Archived Information

**Interim Evaluation of the Southwest Educational Development
Laboratory**

### 

**I. Brief Overview of the Laboratory**

SEDL is a 33 year old Regional Educational Laboratory (REL) currently
undergoing renewal. It serves five states: Arkansas, Louisiana, New
Mexico, Oklahoma, and Texas, which includes some of the most diverse as
well as some of the most disadvantaged populations in the nation. The
Board of Directors has charged the REL to serve five concentrations:
rural, urban, the delta, the border area, and the Indian Nations. The
REL is part of the overall SEDL organization, and constitutes
approximately 60 percent of the organization\'s revenues.

The primary work is research, development, and dissemination, (RDD)
which is now conceived as an integrated effort, typically involving a
field-based research and development process. The centerpiece of most
RDD projects is professional development, to change teacher practice,
create professional learner communities, and in some cases extends to
mobilizing and training more varied groups, as in the Community Action
Teams to enhance family and community involvement in education. A key
feature of this process is co-development with practitioners at the
field sites. Training co-developers is a core strategy for promoting
scale-up of initiatives and program models. Its efficacy is yet to be
tested.

Each RDD effort is designed from a research-base, and is also intended
to contribute to an enhanced knowledge base of its specific area. Thus
each includes an evaluation component, most of which have an evaluation
framework based on knowledge utilization (i.e., assessing \"level of
use\" of the new knowledge or information). Improving student success
undergirds the RDD efforts and measuring student success or effects on
students is typically included as well.

SEDL serves its region in ways that can be characterized as both depth
and breadth. The depth dimension includes field-based intensive and
ongoing training and professional development, facilitation, assistance,
and capacity building in a select number of intensive sites (typically
schools, sometimes a group or cluster of schools) spread across the
region in the five concentrated areas. This includes 38 (soon to be 48)
sites that are participating in development projects of the REL, and
about an equal number in other program areas in SEDL. The intensive
relationship with these sites typically involves multiple SEDL staff and
spans over a number of years.

The breadth dimension includes policy work in the five states
(supporting the work of Chief State School Officers and other
policy-makers in the region) and dissemination of information throughout
the region. A newsletter, SEDL Letter is sent to every school in the
region every quarter. About 25,000 copies of each issue are distributed.
Another publication, SEDL Links is distributed to present and former
board members, and other key decision-makers six times a year. The SEDL
website is another strategy for disseminating information, including
catalog product availability, region-wide as well as nationwide. The
entire web-site got 132,655 hits in April, 1999. List-serves are
frequently set up as communication tools for particular groups and
networks related to SEDL ongoing projects and goal areas.

SEDL is staffed by approximately 100 people. There has been substantial
turnover in the last two years, with over 30 departures and about 50 new
hires. An intensive program review and restructuring took place in 1997
(described below) which resulted in many changes both programmatic and
philosophical. However, the goal areas remained the same and include:

1.  Enhancing family and community involvement in education

2.  Addressing diversity, language and culture (this is also the REL\'s
    specialty area)

3.  Aligning and supporting policy development

4.  Promoting instructional coherence

5.  Applying technology to restructuring and learning

6.  Strategies for insuring school success.

Following the program review, a new position of Chief Operating Officer
was created to have a full-time person act as director of the REL
contract. Some staff were moved to different positions. At present, two
key management positions remain vacant.

SEDL is governed by a 20 member Board of Directors, with four members
from each state in the region, including the Chief State School Officer
or designee. The full board meets twice a year. There is also a
five-person executive committee and other committees.

**II. Implementation and Management**

**A. To what extent is the REL doing what they were approved to do
during their first three contract years?**

There have been some deviations from what they proposed in content, form
and timelines, following the turnover in leadership during the second
year of the contract. A priority of the new leadership and of the board
was to conduct a comprehensive Program Review which resulted in some
restructuring of the organization, substantial changes in staff, and
some revisions or adaptations in projects that were described in the
proposal. For example, goal 5 was modified (Applying technology to
restructuring and learning). The original plan was for a \"technology
planner\", and it was revised to focus on instruction. In general, they
turned to more of a focus on research, although according to the
director, not at the expense of site work and their strong emphasis on
training and technical assistance. Further revisions or adaptations were
made in individual projects as they became implemented by new staff with
the oversight of new leadership. For example, in the Community Action
Team (CAT) project, they refocused the content of the training;
Similarly, changes were made in the Organizing for Diversity Project.
Some changes were also made because the proposed projects \"just didn\'t
work\", such as the bi-national projects in the Language and Cultural
Diversity Program.

