2002 Biennial Review of Shared Decision-Making (C 100.11) |
||
| for .pdf version, click here |
|
for .doc version, click here |
| Commissioner’s Regulation 100.11 requires all public school districts and BOCES to review their plans for shared decision-making and submit them to the Department every two years by February 1. The total number of biennial reviews that were required was 781, which includes all New York City school districts (39), all school districts outside of New York City (704) and all BOCES (38). For the 2002 biennial review, a total of 713 biennial reviews have been returned to date (91% return rate). Ten districts were granted extensions and one district was granted an exemption. | |
| As part of the biennial review process in 2002, districts and BOCES were asked questions about the process, value and results of collaborative planning in their districts, in order to assess the statewide disposition of educational planning. Information was gathered about: | |
|
|
| They were also asked if they engaged in district comprehensive planning, defined as a continuous process to improve educational performance of all students through data analysis, dissolving of root causes, and focusing on results. If a model for planning was used, they were asked to identify it and state if it was used as a framework, guideline or resource. | |
| Analysis of the data collected was conducted separately for school districts and BOCES. In addition, school districts were categorized according to Needs/Resource designations used by the State Education Department, in order to distinguish any effects that these circumstances might have on the information reported. The results of the study showed significant differences between these categories of districts, however all reported favorable results. | |
| Responses to the questions on planning were also disagregated by districts engaged and not engaged in comprehensive planning. The report shows that districts engaged in comprehensive planning show higher positive ratings in all areas of impact of planning, use of data, professional development, and communication. | |
| The stated purpose of CR 100.11 to plan the participation of parents, teachers, and administrators in the shared decision making and school-based planning of school districts to increase student achievement is successful in a very substantial number of school districts. Ten years ago when the regulation was written as part of the education reform movement, involvement of all stakeholders of students' education, in the planning and decisions made closest to the point of service delivery, was seen as a valid strategy for program efficiency and effectiveness. The newer element of comprehensive education planning was introduced five years ago. This focusing of the planning and decision making work, along with the connecting of district and building-level planning, appears to have enhanced the success begun with the earlier model of collaborative planning (shared decision making/site-based planning). | |
| The Analysis of 2002 Statement of
Success: Planning explains in detail the results of this survey on
educational planning in school districts throughout New York State.
|
|
|
Analysis of the 2002 Statement of Success: Planning |
|
| Part 100.11 Biennial Review | |
| Prepared for The New York State Education Department by CDA Corp. | |
| Introduction: The 100.11 Regulation | |
| Section 100.11 of the Commissioner’s Regulations requires both local school district and BOCES boards of education, in collaboration with their respective district committees, to biennially review the district-level plan for participation of parents and teachers in school-based planning and shared decision making. As part of this biennial review, a "Statement of Success: Planning" section was completed by each district in the State. This report summarizes the responses of 685 districts to the questions in that section of the review. | |
| Commissioner’s Regulation 100.11 Participation of parents and teachers in school-based planning and shared decision making has been in effect for ten years, with the first district plans required to be completed by February 1, 1994. The regulation requires that public school district boards of education and each board of cooperative educational services (BOCES) develop and adopt a district plan specifically for the participation of parents, teachers, administrators and school board members in school-based planning and decision making. The regulation also requires that these plans be reviewed every two years. Through previous data collected on biennial review forms, it is known that this regulation has had the effect of increasing collaborative planning in schools and school districts in New York State. | |
| While the 100.11 Commissioner’s Regulation was written to require a plan for school-based planning and shared decision making, in the Purpose section of the regulation the relationship it presumes between this school-based management strategy and the improvement of the educational performance of all students is stipulated. In 1992 when the regulation was originally written, the present school reform/school improvement movement was in its infancy. One of the earliest beliefs among reformers was that management of public education needed to follow the then new management practices that included localization of budget management and production decisions ‘on site’. Decentralizing management and taking the decisions to the point of service delivery was seen (and still is seen) as a valid strategy for improving both program efficiency and program effectiveness in the public sector. Ten years after the regulation went into effect this may still be an important management principal to maintain. However the profile and context of planning in education in the state has changed a great deal. In order to better understand the effects of these changes on the impact of the regulation, the "Statement of Success: Planning" section of the 100.11 Biennial Review of 2002 contained a number of general questions to districts on the impacts, form and function of planning in their organizations. | |
| The Statement of Success: Planning questionnaire was designed to collect data on a number of questions on which the New York State Education Department sought clarification. These questions addressed the following: | |
|
|
| An important question to be answered ten years into implementing this regulation was whether districts had observed positive outcomes resulting from the collaborative planning process. Districts were asked to report on a number of the key characteristics noted by the research to be necessary to support results based change and improvement in schools. These characteristics are: | |
|
|
| In addition to questions about the impacts of collaborative planning, there was a set of questions about the planning processes in these districts and the effect which collaborative planning has had on them. These questions sought to clarify: | |
|
|
| Finally, questions asked on the Statement of Success: Planning questionnaire addressed the relationship between collaborative planning in school districts in New York State and comprehensive planning in these districts. | |
| Data for This Report | |
| This report summarizes the responses of the Statement of Success: Planning section of the Biennial Review Forms submitted by 685 school districts in New York State as part of their 100.11 Biennial Review Report to the New York State Education Department. This data was entered into a database by the State Education Department and the database was then sent to an independent research and evaluation company for analysis. Two previous summary reports have been reviewed by the State Education Department, leading to the level of analysis which yielded the results presented in this summary. | |
