be continuing our dialogue with the SEA."

###### IV. State's Use of External Assistance

HDOE staff regularly rely on outside expertise, particularly with
workshop presentations and consultations. Most commonly, consultants
provide assistance around specific products or programs, such as
evaluation instruments, curriculum packages, and whole school reform
models. For assistance in these areas, the state looks to the Pacific
Center, local and national universities, product vendors, the Regional
Educational Laboratories, and other educational organizations. For
example, the Even Start program is using the Pacific Center for help in
training teachers in extracting, compiling, and analyzing data, as well
as drafting an action plan based on preliminary evaluation reports.

Department staff also reported needing assistance with academic
standards and immigrant culture and language. For standards, the agency
has received help from the Council for Basic Education, "a major advisor
on our standards project," reported one respondent. "They have given us
technical assistance on our efforts to refine and review our standards.
They have a national reputation, as well as broad experience across the
nation." Center and other PREL staff have provided the most assistance
regarding immigrant culture and language.

V. Effects

###### Customer Satisfaction

Generally, respondents were satisfied with the services they received
from the Pacific Center. They described center services as being based
on the SEA's needs and aligned with the state's education agenda.
Moreover, SEA staff thought that the center staff were accessible,
worked hard to maintain an ongoing relationship with the SEA, provided
tailored assistance, and were great cultural resources. "They represent
the various cultures of the Pacific in their staffing, knowledge, and
connections," said one staff member. "When we started getting more
Pacific Islanders, we requested help from them in understanding how to
meet their needs. PREL improved its ability to help with this." Another
added,

> PREL has a sense of direction, and they try to accommodate the HDOE.
> Hawaii is unique in the Pacific. The other entities have dramatically
> different needs. PREL has balanced their services and tried to focus
> on Hawaii for the last few years. . . . We will be relying on them as
> a resource because we have been downsized. They complement our efforts
> because they have been involved in the development of much of what we
> do. They are coherent with our agenda and are tuned in with what is
> happening here. . . . PREL understands the culture of Hawaii education
> and the HDOE. They are in touch with the school environment and are
> easy to work with.

A Title I linker also described her satisfaction with the Pacific
Center:

> I do think \[PREL has\] helped us build our capacity to help schools
> and teachers. They helped me better understand schoolwides and how to
> do needs assessments. PREL staff knows the regional and state agendas
> and are accessible and comfortable to work with. . . . I have
> confidence in their abilities. . . . PREL gives follow-up in the way
> of additional materials and second visits to schools they have worked
> with. . . . PREL provides high-quality assistance, in that they start
> by working with a school to know its needs, focus on meeting teacher
> needs, tie in with the school's direction, emphasize achievement, and
> have a pulse on what is important.

Another Title I staff said that RMC, as a center partner, was
particularly helpful in building the state's capacity to support and
administer Title I schoolwide schools. The staff member explained, "We
had no schoolwides five years ago. At that point, we needed help. PREL
was helpful then, though RMC \[as a PREL partner\] was more helpful. . .
. Our schoolwide planning model is based on RMC's model. Then two years
ago we needed help with School Support Teams, so PREL put us in touch
with RMC in Denver. They provided a three-day SST training, which PREL
helped organize. We organized the system of follow-up. Since then, we
took over and don't rely on PREL or RMC in the same way."

Some state-level respondents expressed dissatisfaction with the center's
communication about its services to schools, although such service is
typically coordinated through a state Title I linker. They indicated
that they would like the center to contact their SEA office directly
when it is providing services to schools, and more importantly, to
develop a plan of service so that they know about services beforehand.
Such communication, they said, would help alleviate SEA staff concerns
that the center services be strategic and aligned with state efforts.
One respondent suggested, "Maybe in the future it would be helpful to
have a single PREL person devoted to working on strategizing their
service so that it fits with the state plan." It was clear that the SEA
values center services, while they also hoped to have more "sustained
service" provided by "somebody who can be with us all the time and walk
us through \[major initiatives\]." In particular, Title I staff said
they wanted additional assistance and communication regarding efforts
related to CSRD, accountability, and school improvement planning.

###### Increased State Capacity to Deliver High-Quality Technical Assistance 

Through its work with the Title I linkers and other Title I SEA staff,
the Pacific Center has helped build the state's capacity to implement
Title I schoolwide programs. In particular, Title I staff pointed to the
Facilitative Leadership workshop as being an example of the center
helping the SEA develop the skills and knowledge needed to train school
staff.

The center has contributed to the state's capacity and expertise in the
education of language-minority students, grant writing, and evaluation
as well. "The Languages of the Pacific" workshop, as well as related
consultations, have increased the knowledge base within the SEA of
Pacific languages and cultures, as well as helped staff be able to
identify and address the needs of Pacific entity children. Also, with
guidance from the center, the Even Start director redesigned and
implemented the local evaluation process.

###### Improved Teaching and Learning

Respondents found it difficult to cite specific examples of improved
teaching and learning that resulted from the center's assistance.
However, one SEA staff member said,

> It is difficult to connect any technical assistance with learning in
> the classroom. However, if we believe that high-quality staff
> development, combined with high expectations, leads to improved
> teaching and improved learning, then PREL must be seen as instrumental
> to student achievement. They are providing high-quality staff
> development and are emphasizing student achievement. All their work is
> focused on improved teaching and learning.

###### Barriers to the Delivery of High-Quality, Effective Technical Assistance

Respondents mentioned time constraints imposed on the Pacific Center as
being the most significant barrier to the delivery of high-quality
technical assistance. Providing sustained and intensive assistance
requires a lot of time and resources, and providing such assistance is
difficult with the center's small staff. As one respondent explained,
"The biggest barrier is that there is not enough time. Basically, the
better you are, the more people want you. Also, PREL is spread bigger
than just Hawaii so they have other places to work too."

The center's geographical region---spanning an area of the Pacific
larger than the continental United States---also limits its ability to
deliver high-quality assistance. Travel costs from island to island are
high, and many of the islands are small, isolated, and inaccessible,
making it difficult to convene many individuals for training activities.
Furthermore, the diversity of the center's target audience complicates
their technical assistance efforts. The entities have different needs
and cultures, and require the center to tailor many of its activities to
a unique local context. One respondent noted that the state had to
compete for PREL's services because the center was "more concerned with
the rest of the Pacific than Hawaii" because there was more need in
other areas.

In a more general sense, providing technical assistance in Hawaii is
difficult as a result of the many new and complicated skills and
knowledge Hawaii educators must learn. One respondent commented, "The
state keeps adding new stuff for educators to deal with. There are many
new parts to reform, yet we are not selectively abandoning anything.
Thus, the schools are overwhelmed and resistant to technical assistance
or starting into new reforms." This requires a highly strategic and
structured approach to delivering technical assistance, which several
respondents identified as a shortcoming of the center. One SEA staff
member noted that this was due in part to a lack of strategy on the
state's part and that "the new state strategic plan will help focus
technical assistance efforts." A related barrier has been the state's
change in direction under its new superintendent. PREL was
well-positioned to help the state implement its earlier reform agenda,
and is only now catching up to assist with the implementation of the new
strategic plan.

Lastly, fiscal concerns and procurement laws create obstacles in
delivering technical assistance in Hawaii. According to one staff
member, "In some cases, we have trouble getting technical assistance
providers because of local context and procurement laws. We are in an
economic depression, which causes the state to be concerned about
employees traveling. So there are a lot of hoops for us to jump through
to do our job."

On the plus side, other SEA staff emphasized that assistance from the
center is increasing or intensifying, especially in the areas of
immigrant students and Even Start. According to one SEA staff member, "I
think PREL's assistance is getting better for us. When we started
getting more Pacific Islander immigrants, we requested help from them in
understanding how to meet their needs. PREL improved its ability to
identify these students' needs. More and more they've been coming to ask
questions about what we need."

###### 

###### Summary

The HDOE enjoys federal program coordination at the state level and
participates in consolidated planning and monitoring. A staff member
from the Pacific Center serves as the primary service provider and
liaison to the state and coordinates center services to the SEA and to
schools. However, staff members from the SEA reported that they were
sometimes uninformed about center services on the local level. To
address this concern, the center plans to build more relationships with
schools and to improve its communication with the SEA. In its services
to schools, the center often works with and through the state's own
school support staff, known within the state as "Title I linkers." The
Pacific Center's portfolio of products and services includes initiatives
in the following areas: ESL/Title VII, Title I, Even Start, leadership,
and special education. The center and SEA staff noted that the center's
services ranged from long-term, sustained assistance to activities
designed to deepen the state's capacity to deliver its own technical
assistance. Center staff are particularly valued for their
accessibility, cultural resources, knowledge, and connections throughout
the Pacific, although some SEA staff members also said that the center
helped build their capacities to train school staff.

**Comprehensive Center Services to States**

**Maryland State Department of Education**

This case study examines services provided to the Maryland State
Department of Education (MSDE) by the Region III Comprehensive Center,
located in Arlington, Va. The center designates one to two staff members
to serve as state liaisons for each of the six states in its region.
Services to the MSDE have focused on Title I, comprehensive school
reform, migrant education, Even Start, and safe and drug-free schools.

**I. State Context**

**[Reform Goals and Initiatives]{.underline}**

In recent years, Maryland has made significant strides in designing,
developing, and implementing several major school reform initiatives.
Most of the state's efforts have focused on: (1) the development of
standards, assessments, and other accountability systems; (2)
professional development and capacity building, particularly in
low-performing schools; (3) school safety; (4) school, parent, and
community collaborations; (5) technology development; and (6)
comprehensive school reform.

In the area of accountability, Maryland requires each local education
agency (LEA) to develop its own School Accountability Funding for
Excellence (SAFE) plan. The plan calls for LEAs to develop a list of
needs, strategies for addressing them, and funding sources to carry out
these strategies. "In short, we ask the systems to look at their needs
first instead of saying, 'Okay, I have this much money. Now what do I do
with it?'" explained a MSDE staff member.

MSDE has also instituted two initiatives that address the needs of the
state's at-risk population. First, the state education agency (SEA) is
developing a statewide academic intervention plan that seeks to help
underachieving high school students attain passing grades on new state
assessments required for graduation. Second, the state has created a
program that targets poor performing schools---called Challenge and
RECON Schools---for assistance. Under state law, these schools are
required to develop a strategic plan that includes the adoption of a
research-based reform model.

MSDE's new Office of Comprehensive Planning and School Support brings
all federal and state programs together under a single umbrella. The
office is intended to facilitate comprehensive education reform and
efforts to garner and combine resources to more effectively meet the
needs of low-performing students. SEA staff report that the
reorganization has resulted in an increase in "cross-divisional
assistance" within MSDE. The new director of the Office of Comprehensive
Planning and School Support has been credited with being "the push" that
has encouraged staff to think more comprehensively. He has guided the
state's consolidated planning efforts and fostered a deeper
understanding of comprehensive planning at the SEA, LEA, and school
levels.

## II. Establishing the Relationship {#ii.-establishing-the-relationship .unnumbered}

The Region III Comprehensive Center assigns two staff members to serve
as state liaisons to Maryland. Six other staff members augment the
services of the state contacts by providing additional in-depth, ongoing
services as needed to MSDE, LEAs, and schools. Sixty percent of Center
staff members are involved in direct service to the state of Maryland.

### **[The Center's History with the State]{.underline}** 

Shortly after the center was established, the center director arranged a
visit with MSDE to introduce her staff and give an overview of the
services the center could provide. High-level administrators and
representatives from the Title I, II, IV, VI, and Goals 2000 programs
attended this initial meeting and highlighted ways in which the center
could assist them with federal program implementation. The meeting was
arranged by the state and included area chiefs and other administrators,
but excluded several program directors. Thus, while those who were
involved in the initial meeting and discussions reported that the center
established its presence in the state early on, those who had not been
present at the meeting said they learned about the center only by
chance. For example, while one staff member commented that the center
"did an excellent job of getting themselves known," another said that
"it took a long time to find out about \[center services\]."

MSDE staff members observed that the SEA's relationship with the center
has become less formal and stronger over time, in part because the
center is better able to anticipate the state's needs. According to one
respondent,

> \[Our relationship has\] strengthened over time. . . . We know each
> other on a first-name basis . . . now \[the center\] sends me
> information that I have not asked for because they know what I am
> interested in receiving.

### **[Planning Services]{.underline}**

Because MSDE personnel set the Region III Comprehensive Center's agenda
for services to the state, the process for organizing technical
assistance involves the center responding directly to the SEA's requests
for services. The center's approach was to focus on developing
relationships with MSDE staff across program areas and on establishing
the state's needs and program requirements based on an understanding of
the state context. While some SEA staff members view this as a favorable
arrangement that accurately reflects the new mission and service
delivery paradigm of the centers, others are frustrated by the new
approach, which they consider "reactive." Staff members from the center
noted that this new service delivery paradigm reflects ED's focus on
comprehensive reform, rather than on one-shot programs.

The needs of the state, as well as center services, are reviewed on a
regular basis. Typically, after reviewing the services the center has
provided in other states as well as in Maryland, the SEA will present
its agenda to the center and point out areas where help is needed. Most
requests are for intensive, ongoing services but also include discrete
tasks---conducting research on a particular topic, facilitating a
meeting or conference, or helping SEA staff brainstorm around a
particular issue or problem, for example. According to MSDE respondents,
the center rarely initiates projects; the center's approach, they said,
is to respond to needs identified by the state. One explained that the
center makes itself available, "but primarily at our request." Another
staff member added, "This SEA was very 'proactive' in defining the role
for \[the center\] based on our needs."

Several SEA staff members expressed frustration with the center's method
of planning services and reported that they had difficulty trying to
discern "the menu of services" that are available from the Comprehensive
Center. For example, one staff member said that in the early stages,

> We had high expectations for \[the center\], but it took us a while to
> figure out what they could
>
> do. . . . Up until now, they have given us what we have asked for, but
> maybe there are things we have not thought to ask for. . . . When we
> asked, 'What can you do?' \[the center\] responded, 'What do you
> want?'

At the same time, staff described the close, almost personal
relationships they have with center staff. One program director said she
received a "warm reception" from state liaisons. For some projects,
center staff have served as "critical friends" to MSDE and have provided
information to the SEA about similar initiatives in other states.

The center noted that services to districts and schools are provided
both upon the recommendation of an MSDE staff member and by districts
and schools contacting the center directly. In some cases, districts and
schools learned about the center through center staff members'
presentations at state training sessions and conferences.

## III. Services to the SEA {#iii.-services-to-the-sea .unnumbered}

Portfolio of Products and Services

The Region III Comprehensive Center's portfolio of products and services
to MSDE is varied and extensive. Some MSDE respondents reported that
center services are aligned with state reform goals and initiatives and
that center staff keep abreast of state goals, objectives, and needs by
reviewing MSDE documents and attending state planning meetings.
According to a MSDE staff member, "if \[Center assistance\] had not been
aligned with our standards, it would not have been helpful . . . and it
has been." Because of its "insider-outsider" perspective, the center has
been able to contribute to various proposals and reports produced by
MSDE. For example, the center helped the SEA critique its State of the
State Report, reviewed the state's Strategic Plan, and made
recommendations regarding the state's Minority Student Achievement
Report. At other times, the center has worked with federal program staff
to review grant applications.

In general, SEA staff find the information the center provides grounded
in research. One MSDE staff member reported that center staff "were like
my own personal research team." While preparing a grant application for
districts, the center helped her to develop the evaluation component of
the grant and reviewed and provided feedback on other sections of the
proposal. In addition, the center has provided this respondent with
"technical assistance in how to look at different bodies of research,"
and she noted that, as a result of this assistance, she is better able
to assist local grantees.

***Blue Ribbon Schools Project***. The Maryland Blue Ribbon-Sister
School Project is an initiative that seeks to improve teaching and
learning in 10 Title I schools in Maryland. Each Title I school is
paired with a successful Blue Ribbon School, and they share information
and strategies for conducting internal assessments and improving school
climate, curriculum, teaching and learning, and other aspects of school
life. The center has contributed to the project by (1) being a partner
in program conception and early implementation; (2) training
participants in mentoring and strategic planning; (3) developing a needs
assessment instrument and an evaluation component for the project; (4)
providing professional development to school teams; and (5) offering
general guidance and support regarding the implementation of the project
via team meetings, conference calls, and site visits.

***Comprehensive School Reform Demonstration (CSRD) Program***. The
Region III Comprehensive Center has worked extensively with MSDE to
implement CSRD. In the beginning stages, center staff offered
suggestions to the state regarding its application for CSRD funds and
the development of its RFP for local school districts. According to one
staff member, "The center was my sounding board on how to put a good
proposal together . . . \[the center\] offered me feedback."
Subsequently, the center helped SEA staff to fine-tune the selection
criteria by helping to develop a scoring rubric that was used to
evaluate local applications for CSRD funds and by training those within
the SEA who were responsible for reviewing these applications.

The center also conducted site visits to districts and held meetings for
schools applying for CSRD grants at which they explained the program's
intent, assisted in needs assessment and the model selection process,
reviewed the application process, and provided feedback to those schools
that had prepared draft applications. One SEA administrator who attended
these events found the information center staff imparted and approaches
they modeled useful. She explained, "What I learned I have used in
technical meetings in other program areas such as adult education and
school-to-work . . . \[The Center's work in CSRD\] has brought the need
for \[improvements in the grants review process\] into sharper focus."

***Even Start***. The Region III Comprehensive Center helped the state
to develop a new Even Start application process that highlighted
characteristics of high-quality Even Start programs and the *Even Start*
*Transition Manual*, which is designed to aid local projects shift from
federal to local financial support. As part of this effort, the center
facilitated meetings of Even Start program directors and documented the
information generated from these events. In addition, the center has
been instrumental in (1) helping local grantees to develop and improve
their Home-School Compacts; (2) providing SEA staff with information on
the latest in brain development research; and (3) training Title I
Parent Involvement Coordinators. The center will (1) assist the MSDE in
developing a proposal for funding to support the National Even Start
State Initiative; (2) work with the SEA to identify key people to
include in a consortium; and (3) facilitate group discussions and
meetings once the initiative gets under way.

***Migrant Education***. The center worked closely with Maryland's
Migrant Education director to evaluate the effectiveness of the academic
component of its migrant program. The result was the creation of a
self-assessment tool, which enables teachers and principals to gather
data to help them make program improvements. Each year the center trains
program staff in the implementation of the assessment and the use of
data to identify program strengths and guide program improvement
efforts. The center also works with Migrant Education staff to implement
the use of portfolios and to develop a writing rubric sensitive to the
needs of ESL students.

***Title I***. By all accounts, the Region III Comprehensive Center has
contributed a great deal to the Title I program at the SEA, LEA, and
school levels. Center staff attend MSDE's Title I Administrators'
Meetings, have conducted presentations on schoolwide programs and school
reform, developed a scoring rubric for the Title I Distinguished Schools
program, and have assisted with consolidated planning efforts. In
addition, the center has worked with a sample of low-performing Title I
schools in Baltimore and helped the LEA in that city assemble its
consolidated application for Title I, State Compensatory Education, and
Targeted Poverty Grants.

***Title IV***. The center assisted Title IV staff draft the program's
request for proposals (RFP), helped the SEA to think about how program
funds are spent, delivered presentations on the principles of
effectiveness and conducting needs assessments, and assisted to identify
Safe and Drug-Free Schools program experts, consultants, and materials
for use by the SEA and LEAs to prepare for a state conference. The
center also attends the Title IV project directors' biannual meeting and
provides local directors with materials for their programs. Despite
these contributions, several Title IV staff expressed dissatisfaction
with the center's ability to deliver the volume and quality of services
that had been available under ED's previous technical assistance system.

### **[Goals and Objectives for Continuing Work]{.underline}**

Most MSDE staff members said that they would like the center to continue
to provide direct services to districts and schools in the future and
increase services to LEAs when opportunities arise. Examples of current
center services to LEAs include: (1) assistance to the Baltimore City
Public Schools' CSRD and schoolwide programs and parent involvement
efforts; (2) guidance to the Allegheny and Somerset Counties on
conducting their SAFE needs assessments; and (3) services to
low-performing Prince George's County schools that had adopted CSRD
models.

Two administrators suggested that the state establish better vehicles
for communication to encourage districts and schools to contact the
center for services; many LEAs, they said, were not aware that they
could contact the center directly. Another suggested that the state
formulate a plan for the center's contribution to districts and schools.
One program director explained, "\[In the future\], I see the
Comprehensive Center providing more direct services to schools and
districts as we expand our network of schools that are involved in
comprehensive school \[reform\]." A representative from the Title IV
program noted that the center could also help local program directors
stay abreast of important developments in the field, including upcoming
grants and RFPs.

However, a few SEA staff members thought that the center was not
particularly well suited to provide assistance to schools because center
staff lack sufficient knowledge of the local context to be effective at
the grass-roots level. Nevertheless, the Center reported that several
schools have contacted the center directly to request assistance,
without using the state to negotiate services.

One MSDE administrator expressed some frustration at the state's
inability to adequately coordinate service providers in a manner that
would allow the state to take maximum advantage of available resources.
Specifically, he expressed an interest in having the Comprehensive
Center, Regional Educational Laboratories, Equity Centers, and Special
Education Centers work together to address low achievement among
minority students. "The SEA has a problem knitting all these groups
together, and the center could help with that. . . . There are lots of
resources out there today . . . we need to be more competent in how we
use them," he said. Another respondent suggested that the delivery of
high-quality technical assistance could be improved if the Regional
Educational Laboratories and Comprehensive Centers worked more closely
together. "Our requests should be delivered to both the laboratory and
the center . . . it's a time-saving device and might help to streamline
services." Center staff members noted that they have made repeated
efforts to schedule joint meetings and to coordinate technical
assistance with the Regional Educational Laboratory serving Maryland.

# IV. State's Use of External Assistance

Typically, the center is one of many sources with which SEA staff
consult when they need technical assistance. Several SEA staff reported
that, before selecting technical assistance providers to assist them in
implementing state reforms or initiatives, they assess the various
possibilities in light of the project at hand. As one program director
explained, "I do my homework to determine which technical assistance
provider is most appropriate. . . . I make logical connections after
consulting different Web sites or attending \[ED\] technical meetings."
Other staff noted that over time they have assembled a network of
technical assistance resources that includes, in addition to the
Comprehensive Center, individual researchers, Internet sites,
universities, professional journals, ED, the Regional Educational
Laboratories, professional associations, and other organizations.

In particular, universities provide technical assistance to various
departments within the MSDE. For example, the SEA sought assistance from
Johns Hopkins University's reading resource center to help it implement
a state reading initiative that seeks to improve reading by translating
research into practice. The University of Maryland, which houses one of
two national Safe and Drug-Free Schools Centers, has supported the
state's Title IV program by providing research and statistical
information on substance abuse and addiction; it has also provided
technology training to teachers and district superintendents. The
university's Institute for Continuous Improvement has worked with the
state to convene a leadership team to explore ways to design and develop
a system of education that features joint accountability between the SEA
and LEAs. The state plans to involve the Comprehensive Center in this
effort, tapping into the center's expertise with the CSRD program.
Similarly, the MSDE turns to the University of North Carolina at
Raleigh-Durham's Center for the Study of Violence for information
relevant to school safety. The center's university-based researchers
with renowned expertise in one or more areas were also identified as
being particularly helpful to SEA staff.

For assistance with reform initiatives for at-risk students, Maryland
has looked to the Regional Educational Laboratories because, as one
state official explained, "\[The laboratories\] are more appropriate for
implementing research-based programs, practices, and models . . . they
have a systemic focus." Other respondents compared the services provided
by the laboratories and the Comprehensive Center and noted two distinct
differences: (1) the center operates in specific "niches" (for example,
implementing CSRD or schoolwide programs) while the "the labs are
broader" (for example, they address a variety of issues related to the
education of both high- and low-performing students); and (2) while the
center offers a national perspective and has access to information about
reforms on a national scale, the laboratories focus primarily on
providing research-related information and assistance.

There are variations among the federal program staff in terms of the
extent to which they rely on external assistance. For example, while
Title IV staff indicated that ED and the Comprehensive Center provide
almost all of their technical assistance, Even Start staff reported that
several organizations and technical assistance centers provide
assistance to their program. Compared with other sources of external
assistance, staff from the Even Start program thought that the center
fared quite favorably and that the center's assistance was "practical
and tangible."

## V. Effects {#v.-effects .unnumbered}

### **[Customer Satisfaction]{.underline}**

On the whole, the Region III Comprehensive Center is well respected
among MSDE staff, who described Center staff as friendly, approachable,
and accessible. One SEA administrator observed that she is in constant
communication with the center's state contact. "I can and do fax her,
call her, and beep her," she explained. Another staff member described
her relationship with center staff as "easy," adding, "It's like making
a phone call to someone I know." Other staff reported that they felt
closer to center staff than to other technical assistance providers;
according to one MSDE staff member, the center is able to anticipate
"whether I want the quick and dirty information or page after page of
details."

The Region III Comprehensive Center was particularly valued for its
unique willingness to tailor services to specific requests and complete
a range of tasks---from editing a report to helping organize meetings.
One staff member described center services as akin to "one-stop shopping
. . . they will help you develop a conference, which other technical
assistance providers do not do."

In addition, SEA staff appreciated greatly the center's capacity for
conducting and disseminating research. According to one respondent, "If
\[center staff\] do not have the information we ask for, they do the
research. They don't just tell us where to go to get it." Another added
that the center acts as "a filter on various research to assist me with
my grant writing . . . they serve as an expert clearinghouse." Other
respondents praised the center's knowledge of research and best
practices on the national level and noted that this information helps
the state avoid "tunnel vision."

### **[Increased State Capacity to Deliver High-Quality Technical Assistance]{.underline}**

SEA respondents highlighted several examples of ways in which technical
assistance provided by the Region III Comprehensive Center improved
their own ability to provide services to districts and schools. Most
indicated that they model the same techniques and approaches the center
uses with them. According to one administrator, "I have observed the
content and process of the center's training, and I use the very same
techniques when I work with schools and school systems." Another
explained that she has asked the center to help her brainstorm around
issues and problems and in turn used the same techniques when she is
called on to do the same with local school systems. "I use the
strategies \[the center\] uses when I brainstorm with an LEA about a
problem they may be having," she explained.

In addition, based on the center's work with the state regarding the
CSRD program, MSDE revised its application process to incorporate site
visits and oral presentations by potential grantees during the decision
making process. The center's contribution included specific questions
and probes, which have provided the SEA with valuable information about
local management teams and helped facilitate more meaningful dialogue
between the SEA and LEAs.

SEA staff concurred that the center's research-based services have
helped expand their own knowledge. For example, the center has been
credited with helping to heighten awareness of the importance of
research in federal grant-writing and program development. One
respondent noted that the center has increased her capacity to help
grantees to "embed their projects in research," and that she now
emphasizes the need for grantees to "think about the body of research
that \[is relevant to\] the program for which \[they\] are applying for
funding."

### **[Improved Teaching and Learning]{.underline}**

Although the center has provided services to various districts and
schools throughout Maryland, it has focused on building the capacity of
and assisting SEA staff at the request of MSDE officials. As a result,
the majority of the center's attention and resources have been
concentrated at the SEA level, and there is little evidence of the
center's effects on teaching and learning in districts and schools.
According to one MSDE staff member, "The intensity \[has not been
there\] such that I would attribute a school's success or lack thereof
to the center."

As noted above, SEA staff members disagreed about the appropriate level
of focus for the center---SEA or LEA. While some respondents thought
that center staff could not be effective at the school level because
they are not "home-grown," others said that the center "understand\[s\]
our environment of school districts and schools." One administrator
noted that "our Maryland contacts need to be people who know and
understand the Maryland system . . . \[the center staff\] do not know
Maryland well enough to be considered a real resource to schools that
are struggling." He suggested that several school systems share this
opinion and are therefore reluctant to call on the center for help.

According to MSDE staff, support for center involvement in schools
depended on the state's willingness to develop a plan of action in this
area. One person noted,

> We want the center to get into schools more. We need to develop a plan
> to get them to be
>
> viewed . . . as a resource. . . . The Center's technical assistance is
> a reflection of the state's competence, not a reflection of how good
> the center is. . . . The flaw is in our ability to use the services
> more intelligently and aggressively.

An administrator echoed this thought by saying, "Perhaps we the SEA have
not helped our schools to identify needs for which they could get help
by meeting with the center."

**[Barriers to the Delivery of High-Quality, Effective Technical
Assistance]{.underline}**

The center has garnered high customer satisfaction by building strong
personal relationships and increasing the capacity of SEA staff to
deliver services and provide support to districts and schools. However,
changes in the federal technical assistance system and limited
understanding among some clients of ways in which services are now
provided have led to dissatisfaction in two main areas. First, some SEA
staff members recognized that the center was unable to maintain the
intensity and scope of program-specific services that were available
under the previous system. This shortcoming is due in part to limited
resources and in part to a change in the mission and focus of the
centers. Second, some SEA respondents were uncomfortable with the new
service delivery paradigm, in which the center uses clients'
needs---rather than a "menu of services"---to organize services.

For example, one program director noted that the federal technical
assistance centers under the previous system provided detailed, up-front
information about the range and intensity of services that were
available. However, under the current system:

> . . . the information has not trickled down that \[the center\] is for
> anyone but Title I. We did not know the center was connected to school
> reform or to parent involvement. The center never sent us a menu of
> services. . . . We did not know what they offered.

Another SEA staff member reported that LEAs have many unspoken needs and
need guidance from the center in organizing services. Although the
center responded to requests, it could be more "proactive" in helping
the SEA to think about "new things," she said.

###### Summary

Maryland has instituted several reform initiatives in recent years, many
focusing on standards, assessment, and accountability; support to
at-risk schools; and comprehensive school reform. The Region III
Comprehensive Center assigns two staff members to serve as liaisons to
the state, and six other staff members augment the services of the state
liaisons. Because MSDE personnel set the center's agenda for services to
the state, the center usually responds directly to the SEA's requests
for services. The center's portfolio of products and services includes
initiatives in the following areas: Blue Ribbon Schools; CSRD; Even
Start; Migrant Education; Title I; and Title IV. MSDE staff members said
that they would like the center to provide more services to districts
and schools in the future and suggested that the state improve its
vehicles for communication to encourage districts and schools to contact
the center directly. Center staff are valued for their roles as critical
friends, accessibility, capacity for conducting and disseminating
research, and abilities to tailor services and complete a range of
tasks.

Comprehensive Center Services to States

Massachusetts Department of Education

This case study examines services provided by the New England
Comprehensive Assistance Center (NECAC) to the Massachusetts Department
of Education (MDE). Within the broad scope of center services in a
six-state region, direct services to MDE play a relatively small role;
however, the center and the state education agency (SEA) collaborate to
ensure that the center's work makes a strategic contribution to state
education reform efforts. NECAC's services to the state focus primarily
in the areas of schoolwide programs, data-driven decision making, and
literacy.

I. State Context

**[Reform Goals and Initiatives]{.underline}**

The state enacted major educational reforms through the Education Reform
Act of 1993---known locally as "Ed Reform"---whose goals and strategies
are closely aligned with those advanced by ESEA. However, SEA
respondents were quick to note that the Massachusetts law predates the
1994 reauthorization of ESEA. One program administrator observed that
the state and federal laws "are parallel roads in the same direction,"
and that what another state might implement under the auspices of ESEA,
"we are doing under Ed Reform." Another respondent echoed this
viewpoint: "Our own Ed Reform Act was in place before ESEA was
reauthorized. The nice thing is the two meshed very closely in terms of
what the intent was. \[There are\] no glaring inconsistencies."

At the school level, the Education Reform Act is most visible through
the implementation of detailed curriculum frameworks. The frameworks
guide student learning and are aligned with the Massachusetts
Comprehensive Assessment System (MCAS), a high-stakes test of math,
language arts, and other core subjects that was administered for the
first time in spring 1998. In fall 1999, schools began to carry out
school improvement plans, which address school needs that surfaced
through data from the first round of MCAS testing. Schools participating
in the Comprehensive School Reform Demonstration (CSRD) Program will use
data from the MCAS as one source of information to evaluate their
programs.

In addition, SEA staff described their agency as one rich in educational
resources, and as especially rich in the leadership and expertise needed
to guide reform work. One commented, "In the Chiefs' \[Council of Chief
State School Officers\] meeting, I find the others don't have the
resources we do."

**[Implementation of ESEA Reforms]{.underline}**

In particular, SEA respondents pointed to the CSRD and Title I programs
as major components of state reform. The MDE also uses a consolidated
grant application process, which encourages the integration of federal
programs to support federal, state, and local goals.

II\. Establishing the Relationship

**[The Center's History with the State]{.underline}**

NECAC's host organization, the Education Development Center (EDC), had
established a relationship with MDE before the inception of the
Comprehensive Center. Not long after receiving the Comprehensive Center
contract, NECAC staff convened meetings in which they brought their
prospective clients together, including SEA staff from different
programs and different states. The meetings allowed time for
cross-program dialogue and generated program-specific discussions during
breakout sessions. Although SEA respondents reported that they did not
find the cross-program technical assistance as helpful as the
program-specific technical assistance they had received in the past,
they said they enjoyed the "job-alike" meetings with colleagues from
other states. According to one SEA staff member,

> By having people from other state departments of education \[attend
> these workshops\], EDC gave us an opportunity to realize that we all
> speak the same language. . . . Through EDC, we get to know some good
> people.

At the beginning of the grant, NECAC also convened the Deputy Network,
which included the Deputy Commissioners from each of the New England
states served by the center. This group was intended to provide input on
the needs and interests of the center's client states.

The relationship between the center and MDE has evolved over time. Each
has developed clearer conceptions of what services the center can and
should provide and what services the SEA should seek elsewhere. The
center has been unfolding its portfolio of options as it perceives the
state to be ready to take advantage of them, beginning with process
skill development that can strengthen existing initiatives and then
adding substantive programs that can enhance effectiveness. MDE has
begun to approach the center with proposals for collaboration on various
activities, including work with the Annenberg project in Boston.
Together they also successfully recruited a school district for a
three-way partnership to pilot the Reading Success Network (RSN) model.

**[Planning Services]{.underline}**

In most cases, NECAC and MDE collaborate in planning services,
regardless of whether activities are initiated by the center or the SEA.
SEA respondents noted that the center organizes its services around
MDE's needs. According to one program director, "They try to find out
what our needs are. If it's within their capacity to assist us, they
always try to do so. They do have some packaged ideas---things that they
feel will be helpful, and that were helpful in the past. If we were to
ask for specific things, I think they would try to address them as best
they could."

According to center staff members, the center communicates with MDE
first at the deputy commissioner level to define major areas of
assistance and then works more closely with MDE program staff to follow
up on agreements made at the higher level. However, the experiences of
some program managers suggest that sometimes MDE program staff are
unaware of arrangements that have already been made with the center.
Hence MDE is perceived by these members to have been left out of the
planning loop, when the real source of difficulty, according to the
center, is that plans for service have not been shared across programs.
For example, one program administrator complained, "We didn't know
anything about facilitation training for principals, but it would have
been nice to know ahead \[of time\]," so that her program could invite
additional participants.

SEA respondents added that center staff sometimes invite MDE
administrators to participate in activities that have been designed for
other purposes but address concerns shared by the SEA as a way of
introducing activities or surfacing potential needs.

**III. Services to the SEA**

**[Portfolio of Products and Services]{.underline}**

NECAC provides a range of services to MDE. Many of the activities are
components of a program of events serving the same participants over
time. Some activities are one-time events that contribute to ongoing
programs sponsored by other agencies. While center services to the state
are not extensive, they are strategic as a result of the close
collaboration between the two organizations. Although the state relies
on the center primarily to strengthen state processes for implementing
reform---rather than to strengthen academic content---the state can
assume that center services are aligned with state standards when the
focus of the assistance pertains to the implementation of the Education
Reform Act.

# 

***The Schoolwide Congress.*** The annual Schoolwide Congress brings
together school-level teams and state-level facilitators to identify
pressing needs and to develop plans to address them. The Congress
promotes MDE's goals for reform by encouraging schools to use data to
guide their school improvement efforts. In addition to advancing this
"authentic task" approach, the Congress features speaker sessions. For
the small-group activities, the center asked states to provide the
facilitators, who work with the school teams at the Congress and back at
their school site throughout the year. The center provides facilitator
training, thus assisting the school-level teams directly and also
improving the skills of state staff and building their capacity to help
schools.

A program administrator who participated in the Congress as a
facilitator described her experience: "The Schoolwide Congress was a
great experience for high-poverty schools, \[whose staff really
appreciated having\] three and a half days away with a district-based
coach to identify a school issue that needed attention. They met
specialists at the Congress and consulted \[with them\]. They came back
and implemented the action plan, sometimes using the services of people
they met at the Congress."

***Data Strategies Institutes (DSIs) and Other Assistance in Using
Data.*** The DSIs operate similarly to the Schoolwide Congress. The
center invites districts to send teams that explore using data to inform
school improvement efforts. Because MDE had already instituted reforms
that encouraged schools to engage in data-driven decision making, the
center ensured that the institutes were aligned with state efforts.
However, an SEA respondent commented that the DSI is different from the
state's program and that it bridged a gap left by MDE, where only a few
staff knowledgeable about data-driven decision making were accessible to
school people. He said, "\[DSI is\] really more theoretical in nature.
You would learn why it is important to use data . . . the incentives to
use data."

In addition to the institutes, the center works directly with
practitioners to teach them how to use data to improve teaching and
learning. MDE has had the center provide training in how to use data for
program improvement planning to all the CSRD schools, the Title I
directors, a network of urban school leaders, and other cohorts around
the state. For example, each year MDE sponsors a one-day evaluation
workshop for representatives of CSRD schools, which needed assistance to
determine the effectiveness of their reform work. The state asked NECAC
to send a DSI specialist to help plan the workshop sessions that
addressed data use. This specialist also helped MDE design lessons that
could help school personnel use MCAS data to plan for the school year.

***Literacy.*** Responding to the state commissioner's emphasis on
literacy, MDE invited the center to collaborate on an early literacy
conference targeted to Title I schools in Massachusetts but open to
attendees from other states. The conference addressed the findings of
the National Research Council's *Preventing Reading Difficulties in
Young Children,* and it showcased various research-based models. In
addition, both the center and the state offer support for schools
involved in the RSN.

**[Goals and Objectives for Continuing Work]{.underline}**

In response to inquiries about plans for continuing work with the
center, some respondents blurred the distinction between the
Comprehensive Center and its host organization, saying that if the
Comprehensive Centers ceased to exist, they would still use EDC for many
purposes. "We were using them before. We still value their knowledge and
capacity," said one staff member. Specifically, MDE would like to
continue to collaborate around the annual Schoolwide Congress and to
plan a meeting with CSRD teams to discuss the statewide CSRD evaluation
plan, although staff members felt less strongly about continuing with
DSI or the RSN.

IV\. State's Use of External Assistance

For content help, MDE staff turn to professional associations, college
and university experts, private firms or publishers, and in-house
experts. These resources abound in the Boston area, and the SEA is
accustomed to using them. Several respondents reported seeking
assistance from the Northeast and Islands Regional Educational
Laboratory at Brown University for assistance that is research-oriented
as well as for assistance with CSRD planning and implementation. MDE
turns to other sources, including a paid consultant formerly in a
leading position at ED, for technical questions related to federal
programs.

Generally, MDE staff members do not report looking to center staff for
assistance related to academic content, but they nevertheless consider
them to be valuable resources, particularly with regard to Title I
schoolwide programs and when planning conferences. According to one MDE
staff member, center staff "are not content specialists. What they
provide are school and district improvement kinds of initiatives. They
are supportive of giving the message that we are about helping children
to be successful in achieving our standards." According to Center staff,
one reason MDE does not perceive the center as a source of substantive
help is that the center found it more effective to focus initially on
process skills that did not challenge assumptions about good
programming. Having the considerable substantive resources of EDC as a
backup, the center staff are in a position to respond to questions about
academic content, they attest. However, their strategy for building a
partnership with MDE did not include consultation about academic content
at the outset.

**V. Effects**

**[Customer Satisfaction]{.underline}**

Generally, MDE staff said that they appreciated the quality and utility
of NECAC's services. Several respondents described center staff members
as genial colleagues who appreciated that MDE staff members had many
responsibilities and sometimes limited ability to travel. A division
director said, "They are very easy people to deal with. . . . They come
here and are very considerate of people's time."

Center strengths identified repeatedly by MDE officials include
knowledge about education issues, facilitation skills, and a broad range
of contacts. Most often, SEA staff members lauded NECAC's expertise with
regard to schoolwide programs. In praising facilitation skills,
respondents mentioned the center's ability to organize and run meetings
and conferences, as well as to train others in facilitation and
leadership skills. One respondent noted, "\[Ongoing leadership
training\] has benefited my staff . . . in their ability to plan other
meetings. It teaches new skills, how to identify and pay attention."
Another added, "They get quality people." When coordinating or planning
activities, the center utilizes its extensive network of experts in
areas related to the SEA's work.

Other staff members appreciated the fact that NECAC's services were
based on research. According to one respondent, "I always appreciate the
bibliographic information that \[the center\] presents in papers and
handouts. . . . The \[staff members are\] very knowledgeable. . . . When
they pass out information, there's always the background on where they
found it. I call them up for articles and they give them to me."

However, MDE respondents perceived NECAC as having limited technical
expertise with which to assist in some areas. For example, a center
consultant who presented at the DSI received mixed reviews. According to
an SEA official, the center presenter did not have the technical skills
in data analysis to assist with the specific applications. He said, "The
center could use more technical expertise. The people involved \[in
DSI\] had education experience, but not technical experience. . . . If
you don't have technical people at the table \[you can't get much
done\]." Another program administrator noted that much of the technical
expertise he needs for his program is available at the SEA and that the
center is not prepared to offer him the assistance he needs. One
respondent summarized the center's weakness, saying that "EDC is more
'processy.' They don't do details." In light of the center's easy access
to the broad and deep resources of EDC, MDE's perceptions of limits may
be more a reflection of the center's choice to focus on process
initially than on lack of ability to help in other ways.

**[Increased State Capacity to Deliver High-Quality Technical
Assistance]{.underline}**

A major thrust of NECAC's service to MDE is facilitation/leadership
training designed to build the capacity of SEA staff members.
Respondents commented that the training, described as useful and
applicable, has led to improved performance among staff members. One
director said that she gladly sends her staff to the leadership training
and appreciated the center taking the lead in organizing events.

> EDC is bringing in nationally known presenters to develop leadership
> skills in schools, targeting principals. \[The center director\]
> invited me to invite my staff as well \[so as\] to give us a common
> language . . . the devil is in the details. \[For example,\] if they
> didn't notify people and make it easy to register, \[a workshop\]
> wouldn't be so good. Someone is paying attention to those details.

MDE staff agreed that the facilitation training also improved their own
performance and enhanced their relations with one another and with the
school and district educators with whom they work. According to a
program administrator, "When they train us and we go out to teachers, we
pass that on and that impacts kids. \[The center\] does direct training
and they are good at it, so MCAS scores should go up. I think they have
taught me to be a better teacher. I go out and teach adults. I see that
as passing on skills that I have learned."

**[Increased Awareness and Understanding of ESEA Programs]{.underline}**

The center initially attempted to bring federal program directors
together in regular cross-program meetings to break down the walls
between them. Later, NECAC developed the Schoolwide Congress, which an
SEA program director described as a "much more intensive way" of helping
program officials understand the comprehensive nature of the Improving
America's Schools Act (IASA). She explained that the center "provided
the opportunity to work with some of these high-poverty schools in a
more intense way." In a similar way, meetings among officials from
different states in the region promoted better understanding of
approaches that had been successful.

**[Improved Teaching and Learning]{.underline}**

Because assistance from NECAC occurs within the context of an ambitious
state education reform agenda, it is difficult to assemble evidence of
improved teaching and learning in districts and schools that can be
credited uniquely to center assistance. One program administrator
provided anecdotal evidence of the impact of the Schoolwide Congress:
"The Congress experience is excellent. Schools I've worked with have
said it had a dramatic impact. Those schools have turned around. They
say the Congress worked." In the most recent Congress, several schools
reported improvements in student achievement that they attribute to
their work with the center and other Congress-inspired activities.

**[Barriers to the Delivery of High-Quality, Effective Technical
Assistance]{.underline}**

The primary barrier to the delivery of high-quality technical assistance
identified by MDE staff is communication between the center and SEA.
Although the center has made efforts to establish clear lines of
communication, they break down occasionally. As a program administrator
described, "There are times when they do things \[and do not tell us
that they are doing them\]. They pulled together a principals' network,
and we didn't know it was happening until we were invited to come. We
deflected our \[prior commitments\] and went to theirs. But CSRD
principals didn't come. It was advertised as a way for schoolwide
programs principals to network. Not all CSRD schools are schoolwide.
They did have trouble getting people to attend." Center staff agree that
communications are sometimes problematic, but suggest that the probable
cause is the need to rely on formal bureaucratic channels that
occasionally get blocked internally.

Center staff have sometimes drawn on the expertise of EDC consultants
(among others) in solving problems. The strategy of maintaining a core
staff just large enough to allow for a consistent point of contact for
each state and contracting with outside consultants for special projects
enriched the services the center could offer to MDE, within budget
constraints. However, for some MDE staff it also obscured the lines of
NECAC's contractual responsibility. MDE staff members were not clear
where the center ends and EDC begins. A program administrator wished for
a "full staff list so I didn't have to go running around asking, 'Do you
know who? . . .'" Another wished for improved communication about EDC
activities: "We know five or six individuals from EDC who are working
with \[MDE\] on stuff. What are the other 500 people doing?" Despite
efforts to explain, the Center regularly encountered the MDE assumption
that EDC experts were generally on call at all times.

One respondent referred to staffing limitations as a barrier to the
center providing assistance. Despite its best efforts, with about five
full-time employees, NECAC is limited in what it can accomplish, he
said.

###### Summary

Massachusetts's Education Reform Act of 1993 outlined many reforms that
were compatible with the reauthorized Elementary and Secondary Education
Act. Despite having a previous relationship with MDE, NECAC had to work
with the SEA to develop a clear concept of what services the center
could provide. The center organizes its services around the SEA's needs,
and the two organizations collaborate in planning services. NECAC's
portfolio of products and services to Massachusetts includes: the
Schoolwide Congresses, Data Strategies Institutes, and support in the
area of literacy. Activities in these areas focus on strengthening state
processes for implementing reform, rather than on academic content.
Center staff were valued for their congeniality, knowledge, leadership
skills, broad range of contacts, expertise with schoolwide programs, and
research-based methods. However, MDE staff recognized that center staff
had limited expertise in certain areas and that communication between
the center and MDE could be improved.

**Comprehensive Center Services to States**

**Mississippi Department of Education**

This case study examines services provided by the Southeast
Comprehensive Assistance Center (SECAC) to the Mississippi Department of
Education (MDE) and MDE's five Regional Service Centers (RSCs), the
state's technical assistance arm. MDE is one of five state education
agencies (SEAs) in the center's region. SECAC services to the state
concentrate primarily in the areas of school improvement and reading.

**I. State Context**

Charged in 1997 with providing innovative and comprehensive assistance
to districts and schools, the RSCs are located in five congressional
districts and housed in regional universities. MDE guides the provision
of RSC services through service objectives that are written into annual
contracts. Several offices within MDE contribute objectives to the
contract, as well as corresponding funds; although the Office of
Innovative Support, which oversaw nearly all ESEA programs until 1998,
typically contributes more funds than other offices in support of the
RSC contracts. Although in most cases the state offers general
guidelines for the RSCs' work, it does makes specific requests on
occasion.

**[Reform Goals and Initiatives]{.underline}**

Mississippi's reform agenda focuses on the implementation of content and
performance standards and assessments, as well as accountability
measures to ensure changes at the school level. The state has adopted
content standards in math, science, language arts, and is currently
developing standards for social studies. Performance standards are in
the works for English, and in place for biology, algebra, and U.S.
history. The state will administer exit exams in all these subjects
beginning in 2000. The state assessment system is currently based
primarily on norm-reference tests, although it increasingly relies on
criterion-referenced tests that are aligned with the standards and a
writing assessment. State accountability initiatives, including changes
in accreditation procedures, place increased responsibility at the
school and district levels. Nevertheless, there are less consequences
for low-performing schools than for low-performing districts, for which
the state publishes district report cards---Mississippi does not
systematically use school report cards, school ratings, or state
interventions and sanctions for schools.

