Archived Information

Interim Evaluation of the Southeastern Regional Vision for Education

**I. Brief Overview of Laboratory**

The SERVE Laboratory has a brief history dating back to 1990. The panel
conducting the Interim evaluation of the Lab first reviewed extensive
written documentation and then visited the Lab to conduct intensive
interviews over five days, May 10-14, 1999. Combined with the written
documentation, the five days of interviews illuminated major initiatives
at the Lab. Sufficient documentation and insights were provided to
address the key evaluation questions presented by OERI. A special note
of recognition and thanks is due Decision Information Resources, Inc.
which made strategic decisions in arranging materials and hosting the
on-site visit.

II. **Implementation and Management**

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
A.  **To what extent is the REL doing what they were approved to do
    during their first three contract years?**

**1. Strengths**

SERVE appears to be performing adequately to above expectations in
attaining goals of the original proposal, with modifications, except for
some insufficient emphasis on national publications.

During a period of transition in the position of Executive Director,
SERVE has profited from the continuous leadership of a highly involved
Board of Directors. In a convincing manner the current Director and the
Board agree as one that the mission of the REL is coterminous with the
mission of SERVE. In practice this means that educational priorities
consistent with SERVE's contractual obligations to OERI are first
established, then decisions regarding the allocation of resources from
throughout SERVE are made to address the missions identified. The new
Executive Director observed that, "Throughout the history of SERVE, the
operation of the Regional Educational Laboratory (REL) contract has been
its core business. That is, all other programs and projects undertaken
by SERVE must complement its work as the REL serving AL, FL, GA, MS, NC,
and SC."

An interview with the Executive Committee of SERVE's Board of Directors
provided remarkable insights and understanding of SERVE initiatives
which could only result from intimate knowledge and understanding. On
the Board as well as its advisory committees, there appear to be
sufficient and balanced representation from all expected constituencies,
including teachers, administrators, students, parents, policymakers,
higher education, and state education departments. Board members
uniformly praised SERVE for the sensitive manner in which needs of the
region were reflected in finely tailored educational initiatives. In
several respects they attributed distinctive qualities to SERVE
initiatives in the region: introducing "best practices" from other parts
of the nation, and serving as an objective and neutral observer for
policymakers on controversial issues. As one Board member phrased it,
"SERVE is the expert, not the advocate."

In a unique on-site arrangement among the RELs, SERVE's Policy Analysts
occupy a special relationship as advisors to the Chief State School
Officer (CSSO) in each of the six states. All have doctorates and
research backgrounds. As they network with each other, interact with
program officers, and participate in SERVE's QA process, their views and
influence pervade many aspects of the organization. Their role is
reactive, responding to requests from CSSOs, legislators, and other
policymakers; and also proactive, as they serve on pivotal committees
and maintain key relationships which allow them to help shape policy
agendas. This structure has been especially successful in affording
SERVE a continuous presence and identity in state policy circles, while
serving as a conduit of information regarding evolving policy priorities
within and across the states. The Policy Analysts view their role as
that of providing pros and cons on issues in a dispassionate way.
Instructively and significantly, the policymakers whom the review panel
interviewed view the role of Policy Analysts in the same manner.

Relating sensitively to needs of the region is a considerable strength
of SERVE. Some of the Review Panel's concern about SERVE's insufficient
enthusiasm for seeking a national influence and reputation is explained
in part by the priority given to addressing needs of the region. The
networks and partnerships which SERVE has established within the region,
both formal and informal, are so ubiquitous that they defy easy
description or definition.

There are bright spots regarding SERVE's national presence, such as
involvement of the Assessment, Accountability, and Evaluation staff in
activities of ASCD and AERA, and the national recognition received for
selected publications, such as the National Staff Development Council
recognizing the SERVE publication, [Achieving Your Vision of
Professional Development,]{.underline} as Book of the Year; and
presentations by the Early Childhood unit at national meetings,
including the NAEYC. Due to the overriding emphasis on publications for
the region, however, the potential value of disseminating nationally
useful findings has not been fully realized.