| Of those forms, 32 were received from Boards of Cooperative Education Services (BOCES), 11 were received from schools that are institutions serving special needs populations, and 642 were received from public school districts. Using the New York State Education Department’s Needs to Resource Index, the 642 public school districts were divided into the following groups: New York City Community School Districts, The Big Four, Smaller Urban and Suburban High Need to Resource Districts (Smaller Urban), High Need to Resource Rural Districts (High Need Rural), Average Need to Resource Districts (Average Need), and Low Need to Resource Districts (Low Need). These categorizations yielded the following data groupings: | |
|
District Type |
Number Analyzed |
|
Special Needs Institutions |
Not included in this analysis |
|
BOCES |
32 |
|
New York City CSD |
38 |
|
Big Four |
4 |
|
Smaller Urban |
34 |
|
High Need Rural |
140 |
|
Average Need |
306 |
|
Low Need |
120 |
|
Total |
674 |
| Analysis of Data for This Report | |
| All responses to the Statement of Success: Planning section of the 100.11 Biennial Review were entered into an Access database and transmitted to the evaluators for analysis. These were translated into SPSS files and analyzed using recognized statistical techniques for this type of data set. For the data from all school districts that are not BOCES, the New York State Education Department was interested in understanding if the type of district in which the planning was taking place influenced the responses to the questions on the survey. For that reason all responses were analyzed using contingency tables where the distribution of responses to each question was divided by district type. Because all data here categorical, the Chi-Square test for contingency tables was used to test the independence of the Needs to Resource categories and responses to the questions on the survey. When appropriate, the needs to resource variable was recoded into an ‘Urban/ Not Urban’ variable to test for independence of response across that construct. | |
| This analysis divides districts with general education purposes from those with unique circumstances that might have affected their responses to the questions. For that reason, results of the analysis for BOCES are reported in the third section of this report and responses from all other districts are reported in the second section of this report. The first section of the report contains a brief summary of the data as analyzed. | |
| The impact which collaborative planning was observed to have had on school improvement efforts. | |
| Improved internal communication among administrators reported by 84.1% of all public school districts, and 81.3% of BOCES. | |
| Improved internal communication among teachers reported by 82.6% of all public school districts and 76.1% of BOCES. | |
| Observation of an improvement in teacher classroom practice as an effect of collaborative planning reported by 75.5% of public school districts and 78.1% of BOCES. | |
| In general, fewer barriers to teaching and learning attributed to collaborative planning in their district by 52.2% of public school districts and 68.8% of BOCES. | |
| Fiscal impacts were reported at a lower rate. 59.3% of public school districts reported a blending of funding as a result of collaborative planning. 59% of the same districts reported a more efficient allocation of resources. 28.1% of BOCES reported a blending of funding as a result of collaborative planning, and 65.6% reported a more efficient allocation of resources as a result of collaborative planning in their district. | |
| The structure, form and function of collaborative planning. | |
| Communication with multiple stakeholder groups is broad based and comprehensive both during and regarding collaborative planning. These stakeholders include parents, community members and business, as well as local service agencies. Districts report that they communicate with their own staff and administrators regarding collaborative planning. | |
| The data and criteria for setting priorities within any of the planning processes in which these districts are engaged tend to be the same, or nearly the same, regardless of plan type. Only 11.5% of public school districts, and 21.9% of BOCES report that the criteria for setting priorities within these plans are different. 14.3% and 25%, respectively, report that the data used in setting the priorities is different. | |
| The relationship between collaborative planning and comprehensive planning. | |
| 23.8% of all districts answering this questionnaire report that they engage in comprehensive planning. Further discussion regarding the specific characteristics of collaborative and comprehensive planning in each district type can be found in the appropriate sections of this report. | |
| Comprehensive plans are required for all New York City districts. Outside of New York City, only one of the Big Four reported having a comprehensive district plan submitted to the State Education Department, although three of the four report that they engage in comprehensive planning. This pattern holds for other district types. 85.3% of Smaller Urban districts report engaging in comprehensive planning, while only 32.4% have a comprehensive plan submitted to the State Education Department. For Rural High Need districts 30.7% have comprehensive plans submitted to the state, while 74.3% indicated that they engage in comprehensive planning. For BOCES, 62.5% report engaging in comprehensive planning, but only one BOCES has a plan lodged with the State. | |
|
Section Two -- Analysis of Data from School Districts |
|
| Introduction to Section Two | |
| This section of the report begins with the impact that the collaborative planning process is perceived to have had on some of the key characteristics which research has indicated will support school improvement and results-based change. Data regarding the planning process itself are then presented, followed by analysis of questions asking about the commonalities across required planning processes in education in our State. Finally, there is a discussion of comprehensive planning and its relationship to collaborative planning as reported by the districts answering this questionnaire. | |
| Impact of the Collaborative Planning Process on Key Change Characteristics | |
| Communication | |
| The research on school improvement has indicated that some organizational changes can favorably impact the degree of success that school reform efforts in school districts can have. One such change is in the area of organizational communication. Organizational communication can be external or internal. The important point to make about the expansion of external organizational communication during the shared decision making processes as set out in the Commissioner’s Regulation 100.11, is that if the expansion of external communication regarding the planning process is done as required, that expansion of external communication becomes an expansion of the organization itself. This is due to the specified nature of the content and the purpose of the external communication. The content of the external communication within the shared decision making context is supposed to keep stakeholder groups informed so that they can participate in the process as well as to inform them about the products of the planning process. The purpose of this external communication is both to elicit input to the process from various stakeholder groups and to inform members of those stakeholder groups of the products of the process. The expansion of internal communication to include other than traditional decision makers in the group receiving planning based information forces a different type of organizational expansion. The internal expansion of information dissemination works both to produce a more inclusive and potentially more empowerment based working environment and to decrease teacher isolation in many aspects of their professional practice. | |