**[Implementation of ESEA Reforms]{.underline}**

MDE has taken steps to work across federal programs and has submitted a
consolidated application, but MDE staff report that it has not
consolidated funds or collaborated extensively. According to state
staff, program coordinators may communicate their agendas and activities
to colleagues and collaborate on projects, although there is no formal
structure for doing so. Recent restructuring of the department may
further strain coordination of federal programs at the state level.
However, MDE staff said that they often rely on the RSCs to advise
districts and schools about opportunities to integrate federal funds.
"We don't really see what's going on \[with ESEA integration at the
school level\]; if it weren't for the RSCs, the districts would not
receive assistance in integrating," reported one MDE staff member.
However, another staff member said districts would continue to receive
assistance integrating and coordinating federal programs, but to a
lesser extent.

II. **Establishing the Relationship**

**[The Center's History with the State]{.underline}**

Shortly following the inception of the Comprehensive Centers, SECAC
staff met with MDE staff to introduce themselves and propose ways in
which the two entities could work. After overcoming some initial
skepticism from MDE staff, SECAC staff began providing services to the
state, guided by an MDE coordinating committee that ensured the state
would be intimately involved in determining SECAC services.

Because the RSCs created a new need for training and technical
assistance, the MDE asked that SECAC help it build the capacity of the
RSCs to deliver services. In May 1997, RSC and SECAC staff met several
times to assess needs and discuss the types of services that would be
most appropriate. Together, SECAC, MDE, and the RSCs developed a service
delivery plan in Summer 1997. According to the plan, RSC staff would
call on SECAC staff to either act as consultants or provide training to
RSC clients.

**[Planning Services]{.underline}**

SECAC and MDE have created two structures that encourage ongoing
collaboration in planning and designing services: (1) MDE's Coordinating
Committee and (2) a state liaison who works between MDE and SECAC. The
Coordinating Committee consists of MDE federal program staff and meets
several times a year to identify state technical assistance needs,
discuss "hot topics," and develop a service delivery plan for the state.
According to MDE staff, this plan helps SECAC focus its services on
client needs and better integrate Mississippi's needs.

One of SECAC's strategies for promoting a close planning relationship
with the states in its region is the designation of a state liaison who
is housed in or near each SEA. In Mississippi, the state liaison is a
former MDE employee, and she has been able to use her existing contacts
and familiarity with the organization to maximize the center's
offerings. She attends monthly MDE board meetings, which keep her
abreast of the SEA's new directions and initiatives. Both MDE and RSC
staff report that the liaison is accessible, responsive to their
requests for service, open to new ideas, and easy to work with. As a
result, MDE and RSC staff bring requests to the state liaison often and
find that Center services are tailored to their needs.

> SECAC has known state initiatives from the beginning days. \[The state
> liaison\] makes our monthly Board meetings, so she knows everything.
> She keeps up with us. She's a live wire and is in constant contact
> with us. If I don't hear from her for a week, that's something.
> Because she's aware like that, she can organize \[services\] in the
> way our state needs.

The state liaison also confers regularly with the RSCs to discuss their
service needs and contracts with MDE. Such meetings occur separately, as
a group, and at regional RSC conferences sponsored by SECAC. The RSC
directors see regional conferences as opportunities to get feedback and
new ideas from fellow RSCs, as well as to develop a service plan. The
state liaison works with the RSCs to develop a master calendar, which
ensures that all RSCs receive an appropriate share of SECAC's time over
the coming school year.

> The services are tailored. \[The state liaison\] will tell me what she
> is doing in other RSCs. We were doing parent involvement, and other
> RSCs were focusing on early childhood. I told her my needs are
> different. They are more about discipline, and I needed the cultural
> diversity piece added in there. She said, 'We can do that.'
>
> \[The state liaison\] is really the key. She is very knowledgeable.
> Everyone here knew her. . . . She is competent and everyone trusts
> her. She never contradicts us as a state. She really works well with
> people, enhances everyone's opinions, and is an outstanding
> facilitator.

**III. Services to the SEA**

**[Portfolio of Products and Services]{.underline}**

SECAC's services to MDE and the RSCs are aligned with state reforms and
informed by research. The center has tapped into its own knowledge and
resource base to inform the SEA about research related to literacy, the
education of at-risk students, and second-language acquisition.
Moreover, SECAC's services to Mississippi are ongoing, based on a deep
contextual understanding, highly coordinated with state reform efforts,
broad in scope, and, at times, highly intensive.

SECAC provides a variety of services in Mississippi to recipients on
both the state and local levels. In its efforts to build the capacity of
MDE and RSC staff to deliver their own technical assistance, SECAC
provides services ranging from ongoing consultations to conferences to
impromptu feedback. Much of SECAC's work with districts and schools is
facilitated through the RSCs. These activities focused on school
improvement strategies, such as conducting needs assessments, using data
to inform decisions, and coordinating programs. In addition, the center
assists the Title I School Support Teams, which are housed at the RSCs,
and encourages networking among RSC staff throughout the state and
region.

***Comprehensive School Reform Demonstration (CSRD) Program.*** SECAC,
MDE, and the Southeastern Regional Vision for Education (SERVE)
Laboratory sponsored a series of events to assist schools in choosing
and implementing CSRD models. In June 1998, all three groups cosponsored
a two-day institute intended to showcase CSRD models, provide schools in
the state with an understanding of the elements of comprehensive school
reform, and provide information about the state's application process
and selection criteria. SECAC shared responsibility for planning,
securing resources, and delivering the institute, which attracted over
500 participants. In June 1999, the collaboration hosted the Intensive
Program Evaluation Institute for schools implementing school reform
models. All 39 of the state's CSRD schools attended the activity, which
sought to improve schools' abilities to evaluate their own programs.
SECAC, SERVE, and MDE continue to partner to deliver ongoing CSRD
services and will provide a follow-up Leadership Institute in September
1999.

***Reading.*** Using elements of the Comprehensive Centers' Reading
Success Network (RSN), SECAC worked intensively with MDE as it developed
its own reading program for students in preK-6. The state's reading
program---Every Child A Reader---is a response to low standardized test
scores and incorporates RSN's data analysis and peer coaching
components, the latter of which is informed by Art Costa's cognitive
coaching model. According to a MDE reading specialist, "We needed a
vehicle for implementing our reading program, and that is where RSN's
data analysis and peer coaching helped...RSN fit perfectly for us at
just the right time...SECAC's help was crucial in the beginning."

From August to October 1998, MDE and SECAC staff sponsored the first
reading initiative workshops for K-3 teachers in six pilot districts.
Following the training, MDE and SECAC provided on-site telephone and fax
follow-up to district-level peer coaching teams, which consist of
teachers and resource staff who meet regularly to discuss diagnosis,
intervention, and data analysis. Since then, the legislature has
increased funding and 11 new districts will be implementing the state
reading initiative. MDE staff reported that SECAC's knowledge of
standards-based reform, curriculum, pedagogy, and research were critical
to designing and implementing Every Child A Reader. For example, SECAC
provided assistance in aligning reading assessments to standards when
the state was developing the program. "At the end \[of administering
student assessments\], we analyzed all the assessments and prescribed a
reading program for each intervention, aligned to state standards,"
explained a MDE staff member.

***Title IV.*** SECAC helped sponsor the first statewide Safe and
Drug-Free Schools Coordinators meeting. In particular, SECAC brokered
the services of several presenters and helped with meeting logistics. On
an ongoing basis, SECAC staff help keep MDE informed on recent
developments in the Title IV program, such as the Principles of
Effectiveness.

**[Goals and Objectives for Continuing Work]{.underline}**

Overwhelmingly, MDE staff said they wanted to maintain their
relationship with SECAC and expressed concern about the future of the
Comprehensive Centers. MDE staff reported that they depend greatly on
SECAC and will continue to use the center's services because: (1) SECAC
services are free; (2) there are few other technical assistance
providers available in Mississippi; (3) securing services from SECAC is
easier than from other providers because MDE and the RSCs can bypass the
state's complicated procurement procedures for hiring speakers and
consultants; and (4) MDE and RSC staff trust SECAC's services to be
relevant and of high quality. Describing SECAC's usefulness to MDE, one
staffer said:

> Without fail, SECAC has been able to get me help on a whole lot of
> different issues. Most definitely I would feel an effect from SECAC
> disappearing. The work would fall right back on \[the MDE\]. We see
> SECAC as another arm.

The state liaison described a host of new and continued ways in which
SECAC will work in Mississippi. SECAC staff intend to continue
facilitating communication between RSCs within Mississippi, as well as
throughout the region. Staffers hope the networking will improve RSC
planning and services, as well as improve its own assistance to the
RSCs. Also, SECAC will follow up on its CSRD showcase with additional
training to facilitate the implementation of school reform models,
consult with MDE staff, help sponsor conferences and workshops for
districts and schools, and work to implement the state's reading
initiative. As further evidence of SECAC's contribution to MDE, another
staffer added:

> I would like to see SECAC continue as is and would hate to see it
> being discontinued. I hope the relationship could stay the same. In
> the future we would like to keep working with the schools and
> districts as is.

**IV. State's Use of External Assistance**

Staff from MDE and the RSCs reported that they need external assistance
when there is a lack of in-house expertise or resources; although,
outside of SECAC and SERVE, staff said that there were relatively few
service providers available to them. Overall, MDE relies primarily on
SECAC for external assistance, while the RSCs often look to
universities, foundations, and nonprofit organizations in addition to
SECAC.

Specifically, the center assists the MDE in implementing school reform
models and accessing funding and expertise. According to staff from the
MDE, SECAC is an attractive technical assistance provider because: (1)
the center's services are free; (2) SECAC staff are knowledgeable about
state and local reform agendas; (3) SECAC's state liaison understands
the inner workings of the MDE and is reliable; (4) the center has
expertise in specific topic areas, such as conducting needs assessments,
planning and implementing schoolwide programs, choosing CSRD models,
developing and implementing state reading initiatives, and building the
capacities of the RSCs; and (5) SECAC can help sponsor large events that
require considerable planning and coordination. Praising not only SECAC
but the state liaison in particular, one MDE staffer reported,

> SECAC is very good at pulling disparate groups together and getting
> them to work together. She \[the state liaison\] has helped to build
> relationships with other service center people. She facilitates.

Also, MDE staff look to SERVE for technical assistance related to
federal program implementation and school reform models. Because they
are the main technical assistance contacts in the state, SECAC and SERVE
have formed an informal partnership, particularly around the CSRD
program. Attesting to the value of this partnership, another staffer
said,

> It's been SERVE and SECAC. SERVE and SECAC are the only two \[external
> providers in Mississippi\]. Having joint service available has been
> good.

The RSCs also look to SECAC when they need low-cost assistance, flexible
services, and help with oversight, facilitation, and networking,
although they often contract with non-SECAC personnel for training and
consulting provided to school and district staff. Specifically, SECAC
works with the RSCs to recruit high-quality workshop presenters, and
facilitates state and regional RSC networking. RSC staff said they also
turn to universities, nonprofit organizations, foundations, and other
government agencies for expertise and help in hiring consultants,
speakers, and trainers. For example, in the area of Safe and Drug-Free
Schools, these experts have included representatives from Jackson State
University, the state Attorney General's office, and DREAM, a local
nonprofit organization dedicated to school safety and substance abuse
issues. For help with standards and other academic issues, MDE has
consulted with master teachers from the Mississippi Council of Teachers
of Mathematics; the state's "Pool of Providers" list, which identifies
exemplary educators; and teachers from a local math and science magnet
school. One RSC staff member described his RSC's connection to its host
university:

> We seek a lot of outside assistance because, though the \[state's\]
> prescription is limiting, there is opportunity to be creative and do
> other kinds of things. The department's contract with us is very
> demanding of personnel, so we need to bring additional people on board
> to do other things. Sometimes when I need workshops on school safety
> there are experts right here. There is someone who is in special
> education and early childhood education right here. I pull those
> people. The School of Education can be made available. There are six
> people from the university and they are working with us right now.

**V. Effects**

**[Customer Satisfaction]{.underline}**

Both MDE and RSC staff described SECAC's products and services as high
quality, tailored to their needs, and useful and relevant to their work.
Moreover, staff reported that Center staff were accessible,
knowledgeable about federal programs, and able to provide sustained
assistance. Particularly, staff spoke highly of the state liaison and
her knowledge of state and federal policy. One MDE staff noted that the
liaison likely attends more state meetings than most MDE employees.
Other staff members added that her absence would limit their ability to
serve Mississippi's children:

> We can call on SECAC for expertise. We ask for help and direction when
> we need it. We would feel an effect if \[the state liaison\] weren't
> there anymore. A lot of burden would be back on us and that would be
> hard. . . . We have made SECAC what we needed. They have become our
> arm. I value her \[the state liaison's\] efforts to reach out and her
> expertise. . . . School districts trust \[the state liaison\] as if
> she were part of the MDE. They see her help as relevant.
>
> \[The state liaison\] is always at the \[Mississippi\] board meetings
> and is very aware of education at the national level. If we lost her,
> we would lose important communication about our own state policies.
> She always knows what is current.
>
> \[The state liaison\] did a needs assessment workshop that was the
> best that I have ever seen. She had wonderful handouts . . . she did
> assessments in Meridian and somewhere else and did a wonderful job.
> Hers was even better than the one in Washington.
>
> When we started out we did not know what we were doing. \[The state
> liaison\] helps me to understand how the other service centers are
> using their services, which gives me ideas. . . . At first, I did not
> know what help to ask for and how to plan. When she saw that, she
> shared \[ideas\] with me. I have seen a great deal of improvement in
> what we do.

**[Increased State Capacity to Deliver High-Quality Technical
Assistance]{.underline}**

Other staff explained ways in which the center enhanced their work. One
reading specialist in MDE said that SECAC's assistance to the SEA in
developing the RAISE program was much appreciated. The center improved
the program's data analysis and peer coaching components and assisted
the SEA implement the program in six pilot districts. Overall, staff
were effusive in their praise of the center's efforts:

> I think SECAC has made a difference in what we can offer districts. We
> personally and financially would have to do the job they are doing,
> which we just can't do. . . . We might be able to employ other
> consultants, but the service is not as good \[as SECAC's\].
>
> If you only knew the details and the time and the thinking that SECAC
> puts into the follow-up activity for the June activity, you couldn't
> beat them. If you look at the quality of work to facilitate the
> activities telephone calls, visits, person-person communication,
> e-mails, it is very intense. The part that makes me really feel good
> is that SECAC people are comfortable to be with and you also get
> things accomplished.

MDE and RSC staff also reported that SECAC allows them to "learn by
watching" during consultations, workshops, and other events. The center
facilitates capacity building among SEA staff by maintaining frequent
communication with them and staying abreast of staff needs. Staff
appreciate this approach very much:

> \[The state liaison\] is my ideal for state technical assistance. I
> think most people don't want to admit they don't know something. But
> I, and others, have learned about Title I and other things from her.
> Our office is a new office. A lot of people are straight out of the
> classroom and have very little experience with federal program
> administration. \[The state liaison\] happens to have a lot of
> experience with programs, and we watch her provide training. We learn
> from watching her.
>
> I have observed \[SECAC staff\] interacting with workshop
> participants. The participants get a lot out of it. I get the
> impression that they are using what they are learning. Teachers and
> counselors are receiving hands-on materials that are timely. I have
> kept all my materials from SECAC's meeting in June. \[SECAC staff\]
> ask and hear what I need. They are good listeners.
>
> \[The state liaison\] is a local, so she is easier to contact. We can
> easily go to her office to pick up resources. . . . I don't have a
> week go by without being contacted by \[her\]. She maintains very
> close contact with the department.

However, SEA staff indicated that the focus of SECAC services to the MDE
and RSCs recently shifted from capacity-building exercises toward more
training sessions for clients. These respondents noted that they call on
SECAC less frequently because they have learned how to do their work:

> I moved from innovative support to instructional development. In my
> first year, I have called \[the state liaison\] often during the
> transition but that is done. I really don't call her that frequently
> now.

**[Increased Awareness and Understanding of ESEA Programs]{.underline}**

MDE staff have taken steps to implement some of the key tenets of ESEA
as a result of their contact with SECAC. First, although the MDE is
integrating federal program coordination and funding, schools and
districts are further along in this process. SECAC sponsored activities
designed to help schools integrate federal program funds as a means of
better assisting disadvantaged children. In so far as ESEA and SECAC are
concerned, one MDE staff member said:

> We have used SECAC to get the word out to schools about how to get the
> most for your money. We invite \[the state liaison\] and RSCs to
> program meetings \[in which we talk about program integration\].

Second, MDE staff think they are paying greater attention to the needs
of non-English-speaking students. In 1998, SECAC helped the SEA work
with a district that was out of compliance with federal regulations
protecting ESL students, a small, but increasing population in
Mississippi. According to one MDE staff member, greater attention to ESL
issues at the state level has engendered more consideration of the
social and emotional needs of these students at the district and school
levels. Third, SECAC's needs assessment workshops have promoted the use
of data to make needs assessment more meaningful and helped to identify
teachers' needs for professional development.

**[Improved Teaching and Learning]{.underline}**

Because MDE and RSC staff were most familiar with SECAC services at the
state and district levels, they had little evidence that the center's
services could be directly attributed to improvements in teaching and
learning at the classroom level. Nevertheless, one staff member thought
that teaching would improve as a result of SECAC training for district
officials in needs assessment. District staff were better able to
understand test and survey data and how that data relate to teaching
strategies. Overall, MDE staff expected that SECAC assistance was a
benefit to the educational system and would ultimately benefit the
learning of Mississippi students.

**[Barriers to the Delivery of High-Quality, Effective Technical
Assistance]{.underline}**

MDE and RSC staff were satisfied with SECAC services, but could also
point to some potential barriers to the delivery of high-quality
technical assistance. For instance, MDE staff described challenges in
working with the state department of education, particularly in
processes related to: (1) service procurement; (2) requests for
proposals; and (3) the coordination of many busy people with different
priorities. Staff also said that service providers, such as SECAC, may
be challenged in working with the MDE when there is a disconnect between
the state agenda and district and school needs. Lastly, MDE staff
suggested that it is hard for service providers in high demand, such as
SECAC's Mississippi liaison, to balance service requests, saying, "Good
people get spread too thin."

**[Summary]{.underline}**

Mississippi is taking steps to consolidate federal program
administration at the state level, though there is no formal structure
for collaborating extensively across programs. A state liaison from
SECAC brokers services between the center and MDE and ensures that
center services are tailored to state needs.

SECAC organizes many of its services through the state's RSCs. The state
liaison works with the RSCs to develop a master calendar to ensure that
the RSCs receive an appropriate share of center services. SECAC's
portfolio of products and services includes initiatives in the following
areas: CSRD, reading, and Title IV. According to MDE staff, the state
relies on SECAC because its services are free; because there are few
other technical assistance providers available in Mississippi; and
because the SEA finds SECAC services to be relevant and of high quality.
Center staff were valued for their accessibility, knowledge about
federal programs, and ability to provide sustained assistance. MDE staff
reported that their capacity had improved because of the center's
assistance and that they "learn by watching" SECAC during consultations,
workshops, and other events.

**Comprehensive Center Services to States**

**New Mexico Department of Education**

This case study examines services provided by the Region IX
Comprehensive Center---also known as the Southwest Comprehensive
Regional Assistance Center (SWCC)---to the New Mexico State Department
of Education (NMSDE). New Mexico is one of five states in the center's
region, and the Southwest Center focuses its services to the state in
the areas of low-performing schools, Title I, standards-based reform,
and Indian education.

I.  State Context

New Mexico's relatively small population is spread over many square
miles and divided into ethnic subgroups that have very different ways of
defining and preserving cultural identity. The most numerous group is
Hispanic, although American Indians from a variety of tribes also
represent a significant proportion of the population, particularly in
rural areas. Accommodating the state's diverse linguistic and cultural
resources poses a challenge to staff from both SWCC and NMSDE, in part
because each population group has, over time, developed a different
relationship with schools and school systems.

######## [Reform Goals and Initiatives]{.underline} {#reform-goals-and-initiatives .unnumbered}

In 1993, New Mexico's state board of education introduced a policy
framework for educational reform. The following year, the commissioner
of education and governor jointly appointed a 32-member New Mexico
Education Goals 2000 Panel to oversee the state's implementation and
assessment of school reform plans. The Panel continues to serve as a key
guiding force in New Mexico's reform agenda.

In 1996, the State Board of Education adopted the Standards for
Excellence to establish expectations for all New Mexico students
attending schools covered by the regulations, provide for implementation
of the standards for these students, and establish content standards and
benchmarks. To implement the standards, the state requires that each
district develop, implement, assess, and evaluate an Educational Plan
for Student Success (EPSS). The EPSS is a comprehensive, long-range
planning, implementation, and evaluation tool that is the roadmap for
the district's efforts to achieve the expectations outlined in the
standards. Engaging community stakeholders in creation of viable,
effective EPSS that address state standards and reconciling plans for
the district and school levels to produce good programs for students has
been an ongoing challenge.

By 1998, New Mexico had adopted content standards and benchmarks for
nine content areas and aligned the statewide assessment system with
these standards. Between 1996 and 1999, the New Mexico accountability
system was developed and improved. The accountability system now has
four components:

-   Standards for Excellence

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   Strategies for measuring and reporting progress, including a data
    system, an assessment system, and accountability reports

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   Progress reviews, including accreditation and program/budget
    reviews, and

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   Recognition programs, including monetary awards and publication of
    the achievements of high-performing and high-improving schools

The state board of education also launched a three-year professional
development initiative to ease teachers' transition into a
standards-based education system. The state collects data on student
assessment results, school safety records, dropout and attendance data,
and financial information, which will be available to the public when it
publishes its 10th annual accountability report in 2000.

### **[Implementation of ESEA Reforms]{.underline}**

NMSDE is working hard to integrate all federal, state, and local
initiatives under the umbrella of state reform. For example, all
programs are included in schools' and districts' EPSSs, which ensure
that all students are being held to the same standards and that program
resources are organized accordingly.

Most SEA respondents reported that they have attempted to promote
consolidation and integrate planning and resources with other programs,
although others were reluctant to embrace federal and state efforts to
consolidate and integrate education programs. For example, a Title VII
program officer explained that she monitors local implementation of
services for children covered by her program by reviewing school plans
to determine how, and to what extent, EPSS objectives are connected to
bilingual and multi-cultural education. Staff from the technology office
report that they provide technical assistance that facilitates the use
of technology in various academic program areas, and that they seek to
foster collaboration between the technology program and other programs,
such as bilingual and Indian education. One official explained that the
technology office is "focused on \[meeting\] content standards and
benchmarks and providing learning opportunities" and encourages
districts to "merge the\[ir\] technology plan\[s\] with EPSS." In
addition, the program director for Indian Education stated that she
works with all departments to monitor services to American Indian
students in public, contract, and Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) schools
throughout New Mexico. She pointed out that a concerted effort is being
made to ensure that schools that serve large numbers of American Indian
students are involved in the school accreditation process, and that
Title VII and Title I funds are available for participating tribes and
American Indian parent committees.

II\. Establishing the Relationship

SWCC is housed within the Center for the Education and Study of Diverse
Populations (CESDP) at New Mexico Highlands University. Although SWCC is
a separate entity within the larger organization, many SWCC staff
members are also funded by CESDP to provide technical assistance and
other services under other CESDP contracts. Thus, while their tasks and
responsibilities under the Comprehensive Center contract and other CESDP
contracts are often quite similar, staff are clear that at times they
represent SWCC and at other times they represent CESDP. This distinction
is not always clear, or important, to service recipients. As one NMSDE
staff member observed: "Highlands, CESDP, and \[the Comprehensive
Center\]...their images blend into one."

######### The Center's History with the State

The relationship between the center and NMSDE is facilitated by close
relationships among staff from both organizations. Many have known each
other personally or have worked together professionally. Staff from
NMSDE emphasized frequently the importance of long-term relationships to
their work with SWCC. One administrator explained,

> In New Mexico, it is very important to have the human relationship,
> regardless of \[the type of\] business partnership. Whether there will
> be the reauthorization of the Comprehensive Centers or not, we want
> \[technical assistance providers who\] know our schools, our culture,
> and so we will be looking for someone quite local. . . . I was more
> open to working with them because I knew several of the center people.
> \[The assistant director of the center\], for instance, was in
> grad\[uate\] school with me, and we got talking . . . they came to me
> to say, 'What do you think we can do in the partnership?' I know the
> work they were doing on standards. Our work on needs assessment was
> very labor intensive, and we needed them to help.

Other SEA staff also reported that they had prior relationships with
center staff. In particular, one praised SWCC's associate director as
being "always good to work with." This respondent continued, "In New
Mexico, if one is in education long enough, we know each other. It's a
little enough state that we just do." Similarly, describing her
relationship with center staff, a federal program officer noted that
NMSDE's relationship with the center is "a partnership . . . it's a work
relationship, but we are friends." The partnership between the two
organizations developed quickly, in part because NMSDE staff were keenly
aware of their needs and knew from prior experience that Center staff
had the knowledge and expertise to provide the assistance they required.

NMSDE staff reported that, over time, the most significant change in
their relationship with the center has been in the level and focus of
service. In the first couple of years after the center was established,
the state often requested and received help serving specific schools,
districts, or programs. However, as the center's understanding of how to
stretch resources to meet state needs efficiently and effectively
evolved, the center grew more strategic in its services to the state.
Although the center continued to provide some direct services to
districts and schools, it also began to shift its services to the state
to more often address the needs of consortia or larger groups of
customers. If, for example, a state program officer asked the center to
provide a parent involvement workshop at a district or school, the
center works with the officer to identify the larger audience for such
an event and to link it with other state initiatives.

[Planning Services]{.underline}

Center staff's knowledge of local context and extensive involvement in
New Mexico's education community made the state's needs assessment
process relatively straightforward. Once the center was established,
staff from both organizations arranged meetings in which they
brainstormed about how to most effectively use center resources to serve
the state. One program specialist said that center staff met with them,
asked about their needs, conducted needs assessments, and provided a
variety of workshops. In addition, center staff explained to SEA staff
that although it could not provide assistance to individual schools or
districts, it could organize and sponsor regional meetings that SEA
staff could "help put together."

NMSDE staff selected the areas of Indian education, bilingual education,
and Title I schoolwide programs as those in which the state required the
most assistance. In addition, the state called on the center to help it
support the 11 critically low-performing schools identified by statewide
assessments, all of which have heavy concentrations of Limited English
Proficient and American Indian students, and about half of which have
implemented Title I schoolwide programs.

III\. Services to the SEA

[Portfolio of Products and Services]{.underline}

The center has fulfilled a variety of tasks for NMSDE, ranging from
training for School Support Teams (SSTs) to helping school districts
complete funding applications and prepare grant proposals. Through these
and other activities, the state looks to the center to help build its
capacity to both implement programs and deliver technical assistance.
According to one staff member, "The center shares the workload, and they
model for us. The result is way more than I could have done by myself. .
. . \[center staff\] are exceptional people. I always look for an
opportunity to capitalize on their expertise."

Because CESDP staff have been involved in the development and
implementation of standards in New Mexico since they were adopted,
center staff are well-versed in standards-based reforms. In addition,
SWCC staff have experience in conducting, accessing, and using research,
given the Center's history as a Title VII evaluation center.

***Support to Critically Low Performing Schools***. SWCC is the mainstay
of technical assistance services to the 11 schools identified by the
state's accountability system as "critically low performing," and the
center's services to these schools have been intensive. Center staff
meet directly with individual school teams to develop and revise EPSS
plans and conduct other activities---such as workshops in leadership and
comprehensive planning---designed to drive improvement. With assistance
from the center, the critically low performing schools also convene
meetings with external groups and community partners. The center's role
in this effort is highly valued by the state, which would have
difficulty providing technical assistance to such schools given its
monitoring role within the accountability system.

***Title I*.** SWCC has provided technical assistance and training to
SSTs. According to NMSDE staff, the center's work with the SSTs has been
particularly helpful, because the center has helped the state "to create
a new, improved SST cadre \[that\] is very popular, \[and\] we are
grateful. . . ." Currently, "requests are pouring in" to the SSTs from
schools that want and need their help, added an SEA staff member.

Center staff have also assisted the state in preparing and revising a
*Title I Schoolwide Program Planning Manual* that is designed to provide
guidance to schools implementing schoolwide programs. The document,
which uses an accreditation-type rubric, was produced jointly by NMSDE
and the center and has been disseminated widely throughout the state.

***Standards-based Reform***. The state has sought SWCC's assistance to
prepare a primer on standards for dissemination to districts and
schools. A NMSDE staff member explained, "Other states have standards
primers. I want something quick and dirty, and \[center staff\] are
working on that for us. They bring in teachers and curriculum experts. .
. . We are getting 10,000 \[printed\]. . . ." With EPSS and
standards-based reform at the center of state reform efforts, NMSDE is
particularly eager to ensure that language minority students are held to
high standards, that they are properly identified and assessed, and that
suitable accommodations are made for them.

***Indian Education***. The state Indian Education director convened a
series of meetings, hosted by SWCC, for the BIA officials and
superintendents from districts with high concentrations of Indian
students. The purpose of the meetings was to improve alignment between
the BIA and the state's accountability systems and discuss ways in which
the EPSS could satisfy requirements of both systems. NMSDE staff noted
that this alignment was important for Indian students because of the
high mobility rates among this population. In this case, the center made
its resources and facilities available to the state for pursuing a goal
they shared.

**[Goals and Objectives for Continuing Work]{.underline}**

SEA staff discussed the center's continued role in helping build its
capacity to assist schools implementing schoolwide programs. They also
pointed out the importance of the center's role in promoting federal
program integration and ensuring that federal programs address the EPSS.
According to NMSDE respondents, the center is also valuable in helping
the SEA leverage change on a grander scale, rather than to scatter help
over a variety of tasks and audiences. With this goal in mind, the
center has helped NMSDE staff extend their reach and responsiveness to
increasing numbers of clients.

### **IV. State's Use of External Assistance**

SWCC is typically the primary contact for NMSDE staff who require
assistance outside of the SEA. Several interviewees reported that they
valued the center's services because center staff know the territory,
are well connected, and have the interpersonal skills and political
savvy necessary for successfully interacting with different kinds of
people and institutions. They find that center staff are well respected
and welcomed in districts around the state and appreciate the center's
ability to maneuver between and among the formal and informal authority
structures in the state, while maintaining cordial relationships with
key personnel. NMSDE staff stated that they had not found, nor did they
expect to find, this combination of qualities in any other technical
assistance providers. One explained, "There are other free sources \[of
technical assistance\] that we do not use because what they do is not
solid work. I would prefer to use the center more."

When NMSDE requires services outside of the center's scope and beyond
its capacity, it often purchases technical assistance from CESDP, the
center's host organization. In the past, NMSDE has looked to CESDP to
provide services related to the implementation of standards,
professional development related to technology, parent involvement, and
career preparation.

Other personnel acknowledged that the state requires assistance in
several areas and that there are opportunities for technical assistance
providers other than the center to make valuable contributions. For
example, one respondent suggested that a university or an organization
similar to the center and one "that understands \[the state's way of
doing business\]" take the lead on "a statewide system for the delivery
of professional development."

In addition to the center and CESDP, the state identified Sandia Labs,
New Mexico Highlands University in Las Vegas, and the Native American
Rights Center as organizations that have provided important assistance
in areas such as technology, research and grant writing, parent
involvement, and tribal policy issues.

##### V. Effects

### **[Customer Satisfaction]{.underline}**

For the most part, NMSDE staff were satisfied with the quality of
services they have received from the center. In particular, SEA
respondents have been pleased with the center's efforts in:

\(1\) helping the state develop standards and assisting districts and
teachers to implement them; (2) training personnel to work on school
support teams; (3) working intensively with some of the state's lowest
performing schools; and (4) fostering good will and improved
communication between NMSDE and local districts with whom relationships
have been strained.

NMSDE staff also were respectful of the center's work---and that of its
host organization---and knowledge of local context. Referring to
occasions when the SEA contracted services from CESDP, one SEA staff
member noted, "I respect the \[center\] people and would consider
them...even \[if\] the work was outside their scope." The center's
experience with local populations and programs was particularly valuable
to the NMSDE. According to one staff member, "What I am impressed with
is what they have already done in rural schools. . . . I know those
schools \[in terms of how much work was needed\], and \[the center's\]
work has been well received."

Respondents noted other important strengths of the center. One director
observed that center staff successfully attend to both public policy
agendas as well as client needs. He appreciated the "honest working
relationship" fostered between the two organizations and the direct
manner in which center staff communicate with the state. "We do not have
to 'pussyfoot,' and that's amazing in a relationship with a contractor,"
she added.

**[Increased State Capacity to Deliver High-Quality Technical
Assistance]{.underline}**

An important component of SWCC's services to the NMSDE is capacity
building among SEA staff. According to one staff member, "We brought
them \[the center\] in to help review school improvement plans. Through
that process our people have had a chance to watch how it is done.
That's capacity building." Another added, "A lot of \[the center's\]
work is about . . . training our staff for effectiveness. They show that
they understand the school improvement process. They do good work."

**[Increased Awareness and Understanding of ESEA Programs]{.underline}**

In the view of many, the center has also done a good job of helping the
state to coordinate and consolidate programs, despite resistance from
some long-term program staff who worried that integration would
compromise services to targeted populations. The SEA has looked to SWCC
to help foster federal program integration, particularly in the context
of EPSS and schoolwide programs.

**[Barriers to the Delivery of High-Quality, Effective Technical
Assistance]{.underline}**

SEA respondents discussed one barrier to the center's ability to provide
high-quality technical assistance. They thought that potential service
recipients might not be served because the center's menu of services was
not readily available and, as a result, potential customers might not
know how to use the center's services. As one interviewee explained, "I
don't use them as much as I should. . . . I don't know what is there to
be offered." However, this comment was offered in the context of general
satisfaction with the quality and quantity of services that the center
was providing---satisfaction that left state clients unwilling to miss
any opportunity to take advantage of the center's knowledge and skills.

###### 

###### 

###### Summary {#summary}

New Mexico's EPSS seeks to combine federal, state, and local initiatives
and organize resources strategically. However, some SEA respondents were
reluctant to embrace federal program consolidation. The center and CESDP
enjoy a close partnership, buoyed by long-term and prior relationships.
The state requested that the center concentrate its efforts in the areas
of Indian education, bilingual education, Title I schoolwide programs,
and support to the 11 critically low-performing schools identified by
statewide assessments. SWCC staff were valued for their work in helping
the state develop and disseminate standards; training personnel to serve
on school support teams; serving low-performing schools; and improving
communication between the SEA and local districts. Some SEA staff
members were concerned that center services might be underused because
it did not provide a menu of services.

Comprehensive Center Services to States

New York State Department of Education

This case study examines services provided by Region II Comprehensive
Center---also known as the New York Technical Assistance Center
(NYTAC)---to the New York State Department of Education (NYSED), the
only state education association (SEA) in the center's region. NYTAC's
assistance to NYSED has been wide ranging, although it has focused
centrally on statewide systemic capacity building through strategic
planning with NYSED senior management, support to low-performing
districts and schools, support to the state's Comprehensive School
Reform Demonstration (CSRD) Program, and federal program integration and
schoolwide programs.

##### 

##### I. State Context

####### Reform Goals and Initiatives

New York has been reforming its educational system since the mid-1980s.
During this period, two energetic commissioners have emphasized
standards-aligned teaching and accountability, site-based management,
parent and community involvement, technology improvement, and statewide
management efficiency. The current commissioner, Richard Mills, came
into office in 1995, committed to continuing the standards focus
established by his predecessor, Tom Sobol. He has done so by
concentrating on improving teaching and learning in the state's poorest
performing schools and districts, focusing especially on the "Big Five"
districts---New York, Yonkers, Syracuse, Rochester, and Buffalo. In
1998, Commissioner Mills, with the approval of the State Board of
Regents, put in place a three-priority strategic plan that established
as its core goal that all students would achieve the state's ambitious
standards through three mechanisms: (1) regularly assessing student
progress toward standards; (2) building local capacity; and (3)
disseminating assessment results statewide through school report cards.
According to a NYTAC staff member, the strength of Commissioner Mills'
agenda is its focus on serving the state's most at-risk population with
a strong, standards-based curriculum. With this agenda, Mills was able
to use Title I as the "quiet driver" of reform in New York.

**II. Establishing the Relationship**

####### The Center's History with the State

Entrée into the NYSED came easily for NYTAC. Individuals from the
Center, NYSED, and participating partner organizations had been
long-time collaborators: "We envisioned the state as both a partner and
a client," a NYTAC staff member recalled. The state's deputy
commissioner reported that the partnership concept characterized his
experience with the center relationship from the start, and one of his
staff members reported that "even before funding came in, they \[Center
staff\] were talking with \[our\] top managers."

**[Planning Services]{.underline}**

NYTAC's work in New York is driven by "systems thinking," planning that
ensures that the various elements of the state education system are
strategically coordinated to accomplish the goals set by the State Board
of Regents. This systemic approach favors management strategies that
promote comprehensive and integrated program changes rather than those
that segment programs categorically. NYTAC staff are attentive to how
the state's organizational parts interact and affect one another, and
they direct their services to where maximum impact can be achieved. They
regard technical assistance to be a scare resource, which must be
strategically dispersed if it is to reach the classrooms and students
who would most likely benefit. A center staff member explained the
organization's priority on concentrating its services at management
levels:

> It is at the state level \[where you place your emphasis\] . . . if
> you can go to the state and affect one thing in policy that affects
> opportunities for kids to get those resources \[more effectively\] . .
> . you've touched all kids. . . . We battled among ourselves . . . some
> about \[whether to\] serve teachers, some argued to serve buildings
> and others said the state . . . \[In the end, however,\] it's a
> combination of all those pieces.

NYTAC adheres to a systemic approach in providing NYSED services. First,
the center organizes its teams to parallel the state's organization. A
NYSED program director observed, "As we organized ourselves, they
\[center staff\] organized themselves the same way. They match our
groups for Title I and Title IV, Long Island, and New York City." Three
regional teams, each led by a high-level NYTAC manager, serves different
parts of the state, and one team directly serves the SEA. Cross-team
coordination and contact with other state networks are standard
operating practice. According to center staff, this organizational
arrangement enabled the center to coordinate its services so they are
consistent with the way the state organizes its own existing technical
assistance. Center service delivery teams worked closely with the
managers in its Effective Schools Consortium Networks (ESCN),
"Touch\[ing\] base with every state representative, at every level. . .
." Such a strategic organizational arrangement did not require
additional funding, but it was, from the perspective of center staff, a
"critical investment."

Second, the center responds directly to the state's needs, rather than
imposing mandates or a particular agenda. Initially, NYTAC and NYSED
established priorities through individual and small group meetings
between the team leaders and their major contacts across the state. A
SEA respondent described the center's responsiveness to state needs:

> They \[NYTAC staff\] were especially effective because they did not
> have a work plan when they came in. They didn't say we had to work
> with standards and testing...the mandate. They asked us, 'What are
> your needs?' and we told them. They came back six weeks later with a
> plan. It's an annual work plan, which they reviewed with us prior to
> it being established.

##### III. Services to the SEA 

####### Portfolio of Products and Services

NYSED turned to the center for assistance in the following key areas:
(1) reducing barriers to federal and state program integration; (2)
implementing the Title I and Comprehensive School Reform Demonstration
(CSRD) programs; and (3) building state and local capacity to reform
systemically. According to one SEA respondent, "We needed the help \[in
capacity building and school improvement\], and they were most
interested in providing help there. . . . First, they helped with the
design of capacity building \[statewide\], and \[then they\] worked with
specific districts. They started with New York City and branched out. It
flowed out from New York City to upstate."

According to SEA respondents, NYTAC staff are interpreters,
facilitators, researchers, and trainers for NYSED programs. Furthermore,
they have expertise and insider knowledge about Washington's
expectations and an understanding of how federal laws should be
implemented. NYTAC staff fulfill a variety of roles, ranging from
convening and taking notes at meetings, helping draft and redraft plans,
and working between and among groups with differing and often
conflicting perspectives. NYSED staff also recognized center staffs'
skills as negotiators---either among state-level programs or among
districts, schools, and the SEA.

***Strategic Planning with NYSED Senior Management**.* NYTAC places a
priority on serving the highest management levels both in NYSED and in
school districts. The center advises the deputy commissioner's senior
management team and offers regular assistance to key program staff who
lead the implementation of ESEA programs and CSRD. NYSED staff
acknowledged that this was not an easy task, because achieving the ESEA
reauthorization program integration goals "did not follow a formula" and
some state agency personnel responded dubiously to consolidation
proposals, waiting to see if the changes were "here to stay and not
going away."

The deputy commissioner called on NYTAC primarily for "big picture"
assistance, ranging in topic areas from assistance in designing the
comprehensive plan to responding to civil rights violations and moving
Schools Under Registration Review (SURR) into action. In one instance,
NYTAC responded to the Board of Regents' request to the senior
management team to redesign the state's approach to bilingual education.
One SEA staff member reported, "They were able to bring in a design to
improve bilingual instruction...NYTAC did the work researching it; they
contacted national researchers. We were able to avoid a 'California
crisis' \[as a result of their efforts\]." Other major areas in which
NYTAC helped the state agency's senior managers included: (1)
contributing to the development of and editing the initial IASA
consolidated plan; (2) designing, drafting, and implementing the CSRD
proposal; (3) convening and leading the CSRD Think Tank; (4) training
members of the state's School Support Team (SST); and

\(5\) developing a comprehensive new approach to training and involving
parents in New York City schools.

In addition, center staff developed effective and practical working
relationships with NYSED program and division directors. Many NYSED
staff valued this high level of services, reporting that answers to
their questions were only a telephone call away. According to one NYSED
program director, NYTAC "bent over backwards to match our needs and our
organizational structure. We ask for face-to-face activities that are
labor intensive, sometimes requiring them to reorder resources, but they
always provide."

###### *Support to Districts and Schools.* NYTAC helped carry out the Commissioner's commitment to increasing assistance to school districts with large concentrations of low-achieving students, especially those in the state's "Big 5" cities---New York City, Yonkers, Buffalo, Rochester, and Syracuse. Each NYTAC regional team customized its services to the regional and district offices. The teams also concentrated their assistance in the areas of schoolwide programs and professional development to enhance teachers' capacity to implement standards-based reforms and to link poorly performing schools to Title I SSTs and Distinguished Schools and Educators. In many school districts and regions, NYTAC collaborated with NYSED, the state's ESCNs, and the Northeast and Islands Laboratory at Brown University to offer these services. 

NYTAC teams assisted the state's SSTs and concentrated on using ESEA
program resources to reinvigorate assistance to the SURR schools
statewide. NYTAC participated in planning meetings and hosted luncheons
for SURR principals to learn about new program options and exchange
information. In doing so, NYTAC motivated a new level of commitment
among these hard-to-reach principals, and encouraged them to accept
change initiatives that the state proposed.

In addition to planning and conducting conferences and meetings, NYTAC
staff were facilitators and policy advisors to specific school
districts. In Buffalo, NYTAC participated in regular policy-setting
meetings with the Superintendent's Executive Council and connected
district administrators with consultants from the center and the Region
II Desegregation Assistance Center. Through these efforts, the center
helped Buffalo establish new policies and an organizational plan for
moving from court-ordered desegregation to unitary status. To support
the Roosevelt (Long Island) School District, which was put under NYSED
management in 1996, a NYTAC team also met regularly with the district
superintendent and other staff and participated in strategic planning to
implement reforms. Among other activities, NYTAC helped Roosevelt school
teams learn to disaggregate and use school profile data in planning,
complete their CSRD and e-rate applications, and write the district's
consolidated plan.

Assistance to New York City's Board of Education occurred in a number of
different areas and on different levels. The center offered the
district's SURR schools leadership and management training for
principals and their assistants. Parents of children in these schools
benefited from a series of parent training workshops that developed
their leadership, team-building, and conflict resolution skills. Six New
York City elementary schools also received training from NYTAC in
literacy and reading, with professional development for the teachers and
a tutoring program for the students.

***CSRD Program***. When the CSRD legislation passed, NYTAC assisted
state leaders conceptualize and draft their application to Washington
and set in place the mechanism for selecting recipients of CSRD grants.
They also provided technical assistance to schools in conducting needs
assessments and selecting appropriate reform models. NYTAC continues as
a resource to the state's Board of Cooperative Education Services
(BOCES) and the ESCNs that are working with CSRD schools or potential
sites.

This early work led to the development of the CSRD Think Tank, a
successful collaboration of technical assistance organizations statewide
that are working to ensure CSRD sites have the capacity to successfully
carry out their plans. Since 1997, regular Think Tank meetings have
convened key education reform leaders on a monthly or bimonthly basis to
extend their coordination and to develop evaluation strategies and a Web
site that serves CSRD schools statewide. State officials report that the
group collaboration, under NYTAC's direction, has increased the overall
efficiency and impact of technical assistance services to CSRD programs.

***ESEA and Schoolwide Implementation***. NYTAC helped establish and
facilitate the ESEA/Goals 2000 Internal Task Force, which designed the
state's consolidated ESEA plan and collaborated to improve the
cross-program coordination proposed in the plan. One of the task force's
program directors reported that NYTAC helped develop organizational
continuity as the agency sought to consolidate its ESEA programs.
Because state program staff faced some internal resistance in
consolidating their programs, they relied on NYTAC to negotiate
differences among programs. At the same time, NYTAC staff offered policy
research and proposal writing assistance:

> NYTAC would come with a bigger picture, helping to knit individual
> units together when we had meetings. . . . They'd say, 'Think about
> this,' and 'Make sure you say this. . . .' The problem was that we
> didn't know what help we needed or how to ask. . . . \[NYTAC's
> partners\] managed to find a way to be useful despite the obstacles
> they encountered organizationally.

NYTAC offered intervention skills institutes to NYSED and ESCN regional
staff working with schoolwide transitional programs. The institutes were
designed to increase participants' practical knowledge of organizations
and systems change. The training used observation and skillful
questioning to build groups' capacity to direct their own renewal.
According to SEA staff, their challenge was to use the training to learn
to "see another way of thinking" and to apply a systems frame of
reference to recognize solutions to problems that were not initially
apparent.

***Parent Involvement Program (PIP).*** NYTAC's New York City team
designed a basic parent training program to help parents become more
effective school partners. Through a succession of coordinated meetings,
the center helped parents understand and use information effectively so
they could be equal contributors to school committees. The PIP program
focuses on (1) helping parents make their homes better learning
environments; (2) elements of effective schools; (3) standards and their
role in the curriculum; (4) strategies for using annual school reports
to guide planning; and (5) explaining the process by which schools fall
into and are released from SURR schools status. NYTAC also offers
Curriculum-based Parent Training that demonstrates the alignment of
state and local standards with CSRD models. Parents receive information
related to the state's English/Language Arts and Mathematics performance
standards, state assessments, and learn about resources they can use at
home with their children and with their children's schools.

***Support to Migrant and Bilingual Offices**.* Since 1997, NYSED's
Office of Migrant Education and NYTAC have co-sponsored the "ESL and the
Migrant Student: Second Language Development Institute," a summer
institute dedicated to identifying practical strategies to working with
migrant populations. Educators from the state's 12 Migrant Education
Centers have attended the training. Varied modules addressed topics on
standards-based reform, thematic instruction, learning strategies,
parent involvement, cooperative learning, and adapting instruction for
diversity. NYTAC also produced a series of fact sheets, by county, that
listed available resources and services for migrant children and
families.

***Roundtable on standards for Limited English Proficient (LEP)
students***. NYTAC organized the New York State Invitational Roundtable
on the New Standards and High Stakes Achievement for LEP Students, held
in the fall of 1996. More than 120 representatives from schools
districts, institutions of higher education, advocacy groups, parents,
and students participated in the two-day event. The roundtable
identified key issues related to ensuring LEP students meet the same
high standards as other students.

### 

### 

### **[Goals and Objectives for Continuing Work]{.underline}**

Both NYTAC and NYSED expect their relationship to continue with few
changes, except as modifications in funding or new mandates require.
Continuing activities will focus on: (1) collaboration with senior
managers; (2) consultation on CSRD and Title I schoolwide programs,
including assistance to SSTs; (3) assistance in the area of parent
involvement; (4) expanded work in the development of a Web site that
serves the area; and (5) the creation of partnerships to improve
educators' capacity to use technology more effectively to increase
learning. Standards-based reform and systemic change will continue to
undergird NYTAC's work.

