SUMMATIVE REPORT I11
-
EXTENSION OF SUMMATIVE REPORT I1
INCLUDING RECOMMENDATIONS FOR PROGRAM MODIFICATIONS
OF THE ARIZONA CAREER LADDER RESEARCH
& EVALUATION PROJECT
by
Dr. Richard D. Packard, Director
Dr. Mary I. Dereshiwsky, Statistical Research Specialist
The CEE - R & D Partnership
Center for Excellence in Education - Northern Arizona University
Box 5774 - Flagstaff. Arizona - 86001
Ph: (602) 523-5852
Document presented to the
Joint Legislative Committee on Career Ladders Task Force
State Capitol, Senate Wing
October 5,1989
Table of Contents
Page
Surnrnative Report and Recommendations for Program Modification of the
Arizona Career Ladder Research and Evaluation Project . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
Overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
Initial Task Force Directives . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
Sumrnative Report 111 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
A . Expanded Evaluative Response to Legislative Policy and Staff
Questions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
1. Future Legislative Involvement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
a) Related Legislative Guidelines . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
b) General Research Findings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
c) Recommended Program Continuations and
Modifications . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2 . Teacher Input and Ownership . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
a) Related Legislative Guidelines . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
b) General Research Findings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
c) Recommended Program Continuations and
Modifications . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
3. Program Plans. Designs and Structures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
a) Related Legislative Guidelines . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
b) General Research Findings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
c) Recommended Program Continuations and
Modifications . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
4 . Outside or Third-Party Research and Evaluation . . . . . . . . 9
a) Related Legislative Guidelines . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 0
b) General Research Findings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
c) Recommended Program Continuations and
Modifications . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 1
5 . School District Governing Boards . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
a) Related Legislative Guidelines . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
b) General Research Findings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
c) Recommended Program Continuations and
Mdfications . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 3
B . Additional Guidelines for Legislative Inclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
1. Professional Network . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
a) General Research Findings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 3
b) Recommended Program Additions . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
2 . Educational Specialists . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
a) General Research Findings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
b) Recommended Program Additions . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
3. Funding of Third-Party Research and Evaluation . . . . . . . 16
C . Evaluation of Program Support Needs Outside Current
Career Ladder Jurisdictional Policy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 6
1 . University Role. Responsibilities and Needs for Change . . . 16
2 . Teacher Certification and Licensing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
3. Influence of Community and the Private Sector . . . . . . . . . 17
Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
List of Figures
Figure 1 . Research and Development Project Procedure for Program
Evaluation and Policy Recommendations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
Figure 2 . Mapping the Developmental Process for Effective
School Reform: Designs and Structures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .2 0
SUMMATIVE REPORT rn
EXTENSION OF TASK FORCE
REPORT I1
Summative Re~oratn d Recommendations for Program Modification
of the Arizona Career Ladder Research
and Evaluation Projecf
Overview
Summative Report 11 was prepared for presentation to the Task Force on September
14, 1989. The contents of that document consist of a response to the initial Task Force
request that the NAU research and evaluation project present evaluative evidence which
addresses specific issues.
Initial Task Force Directives. Through the Senate Chair of the JLCCL, the Task
Force requested that the districts and NAU separately develop and present evaluative
information related to two major concept areas: (1) the type of organizational environinerlt
(or district readiness levels) required for successful integration and implementation of
operational career ladder models; and (2) specific evidence of the impact of the intervention
program on identification and improvement in levels of effectiveness of four major areas
considered to be key elements to the success of the career ladder concept. The four career
ladder goal areas which the Task Force identified as essential for immediate consideration
were as follows: 1) student achievement; 2) teacher evaluation; 3) job enlargement; and 3)
finance andfinding.
Summative Report 111. This report is an extension of the previous Task Force
assignment to add the following items: (1) to expand evaluative response to legislative
guidelines not previously reported; (2) to address specific legislative staff questions
identified as needing attention; and (3) to recommend additional policy targeted at certain
important elements not previously included in the legislation.
A. Expanded Evaluative Response to Legislative Policy and Staff Ouestions
1. Future Legislative Involvement. A major consideration for Task Force resolution
relates to the question of whether the Legislature should cease to continue any
involvement in the career ladder policy after completion of the pilot-test.
a) Related Legislative Guidelines. In 1988, S. B. 1195 essentially included the
original policy guidelines of S. B. 1336 (developed in 1985) and S. B. 1384
(revised in 1986). It also re-established and expanded the Joint Legislative
Committee on Career Ladders. S. B. 1 195 (Section 4, A.) states, in part,
"A joint legislative connittee on career ladders is
established consisting of five members of the senate
education committee appointed by the president of the
senate, five members of the house of representatives
education committee appointed by the speaker of the
house of representatives, one educator appointed by
the president of the senate, three members of the
state board of education appointed by the speaker of
the house of representatives and president of the
senate. . . ."
b) General Research Findins The "Model of Interrelated Components of
Program Support and Focus for Effecting Change and Reform in Education" is
the result offive years of study related to reform movements and career ladder
programs across the nation (see Figure 2, page 20, for a copy of the model).
"Legislative Guidelines" is at the base of the model, depicting its foundational
importance in directing and supporting educational reform and change.
Legislative policy and involvement has been crucial in determining the
levels of success of various programs. Evaluative observations indicate that an
oversight committee with the power to develop and implement policy
cooperatively is a key element in assuring that program goals are met and tlznt
they continue to be refined and improved in the future.
Educational change and reform has failed in the past, largely as a result of'
difSusion of responsibility and lack of clear intent and action in requiring direct
and specific accountability. Components of government bureaucracies have n
tendency of traditionalizing and solidifying after legislation is "completed" and
transferred to other agencies, without ongoing formal channels oj'
communication and cooperation for instituting necessary program revision.^
through planning, development, change and improvement.
c) Recommended Program Continuations and Modifications. Based on legislative
guidelines and the research and evaluation findings, the following
recommendations are in order:
(1) A joint legislative committee should continue to function as a crucial
component to oversee and assure continuing program development and
improvement. As in the past, the committee structure should provide for a
balance of members representing government officials, educational
professionals and business and industry representatives.
(2) The committee should convene every three to five years to receive
evaluative reports on program progress, as well as to forward appropriate
revisions and to make decisions about future program continuation.
2. Teacher Input and Ownership. A primary goal of the career ladder legislation was
to provide for involvement of teachers in program planning.
a) Related Legislative Guidelines. Section 5. "Requirements for career ladder
plan" essentially remained the same with respect to teacher input for Senate Bills
1336, 1384 and 1195.
"Sec. 5. Reauirements f o r c a r e e r l a d d e r o l a n . To
receive approval t o budget f o r a c a r e e r ladder program
a s provided i n s e c t i o n 4 of t h i s a c t , a school
d i s t r i c t ' s c a r e e r l a d d e r p l a n must c o n t a i n t h e
following:
1. E v i d e n c e t h a t t h e p l a n was d e v e l o p e d i n
c o n s u l t a t i o n with t h e d i s t r i c t ' s t e a c h e r s . . . ."
to Sec. 5., #12, which states the following:
12."Evidence of t h e e x t e n t of support f o r t h e plan by
t h e t e a c h e r s i n t h e school d i s t r i c t . I f t h e r e is
no consensus among t h e t e a c h e r s of t h e school
d i s t r i c t , statements both from those opposing t h e
plan and from those supporting t h e plan s h a l l be
included i n t h e plan."
b) General Research Findings. The three interrelated areas of the model (page 20)
which are most directly affected by teacher involvement in the planning of
programs within which they must work are the following: ( I ) Professional
Input and Ownership; (2, tlotivation; and (3) Organizational Factors of Climate
(i.e., Communication, Interpersonal Relationships, PsychologicallEmotioni~l
Well-being, etc.) (See Figure 2, page 20 for a copy of the model).
Programs which have instituted the greatest amount of planning and
expanded involvement of teacher leaders have also been the most successfiil.
Individuals are motivated to complete tasks at a higher level of performunee
when they are treated in a mature adult manner, as well as trusted and supported
to "do their jobs" as professionals. Teachers in those organizations ~vllicll
practice open, positive, and clear communication and establish a cooperative
environment have also shown correspondingly higher levels of appreciatiorl for
the career ladder concept. Several districts have established steering committees
which are predominantly composed of teachers; however, other districts have
isolated committee operations and have depreciated the advantages of program
integration within the total educational system. When teacher leadership within
a given district is opposed to the program, the results are essentially a waste of
state and local resources.
Furthermore, a self-evaluation of the data-collection process has strongly
indicated the existence of a response bias on the part of some districts. This
was undoubtedly due, in large measure, to their well-intentioned desire to
receive positive responses related to levels of teacher support.
c) Recommended Program Continuations and Modifications. Based on the
legislative guidelines and the research and evaluation findings, the following
recommendations are in order:
(1) Teachers should continue to provide input into programs at all levels, but
they should have a greater role than simply that of a "consultant." At a
minimum, legislative policy should officially recognize the importance of
professional teacher input into all of the following areas: planning,
implementing and evaluating programs for initiation of needed change and
improvement.
(2) Before being approved for initial or ongoing funding for a career ladder
program, districts should be required to demonstrate a majority support of
teacher and administrative personnel by confidential ballot. This process
may need to be conducted by the outside program evaluators.
3. Promam Plans. Designs and Structures. The legislative guidelines clearly specified
that a well-developed plan is necessary for implementation and approval.
Therefore, the Joint Legislative Committee has provided greater policy specificity
over the pilot-test period.
This section of the report will list those parts of the law in Sec. 5.
Requirements for career ladder plan, which have been targeted as important
components of the research and evaluation activity, but not previously addressed in
other areas of the summative documents. The "General Research Findings" and
"Recommended Program Modifications and Continuations" will follow the same
order of listing.
a) Related Legislative Guidelines. Section 5. Reauirements for career ladder
states, in part:
"To r e c e i v e approval t o budget f o r a c a r e e r l a d d e r program
a s provided i n s e c t i o n 4 of t h i s a c t , a school d i s t r i c t ' s
c a r e e r ladder must contain t h e following:"
(1) Paragraph 3 relates to professional advancement:
"A description of the career ladder which provides
opportunities to teachers for continued professional
advancement, . . ."
(2) Paragraph 4 discusses education as a requirement and states, in
part,
"Education as a requirement for advancement shall be
related to advanced performance or expertise and a
minimum number of unspecified credits shall not be
used as a criteria for advancement."
(3) Paragraph 6, (c) provides for teacher improvement:
"(c) Opportunities for improvement of teacher performance."
(4) Paragraph 9 relates to implementation plans:
"Plans for implementation of the career ladder program for
teachers. "
(5) Paragraph 10 provides for periodic program evaluation:
"A plan for the periodic review of the career ladder program
for teachers which includes who is conducting the review,
how the review is performed and the time line for the
review. "
(6) Paragraph 11 relates to administrative evaluation:
"A description of how the school district's faculty
development program and system for evaluating principals
will be revised or adapted to provide support for the career
ladder program for teachers.
b) General Research Findin~sR. esearch and evaluation indicates that most
districts are doing an excellent job of developing and improving program
plans, designs and structures. These documents are clearly providing
specific patterns for systematic professional advancement which are linked
to diflering levels of pe$ormance and are based on specific evaluation criteria.
But while all districts have developed excellent plans and guidelines, their actual
readiness levels with respect to successful implementation of these designs are
extremely diverse.
Continued education is a rational and efective path to faculty development,
especially when it is in the form of a requirement which is tied to perj6ormance
and assessed improvement needs of teachers. This procedure focuses energies
on local instructional and school needs. Even though it is standard procedure,
randomly taking courses for college credit which may not relate to improving
teachers' skills, students' learning or improved professional activities has not
proven to be an flective practice.
The career ladder program has been extremely successful in focusing school
systems' efforts and resources on providing opportunities for improvement
of teacher performance. Whether provided by internal sources or by
outside consultants (i.e., universities and professional experts) inservice
education has increasingly met the assessed needs of schools and teachers.
Research indicates that teachers see opportunities for improvement of their
performance as a significant intrinsic motivator. The career ladder program
allows teachers to identify their own needed areas of improvement, and it is
extremely motivating to them to realize positive changes in efectiveness. Initial
research findings suggest, in fact, that this motivational factor may be as
important as the extrinsic reward of money.
Implementation plans of program designs and structures have been well
developed in accordance with the time lines specijied by the JLCCL; however,
requiring diverse districts to implement plans according to identical time
schedules is inefficient and uneconomical. For several such districts,
implementation of the comprehensive and complex requirements of the career
ladder program policy has resulted in extreme hardship and has also aggravated
existing negative conditions; furthermore, in some cases it has been very
destructive to morale.
In addition to external program evaluation, periodic program
evaluations are a necessary internal activity for change and improvement.
This requirement has caused districts to focus on their own specific needs as
well as to develop local program evaluation functions and procedures which
were formerly nonexistent.
Attempts to develop teachers in isolation, without focusing on other related
key components of educational effectiveness, has been a major reason for the
failures of past reform programs. Therefore, administrative evaluation
and development is crucial to the success of faculty and student evuluutiorz
and improvement. Districts have expended considerable effort in upgrading
administrative personnel who work closely with the evaluation and instructional
processes.
c) Recommended Program Continuations and Modifications. Based on the
legislative guidelines and the research and evaluation findings, the following
recommendations are suggested:
(1) The career ladder program should continue to require districts to provide
well-planned designs and structures guidelines which clearly define the
different career levels, as well as requirements for being able to serve on
those levels, and the necessary processes and procedures for advancement.
Plans for professional advancement should be adjusted to meet the needs
for implementation time and readiness level capabilities of each individual
district, in order for it to be able to differentiate staff based on performance
reliably. These concerns would be addressed by assessment of district
readiness levels, profiling organizational needs and placement of each
district on one of the three proposed alternative readiness levels.
(2) Career ladder policy should require that continued education and inservice
of teachers be tied to assessed improvement needs and performance levels.
8
(3) The career ladder program should also continue to require provision of
opportunities for improvement of teacher performance. Since improvement
in ability to teach and to provide leadership through direct influence of
important district programs has been found to be highly motivating,
districts should continue to focus more attention on this significant potential
intrinsic reward.
(4) Requirement for app;-oval as a career ladder district should continue to be
based on the preparation of a well-planned document which clearly defines
the conditions and steps for teacher career advancement. Should the
program be expanded to include other state districts, current plans would
provide excellent models and guides for new participants.
(5) Internal periodic review by districts is essential. In addition, the legislation
needs to be strengthened to require an integrative research and development
component within the district to conduct the following activities: (a)
documentation of program progress over a long-term period; (b)
coordination of interrelated district programs, and (c) collection of evidence
of progress related to the effect of teacher performance on student learning.
(6) Administrative evaluation based on effectiveness in providing support for
the career ladder program for teachers should be modified to require more
than a simple description of the existing program. All approved districts
should be held accountable for meeting the program intent of developing or
maintaining administrative expertise required for teacher support.
4. Outside or Third-Partv Research and Evaluation. Career ladder legislation provided
for evaluation of the program by a source which is external to special interests, as
well as spheres of influence of districts and teachers involved.
a) Related Legislative Guidelines. Section 7. Studv of career ladder programs
relates to provisions for program research and evaluation as follows:
9
"The center for excellence in education at a state
university designated by the Arizona board of regents
shall conduct a study of the career ladder programs
implemented by the school districts which budget for
career ladder expenses . . ."
b) General Research Findings. On July 20, 1989, the researchers presented ".A
Chronology of Research and Evaluation Procedures for Assessment of the
Pilot-test Career Ladders Teacher Performance and Incentive Programs, 1985 to
1990." This publication documented the research and evaluation project
procedure for policy development and recommendations (See Figure 1 , page 19
for a model depicting data collection, analysis, reduction and reporting
procedures). Ongoing research consists of continued application of the latest,
most sophisticated research and statistical designs and methodologies available,
and extends into greater specificity of studying questions which arise from this
type of comprehensive research activity.
This research has attracted widespread interest and positive commentary
from a number of distinguished national sources. The University of Arizona
and Arizona State University have cooperated in applying considerable time and
expertise to the development and implementation of research instrumentation.