A high degree of customer satisfaction was noted in surveys, attendance
at meetings, website hits, and diverse interviews with users.
Independent evaluations of customer satisfaction, however, were not
available.

There is considerable evidence of SERVE's effective partnering with
other labs and

external organizations, including: leveraging of non-Lab resources to
support each Lab program; interactivity with other labs in regard to the
assessment Toolkit; uses of the LNP to disseminate Early Childhood
findings; CSRD lab coordinator meetings, information dissemination
efforts, and the sharing of resources; and coordination of resources
from School Improvement and the Eisenhower Consortium in the Mississippi
Delta.

Through its program activities, SERVE is addressing significant issues
in educational change and reform throughout the region. Focus on the
signature initiative of Assessment Accountability, and Evaluation
reflects the emphasis throughout the southeast on school reform which
holds schools accountable for student achievement. The SERVE staff
correctly perceives the opportunity and need to provide relevant
professional development for teachers and administrators in order for
the southeastern states to realize their goals.

The signature area of School Improvement similarly addresses specific
needs of the region, evolving initially from a single request from the
state of Georgia that expanded to 104 schools in that state. The
principal focus has been on the transition of Title I schools to
school-wide reform. On-site interviews with staff and clients added
considerably to understanding SERVE's approach to school improvement as
a hands-on, interactive, enabling process predicated on "whole school"
planning. The SERVE staff provides reform-based ideas centered on
planning needs which schools identify. The actual reforms, whether
within the school, classroom, or community, are left for local
participants to implement.

The staff reported significant increases in reading scores at several
schools after a few years of involvement in the school improvement
process. It was rewarding to learn that the more recent efforts in
reading are being coordinated with overall professional development for
the schools on one hand, and with SERVE's specialty in Early Childhood
on the other. Further study, presumably, will address the issue of
attribution. Even in school settings which are difficult to reform, with
local support the SERVE staff persist in the effort.

SERVE's Office of School Development and Reform houses other initiatives
which are complementary to the School Development program: CSR, the
Annual Forum, the Delta Project, and the Southern Seminar on Low
Performing Schools.

Since many of SERVE's programs operate primarily in single states, the
seminal work in helping to launch the CSRD initiative is distinguished
by its region-wide scope. From providing appropriate knowledge, to
assisting prospective implementation and evaluation, SERVE has guided
SEAs, LEAs, and policymakers each step of the way. It is difficult to
imagine a major CSRD need left unaddressed in a manner friendly to
users.

The Annual Forum is a major annual SERVE event, engaging stakeholders
from across the six-state region. Preparation for the Forum is an
important internal process for SERVE since staff across the major
program areas are engaged; similarly, the agenda for the Forum provides
regionwide opportunities for users to interact and collaborate as they
learn more regarding SERVE's diverse initiatives. The Forum also serves
as an opportunity for representatives to help shape SERVE's agenda
consistent with evolving local needs. Surveys have generally reported
high ratings by participants.

SERVE has long-standing interests and broader aspirations in the
Mississippi Delta area. A close alliance has been established across
several SERVE programs, including School Improvement, Early Childhood,
SEIR-TEC, and the Eisenhower Consortium. A recent conference between
SERVE representatives, Delta State University, and other Delta
stakeholders produced concurrence that SERVE could impact the area
systematically by helping coalesce initiatives in reading, early
childhood, and leadership training. SERVE is commended for recognizing
the need to address the systemic educational problems of the Delta in a
systemic manner, and keeping open the opportunity for SERVE's Delta
efforts to grow into a signature area. They recognize, however, that
addressing the Delta systemically requires broader commitments within
Mississippi and significant commitments from other sectors. An
integrated multistate/federal/private approach is needed to leverage and
integrate efforts to address the Delta's educational needs.

