Systems-level Responses to Systemic Inequities: Collaboration for Effective Educator Development, Accountability, and Reform

• In Event: Theory and Practice of Government-Funded Technical Assistance Centers to Research, Remedy, and Repair Education Injustices

Abstract

Objectives
This paper outlines a multi-level systems approach to improving teacher and leader development for students with disabilities. Case examples of states engaging with the Center's technical assistance to improve educators’ effectiveness to support college and career readiness for students with disabilities will be provided.

Perspectives
The (Masked) Center has been funded by the U.S. Department of Education, Office of Special Education Programs, since 2013 in service of state personnel development systems (i.e., state education agencies, educator preparation providers, and local education agencies). The Center is purposed to assist in examining and refining: (a) policy guiding certification and licensure, (b) programs that prepare educators, and the (c) approval and evaluation processes to inform continuous improvement. Inherent in our systems-change approach (Brownell et al., 2021; Fixsen et al. 2019; Thorius, 2023), is a throughline of culturally and linguistically responsive (e.g., Calabrese Barton et al., 2020; Author, 2024), evidence based, and high leverage practices (Aceves & Kennedy, 2024). Therefore, we engage with state teams in inquiry about the diversity of the educator workforce; the capacity of the workforce to deliver evidence based and responsive instruction; their ability to track and evaluate policy that supports such a workforce; and finally, their ability to scale up and sustain their efforts over time.

Modes of inquiry
Multiple methods of data collection are used, with some instances of mixing methods (Greene et al., 1989), to determine whether and how intended outcomes are being met by state teams and the TA Center overall. Case examples of states’ engagement and outcomes will be provided.

Data sources
Representative data include state team member surveys, metrics documented through a center-developed systems change rubric, and anecdotal records from formal and informal meetings with state teams and among TA providers. Additionally, implementation tools and structures supporting TA will be discussed.

Substantiated conclusions
Over time, the Center has provided targeted and intensive TA to more than 25 states. Through our engagements, we have learned considerable lessons about the roles infrastructure, socio-political landscape, and context play in affecting sustained change. By developing and using tools with state-based implementers, we have been able to refine our TA tools and structures to be responsive to the needs of constituents. State teams have refined and developed policies and practices that increase access to an effective, diverse, culturally and linguistically responsive workforce to improve outcomes for students with disabilities.

Scholarly significance
Systemic inequities experienced by students with disabilities–many of whom have intersecting minoritized identities–will only be remedied through systems-level changes. Federal levers are powerful for inducing change. However, translation and implementation occur at the state and local level and each context can either repair or render more harm. This inquiry has scholarly significance through examining and documenting lessons learned in policy, preparation, and practical implementation.

Author

• Erica D. McCray, University of Florida