Examining Resources for Supporting the CalSTAT Leadership Site Models
February 2007
This report is the result of a series of interviews with CalSTAT Leadership Site personnel conducted during the fall and early winter of 2006-07. Without their cooperation and commitment of time this paper would not have been possible.
Editorial guidance was provided by Cheryl "Li" Walter, Ph.D., CalSTAT/SIG Project Evaluator and Director of Evaluation and Research for the California Institute on Human Services, Sonoma State University. Linda Blong and Anne Davin, Ph.D., CalSTAT/SIG Project Managers, and Janet Canning California Department of Education - Special Education Division, are acknowledged for their roles in articulating the need for this study. The support of Mary Gendernalik-Cooper, Ph.D., Dean of the School of Education at Sonoma State University, is also greatly appreciated.
This report was prepared by Mark Fermanich, Ph.D., Sonoma State University, on behalf of CalSTAT and the California State Improvement Grant (SIG). California Services for Technical Assistance and Training (CalSTAT) is a special project of the California Department of Education, Special Education Division.
Individual site resource profiles for each of the Leadership Sites are available on the CalSTAT website, www.calstat.org.
Funds for this project come in part from federal funds awarded as a State Program Improvement Grant to California (CFDS 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.
This paper reports on the experiences of CalSTAT's Leadership Sites regarding the resources required to plan, implement and operate their collaboration, literacy or behavior models. For the purposes of this study we used an expansive definition of the term "resources." By resources we mean not only dollars and cents but also staffing levels, the use of time for instruction and collaboration, and sources of expertise, guidance and support. Specifically, we asked Leadership Sites about the following aspects of their models:
We also asked the Leadership Sites two non-resource related questions:
The study involved interviews with 16 of the 17 Leadership Sites conducted during the fall of 2006. The Leadership Sites represent schools and school districts in contexts ranging from small, rural settings to large, suburban or semi-urban communities. The school districts represented in the study range in size from fewer than 500 to nearly 60,000 students. The sites consist of one elementary school, 10 middle or junior high schools, one high school, and four districts. One of the "district" sites, the Point Arena Schools, consists of two districts, the Arena Union Elementary School District and the Point Arena Joint Union High School District. These two districts are under common administration, meaning that they share a single school board and central administration and are treated as a single district for the purposes of this study. Thirteen of the sites have implemented collaboration models, two literacy models and one a behavior model. Table 1 presents programmatic and demographic information for each of the Leadership Sites included in this study. This study serves as a supplement to the Leadership Site Emerging Models analysis completed in December of 2006, which provides more detailed information about the design of the various models. More information about resources for individual sites may be found in the site School Resources Profiles also available on the CalSTAT Leadership Site website.
(The report "They Are All Our Kids:" CalSTAT Leadership Sites Emerging Models and Practice in 2006 is available on the CalSTAT Leadership Site webpage at http://www.calstat.org/leadershipSites/index.html.)
| Leadership Site | Model | Enrollment | Free/ Reduced Lunch | Special Education | ELL |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| School Sites | |||||
| Atascadero Junior High School | Collaboration | 711 | 24% | 9% | 5% |
| Big Bear Middle School | Collaboration | 534 | 34% | 10% | 8% |
| Iron Horse Middle School | Collaboration | 961 | 2% | 9% | 5% |
| Marine View Middle School | Literacy | 931 | 20% | 8% | 20% |
| McKinleyville Middle School | Collaboration | 403 | 38% | 12% | 0.2% |
| Mesa Verde Middle School | Behavior | 1,380 | 8% | 3% | 28% |
| Pine Hollow Middle School | Collaboration | 760 | 19% | 12% | 7% |
| Richmond Elementary School** | Collaboration | 437 | 53% | 25% | 6% |
| Rincon Middle School | Collaboration | 1,473 | 41% | 9% | 23% |
| Sanger High School | Collaboration | 2,224 | 72% | 6% | 17% |
| Valley View Middle School | Collaboration | 792 | 15% | 12% | 5% |
| Vista View Middle School | Literacy | 884 | 50% | 12% | 19% |
| School District Sites | |||||
| Elk Grove Unified School District | Collaboration | 60,735 | 39% | 9% | 18% |
| Hesperia Unified School District | Collaboration | 20,267 | 55% | 8% | 18% |
| Paradise Unified School District | Collaboration | 5,209 | 43% | 11% | 1% |
| Point Arena Schools*** | Collaboration | 470 | 69% | 15% | 31% |
This study found that in a majority of the sites few or no additional resources were required for either planning or ongoing operations of the models. Specifically:
The following sections provide an overview of the methodology used in conducting the study and summarize the common themes that emerged from an analysis of the information collected from interviews with staff from 16 of the CalSTAT Leadership Sites. These are organized under the following sections: Planning and Development, Ongoing Program Support, Factors Contributing to Success, and Next Steps.
