Synthesis of Discussions about Scaling Up Effective Practices

Work Group: Meeting Summary and Policy Recommendations

This paper is available in alternate formats: | Download Word | Download pdf |

Pages: | 1 | 2 | 3 |

RECOMMENDATIONS

The Work Group meeting concluded with members reflecting on the full set of issues, strategies, and small group recommendations discussed during the day. Drawing on these sources, the Work Group endorsed a set of recommendations for OSEP to undertake in the near future to foster bringing effective IDEA-Part D practices to scale. Each member voted to indicate their most important recommendation. The recommendations and accompanying votes are contained in Exhibit 2 and discussed below.

EXHIBIT 2: Final Recommendations of the Scaling Up Work Group

Recommendations	First votes
OSEP should develop and field-test a system to identify effective IDEA-Part D practices at the Federal level.	9
OSEP should develop and field-test a system of dissemination to inform consumers about effective IDEA-Part D practices and to identify commonly used practices that have no evidence of effectiveness.	5
OSEP should work with professional groups such as Council for Exceptional Children (CEC), American Federation of Teachers (AFT), National Education Association (NEA), National Association of State Directors of Special Education (NASDSE), to develop and promote professional standards for the field.	5
OSEP should develop an accountability framework (applicable at Federal, state and local levels) that promotes the use of effective IDEA-Part D practices.	2
OSEP should examine the potential of using existing networks and activities, such as funded TA providers, state improvement grants, and University Affiliated Programs, to foster the use of research-validated practices.	0

The recommendation receiving the most votes from Work Group members is the concept of OSEP developing and field-testing a system to identify effective IDEA-Part D practices at the Federal level, with nine votes. Such a system could resemble the former JDRP process. This would require developers to report information on effectiveness as well as key assumptions, need for buy-in, core elements, resources needed, level and duration of support, and impact on general and special education students.

Two recommendations received five votes each. One is based on the idea of OSEP developing and field-testing a system of dissemination to inform consumers about effective IDEA-Part D practices and the need to identify commonly used practices that have no evidence of effectiveness. Parents, educators and local and state policy-makers are key audiences. Members believe it is important for these audiences to know what does and does not work.

The other recommendation receiving five votes is that OSEP should work with professional groups such as CEC, AFT, NEA, NASDSE, to develop and promote professional standards for the field. This would be followed by development of an accountability framework that promotes the use of research-validated practices (receiving two votes). Members are interested in a framework that involves frequent assessments throughout the year, be linked to relevant curriculum for an individual child, targets parents and educators as the primary audiences, and possibly involves a restructured IEP process.

Lou Danielson and Renee Bradley of RTP concluded the meeting by thanking each of the participants for their insightful commentary and recommendations about the scaling up process. These recommendations, as documented and summarized in this report, will be considered, as appropriate, by RTP policymakers as part of the agency's continuing concern to ensure that IDEA-Part D investments are widely used to improve results for children with disabilities and their families.

ATTACHMENT A: MEETING PARTICIPANTS

SCALING UP WORK GROUP

MARCH 30, 2001

Martha Brooks
Delaware State Department of Education
John G. Townsend Building
401 Federal Street
Dover, DE 19903-1402
Tel: 302-739-4667
E-mail: mbrooks@state.de.us

Lizanne DeStefano
University of Illinois
236 Education
1310 S. Sixth St.
Champaign, IL 61820
Telephone: 217-333-8520
E-mail: destefan@uiuc.edu

Lynn Fuchs
Vanderbilt University
Peabody College, Kennedy Center
21st and Edgehill, Magnolia Circle
Nashville, TN 37203
Tel: 615-343-4782
E-mail: lynn.fuchs@vanderbilt.edu

Charles Greenwood
Juniper Gardens Children's Project
University of Kansas
650 Minnesota Avenue
Kansas City, KS 66101-2806
Tel: 913-621-1712
E-mail: greenwood@ukans.edu

James Hamilton
American Institutes for Research
1000 Thomas Jefferson Street N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20007
Tel: 202-944-5332
E-mail: jhamilton@air.org

Francine Mayfield
Clark County Public Schools
2625 East St. Louis Street
Las Vegas, NV 89104
E-mail: mayfifa@groupwise.ccsd.net