**2. Areas of needed improvement**

-   National Recognition, Research and Presentations. There have
    apparently not been strong incentives historically from the central
    administration and some possible disincentives to publish in
    national journals and present at diverse national meetings. Nothing,
    however, should compromise SERVE's unmistakable and invaluable
    commitment to serve its region well. In doing so there are exemplary
    models and practices being developed which should be shared more
    broadly. For these stellar insights and activities, SERVE should
    define its "region" as the nation.

-   Internal Coordination and Collaboration Among Programs.
    Cross-pollination of ideas which span programs occurs in a variety
    of ways: preparations for and planned activities at the annual
    Forum; special cross-program task forces; coordinating
    responsibilities of the Executive Director for Programs; diverse
    electronic communications; and an informal atmosphere which promotes
    friendly interchange. Nevertheless, SERVE has offices and personnel
    which embrace six states and many programs. Designing opportunities
    to ensure that the best insights from one systemic program informs
    the directions taken by another will be a constant challenge and
    responsibility for central management and staff at all levels.

-   Except for the notable exception of the CSRD initiative, many of
    SERVE's programs are unique to one or two states. It is unclear
    whether programs and initiatives are apportioned across states in a
    balanced manner. This apportionment has direct implications for the
    upscaling of programs.

-   Need for Integrated Multistate/Multifederal agency/Private Delta
    Reform Initiative. Notwithstanding SERVE's visionary efforts and
    aspirations, the overriding educational needs of the Delta extend
    beyond the capacity of a single governmental level, organization, or
    agency to address. Secretary of Education Richard Riley should
    exercise leadership in convening, with active support of Governors
    affected, a three-state conference on educational needs of the
    Delta. A proposal, based on a multistate study of resources and
    programs available, should then be made to the President and
    Congress.

**3. Recommendations for improvement**

-   While sustaining its commendable traditional focus, SERVE should
    maintain a more balanced portfolio by providing greater incentives
    for selected staff to achieve higher levels of recognition for major
    programs through national presentations and publications in national
    journals.

-   The central administration, within constraints of resources and
    time, should make certain that cross-pollination of key insights
    occurs through regular opportunities for effective staff interaction
    across programs.

-   Considerable care should be taken to ensure that, given limitations
    of resources and varied needs, SERVE apportions reform initiatives
    across states in as balanced a manner as possible.

**B. To what extent is the REL using a self-monitoring process to plan
and adapt activities in response to feedback and customer needs?**

**1. Strengths**

SERVE's current hierarchical organization, which requires reporting from
line officers to managers by function, appears reasonable and
prospectively effective. The previous organization, which required
everyone to report to the Executive Director, was reported to be
dysfunctional. The Director was overextended while communications with
varied customers were impeded (see p.1).

SERVE's basic philosophy of self-monitoring is that internal checking,
buttressed by targeted external review, is the primary key to quality.
An abiding and strongly held view of the organization is that formal
publications, SERVE's face to its many publics, is the critical locale
where internal quality controls must be at their zenith. The review
process has many hurdles for concepts to evolve and become major SERVE
publications. Operating at its best, the highly effective process
ensures that documents which survive have a reasonably strong research
base. It is relevant to note that this procedure has produced attractive
SERVE documents for dissemination, several of which have won national
distinction.

SERVE's formal organization for monitoring its activities is reasonable
and effective. Self-monitoring and feedback are common themes throughout
surveys, studies, and reports. Considerable attention is given to
developing programs on an interactive needs assessment basis. Indeed the
current programmatic structure of SERVE reflects needs assessment
through the Delphi process which involves diverse stakeholders,
including Board members. The distributed organization to different
sites, including roles of Policy Analysts, all contribute to
self-monitoring. The QA process, as noted above, is the principal mode
by which the entire organization monitors quality. The new hierarchical
organizational structure, which clarifies lines of authority and
responsibility, should strengthen the monitoring process. Review of
documents and interviews with staff and customers revealed that single
event monitoring, often through surveys, routinely takes place as a
source of immediate feedback to on-site project staff.

