NWREL NEWS
Studies Tackle NCLB Issues
Helping Northwest educators make informed decisions about the implementation or improvement of programs in the No Child Left Behind (NCLB) Act is the driving force behind a series of reports recently prepared by the Northwest Regional Educational Laboratory. The four research papers are designed to “guide practitioners and policymakers to better use evidence ... in weighing policy options that will support high-quality, equitable educational opportunities.” They cover topics ranging from the role of Reading First literacy coaches to evaluating Title IIB Mathematics and Science Partnerships, providing supplementary educational services, and supporting schools in need of improvement.
The reports were prepared under the auspices of the federal Regional Educational Laboratory (REL) program and are available on the REL Northwest Projects page of the Institute of Education Sciences Web site at http://ies.ed.gov/ncee/edlabs/regions/northwest/projects.asp.
Here’s a brief synopsis of the studies:
“Coach” Can Mean Many Things: Five Categories of Literacy Coaches in Reading First
Reading First—described by the federal government as “the largest and most focused early reading initiative ever undertaken in this country”—has pumped almost $5 billion into supporting scientifically based reading instruction during the past five years. The program provides funding to states, which in turn fund districts and schools, to build the four “pillars” that sustain a good reading program: professional development, collaborative leadership, use of assessment, and skilled and targeted instruction. Within each of these areas, Reading First provides guidelines for the use of scientifically based programs and approaches.
While addressing all four pillars at the same time is a daunting task, coaches can be key to making it happen. But, as NWREL’s research reveals, how coaches approach their job can vary widely. Even though the Reading First framework is the same, coaching doesn’t look the same everywhere. Theresa Deussen, principal investigator of the study, said the research team identified four different categories of coaches:
- Data-oriented coaches who emphasize assessment and the use of data
- Student-oriented coaches who emphasize their work directly with students
- “Managerial” coaches who spend a lot of time coordinating and facilitating Reading First work in their schools
- Teacher-oriented coaches who invest the largest amount of time working closely with teachers on their instruction
In looking at qualitative data from Washington, Montana, Arizona, Wyoming, and Alaska, co-investigators of the study LeAnne Robinson and Tracy Coskie of Western Washington University have discovered that coaches within states generally focus on similar types of tasks, and the focus varies among the states. The research team believes that variations in coaching may speak to differences in state-level professional development.
“As it stands now, there are a lot of assumptions being made about various coaching models,” says Robinson. “This is one of the first studies that may actually begin to clarify what the reality of coaching is, as well as what it can be.”
Analysis of Title IIB Mathematics and Science Partnerships in the Northwest Region
NWREL researchers Edith Gummer and Jennifer Stepanek examined the implementation and evaluation of NCLB’s Title IIB Mathematics and Science Partnership (MSP)—a professional development program for mathematics and science teachers—in the Northwest region. “Under the MSP program, the federal government allots funds to states to connect mathematics, science, and engineering faculty of higher education institutions to high-need school districts,” explains Stepanek. “The purpose of the MSP program is to improve math and science teachers’ content knowledge and classroom practice, with the ultimate goal of increasing student achievement.”
The report was designed to investigate three questions about the Title IIB program in the Northwest:
- What is the nature of the professional development provided by the Title IIB MSP projects?
- What is the nature of the evaluation of Title IIB MSP projects?
- Under what conditions is the development of experimental or quasi-experimental models of evaluation appropriate and successful?
Researchers analyzed the MSPs after their first year of implementation (2004–2005) in each of the five Northwest states: Alaska, Idaho, Montana, Oregon, and Washington. The report details each state’s projects, including the demographics of the school district, number of teachers served, and subjects covered.
For each project, common features of high-quality professional development were studied. These included duration, activity type, collective participation, content focus, active learning, and coherence. Four dimensions of effective partnerships—supporting preconditions, complexity, interdependence, and communication—were also examined. Criteria highlighted in the evaluation section of the report include the utility, feasibility, propriety, and accuracy of evaluations of educational programs.
NWREL’s Center for Classroom Teaching and Learning has extended this research to a second year of analysis to identify changes in the Title IIB MSP projects. Year two annual reports will be collected and an expanded evaluation rubric will be constructed that addresses criteria for the use of instruments and evaluation reports.
Supplemental Educational Services and Implementation Challenges in the Northwest Region States
Students from low-income families who attend a Title I school that fails to make adequate yearly progress against established targets for three consecutive years are eligible for extra academic assistance. Supplemental Educational Services (SES)—namely tutoring—are part of the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001. During the 2004–2005 school year, 19 percent of eligible students nationwide participated in SES while the Northwest regional usage rate was roughly one-third the national rate.
NWREL’s study focuses on the initial efforts and current status of SES programs in our region. The main objectives of the report are to help states improve their programs and provide input for federal policies by identifying information gaps and areas where further inquiry is needed to increase the use and effectiveness of SES for qualifying students.
Analyzing the usage rates in Alaska, Idaho, Montana, Oregon, and Washington as programs developed during the course of three school years, NWREL researchers Steffen Saifer and Timothy Speth sought to answer two questions:
- What are the supplemental educational services usage rates in these states, and how do they compare with usage rates nationally and regionally?
- What are some of the challenges for state education agencies in providing supplemental educational services?
The researchers cited numerous challenges that states face in boosting participation. “The remote or rural nature of much of the region significantly affects access to tutoring services,” explains Saifer, lead investigator of the report. “But more students in low-performing schools could get the extra help they are entitled to under the law by providing adequate support through personnel and funding resources; creating better channels of communication; and developing effective processes for recruiting, monitoring, and evaluating service providers,” Saifer suggests.
The report closes with proposed changes in policy and practices that the U.S Department of Education, state education agencies, districts, schools, and providers might consider to ncrease participation in the SES program.
How Northwest Region States Are Supporting Schools in Need of Improvement
The fourth and final report to come out of the REL Northwest in 2007 focuses on state support systems in place to help schools make adequate yearly progress (AYP). The objective is not to evaluate the effectiveness of these systems, rather—“to stimulate a thoughtful analysis of what states can do and what issues they might address to help move schools out of improvement status,” the report stipulates.
The researchers and authors hail from NWREL’s Center for School and District Improvement: Deborah Davis, Basha Krasnoff, Carolyn Moilanen, and Susan Sather. They begin by reiterating the NCLB mandate—“schools are required to make AYP by meeting state-established proficiency levels set to rise incrementally to 100 percent by 2014”—and explain the distribution of accountability. Districts determine the technical assistance their schools in need of improvement receive, while states are responsible for developing and maintaining a support system to ensure every public school in the state makes AYP.
Support systems for Alaska, Idaho, Montana, Oregon, and Washington were studied during 2005–2006. While the varying systems of support reflect the unique demographics of each state, the report highlights common strategies Northwest states are using to help their schools meet the 2014 goal. Various approaches are described, including increasing professional development and assigning external school improvement facilitators.
Tables throughout the report provide at-a-glance views of the law as well as the region’s status. For instance, Box 1 delineates the five levels of improvement status and their associated progressive requirements. Table 2 presents an overview of each of the five Northwest states’ systems of support in 2006. By comparing the differences and similarities, the report shows that states will be “able to learn how other states in the region have implemented the provisions of No Child Left Behind for schools in need of improvement, taking into account their unique contexts.” 