The review process definitely slowed them down and there have been
delays overall (and these have been part of contract modifications for
Year 4). Some goal areas are closer to being on target schedule-wise and
others are catching up. The signature program on Community Action Teams
is one example of a project that began site work in the second year,
close to the original target date. Others are experiencing more delays,
but in the case of the Technology Assistance Program, the management has
invested more FTE staff in the project, double what was originally
planned in order to catch up. The language and diversity area has
completed approximately 75 percent of what was intended by this time in
the contract, and is probably most behind, although the scope of work
has changed.

One area that has been modified under the new leadership is the role or
activities of the board. In order to get the board members to be more
involved in the work of the REL and enhance their capability to advise
the staff, the new director requested each board member to choose a
particular goal areas (projects) for more intense concentration. Board
members are invited to \"research\" the goal area, visit sites or
activities, and make presentations of their findings to the full board.

> **1. Strengths**

There is new and apparently strong leadership team that has tried to
create a new organizational climate and culture. In particular, it has
tried to create an organizational ethos that is client-centered rather
than contract-centered, (which was the way the previous SEDL director
was perceived), with a strong emphasis on both research and service.
Fifty new staff members have joined the organization in the last year
and a half which has brought to the Lab personnel with varied expertise
and past experience that seem to fit well with the content and
approaches of the Lab\'s priorities.

The leadership, and with the support of the Board of Directors have
engaged in a very extensive Program Review beginning in the second year
of the contract period (discussed also below). Despite the fact that the
resulting reorganization and revisions to scope of work, as well as
staffing changes, caused delays in several goal areas, the strength is
that the leadership refused to allow the status quo to continue, if it
was not deemed effective.

The new leadership also reflects a major change in management style.
According to board members, he has a \"willingness to take hold of some
of the issues, hold people accountable, has a willingness to listen and
deal with big change, and no idea goes unattended or unheard.\"

Substantial energy has been expended to meet contract requirements to
the degree possible, although some have been changed following program
review and with contract modifications. Because of some gaps in
staffing, consultants have been engaged, (e.g., in the Language and
Diversity Program) to strengthen the ongoing work. Intense work is being
carried out in all goal areas, as documented in the Progress Reports of
the Lab.

The REL Planning Process appears to have been well conceived and well
designed; The Quality Assurance Process also seems well conceived and
implemented, which has also allowed for more interaction across program
or goal areas than would have otherwise taken place, since most
professional staff are involved in reviewing the work of other products
and service

initiatives.

**2. Issues of Concern/Recommendations**

While there are major attempts to \"catch up\" and complete contract
requirements in the present contract period, there is still concern
about the REL\'s ability to do so, and these are expressed for example,
in OERI\'s response to the Fourth Year Plan.

Staffing: The vacancy in leadership of two major areas of the
Laboratory\'s work (i.e., goal 2, task 7 \-- Language and Cultural
Diversity, and Evaluation) is a serious concern at this stage of the
contract period. This is not to suggest that work in not being
accomplished in those areas, but the vision and coherence that an
assigned leader would attend to is visibly lacking in the work of those
groups. A full-time program manager would more likely insure that the
issues of language and cultural diversity would permeate all projects
and REL activities, including issues of staff recruitment and staff
training to work in the field with diverse populations.

Because of the \"lateness of the hour\" in this contract period, and the
possible difficulty in hiring a senior person so late in the contract
period without assurances of continuation, the Lab might want to
consider trying to get a Professor on leave from a university to head up
Goal 2/Task 7 for a year or more, give the program coherence, and
perhaps help attract an appropriate permanent staff member.

In the evaluation area, the work would benefit from a quality assurance
type of oversight in areas like the following: for the research
component of each field development project \-- are the right research
questions being addressed, and is the methodology appropriate? Is the
evaluation appropriate and timely to meet the needs of the sites as well
as the development project? Overall, across the different projects and
goal areas, is the research agenda of the REL being met? In other words,
it could have be more of a coordinated cross-Lab focus.