Patricia A. Morrissey
Booz-Allen & Hamilton
8283 Greensboro Drive
McLean, VA 22102-3838
Tel: 703-377-0926
E-mail: morrissey_patricia@bah.com

Kathleen Stringfield
Success for All Foundation
200 West Towsontown Blvd
Baltimore, MD 21204-5200
Tel: 410-616-2381
E-mail: kstringfield@successforall.net

Matt Timm
Tennessee Voices for Children
1315 8th Avenue South
Nashville, TN 37203
Tel: 615-269-7751
E-mail: mtimm@tnvoices.org

Sharon Vaughn
University of Texas at Austin
Special Education Department
SZB 306
Austin, TX 78712
Tel: 512-471-4161
E-mail: DPBryant@mail.utexas.edu

Mary Wood
575 Milledge Circle
Athens GA 30606
Tel: 706-543-6281
E-mail: marymwood@aol.com

OSEP Participants

Lou Danielson
U.S. Department of Education
330 C Street, SW
Room 3532
Washington, DC 20202
Tel: 202- 205-9864
E-mail: louis_danielson@ed.gov

Renee Bradley
U.S. Department of Education
330 C Street, SW
Room 4626
Washington, DC 20202
Tel: 202-358-2849
E-mail: renee_bradley@ed.gov

Glinda Hill
U.S. Department of Education
330 C Street, SW
Room 4626
Washington, DC 20202
Tel: 202-205-8598
E-mail: glinda_hill@ed.gov

Jane Hauser
U.S. Department of Education
330 C Street, SW
Room 4617B
Washington, DC 20202
Tel: 202-205-8126
E-mail: jane_hauser@ed.gov

Kelly Henderson
U.S. Department of Education
330 C Street, SW
Room 4626
Washington, DC 20202
Tel: 202-205-8598
E-mail: kelly_henderson@ed.gov

Dave Malouf
U.S. Department of Education
330 C Street, SW
Room 4624
Washington, DC 20202
Tel: 202-205-8111
E-mail: david_malouf@ed.gov

Ingrid Oxaal
U.S. Department of Education
330 C Street, SW
Room 4615
Washington, DC 20202
Tel: 202-205-2152
E-mail: ingrid_oxaal@ed.gov

Marlene Simon
U.S. Department of Education
330 C Street, SW
Room 3517
Washington, DC 20202
Tel: 202-205-9089
E-mail: marlene_simon@ed.gov

ATTACHMENT B: CITATIONS OF REVIEW MATERIALS

SCALING UP WORK GROUP

MARCH 30, 2001

Anderson, B. (1993). The stages of systemic reform. Educational Leadership, 51 (1), 14-18.

Carnine, D. (1997). Bridging the Research-to-Practice Gap. Exceptional Children, 63 (4), pp. 513-521.

Cuban, L. (1993). How teachers taught: Constancy and change in American classrooms, 1890-1990. New York, NY: Teachers College Press. Chapters 8 and 9

Darling-Hammond, L. (1997). School reform at the cross-roads. Educational Policy, 11 (2), 151-166.

Deal, T. E. (1990). Reframing reform. Educational Leadership 48 (8), 6-12.

Elmore, Richard (1996). Geting to Scale with Good Educational Practice. Harvard Educational Review, 66 (1), Spring, pp. 1-26.

Fashola, O., & Slavin, R. (1997). Promising programs for elementary and middle schools: Evidence of effectiveness and replicability. Journal of Education for Students Placed at Risk, 2 (3), 251-307.

Fuchs, L. S., Fuchs, D., & Hamlett, C. L., & Bentz, J. (1994). Classwide curriculum-based measurement: Helping general educators meet the challenge of student diversity. Exceptional Children 60, 518-537.

Fullan, M. (1994). Change forces: Probing the depths for educational reform. London: Falmer Press. Chapters 1-3.

Fullan, M., & Miles, M (1992). Getting Reform Right: What Works and What Doesn't. Phi Delta Kappan, June 1992, pp. 745-752.

Fullan, M., & Stiegelbauer, S. (1991). The new meaning of educational change. New York, NY: Teachers College Press. Chapters 5, 6, and 13.

Gersten, R., & Brengelman, S.U. (1996). The quest to translate research into classroom practice: The emerging knowledge base. Remedial and Special Education, 17 (2), 67-74.

Hertert, L. (1996). Systemic school reform in the 1990s: A local perspective. Educational Policy, 101 (3), 379-398.

