text
stringlengths 59
1.12k
|
|---|
Educational Laboratory, 1993): - involve all key stakeholders; - establish a shared vision of how the partnership will operate and expected outcomes for the children and families served; - build
|
in ownership at all levels; - establish communication and decision-making processes that are open and allow conflict to be addressed constructively; - institutionalize changes through established policies, procedures, and program
|
mandates; - provide adequate time for partners to meet, plan, and carry out activities. The process of establishing and maintaining a collaborative partnership is not easy, and in the end,
|
each partnership must find a way to proceed that is consistent with its community and unique set of circumstances. However, a number of resources and tools are available to help
|
communities get started creating an effective system for delivering services. In this article, we describe one such tool that assembles elements essential to building a successful collaborative partnership. Development of
|
Continuity Framework Materials For the past eight years, the 10 Regional Educational Laboratories (RELs) serving each region of the country have studied effective strategies for strengthening collaboration and increasing continuity
|
among programs for young children and their families. The RELs are overseen by the U.S. Department of Education's Office of Educational Research and Improvement [now the Institute of Education Sciences],
|
and their primary purpose is ensuring that those involved in educational improvement have access to the best information from research and practice. During the contract period of 1995-2000, the RELs
|
established a program called the Laboratory Network Program (LNP), which convened representatives from each Laboratory as a national network working on common issues. In 1995, the Early Childhood LNP developed
|
Continuity in Early Childhood: A Framework for Home, School, and Community Linkages (U.S. Department of Education, 1995), a document designed with two key purposes in mind: first, an emphasis on
|
the need for children and families to receive comprehensive and responsive services, reflected in the eight elements of continuity outlined in the Framework (see Figure 1). Taken together, the elements
|
are intended to promote a comprehensive understanding of continuity and transition during early childhood. Second, the Framework offered a set of guidelines that partnerships could use to compare and assess
|
their current policies and practices, as well as identify areas in need of improvement. Figure 1. Elements of Continuity (U.S.Department of Education, 1995) An extensive field review of the Framework
|
indicated that although the document was helpful and informative, many community partnerships continued to have difficulty "getting started." As a result, a Trainer's Guide was developed to support the use
|
of the Framework and assist community partnerships in the first stages. These materials were developed by the Early Childhood LNP in collaboration with the National Center for Early Development &
|
Learning. The Trainer's Guide provides an overview of the content and potential uses of the Framework and includes all activities and materials necessary to conduct training sessions. The Guide itself
|
consists of four training sessions that are organized around the eight elements of continuity. The materials are designed so that a local partnership has everything needed to conduct the training:
|
background information, scripts, handouts, transparencies, sample agendas, and checklists for additional equipment and supplies: - The first session, Understanding Continuity, is designed to introduce participants to the Framework document and
|
help participants develop a greater understanding and appreciation for continuity. - The second session, Developing a Continuity Team, highlights the importance of broad representation and shared leadership among partnership members.
|
- The third session, Planning for Continuity, emphasizes the need for a comprehensive approach to service delivery and encourages participants to examine their current partnership practices and policies. - The
|
final session, Formalizing Continuity, focuses on the importance of effective communication among group members and provides participants with an opportunity to formulate action plans. The Guide is designed to be
|
a flexible training tool, adaptable to meet the needs of a particular audience. The intended audience includes local partnerships for children and families (including Smart Start partnerships in North Carolina),
|
Head Start Program representatives, public schools, and communities. The overall objectives of the training are (1) to enhance the collaborative's knowledge and understanding of continuity, (2) to strengthen and support
|
collaborative groups in their efforts to work as partners, and (3) to maximize the benefit they might receive from using the Framework. What follows is a description of the field
|
test that was designed to assess the use and effectiveness of the Trainer's Guide. The field test focused exclusively on the Framework materials--no other instructional sources were employed. We will
|
present the major findings of the field test and summarize recommendations based on those findings. In addition, we will highlight the work of several collaborative partnerships that took part in
|
the field study, and we will describe some of the problems they encountered, how they used the Framework materials to address those problems, and where they are today. Specifically, the
|
evaluation will explore: - To what extent is the information contained in the Framework and Trainer's Guide relevant and useful to community partnerships? - What is the perceived impact of
|
the training and Framework on partnership activities? - How do partnerships incorporate elements of the Framework into their ongoing activities? - Of the review sites that indicated interest in the
|
training materials, what proportion actually conducted the training? The overall usefulness and effectiveness of the Trainer's Guide was studied in two phases. Phase One consisted of document review and feedback
|
from individuals working in the early childhood field. In Phase Two of field testing, the training was actually piloted in eight partnership sites. Phase One: Document Review Reviewers for the
|
Trainer's Guide were solicited through the Laboratory Network Program (LNP) and at conferences related to early childhood issues. Three hundred thirteen individuals/organizations requested a set of the Framework materials (participant
|
manual, Trainer's Guide, and a sample color transparency) and feedback form. Feedback questions centered on four areas: (1) information's relevancy and accuracy, (2) format and organization of the Trainer's Guide,
|
(3) specific training needs, and (4) possible barriers to conducting training. Of the 313 requesting materials, 215 (68.7%) reviewers returned feedback forms. Twenty-one percent (N = 45) of the respondents
|
were members of a Smart Start partnership (North Carolina initiative), 19% (N = 40) worked in Head Start agencies, and 11% (N = 24) worked in family resource centers. Others
|
included representatives from state agencies, school personnel, and university faculty. A majority (89%) of the respondents indicated that they are actively involved in a community partnership. Final Follow-up with Select
|
Reviewer Sites. Of the original 215 organizations/individuals who reviewed the Framework materials, 80 indicated an interest in conducting the training in its entirety and requested a complete set of transparencies.