It became abundantly clear during the review that SERVE, reflecting its
sensitivity and commitment to serving the region, engages in a
continuous process of monitoring in order to more effectively serve its
diverse customers.

**2. Areas of needed improvement**

-   SERVE needs to adopt a broader definition of "customer," to include,
    especially in key areas, a national as well as a regional audience.

-   Coordinated monitoring across programs would allow SERVE to more
    effectively serve customers by broadening the range from which best
    practices could be adapted.

**3. Recommendations for improvement**

-   Internal evaluation and studies are currently conducted by staff
    from SERVE's Evaluation unit on a part-time assigned basis. To
    afford greater credibility and visibility, SERVE may wish to arrange
    periodic external evaluations for selected signature areas.

-   See also #2 above.

**III. Quality**

**To what extent is the REL developing high quality products and
services?**

**1. Strengths**

Across its many programs and initiatives, the strengths of SERVE cannot
be easily summarized. All of the documents and conversations, during
diverse interviews, both with staff and a range of users, made clear
SERVE's abiding dedication to advance teaching and learning within the
context of the educational and cultural environment of the region. This
commitment manifests itself in attitudes and understandings as well as
more formal programs and initiatives. Outcomes are equally obvious and
equally subtle.

Within the region, SERVE is generally developing products and services
of unusually high quality. The Student Assessment in the School and
Classroom initiative has been stimulated by increasing emphasis of
southeastern states on accountability of low-performing students and
schools. For this effort SERVE has used widely the assessment Toolkits
developed and revised through the LNP program. Recognizing that testing
is the pivot of accountability in all state accountability systems,
SERVE has appropriately concentrated on professional development for
teachers, with the focus on assessment as the perquisite to helping
these state reforms succeed.

With active sites in 9 districts, SERVE's Assessment initiative has
directly impacted over 50 schools and 3,600 teachers. Resources for this
initiative are derived both from REL and other sources. The principal
goal is to help develop and institutionalize alternative assessments in
selected schools and districts; then use these as a base for upscaling.
By tailoring approaches to local circumstances through a user friendly
interactive process, districts, schools, and teachers involved gain
ownership and empowerment. This is a dominant feature of the effort.

There is an interesting balance which the staff has reached regarding
scholarly research and field-based research which is published only
internally. National research informs many directions taken, yet this
research separated from practice is clearly not the highest priority.
Precedence is given to the evolution of field-based experiences which
decisively shapes directions taken. The recognitions given SERVE's
assessment publications and program leaders by ASCD and AERA are
testaments to an even broader national value of this initiative.

The Senior Project is a way of extending alternative assessment to the
high school level through exiting projects for 12^th^ graders. The
Senior Project has clearly had dramatic results at a variety of sites in
North Carolina, as well as other selected sites, most notably Panama
City, Florida. It became clear through interviews with about seven
users, that full-scale implementation of Senior Projects engenders
significant cultural shifts. The winding down of a senior's career
becomes a time for intellectual excitement rather than the inertia which
is so often the case. Talents and skills essential to the workplace and
professions, such as organizational and writing skills, time management,
and presence before an audience, are elevated in this single operation
to a higher level of visibility. The activity, in its anticipation as
much as its reality, galvanizes diverse teachers and seniors, as well as
juniors and administrators.

There is a reasonable prospect that North Carolina will require Senior
Projects of all public schools. SERVE has already attained national
recognition through presentations at ASCD meetings, the recognition of
Panama City as a member of the ASCD assessment consortia, and selection
of Panama City as the national site for ASCD'S 2001 assessment
conference.

SERVE's School Development and Reform unit houses a variety of major
initiatives which provide exemplary products and services: School
Improvement, the CSRD, the Annual Forum, Improving Low Performing
Schools, and the Delta Project (see above, pp.3-5).

