Step Three: Creating a New Educational Strategy
In order to guide the resource reallocation particulars, schools need a new vision what we call a new educational strategy. As Karen Hawley-Miles encouraged on the accompanying tapes, schools need to look at "the whole pie" and see how it can be used differently. Such a strategy requires decisions about the regular education program as well as about programs and services for special-needs students. Districts can encourage the creation of such a strategy by requiring that schools come up with a plan for change that meets the needs identified in the needs-assessment process.
Many decisions must be made about the regular education program. The first is the overall education program, particularly the curriculum strategies. Some schools select a national school design (see www.nwrel.org/scpd/natspec/catalog/index.html for a list of such designs). Others adapt pieces from different designs. Still others adopt a more rigorous curriculum, program by program. And a few schools are successful in creating their own standards-based curriculum units.
Each school's educational strategy also requires conscious attention to the following issues, which largely drive a school's cost:
- School size
- Overall class sizes
- Targeted small classes for particular subjects (such as reading)
- Student grouping for instruction
- Planning and preparation time
- Professional development
Traditionally, these resource decisions are not made consciously, but schools engaged in resource reallocation make these important decisions very deliberately. For example, a school that identifies low reading scores as the most glaring need will want to consider the most effective reading program, the ideal reading class sizes, the best ways to group students for reading, and the professional development teachers will need to successfully teach the new reading program.
Many of the schools we studied identified low reading scores as the number one problem to be addressed, but they took a variety of approaches to restructuring their reading programs. Many schools adopt a research-proven program, such as Success for All (see http://www.successforall.net/). But several schools implemented small class sizes of 15 and also adopted a new, more phonics- based reading curriculum. Both decisions had cost implications: The former requires tutors and an instructional facilitator and the latter requires more teachers; both require extensive professional development. Schools made these decisions consciously, believing they were the best decisions for their students, and they were aware that they would need to reallocate resources to implement the decisions.
Many of the schools we studied identified low reading scores as the number one problem to be addressed, but they took a variety of approaches to restructuring their reading programs.
The schools also made dramatic new choices about serving special- needs students. Of course, all had some percentage of struggling students, or students who needed extra help to learn to the level of the higher expectations. As shown in the next section, some schools pooled the funds from various programs for students with special needs in order to afford the more powerful strategies of their new educational program.
Although the amount and specific type of additional help needed by each student varied widely, most schools dramatically reduced or eliminated the pull-out resource room strategies that they found unsatisfying. (Students with severe disabilities continued to be served in self-contained classrooms and thus were not affected by the school restructuring or resource reallocation process.) The schools then implemented some combination of one-to-one tutoring, instruction in small classes of about 15, or some other new strategy. And each particular strategy for struggling students had the goal of educating those students to meet or exceed the high standards established for all students.
Several schools moved pull-out teachers, who had dual licensure in both regular and special education, into regular classrooms and mainstreamed all but the severely disabled students into the smaller classes. This practice also enabled schools to reduce class size by increasing the number of classroom teachers. And by adopting a dual licensure strategy for its teachers, the schools ensured that the expertise needed for each class of students was there. We should note that it was not possible to have all dual-licensed teachers immediately, so schools used short-term solutions, such as having at least one dual-licensed teacher on each teacher team and concentrating the special needs students in the classrooms that were taught by a dual-licensed teacher.
Schools also made decisions about how to use teachers' time to enhance their skills and promote collaboration. Several schools rescheduled the teaching day to provide 90 minutes of planning time at least four times each week. Other schools altered the schedule so that all teachers on the same teaching team had their preparation period at the same time to enable them to meet as a team. Some schools added time to four days and then dismissed students early on the fifth day, thus giving teachers 2-3 hours of uninterrupted planning time. Nearly all schools created and implemented new strategies for giving teachers more time during the regular school day to provide the professional development and preparation time needed to implement their new educational strategy.
By structuring, scheduling, and staffing the school according to the imperatives of their students' needs and their new educational strategy, the schools began allocating resources to where they were needed most and could have the largest impact on student achievement. The next section describes that resource reallocation process.
