unlimited access with print and download

Free

Continue searching

A systems approach: A policy analysis of state-guided school improvement plans

Dissertation
Author: Steven K. Chancellor
Abstract:
  The purpose of this report of a policy analysis was to identify dimensions found within systems theory and thinking literature to enhance states' departments of education school improvement policies. Policies centered in systems theory and systems thinking can assist local school districts in designing change initiatives that are purposeful and sustaining. The team reviewed literature focusing on systems theory, systems thinking, organizational development, and leadership. Through the review, five dimensions emerged as core systems concepts that could be general practices of school improvement. The dimensions were then validated in a review by an expert panel. Information gathered from the panel was used to strengthen the dimensions. The revised dimensions were used to assess the presence of systems theory and systems thinking concepts within states' departments of education school improvement policies. The team identified ten states where their departments of education provided school improvement policies to analyze through the dimensions which emerged from literature on systems theory, systems thinking, and an expert panel review. These states were selected using team produced criteria. The ten states where Arizona, Arkansas, Georgia, Kentucky, Missouri, Nebraska, Oregon, South Dakota, Tennessee, and Washington. The analysis of the states' departments of education school improvement policies contains two parts. The first part was a description of the format for each set of state policies. The second part listed each dimension and if that state's policies had information relating to the dimensions. The team developed recommendations for both state departments of education and local school districts. Ten recommendations were developed for states to use within the current policy documents. Eighteen recommendations were developed for local school districts. The report also includes possible consequences from the implementation of the recommendations.

Table of Contents Section I: Introduction Introduction 2 Policy Analysis 3 Problem Development , 4 Value for Education 7 Conclusion 7 Section II: Nature of the Issue History of School Improvement 9 What is School Improvement 12 School Improvement vs. No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 12 Historical Development 13 Systems Thinking for School Improvement 15 Conclusion 17 Section III: Foundation for the Policy Analysis Emergence of Five Dimensions 18 Expert Panel 19 Rating Instrument 20 Expert Panel Feedback 21 Introduction to the Five Dimensions 22 Systemic Structure 23 Systemic Concept 23 Educational Context 26 Systemic Loops 27 Systemic Concept 27 Educational Context 31 Inquiry and Advocacy 33 Systemic Concept 33 Educational Context 37 Organizational Complexity 39 Systemic Concept 39 Educational Context 42 Sustainability 44 Systemic Concept 44 Educational Context 48 Definitions of Five Dimensions 50 Systemic Structure 50 Systemic Loops 50 Inquiry and Advocacy 50 Organizational Complexity 50 Sustainability 50 Conclusion 51 v

Section IV: Analysis of State Documents Overview of State Policy Documents 52 Retrieval of State Policy Documents 53 Criteria Utilized to Identify State Policy Documents 54 States Meeting Criteria 56 Individual State Findings 57 Introduction 57 Arizona 57 Systemic Structure 58 Systemic Loops 58 Inquiry and Advocacy 58 Organizational Complexity 59 Sustainability 59 Arkansas 59 Systemic Structure 60 Systemic Loops 60 Inquiry and Advocacy 60 Organizational Complexity 60 Sustainability 60 Georgia 60 Systemic Structure 61 Systemic Loops 61 Inquiry and Advocacy 62 Organizational Complexity 62 Sustainability 62 Kentucky 63 Systemic Structure 63 Systemic Loops 63 Inquiry and Advocacy 64 Organizational Complexity 64 Sustainability 64 Missouri 64 Systemic Structure 65 Systemic Loops 65 Inquiry and Advocacy 65 Organizational Complexity 65 Sustainability 65 Nebraska 65 Systemic Structure 66 Systemic Loops 66 Inquiry and Advocacy 66 Organizational Complexity 66 Sustainability 67 Oregon 67 Systemic Structure 67 Systemic Loops 67 VI

