The Evaluation of Illinois State Board of Education’s Regional System

1. The Evaluation of Illinois State Board of Education’s Regional System of Support Providers (RESPROs) May 2009

2. Overview of the Report Methodology • Strengths and Limitations of the Study • Key findings related to the: • Contextual Conditions: RESPRO staffing, professional culture and climate, and support from ISBE • Processes: Nature and frequency of services and supports that were provided to schools and districts by RESPRO staff • Outcomes: Perceived impact of RESPRO services on districts and schools

3. Methodology • Surveys: three web-based surveys were distributed • RESPRO Staff Survey: n=181 staff responses • District Survey: n=30 out of 56 districts sampled, 54% response rate • School survey: n=85 out of 244 schools sampled, 35% response rate • Site visits to all 10 RESPRO Areas Interviews: targeted telephone interviews with 5 schools and districts served by RESPRO. Schools and districts were nominated by RESPRO staff

4. Strengths and Limitations of the Study Strengths • Data triangulation • Blend of Qualitative and Quantitative Data Limitations • Short timeframe for study and for survey distribution • Low schools and district response rates and disproportionate number of responses by Area • Not all schools eligible for RESPRO participated in services • Work of RESPROS intertwined with other agencies

5. Contextual Conditions Staffing numbers and characteristics varied by size and scope of the region. The table below presents averages across all Areas RESPRO Background and Experience

6. Contextual Conditions Level of Satisfaction with RESPRO Culture and Climate as Reported by RESPRO Staff

7. Contextual Conditions • ISBE provided support and guidance in the form of: • Developing and disseminating resources and tools to facilitate the improvement planning process • Sponsoring professional development in key areas (e.g., NCLB and Title I • Informing RESPRO staff about new policies, procedures and regulations through state and region wide meetings

8. Contextual Conditions RESPRO staff commended the work of the immediate ISBE staff citing them as “fantastic,” “accessible,” and “responsive RESPRO staff felt that they needed more support and guidance from ISBE overall. RESPRO staff cited problems such as unrealistic timelines, inconsistent communication, and slow student data achievement reporting from ISBE

9. Processes: RESPRO Staff Findings Common themes across all Areas regarding nature and level of support provided to schools and/or districts • RESPRO staff characterized their service delivery approach as “responsive and differentiated” rather than “one-size fits all” • Schools’ receptivity and willingness to change determined the amount and depth of support provided • Building trusting and collegial relationships with school/district staff was the cornerstone of all work

10. Processes: RESPRO Staff Findings Percent of Schools/Districts that were Provided Support/ Services in the Area of Improvement Planning and Data Analysis

11. Processes: School & District Findings Frequency and Level of Need for Services in Improvement Planning and Analysis as Reported by Schools and Districts

12. Frequency and Level of Need for Services in Improvement Planning and Analysis as Reported by Schools and Districts (continued)

13. Processes: Staff Findings Percent of Teachers who were Provided Support/Services in the Area of Curriculum, Instruction, and Professional Development

14. Processes: School & District Findings Frequency and Level of Need for Services in Curriculum and Instructional Support to Teachers as Reported by Schools and Districts

15. Frequency and Level of Need for Services in Curriculum and Instructional Support to Teachers as Reported by Schools and Districts (continued)

16. Processes: RESPRO Staff Findings Percent of Schools/Districts that were Provided Support Services in the Area of Student, Family and

17. Processes: School and District Findings Frequency and Level of Need for Services in Students, Family and Community Support as Reported by Schools and Districts

18. Outcomes: RESPRO Staff Findings Findings Perceived Impact of RESPRO

19. Perceived Impact of RESPRO (continued)

20. Outcomes: School and District Findings Level of Contribution of RESPRO to Outcome Success as Rated by Schools and Districts

21. Level of Contribution of RESPRO to Outcome Success as Rated by Schools and Districts (continued)

22. Outcomes: School and District Findings School and District Level of Satisfaction with RESPRO Staff

23. Conclusions: Common Features Across Areas • There was demonstrated strength and stability in the staffing of the RESPROs • Building relationships with school and district staff was the cornerstone of all work • Service delivery can best be described as “responsive and differentiated” • RESPRO staff focused much of their efforts working with schools and districts in the areas of improvement plans and data analysis

24. Conclusions: Differences Between Areas • The organization structures varied and resulted in the intertwining of RESPRO services with other systems of supports • It appears that service provision in the areas of curriculum and instruction varied • Efforts to evaluate the impact of RESPRO services on schools and districts varied • Documentation of services/support provision varied from Area to Area