Contributions from: Bruce Schroeder, Mae Taylor
Abstract
In the face of an increasingly diverse student population in the United States, research suggests that if schools want to raise student achievement, they should invest their resources on improving the professional development of educators (Dozier, 1999). The challenges defined by teacher shortages and the outcry to improve the quality of teachers offers a unique opportunity to transform the quality of educators and related service providers working with students with disabilities. For a major change effort to be successful with reforming traditional practices in personnel preparation, recruitment, and career professional development, there must be a cooperative effort between policy makers, universities/colleges, school districts, parents, and professionals who have interests in the education of students with disabilities (Darling-Hammond, 1999). By establishing a partnership and viewing professional preparation and development as a continuum of lifelong learning, it is possible to establish policies and practices that exemplify promising practice. A number of examples of emerging promising policies and practices in education have been profiled (U.S. Department of Education, 1998) which span the continuum of preparation and professional development. The Utah SIGNAL Project is one such example of a statewide effort with promising practices. This paper discusses the project's design for systems change in professional development. It also provides an overview of the project's five research-validated principles and three project goals.
America's future depends now, as never before, on our ability to teach. If every citizen is to be prepared for a democratic society whose major product is knowledge, every teacher must know how to teach students in ways that help them reach high levels of intellectual and social competence. Every school must be organized to support powerful teaching and learning. Every school district must be able to find and keep good teachers. And every community must be focused on preparing students to become competent citizens and workers in a pluralistic, technological society. (National Commission on Teaching & America's Future, 1996, p.3)
The United States is facing significant economic and social pressures that are impacting our Nation's schools and teachers in the classroom. Students are more culturally and linguistically diverse than ever before. Increased numbers of students with disabilities, limited English proficiency, and students at-risk are entering our classrooms. Students are entering our schools at-risk as a result of changing family structures, and many adverse conditions at home such as lack of supervision, exposure to drugs, violence, poor housing, nutrition, and health care.
In the midst of these social pressures, our country's economic transformation from an industrial nation in the early 1900's to an international information economy in the 21st century, necessitates a college degree or specialized technical training for every student in America. Students must exit our schools with knowledge and competencies in basic math and literacy, critical thinking, technological literacy, and lifelong learning to be successful. The public outcry to raise student standards to produce a skilled and knowledgeable workforce in the face of increasing diversity in the classroom, creates a challenge for preparing teachers with new knowledge and skills to address these demands (U.S. Department of Education, 1998).
Education workforce projections indicate that 2.5 million new teachers will be employed by the schools during the next ten years to fill vacant positions created by retiring teachers, teachers leaving their positions, and to meet the needs of growing school enrollments (Hussar, 1999). This will dramatically change the teaching force and creates a challenge as well as an opportunity for the recruitment and professional development of the new teachers.
One of our nation's primary goals is on preparing and recruiting caring and competent teachers. Without a "talented, dedicated, and well-prepared teacher in every classroom" (President Clinton, 1997, State of the Union address, A Call to Action for American Education in the 21st Century), we will not be successful in our efforts to increase student achievement. The report of the National Commission on Teaching and America's Future (1996), also suggests the urgency for improving the quality of teacher training.
In response to the public cries for increasing student achievement, states and local school districts have primarily focused their energies on increasing standards to improve student outcomes. There is now research that has found that the most important factor for improving student achievement, is the quality of teaching in the classroom. If we raise the standards for student learning, then we must also raise the standards for teaching. The studies indicate that in examining good teaching, a teacher's ability, experience, and education are closely associated with increases in student learning. This research suggests that if schools want to raise student achievement, they should invest their resources on improving the professional development of educators (Dozier, 1999).
Individuals with Disabilities Education Act 1997
Preparing high-quality personnel to serve students with disabilities is a key element in the federal statute, the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act 1997 (IDEA 97). In the 1997 reauthorization of IDEA, the United States Congress stipulated the necessity for professional development that will provide educators with the knowledge and skills necessary to facilitate student learning and positive educational outcomes resulting in productive, independent citizens (Section 601(c)(5)). To support this goal, the law made the requirement that States develop State Improvement Plans (SIP) which will evaluate State and local needs for professional development. Further, the U.S. Congress established State Improvement Grants (SIG) primarily for the purpose of addressing the quality of training for professionals in the schools.