| Expansion of External and Internal Communication as Process | |
| Districts were asked to indicate which of a list of stakeholder groups they communicate with during the collaborative planning process. Their responses are reported here on Table 1. As the data presented Table 1 indicates, communication with parents and/or principal caregivers, staff from across buildings, administrators from different levels and community members is reported by almost all districts in each category. A smaller proportion of districts in each category (except the Big Four) report communicating about their collaborative planning process with local service agencies/organizations or with businesses and/or business organizations. However, these smaller proportions are greater than 60% of the responding districts. It would seem that the collaborative planning process in these districts is public, but that more districts communicate with the internal stakeholder groups (parents, teachers/staff and administrators) than communicate with external stakeholder groups (businesses, community based organizations/service agencies). For this communication to function as a ‘trigger of change’ in these contexts, the communication would have to be for the purpose of eliciting input into the process rather than for only informing stakeholder groups of the progress of the collaborative planning process. | |
|
Chart 1: Communication with Stakeholder Groups During Collaborative Planning: Percent by District Type |
|
| This cannot be established using these data because the respondents were often answering in particular about their Shared Decision Making (SDM)Team(s) rather than generally about the population of a stakeholder group. For this reason, attempts to better understand these constructs through analysis of the responses to questions regarding the frequency of communication with each of these stakeholder groups and the method of communication used with each group is only slightly informative. For example, most of the respondents from each school district category indicated that they communicate with building level administrators and parents regarding the collaborative planning process on average once per month. Other stakeholder categories had the same pattern of response for the frequency of communication. | |
| The mode of communication reported for each stakeholder group varied slightly, although the nature of the communication mechanism did not. Districts often answered merely ‘after each meeting’ for the frequency of communication with each category of stakeholder, indicating that they were probably only referring to the members of the SDM Team when responding. Some gave varying responses within the same stakeholder category, such as ‘daily, weekly, monthly, depending on the group’ to the same question, although they were not asked about particular groups but about communication with categories of stakeholders. In general, districts responded most often that they communicated with each of the stakeholder categories ‘as necessary’ sometimes elaborating with ‘as necessary, at least once a year’. | |
| The mode of communication is informative. Parents are most often communicated with via a newsletter or similar one directional communication device, building administrators receive their information at formal presentations during staff meetings, via memo and, for a few, via e-mail. The surveys indicated that businesses and business organizations received their information also from district newsletters and during formal presentations, including at school board meetings and other public meetings, such as the chamber of commerce. The only interactive communication environment consistently reported was that for communication between these districts and local service agencies/organizations. For that stakeholder group, communication was reported to take place most often during meetings, some of which were described as community collaboration managing in scope. | |
| Questions about improved communication within the district organization were included for a second reason. Any large scale implementation of change brings with it a concern for the institutionalization of the change process which it is designed to create. In the case of communication with internal stakeholders (administrators and teachers) during the collaborative planning process, more detailed information is necessary to ascertain if the respondents were referring to communication around organizational management issues or curriculum alignment issues, or a combination of the two. Some indication might be given by answers to direct questions on the impact of collaborative planning on internal communication. | |
| Increased Internal Communication as Impact | |
| Research on organizational change and the sustainability of that change indicates that improved organizational communication is a key element to sustainability of reform. Communication among building administrative staff and among teachers in different buildings/levels were chosen as indicators of the development of improved internal organizational communication in districts completing these questions. Districts were asked to report on any observed increase in communication among both administrative and instructional staff from different buildings and/or levels in their districts as an outcome of the collaborative planning process. Table 2 presents the data for all types of district by staff type and Table 3 presents the data from all districts by type. See Appendix 2 for the source data matrix for these tables. | |
| As can be seen from Charts 2 and 3, the results are promising. 84.1% of all responding districts indicated that they have observed improved communication among building administrative staff as an outcome of the planning process in their districts, and 82.6% of the same districts reported observing improved communication among teachers in different buildings/levels. Report of improved communication among building administrative staff ranged from 79.4% of Smaller Urban districts to 100% of the Big Four. Indeed, of the three urban district types (New York City, the Big Four, and Smaller Urban Districts), the Smaller Urban Districts are the only ones to report improved communication among teachers more often than they report improved communication among building administrators. That need to resource category of district, in fact, reported observing this improved teacher communication more often than any other type of district. | |
Chart 2: Improved Communication by Staff Type All District Types
Chart 3: Improved Internal Communication By District Type
| When looking at the responses by type, New York City has the highest percent of respondents reporting increased administrator communication, at 97% and high need to resource smaller urban (suburban) districts at 88.2% were the highest percent reported of increased communication among teachers. The Big Four Districts have the lowest reported observation of increased communication among teachers at 50%. |
| Impacts on Instruction |
|
Improved Classroom Practice and Removal of Barriers to Teaching and Learning as an Impact |
| One purpose identified in the research for increased communication within the educational context is to lead to better coordination of curriculum and instruction and thereby to positively impact teacher classroom practice. The districts were asked if they had observed that collaborative planning had had a favorable impact on teacher classroom practice, and if it had resulted in fewer organizational barriers to teaching and learning. Percent of each type of district reporting that they had observed these two phenomena are reported here in Table 4. Need to resource category and percent of all responses in this analysis by each Need to Resource Index Category (NRC) are given. It is therefore important to note the percent response within each NRC category. |