There appears to be insufficient linkage and communication across goals
or program areas in ways that would enhance the work. While some
examples were given of cross goal communication or assistance (e.g.,
Language and Diversity staff contributed the Spanish translation of
materials for the CAT teams), more overlap or interface would make the
work stronger. While informal communication takes place (e.g., between
the people who developed the Learning Communities Framework and those
that worked on the CAT framework), it may be easier to change the
organizational culture by initiating some more structured interaction
opportunities.

Recommendation: Have less fragmented staffing groups. Try either more
communication across projects, or a staffing design that promotes having
each staff member be assigned for at least some of his/her work time
another related project, over and above time spent on the quality
assurance process.

Although the REL has documented some examples of alliances with other
organizations, the field (i.e., the work both at SEDL and elsewhere)
would probably benefit if the Lab took even greater advantage of
resources and potential alliances with other organizations either in the
region or nationally.

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

The Laboratory engaged in an extensive program review that resulted in
some reorganization, change of staff assignments, creation of a new
position to head the REL contract, and hired new staff. All staff and a
consultant participated in the review process, and all projects and
plans were reviewed. The Program Review resulted in modification of
several projects, in response to reflection following feedback from
reviewers. The change also included a \"paradigm shift\", or a change in
focus from the Lab\'s traditional contract-centered focus, to more of a
client-centered focus.

The Program Review was more staff-driven than client driven, \--
although staff were also responding to what they perceived as the needs
of their client populations. The review was also board-driven as the
process began when the board charged the new director to conduct a
compensation study, driven by the perception that the organization was
too top heavy with highly paid managers. The result of that study was to
make changes at both ends of the pay spectrum. The prior system was to
bring all new staff in at the same level of payment, making it harder to
attract new staff at appropriate pay levels. A new compensation policy
was established. At the same time, the entire structure and scope of
work was reviewed and a number of changes were made. Here too, the board
and management shared the concern that it was time to invest in new
emerging issues out in the community. They also shared an interest in
holding staff accountable. As a board member said, \"the concerns of the
board were easier to deal with when they were shared by the new
directors.\"

The REL sends out evaluation surveys to clients who have been the
recipients of services and products. It collects and publishes
performance indicator data annually.

**1. Strengths**

-   The Lab has a well-developed and well-implemented Quality Assurance
    process that is used for all products, including web-sites. That
    process includes peer review as well as management review, and
    sometimes includes external review if the program manager or
    director thinks such expertise is needed. This is typically done for
    literature reviews, as was done in both of the signature projects
    that were reviewed.

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   Services and product development is typically customized in response
    to expressed customer needs. Feedback from the intensive sites,
    including pilot and field test sites, is listened to and staff is
    very responsive to their requests and feedback.

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   According to board members, people out in the field are more
    involved in identifying issues of need, and board members are also
    sources of information in needs sensing. Ongoing needs assessment
    and environmental scanning is carried out during the contract
    period.

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   A major strength is this area has been the heavy investment in the
    Program Review and its influence on opening up the culture of the
    REL, making it more client and student-focused.

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   The REL also knows when to end projects, as when they are not seen
    as opportunities for producing more learnings (e.g., closing out the
    Exchange Project), or when there are too many barriers to starting
    them (as with the bi-national projects in Goal 2).

**2. Issues of Concern/Recommendations**

The Lab may rely too much on internal input and review in its
development and quality assurance process. Although external review is
sometimes utilized, it may be useful to include outside experts or
consultants in the early and later stages of a major project or a major
product. They may want to consider external advisors, or advisory
committees for select projects or activities.

**III. Quality**

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

The sample of products that were examined include training modules,
literature reviews, occasional papers, resource guides, reports to
practitioners, and evaluation plans. Services include professional
development, facilitation and assistance, and provision of information,
in print, phone, and through technology. All are subject to a quality
assurance process. It is the opinion of this reviewer that the products
are competent, if not exemplary. Others are at least adequate, e.g., the
literature reviews of the signature products may have omitted some
relevant sources that this reviewer would have included. (But clearly,
this is always the case!)

