RPIC ICS Implementation Digital Module 10: Align Human Resource Systems

© 2015 to 2023. Elise M. Frattura and Colleen A. Capper. School Modules for ICS Equity. All rights reserved. You may not reproduce, modify, or distribute this work without written consent from the authors. Please email [email protected] to obtain such permission.

1. Current Practices Based on Common Assumptions

Educators’ roles in pull-out programs are based on teacher specialization and student labels. In pull-out programs, staff tend to adhere to their professional expert roles, which limits adult learning opportunities and professional growth. Moreover, when structures isolate students, they also isolate educators. When educators are isolated from each other, they do not share knowledge and expertise with each other, precluding the development of teacher expertise across a range of learners. For example, support staff in a program model may be comfortable teaching segregated math and adapted language arts classes, but are hesitant to provide support in general education classes in science and math because they are unsure about their ability to do so. Therefore, students are placed in segregated math classes, due to the teaching abilities of staff, and are denied a rich curriculum in the regular math content classes. As a consequence, students then perform quite poorly on the math section of the state-wide accountability assessment. A persistent assumption that fuels this adherence to expert roles is a belief that certification in a specialty area means that an educator possesses skills that no one else can ever learn.

Table 1 below contains a list comparing the differences in roles and responsibilities, by discipline, from a reactive, deficit-based model compared to a proactive service delivery model within ICS. According to Danielson and McGreal (2000), “A major part of school reform and restructuring involves the changing of the roles, responsibilities, and relationships between teachers and students and between teachers and administrators… all practices demanding that educators rethink traditional views of staff evaluation and staff development.”

Table 1: Traditional Roles to Integrated Comprehensive Systems

2. Equitable Best Practices

Within ICS, the roles and responsibilities of all teachers become that of intentionally developing each other’s capacity, in order to teach a diverse group of learners by co-planning to co-serve through their Co-Plan to Co-Serve to Co-Learn (C3) Teams. In this manner, educators are better able to share expertise and co-develop lessons for all learners.

Based on a review of the research, Goe, Bell, and Little (2008) identified a five-point definition of effective teachers for the National Comprehensive Center for Teacher Quality in Washington D.C. The five-point definition of effective teachers consists of the following:

Effective teachers have high expectations for all students and help students learn, as measured by value-added or other test-based growth measures, or by alternative measures.
Effective teachers use diverse resources to plan and structure engaging learning opportunities; monitor student progress formatively, adapting instruction as needed; and evaluate learning using multiple sources of evidence.
Effective teachers contribute to the development of classrooms and schools that value diversity and civic-mindedness.
Effective teachers collaborate with other teachers, administrators, parents, and education professionals to ensure student success, particularly the success of students with special needs and those at high risk for failure.
Effective teachers contribute to positive academic, attitudinal, and social outcomes for students such as regular attendance, on-time promotion to the next grade, on-time graduation, self-efficacy, and cooperative behavior.

Similar definitions are often used in support of teacher evaluation practices in support of high-quality educators. The Danielson Framework (2013), uses the following four domains:

Planning and Preparation
Classroom Environment
Instruction and Assessment
Professional Responsibilities

As schools and districts evolve to Integrated Comprehensive Systems, educator roles and responsibilities will evolve. Yet, how they evolve is based on what research and practice demonstrate as being highly effective.

3. ‘Operationalizing’ Our Work

Table 1 delineates the evolution by the role of educators to Integrated Proactive Systems. Within ICS, all teachers co-plan and co-serve all learners through flexible heterogeneous grouping patterns, based on how a child learns, while also adhering to an individualized continuum of services. Danielson and McGreal (2000) identify the following lessons learned about teacher evaluation:

New evaluation systems should be directly linked to the mission of the school district.
New evaluation systems and professional development systems should be viewed as continuing processes.
New evaluation systems should emphasize student outcomes.
There must be a commitment to allocating adequate resources to allow new systems to be successful.

Based on the lessons identified, it is clear that the transformation to an Integrated Comprehensive System must be connected to the district’s Equity Non-Negotiables and the mission of the district, as well as the teacher evaluation system (see Appendix A for an example). Such a transformation must be viewed as continuing processes that emphasize eliminating inequities. An example of the transformation of roles and responsibilities of targeted staff is attached at the end of this Digital Module.

4. Creating Our Plan: Cornerstone 4: Leverage Policy and Funding; Digital Module 10/Step 10: Align Human Resource Systems:

In the next ICS Application, you’ll discuss and identify the current practices that must be interrupted, and discuss future recommendations of how to share the information in this Digital Module along with the steps necessary to ‘operationalize’ such recommendations.

Appendix A: Example of Aligning ICS with the Ohio Educator Evaluation System