Inquiry and Advocacy 68 Organizational Complexity 68 Sustainability 68 South Dakota 68 Systemic Structure 68 Systemic Loops 68 Inquiry and Advocacy 69 Organizational Complexity 69 Sustainability 69 Tennessee 69 Systemic Structure 70 Systemic Loops 70 Inquiry and Advocacy 70 Organizational Complexity 70 Sustainability 71 Washington 71 Systemic Structure 71 Systemic Loops 72 Inquiry and Advocacy 72 Organizational Complexity 72 Sustainability 72 Conclusion 72 Section V: Recommendations Recommendations Based on Results from Policy Analysis 74 Introduction 74 Systemic Structure 76 Systemic Loops 78 Inquiry and Advocacy 80 Organizational Complexity 81 Sustainability 82 Conclusion 83 Recommendations for School Districts Incorporating the Five Dimensions 84 Introduction 84 Systemic Structure 85 Systemic Loops 87 Inquiry and Advocacy 89 Organizational Complexity 90 Sustainability 91 Conclusion 92 Consequences of Implementing Recommendations 93 Conclusion 95 Final Conclusion 95 Appendix 97 vii

Bibliography 105 Vitae Auctorum 112 viii

List of Tables Table 1: Findings from the State Departments of Education 73 ix

Section I: Introduction This is a report describing a policy analysis of states' departments of education policies on school improvement. The report was completed as a means of searching for the presence of systems theory and systems thinking principles in state-provided school improvement documents. This report presents two team member's investigation which began with reading a body of literature involving the topics of systems theory, systems thinking, and leadership, and led to the production often recommendations for state departments of education and eighteen recommendations for local school districts. The sections to be found in this report include: a) the introduction to the problem, b) a description of the nature of the issue, c) the foundation for the policy analysis, d) the analysis of state improvement documents, and e) recommendations. This report satisfies the requirements of Saint Louis University for candidates seeking professional doctoral degrees. Per the structure of Saint Louis University, this report and policy analysis were completed in a collaborative team setting spanning over a two and a half year period. The topic began as a problem-based learning activity, which, after a review of a body of literature, manifested into a policy analysis as a process of clarifying the team-identified problem. Resulting from the policy analysis is a set of recommendations for improvement (Saint Louis University, 2007). This section of the policy analysis report defines the purpose of the report and the approach the team utilized in addressing the problem. The first segment outlines the problem statement and provides an overview of the team's focus. The next segment is designed to offer an understanding of the process the team used during the report and provide insight into the conclusions. The final segment provides the recommendations. 1

Introduction The following report presents a policy analysis that focused on school improvement documents provided by states' departments of education. The policy analysis reviewed school improvement documents for the incorporation of systems theory and systems thinking principles. The presence of these principles are important because "It is a formal methodology for defining and operationalizing systems and their behavior. It also represents a philosophical paradigm for understanding the world" (Hutchins, 1996, p.i). The review of literature on systems theory and systems thinking uncovered five systems principles which the team labeled dimensions. Once these dimensions emerged from the literature, the team developed descriptions for each to be reviewed by a five- member expert panel. The feedback provided by the expert panel resulted in fundamental changes to the five dimensions which strengthened their validity. These dimensions were then used to assess the presence of systems theory and systems thinking in school improvement policies. By addressing this issue, the team was able to analyze school improvement policies from the state departments of education designed for local school districts. Concluding the analysis is a compilation often recommendations for state departments of education and eighteen recommendations for local school districts. When incorporated into school improvement procedures, the recommendations will generate school improvement plans rooted in systems theory and systems thinking perspectives as developed by state departments of education and local school districts. 2

Policy Analysis "Policy analysis is a process through which people investigate the cultural, economic, historical, legal, political, and/or social dimensions of a policy affecting the quality of practices in elementary, secondary, and/or higher education organizations" (Saint Louis University, 2007, p. 17). It provides a systematic framework for critical examination of current or alternative policies on literature-based normative criteria. The product of this policy analysis was a report describing a comprehensive set of recommendations proposed for state departments of education and local school districts (Saint Louis University, 2007). The team selected the policy analysis method because of a problem-based learning activity. The team investigated school improvement as a mode of creating and sustaining purposeful change within school districts. This report is important because the "sophisticated tools of forecasting and business analysis, as well as elegant strategic plans, usually fail to produce dramatic breakthroughs...They are all designed to handle the sort of complexity in which there are many variables: detail complexity" (Senge, 1990, p. 71). However, Senge (1990), suggested there is another type of complexity for which systems thinking is necessary to overcome: "dynamic complexity, situations where cause and effect are subtle, and where the effects over time of interventions are not obvious" (p. 71). Through the method of policy analysis, the team examined school improvement policies for the systemic dimensions needed to address both detail and dynamic complexities presented to local school districts. This policy analysis report is composed of five sections. Section one contains the introduction and problem development. Section two identifies the nature of the issue. 3