##### IV. State's Use of External Assistance

NYSED maintains its own comprehensive technical assistance network,
which involves such varied groups as the BOCES, the state's colleges and
universities, ESCNs, and private providers. An assistant commissioner
coordinates the state's available technical assistance resources and
identifies ways to improve their use. NYTAC has helped define the
complementary and separate responsibilities of the state's varied
technical assistance organizations and universities, clarify roles,
identify levels of expertise, and assist clients in determining how and
when different kinds of technical assistance resources can be best used.
To support this effort, NYTAC developed and disseminated the *Guide to
Federal Technical Assistance Providers and Services*. In addition, the
center continues to gather more information about specialist providers
for CSRD model designs that are not connected to the federal network;
this information is disseminated through the CSRD Web site.

In general, NYTAC serves a particular technical assistance niche in New
York, offering technical assistance in working with federal programs.
The center's specialized services in the federal arena means it is a
complementary resource distinct from the services other technical
assistance providers offer.

##### V. Effects

####### Customer Satisfaction

####### 

####### Most NYSED staff are very satisfied NYTAC customers. In particular, they reported three ways in which center services added value to the SEA: (1) NYTAC's knowledge of systemic planning and its capacity to see and act from an outsider's perspective with an insider's sensitivity and an open mind; 

####### (2) NYTAC's capacity as a multi-functional resource, capable of serving several organizational levels simultaneously and effectively, through their staff's knowledge of systems, players, tools, and individuals; and (3) NYTAC's understanding of both the federal and state perspectives and their capacity to help weave these perspectives together in a practical manner. One SEA official described her overall assessment of NYTAC's work, using its assistance on CSRD as an example:

> \[They\] are always out in the front when a new initiative comes in.
> They set the parameters under which the SEA should be able to think
> about these things. When CSRD was introduced, for example, we engaged
> in many conversations about what it meant. What's a program? What do
> the nine components mean? We were trying to make sense of the time
> line. They really helped us make critical decisions about how we'd
> approach the issue of getting out to the schools and districts. They
> helped provide the structure to make this thing happen at the
> beginning.

In addition, NYSED staff commented that NYTAC helped negotiate among
competing organizational commitments and constituents in districts and
within the state agency. One NYSED staff program coordinator who worked
on the consolidated ESEA plan observed that NYTAC was instrumental in
moving his colleagues through the collaborative process that led to the
statewide ESEA plan. "We at NYSED thought we knew what the mission
should be, but we couldn't get together among us. We didn't know what we
wanted, and I couldn't get the support in our agency. . . ."

####### 

####### Increased State Capacity to Deliver High-Quality Technical Assistance

As a result of NYTAC's work, NYSED staff report a considerable increase
in their capacity to offer technical assistance to schools and
districts. One program manager noted that "there were things that were
new to us that NYTAC helped us with. . . . There wasn't anyone available
who would have provided the sustained support."

SEA respondents pointed to several areas where the center's help has
been especially instrumental. State officials reported an increase in
their ability to more effectively work with district and school staff,
using training, technology, and policies that encourage dissemination of
new programs and technical skills. They also found the center's
contributions to the CSRD program beneficial to the work they do. In
particular, the CSRD database and Web site promote collaboration among
local CSRD grantees. The center's training for parents and SSTs and
connections to talent, information, and research have assisted SEA staff
carry out their own training and disseminate information.

####### Improved Teaching and Learning

NYSED and NYTAC leaders reported that the center's mission was to
influence and redirect policies as a strategy for improving teaching and
learning. They suggested that NYTAC has had an impact on teaching and
learning through its professional development activities and role in
developing the state's CSRD program as a model for effective technical
assistance practice. One center staff member described such NYTAC
activities as conceptualizing and designing the state's CSRD proposal,
reviewing proposals, and establishing evaluation mechanisms as "things
that will have an impact on raising student performance. . . . \[Those\]
are the things \[we should be held\] accountable for."

NYTAC staff participated in conversations on policy-related issues with
different groups from within and outside the state agency. Center staff
helped facilitate local boards and site councils, strengthened internal
procedures, and demonstrated the natural bridges across once-separated
federal programs like Title I and Title VII. A NYSED curriculum director
described the changes he had seen in the state's capacity to change
teaching and learning:

> What does it do for School No. 5? It has developed capacity. We can't
> say it has affected Ms. Smith's class in the fourth grade. But the
> collaboration has affected how we work with schools, reporting,
> funding decisions, and the application. It has led to better
> coordinated service delivery. Maybe it didn't directly affect teaching
> and learning, \[but\] it helped the total picture.

**[Barriers to the Delivery of High-Quality, Effective Technical
Assistance]{.underline}**

Barriers to effective technical assistance were related to systemic
problems within the state organization or to continuing divisions among
the federal and state categorical program offices. Some bilingual,
migrant, and smaller federal program staff perceived they were
inadequately involved in designing or developing the state's reform
agenda. In some instances, state officials candidly acknowledged that
the priority in the beginning of consolidation was on clarifying the
agenda, not building inclusiveness:

> \[A few of us\] came together with a clear purpose; we knew what we
> needed. Until we got ourselves organized, we didn't want a cast of
> thousands \[at the table\]. Now we know why we exist. We can reach out
> to other partnerships. At first we were just some people who were
> comfortable with each other and who were floundering \[with new
> agendas and policies.\]

This attitude of a few state staffers may have contributed to continuing
"turf" issues. Those less involved in the initial change efforts found
it more difficult to redefine their roles and responsibilities to
reflect the comprehensive ESEA philosophy.

NYTAC is well aware of the dilemma involved in offering the level of
categorical services that its categorical clients want under a
comprehensive federal programs approach, and the center staff struggle
with how to "respond to two masters:"

> That's the conundrum we face as technical assistance providers:
> categorical vs. comprehensive assistance. Can you deal with these two
> pieces simultaneously? The problem is, when you are talking about
> categorical programs, you're talking about taking an advocacy and
> protector role. For 20 years we have conditioned bureaucracies to
> advocate and protect . . . but comprehensive reform has to have a
> forward thrust, \[and an assurance\] that the system is in fact doing
> the right things vis-a-vis those designated groups.

**[Summary]{.underline}**

New York's reform agenda focuses on regularly assessing student progress
toward standards; building local capacity; and disseminating assessment
results statewide through report cards. Imbedded in these reforms is a
commitment to serving the state's at-risk population. To coordinate the
delivery of technical assistance, NYTAC's organization parallels
NYSED's, and the center is organized into three regional teams and one
team that directly serves the SEA. NYTAC's portfolio of products and
services includes conducting strategic planning with NYSED senior
management; lending support to districts and schools in the state's five
cities with the largest concentrations of low-achieving students;
carrying out CSRD programs; supporting ESEA and schoolwide reforms;
encouraging parent involvement; and supporting bilingual and migrant
education. The center was appreciated for its staff's knowledge of
systemic planning; its outsider's perspective; its knowledge of systems,
players, tools, and individuals; and its understanding of both federal
and state perspectives. SEA staff also reported that the center helped
build their capacity to provide technical assistance to districts and
schools. The barriers the center faced related to systemic problems
within the SEA and continuing divisions among the federal and state
categorical program offices.

Comprehensive Center Services to States

**Texas Education Agency**

This case study examines services provided by the Region VIII
Comprehensive Center---also known as the Support for Texas Academic
Renewal (STAR) Center---to the Texas Education Agency (TEA), the single
state education agency in the center's region, and TEA's system of
Education Service Centers (ESCs), which provide technical assistance
throughout the state. The STAR Center focuses its technical assistance
to the state in technology, the coordination of programs and funding,
migrant education, and schoolwide programs.

#### **I. State Context**

In 1995, the Texas legislature shifted responsibility for technical
assistance from TEA to the state's 20 ESCs, which are funded and
overseen by the state education agency (SEA). Formerly, TEA would handle
requests for technical assistance by either directly providing
assistance or referring clients to the ESC in their region. Now, ESC
staff work directly with the state's 1,018 districts and 6,507 schools.
Each ESC maintains between 30 and 75 staff members, most of whom are
former practitioners or administrators, and serves between 12 and 96
districts.

## [Reform Goals and Initiatives]{.underline} {#reform-goals-and-initiatives-2 .unnumbered}

TEA's "dual notions of local control and accountability" drive the state
education agenda, explained one TEA staff member. The state seeks to
reduce procedural barriers to reform and encourages schools and
districts to implement integrated, comprehensive programs through the
Title I schoolwide option. The federal Ed-Flex program helps to
reinforce the state's reform efforts by enabling the state to grant
waivers to campuses above the poverty threshold that are interested in
becoming schoolwide programs.

Consistent with the state's focus on local control and accountability,
TEA requires all schools to participate in campuswide improvement
planning and site-based decisionmaking. Each campus plan must include
objectives for student performance. In exchange for the flexibility
afforded to schools and districts, TEA holds local education agencies
(LEAs) accountable for student performance through its assessment
system, the Texas Assessment of Academic Skills (TAAS). TAAS measures
student progress in reading and math in grades 3--8 and grade 10 and
writing in grades 4, 8, and 10. The state has established benchmarks for
student performance and uses TAAS scores as criteria for rating schools
as either "exemplary," "recognized," "acceptable," or "low-performing."

##### 

##### 

##### II. Establishing the Relationship

### **[The Center's History with the State]{.underline}**

The three organizations that share responsibility for managing the STAR
Center have been involved in education in Texas for many years. Staff at
several ESCs noted their prior involvement with the Intercultural
Development Research Association (IDRA), which serves as a federal
Desegregation Assistance Center and previously served as a federal
multifunctional resource center, and with staff from RMC Research
Corporation, which previously served as a federal Title I Assistance
Center. Staff from TEA reported that they were familiar with Joseph
Johnson, the executive director of the Charles A. Dana Center at the
University of Texas at Austin, because he had worked at TEA for many
years. Through these connections, the center was able to gain entrée to
the SEA and its system of educational service centers with relative
ease. One TEA staff member, who said that picking up the telephone to
call Joseph Johnson was automatic, reported the following:

> Having been in a leadership role in the agency, Joe Johnson already
> engendered respect and trust. He is the expert of experts, but he is
> always willing to encourage you to do things in your own way. He
> doesn't try to sell you anything; he comes to support. He would never
> force anything on you. He has no agenda. It's not power or anything
> that would drive a wedge, but a constant focus on how this is going to
> help children.

Though the STAR Center was able to rely on the reputations of its
organizational partners, it also worked to establish a rapport with TEA
and the ESCs in its new capacity as a Comprehensive Center. The center
met with staff from TEA to discuss how the organizations could work
together. According to one TEA staff member, the two "had a lot of
meetings in the beginning about the role the center would play. \[Then\]
we had meetings with the ESC coordinators about their needs and met with
center staff to share those needs with them." This staff member reported
that once the center was informed of the ESCs' needs, the center took
responsibility for addressing those needs and continually assessing new
ones. ESC staff confirmed that STAR Center staff attended ESC workshops
and conferences and called ESC staff afterwards to discuss working
together. As one ESC staff member put it, "We feel free to work with
them. We feel like they're the folks down the road."

## [Planning Services]{.underline} {#planning-services-1 .unnumbered}

Because the authority for technical assistance was decentralized to the
ESCs, TEA asked the STAR Center to focus its efforts on the ESCs. The
federal programs director at TEA described the connection between the
center and the agency's technical assistance efforts:

> I see the STAR Center as helping us help our service centers give
> better technical assistance. The center's role \[is to\] help us
> identify projects and to work with us and with our ESCs on those
> projects. It's been delicate---the STAR Center has been trying to find
> its own level. I don't see the STAR Center as the technical assistance
> provider for the state. The STAR Center should help us do our job
> better and \[help\] the ESCs do their job better---not provide
> services directly to the LEAs.

Most ESC staff work individually with the STAR Center to determine what
kinds of services the center can provide. Staffers disagreed about the
STAR Center's approach to meeting regional needs. Some ESC staff
reported that center staff participated in in-services and distributed
surveys to learn more about local needs, while others thought that the
center was less flexible in its approach. "When they come to our work
sessions, instead of bringing what we asked for, they come in with their
own agenda," said one staff member. Another commented, "I've never
gotten a phone call from anybody saying, 'How can we help you out?' I
feel like the phone calls we get are, 'We need something from you. We
need information.'"

On the other hand, staff from TEA generally have found the center's
assistance in line with their needs because the center's approach to
planning services was comprehensive. As one staff member recounted, the
center's approach was "different from folks who come in and don't stop
to ask what we need. It was evident that they had been doing their
homework. They were very informed about what we were doing." Explaining
how well aligned the center's services are with TEA's goals, a program
director said:

> When they came and talked about how they approached technology
> planning, it wasn't planning for technology, it was planning for
> achievement and fitting technology into the school plan. They brought
> the campus team together to plan; they didn't go into a school and
> say, 'Here's what you need to do.' That is the model we want schools
> to follow. A lot of people who come in tell us what they can give us
> in terms of technology, but they don't connect it to a broader
> picture.

#### **III. Services to the SEA**

Portfolio of Products and Services

> ***Technology***. The STAR Center has been working closely with the
> technology office at TEA since 1997. Staff from both entities first
> came into contact at that time to help districts develop technology
> plans for E-rate applications. Following that work, the center
> contacted the technology director and scheduled a meeting. According
> to TEA's technology director, "The center wanted to come in and build
> a relationship with TEA. We spent about an hour and laid out some
> plans that we could do together." From the beginning, it was clear to
> the director that center staff were familiar with TEA's technology
> approach and that the type of assistance they had to offer would
> assist the state in meeting its objectives.

At that initial meeting, TEA staff realized how valuable the STAR Center
could be to schools and districts around the state. The director linked
their Web site to the STAR Center's, planned to interview STAR Center
staff about their services and to air the interview via TEA's
videoconferencing system, began briefing technology liaisons at ESCs
about the work of the center, and referred specific schools to the
center for assistance.

Although the technology director wants schools to "take advantage of any
resources that can help them with planning," she sees the STAR Center as
being particularly helpful in leveraging resources and providing a broad
perspective. Explaining what makes the center different than other
external sources of technology assistance, she stated,

> The unique thing about the center is that they are focused on looking
> at what the school needs; they're not a silo, they're broad-based. I
> think you need to have someone who has a niche and someone who can
> pull the pieces together. I think the center does a good job of
> pulling the work together. We were surprised with the amount of
> leveraging they've done. They've used the TEA guidelines rather than
> reinventing the wheel.

TEA's technology director has been extremely pleased with the services
the STAR Center has provided and designated a staff member to serve as a
liaison to the center on future activities. According to the director,
"I felt that what the center had to offer was significant enough that we
needed a person to work directly with them...that way we know we have a
direct connection."

*Coordinated Funding and Programs*. In 1996, TEA designated the ESC
Region 2 as the lead center for building capacity among all of the
regional service centers on how to assist districts and schools in
coordinating funding and programs more efficiently and effectively. From
the onset, the ESC Region 2 coordinator of the initiative sought outside
assistance and partnerships. Her interest in the STAR Center was further
enhanced by the center's publication, *Technical Assistance in Texas: A
Guide for Users (1996)*. With collaboration in mind and having had prior
experience with RMC Research Corporation from her days as a district
administrator, the coordinator set up a meeting with the STAR Center. At
this meeting, she and other staff members from ESC Region 2 met with
Joseph Johnson and Mary Ragland to develop an action plan. They agreed
that the two entities would convene teams of educators from the ESCs and
school districts to discuss the potential for coordination among various
federal and state programs. The meeting, called the Texas Summit for
Coordinating Funding and Innovative Practices, took place in February
1997. Margery Ginsberg, an independent consultant, assisted in the
planning and facilitation of the advisory group that participated in the
process. Many state agency personnel were members of the advisory group
and provided program profile information that was used at the summit.

The STAR Center worked closely with ESC Region 2 and their advisory
committee to prepare the background materials needed for the summit and
to develop questions they wanted summit participants to answer during
discussions facilitated by STAR Center staff, ESC 2 staff, and others.
From the activities that took place at the summit, ESC Region 2 and STAR
Center staff wrote program summaries and profiles and recorded
frequently asked questions. This documentation and other information
eventually became the *Resource Guide for Coordinating Funding and
Programs*, which was updated based on follow-up discussions with summit
participants. The initiative's coordinator explained how the STAR Center
better enabled her to make her vision of a resource guide a reality. "I
had the idea about developing the guide, but the contents were really
refined with the STAR Center and the Texas Education Agency," she said.

Having designed the guide primarily as a resource for the staff of the
20 ESCs, the next step was to provide training related to the guide. To
do so, the STAR Center developed the "Show Me the Money Game," a
simulation activity in which players work in teams to coordinate funding
sources in a budget. STAR Center staff have presented the game at
conferences throughout the nation. In December 1997 and February 1998,
ESC Region 2 and STAR Center staff collaborated on trainer-of-trainer
sessions for approximately 200 ESC staff. The two entities also
responded to a TEA staff request to provide state agency staff with
similar training. Also, the initiative's coordinator and STAR Center
staff have held presentations on the guide at several conferences, and
STAR Center staff have incorporated it into the technical assistance
they provide to districts and schools throughout the state.

The coordinated funding initiative is currently in its third year and,
according to the coordinator from ESC Region 2, state funding has been
diminished somewhat. As a result, she is unable to dedicate as much time
to training ESC staff and producing materials on coordinated funding or
to collaborate as much on activities with the STAR Center. However, the
coordinator explained that she has come to depend on the STAR Center for
filling in the gaps, stating, "Even though I can't do \[everything\], I
know \[the work is\] getting done." Given the financial uncertainty
surrounding the coordinated funding initiative, the coordinator was not
sure of her goals for working with the STAR Center in the future.

***Migrant Education***. IDRA, the fiscal agent of the STAR Center, has
a long history of working with districts in ESC Region 1, which has the
highest migrant population in Texas. When the proposal for the STAR
Center was being developed, IDRA asked ESC Region 1 to be an
institutional partner. As an institutional partner, ESC Region 1
receives direct funding from the center for projects related to migrant
education. ESC Region 1 accepted the request and has since worked most
closely with the STAR Center on building the state's capacity for
serving migrant students by developing guides and holding
trainer-of-trainer sessions for migrant staff in the state's 20 ESCs. In
addition, STAR Center staff provide support to ESC Region 1 on the
Reading Success Network (RSN) initiative being implemented in Region 1's
Edinburg district. According to ESC staff, "For RSN, they met with us
first, coached us, and gave us direction and guidance before we started
working with the district."

As an institutional partner, ESC Region 1 has a very proactive
relationship with the STAR Center. With the migrant work, in particular,
an ESC 1 staff member approached the STAR Center about her interest in
developing a manual that would feature successful practices for the
education of migrant students. In response, the STAR Center funded the
development of the *Graduation Enhancement for Migrant Students (GEMS)*
manual. An ESC 1 staff member spearheaded the project and worked with a
group of practitioners to see it through its development. While ESC 1
staff took the lead on the project, STAR Center staff assisted them in
the conceptualization and planning of the manual. ESC Region 1 and STAR
Center staff have disseminated the manual statewide and provided
training on it to ESC migrant staff across the state. ESC Region 1 also
contracted with the STAR Center to develop *Literacy Across the
Curriculum*. With the STAR Center's financial resources, ESC 1 was able
to hire classroom teachers to develop and pilot the lessons. The ESC
Region 1 director said that he and the STAR Center were working on plans
for continuing their work together on migrant issues.

*Facilitating Schoolwide Reform*. In both ESC Region 13 and 20, STAR
Center staff collaborated with ESC staff to offer schoolwide institutes.
The institutes, which were aimed at building school improvement teams'
capacities to implement and evaluate schoolwide reform efforts, took
place in the fall of 1997 and served staff---including administrators,
teachers, and parents---from 20 to 30 different school districts.
According to one ESC staff member, a STAR Center staff person worked
with the ESCs on planning and conducting the institute as well as
providing follow-up to institute participants. In addition, TEA and ESC
staff members commented on the usefulness of the STAR Center's
schoolwide toolkit, *A Toolkit for Assessing and Revising the Integrated
Campus Improvement and Title I Schoolwide Plan*. One TEA staff member
explained how this document was an excellent resource that she shared
with districts and schools. "One particular document that's been very
helpful to us is the schoolwide toolkit. The center gave us permission
to use it and disseminate that information," she explained.

## [Goals and Objectives for Continuing Work]{.underline} {#goals-and-objectives-for-continuing-work-3 .unnumbered}

Most respondents had not given much thought to their objectives for
continued work with the center. Because they rely on the center to fill
holes as they emerge, many staff members could not foresee how the
center would be involved in their future efforts. Seemingly, the state,
and most of the ESCs, use the services of technical assistance
providers, including the STAR Center, when they do not have the capacity
on their own staff; it is a reactive, rather than proactive, model.
However, one ESC staff member noted, "My goal is to stay on good terms
with the center so that we can always rely on them. They have never told
me, 'No.'"

However, staff from ESC Region 1 developed long-term objectives for
working with the center and discussed plans for further work. As one ESC
staff member noted, "One thing we really appreciate is that when the
center works with us on an initiative, they don't ever let us go. It's a
constant communication. It's a continual process, not a one-time
activity for them."

IV\. State's Use of External Assistance

TEA and ESC staff place the STAR Center among their first choices when
it comes to accessing research and examples of best practices, but they
typically look elsewhere for assistance with legal matters or for
program-specific information. For TEA staff, ED is a primary source for
information on legal concerns. Similarly, for ESC staff, the state
agency is a main reference point. Both TEA and ESC staff rely on
national and state organizations for program-specific information and
value these organizations because they provide "the real pulse about
what's happening in the \[education\] community," according to one TEA
staff member.

However, TEA staff also identified evaluation as an area of need, both
within the agency and among districts. One staff member said that
districts need help in meeting the requirements of Texas' accountability
system. "Program evaluation is where districts need more information.
They also need help with formative assessments. TEA is always wanting to
know how particular services have impacted the student performance of
particular students. Many districts are implementing many, many
different things but don't know how to tie them to their comprehensive
assessment," she explained.

#### **V. Effects**

**[Customer Satisfaction]{.underline}**

Staff at TEA and the ESCs speak highly of center staff and the work they
do across the board. They noted that center staff care about the work
they do, provide comprehensive, research-based assistance, and are
approachable and accommodating. About the center, one TEA staffer said,
"I feel like they care about what they're doing and really want to
provide quality assistance." Another noted, "It appeared to me that
every single one of them was interested in digging down to figure out
how we could all work together to help kids." Others noted that "their
workshops are quality workshops." This same staff member applauded the
center's inclination to work collaboratively. According to a TEA staff
member,

> At the leadership level, what you experience with the center is more
> of an intangible. The intangible that they offer is just knowing that
> there is such a strong body of knowledge and expertise there that you
> know you can rely on. I have confidence in the center and if staff
> members are using them, there's no question that whatever support
> they're getting is going to be appropriate and given from someone who
> has good knowledge, both in theory and in practice. It's the peace of
> mind, knowing that I trust these people.

This same staff member later added that the quality of the research done
by the STAR Center has changed her perception of what the Comprehensive
Centers have to offer. She stated:

> This is probably more personal, but I always think of SEDL \[Southwest
> Educational Development Laboratory\] for research. Given the quality
> of the work of the research that \[the STAR Center\] did on Title I
> \[Successful Schools Study\], that's not necessarily my thinking
> anymore. Before I had dealings with the center there may have been a
> clear line where SEDL would be research and the center would be
> technical assistance.

An ESC staff member also expressed her satisfaction with the research
that the STAR Center offers, stating, "I access the STAR Center's Web
site. I see them as being extremely well respected with research.
Research that they've done has been a real help, particularly the
Successful Schools Study. . . .

I see their research as something I want to access."

In the numerous interviews we conducted at TEA and the ESCs, only two
people expressed dissatisfaction with the center's work. These ESC staff
members thought that the center acted as a competitor to the ESCs,
rather than as a collaborator, and criticized the center for taking
exclusive credit for products and services that were jointly developed
by the two entities. They noted that the center has, on occasion, worked
directly with districts without notifying the appropriate ESC in
advance.

ESC staff suggested ways that the relationship with the center could be
improved. Expressing her interest in working more collaboratively with
the center, one ESC staffer discussed the need for more communication
between the center and the ESCs. She stated, "Another problem is
probably the vehicle for the center to communicate with service centers
in terms of who is doing what in the schools that the ESCs serve, so
that we can support what the center is doing and come in on the next
page." Several ESC staffers said that they were not aware of the
different services that the center had to offer and that it would be
helpful for them to see the center's strategic plan.

Increased State Capacity to Deliver High-Quality Technical Assistance

TEA's technology director spoke highly of her office's experiences with
the STAR Center and explained how the center fills in gaps caused by the
state's limited resources by providing high-quality technical assistance
aligned with the state's reform efforts. The director noted, "I know
that the STAR Center is out there doing the things we can't do. I know
that we can refer to them. We put the STAR Center out there as a
resource. . . . We want to learn how the service centers can leverage
and build on STAR Center services." The director went on to explain why
she believes that services provided by the STAR Center have contributed
to improvement in schools and districts. "The quality of technology
plans is much improved from what they used to be," she said, "and I
would attribute a lot of that to the STAR Center. We see a \[greater\]
focus on school improvement, particularly for schools that were
low-performing or that have a large number of disadvantaged students."

Several ESC staff explained how their contact with the STAR Center, be
it a long-term, intensive relationship with the center or their use of a
STAR publication or attendance at a workshop, contributed to their own
professional development. ESC staff talked about this gain in knowledge
as something that better prepared them to work with the districts and
schools they serve. For example, an ESC Region 1 staffer who works with
a district on the RSN said that watching STAR Center staff lead the
coaching session in Edinburg gave her a chance to "learn the process"
and prepare herself to later present it to teachers. Another ESC staff
member noted that working with the center made staff at her ESC realize
they shouldn't plan in "absentia of our clients." Moreover, the ESC
staffer from Region 2 who worked closely with the center on coordinated
funding said that some ESCs are using the guide as a model for
coordination within their organizations.

## [Increased Awareness and Understanding of ESEA Programs]{.underline} {#increased-awareness-and-understanding-of-esea-programs .unnumbered}

TEA staff seem to have little need for assistance in becoming aware of
and understanding ESEA programs. However, they have worked with the
center on ways the state can use waivers from ED under the Ed-Flex
program, mainly because Joseph Johnson is the chair of the state Ed-Flex
committee. According to TEA staff, Joseph Johnson serves as their expert
on Ed-Flex; among other things, he has assisted in integrating Ed-Flex
into campuswide planning.

Among ESC staff and district and school staff, the *Resource Guide for
Coordinated Funding and Programs,* jointly developed by the center and
ESC Region 2, has deepened their understanding of consolidation and
coordination of ESEA programs. A TEA staffer noted that the guide is
easy to understand. An ESC staff member said, "The center helped me and
other people to understand coordinated funding. I got a lot of
assistance in getting the big picture."

ESC staff described the center's assistance as comprehensive and
indicated that the ESCs have moved toward this approach in the technical
assistance that they provide to districts and schools. "I think a lot of
what the center does is comprehensive assistance. . . . \[For example\],
there are pieces of the center's work that my Title II people tie into,
even though they weren't developed for Title II," said one staff member.
Another explained how the center and the ESCs have moved toward a more
comprehensive approach to technical assistance, stating, "In the
beginning, I think the center was very boxed into pieces. We were
looking at very isolated pockets of need, but as they've grown and we've
grown, we've moved into a more comprehensive approach."

## [Improved Teaching and Learning]{.underline} {#improved-teaching-and-learning-3 .unnumbered}

Though TEA and ESC staff thought that the work of the center was quite
effective, most did not attempt to link the quality of the center's
technical assistance to changes in the classroom. Most TEA and ESC staff
have limited contact with classrooms, and the lion's share of the
center's work with the state is directed at the administration of
programs.

## [Barriers to the Delivery of High-Quality, Effective Technical Assistance]{.underline} {#barriers-to-the-delivery-of-high-quality-effective-technical-assistance-1 .unnumbered}

While generally pleased with the STAR Center's services to the ESCs, ESC
staff identified three barriers to the delivery of high-quality
technical assistance faced by the center. First, the number of staff at
the STAR Center is small, which hinders access to center services for
ESC staff and limits the center's reach throughout the state. One staff
member noted that "not every ESC is familiar with the STAR Center."
Second, the STAR Center is unable to participate in sufficient long-term
and advanced planning because of its fiscal uncertainty. Finally, a lack
of communication between the center and the ESCs often leads to a
duplication of efforts. As one ESC staff member explained, "Another
problem is the vehicle to communicate with the service centers in terms
of who is doing what in the schools that we serve. \[Communication needs
to be improved\] so that we can support what they're doing and come in
on the next page."

###### Summary {#summary-3}

Education reform in Texas is guided by the dual notions of local control
and accountability, and the state's campus improvement plans are
consistent with these notions. The STAR Center enjoyed previous
relationships with the organizations that make up the center, although
it had to establish a rapport with the state's ESCs. TEA staff members
reported that center services were aligned with state goals. The
center's portfolio of products and services includes initiatives in the
following areas: technology, consolidated funding and programs, migrant
education, and schoolwide programs. The STAR Center was appreciated for
its research-based services and products and assistance in helping ESC
staff better serve districts and schools. However, some ESC staff
suggested that communication between the ESCs and the center could be
improved.

Comprehensive Center Services to Local Sites

Cognitively Guided Instruction

**Overview**

The Region VI Comprehensive Assistance Center (the center), housed in
the Wisconsin Center for Education Reform (WCER) at the University of
Wisconsin-Madison, offers training institutes for Cognitively Guided
Instruction (CGI) to educators from around the country. CGI is a
mathematics program based on problem solving for students in K--3.
Developed by Thomas Carpenter and Elizabeth Fennema at the University of
Wisconsin beginning in the mid-1980s, CGI helps teachers understand
student cognitive processes in order to tailor instruction. It relies
heavily on teachers' knowledge of developmental stages and individual
assessment, as well as group learning, manipulatives, and language-based
activities. The program relies on the academic research of its
developers, who have tested CGI nationwide and are often cited in
education research literature. Thus far, the center has hosted three
five-day CGI institutes---two introductory and one advanced. Educators
from outside the center's region participated in the institutes, which
was a result of the center promoting CGI nationally and having open
spots available.

This case study examines the CGI services provided by the center. It is
based on interviews of participants, most of whom attended the previous
summer's initial institute, and observations. We interviewed 13
teachers, three of whom we also observed in the classroom using CGI.
Additionally, we observed the center's advanced, or follow-up, CGI
training, during which most interviews for the case study took place.

I. Local Context

Participants at the first CGI institute came from seven districts across
the country. Although most of the 60 participants in the first initial
institute in summer 1998 came from two states within the center region,
Michigan and North Dakota, others came from California, Texas, and
Alaska. Approximately 20 of these participants returned for the
follow-up, advanced institute a year later in summer 1999. At the time
of our visit, it was yet unknown how many districts would participate in
the second initial institute, though three districts intended to send
large teams of 10 or more. The characteristics of participant school
districts varied considerably, though they all were seeking ways to
improve math instruction.

Reform Goals and Initiatives

Although most respondents could not clearly identify formal district
goals, they generally said that their districts strive to improve
student achievement in math. This heightened interest in math is often
driven by state reform and accountability related to math performance on
state assessments. In some cases, districts were making substantial
changes to improve math achievement. For example, in 1999 Lansing,
Michigan, adopted a new elementary math curriculum developed by the
Technical Education Resource Center called *Investigations*. The
principal in one of the Lansing schools visited explained that though
reading was the school's first priority, math was also a priority since
the school scored below its target on the state assessment. In other
cases, districts were not implementing broad math initiatives or making
dramatic changes, yet still wanted to support efforts to improve
teaching and learning in math. Participants from the California
district, which has prioritized reading, reported that less attention
was being paid to math. Until recently, the Alaska district did not have
a district math curriculum, so each elementary school chose its own math
program.

II\. Establishing the Relationship

**[The Center's Relationship with the Participants]{.underline}**

Generally, the center did not make direct contact with the participants
in order to establish a relationship. Instead, the center sent flyers
about the CGI institute to state and district personnel, particularly
those associated with federal programs, with requests that they help
disseminate the information to schools. It also sent targeted mailings
to schools participating in federal programs. As it does for many
activities it sponsors, the center disseminated information more
directly when it had a close relationship with a school or was
conducting a different activity. In general, it markets itself at its
own events. However, CGI participants most often heard about the
institute through district staff, peers, or by flyers forwarded by the
district and posted on a faculty bulletin board.

CGI is the primary reason why these participants entered into the
relationship with the center, which was previously unknown to most of
them. In many cases, participants were interested because they
recognized the CGI name from publications or involvement with
professional associations. They had heard that it was well researched
and was a promising program for improving student achievement. In one of
the districts, several teachers had received initial training in CGI
from University of Wisconsin-Madison trainers unassociated with the
center, thus sparking the interest of their colleagues. Overall, the
participants' relationships with the center grew out of an interest in
the CGI program and were facilitated through district dissemination of
institute information.

In six districts, one teacher who was committed to CGI coordinated and
promoted the district team's participation in the institutes. This
individual maintained contact with the center about the institute,
helped build interest in participating, and worked with the district to
arrange expense reimbursement.

Because the relationship began with, and consisted mostly of, the summer
institutes, it has not changed over the course of the first year. During
the week-long institutes, the relationship was intense, personal, and
focused. Between the initial institute in 1998 and the advanced
institute in 1999, however, participants said there had been little
interaction with the center. Nevertheless, participants expressed that
the center was accessible for questions throughout the year. Also,
center staff added that they made a two-day visit to four districts.

Planning Services

At the school or district level, CGI is an example of a solution looking
for a problem. CGI fits well with the center's mission to provide
services that have an impact on student learning, particularly those
that target teachers. The center believes that CGI leads to fundamental
changes in how teachers teach math, as well as increases in student
achievement. But, participation in the CGI institutes is through
self-selection, with the center marketing the services within and beyond
Region VI. Districts or schools with self-identified needs in
mathematics apply to participate in the CGI training.

For the most part, planning the CGI institutes was the responsibility of
the center and the institute presenters. No survey respondents indicated
that they were involved in selecting the content, designing the format,
or selecting the presenters. Consistent with what participants referred
to as a "constructivist approach," there was some ongoing flexibility in
the schedule and topics addressed during the institute. The institute
facilitators were open to changes and solicited requests throughout each
day.

The center did not formally tailor its services at the institute itself
to respond to local context, though it facilitated dialogue that
addressed the local differences. In fact, because participants came from
a variety of localities, it would be difficult to tailor the services to
any one context.

**III. Services to the Local Site**

Portfolio of Products and Services

Although the center provides other services, this case study
specifically focuses on CGI training. Thus far, the center has hosted an
initial institute in summer 1998, a follow-up institute in June 1999,
and a second initial institute in August 1999. The institutes were
facilitated by one of the original developers of CGI, a frequent CGI
trainer, and a respected practicing teacher researcher. Because the
institutes were envisioned as training of trainer activities, the center
required participants to attend as members of teams, consisting of at
least two teachers and someone whose job involves the professional
development of elementary math teachers. The training itself was free
for participants, including those from outside the district's region.
They or their districts were, however, required to contribute money for
food and materials, as well as cover their own travel and lodging costs.

According to center staff and participants, the initial institutes
offered an introduction to CGI, while the follow-up institute provided
more intensive exposure to the CGI philosophy and how to become a CGI
workshop leader. The original CGI developers led the institutes, which
incorporated group work, role-playing, discussion, and individual work.
Institute materials included manuals outlining CGI principles, theory,
and practice and videos illustrating examples of CGI applications in
actual activities.

When asked to describe CGI, nearly all respondents began by defining it
as "a philosophy," rather than "a program" or "set of strategies." It
promotes a change in how teachers think of teaching and learning---a
change that may take a long time and lots of reflection. According to
participants, CGI is based, in part, on the ideas of social
constructivism: Students possess knowledge and are capable of
metacognition, and teachers are responsible for drawing out that
knowledge while facilitating social learning and the "making of
meaning." It is "very child-centered" and "takes the fear out of
mathematics."

On the other hand, CGI is also a highly structured program with a clear
grounding in cognitive science. The program provides teachers with a
framework to understand different types of word problems, their semantic
structure and difficulty, and strategies used to solve them.
Furthermore, CGI helps teachers use its developmental sequence of
problem solving strategies to appropriately assess and challenge each of
their students. As a center staff asserted, CGI is "not some sort of
fad" that reflects educational rhetoric instead of rigorous research; it
consists of an organized system that is consistently tested and tweaked
according to accepted knowledge of how children learn mathematics.

Observations of three classrooms in one school provide a snapshot of how
CGI may be implemented, though teachers may interpret and implement it
in various ways. For the most part, the teachers used CGI similarly.
Students have math journals in which they solve, and explain how they
solved, word problems that are based on real life and relevant
situations. In time, the teacher asks a student to explain their answer
orally. During an explanation, the teacher probes the student, involves
other students in clarifying the explanation, and notes what problem
solving strategy was used to what effect. She may then ask other
students to share their solutions, which often result in the same answer
via a different approach. At this point, the teacher has control over
structuring the responses into a learning experience for all.
Afterwards, the teacher asks another question, or even has a student do
so.

**[Quality of the Technical Assistance Provided to the
Site]{.underline}**

***Alignment with state and local standards.*** Participants suggested
that CGI provided important assistance in teaching state and local
standards, though some indicated that the program was not entirely
aligned with their standards-related needs. All respondents said CGI
would help students with problem solving on the various state
assessments; however, several were concerned about objectives that are
not addressed by CGI. One teacher said, "CGI addresses the MEAP \[the
Michigan state assessment\], particularly the mathematical reasoning
parts. However, fact fluency is still an issue." A second teacher, who
is responsible for helping teachers understand California's standards,
also expressed concern about fact fluency. A third explained that fact
fluency is important because "the state won't let students take as much
time as they need on tests. This is a reality that we can't ignore."
However, center staffers assert that research indicates that CGI
students and non-CGI students have performed equally well on basic math
facts.

Another teacher, who is a moving force for CGI in her district, said,
"CGI on its own doesn't address shapes, time, measurement with rulers,
patterning, and so on. It is not hard to balance CGI with other
instruction, but you can't just not address this stuff. It would be a
disservice to the student." Generally, participants advocated balancing
CGI with other instructional strategies and priorities, as well as
adapting CGI when necessary. They all were vocal supporters of CGI who
wanted to use all available tools to improve student achievement.

***Research-based theoretical framework.*** Education experts at the
University of Wisconsin-Madison developed, and are developing, CGI based
on many years of research. In the mid-1980s, they began to study
teachers' knowledge of the development of students' mathematical
thinking, as well as how that knowledge affects their instructional
decisions. The researchers compared their findings with validated
research on the development of children's thinking and concluded that
teachers did not make instructional decisions based on children's
thinking, even though teachers generally have a fragmented, intuitive
understanding of it. Thus, the researchers designed CGI in order to help
teachers relate instructional decisions to children's thinking. Since
CGI's beginnings, additional studies have shown that increasing teacher
understanding of children's thinking positively affects teachers'
classroom practices and student achievement in the areas, for instance,
of reasoning and fact fluency. The original CGI designers, as well as
their colleagues, continue to research this area and revise the program
based on their findings.

***Scope, intensity, and duration.*** Many participants considered an
intensive five-day institute a necessity for CGI. "Just the way it has
been presented has been a big boon," said a teacher. "In a full week you
really get to know it, inside and out. You are ready to do it in the
classroom. It's exciting." Participants said that the five days were
well spent and necessary to delve as deeply into the program as is
required for understanding.

However, because CGI requires a "new way of thinking about math
instruction," some teachers describe learning how to use it as a
complicated and drawn-out process---one that would benefit from
follow-up. Adopting CGI takes a lot of practice and reflection, and
demands that teachers assume a new role as facilitator. Overwhelmingly,
participants voiced the importance of having some kind of follow-up
support during the school year, saying, "Follow-up is crucial" and "I
can't wait a year to find out what I am doing wrong." Several commented
that they had hoped for and expected more support than they received.
They envisioned a range of activities, such as a mid-year workshop,
periodic listserv dialogue, and site visits that were focused on their
needs. Few participants received substantive center follow-up support
after the initial institute, though some had contact via telephone or
e-mail. Some of those who were visited by center staff said that it was
focused on collecting student achievement information, not providing
support; and the follow-up support others received via telephone or
e-mail was not conducive to guiding improvement.

Although the center hopes to become a trainer of trainers, several
participants said they were not yet prepared to train others in CGI.
Most participants said the follow-up training would help them serve as
CGI resources in their district, but several had concerns about
conducting workshops, particularly a five-day institute, on their own.
This was expected by the developers of CGI, who designed the program so
teachers would first practice and come to understand it in their
classroom, then begin participating as trainers. The center expects that
as the first cohort of participants become more comfortable using CGI,
more will be comfortable as trainers. Nevertheless, a teacher from
Alaska had plans to train other teachers in shorter workshops in
1999-2000, and two teachers joined the training team for the summer 1999
initial institute. Furthermore, the center intends to support the
"seeding of the CGI institutes" in up to three districts that are
interested in making CGI a district-based initiative.

***Utility.*** The center provides CGI training only to districts and
teachers who actively choose to attend. These self-selected participants
generally anticipated that CGI would be useful and intended to use what
they learn back at their schools. Interview respondents indicated that
CGI did prove to address their needs, which is a primary reason they
returned for the advanced institute.

***Capacity building.*** The center envisions its CGI services as a
training of trainer model wherein participants will become trainers by
developing deep knowledge of the program and observing the institute
presenters. Both Center staff and participants expressed their
intentions of increasing efforts to build local capacity to maintain CGI
implementation. For example, the Center required districts to send teams
of staff and teachers, in hopes that participants would sustain and
expand CGI efforts at home. However, the CGI training has not yet been
designed to train participants to become trainers or to help
participants to create implementation plans for their own districts. For
the most part, the center designed the initial institute as an intensive
introduction to CGI. Even at the advanced training, there was not
explicit training in how to plan and conduct a CGI workshop.

However, there has recently been some interest, and activity, in
building district capacity for CGI. Center staff brought three advanced
institute participants back in August 1999 to help with the next initial
institute as trainers in training. This may be a great benefit to the
returning participants' two districts, especially if they assume roles
as district CGI trainers. Additionally, two Michigan districts will be
holding their own CGI institutes in upcoming years.

**[Other Sources of Assistance]{.underline}**

Several participants reported other sources of CGI assistance, as well
as other types of professional development in math. A teacher in
California attended a workshop on a program similar to CGI at a local
university. After the workshop, a trainer visited her on-site every
three to five weeks to assess her progress toward program
implementation. After her district had already decided to investigate
CGI, she learned of a similar math program based in California called
REACH. However, the district intends to follow through on its investment
in CGI. Other teachers received instructional support from their
regions' Comprehensive Centers. For instance, a teacher from Alaska
attended a CGI *Math Their Way* workshop facilitated by AKRAC, the
Region XIII Comprehensive Center. AKRAC provided frequent follow-up
support, and during the summer workshop participants met to discuss
implementation issues during the school year. "Networking across states
was incredibly valuable," the teacher said. "It was a great incentive
for teachers." AKRAC also provided them with resources on providing
in-service training to math and science teachers.

Participants agreed, however, that the CGI training from the center was
superior to CGI training they could receive elsewhere. The institute
presenters had developed CGI and knew it better than anyone. As one
respondent expressed, the participants were getting it "straight from
the horse's mouth." Additionally, one presenter was a teacher who has
been using CGI for some time, which participants said increased the
relevance and credibility of the center's training activities.

**[Plans for Continuing Assistance]{.underline}**

Nearly all participants who attended the advanced institute wanted to
continue working with the center. Across the board, participants hoped
to receive some follow-up support from the center during the upcoming
year. The participants who came from outside the region did not expect
to receive on-site follow-up support, but hoped to maintain e-mail
communication with the center, receive newsletters or information about
current research, and network with their CGI colleagues.

Many of those within the center's region hoped to at least receive
visits, while participants from two districts spoke of more extensive
plans. Participants from Dearborn and Lansing School Districts in
Michigan intend to implement a CGI program in their districts, including
institutes in Summer 2000 and 2001, respectively. To implement such a
program, district staff members hope for center assistance in planning,
networking, accessing resources, consulting, and brokering services. In
the meantime, both districts sent about 12 people to the initial
training in Madison in Summer 1999.

Staff from Dearborn School District in Michigan also have high hopes of
teaching their colleagues about CGI. Again, one teacher said, "If we
really want to implement CGI in Dearborn, it must include a full week
straight through at each building. Then, we would have networking at
each grade level so there is a lot of follow-up. To get this going, we
will need some visitation from the center." The district staff see the
center as having the expertise in organizing a program and delivering
the services. Like Lansing, Dearborn also sent a substantial group to
the Summer 1999 initial training.

Several districts sent large groups of teachers to the 1999 initial
institute, a move that indicates their commitment and a likelihood of
sustained CGI activity. Fargo, Dearborn, and Lansing all sent about 12
teachers. Minneapolis and Janesville, Wisconsin, both sent six
participants. Also, a district in Texas that sent 8 teachers and the
district's math director plans to use CGI in all 25 elementary schools
and eventually have a total of 30 teachers trained. Furthermore, a
teacher from a California district said they might invite a University
of Wisconsin-Madison trainer to assist them in their first attempt at
workshops.

IV\. Effects

Overall, participants regarded CGI services as high quality and well
worth their time; however, many expected more contact from the center
after the institutes. Dissemination throughout participating districts
has been limited. In their own classrooms, participants self-reported
positive changes in teaching and learning, but there has been no
systematic evaluation as of yet.

Customer Satisfaction

Participants voiced strong praise for the CGI institutes. In interviews,
teachers described the format of the institute as beneficial, calling it
"open," "comfortable," "full of modeling," "based on discussion,"
"constructivist," "realistic," "flexible," and full of "active
participation." One participant explained, "Their strengths are in their
materials, texts, and training techniques. We have the opportunity to
talk and learn from each other, which is crucial in really understanding
CGI."

Primary among the strengths of the institute identified by participants
was the quality of the training group, which included an original
developer of CGI and a respected teacher researcher. According to one
participant, "It's wonderful to hear it from the authors. You get little
nuances that other trainers might not present. \[One trainer\], he knows
it so well that he makes you think all the time." Another participant
explained that "having a teacher as one of the trainers is crucial. The
research is incredibly important, but must also have a practitioner
perspective."

Participants said the institutes provided accessibility to their
colleagues, yet they wanted further assistance in setting up and
maintaining networks to be used throughout the year. According to one
participant, "It would be ideal if we knew who in our district uses CGI
to form a network. Right now there is no one coordinating this. Without
an organized network, the district won't be as compelled to support our
release time. Though they are far away, the center might be able to help
us get a network going." Another added that "it is not just important,
it is necessary to network on CGI. This is how we can share resources
and organize follow-up activities." Conceptions of this network ranged
from building level to district level to across regions, and two
teachers suggested that such a network would be best if they could
connect specifically with grade-level counterparts. The e-mail listserv
or an on-line chat room could serve this purpose.

The greatest weakness identified by participants was the low level of
follow-up support provided by the Center. Nearly all interview
respondents made statements emphasizing the importance of follow-up
support and hoped to receive more in the future. They "don't want to be
left dangling." According to one, "We have gotten zero follow-up, but
have hopes for this year. The center could help. . . . We just can't
wait a whole year to get feedback on what we are doing. . . ." Many
people wanted a mid-year training, perhaps a one-day workshop around
January. Several teachers also thought that periodic site visits would
be particularly beneficial, though they may be logistically difficult
for the center to conduct. The site visits could be used for
observation, feedback, group discussion, workshops, and data collection.
Two participants wanted more communication via a newsletter that
included research, lessons learned by other teachers, network
information, resources, and event information.

Overall customer satisfaction is evidenced by the plans of several
participants' districts to expand their involvement with the center's
CGI training. For example, as part of their plan to develop local CGI
programs, Lansing School District and Dearborn School District planned
to hold an institute in Michigan with the help of center or WCER
consultants. The Lansing program would also include district-wide
follow-up meetings, perhaps monthly, and ongoing school or teaching team
meetings, for which district staff plan to rely on the center's
assistance in planning, networking, accessing resources, consulting, and
brokering services.

