Year Three Quarter 2 Report by Equity Alliance at ASU

Januar y 1st - March 31st, 2011

TABLE OF CONTENTS

LEADERSHIP ............................................................................................................................................................................ 1 THE EQUITY ALLIANCE AT ASU.............................................................................................................................................. 2 INTRODUCTION........................................................................................................................................................................ 3 Performance Criteria.................................................................................................................................................................. 3 GOAL 1: TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE & PROFESSIONAL LEARNING................................................................................ 4 Evidence........................................................................................................................................................................................ 4 1.1 Provide Technical Assistance and Professional Development........................................................................................................ 4 1.2 Developing a variety of platforms for dissemination and TA....................................................................................................... 7 Goal 1 Accomplishments........................................................................................................................................................... 10 GOAL 2: NETWORKING & DISSEMINATION....................................................................................................................... 11 Evidence...................................................................................................................................................................................... 11 2.1 Design and Maintain Communications Infrastructure............................................................................................................. 11 2.2 Develop and Maintain Networks........................................................................................................................................... 12 2.3 Proactive Dissemination Plan................................................................................................................................................ 12 Goal 2 Accomplishments........................................................................................................................................................... 14 GOAL 3: RESEARCH & DEVELOPMENT................................................................................................................................ 14 Evidence...................................................................................................................................................................................... 14 3.1 Conceptual Framework for Synthesis of Best Practices............................................................................................................... 14 3.2 Resource Clearinghouse.......................................................................................................................................................... 14 3.3 High quality products........................................................................................................................................................... 16 3.4 Tools for Assessing Equity and Leveraging School Improvement................................................................................................. 16 Goal 3 Accomplishments........................................................................................................................................................... 17 GOAL 4: CONTINUOUS IMPROVEMENT.............................................................................................................................. 17 Evidence...................................................................................................................................................................................... 17 4.1 Engage in ongoing assessment................................................................................................................................................. 17 4.2 Assess quality of products and services...................................................................................................................................... 17 4.3 Engage in continuous refinement............................................................................................................................................ 17 Goal 4 Accomplishments........................................................................................................................................................... 18 Conclusion.................................................................................................................................................................................. 18

ÂŠ equityalliance 2011

Leadership PRINCIPAL INVESTIGATORS

STAFF

ADVISORY BOARD John Copenhaver, Mountain Plains Regional Resource Center

Arizona State University

David Gibson, Continuous Improvement and Evaluation Lead

Elizabeth B. Kozleski Arizona State University

Anna George, Evaluation Assistant

Janet Gless, New Teacher Center, University of California – Santa Barbara

KEY PERSONNEL

Kristi Jackson, External Evaluator

Charlene Green, Clark County School District

Shaunna Price, Administrative Assistant

Stephanie Hirsh, National Staff Development Council

Alfredo Artiles,

JoEtta Gonzales, Project Director Seena Skelton, Co-Director, Technical Assistance & Professional Learning

PROJECT OFFICER Sandra Brown, U.S. Department of Education, Office of Elementary and Secondary Education Fran Walter, U.S. Department of Education, Office of Elementary and Secondary Education

Mary Hudler, California Department of Education Irene Martinez, Fiesta Educativa, Inc. Ellen Moir, New Teacher Center, University of California – Santa Barbara Jose Padilla, California Rural Legal Assistance, Inc. Gary Orfield, UCLA Civil Rights Project Dolores Ratcliff, Arizona Department of Education Robert Rueda, University of Southern California Jesús José Salazar, Los Angeles Unified School District Edward Lee Vargas, Kent School District Carlos G. Veléz-Ibáñez, Arizona State University

Equity Matters: In Lear ning , for Life

www.equityallianceatasu.org

The Equity Alliance at ASU The Equity Alliance at ASU is a regional equity assistance center (EAC) supported by a $2.4 million grant from the U.S. Department of Education, awarded through the Department’s initiatives to support Title IV of the 1964 Civil Rights Act through rights training and advisory services for schools and communities to address equity and access issues in public education. Equity Assistance Centers provide technical assistance (TA) and training at the request of school boards and other responsible governmental agencies for the preparation, adoption, and implementation of plans for the desegregation of public schools. As defined by program guidelines, desegregation refers to equity—including desegregation based on race, sex, and national origin and the development of effective methods of coping with special educational problems occasioned by desegregation. In all, there are ten regional equity assistance centers in the U.S. The Equity Alliance at ASU is the EAC for Region IX, the southwestern region comprised of Arizona, California, and Nevada. Building on the educational theory, cutting-edge research, and the momentum of the National Center for Culturally Responsive Educational Systems (NCCRESt), the National Institute for Urban School Improvement (NIUSI), and NIUSI-LeadScape, the mission of the Equity Alliance at ASU is to promote equity, access, and participation in education by supporting the capacity of States and local school systems to provide high-quality, effective opportunities to learn for all students, regardless of race, gender, or national origin, and to reduce disparities in academic achievement. Our approach is grounded in emphases on civil rights and cultural responsiveness, as well as the belief that all students can excel in academic endeavors if they are provided with access to high-quality teachers, curricula, instruction, programs and resources, and their cultures, languages, and experiences are valued and used to facilitate their learning. Guided by a thematic focus on enhancing both understanding of equity in classrooms, schools, and school systems and the use of scientifically-based solutions, our approach addresses the gaps and priorities identified in recent, major policy and research equity reports (Artiles et al. 2005; Donovan & Cross, 2002; Ferguson et al., 2003; Harry & Klingner, 2006; Klingner et al., 2005; Skiba et al., 2008; Losen

& Orfield, 2002). Rather than view race, class, and gender as isolated factors, the center’s perspective suggests that the current inequitable conditions of schooling are connected to historical legacies of exclusion and inclusion based on normative assumptions about race, class, gender, and national origin that define who is considered competent and how difference is constructed (Minow, 1990). Indeed, schools engaged in equity work need to critique and transform such assumptions and focus on belonging, nurturing, and educating all students, regardless of differences in race, gender, culture, language, ability, or class (Artiles & Kozleski, 2007). This kind of work must be transformative to change systemic contributors to inequity. Both inclusivity and cultural responsiveness are grounded in transformative equity and social justice. Understanding how this perspective must inform classroom practice, school organization, and district policy is a hallmark of the successful work of the Equity Alliance at ASU personnel. In supporting state, district, and schools’ work to create equitable school systems, the Equity Alliance at ASU promotes the development of culturally responsive, inclusive educational systems. A major purpose of the Equity Alliance at ASU is to assist schools in complying with federal civil rights requirements through the adoption or improvement of policies and practices and to help parents, students, educators, and community members to understand their rights under federal law. The Center is responsive to states and school boards where students are at risk for language, racial, gender, ability, and national origin equity issues that affect student achievement. The Equity Alliance at ASU responds by working with districts, schools, and practitioners who are struggling to serve ALL their students equitably through developing and disseminating research based products, onsite technical assistance and coaching. Our relationships with Regional Resource Centers, Regional Educational Labs, Comprehensive Centers, the New Teachers Center, content centers, and other equity networks and professional organizations make us well poised to provide technical assistance to Region IX because we can create synergies between efforts.