| As can be seen from Chart 4, three quarters of all districts report that they see an impact on teacher classroom practice as a result of collaborative planning and just over fifty percent of the same districts report that they believe that collaborative planning has meant fewer organizational barriers to teaching and learning. In other words, these districts report a favorable impact on classroom practice despite their also reporting that the classroom practice has changed without the removal of organizational barriers to teaching and learning. If the first result cannot be generally attributed to the removal of organizational barriers to teaching and learning, what are the factors facilitating this positive change? It could be the increased communication reported in Charts 2 and 3 had some impact on this result. In addition to providing part of the key organizational climate for progress in school improvement and reform as part of the function of management, improved communication among teachers and administrators in different buildings or at different levels of schooling also contributes to the alignment of curricula across levels and the improvement of instructional delivery through peer interactions. |
Chart 4: Instructional Impact by Impact Type All Districts
Chart 5: Instructional Impact by Public School District Type
| Organizational Resource Impacts |
| Fiscal Responsiveness to Change as Impact |
| The collaborative planning strategy is believed to have the potential to improve organizational operations leading to greater efficiency thus allowing for school improvement to be implemented through more efficient use of resources. The final set of outcomes about which districts were asked to report referred to resource allocation in their districts. Districts were asked to indicate if they had observed a blending of funded programs (such as Title I, Special Education, etc.) and if they had observed a more efficient allocation of resources in their districts as a result of collaborative planning. |
Chart 6: Public School District Type by Fiscal Impact
| As Chart 6 illustrates, in respect to the blending of funded programs such as Title I and Special Education, the New York City, large urban and small urban (suburban) districts have very different reported observations than the other district types. Initial analysis indicated that the type of district did have a significant effect on the distribution of responses across the six categories of districts when reporting an observed blending of funded programs. The type of district did not influence the observation of more efficient allocation of resources in the district. If the seventy-six (76) urban districts are grouped and compared to the five hundred and sixty-six non-urban districts in this data set using the Chi Square test for contingency tables, the type of district influences this distribution (a =.01). |
| And as can be seen on Chart 7, in respect to the more efficient allocation of resources in the district the difference in response is between New York City and the rest of the State, regardless of the type of district responding. |
Chart 7: Fiscal Impact by Impact Type All Public School District Types
| In regard to the major urban centers of the State, it is interesting to note that 76% of the New York City districts report observing this phenomenon while only one of the Big Four (25%) notes the same effect of collaborative planning. |
| As can be seen from Chart 8, the difference between New York City and the Big Four on ‘More Efficient Allocation of Resources’ as an impact of collaborative planning contrasts with the similarity between Smaller Urban and High Need Rural districts on the same indicator. |
Chart 8: Fiscal Impact: NY City, Big Four, Small Urban, and High Need Rural Districts Compared.
| The Relationship Between District Level and Building Level Planning |
| One thing that has become clear over the past decade is that there is a difference in the function of planning at the district level and the function of planning at the building level in education. Originally thought to be broader versions of individual building level instruction delivery plans, the experience of districts in our state has indicated that district level plans can have a related, but quite different function. This different function seems to be related to the organization of the district. When the district is responsible for instruction in all of the levels of schooling (elementary, middle and secondary), the district level plan seems to perform a function quite different from its function when the district delivers only one of the levels. The difference between the responses to this question by superintendents in New York City and the responses of the other four of the ‘Big Five’ urban districts is important to understanding what districts are doing with these two levels of planning. Superintendents were asked about their perception of the strength of the relationship between planning at these two levels. In New York City the survey was completed at the community school district level. Because these districts have responsibility for only one of the levels of schooling, the report by a majority of them that the relationship between the building level and district level plans is strong might be because of the homogeneous district configuration. In this environment, the most effective function of a district level plan could be to tie together curriculum across multiple same-level buildings. Arguably, what the New York City districts are doing and what the other large urban districts are doing could not be considered to be the same unless New York City were attempting to implement a district level planning structure that would function across levels in each borough, or city-wide. |
Chart 9: Building and District Level Planning: Strength of Relationship
| As can be seen from Chart 9, none of the Big Five Urban School Districts report a weak relationship between building and district level planning in their districts, and all believe it is a strong relationship, or one that is building in strength. High need rural districts report an even frequency of strong or building in strength relationships between district and building level planning. When considered in conjunction with the data from the large urban districts, the relationship might also be a function of a two dimensional scale. In New York City, although the scale of the school system is large, the physical scale, the scale of the curriculum delivered, the service delivery scale, within any single district is controlled. While there is no question that the large urban districts have the largest physical scale to deal with, the service delivery scale for any one New York City district is smaller than that delivered in even the smallest rural district in the state. The ‘Big Four’ and small city school districts have large proportions on both scales. The Chi Square test for contingency tables indicates that for this question, the type of district answering influences the response at a =.064. |
| A question regarding whether the district and building plans in their district are independent of one another or are interrelated was included on the questionnaire to elicit information from the districts regarding how they operate within their own planning process. If the plans are completely non-related, then each planning process should be independent of all others and each plan should be implemented independently. As can be seen from these responses, at 3.6% overall, very few districts reported that they see planning at the building level and planning at the district level as completely unrelated. A majority of the New York City and High Need Rural districts reported that their district and building level planning is ‘completely interrelated’, while a majority of other district types reported that the two levels of planning are somewhat related. The districts answering this survey indicated that the relationship between building and district level planning is strong or building in strength and that the two types of planning are somewhat related or completely interrelated in their districts. |