SERVE's Early Childhood specialty area is guided by a reasonable process
of quality controls. Initial foci, the product of a national assessment,
has included teacher and caregiver training and preparation; quality
childcare and education; linking of services; and access to and
availability of quality care/education. These directions were reexamined
during the mid-contract stage through another national assessment.
Earlier themes remained, while such issues as assessment, retention,
compensation, and financing were given added currency. The Early
Childhood and School Improvement units appear to be collaborating
effectively. The staff has disseminated widely a variety of documents of
reasonable quality. Presentations are made at appropriate national
meetings.

3.  **Areas of needed improvement**

-   There is a reasonable prospect that greater cross-pollination across
    programs would lead to even greater quality in program
    implementation.

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   There is potential for each initiative to deliver effective services
    to a broader audience through publications in selected journals and
    presentations at more diverse national meetings.

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   Staff of each major initiative should keep apprised of the best
    ideas of other SERVE initiatives.

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   For each initiative greater attention should be given to data
    collection which measures student success.

3.  **Recommendations for improvement**

-   See #2 above.

**IV. Utility**

**A. To what extent are the products and services provided by the
Laboratory useful to and used by customers?**

**1. Strengths**

There is considerable and consistent attention within SERVE to address
customer needs within the region. This sentiment pervades all levels of
the staff and reflects the commitment by the Board of Directors. The
manifestations are varied and numerous. SERVE's current organizational
structure reflects outcomes of the broadly interactive Delphi needs
assessment process. Sentiments expressed by program managers, reflected
in comments made during interviews with users, made clear SERVE's high
level of sensitivity to both the perception and the substance of client
responsiveness. Many of the initiatives in various states were catalyzed
by specific requests by users to SERVE. The distributed organization and
the on-site Policy Analysts are designed to provide intimate and timely
reactions to customer requests and inquiries. The act of surveying
participants at virtually all formal gatherings convened by SERVE,
combined with the positive ratings which SERVE generally receives on
these, reflects both the commitment and results of sensitivity to
customer needs. These outcomes are all generated by the Lab operating
with its users in a genuinely collaborative, interactive way (see also
pp. 1-5).

**2. Areas of needed improvement**

Earlier recommendations focused on the need of SERVE to focus more
attention on needs of its national customers (see pp. 1-5).

3.  **Recommendations for improvement**

-   See #2 above.

# B. To what extent is the REL focused on customer needs?

> See pp. 1-5, 12-17.

**V. Outcomes and Impact**

**A. To what extent is the REL's work contributing to improved student
success, particularly in intensive implementation sites?**

**1. Strengths**

All of SERVE's initiatives may be viewed as contributing to student
success. Only one, however, School Improvement, provided data which
directly related reform impacts to elevations in student achievements.
Even there, the issue of attribution was unclear. Part of the difficulty
lies in the nature of SERVE's role and also in the nature of the reform
initiatives. All of SERVE's major initiatives are based on collaboration
with states, schools, districts, and communities: each of whom is
involved in a spectrum of non-SERVE related reforms. Even if elevations
in student achievement result, the issue of attribution would remain
unclear. Some of SERVE's efforts, such as School Improvement, focus
primarily on strengthening school planning; in this case there is no
direct SERVE intervention in the teaching and learning process.

It does not appear that consistent and ongoing collection of student
achievement data has been a priority for SERVE. Based on discussions
with project staff, this will become a higher future priority in
selected programs.

**2. Areas of needed improvement**

SERVE needs long-range strategies to collect data which measures student
achievement. There does not need to be a rigid reliance on test data
alone. Data emanating from Senior Projects, for example, could help
illuminate some broad dimensions of student learning which standardized
testing does not capture. The Early Childhood initiative could profit
from comparing the results of different interventions with baselines
initially established.