Districts outside the region may also call on the center for additional
assistance. For instance, AKRAC, Alaska's Regional Comprehensive Center,
has expressed interest in a CGI institute. Center staff said they would
be willing to provide assistance and consultation as needed. Similarly,
the participants from California hope to scale up the CGI program in
their district. Though support may be available from former CGI
researchers now located in California, the center suspects it will
provide guidance as requested.

**[Increased Capacity to Deliver Technical Assistance to
Schools]{.underline}**

Districts have not yet had the capacity to deliver training or
assistance in CGI to teachers. For the most part, participants have not
trained their colleagues in CGI. Participants who did share CGI with
their colleagues characterized the training as informal and consisting
of "a 15-minute summary at a faculty meeting" and isolated observation.
"We've been observed by other teachers," a teacher said, "but it needs
to be more, a lot more." It is likely that more follow-up support would
have benefited local efforts to replicate CGI.

However, the participating districts are still at the early stages of
involvement with CGI, and there is evidence that they will soon be more
able to train and support new CGI teachers. Several districts have sent
substantial numbers of teachers to CGI institutes and expressed interest
in starting their own district CGI programs. Staff from these districts
are working to secure commitment from central office and hope to solicit
assistance from the Comprehensive Center, which has reciprocated with
interest. If current plans are successful, the center will have helped
two districts create their own CGI training and support programs.

Improved Teaching and Learning

During the 1998-99 school year, districts participating in the initial
training implemented CGI with varying degrees of intensity. Some
teachers used CGI exclusively and did not use a standard math textbook,
while others used CGI as an added instructional method. Also, as noted
above, CGI has not been replicated to a great extent throughout the
participants' districts. Participating teachers, however, report
important changes in their own classrooms.

Teachers said that their practice had changed as a result of the initial
CGI institute. During interviews, many respondents said their "approach"
to teaching changed and became more aligned with the "CGI philosophy."
Teachers said they now "meet students where they are coming from" and
construct activities that are more "real" and relevant to the students'
experiences. They described being better able to tailor instruction as a
result of better understanding cognitive processes. Specific changes
reported by participating teachers included greater use of groupwork,
manipulatives, mathematics journals, written and oral story problems and
solutions, probing questions, and group discussions. Some also described
relying less on the math textbook.

Teachers also reported improvements in student social and academic
behavior that they attributed to CGI. They generally agreed that CGI
encourages students to actively participate in and take more
responsibility for their learning. "It encourages children to justify
their thought sequences," said one teacher, and another concurred, "They
must solve and articulate their solutions." Another teacher explained
that students are willing to take these risks because "CGI continually
builds upon their strengths. We meet the child where they are
developmentally. . . . It minimizes the 'I can't' beliefs and takes the
fear out of math." One said, "CGI builds respect of others and
confidence in yourself. It has affected the classroom community.
Students listen to each other's ideas and understand the differences in
how others learn." In general, teachers who used CGI in their classrooms
said that their students enjoy and engage in CGI math instruction more
than they do other math. This contributes to an improvement in student
achievement and classroom community, reasons enough to continue teaching
CGI. Several teachers agreed that "CGI fosters excitement in children
and keeps their morale up. It motivates them."

There has been some empirical data on the effects of CGI on student
achievement. The center collected pre- and post-test data in fall 1998
and spring 1999, comparing achievement of CGI and non-CGI instructed
first-, second-, and third-graders. At all three grades, the CGI
students performed better than their counterparts by between .33 and .66
of a standard of deviation.

**[Barriers to the Delivery of High-Quality, Effective Technical
Assistance]{.underline}**

Though it was able to deliver high-quality institutes, the center met
some barriers in delivering follow-up. The primary barriers were
geographical. Nearly all participants in the initial institute were
located far from the center. Even participants from within the service
area of Region VI were spread from the Dakotas to Michigan. As a result,
Center staff can not provide on-site assistance without air travel and a
significant time investment. Furthermore, the participants were often
not concentrated geographically, so a trip to one site would serve only
a handful of participants. Visiting a substantial number of participants
would require that the center staff travel to the location of each small
district group or organize a larger meeting where teachers would need to
travel some distance.

There are also several barriers to classroom implementation of CGI. One
barrier to implementation is class size, which is a crucial factor in
teaching CGI math. Although teachers described ways to modify CGI for
large classes, they agreed that "small class size makes a big difference
with CGI because of its individual focus." It is difficult to sit great
numbers of children around a common table, let alone tailor
instructional strategies and questions for each child. Overall, the
teachers participating in the CGI institutes had small classes; several
had class sizes of 16 or less, and most had classes smaller than 22.

Inadequate resources also present a barrier to implementation. CGI
typically requires manipulatives for every participating child,
otherwise teachers must significantly adapt their instruction. All of
the observed classrooms had manipulatives available, and most teachers
who were interviewed described using manipulatives. However, many also
said that they do not have enough manipulatives for their entire class
or have bought them with their own money. On the other hand, center
staff point out that inexpensive objects, such as paperclips, can be
used as manipulatives, which, in the end, CGI does not necessarily
require.

###### Summary {#summary-4}

The center's CGI program helps teachers understand student cognitive
processes to tailor their instruction. CGI institutes---held in summer
1998, June 1999, and August 1999---were led by the original developers
of CGI, a CGI trainer, and a respected practicing teacher-researcher.
While CGI is defined as a philosophy, it is also a highly structured
program with a clear grounding in cognitive science. Although some
participating teachers expressed concern that CGI did not adequately
address mathematics fact fluency, which is required as part of state
assessments, nearly all wanted to continue working with the center to
implement CGI and to receive follow-up assistance throughout the school
year. Participants were pleased with the content and quality of the CGI
institutes but said that they would like additional assistance in
setting up and maintaining networks throughout the school year. CGI was
envisioned as a trainer-of-trainer program; however, district teams
report that they do not yet have the capacity to train other teachers.
As a result of CGI, teachers reported changes in their
practices---including greater use of groupwork, manipulatives,
mathematics journals, and story problems---and improvements in students'
academic and social behavior as well.

> Comprehensive Center Services to Local Sites
>
> Kingston Unified School District, Calif.

**Overview**

The 1990s have been a period of significant transition in the Kingston
Unified School District (KUSD), because of substantial demographic and
economic changes. These changes initially limited local educators' focus
on the opportunities for program coordination offered by the 1994
reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA). At
a state-sponsored meeting in 1996, district personnel learned of the
availability of WestEd's Comprehensive Center to help schools make the
transition to schoolwide programs.

This case study describes the collaboration between WestEd and KUSD
schools during the 1997-99 period, during which WestEd's services
supported the districtwide transition to schoolwide programming. WestEd
offered services to KUSD on several levels simultaneously, focusing
first on schools eligible to become schoolwide participants. They also
offered consultation on federal programs and capacity building to
district leaders and other schools, as time permitted. For eight
schools, WestEd customized a leadership training program to introduce
the concepts of schoolwide planning and assisted in plan development.
Paralleling the schoolwide sessions, WestEd offered sessions on leading
schoolwide change for principals and district leaders. WestEd also
helped five several schools use their schoolwide plans to complete the
state's mandated Program Quality Review (PQR).

Researchers for this case study visited both WestEd and KUSD. In KUSD,
they interviewed the superintendent, an associate superintendent, the
director of special programs, a classified personnel officer, a
bilingual education coordinator, a health services coordinator, and the
director of instructional services. At the school level, interviewers
spoke with principals and schoolwide planning teams, including teachers,
counselors, and librarians, at seven elementary schools and one middle
school. WestEd trainers who worked with this process were interviewed as
well.

**I. Local Context**

New challenges, caused by significant demographic and economic changes,
confronted the KUSD at the same time that ESEA programs encouraged new
opportunities for flexibility. The closing in the early 1990s of Fort
Ord, an established and sizeable U.S. Military Reservation located in
the center of Kingston, combined with increasing urbanization, placed
significant budget and organizational pressures on the school district.
Reductions in the availability of federal Impact Aid generated by Fort
Ord employees, whose children attended Kingston schools, drastically cut
the resources available to support these changes. Furthermore, during
this period, the district's student body continued a shift, begun in the
mid-1980s, from being largely white, Korean, and Vietnamese to a more
diverse international mix of students who speak 44 different languages.
By the end of the 1990s, the once small, economically stable, city
district had broadened its boundaries to serve the urban working class
and rural communities of Marnia, Presidio, Sand City, Seaside, DelRey
Oaks, and Kingston City, and several unincorporated areas with large
concentrations of poor families.

In 1999, KUSD served approximately 12,000 students in grades preK-12.
Almost 50 percent of its students are eligible for free and
reduced-price lunch; almost 20 percent are limited English proficient.
In 1998, 60 percent of the population consisted of students of color,
including Hispanics (27 percent), African Americans (15 percent), Asians
(9 percent), Filipinos (6 percent), Pacific Islanders (3 percent), and
American Indians (less than 1 percent). The district has 16 elementary,
4 middle, 2 comprehensive high schools, and 1 alternative school. It
also has two district-sponsored child care centers. In an effort to
offer wide ranging educational and support services, the district
provides educational programs to school age, preschool, and adult
learners.

Reform Goals and Initiatives

Strategic planners in KUSD responded to districtwide changes by adopting
a standards-based curriculum that placed greater emphasis on literacy
and students' writing and on preparing all teachers to become skillful
assessors of student work. They sought and identified an increasingly
diverse teaching and administrative staff to lead their schools,
especially those with multi-language and multi-cultural student
populations. Districtwide, staff development emphasized renewing
educators' knowledge of strategies for working with students from a wide
range of nationalities and concentrated on upgrading the communication
and leadership skills of both district managers and teachers. Annually,
the superintendent and the school board reassess the district's goals
and revise or set new ones, as appropriate. For the 1998-99 school year,
KUSD learning goals and objectives focused on: implementing new K-8
literacy and 9--12 grade social studies programs, including aligning
newly adopted curriculum in these areas to the state's standards;
evaluating the high school program to develop more demanding graduation
requirements and school-to-work programs; and expanding developmentally
responsive programs for struggling students. The district also continued
to redesign curriculum and instruction to better integrate problem
solving, student motivation, and life-long learning strategies into all
state-mandated programs.

Progress in Implementing ESEA Reforms

In response to the reauthorization of ESEA, the district submitted a
consolidated plan that encouraged program coordination, but not
consolidation. Local officials noted that because federal resources
other than Impact Aid represent only about 7 percent of the district's
budget, local priorities, not federal or state policy, drive strategic
planning. One administrator explained, "We're more district-focused than
federally focused. There is less a categorical emphasis. . . .
Categorical funding is not leading reform or change, the
superintendent's and \[the Board's\] leadership is." In addition,
central office downsizing that occurred during the same period as the
ESEA reauthorization reduced the number of central staff available to
help schools understand new program requirements and opportunities.

School-based change in Kingston is school site-driven, and district
officials indicated that schools in the early 1990s were so involved
with community and student population shifts that, until WestEd began to
work within KUSD, there were few changes in the district's approach to
implementing ESEA programs.

Customers' Purposes for Seeking External Assistance

Although ESEA resources were not combined at the district level, once
principals showed interest in combining federal funds in their schools,
the district office turned to WestEd to help the schools make the
transition. One principal reported, "WestEd and schoolwides came
together. One of our schools had gone through the planning \[initially\]
and I was thrilled with the idea of . . . Title I funding being used to
integrate rather than isolate."

II\. Establishing the Relationship

#### **[The Center's Relationship with the District]{.underline}** 

At the suggestion of the Kingston federal programs coordinator, one of
the district's elementary principals attended a state meeting on funding
options for bilingual programs at which WestEd was making a
presentation. Once this principal learned that WestEd could customize a
program for Kingston schools, she reported the information to the
district's special programs coordinator who, in turn, convened a small
group of central office administrators to discuss inviting WestEd's
assistance. The initial planning group included the district's federal
programs coordinator, an associate superintendent, the director of
assessment, and interested principals of Title I schools. The principal
who initiated the meeting reported that "after the initial meeting,
\[district staff\] felt that all the schools could really benefit from
this \[assistance\]. . . . We spent a lot of time discussing what our
needs were. It moved away a little from my original expectations \[for
assistance specifically in the area of literacy\] because of the group's
\[varied\] needs and our decision to narrow down the focus to one that
helps all schools."

District officials recognized the assistance WestEd offered the schools
as vital to the redesign of their Title I programs to prepare them for
making a transition to becoming schoolwides. In their view, WestEd was
providing services the district's own top staff did not have time to
offer. Moreover, one of the school team members said that WestEd brought
to the process a certain amount of "outsider cachet" that was
beneficial. According to a principal, "In our Title I principals'
meetings we had been talking a long time about schoolwides . . . and
when \[the district's special programs coordinator\] brought WestEd in,
we said 'good.' It was good to have schools working together, elementary
schools together." The associate superintendent added, "And the price
\[no cost\] was right!"

**[Planning Services]{.underline}**

WestEd staff and the local planning team jointly chose the content of
the workshops. The first institutes began in Spring 1997 and continued
through the 1997-98 school year. In its consultations with KUSD, WestEd
used a wide range of off-the-shelf research papers, training tools, and
schoolwide planning documents. The staff worked initially from a
planning matrix, developed in consultation with the KUSD federal
programs coordinator and representative Title I principals. Their
preparation for each institute session combined participants' formal and
informal evaluations to determine the materials to use in follow-up
sessions. A WestEd trainer explained her typical planning procedure as
follows:

> After the first session \[of an institute\] the school said, 'It's not
> for us,' we're really small, etc. We convinced them to stay on \[with
> the process\], and they turned around over the year. It's an example
> of where we all modify our basic structure based on the participants.
> We tell participants 'this is a rough sketch of the year,' but we've
> added days, and at the end of each session we debrief based on the
> event and our observations. Then we handle the specifics of the next
> session.

Kingston participants confirmed that the WestEd training staff routinely
reviewed, evaluated, and planned the next steps collaboratively with
district leaders. After each session, WestEd submitted to their district
and school contacts written summaries of information, draft plans and
materials, and confirmations of the next actions planned. This feedback
generated trust and admiration for their staff members and admiration
for their written skills and for their practical knowledge of federal
law and research. Many KUSD staff said that they learned worthwhile
lessons from their WestEd interactions, not just about schoolwides, but
also about group process skills and about creative and effective ways of
using data to drive planning and instruction. Once WestEd finished
helping the Kingston Title I schools write their schoolwide plans, they
made themselves available to schools that needed help completing the
state-required PQR process.

III\. Services to the Local Site

Portfolio of Products and Services

WestEd customized an array of its research-based training tools and
publications to provide multi-session institutes and on-site
consultation with three different foci:

*Schoolwide program planning.* Supporting schoolwide program planning
and implementation was the major thrust of the center's work in
Kingston, the "beta" site for training WestEd later conducted in more
than 250 intensive schoolwide northern California institutes. The
resources for these institutes came from the center's first major
product, *Schoolwide Reform: A New Outlook*. With these materials,
WestEd trainers argued for schoolwide reform, laid out alternative
strategies for schools to use to initiate change, and provided practical
planning guidelines and tools.

The Kingston institutes involved school teams of principals, parents,
and teachers working under WestEd's direction at meetings held between
four and eight times during the school year for half- or full-day
sessions. Each session involved a presentation about federal policy and
requirements and helped schools figure out how to mesh their priority
programs with the federal requirements to service their particular
students. Leaders allocated significant time for team planning;
determining data collection procedures; and drafting plans that would be
discussed in between sessions. Other topics addressed were needs
assessment, team building, disaggregation and analysis of data, plan
writing, and obstacles to implementation. Between sessions, WestEd staff
served as co-writers and researchers, as necessary, helping sites
articulate and refine their emerging plans. They also offered on-site or
telephone individual or small-group consultations, as the school teams
required. In addition, the WestEd staff suggested additional
research-based print, video, or Web site resources available from the
center and other technical assistance providers. To strengthen parent
involvement in schoolwide program planning, the center also developed
and translated into five languages information for parents about their
role in schoolwide planning.

##### Principal institutes. The principal institutes emerged after WestEd saw that both school teams and their principals would benefit from additional assistance in learning to work effectively with the site-based planning teams. According to one WestEd staffer, WestEd "worked with principals, as we worked with their school teams. \[Our purpose\] was to create a safe environment, to focus on the principal's development and what they, as leaders, face \[when schools undergo significant change.\]" The institutes involved five customized sessions in which the principals of participating schools gathered to discuss the challenges they faced and resolved issues that emerged during their teams' planning activities. These sessions focused on: (1) broad issues of whole-school reform and the planning and implementation options in schoolwide planning; (2) reasons to become a schoolwide program (including requirements and key components); (3) needs assessment strategies; (4) needs-based data analysis; and (5) needs assessment findings and schoolwide plan writing.

This additional time with the WestEd consultants helped principals
anticipate problems that might occur as their teams began each activity
and prepared to keep their teams focused. "What we got," one principal
explained, "was the modeling of the process. We spread out the needs
assessment, and they gave us a matrix for gathering data from multiple
sources, and we could take that back to the staff." The meetings created
a forum in which principals exchanged ideas among themselves about how
to ensure the smooth unfolding of the planning. "They gave us
information, allowed for questions, and allowed us to discuss how things
related to our particular schools." Several principals pointed out that
these specialized sessions "kept us on track" and "gave us an overview";
one person said:

> WestEd helped us work through ways to figure our how staff could
> contribute to the school . . . helped us collaborate. . . . Really
> working together and saying that these are consultants who guide us
> and give us ideas that back up objectives, helps staff to know we're
> on right track. \[It's usually\] so difficult for site administrators
> to stay up on laws. I think for me, it was 'thank God I have some
> help.' Support in that area was really critical to me, since I was
> starting a new school in a new district with new programs that weren't
> real popular in the community. WestEd confirmed and validated \[my
> efforts\].

***California program quality review planning***. Once the schoolwide
institutes ended and schools wrote their schoolwide plans, schools
undergoing the California PQR were eligible to continue to work
individually with WestEd staff to rework their schoolwide plan into a
PQR plan. The five schools that were in the PQR cycle continued with
this next planning stage. The procedures followed the approach described
above for the schoolwide institutes, but WestEd designed additional
surveys and in-depth data analysis tools to meet the detailed PQR
specifications. PQR planning went beyond the data collection processes
required by ESEA and focused on strategies for analyzing a wider array
of evidence about teaching practice and student performance that enabled
schools to implement the emerging California standards-based
accountability model. These sessions typically involved school teams
closely examining the evidence they gathered for their schoolwide plan
on student achievement, community needs, and school environment and
adding information that PQR required. One principal explained that, in
the PQR planning, "I've worked closely with \[a WestEd consultant\]. . .
. He has been invaluable in helping me analyze the data and collapse it
into the state format"; another said, "We were able to look at these
\[schoolwide\] data and to choose things to focus on for PQR." A
principal who was inexperienced with the PQR process especially
appreciated that the consultant "was there to sign off \[on our plan\]."

Quality of the Technical Assistance Provided to the Site

***Alignment with state and local standards*.** WestEd grounds all of
its work in data-based planning and standards-based reform. "I see the
mission and bottom line of school reform as student achievement,
\[achieved\] through the schoolwide concept and the legislation. That's
been our focus and our starting point for rollout," a center staffer
explained. As a result, WestEd consultants, as a group, are
knowledgeable about concepts of standards-driven systemic reform, and
they are skillful users of group process and organizational development
tools. Their extensive knowledge of federal and state laws enables them
to help local staff articulate plans in the required federal or state
language. A WestEd staff member explained that she often served as an
interpreter and writer: "They know what they want, but they don't often
know how to put it in simple language that achieves the goals of the
law. We can help them do that."

***Research-based theoretical framework.*** WestEd's products and
training tools are grounded in the school and organizational change
literature of the past two decades. They have been developed, over many
years, piloted out in varied contexts, and revised or updated as needed.
Based on its own and others' research, the WestEd tools have proven to
be successful resources for whole school reform, data-based planning
strategies, and client-centered capacity building. At each institute
session, the staff distributes materials that encouraged participants to
search on line for specific research; they directed principals and teams
individually toward the books, Web sites, and research evidence that
were applicable to their school. "I would consistently ask for any
research they had that would help us. We made sure that as we wrote our
plan it was really research-based," a principal reported.

####### *Scope, intensity, and duration*. WestEd offered intense assistance to Kingston for two years, and, during a third year, the assistance was less intensive. Once they completed the formal schoolwide and PQR institutes, the staff continued to work directly with individual school teams and with principals, as the planning context warranted. All the schools that initiated schoolwide and PQR planning completed their plans. 

***Utility.*** KUSD enthusiastically reported that the center's
assistance was pivotal in helping them complete effective schoolwide
plans that also met the federal mandates. Reflecting the views of many
principals and school teams, one school-level educator explained their
reliance on WestEd: "We needed them so that when we wrote \[the plan\],
it was in the proper government format. . . . Without WestEd telling us
what to do, we wouldn't know which direction to go. We needed the
guidance." Another principal said:

> It took about a year \[to complete our schoolwide plan\]. The fact
> that we had someone keeping us on task to get us done really kept us
> moving. I will recommend to the new principal \[at her school\] that
> at the end of the year we need to go back and look at the data to see
> if we accomplished any of our goals and objectives.

**[Other Sources of Assistance]{.underline}**

Staff in KUSD are not extensive users of external technical assistance;
they are confident that they possess the internal expertise necessary
for adequate content-development support. They do, however, rely on
outside assistance, usually from the SEA, to clarify the rules and
regulations underlying federal or state program applications. The
superintendent said, "We use our federal congressman's and senator's and
our state legislators' offices to try and clarify things we're not clear
about. . . . We've learned to go to the top." The district's special
programs coordinator responded similarly: "One of the best places for
information for me has been CASFEP \[the California Association of State
and Federal Programs\] and Mary Jean \[LeTendre\]."

KUSD staff identified WestEd as a primary source of support for federal
programs, but most said that they did not ask them for much curriculum
assistance, largely because that was not WestEd's focus or, in their
view, its area of expertise. One principal said, "I was disappointed
with their expertise in curriculum." Professional networks provide rich
resources in the areas of curriculum and instruction; school and
district staff regularly attend national and state professional
meetings; and many participate in the state's role-identification groups
(finance, personnel, federal programs, content-focused).

Principals and their school planning teams have the latitude to decide
the curriculum and instructional assistance they need at the school
site. One school's principal reported that he learned "from someone in
the \[district's\] bilingual department that there was this program
called Success for All (SFA)," and, on his own initiative, he pursued
his questions about its appropriateness for his school. Later, this
principal also worked independently to bring SFA technical assistance
trainers to his school. According to one principal, others said that
they first look internally for information and assistance. "I haven't
needed to look \[elsewhere\] . . . because \[our program coordinator\]
knows everything." Another principal was satisfied that the KUSD federal
program staff met her technical assistance needs with the "binders and
materials" that come her way routinely. A teacher from one of the school
planning teams explained, "We check with our district office first, then
with the county. Our principal is also very knowledgeable and she shares
what she knows."

Despite these prevailing attitudes of the KUSD staff, a principal new to
the district detected the flaw in this informal system. She found she
had to press the central office staff hard to gain the assistance she
needed to better serve the large number of LEP students in her school.
"My major challenge was in implementing a biliteracy school in a
community that had not had positive support from the district before....
The school just didn't have any research-based information . . . on how
children learn a second language, and the district did not have an ESL
program; math materials were all in English." Once she took the
initiative to clarify her needs, in time, several district leaders
"really understood" her frustrations and they "got additional support
for us" both from WestEd and from state and regional networks.

**[Plans for Continuing Assistance]{.underline}**

WestEd worked actively with KUSD for more than two years. As schools
completed their schoolwide plans and their PQR processes, they had less
and less contact with WestEd, except for those that continued to work
with WestEd to complete their PQR plans. District and school site staff
say that although they were interested in continuing to work with
WestEd, they did not see an immediate need. There were practical
obstacles, as well. Some perceived the center staff to be "too busy" to
continue assisting them; others were unclear about whether they had
district approval to seek assistance; in still other instances,
competing priorities for principals', teachers', and leaders' attention
diverted teams from the issues they addressed under WestEd's tutelage.

IV\. Effects

######## [Customer Satisfaction]{.underline} {#customer-satisfaction-4 .unnumbered}

The center's high level of expertise about schoolwide programs,
data-based planning, and group process made their work in KUSD
especially effective. One top KUSD staff member with many years of
experience in external technical assistance said that WestEd was unique,
simply because "their services are consistent and excellent." He and his
KUSD colleagues said that WestEd's strength was in their capacity to
serve as communicators and collaborators. They provided a wide array of
practical resources and a structure for completing schoolwide plans. One
teacher appreciated that "they gave us survey samples, a whole binder.
It was wonderful because they gave us the step-by-step of how to do it;
they gave us information on effective services."

According to KUSD district and school leaders, WestEd provided them with
new levels of understanding and skill about data-based planning and
research-based, schoolwide programs. Many leaders and teachers reported
that they completed the year-long process with enhanced skills in
working with groups, using data to plan, and "thinking in new ways"
about their own teaching. One principal explained:

> We've done a lot in the past year of getting people thinking about
> some of the things that will be more effective. \[One of our
> third-grade teachers\] has incorporated a lot of strategies into her
> teaching. Part of the change was doing needs assessment. In the past,
> these teachers weren't doing much assessment. We didn't know how low
> these kids were compared to other schools. . . . The staff development
> that came as a result of all of the needs assessment and all of the
> planning was phenomenal. We had nine, two-hour professional
> development sessions, which came out of the issues that came up in the
> needs assessment. As a result, I see much more interest in assessment
> than there ever was before.

On the whole KUSD reported that WestEd was an invaluable resource for
them, but participants variously lauded and critiqued the components of
their assistance. For some, information was overwhelming: "It was like
an avalanche of information"; for others, the training moved too slowly:
"They spoon-fed us each meeting," said a team member from one school.
Another educator from the same school said, "It was the whole thing
about having to take a whole year for this process, that \[suggested\]
you weren't capable of making this plan in less than a year." Still
another school wanted more information that addressed their specific
needs: "The biggest problem we had is that we are a middle school and
most of the program examples were designed around elementary school
sites." Finally, a principal measured WestEd against the yardstick of
prior experience and was appreciative: "I can give you a comparison of
\[doing schoolwide planning with and without outside assistance\]
because I had been in another school and we went schoolwide without
technical assistance. Doing it with WestEd, the clarity, the ease, the
lessening of stress, that was a big difference."

Increased Capacity to Deliver Technical Assistance to Schools

The fact that schools completed and implemented schoolwide plans and
reported that they were implementing the programs they framed under
WestEd's direction is a strong indicator that school and districtwide
capacity increased as a result of schools' work with WestEd. The middle
school principal described the lessons learned this way:

> We're looking continually at our plan. We decided we needed to
> collaborate more. How are we monitoring growth and how is it going to
> translate into further support where it is working and less where it
> is not working? We've been able to develop some relationships with the
> county about where to go. . . . The whole process opened up the
> dialogue \[among us\]. It gives us documentation to get something
> approved that we know we buy into. This is a planned program and every
> year it's going to be reevaluated. . . . \[Teachers'\] organizational
> skills really need to be top-notch \[and the training\] process
> helped.

Most school teams offered similar assessments of the strengths of the
training experience, indicating they got what they expected from the
year-long work and they were ready to work on their own, integrating
their new skills and knowledge: "They're organized. You come back from
meetings with them with a direction. It was really powerful. We thought
it really pulled the staff together and it had a direction of where we
are heading."

Increased Awareness and Understanding of ESEA Programs

The center's work increased knowledge of how ESEA programs can be
combined at the site level among district-level officials, principals,
and school leadership teams. Under WestEd's direction, all eligible KUSD
Title I schools have become schoolwide programs. Although bilingual and
ESL programs remain in separate funding streams, the services sponsored
by federal, state, and local programs are integrated within schools.
There was widespread enthusiasm for the shift to schoolwide programming.

> We felt we needed to do more than targeted assistance because we were
> not reaching all kids with our funds, and we were told we could go
> schoolwide. I had heard from someone in the bilingual department that
> there was this program called Success for All. I told the staff about
> it, and I took the whole staff to see a school in Modesto. We even
> went a second time to look at a couple of bilingual schools. We did
> that and then we had a staff vote and we got the blessings of the
> district and we were able to implement the program this year. It
> started from knowing we had the opportunity to use all our categorical
> funds toward restructuring.

Nevertheless, there was some resistance to too much tinkering with the
non-Title I title categories, such as the bilingual/ESL programs, and
with Title IV and Title VI, in part because these programs are regarded
by the central staff as the only resources available centrally to
support specific activities. Few in the district fully understood ESEA's
flexibility and the options available locally to make a case for how a
district or school might reframe the agenda as presented by "the state."
For example, one top administrator was highly critical of ESEA for what
was perceived to be a "new state expectation" that they will give up
"multiple measures" accountability in lieu of "one number"
accountability. Staff didn't really assess whether they had some
flexibility implementing this requirement or where the new mandate was
coming from, although they didn't like it.

######## [Improved Teaching and Learning]{.underline} {#improved-teaching-and-learning-4 .unnumbered}

Teaching and learning were not the primary outcome of this process, but
many pointed to the spin-off effects on teaching and learning, including
improved faculty collaboration, more focused programs, and an increased
use of responsive strategies. Reviews were mixed, however. One principal
stated, "They really helped us in writing our plan and collecting our
data, \[but\] it didn't make an impact as far as teaching.*"* Another
commented, "Validation from WestEd helped energize teachers to put
things to work in their classrooms." The associate superintendent
pointed out, "You can see clearly that we've had tremendous changes for
the better in teaching and learning, but I think it's too difficult to
say that it's because of federal dollars." Specific changes he mentioned
included increased responsiveness to the diverse student body, upgrading
the literacy program, more active and involving teaching and learning,
and increasing students' writing proficiency.

Barriers to the Delivery of High-Quality, Effective Technical Assistance

KUSD personnel mentioned few explicit barriers to quality services, but
they did mention some of the inherent limitations of distance and time:
"The biggest barrier this year in working with WestEd through the PQR
process is simply the fact that they were in San Francisco and it was
hard to make schedules work." Another barrier was a lack of clarity
regarding WestEd's continuing role in the district. One principal
yearned for continuing assistance but was unclear about what would
continue to be available to him: "We need to have an understanding that
we can continue this consultation at anytime. What we didn't know is if
there is a timeline, and if it stops now. . . ."

The importance of the personal talent of the technical assistance
provider cannot be overlooked. At WestEd, there are many well-liked
staff, but not everyone fits KUSD's needs. Several people---not
many---noticed that it took WestEd a few sessions to settle on a
consistent staff to work with them. Also, during the later phases, when
the usual service providers were not available, their stand-ins were not
as well liked as they were: "When we did our final completion report for
PQR, it was the first time I laid eyes on the guy and he knew nothing
about the school. He really had not had the background and if we would
have had the same person all along, it would have been more efficient."

###### Summary {#summary-5}

WestEd provided assistance to KUSD to help the district make the
transition to Title I schoolwide programs. The major thrust of the
center's work in Kingston were workshops for Title I school teams to
help them write schoolwide plans, and the center relied on its own
products and materials to conduct the training. WestEd also held
institutes for principals to help them work effectively with schoolwide
planning teams and worked individually with schools undergoing the PQR
process to rework their schoolwide plans into PQR plans. The district
relied heavily on WestEd's assistance and praised the quality of the
center's services, with many participants noting that they were prepared
to carry out what they learned. Under WestEd's direction, all eligible
Title I schools in the district became schoolwide programs.

Comprehensive Center Services to Local Sites

Mountainview School District, Wyoming

Overview

The Mountainview School District, which consists of one K-8 school, is
one of three "partnership sites" served by the Northwest Regional
Educational Laboratory's (NWREL's) Comprehensive Center, Region X. These
three partnership sites receive an array of services from NWREL's
Comprehensive Center under memorandums of understanding that are
negotiated at the beginning of each school year. In exchange for the
Comprehensive Center's services, these sites help contribute to the
center's understanding of what it takes to implement effective
schoolwide programs in high-poverty schools and schools that serve high
proportions of special populations.

Since the 1996-97 school year, NWREL's Comprehensive Center has worked
with the Mountainview School District on several programmatic
initiatives, including: (1) developing and implementing a Title I
schoolwide program, (2) preparing for the state's accreditation review,

\(3\) building staff members' skill in disaggregating and interpreting
student achievement data, and (4) aligning curriculum and assessments
with state and local standards.

Data collection for this case study consisted of a two-day visit to the
Mountainview School District. Site visitors interviewed the district
superintendent, the school principal, five teachers, a tribal elder, and
Comprehensive Center staff members who have worked with the school.

I. Local Context

The Mountainview School District, consisting of a single K-8 school, is
located on an Indian reservation in central Wyoming. Mountainview's
enrollment of 350 students is 98% Native American. More than 90 percent
of Mountainview's students are eligible for free- and reduced-price
lunches. Poverty on the reservation is very high, with 85 percent of
reservation families unemployed. Attendance and enrollment varies due to
the mobility of families working in the casinos of adjoining states. The
largest employer on the reservation is the Mountainview School, which
employs 48 uncertified Native American support staff and teaching aides
and 32 certified teachers, all of whom are white and live off of the
reservation. Because of the lack of economic opportunity on the
reservation, both school staff and parents observed that middle school
students' motivation to stay in school and to work hard on their studies
is often low.

**[Reform Goals and Initiatives]{.underline}**

In the mid-1990's, the Mountainview School experienced considerable
administrative turmoil, running through three different principals in
three years. During that time, instructional programs were adopted and
dropped in quick succession, applications for federal funding (including
Indian Education, Title II, and Title IV) were allowed to lapse, the
school failed to prepare for its state accreditation review, leaving it
in real danger of losing its accreditation, and staff morale fell. At
the time of its first contact with the Comprehensive Center, according
to teachers, the Mountainview School was in administrative disarray and
in serious need of outside help.

In the fall of 1997, one year after the Comprehensive Center began
working with the Mountainview School, the district hired a new
superintendent and principal, who have brought some measure of stability
to the school's leadership. Priorities in the first year for the new
superintendent included: (1) improving operations in the school business
office, (2) renewing applications for federal grants, including Title
II, Title IV, and Indian Education, (3) renovating the school's Cultural
Center and establishing a tribal language program, and (4) restoring
staff morale. Only in the second year have the superintendent and
principal been able to devote serious attention to improving curriculum
and instruction in the school. As the superintendent summed it up, "We
needed housekeeping, housecleaning, and then playing catch up."

#### **[Customers' Purposes for Seeking External Assistance]{.underline}**

Four teachers that assumed responsibility for developing the school
improvement plan required by the state's accreditation process sought
help from the Comprehensive Center because they believed they had
nowhere else to turn. According to these teachers, the plan was due at
the end of the school year and the school's superintendent at the time
had no interest in seeing that the plan was completed; the principal had
no experience in writing a plan. According to the school's Title I
coordinator, the Comprehensive Center promised to be the only source of
available practical support:

> We contacted the Northwest laboratory \[as the Comprehensive Center is
> known at Mountainview School\] . . . . They were the only place to
> turn. The state did not have the people at the time. \[My colleagues\]
> and I were involved in Title I and we had been around the state so we
> had gotten to know the people.

The Mountainview School has continued its relationship with NWREL's
Comprehensive Center over time because it continues to see the center as
the only available source of much-needed outside assistance.
Accountability pressures continue to drive the school's requests for
assistance; at the beginning of the 1998-99 school year, Mountainview's
middle school was identified for Title I program improvement, and
revamping curriculum and instruction at the middle school became an
important focus of the center's work at Mountainview. In addition, both
the superintendent and principal maintained that the center's help is
valuable because they have almost no other options:

> We don't have any support. There is one university and no funding so
> the university is virtually non-existent as far as assistance \[for
> us\]. The state does one-time conferences. We have identified a mentor
> for Title I schoolwide. This person deals with schoolwide issues like
> how to do consolidated plans but not about other issues.
>
> If we were a normal school with everything in place, it would not be
> as critical, but we have problems even if accreditation is done. We
> need input and I am excited that the Center can help us see what we
> need to continue.

Finally, the superintendent commented that the fact that the center's
services are free for the school is an important consideration for the
school.

II\. Establishing the Relationship

#### **[The Center's Relationship with the Site]{.underline}**

The Mountainview Title I coordinator and a colleague first made contact
with NWREL's Comprehensive Center at a presentation made to
low-performing schools by the center's state liaison for Wyoming. The
Wyoming state education agency organized this presentation for schools
that it had identified as potential partnership sites. The Mountainview
teachers were impressed with the personal skills of the center staff
member and, with her encouragement, applied to the SEA to become a
partnership site. The Mountainview teachers summed up their reasons for
pursuing a relationship with the Comprehensive Center in this way:

> \[The center liaison\] was backed by a good enough size organization
> and backed by the state...and we were finally going to be "not just
> us" \[if we involved her\].

**[Planning Services]{.underline}**

Since the 1996-97 school year, when the Comprehensive Center first began
work in Mountainview, the district has worked with three different
center staff members as their primary technical assistance provider
(these changes in staffing were due to turnover in staff at the
Comprehensive Center). Each year, the district and Comprehensive Center
liaison plan services based on the district's most immediate needs. For
example, in the first year of the center's work with Mountainview,
Mountainview teachers decided to prepare a Title I schoolwide program
plan that would also serve as the school improvement plan required by
the state's accreditation process, which was due to the state at the end
of that school year. Work on this plan drove all of the center's
interactions with the school. Similarly, the middle school's
identification for Title I program improvement in 1998-99 has prompted
much of the center's work with the district in the last year to focus on
improving curriculum, assessment, and instruction at the middle school.

Other services provided by the center have been planned to capitalize on
the particular expertise of the center staff members working with the
school. For example, the center's specialist on Indian education and
community involvement provided assistance on involving reservation
parents in the school; another staff member with particular expertise in
resiliency has offered a series of workshops on that topic. Another
strong focus of the center's work with the school, developing the
capacity to disaggregate data, was identified by the Comprehensive
Center as it reviewed needs across its three partnership sites.

III\. Services to the Local Site

**[Portfolio of Products and Services]{.underline}**

***Development of a Title I schoolwide program plan.*** With just a few
months left before the school's accreditation application was due to the
state, the first phase of Mountainview School's relationship with the
Comprehensive Center began with the development of a Title I schoolwide
plan that would double as a school improvement plan required for the
accreditation process. According to teachers who worked on the plan, the
Comprehensive Center liaison visited the school three or four times over
the course of the spring of 1997; the focus of every visit became a
portion of the school improvement plan.

According to school staff members, the Comprehensive Center started by
working with teachers to examine content standards, curriculum,
assessments, and student data in a comprehensive way. The center liaison
worked with teachers to identify goals for the plan; teachers recalled
that in the beginning of the development process they came up with goals
but found that they were too broad and "not student-centered in the
right way." In addition, the Comprehensive Center liaison helped
teachers to understand the student performance data they had on hand,
make spreadsheets from existing data, and analyze student performance.
According to these teachers, "We would still be working on \[the
schoolwide plan\] if we were left alone." One teacher summed up the
center's contribution in this way:

> We brought out our little plans and they would immediately help us
> rearrange some cart before horse stuff. . . . We set up goals for the
> big goals, and in between we would work with them by e-mail, fax and
> then some. They organized us, clarified us, and kept us on track. We
> did not have the leadership and the \[Comprehensive Center\] gave us
> that leadership.

***Increasing parent involvement.*** During the first and second year of
the Comprehensive Center's work with Mountainview, a specialist in
Indian education and parent involvement visited the school several times
to help staff develop strategies for reaching out to parents on the
reservation. Teachers recall that this center staff member conducted a
door-to-door survey of parents, and presented the results of that survey
in an inservice session with Mountainview faculty. In fall 1998, the
center's Indian education/parent involvement specialist visited the
school twice, once to make a three-day presentation to staff on parental
training ideas, and once to consult with the superintendent on parent
involvement and student discipline.

***Other workshops.*** The center's second year of work with
Mountainview included workshops on various topics which received mixed
reviews from staff. These included: (1) a workshop on resiliency
(October, 1997); (2) a workshop on curriculum standards (November,
1997); and (3) a series of workshops on integrating Indian culture into
the curriculum (January 1998 -March 1998).

***Data profiling.*** In summer 1998 the Comprehensive Center sponsored
an institute in Portland for all three of its partnership sites. The
focus of this five-day workshop was on building the capacity of school
staff to analyze and interpret student achievement data. Staff members
from Mountainview took their reading and math scores to Portland and
learned how to use Excel to generate charts, how to disaggregate
numbers, and how to report results in a school report card. Center staff
provided consultation with individual districts and followed up with
consultation throughout the following school year. In addition, center
staff members analyzed data on behalf of the partnership sites, and
traveled to the school to provide consultation on reporting.

With the Comprehensive Center's help, the Mountainview School District
has produced a detailed school report card complete with graphics that
shows the district's performance on the SAT-9 for 4^th^ grade and 8^th^
grade, key district demographics, and the results of a student and
parent survey.

***Aligning curriculum and assessments with local standards.*** Much of
the Comprehensive Center's work with the Mountainview School in the
third year of their partnership focused on aligning curriculum and
assessments with local standards. In 1998-99, the district was in the
process of aligning the district standards to the state's 4th and 8th
grade standards, and developing new assessments as required by the
state. In addition to using standardized norm-referenced tests
(including the SAT-9 and the Terra Nova), the district was developing a
local criterion referenced test for grades 3 and 6. After a year of
"house-keeping", according to the district superintendent, "We are more
involved with curriculum and setting our standards, and getting
standards put down and working together among grade levels at scope and
sequencing."

In 1998-99, the center's services have focused on improving curriculum,
instruction, and student achievement at the middle school, which had
been identified for Title I program improvement at the beginning of the
school year (at the time of this study's site visit the district was
appealing the identification but preparing to implement a school
improvement plan nevertheless). The district began work with a new
Comprehensive Center staff member late in 1998. This staff member had
been a principal, and as a result spent much of his time consulting with
the Mountainview principal on strategies for school improvement.
Throughout the spring of 1999, this liaison visited the school monthly,
consulting with the principal and teachers on various activities related
to curriculum and instruction at the middle school. As one Mountainview
teacher described it:

> \[Our new center liaison\] came on board and he is magnificent. Our
> middle school grades were consistently low. The middle school teachers
> were resistant to change yet the principal had reasons for them to
> change. \[The center liaison\] and he are joined at the hip. \[The
> liaison\] is helping them with change.

At the time of our visit, the liaison's work with the middle school had
focused especially on the adoption of "Six-Trait Writing," a scoring
rubric and assessment tool that can guide writing instruction.
Mountainview teachers learned about the tool at a workshop in Casper and
with the center's support and encouragement decided to begin using it
schoolwide.

In addition, the Comprehensive Center liaison has been working with
Mountainview staff on assembling an "assessment matrix" that they can
use to align their instruction with new, higher-stakes tests. In the
coming year, Mountainview administrators and teachers anticipated that
new state testing requirements would be a major area of concern for the
school. According to the district superintendent:

> Next year is a high stakes year and it's going to hurt the rural
> community. If the kids don't do well on the standardized test, they
> are seen as stupid. We could even get the "it's the reservation so
> what do you expect" and "the kids aren't here so we can't teach them"
> treatment, even from staff. . . . The \[Comprehensive Center\] is the
> one that will help us make the change \[in attitudes\].

**[Quality of the Technical Assistance Provided to the
Site]{.underline}**

***Alignment with local standards.*** Must of the Comprehensive Center's
work with the Mountainview School District, from the development of the
Title I schoolwide program plan in 1996-97 to their work on curriculum
and instruction in 1998-99, has focused specifically on the alignment of
curriculum and assessments with the state's standards for student
performance.

***Research-based theoretical framework.*** Teachers and administrators
at Mountainview praised the Comprehensive Center for the access it
provides to information about educational research and school
improvement. One of the center's most important functions in this regard
has been to synthesize relevant research for the district, in order to
address specific questions or needs. For example, the center summarized
relevant research on the effects of school uniforms for the
superintendent, who needed to make a presentation on the subject to the
school board. As two Mountainview staff members summed up the center's
role:

> There was a lot of documentation and research that we could check out
> that the center brought in . . . . A third party saying this is how
> things are done was good.
>
> We don't have a lot of resources. Research-based data is important
> because there is a feeling out there that this is \[Mountainview\] and
> research does not reach us because we are unique even from research of
> other reservations. . . . That is why the center is important. Next
> year there will be a focus on middle school and we will need to verify
> that we are doing as well as we can and change things that are less
> effective.

***Scope, intensity, and duration.*** As a partnership site, the
Mountainview School District has enjoyed a high volume of services from
the Comprehensive Center over a period of three years. During periods of
peak activity (for example, during the development of the Title I
schoolwide program plan) center staff members visited the school
monthly, and communicated by telephone, email, and fax much more
frequently. In addition, the Comprehensive Center hosted week-long
summer institutes for all of its partnership sites in 1997, 1998, and
1999.

The Comprehensive Center has been intensely involved in the first phase
of school improvement at Mountainview\--developing an improvement plan.
During this phase, Mountainview staff members noted that the center's
assistance exceeded their expectations for scope, intensity, and
duration. Mountainview is just beginning to implement improvement
activities for the teaching of math, reading, and writing, however.
Plans are in place for professional development, but do not involve the
Comprehensive Center as heavily.

***Utility.*** Teachers agreed that the technical assistance provided by
their liaison during the first year of their work with the center, as
they were preparing for state accreditation, was extremely useful. Most
Mountainview staff members reported that the information provided in
workshops and other assistance activities during the second year of the
partnership, however, was too superficial and too theoretical to be of
much practical use.

***Capacity-building.*** Both administrators and teachers at
Mountainview commented on the importance of building teacher leadership
at the school because teachers tend to stay at the school longer than
administrators. Some of the teachers we interviewed credit the
Comprehensive Center with helping them develop the skills to plan and
implement school improvement efforts. As part of the accreditation
process, Mountainview staff formed a number of committees to address
issues related to curriculum, assessment, staff development, school
improvement, the middle school, school board policy, and the budget.
These committees have now been operating for more than two years;
teachers maintained that their leadership would provide stability and
continuity to the school even when administrators turned over.

Both administrators and teachers we interviewed reported that the
center's training on analyzing and reporting on data had provided them
with valuable skills that they would continue to use in the future to
produce an annual school report card.

IV\. Effects

**[Customer Satisfaction]{.underline}**

In general, Mountainview School District teachers and administrators
believe that the Comprehensive Center has provided them with valuable
assistance over the course of their three-year partnership. Mountainview
staff members believe that some providers have been more helpful and
more effective than others, however. The teachers who were involved in
writing the school improvement plan in 1996-97 praised their first
center liaison for her practical and timely help; they insisted that
they could not have completed the plan without her assistance.
Similarly, Mountainview teachers and administrators expressed strong
satisfaction with their current liaison, who was providing valuable
consultation and advice on issues related to curriculum and instruction
at the middle school level.

By contrast, teachers complained that some of the workshops and other
services provided by the site's second liaison were too superficial and
not practical enough to be of much use. Teachers who complained about
services during this period were careful to point out that services had
improved in the third year of the partnership, however. Typical teacher
comments about the second year of services included:

> I have not felt their workshops were really valuable until last
> summer. We always felt like this is not what we need right now. I
> don't know why that was\--probably because it wasn't concrete help.
>
> I felt like we were not getting what was promised for a long time . .
> . . They could not get to the nitty-gritty stuff like: Where do we go
> now? How do we do it now? It was all too general. We have come a long
> way but what's different about \[our current liaison\] is that he is
> interested in what this school's needs are now. He comes in and says,
> "This is a program we can offer you." I see that in the last three
> years the service is getting better.

The site views the Comprehensive Center as providing a unique service.
School personnel say that the state does not have the people or the time
to provide the same level of service. The administration and staff
recognize that their needs are unique and that few places would take
interest in them or have the capacity and experience to help them.

> So could we have called ED? Would they have understood us as well and
> talked to us day and night like the center, I don't know. I know we
> can't get \[adequate assistance\] from the state. We were under the
> gun. We had five years \[to deliver our school improvement plan for
> accreditation\], we were in our fifth year, and we were desperate.

Mountainview administrators see their current Comprehensive Center
liaison as very responsive to their needs. The principal mentioned
several times that he has asked for a service and that overnight, the
center had been able to respond and provide the information in a flyer
format that could be copied as is and sent home with the students, or
copied and used in a meeting. This fast response, according to
administrators, is one of the most valuable qualities of the center:

> They seem to be very accommodating. Right service at the right time,
> coincidental or not, very timely.