Telephone interviews were conducted with the Leadership Site contact person for each of the 16 sites involved in the study. A two-page questionnaire was sent to each site contact prior to their interview to assist them in preparing for their interview. When necessary, follow-up emails were exchanged to resolve questions or provide clarifications. Draft reports based on the information collected through the interviews were sent out to the site contacts for their review.
The Leadership Sites most often undertook the process of investigating alternative approaches to supporting struggling students in response to the demands of accountability and high-stakes testing and the sense that they could better serve all of their students. Many of the schools faced rising special education caseloads and costs and sanctions for failing to meet accountability benchmarks. A number of sites were simultaneously dealing with budget reductions due to declining enrollment.
The planning process was typically driven by the leadership of a small number of individuals, such as the school principal, teacher leaders, the district superintendent, or the district's special education director. However, broad participation by staff was a hallmark of the planning process in most sites. Because most of the sites had few discretionary resources for supporting their planning process, much of it was conducted in-house, relying on the experience and expertise of school and district staff. The following presents the resource-related elements of the planning process that emerged from interviews with the Leadership Sites.
Staff Time for Planning. In nearly all cases a team of district or school staff, consisting of administrators, general and special education teachers, and other staff, were formed to brainstorm ideas, develop the model design and help to obtain buy-in from other staff. The amount of time a team dedicated to the process varied from site to site. In some cases teams met monthly over the course of a school year. In others they may have met more frequently over a shorter period of time. Regardless of the team's timeframe, a substantial amount of this time was provided without pay by the team members. In only a few instances were team members compensated for their time outside of their regular work day or year, such as stipends paid to teachers for meeting during the summer. Most often, planning meetings were held before or after school, or occasionally on weekends. When necessary, schools would also hire substitutes to provide release time for teachers to participate in planning activities during the school day.
Site Visits. The most common strategy for accessing external expertise was through visits to school sites or districts with similar models already in place. About half of the Leadership Sites sent planning teams to visit one or more model sites. Where possible, teams would visit sites within easy driving distance to reduce travel costs. But finding an appropriate site close by was not always possible, particularly for the more rural, geographically isolated sites. In these cases the costs of airfare and hotels significantly raised the cost of the site visit. In one instance, the school's principal personally paid the travel costs of the entire team out of their own pocket.
Consultants/Trainers. Few of the sites brought in outside expertise to help with the development of their model. In most cases the sites relied on the experience and expertise of their own staff and what they had learned from their site visits. Several of the sites had become aware of CalSTAT and sent team members to one or more Leadership Institutes. One district contracted with a staff person from the district they had visited to assist with the planning and implementation of their new model. Several sites also received support and guidance from their Special Education Local Plan Area (SELPA), ranging from providing expertise on programs, interventions and regulations to issuing small planning grants. In one case, a SELPA staff person facilitated a district's planning meetings and served as a resource.
Other Planning Resources. Several of the school sites received extensive planning support from their district's central office staff, particularly the special education administrator. These staff served as a resource for programmatic expertise, for other sources of information (in two cases the district's special education director led a school site to CalSTAT), and on the implications of special education regulations for collaboration. Staff also took advantage of conferences or workshops on collaboration or intervention strategies.
As the They Are All Our Kids: Emerging Models and Practice 2006 report illustrates, prior to adopting a new model the Leadership Sites' programs for serving struggling students typically consisted of pull-out programs or special day classes for students with IEPs that frequently did not share the general education curriculum at the school. Few interventions were available for students without IEPs who were not meeting standards. Little collaboration occurred among teachers, particularly between general and special education teachers. In adopting collaborative models these sites made often radical changes in their approach to serving struggling students. The role of teachers, particularly special education teachers, became more consultative and collaborative. School schedules were reworked to integrate an array of intervention classes to serve all students in need and to provide time for collaboration among the staff. In many cases new approaches were devised for assessing students' skill levels and using data to individualize and guide instruction. Targeted professional development in intervention and collaboration strategies was also necessary.
