Supporting Early Colleges in Comprehensive High Schools

• In Event: Transforming Comprehensive High Schools Into Early Colleges

Abstract

Objectives: This paper will synthesize findings from the four projects relative to the implementation supports crucial for enabling schools to implement the Early College Design Principles.

Theoretical framework: To look at implementation supports, the four projects used Implementation Science as an analytic framework. According to the National Implementation Research Network, “Implementation Science is the study of factors that influence the full and effective use of innovations in practice…” (Fixsen, Naoom, Blase, Friedman, & Wallace, 2005), and it focuses specifically on the processes and activities that help practitioners implement interventions. Researchers on implementation science have identified a series of stages for the implementation process (Meyers, Durlak, & Wandersman, 2012): 1.) selecting and preparing partners; 2.) creating a structure for implementation such as a plan and management team; 3.) ongoing support once implementation begins; and 4.) sustaining the work. Lessons learned about implementation support are aligned with this framework.

Methods and Data Sources: The teams for each of the four evaluations worked with the project staff to clearly identify provided supports and to establish measures to assess the extent to which the supports were implemented as intended. The team also collected feedback relative to implementation through surveys administered to participants and through interviews conducted with project, district, and school staff. The evaluation team met to identify themes that cut across projects.

Results: In considering the four stages of implementation, the team drew the following conclusions:
1. Selecting and preparing partners: Each project noted that working with the correct partners was key. Not all schools or districts were ready to implement the early college model. Specific requirements included: a) strong commitment or buy-in to the effort at both the district and school leadership levels; b) a willingness to align the school’s improvement work with the early college model; and c) the existence of a strong postsecondary partner.
2. Creating a structure for implementation: Three of the projects required the creation of a district implementation team, which was seen as critical for moving the work forward. In some districts, these teams included the postsecondary partners, which enabled easier trouble-shooting relative to college courses. One project did not focus on developing district teams and realized that was missing from their model.
3. Ongoing support: All four projects provided various capacity-building activities, including workshops and other professional development, usually followed by on-site coaching. The varied structure of the coaching across projects revealed relative advantages and disadvantages to different support strategies.
4. Sustaining the work: All four projects realized the need to focus on sustaining the work from the beginning. One project attempted to use grant funding to circumvent policy constraints, which resulted in challenges for sustainability.

Significance: Looking across the four projects allows for significant lessons learned about how to effectively support implementation of comprehensive school reform initiatives.

Authors

• Karla C. Lewis, University of North Carolina - Greensboro

• Nina Arshavsky, University of North Carolina - Greensboro