As the Mountainview principal summed it up:

> Why is the center so helpful? \[The person\] they sent was originally
> a principal...he comes from a real research background too...when he
> talks about programs he talks about programs that work with a good
> track record. The other thing is that Center advice comes from a point
> of view of experience and they understand where we are trying to go.
> \[The person's\] experience allows us to step back from our situation.
> . . . He is prompt and timely and when he hears we need something, he
> knows where we are at, and the information he gives us is right on in
> a way that I can just copy it and send it out to the staff.

Both staff and administration acknowledge that the Center Partnership
allowed high quality technical assistance to reach the reservation
school, which is too often bypassed.

> There is not much out there for at-risk schools like us. The state has
> neglected reservations . . . . Reservations need support and for that
> the \[Comprehensive Center\] is needed.
>
> They motivated us. I doubt that we could have done that alone if we
> weren't boosted into it. Everyone wants to say if its not broke don't
> fix it, but they told us this is what you can do and so we did it.
> They also give a lot of feedback.

Compared to the help that the SEA gives, the school administrators see
the Comprehensive Center services as individualized and tailored to the
needs of the school. Center TA is more in-depth and substantive than
what the SEA can provide.

> The state is trying to reach everyone in a shot gun approach but the
> Center was specific in how they help us. The Center's help is integral
> compared to state department help. But we have to recognize that they
> are coming from two different purposes. (Administrators)

**[Increased Awareness and Understanding of ESEA Programs]{.underline}**

Mountainview staff credit the development and implementation of the
Title I schoolwide program plan entirely to the assistance of the
Comprehensive Center. Beyond the implementation of the Title I
schoolwide program, however, the center's work has not focused on the
implementation of ESEA programs.

**[Increased in Parent Involvement]{.underline}**

Mountainview staff members reported that the Comprehensive Center's
efforts to increase parent involvement have not been particularly
successful in reaching the core of the community.

**[Improved Teaching and Learning]{.underline}**

###### 

Both teachers and administrators see some level of positive change in
the classroom since the center's involvement.

> The center has coaxed us into being uniform across the board with our
> curriculum and with accreditation. They said it was better to be. Math
> scores came up tremendously from the year before, and our program
> changed.
>
> The center has done a great job . . . focusing more on changes in the
> classroom. . . . The matrix for assessment change is what will help
> teachers disaggregate data and document change in the classroom. We
> are excited about that.
>
> What's different with center services? Good question! I'm always doing
> new things, but I don't know if it was because of the center. Maybe
> profiling \[schools to best target resources\] would not have happened
> without the center.

#### **[Barriers to the Delivery of High-Quality, Effective Technical Assistance]{.underline}** 

The barriers that keep the center from providing effective assistance
that almost all the informants mentioned were time and distance. The
informants were quick to qualify that the center makes an effort to
visit as often as it can.

The administrators included lack of research on reservations as a
barrier to effective, high-quality assistance. The superintendent said,
"We are isolated here like an island . . . we are our own unique
environment . . . we need a touch with reality."

**[Summary]{.underline}**

The Northwest Regional Educational Laboratory's (NWREL) Comprehensive
Center in Region X provided an array of services to Mountainview School
District, a small (one K-8 school serving 350 students), remote school
district located on an Indian reservation and serving a high proportion
of Native American students. The center began its work with the district
at a time when the district was in considerable administrative disarray,
having allowed applications for federal funding to lapse and failing to
prepare for its state accreditation. Since the 1996-97 school year,
NWREL's Comprehensive Center has helped Mountainview School District:
(1) develop and implement a Title I schoolwide program, (2) prepare for
the state's accreditation review, (3) build staff members' skills in
disaggregating and interpreting student achievement data, and (4) align
curriculum and assessments with state and local standards. Mountainview
teachers and administrators expressed strong satisfaction with their
center liaisons, both past and present. School personnel explain that
the state does not have the people, time, or expertise to provide the
same level of service as the center. In addition, the responsiveness of
the center to Mountainview's requests for services and information is
among the center's most valuable qualities.

Comprehensive Center Services to Local Sites

North Carolina ESL Clusters

Overview

Several local school districts in North Carolina have recently
experienced rapid growth in their limited English proficient (LEP)
populations. In addition, three school districts had been identified by
ED's Office for Civil Rights as being out of compliance with civil
rights laws governing the education of LEP students. In response to
requests for assistance in adapting local practice to better serve the
changed populations, the Region IV Comprehensive Center, through a
subcontract to ESCORT, began providing services related to English as a
Second Language (ESL) instruction to 23 local school districts in North
Carolina organized geographically into three clusters, two with seven
districts each and the third with nine districts. ESCORT was one of the
three migrant education resource centers under ED's previous technical
assistance system, originally known as the Eastern Stream Center or
Resources and Training. ESCORT is currently a partner in the Region IV
Comprehensive Center and in several other centers on the eastern
seaboard. The centerpiece of the center services to the clusters is the
Lab School model, which presents theory, models the use of specific
strategies, provides opportunities for application and experimentation,
and offers follow-up support. This case study examines the services
provided to two of the participating districts, Tyson County Public
Schools and Gardner County Public Schools.

For this case study, researchers visited Tyson County and Gardner
County. Data collection included interviews with personnel from both
districts and five schools, including two ESL coordinators, eight
teachers, three principals, and a counselor. Additional interviews
included a state ESL administrator, a service provider at ESCORT, and
the ESL coordinator from an additional district.

I. Local Context

Interest in external assistance regarding ESL instruction among
participating districts has been shaped by the changing demographics and
by changes in state policy. The number of LEP students in the counties
that make up the ESL clusters has grown at a rapid pace. For instance,
the number of LEP students in Tyson County, now between 300 and 400, has
doubled in the past six years. In Gardner County, for example, the
migrant population has changed from overwhelmingly African-American to
about 95 percent Hispanic, creating a greater need for ESL services. The
mobility of these students has changed as well. Previously, their
families came as migrant workers and they only spent part of the year in
the school district. Now, more families are settling into the community
permanently, creating a greater demand for services.

Meanwhile, the North Carolina legislature voted in 1995 to reduce the
size of the Department of Public Instruction (DPI) and devolve many of
its responsibilities, including professional development, to the local
districts. As a result, the ESL office at DPI has dramatically scaled
down its professional development and technical assistance activities
and focused most of its attention on curriculum development for ESL
programs.

In addition to the devolution of professional development funding to the
local districts, state requirements for testing LEP students have played
an important role in generating local requests for technical assistance.
North Carolina has instituted new statewide testing based on the state's
content and performance standards: end-of-year testing in the elementary
grades and end-of-course testing for the secondary grades. The state
requires that any LEP student who has attended school in a particular
school district for more than two years and has achieved Level Two on a
five-point English proficiency scale must take the tests, which are
administered only in English. Efforts are under way to extend the
exemption time to at least three years, and the state legislature
adopted a waiver process for LEP and exceptional children, which allows
portfolio assessments. However, the message to local districts is clear:
They are responsible for ensuring that their LEP students learn the
content that is reflected on the state tests.

[Reform Goals and Initiatives]{.underline}

Educators in Gardner County and Tyson County wish to improve the ability
of classroom teachers to develop and implement lessons that meet the
needs of both English proficient students and LEP students in their
classrooms. In both districts, LEP students spend the bulk of their time
in regular classrooms, but are pulled out of class as often as every day
for about 45 minutes for ESL instruction. With LEP students spending
most of their time with classroom teachers, teachers recognize the
importance of learning instructional strategies that work well with all
students in the inclusive classroom. As the Gardner County ESL
coordinator told us, "We have fine ESL teachers, but they can't do it
all."

Specific needs and objectives differ in the two counties. In Tyson
County, the center is focusing most of its efforts and resources on two
"focus schools," which have the highest number of LEP students in the
county. According to the ESL coordinator in that district, the focus
school approach can have effects beyond the first two schools because it
"allows us to identify the things that work that we can replicate in
other schools." The two focus schools have asked the center to provide
assistance in different areas of concern. One school has given priority
to increasing parent involvement and identifying the needs of
exceptional children, whereas the other has focused on helping school
personnel to understand cultural differences in order to improve
instruction.

By contrast, Gardner County has concentrated most of its efforts on
preparing ESL teachers across the district to serve as in-school
resources to regular classroom teachers. Most of the training
opportunities related to ESL instruction have involved the ESL teachers.
They are then expected to work with their colleagues in regular
classrooms on developing curricula and instructional strategies that
meet the needs of both LEP and English-speaking students. "If you
prepare the ESL staff and put that support in place, the next step is
the classroom teacher," a member of ESCORT explained.

Although both counties have made some effort to involve parents of LEP
students in their children's education, the two want to do more. In
Gardner County, all migrant and ESL program staff spend a great deal of
time communicating with parents about school issues. Each school is
responsible for meeting with parents of ESL students to explain
grade-level curriculum requirements and local and state standards and
expectations. The language barrier is a major obstacle to communicating
with parents because most teachers and administrators do not speak
Spanish, though many schools have on staff at least one Spanish speaker
who attends parent-teacher conferences and who translates notes from
school to home. In Tyson County, one of the focus schools has made
parent contact a priority. The school held a special bilingual meeting
just for parents of ESL students to discuss testing issues, promotions,
end of grade testing, and other educational issues. The school also
encouraged parents of K-3 ESL students to read with their children and
gave each family a book at the end of the year.

[Progress in Implementing ESEA Reforms]{.underline}

In Gardner County, the ESL Coordinator has used resources for the
education of both migrant and LEP students in order to improve service
delivery to overlapping populations. "As we began to build the ESL
component, we split-funded a lot of our staff," she told us. Thus, many
ESL teachers who are funded at about 20 percent by funds for migrant
education handle all instructional responsibilities. Other staff are
supported entirely by funds for migrant education, and they are
responsible for other components of the program, particularly parental
support. The coordinator worked with her staff to develop migrant
eligibility and LEP proficiency tests and questionnaires. In her
district, teachers identify other needs students may have, such as
health and transportation, that her office can address with migrant
support funds.

**[Customers' Purposes for Seeking External Assistance]{.underline}**

According to district administrators in both districts, classroom
teachers are not familiar with the cultural norms and values that their
LEP students bring to the classroom and that may affect their learning
habits. Increased awareness of those norms, the administrators believe,
will make it easier for teachers to understand those students,
communicate with them, and use instructional strategies to which the
students will respond. Moreover, the teachers lack awareness of
instructional strategies that they can use to teach content to classes
that include a mixture of students who are proficient in English and
others who have limited proficiency in English. As a result, many LEP
students are relegated to the back of the classroom while the rest of
the class learns social studies, reading, math, and other subjects.
Administrators in both districts are eager to introduce classroom
teachers to strategies---such as the use of graphic organizers and
cooperative learning---that benefit all students in their classrooms,
regardless of their proficiency in English.

II\. Establishing the Relationship

**[The Center's Relationship with the Districts]{.underline}**

The ESL clusters began with a telephone call to ESCORT from a rural
North Carolina county ESL coordinator, who requested assistance for
classroom teachers who were experiencing rapid growth in the numbers of
LEP students in their classrooms. Following the center's policy of
maximizing its effectiveness by providing assistance to groups of
clients in the same region, the ESCORT staff member called the ESL
office at the state DPI to inquire whether there were other districts
that would benefit from the assistance that had been requested. DPI
identified 23 districts---including Tyson and Gardner
Counties---concentrated in three clusters that were experiencing similar
growth in the number of LEP students in their schools. ESCORT then
contacted the ESL coordinators in each of those districts and offered
them the opportunity to attend a planning meeting that included other
districts in their cluster. The purpose of that meeting was to develop a
plan for providing technical assistance to the districts in each
cluster.

About 15 to 20 percent of ESCORT's subcontract with the Region IV
Comprehensive Center is spent on the clusters. Most of its work occurred
up front, establishing the relationships and developing assistance plans
for each cluster.

ESCORT's prior relationships with counties facilitated membership
recruitment in the clusters. At least two of the counties currently in
the clusters had received technical assistance from the center through
ESCORT on issues related to migrant education before the clusters
formed. In both of those counties, the ESL coordinator also directs the
district's migrant education program, and had learned of the center's
services during migrant conferences or meetings. One district had
obtained a publication prepared jointly by the Region IV and Region XIV
Comprehensive Centers called *Help! They Don't Speak English*, which
provides teachers of LEP students with research-based, practical
information on recommended instructional and assessment strategies and
resources. These districts joined their respective clusters after
receiving the initial telephone calls from ESCORT.

**[Planning Services]{.underline}**

When ESCORT contacted each of the districts in the three clusters, it
proposed that all ESL coordinators in each cluster meet as a group with
ESCORT staff to discuss their technical assistance needs. "They're very
good about asking us what we need," commented one ESL coordinator.
Annual planning meetings continue to be held in each region, where an
informal needs assessment is conducted. Based on the feedback from the
ESL coordinators, the center staff adjusts its activities in each
cluster. The biggest difference can be seen in the different designs of
the Lab Schools. Otherwise, they do workshops on topics requested by
each cluster. One ESL coordinator indicated, "Communication \[with
ESCORT\] is really good. They are in continuous contact through e-mail,
and they'll call you back within 24 hours. They are very quick to
respond to questions and issues. If they can't answer the question,
they'll find someone who can."

The center issued a notice to all of the counties that it was searching
for "focus schools," schools with extensive need for technical
assistance that were prepared to receive intensive help. At the center's
invitation, Tyson County selected its two focus schools because of their
high concentrations of LEP students, but that was not the only reason.
One center staff member reported that those two schools also had the
leadership and the core group of teachers who were ready to begin
changing classroom instruction. "Even if other schools are more needy,
if they're not ready, it's a waste of our time," he said. In Tyson
County, one staff member from ESCORT served as a primary resource. She
visited the site and worked with them to develop a strategy over a
nearly two-year period. The ESL coordinator said, "She listened to our
concerns and really got a flavor for the schools' situation. We
identified needs and she identified strategies and resources to meet
those needs." The ESL coordinator in Gardner County preferred to take a
countywide approach, so she decided not to nominate any focus schools.

III\. Services to the Local Site

**[Portfolio of Products and Services]{.underline}**

***Lab School.*** The centerpiece of the center's work in the clusters
is the Lab School model, which presents theory, models the use of
specific strategies, provides opportunities for application and
experimentation, and offers follow-up support. Only two Lab Schools were
held throughout the three clusters in 1999, one in Tyson County and one
in Gardner County. The Lab Schools were cluster-wide events, and all of
the districts in the two clusters were invited to send teachers to the
Lab Schools. The Lab School model was based on an approach that North
Carolina used to provide training at a summer retreat for teachers.

The Lab Schools in Tyson County followed the basic model, which consists
of five days of morning instruction for teachers during the summer,
followed by afternoon sessions that enabled them to apply what they had
learned. During the morning sessions, ESCORT staff and consultants
worked with about 25 teachers who had volunteered from the two ESL
"focus schools" in the district. The first phase consisted of
"consciousness raising," during which the presenters introduced teachers
to the culture of the LEP children, who were primarily Mexican American.
The presenters also provided an overview of the theory of language
acquisition as a lead-in to offering suggestions about appropriate
instructional strategies in classrooms with both LEP and English
proficient students. A specific strategy suggested by the presenters was
to present abstract concepts in concrete ways that minimize language
barriers, such as through art, visual aids, and manipulatives, so that
"concepts come to life for the children." Presenters also encouraged
teachers to allow literate LEP students to write in their native
language when they first arrive in their classrooms and to assign them
reading partners to help them learn to read in English. Teachers were
given opportunities to observe lessons that used these strategies and to
devise lessons that applied these concepts.

During the afternoon sessions, the teachers practiced their lessons in
summer school classrooms with student populations that resembled their
own. Their peers observed these lessons and provided feedback at the
end. The final phase of the Lab School consisted of classroom visits
during the school year by one of the Lab School presenters. The visitor
conducted a single observation of each Lab School teacher using the
strategies they learned during the summer and offered feedback following
the observation.

The eastern cluster deviated from the basic Lab School model in order to
make use of local expertise. The Lab School operated in conjunction with
Gardner County's regular Summer Academy program. Participants split into
three groups: The elementary and secondary groups consisted of 23
regular classroom teachers, most of whom came from neighboring counties,
while the advanced group included 5 of the 11 ESL teachers from Gardner
County. The elementary and secondary groups had the same morning
training sessions as teachers in Tyson County, but they practiced their
lessons in the Summer Academy ESL classes. The role of the advanced
group was to model effective lessons in the regular Summer Academy
classes, with the other Lab School teachers observing how they
integrated content into the ESL lesson. At the end of the Lab School,
the three groups met to debrief about what they observed and learned
from the training and the practice teaching. ESL teachers wrote down and
presented their thoughts about the role of classroom teachers in working
with ESL students, and classroom teachers wrote down and presented their
thoughts about the role of ESL teachers, which led to an in-depth
discussion involving all participants. This approach fit the district's
desire to have the ESL teachers serve as instructional resources to
regular classroom teachers in their schools. However, most of the
classroom teachers who participated in the Lab School were from other
counties in the cluster; future plans include having more classroom
teachers from Gardner County participate in the Lab Schools each summer.
Follow-up with participating teachers did not occur in this county
because classroom visits for all of the participating teachers could not
be arranged for the same date.

***Workshops.*** In response to requests from staff and administrators
in both counties, the center also provided several half-day and full-day
workshops on selected topics during the school year. Because most
teachers in these districts have not had any exposure to Mexican
culture, the most common topics addressed in these workshops were
cultural differences between Mexican and American children for the
purpose of encouraging teachers to be open-minded and respectful of some
of different norms they will encounter in their students. The workshops
addressed such issues as family structure, the importance and meaning of
the multiple names that Mexican children might have, and different
attitudes and reactions to authority figures. Recently, an ESCORT staff
member provided a well-received, three-hour workshop on methods of
assessing whether LEP students have learning disabilities in addition to
their limited English proficiency. Teachers had reported having trouble
determining whether a struggling LEP student was struggling only because
of the language barrier or because he or she also had a learning
disability. The workshop presented teachers with a case study of a child
and walked them through the process of determining whether or not the
child had a learning disability.

***Parental Involvement Strategy.*** In Tyson County, the center helped
the ESL coordinator develop a comprehensive strategy for involving
parents of LEP students in their children's education. The initiative
stemmed from one principal's concern that Mexican families were taking
long trips back to Mexico during the holidays, causing their children to
miss a lot of school. She wanted to find a way to communicate the
importance of attending school regularly to the parents, and staff
helped her develop a strategy that is now being replicated throughout
the county. center staff also arranged for an evening meeting with
parents that included free food, baby-sitting services, and door prizes.
About 25 parents attended the meeting, during which ESCORT staff served
as translators. The school is also going to offer Saturday classes to
parents in which they can learn English using computer software in the
school's computer lab. Next year, every school in the county that
enrolls LEP students will hold three or four parent meetings at
different times during the year. ESCORT staff are also helping the
county establish linkages with the clergy from the local Catholic Church
and with employers who hire many of the Mexican families in the county.

**[Quality of the Technical Assistance Provided to the
Site]{.underline}**

***Alignment with state and local standards.*** The purpose of the
center's activity in these clusters is to improve the capacity of
classroom teachers to enable LEP students to achieve state content and
performance standards. To date, the assistance provided has focused on
instructional strategies that cut across content areas, but there are
plans to provide additional assistance to ESL teachers in Gardner County
on incorporating social studies, sciences, and language arts content
into their ESL instruction. One kindergarten teacher observed that
repetition and making concepts concrete, a central focus of many of the
workshops available to teachers, is always good for young children.

***Research-based theoretical framework.*** Most ESCORT staff and the
consultants they hire have strong backgrounds in research on language
acquisition and curriculum theory. Several consultants are faculty
members at Hunter College in New York City. All of their work draws from
the latest research, with a particular focus on how teachers can draw
from that research to address their concerns in the classroom. The
content of the Lab School morning sessions and several of the shorter
workshops are grounded in research on language acquisition among
students with limited English proficiency. The focus on providing
hands-on, concrete learning opportunities in classrooms is based mainly
on this research. One teacher commented that the presenters at the
summer Lab School offered statistics demonstrating that students learn
more effectively with hands-on strategies.

***Scope, intensity, and duration.*** School and district personnel
generally believe that the ESL cluster services are of sufficient scope,
intensity, and duration to guide improvement efforts. According to one
ESL coordinator, the center's assistance is "continuous; it's always
there." Even when not conducting workshops or Lab Schools, its staff is
available for consultation or to refer district staff to other
resources, often ESL administrators in other counties. "\[ESCORT\] can
usually find someone I can talk to," a coordinator explained. Teachers
praised the thoroughness and long duration of the Lab School. According
to one, "Usually a workshop is half a day or a day," but the Lab School
gave her the opportunity to absorb and apply a lot of information.
Another said that the Lab School design compared favorably with half-day
workshops, in which "you might learn some stuff but you don't have time
to get down to it."

Some participants, however, believe the services should be expanded. A
principal at one of the focus schools in Tyson County requested more
follow-up opportunities for teachers, and less time between the initial
Lab School session and the follow-up. Other participants expressed the
desire to attend the Lab School sessions every year to reinforce and
expand their skills, but there are competing needs of other schools in
the district.

***Utility.*** Gardner County and Tyson County schools use the services
provided by the center in their school improvement efforts. Teachers in
both districts participate in the Lab Schools, workshops, and parent
involvement activities. In Gardner County, however, the focus on
building the capacity of ESL teachers means that classroom teachers
still have not received very much assistance in integrating their LEP
students into their lessons. ESCORT staff attribute this limitation to
the district, however. As one staff member explained, "If the district
has a different model, it's not my job to go in and tell them they're
wrong. My job is to help them with their plan."

***Capacity building.*** The center intends its services to build the
capacity of local staff to identify and solve problems on their own.
Gardner County's goal is to build the capacity of ESL and mainstream
teachers to better serve LEP students. The Tyson County focus schools
are intended to serve as laboratories to develop and test appropriate
models.

**[Other Sources of Assistance]{.underline}**

Outside of the services offered by the center, these districts cite few
other sources of assistance available to them. Teachers in Tyson County
have participated in the University of North Carolina's World View
program, which provides symposiums on Mexican culture and sponsors
week-long trips to Mexico. Teachers and administrators praised the
program for helping teachers understand the cultural differences between
themselves and many of their Mexican students. The county also has
access to a regional education organization that conducts research and
provides technical assistance to support continuous school improvement,
but the services offered do not meet the county's needs. A vertical team
of Gardner County educators participated in a 10-day study abroad
program in Mexico. The migrant/ESL office and local education foundation
raised funds to send a five-person delegation back to conduct follow-up
activities.

The state no longer provides workshops or technical assistance for
professional development at the local level, and state staff
complimented the center's service model as being more in depth and
comprehensive than they could have provided. ESCORT tailored their
training and technical assistance to the counties and expanded on
original concerns of changing student demographics to provide more
broad-based instructional strategies, as well as increasing
understanding and support to LEP students in their districts.

**[Plans for Continuing Assistance]{.underline}**

ESL coordinators in these districts want to expand their involvement
with the center, increasing the number of classroom teachers who attend
the summer Lab School sessions and the shorter workshops offered during
the year. They believe it is important for teachers to gain a better
understanding of the LEP students in their classroom and to learn ways
to challenge them academically. One coordinator wants the center to
provide her with more assistance in developing the district's ESL plan
and in providing leadership to schools that are trying to reform their
instruction to better serve LEP students.

One district administrator is looking forward to the center's and
ESCORT's continued involvement in helping her provide leadership in
schools that need to make adjustments to the influx of LEP students.
That includes helping her make necessary changes to the district's ESL
program plan, replicating effective workshops (notably one on
identifying learning disabilities in LEP children), and turning more
attention to middle schools with LEP students. According to this
administrator, middle schools present a unique challenge because parents
of LEP students often complain that their children won't speak Spanish
to them at home, and teachers complain that they won't speak English in
the classroom. She said that both teachers and parents need coping
strategies, and better communication among students, parents, and
teachers.

IV\. Effects

**[Customer Satisfaction]{.underline}**

All the respondents in both counties, including state, district, and
school administrators and classroom and ESL teachers, gave glowing
reviews to the assistance they received from the center and ESCORT. The
assistance was, according to these respondents, timely, relevant, and
practical. According to one state administrator, "If we had dreamed this
(the ESL clusters) up ourselves, we would not have done as good a job. .
. . We did not foresee the need for planning that \[ESCORT\] did."

Local, district, and school staff identified two major strengths of the
technical assistance efforts. The first is the expertise of the staff
who led the Lab Schools and workshops for teachers. The three ESCORT
staff members involved with the clusters all have extensive classroom
and administrative experience and a combined total of more than 20 years
of experience providing technical assistance. The center also brought in
numerous consultants to lead the Lab Schools and provide workshops in
the clusters, including a professor from Hunter College in New York City
with a strong background in research on language development and
experience translating that research into classroom activities; a
district ESL coordinator from North Carolina with expertise in
developing learning activities for multilingual classrooms; and a staff
member from the Southeastern Equity Center in Miami, who is familiar
with federal laws and regulations governing ESL instruction. According
to most respondents, such expertise is not readily available in most of
the counties in the clusters.

The second strength is the center's responsiveness to local concerns and
interests. According to one state administrator, the center's staff has
been so thorough in assessing local needs during their annual planning
meetings and through ongoing communication with ESL coordinators that
"they know more about what's going on than we do." District and school
staff echoed that sentiment in reporting that the services addressed
their immediate and long-term agendas and needs. One ESCORT staff member
explained the organization's emphasis on collaborative planning this
way: "If you don't listen to what they need, then it isn't going to
work. It won't stick." The center has been responsive to complaints as
well. According to one coordinator, "When I have expressed my concerns
\[about a consultant or presenter\], I have not had to deal with that
person again."

Perhaps the best indication of customers' satisfaction with the center's
and ESCORT's services in Gardner and Tyson Counties, however, is their
plans to expand their work during the next school year. Administrators
in both counties plan to expand the number of teachers who receive
ESCORT training, as well as consult with center staff in the design of
districtwide ESL services.

**[Increased Capacity to Deliver Technical Assistance to
Schools]{.underline}**

District ESL coordinators throughout the clusters are developing
leadership skills. According to one ESCORT staff member, "Capacity
building starts to take place naturally" as members of the clusters
spend more time together and share their experiences. ESL coordinators
in one of the clusters continue to meet on their own 3 to 4 times a year
to discuss common concerns and strategies. ESL coordinators in another
cluster have banded together to lobby for attention at the state level:
Said one coordinator, "We finally got into the Governor's budget this
year." Explained one district ESL coordinator, "It really pleases me, if
Region IV were to disappear in a puff of smoke, there would still be
something there. . . . They create autonomy rather than dependence."

**[Increased Awareness and Understanding of ESEA Programs]{.underline}**

Increasing awareness or understanding of ESEA programs was not the focus
of the assistance from the center. The district administrators appear
already to be pretty well connected and well versed in federal program
requirements.

**[Improved Teaching and Learning]{.underline}**

Teachers reported changing their instructional strategies in response to
the training they have received. One said she is "more aware of making
sure that things I present make sense" to all of her students, including
the LEP students. For instance, when using pictures to teach beginning
sounds, she tries to use objects that all of her students will be
familiar with. She noted, for instance, that "a" doesn't mean apple for
a non-English speaker. Another teacher said that she learned to be more
active in her classroom because motion is a form of communication that
is not restricted by language. An ESL teacher said that the assistance
she has received helped her develop content-based lesson plans for her
ESL classes. A district administrator said that the assistance is
"helping \[teachers\] understand the learning needs of ESL kids."
Moreover, they recognize now that the instructional guidance they are
receiving is appropriate not only for their LEP students, but for all of
their students. One teacher commented, "Some of the things you learn you
can apply to other kids." An ESL teacher expressed his conviction that
"there's no such thing as ESL teaching. It's just teaching." He added
that the training he had completed helped him with his teaching.

Gardner County has achieved limited success in its efforts to build the
capacity of ESL teachers to serve as resources to classroom teachers
serving LEP students. During the first Lab School, the ESL teachers
fulfilled that role, conducting demonstration lessons for classroom
teachers and providing feedback to the classroom teachers on the lessons
they designed. Beyond the Lab School, however, the necessary mechanisms,
such as shared planning time and release time, are not yet in place to
allow them to provide ongoing assistance to classroom teachers. However,
some ESL and classroom teachers make efforts to plan together and work
as a team to meet the needs of LEP students.

In Tyson County, other schools have begun to take an interest in
programs incubated within the focus schools. One of the focus schools
launched a thoughtful approach to reaching out and meeting parents of
LEP students, and teachers say they have a better understanding of the
cultural and emotional needs of their students. This emphasis on parent
involvement is spreading to all of the schools in the district, and
should improve school-parent communication. Other schools are interested
in copying the special meeting for ESL parents on educational issues, in
reaching out to ESL parents for regular parent-teacher organization
meetings, and expanding their supply of bilingual materials for children
and parents to use at home together. The other Tyson ESL focus school
concentrated on increasing understanding of the LEP students' culture,
and interest in participating in the World View program is also
spreading to other schools in the district.

**[Barriers to the Delivery of High-Quality, Effective Technical
Assistance]{.underline}**

Respondents in North Carolina identified their limited access to the
center's services as the major barrier to the delivery of high-quality,
effective technical assistance. They would like more teachers to
participate in the services that ESCORT provides, and some of the
teachers would like to attend the summer Lab Schools every year instead
of rotating different teachers through them. With limited time and the
center's commitments in other states, the assistance has reached only a
limited audience.

ESCORT staff identified another barrier: district readiness for change.
"Being ready for change is not a straight line, it's a critical mass,"
one staff member said. Many districts lack that critical mass, which is
often generated by a handful of teachers in a school and their principal
getting fed up with the status quo. Without that readiness, he added,
many districts do not benefit from the assistance that the centers can
provide.

###### Summary {#summary-6}

The Region IV Comprehensive Center, relying heavily on the expertise of
its partner, ESCORT, provided assistance related to ESL instruction to
23 districts, organized into three clusters, in North Carolina. In Tyson
County, the center has directed its efforts toward two focus schools
that have the highest number of LEP students in the county. In contrast,
Gardner County concentrated its efforts on preparing ESL teachers to
serve as in-school resources to classroom teachers. The centerpiece of
the center's assistance is the Lab School model, which presents theory,
models the use of specific strategies, provides opportunities for
application and experimentation, and offers follow-up support. In 1999,
the center sponsored two Lab Schools for participation across all three
clusters, as well as a series of workshops on cultural differences
between Mexican and U.S. students. Some of the districts hope to use the
center in the future to develop district ESL plans, to carry out
effective workshops, and to serve additional middle schools. Center
assistance was praised for being timely, relevant, and practical, and
center staff were appreciated for their expertise and attention to local
needs and interests.

Comprehensive Center Services to Local Sites

The Reading Success Network

in San Bernardino and Orange Counties, Calif.

Overview

The Southern California Comprehensive Assistance Center (SCCAC) launched
the Reading Success Network (RSN) in 1996 as one of its four core
initiatives.[^1] The goal of the RSN is to improve student achievement
in reading in grades K-3 by developing a cadre of school-level coaches
to support classroom teachers' efforts to improve instruction.[^2] In
the words of one SCCAC staff member, "The real challenge for the RSN is
to help schools develop an infrastructure to support principals,
coaches, and teachers to facilitate change in practices." The RSN
services are targeted to these coaches or, more recently, to small teams
from individual schools.

The RSN is not an intervention; instead, it represents a set of
strategies and ideas that coaches and teachers can choose to incorporate
as part of their instructional repertoires. Coaches may be regular
classroom teachers or school-based literacy coordinators with few
classroom responsibilities. Training and technical assistance offered by
SCCAC through the RSN include the following five components:

-   ***Diagnosis of reading skills.*** RSN trains coaches in the use of
    assessment tools such as alternate ranking, alphabet and sound
    recognition, and phoneme awareness.

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   ***Intervention strategies.*** RSN trains coaches to help teachers
    plan intervention strategies aligned with reading assessment tools
    for students in grades K-3.

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   ***Data analysis to inform instruction***. RSN trains coaches to
    help teachers examine demographic, process, and outcome data for
    instructional decision making.

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   ***Coaching for results.*** RSN coaches learn how to "coach"
    classroom teachers by establishing trust, being an active listener,
    asking effective questions, and conducting group discussions.

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   ***Support network***. RSN supports meetings for coaches to (1)
    exchange information about reading programs, activities,
    research-based models; (2) model and practice skills with one
    another; and (3) share products and assessments.

> In addition, the SCCAC and its partner county offices of education
> disseminate a variety

of materials and information about current practice and upcoming
literacy-related activities and initiatives through the RSN.[^3]
Typically, RSN training activities take place in regional locations or a
county building. According to SCCAC staff, the SCCAC is responsible for
designing the initial training series, and RSN coaches and principals
have a say in selecting the topics and issues addressed in network and
principals' meetings.

SCCAC designed the RSN in cooperation with staff from the eight counties
in its region. According to SCCAC reports from Summer 1999, the RSN now
includes 329 active coaches from 211 schools throughout the eight
counties.

For this case study, SCCAC staff recommended that Policy Studies
Associates (PSA) visit schools in San Bernardino and Orange Counties. In
these two counties PSA interviewed staff in the county offices of
education, three school districts, and five schools. At each school, PSA
interviewed at least one RSN coach, the principal or assistant
principal, and a group of K-3 teachers. PSA also reviewed training
materials and other documents related to the RSN.

I.  State and Local Context

Reading is a priority in the state of California. In addition, during
the past decade the reading wars have raged between advocates of the
whole language approach and advocates of phonics. Only in the past few
years have people been able to come to some agreement around approaches
that blend both sets of strategies. According to Los Angeles County
Office of Education staff and staff at the SCCAC, the RSN evolved from
the reading debates as a practical approach to helping teachers in the
lower elementary grades improve their skills at teaching reading and
improving student reading skills. As one county office staff member
commented, "The RSN includes the strengths of both of these approaches
and gives teachers a good set of tools to choose from."

### 

###  Many of the key features of the RSN were modeled on the San Bernardino Early Literacy Training program (SanBELT), which was intended to support improved instruction in reading and writing in the county's schools. SanBELT was developed by the Deputy Superintendent in the San Bernardino County Office of Education. She also serves as a member of the SCCAC's RSN Committee, which is one of the four committees that plan and oversee major center initiatives. According to SCCAC staff, one of the early tasks of the RSN Committee was to extend the SanBELT model by developing the data analysis, coaching, and intervention strategies included in RSN training and other activities.

In addition to state and local emphasis on improving reading
achievement, it is important to note that California's class-size
reduction statutes were aimed at decreasing the student-teacher ratio in
the lower elementary grades to create an immediate need for a large
number of new teachers. Because of these class size reduction
initiatives, the schools PSA visited employ a significant number of
uncertified and provisional teachers as well as a number of teachers who
are actually serving as interns. In these schools, professional
development and other support activities, particularly those that help
interns and new teachers develop basic classroom instructional skills,
assume particular importance.

II\. Establishing the RSN in Southern California

######### Role of the Comprehensive Center

The RSN Committee of the SCCAC, which comprises SCCAC staff and language
arts consultants from each of the eight county offices of education, has
overall responsibility for the RSN and, as noted above, played a
significant role in the early design of the initiative. SCCAC staff note
that the RSN Committee "meets to share successful strategies for
supporting the work of RSN coaches and principals; writes and develops
training and networking materials and continuously works to deepen the
implementation of RSN training components." In addition, staff report
that the RSN materials "are now cross-referenced to the California state
curriculum frameworks and content standards." Finally, the RSN committee
meets several times a year to plan future activities.

In the context of the RSN, the SCCAC does not build relationships with
individual schools, and in general, the teachers with whom PSA spoke
knew little, if anything, about the center. SCCAC staff and county
office staff agree that this is how it should be. School staff are most
likely to see the county offices of education as the source of the
training and materials they receive through the RSN. This view is
completely consistent with the overall organization of the center,
which, as noted above, is a collaboration among the county offices of
education in Southern California. As one county office staff member
explained: "When we first started working with the center, the county
superintendents wanted people to see themselves receiving seamless
services. We have been successful. People don't recognize the center by
name."

######### Role of the County Offices of Education

The county offices of education have basic responsibility for RSN
activities in their counties and exercise considerable latitude in how
they invest center resources, including funds, training materials, and
SCCAC expertise, in the RSN. For example, in the 1998-99 school year, at
the time of the site visit, RSN participants in San Bernardino had just
completed an extensive institute that focused on writing as a component
of literacy. Participants in Orange County reported that their training
had focused on reading. These differences may be accounted for by the
preferences and needs of the schools and districts in each of the
partner county offices of education.

######### Recruiting Districts and Schools

The San Bernardino County Office of Education and the Orange County
County Office of Education recruited local sites (districts and their
schools) differently. San Bernardino County brought together district
representatives for a three-day event to discuss how to merge the
county's former reading initiative, SanBELT, with RSN. It was assumed
that that RSN would institutionalize SanBELT by:

\(1\) providing diversified training opportunities for administrators
and classroom teachers; (2) facilitating peer coaching at the district
and school level; and (3) valuing literacy teachers at the school level.
In Orange County, district administrators met with the county office
staff member responsible for working with the RSN in the county to learn
about the components of the program, the resources available, networking
opportunities, and the application process. In other words, the "thrust
came from the county," noted one district representative. In her view,
the county role in organizing the RSN is not "to push \[RSN\] as a
program," but to "use the center's resources \[which the center makes
available to the county offices of education\] to leverage other
resources to provide the kind of scaffolding needed to deliver
resources" to schools. This, in turn, helped districts and schools "to
establish higher levels of trust with \[county offices of education\]."

In general, the county offices of education invite schools that are
dedicated to improving reading instruction to submit an application for
inclusion in the network. The counties seek schools that serve large
numbers of poor students and schools that operate Title I schoolwide
programs**.** According to center materials, schools demonstrate their
capacity to implement RSN by completing an application process, which
requires schools to carry out the following:

-   Identify an RSN school team, including the principal, selected
    literacy coach (a classroom teacher or literacy coordinator), a
    classroom teacher, and a parent or parent coordinator;

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   Complete a site process data sheet describing the school's
    schoolwide and classroom intervention strategies, assessment
    indicators, grade levels, and expectations of RSN;

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   Include a copy of the School's Accountability Report card and the
    school's Reading/Literacy Component Plan; and

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   Demonstrate school and district commitment by providing a statement
    of school and district support.

Each school is encouraged to recruit two to four staff members to be
trained as RSN coaches. According to a SCCAC staff member, the inclusion
of school teams in the network is an important change in the structure
of the RSN:

> We've shifted from a single coach per site to a team of coaches per
> site, depending on the size of the school. This represents an
> important shift because it signals a greater commitment and
> involvement by a school from the beginning. Previously, coaches and
> principals attended these activities and the coaches then worked alone
> in their schools.

**[Participating Schools]{.underline}**

According to data provided by the SCCAC, there are 211 schools with 329
coaches actively involved in the RSN in the eight counties. The center
counts a school as active if the RSN coaches attend the RSN training and
at least two network meetings a year. County office of education staff
in San Bernardino and Orange Counties reported a total of somewhere
between 150 and 175 schools in the network in these two counties. They
also estimated that between a quarter and third of these schools could
be considered actively engaged in the network.

According to data provided by the center, the majority of RSN schools
are Title I schools, with more than half of the RSN schools enrolling
student populations in which 50 percent or more of the students are
poor. In addition, half of the RSN schools serve student populations in
which a quarter or more of the children have been designated as students
with limited English proficiency. The RSN is targeted to high-poverty
and low-performing schools. One of the eight counties makes this a
formal requirement for participating in the RSN.

In two of the five schools visited in late Spring 1999, teachers
reported that they had begun their participation in the RSN six to eight
weeks before the visit. Teachers in two San Bernardino County schools
reported much longer engagement in training, but were not aware of when
SanBELT had ended and RSN had begun. The RSN is designed as an annual
sequence that includes training to induct people into the network.
Further, according to SCCAC staff, most schools join the network at the
beginning of the school year. At the same time, the reported differences
in participation suggest that, for at least some of the participants,
the RSN is more of a menu of activities and services.

III\. RSN Activities

######### Portfolio of Products and Services

RSN training and support activities are designed to help coaches and
principals work with teachers to improve students' reading and literacy
skills and to bolster teacher training and professional development in
reading. The key RSN components are as follows:

-   ***Diagnosis of reading skills***. This initial stage introduces
    coaches to multiple reading assessments, including alternate
    ranking, alphabet and sound recognition, and phoneme awareness. The
    primary focus is to train coaches on how to use assessment tools,
    when to use assessments tools, and how to share information with
    teachers.

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   ***Intervention strategies.*** This component models a process for
    coaches to use with teachers in thinking about intervention
    strategies aligned with reading assessment tools for students in
    grades K-3. Intervention strategies include organizing one-on-one,
    collecting diagnostic information frequently, reading instruction
    five to three times a week, and providing tutorial help. The RSN
    framework combines whole language and phonics approaches to reading
    instruction.

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   ***Data analysis to inform instruction***. During this phase,
    coaches learn how to help teachers use demographic, process, and
    outcome data for instructional decision making. For example, they
    are trained to encourage teachers to use achievement data to select
    appropriate intervention strategies by focusing them on such
    questions as: "Which students' needs are being met? Which students
    are having problems?"

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   ***Coaching for results.*** Coaches and teachers work together to
    agree on ways for:

> \(1\) collecting data to inform instruction; (2) selecting assessment
> and intervention strategies to improve student learning; and (3)
> providing teachers with tools and skills to become effective reading
> teachers. Moreover, coaches learn how to create a "learning community"
> with classroom teachers by establishing trust, being an active
> listener, asking effective questions, and conducting group
> discussions.

-   ***Support network***. This component focuses on building ongoing
    "systems of support" for coaches through follow-up meetings and
    professional development opportunities. The emphasis is on providing
    a venue for coaches to: (1) exchange information about reading
    programs, activities, research-based models; (2) model and practice
    skills with one another; and (3) share products and assessments.

According to center staff, the standard portfolio of RSN training and
services includes: (1) an initial training series, (2) ongoing coaches'
meetings, and (3) principals' meetings. SCCAC staff say that for schools
and coaches to be considered active members of the network,
participation in the initial training is "not elective . . . however,
\[participation\] in follow-up services and network meetings is
elective."

***The initial training series*** includes:

-   Overviews---A team from each new RSN school receives a day-long
    introduction to the RSN.

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   Data analysis---This segment focuses on helping participants review
    and understand the meaning of disaggregated data on student reading
    achievement.

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   Diagnosis and assessment---Coaches are trained to use of *Taking a
    Reading* (a diagnostic tool kit provided by the RSN) instruments.
    The training emphasizes how to use the tools, when to use the tools,
    and how to share the information with the teachers at their schools.
    The training addresses the needs of English-only students and
    students with limited English proficiency.

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   Intervention strategies---Coaches experience a process that they can
    use to involve teachers in brainstorming to form effective
    intervention strategies related to data derived from the assessment
    process.

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   Coaching---Participants learn about peer coaching and cognitive
    coaching as strategies for working with their colleagues to more
    effectively diagnose student reading problems, develop solutions to
    these problems, and engage in the professional study and learning
    necessary to sustain the classroom improvements.

***Ongoing coaches' contact meetings*** are convened by the county
offices of education and SCCAC staff about every six to eight weeks. The
general purpose of these sessions is to review new research and
instructional strategies and to provide updates on reading and related
issues in the counties and at the state level. These sessions allow
coaches and others to discuss which strategies have worked and which
have not and to review the reasons why. Each year, the topics of these
meetings are tailored to the needs and interests of the county RSN
networks.

***Principal meetings,*** also convened by the county office staff who
work on the RSN, provide forums for principals to discuss their
questions and concerns about reading instruction and related
professional development activities. These meetings also serve as study
groups in which principals can discuss current books and broad issues
related to school reform.

**[Quality of the Technical Assistance Provided to RSN
Participants]{.underline}**

***Alignment with standards***. As mentioned above, the RSN emerged out
of serious concerns about reading, particularly in the early grades.
This is consistent with state and local perspectives on reading
instruction as well as teacher training and professional development in
this area. Echoing the comments from a number of people with whom PSA
spoke, a literacy instructor from San Bernardino said, "RSN facilitates
uniformity in reading instruction across counties and the state." Stated
differently, the center's "eight-county partnership" is a venue for
county offices of education to be apprised of state initiatives, and to
exchange information and resources.

At the local level, for example, San Bernardino County's reading
initiative, SanBELT, was "morphed into RSN," said one vice principal.
County administrators assumed that RSN would institutionalize SanBELT
by: (1) providing diversified training opportunities for administrators
and classroom teachers; (2) facilitating peer coaching at the district
and school level; and (3) valuing literacy teachers at the school level.
One Orange County principal explained that "RSN fits well with the
district's philosophy on how to use data to drive curriculum \[and\]
reinforces \[teachers'\] pre-existing skills \[for example, collecting
and using data to modify curriculum\]. This is particularly helpful in
English language development, a schoolwide focus."

Principals and school district staff whom PSA interviewed consistently
reported that "RSN training and materials are consistent with what we
are trying to do in our schools. These things fit in very well and they
help us accomplish our tasks." In PSA's view, these comments underscore
the SCCAC's claim that "the RSN is not an intervention. \[Rather\], it
provides a set of strategies to improve reading instruction."

***Theoretical framework and research base.*** The RSN is firmly
grounded in two areas of research. The first area is reading and reading
instruction. RSN materials and training draws heavily on this research
and, as noted above, combines attention to phonics and the whole
language approach. The second area is coaching---peer coaching and
cognitive coaching---as a strategy for facilitating individual
professional learning and development. In addition to its reliance on
research, the RSN depends heavily on "expert" practitioners in data
analysis, intervention strategies, assessment tools, and instructional
goals. It is important note that these "experts" are not always center
staff. The county offices of education assume some responsibility for
identifying presenters and trainers.

All interviewees at the school level (RSN coaches and classroom
teachers) remarked positively about the RSN training. As voiced by one
RSN coach and agreed by all, the "RSN network has provided quality
research and presenters." It is a system of support that helps
"administrators and teachers to stay on the cutting edge," commented
another RSN coach.

***Scope, intensity, and duration of the assistance.*** As is sometimes
the case with ongoing training and technical assistance activities, it
is important to distinguish between activities and services provided and
actual participation. Based on interviews with principals and teachers
in the five schools, participation in these activities is uneven. (In
several cases, schools were new to the RSN and teachers had not had the
opportunity to participate in the complete set of activities.)

The people interviewed generally thought that the amount of training and
other support available through the RSN was adequate. Several people did
indicate, however, that they would like to see RSN training and
activities extended to include the upper elementary and middle grades.
(As we noted above, the RSN is being modified to include grades 4-6.)

***Utility.*** Based on our interviews with teachers and principals,
schools use the RSN training in three ways. First, the RSN coaches and
teachers who participated in the training activities report using many
of the strategies that they learned or read about in the RSN materials
in their classrooms. In addition, newer participants also said that they
were looking forward to trying some of the ideas and strategies that
they had learned about. Second, the RSN coaches report using the
coaching strategies they learned to help other teachers address issues
and problems in reading instruction. Third, RSN coaches report using the
coaching strategies to work more generally as mentors to new or
inexperienced teachers. Two of the principals saw this as particularly
important in their schools because of the large number of uncertified
and provisional teachers as well as the number of teachers who are
actually serving as interns. It is important to note that California's
class-size reduction statutes were aimed at decreasing the student
teacher ratio in the lower elementary grades, creating an immediate need
for large number of new teachers.

########  {#section-14 .unnumbered}

***Capacity building.*** The RSN is intended to build school-level
capacity to diagnose problems in reading instruction and identify and
implement solutions to these problems. Despite this goal, the absence of
school-level follow-up and support means that, in the end, the success
of the RSN will depend on the willingness of school staffs and their
leaders to persist in using the RSN strategies to improve reading
outcomes for all children. As one Orange County principal stated, "A
program is only effective if it continues without me. My job is to shore
up resources to help new teachers. The \[RSN\] tool kit provides
assessments and prescriptions to do so." More important, though,
according to this principal, are the coaches. "The cognitive coaching
piece would be lost if coaches left. This underscores the need for
training more coaches and continuing the cycle of training."

**[Other Sources of Assistance]{.underline}**

When PSA asked respondents about the advantages of the RSN over other
kinds of training and dissemination, they said that the RSN package of
services and materials is comprehensive and that the overall quality is
better than what they usually see. For most of the people interviewed, a
key indicator of the quality of the materials and services that they
receive is that they are practical. For them, the materials and training
they receive through the RSN have immediate applicability in their
schools and classrooms.

######### Plans for Continuing Assistance

The teachers and principals interviewed all said that their school goals
include improving instruction and student outcomes in reading and
writing. Because these respondents have a fundamentally instrumental
view of the RSN activities and services and because they value the
activities and services, they will likely continue their participation
as long as it suits them and as long as the RSN continues to operate.

From the SCCAC perspective, continued support for the RSN meets the
needs of the eight partner county offices of education. In our view, the
challenge in the future will be for the RSN to continue to provide
high-quality services to participants who have been in the network for a
year or more, while at the same time providing the initial cycle of
services to new participants.

IV\. Effects

SCCAC staff report that they conduct ongoing formative evaluations of
RSN implementation, which they use to modify training activities to meet
the needs of the RSN coaches, their principals, and their students.
According to the center:

> The program is evaluated annually, and all coaches are asked to keep
> journals in which they log their coaching activity. In addition to
> coaches' journals, an annual survey tracks RSN implementation at the
> site level, materials used, kinds of support provided to others, and
> training/contact meetings attended. . . . We have learned that this is
> a schoolwide effort that requires a system of support that includes
> all members of the school.

Early data from the center's external evaluation suggest that while the
RSN activities get positive assessments from participants, the number of
schools in which the coaches have assumed significant roles is rather
small.

## [Customer Satisfaction]{.underline} {#customer-satisfaction-5 .unnumbered}

Everyone interviewed gave the RSN high marks for practicality and
utility. As one principal put it, "RSN gives us the tools to accept
responsibility \[for improving literacy instruction\]." A second
principal suggested that "RSN serves as an impetus for
institutionalizing analysis, reflection, and change." Finally, a county
office staff member asserted that "RSN provides a structure to
institutionalize change."

A number of respondents singled out the coaching training as especially
helpful. For them, this training equips administrators and classroom
teachers to become "solution-oriented, rather than problem-oriented," in
addressing problems in reading instruction. Reiterating this sentiment,
one classroom teacher noted and all agreed that "RSN is not a program,
but a process to find best practices to help our schools and teachers do
our best." "RSN is a network to access tools," said another teacher.
"RSN is a strong network that provides teachers and administrators to
stay on the cutting edge," confirmed another.

In short, interviewees agreed that RSN is an excellent resource to guide
and inform reading instruction through staff development opportunities
and access to available resources. Likewise, RSN builds on individuals'
existing skills by "changing perspectives and opening people's minds" to
teaching differently.

**[Increased Capacity to Deliver Technical Assistance to
Schools]{.underline}**

The goal of the RSN is to increase school-level capacity to improve
reading instruction and student outcomes by training a cadre of coaches
who can work effectively with K-3 teachers. The RSN does not focus on
district capacity issues, except insofar as it contributes to capacity
in individual schools.

##### 

##### [Improved Teaching and Learning]{.underline}

When PSA asked teachers and principals how RSN contributes to their
work, they say that it provides a wealth of information about data
analysis, effective practice, assessment, and coaching. Based on
interviews with teachers, the news about specific impact and effects of
the RSN on classroom varies. Teachers in the other three schools
reported trying a number of the strategies that they had learned about
through the RSN, either from training activities or from the materials
that they received. Teachers and principals in these three schools
report increased attention to analysis of student data to inform
instructional planning and say that RSN training in this area has been
especially helpful to them. In Orange County, a district administrator
observed that "before, teachers' feet were in cement . . . they would
give tests, but never looked at the results." According to this
administrator and two school principals, "Teachers \[now\] recognize the
power of data and assessments." As noted above, teachers in two of the
schools had only recently begun their participation in the RSN. They
were excited about what they had heard and learned but also said that
there hadn't been much time to really try things in their classrooms. In
one school, the teachers reported that they were still practicing some
of the coaching strategies on one another and were waiting until the new
(1999-2000) school year to try them out on other teachers. Much of this
variation may be attributable to the variations in the amount and
duration of participation in the RSN.

In one school, the principal, the coaches, and several new teachers
extol the benefits of the coaching strategies. New teachers who had been
"coached" reported that the coaching had helped them through a difficult
first year of teaching. As one of these teachers explained, the coaches
"don't tell us what to do. They help us figure it out for ourselves, but
they also support us and don't let us make big mistakes." According to
the coaches, the teachers, and the principal, this approach resulted in
the new teachers developing poise and confidence in their classrooms as
well as the ability to reflect on what they were doing and figure out
ways to do it better.

In the end, our respondents consistently pointed out that the RSN is an
excellent resource to guide and inform reading instruction through staff
development opportunities and access to available resources, according
to all interviewees. Likewise, RSN builds on individuals' existing
skills by "changing perspectives and opening people's minds" to teaching
differently. For them, the RSN provides good ideas to review and
consider for their own schools and classrooms. It does not *prescribe*
specific strategies, but it does encourage a perspective that emphasizes
learning from student data and other data and using these data-based
observations and insights to inform choices from a broad range of
strategies to improve performance.

####### Barriers to the Delivery of High-Quality, Effective Technical Assistance

The RSN is primarily a training and dissemination activity. The SCCAC
and its partner county offices of education provide and facilitate a
variety of activities for coaches and other members of school staffs,
and they disseminate a variety of supporting materials. The only
discernable limit on this strategy is the capacity of the SCCAC and the
county offices of education to continue to provide training and
materials to current participants while at the same time increasing the
number of new schools in the network. Alternatively, augmenting the RSN
training with more direct over-the-shoulder assistance to schools or
even to district staff to increase their capacity to work with schools
would represent a major change and one that is almost certainly
impossible under current resource levels.

An important strategic issue for the future of the RSN concerns the
selection of coaches. According to the general design of the RSN
strategy, schools are invited to designate their strongest reading
teacher as a coach. In practice, the results of this selection process
are uneven. As we learned during our visit, some coaches are California
mentor teachers who are responsible for assisting other teachers and who
are typically highly skilled teachers in their own right as well as
effective mentors. In one school---a district professional development
school---the RSN participants were new teachers who were very uncertain
about the prospects of working with their colleagues and had not yet
received any training in coaching strategies. In another school, the
coaches were literacy lead teachers who welcomed the coaching training
and said they had been able to apply some of the skills with their
colleagues. In a fourth school---a school that was just a year old at
the time of the site visit---the coaches had been selected from the
ranks of classroom teachers with the expectation from the principal that
they would assume some leadership for instructional programs in the
school. As noted above, this group anticipated using their coaching
skills with other teachers for the first time in the 1999-2000 school
year. These differences in skills, experience, and perspectives suggest
that some variation---perhaps a significant amount---in how these
individuals work with their colleagues, what they actually focus on, and
how effective they are is almost certain.

###### Summary {#summary-7}

The Reading Success Network is a set of strategies and ideas that
coaches and teachers can use to improve reading instruction for students
in grades K-3. SCCAC works through its eight partner county offices of
education to deliver RSN training to coaches and to disseminate RSN
materials. The center does not establish relationships with individual
schools; rather, the schools perceive the source of their assistance to
be the county offices of education. Among the eight counties, 211
schools with 329 coaches are actively involved in the RSN, and the vast
majority of these schools are high-poverty and low-performing. The
center's portfolio of services regarding RSN includes an initial
training series and meetings with coaches and principals. According to
respondents, RSN received high marks for its practicality as well as for
the model's coaching component.

Comprehensive Center Services to Local Sites

Richmond Elementary School, Florida

Overview

As one strategy for organizing and delivering services, the Region XIV
Comprehensive Center at Educational Testing Service (ETS) in Tampa chose
six "model schools" in Florida to receive intensive services. These
schools enroll high proportions of students who live in poverty, speak
English with limited proficiency, move often with their families for
seasonal farm work, and scored low on the statewide test. Richmond
Elementary School, one of the six model schools, is located in an area
known as the "strawberry capital of the world." It serves from 700 to
900 students (depending on the season) in grades pre K-5 and in a
program for students with special needs. From a pool of schools
suggested by the Florida State Department of Education on the basis of
their high risk factors and low performance on accountability measures,
center staff identified Richmond as a school ready to engage in a
partnership designed to improve achievement through comprehensive
reform.

For the past three years, the Region XIV Comprehensive Center has worked
with Richmond on several different initiatives designed to address
student needs. Sponsored by the center, about one-third of Richmond
teachers participate in the Continuous Progress Initiative disseminated
by the Anchin Center at the University of South Florida (USF). Center
staff also helped make the migrant program more effective, worked to
improve the skills of teachers and teaching assistants in the English as
a Second Language (ESL) program, engaged volunteers from USF in tutoring
for the America Reads Challenge, launched teacher-led study groups that
investigate topics relevant to instruction, and involved teachers in the
Reading Success Network (RSN).

Data collection for this case study consisted of a two-day site visit,
which included individual and group interviews with about 10 Richmond
teachers and administrators, classroom observations, and tours of the
school designed to demonstrate features of different instructional
programs.

I. Local Context

Richmond Elementary School is located in a rural area outside the
suburban fringe of a big city. As one teacher explained, "Ours is a very
rural community, with lots of trailer parks, lots of farms, very spread
out. People move when the rent is due. Only 5 percent of our kids walk
to school." The school enrolls about 900 students, of whom almost 80
percent are eligible for free or reduced-price lunches and almost half
have limited proficiency in English. The children represent farm owners
and migrant families, who account for the school's 70 percent annual
mobility rate. Richmond has the highest student attendance rate in the
county despite its transient student population, according to the
principal. Richmond's staff speak of successful efforts to keep migrant
families enrolled for longer periods in order to reduce academic losses
for their children.

In addition to the regular elementary program for grades K-5, the school
offers Head Start classes for three- and four-year-olds, a separate
special education program for severely handicapped students, a health
clinic, and a family resource center. Despite the presence of these
comprehensive programs and all the children and adults they involve, the
campus is spacious and clean, characterized by pleasant order and
productive activity. The one-story buildings include open space and
conventional teaching areas clustered around grassy courtyards that are
linked by sidewalks.

**[Reform Goals and Initiatives]{.underline}**

Richmond's staff defines their major goal simply: to improve students'
academic achievement. Key strategies include building a productive
school climate, using enriched academic units as the basis for
instruction, and encouraging more meaningful parent involvement. Their
approach includes improving capacity to serve students who are learning
English as a second language, adapting instruction to accommodate
variation in students' readiness to learn content within grade levels,
and aligning curriculum more closely with Florida's Sunshine State
Standards.

The school is most concerned about enhancing educational services for
its highly mobile migrant population, which is generally poor and
limited in English proficiency. The school offers ESL instruction and
has only modest capacity for bilingual instruction. Because many
students' families are in distress for one reason or another, the school
also has a Head Start program, a clinic, and support services for
parents.

**[Progress in Implementing ESEA Reforms]{.underline}**

According to a district federal program officer, under the provisions of
Improving America's Schools Act (IASA), Richmond's long-time concern for
the whole child is finally able to be expressed in instructional
programs. Over the years, the staff experienced unusually low turnover
and close relationships with parents. Under the old rules prior to 1994,
however, Richmond operated targeted assistance programs that served
migrant students, those with limited English proficiency, those with
special needs, and those whose reading scores were below a certain
percentile (often as low as the 15th) with separately operated and
funded programs. The federal program director commented that it seemed
at times as if programs competed for custody of students to maintain
funding. The system did not serve all children well, nor did it reflect
Richmond's comprehensive concern with students' welfare, although scores
for students who did participate reflected improvement. Under the new
rules of IASA, the programs of instruction are coordinated and blended
so that every child who needs support receives it, and the most
vulnerable students are not routinely pulled out for special help. "We
had proven we could spend money" with separate targeted programs, he
said, but he felt that the old top-down management strategy was not best
for students. "The new program is child-centered. Richmond has a great
link with parents. It's a caring community of staff and students.
Richmond is able to take advantage of the new law to its fullest
extent."

The center did not create Richmond's caring community spirit nor was it
responsible for taking the initiative in program coordination. When it
came into its partnership with Richmond, the center built on the
school's existing strengths and helped weave together programs to
provide more effective support.

**[Customers' Purposes for Seeking External Assistance]{.underline}**

The center initially approached Richmond as part of its plan to
concentrate its limited resources on a few schools. Although the school
did not solicit the center's assistance, it happily accepted it when
offered. Richmond's assistant principal reports that the school has
since asked the center for help in raising the school's scores on the
Florida Comprehensive Assessment Test (FCAT), the new state assessment
tied to the Sunshine State Standards. Each year, the state raises the
performance standards at each grade level, making it more difficult for
students to meet state standards. The school wants to avoid designation
as a "critically low" school under the state's accountability system
because that status would eventually make Richmond subject to state
takeover, and its students could be given vouchers to attend private
schools if their parents choose.

A major concern for the school is preparing its migrant and ESL students
to take the FCAT. "The problem," according to the counselor, "is that
everyone has to take the FCAT. It doesn't matter who you are. A newly
arrived child from Mexico has to take it. We're not on a level playing
field. Our kids lead difficult lives. It's hard to get a migrant kid to
explain in English how he did a math problem." According to the
principal, "Given the center's resources, we look to them to help us
with our bilingual and migrant populations. After all, \[those
populations are\] 53 percent of who we are." Another major concern is
reducing the student retention rate, especially in the first grade,
where most retention occurs.

II\. Establishing the Relationship

**[The Center's Relationship with the Site]{.underline}**

Working with a handful of "model" schools was a feature of Region XIV
Comprehensive Center's original proposal to the U.S. Department of
Education (ED). Once established, the center negotiated with the state
of Florida to identify a pool of candidate schools and then investigated
those to see which were best prepared to join in a partnership. Richmond
was on the state's list of high-need, low-performing schools. The center
held forums in three locations in the state and invited 15 schools that
were recommended for the program. At the forums, center staff explained
what kinds of help they could offer; interested schools could then
request a site visit by a center team charged with making the final
selection of six schools. A center staff member explained, "Our goal was
to match our expertise in these areas with the schools that could
benefit from such expertise."

During the site visits, the team interviewed the principal, looking for
evidence of a positive leadership style that could sustain optimism
during the improvement process. They also spoke with parents and
teachers to ascertain their interest in having the center's help and to
identify community institutions that might be willing to join the
partnership. Based on the center's assessment of Richmond's readiness
for relatively intensive technical assistance, in October 1996 the
center invited the school to enter into partnership. The school
accepted. "From the very start, they told us they weren't offering us
money," commented the principal. "I said, 'If not money, tell us what
else you can get for us.'" The nature and range of services to the
school have developed over the period of their collaboration in response
to perceptions of need.

From the beginning, the center contact person made herself welcome at
the school, and over time the school developed a relationship with the
center based on the belief that it is a full-service partner, an
especially helpful member of its professional "family." "We built a
relationship with the center . . . and that relationship has evolved
over time," noted the principal. "Now, we feel like the center is a part
of us."

###### Planning Services

In December 1996, shortly after selecting Richmond as a model school,
center staff met with the school's leadership team---a group of staff
members chosen by the school to share governance responsibilities---to
establish a plan for its assistance to the school. According to a
teacher at Richmond, "The whole first meeting spent with the center was
simply a time for us to narrow our goals." The principal added, "The
leadership team's goals are what the center based its involvement on.
The center asked us what we wanted, and we told them. The school
dictated the terms of service." The early conversations helped the
leadership team determine what early focuses for their reform work might
lay the best foundations for change and how the center's resources could
support their work in school improvement. Migrant services and help for
students with limited English proficiency were high on the priority
list.

In general, a designated contact from the center works with the school
leadership team and/or the principal to identify needs that the center
can address. The same person---one of the center's two ESCORT
staffers---has performed this role from the start. However, other center
staff and some outside consultants can and do work with the school when
their expertise can help solve a problem. In addition to planning for
the year's activities, the center and school staff meet regularly to
respond to new challenges or to adjust existing plans. Although the
arrangement with Richmond is particularly flexible because of the
proximity of the school to the center's Tampa office, it is typical of
the center's arrangements with the other model schools in Florida. That
is, the schools work with center staff to identify needs and the
resources to meet them, and then the center assembles the materials and
experiences necessary and/or links the school with other agencies that
can help. Access to the specialized "tool kits" of the center's partner
organizations---including the second language expertise of the Center
for Applied Linguistics (CAL) and the migrant education resources of
ESCORT at the State University of New York at Oneonta---enables staff to
respond quickly and effectively to needs experienced by Richmond.

The center has involved Richmond staff in a variety of activities, some
drawn from the center's portfolio, and others secured especially for
Richmond at the school's request. For example, the Richmond school
participates in the Continuous Progress Initiative sponsored by the
Anchin Center at USF, which is an agency partner of the center, and in
the RSN, which is a programmatic activity of the center. The center has
also provided training and sent Richmond staff to training events
conducted by other agencies in the areas of bilingual education and
teaching English as a second language, extended learning time, school
climate enhancement, leadership, and migrant education. The center's
core staff was chosen for ability to provide coverage for the typical
challenges posed by the region's student population: a need to learn
English and high rates of migrancy and poverty. Similarly, its portfolio
of standard offerings reflects familiarity with the kinds of assistance
requests that are typical in the region.

One particularly good example of adaptation of center strengths to
school needs, in the view of school staff, was in the area of ESL.
Although the Richmond staff included trained ESL teachers and
paraprofessionals, they were not experiencing the success they expected.
Center staff were well equipped to provide routine professional
development in ESL instruction, but this appeared to demand advanced
training. The center specialist who responded to the school's request
first visited the school and interviewed the staff. She discovered that
their needs were twofold: to upgrade skills and to improve
communications between certified and support staff. With the help of her
colleagues at CAL, she developed a skills curriculum appropriate to push
the development of experienced staff. She also worked with the lead ESL
teacher specialist to resolve the communications problems between the
certified and support staff. While these interventions were well within
the span of the Center's reach, they were not ready-made, but had to be
adapted to the conditions at Richmond. This instance also highlights how
the center and its clients benefit from the partnership among
organizations that provide core staff.

III\. Services to the Local Site

**[Portfolio of Products and Services]{.underline}**

***Continuous Progress and other Model Schools Activities.*** In
addition to participating in the Model Schools project, Richmond
Elementary elected to send teacher volunteers to learn the Continuous
Progress (CP) model promoted by USF's Anchin Center. Teams of teachers
either share students or "loop" with them for a period of years,
offering instruction in core subjects at various skill levels to
cross-age groups. The key to the CP team structure is flexible grouping
patterns. A whole group may consist of children in second and third
grades, but teachers are free to form smaller groups that are designed
for individualized attention, instruction, and review.

The Comprehensive Center underwrote the cost of the training sessions
for teachers from the model schools through its contract with the Anchin
Center. Only teachers who want to implement this model attend training,
and they form a "school within the school." The CP initiative involves a
variety of schools from across the state, so Richmond's participation
ensures its membership in a learning community with diverse resources
and experiences but a common interest in meeting Florida's Sunshine
State Standards. The Anchin Center occasionally holds cluster meetings
of CP teachers in the area.

The CP teams at Richmond have begun looping their fourth- and
fifth-grade teachers. The principal believes that it is better to allow
teachers to work with the same students over a multi-year period because
that establishes a continuity of care and teaching that is especially
important for migrant students. Language arts teachers teach the 4th
grade in the morning and the 5th grade in the afternoon, while
math/science teachers keep the opposite schedule. This arrangement can
provide extra stability for students who move often, but return at
regular intervals over a period of a year.

According to Richmond's counselor, teachers have formed two CP teams
that serve about a third of Richmond's students. The remaining
two-thirds of the students are taught in traditional, self-contained
classrooms. Asked if the CP structure would expand to all classrooms,
one teacher responded, "We don't know. Some kids need closed spaces."
Likewise, some teachers prefer self-contained, single-grade classrooms.
Richmond's physical plant easily accommodates both models; some of the
small buildings on campus have an open space design well suited to CP,
while others are more traditional. Staff and student assignment to CP
clusters are voluntary and flexible.

The center also sponsors other activities for participating model
schools. Three years ago, the center held its first Model Schools
Institute, to which it invited the entire staff of all six model schools
to get total faculty commitment to the project. Following that first
institute, the center conducted institutes for leadership teams from the
six schools. There, teachers and administrators received both theory and
practical applications on using standards-based instruction that they
shared back in their schools. As a result of these institutes, teachers
reported developing instructional units that reflect the state's content
standards. One teacher developed units on citizenship and health, and
another developed one on money and business. "The standards used to be
disconnected, but the standards training from the center taught us how
to fit it all together and make it make sense," a teacher said, "I love
teaching this way." Another teacher added that "the \[center-sponsored\]
training was one of the few times we've had continuity. The same experts
came back to teach us at follow-up institutes. It made me feel like I
was part of a huge system of educators; it made me feel important."

***Migrant Education.*** Richmond sits in the center of Florida's
strawberry-growing industry. Within the past five or six years, migrant
families have begun settling in the area rather than moving at the end
of the picking season. School staff believe that this is due in part to
the welcoming atmosphere and academic focus provided by the school. With
the assistance of the center's ESCORT team members, the school tries to
provide migrant families with services that they may not find at schools
with smaller migrant populations. School staff help them find access to
doctors, legal aid, and Spanish-speaking social workers. The school is
aided in its efforts by the fact that some of its teachers used to be
migrant workers. One of the school's most successful efforts has been
promoting good attendance through parent education and outreach to
families of absent children.

***America Reads.*** The center introduced Richmond to the America Reads
program. Center staff arranged for high school migrant students who were
attending a summer institute at USF to tutor students at Richmond during
the summer. The tutors help reduce class size, which can be as high as
20 students, during the school's summer program. With the tutors'
assistance, the America Reads program provides more individual attention
to participating students. The program expanded during the regular
school year to include after-school tutoring by formerly migrant
students who attend USF. Since the school instituted after-school
tutoring, fewer students have been held back.

***Study Groups.*** With the center's ongoing support, Richmond teachers
formed several study groups that meet regularly to discuss issues
related to teaching and learning. Before forming the groups, the
leadership team attended a Model Schools Institute to learn the purpose
of the groups and strategies for making them productive. Each group,
consisting of no more than six members, chooses a particular topic as
the group's focus, such as unit development; strategies for the state
assessment, FCAT; conflict resolution; technology; mathematics models;
and brain-based learning. The groups conduct their own research and
share materials and best practices with their fellow teachers. The
school uses Title I funding to pay for substitutes, which allows each
group to meet once every two weeks. The district is awarding
professional development points for recertification to the participants
in the study groups. The school's proposal specifies that between
meetings, teachers must experiment with new strategies based on the
group's research and then report on their experiences to their group
members. According to one teacher, "The study group concept may ripple
out to the district. Other schools are watching us, and the district is
looking at different ways of doing professional development." Center
staff attend study group meetings, but Richmond faculty facilitate the
meetings themselves, sometimes relying on the center staff members for
material help, such as copies of research articles related to the topic
of discussion.

***ESL and Bilingual Training.*** The center has conducted extensive ESL
training for all Richmond teachers. The school's one ESL teacher
supervises the work of all 15 ESL aides, who work in classrooms under
the direction of the classroom teacher. Under Florida law, all classroom
teachers must complete a specified number of hours of training on ESL
instruction. The center offered two initial training sessions and
follow-up sessions for classroom teachers on instructional strategies
that are effective with students who have limited proficiency in
English. The teachers found the strategies, which include modeling and
repetition, to be so effective that they began using those strategies
with all of their children. The principal was grateful that an outside
authority was able to "come in and say things that weren't so easy for
the teachers to hear, but she could say it without fear because she was
an outsider."

In addition, the center arranged a series of training sessions for the
ESL aides. The sessions focused on math, writing, personality conflict
management, and on the research basis for ESL instruction. According to
ESL staff, the training for the aides was very helpful because it
promoted development of strategies for effective collaboration with
classroom teachers. Some aides work with up to three teachers, and the
aides are often concerned with whether teachers are allowing them to
spend enough time with ESL students. The principal noted that "aides
feel more valued because they got their own training, which was directly
tailored to them and for them. . . . We discovered how useful it was to
train our aides."

***RSN.*** The RSN is in its first year at Richmond. Four teachers from
Richmond went to USF for 18 hours of training in six sessions stretching
from September through November of 1998 and an additional seven meetings
of two hours each scheduled monthly through May 1999. They worked
closely with a linguist on the components of teaching reading, including
phonemic awareness, running records, and guided reading. They then
returned to Richmond and held training sessions for the rest of the
teachers on their team. According to one teacher who attended the USF
training, "We worked as a team to make instruction better. The training
helped teachers learn to work with children with reading problems.
Sometimes, in a group, you only hear the strongest readers. The kids who
are struggling mask their trouble by echoing the strong readers. The RSN
training helped us with our low-performing kids."

***Parent Involvement**.* As a strategy for helping parents with limited
English proficiency to reinforce education in the home, Richmond
requested that the center develop a video in Spanish that demonstrates
to parents how to read and share books with their children. Center staff
will produce a similar video in English. The schools uses the videos as
part of its parent training.

**[Quality of the Technical Assistance Provided to the
Site]{.underline}**

***Alignment with state and local standards.*** Among the learning
opportunities offered to all model schools was participation in ongoing
institutes conducted two or three times yearly. These institutes focused
on developing instructional units that address state standards. Teachers
reported great interest in and satisfaction with the institutes, which
prompted Richmond teachers to start reorganizing instruction so that it
more directly led to progress relative to state standards. Other
initiatives, such as America Reads, ESL training, and the RSN, are
offered in ways that show their relevance to state standards in
literacy.

***Research-based theoretical framework.*** The center's training on
continuous progress emerged from research conducted at USF by the team
that developed the CP model. The reading and LEP programs seem to
reflect as much attention to research as the situation will bear. That
is, center staff are very careful to tailor assistance to existing
faculty strengths and limitations, pushing at their growing edge, but
not too fast nor too far. Center staff express respect for a faculty's
right to make its own choices, for example, about how best to teach ESL,
but they also challenge mistaken assumptions and exert steady pressure
to move toward what center staff identify as more effective strategies.
The center staff members ask one another and outside experts for help
when they receive requests for assistance in an area that is not part of
their repertoire.

***Scope, intensity, and duration.*** The CP program at Richmond has
given teachers strategies for developing integrated instructional units.
It has also helped them make decisions about grouping students to
maximize the effectiveness of classroom instruction. The center's
training on teacher study groups should have a lasting effect on
teachers' professional growth, because it focuses their attention on
issues of great relevance to their immediate challenges and on resources
to help them meet those challenges. For the past two summers, the
principal has attended a Leadership Academy for Principals in St.
Petersburg, through her relationship with both the Comprehensive Center
(which paid for the experience) and the Anchin Center. The Academy
focused on the need for educators to have high expectations for every
single child, the principal explained, adding, "This is the type of
thing that is helpful." Both teachers and administrators report that the
range and amount of training are a rich resource for their work.

***Utility.*** About one-third of Richmond's teachers have joined CP
teams that are implementing innovative teaching arrangements and
instructional units tied to state standards. Virtually all teachers
engaged in conversation (about half the faculty) commented
appreciatively on the versatility of center staff, the diversity of
resources, and the overall helpfulness of the partnership to the
teachers' work with children. "The center helps us get our new ideas and
initiatives off the ground," said one faculty leader. "The center gives
us mounds of resources to take home with us," said a teacher. "The
\[Sunshine State\] Standards used to be disconnected, but the standards
training from the center taught us how to do it, how to fit it all
together and make it make sense," a third staff member commented.

***Capacity building.*** The center has also contributed to
institutional capacity. Leadership training for administrators has
helped them become more effective in their own work and learn from
colleagues around the state during the Model Schools Institutes, they
said. Teachers have also learned how to implement a complex
instructional model, adapt curriculum to address state standards, and
serve migrant students and students with limited English proficiency
more skillfully, according to their testimony about center effects. They
also learned presentation and facilitation skills that enabled them to
share the content from the institutes with the rest of the faculty.
Through the center, Richmond has also learned about grant opportunities
and other technical assistance providers that can support its
improvement efforts. "The center helps us get our new ideas and
initiatives off the ground," the school's counselor noted. "\[It\]
provided us with access to other technical assistance people." Through
study groups and the RSN training-of-trainers, teachers are developing
greater expertise and skills.

**[Other Sources of Assistance]{.underline}**

School staff identify only the center and their school district central
office as sources of assistance. Of the two, school staff members agreed
that the center was more useful. According to Richmond's principal, the
school district assists the school with testing and evaluation issues,
"but as far as looking out specifically for Richmond, the center has
been our champion." She reports that the school also relies on the
center more then the district office to get information about
categorical programs. Additionally, the center informs the school of
grant opportunities before the district releases the information. The
school views the center as the source of everything needed to run a good
program, beyond the routine curriculum and assessment help they get from
the district.

Through the center, school staff say they have gotten more savvy about
where to look for other types of resources. Richmond receives extensive
financial assistance from local donors and business partners, including
numerous mini-grants from a local education foundation. "Those little
grants can really open up some doors," the principal stressed. "For
example, some of our teachers have instituted a reading program whereby
they take their students to the local Barnes and Noble and allow the
students to pick out one book, which the grant money pays for. The kids
get to buy their own books, and most of them have never even set foot in
a bookstore before."

IV\. Effects

**[Customer Satisfaction]{.underline}**

Richmond staff are very pleased with the assistance they receive from
the center. They are especially grateful for help in establishing school
improvement goals and accessing grant and training opportunities.
According to the principal, "The center has been a true resource. . . .
It took us a while to talk with the center about what we wanted, but we
used our conversation with the center to clarify our thinking. It
afforded us the opportunity to have \[the center\] send us stuff about
grants and to help us work with our migrant kids." The school's
counselor reinforced the principal's observation: "\[The center\] helps
us brainstorm about what services Richmond may want or need. I joked
that the center knew everything or, more realistically, could find out
where to get information they didn't have." She described the center's
school contact as "the best listener on the face of the earth. That's
the skill these people at the center need. They listen to all of us;
they're interested in us. Whoever sent \[the center's school contact\]
is a genius." Richmond's assistant principal was most impressed with the
center's efficient use of resources. "The center may not have a lot of
money," he noted, "but they know what they're doing with what they do
have."

School staff had nothing bad to say about the center. They had yet to
discover an issue that the center's school contact could not help them
with---some thought she personally was an expert while others recognized
that she was just resourceful in finding the expertise they needed. The
school staff mentioned their appreciation of three aspects of center
help: direct, "off the shelf" services especially relevant to the
school's needs, such as the America Reads Challenge; made-to-order
assistance such as the ESL assistance; and networking or connection to
outside resources, such as the Continuous Progress Initiative.

School staff expected that center assistance will be ongoing, although
there was evidence that center staff members were turning over
management of certain activities to the school and were withdrawing from
other activities as the school developed independent connections
directly with different service providers.

### 

### 

### **[Improved Teaching and Learning]{.underline}**

Teachers' comments suggest that their experiences with center activities
have improved teaching. One teacher claimed that the center has helped
teachers focus more on incorporating the state's standards into their
teaching, particularly through the integrated units they are developing.
"In the past, it used to be that teachers would teach entire six-week
units without even touching on standards; that doesn't happen anymore,"
she reported. "The standards are there to help us focus on what needs to
be learned." Another teacher expounded on that observation: "I have had
to examine the standards for 4th graders, then develop units for them
based on those standards. The tricky part is developing interesting and
fun units in a way that addresses the standards. We don't rely on
textbooks alone anymore. I've worked at night with my teaching partner
to develop a Revolutionary War unit, where we taught the kids
note-taking strategies \[part of the standards\]. We also asked them to
write a book about the war." Another teacher added that her work on new
units has made her feel more confident as a teacher.

Academic achievement as measured by the Florida state tests has
increased over the years that Richmond and the center have worked as a
team. Because the state changed tests, only two years of comparable data
are available. These data show that Richmond increased its performance
in all three areas tested: reading, mathematics, and writing. Florida
schools were graded for the first time this year, and Richmond earned a
C. Few Title I schools earned so high a grade. While it is difficult to
attribute improved student achievement directly to the center's
contributions, the principal credited the center nonetheless. The center
measured school success against the leadership team's four goals:
improving achievement, building a productive school climate, providing
enriched academic units, and encouraging more meaningful parent
involvement. The assistant principal said that the school can make a
connection between the center's work and these goals:

> Can we tie school improvement with \[Comprehensive Center\]
> involvement? Well, if we look at the leadership team's indicators of
> success, then yes. Has the school increased meaningful parent
> involvement? Yes. Has the school produced a healthy school climate?
> The surveys tell us yes. . . . Has all of this helped us? Yes.

###### Barriers to the Delivery of High-Quality, Effective Technical Assistance 

Impediments to effective technical assistance did not arise from
limitations of talent or commitment so much as from logistical
constraints. Richmond's principal identified logistical concerns as the
greatest barrier to the center's work at the school. "The greatest
difficulty \[with getting the center ESL expert back\] is scheduling. We
have to conduct that training during the day, and the aides are on an
hourly schedule. Most work seven and a half hours per day. . . .
Transportation was a problem with the America Reads program. It was
difficult getting the county to help us out. And getting the USF tutors
to Richmond was nearly impossible because many of them didn't have their
own transportation. We needed to use a bus. That was the biggest
problem: getting the USF students to our school. It's hard to get here
because we're in the middle of nowhere."

###### Summary {#summary-8}

Richmond Elementary School is one is six model schools served by the
Region XIV Comprehensive Center. Targeted by the state's accountability
system as a school in need of assistance, Richmond sought the center's
assistance in raising test scores on the FCAT, especially among ESL and
migrant students, after the center contacted the school initially. A
designated contact from the center works with the school's leadership
team to identify needs the center can address. The center's portfolio of
services includes assistance with the implementation of the Continuous
Progress model; activities to improve instruction for ESL and migrant
students; the recruitment of America Reads tutors to work with
elementary students during the summer and after school; assistance
forming study groups for teachers; support for the RSN; and the creation
of an instructional video for helping parents with limited English
proficiency read with their children. Richmond staff praised the center
for its off-the-shelf services, made-to-order assistance, and networking
connections, and noted that the center has helped teachers focus on
incorporating the state's standards into their teaching.

Comprehensive Center Services to Local Sites

Riverside Public Schools

The Riverside Public Schools has experienced steady growth in the
population of limited English proficient (LEP) students in recent years.
In response to requests for assistance from the district, the Region VII
Comprehensive Center developed a "Learning Facilitator's Academy,"
intended for teams from schools with relatively high proportions of LEP
students. The Learning Facilitator's Academy consists of a series of
weekend sessions to help schools pursue schoolwide improvement in
teaching and learning for all students. In addition, the center has
introduced the district to the Reading Success Network (RSN). This case
study examines the services provided by the Region VII Comprehensive
Center to the Riverside Public Schools.

Data collection for this case study consisted of a two-day visit to the
Riverside Public Schools. Site visitors interviewed the district's
director of the office of bilingual education and English as a second
language programs, a bilingual education specialist in that office, and
curriculum specialists in the district's curriculum office. They also
visited four schools that sent teams to the Learning Facilitator's
Academy. At each school, site visitors interviewed the principal,
members of the team that attended the Learning Facilitator's Academy,
and a small group of teachers who did not attend the academy, in order
to trace the dissemination of information and ideas within the school.
Finally, site visitors interviewed the Comprehensive Center staff member
responsible for designing the Learning Facilitator's Academy.

I. Local Context

The Riverside school district serves over 45,000 students in 108
schools. Riverside is one of two districts in the state that has
experienced steady growth in its immigrant population, resulting in an
influx of non-English speakers in local schools. Students in the
district speak 37 different languages. Many students come from Bosnia,
Vietnam, Somalia, Kurdistan, and Iraq, but the ethnic composition of the
immigrant population changes often, making it impractical for English as
a Second Language (ESL) and bilingual programs to target single language
groups.

The district uses an ESL pullout model, wherein LEP students attend ESL
classes for no more than three periods per day, depending on need and
proficiency level. They are immersed in regular classrooms for the
remainder of the day. In some schools, ESL teachers also visit regular
education classrooms to work with LEP students. The schools with the
highest concentrations of LEP students each host at least one ESL center
with a dedicated ESL teacher. There are a total of 21 ESL centers in 10
elementary schools, five middle schools and two high schools. Some
schools without ESL centers may have an ESL teacher if they have more
than 10 LEP students. In schools with neither an ESL center nor an ESL
teacher, the Title I teacher works with LEP students.

[Reform Goals and Initiatives]{.underline}

The district hopes to improve student achievement, particularly for LEP
students, as measured by state performance tests. Strategies to achieve
this objective include seeking innovative teaching practices and
enhancing professional development programs to help teachers address the
diverse needs of students. School officials also intend to increase
collaboration schoolwide and to support content-based instruction for
LEP students.

In 1999, the district launched an initiative to provide additional
resources to schools at risk. Forty schools, including two visited for
this case study, received between \$70,000 and \$100,000 for the
1999-2000 school year to develop or purchase a reform model and
implement it. To address the needs of LEP students, the district began a
bilingual reform initiative designed to promote more effective teaching
and to improve student performance using content-based instruction in
math, science, and social studies.

[Progress in Implementing ESEA Reforms]{.underline}

All of the schools visited for this case study were in the first year of
implementing a Title I schoolwide plan. School-level changes include
adding content-specific teachers in response to student performance on
the state assessment, updating technology to improve reading
instruction, recruiting parent liaisons to increase parental involvement
and improve attendance, and arranging regular meetings between Title I
teachers and classroom teachers to align instruction with the state
assessment.

**[Customers' Purposes for Seeking External Assistance]{.underline}**

At the time of her first contact with the Region VII Comprehensive
Center, the district's ESL/bilingual programs director reported that she
needed access to bilingual education expertise that was unavailable from
the state education department and local colleges and universities.
According to her, the state effectively ignores ESL and bilingual
education programs because they significantly affect only two districts
in the state. The federally-funded Multifunctional Resource Centers,
which had filled much of the need for technical assistance in bilingual
education before 1994, no longer existed.

II\. Establishing the Relationship

**[The Center's Relationship with the District]{.underline}**

The district's ESL/bilingual programs director wanted to work with the
center from its inception in 1996 and reported that she requested
services several times, without a response from the center. At the time,
the Region VII Comprehensive Center was not fully staffed and was
undergoing a change in leadership. The following year, the center hosted
a regional meeting to introduce itself and to assess local needs. The
ESL/bilingual programs director requested services at that time,
speaking directly to the center director. Meanwhile, as part of its
mission to provide comprehensive services to districts, the center
sought to involve the Riverside Public Schools superintendent in a
district needs assessment. When the superintendent did not respond to
the center\'s efforts to initiate contact, the center agreed to by-pass
the superintendent and to work directly with the ESL/bilingual programs
director and her supervisor, the Title I coordinator.

Since that initial contact, the ESL/bilingual programs director has
developed an ongoing relationship with the center. Other Riverside
Public Schools district supervisors became aware of center services
through this relationship. The district has since expanded its work with
the center to include RSN.

**[Planning Services]{.underline}**

District staff members in the office of bilingual education and English
as a second language programs worked closely with the center to plan the
center's services to the district. Before approaching the center for
assistance, district staff already had specific goals in mind for
training based on their understanding of teachers' needs and their
philosophy for professional development. The bilingual project
coordinator and the ESL/bilingual programs director identified local
needs through observation of ESL and bilingual teachers and by attending
planning sessions between district staff and regular classroom teachers.
Teachers identified several areas to include in training sessions:
strengthening content areas, increasing cultural understanding,
illustrating second language acquisition, improving instructional
strategies, and encouraging schoolwide collaboration.

The ESL/bilingual programs director chose schools with high
concentrations of LEP students to participate in center activities. The
principals in the selected schools had some discretion in selecting
teams of teachers as long as the teams included an ESL teacher, Title I
teacher, regular classroom teacher, and the instructional coordinator.
Several teachers said their principal used classroom observations to
identify those teachers who would benefit most from center services.

Given the locally-identified needs and target audience, center staff
assisted in planning the format of the training and in identifying
appropriate presenters. They visited the district three times for
planning meetings with the ESL/bilingual programs director, the
bilingual project coordinator, and others.

III\. Services to the Local Site

**[Portfolio of Products and Services]{.underline}**

***Learning Facilitator\'s Academy.*** The center\'s major service to
Riverside Public Schools was to assist in designing the Learning
Facilitator's Academy, which was intended to move the district toward
more inclusive, schoolwide reform efforts that bring together all
programs, including bilingual and ESL, Title I, and gifted and talented
education. Participating schools sent cross-disciplinary teams
consisting of five to seven members, including usually the principal,
the ESL teacher, the Title I teacher, a regular classroom teacher, and
the instructional coordinator. After each session, the teams were
expected to replicate the training at their own schools.

The first Learning Facilitator's Academy was held in the fall of 1998
and included six six-hour workshop sessions held on a series of
Saturdays over several months. Twelve schools participated. The second
Learning Facilitator's Academy took place in the spring of 1999, with
the center playing a more limited role. The model remained the same, but
the district ESL/bilingual director contracted with presenters directly,
rather than going through the center. This second academy included only
three sessions and eight new schools.

Learning Facilitator's Academy sessions focused on the change process,
team building, student learning styles, using data to inform
instruction, curriculum alignment, and instructional strategies.
Participants reported that specific topics within the sessions included
schoolwide collaboration, cultural diversity, multiple intelligences,
language acquisition, and ESL instruction. Session activities consisted
primarily of presentations, interactive discussions, and team
activities.

The Learning Facilitator's Academy was designed to promote instructional
strategies that benefit all children, but that are particularly
beneficial for the growing LEP population in Riverside. Accordingly,
presenters stressed how cooperative learning, hands-on activities, and
manipulatives can be used to reach all children. They also suggested
that teachers incorporate learning centers as primary instructional
tools, rather than as supplements to traditional practice. Presenters
underscored the importance of non-verbal communication, such as hand
signals, eye contact, pointing, and touching, particularly for LEP
students. They suggested games that make learning less language
dependent.

***Reading Success Network.*** At the time of the site visit to
Riverside for this case study, the center had also introduced senior
district administrators in the office of curriculum to the Reading
Success Network, an initiative sponsored by all 15 Comprehensive Centers
designed to promote grade level reading skills in every child by the
third grade. RSN includes strategies to teach reading in content areas
and a component to develop coaches within each school to support
implementation. Two district staff attended a one-day general session in
Chicago, and three supervisors attended a five-day training session in
February 1999, three days of which were devoted to RSN. At the time of
the site visit, these supervisors planned to train teachers and
administrators from about 20 schools. The center planned to send
representatives to assist in the presentation. During the 1999-2000
school year, the center provided additional districtwide training and
technical assistance related to the RSN.

**[Quality of the Technical Assistance Provided to the
Site]{.underline}**

***Alignment with state and local standards.*** Although the
instructional strategies presented at the Learning Facilitator's Academy
were not explicitly designed to address state and local standards, some
respondents described how the training has helped them to address state
standards. The principal of a middle school observed that the active
learning strategies demonstrated at the Learning Facilitator's Academy
aligned with the state's movement toward a performance-based assessment.
An elementary school principal incorporated multiple learning styles and
cognitive functioning into teacher lesson plan reporting forms, which he
uses to determine whether or not teachers are meeting state standards of
instruction, which require opportunities for active learning and
critical thinking.

***Research-based theoretical framework.*** The Learning Facilitator's
Academy was grounded in research-based theory on systemic change.
Preparation for the academy included defining expected outcomes,
planning for content delivery, and designing follow-up mechanisms. In
the sessions, presenters offered instructional strategies based on the
theory of multiple intelligences. Participants observed that the
language acquisition session also represented well-known research. In
addition, at least one session included theory on the change process
itself.

***Scope, intensity, and duration.*** The Learning Facilitator's Academy
covered a variety of topics, ranging from classroom instructional
techniques to schoolwide collaboration designed to support school
improvement. The sessions occurred on multiple days for six hours,
giving participants more in-depth exposure to concepts and more practice
with supporting activities. Teams presented Learning Facilitator's
Academy information to their entire faculty, strengthening their
team-building efforts and increasing their understanding of the
material.

The center provided contact information to the participants to allow for
follow-up assistance; however, none of them used it. \"I wouldn\'t feel
uncomfortable \[contacting them\],\" said one school principal, \"I just
didn\'t feel the need.\" Another principal said she didn\'t know about
the range of services available from the center.

***Utility.*** At least two of the four schools visited for this case
study used elements of the Learning Facilitator's Academy in their
schoolwide improvement efforts, while one did not. At one elementary
school, Learning Facilitator's Academy participants became leaders on a
schoolwide team to develop their Title I plan. They used activities from
the Learning Facilitator's Academy to successfully collaborate and make
decisions. At another elementary school, the principal used team
building from Learning Facilitator's Academy to involve all faculty in
several schoolwide projects. They formed committees to develop the
school\'s improvement plan and the Title I schoolwide plan, and to
prepare for an audit related to the state's improvement plan. A teacher
at the school said that Learning Facilitator's Academy participants
became especially active and effective in these efforts. They acted as
facilitators among teachers and supported the principal\'s leadership
agenda. However, not all schools incorporated the strategies presented
at the academy into improving building level collaboration. One
elementary school principal said that crisis management and dealing with
the state\'s improvement plan requirements took precedence.

Participants also described using what they learned about active
learning techniques, cultural understanding, and learning styles in
their classrooms and schools.

***Capacity building.*** The center approaches capacity building with
the Learning Facilitator's Academy in three ways. First, at the district
level, it seeks to build the district's capacity to organize similar
professional development activities. For the second Learning
Facilitator's Academy, the center stepped back while the district
contracted with various presenters. The ESL/bilingual director
acknowledged that the Learning Facilitator's Academy supported ongoing
professional development efforts but did not eliminate the need for
future outside assistance. Second, at the school level, the Learning
Facilitator's Academy teaches school-level teams process skills related
to change and collaboration so that schools can develop and implement
their own schoolwide change efforts. Respondents from some schools
reported that the Learning Facilitator's Academy enhanced their ability
to work together as a team with the intent of building their capacity
for problem solving and decision making. A few schools demonstrated this
capacity through their schoolwide planning efforts. Third, again at the
school level, the Learning Facilitator's Academy provides important
content related to instructional techniques and cultural understanding
that school teams can then impart to their colleagues.

IV\. Effects

**[Customer Satisfaction]{.underline}**

Respondents generally praised the center for its work with the Riverside
Public Schools. They reported that the center provides high-quality
training and technical assistance that the district could not otherwise
afford. The ESL/bilingual programs director said that the center offers
bilingual expertise that is not available locally, and that it helps to
meet the training needs in her district that she cannot satisfy herself
because there are limits to the amount of time she can spend in direct
training. The ESL/bilingual programs director and supervisors described
center staff as willing to listen to their needs and to accommodate
them.

Overall, participants rated the Learning Facilitator's Academy highly.
One principal said, \"The sessions were well thought out and well
executed.\" Another said, \"The team of presenters was excellent, and
the materials were relevant and timely.\" The presenters made themselves
accessible during the Learning Facilitator's Academy and provided
contact information to participants following the workshop. Several
participants also commented on the utility of the training. One teacher
said, \"You really used it right away.\" They also appreciated the
quality of reference materials provided and the interactive style of the
presentation. \"It wasn\'t all lectures,\" one teacher said. \"They had
lots of activities that allowed us to participate and get involved.\"
Furthermore, participants liked the opportunity to attend the workshops
as a team, with the principal and teachers from various grades and
content areas.

However, some participants expressed dissatisfaction with the Learning
Facilitator's Academy. One teacher wanted the academy to concentrate
more on working with LEP students. A few participants said the materials
were good but provided no information that was new to them. One teacher
wanted more follow-up contact following Learning Facilitator's Academy,
including information packets.

Both the ESL/bilingual programs director and district supervisors
praised the RSN. Though their district had provided training in literacy
to teachers, they did not have a mechanism to measure the effectiveness
of their efforts. They pointed to the RSN's coaching piece, which will
allow them to gather feedback after teachers are trained. Satisfaction
with the RSN is high enough that the district plans to continue its
involvement with the center on RSN-related activities. For example, the
district planned to develop a week-long training session for elementary
schools where center staff will assist in training and provide ongoing
support.