**1. Strengths**

-   A major strength is in the field-based development projects,
    especially the co-developer process, professional development and
    facilitation. These projects appear to be well grounded in theory
    and research. Literature reviews are conducted in the early stages
    of the development process. Research questions are built in, and
    extensive field notes and documentation are carried out.

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   The Lab carefully distinguishes and attends to the different kinds
    of audiences and different purposes of the products, e.g., those for
    training, guides, resource materials, etc. They are tailored to the
    specific kinds of audiences and uses. The preparation of the
    materials is enhanced by the Quality Assurance process implemented
    in the Lab. A substantial number of staff development and training
    modules have been completed.

**2. Issues of Concern/Recommendations**

-   With the full understanding that the products (written reports) of
    the research or evaluation components of the RDD projects are not
    deliverables until later in the contract, these components do not
    seem to be as well executed as the development and service
    component. While the idea of integration of research, development,
    and service is very good, more emphasis may need to be given to the
    integration of the research or evaluation work with the projects and
    with the REL\'s overall research agenda. This was particularly noted
    by some disjuncture in what was described as research questions in
    the presentations of the signature projects, and what was written as
    research or evaluation questions in the written evaluation plans for
    those projects. Since the evaluation plans stated that the program
    staff would be gathering some of the data, the disjuncture in
    presentation raised this reviewer\'s concerns.

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   On the one hand, the REL\'s flexibility and willingness to tailor
    field-based development and service to local sites\' needs is
    commendable and responsive; however, the question can be raised: in
    an RDD setting, does the customizing get in the way of designing a
    \"model\" that can be disseminated elsewhere, especially without the
    intensive and expert facilitation that SEDL provides? The question
    is \-- what constitutes a coherent model \-- with integrity? When
    does it become just a series of adaptations? This may have serious
    implications for the potential of scale-up, unless there are clearly
    framed models that are appropriate in well defined settings. For
    example, in Indian Nation settings; in border communities, etc.

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   Some of the products and services were said to build on earlier work
    as well as similar work of other Labs or agencies. However, they
    could probably build on other work to a greater degree than was
    documented or described. It was hard to tell how much reinventing of
    wheels took place, with the full recognition that adaptations and
    refinements are required to fit regional needs and circumstances.
    The best example of adapting other work to regional needs is the
    project to adapt comprehensive school reform models for Latino
    English Language Learners.

IV. **Utility**

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

The clients in intensive sites, as represented in the sample of clients
interviewed for the signature products, seem to find the services and
products extremely useful. They appreciate the follow through
assistance, and scope of the relationship (although they would like even
more on-site assistance). Substantial testimony was given of
satisfaction, important changes for teachers and students (in the case
of TAP), and for the school, parents, community and families (in the
case of CAT). Statements were made such as \"they gave us direction\";
\"They helped us develop the vision of the school\"; \"they helped us
take our (curriculum) units and stretch to make them better units\".
\"They had an impact on the quality of instruction, collaboration among
staff, which aroused interest by others because of the excitement of our
students and staff.\"

Surveys based on performance indicators also demonstrated utility, but
not in as high a degree as the personal testimony. This may be function
of the type of survey and the type of respondent.

**1. Strengths**

The REL is very client-focused and appears to be able to tailor services
and products that make them most useful, or sense the real needs of
clients, thereby able to provide usable products and services. As a
result, there appears to be a high degree of client satisfaction,
particularly in intensive sites.

**2. Issues of Concern/Recommendations**

It is hard to assess levels of usefulness to the wide population of
recipients of services, products and information. The Performance
Indicator data are limited in scope, and based on low response rates to
surveys. Web-site hits measure access but not usefulness. If this
question is to be addressed adequately, other data collection tools,
strategies and methodologies need to be employed.

According to board members, there is a constant concern about \"how to
get the word out\" (regarding the work of SEDL) and the potential for
use of the products and services. The REL is improving in its outreach
and dissemination, but it is still expressed as an issue of concern.

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

As stated above, the REL is very client-focused with regard to its
overall program, its work in intensive sites, and its work with policy
makers. A Chief State School Officer who was new to the Board, said that
the Director was unique in that he \"showed up immediately\", explained
the mission of the REL, but also offered assistance to him in his new
role as CSSO. In developing training modules, as in the TAP project,
training is customized to the knowledge level of the campus.