Section three explains the five dimensions of systems theory and systems thinking. Section four provides the method for state selection and the state-by-state analysis, followed by section five which provides the recommendations to state departments of education and local school districts. Problem Development Larson and LaFasto (1989) wrote, "Growth is, at the very least, inevitable and necessary for survival. But growth brings complexity. Almost nothing, living or otherwise, grows in the direction of simplicity" (p. 16). They continued to state, "Solving these complex problems demands the integration of many divergent points of view and the effective collaboration of many individuals" (p. 17). It was these insights which led the team to begin exploring the notion of school improvement in terms of both its need and effect on local education, and how school leaders can identify and prioritize strategies for addressing them without losing sight of their premise which is teaching and learning. Thus, the team pressed forward with one question to answer: what theory or theories will lead school districts in designing holistic improvement efforts which will result in purposeful and sustaining change. The team started the first phase by collecting and reviewing systems theory and thinking literature. Next, the team identified various theories of change, associated with either education or the business sector, and gathered the literature. This uncovered strategies including, but not limited to, learning organizations, total quality management, backwards design, and various collaboration models. Following the team's assumption that a subsidiary to effective change was the presence of high-performing leadership, further literature was gathered encompassing topics such as stewardship, change 4

leadership, and personal mastery. The final body of literature examined works which studied the qualities and characteristics of both high-performing organizations and leaders. The review of the literature led the team to conclude that the common link each source contained was elements of systems theory and systems thinking. The team conjectured if educational leaders subscribed to the tenants of systems theory and systems thinking they could create organizations capable of dealing with change. For this reason, the focus of the report shifted, and the second phase was to develop a way to package and deliver the concepts and practices of systems theory and systems thinking so they could assist in improving school districts. Early in the life of the report, the team had difficulty finding literature that focused on systems theory and systems thinking in education. The team further hypothesized, due to its intense and theoretical philosophy, it was difficult for school leaders, much less the average person, to internalize and implement. Coupled with the fact systems was a theology historically reserved for more scientific genres, the realization became it was difficult to implement alone. The decision was made to bundle systems theory and systems thinking into the precepts of school improvement. During the second phase of the report, their components were disaggregated and compared to traditional school improvement planning models. Using tools from the total quality management movement such as fishbone diagrams, brainstorming charts, and affinity diagrams, the team re-aggregated the themes and identified systemic dimensions which, when applied to school improvement planning, 5

were considered "systems" rather than just components of general, good school improvement. The third phase was to format the report into a policy analysis. Using a systematic process to analyze the nature of school improvement, the team first analyzed improvement plans created by local school districts in the state of Missouri. The error was these documents were the product of the policy. Therefore, this method was abandoned and the focus turned to the planning guidelines and documents published by states' departments of education. The fourth phase involved the evaluation of the state documents based on the team-developed dimensions of systems theory and systems thinking. Systematically, state policies were selected based on criteria. Once identified, the policies were examined to assess the presence of the systemic dimensions. Those state policies containing elements, which aligned with the dimensions, were duly noted and recorded. The fifth phase of the report involved a panel of individuals with knowledge of systems theory, systems thinking, and education. The panel consisted of five professionals with backgrounds in research and education. The panel was given a protocol to complete. The protocol contained definitions of the five dimensions, a section for the panel members to rank the definition's connection to systems theory and systems thinking, a section to provide comments and direction to the team, and a list of authors used in the literature review. The panel members provided the team with feedback electronically and the team took those recommendations and made changes to the document (see Appendix for results). 6