The Equity Alliance at ASU serves as a resource to the Office of Civil Rights and Department of Justice in ensuring equity for all students, regardless of race, gender, or national origin, by pursuing the following outcomes: Reduce the over-representation of minorities in special education; Increase the representation of minorities in gifted and talented and advanced placement programs; Increase the use of scientifically-based, culturally responsive curricula and instructional practices in classrooms, schools, and districts including the provision of resource materials, professional development and training on

successful strategies for providing Limited English Proficient (LEP) students with equitable access to a high-quality education; Build local coalitions between higher education, preK-12 systems, communities, and families to provide equal access to highly qualified teachers, especially for students who are economically disadvantaged;

Support, develop, and disseminate effective approaches to school dropout prevention and reentry; Promote equity by addressing the special needs of high-risk students, including students from diverse racial and ethnic backgrounds; and Support districts transitioning to unitary status in desegregation cases.

Introduction Transformative equity assistance Goal 1 work requires TA & Professional De v. coordinated efforts Goal 3 Goal 2 that build Virtual Networks Clearinghouse capacity through ongoing Goal 4: Continuous Impromement professional development, supported by the use of cuttingFigure 1. Goals of the Center edge tools, frameworks and ideas. In addition, to be truly transformative, equity work is best institutionalized and scaled up through a distributive model of organizational change in which effective practices are systematically disseminated through school networks. The Equity Alliance at ASU’s approach thus centers on four key change levers (Figure 1): GOAL 1: On-Demand Technical Assistance and Professional Development GOAL 2: Networks of School Systems Engaged in High-Quality Equity Work GOAL 3: A Virtual Clearinghouse GOAL 4: Continuous Improvement and Evaluation This four pronged approach: • Provides the impetus and skills to make organizational change for social justice and equity outcomes, • Creates access to tools that will capture progress on critical equity issues and pressuring change for those who lag behind on educational achievement based on gender, national origin, and race, • Demonstrates how a focus on improving results for ALL students improves results for particular groups as well, • Provides resources and training in the areas of hate crimes, racial prejudice, disproportionality, ELL instruction, school completion, bullying, and sexual harassment, and

Performance Criteria The Equity Alliance Center is known for its high-quality human, technical and contentrich resources, which it creates in the context of fieldwork at all levels of the complex educational system. The Center also identifies, collects and disseminates high-quality resources from others’ research and development on equity matters. The outcome measures of our goals focus on the assessment of products and services in six domains (Figure 2) through the collection of data embedded within internal operations and through feedback from our clients and expert advisors: Q: Quality – Are our products and services rigorous and scientifically-based? A: We measure quality through feedback from our participants on our web-based products, evaluation from meetings, the number of long-term relationships we develop with districts, feedback from experts, by comparing our work to other equity assistance centers, and participating in ongoing conversations with national leaders, including the equity assistance center Technical Assistance & Dissemination Network. Q: Understanding – Do our products and services produce understanding? A: We measure understanding by the degree to which our participants indicate they understand and can use information from our print, electronic, and face-to-face delivery of information. The measure of understanding comes primarily from our end user evaluations, which we conduct after conferences, consultations, online webinars and via random surveys of our mailing list.

Q: Authenticity – Do our products and services reflect the current and foreseeable realities of our audiences? A: We measure authenticity by the degree to which our end users tell us that our products and services have immediate applicability to their contexts. We also ensure that products we create stem from field-based concerns and real experiences, which we garner through deep interactions in our Level IV technical assistance. Q: Accessibility – Are our products and services accessible to families, students, and school boards in rural and suburban districts, small towns and cities? A: We measure success in accessibility by the demographics of our end users, information that we collect through surveys conducted at all levels of our technical assistance model. We look for broad audience participation across all of our conferences, consultations, and from those who find, download and use our products. Q: Usefulness – Are our products and services useful in developing and sustaining changes in student and staff behavior? A: We survey end users throughout the year to take measures on this criterion and ask experts for their opinions about our products and services. Q: Market share – Are we expanding our knowledge networks and reaching new audiences? A: We use online tracking tools to report increases in the number of requests for technical assistance, the number of new visitors to our web site, and which tools, products and pages they are downloading. We compare these results quarter by quarter and benchmark our performance to industry standards. We increase market share by leveraging these sources of information to take advantage of the yearly cycle of communications, conferences and other events that stimulate market response.

Figure 2. Six domains for assessment of products and serices

• Underscores our commitment to continuing to improve results.

Equity Matters: In Lear ning , for Life

We report on these criteria within the following “Accomplishments” section of each of the four goals of the Center.

www.equityallianceatasu.org

Goal 1: Technical Assistance & Professional Learning Leverage continued improvement in research-based practices in schools through regional technical assistance and professional development supporting school, district, and state-wide development of assessment, referral, and instructional practices that address disparities related to race, national origin, and gender, as well as eliminating hate crimes, racial prejudice, and bullying/harassment. The Equity Alliance at ASU provides technical assistance and professional learning experiences across a range of four tiers that represent different kinds of focus and levels of contact (Figure 3). Tier 1 is Resource Dissemination, the broadest outreach level, characterized by web products, Webinars, newsletters, brief useful documents, and monthly touch points. Tier 2 is Topic-Specific technical assistance requested by educational authorities in Region IX and usually result in one-time onsite consultations; other examples in this tier include video-conferences to meet specific needs, and facilitator training and accreditation. Tier 3 focuses on the development of a professional learning network and includes strategies such as multiple onsite consultations within a planned course of development, conference presentations, building leadership teams in schools, and developing professional learning plans. Tier 4 is the level where Systemic Change Partnerships are formed and maintained; at this level, we develop case stories of long-term interactions where the Systemic Change Framework is used as a constant comparative tool to promote transformation into a culturally responsive system.