**1. Strengths**

-   The Lab did extensive needs sensing from the Board and other sources
    for its environmental scanning.

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   The Lab is sensitive to customer needs in areas like language, for
    example, presenting materials to the CATs in Spanish in relevant
    settings.

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   The Lab is very responsive to client conditions, and customizes much
    of its services to the local sites conditions.

> **[2. Issues of Concern/Recommendations]{.underline}**

-   In the words of some board members, the REL \"needs more visibility.
    They should know about us.\" This is improving with the distribution
    of SEDL Links and the increased use of the Web-site.

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   With the exception of certain goal areas and key staff, (e.g., Goal
    6, Strategies for Student Success), the REL may be more sensitive
    about client needs, than it is to the needs of the greater R&D
    community, i.e., contributing to the knowledge base on comprehensive
    school improvement or increasing student success. The REL needs to
    strengthen its attention to the knowledge building and knowledge
    dissemination area, and to work synergistically across lab programs
    to maximize the impact.

**V. Outcomes and Impact**

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

It is important to note that while service-oriented, the focus in most
intensive implementation sites is on professional development of staff
or other adults. Staff claim that the bottom line for all the work is
improved student success, but those are the ultimate outcomes rather
than the short term outcomes that could be expected during the contract
period. Nonetheless, the COTR has made it clear that he wants
documentation of how projects have improved student achievement, or at
least have improved teaching.

**1. Strengths**

-   Management and staff repeatedly claim that the underlying goal of
    all of its work is improving student success. All of the work that
    was examined appears to conform to this principle, although some are
    more distal than others (e.g., CAT).

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   The Lab has in place a method for documenting what is happening in
    the intensive field sites. Intensive field notes are kept, and
    pre-and post measurement of relevant dimensions are typically
    administered. At least some of the major projects (e.g.,TAP) have
    the potential for contributing to improved student success during
    implementation. Most projects attempt to collect student indicators
    as part of their evaluation, since an underlying theme of all of its
    work is improving student success. The very process of assembling
    data on student indicators does sensitize both the REL staff and the
    site staff that student success is the primary goal.

> **2. Issues of Concern/Recommendations**

-   The REL may need to maintain and reinforce the focus that the
    underlying goal of all of its work is improved student success (or
    well-being, as in the case of some CAT sites). It must therefore be
    vigilant in insuring that outcomes for students are documented. This
    may include but is not limited to improved classroom experiences.

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   The REL might also consider, in its field-based efforts, the
    importance of building the capacity of the local sites to examine
    school and student indicators before, during, and later in the life
    of a project. Some needs for evaluation data were expressed by
    clients that were interviewed. The REL must attend to its own
    research and evaluation needs, some of which parallel what local
    sites need. It may also be important to encourage sites to develop
    habits of looking at and using data on their own. One goal area,
    (Strategies for Insuring Success), is promoting the idea of
    \"looking at student work\". While this is a strategy for
    encouraging teachers to change practice, it is also a good way of
    focusing on student success, as well as understanding and assessing
    the work and the degree to which the goals for student success are
    being achieved. Building the capacity of looking at student work
    into several of the REL\'s projects may be a good addition.

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

Much of the work of the REL is designed with the objective of assisting
state level policy makers and program staff, and localities, in the
arena of comprehensive school improvement strategies. A more limited set
of projects assist in implementing those strategies. For state level
policy-makers, the work involves providing information to help inform
policy-makers on comprehensive reform. In particular, SEDL\'s REL has
provided leadership and assistance to the five states in the region, all
of which have received funding for the Comprehensive School Reform
Demonstration Program. SEDL has coordinated workshops and model
developer fairs. SEDL compiled and distributed information on CSRD as
well as other policy instruments and strategies. It is also developing a
data base on reform model selections and is a national leader in this
activity. All of this assists in adoption decisions.

At local sites, much the REL\'s work with intensive sites does include
assistance in implementation of comprehensive school improvement
strategies, mostly at the level of staff training. This includes the
TAP, Applying Technology to Restructuring and Learning, which can be
defined as a comprehensive strategy because of its instructional focus
on constructivist learning environments. Much of the work of Task 6
(Strategies for Increasing School Success) is directly targeted to the
objective of implementing comprehensive school improvement strategies.

