December 2006
This summary of cross site analytical findings is based primarily on information gathered in interviews conducted with Leadership Site personnel in 2006. Without their generous contributions of time, the report would not have been possible.
The full cross site analysis can be found on the CalSTAT website, www.calstat.org. The full-length individual profiles of Leadership Sites on which the cross site analysis is based can be found on the website as well.
The report was prepared by Casey J. Morrigan Associates (www.cjmorrigan.com) on behalf of CalSTAT and the CA State Improvement Grant (SIG). CalSTAT is a special project of the California Department of Education, Special Education Division.
The interviews were conducted by Mary Grady, MA, CalSTAT Publications Manager, with the assistance of Donna Lee, Project Assistant.
Editorial guidance and review was provided by Cheryl "Li" Walter, PhD, SIG/CalSTAT Project Evaluator, and Director of Evaluation and Research, California Institute on Human Services; Linda Blong, CalSTAT/SIG Project Manager; Anne Davin, PhD, MFCC, CalSTAT/SIG Project Manager; Kelly Bucy, MPA, Project Coordinator; Marin Brown, MAIS, Project Coordinator; Donna Lee; and Mary Grady.
Funds for this project come in part from federal funds awarded as a State Program Improvement Grant to California (CFDA 84.323A) allowed In Part D of Public Law 108-446, the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA), as amended in 2004. These dollars are considered local assistance funds and will assist individuals serving children birth to 22 years of age and their families.
Seventeen Leadership Sites received awards through CalSTAT in 2005 and 2006 to support research-based approaches to a unified model of education. In 2006, CalSTAT commissioned a set of site profiles and an accompanying analysis to explore the common characteristics that have emerged from the sites' implementation of these approaches.
The profiles and analysis are based on information gathered from interviews and follow-up research conducted by CalSTAT in spring 2006 on the history and current implementation of what is termed, for this paper, "inclusive collaboration." The full version of the cross site analysis, and an executive summary of its findings, are available from CalSTAT at www.calstat.org.
Following is a listing of the schools and districts interviewed.
| Middle and High Schools (11 schools) |
Districts (5 districts) |
Behavioral Support Site (1 school) |
|---|---|---|
|
|
|
Prior to undertaking the changes that led to their selection as Leadership Sites, all the sites without exception provided special education in traditional models. Interviewees at Leadership Sites noted that, prior to collaboration, their schools were often characterized by lower academic and behavioral standards for students in special education than for those in general education, and deteriorating relationships between schools and parents regarding special education issues. Communication between general and special educators was infrequent.
In each of the sites, as a prelude to implementing inclusive collaboration, a group of factors came together to prompt reexamination of the site's approach to special education. In the resulting changes, general education was affected as well. Factors mentioned by sites included:
In all cases, a period of reflection and planning followed a site's trigger events. During this period, leaders emerged to initiate and shape next steps. Leaders shared a strong, even passionate, commitment to change at their sites. This commitment would be the fuel for planning processes that often demanded many volunteer hours and a willingness to rethink the status quo.
Almost all sites involved teachers in their planning efforts to design and implement changes, and this "leadership from the middle" encouraged educator ownership of inclusive collaboration.
While educators were a vital part of all planning processes, teachers alone did not bring about needed change. Teachers needed administrative support to make long-term or systematic change. This support came from site level administration, the district, the local SELPA, or some combination of the three. The longevity of committed adminstrators and teachers often served to provide a stable platform for change to evolve. In some cases, however, leadership emerged only after administrative or educator staff turned over.
Many leaders - whether principals, teachers or others - drew on the organizational change principles based on Margaret Wheatley's writings as taught by Sharon Keating and Steve Zuieback at CalSTAT Leadership Institutes. Peer-to-peer technical assistance facilitated by CalSTAT provided opportunities to talk with and observe others implementing inclusive collaboration.
Inclusive collaboration took time to fully develop. The time frame to achieve full implementation was unique to each site, but ranged from four to ten years.
With the exception of one site, early implementation was voluntary in nature. Initial efforts were small in scale: a single classroom; a small group of students; a selected subject. All the elements that would characterize the core of inclusive collaboration - collaboration, data-driven decisionmaking, blended and team-taught classes, and more - were present at most sites early on, but were "piloted."
Technical assistance provided by CalSTAT provided a framework for change cited by several sites. Many cited the use of TA from CalSTAT in the selection and implementation of research-based literacy interventions. Most sites used these literacy interventions as an integral part of their initial collaboration efforts.
While there was no firm line that separated "early" from "later" implementation, at most sites "later" implementation meant a move from more casual, small-scale and experimental change, to broader-scale commitment of resources, and a shift toward inclusive collaboration as the standard method of operation at the site. While participation of individual teachers continued to be voluntary under later implementation, traditional methods of special education delivery became the exception rather than the rule.
The foundation of most inclusive collaborations was a set of classroom and instructional approaches paired with a collaborative planning process to support changes seen in the classroom. The changes described by sites included most or all of the following:
These classroom and instructional changes required continual planning and review by teachers and administrators to operate smoothly. This planning and review generally took place in collaborative meetings. While each site's collaborative operations were unique, all collaborative meetings included a variety of tasks to support instructional innovation, such as:
A focus on ongoing professional development was viewed by interviewees as a vital part of inclusive collaboration.
Whether behavioral issues were an initial impetus to change, or an ongoing concern, many sites adopted positive behavioral support programs after implementing inclusive collaboration.
Some sites, though not all, had financial resources to draw upon to support their inclusive collaboration. When funds were not available, sites often utilized staff in non-traditional ways, or drew on volunteer time.
As sites settled into full implementation of their collaborative changes, they employed a myriad of unique ways to expand, deepen, or replicate their new approaches. These included:
Many sites selected research-based literacy interventions as part of the quest to improve the academic achievements of all students. These interventions proved to be a good fit for sites focused on data-driven, results-oriented instruction.
Sites universally found that there was resistance by teaching staff to the changes brought about by inclusive collaboration. Over time, resistance tended to subside, usually due to early and positive results with students. It was also a challenge to carve out sufficient collaborative planning time in the school day. And, while this was an issue limited to early implementation, some sites did not at first communicate proactively with parents about new models, leaving parents with the impression that their children were not receiving the interventions or special education that they needed. The increased workload in assessment and tracking associated with literacy interventions was a challenge at some sites; this was met by finding parent volunteers or hiring substitutes to support teachers. All sites struggled with adequate staffing to team, collaborate, and remediate.
Sites reported experiencing positive results that they attributed to having implemented inclusive collaboration.
Most sites reported positive changes in:
Many sites also reported that the numbers of students receiving special education services dropped or leveled off, due to fewer students entering as well as increased rates of exit from special education.
Finally, Leadership Sites reported nearly universally that inclusive collaboration fostered a sense of accountability for all students, whether in general or special education. This sense of accountability was in contrast to the prevailing culture prior to inclusive collaboration, in which teachers felt responsible only for their own classrooms or students. The sense that "they are all our kids" was attributed to the joint effort expended in teaming, blending classrooms, and creating interventions to assist all students in succeeding.