Equity Alliance at ASU Tiered Model of Technical Assistance • Clark County School District • Washoe County School District • • • • • •

Davis Joint Unified Waterford Unified Center Joint Unified Stanislaus County Los Angeles Unified Tempe Elementary School District

• California Department of Education • Los Angeles Unified School District

Sys t C emi Par hange c tne rsh ips

Pr Lea ofess ion rnin a Dev g Net l wo elo rk pm ent

Top i

Res o

c-S pe

urc

ciﬁ

isse min

c TA

atio

te • Valley View Sta rict t Dis chool s, • International Rescue Commission & S ership , n t L P Par • Arizona Department of Education tive ma r fo s, ns n Tra udie rive e St D s t a x C nte , Co ps ized a Ma tom Dat n, Cus tio lta ns, nsu tatio Co n e, e d s e e ctic PL a cus ce Pr r o F fP m ren ies o s Tea g, nfe ip it lan o h in n u C rs in gP mm eade n Tra arnin , L Co io e t g L on a al ati n ildincredit t u l sio B Ac su fes on ces, Pro C g on pin ati site ren velo On onfe credit De via C c

rA TA eo ed d Vid litato s i ng est qu le- an e Fac aili e R , M Te lianc ers asts l t A t c y le uit ws , Pod Eq Ne ars s, bin uct e d W ro rv, bP We Listse

Figure 3. Tiered model of technical assistance, with key partnerships noted

Evidence 1.1 Provide Technical Assistance and Professional Development Technical assistance and professional learning at Tier 4 is the most intensive, long-term work of the Equity Alliance. Staff made visits to all 3 states (AZ, CA, NV) during the quarter to work with six Tier 4 partners. Progress in each partnership was documented in Field Reports. Proactive plans for each partner were developed in consultation with key entry point contacts in each partnership. In the natural course of this technical assistance work, the staff developed new materials, including: data reviews, summary results from interviews, and planning tools, and the data they generate. These data and materials became part of the longitudinal case record of engagement of the Equity Alliance at ASU with Tier 4 partners. Here are highlights from each partnership. Arizona Kyrene School District On February 1st, staff met with the assistant superintendent from the Kyrene School District in Arizona to outline the process of becoming a Tier IV partner. As a result, the assistant superintendent invited the Equity Alliance staff to the Kyrene School District’s next Equity team meeting to present an overview of the Equity Alliance and discuss the ways in which we might support them in their strategic action plan goals related to equity. Based on those conversations a professional learning plan was created that will guide the next steps in the partnership. State School District Refugee Liaisons. Staff facilitated a professional learning experience for the school Refugee coordinators and liaisons at the Phoenix Elementary School District office, and presented Promoting Family Engagement and Effective Communication. The 27 attendees from 12 school districts included teachers, professional developers, department directors, and refugee resettlement specialists. California

California Department of Education: Staff facilitated a meeting focused on the online learning professional learning module

entitled Culturally Responsive Teaching in California (CRT) with district facilitators and representatives from the California Department of Education on March 24th. Davis Unified: Our work led Davis Unified to create a comprehensive plan for promoting equity in the district next fall that includes (a) professional development for culturally responsive leadership, (b) a family learning and engagement component around culturally responsive practices, and (c) continued support for the use of CRT in CA in three schools during the next school year. Nevada Washoe County: This quarter’s work led to the district renaming and reorganizing their equity team, and gaining initial training in a recurring data review process that looks at both qualitative (from dialogue groups and observations) and district quantitative (from their district’s data summit) data. Equity Alliance staff developed materials and prepared a process for the team to begin examining their data based on previous visits and efforts undertaken between meetings. Clark County Observation of an external consultant provided an effective entry into discussing how the district’s equity team can increase its visibility among school leaders and how professional learning will be provided to the school liaisons in the future when funding for outside consultants is no longer available. Our technical assistance will help them develop a professional development plan with a set of criteria for critically reviewing professional learning resources and conducting an equity walk-through of schools. During the next visit to Clark County, Equity Alliance staff plans to facilitate professional learning around Systemic Change for Equity with the EDE staff. Field Notes document the linkages and impacts of Technical Assistance Equity Alliance staff write Field Notes after each event or service, which document our technical assistance. Evaluation of the notes uncovers evidence of the types of technical assistance and professional learning we provide, as well as the impacts that propel “next steps” as a result of each visit. For example, outcomes of the California visit included the district team setting priorities on their agenda for change: Inquiry: Connecting stories to results Resources: Expanding to 3 more schools within a particular district Leadership: Awareness work with leaders

Equity Matters: In Lear ning , for Life

Partnerships: Adding culturally responsive awareness opportunities for family groups Also in Field Notes this quarter, linkages to impacts of our online professional learning module include evidence that participants and local facilitators are beginning to: •

See connections in the literature to on-the-ground professional learning (a sign of promoting Understanding & Authenticity).

•

Witness ways in which the Equity Alliance finds and uses teachable moments to extend and deepen the conversations (evidence of Understanding & Usefulness).

•

Notice changes in participant behavior toward more thoughtful, prepared interactions (Understanding & Usefulness).

•

Talk about awareness and sensitivity of participants to structural and symbolic cultural responsiveness issues (Understanding)

•

See evidence of change in parent behavior as a result of the acquisition of new understandings (Accessibility & Understanding).

•

Heighten the observational skills of facilitators and see links to participant impact (Usefulness).

Examples of our Tier 2 and 3 supports include our annual Leadership Forum for Equity and Excellence and its associated Leadership Certification training. 2011 Leadership Forum for Equity and Excellence The annual Leadership Forum reinforces our relationship with key members of an extended and ever-increasing network of clients, partners, and others. In addition, the lead-up as well as follow-up to the conference stimulates much activity both inside the Equity Alliance and within our partners, which we can see in Web traffic and documents concerning planning processes taking place in the presenting teams, many of whom are school teams. Significant human resources were allocated to envision, plan and carry out the Forum, which was held from February 28th to March 1st. The Forum attracted over 200 people from 28 states. Fifty-seven presentations were offered on a wide range of authentic and timely equity issues. Teams with four or more people came from states including AZ, CA and NV as well as OR, IL, NY, CO, UT, MD, FL, & WI. Forum participants fulfill many roles in education (Figure 4), with the majority (87%) coming from elementary schools (23%),

www.equityallianceatasu.org

middle schools (3%), secondary schools (10%), districts (18%) and higher education (33%).

preferred this conference over others they attend, and 18% said it was their favorite of all. Comments connected to these two areas of findings included: Each session and keynote speaker was so engaging and provided such an interactive forum. I heard such positive, strong messages about the dedication and work towards equality for all. This conference was a truly inspiring experience. It was one of the finest conferences I have ever attended - from the quality of the sessions, to the facilities and printed material, to the gracious and helpful hosts in their purple scarves. Every detail was planned for and executed with the utmost care. I used to attend the annual NAME conference, and for the past 2 years have chosen the Equity Alliance Forum instead. It has been excellent both years.

Figure 4. Leadership Forum participant roles in education Evaluation of the Forum takes place in several ways, through direct observation, post-event surveys, session evaluation forms, and unsolicited feedback. Individual session evaluations were gathered (n=403) and those results were used to thank presenters and give them feedback about their impact on participants. We also surveyed people online for their overall impressions of the event several days afterward; 32 people responded to the survey out of 86 people (37%) who opened the email. We asked participants to rate the Forum on our key performance indicators (Figure 5) including, Quality, Usefulness, Understanding, and Authenticity. Overwhelmingly, people rate the event as high quality (100% agree or very much agree), user-friendly (100%), useful (96%), impactful on their understanding (96%)and applicable to their lives (93%).