Jorgensen, C. (1998). Restructuring high school for all students: Taking inclusion to the next level. Baltimore, MD: Paul H. Brookes Publishing Company. Chapters 1-3.

Kruse, S., Louis, K., & Bryk, A. (1995). An emerging framework for analyzing school-based professional community. In K. Seashore-Louis and S. Kruse (Eds.), Professionalism and Community: Perspectives on Reforming Urban Schools. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.

Mazmanian, D., & Sabatier, P. (1989). Implementation and public policy. Lantham: University Press of America. Chapters 1, 2, and 8.

McLaughlin, M. W. (1991). Enabling professional development: What have we learned? In A. Lieberman & L. Miller (Eds.), Staff development for education in the 90s: New demands, new realities, new perspectives (61-82). New York: Teachers College Press.

National Association of State Boards of Education (1998). Sustainability Framework: National Association of State Boards of Education Study of Comprehenisve School Reform. Alexandria, VA.

Simmons, D. C., Fuchs, L., Fuchs, D., & Mathes, P. (1995). Effects of explicit teaching and peer tutoring on the reading achievement of learning disabled and low-performing students in general education. Elementary School Journal, 95, 387-408.

Simpson, G. (1990). Keeping it alive: Elements of school culture that sustain innovation. Educational Leadership, May, 34-37.

Slavin, R., & Fashola, O. (1998). Show me the evidence: Proven and promising programs for America's schools. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press. Chapters 1 and 5.

Smith, M., & O'Day, J. (1991). Systemic school reform. In S. Fuhrman and B. Malen (Eds.), The politics of curriculum and testing: 1990 yearbook of the politics of education association. Washington, D.C.: Falmer Press.

Vaughn, S., Klinger, J., & Hughes, M (2000). Sustainability of Research-Based Practices. Exceptional Children, 66 (2), pp. 163-171.

ATTACHMENT C: PERSONAL REFLECTIONS

SCALING UP WORK GROUP

MARCH 30, 2001

A group discussion was held in which each work group member reflected upon their personal experiences with scaling up research-validated practices. A summary list of issues generated in this discussion is presented below.

The JDRP/NDN process provided an important mechanism for supporting large-scale adoption of effective practices. It provided developers with funds and publicity to work with local districts. Local districts and state agencies had a place to go to find out what worked. NDN made information on best practices very accessible. "Educational Programs that Work" was sent to every district.
Parents are an important source of leverage in the scaling up process. If parents are knowledgeable about effective practices, they will be better equipped to advocate for them in IEP meetings and other venues.
In scaling up, you have to accept that nothing is going to be replicated exactly. You have to be able to figure out what is essential to include and what is not.
Publishing criteria of effectiveness in and of itself has an impact. It raises practice to a new level and focuses parents' and teachers' discussion around quality.
Educational practice is driven by fads, fashion, and foolishness. It would be useful to have some means of identifying what we know works and using that information to battle fads.
When local districts are adopting a model, it is important that they change it somewhat to make it their own.
Federal funding priorities should emphasize the importance of research-validated practices in personnel preparation, systems change, and technical assistance. They should emphasize the important of replication and going to scale in the funding of research, demonstration and outreach projects.
Key characteristics of the scaling-up process include: a reliable, replicable, model that produces results, non-stop research and development, co-construction between developer and implementer, vision and sense of mission combined with a business sense, on-site facilitators, continual professional development, no materials without training, and personal rewards for progress.
It is just as important to identify what does not work as it is to identify what does.
It may be possible to identify the essential elements of an intervention by studying the relative effects of naturally occurring variation.
Standards of practice that are endorsed by the field are one way of institutionalizing effective practice. That will help to resist losing ground when staff turns over or when political winds shift. Professional organizations, advocates, and disseminators can provide external pressure through standards of practice.
It is important to realize that when we talk about going to scale, we are talking about general education teachers as well as special educators. We have to include general educators and administrators as major audiences.
It seems that it is important for the federal government to be able to say, "We know a lot, and this is what practice should be."
If we are judging effectiveness in terms of meaningful change for all children, then the fact that we are dealing with a special education population makes that difficult, because special education has been based upon judgments of individual progress. It is important that accountability systems accurately and meaningfully represent progress of students with disabilities.

Pages: | 1 | 2 | 3 |

Return to OSEP Papers table of contents