|
(The original materials included one sample color transparency, and the REL offered a complete set of Framework transparencies to all organizations making the request.) Approximately one year after receiving the
|
materials, interviews were conducted with representatives who received transparencies. The purpose of these follow-up telephone calls was to determine if the materials had been used and the degree to which
|
outside support or assistance might be needed to conduct the training. Phase Two: Pilot Training During the second phase of the field testing, the training was piloted in eight collaborative
|
partnerships from across the nation (see Table 1). These sites were recruited through the LNP and selected based on their interest in the project. To assist with logistical details, a
|
themselves as existing collaboratives (two years or more), while the remaining three indicated that they were in the planning stages of building a collaborative partnership. Sponsors of the partnerships included
|
Smart Start (2); Head Start, family resource centers (2); Success by 6; a public school system; and a county task force. Across the eight sites, a total of 160 individuals
|
participated in the training. Approximately 64% of the attendees were White, 27% were African American, and the remainder were either Hispanic, American Indian/Alaskan Native, or multiracial. Several of the partnerships
|
invited persons who were not part of the collaborative partnership to attend the training. As a result, slightly more than half (54%) of the participants reported that they were current
|
members of the partnership. The majority of these had been members less than one year (53%). Early childhood specialists represented the largest group attending the training (29%), followed by program
|
administrators (18%), teachers/caregivers (14%), and parents (10%). Other groups represented included policy makers, members of the business community, and university faculty. Each of the sites conducted the entire training course
|
in the fall; however, there was some variability in delivery of training. For example, some partnerships conducted the training as described in the Trainer's Guide--two complete, consecutive days of training.
|
Other partnerships modified the training schedule to meet the needs of its members and used other formats such as one day of training followed two weeks later by a second
|
day of training. At the conclusion of training, participants were asked to provide feedback on specific elements of the training, including organization, training content, and materials/resources. In addition, participants were
|
asked to comment on their satisfaction with the training and the overall usefulness of the training materials. This information, along with information gathered from the review sites, was used to
|
revise the Trainer's Guide. In the six months following the training, partnership activities were studied to determine the degree to which the collaboratives incorporated content from the Framework into their
|
regular activities. Materials studied included a record of stakeholder attendance and meeting minutes documenting partnership activities. At the end of this period, a follow-up survey was sent to participants at
|
each pilot site. Survey questions focused on three major areas: (1) impact of the training, (2) impact of the Framework materials, and (3) overall familiarity with Framework materials. In addition
|
to the final survey with individuals who participated in the training, a final interview was conducted with seven site liaisons (one liaison was unavailable for interview). Interview questions focused on
|
the original goal of the partnership, reasons for participating in the field study, and impact of the training and Framework materials. The data were analyzed to determine general response patterns
|
and to identify logical changes or improvements to the Trainer's Guide. Both quantitative and qualitative techniques were used to analyze data from the review sites and the pilot sites. Phase
|
One: Document Review Analyses of data from reviewer sites were conducted on 215 surveys. Table 2 summarizes Trainer's Guide as easy to understand, relevant to their work, accurate, and up-to-date.
|
agree. Mean scores are presented in parentheses.| A series of open-ended questions provided respondents with an opportunity to provide more specific information and feedback. When asked what parts of the
|
training were most useful, of those who responded, approximately 30% reported that the materials were the most useful part of the training. Reviewers specifically mentioned handouts, transparencies, and checklists. Another
|
22% reported that the information focusing on the need to include families and share leadership responsibilities was most useful. Reviewers also were asked to identify the greatest training need within
|
their partnerships. Of those who responded, more than one-third (34%) reported that they often need assistance identifying and including community stakeholders. Reviewers cited family members and members of the business
|
community as groups that often are poorly represented at partnership meetings. Other topics representing challenges to partnerships included developing the team, sharing leadership responsibilities, and involving families in meaningful ways.
