Statewide System of Support
Working Principles
Emerging research in the field of state systems of support indicates that states should prioritize districts, rather than schools, as the loci of their capacity building efforts. Yet focusing on districts carries unique challenges for states. The working principles below outline our team's general stance on the issue by highlighting research themes and surfacing key questions. It is intended as a starting place for conversation, not a definitive or authoritative position.
Building District Capacity
In 2009, the New York Board of Regents stated that the NYSED state system of support would be organized to build district capacity in order to lead schools in implementing research-based teaching and learning strategies that address the academic needs of every student.
In this report, the Regents stated: “The PMO Group recommends that (1) in order to accelerate student achievement, SED and the Regents build the capacity of school districts to improve their own schools, (2) school districts, rather than individual schools, should be SED's primary point of contact for school improvement and student achievement” (p. 3) [italics added].
New York joins many other states in this capacity-building approach in recognizing that:
- Legally, states are responsible for districts, and districts for schools, as per state constitutions and other legal provisions.
- The number of schools in need of improvement/intervention has grown so large that it is difficult, if not impossible, for the SEA to intervene in all.
- Building district capacity provides a greater opportunity for sustaining change.
Capacity building requires the development of individual skills and dispositions, the focus and enhancement of resources, and the creation of greater shared commitment and cohesion.
As SEAs are responsible for all districts, they can offer each district a recommended set of services and resources, including those with schools in need of improvement.
For districts deemed to have the most critical needs, an SEA can exercise a more direct and intensive partnership role to drive school improvement and build district capacity. SED can also decide which activities to provide directly and which can be provided by, or in partnership with, intermediate education entities and/or other service providers in the state.
In order to focus on needs pertaining to the instructional core, the services to districts are focused on those that are relevant to teaching, students, and the subject matter being taught. These district services can include:
- Setting and communicating curriculum standards and consulting with districts to align curricula;
- Providing tiered supports, including targeted interventions, to students in need;
- Identifying and sharing an aligned set of resources to districts through written materials, websites, conferences, and consultations;
- Coaching and consulting with district leaders and assisting them in developing local leaders at the district and school levels;
- Support for data collection with its analysis used to inform decisions;
- Developing and implementing monitoring and support systems for planned activities; and
- Supporting high quality professional development aligned to other local needs identified by data.
There is a growing literature on the ways high-performing school districts can act to ensure schools continuously improve and succeed in meeting the learning needs of students. Qualities of high-performing districts include:
- A clearly-articulated and widely-supported district-wide vision or strategy focused on the instructional core;
- A focus on a small number of initiatives directly connected to district-wide strategy;
- The allocation of appropriate resources and staff for continuous development in areas of need;
- Assurance of coherence among programs;
- Management of resources so that they support district goals for student achievement;
- An orientation toward results, particularly student achievement;
- High expectations: an elevating (as opposed to an accepting) belief system about student capabilities;
- Effective use of data;
- Collaborative adult relationships and continuous adult learning;
- The alignment of curriculum and instruction;
- Continuous support of teacher knowledge and skills; and
- Ongoing monitoring of district progress to inform future action and to hold schools and leaders accountable.
Building the capacity of school districts to ensure the success of all their schools and students at times may require additional capacity-building of SED staff and intermediary organizations, in order to ensure that the state support system is cohesive and focused on the instructional core.
Sources
Agullard, K. & Goughnour, D. S. (2006). Central office inquiry: Assessing organization, roles, and actions to support school improvement.San Francisco, CA: WestEd.
Childress, S., Elmore, R. F., Grossman, A., & Johnson, S. M. (Eds.). (2007). Managing school districts for high performance: Cases in public education leadership. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Education Press.
Hergert, L, F., Gleason, S. C., Urbano, North, C., and North, C. (2009) How eight state education agencies in the Northeast and Islands Region identify and support low-performing schools and districts.(Issues and Answers Report, REL 2009-No.068), Washington, DC: US Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences.
Honig, M. & Copland, M. (September 2008). Reinventing district central offices to expand student learning. Center for Comprehensive School Reform and Improvement. Washington D.C.: Learning Point Associates.
Iowa Association of School Boards. (2000). “IASB's Lighthouse study: School boards and student achievement.” Iowa School Board Compass, 5(2). Retrieved from http://www.ia-sb.org/StudentAchievement.aspx?id=436
Mass Insight Education & Research Institute. (2007). The turnaround challenge: New research, recommendations, and a partnership framework for states and school districts. Boston, MA. Retrieved from http://www.massinsight.org/micontent/trnresources.aspx
Massell, D. (2000). The district role in building capacity: Four strategies. CPRE Policy Brief RB-32, September 2000. Philadelphia, PA: Consortium for Policy Research in Education.
Marsh, J., Kerr, K., Ikemoto, G., Darilek, H., Suttorp, M., Zimmer, R., & Barney, H. (2005). The role of districts in fostering instructional improvement: Lessons from three urban districts partnered with the Institute for Learning. Santa Monica, CA: RAND Corporation.
Redding, S. and Walberg, H. J. (Eds.). (2007) Handbook on statewide systems of support. Lincoln, IL: Center on Innovation and Improvement.
Shannon, G.S. and Bylsma, P (October 2004). Characteristics of improved school districts: Themes from research. Olympia, Washington: Office of Superintendent of Public Instruction.
Supovitz, J. A. (2006). The case for district-based reform: Leading, building, and sustaining school improvement. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Education Press.
Tallon, J.R., Jr., & Mills, R.P. (2009, May 12). Recommendations from the Regents Project Management Group. [Memorandum to the Honorable Members of the Board of Regents]. Albany, NY: The State Education Department/The University of the State of New York.
Waters, J. T. & Marzano, R. J. (2006). School district leadership that works: The effect of superintendent leadership on student achievement. Denver, CO: McREL, Mid-continent Research for Education and Learning. Available online: http://www.mcrel.org/product/244
WestEd, in collaboration with McREL and NCREL. (2002). Improving districts: Systems that support learning. San Francisco, CA: WestEd.