Few additional resources were available to these sites to aid in the implementation of their new models. Only one of the 16 sites included in this study receives per pupil operating revenues that are in excess of the state average. About half of the sites are not eligible for federal Title I funds, an important source of discretionary funding. As a result, the sites had to rely on redirecting the ways in which they used current staff and other resources to make the new approaches a reality. The following presents a summary of the patterns of resource use and augmentation that emerged from an analysis of the 16 sites in terms of staff assignment, instructional and intervention time, collaboration time, and program support.
Staff Assignment. In most of the sites the new model called for greater collaboration among teachers, especially between general and special education teachers. As a result, the structure of special education teachers' work day was changed dramatically to more effectively meet the needs of students with disabilities. At these sites students in Resource Specialist Programs (RSP), and in some cases students in Special Day Classes (SDC), were mainstreamed to a greater extent, with some schools adopting full immersion models. Rather than being served in pull-out programs or separate classrooms, these students received instruction in the regular curriculum in blended general education classrooms. Additional support was provided to the general classroom teacher through several different strategies. In some classrooms general and special education teachers taught as a team, allowing for smaller class sizes, ability grouping or small group instruction for part of the period. In other classrooms special education teachers served as consultants to assist the general classroom teacher in making modifications or accommodations. In still other settings the general classroom teacher was assisted by one or more special education paraprofessionals.
[Teachers with a special education credential may only teach reading to special education students. However, there are a variety of credentialing options that would be appropriate for reading intervention teachers. These options include a multiple subject credential, a single subject English credential, a general elementary credential, a standard elementary credential, a reading specialist credential or a reading certificate. School districts may contact the California Commission on Teacher Credentialing for information about other teaching assignment options.
In addition to the appropriate credential, teachers need to demonstrate subject matter competence for NCLB. Middle/secondary teachers who were issued a credential prior to July 1, 2002 and are considered "not new to the profession" can use the (HOUSSE) process. For many reading intervention teachers, the HOUSSE option will allow them to demonstrate NCLB compliance in reading. The HOUSSE process would give credit for years of teaching reading, any college course work in reading or related subjects, and for the reading intervention staff development, including the training, the follow-up activities, portfolio work, and also for observations.
Teachers who are "new to the profession" (issued a credential on or after July 1, 2002), do not have the option of the HOUSSE, but can demonstrate subject matter competence in reading through course work options, including a major, major equivalent (32 units), advanced degree, or advanced certification. The reading certificate or reading specialist credential can be considered advanced certification for verifying NCLB subject matter competence in reading.
Title 5 regulations (Section 6100) allow a local educational agency to designate a course as elementary, middle, or high school. If a reading intervention course is designated as elementary, the teacher would use the elementary teacher options for verifying NCLB subject matter competence. Discussions are ongoing regarding verification of subject matter competence by examination, and clarification will be included in future postings of the NCLB Teacher Requirements Frequently Asked Questions.
For more information, please see the California Department of Education's NCLB Teacher Requirements Resource Guide at www.cde.ca.gov/nclb/sr/tq/]
In many cases a continuum of interventions was provided for those students who needed more time or more individualized help than was available in the general classroom. These interventions were typically available to both students with and without IEPs and consisted of additional instructional time for pre-teaching or re-teaching concepts or providing small group or one-on-one tutoring. These interventions were often staffed by special education teachers and paraprofessionals. Depending on the site, these interventions could include intervention classes that were part of the master schedule, after-school programs, and depending on the degree to which special education students were mainstreamed, traditional pull-out and SDC classes.
The typical school day for a RSP or SDC teacher in one of these sites often consisted of one or more periods of the following:
While Mesa Verde Middle School's behavioral support model is unique among the CalSTAT Leadership Sites, it too involved a rethinking about the roles of key school staff. When budget cuts cost the school an assistant principal and a counselor, the 1,400 student school no longer had a sufficient number of student support staff to accommodate the number of behavior referrals being generated under their traditional behavior management model. The school's psychologist proposed an alternative positive behavioral support model that eliminated the traditional office referral. Under the new model, five administrators are on call each day to respond to behavior problems in the classrooms. A teacher needing assistance places what is referred to as a "Behavior Support Call" and an administrator responds within 10 minutes to deal with the behavior issue immediately in the hall outside the classroom. The student's parents are also contacted at that time and in most cases the student is returned to the classroom. The administrators also teach an intervention class, called Success Club, for the highest risk students and train new teachers in the behavior support model.