In addition, ASU is continuing a state-wide study of the important elements cf
teacher per3Formance and student achievement. The Far West Laboratory ilns
reviewed the research documents and provided information as to their own
experiences with other state evaluations. The Rand Corporation, in cooperation
with several university research organizations, is studying the process of
efSective policy development through use of objective research to support
public decision makers and legislation within governing bodies. The proposed
alternative three models, or levels of program participation, have been vcrj
favorably reviewed by the Curry School of Education at the University of
Virginia. In their publications, the Southern Regional Board Clearinghouse has
officially recognized the evaluative efSorts as being one of the most valiiable
third-party program evaluations in the country. These researclz
accomplishments were prominently featured in the HORIZONS: Opportunities
for Tomorrow, which is a premiere research publication at Northern Arizona
University. Inquiries for information continue to be steadily received from
local, state, national and international educators and fellow researchers.
The Arizona legislature chose a wise course when it established a pilot-test
procedure of several years' duration. Objective research and evaluation is a key
to successful change and reform of complex social systems.
C) Recommended Proaam Continuations and Modifications. Based on five years
of experience in researching and evaluating the career ladder program, the
following recommendations are suggested:
(1) As established by current legislation, the existing career ladder programs
should continue to be researched and evaluated by the Center for
Excellence in Education at Northern Arizona University in cooperation
with ongoing studies being conducted by Arizona State University and
individual career ladder districts. Cooperative efforts in supporting
doctoral study should be encouraged at all three state universities.
(2) Legislation should be modified to include an assessment and profiling
responsibility of the research center. This assessment would result in
placement of districts into the developing, transitional and excellent
schools models. In addition, it would provide specific information about
support and focus components within those districts which are in need of
change or improvement.
(3) Responsibilities of the research and evaluation center should include
assistance to districts in the planning and implementation of their own
internal R & D program.
School District Governing Boards. As it relates to the local board, legislative
content predominantly addressed the budgetary relationship between state funding
and formulas for local expenditures. It also required "Phase 111" districts to follow
a specified "career development evaluation model" which was supported by the
organized teaching profession.
a) Related Legislative Guidelines. A sample statement related to the budget and
the specified evaluation r del can be found in section 8. Provisions for career
ladder progams based on a career develo~mente valuation model. It states, in
part:
"A. The governing board of any school d i s t r i c t not a l r e a d y
budgeting f o r a c a r e e r l a d d e r program may apply t o t h e j o i n t
l e g i s l a t i v e committee on c a r e e r l a d d e r s f o r approval t o budget
f o r a c a r e e r l a d d e r program based on a c a r e e r development
e v a l u a t i o n model b e g i n n i n g w i t h f i s c a l year 1987-1988 as
follows : "
b) General Research Findings. All available research to date which has been
directing formulation of the Center's model of organizational support and foc~ls
components has substantiated the importance of the local governing board.
More specifically, the governing board in the district has been shown
to be a key interrelated support component, one which maintains n
unique and central role in the success of career ladder programs.
Governing boards which understand and support the principle of rewarding
teachers based on competencies andpe$omnce related to student achievement
have realized a much greater amount of positive support for appropriate change
and improvement. On the other hand, those boards which have shown little
interest in the career ladder program, or have used it as a tool to promote their
own political interests and personal animosities, have been extremely
destructive to successful reform and improvement.
The "career development evaluation model" required for Phase III districts
was not validated prior to legislating its implementation. This model sho~llchi e
specifically studied to determine if it is a theoretically and practically sollrzd
means of realizing the goals of the career ladder program.
Recommended Program Continuations and Modifications. Based on five years
of experience in researching, evaluating and building the resultant model of
interrelated organizational support and focus factors, the following
recommendations are suggested:
(1) Legislation should be modified to require governing boards in those
districts which request and are approved for career ladder funding to
understand both the goals of the program and their responsibility to support
the reform and change needed within the district, in order to assure
maximally effective and efficient expenditures of funds.
(2) Local boards should be assessed by the "third-party evaluator," along with
the other essential organizational components in the district, in order to
determine members' levels of understanding and support for the career
ladder concept. If they are insufficiently prepared to provide adequ:~te
support, they should receive specially targeted inservice assistance.
(3) Several important concepts related to the CL legislation are the focus of an
ongoing research study, i.e., recruitment/retention, motivation, research
bias, support of the organized profession, applications of the support and
focus model, and the ASU/NAU teacher performance/student achievement
research. The "career development evaluation model" for Phase 111
districts is one of several components which warrants considerable
attention and further analysis. This model should be studied and validated
prior to its required adoption by individual districts. Until its value is more
clearly understood, any new districts should be allowed a choice of 1111
available proven models being utilized by successful career ladder districts.
B. Additional Guidelines For Legislative Inclusion. Other issues not addressed by current
career ladder legislation have become evident during the first five years of research on
impact and effectiveness of the law on improved teaching conditions and student
achievement. Three especially important recommended additions which require
immediate attention relate to the following areas: (1) a professional network; (2)
educational specialists; and (3) funding of program research and evaluation.
1. Professional Network. The "Career Ladder Pilot-District Network" is a committee
composed of representatives from each of the career ladder districts. One of the
sub-groups within this committee is a research division.
a) General Research Findings. In general, the network serves a very important
function of communication between districts and policy-making bodies.
Specifically, the organization has been invaluable in its cooperation anit
assistance with the ongoing research and evaluation efforts. This type oj'
support component is needed within the total interrelated system, mainly to
serve as a dynamic and creative unit which is not directly tied to the more
traditional standardized operations of bureaucratic agencies required to carry out
stated policy. While it is not, and should not, be a policy-making body, the
network can serve to make recommendations and support needs for improved
legislation in the future.
b) Recommended Program Additions. Based on five years of program evaluation,
the following recommendations for policy additions are proposed:
(1) The law should be modified to include a network which functions outside
the jurisdiction and influence of present governing bodies.
(2) Districts approved for career ladder funding should be required to become
members of a professional network, for the purpose of assisting each other
14
in program improvement, as well as making recommendations to
governing bodies for needed policy refinements and changes.
Educational Specialists. Educational specialists who come into direct
developmental contact with students (i.e., school psychologists, counselors, library
or media center personnel and nurses) were not explicitly included in the legislation.
Only the teaching staff who have direct classroom contact with academic subjects
which have traditional methods of evaluation were considered.
a) General Research Findings. The exclusion of educational specialists from
career development opportunities afirded to the regular classroom teachers,
while probably due to oversight, has not served to enhance the efSectivene.ss of
school organization. Considerable knowledge and evidence supports the fact
that students have little chance of learning well if they are socially, emotionally
(psychologically), or physically impaired, or if they fail to acquire the necessury
skills to locate and comprehend knowledge in libraries and other organized
resources.
Another finding relates to special-area teachers in the creative arts, certuitz
vocational courses and in the special-education and physical-education areas.
While they constitute "teachers" according to career ladder specifications,
evaluation of their levels of per$ormance and development are considerably
lacking in methodologic sophistication.
b) Recommended Progl-am Additions. Based on five years of program evaluation,
the following recommendations for policy additions are suggested:
(1) Educational specialists should be included within the staff definition, and
thereby explicitly recognized as influencing student growth and related
academic achievement.
(2) The curriculum li. e., the planned learning experiences under the schools'
jurisdictional responsibility) which educational specialists apply sho~ildb e
documented and validated.
(3) An evaluation system should be developed to assess the level at which
specialists are performing their respective established curricular roles and
functions.
(4) Educational specialists in "developing schools" should have the same
opportunities for job enlargement assignments as regular teachers.
(5) In most school districts special-area teachers (i.e., art, music, band,
physical education, pre-school and kindergarten) are as different in their
assigned responsibilities as educational specialists; therefore, they may
require a separate curriculum and evaluation system.
3. Funding of Third-Party Research and Evaluation. While the Career Ladder
legislation provided for outside research and evaluation, it failed to establish a
formal means of financing for conducting this evaluative activity. Therefore, a
critical recommended program addition is to make explicit provision for
evaluation expenditures as a separate line item in future budgets.
C. Evaluation of Program Support Needs Outside Current Career Ladder Jurisdictive
Policv
1. University Role. Responsibilities and Needs For Change. In order to serve as a
more positive support for the student and instructional needs of education generally,
universities should be encouraged to review and revise curricula to which future
teachers are exposed. Key deficiencies observed to be predominant with respect to
teachers practicing their professional responsibilities relate to the following
knowledge and skill domains:
a) Professional Level Understanding of Principles or Laws of Human
Development from Early Childhood through Adolescence
16
b) Academic Knowledge within the Full Range of Content Taught
c) Knowledge of Social, Emotional and Psychological Development Associated
d) Understanding, Knowledge and Skills in the Use of Quantitative and Qualitative
Assessment and Evaluation of Students' Social and Emotional Progress and
Academic Learning.
2. Teacher Certification and Licensing. Certification policy should be reviewed to
determine the adequacy of =:esent requirements for high-quality instructional
personnel, in order to fulfill its function as a positive support in promoting teachers'
knowledge and skills development. Well articulated and focused needs of teachers,
as well as improvements in certification policy and university teacher education
programs, would enhance teacher performance and student achievement.
3. Influence of Communitv and the Private Sector. School/Community partners hips
are key ingredients to improved learning environments. Through the career ladder
concept, job enlargement of teacher leaders and educational specialists can be a very
positive element for needed expansion of program association and development.
Specific and targeted programs which directly involve parents and community
agencies and leaders should be encouraged.
The private sector, such as business, industry and foundations, have
exerted significant influence with specific programs, but the total interrelated
organizational picture has received little integrative assistance. For example.
business and industry has had considerable experience in identifying the kind of
work environment which produces the greatest and most positive performance and
production. It would therefore be beneficial for school organizations to team up
with the private sector and work on the systems' organizational structure and
procedures of operation.
The interrelated support and focus factors which relate to such joint efforts
have been identified. Education critically needs outside assistance in refining these
17
essential organizational components as defined in the evaluation model (see past:
20). In particular, education requires support which is not confined to isolated
components of essential operations; that is, the total system must be functioning on
a high level before effective progress can be maximally accomplished.
Conclusion
If the career ladder program continues as recommended by the evaluators, and if it
is expanded to allow an application and approval process for other Arizona school districts,
the present Career Ladder districts should continue to be funded at current levels for a
three-year period. At the end of that period of time, those districts not meeting the
requirements of the Effective Career Ladder Schools Model would be placed at a
developing or transitional level and receive appropriate funding for that particular stage of
development. Additional schools would be admitted to the program at an approved rate
based on the state's funding capabilities and according to their respective assessed model
levels.
Dr. Richard D. I'ock.ird, 1 939
Figure 1
I. DATA BASE
DOCUMENTS
INCLUDE A
SERIES OF
QUALITATIVE
AND
QUANTITATIVE
PLANS,
DISSERTA-TIONS,
ANALYTIC
STUDIES AND
PUBLICATIONS
1I.SUMMARY
EVALUATION
DOCUMENTS
ARE
DESCRIPTIONS
AND LISTINGS
OF
EVALUATIVE
JUDGMENTS
BASED ON
QUANTITATIVE
AND
QUALITATIVE
RESEARCH
METHODOLDG~
111. MODELS,
DESIGNS
-AND
STRUCTURES
INCLUDES
CONCEPTUAL
MODELS
WHICH
DIAGRAM-MATICALLY
SUMMARIZE
PROGRAM
COMPONENTS
AND
PROCESSES
1V.POLICY
DOCUh'IENTS
INCLUDE
SUMMATIVE
RECOMhIENDA-TIONS
FOR
PROGRAM
MODLFIC.4TIONS
AND
LEGISLATIVE
APPROVAL
Model Depicting Documentation Procedures of Data Analysis,
Reduction and Reporting for Policy Recommendations
Figure 2
MAPPING THE DEVELOPMENTAL PROCESS
FOR EFFECTIVE SCHOOL REFORM:
Designs and Structures
, DEVELOPMENT &LEADERSHIP
I ESSEhTAL ELEMENTS FOR
EDUCATIONAL IMPROVEMEhT & SUCCESS \ I
A Model of Interrelated Components of Program Support and Focus
for Effecting Change and Reform in Education