Although personnel preparation has consistently been a priority of Congress since the early 1970's (under Part D of IDEA), the 1997 Amendments to IDEA made several significant changes to the stipulated personnel preparation program (Comprehensive System of Personnel Development). In 1999, competitive SIG's were awarded by the U.S. Department of Education - Office of Special Education Programs (USDOE - OSEP) to assist states with specific personnel training needs. States were encouraged to target funds at training for general educators, special educators, early childhood teachers, and related service providers.
It is reported that approximately three-fourths of students with disabilities are in the general classroom the majority of the school day (Westat, 1998). IDEA 97 expands the role of the general education teacher in serving these students requiring that students with disabilities have access to, and make progress in the general curriculum. It also requires that they participate in state and local assessments. As a result, general educators must be prepared with the knowledge and skills necessary to teach students with disabilities in the general classroom.
A further concern with the current nature of personnel preparation is that students with disabilities receive services by teachers and related service providers with diverse areas of expertise and training backgrounds. Among the special educators, some are trained to work in self-contained settings, and others to work in inclusive general education settings. Related service providers such as speech-language pathologists, school psychologists, occupational therapists, and physical therapists enter the schools with various training backgrounds. Special educators and related service providers are now required to have the skills to facilitate student access to the general curriculum as stipulated in IDEA 97.
An Opportunity for Changing Roles
Despite dramatic social, economic, and demographic changes in the U.S, the challenges defined by teacher shortages and the outcry to improve the quality of teachers offers a unique opportunity to transform the quality of educators and related service providers working in the schools. The opportunity is before us to dramatically change practices for recruiting and preparing personnel, for supporting educators in the first few years of teaching, and with career professional development (American Council on Education, 1999; U. S. Department of Education, 1998).
Professionals and policy makers in the field of education are becoming aware that a career in education is a lifetime continuum of preparation and learning which begins with recruitment and preparation, continues with mentoring and support during the first few years of teaching, and then through lifelong professional development. Traditionally, personnel preparation and professional development have been provided by separate entities (universities/colleges and school districts), each addressing a separate phase of the continuum and often without the necessary transitions and supports to be successful.
For a major change effort to be successful with reforming traditional practices in personnel preparation, recruitment, and career professional development, there must be a cooperative effort between policy makers, universities/colleges, school districts, parents, and professionals who have interests in the education of students with disabilities (Darling-Hammond, 1999). By establishing a partnership and viewing professional preparation and development as a continuum of lifelong learning, it is possible to establish policies and practices that exemplify promising practice. A number of examples of emerging promising policies and practices in education have been profiled (U.S. Department of Education, 1998) which span the continuum of preparation and professional development. The Utah SIGNAL Project is one such example of a statewide effort with promising practices.
Utah SIGNAL Project - Principles
The Utah SIGNAL Project (herein referred to as SIGNAL) is a federally funded state improvement grant awarded by the United States Department of Education, Office of Special Education Programs and funded through the Utah State Office of Education in April 1999. This five-year, statewide systems change project is an effort to assist states with the implementation of the IDEA 97.
The ultimate goal of the SIGNAL Project is to improve the quality of general and special education services for students with disabilities in the schools. The method for accomplishing this goal is the facilitation of partnerships between universities and school districts to address changes in current policy and practice for recruitment and professional preparation and development. Targeted educator and related services professional groups are key players in working with students with disabilities including: general educators (early childhood, elementary, secondary), special educators, educational leaders, speech-language pathologists, and school psychologists. The majority of the funding for the SIGNAL Project is dedicated for the continuum of personnel preparation and development activities in preservice/recruitment, induction/mentoring and continuing career professional development.
The SIGNAL Project's design for systems change in professional development is driven by five research-validated principles:
Principle 1. Articulating a clear vision for systems change based on identified needs and priorities will promote positive thinking and action among the key stakeholders involved in the process.
Principle 1 was implemented through coordinated strategic planning and actions that initiated a systems change process in the late 1980's. This process began in a statewide movement through the Utah State Public Education Strategic Plan, developed by parents, school districts, community representatives, and education professionals. The Utah State Board of Education adopted the plan in 1991, and it became a state statute in 1992 titled the Utah State Planning Act for Educational Excellence (Utah State Planning Act). This act became the state's federally approved plan for the implementation phase of the Goals 2000 federal legislation (1994). The Act articulates a clear vision that all students must be treated fairly within the system and that the state cannot accept failure as final for any student.