Extra Time for Instruction and Intervention. As special education students are mainstreamed in general education classes for more periods each day new strategies must be employed to provide them with the support they need to be successful. The Leadership Sites have been creative in adjusting their schedules to provide additional time for interventions, ranging from more instructional time in the regular curriculum to more intensive intervention programs. Some of the strategies used by the sites include:
Regardless of how schools structure their extra instructional time, the common approach that runs through all of their programs is to provide instruction to most, if not all, students in the core curriculum and offer additional intervention time and support to those students with learning difficulties. The intervention classes tend to offer smaller class sizes and are frequently staffed to make individualized and leveled small group instruction possible for part of the day. Schools have found the resources required to do this by reassigning their special education staff, or in some schools, by slightly raising class sizes in their general education classrooms. Only a handful of the schools had sufficient discretionary funds, such as Title I, to reallocate for staffing their intervention model.
Time for Staff Collaboration. Most sites struggle to provide adequate time for collaboration for their instructional staff. Just over half of the sites provide regularly scheduled daily or weekly common planning time (in two sites some teachers have both as members of different teams). The remaining sites rely on an assortment of strategies for providing teachers with release time, some that are dependent on support from their district's administration. These include:
Examples of how schools have found creative approaches to providing more collaboration time include:
Professional Development. All of the sites included in this study viewed professional development as an indispensable element in the successful implementation of their models. However, several interviewees noted that a lack of funds limited their ability to get the training their staffs needed. Both schools and districts redirected a portion of their existing professional development funds to support the training required for their models. To minimize training costs most sites employ a "train the trainer" model where one or two staff attend external training sessions and then return to train the school's staff in-house. Much of the sites' professional development focused on their intervention programs (most often in literacy or math), student behavior and collaboration techniques. The sources of professional development most often mentioned by the sites included:
Other Support. All of the sites drew on multiple sources of support for the development and implementation of their models. They redirected existing resources to new uses, applied for grant funding and looked to support from outside agencies such as their county offices of education and SELPAs. School sites also received various forms of support from their districts, including technical assistance, professional development, time for collaboration, more powerful data systems, and the purchase of intervention programs.
The overwhelmingly perspective from the sites was that their approaches were initiated as a means to better serve more students rather than to save money. The word that came up over and over again in the interviews was "effectiveness." By this they meant that their models represented a strategy for helping more students, both with and without IEPs, improve their academic achievement in the core curriculum. The consensus among the Leadership Sites is that their collaboration models have not led to overall program savings. In fact, few of the interviewees had previously thought of their models in terms of saving money.
The reason implementation of these models has resulted in little or no savings is due to the maintenance of school staffing levels despite declining special education caseloads. The central strategy underlying the models is the reassignment of special education teaching staff from working primarily with students with IEPs in separate settings to supporting all students through teaming in blended classrooms and through more individualized instruction in intervention classes and learning center settings. If special education positions are reduced in response to declining caseloads, schools may not have sufficient staff to support all struggling students in an inclusion environment.
Interviewees at several of the sites noted that implementation of their model would not have been possible without assurances from their district administration that special education staff would not be cut even if special education referrals and caseloads decreased. Ultimately, none of these models would be possible without the passage of AB 602 in 1997, which changed the way special education services in California were funded. Prior to AB 602 special education was funded through a program-based formula, where funding was based on reimbursement of certain eligible program costs, such as special education staff, materials and supplemental services. Under the new formula SELPAs receive funding based on the total number of ADA in the districts served. This change in the funding formula effectively severed the link between the number of special education students served and funding levels.
The sites with collaboration or literacy models have realized substantial decreases in their special education caseloads, in some cases in excess of 50% over a 5-10 year period. A common theme among the sites is that although staffing costs have not decreased, their special education staff are spending significantly less time on testing and administration, allowing them to commit more time to direct instruction.
The one exception is Mesa Verde Middle School, whose behavioral model was implemented in response to budget cuts that resulted in the loss of an assistant principal and counselor. The school adopted its model incorporating rapid response "Behavior Support Calls," parent consultations and academic interventions to effectively manage discipline with significantly fewer resources.
A variety of factors where noted by the interviewees when asked to what they would attribute their success in developing and maintaining their model. The most cited attributes included:
All of the sites viewed their models as works in progress, requiring continuous refinement and augmentation. No one was completely satisfied with the performance of their model. Middle school collaboration sites were particularly concerned about expanding their model to the high school level so that their students would continue to have the opportunity to learn in an inclusion environment. Other commonly expressed improvements include: