Comprehensive Means Everything, Part 4

NW: Does it worry you that a recent study found only four or five external models that had solid data supporting their effectiveness? What if schools pick models that haven't really been proven effective?

Rhines: This is what we're telling schools: That study by the American Institutes for Research was based on 24 external models. It wasn't a study of every single model out there. We're asking schools to also use the Continuum of Effectiveness in the Northwest Regional Lab's Catalog of School Reform Models. That report has a table that shows what the model is good at and what it isn't. If there's an area that, according to that study or the Northwest Lab's catalog, is not strong, schools need to address how they're going to get around that.

The research base is big for us. The model has to have a research base that they can document. One of the most important things is that it has been replicated in a school that is very similar to theirs, and that that school has had some success for more than three years. The 20 schools have really worked hard at that as they develop their reform plans. Their phone bills must be really high! I've talked to principals who've been on the phone to other schools that have adopted a model, and they've learned a lot. And what I said was: Keep calling until you find somebody who says, "We tried that and it didn't work at all for us." And that's the one you really want to talk to and find out why. Several schools who've done that have discarded models that they thought would meet their needs.

NW: When you see schools getting stuck in the process, what's the biggest thing they get stuck on, where they can't seem to move ahead and make progress?

Rhines: Well, I think one of the biggest things is that many people in schools don't seem to know how to do a needs assessment. They don't seem to know how to analyze data so that it means something. They're all smart, and so they can look at test information and say, "Oh, look at this, and yeah, let's disaggregate this." But they don't know how to write a prescription for what they see in the needs. Many times I've seen people who write up this elaborate needs assessment: "We analyzed our math data, and we were able to see that it was our fourth-grade boys who were having a hard time with math." And then you see their program design, and they have three Title I instructional assistants pulling kids out for reading.

NW: No correlation.

Rhines: There's no correlation. So that match is a problem. And I guess the other thing I see as a big stumbling block is lack of time. There's no time for people to do the things they need to be able to do. Every bit of research about good professional development says it shouldn't just be a one-shot deal, it should be continuous. They don't have the time to do that. I think time is probably the Number One barrier for everybody. I don't know what the answer is. I wish I did.

NW: An article in Education Week recently talked about "the intense interest in CSRD," describing it as the possible salvation of Title I. Do you see that? It seems that this process is so complex and requires so much buy in that it isn't going to work in every school that could use it.

Rhines: I was just interviewed by someone who's doing a national study of states that have begun implementation of CSRD. He asked that very question. He said that most of the states focus almost totally on the model, not on the comprehensive plan. He said I was the 26th state he had called, and he said, "You're the only ones I've talked to so far who are not focusing just on the model."

The way I interpret that statement—"perhaps this will be the salvation"—is that maybe the person who made that statement thinks that what Title I schools need to do instead of putting their money into staffing and hiring a Title I teacher or a Title I instructional assistant, is to put that money into a model. I'm not so sure that's a bad thing, because I think in many cases you get a lot more bang for your buck. I get calls from a lot of people who say "We'd love to do Success For All, but we don't have $100,000." And I say, "Yes, you do have $100,000. You're using it right now to pay for a Title I teacher and three instructional assistants. You could make a change and use that money."

But that's where the conversation stops. It's because there are real faces and real people attached to those jobs, and because education is based on tradition in many cases, and it's very hard to change that. I think that's what they mean by it being the salvation—that if it works, then they can come in and say, "This is more effective than what you've been doing." Our concern is, we don't have the capacity to get everybody ready like that. How are we going to do that? That's our stumbling block at the moment.

NW: One of the nine CSRD criteria calls for meaningful parent involvement. What does that mean and how do you get that?

Rhines: That's a good question. In our application, we've defined "meaningful involvement" as activities that will somehow, eventually, lead to improved student achievement. In the old days when I was a Title I teacher, we based our successful parent involvement on how many parents came to the carnival. But did that carnival help improve anybody's student achievement? No. Was it a good thing for a school? Yeah, because it got our parents in, and people were happy, and you have to be happy! It can't all be just about academics. But for this plan, the only parent involvement activities we want them to write about are those that are tied back to their goals.

1 2 3 4

This document's URL is:

Home | Up & Coming | Programs & Projects: Northwest Education | People | Products & Publications | Topics

© 2001 Northwest Regional Educational Laboratory

Date of Last Update: 9/28/01
Email Webmaster
Tel. 503.275.9500