This vision and its corresponding state policies became the foundation for the Utah Title 1 State Plan and policies (Part A funds under Improving America's Schools Act (IASA), the Utah Vocational Rehabilitation State Plan and policies (under Title I, Part B of the Act), and the Utah Agenda for Meeting the Needs of Students with Disabilities (Utah Agenda).
The Utah Agenda is the Utah State Board of Education-approved strategic plan for future directions in education of students with disabilities in Utah and it operates within the broader context of the Utah State Planning Act. It was developed through a parallel strategic planning process that began in 1991, and brought the state's key stakeholders together, including, state education directors and staff, state legislators, state agency directors, parents, school district leaders in general and special education, people with disabilities, and university/college faculty. The process resulted in the development of a statewide action plan consistent with the Utah State Planning Act.
The Utah State Improvement Plan (SIP) is the vehicle for implementing this action plan and moving forward the vision set forth in the Utah Agenda as well as the vision and policies of the Utah State Planning Act. The needs identified in the Utah SIP require that significant resources are utilized to improve both access to an appropriate education as well as desired results for students with disabilities. The SIP is then implemented through the Utah SIGNAL Project (state improvement grant). Principle 2. Systems change is most effective when it is simultaneously acted upon in multiple parts of the organization.
Principle 2 is a key element of the project design and management structure of the Utah SIGNAL Project. The ultimate goal of the project is to improve results for students with disabilities through the provision and expansion of quality educational services at the building and classroom level by bringing together quality technical assistance and personnel preparation. The process for achieving this goal must begin during preservice training, continue during the induction/mentoring period, and be supported through lifelong career development. The Utah SIGNAL Project meets the premise of systems change in Principle 2 by (1) targeting every level of the educational system for change, (2) incorporating a model of professional development that cuts across the lifespan of teachers and related services personnel, and (3) focusing on changing and improving policy as well as practice.
The SIGNAL Project's key goal is direct impact on educational services for the student in the classroom. To accomplish this goal, however, the plan of operation must involve personnel preparation and technical assistance at every level of the public education system (state, district, building and classroom). Unless every level of the system is targeted for improvement, change at the classroom level cannot be sustained over time. The result will be "pockets of excellence" that cannot be replicated or support statewide.
The project design of the SIGNAL Project incorporates a model of professional development that cuts across the lifespan of the teacher and related services professional. A continuum of professional growth (preservice/recruitment, induction/mentoring, and career professional development) is at the core of the SIGNAL Project's professional development model. This model is integrated with the Utah State Office of Education's plan for professional growth for all educators. This model is supported in a partnership between universities/colleges and school districts (Joseph P. Kennedy, Jr. Foundation, 1997).
The SIGNAL Project's design and plan of operation focuses on changing and improving policy as well as practice. The project has three primary goals, the first of which is to implement a quality decision-making infrastructure to implement existing policy in the Utah State Planning Act. This goal will focus on the improvement of policy decisions that effect the quality of instructional life for students with disabilities. The remaining two goals of the project focus directly on moving policy into practice through quality professional preparation and technical assistance in the high needs areas identified by the state through the Utah State Planning Act.
Principle 3. Strong, unequivocal leadership at every organizational level is critical in achieving effective systems change. Such leadership along with organizational and interpersonal support are needed to sustain change over time.
The success of the SIGNAL Project necessitates the strong commitment and support of parent and professional leadership around the state. A mechanism utilized by the SIGNAL Project to ensure these leaders remain committed to systems change and improvement as designed and implemented through the Utah State Improvement Plan and the Utah SIGNAL Project, is through the project's design plan to engage these individuals in each phase of the project. The SIGNAL partners are all key stakeholders interested in or involved with the education of students with disabilities. They include the Governor of the State of Utah, key Utah State Office of Education administrators in general and special education, special education directors from each of Utah's 40 school districts, parents of children with disabilities, parents of children who are not disabled, general and special education teachers, the universities and colleges in the state with a teacher education program in general and special education, people with disabilities, and key administrators from other state agencies, including health and vocational rehabilitation.
These partners provide the foundation for the Utah SIGNAL Project; whereas, key leaders are involved in each of the operational components. The Executive Management Team is a representative body of 11 individuals drawn from the SIGNAL partners who participate in the project's planning and provide oversight. Leadership within the state also participate on the implementation teams for recruitment/preservice, induction/mentoring, and career professional development. These individuals represent each of the levels of the education system, including: classroom, building, district, and state.