The final phase of the report was the formation of a comprehensive set of recommendations for both policy makers at the state level and practitioners within local districts. These recommendations, if incorporated with existing school improvement policies and practices, would lead to improvement plans which align with systems theory and systems thinking. The purpose of this policy analysis report was to assist state departments of education in redesigning information on improvement they provide to local school district with embedded systems concepts. Value for Education This policy analysis report provided state departments of education and local school districts with insight into the application of systems theory and systems thinking into school improvement planning. These tools will allow leaders to create sustainable organizational change. Over time, systems concepts will become embedded into the culture of school districts and press on to realizing the district's established purpose. Conclusion This policy analysis report focused on identifying information through recommendations, which could assist school districts with school improvement efforts using systems theory and systems thinking principles. The development of the report took the team through several stages. Early in the report, the team had difficulty collecting and synthesizing the literature into a set of corresponding concepts that could be used to analyze school improvement efforts. Through a systematic process of reviewing all the sources and types of information available to the team, a focus emerged. Section two defines school improvement and its role in education and provides a historical perspective of systems theory. The remaining sections include: a) nature of the issue, b) 7

the foundation for the policy analysis, c) the analysis of state documents, and d) recommendations to state departments of education and local school districts.

Section II: Nature of the Issue This section provides information related to the historical development of school improvement efforts and background into systems concepts. It begins with a history of school improvement and then the definition of school improvement as it is used in this policy analysis report. Next is a distinction between school improvement and school improvement as it is articulated in No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 (US Department of Education, 2002). Following is a historical perspective of the systems concepts the team utilized to base the five dimensions. Finally, systems theory and systems thinking are explained as a model for school improvement. History of School Improvement The team focused attention on school improvement within the United States for the purposes of this report of a policy analysis. Key influences were reviewed that have shaped education with an emphasis on the growing authority of the federal government. Modern education was theorized in the works of authors such as John Dewey at the beginning of the twentieth century. Since that time, the federal government has increased its presence and control over the K-12 educational institutions. The works of John Dewey focused on the changes occurring during his period between the traditional and progressive forms of education. Dewey helped to shape education through focusing not on one side, but by attempting to champion the role of the individual student within the system. He set a tone for examining educational practices through understanding how the learner benefited from the experience. This perspective focused on the individual student's progress through the system. Dewey (1938) stated: What we want and need is education pure and simple, and we shall make surer and faster progress when we devote ourselves to finding out just what education is 9

and what conditions have to be satisfied in order that education may be a reality and not a name or a slogan, (p. 116) Dewey's comments are at the center of any school improvement process. He saw the necessity of building capacity within the school community to enhance education. In 1965, the federal government became more involved in the educational system within the United States. The Elementary and Secondary Education Act (US Department of Education, 1965) was passed and provided funding to local schools with a primary focus on assisting students from low-income households. The act was the first large scale attempt by the federal government to support educational efforts. This act was also the beginning of the federal government assuming a role in accountability for local schools throughout the nation. The release of A Nation at Risk in 1983 set a new tone for educational improvement (US Department of Education, 1982). The federally funded study led to a series of recommendations for the local school system. These recommendations forced school leaders to review their systems. The report also raised awareness about the state of local education to a relatively unknowing population. The report's language was strong and reflected the need for fundamental changes to the educational system. Within A Nation at Risk (US Department of Education, 1982) were statements such as "If an unfriendly foreign power had attempted to impose on America the mediocre educational performance that exists today, we might well have viewed it as an act of war" (p. 1). This tone was present throughout the document and it held school leaders accountable for what took place within their organizations. The accountability movement gained momentum once again in 1994 with Goals 2000: Educate America Act (US Department of Education, 1994). The re-authorization of 10