Another area of questions concerned how useful the Forumâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s experience was to advancing several professional learning topics (Figure 6). The responses (useful or very useful) indicate that the Forum does exceedingly well in providing useful information on professional learning (93%), shifting oneâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s perspectives towards equity matters (96%), and the continuous improvement of attitudes and practices (99%). Forum planners will examine new ways to address the use of evidence-based information (80% rated this useful or very useful) and making connections to data-driven decision-making (68%).

Figure 6. Participant rating of professional learning topics in the Equity Forum.

Figure 5. Performance indicator ratings from Equity Forum participants In a second question, where we asked for an overall rating compared to other conferences people attend, 99% responded that they

We also asked participants to also tell us the extent to which the Forum deepened their knowledge in four critical areas (Figure 7): (1) Dispelling the myth of individual and group deficits, (2) Expanding local ownership of equity, (3) Demonstrating the impact of culturally responsive practice, and (4) Increasing learning outcomes for students who have been marginalized. None of these areas fell below 80% of the people responding that the Forum had deepened or very much deepened their understandings in these areas.

ÂŠ equityalliance 2011

Finally, we asked people to tell us in their own words what were the “Ah-Ha’s” of the experience, and these fell into three categories: (1) Detailed knowledge, (2) New Problems and Dilemmas, and (3) New Insights. We’ve included characteristic quotes for these responses in Table 1.

Figure 7. Participant ratings of Equity Forum impact on their understanding. Another area of questions concerned the impacts of the event on people’s thinking and plans for action. One question asked “To what extent do you believe that as a result of this forum, a new POLICY will be created?” to which the participants were split: 12% said there was no chance at all, 40% said it was unlikely and 46% said it was likely. This result was not related to the role group or job identity of participants; the decision was split among all groups. Eighty percent (80%) of the respondents said that any policy change would focus on ensuring that students have equitable opportunities to learn. Other responses included these priorities for change in policies: • • • • •

Reducing harassment, conflict or violence Increasing funding for program. Involving more families in community decisions. Continuing to work on these issues at our own school site. Reducing discipline referrals of African American males

In contrast to policies, changes in PRACTICE were more strongly positive. Fifty percent (50%) indicated that practices would probably change and an additional 21% indicated that practices would certainly change as a result of the Forum. Nearly 87% of respondents felt that these changed practices would focus on ensuring that students have equitable opportunities to learn. Other responses included these priorities for change in practices: • • • •

Culturally Responsive Teaching Teachers examining their own perspectives and culture and trying to better understand others Helping managers get more in touch with their values as a basis for decision making Involving more families in community decisions

Equity Matters: In Lear ning , for Life

Detailed Knowledge

New Problems & Dilemmas

New Insights

Our schools were originally organized 300 years ago to serve a specific population.

How to transform a school in all aspects in a short period of time?

Achieving equity is complex and doesn’t exist in a vacuum.

Paying attention to small details. For example: how can one Principal can name all the students in her school and acknowledge they are there, full of life and eager to learn...Ah Ha!.

I agree with some conversations that we spend a lot of time talking and little time taking action... I’m feeling less assured about what action to take.

A structure for braiding culturally responsive practices and PBIS.

Ways as a school we can ensure we are doing a better job of looking at our children of color and what they need to be successful at school.

I feel the frustration level may be a little more than anticipated, there are so many changes that need to take place.

I learned how to help people define their own culture.

The power that principals, superintendents have, and how hierarchy can either empower or disempower efforts to increase equity.

I hope that people start sharing this information and people start changing for the better. Fingers crossed.

In order to have change it is necessary to have 90% of the people actually “doing” the change for it to create the change.

To use the film Bullied and related Teaching Tolerance resources.

What is it about the culture of our organization that we need to spend so much time discussing and addressing diversity? Will we ever get to the point when we won’t even have to have this discussion?

Realizing that we still need more evidence to strengthen and advance social justice for all students.

To make a family’s commitment to their children’s education more explicit to debunk the myth that poor parent and caretakers do not care about their children and their education.

www.equityallianceatasu.org

Education is the civil rights topic of the 21st Century.

2011 Leadership Certification Training Thirty educational leaders attended our 2-day Leadership Certification training in March; these included national technical assistance providers, state agency leaders, researchers, district administrators and principals. The intended outcomes for the training included engaging in conversations and learning how to facilitate activities that address (1) power, privilege and difference within their own local contexts, (2) systemic strategies for leading change for equity, and (3) a method of driving change forward through the use of a strategy we call Culturally Responsive Cognitive Coaching. Evaluation of the training was conducted using data from daily reflections and feedback, followed by an online survey tool. Participants found the training useful and user-friendly and deemed the experience a high quality event that helped them ensure that students have equitable opportunities to learn. Participants indicated agreement that the training provided useful learning about: • •

Continuous improvement of attitudes and practices. Frameworks and processes for engaging in culturally responsive cognitive coaching to lead transformative change in local settings.

•

Helping others reframe deficit models of thinking about disparities in educational access, participation and outcomes.

•

Shifting perspectives towards the complexities of equity work.

•

The way that identity impacts teaching and learning.

When asked about the big “Ah-Ha’s” of the certification experience, participants offered: The information on “equity traps” gave me a new way of thinking about things. I had numerous “ah-has” as I talked with or learned from colleagues from different parts of the country. The “cognitive coaching” work was interesting and made me think about how we could use it to further our cultural competency work in our school The protocol and demonstration of cognitive coaching was excellent. “Listening to ask questions” rather than to “solve problems” will be a shift for me. The skill and will to coach others starts with your own identify. The difference between cognitive coaching and culturally responsive teaching.

1.2 Developing a variety of platforms for dissemtination and TA Engaging staff in continuous improvement of platforms The TA & PL team regularly reflects on its work through weekly processes that include data collection forms that give structure to both accountability and strategic thinking. This quarter, the process included reflecting on the development of our online learning platform and content, using data from a staff survey. The staff strongly agreed that the technical work on the platform had an understandable process, that the broad goals and outcomes were clear, that roles on the team were well understood, and that people had the skills they needed for the job. However, there was less unanimity about clarity of weekly direction and goals, and about a variety of individual barriers they faced. Nearly all agreed that improvements were needed in the project team meeting timelines. Overall, we learned about the challenge of developing engaging online professional learning experiences. Once the high level concepts are known and outlined, the process of creating well-aligned content, that is both suitable and uniquely effective for online learning, takes a diverse team with specific skills in instructional design processes as well as visual and interaction design. As a result of the evaluation, the leadership team has implemented a series of changes to the development process, including clear-cut deadlines and dialogue addressing issues in reviewing the product. Other examples of outcomes of this investigation include (1) development of a user’s manual for the platform, (2) reorganization of files and documents associated with this project, and (3) creation of a series of job aids for product creation. On January 14th, staff working on the online learning platform participated in a training session led by Chris Haskell from Boise State University. Topics in this session focused on improving the learning experience, navigation and delivery of content. Dr. Haskell shared considerations to keep in mind when developing online content and commented on additional functions provided by our current delivery platform – Moodle Rooms; he also shared several open source online technologies that could make our courses more interactive (e.g. Voicethread, Shout box, Cinch voice recording, Odiogo text to speech etc.). The reflective processes that were part of evaluating and learning more about best practices in online learning shaped our vision of the future of this form of equity assistance. New features that are now on our development agenda include: self-direction, game and simulation-like features, self-guided knowledge maps, automated feedback on progress in the knowledge domain, providing tools for thinking and reflection, and linking resources for furthering knowledge.

Goal 1 Accomplishments The following list summarizes the evidence of accomplishments during this quarter, organized by our performance criteria.

Accessibility Several visits to CA, AZ and NV provided Tier 4 partners with situated professional learning. Professional learning was made accessible 24/7 via our online platforms.

Authenticity

Quality Evidence from the Equity Leadership Forum evaluation indicates that participants experienced a high quality event and view it as a learning opportunity for leadership development. Our research into the quality and effectiveness of our online learning development processes led to streamlining the process and to increased knowledge that will guide the next stages of digital enhancements for equity assistance.

Participants in the Coaching Certification Workshop were coached on issues they experience in their own settings. Participants were able to observe coaching sessions based on authentic problems of practice.

Understanding

Of the 57 of Forum sessions, over half reported on activities and findings from local settings.

Usefulness

Market Share We promoted market awareness and engagement during the quarter to solidify and build upon our base, through planning and implementing the Equity Leadership Forum (over 200 people from 28 states) and Certification Training (30 people).

Equity Matters: In Lear ning , for Life

Evidence of changes in understanding were documented in technical assistance Field Notes.

Certification training evaluation feedback indicates that people find our TA & PL highly useful for their work to achieve equity in schools. The Leadership Certification training evaluation indicated a high level of useful learning experiences for participants.

www.equityallianceatasu.org

Goal 2: Networking & Dissemination Engage regional clients, networks, and providers in peer-to-peer learning and inquiry to improve practice and results for social justice and equitable outcomes for all students. The Equity Alliance at ASU is noted for utilizing Web-based technologies to disseminate information and build and sustain networks with Region IX. We maintain and improve a communications infrastructure with a suite of embedded data gathering tools that give us a daily and weekly view of interests and concerns in the field. Our use of new social media such as blogs, Facebook and Twitter is developing an effective new breed of technical assistance tools and processes.

2.1 Design and Maintain Communications Infrastructure Evidence of progress is found in several of our networking products and efforts. For example, invited blog postings by experts motivate thousands of readers to view and engage with ideas from authors in extended conversations. Two high-profile blogs this quarter in particular, stimulated interactions we want to share as evidence. We know from past experience that these blogs will continue to engage people for several more weeks and months, climbing into the tens of thousands of people who will be exposed to the ideas. These two examples illustrate the important and innovative role of social media in technical assistance in promoting dialog and bringing opinions and exchanges to the surface from a range of practitioners.

Education Equity and the Trouble with Pragmatic Decision Making Paul C. Gorski is an assistant professor in New Century College, George Mason University whose work and passion is social justice activism focusing on anti-poverty activism and education, critical race theory, anti-racism education, women’s rights, LGBT rights, labor rights, immigrant rights, and anti-imperialism. Gorski is an active consultant and speaker, working with community and educational organizations around the world on equity and social justice concerns. Gorski founded EdChange, a coalition of educators and activists who develop free social justice resources for educators and activists.

by Paul Gorskti

In my view, the challenge of educational inequity is not, as many assume, that too few people care about creating learning environments that work for all students. The challenge, despite an overwhelming desire among most teachers and administrators to serve the needs of all students, is that we generally have very little understanding of the depth and complexity of the problem. Consider, for example, the monster we commonly refer to as the “achievement gap”. I use this example because a vast majority of education equity attention today is focused on this “gap” as measured in standardized test score comparisons. Over many decades, even before today’s term for it was coined, school leaders have attempted myriad strategies for redressing “achievement gaps” among and between students across race, language, class, and other identities. But we’ve made so little progress. Why?

Since February, over 3000 people accessed the Gorski blog and “listened in” on a rich and complex conversation that included scholars, students and practitioners. In what follows, we give a sense of some of the dialog, and invite you to consult the blog (http://www.niusileadscape.org/bl/?p=607) for more details.

liance at ASU authored the blog, arguing that it is especially important to discuss equity issues in Arizona now, where people are struggling with sentiments of animosity and prejudice. Their entry addressed the controversy while it also announced the Forum and invited participation. Over 3600 people viewed this blog since it was published on February 4.

Reader:

I went to a presentation today at the Equity Forum, Donna Ford, PhD. commented that there is a “African American” learning style. She is not the only researcher to make this claim. Apparently, there is some disagreement on this topic, is it based on race or research methodology? Or is the tension rooted in the race and socio-economic background of the researcher?

Gorski:

My question would be, if there is an African American learning style, what, exactly, is it? Once it’s named, I would ask what percentage of African American people associate with that learning style? What percentage must share a precise learning style in order for it to be attribute to an entire group of people based on one dimension of their identity?

Ford:

I was rather surprised that you have not heard of cultural differences in learning style, including for Black students. Do you think Asians, Hispanics, and Native Americans (esp. first generation to U.S.) learn in the same way as White students? I would hope not. In other words, culture matters in teaching and learning.

Gorski:

So part of the problem may be that the most popular learning style models or typologies are not meant to differentiate across a single identity or by “culture” as defined by a single identity.

This exchange illustrates how different definitions of learning styles and culture can become intertwined and lead to misunderstandings that invite extended dialogue. Having such conversations out in the open helps people see how to relate their own thinking to the conceptual struggles of others. A second blog during the quarter addressed the controversy of holding a national equity-focused conference in Arizona, given the recent debate over immigration law SB 1070 and left the state with a reputation of intolerance. The leadership team at the Equity Al-

Equity Matters: In Lear ning , for Life

Across the United States and around the world, we often hear public debates that perpetuate individual and student group deficits as they relate to access, participation and performance in education. In some instances, local governments have been the drivers of legislation that takes a position contrary to educational equity, which makes our work exceptionally challenging. We believe that our Leadership for Equity and Excellence Forum offers an opportunity for passionate advocates across the country to have the kinds of equity and social justice conversations that are necessary to create waves of change.

The use of blogs as a new form of public communication offers two affordances that improve upon past technical assistance dissemination practices. One, they accumulate readers over time at a faster rate and are more open about that dissemination rate. For example, the 3 – month distribution size of a typical blog is over 9000 people, roughly 3000 per month. Second, a blog can carry a conversation along through time that expands upon the original message and that includes people in a discussion that extends over space and time.

2.2 Develop and Maintain Networks Beyond the Forum, Equity Alliance staff members attend and present at other conferences in each quarter. Staff attended the 6th annual Leveraging Resources Conference in Washington D.C. the week of March 14th. Ideas about knowledge translation learned at this meeting will be embedded into our publications efforts (e.g., information briefs, professional learning modules, websites, and social networking).

www.equityallianceatasu.org

2.3 Proactive Dissemination Plan

Table 2. Presentations from January to March 2011

The Alliance at ASU is well known for reaching large numbers of people and its ability to understand who those audiences are, what they respond to, and what they use and share with others. We use a steady stream of information gathered via our targeted emails and web site programs to continuously shape our message and products, and impact the way we cycle knowledge to raise public awareness. We have four teams that think about these aspects and provide constant feedback to the equity assistance center: Websites, Networking & Dissemination, Publications, and Leadership teams are all involved in our proactive dissemination plan. The plan includes all forms of outreach: conference presentations (Table 2 on the right), scholarly articles, chapters and books, monthly emailed newsletters and news blasts (Table 3 below), blogs, Facebook and Twitter presence, and frequent Web site updates. Communications with and feedback from advisory boards and professional networks also play a role in dissemination. Table 3 shows the past quarter’s outreach at the Equity Alliance’s four tiers of technical assistance. The table has three columns showing the number of mailings and the total number of pieces mailed, the number of people who opened the email (we believe that this may be an underestimation because people who use “auto-preview” in their email are not counted unless they clicked a link to open their email), and finally the number who “click through” on links we provided in the email to take action. We benchmark to industry averages to compare how we perform. The open rate in “Communication” businesses is 8.5%, which we handily beat at every Tier level. The communication business clickthrough rate is 8.9%, which we also surpass. The “Products & Services” businesses open rate is 16%, which we pass at Tier 3 and 4; and the click-through rate is 12.2%, which we beat at every level. Compared to “Education & Services” businesses, our two highest intensive Tiers 3 and 4 beat the industry standard open rate of 18.6% and the click-through rate of 15.1% Table 3. Email communications for different levels of technical assistance Level of Technical Assistance

Number of Emails & Audience Size

How many people opened?

How many people clicked through?

Level 1: Resource Dissemination

6 mailings 46770 pieces

5045 11%

721 14%

Levels 2 : Targeted TA

6 mailings 7585 pieces

Level 3: Networking & PL

3 mailings 974 pieces

Level 4: Ongoing Partnership

8 mailings 295 pieces

957 13% 266 27% 92 31%

113 14% 86 32% 49 53%

Artiles, A. (March 2011). Language or Ability Deficits? Notes on Shifting Forms of Difference. A presentation at the TESOL Annual Convention in New Orleans. Atkinson, L. Gonzalez, T. & Lacy, L. (February 2011). Identity, Culture, Learning and Assessment: Student Stories of Success. A presentation at the 2011 Leadership for Equity & Excellence Forum in Phoenix. Gibson, D. (February 2011). Closing the Achievement Gap Through Performance Assessment. A presentation at the 2011 Leadership for Equity & Excellence Forum in Phoenix. Gonzales, J. & Skelton, S. (February 2011). Changing Attitudes, Beliefs and Dispositions: Comprehensive, Systemic Change for Equity. A presentation at the 2011 Leadership for Equity & Excellence Forum in Phoenix. Gonzales, J. (February 2011). Equity in Schools: Moving Toward Deep Levels of Change. A presentation at the ADE Refugee Grant School Districts meeting in Phoenix. Huber, J. (2011). Celebrating Difference: Inspiring Capable, Significant and Influential Students. A presentation at the 2011 Leadership for Equity & Excellence Forum in Phoenix. Kozleski, E. (January 2011). Leadership for Inclusive Education: A Cognitive Coaching Approach. A presentation at the National Center of Inclusive Education. Kozleski, E. (March 2011). The Role of Equity Assistance Centers in Leading Learning through Technical Assistance: Powerful Change in Equity Outcomes. A presentation at the Office of Civil Rights conference in San Francisco. Skelton, S., Mruczek, C. , Neal, R. & Papacek, A. (February 2011). Using Technology to Promote Culturally Responsive Teaching: Planting the Seeds for Change. A presentation at the 2011 Leadership for Equity & Excellence Forum in Phoenix. Mruczek, C. , Neal, R., Papacek, A. & Skelton, S. (February 2011). Professional E-Learning: A Hybrid Platform. A presentation at the 2011 Leadership for Equity & Excellence Forum in Phoenix. Neal, R., Hernandez-Saca, D., Huber, J. & Papcek, A. (February 2011). Creative Maladjustment: Motivating Students to Questions, Critique, and Respond with Power and Strength. A presentation at the 2011 Leadership for Equity & Excellence Forum in Phoenix. Skelton, S. & Gonzales, J. (March 2011). Promoting Effective Family Engagement & Communication. A presentation at the Arizona Department of Education/ Phoenix Elementary Refugee meeting in Phoenix.

Goal 2 Accomplishments Visitor loyalty is another important metric, which measures how many people return to the site to use our resources. Our data indicates that over 1600 people (22% of all the people who visit the site) made multiple visits to read and take materials during this quarter. Note that over 600 people visited the resources over 100 times during the quarter! Data in Table 4 comes from Google Analytics for the period January 1 to March 29, 2011. There were 4,465 unique visitors during the quarter, which supports our finding that more than 13,000 people per year make over 24,000 visits to the Equity Alliance Web site.

Number of people

Percentage of total audience

9-14

320

4.33

15-25

238

3.21

26-50

253

3.41

51-100

186

2.51

101-200

144

1.94

201+

474

6.39

Authenticity Blog posting by Paul Gorski generated attention from national educational experts, and initiated an open conversation about the nature of learning styles and student cultural identities.

Facebook and Twitter interactions also help us disseminate information. We use these social networking tools to keep in touch with our subscribers and provoke thoughts and discussions around issues of equity as they occur across the country. We also use the media tools to highlight Equity Alliance work, products, tools, and events. Our center has had a goal each quarter of increasing the number of Facebook users who “like” our Facebook page. Each quarter, we examine the degree of use of each of our resources and reshape content throughout all our channels of communication. For example, we independently track our online library – The Learning Carousel – where we saw 3,600 people access 10,837 pages of information during the quarter. The following are the top library contents that many of these people sought: •

Emphasizing Educators’ Everyday Actions by Mica Pollock

•

About Equity Alliance at ASU

•

2011 Leadership for Equity Forum Sessions

•

Equity Matters

•

Language Differences Media Lab: Teaching ‘English Language Learners’

•

Frequently Asked Questions

•

Equity Advocate of the Week

Accessibility An estimated 3600 people accessed our online clearinghouse – the Learning Carousel – and viewed 10,837 pages of information.

Table 4. Visitor loyalty from January to March 2011 Times visited during quarter

The following list summarizes the evidence of accomplishment during this quarter, organized by our performance criteria.

Market Share Market share increased by 40% (over 1300 new people) from the previous quarter due to contacts with the field using social networking and search engine optimization efforts.

Understanding & Quality Measures of quality and understanding were included in the Forum evaluation indicating both qualitatively and quantitatively that the center’s events produce new understandings including in highly experienced professionals.

Usefulness Evidence from Web site use indicates that large numbers of people find and use our resources, with significant numbers of people returning to access and use materials many times during a quarter.

The top content list provides evidence that the Learning Carousel clearinghouse not only serves particular documents when requested, but also reconnects people to webaccessible pages (e.g. Equity Matters and Frequently Asked Questions) that extend and enhance visitors’ searches. The list also provides food for thought to the Web site team and the Networking and Dissemination team by reflecting the interests of the field during this quarter.

Equity Matters: In Lear ning , for Life

www.equityallianceatasu.org

Goal 3: Research & Development Create, validate, and produce contentrich, cutting-edge scientifically based resources that translate educational research for diverse learners into practice for practitioners, administrators, families, and policy makers intended to assist schools in providing effective learning environments for all students. The Equity Alliance at ASU continuously creates and refines new resources that help lead the field of thought in equity and technical assistance. We maintain an openly accessible clearinghouse of information that serves thousands of people with hundreds of thousands of pages of information every year. We regularly create and update tools for technical assistance and make sure that our extended networks of equity advocates are aware of current, research-based information and practices they can use in their local settings.

Evidence: 3.1 Conceptual Framework for Synthesis of Best Practices The Systemic Change Framework guides many dimensions of our work, including the choices we make to add resources to our large and growing online library and clearinghouse – The Learning Carousel. This quarter we added 9 new works by others (Table 5 on the right).

Table 5. Open access documents added to the Learning Carousel Title

Author

Teaching Tolerance

Teaching Tolerance Magazine, Spring 2011

When Success Is the Only Option: Designing Competency-Based Pathways for Next Generation Learning

Sturgis, C. & Patrick, S.

Improving Reading Comprehension in Kindergarten Through 3rd Grade

Shanahan, T., Callison, K., Carriere, C., Duke, N. K., Pearson, P. D., Schatschneider, C., & Torgesen, J.

Quality Indicators of Inclusive Early Childhood Programs/Practices

Cate, D., Diefendorf, M., McCullough, K., Peters, M. L., & Whaley, K.

Virtual K-12 Public School Programs and Students with Disabilities: Issues and Recommendations

Müller, E.

Reading, Mathematics, and Science Instructional Strategies for English Language Learners with Disabilities: Insights from Educators Nationwide

Barrera, M., Shyyan, V., Liu, K. K., & Thurlow, M. L.

Consolidation of Schools and Districts: What the Research Says and What it Means

Howley, C., Johnson, J., & Petrie, J.

Empowering Parents

Washington Educational Telecommunications Association

Unlocking Doors To Student Success: Practical Functional Behavioral Assessment Training Manual for SchoolBased Personnel

Loman, B.G.

3.3 High quality products Two publications and one tool for curriculum evaluation were in development during the quarter, evidence that high quality products are continuously being created and shaped by the Alliance at ASU: “Addressing Bullying & Harassment Matters” “Collaboration for Culturally Responsive Professional Learning Matters” Curriculum Equity Evaluation Tool, being re-written for a broader audience. In addition, we continued the publication of high quality monthly newsletters on important equity matters, and distributed those to a wide audience via email, social media messages, and postings on our website.

January 2011: Civil Rights

The moment we choose love we begin to move towards freedom... -- Bell Hooks Civil rights in U.S. Schools are about much more than Brown v. Board of Education, Martin Luther King Jr. Day, and Black History Month. ‘Civil rights’ refers to the equal protection and treatment provided in the U.S. Constitution and the Civil Rights Act. February 2011: Power in Linguistic Diversity Language is the quintessential cultural tool. We cannot plan lessons or activities in ways that will suppress or ignore the role of language in a person’s development. -- Alfredo Artiles Learning about the importance of language in representing the world in which we live allows us to understand how language shapes our realities. Language is a powerful expression of the world around us, and should be appreciated and celebrated as a resource that students and families bring to school rather than as a barrier. March 2011: Get Off the Sidelines -- Advocate for Equity The problem with our education system is not that parents do not have a choice. The problem is that inequities continue to exist. -- Patsy Mink Would you accept a segregated school in your community? Would you stand by and watch if a student was isolated from her peers? Would it be okay for your school to lower expectations for some students but not for others? Of course not! As an equity-minded educator, you would immediately begin to examine the historical context of such decisions, network with experts to challenge existing practices, learn strategies for leading change initiatives, and advance an agenda where equity is at the heart of every consideration made for students.

Scholarly publications in preparation during the quarter are evidence of our continuing commitment to produce high quality products that lead the field by contributing to knowledge and understanding. Six new publications were added this quarter (Table 6). Table 6. Scholarly publications. Artiles, A. J., King Thorius, K., Bal, A., Neal, R., Waitoller, F., Hernandez Saca, D. (in press). Beyond culture as group traits: Future learning disabilities ontology, epistemology, and inquiry on research knowledge use. Learning Disability Quarterly. Artiles, A. J., Kozleski, E. B., & Gonzalez, T. (in press). Beyond the allure of inclusive education in the United States: Facing power, pursuing a cultural-historical agenda. Revista Teias. Sullivan, A., & Artiles, A. J. (in press). Theorizing racial inequity in special education: Applying structural inequity theory to disproportionality. Urban Education. King, K., Artiles, A. J., & Sullivan, A. (in press). Effective reading interventions for English language learners. In R. McWilliam, M. Tankersley, & B. Cook (Eds.), Effective practices in special education. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson. Kozleski, E. B., & Artiles, A. J. (in press). Technical assistance as inquiry: Using activity theory methods to engage equity in educational practice communities. In G. Canella & S. Steinberg (Eds.), Critical Qualitative Research Reader. New York: Peter Lang. Artiles, A. J., Waitoller, F., Neal, R. (2011). Grappling with the intersection of language and ability differences: Equity issues for Chicano/Latino students in special education. In R.R. Valencia (Ed.), Chicano school failure and success: Past, present, and future (3rd ed.) (pp. 213-234). London: Routledge/Falmer.

Equity Matters: In Lear ning , forN ILife www.equityallianceatasu.org USILEADSCAPE.ORG

3.4 Tools for Assessing Equity and Leveraging School Improvement This quarter we improved our interactive online state and district-level data maps. The process of exploring maps, we have found, increases engagement and understanding of complex data, and leads to deeper questions that can stimulate dialog about equity matters. We have used maps as a technical assistance innovation to initiate conversations, pinpoint areas needing attention, and to track changes over time. In order to enhance our Data Maps, we are partnering with the Geographical Information Systems (GIS) staff at the Institute for Social Science Research at Arizona State University to provide a product for principals to engage in data analysis.

Data Maps are an essential tool for articulating and tracking the way that our work has influenced national, state-level, and district level changes in educational access and equity over time. Categories for data mapping include disproportionality summaries, least-restrictive environment, teacher certification status, and student population data. Data are acquired from Federal sources such as the Office of Special Education Programs, the National Center for Educational Statistics, and teacher quality data from the U.S. Department of Education Title II. Efforts are underway to acquire additional data from sources such as the National Assessment of Educational Progress and the Office of Civil Rights.

Goal 3 Accomplishments The following list summarizes the evidence of accomplishment during this quarter, organized by our performance criteria.

Accessibility Nine new full text products were added to the Learning Carousel.

Quality & Authenticity Practical publications were created, edited and broadly shared, including 3 newsletters and 3 blogs, which were viewed over 17,000 times.

Market Share Performance data on our newly developed products from the Learning Carousel indicate a 12% growth in visits, and an 8.6% growth in new users over the last quarter.

Understanding Preparation of presentations for the American Educational Research Association are evidence of the Allianceâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s role in advancing understanding of equity matters at a national level. Public interactions and conversations in response to blog postings provide evidence that understanding about equity issues is successfully promoted through new social media.

Usefulness Downloaded items and the patterns of searches, such as keywords and the sourcesâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; web pages of searches, provide evidence that people find Alliance products useful in their work.

Goal 4: Continuous Improvement Engage in ongoing inquiry and program evaluation in order to continually improve efforts to support Region IX in providing high-quality opportunities to learn for all students. Continuous improvement at the Equity Alliance at ASU is a daily and weekly practice of embedded evaluation. We look at data as a constant companion of innovation, and rather than wait for reports a few times each year, we analyze and use information as it arises. We also promote these habits and capacities in our technical assistance work with partners.

Evidence: 4.1 Engage in ongoing assessment The continuous improvement team tracks and monitors all other teams; its members sit in on meetings and hold interviews and periodic update conversations with team leaders. Information from ongoing activities surfaces in a variety of places, including meeting agendas, field notes, and calendars, team leaders who utilize NVivo as part of their documentation, and in files on a shared hard drive. Quarterly evaluation meetings set the larger agenda, and weekly meetings with the principal investigator and director help feed the ongoing assessment processes.

ÂŠ equityalliance 2011

4.2 Assess quality of products and services

be submitted for publication in a journal.

At the January 24th evaluation-planning meeting, staff refined how we capture interactions with technical assistance partners. New tools included (1) a redesigned “Field Notes” form which will bring increased attention to more detailed reflective writing, (2) the “TwoStep Process,” which will prompt thinking about all partnership activity, and (3) an update of weekly “Status Reports,” which documents the reflections on progress by all staff.

As is the practice of the Equity Alliance, a quarterly evaluationplanning meeting took place on January 24th that engaged staff in reviewing, exploring and working with the data created during the preceding quarter.

Goal 4 Accomplishments The following list summarizes the evidence of accomplishment during this quarter, organized by the performance criteria outlined in the introduction.

Accessibility & Market Share A broad survey of clients in the next quarter was planned to match up with last year’s data at about the same time of year.

Authenticity The weekly Status Reports were addressed in a new staff training manual section, discussed at a full staff meeting and distributed to everyone. (See page 18-19 for full forms)

An article refining the Systemic Change Framework is in development, situated in a review of how the Equity Alliance conceptualizes complex systems change, grounded in fieldbased technical assistance. An article published this quarter highlights Technical Assistance as a mode of inquiry, and can be useful in informing our audiences about the type of services we provide.

Quality

The following is an outline of the schedule of data collection: Who?

Field Notes

2-Step Process

Status Reports

Director and Co-Director of Technical Assistance & Professional Learning

Partnership schools & Conferences

Every week

4.3 Engage in continuous refinement A refinement of the Systemic Change Framework (SCF) was initiated last quarter. During this quarter, a draft of an article-length paper took the SCF as its foundation, added new concepts at the student level, and re-examined the entire framework. Framework elements were embedded in the data collection tools to facilitate future analyses. The article outlines the entire process of engagement of the equity assistance center with a district, school or other client. A new description of technical assistance as a process of engaging people in systems change leads to the article’s title “The CASE Process: Complex Assessment of Educational Systems.” The article is scheduled for completion during the next quarter and will

Equity Matters: In Lear ning , for Life

Two new tools were created to collect evidence about Technical Assistance activities: the Two-Step reflection process and a revised Field Notes form.

Understanding The quarterly evaluation planning led to several changes in the way data is collected throughout the center, through the refinement of tools for data collection, and the initiation of the development of a scale to assess cultural responsiveness.

Usefulness A document entitled “Status Reports: Reflecting for Continuous Improvement” was created and disseminated to the staff to encourage and enhance connection of daily work of the center to the four goal arenas. It serves as a model for embedded evaluation processes in technical assistance center efforts.

Conclusion

The first quarter of 2011 was a busy and productive time for the Equity Alliance. Record new performance marks were set in networking and dissemination, and a second successful year of the Leadership for Equity and Excellence Forum produced notable results from ongoing efforts. Case stories from technical assistance work continued to document the impacts of the center’s Systemic Change Framework and its tools and resources applied in local settings.

www.equityallianceatasu.org

Two-‐Step Process Partnership:

Date:

3 4

Where Are We?

Technical Assistance Professional Learning Networking Coaching Data Analysis

District School

Classroom

Student

What time is it?

Next Steps…

TA & PL

N & D

R & D

Field Notes Name: Contact: Items Discussed Level of System & Focus State District School Classroom Student

TA/PL

N&D

Date: Site/Event: Actions Planned

Responsible Person

Needs or Emerging Issues R&D

Inquiry – Culture Change – Resources – Leadership – Partnerships – Space &Time

Reflections:

Macintosh:Users:markfavazza:Downloads:Field Notes Template.docx

Equity Matters: In Lear ning , for Life

www.equityallianceatasu.org

January 1 - March 31, 2011

The Equity Alliance at ASU Region IX Equity Assistance Center Arizona State University P.O. Box 876103 Interdisciplinary B353 1120 S. Cady Mall Tempe, AZ 85287-6103 Phone: 480.965.0391 FAX: 480.727.7012 Email: equityalliance@asu.edu Web: www.equityallianceatasu.org

CFDA 84.004D: Civil Rights Training and Advisory Services Equity Assistance Centers Program U.S. Department of Education Award #S004D080027