Chart 10: Building and District Level Planning: Nature of the Relationship
| In addition to being asked about the strength of the relationship between building and district level planning in their districts and the nature of the relationship between building and district level planning in their district, superintendents were asked if they are satisfied with the relationship between building and district level planning in their district, with the following results: |
Chart 11: Building and District Level Planning: Strength, Nature of Relationship and Superintendent’s Satisfaction
| Certainly a majority of the superintendents in all types of public school districts are satisfied with the relationship that has been established between district and building level planning in their districts. Chi Square test for contingency tables indicates that there is no influence on the distribution across response categories of district types. |
| All Those Plans: All That Process |
| In 2002, public school districts have had to develop a number of different plans, both at building and district levels to satisfy local, State and federal compliance under a myriad of legislative requirements. There has been some discussion in the state regarding the use of data in these planning processes. The ‘Statement of Success: Planning’ asked two very simple questions of the districts regarding their use of data for planning purposes. |
| Districts were asked if they use the same criteria when establishing priorities for planning processes. Examples of assessment criteria given in the question were needs, root cause and/or asset assessment. The question is of interest because there is a great deal of anecdotal information available to indicate that as federal and State policy increasingly requires a ‘plan’ as part of funding compliance regulations, the burden of planning on districts is reaching unmanageable proportions. What the district responses seem to indicate is that the criteria used to set the priorities for most of these plans is the same or mostly the same, although the plans are separate, and the group preparing each of these plans tends to be comprised of different people. It would seem, then, that the plans are based on the same perceived strengths and needs, which would indicate that these districts begin with a more holistic view of their problems. The data seem to indicate that it is the specificity of the separate plans that might be forcing a disconnection during the implementation of the planned changes in these districts. |
| In addition to identifying the criteria for the planning processes, districts use data to establish priorities within the planning processes. The identification of needs to be addressed is not sufficient without a plan of action that identifies the high, medium and low priorities within that group of needs. Districts are recommended to base the setting of priorities on ‘data’, thus the term ‘data based decision making’. On this questionnaire, the districts were asked to indicate if they use the same or different data to establish the priorities for each of these planning processes. The answers of each type of district to these two questions are presented here as Chart 12. |
Chart 12: Common Criteria and Data Various Planning Processes by Public School District Type
| Priorities for the various education plans required by local, state and federal entities are set using data which is the same or mostly the same and against criteria which are also the same or mostly the same. Chi Square test for contingency tables indicates that there is no influence of the distribution across response categories by district types. |
| In general, these districts report that they use the same or mostly the same data to determine the priorities for these different planning processes. The questions did not address the sources of these data, the data elements in question, or the form of the establishment of the common criteria. It would be helpful to know if there are common data elements across districts (which seems likely), for example, or if the criteria setting is done using a formal needs and asset study rather than ‘common knowledge’ among those preparing the plans. |
| The District Planning Committee |
| Districts were asked about the membership of their District Planning Committees. The number of members on these committees ranged between a few to 88, with the average number of members being 16. On average, districts indicated that this membership was made up of 13 members of the school district staff and stakeholders (teachers, administrators, parents, para-professionals, etc.) and 3 were from the community (police, firemen, representatives of the faith community, other community based organizations including senior citizens organizations, etc.). The question asked them to consider parents as part of the first group. It would seem that in the majority of the districts in the state, the planning process begins with a Planning Committee that is representative of key stakeholder groups. |
Chart 13: Public School Districts by Type: Provide Professional Development for Planning Teams Percent Indicating "Yes"
| Research on the impact on student achievement of site-based management includes findings that site-based management has a better chance of success and therefore a stronger likelihood of contributing to the intended outcome of improved student achievement, if members of the management teams are provided with professional development in key skills and processes. Districts were, therefore, asked if they provide professional development to the members of their District Planning Committee in the areas of team building, meeting facilitation and the use of data to support planning for school improvement. | |
| As can be seen from Chart 13, the majority of districts returning this survey report that they do provide professional development on skills and abilities that would enhance participation in the planning process to those who are on their district planning teams. The question could not specify how often professional development is provided, or by whom. | |
| The planning process in these districts is carried out in a context where multiple constituencies are represented. In addition, the members of those constituencies are provided with professional development in order to make them independent contributors to the planning process. In general, then, the planning that is now taking place under the Commissioner’s Regulation 100.11, is operating in an emerging context that could be characterized as collaborative. | |
| Finally, the ‘Statement of Success: Planning’ questionnaire asked districts if they engaged in district comprehensive planning. In order to ensure that this question was not interpreted to be asking about a particular State Education Department pilot program (Comprehensive District Educational Planning or CDEP) the following definition of comprehensive planning was included in the question: | |
| Comprehensive planning: a continuous process to improve educational performance of all students through data analysis, dissolving of root causes, and focusing on results. | |
| Number and percent of districts in each district category reporting that they do or do not engage in comprehensive planning are reported on Table 1. | |
Table 1: Public School Districts by Type Engaged in Comprehensive Planning With or Without a CDEP/ DCEP Plan.
|
Public School District NRC Type |
Yes, we engage in district comprehensive planning. |
Yes, we have a CDEP or DCEP. |
|
NY City Districts (n=38) |
89.5% (34) |
89.5% (34) |
|
Big Four (n=4) |
75% (3) |
25% (1) |
|
Smaller Urban (n=34) |
85.3% (29) |
32.4% (11) |
|
High Need Rural (n=140) |
74.3% (104) |
29.3% (41) |
|
Average Need (n=306) |
68% (208) |
17.6% (54) |
|
Low Need (n=120) |
60.8% (73) |
10% (12) |
|
Totals (n=642) |
70.2% (451) |
22.1% (153) |
| Perhaps the most striking thing about this data is the difference between the percent of districts that report that they do engage in comprehensive planning and the percent of districts that report that they have submitted a CDEP Plan to the State. A clear majority of all types of districts engage in comprehensive planning, while a clear minority of districts have a CDEP Plan. |
| The type of planning model used by the districts that reported engaging in comprehensive district, education planning varied considerably. 34.8% of the districts that engage in comprehensive planning indicated that they use some of the recommended planning processes without actually using a planning model and 18.6% use a local planning model. 27.7% reported using the CDEP Planning Model. Lower frequency of report were: just over 30 use Strategic Planning, less than 20 use Effective Schools and less than 15 use the CSPD Model to guide their work. |
| This analysis of the 100.11 survey of 2002 divides districts with general education purposes from those with unique circumstances that might have affected their responses to questions. For that reason, results of the analysis for BOCES is reported in this section of the report and responses from all public school districts are reported in Section Two of this report. |
| This section begins with the presentation of data gathered during telephone interviews with a small sampling of BOCES, half of whom had reported that they engage in comprehensive planning and half of whom reported they did not engage in comprehensive planning, as indicated on the 100.11 survey of 2002. It is presented as a preface to the following discussion which presents data from that survey. That survey indicated that 20 of the 32 BOCES surveyed, or 62.5% of BOCES engage in comprehensive planning. However, since the BOCES provides planning facilitators to school districts, there was some confusion regarding the meaning of a positive response to that question. The telephone interviews were to clarify what BOCES districts meant by ‘engage in comprehensive planning’. |
| Indeed, during the telephone interviews some BOCES indicated that when they reported that they used comprehensive planning, they were actually referring to the fact that they facilitated comprehensive planning for some of their school districts. They did not, however, actually engage in the process themselves. One large BOCES, which provides support to sixteen districts, facilitates planning for fourteen of them. They use a process that was developed through years of in-house development and was in place before CDEP. The informant stated that their focus is on student outcomes and that their process is user-friendly. She reported no barriers to the planning process but did indicate some barriers to implementation. Their process is believed to be effective because it is under constant review and evaluation and can make adaptations when needed. While the use of this process is facilitated in several of their school districts, the BOCES itself does not use it in-house. |
| Several other BOCES also said that they did their own version of comprehensive planning but stipulated that it was not the comprehensive planning model which had been piloted by the State Education Department. One BOCES reported using a model of planning which was described as a ‘business model’ approach. The informant there said the model was ‘consensus-based’, like CDEP, but that the focus was on organizational planning and was not driven by student achievement. Because they were still in the early stages of the process, there was no indication of the effectiveness of this approach. The informant’s closing remark was of interest. She stated, "The jury is still out on planning. Is all this really leading to action?" |
| Another large BOCES that had reported using comprehensive planning, reported that four of their school districts had used CDEP in the past, but that no districts had used it this past year. The BOCES district superintendent reported that their own district was "too big" and "too diverse" to do comprehensive planning. The district superintendent indicated that they did do some integrated planning such as facility use planning. The Technology Department, Special Education Department and Vocational Education Department were also mentioned as being integrated through planning initiatives. |
| Another BOCES identified as a user of comprehensive planning, indicated that they had won the Governor’s Excellence in Planning Award. The BOCES was described as covering a small geographical area and therefore encountered few barriers with regard to planning issues. While they had been identified as using comprehensive planning, they did not use CDEP, which was described as too cumbersome and time-consuming. In particular, ‘root cause’ was pointed out as not useful. Two of their school districts, however, did use CDEP. Another BOCES reported that they had no problems with the planning process but that their barriers lay in implementation of the plans. |
|
Impact of the Collaborative Planning Process on Key Change Characteristics in BOCES |
| Data presented in the following section of the report begins with the impact that the collaborative planning process is perceived to have had on some of the key characteristics which research has indicated will support school improvement and results-based change. Data regarding the planning process itself are then presented, followed by analysis of questions asking about the commonalities across required planning processes in education in our State. |
| Communication |
| BOCES were asked with whom they communicate during the collaborative planning process with the results reported on Table 2, below. |
Table 2: BOCES Report of Communication During the Planning Process by Group Reported as Frequency & Percent.
|
Group |
Frequency and Percent |
|
Parents and/or principal caregivers. |
81.3% (26) |
|
Staff from across buildings and levels. |
93.8% (30) |
|
Administrators from different levels. |
93.8% (30) |
|
Community members. |
75% (24) |
|
Business and/or business organizations. |
78.1% (25) |
|
Local service agencies/organizations. |
71.9% (23) |
| Increased Internal Communication as an Impact | |
| BOCES were asked to report on any observed increase in communication among staff from different buildings and/or levels in their BOCES as an outcome of the collaborative planning process. Results of these questions are: | |
|
|
|
Improved Classroom Practice and Removal of Barriers to Teaching and Learning as an Impact |
|
| The BOCES were asked if they had observed that collaborative planning had had a favorable impact on teacher classroom practice, and if it had resulted in fewer organizational barriers to teaching and learning, with the following result: | |
|
|
| This response pattern is much closer than the one from the school districts who responded to this survey. | |
| The impact of collaborative planning on BOCES efficiency was another area of interest on this questionnaire. The first question dealt with the blending of funded programs, such as Title I and Special Education. Because of the organizational characteristics of BOCES, the low frequency of this being reported is not surprising. The second question in this area dealt with reported observation of more efficient allocation of resources due to collaborative planning at the district level. Approximately two thirds of those responding to this question responded positively to it. | |
|
|
|
Relationship Between District Level and Building Level Planning |
|
| Report of the strength of the relationship between building level and district level planning in BOCES districts: | |
|
|
| Report of the nature of the relationship between building level and district level planning in BOCES: | |
|
|
| Report of the District Superintendent’s satisfaction with the relationship between building and district level planning in BOCES districts: 78.1% (25) of those responding to this question indicated that they are satisfied with the relationship between building level and district level planning in their BOCES. | |
| Commonalities of Criteria and Data Used for Priority Setting | |
| Reported determination of the priorities for planning processes using criteria that are the same, mostly the same or usually different: | |
| The Same – 37.5% (12) Mostly the Same – 34.4% (11) Different – 21.9%(9) | |
| Reported determination of priorities for planning processes using data that are the same, mostly the same or usually different: | |
| The Same – 34.4% (11) Mostly the Same – 34.4% (11) Different – 25% (8) | |
| The District Planning Committee | |
| Membership of the Planning Committee varies in number from 0 to 60, with a mean membership number of 15.03 (standard deviation = 10.02). | |
| Reported provision of professional development in the areas of team building, meeting facilitation, and the use of data to support planning for school improvement to members of the planning committee by BOCES: 78.1% (25) provide professional development. | |
| Only four of these BOCES report including component districts on their planning committees. Ten report including local businesses and/or the business community on the committee, and four of these planning committees have paraprofessionals as members. One BOCES reports including professional development schools on their planning committee and another one reports including law enforcement. One planning committee has a representative of higher education among its members. | |
| Appendix 1 -- The Commissioner’s Regulation 100.11 | |
|
Appendix 2 -- Data Matrix Source Tables |
|
|
Table 1: Percent and number of each type of district reporting that they communicate with each of the following groups during the collaborative planning process. |
|||||||
|
Group |
NY City |
Big Four |
Smaller Urban |
High Need Rural |
Average Need |
Low Need |
Total |
|
Parents and/or principal caregivers. |
100% |
100% (4) |
100% |
97.9% |
94.8% |
95.8% |
96.3% |
|
Staff from across buildings and/or levels |
100% |
100% (4) |
97.1% |
97.1% |
95.1% |
93.3% |
95.6% |
|
*Administrators from different levels. |
100% |
100% (4) |
97.1% |
92.9% |
91.5% |
85.8% |
91.6% |
|
Community members. |
94.7% |
100% (4) |
94.1% |
93.6% |
90.8% |
87.5% |
91.3% |
|
**Businesses and/or business organizations. |
84.2% |
100% (4) |
85.3% |
73.6% |
78.4% |
65% |
75.7% |
|
**Local service agencies/organizations. |
78.9% (30)% |
100% (4) |
82.4% |
65% |
73.2% |
60.8% |
70.1% |
* Chi Square significant at .1
**Chi Square significant at .05
|
Tables 2 & 3: Percent and Number of Districts Reporting Improved Communication Among Building Administrative Staff and Among Teachers in Different Buildings/Levels. |
||
|
Have observed improved communication among building administrative staff. |
Have observed improved communication among teachers in different buildings/levels. |
|
|
New York City (38) |
97.4% (37) |
81.6% (31) |
|
Big Four (4) |
100% (4) |
50% (2) |
|
Smaller Urban (34) |
79.4% (27) |
88.2% (30) |
|
Rural High Need (140) |
82.1% (115) |
77.1% (108) |
|
Average Need (306) |
84.6% (259) |
85% (260) |
|
Low Need (120) |
81.7% (98) |
82.5% (99) |
|
Total (642) |
84.1% (540) |
82.6% (530) |
|
Table 4 : Percent and Number of Districts Reporting Favorable Impact on Teacher Classroom Practice and Fewer Organizational Barriers to Teaching and Learning. |
||
|
Have observed a favorable impact on teacher classroom practice. |
Have observed fewer organizational barriers to teaching and learning. |
|
|
New York City (38) |
86.8% (33) |
65.8% (25) |
|
Big Four (4) |
75% (3) |
50% (2) |
|
Smaller Urban (34) |
79.4% (27) |
52.9% (18) |
|
Rural High Need (140) |
72.1% (101) |
52.1% (73) |
|
Average Need (306) |
75.8% (231) |
50% (153) |
|
Low Need (120) |
75.8% (91) |
53.3% (64) |
|
Total (642) |
75.5% (486) |
52.2% (335) |
Chi Square test for contingency tables indicates that there is no relationship between the type of district and the distribution of responses across the six categories.
Table 5:
Percent and Number of Districts Reporting Blending of Funded Programs and More Efficient Allocation of Resources Resulting from Comprehensive Planning.|
Have observed a blending of funded programs. |
Have observed more efficient allocation of resources in the district. |
|
|
New York City (38) |
94.7% (36) |
76.3% (29) |
|
Big Four (4) |
100% (4) |
25% (1) |
|
Smaller Urban (34) |
82.4% (28) |
55.9% (19) |
|
Rural High Need (140) |
60% (84) |
57.1% (80) |
|
Average Need (306) |
57.8% (177) |
58.8% (180) |
|
Low Need (120) |
43.3% (52) |
58.3% (70) |
|
Total (642) |
59.3% (381) |
59% (379) |
Table 7:
Report of the Strength of the Relationship Between Building Level Planning and District Level Planning in These Districts by NRC Index.|
Strength of the relationship between building level and district level planning is: |
|||||
|
|
No Response |
Weak |
Building |
Strong |
Total |
|
NY City |
5.3% (2) |
0 |
39.5% (15) |
55.3% (21) |
38 |
|
Big Four |
0 |
75% (3) |
25% (1) |
4 |
|
|
Smaller Urban |
2.9% (1) |
2.9% (1) |
55.9% (19) |
38.2% (13) |
34 |
|
High Need Rural |
5% (7) |
3.6% (5) |
42.1% (59) |
49.3% (69) |
140 |
|
Average Need |
6.9% (21) |
4.6% (14) |
46.1% (141) |
42.5% (130) |
306 |
|
Low Need |
13.3% (16) |
4.2% (5) |
28.3% (34) |
21.7% (65) |
120 |
|
Totals |
7.3% (47) |
3.9% (25) |
42.2% (271) |
46.6% (299) |
642 |
Table 8:
Report of the Nature of the Relationship Between Building Level Planning and District Level Planning in These Districts by NRC Index.|
Nature of the relationship between building level and district level planning is: |
||||
|
|
Completely Interrelated |
Somewhat Interrelated |
Not At All Related |
Total |
|
NY City |
55.3% |
42.1% |
0 |
38 |
|
Big Four |
50% |
50% |
0 |
4 |
|
Smaller Urban |
35.3% |
61.8% |
0 |
34 |
|
High Need Rural |
45.7% |
42.1% |
5.7% |
140 |
|
Average Need |
39.9% |
52.3% |
3.3% |
306 |
|
Low Need |
35.8% |
55% |
4.2% |
120 |
|
Totals |
41.1% |
50.5% |
3.6% |
642 |
Table 9:
Report of Satisfaction with the Relationship Between Building Level Planning and District Level Planning in These Districts by NRC Index.|
Satisfaction with the relationship between building level and district level planning: |
|||
|
|
I am satisfied |
I am not satisfied |
Total |
|
NY City |
86.8% |
13.2% |
38 |
|
Big Four |
75% |
25% |
4 |
|
Smaller Urban |
73.5% |
26.5% |
34 |
|
High Need Rural |
77.9% |
22.1% |
140 |
|
Average Need |
81.7% |
18.3% |
306 |
|
Low Need |
81.7% |
18.3% |
120 |
|
Totals |
80.7% |
19.3% |
642 |
Table 10:
Reported Determination of the Priorities for Planning Processes Using Criteria Which are The Same, Mostly the Same or Usually Different.|
|
The Same/Mostly the Same |
Usually Different |
Total |
|
NY City |
78.9% (30) |
13.2% (5) |
38 |
|
Big Four |
100% (4) |
0 |
4 |
|
Smaller Urban |
91.2% (31) |
8.8% (3) |
34 |
|
High Need Rural |
88.6% (124) |
7.1% (10) |
140 |
|
Average Need |
84% (257) |
12.4% (38) |
306 |
|
Low Need |
82.5% (99) |
15% (18) |
120 |
|
Totals |
84.9% (545) |
11.5% (74) |
642 |
Table 11:
Reported Determination of the Priorities for Planning Processes Using Data Which are The Same, Mostly the Same or Usually Different.|
|
The Same/Mostly the Same |
Usually Different |
Total |
|
NY City |
76.3% (29) |
18.4% (7) |