**1. Strengths**

-   Assisting in the arena of comprehensive school improvement
    strategies is a major strength of this REL:

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   Some major projects (e.g., TAP) are designed to assist localities in
    implementing comprehensive school improvement strategies. This
    assistance is often customized to meet the local site needs and
    conditions.

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   The REL has paid attention to issues of scale-up of its efforts
    through training of co-developers (e.g. TAP) and training for shared
    leadership and facilitation (CAT).

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   The REL has prepared and disseminated publications to enhance the
    capacity of localities to implement comprehensive school improvement
    strategies. It also does so through its data base on CSRD and its
    web-site.

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   The REL has acted as a resource to the region by providing
    information, such as sponsoring workshops to showcase successful
    school improvement efforts.

**2. Issues of Concern/Recommendations**

The REL needs to concentrate on more ways to facilitate scale up; be
more creative in promoting networks that can promote dissemination as
well. It will be extremely important to document and analyze the
co-developer model, and assess its potential for promoting scale-up. If
the model works, it will be a major contribution to the field.

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

The REL seems to have a commitment to this specialty area because of its
location and the nature of the population in its region, and because of
its history of involvement in bi-lingual education and curriculum
development. However, its past history was in practitioner oriented
service, training and technical assistance, and not in research and
development, and it has had some difficulty making this transition. The
difficulty is enhanced by the problems they have had in recruiting a
program manager that the leadership thinks would be most appropriate for
the role. The individual that they really wanted for the job decided not
to relocate and accept the position. Another chose to accept an academic
position instead. They claim there is a lot of competition for highly
qualified staff for this type of position.

Despite this, the staff of the language and diversity program have moved
along with the work, under the direction of the overall director of the
REL contract, who is also serving as interim manager of this goal and
program. However, she is not an expert in that field, nor does she have
the time to give it the attention that is required. Some of the work of
the original contract has been completed, e.g., the Exchange Project as
well as the publication on Native American Resources for the Southwest
Region. Some projects have been dropped because there were too many
impediments to getting them started, such as the bi-national projects
between some border schools and Mexican schools, that were planned in
response to changes associated with NAFTA. Other projects continue
(e.g., Organizing for Diversity) or have begun (CSRD projects and their
applicability for different cultural groups). Organizing for Diversity,
a training program for teachers (predominantly Anglo) who work with
students who are of different cultures and languages, has the potential
for becoming a major contribution to the field. But the specialty area
has not yet reached a state of coherence and prominence that would give
it national or major regional attention.

Some attention is given to language and cultural diversity issues in the
context of other goal areas. For example, the staff of the signature
program on Applying Technology to Restructuring and Learning said, in
response to a question about the issues of language of cultural
diversity, \"we are learning from the teachers about what sort of things
work in different population settings; we have conversations about
language and communication patterns; people\'s cultural backgrounds are
a filter for each project; models will look different in different
environments.\" But it is not clear that the lessons from the projects
in the different goal areas are specifically communicated to each other,
or that there is a synergy across projects in different goal areas that
would solidify and consolidate a state of the art knowledge base in this
area.

The REL seems to have pulled back from exerting leadership in the
cross-lab collaboration in this area; we have some evidence that staff
make conference presentations, but on a list of over 200 presentations,
less than 10 percent related to this area of work. Similarly in the list
of 24 selected staff publications, four were in areas related to
language. None were published in refereed journals.

**1. Strengths**

The REL has implemented several field development projects in the
specialty area and has published several products. It has moved along
with the work, despite the absence of a full-time appropriate program
manager. It modified the program to fit the perceived needs.

**2. Issues of Concern/Recommendations**

There is a major need for leadership, more coherence in the program,
more outreach, more infusion of the specialty area in the entire REL
program. It may be useful to visualize a matrix of the six goals as
columns, but with the Task 7 as a horizontal row that cuts across all
the goals. (Evaluation would be another row). Given the nature of the
target populations of the region, and the nature of the specialty area,
someone could oversee that issues of language and diversity permeate all
the goal areas in development and implementation.

