CSRF

Comprehensive School Reform Facilitators


	Research Base The Comprehensive School Reform Facilitators initiative (CSRF) provides expertise in facilitating instructional and programmatic changes at schools and within districts. The work of the CSRF initiative is grounded in theoretical and research-based models of systemic change and standards-based practices to improve student achievement. CSRF’s work also draws upon the practical experience of colleagues inside and outside of the initiative. Each aspect of CSRF’s work with schools and districts is designed to increase: (1) the understanding and capacity of the service recipient about systemic change; (2) the likelihood that the changes that are planned take-hold; and (3) the academic achievement of all students in the school or district. Theoretical Framework The CSRF work draws upon the tenets of four sets of educational research and theory: adult learning (Brookfield, 1986; Joyce and Showers, 1983; and Loucks-Horsley, Hewson, Love, and Stiles, 1998), organizational change (Garmston and Wellman, 1999; Goertz, Floden, and O’Day, 1995; Hall and Hord, 1987; March and Simon, 1958; and Senge, 1990), standards-based instruction (Marzano and Kendall, 1997; McLaughlin and Shepard, 1995; Schmoker and Marzano, 1999; and Schmoker, 1999) and principles of effective schools (Cotton, 1995; DuFour and Eaker, 1998; Edmonds, 1979; and Levine and Lezotte, 1990). CSRF staff work as external change agents to guide and build the capacity of schools and districts to undertake systemic change efforts that will improve student achievement towards meeting state standards. Components CSRF’s planning and evaluation work includes eight distinct components: Introduction; Needs Assessment and Goal Setting; Task Force Formation; Investigation and Planning; Consensus Building; Writing and Budgeting; Implementation, Evaluation and Monitoring; and Refinement. Each component is separate but interdependent with other components. CSRF may vary the length and depth of each component in order to meet the school and district’s goals and needs as efficiently as possible. Below is a brief description of each component and references to the theoretical and research-based models with which it aligns. Introduction During the Introduction phase, CSRF works with the school and the district to share information, clarify roles, responsibilities, and timelines, and to set a tone for the work ahead. CSRF requires the participation of a district liaison in each component of our work. Research and CSRF experience have demonstrated that district participation is key to sustaining long-term change efforts (Berends, Kirby, Naftel, and McKelvey, 2001; and Bodilly, 1998). During the Introduction phase, CSRF gains information about the school’s and district’s “readiness” for undertaking the change process in which they are about to engage (Arnold et al., 1991; and McKeever, 2003). The Introduction phase also allows CSRF, the school, and the district to begin building a relationship of trust that is key to successful collaboration and to school reform (Fullan and Stiegelbauer, 1991; and Garmston and Wellman, 1999). From the initial meetings, the school and district staff gain a better understanding of their roles and where they fit in the process (Hall and Hord, 1987; and Hord et. al, 1987). Needs Assessment and Goal Setting During the Needs Assessment and Goal Setting phase, CSRF works with the school and the district to collect, analyze and summarize data to identify the strengths of the school and the major barriers to student achievement. When CSRF conducts the needs assessment, they provide a critical outside perspective for the school and district (McLaughlin, 1993). The data reviewed include disaggregated student achievement results from state or local assessments, current school plans, classroom observations, focus groups with students, teachers, support staff, community members and parents, interviews with school and district leaders, and a teacher survey. CSRF gathers information from all stakeholders to gain a composite picture of the perceived and tangible strengths and barriers of the school and district (Bernhardt, 1998; Burton and Merrill, 1991; and Kaufman, 1985). However, data collection is focused on how well classroom instruction and student learning opportunities help all students meet the appropriate grade-level standards (Fullan and Stiegelbauer, 1991; Hopfenberg, Levin, et al., 1993; and Schmoker, 1999). Using the data, CSRF sifts out the major strengths and barriers in students’ achievement that are supported by substantial data from multiple sources. Only a limited number of barriers are selected to help the school focus its attention on the schools most pressing needs (Schmoker, 1999). CSRF carefully reviews the findings with the school and district leadership, the entire school staff and the school community to answer questions and help all individuals understand the information and the process by which the findings were developed (Bernhardt, 1998). Following the identification of the major strengths and barriers, CSRF assists the school leadership team and district in setting specific and measurable student achievement goals. A school’s goals must be aligned with the district’s goals and are most frequently established in the areas of reading/language arts and math, the current areas of state and federal accountability. Schools create only two or three student achievement goals on which to concentrate their instructional and programmatic changes to keep from spreading their efforts too thin (Rosenholtz, 1989; Rosenholtz, 1991; and Schmoker, 1999). Task Force Formation During the Task Force Formation phase, members of the school, district and community volunteer to participate on task forces that seek solutions to address the major barriers to student achievement that were identified during the Needs Assessment and Goal Setting phase. As many school reform and organizational studies suggest, implementation of solutions improves when more individuals have been involved in making the decisions (Drucker, 1986; March and Simon, 1958; McLaughlin, 1987; Rosenholtz, 1985; Sebring and Bryk, 2000; and Tyack, 1990). Working in task forces facilitated by CSRF encourages greater collaboration, shared leadership and better relationships between the various members of the task forces (Elmore, 2000; Fullan and Stiegelbauer, 1991; and McLaughlin, 1990). Investigation and Planning During the Investigation and Planning phase, the task forces work with CSRF to identify possible solutions and strategies to overcome the identified barriers and to further investigate the root causes of the barriers, if needed. Task forces learn from researchers what school-level, teacher-level and student-level factors have the greatest impact on student achievement (Marzano, Pickering, and Pollock, 2001; Marzano, 2003; and Wang, Walhberg, and Hartel 1994). Task forces also learn how to work together as collaborative groups (DuFour and Eaker, 1998; Garmston and Wellman, 1999; and Marzano, 2003). With their new knowledge, task forces establish priorities and develop program objectives that will address the school’s barriers to improved achievement (DuFour and Eaker, 1998; Rosenholtz, 1991; and Schmoker, 1999). CSRF guides the school to focus on changes that are within the schools’ control and will improve teaching and learning at the school (Covey, 1990; and Ferguson, 1991). Consensus Building During the Consensus Building phase, often held on a single day, task force members present their proposals and ideas for programmatic or structural changes to the entire staff to reach consensus on moving forward. Staff members will have heard many of the initial ideas already through previous communications from the task forces. Reaching consensus does not mean that the proposal is everyone’s first choice but that all staff members agree with the decision, will support it, and will not block it. (Schwarz, 1994). CSRF emphasizes reaching consensus among all school staff and community in order to build a clear and shared focus, increase ownership and buy-in to the proposal, and model a process that may be new to the school (Garmston and Wellman 1999; Louis and Marks, 1998; McLaughlin, 1987; Rosenholtz, 1985; and Sebring and Bryk, 2000). Writing and Budgeting During the Writing and Budgeting phase, members of the task force take the ideas upon which the staff reached consensus and write the specific details for each component, or program objective, and create a targeted and focused plan of action. As the plan is being developed and finalized, task forces communicate the proposals to the entire staff as well as specific individuals or groups. In addition to assisting schools in writing the plan’s details, or implementation steps, CSRF shows the task forces how to create an evaluation plan. Separate from the action plan, the evaluation plan describes how each implementation step will be evaluated and the evidence required to demonstrate that the step has been completed. Writing a more detailed action plan clarifies for each staff member the roles and responsibilities associated with the plan (Hord et. al, 1987; and Lezotte and Jacoby, 1990). A critical component of the Writing and Budgeting phase is identifying the monetary and non-monetary resources that are available to implement the plan. In many cases, no additional funds will be available. Schools and districts will have to work together to reallocate existing resources to successfully implement the new plan. However, the inability to reallocate resources is often the greatest barrier to making changes in schools (Keltner, 1998; and Rossi and Stringfield, 1995). Since salaries and benefits make up the majority of school budgets, reallocating resources often means changing how people use their time to creatively address the needs of the students (Ferguson, 1991; and Miles and Darling-Hammond, 1997). CSRF facilitates ongoing communication with the principal, leadership team, staff, district and community as resource decisions are being made. Implementation, Evaluation and Monitoring During the Implementation, Evaluation and Monitoring phase, CSRF works with the school and district leadership to ensure that changes take place and that the school implements the action plans as they were written. As the school implements the plan, teachers and administrators begin to make changes in their own practice. Knowing the importance of recognizing and celebrating early changes or “small wins,” CSRF helps schools monitor the changes as they are happening to show change can and is happening (Weick, 1984). Helping individuals see what changes are happening as well as understand how the changes impact them, and how the changes impact students’ achievement, are key to successful implementation and changing the culture of the school (Fullan and Stiegelbauer, 1991; Hall and Hord, 1987; and Hord et. al, 1987). During this phase of the work, CSRF helps schools and districts focus on their long-term goals for improved student achievement and provide feedback on how well they are achieving their short-term objectives for implementing the school’s action plan. With CSRF, schools identify two or three implementation steps that will have the greatest impact on improving student achievement (Schmoker, 1999). CSRF uses these key steps or high-leverage activities as the focus of a formative evaluation. The school and CSRF create benchmarks or descriptions of progress in terms of teacher practice and student achievement. Progress during the year is measured using local student achievement data and school-generated descriptions of what students and teachers would know and be doing if the plan was implemented well (Kaufman, 1988). Refinement During the Refinement phase, CSRF works with the school and district to review the progress the school has made during the year to identify how well the action plan addressed the barriers to student achievement and how much progress the school has made towards reaching its academic goals. CSRF helps schools and districts internalize the on-going nature of change (Hall and Hord, 1987). The Refinement phase is a time to recognize and celebrate accomplishments and progress as well as reflect on what adjustments should be made based on the impact of the plan’s programs and strategies on student achievement (DuFour and Eaker 1998). Looking at the evidence from the Implementation, Evaluation and Monitoring phase and reflecting on the findings can help school and district leaders change individuals’ ideas about what is possible as well as help identify areas where new solutions may be necessary (Argyris, 1976; and Fullan and Stiegelbauer, 1991). References Argyris, C. (1976). Increasing Leadership Effectiveness. New York: Wiley. Arnold, R. et al. (1991). Educating for a Change. Toronto: Doris Marshall Institute for Education and Action. Berends, M., Kirby, S. N., Naftel, S., & McKelvey, C. (2001). Implementation and performance in New American Schools: Three years into scale-up. Santa Monica, RAND. Bernhardt, V. (1998). Data Analysis for Comprehensive Schoolwide Improvement. Larchmont, NY: Eye on Education. Bodilly, S. J. (1998). Lessons from New American Schools’ scale-up phase: Prospects for bringing designs to multiple schools. Santa Monica, CA: RAND Burton, J. K., and Merrill, P. F. (1991). "Needs assessment: Goals, needs and priorities." In L. J. Brookfield, S. (1986). Understanding and Facilitating Adult Learning. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Cotton, K. (1995). Effective schooling practices: A research synthesis. 1995 Update. School Improvement Research Series. Portland, OR: Northwest Regional Educational Laboratory. Covey S. R. (1990). The 7 Habits of Highly Effective People: Powerful lessons in personal change. New York: Simon & Schuster. Drucker, P. F. (1986). The Practice of Management. New York: Harper. DuFour, R. and Eaker, R. (1998). Professional Learning Communities at Work: Best practices for enhancing student achievement. Bloomington, IN. National Educational Service. Edmonds, R. (1979). "Effective schools for the urban poor." Educational Leadership, 37(1), 15-24. Elmore, R. (2000). Building a new structure for school leadership. Washington, DC: The Albert Shanker Institute. Ferguson, R. (1991). "Paying for public education: New evidence on how and why money matters." Harvard Journal on Legislation, 28, 465-498. Fullan, M., and Stiegelbauer, S. (1991). The New Meaning of Educational Change. New York: Teachers College Press. Garmston, R. and Wellman, B. (1999). The Adaptive School: A sourcebook for developing collaborative groups. Norwood, MA: Christopher-Gordon Publishers, Inc. Goertz, M. E., Floden, R. E., and O’Day, J. (1995). Studies of education reform: Systemic reform. Volume I: Findings and conclusions. Rutgers, NJ: Consortium for Policy Research in Education. Hall, G. E. and Hord, S. M. (1987). Change in schools: Facilitating the process. Albany, NY: State University of New York Press. Hord, S., Rutherford, W., Huling-Austin. L., and Hall, G. (1987). Taking Charge of Change. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development. Hopfenberg, W., Levin, H., et al. (1993). The Accelerated Schools Resource Guide. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Joyce, B. and Showers, B. (1983) Power in staff development through research in training. Alexandria, Virginia: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development. Kaufman, R. (1988, September). "Preparing useful performance indicators." Training and Development Journal, 80-83. Kaufman, R. (1985). "Needs assessment, needs analysis, objectives and evaluation." Performance & Instruction, 24, 21. Keltner, B. (1998). Funding Comprehensive School Reform. Santa Monica: RAND. Levine, D.U., and Lezotte, L.W. (1990). Unusually effective schools: A review and analysis of research and practice. Madison, WI: National Center for Effective Schools Research and Development. Lezotte, L. and Jacoby, B. (1990) A Guide to the School Improvement Process based on Effective Schools Research. Okemos, Michigan: Effective School Products) Loucks-Horsley, S., Hewson, P. W., Love, N., & Stiles, K. E., (1998). Designing professional development for teachers of science and mathematics. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.National Council of Teachers Louis, K. S., and Marks, H. M. (1998) "Does Professional Community Affect the Classroom?: Teacher’s work and student experiences in restructuring schools." American Journal of Education, 106, 533-575. March, J. G., and Simon, H. (1958). Organizations. New York: Wiley. Marzano, R. (2003). What Works in Schools: Translating research into action. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development. Marzano, R., Pickering, D., & Pollock, J. (2001). Classroom instruction that works: Research-based strategies for increasing student achievement. Alexandria, VA: ASCD. Marzano, R. J., and Kendall, J. S. (1997) The fall and rise of standards-based education: A National Association of School Boards of Education (NASBE) issues in brief. Aurora, CO: Mid-continent Research for Education and Learning. McKeever, B. (2003). Nine Lessons of Successful School Leadership Teams: Distilling a decade of innovation. San Francisco: WestEd. McLaughlin, M. W., and Shepard, L. A. (1995). Improving education through standards-based reform: A report by the National Academy of Education Panel on Standards-Based Reform. Stanford, CA: National Academy of Education. McLaughlin, M. W. (1993) "What matters most in teachers’ workplace context?" In J. W. Little and M. W. McLaughlin (Eds.) Teachers’ Work: Individuals, colleagues and contexts. New York: Teachers College Press, 79-103. McLaughlin, M. W. (1990) "The RAND Change Agent Study Revisited: Macro-Perspective and Micro Realities," Educational Researcher, 19(9), 11-16. McLaughlin, M.W. (1987). "Learning from Experience: Lessons from policy implementation." Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 9(2), 171-178. Miles, K. H., Darling-Hammond. L. (1997, November). Rethinking the Allocation of Teaching Resources: Some Lessons from High-Performing Schools. Philadelphia, PA: Consortium for Policy Research in Education. Rosenholtz, S. J. (1991) Teachers’ Workplace: The social organization of schools. New York: Teachers College Press. Rosenholtz, S. J. (1989). "Workplace conditions that affect teacher quality and commitment: implications for teacher induction programs." The Elementary School Journal, 89(4), 421-439. Rosenholtz, S. J. (1985). "Effective Schools: Interpreting the evidence." American Journal of Education, 9, 352-388. Rossi, R., and Stringfield, S. (1995). "Education Reform and Students At Risk: Volume I: Findings and Recommendations." Studies of Education Reform. Palo Alto, California: American Institutes for Research in the Behavioral Sciences; and Baltimore, Maryland: Center for Research on the Education of Students Placed At Risk. Schmoker, M. (1999). Results: The key to continuous school improvement, Second Edition. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development. Schmoker, M. and Marzano, R. J. (1999). "Realizing the promise of standards-based education." Educational Leadership, 56(6), 21-21. Sebring, Penny B., & Anthony Bryk. (2000). "School Leadership and the Bottom Line in Chicago." Phi Delta Kappan, 81(6), 440-443. Senge, P. (1990). The Fifth Discipline: The art and practice of the learning organization. New York: Doubleday. Schwarz, R. (1994). The Skilled Facilitator. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Tyack, D. (1990). "’Restructuring’ in Historical Perspective: Tinkering toward Utopia." Teachers College Record, 42(2), 172-191. Wang, M. C., Haertel, G. D., & Walberg, H. J. (1994). What helps students learn? Educational Leadership, 51(4), 74-79. Weick, K. E. (1984). "Small Wins: Redefining the Scale of Social Problems." American Psychologist, 39(1), 40-49. Privacy Policy \| Disclaimer \| This site and its contents copyright WestEd 1995-2010. All rights reserved.