**3. Recommendations for improvement**

**B. To what extent does the Laboratory assist states and localities to
implement comprehensive school improvement strategies?**

**1. Strengths**

SERVE's varied systemic initiatives are uniquely adapted to assist
states and localities. The Assessment, School Improvement, Early
Childhood, and CSRD programs are all "whole school" efforts. In each of
the six affected states there are major initiatives which have been
implemented at the specific request of local authorities. SERVE's
customer-friendly ambience, highlighted by an interactive approach which
makes all participants learners, causes the organization to excel at
working with schools and localities to implement comprehensive school
reform. This finding was amply supported by survey results and all
individuals interviewed, including teachers, administrators, state
department representatives, other policymakers, and a few students.

The uniquely important and influential roles of Policy Analysts, among
other initiatives, also provides considerable support to states and
localities (see above, pp.1-5).

**2. Areas of needed improvement**

More attention should be given to the purposive selection of
participating school and district sites to ensure variation in key
demographic and contextual factors within SERVE implementation sites. It
is clear that in many cases schools and districts were selected as SERVE
implementation sites only because of their individual requests. One
advantage of a more proactive recruitment and selection of sites within
identified political and demographic categories is that this could
enhance understanding of the interventions which work and those which do
not under varying local circumstances.

It is not entirely clear what "scaling up" means within the context of
SERVE initiatives. There is considerable evidence that scaling up has
been a marketing concept, attractively disseminating information and
initiatives. Scaling up should reflect the engineering meaning, taking a
prototype to large-scale production. Adopting the latter view could
cause SERVE to engineer their reform product for greater portability.

**3. Recommendations for improvement**

Serve should select implementation sites in a more deliberate manner, to
understand better the circumstances under which interventions are
effective, and to engineer prototypes to facilitate upscaling.

More effective collaboration among programs is needed for the reasons
stated above, and also to ensure that the best insights of one systemic
program effectively informs the directions taken by one nearby.

**C. To what extent has the REL made progress in establishing a regional
and national reputation in its specialty area?**

**1. Strengths**

There is considerable evidence that SERVE has established a reputation
in those sections of the six-state region in which the Early Childhood
unit has intervention programs. It is also clear that SERVE has
disseminated Early Childhood documents regionwide and in some instances
nationally. In collaboration with several other labs, SERVE also
occupies a leadership role via the LNP in Early Childhood among the
federal labs.

> **2. Areas of needed improvement**

There are insufficient publications in national refereed journals for
SERVE to have established a national reputation in the Early Childhood
specialty.

**3. Recommendations for improvement**

To attain its stated vision of national leadership, and fulfill its
obligations to OERI, SERVE's Early Childhood unit should publish more
aggressively in national refereed journals.

VI. **Overall Evaluation of Total Laboratory Programs, Products and
    Services**

**and**

**VII. Broad Summary of Strengths, Areas for Improvement, and Strategies
for Improvement**

SERVE is a young organization which is performing reasonably well and is
positioned to perform at an even higher level. Some leadership
difficulties over the past year appear to have been largely overcome.
From all appearances the transitions have been relatively smooth. Staff
appear to generally respect and work well together. The highly involved
Board of Directors, along with other key stakeholders, have high regard
for the staff and the work they do.

The Laboratory programs are the centripetal forces of SERVE, around
which directions for the overall organization are charted. This
perspective shapes statements of visions and goals as well as the
day-to-day implementation of programs. Whether deciding on major
directions, or the day-today implementation of key initiatives, SERVE is
committed to fully engaging its customers in a continuous interactive
manner. At the state, district, school, or individual participant level,
a question posed is likely to be met by a prompt SERVE response. It may
even be met by an initiative which is tailored largely to the customer's
specifications. This would certainly not be the case, of course, with
the highly respected impartial work of the Policy Analysts; nor does it
imply anything less than faithful observance of prescriptions embedded
in respective programs. Nevertheless, the "customer is always right"
view produces specially targeted initiatives in a variety of states, and
an ambience of intimacy and concern that is reflected in genuine
customer support for wide-ranging initiatives.

The customer may not always be right. It is unclear whether SERVE's
often uncritical responsiveness to local requests is always consistent
with its commitments to the larger region and the nation. For example,
SERVE supervises a variety of programs which serve primarily one or two
states. Each of these, without question, addresses significant
educational issues for that locale. This strategy provides stakeholders
in each state with both the appearance and substance of SERVE's
commitments to their educational needs. Yet SERVE has the larger
responsibility to promote and upscale systemic reform throughout the
region and in select cases the nation. Would these larger
responsibilities be more effectively served by establishing effective
prototypes throughout the region of whole school reform as bases for
upscaling? This premise appears central to both the conceptualization
and SERVE's implementation of the CSRD program; the implications could
inform other efforts of SERVE as well.

SERVE's quality assurance process ensures careful control of
publications which represent SERVE's face to its many constituencies.
Along with many other features and processes of the organization, this
process engages SERVE staff across programs in meaningful exchanges,
resulting in the cross-pollination of ideas and in some cases highly
successful internal collaborative efforts. The new organizational
structure, which places disparate initiatives under supervision of a
Deputy Executive Director, holds out the promise that even greater
collaboration across programs will occur in the future. Nevertheless,
this reviewer left with the abiding sense that the institution has not
valued the pooling of insights across major programs the same way SERVE
values, for example, timely and genuine responsiveness to its local
customers. One even wonders whether the high and admirable level of
commitment to local customers de-emphasizes the values which should
connect reform initiatives across various locales. In any case,
institutional arrangements are needed to help ensure that the best ideas
become common currency across programs. Since this involves cultural as
well as procedural and perhaps organizational changes, this matter is a
major challenge for SERVE's leadership.

In various ways SERVE has a presence on the national level. Through
Early Childhood leadership within the LNP; the involvement in
preparation and dissemination of some products which have had a broad
national distribution, both within and beyond the labs, such as the
assessment Toolkit; along with presentations at meetings of a variety of
national organizations. Yet again, it is clear that SERVE's local
orientation has resulted in insufficient emphasis being placed on
serving its national customers.

SERVE masterly collects data considered important to its central
operations, including: a database for dissemination of publications;
data related to the 17-step process for quality assurance; data from
surveys of virtually all formal activities which assist SERVE in fine
tuning programs to customer needs; data related to a carefully
implemented annual needs assessment process; and data related to
customer interactions with various websites.

Some data, however, are studiously not collected. In only one instance,
spanning interviews for many programs, was direct data presented related
to student achievement. The absence of this data has various
explanations. In many instances programs are young and the full impact
on students is yet to be felt. In many instances the character of
SERVE's involvement, such as the focus on planning through School
Improvement, makes it inherently difficult to attribute student results
to SERVE's intervention. There were indications in some cases ,
including reading and Early Childhood, that more attention would be
placed in the future on relations between SERVE's presence and
attributes of student success. Yet none of these reasons constitute a
sufficient rationale for failing to systematically collect data leading
to evaluations that document reasons for successes and failures. While
data regarding student test performance should be collected, baselines
and "effects" do not need to be confined to traditional measures.
Collection of relevant data is the prerequisite to developing effective
prototypes and upscaling, a requirement in continuing formative and
summative evaluations which shape directions for programs, and a growing
responsibility simply in reporting consequences to customers.

SERVE should evaluate its major continuing program initiatives on a
regular cycle, using external consultants, and appropriate data should
be collected for this and broader purposes.

After five days of friendly conversations in Greensboro and perusing
endless streams of carefully prepared documentation, the diligent,
compassionate, and skilled SERVE staff are clearly making a positive
educational difference within the affected southeastern states. This
transitional stage in leadership should be a period of reflection to
build upon that foundation, requiring neither sudden disruptions nor
passive acquiescence. Instead it is an opportunity to critically revisit
persisting assumptions to make certain that directions of the
organization accord fully with its mission and goals. A considerable
range of SERVE practices and choices deserve to be commended, expanded,
and strengthened; other practices and choices deserve revisions and/or
substitutions. The test of leadership will be to help make the choices
which will make the appropriate difference.