Past Reports

Making a Difference in the Silver State

Nevada’s State Improvement Grant (SIG) is designed to make a difference by:

• Improving special education student performance and achievement;
• Increasing parent representation and participation in educational development and decision-making, and increasing parent representation and contribution to policy and procedure developments across system levels; and
• Improving recruitment and retention for general and special education teachers, administrators, and related service providers to increase teaching quality.

Below, key strategies for each of these overarching goals are described.

Improving Student Performance

In the first few years of the project, the primary strategy for this goal was to fund 19 schools across the state and to provide funding and technical assistance for experts in school improvement and special education to assist the schools’ efforts. The project focused on providing a facilitator to work with each school improvement team as they identified and implemented targeted professional development activities to address data-based areas of concern. Four facilitators were designated to work with schools in each of the state’s four professional development regions. These school improvement efforts were tied closely to the statewide Student Achievement Gap Elimination (SAGE) initiative and connections were made to SAGE strategies and tools as appropriate. Areas on which the schools focused their improvement efforts varied in scope and level of detail. Gaps in desired school performance were identified in a number of areas and helped guide selection of professional development.

After two years of providing funding and other support to the schools, we had sufficient data to take a critical look at our outcomes. Analyses revealed various levels of success among the schools in terms of changing student performance through the delivery of professional development under this model. Stakeholders realized that in order to truly make a difference, we needed to provide more structure in terms of helping schools to engage in professional development efforts that ensured changes in teacher and administrator behavior. For a number of reasons, too much “traditional” professional development (e.g., conferences, one-shot workshops with external experts) still dominated the schools’ selections. Additionally, there was an inconsistent match between what the data showed the school should focus on and what training educators actually received. To address these challenges, we determined that a consistent focus was needed and that a consistent structure could best help us achieve our desired results. Thus began a tremendously valuable partnership among Nevada school districts, the Nevada Department of Education, and the Laboratory for Instructional Consultation (IC) Teams at the University of Maryland.

In the past year, 71% of our school districts have been actively engaged in piloting the creation and implementation of the IC Team model in Nevada schools. The model adheres to exceptionally rigorous standards for delivering professional development, relying upon the integration of each type of training method described in the following table, which also demonstrates the level and evidence of impact realized through each method.

In the IC model, training content is focused on creating a match among instruction, the student, and the task. It relies upon an expectation that the target for change is the teacher’s behavior, since it is the teacher who can control the way the instruction is provided and the task in which the student is expected to engage at any given time. The purpose in changing the teacher’s behavior is to support his or her instructional capacity such that all students are able to effectively learn rigorous and relevant academic content. The model has been implemented in seven states with over 400 schools, and has been proven to:

• Demonstrate improved academic and behavioral achievement for students;
• Provide a data-based process for providing academic intervention services for students not meeting expected standards;
• Provide embedded professional development for staff in areas of assessment, instruction and collaborative problem solving;
• Maximize resources via coordinated, goal-directed services for students and teachers;
• Recapture resources by reducing inappropriate referrals for special education; and
• Address the over-identification, especially the overrepresentation of minority students, for special education services.

The exciting news for Nevada is that preliminary data suggest that teacher behavior is changing and that results will improve for our state. We are rolling out a new cohort of schools in the fall; the first cohort will continue in year two to develop and enhance their schoolwide systems. Each school receives active support from the IC Lab and the NDE for three years. At the same time, we are building capacity at the district level so that school districts can continue to support schools in implementing the model over time.

The real lesson in making a difference under goal one has been to pay attention to our evaluation data and to resist continuing to implement something that wasn’t working just because it was what we had originally planned on doing. Additionally, communication and collaboration with stakeholders has been essential for ensuring statewide buy-in and a commitment to long-term systems change. Our focus is now shifting towards the scaling up of the model across the state, including a more focused approach for training administrators to lead and support organizational change at the school and district level.

Meaningful Parent Involvement
The strategies proposed to engage parents take a variety of forms. Efforts were made to ensure parents were represented on the school improvement teams at the 19 funded schools; training has been delivered under a subcontract with Nevada PEP, the State’s Parent Training and Information Center; and Project funds have supported parents to attend statewide school improvement trainings. As part of school and district improvement planning efforts, training has been provided to district administrators on how to collect data from parents through surveys, interviews, and focus groups and how to use those data to shape school and district improvement plans to increase outcomes for special education students. Technical assistance has also been provided to parents of students with disabilities to help them understand their rights under various programs authorized through the No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB) such as supplemental services and school choice, to ensure the decisions they make for their individual children are meaningful.

Our primary partner for helping parents to engage in meaningful decision-making efforts has been Nevada PEP, the State’s Parent Training and Information Center. Nevada PEP is well respected in the state, and PEP parent leaders enjoy strong working relationships with the NDE as well as with school districts and other advocacy organizations. Collaboration with PEP has enabled us to provide training to both educators and parents to help parents increase their understanding of their rights and to play a more active role in schoolwide decision making.

In Nevada’s original SIG proposal, significant work was planned with regard to the development of training materials and provision of training to support parents’ understanding of the federal regulations for the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA). In light of the delayed reauthorization of the statute, as well as availability of the final regulations, much of this plan was modified. The lesson for us relative to this consideration has been that we must “go with the federal flow.” This means that we have had to plan for effective resource utilization so that necessary training did occur before the regulations were available, but that we also delayed spending some resources earlier in the project so that when the regulations were finally available, we still had resources to provide the essential training necessary around that content as well. Finally, our approach to providing training on the regulations has shifted over time. We have been trying to make a difference by helping both parents and educators understand that an integral part of achieving results is the development and maintenance of strong relationships. Therefore we no longer provide training on regulations without also addressing key ways in which schools and parents can communicate and collaborate to support the existence of strong relationships. Our due process, state complaint, and mediation data bear this concept out.

Recruitment and Retention
The Teaching Quality Task Force (TQTF) is a powerful statewide entity that has been created through SIG leadership. The purpose of the TQTF is to identify priorities in teacher preparation, licensure, and professional development in order to create an action plan that ensures that every Nevada student receives instruction from highly qualified and effective teachers. The Task Force envisions that this will be accomplished through the alignment of the pre-service, licensure, and professional development systems.

Membership is comprised of: staff from the Nevada Department of Education, including Consultants and/or Directors with expertise in special education, poverty (Title I), limited English proficiency (Title III), professional development (Title II), teacher licensure, Nevada content standards (Reading/Language Arts, Mathematics, Science, and Social Studies) and teacher preparation; Faculty members from public and private institutions of higher education, including representatives with expertise in teaching diverse learners (special education and LEP), educational leadership, curriculum and instruction, content standards, and teacher preparation; district and regional administrators including representatives with expertise in special education, LEP, poverty, teacher licensure and human resources, and professional development; parents; teachers’ association representatives; school-based representatives including teachers and principals; and a technical assistance provider associated with the Southwest Comprehensive Center. Some members of the Task Force also serve as members of the Nevada Commission on Professional Standards in Education and Nevada’s P-16 Council.

Efforts of the TQTF occur through coordination with a work group comprised of 10 representative members of the Task Force, and an external facilitator hired to provide leadership and coordination to help the Task Force move forward in meeting the desired purpose.

The Work Group has met approximately 7 times per year since the fall of 2005. The Task Force has met 3 times since the spring of 2006 and will next meet in May 2007. To date the Task Force has conducted a needs assessment and identified tentative priority concerns. The Task Force is currently in the action plan development phase. The action plan will be completed by summer’s end 2007, and will include one overarching goal, two objectives, and several strategies per objective (with identified timelines, resources, and responsibilities), as well as a monitoring and implementation plan to be used for accountability and evaluative (action plan refinement) purposes. The tentative overarching goal for the action plan is to r eform Nevada’s system of teacher development to link and align pre-service, licensure, and professional development to sustain the delivery of high quality instruction and rigorous content for all Nevada students.

Anticipated partners in implementing the action plan include: the P-16 Council; Nevada Commission on Professional Standards in Education; Directors and Governance Board members of each of the 4 Regional Professional Development Programs; Nevada Department of Education and State Board; Nevada System of Higher Education; and District Administrators of Nevada’s school districts. Starting in fall 2007, the Task Force will meet at least 2 times per year to review action plan implementation for accountability purposes and to make revisions to the action plan based upon continuous monitoring and evaluation efforts.

Already, the Task Force is seen to serve a powerful function in our state. Despite our small numbers, leaders from across organizations had not previously come together to try to collaboratively improve outcomes in teacher preparation, licensure, and professional development that retains teachers. Members are grateful for the coordinated opportunity to collaborate, and we are seeing new ground broken in terms of shared ownership and responsibility for creating and sustaining change that will improve results.

This website and the accompanying SigServe is managed by Technical Assistance and Consulting Services at the University of Oregon and financially supported by SIG and SPDG projects.