the Elementary and Secondary Education Act focused on reforming education through research and systemic change. The act provided the federal government with the beginning control of standards for academic success. This act could be seen as a learning period for local school institutions. The focus was not on regular academic progress by students, but on changing the educational system for students. The reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act in 2001 became known as the No Child Left Behind Act (US Department of Education, 2002). The focus of this act was not research into best practices, but the academic success of students through the data collected by states' departments of education to judge the annual yearly progress of schools. The federal government has created the standards to measure accountability, but states and local districts still have the control to set curriculum and judge the best method for educational change. School improvement is not a new concept, but how improvement is initiated has changed over the past four decades. The federal government has taken a stronger role in ensuring the success of students. Through providing funds to students from low-income households in the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (US Department of Education, 1965) to the stipulations for annual yearly progress found in the No Child Left Behind Act (US Department of Education, 2002). Each evolution of government intervention has included higher expectations for local school districts. This trickledown causes educational leaders to attempt to meet the requirements placed on them and does not allow for systemic change to begin from within. 11

What is School Improvement In this analysis, school improvement is "an approach to educational change that enhances student outcomes as well as strengthening the school's capacity for managing change" (Teddlie & Reynolds, 2000, p. 211). It involves the design and implementation of programs or procedures to increase effectiveness and efficiency in the overall curricular process, and thus achieving the vision. Implementing the vision entails "studying the research, determining strategies that will work with the students, and determining what the vision would look like, sound like, and feel like when the vision is implemented, and how to get all staff members implementing the vision" (Bernhardt, 2006, p. 410). School improvement plans consisted of structured goals and tasks the district intends to embark on for the desired change. Many plans also contained elements, which espouse the district's vision and beliefs that foundationally support the change efforts. Thus, common elements of best practices can be found in school improvement plans. Such elements include, but are not limited to, the mission statement of the school district, provisions for local, state, and federal regulations, collection of data or needs assessment, the inclusion of a wide stakeholder body, and a process of evaluation. Action plans designed to achieve the desired goals and objectives may also contain components addressing timelines, resources, budgetary information, and personnel identified to oversee the task. School Improvement vs. No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 School improvement, as used in this report, differed from the precept of school improvement articulated in the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 (US Department of 12

Education, 2002). The language of school improvement appears in the legislation as it indicates schools in need of improvement; thus having failed to meet the state-defined target for adequate yearly progress (AYP) for two straight years. As described by the U.S. Department of Education (2004), "when a school is 'in need of improvement,' school officials are required to work with parents, school staff, district leaders and outside experts to develop a plan to turn around the school" (p. 2). The policy further implied this improvement is to focus only on teaching and learning: The school's improvement plan must incorporate strategies, relying on scientifically based research that will strengthen the learning of core academic subjects, especially the subject areas that resulted in the school being deemed in need of improvement. Schools in need of improvement must spend at least 10 percent of their Title I funds to assist teachers. (2004, p. 2) Historical Development General systems theory developed out of the scientific discipline of biology in the early 1900. Ludwig von Bertalanffy (1969), credited as the researcher who brought General Systems Theory to the forefront of science, stated, "Many problems, particularly in biology and the behavioral and social sciences, are essentially multivariable problems for which new conceptual tools are needed" (p. 93). Contrary to the wisdom of Aristotle who hypothesized that "everything continuous is divisible into divisible parts which are infinitely divisible" (Strauss, 2002, p. 166), von Bertalanffy (1969) cautioned, "the whole is more than the sum of parts" (p. 55). He believed: It is necessary to study not only parts and processes in isolation, but also to solve the decisive problems found in the organization and order unifying them, resulting from dynamic interaction of parts, and making the behavior of parts different when studied in isolation or within the whole, (p. 31) Gulyaev and Stonyer (2002) contributed to von Bertalanffy's tenants of General Systems Theory (GST) when they stated, "The emphasis of GST is on the problem of 13

