Restricted accessResearch articleFirst published online 2007-1
Elementary and Middle Schools Technical Assistance Center: An Approach to Support the Effective Implementation of Scientifically Based Practices in Special Education
The Elementary and Middle Schools Technical Assistance Center (EMSTAC) tested an insider-outsider approach to assist local school districts in effectively identifying and implementing scientifically based practices. Methods used to measure EMSTAC's effectiveness in supporting successful practice adoption are presented. The overarching finding is that EMSTAC-assisted districts learned to work through a systematic process for changing and improving their instructional programs over time. Further, although differences in EMSTAC financial support for districts were substantial, only nonfinancial factors, such as district leadership, were found to significantly influence the change process. Also discussed are the implications and limitations of these findings for improving instructional practices in special education.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
BermanP.McLaughlinM. W. (1975–1978). Federal programs supporting educational change, Santa Monica, CA: RAND.
2.
CohenJ. (1960). A coefficient of agreement for nominal scales. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 20, 37–46.
3.
CorcoranT.GoertzM. E. (1995). Instructional capacity and high performance schools. Educational Researcher, 24 (9), 27–31.
4.
CrandallD. P.LoucksS. F.BauchnerJ. E.SchmidtW. B.EisemanJ. W.CoxP. L. (1982). People, policies, and practices: Examining the chain of school improvement. Andover, MA: The Network.
5.
CronbachL. (1971). Test validation. In ThorndikeR. (Ed.), Educational measurement (2nd ed.; pp. 443–507). Washington, DC: American Council on Education.
6.
Darling-HammondL.McLaughlinM. (1995). Policies that support professional development in an era of reform. Phi Delta Kappan, 76, 597–604.
7.
DeshlerD. D.SchumakerJ. B. (1989). An instructional model for teaching students how to learn. In GradenJ. L.ZinsJ. E.CurtisM. J. (Eds.), Alternative educational delivery systems: Enhancing instructional outcomes for all students (pp. 391–411). Bethesda, MD: National Association of School Psychologists.
8.
DesimoneL. (2002). How can comprehensive school reform models be successfully implemented?. Review of Educational Research, 72, 433–479.
9.
ElmoreR. F. (1996). Getting to scale with good educational practice. Harvard Educational Review, 66, 1–26.
10.
FuchsD.FuchsL.MathesP. G.SimmonsD. C. (1997). Peer-assisted learning strategies: Making classrooms more responsive to diversity. American Educational Research Journal, 34, 174–206.
11.
FullanM. G. (2001). The new meaning of educational change (3rd ed.). New York: Teacher's College Press.
12.
FullanM. G.StiegelbauerS. (1991). The new meaning of educational change. New York: Teachers College Press.
13.
FullanM. G.MilesM. B. (1992). Getting reform right: What works and what doesn't. Phi Delta Kappan, 73 (10), 774–752.
14.
GallagherJ. J. (1968). Organization and special education. Exceptional Children, 34, 485–491.
15.
GuskeyT. R.HubermanM. (Eds.). (1995). Professional development in education: New paradigms and practices. New York: Teachers College Press.
16.
HallG. E.HordS. M. (2001). Implementing change: Patterns, principles, and potholes. Boston: Allyn & Bacon.
17.
HallingerP.MurphyJ.HausmanC. (1991). Conceptualizing school restructuring: Principals' and teachers' perceptions. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Chicago.
18.
HavelockR. G.HamiltonJ. (2004). Guiding change in special education: How to help schools with new ideas and practices. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.
19.
HavelockR. G.HubermanA. M. (1978). Solving educational problems: The theory and reality of innovation in developing countries. New York: Praeger.
20.
HouseE. R. (1981). Three perspectives on innovation: Technological, political and cultural. In LehmingR.KaneM. (Eds.), Improving schools: Using what we know (pp. 42–114). Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
21.
HubermanA. M. (1983). Recipes for busy kitchens: A situational analysis of routine knowledge use in schools. Knowledge: Creation Diffusion, Utilization, 4, 478–510.
22.
HubermanA. M.CrandallD. (1983). Volume IX: Implications for action: A study of dissemination efforts supporting school improvement. Andover, MA: The Network.
23.
Individuals with Disabilities Education Improvement Act of 2004, Pub. L. 108–446.
24.
Kame'enuiE. J.CarnineD. W. (1998). Effective teaching strategies that accommodate diverse learners. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
25.
KaneM. B.KocherA. T. (1980, June). The dissemination and use of educational R&D in the United States: An analysis of recent federal attempts to improve educational practice. In The political realization of social science knowledge and research: Toward new scenarios. Conference conducted by the Institute for Advanced Studies, Vienna, Austria.
26.
KlingnerJ. K.AhweeS.PilonietaP.MenendezR. (2003). Barriers and facilitators in scaling up research based practices. Exceptional Children, 69, 411–429.
27.
KnoffH. M.BatscheG. M. (1995). Project ACHIEVE: Analyzing a school reform process for at-risk and underachieving students. School Psychology Review, 24, 579–603.
28.
KotterJ. P. (1996). Leading change. Boston: Harvard Business School Press.
29.
LeithwoodK.JantziD.SteinbachR. (1999). Changing leadership for changing times. Philadelphia: Open University Press.
30.
LenzK.SchumakerJ. (1999). Adapting language arts, social studies, and science materials for the inclusive classroom. Reston, VA: Council for Exceptional Children.
31.
LiebermanA.GrolnickM. (1996). Networks and reform in American education. Teachers College Record, 98, 7–45.
32.
LittleJ. W. (1982). Norms of collegiality and experimentation: Workplace conditions of school success. American Educational Research Journal, 19, 325–340.
33.
LittleJ. W. (1993). Teachers' professional development in a climate of educational reform. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 15 (2), 129–151.
34.
Loucks-HorsleyS.RoodyD. S. (1990). Using what is known about change to inform the regular education initiative. Remedial and Special Education, 11 (3), 51–56.
35.
LouisK. S.MilesM. B. (1990). Improving the urban high school: What works and why. New York: Teachers College Press.
36.
LouisK. S.RosenblumS. (1981). Linking R&D with schools: A program and its implications for dissemination and school improvement policy. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education, Office of Education Research and Improvement.
37.
MartinE. W. (1968). Breakthrough for the handicapped: Legislative history. Exceptional Children, 34, 493–503.
38.
McLaughlinM. W. (1990). The Rand change agent study revisited: Macro perspectives and micro realities. Educational Researcher, 19 (9), 11–16.
39.
MilesM. B.EkholmM.VandenbergheR. (Eds.). (1987). Lasting school improvement: exploring the process of institutionalization. Leuven, Belgium: Acco.
40.
OsherD.KaneM. (1993). Describing and studying innovations in the education of children with attention deficit disorder. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education, Office of Special Education and Rehabilitative Services.
41.
SashkinM.EgermeierJ. (1993). School change models and processes: A review and synthesis of research and practice. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education, Office of Educational Research and Improvement, Programs for the Improvement of Practice.
42.
ScheinE. (1992). Organizational culture and leadership (2nd ed.). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
43.
SchummJ. S. (1999). Adapting reading and math materials for the inclusive classroom. Reston, VA: Council for Exceptional Children.
44.
SimmonsD. C.KuykendallK.KingK.CornachioneC.Kame'enuiE. J. (2000). Implementation of a schoolwide reading improvement model: “No one ever told us it would be this hard!”Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 15 (2), 92–100.
45.
TyackD.CubanL. (1995). Tinkering toward utopia: A century of public school reform. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