Principle 4. Systems change is most effective when the organization concentrates on changing behavior; attitude change will follow.
Reform efforts in our nation's schools are focused on improved methods for increasing student learning by establishing high standards for what is taught and for student performance. The accountability for meeting these standards will occur at various levels within the educational system, but the key to success is determined by what happens in the classroom between teachers and students (Hardman et al., 1998). This principle is incorporated into the SIGNAL Project design by focusing its resources directly on changing and/or improving the behavior of educators engaged in the delivery of instruction. The goal is to ensure that validated research on effective instructional practice is translated into teacher behavior in the classroom. The SIGNAL Project activities translate this goal into action through the provision of technical assistance and professional development using validated strategies. Topics addressed in the activities include areas such as the provision of access to the general curriculum; the implementation of positive proactive behavior techniques for students with challenging behaviors; the prevention and treatment of reading failure; and the use of assessment procedures that deliver valid, reliable, and timely information.
Principle 5. Systems change is most effective when there are organization-wide accountability mechanisms in place that are focused on both process and outcomes.
This principle is embedded throughout the SIGNAL Project design, plan of operation, and evaluation structure. The primary goal of this project is to provide quality technical assistance and professional development directly to teachers, related services personnel, and paraprofessionals at the classroom and building levels. In order to be successful in accomplishing systems change; however, it is critically important to implement an educational accountability system that uses its objective data for making policy, administrative, and instructional decisions to guide the process of delivery of quality programs, services, and supports to students with disabilities. As such, the three goals together meet the requirements of Principle 5 by establishing and educational accountability system that is both process and outcome oriented. Goal 1 establishes a process that will develop and implement a decision making infrastructure within the state. Goal 2 (access to and progress in the general curriculum) and Goal 3 (proactive behavioral/social interventions) focus on improving outcomes for students with disabilities within the established accountability system.
Utah SIGNAL Project - Design
The Utah SIGNAL Project is the primary vehicle for implementation of the Utah State Improvement Plan. The Utah State Improvement Plan is aligned with IDEA 97 legislative requirements and the federally approved Utah State Plan for Public Education. There are three goals which drive the activities of the SIGNAL Project. Each goal has several objectives and each objective is to be achieved by a focused, coordinated series of activities and associated outcomes. More that 80% of the activities are personnel preparation actions designed with clear outcomes and evaluation tools. Although the goals and activities of the SIGNAL Project do not directly support all state improvement plan activities, the SIGNAL Project does provide resources to ensure that (a) all personnel preparation activities are aligned with the State Improvement Plan, and (b) that a decision-making infrastructure systematically and progressively addresses statewide changes that are positive, measurable, and consistent with the State Improvement Plan. The three goals of the SIGNAL Project are listed as follows:
Goal 1: A Quality Decision-making Infrastructure. The state will implement a decision-making infrastructure that will systematically and progressively improve (a) access to, and (b) the quality of instructional services at every level of the state educational delivery system. This decision infrastructure will use objective data on the impact of educational services to progressively improve all decisions of a policy, administrative, and instructional nature that affect the quality of instructional life for students with disabilities.
Goal 2: The General Curriculum. The state will implement changes in policy, in technical assistance to administrators, and in personnel preparation activities to ensure that students with disabilities (a) have access to, (b) placement in, and (c) progress within the general curriculum. This goal will be objectively measured by instructionally relevant and valid data on individual student progress in the general curriculum.
Goal 3: Proactive Behavioral/Social Interventions. The state will provide the technical assistance and personnel preparation activities that ensure that student with disabilities have access to needed, effective, proactive interventions that provide individuals with the attitudes and competencies needed to be successful, caring, members of society. This goal will be measured by the successful mastery of the social components of the general curriculum.
The Utah SIGNAL Project team includes Co-Chair, Mae Taylor, USOE Director, Services for Students At Risk; Co-Chair, Ron Stanfield, USOE Coordinator, Educator Licensing; Project Director, Bruce Schroeder; Preservice/Recruitment Coordinator, Monica L. Ferguson; Induction/Mentoring Coordinator, Dan Morgan; and Career Professional Development Coordinator, Sharon Neyme. For more information on this project, contact project team members at the following numbers: phone: 1-801-272-1091;
email: monicaf@utahsignal.org
address: Utah SIGNAL Project, 2290 East 4500 South, Salt Lake City, Utah, U.S.A. 84117.
 |
 |