**[Improved Teaching and Learning]{.underline}**

Although the district has not formally evaluated the impact of center
services on teaching and learning, several participants reported
anecdotal evidence. Teachers at one school reported that the
instructional strategies they had learned for working with LEP students
had helped those students progress from failing in their regular classes
to earning passing grades. One teacher reported that even the slowest
learners were making progress. Furthermore, teachers across schools
reported that LEP students participated in regular classroom activities
more often after they implemented Learning Facilitator's Academy
strategies. \"Now, I am able to work with them,\" said one teacher.
Also, many regular classroom teachers reported that the academy's
strategies benefited all students, not just LEP students.

Learning Facilitator's Academy participants also described changes in
their teaching. For example, many teachers reported using more
cooperative learning techniques. \"The techniques allow me to be more
flexible,\" said a teacher at an international magnet school. \"I love
cooperative learning now that I see the kids need to interact.\"
Teachers also reported that they had begun placing students in
multicultural groups to allow for peer to peer coaching. Teachers
reported that the Learning Facilitator's Academy introduced active
learning strategies that appeal to students with various learning
styles. \"I\'ve gone to hands-on in math, in everything really,\" said
one teacher at a magnet elementary school. Other teachers reported using
learning stations, manipulatives, singing, and visuals, in addition to
traditional classroom activities. One teacher said taking Learning
Facilitator's Academy strategies back into her classroom was exciting:
\"You see complacency among teachers, but active learning . . . it\'s
not just 90 minutes of lecture . . . it forces you to be organized.
You\'ve got to be ready to roll." One principal reported that the
academy had influenced teachers who did not attend the Learning
Facilitators Academy, but who received encouragement from the example
set by those who did. \"I am seeing cooperative learning in some
classrooms where I wouldn\'t have thought to see it,\" said one
principal. \"Seeing that other teachers have done it and advocate it, it
allows them \[traditional teachers\] to be brave.\"

Participants reported that the Learning Facilitator's Academy also
increased teachers' awareness of cultural differences. Participants said
that this improved their ability to understand behavior that interfered
with classroom activities. For example, one student from Ethiopia
frequently fought with his fellow students. His teacher discovered that
he didn\'t understand the cultural norm of \"teasing\" in America.

**[Barriers to the Delivery of High-Quality, Effective Technical
Assistance]{.underline}**

At the time of the site visit conducted for this case study, the only
barrier to the center's technical assistance identified by respondents
was the initial lack of contact with the superintendent\'s office. This
limited the center\'s ability to assess needs districtwide and to
respond to requests from other district officials. In the 1999-2000
school year, as the district became increasingly involved in the Reading
Success Network, communication and coordination with the
superintendent's office improved considerably, according to the
Comprehensive Center.

In spring 1999, schools possessed varying degrees of readiness to use
technical assistance provided by the center through the Learning
Facilitator's Academy. At one school, change in leadership and a focus
on crisis management precluded the implementation of many components of
the Learning Facilitator's Academy.

**[Summary]{.underline}**

The Region VII Comprehensive Center provided assistance to the Riverside
Public Schools related to the instruction of LEP students and literacy
development for students in selected schools. The centerpieces of the
center's assistance were the Learning Facilitator's Academy and RSN. The
academy served teams of teachers and administrators from schools with
high concentrations of LEP students. These teams then replicated the
training in their own schools. Through RSN, the center arranged for
district staff to attend training sessions. Despite some early
communication problems between the district and the center, district
respondents valued the center for its expertise in ESL/bilingual
education, high-quality presenters, and useful materials. They also
noted that center services resulted in improved instructional strategies
and understanding of cultural differences.

Comprehensive Center Services to Local Sites

Snowbank School District, Alaska

Overview

Recently, education for many Alaska Native children was essentially
unrelated to their language, culture, and life in the village, where
productivity and often survival itself depended as much on subsistence
skills as on reading, writing, and arithmetic. Student achievement,
levels of participation, and parent-community involvement in education
were low in village schools. Teacher turnover was extraordinarily high.
Although located physically within a tight-knit, geographically isolated
community, the village elementary school functioned as a foreign country
run by strangers, who were usually well-meaning but unfamiliar with
local customs, expectations, and language.

The Snowbank School District was one of several districts that sought to
transform local schools into responsive and culturally relevant places
for their children. With assistance first from the Northwest Regional
Education Laboratory (NWREL) and later from the Alaska Comprehensive
Regional Assistance Center (AKRAC or the center), the district ran
Alaska Onward to Excellence (AOTE) program, which helps schools to form
school leadership cadres including the principal, faculty
representatives, community leaders, and elders.[^4] The cadres set goals
for student outcomes, gather data to assess progress toward those
outcomes, and guide the development and adoption of educational
programs.

This case study examines services provided by the center to the Snowbank
School District, focusing primarily on the implications of these
services for the operations in a single school within the district, the
Seaside School, the only school in its village. Researchers visited the
Snowbank central office and the school. Data collection at the district
office included interviews with the district AOTE supervisor, the
district superintendent, and two program directors. At Seaside School,
researchers interviewed community members, teachers, the principal, and
other school staff members. In addition, they interviewed several AKRAC
staff members and staff members from NWREL.

I. Local Context

Approximately 3,400 students attend Snowbank's 26 schools in 23
communities stretching across a vast expanse of Alaska. Because no towns
are connected by road in this part of Alaska, travel between the central
office and the schools is usually done by plane, although it may also be
done in some cases by snow machine in winter or boat in summer. More
than 92 percent of the district's students are Yup'ik Eskimo. Title I
participation is substantial in Snowbank, with schools reporting
participation in the free and reduced-price lunch program in a range
from 74 to 100 percent. More than 20 percent of certified staff are
Alaska Natives, due to intensive recruitment and a career ladder program
for bilingual teaching assistants launched by Snowbank in 1989.

Seaside School, located about 80 miles from the district office in a
village with more than 300 residents, serves approximately 100 students
in grades K-12, almost all of whom receive free and reduced-price
lunches. All the students at the school are Alaska Natives. There are
about 10 teachers and several other support staff members.

[Reform Goals and Initiatives]{.underline}

AOTE is the primary framework for district reform in Snowbank. "Our
commitment to AOTE is substantial," reported the district AOTE
coordinator. "It's one of the top budget priorities. Money will be
expended in accordance with AOTE priorities."

The stated mission of the Snowbank School District is "to ensure
bilingual, culturally appropriate and effective education for all
students, thereby providing them with the opportunity to be responsible,
productive citizens." The district AOTE student learning goals adopted
in April 1998 make similar reference to local culture: "Cooperatively
and individually, students will demonstrate civic and personal
responsibility \[and\] . . . effective communication; . . . value
culture, environment, self, and others; be problem solvers in a changing
world; \[and\] learn and understand Yup'ik/Cup'ik culture, traditions,
beliefs, and ways of knowing."[^5] The district has funded its own
Yup'ik/English bilingual program for more than 20 years, publishing an
extensive collection of bilingual literacy materials based on elders'
stories and other lore, as well as translations of basic texts.

Measurable goals set by the district emphasize academic achievement: By
2001, "Eighty percent of graduates will read at the college entrance
level; . . . 50 percent of . . . graduates will enter post secondary
institutions of their choice and be able to function at the freshman
level; ... \[and\] the dropout rate will be less than 1 percent."

[Progress in Implementing ESEA Reforms]{.underline}

Unlike many districts in the "lower 48" states, Snowbank improved
services to its low-performing, disadvantaged students by moving away
from schoolwide projects and toward targeted assistance, while
consolidating some funds to provide widely needed services, such as
professional development. Virtually every school is, and was, eligible
to adopt a schoolwide project model, but, according to the district
officer responsible for federal programs, staff turnover is so high that
too few of the people who spent the first year designing a schoolwide
model were around the second to implement it. Initially, the district,
which has an overall poverty rate of 70 percent, concentrated its Title
I funds in schools with poverty rates of 90 percent or higher. After
realizing that the planning seldom led to programs that worked in those
schools, the district took another tack: concentrating resources on
strategies that combined professional development with targeted
services. The district now employs eight Itinerant Literacy Leaders
(ILLs), each of whom serves three or four schools a year, in weeklong
monthly visits. The ILLs offer direct supplementary instruction to
targeted students, meet with other staff to teach new knowledge and
skills, and coach teachers to mastery. The district reports that it is
able to serve many more students and that schools are very positive
about the change.

In addition, the district uses state and federal funds (including Title
II) to do satellite broadcasts of professional development workshops
that run two to three hours for each of eight shows. These lessons focus
on strategies to link writing with assessment, a districtwide
initiative. Follow-up interactive Internet sessions allow participants
to extend their skill in applying this strategy in their own classrooms.

**[Customers' Purposes for Seeking External Assistance]{.underline}**

At the time of its first contact with the AOTE initiative, the Snowbank
District was interested in developing new leadership structures in its
schools for several reasons. Over the previous decade, staff had become
increasingly concerned about low levels of student achievement in the
face of diminishing opportunities for subsistence fishing and hunting as
a way of life. The state had mandated and funded K-12 schools in all
Alaskan villages (allowing students to attend high school in their home
village, rather than moving away). The district was struggling with high
turnover rates among staff, which made it difficult to implement
teacher-led school improvement efforts. Finally, the district had tried
to disseminate a strategic planning process for use in setting goals for
improvement at the school level but had met with limited success. AOTE
appeared to be a feasible strategy for developing some school
improvement goals and plans that would be carried out by the village
community, and not simply by the school staff.

II\. Establishing the Relationship

###### The Center's Relationship with the District

The center gained entree to the district by connecting to the existing
AOTE initiative and through prior professional relationships among
staff. The NWREL began the first wave of AOTE training in 1992,
conducting sessions for two districts. Snowbank was one of three
districts that joined the second wave of implementation in 1995.[^6]
Before adopting AOTE, the district had been working with a strategic
planning model, but encountered resistance from the community, according
to a district representative: "It just wasn't going quite right." The
center became involved in 1996 when two new AKRAC staff members made
AOTE a centerpiece of their portfolio of services and joined NWREL's
training team in the district. They already knew of NWREL's work with
AOTE in the district because NWREL had been a long-term partner of
theirs in Alaska school improvement activities. Furthermore, the
district already knew of the two from other encounters related to school
improvement.

The two center staff members observed and worked alongside NWREL experts
until they were able to take over training themselves. Once their period
of training apprenticeship was over, the center trainers accepted the
invitation from Snowbank's superintendent to bring AOTE to all the
schools in the district. Seaside School joined the AOTE movement in
1996. In the 1998-99 school year, most of the remaining Snowbank schools
joined. In all, 42 village schools in 11 districts participated in AOTE
training and implementation during the three waves.[^7] AKRAC is now
training schools in a fourth wave.

The Snowbank School District initially decided to work with the center
because it is one of the sole providers of AOTE training and its
services are free. AOTE helps the district to achieve its overall goals,
which include culture- and community-specific adaptations that unite the
purposes of school and village. The center also provides free training
to improve school and family capacity in literacy, an important district
goal.

**[Planning Services]{.underline}**

Initially, the center's process of identifying district needs consisted
simply of joining the ongoing effort of NWREL to provide AOTE training.
Snowbank had already identified AOTE as the leadership framework for
district reform efforts. As literacy emerged as a central focus of
district work, the center offered support in that area as well.

In regards to AOTE, the district chose which schools to target. Starting
with a core group of schools in 1995, the training has since expanded in
successive years to include all Snowbank schools. The assistant to the
district superintendent defined the categories of people to be included
in each school's team, and each school chose its own team members. The
selection of Seaside School in 1996 was seen by the school staff as
fortuitous because it coincided with the school's preparation for state
accreditation review. Because effective schools research underlies both
AOTE and the state accreditation process, AOTE offered a particularly
apt framework for the work of preparing for review.

The district has considerable input in designing the content and
delivery of center services. The nature of AOTE allows it to be shaped
by the local context, within the general structure of the model.
According to the AOTE coordinator, "Sometimes I just tell \[an AKRAC
trainer\] exactly what I want." For example, the district coordinator
has modified the basic AOTE formula for the numbers and types of
representatives from each school community on an AOTE team; she has
asked an AKRAC trainer to adapt her training for the specific
individuals she has recruited. Individual schools do not have the same
level of influence over content and delivery of services. Although the
Seaside School staff praised the training, some observed that it is not
focused specifically on their school, and others did not feel that it is
readily available.

III\. Services to the Local Site

**[Portfolio of Products and Services]{.underline}**

***AOTE.*** AOTE is a process in which a school leadership cadre is
formed of the principal, faculty representatives, and community leaders
and elders. This cadre identifies valued student outcomes through a
series of community-wide meetings, gathers data to assess progress
toward these outcomes, and guides adoption and development of
educational programs designed to achieve these outcomes.

AOTE is an adaptation of Onward to Excellence, a program developed by
NWREL to help schools implement effective schools strategies. Where
faculty membership is stable, the training necessary to become adept in
these strategies and maintain progress toward goal attainment increases
school capacity over time. However, in Alaska, community isolation and
small size, rugged living conditions, and cultural differences between
faculty and local residents are associated with extremely high faculty
turnover---as high as 50 percent annually in some schools. With that
rate of turnover, investments in faculty development do not provide
long-term benefits for students. Through AOTE, the work of establishing
goals, measuring progress, and providing educational leadership is done
by a stable group of interested parties, drawing on formal and informal
sources of authority that span the village and school. The AOTE approach
makes the school an integral part of the village rather than an invasive
force.

The transformation of the original school-based Onward to Excellence
model into community-based AOTE was funded in 1991 by a grant from the
Meyer Memorial Trust to the Alaska Staff Development Network and the
NWREL.[^8] AOTE emerged with four defining principles:

-   *Focus on student learning*. Parents, elders, students, and school
    staff collaborate in determining what student learning is most
    important.

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   *Everyone must be committed*. Schools and communities collaborate
    over learning, with the support of the district office.

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   *Everyone will learn together*. The process of improvement generates
    learning for adults as well as children. Local values and research
    jointly inform decisions.

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   *Learning success will be measured*. Standardized tests will be
    supplemented by other assessments, as necessary, to ensure progress.

The purpose of the new model was to make "local heritage, language,
culture, and native ways of knowing . . . legitimate parts of formal
education" and to view them "as strengths to build a curriculum on."[^9]
School and community were to learn how to be accountable to each other
in more intimate and practical ways than was typically the case in rural
Alaska.

The center sponsors AOTE training in Snowbank twice a year at a central
site. The district brings in the leadership team from each school for a
several-day training session led by center staff or staff from NWREL
contracted by the center. The district AOTE coordinator, who reports
directly to the superintendent, provides follow-up services. She may
consult with the center when questions arise.

***Basic Literacy Strategies Institute.*** In addition to their work
with AOTE, center staff worked all year with the Snowbank School
District on the coordination of their Basic Literacy Strategies
Institute, which was co-taught by district experts and center staff,
offering a total of eight days of literacy training. Center staff also
trained reading tutors for four days in the spring and five days in June
after school got out. The tutoring and literacy training were offered
centrally at the district central offices and locally at school sites.

**[Quality of the Technical Assistance Provided to the
Site]{.underline}**

***Alignment with standards.*** AOTE is a process for working
collaboratively to develop school programs that use local culture and
resources to achieve academic goals. AOTE goals are set locally, not
imposed by the model, so schools and districts can choose how to address
local and state standards.

The center describes one part of its work as showing districts how local
content and ways of knowing are tied to state standards. The district
has organized a summer institute to embed more local literacy and
culture in the regular curriculum. Teachers and elders spend several
weeks together recording traditional lore and developing related
learning objectives and curriculum materials.

***Theoretical framework and research base.*** AOTE is based on early
effective schools programs developed by the NWREL. It is well adapted to
the Alaskan context generally and Snowbank especially. Meaningful
community involvement is an important component of AOTE. AOTE's reliance
on power-sharing and joint development of the educational vision among
school staff, parents, and Alaska Native community nurtures the kind of
contact that not only builds bridges but also promotes the mutual
adaptation viewed as central to making village schools effective.

The tutoring and literacy programs are based on principles advocated by
the International Reading Association and the National Research Council,
as elucidated in *Preventing Reading Difficulties in Young Children.*

***Scope, intensity, and duration of assistance.*** The district
requested that the center sponsor AOTE training twice a year at a
central location in the Snowbank District, apparently believing that
degree of training to be sufficient. The several-day training sessions
stimulate the development of a school-based cadre of collaborators and
supports the habit of working together. The district then takes
responsibility for follow-up assistance to schools, attempting to
provide the intensity necessary to ensure effective adoption. For
example, the district AOTE coordinator visits schools and meets with
teams. Not everyone agrees that the extent of services is sufficient,
however. According to the Seaside School principal, "One weakness is
that we need more ongoing training."

***Utility.*** In the Snowbank District, AOTE is viewed as the heart of
reform. Major decisions are framed in terms of their relevance to AOTE
goals and approaches. The present Snowbank superintendent was a strong
AOTE proponent as a village school principal, and he has made it the
cornerstone of all district programming. The school principal at Seaside
School reported that her end-of-year report---like reports from all
Snowbank schools---must be framed by the AOTE goals for that year. AOTE
is now embedded in the administrative procedures.

At the Seaside School, school/community collaboration was a way of life
explicitly anchored in AOTE. Villagers were in and out of school all day
long during our visit. Teachers consulted with them about activities
undertaken in the classroom at the request of the community. The people
who attended an after-school meeting to discuss implementing a newly
funded 21^st^ Century schools project are the same people who come to
AOTE meetings. Their conversations served to indicate that they stood on
equal footing with school staff in planning this new initiative. Indeed,
the initiative was predicated on the desire to use after-school time for
students to learn, use, record, and disseminate traditional Yup'ik ways
of knowing and doing, and capturing the experience with state of the art
technology.

Professionals in the district office who arrange for and assist with the
tutoring and literacy training described center staff as "good at
adapting" program elements to local contexts and generally very
competent in their work. Of particular interest is a focus on
storytelling as a form of communication well suited to bringing in
village elders to share knowledge and skills while advancing students'
overall verbal skill.

***Capacity building.*** Building local capacity is a central goal of
AOTE. At the school level, it teaches a process for identifying and
solving problems collaboratively. At the district level, an AOTE
coordinator develops the capacity to support schools with the
implementation of the program.

**[Other Sources of Assistance]{.underline}**

The district looks externally for various types of assistance, including
support for bilingual and bicultural programs, professional development
related to those programs, and career ladder activities. In addition to
the Comprehensive Center, Snowbank receives technical assistance from
the Southeast \[Alaska\] Regional Resource Center (AKRAC's parent
organization), the Special Education Services Agency in Anchorage, the
University of Alaska-Fairbanks, the Alaska Rural Systemic Initiative
(which has a staff member stationed in Bethel), and the Alaska Native
Knowledge Network. The district considers the Alaska Department of
Education (ADE) to be a resource, but ADE has no budget for travel,
making its usefulness limited in the district's view. ADE was formerly a
resource for bilingual/ESL program development, but the district does
not believe it still has that capability. The person at ADE who used to
be so helpful in that arena is now at AKRAC, where he continues to be an
asset.

The district uses center staff for training in AOTE, literacy, and
tutoring. Along with NWREL staff members, who often work under contract
for the center, AKRAC is the only available provider of AOTE training,
and its services are free. Two center staff members are now qualified to
train in AOTE. The center has also recently hired a staff member who is
highly regarded in literacy training, and the district makes good use of
her services. A fourth staff member has been disseminating the Reading
Success Network (RSN) program and also trains reading tutors; his
services are highly valued by the district.

Like many other districts, budget limitations restrict Snowbank's
choices of technical assistance to those that it both needs and can
afford. The fact that center services are free is a key incentive to
choose AKRAC when it can do what is needed. Beyond that consideration,
however, district staff familiar with center services and personnel
affirm that they are of good quality. One recommendation of AKRAC as a
service provider, in the district's view, is its employment of people
respected already for their professional knowledge and skill. One
district staff member, when asked whom she called for technical
assistance said, "We call people we know."

**[Plans for Continuing Assistance]{.underline}**

The district expects to continue using center trainers to advance and
fine-tune its AOTE process and continue upgrading its tutoring and
literacy programs.

IV\. Effects

District and school staff report overwhelming satisfaction with AOTE and
offer much anecdotal evidence of its effects. In addition to AOTE
training, the center appears to provide services that have a positive
effect on the Snowbank District, despite limitations imposed by limited
time and resources.

**[Customer Satisfaction]{.underline}**

The district staff in Snowbank express high regard for center services
and staff. They are especially pleased with the recent literacy
training, which represents a new direction with respect to its
partnership with AKRAC. According to a district staff member, the chief
strength of the center is its staff: "They are good people; I can get
what I need." The center staff succeeds in engaging the district,
school, and community members. In praise of one AOTE trainer, a district
staff member explained, "\[The trainer\] can really fire people up, talk
to them, get them to say what they think. He can sit and let them think.
Respect for the wait period is important. It takes people a while to
figure out what they might say and how they would say it." This is
partly because Yup'ik people tend to be more reserved in conversation
than the non-Native trainers, explained the staff member, and silences
are understood to be opportunities for reflection. Accommodating this
style is crucial for success in training.

One weakness identified by Snowbank is the Center's current lack of
expertise in Indian Education. A Center Indian Education specialist held
in high regard by the district has taken a new job. At least for the
time being, her slot has been filled with a literacy specialist because
the slot needed to be filled, but Snowbank finds the resulting absence
of expertise in Indian Education to be problematic.

At the local level, staff and community members at Seaside School give
high praise to the AOTE program, but appear to view the Center staff as
somewhat incidental to the school's efforts. Beyond the members of the
AOTE team, who attend training twice a year, few people at Seaside have
had contact with the center and its services. Though some might
interpret this as a lack of involvement, the center appears to provide
the level of services needed for the school. Perhaps one of the
strengths of the center's work in this area was their ability to
recognize an effective reform process and allow the participants to own
the process.

A village elder who heads the AOTE team told this story about the
school's first encounter with AOTE:

> I first heard about AOTE in 1995-96. I was selected to attend training
> as a villager. . . . We learned how to involve the school and the
> community in the curriculum and what should be taught. They taught us
> how to run meetings: how to set up meetings, how to get parents,
> village leaders, and elders involved. When they presented that lesson,
> it was nothing new. We have been doing this for a long time. In
> Yup'ik, the whole community is involved in educating the child. The
> parents, elders---all oversee what the child does. The difference
> \[with AOTE\] is that you write it down. . . . We've had a little
> trouble getting the community involved because they want to do it
> their way. But I think AOTE is good. Teachers have seen improvement in
> students in creative writing and computer skills. . . . AOTE is
> something good that has happened in Alaska; it involves the whole
> community.

The staff at Seaside echoed the elder's opinion: "Nothing," they said,
"has been as consistently successful as AOTE at capturing the
community's spirit."

**[Increased Capacity to Deliver Technical Assistance to
Schools]{.underline}**

The center provides AOTE training twice each year as requested by the
district, but follow-up support for implementation comes from the
district AOTE coordinator. She explained her role as expanding and
refining AOTE with whatever help from the original trainers that she
needs. Trainers at the center and NWREL expressed confidence in the
ability of the district AOTE coordinator to identify and solve problems
unassisted, although they expressed willingness to help if needed.

**[Increased Awareness and Understanding of ESEA Programs]{.underline}**

A district director with broad program responsibilities said that AOTE
pulls all the federal programs together, except for Johnson-O'Malley and
Indian Education. Reliance on AOTE as the tool for vision-setting seems
to be part of an approach that views the whole child and the whole
school as the focus of district work. According to the superintendent,
AOTE "offers a districtwide umbrella for all our grants." The district
recently received \$1.2 million in 21st Century School grants, including
one for almost \$200,000 for Seaside, and those proposals were all
organized around AOTE goals. Villagers in Seaside developed the
proposal, which called for keeping the school open during the summer and
after school for a variety of technology-oriented activities that
combined traditional and modern knowledge and skills.

The center also provides services directly related to ESEA programs.
According to the district AOTE coordinator, many Alaskan districts are
out of compliance with regulations from the U.S. Department of
Education's Office of Civil Rights because they are unaware of the law.
The center is sponsoring and Snowbank is hosting a workshop on this
subject. The AOTE coordinator commented that "there's no \[technical
assistance\] available \[in this area\] from the state. Only \[a staff
member\] at AKRAC can help."

**[Improved Teaching and Learning]{.underline}**

Seaside School staff believe that AOTE has a positive impact on the
school. As a result of AOTE discussions, the school has adopted the
practice of using student-led conferences to review quarterly progress.
Students invite their parents to school, where they both meet
individually with the teacher to review report cards and portfolios of
work. The student leads the event, relying on the teacher only for help.
As one parent said, this form of "communication keeps hope alive. I can
talk to the teacher and make suggestions. It seems like kids are really
open. You can see that difference." The school's AOTE focus last year
was on communication; this year it is on careers. A teacher explained
that she now tries to include in lessons the kinds of adult work where
the content would be applied. Another teacher added that in a recent
lesson, using traditional technology, he showed the children how the
math he was teaching applied to his hobby of making kayaks. Other
teachers commented that they appreciated having freedom to meet the AOTE
goals according to their own instructional styles and subjects. Last
year, for example, parents expressed an interest in improving students'
public speaking skills, and teachers found ways to do that to enhance
both English and Yup'ik language fluency.

The village council leader said he had noticed an improvement in parent
involvement since the initiation of AOTE, and the AOTE leader agreed.
One village elder commented that she had received a letter of
recognition "from Juneau" on a presentation she made at a professional
meeting. A parent pointed out that she herself sees the elders more
often. The AOTE team chooses certain elders to come for breakfast and
storytelling on Wednesdays, and parents stay to participate in the
partner reading that follows. Every week children spend 20 minutes with
an adult or older student doing shared reading activities. The community
health aide spoke of her appreciation that she could now call the school
up to collaborate in solving a family's health related problems and
arrange for the public safety officer to offer lessons related to risks
in subsistence activities, such as knife handling, gun safety, and ice
safety.

Parent involvement has made it possible to hold students to higher
academic standards, said one teacher. "Parents constantly said, 'We want
our kids to be college capable,' \[but putting that in place was a
challenge.\] Several years ago only two kids were into algebra. Now all
are, and some students are even ready for calculus. In some villages, if
you push kids too hard, you'll push them into another school. Here
\[parents\] want you to push---and you can't do that without parent
support. The cycle of communication allows it to happen."

The school secretary claimed that AOTE has reduced tardiness and
absenteeism: "Now parents call when kids are late or sick. I don't get
any more calls about 'I don't like the teacher (or principal).' Parents
know how to go through channels. There's a complaint procedure and
people use it." Prior to AOTE, the secretary said, parents did not call
to let the school know if students were going to be late or absent, and
they did call to complain about what they perceived as unfair treatment
of their children by teachers. Now communication between school and home
is very open. Parents more strongly encourage school attendance and call
to report changes because they believe that faculty notice and care
about students' well-being and they take their issues directly to
teachers, confident of being able to resolve them.

**[Other Effects]{.underline}**

Given its emphasis on community involvement, it is not surprising that
AOTE has effects that extend beyond the school. According to one AOTE
trainer, the program has been a stimulus in some villages to work on
alcohol abuse among adults. One commonly chosen AOTE goal is to teach
students to behave with self-respect and responsibility. As the
leadership teams discussed how to teach this and measure its
development, they sometimes realized that substance abuse and associated
dysfunction among adults set a poor example. In some instances, the
leadership teams embraced the goals as a village. In at least one
village, a decrease in substance abuse in the general population
followed. In addition, some leadership teams in Native corporations have
also adopted the AOTE process as a way of doing business.

**[Barriers to the Delivery of High-Quality, Effective Technical
Assistance]{.underline}**

One barrier to the delivery of technical assistance is the perennial
shortage of time and resources. The Snowbank District is one of two
dozen far-flung rural districts; it alone has more than 20 village
sites, and all the other rural districts are similarly remote and
isolated. The center has about five full-time equivalent staff members.
While staff are fairly versatile, there are limits to the time they have
available and the scope of their expertise.

###### Summary {#summary-9}

With assistance from AKRAC, the Snowbank School District ran AOTE, which
helps schools form leadership cadres including the principal, faculty
representatives, community leaders, and elders. The center sponsors AOTE
training in Snowbank twice a year, which is attended by leadership teams
from each of the district's 26 schools. A district AOTE coordinator
provides follow-up services and consults with the center when needs
arise. In addition, the center works with district personnel to hold the
Basic Literacy Strategies Institute and to train reading tutors. Center
staff were praised for their ability to accommodate local customs and
engage district, school, and community members in school reform.
However, the district noted that the center lacked adequate expertise in
Indian Education. Local respondents reported positive effects of center
services, in such areas as parental involvement, tardiness, and
absenteeism.

OVERVIEW: CASE STUDIES OF COLLABORATIVE ACTIVITIES BETWEEN AND AMONG
COMPREHENSIVE CENTERS AND OTHER TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE PROVIDERS

Title XIII of the Improving America's Schools Act (IASA) states that the
Comprehensive Regional Assistance Centers are required to "coordinate
services, work cooperatively, and regularly share information with, the
regional educational laboratories, the Eisenhower regional consortium .
. . research and development centers, State literacy centers . . . and
other entities engaged in research, development, dissemination, and
technical assistance activities which are supported by the \[U.S.
Department of Education\] as part of a Federal technical assistance
system . . ." *Pub. L. No. 103-382, 13001 108 Stat. 3876* (1994).

In an effort to understand and clearly document the ways in which the
Comprehensive Regional Assistance Centers have fulfilled this mandate,
PSA invited center directors to nominate some of their best examples of
specific collaborative activities for in-depth study. Nine collaborative
activities were initially selected for analysis; however, one was
eliminated because the staff member who had been the primary contact no
longer works for the center and, as a result, that particular
collaboration has effectively ceased.

The eight nominated activities are quite diverse. In some instances
clients have received assistance on a specific problem or narrow range
of issues for many years, while other nominated activities illustrate
collaborative relationships in which the centers address a wide range of
topics and client concerns.

The eight selected collaborations are the following:

1.  **[Civil Rights Project]{.underline}**: The Region IV Comprehensive
    Center at AEL, ED's Office for Civil Rights (OCR), and the Southeast
    Equity Center, a desegregation technical assistance center in Miami,
    Fla., are collaborating to assist school districts in North Carolina
    comply with civil rights laws regarding the education of limited
    English proficient (LEP) students. OCR initiated the collaboration
    in an effort to bring the resources of all three organizations to
    bear on the districts' legal and educational problems. The center
    and the Desegregation Assistance Center possess a great deal of
    knowledge and expertise in designing and developing educational
    programs for LEP students, and in providing training and
    professional development to help teachers meet these students'
    academic needs more effectively. This kind of educational support,
    coupled with legal guidance from OCR, has been invaluable to the
    resource-strapped, noncompliant school districts.

2.  **[Comprehensive School Reform Demonstration (CSRD)
    Program]{.underline}**: Since 1996 all of the centers have provided
    technical assistance related to the implementation of CSRD in their
    respective regions. As part of our study of collaboration, we
    examined the CSRD-related activities of four centers: (1) the New
    York Technical Assistance Center, (2) the Southeast Comprehensive
    Assistance Center, (3) the Northwest Regional Educational
    Laboratory's Comprehensive Center, and (4) the Region XIV
    Comprehensive Center. Each of the selected centers described CSRD as
    an important priority. They also reported that they were engaged in
    productive collaborations with partner organizations such as
    regional labs, state education agencies (SEA), and local
    organizations to provide information and support to schools and
    districts implementing the CSRD program and reform models. Together
    with their partners, the centers: (1) host model showcases to
    introduce the CSRD program and reform models to local education
    agencies (LEA); (2) sponsor conferences that address CSRD
    implementation and evaluation issues; (3) assist SEA personnel in
    completing their applications for CSRD funding; (4) review CSRD
    subgrantee applications and help SEA staff to identify and select
    the most promising applicants; and (5) provide materials and
    training to CSRD subgrantees.

3.  **[Data Strategies Initiative (DSI*)*]{.underline}**: The New
    England Comprehensive Assistance Center joined with the Eisenhower
    Regional Alliance for Mathematics, Science, and Technology Education
    Reform (the Regional Alliance), and the Northeast Regional Resource
    Center (NERRC), in a collaborative effort to assist LEAs and SEAs
    improve their accountability systems. As members of the New England
    Technical Assistance Collaborative (NETAC), the three federally
    funded technical assistance providers meet regularly to combine
    their expertise and resources, share information, and coordinate
    technical assistance to states, districts, and schools.

4.  **[Reading Success Network]{.underline}**: The purpose of the
    Reading Success Network (RSN) is to improve reading achievement
    among students in grades 1--3 by developing a national network of
    trainers of teacher-coaches who support classroom teachers' efforts
    to provide powerful instruction in reading. RSN includes five key
    components: (1) diagnosis of reading skills; (2) intervention
    strategies; (3) data analysis to inform instruction; (4) coaching
    for results; and (5) a support network. All 15 Comprehensive Centers
    have participated in RSN training sessions at which they have shared
    information, materials, staff, and expertise among themselves in
    order to build in-house capacity to provide services to RSN
    participants in their respective regions. In addition to helping
    center staff improve their own knowledge and skills in this area,
    participation in RSN has also helped the Comprehensive Centers share
    expertise and resources while providing direct services to clients
    in their regions who seek to introduce RSN in their schools and
    districts.

5.  **[Self-Assessment Guide for Excellent Services (SAGES) for Children
    and Youth in Homeless Situations]{.underline}:** The New York
    Technical Assistance Center, Support for Texas Academic Renewal
    (STAR) Center, Alaska Comprehensive Regional Assistance Center, and
    the Region XIV Comprehensive Center worked together on a
    collaborative research project with the Texas Office for the
    Education of Homeless Children and Youth. The goal of the project
    was to identify factors that contribute to academic success for
    homeless students and to develop a tool for assessing the effect of
    academic programs on homeless students. In order to broaden the
    scope of the project and increase its national significance,
    approximately two staff members from each of the participating
    organizations interviewed classroom teachers, homeless liaisons,
    school and district administrators, and homeless services providers
    in 25 school districts around the nation. The project team then
    analyzed the data and developed a self-assessment tool for educators
    and service providers.

6.  **[Services to Rural Areas]{.underline}:** The Southwest
    Comprehensive Regional Assistance Center (SWCC) and the Utah,
    Colorado, Arizona, and New Mexico Rural Systemic Initiative
    (UCAN-RSI) are both located at New Mexico Highlands University.
    UCAN-RSI is a National Science Foundation initiative that is
    designed to involve community members in efforts to improve science,
    mathematics, and technology education in selected rural school
    districts in the four-corner states. In partnership with UCAN-RSI,
    SWCC has endeavored to expand its services to American Indian
    communities, help reform education through professional development,
    and improve science, mathematics, and technology education in rural
    communities.

7.  **[Services to the Pacific Region]{.underline}**: The Pacific
    Comprehensive Regional Assistance Center is one of several
    organizations located within Pacific Resources for Education and
    Learning (PREL), a nonprofit corporation that serves the Pacific
    educational community. The center collaborates with the Hawaii
    Department of Education, various community organizations, and other
    technical assistance organizations such as the regional lab, STAR
    Center (Program), and the Eisenhower Mathematics and Science Pacific
    Regional Consortium, which are also located at PREL. The
    collaboration among PREL staff has focused primarily on hosting a
    professional development conference for educators from the Pacific
    region and Alaska, organizing a Leadership Academy for school and
    district administrators, and providing intensive technical
    assistance to a local public school on a small Pacific island that
    educates 1,200 students grades 1--8. Collaboration between the
    center and other PREL organizations is aided by the fact that PREL
    leadership and staff share a common mission and service region.

8.  **[Superintendents' Policy Institute]{.underline}**: The Region III
    Comprehensive Center, together with Southeastern Regional Vision for
    Education (SERVE)---a regional education laboratory in Georgia---and
    superintendents from two school districts, organized and led a
    working group in examining issues pertaining to accountability,
    language minority students, education reform, and school
    improvement. The goals of the institute, which brought together
    approximately 30 superintendents from school districts with high
    concentrations of poor students, were to: (1) generate cutting-edge
    thinking about education reform and school improvement, and (2)
    disseminate new knowledge developed through collaborative inquiry
    among the participants. In addition, as part of the collaboration,
    one of the superintendents has allowed staff from the center to
    field-test in his school district some of the theories and ideas
    that emerged from the institute.

PSA conducted in-depth telephone interviews with the center staff
involved in the eight collaborative activities, and with the
representatives of the participating organizations with whom they work.
We sought to enhance our knowledge of how, why, and when collaboration
occurs, what it means to those involved (for example, in terms of what
they do, feel, and experience), and what effect it has on those who
provide and receive the services and assistance. Specifically, our
questions focused on: (1) the extent to which the centers have become
part of a networked system of assistance, and are drawing on the
resources of each other and other technical assistance providers in
their region; (2) the conditions that have impeded or aided
collaboration and coordination; (3) the extent to which collaboration is
an important goal for center staff; and (4) the results or effects of
collaboration.

Each profile that follows describes the focus or goals of the
collaboration, factors that have motivated the relationship, planning
and development processes, the context in which the relationship has
developed (for example, personal attitudes, local and organizational
politics), and the effects or outcomes associated with the activities.
As a group, they effectively illustrate the extent to which the term
"collaboration" and the requirement to "coordinate" have been broadly
interpreted and understood, and the many factors that have impeded or
aided the Comprehensive Centers' efforts to satisfy this legislative
objective.

**Civil Rights Project**

**Region IV Comprehensive Center** **at**

**the Appalachia Regional Educational Laboratory (AEL)**

**Office for Civil Rights**

**Southeastern Equity Center**

# 

# Focus of Collaboration

ED's Office for Civil Rights (OCR) asked the Region IV Comprehensive
Center and the Southeastern Equity Center to offer their services to
three school districts in North Carolina. The districts had been
identified as being out of compliance with certain civil rights laws
regarding the education of limited English proficient (LEP) students.
OCR believed the Comprehensive Center and the Equity Center could
provide valuable services to the districts because they possessed a
great deal of knowledge and expertise in designing and developing
educational programs, and in providing staff development and training to
school and district staff.

**[Motivation for Collaboration]{.underline}**

OCR was aware that staff at the Comprehensive Center have in-depth
knowledge of education-related issues and particular expertise in
addressing the needs of LEP students because of a prior working
relationship between staff at the two organizations. In addition, OCR
knew that staff at the Equity Center have an understanding of civil
rights issues and are able to look at education programs and understand
the civil rights implications of the decisions that are made. The
Comprehensive Center and the Equity Center were invited to work together
in North Carolina because of this "complementary expertise. In
addition, the Comprehensive Center and the Equity Center were interested
because they recognized that the need for assistance was great, and that
collaborating with each other would satisfy important objectives of each
organization.

**[Planning and Implementation]{.underline}**

One staff person from each of the organizations attended the initial
meeting that was held at OCR to discuss the new project. The roles and
responsibilities of each organization were discussed and clarified.
Following this meeting, OCR, the Comprehensive Center, and the Equity
Center traveled to the school districts that were not in compliance to
meet with district staff and review the findings of OCRs earlier
monitoring visits. The Comprehensive Center and the Equity Center then
held preliminary discussions with district officials about the changes
that were needed in order for the district to become compliant with the
law.

The Comprehensive Center and the Equity Center agreed to help each of
the participating school districts to draft and implement an agreement
with OCR and prepare required periodic progress reports. To facilitate
the process, the three collaborating partners held conference calls with
each district. In addition, the Comprehensive Center and the Equity
Center received copies of all correspondence between OCR and the school
districts (for example, monitoring reports and resolutions that
described where and how the districts were deficient). In return, they
provided OCR with copies of work plans that described how they intended
to help each district.

The staff member from the Comprehensive Center and the staff member from
the Equity Center who were assigned to this project spent a great deal
of time communicating between their offices in Arlington, Virginia, and
Miami, Florida via telephone and e-mail. We wanted to make sure we were
in agreement about what we were saying . . . we did not want to confuse
the districts so we made sure to stay in touch. Their responsibilities
were similar, although there was some division of labor based on
expertise and availability. For example, the staff member from the
Comprehensive Center has significant classroom experience at the
secondary level, and with teaching LEP students. The staff member from
the Equity Center has worked with district and elementary school staff,
and has expertise in desegregation issues. The two "negotiated who would
do what . . . \[one\] might do a training on assessments or on
leadership for ESL directors, while \[the other\] might do \[training
sessions\] on literacy, ESL strategies for the middle grades, or ways to
improve communication with parents. Assistance to school and district
staff was provided both jointly and individually by them, depending on
their availability and on the nature of the activity and need that was
being addressed. For example, sometimes they would speak to a group of
teachers together, or they might divide the group by grade level (that
is, elementary and secondary).

**[Context]{.underline}**

The Comprehensive Center, Equity Center, and OCR report that they are
quite pleased with the close working relationship that has developed
over the course of the joint project. It has been an easy, seamless
relationship, with neither OCR nor the districts able to distinguish
between the Comprehensive Center and the Equity Center in terms of the
nature or quality of the services that are provided.

The organizations attribute their success to several factors. First,
months of careful planning occurred in the initial stages and there were
ample opportunities to clarify needs, expectations, and roles. For
example, during the planning phase the technical assistance centers were
able to instruct the relatively new OCR staff on the economic and
educational context of North Carolina, an area that was somewhat
unfamiliar to them. In return, OCR promoted the technical assistance
centers within the districts and helped to clarify questions and
concerns about their role. They let everyone know that they \[the
Comprehensive Center and the Equity Center\] were good technical
assistance providers.

The Comprehensive Center staff and Equity Center staff also attribute
their good working relationship to the fact that they are both quite
knowledgeable and confident and that they share similar philosophies of
education and views on pedagogy. There . . . has been flexibility on
both our parts . . . we see and accept each other's ideas and
perspectives. The nature and extent of the contact between them has
varied based on which phase of the project they are in. At times there
has been daily contact (for example, when planning an activity), and at
other times it has been monthly (for example, while waiting for the LEA
to prepare a response to OCR).

Currently the Comprehensive Center and the Equity Center are working
primarily in only one of the three original districts. OCR reports,
however, that it has initiated reviews in two other districts, and it
plans to inform these new LEAs about the help that is available from the
Comprehensive Center and the Equity Center. Both the Comprehensive
Center and the Equity Center have expressed their interest in continuing
this work together with OCR in other districts.

**[Effects]{.underline}**

One of the most noticeable effects of this collaborative project has
been the tremendous improvement in the quality of the progress reports
that are submitted by the school districts to OCR. In fact, because of
the help they have received, OCR expects that district compliance will
happen sooner rather than later. The Comprehensive Center and the
Equity Center share the credit with OCR. They point out that, because of
OCRs involvement, they have the leverage to carry out good programs
within districts that are being monitored for compliance. In addition,
because of the detailed reports that are prepared by OCR, the districts
know exactly where they are deficient and are aware of what they need to
do to correct the problems. Thus, success is easy to identify,
measure, and track.

Collaboration has aided the delivery of a double dose of expertise"
because the Comprehensive Center and the Equity Center are able to
target their resources at the identified needs. In addition, the two
staff members acknowledge that, together, they are able to provide much
more assistance than either one of them would have been able to provide
working alone. Given the level of need that exists, this is important.

Working together has also improved the exchange of knowledge and
expertise. For example, OCR reported that its staff members sometimes
ask staff from the Comprehensive Center and the Equity Center about the
appropriateness of a strategy being proposed by a district (for example,
a service delivery model or a testing strategy) and have been given
clear, informative answers. As a result, OCR's understanding of
education-related concepts and issues has been enhanced by its
collaborating partners. Similarly, staff from the Comprehensive Center
and the Equity Center have had an opportunity to observe and learn from
each other during joint workshops and trainings.

OCR anticipates that collaborative technical assistance will prove to be
quite cost effective in the long run, because it will ultimately help to
reduce the amount of time and money that is spent in monitoring
activities. In fact, OCR staff report that they have already noticed
that the quality of the information that they are getting from the
districts that have received help from the technical assistance centers
has greatly improved.

Comprehensive School Reform Demonstration Program

New York Technical Assistance Center

Southeast Comprehensive Assistance Center

Northwest Regional Educational Laboratory's

Comprehensive Center, Region X

Region XIV Comprehensive Center

###### Focus of Collaboration

Since its inception in 1996, the Comprehensive Centers have provided
technical assistance to clients interested in applying for Comprehensive
School Reform Demonstration program (CSRD) funds, and those actually
planning and implementing the program. Here we examine the collaborative
services related to CSRD that are provided by four Comprehensive
Centers: (1) the New York Technical Assistance Center (NYTAC), (2) the
Southeast Comprehensive Assistance Center (SECAC), (3) the Northwest
Regional Educational Laboratory's Comprehensive Center, Region X (NWREL
Region X), and (4) the Region XIV Comprehensive Center. Specifically, we
focus on the Comprehensive Centers' services to New York, Mississippi,
Florida, and the northwest region.

The Comprehensive Centers collaborated with the regional labs, state
departments of education, and other organizations to provide a wide
range of services. For example, the Comprehensive Centers have
collaborated with other organization to: (1) host model showcases to
introduce the CSRD program and other reform models; (2) sponsor
conferences that address implementation and evaluation issues;

\(3\) give intensive assistance to "fragile" CSRD schools that require
ongoing support; (4) help states complete their applications for CSRD
funds; (5) assist in the state review and selection of CSRD subgrant
applications; and (6) create materials, such as a guidebook to CSRD
evaluation and an overview of reform models and resources. The
collaborative partners provide services to customers at all levels of
the education system, including teachers, principals, and district and
state administrators.

**[Motivation for Collaboration]{.underline}**

Participants in all four collaborative efforts said they were motivated
to collaborate in order to meet their organizational goals and
contractual charges. ED expects the Comprehensive Centers and the
regional labs to facilitate the implementation of CSRD, and there are
few differences in the expectations for each of the programs. The
regional labs and Comprehensive Centers have overlapping regions and
clients, so it made sense for them to work together, provide common
service, and satisfy contractual obligations.

Some staff from both the Comprehensive Centers and state education
agencies (SEAs) also mentioned that they were motivated to collaborate
by their desire to leverage additional funds. For instance, by
collaborating, they were able to host one large school reform model
showcase, rather than two smaller events. By pooling their resources
with the regional labs, which had received a larger portion of the funds
for providing CSRD-related assistance, the Comprehensive Centers were
able to provide more services than they would have been able to
otherwise. Similarly, staff at state departments of education said they
would never have been able to fund services to their local districts and
schools that were comparable to what they received. They expressed
thanks that "the regional educational laboratory and center supplied the
lion's share of funds."

Other motivators for working together are a desire to avoid service
duplication and "mixed messages," and the recognition that, because each
organization brings staff with specific skills, knowledge, and
expertise, the quality of the services provided can be improved through
collaboration. For example, several respondents noted that the labs are
recognized for their knowledge of the CSRD models and how to evaluate
them, while the Comprehensive Centers are valued for their close
relationships with school, district, and state personnel, and their
working knowledge of local school improvement efforts. The SEAs are
relied upon to provide valuable information about client needs and the
state agenda; they are also an efficient avenue for communicating with
schools and districts.

**[Planning and Implementation]{.underline}**

Although there were variations among the four Comprehensive Centers,
typically they reported that most of their collaborative activities
occurred with the regional labs and SEAs. All of the partnerships
sponsored a workshop or conference, and most held a showcase of school
reform models, during which model developers gave presentations on their
programs and the CSRD program was explained to potential applicants.
Several collaborative partnerships also: (1) assisted SEAs in preparing
their CSRD applications; (2) produced products, such as an evaluation
guidebook; and (3) provided direct assistance to school-level CSRD
programs.

***New York Technical Assistance Center (NYTAC).*** NYTAC and the SEA in
New York created a "think tank" to assist in the design, development,
and implementation of CSRD in New York. NYTAC is in charge of planning
and preparing for these meetings; it sets the agenda, handles logistical
details, and facilitates the discussions. The 25-to-30 member group
includes representatives from the:

\(1\) Comprehensive Center; (2) SEA; (3) Effective Schools Network (a
state-funded group of regional centers that work with Title I schools
around the state to achieve school improvement); (4) New York City Board
of Education; and (5) the regional educational laboratory that serves
New York. The group meets for one or two days on a bimonthly basis to
identify and discuss program needs, suggest changes, engage in strategic
planning, and provide needed assistance to the state and CSRD
subgrantees. For example, NYTAC assisted the SEA in designing its CSRD
application, and, together with the regional lab, hosted a model
showcase and trained review teams in the appropriate use of a rubric to
assess CSRD applications. Similarly, NYTAC and the SEA have collaborated
to provide direct technical assistance to schools seeking to implement
CSRD.

Task-oriented subcommittees, which include staff from all the
organizations that are members of the "think tank," are charged with
implementing many of the activities and ideas that are decided on by the
larger group. For example, one subcommittee developed contact logs that
are designed to describe and track the technical assistance that is
received by the various CSRD subgrantees around the state, while another
subcommittee created a Web page to organize and inform clients of
services and assistance. A third subcommittee collaborated to produce
and distribute notebooks with a list of resources that are available to
clients.

***Southeast Comprehensive Assistance Center (SECAC).*** SECAC, the
regional educational laboratory that serves Mississippi, and the
Mississippi Department of Education (MDE) collaborate to plan and
implement CSRD-related activities in the state. The collaboration in
Mississippi consists primarily of three events: (1) the CSRD model
showcase that was held in summer 1998, (2) the CSRD evaluation institute
that was held in summer 1999, and (3) the CSR leadership institute held
in fall 1999.

The two-day CSRD model showcase provided school personnel with an
introduction to the elements of comprehensive school reform, CSRD
models, and the state application criteria and process. Fourteen model
developers presented their models at the institute, and more than 500
participants attended. Thirty-nine schools had their applications
approved and implemented CSRD during the 1998-99 school year. The
two-day intensive program evaluation institute was a follow-up for all
39 schools and focused on improving the ability of schools to evaluate
their own program. In fall 1999, a two-day leadership institute focused
on issues that CSRD school leaders must address after their first year.

Staff participated in conference telephone calls and in-person meetings
in the months and weeks prior to each of the scheduled events, in order
to establish timelines, agendas, and each partner's specific
responsibilities. Roles and responsibilities were determined based on
each organization's specific capabilities. For example, MDE provided a
database of school and district contacts, mailed invitations, and
registered participants. The laboratory was primarily responsible for
securing speakers for the institutes, putting together materials, and
facilitating activities. SECAC handled the logistics regarding
accommodations, food, audio/visual equipment, and facilities, and helped
facilitate activities and write promotional letters to districts and
schools. Staff from all three organizations made presentations at the
leadership institute in fall 1999.

***NWREL's Comprehensive Center, Region X.*** The Comprehensive Center
is collaborating with the regional educational laboratory that serves
the Northwest on three CSRD activities, and with the Oregon Indian
Education Association (OIEA) on a fourth activity. Specifically, the
Comprehensive Center is participating in: (1) team site visits to CSRD
schools throughout the region; (2) the development of a CSRD evaluation
guidebook; and (3) a CSRD evaluation conference. The Comprehensive
Center is also collaborating with OIEA on conducting research on
"culturally congruent" CSRD designs.

Staff from the regional educational laboratory and the Comprehensive
Center have created teams to visit all of the CSRD schools in the region
to help sites assess their needs and help with planning, implementation,
and evaluation. Each site will be visited at least once by the team and
will receive follow-up telephone calls. In addition, each site will have
a CSRD liaison who will be responsible for consulting with regional
laboratory and Comprehensive Center staff, and requesting services when
needed.

In the second collaborative project, the Comprehensive Center and the
regional laboratory meet once or twice per month to work on a guidebook
for evaluating CSRD and other whole school reform efforts. Laboratory
staff are contributing chapters on the conceptual framework and
justification for evaluation, implementation evaluation, and three
examples of school reform designs. Comprehensive Center staff are
contributing chapters on impact evaluation and on CSRD resources. The
third collaborative activity is closely related to the second. The
Comprehensive Center and the regional laboratory will hold a conference
at which they will present the CSRD evaluation guidebook and request
feedback. They plan to invite CSR evaluators and state and school
leaders who can critique and offer input, as well as benefit from the
resource.

Finally, a staff member from the Comprehensive Center is working with
OIEA to identify CSRD models that are "culturally congruent" with
schools that have high populations of American Indian students. The
Comprehensive Center and OIEA have developed a rating system and plan to
invite model developers to a conference to respond to and discuss their
related findings.

***Region XIV Comprehensive Center.*** Both the Comprehensive Center and
the staff of the regional educational laboratory that serves Florida
have conducted workshops and presentations on CSRD in each of Florida's
five regional areas. Specifically, they have: (1) offered grant writing
assistance; (2) raised awareness of CSRD by emphasizing the intense
scrutiny and fundamental changes that accompany the decision to
participate in the program; (3) provided training on the nine components
of the program; and (4) sponsored a CSRD model showcase to introduce the
models that are available.

The SEA has also received intensive assistance. For example, staff from
the Comprehensive Center and the regional educational laboratory spent
four days with SEA staff and helped them to complete the application for
state funding. In addition, they have collaborated to train the state's
Peer Review Panel in how to score local applications for CSRD funds.

Respondents estimate that they had face-to-face planning meetings
approximately 12 times in the 1998-1999 academic year. In addition,
planning and implementation of the Florida model showcase required a
total of about one week of their time, although this occurred over the
course of a month. Overall, they estimate that approximately 15 to 20
days have been devoted to planning activities throughout that year, with
the model showcase and peer review training consuming most of the time.

**[Context]{.underline}**

Many respondents said a close and open working relationship facilitated
their collaboration on CSRD projects. For collaboration to occur,
participants must "trust each other, have camaraderie, and speak with
openness." It does not help if "people can't say what they really want
or don't want." It also helps when individuals are "very professional,
cordial, and respectful of each other's expertise." Respondents said
that these types of working relationships often grow out of knowing or
knowing of the work of potential collaborators. In other words,
individuals found it easy to collaborate with colleagues that they had
already worked with or knew of through a common network. A few
respondents suggested that collaborative partnerships may depend in part
on "chemistry" and individual personalities "meshing." The ability to
"give and take" is also seen as a necessary part of the collaborative
process. As one respondent explained, "You can't dictate collaboration.
You can't say, 'Do this and we'll do that.' You have to feel your way
around and be open. . . ."

Several respondents emphasized the benefits of being in close proximity
to fellow collaborators: You can meet face to face as issues arise,
exchange materials, maintain a relationship, and maximize time spent on
the project. One respondent stated that the partnership was helped by
the fact that she shared an office with her collaborating partner, and
another noted that she has an office that is very close to the SEA and
this made her more accessible to state staff. Similarly, those who share
a common parent organization observed that the partners are more likely
to understand each other's mission and current projects, and the
proximity makes it easier for individuals to split their time among
projects and funding streams in order to maximize service quality and
the use of expertise. For individuals who are not close in proximity,
technology such as e-mail and conference calls helps facilitate
communication.

Respondents were, in general, very positive about their collaborative
experiences; however, several potential obstacles to the development of
a good, effective relationship were identified. These were: (1)
institutional competition; (2) differences between organizations in
terms of how they structure and prioritize relationships; and (3)
mismatched service regions. In other words, organizations that view each
other as potential rivals, or who have goals and missions that are
somewhat different, are likely to find collaboration more difficult.

**[Effects]{.underline}**

Many respondents indicated that the quality and quantity of their
services improved through collaboration, and they offered anecdotal
evidence of improved CSRD applications or programs, as well as high
customer satisfaction ratings, to support their assertion. Specifically,
the collaboration provided the partner organizations with additional
resources that allowed them to reach more customers, and the
collaborative partners provided new and different kinds of expertise
that allowed them to effectively address a broader range of needs,
questions, and problems.

Several regional educational laboratory staff members said they gained
contextual knowledge and benefited from increased contact with local
education personnel, by working with the Comprehensive Centers.
Likewise, Comprehensive Center staff members said they benefited from
the research background of the laboratories, and the exposure to model
developers that the laboratories provided. Finally, several individuals
also commented that the collaboration with SEAs allowed laboratory and
Comprehensive Center staff members to better align services with the
state's agenda and needs.

Data Strategies Initiative

**New England Comprehensive Assistance Center**

**Eisenhower Regional Alliance for Mathematics, Science,**

**and Technology Education Reform**

**Northeast Regional Resource Center**

##  {#section-19 .unnumbered}

##  {#section-20 .unnumbered}

## [Focus of Collaboration]{.underline} {#focus-of-collaboration-2 .unnumbered}

In the fall of 1997, the New England Comprehensive Assistance Center
(NECAC) joined together with the Eisenhower Regional Alliance for
Mathematics, Science, and Technology Education Reform (Eisenhower
Regional Alliance) and the Northeast Regional Resource Center (NERRC) to
sponsor the first of three Data Strategies Institutes. The Data
Strategies Institutes formed the backbone of the Data Strategies
Initiative (DSI), a collaborative effort to assist school districts and
state departments of education in improving their accountability
systems. By working collaboratively on DSI, the three organizations were
able to combine expertise and other resources to achieve common goals
without losing sight of the unique purposes of each separate
organization.

**[Motivation]{.underline}**

NECAC, the Eisenhower Regional Alliance, and NERRC are members of the
New England Technical Assistance Collaborative (NETAC). As members of
this group, they meet regularly to share information and to coordinate
technical assistance to states, districts, and schools. The idea of
collaborating on the DSI developed at a quarterly NETAC meeting as the
different organizations identified shared goals and interests. For
example, NECAC and the Eisenhower Regional Alliance decided to
collaborate because both organizations were interested in working with
data. A NECAC staff member explained that "the Eisenhower group . . .
had done a couple of events, held a couple of meetings \[regarding
data\]; we had also, but we figured out soon that we shouldn't reinvent
the wheel. We pulled together our data collection activities."

Although the organizations were interested in helping educators to use
data more effectively, they did have somewhat different perspectives and
agendas. NECAC was interested in data as a tool for promoting schoolwide
change, while the Eisenhower Regional Alliance focused more specifically
on using data to address the math and science needs of underserved
populations. NERRC became involved because they wanted to ensure that
states did not ignore special-needs students when looking at the data.

**[Planning and Implementation]{.underline}**

The planning team for the DSI included one or two people from each
organization. While there were occasional face-to-face meetings, most
communication happened through weekly conference calls in the months
prior to a Data Strategies Institute. According to one staff member,
"Most of \[the planning\] was done on teleconferences. There was a lot
of work done between teleconferences, so when we \[made\] the calls it
was like a walkthrough. There was dialogue on decision points." Also,
the use of e-mail facilitated the sharing of draft materials. Another
added, "I don't see how we could have done it without
computers---without the Internet. It would have been so cumbersome to
share information without it. Even with a fax machine, it would have
been too tedious and time-consuming."

According to the participants, the organizations approached the DSI in
"the true spirit of collaboration." They brought their
resources---including time, money, and skills---to the table and figured
out how they could use them most effectively. The budget was developed
around the resources that each organization was able to offer to the
group, and a flexible accounting system was put in place. Costs are
shared as fairly as possible, and efforts are made to "even things out"
so no one organization bears an unfair cost or burden of responsibility.

Negotiating the content and format of the DSI required compromise. In
fact, one participant observed that some of the organizational
differences that gave strength to the collaboration were also factors
that hindered it: "We all have, to a certain extent, different scopes of
work and different audiences that we normally deal with. That to a
certain extent puts large obstacles in our way." Nevertheless, the
project was "a real collaboration: it was giving and taking. Sometimes
there was something that we really wanted that didn't fit in. We figured
out how to do that in different ways without ruining the collaboration."

**[Context]{.underline}**

Staff from each organization stressed the importance of shared goals.
"Common need makes it work. You can't collaborate about nothing."
Sharing goals did not obscure important distinctions among the
organizations, however. The director of the Eisenhower Regional Alliance
explained that they found it important not to construct a collaborative
effort by "overlapping all goals and objectives." Each organization
contributed to the collaboration with their own purpose and perspective.

The collaboration was facilitated by good working relationships among
the partners. This was partly because staff from the participating
organizations had prior relationships that had been built through NETAC
and other contacts. As a result, the ground was ripe for collaboration.
Regular, effective communication also made a difference. Although they
did not hold many face-to-face meetings, they communicated regularly by
telephone and did not rely completely on e-mail. "A lot of things
happened by e-mail, but you can't deal with resolving problems through
e-mail very well. . . . We kept in touch all the time." In fact,
according to one participant, had it not "happened naturally," they
would have had to establish rules to ensure consistent communication.

**[Effects]{.underline}**

The DSI has helped several states to provide better technical assistance
and support to local districts regarding the use of data, and helped to
bring some structure and resources to an area of need within many SEAs.
For example, the SEA in Maine decided to host their own DSI for local
districts. Most acknowledge, however, that it is too early to evaluate
the full effect of the DSI: "Nobody is looking for improved student
achievement out of it at this point. Some are still looking for data
warehousing systems to use. They are all further down the road to
developing systems for accountability. I don't know what the lasting
benefits will be."

Collaboration also had a positive effect on the collaborating partners.
According to one participant, "It enabled us to do something that we
couldn't have afforded to do on our own and to do it the way we really
wanted to do it. We were able to do it the way we dreamed." This was
partly because of the synergistic effect of combining expertise and
resources. It also resulted from improved efficiency, such as sharing a
secretary. Another suggested that the organizations ". . . could \[not\]
have afforded to run the three or potentially four institutes we were
planning on running on our own budgets. Collaboration enabled us to
stretch our dollars and our resources and to benefit from the combined
work of the organizations."

The collaborating organizations also enjoyed other benefits associated
with the DSI project. NECAC staff say they learned new workshop
techniques; the Eisenhower Regional Alliance said it brought focus to
their work; and NERRC said they gained a better understanding of
schoolwide change and how it relates to their own work with special
needs students. In addition, collaboration helped to motivate and
inspire participants. "It really kept the fire alive. It was like having
a trainer, someone keeping you going."

Finally, DSI was said to have promoted "cross fertilization" and a
networked system of technical assistance by expanding contacts and
relationships between and among staff in the various state departments
of education and collaborating organizations.

**Reading Success Network**

**All 15 Comprehensive Centers**

##  {#section-21 .unnumbered}

## [Focus of Collaboration]{.underline} {#focus-of-collaboration-3 .unnumbered}

The purpose of the Reading Success Network (RSN) is to improve the
reading achievement of students in grades 1-3 by developing a national
network of trainers of teacher-coaches who support classroom teachers'
efforts to provide powerful instruction in reading. It includes five
components:

\(1\) diagnosis of reading skills; (2) intervention strategies; (3) data
analysis to inform instruction; (4) coaching for results; and (5)
support network. Originally an initiative of the Southern California
Comprehensive Assistance Center, RSN was born out of a need for a
regionwide brain trust in Southern California of literacy experts who
specialize in helping disadvantaged students.

##  {#section-22 .unnumbered}

##  {#section-23 .unnumbered}

## [Motivation]{.underline} {#motivation .unnumbered}

At their December 1997 meeting, the Comprehensive Center directors
decided to spearhead an initiative that would give the Comprehensive
Centers broader recognition and, at the same time, advance ED's goals.
During brainstorming sessions, the directors searched for "common
denominators" around which to organize their initiative. Reading, one of
ED's top priorities, emerged as the topic of choice. The director of the
Southern California Comprehensive Assistance Center suggested that the
Comprehensive Center network expand his region's Reading Success
Network. The directors agreed that it would be beneficial to have an
existing model from which to draw ideas and experienced staff from whom
they could rely on for training and guidance. Moreover, the fact that ED
had already expressed an interest in RSN made the initiative even more
attractive.

##  {#section-24 .unnumbered}

##  {#section-25 .unnumbered}

## [Planning and Implementation]{.underline} {#planning-and-implementation .unnumbered}

Following the center directors' meeting in December 1997, planning for
RSN moved forward quickly. Implementation of RSN occurred in three
phases: (1) the first RSN training session in San Antonio, Texas, in May
1998; (2) the second training session in New Orleans, Louisiana, in
February 1999; and (3) the third training session in Southern
California, in August 1999.

The directors from the Comprehensive Centers in regions III, VII, XII,
and XIV were instrumental in getting the San Antonio training session
organized. The Southern California Comprehensive Assistance Center
spearheaded the training, preparing materials, planning the content,
issuing letters of invitation, convening a panel of experts, and
delivering the training, while the Region VII Comprehensive Center took
care of logistical arrangements, with the support of its host
organization, the University of Oklahoma. For example, they devised a
payment system to coordinate cost sharing by the Comprehensive Centers,
coordinated the meeting registration, made hotel arrangements, and
organized mailings and other information exchanges with meeting
participants.

The week-long training in San Antonio featured Comprehensive Center
staff and, when appropriate, representatives from each center's own RSN
project. Following the training, a copy of each Comprehensive Center's
RSN plan was disseminated throughout the network. Shortly thereafter,
the New England Comprehensive Assistance Center set up a RSN listserv
through which Comprehensive Center staff could communicate and share
ideas.

The second and third training sessions took place in January and August
1999, in New Orleans and San Diego, respectively. The content and format
of the New Orleans training session was based in part on requests from
the field, and in part on discussions with Comprehensive Center
directors. Again, the Comprehensive Centers contributed in various ways
to the event. For example, the Southern California Comprehensive
Assistance Center shared information about data analysis and
intervention; the New York Technical Assistance Center led the section
of the training on coaching; the New England Comprehensive Assistance
Center monitored the progress of RSN implementation; and the Region VII
Comprehensive Center helped identify appropriate contacts to conduct
training sessions, and made logistical arrangements. The first two
training sessions involved Comprehensive Center clients responsible for
implementing RSN in their respective regions. The third training in
Southern California, which was described as a "joint effort" of the
Comprehensive Centers, was, however, reserved for Comprehensive Center
staff only.

RSN's five essential components are the common thread that binds the
various Comprehensive Center initiatives. However, while each
Comprehensive Center must adhere to the essential components, they may
pursue multiple goals (for example, parent involvement, services to
students with limited English proficiency), and implement the initiative
at their own pace.

Modern technology has facilitated this common initiative. Apart from
work done at directors' meetings and RSN training sessions, a great deal
of planning and information sharing takes place technologically, using
the RSN listserv, e-mail, and conference calls. In fact, the listserv
streamlines communication, ensuring that all Comprehensive Centers
receive the same information in an efficient manner.

###### Context

The RSN is arguably the "most significant" collaboration among the
centers. The initiative benefits from the leadership skills of all 15
Comprehensive Center directors and is facilitated by extensive
communication among them. According to one Comprehensive Center
director, this communication allows for the "testing out \[of\] ideas
and \[creation of\] new ways of doing things, the latter of which is
very important."

To enhance the network's communication with ED, the directors of the 15
Comprehensive Centers select four directors to sit on the RSN
Coordinating Committee. The committee, which rotates three members each
year, represents the directors on key issues related to RSN. However,
the network's committee structure can slow progress as decisions await
approval from all 15 directors. In addition, as one director explained,
"Collaboration takes a lot of give and take, and all \[players\] have to
believe in the bottom line. \[Among the centers\], there are different
levels of interest and commitment \[to RSN\]."

Collaboration sometimes occurs on a smaller scale within the network.
For example, the Region VI Comprehensive Assistance Center at the
University of Wisconsin--Madison and the Region VII Comprehensive Center
co-hosted a one-day orientation in Chicago for approximately 75
decisionmakers at the SEA and LEA levels (for example, curriculum
directors, superintendents, assistant superintendents, Title I
directors) to "move RSN throughout our 12-state region" and to involve
key decisionmakers "so that things don't fizzle out." The two centers
saw opportunities for collaboration due to their geographical proximity
and as a way to maximize limited resources.

###### Effects {#effects-1}

Collaboration has had a positive effect on the Comprehensive Centers'
capacity to provide services to RSN participants in their regions.
"Every center has carved out its own way to build in-house capacity to
implement RSN," observed one center director. For example, some
Comprehensive Centers have promoted ED's concept of a networked system
of technical assistance by coordinating with regional educational
laboratories, universities, and other partners in their regions to
enhance their capacity to use the RSN and expand their reach. This
collaborative sharing of information, materials, staff, and expertise
has not only enabled the Comprehensive Centers to use the RSN quickly,
it has bridged gaps among the directors, helped foster greater trust,
and made the Comprehensive Center directors' meetings more productive.
"We learned that we were quite capable of bringing our expertise
together," added another Comprehensive Center director.

Individual Comprehensive Centers have supported the network in different
ways. For example, by: (1) attending and conducting training sessions
throughout the regions; (2) serving as resources throughout the planning
and development processes; (3) sharing staff expertise; and (4)
developing and disseminating training manuals, newsletters, surveys and
evaluation instruments, and other materials. While in most cases the
Comprehensive Centers distribute materials as a means of sharing with
their colleagues, they also do so to obtain comments on new products.
"RSN has opened up great opportunities for center staff to learn about
one another," observed one Comprehensive Center director. "It takes a
lot of work to pull this collaboration together, but once it gets going,
the benefits are too numerous to count."

RSN has become extremely popular; however, the Comprehensive Centers do
not have the resources to meet the high demand for services. Although
most Comprehensive Center directors believe it is too early to determine
the effects of RSN on clients, there are early indicators of success.
The initiative has generated a "groundswell of interest from teachers"
and schools have begun to commit time and resources to the project. The
Comprehensive Centers are working together to design a national
evaluation, which is being informed, in part, by evaluations conducted
in individual Comprehensive Centers. It will measure changes in teacher
practices and student achievement, among other things.

**Self-Assessment Guide for Excellent Services (SAGES) for Children and
Youth in Homeless Situations**

**New York Technical Assistance Center (NYTAC)**

**Support for Texas Academic Renewal (STAR) Center**

**Alaska Comprehensive Regional Assistance Center (AKRAC)**

**Region XIV Comprehensive Center**

**Charles A. Dana Center at the University of Texas at Austin**

##  {#section-26 .unnumbered}

##  {#section-27 .unnumbered}

## [Focus of Collaboration]{.underline} {#focus-of-collaboration-4 .unnumbered}

The Self-Assessment Guide for Excellent Services (SAGES) for Children
and Youth in Homeless Situations was a collaborative research project
involving staff from the New York Technical Assistance Center (NYTAC),
the Support for Texas Academic Renewal (STAR) Center, the Alaska
Comprehensive Regional Assistance Center (AKRAC), the Region XIV
Comprehensive Center, and the Texas Office for the Education of Homeless
Children and Youth, located at the Charles A. Dana Center at the
University of Texas at Austin. The purpose of the project, which was
supported by a grant from ED, was to identify factors that contribute to
high levels of academic success for homeless students, and to develop a
tool for assessing the impact of academic programs on homeless students.

During the spring of 1998, a team of 10 researchers from the
participating organizations interviewed classroom teachers, McKinney
homeless liaisons, school administrators, district administrators, and
homeless service providers in 25 school districts throughout the nation.
Based on the data collected, the SAGES team collectively identified
seven factors that contribute to the academic success of homeless
students, and developed a self-assessment tool for educators and service
providers who work with homeless children and youth.

###### Motivation

In 1997, the Texas Office for the Education of Homeless Children and
Youth asked the co-director of the STAR Center for assistance in
measuring the success of McKinney Homeless Education programs in Texas,
particularly in their capacity to foster students' academic success. The
co-director then contacted ED to discuss the need for a tool that would
help educators throughout the state assess and address the needs of
homeless students.

ED supported STAR Center's proposal but anticipated that the project
would have greater national significance if the research was conducted,
and the tool applied, in various geographical settings. Thus, in
addition to Texas, the project was expanded to include the states served
by the NYTAC, AKRAC, and Region XIV Comprehensive Centers.

##  {#section-28 .unnumbered}

##  {#section-29 .unnumbered}

## [Planning and Implementation]{.underline} {#planning-and-implementation-1 .unnumbered}

ED awarded the SAGES grant in October 1997. The STAR Center received the
largest portion of the grant and took the lead in planning and
organizing the project. The three other Comprehensive Centers received
smaller grants to support their participation. The first SAGES meeting
took place in January 1998 in San Antonio, Texas, and important
decisions and plans were made. Specifically, the SAGES team named the
project, discussed its focus and scope, developed interview protocols,
established timelines, and identified next steps.

During the spring of 1998, 10 staff members from the four Comprehensive
Centers and the Dana Center interviewed classroom teachers, McKinney
homeless liaisons, school and district administrators, and service
providers in 25 school districts in Alaska, Florida, New York, and
Texas. The team also convened representatives from several state and
local departments of education. After most of the data had been
collected, the team met again in Dallas for a two-day "working" and
"brainstorming" meeting at which they identified the common themes
across regions, crafted an outline for the report, and developed the
structure of the assessment guide.

The SAGES team identified seven ways in which educational institutions
can contribute to the academic success of homeless students, and these
factors provided the organizational framework for the final document.
Specifically, institutions can: (1) build effective information systems;
(2) provide continuity; (3) increase the system's capacity; (4) use time
and resources effectively; (5) create a sense of belonging to increase
student-motivated learning; (6) coordinate systemic responses to
individual student needs; and (7) generate enthusiasm for learning.

Throughout the project, the team relied on the Internet and telephone
technologies to communicate across long distances in a cost-efficient
manner. The high cost of travel prohibited team members from meeting
face-to-face on a regular basis. E-mail ensured that all members of the
team were involved in the development of research instruments and the
writing of the report. For example, drafts of the research instrument
and the final report were circulated on-line, and comments and
suggestions were then shared and discussed during telephone conference
calls. Similarly, following the two SAGES meetings in San Antonio and
Dallas, a staff member from the Dana Center synthesized the notes from
the meeting and distributed them to the entire team via e-mail.

The report highlights examples from each region and contains a set of
self-assessment questions and exercises to guide practitioners and
service providers. It was submitted to ED in October 1998, and a month
later, two members of the SAGES team presented the findings at the
National Association of State Coordinators for the Education of Homeless
Children and Youth in Des Moines, Iowa.

##  {#section-30 .unnumbered}

##  {#section-31 .unnumbered}

## [Context]{.underline} {#context-1 .unnumbered}

From the beginning, the SAGES partners pursued the project with great
enthusiasm. Motivated by a clear sense of purpose and deep belief in the
value of the information, all team members attended the two meetings and
met the agreed-upon deadlines. "There was a real willingness on
everyone's part to see something come out of this," said one
participant. Another added, "Despite the small amount of funding, the
Centers had a very sincere interest in doing something that would be of
service to the homeless population. Everyone exhibited a sincere
interest in making it work, and some did beyond what they were funded to
do."

The process through which SAGES was developed required intensive
participation from all parties involved, and the final product reflects
the perspectives and expertise of all team members. Although they had to
work through some discrepancies in opinions and viewpoints, the
congenial nature of the group ensured that they were able to prioritize
tasks and reach consensus on key issues. "SAGES involved a true sharing
of intellectual resources. We are all people grounded in homeless
expertise, research, and technical assistance, and the dialogue flowed
freely," observed a team member.

The director of one of the Comprehensive Centers noted that the SAGES
project offers two lessons learned about collaboration: (1)
collaboration is more likely to be successful if it is focused on a
specific task; and (2) collaborative efforts benefit from one partner
playing a leadership role. He explained that the SAGES project was
implemented rather swiftly and efficiently because the team had a clear
and concrete goal, and effective leadership alleviated the inertia that
can often hamper group efforts.

##  {#section-32 .unnumbered}

##  {#section-33 .unnumbered}

## [Effects]{.underline}  {#effects-2 .unnumbered}

The collaborative aspects of the SAGES project yielded several benefits.
First, team members learned a great deal about homeless students and the
fact that, although homeless populations differ throughout the country,
the needs of homeless students are more or less the same. Second, the
project was enriched by the involvement of four Comprehensive Centers,
each of which was able to offer various skills and knowledge. "There's
something inherently positive about having different points of view and
perspectives," said one SEA official. "The result is a more
comprehensive, meaningful, and validated product."

Finally, the SAGES project helped promote communication among the
Comprehensive Centers involved. As a result, center staff are now more
aware of the kinds and levels of expertise that exist in other
Comprehensive Centers and are more likely to call on their colleagues
for help and advice in areas not limited to homeless education.
According to one team member, "We now know each other better."

**Services to Rural Areas in Comprehensive Center Region IX**

**Southwest Comprehensive Regional Assistance Center**

**Utah, Colorado, Arizona, and New Mexico Rural Systemic Initiative**

# Focus of Collaboration

The Utah, Colorado, Arizona, and New Mexico Rural Systemic Initiative
(UCAN-RSI) and the Southwest Comprehensive Regional Assistance Center
(SWCC) are both located at New Mexico Highlands University. UCAN-RSI is
a National Science Foundation (NSF) initiative that is designed to
involve community members in efforts to improve science, mathematics,
and technology education in selected rural school districts in the
four-corner states. Through its partnership with UCAN-RSI, SWCC has been
able to expand its work with American Indian communities in its service
region.

**[Motivation]{.underline}**

The partnership between UCAN-RSI and SWCC was borne out of a mutual
recognition that the goals and objectives of each organization
overlapped and that there was an array of potential relationships to be
realized. The interest in developing a working relationship was also
facilitated by their proximity (that is, they are both housed within the
same university) and the fact that some of UCAN-RSI's staff had a prior
working relationship with the director of SWCC and were aware of his
areas of knowledge and expertise.

UCAN-RSI focuses on math, science, technology, reform, and increasing
community involvement. In the course of their work, UCAN-RSI staff also
address topics such as standards and assessments and school improvement.
They decided to ask the director of SWCC for assistance in preparing
their proposal because of his knowledge and experience in these areas.
At the same time, the director of SWCC was looking for a partner
organization that had a relationship with the American Indian community
in the region. SWCC is one of the five Comprehensive Centers that has a
special mandate to address Indian education issues and to serve
districts and schools with large populations of American Indian
students. UCAN-RSI was "a natural fit" because of their emphasis on
building and developing partnerships with American Indian tribes,
schools, parents, and community groups. In addition, the director of
SWCC was attracted by the fact that "NSF's focus was on systemic
reform."

Because of their conviction that "there \[was\] room for both of us to
work together," the two organizations "took this goal of collaboration
to heart early on," and spent a great deal of time and effort figuring
out the best ways in which to pool their resources so that they could
effectively meet multiple needs within schools and districts.

**[Planning and Implementation]{.underline}**

UCAN-RSI and SWCC have worked together on various projects and
initiatives. Much of the work they have done together has involved
professional development. For example, SWCC has facilitated UCAN-RSI's
"high-powered leadership training" in schools and districts by
identifying schools that are in need of improvement and has helped
UCAN-RSI to evaluate these training sessions. In addition, UCAN-RSI and
SWCC periodically train each other's staff.

Both institutions also report that they participate in each other's
conferences and special initiatives. For example, UCAN-RSI has helped
SWCC prepare for the national bilingual education conference and the
migrant education conference, while SWCC has conducted sessions on
assessment and on best practices in math education at several UCAN-RSI
events. The assistance is practical, with very tangible benefits. For
example, UCAN-RSI described how they had been looking for a scale to
measure family involvement and, in response, SWCC assigned a member of
its own staff to work with them to help them develop their own
instrument. Similarly, SWCC reported that UCAN-RSI has helped them to
better understand the American Indian community, and to establish
relationships with various tribal groups and those who play important
roles in Indian education.

Communication and planning regarding these collaborative activities
occurs fairly easily because the directors of UCAN-RSI and SWCC attend
each other's management and planning meetings, and are kept abreast of
the other's activities. Face-to-face meetings are infrequent; however,
regular communication is facilitated by fax, e-mail, and
teleconferencing. In addition, both organizations have Web pages that
are linked to each other. Thus, each organization is aware of the
expertise that is available within the other, and requests for
information or assistance are easily made on an as-needed basis.

**[Context]{.underline}**

SWCC and UCAN-RSI have a very close relationship, the result of
proximity and strong financial and managerial linkages. For example, the
director of SWCC is a member of UCAN-RSI's Steering Committee, and SWCC
funds two members of UCAN-RSI's staff, one of whom is working on special
projects that involve assessing the relevance of culture in the
curriculum, and determining ways to improve education for Hispanic
students. Similarly, the director of UCAN-RSI is a member of SWCC's
management team. She headed the search for SWCC's current assistant
director and sometimes offers suggestions on management-related issues.

SWCC's management team meets quarterly, while UCAN-RSI's Steering
Committee meets twice per year. These face-to-face meetings provide an
opportunity for each organization to provide an overview of current and
planned activities, and facilitates efforts to identify potential areas
for collaboration. For example, in September 1998 UCAN-RSI started its
Leadership Institute and SWCC was invited to become involved in the new
initiative. School teams made up of teachers, administrators, and school
board members from around the region now receive training from both
UCAN-RSI and SWCC staff on how to achieve school change and reform. The
director of UCAN-RSI reports that, through this joint effort, SWCC has
helped her organization to raise awareness of the importance of this
topic within the American Indian education community.

The directors of UCAN-RSI and SWCC report that because of staff
turnover, ongoing training is required to bring new employees up to
speed on the status of their collaborative endeavors and to orient them
to an innovative way of thinking. As the director of UCAN-RSI explains,
"We are on a new frontier . . . \[trying\] to collaborate across
different funding agencies . . . we are in the process of developing a
unique model for collaboration."

**[Effects]{.underline}**

The directors of both organizations hope that, in the future, the
collaboration between UCAN-RSI and SWCC will be a model to others of how
mathematics, science, reading, and school-related management and reform
issues can be examined and addressed together in an effort to improve
schools and learning. At this stage in the relationship, however, they
both agree that their main accomplishment has been in building the
"infrastructure or foundation for the future." Specifically, they point
to the fact that the collaborative relationship "has helped relationship
building in our region," particularly among different tribal
organizations, and among staff in the various SEAs. As the director of
SWCC explained, "The real value is we have extended the networks we
typically work with." Another piece of the "infrastructure" that has
been put in place is "a change in attitudes." For example, the director
of SWCC reports that in many rural districts without a history of
professional development, there is an increased understanding of its
importance and a desire to expand opportunities for staff.

Each organization also identified internal benefits that have been
realized as a result of this relationship. For example, UCAN-RSI
reported that SWCC "has helped us to keep the whole school in
perspective." While they have always known about the mandates of the
various federal programs, "now \[we\] focus more on building bridges
among them." The UCAN-RSI director also illustrated how SWCC has helped
UCAN-RSI in tangible ways. She explained that a member of the UCAN-RSI
staff received training from SWCC in how to use a data system model to
collect and analyze data at the classroom, school, and district levels.
This UCAN-RSI staff member then taught some UCAN-RSI clients how to use
these same skills to help themselves.

Similarly, SWCC reported that UCAN-RSI has aided their work in Indian
education, and that SWCC has benefited from the mathematics and science
expertise available from UCAN-RSI. UCAN-RSI's emphasis on secondary
education has also served to encourage SWCC to look beyond the
elementary grades in the course of their work.

Finally, regarding the cost effectiveness of collaboration, the director
of UCAN-RSI pointed out: "We have already invested the time in
establishing the relationship and building the base. Maintenance will
require less time and resources, and the benefits will begin to
increase." She concluded by emphasizing that "it is critical for us to
show schools a networked system among all programs, not just \[ED-funded
programs\]."

**Services to the Pacific Region**

### **Pacific Comprehensive Regional Assistance Center**

**Pacific Regional Educational Laboratory**

**Pacific Mathematics and Science Regional Consortium**

**PRELStar**

**Freely Associated States Educational Grant**

##  {#section-34 .unnumbered}

##  {#section-35 .unnumbered}

## [Focus of Collaboration]{.underline} {#focus-of-collaboration-6 .unnumbered}

The Pacific Comprehensive Regional Assistance Center, Pacific Regional
Educational Laboratory, Pacific Mathematics and Science Regional
Consortium, PRELStar Distance Learning, and the Freely Associated States
Educational Grant, are all operated by Pacific Resources for Education
and Learning (PREL). In pursuing its mission to improve education in
Pacific states and territories, PREL has identified interagency
collaboration as a strategic goal and has striven to maintain an
organizational culture of collaboration.

Staff members from PREL agencies have maintained ongoing collaboration
related to several activities, including the: (1) Pacific Education
Conference, an annual conference that draws around 1,000 educators from
throughout the Pacific; (2) Al Maron Project, which consists of
intensive assistance to a high-poverty and low-achieving school on the
overcrowded and isolated Ebeye Island; and (3) Leadership Academy, a
two-year, training of trainers academy for a small group of principals
and district administrators.

#### **[Motivation]{.underline}**

Respondents indicated that their agencies value collaboration as
necessary for high-quality service. PREL is driven by "a culture of
collaboration," and staff regard themselves as being PREL staff, rather
than staff of separate and unrelated agencies. All PREL agencies share a
common organizational mission and are focused on carrying that mission
out collectively. For example, in PREL's Strategic Plan, one of the four
program goals is "to provide coordinated services to clients through
interagency partnerships and collaboration." Reaching this goal requires
that staff from various agencies maintain an ongoing effort to
communicate and work together.

Collaboration is a priority for two overarching reasons. First,
collaboration makes pragmatic sense and increases the quantity and
quality of services. Given the context of the region, "leveraging
resources and efforts from other programs" is necessary. PREL customers
are isolated and dispersed throughout the Pacific, and travel costs are
high. However, interagency collaboration and communication, as well as
splitting time between projects, enables PREL to maximize assistance in
relation to cost. Collaboration produces economies of scale because it
makes it possible for staff from individual agencies to draw on the
knowledge and expertise of all PREL agencies and staff.

#### **[Planning and Implementation]{.underline}**

Collaboration between Comprehensive Center staff and other PREL staff
has focused primarily on three activities: (1) the Pacific Educators
Conference, (2) the Leadership Academy, and (3) the Al Maron Project.

***Pacific Education Conference.*** The Pacific Education Conference is
an annual event that takes place over the course of several days. The
conference typically draws at least 1,000 participants from throughout
the Pacific and Alaska. More than half of the presenters are from the
Pacific region, and others are service providers or researchers from the
mainland. Because of the isolation educators in the region face, the
conference is, for many, their only opportunity for professional
development.

The conference entails the broadest collaboration in which the
Comprehensive Center participates and preparation for the event occurs
over the course of an entire year. All PREL programs collaborate in
planning, promoting, and putting on the conference. Leading up to the
event, staff from all the PREL programs meet to discuss ideas for the
conference and clarify roles and responsibilities. Assignments include
making logistical arrangements, identifying and inviting experts,
communicating with presenters and providing assistance as needed, and
making presentations on a range of substantive topics.

The conference is hosted by a different state education agency (SEA)
each year, and staff from that agency are also included in the
collaborative efforts. Specifically, the SEA determines the conference's
focus, which depends on local needs. For example, the 1999 conference
was held on Saipan in the Commonwealth of Northern Mariana Islands. That
entity was interested in standards and curriculum alignment and chose
the topic as the conference focus.

***Leadership Academy.*** The Leadership Academy was a collaborative
activity between the Comprehensive Center and the regional lab. The
Academy provided training on issues and challenges that educational
leaders face. Eighteen participants attended the Academy in teams of
two, each composed of one school principal and one local district
administrator. PREL prepared the participants to train others and
developed two training videos to assist in them in their efforts. Both
the Comprehensive Center and the regional laboratory contributed to
planning and organizing the events, as well as contracting expert
presenters.

***Al Maron Project.*** The Al Maron Project consists of a team of PREL
staff collaborating to provide intensive assistance to Ebeye Public
School. The school educates 1,200 first- through eighth-graders on a
small Pacific island and is faced with dramatic problems associated with
low achievement, isolation, poverty, and overcrowding. The Comprehensive
Center and other PREL staff provide professional development and
technical assistance in all content areas, support efforts to include
parents and the community in education, and advise the local government
on facility renovation and use.

The assistance team, which consists of staff from the Comprehensive
Center, regional laboratory, and Math and Science Consortium, meet
quarterly to plan assistance and discuss current issues. The
Comprehensive Center has maintained communication with educators on the
island, coordinated project meetings, and provided assistance in the
area of reading. The regional educational laboratory and the Math and
Science Consortium staff have offered assistance in other content areas,
community involvement, and program evaluation. All team members brief
each other about their periodic visits to the islands.

##### [Context]{.underline}

Respondents said that collaboration is highly valued in Pacific
cultures, and PREL strives to reflect those cultures in its assistance.
As one respondent said, "People throughout the region really believe
that no work being done by one is worth being done." PREL staff find it
easy to align services to the culture of customers since they believe
that service improves through collaboration, and many are Pacific
natives who regard collaboration as a part of their own culture.

Several other factors facilitate collaboration between the Comprehensive
Center and other PREL agencies. For example, because the agencies share
the same parent organization, their goals and missions are similar, and
PREL can coordinate activities to reduce duplication of efforts and the
sense of competition between agencies. In addition, because of their
proximity to each other, staff from all of the agencies know one another
and can regularly meet face-to-face.

The collaboration is also facilitated by the fact that the Comprehensive
Center and the regional laboratory share a common region. Respondents
said that this makes it easier to identify customers in need and provide
them with service. A complete overlap of region and customers also makes
it easier for staff who split their time between agencies to coordinate
their assistance.

#####  

##### [Effects]{.underline} {#effects-3}

The annual Pacific Education Conference consistently draws around 1,000
participants, many of whom attend regularly in spite of the fact that
much of the region is impoverished and travel costs are high. Customers
also appear to be satisfied with the Al Maron Project. In fact, the
entity has asked PREL to take over the school.

Several respondents asserted that the collaboration between agencies at
PREL has resulted in improved service because there are more staff
members available to give assistance at any given time. In addition,
PREL staff pointed out that the quality of service is improved because
the knowledge and skill base is broader and deeper when agencies work
together.

Several individuals are on the staff of more than one PREL agency. By
dividing their time in this way, individuals are able to work on
systemic issues, broaden their professional knowledge and experience,
and use their expertise on more projects. Also, when traveling and doing
the work of two separate agencies, it is cheaper to send one person and
divide his or her time among the work of two agencies, than to send two
individuals.

**Superintendents' Policy Institute**

**Region III Comprehensive Center**

**Southeastern Regional Vision for Education Laboratory and**

**Selected District Superintendents**

# Focus of Collaboration

In April 1996 the Region III Comprehensive Center met with
superintendents from several school districts in its service region to
create a Superintendents' Education Policy Institute. The Institute is
designed to be a "think tank" for superintendents that will focus on
issues pertaining to language minority students, education reform, and
school improvement---especially in high-poverty school districts. The
Institute expects to: (1) generate cutting-edge thinking about education
reform and school improvement; (2) develop data on how those new ways of
thinking impact local school systems' policies and practice; and (3)
disseminate new knowledge developed through the Institute's
collaborative inquiry and field-testing activities. Membership in the
Institute is limited to approximately 30 superintendents who work in
school districts within the Comprehensive Center's service region, and
whose schools have high concentrations of poor students.

A survey of 75 superintendents identified nine critical issues facing
superintendents in the region. The Institute's Executive Committee
decided that accountability, which was one of these critical issues,
would be the first topic for collaborative inquiry at the Institute's
inaugural annual meeting in Washington, D.C. Specifically, the question
to be addressed at the meeting was:

> *How can a school district, under the leadership of its
> superintendent, develop and implement an accountability system that
> focuses the energy of every member of the school district community
> (for example, administrator, teacher, staff member, student, and
> parent) on improving student learning and achievement?*

**[Motivation]{.underline}**

The Comprehensive Center invited the superintendent from a rural
district in North Carolina, the research director at SERVE, and the
superintendent of an urban district in New Jersey, to work with center
staff in planning and implementing the first three-day Institute.

The Comprehensive Center identified the superintendent from North
Carolina and the research director at SERVE as potential collaborating
partners because the two had conducted research and co-authored a book
on the topic of accountability. Based on their review of this book, the
staff at the Comprehensive Center believed that both could contribute to
the overall goal of the Institute by encouraging collaborative inquiry
into the topic and related policy issues. The two were invited to share
their knowledge, experiences, and perspectives, and to encourage other
superintendents to do the same by exploring alternative ways of thinking
about the issue of accountability, and generating ideas regarding how
they might better address the issue in their respective school systems.

The collaborative relationship between the superintendent from New
Jersey and the Comprehensive Center developed because the superintendent
wanted to improve accountability in his school district, and the
Comprehensive Center needed a "real life laboratory" to field-test
theories and ideas about accountability and school change. Both the
district and the Comprehensive Center recognized that the collaboration
would permit each to assist the other in accomplishing its objectives
while working toward achieving its own goals.

**[Planning and Implementation]{.underline}**

In the weeks leading up to the conference, the superintendent from North
Carolina and the research director at SERVE had several telephone
conversations with the Comprehensive Center about the goals of the
Institute and how their presentation might promote specific objectives.
Prior to the conference, they sent an outline of the topic to be
presented to the Comprehensive Center for review.

On the second day of the conference, the superintendent and deputy
superintendent from the district in North Carolina conducted a
three-hour presentation entitled "A Case Study: Using accountability as
a Lever for Changing the Culture of Schools*."* They described their
approach to school reform and the process by which they used
accountability to achieve "cultural change" in their district. The
research director from SERVE introduced the session and served as a
facilitator, encouraging participants to explore similarities and
differences between their own experiences and the experiences of the
presenters.

The superintendent from New Jersey helped to frame the question that was
central to the three-day meeting, and has contributed to the development
of knowledge---a key goal of the Institute---by his subsequent efforts
to implement some of the ideas that were generated at the conference in
his district. His efforts have been supported by the Comprehensive
Center, which has provided technical assistance to his district during
the process.

**[Context]{.underline}**

The collaboration among the Comprehensive Center, SERVE, and the school
district in North Carolina has not occurred around any other event or
activity, and there has been no further interaction among the three.
However, the Comprehensive Center's relationship with the school
district in New Jersey has developed over time.

In the months following the Institute, the Comprehensive Center visited
that school district and provided technical assistance and feedback
regarding the district's efforts to meet their need for greater
accountability. Specifically, the Comprehensive Center has helped to:
(1) develop strategies for overcoming teachers' resistance to the
district's new assessment program that focuses on measuring student
progress; and (2) explore ways in which the district can eliminate
social promotion of students. In addition, as a direct result of the
Superintendents' Institute, the superintendent from New Jersey invited
the superintendent from North Carolina to give a presentation to members
of his local Board of Education and district staff on policy issues
related to accountability. During the course of the workshop, the
superintendent from North Carolina discussed the issue of achieving
change at the district level and the need to move beyond the simple
introduction of new programs. The Comprehensive Center helped to defray
the cost of this one-day event.

**[Effects]{.underline}**

The Comprehensive Center worked with SERVE and the two superintendents
to design and carry out an event that allowed participating
superintendents to share information and ideas about improving
accountability in their respective districts. According to the
superintendent from New Jersey, the institute achieved its objective of
encouraging collaboration among participants, and an opportunity was
provided for "creating solutions and strategies that could be brought
back home by \[participants\]." In other words, the Institute increased
the possibility that change and improvement in districts' accountability
systems will occur within those institutions from which the
collaborating superintendents came.

[^1]: In late 1998, the entire Comprehensive Center network adopted the
    RSN as a network-wide initiative. The RSN was originally developed
    in Southern California by SCCAC.

[^2]: Subsequent to our data collection, SCCAC staff reported that the
    Center is responding to requests from the field to expand the RSN to
    include grades 4-6.

[^3]: The SCCAC is organized as a partnership of the eight Southern
    California county offices of education. These agencies provide
    various training and other support services to the school districts
    in their respective counties. Hence, the SCCAC takes full advantage
    of the existing service and dissemination networks and uses its
    resources to leverage existing resources in the county offices.

[^4]: Respondents did not offer a precise definition of the term
    "elder." Operationally, it seems to be defined as "an adult with
    enough wisdom that others solicit and accept his or her advice."

[^5]: *Kuinerrarmiut Elitnaurviat: The School of The People of
    Quinhagak*, by Carol Barnhardt, University of Alaska Fairbanks,
    1998, p. 11.

[^6]: Several other districts joined the AOTE movement in the third
    (1996) and fourth (1998) waves.

[^7]: *Kuinerrarmiut Elitnaurviat: The School of The People of
    Quinhagak*, by Carol Barnhardt, University of Alaska Fairbanks,
    1998, p. 8.

[^8]: Summarized from *Creating Partnerships to Help Alaska Native
    Students Succeed in Two Worlds: Study of Alaska Rural Systemic
    Reform*, by James W. Kushman with the Alaska Case Studies Team;
    paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational
    Research Association in Montreal, April 1999 pp. 5-7.

[^9]: Ibid, page 9.