|
In terms of barriers or factors that would influence the use of training, most of the respondents (75%) cited time as the greatest barrier to conducting training. This factor was
|
followed by a lack of funding (68%), the unavailability of a trainer (45%), and lack of interest of collaborative partners (39%). Final Follow-up with Select Reviewer Sites. Of the 80
|
individuals/organizations who requested a complete set of transparencies, 68 were located for follow-up interviews (85%). For the remaining 12, attempts to contact the site were unsuccessful; either the person requesting
|
the transparencies was no longer there, or the materials were never received. Interviews revealed that 23 of the respondents had conducted training using the Framework and accompanying materials. Of those
|
who stated that they had conducted the training, only two (less than 10%) had used the training in its entirety. Most had conducted at least one part of the training,
|
selecting the portions most useful for their work. "Families as Partners," "Shared Leadership," and "Comprehensive and Responsive Services" were the elements from the Framework most often used for training. An
|
additional 17% said that although they had not conducted the training as designed, they had adapted the materials or used them in other circumstances. Examples of how they had adapted
|
the materials included using the exercises, overheads, major concepts, and other information in training activities. Head Start agencies were the primary sponsors for half of the training events. Public schools,
|
area education associations, state departments of education, local partnerships, child development centers, and related-type centers were listed as sponsors or lead agencies for the remaining training activities. Training participants included
|
staff and administrators at Head Start agencies, preschool and child care providers, local education agencies, schools, school improvement teams, state departments of education staff, local family service agencies and boards
|
of directors, and parents. All who said they had used the training materials were asked to comment on the usefulness of the training. The majority of respondents rated the training
|
as "very useful" or "useful," and all said they would recommend the training to others. Particular aspects of the training that respondents liked included: - professional quality, clarity of materials,
|
and sequencing of content of the Framework; - handouts, activities, and overheads; - content and the ability to present the material at multiple skill levels; and - ease of use
|
of the Framework. There were suggestions for improving the training. Four respondents said the course was "too long," especially if used in school systems or with parents. Others maintained a
|
need for greater emphasis on action planning and implementation, "more written support materials (research, position support, background), and additional copies of key pieces of materials that helped shape the Framework."
|
Phase Two: Pilot Training In terms of the training quality and overall effectiveness, most of the participants rated the training sessions as either "good" or "excellent." Participants tended to rate
|
the second day of training as higher in quality and more effective than the first day of training (M = 4.392 and M = 4.17, respectively, based on a 5-point
|
scale). Participants also evaluated the effects of the training and estimated its impact on future partnership practices. Using a four-point Likert-type scale, participants rated the extent to which they agreed
|
with each statement. Table 3 summarizes participants' appraisal of the training and reinforces the focus of the original training objectives. Objective 1: To enhance the collaborative's knowledge and understanding of
|
In addition to participant ratings immediately following the training, data were collected on regular partnership activities after the training. Analysis of materials such as meeting minutes revealed that during the
|
six months following completion of the training, five of the eight sites reported that they continued to use the Framework materials. Exactly how the materials were used varied from site
|
to site. Two of the sites selected specific elements of the Framework as their priority concerns for the coming year. They then organized subcommittees to review the partnerships' practices with
|
respect to those elements and make recommendations for improving existing services. Another partnership used the materials to provide training to other agencies and organizations not directly involved with the partnership.
|
The remaining two partnerships used the Framework as a resource for improving transition practices with their communities. At the end of the six months, a final survey was distributed to
|
participants at the last partnership meeting of the year, and surveys were mailed to those not in attendance at the final meeting. Approximately half of the individuals who participated in
|
the training (81 of 160) responded to the survey. Participants were asked to rate the extent to which the Framework materials had had an impact on partnership practices. On a
|
four-point scale (4 = "a great deal," 3 = "some," 2 = "very little," and 1 = "not at all"), the majority of respondents (88.6%) reported that the training had
|
"impacted" their knowledge and skill development "some" or a "great deal." Respondents also thought that the Framework had at least "some" impact on the knowledge and skills development of their
|
partnership (83%) and community (72%). The majority (97.4%) speculated that the Framework would have at least some future impact. Finally, participants were asked to indicate the single greatest impact they
|
experienced as a result of the training. Approximately 41% reported that as a result of the training they felt more motivated to build or strengthen efforts to support continuity of
|
services for children in their communities. Thirty-five percent of the respondents said they had a better understanding of continuity and its importance; 17% felt that the training prepared them to
|
be better members of their partnership; and 7% said that the training gave them a greater understanding of the Framework as a tool. Stokes County Partnership for Children, King, NC
|
An ongoing goal of the Stokes County Partnership for Children is to create a system that encourages service providers to work together and promotes continuity for children and their families.
|
Members of the partnership began by using the Framework to build their own knowledge and skills about continuity; however, they soon recognized the need to inform others of the importance
|
of continuity in children's lives. As a result, the Partnership conducted a series of focus groups and meetings among parents and family members within the community. They used information from
|
Elements 3 (Comprehensive/Responsive Services) and 7 (Developmentally Appropriate Care/Education) to explain what was needed to support continuity and its potential benefits for children. These meetings were also an opportunity to
|
inform families of the various resources and supports available within the community. Later, the focus groups were expanded to include all stakeholders (e.g., child care, kindergarten, Head Start, school administrators,
|
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.