The REL needs to exert more outreach to position itself as a national
leader in this field, to promote itself, and share its accomplishments.

**VI. Overall Comments On Total Laboratory Programs, Products, and
Services**

Assessing the status and level of success of SEDL\'s REL is not an easy
task, because at the same time, it is both a veteran organization,
established in 1966, and a relatively new one. Features of its past can
be seen as both positive and problematic. It has a history of good
relationships with CSSOs in the region, and with some other relevant
organizations. It developed some centerpiece products that are still
used, such as its bi-lingual early childhood curriculum which just
recently was adopted by Harris County Headstart. And its widely used
CBAM (Concerns-Based Adoption Model), developed by Shirley Hord (still
at SEDL) and others, is currently the basis of the evaluation framework
for most of the REL\'s initiatives, focusing on \"levels of use\" of new
information and strategies.

On the other hand, SEDL had become very \"tired\", somewhat uninspired,
not risk-taking, and set in its ways under the leadership that had been
in place for a while, and was still in place at the beginning of the
current contract period. An organizational culture was in place that is
somewhat hard to change.

However, in 1996, the leadership did change, and the new director set in
motion a process of self assessment that resulted in: some changes in
structure; many changes in staff; attempts to change the organizational
culture and philosophy; modifications of some of the scope of work;
extensive negotiation and contract modifications; and consequently some
potentially serious delays in completing the scope of work in a timely
manner. Thus in some ways, the REL is like a new organization, with some
of the same start-up problems that are faced by new REL contracts that
have been awarded in this and the prior contract period. These include
some problems of staffing, and of starting new initiatives. Perhaps the
assessments of its success and accomplishments should be judged using
the template for a new REL, rather than a long-established one. Perhaps
the organization and its leadership should be commended for trying to
change, and not be overly criticized for not moving fast enough in its
work.

This is not to say that some of the issues of concern are not valid. The
REL probably should have been more creative in solving the staffing
problems in the two management positions that are vacant. The changes in
organizational structure may have been too superficial to allow for
creative interchange among program staff across goal areas. But there is
substantial precedent in the organizational change literature to suggest
that it is harder to change an existing organization than to create a
new one. The SEDL leadership should be commended for trying, and by all
accounts, the benefits to the organization and its accomplishments are
notable.

**Some miscellaneous issues**

The Board of Directors wants the institution to seek additional funds
and to diversify, including seeking and acquiring non-governmental
funds. Such growth would enable the institution to provide additional
services and perhaps enhance its capacity. It would also help insure
organizational survival, if the federal REL program would be
jeopardized, or if SEDL should lose the REL in the next competition. On
the other hand, managing growth can be a problem, and would of course
require additional staff. Recruiting and hiring staff has not been easy,
in other positions as well as the two leadership positions. And growth
would require even more staff..

Another issue that has been raised has been the lack of sufficient
diversity among staff of the REL, and that it does not adequately match
the characteristics of the populations being served. While the board
shares these concerns about insufficient diversity, they feel the bottom
line is that people are being served \-- in their view effectively and
efficiently. Nonetheless, the concern is very valid and warrant some
creative solutions.

To summarize the REL\'s strengths:

-   it is client and student-centered and has a strong service
    orientation;

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   it approaches site work with flexibility and adaptability;

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   it has developed an effective field-based development model;

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   it is willing to examine and change the organization\'s structure
    and culture;

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   it has institutionalized a quality assurance process;

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   it has begun to position itself strongly in certain areas, including
    work associated with Comprehensive School Reform;

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   it has some nascent programs in its specialty area that may also
    position the Lab in the national spotlight, if it can mobilize
    sufficiently.

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   it has strong capability in the areas of technology and its wide
    uses in education, and strong capabilities in areas of school
    change, and teaching and learning.

> Areas in need of improvement include:

-   an organizational structure and ethos which will move the REL to be
    a professional learning community;

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   better utilization of staff knowledge and resources across the
    REL\'s projects;

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   more coherence to the specialty area, and more conscious infusion of
    language and cultural diversity across the REL\'s projects;

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   a more coordinated research/evaluation process that would insure
    both effective program modification, and a contribution to the
    field;

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   more outreach on the regional and national scene. In other words:
    \"Project yourselves and think big!\"