communication between different branches of science, which arises because they 'speak different languages'," (p. 757). They also stated, "GST is designed for specifying systems and defining their interrelationships, and also for pointing to gaps in knowledge" (p. 757). This is important because, as Barry and Fourie (2002) noted, "Human activity is complex. Attempts to oversimplify situations for report definition and management purposes can result in incorrect assumptions about the process and structures that underlie a particular situation" (p. 32). A system can have multiple definitions. Checkland (1999) offered, "The central concept 'system' embodies the idea of a set of elements connected together which form a whole, this showing properties which are properties of the whole, rather than properties of its component parts" (p. 3). Ackoff and Emery (2006) identified a system as "a set of interrelated elements, each of which is related directly or indirectly to every other element, and no subset of which is related to any other subset" (p. 18). Finally, O'Connor and McDermott (1997) defined, "A system is an entity that maintains its existence and functions as a whole through the interaction of its parts" (p. 1). Systems thinking is a method for viewing complex environments and processing information in terms of systems theory. "Systems thinking, then, makes conscious use of the particular concept of wholeness captured in the word 'system', to order our thoughts" (Checkland, 1999, p.4). Wagner et al. (2006) contributed: Systems thinking is about trying to keep that 'whole' in mind, even while working on the various parts. More 'ecological' than logical, it recognizes that simple, linear cause-and-effect explanations sometimes miss the fact that today's effect may in turn be tomorrow's cause, influencing some other part of the system, (p. 97) 14

Fullan (2005) argued, "the key to changing systems is to produce greater numbers of 'system thinkers" (p. 40). Senge et al. (1999) further contributed the following benefits of using systems thinking: In this discipline, people learn to better understand interdependency and change, and thereby to deal more effectively with the forces that shape the consequences of our actions. Systems thinking is based upon a growing body of theory about the behavior of feedback and complexity - the innate tendencies of a system that lead to growth or stability over time. (p. 32) Systems Thinking for School Improvement "Studies show that in most organizations, two out of three transformation initiatives fail" (Sirkin, Keenan, & Jackson, 2005, p. 110). Banathy (as cited by Betts, 1992) identified five plausible reasons why so few school districts accomplish systemic change: "(a) The piecemeal, or incremental approach; (b) failure to integrate solution ideas; (c) a discipline-by-discipline study of education; (d) a reductionist orientation; and (e) staying within the boundaries of the existing system (not thinking out of the box" (p. 38). Senge (1990) furthered this explanation with eleven laws which form barriers for the proliferation of systems thinking within organizations: (a) Today's problems come from yesterday's 'solutions,' (b) the harder you push, the harder the system pushes back, (c) behavior grows better before it grows worse, (d) the easy way out usually leads back in, (e) the cure can be worse than the disease, (f) faster is slower, (g) cause and effect are not closely related in time and space, (h) small changes can produce big results; but the areas of highest leverage are often the least obvious, (i) you can have your cake and eat it too - but not all at once, (j) dividing an elephant in half does not produce two small elephants, and (k) there is no blame (see pp. 57-67). 15

"There is a growing problem in large-scale reform; namely, the terms travel well, but the underlying conceptualization and thinking do not" (Fullan, 2005, p. 10). Using the system pillar of wholeness, educational leaders can approach school improvement planning in a way which will generate long-lasting and meaningful improvement. Haines (1998) offered systems thinking benefits problem solving when he stated, "we look for patterns of behavior and events, rather than at isolated events, and we work on understanding how each pattern relates to the whole... the solution to any systems problem is usually found at the next highest level" (p. 14). Checkland (1999) described a systems approach as "an approach to a problem which takes a broad view, which tries to take all aspects into account, which concentrates on interactions between the different parts of the problem" (p. 5). Thus, improvement planning is identifying the leverage points for change. Understanding and distinguishing systemic leverage points can be accomplished by utilizing two systems methods-systems perspectives and systems lenses. Originally created by Banathy (as cited by Pascoe, 2006), these unique ways of viewing a school district, or system, assist educational leaders in developing the aerial, or holistic, perspective for their planning efforts. Three systems perspectives, philosophy, theory, and methodology are described by Banathy (as cited by Pascoe, 2006, p. 22): Systems can be understood as a philosophy, a universal assumption about the purpose, relationships and productivity of the entities of a system, with a clear emphasis on the instrumentality of systemic values and beliefs for the sustainability and development of systems. Systems can also be understood as theory, or systemic claims we may have about the nature and behavior of the systems we study or in which we operate. Additionally, systems can be perceived as methodology, or possible concrete applications of systems theory to the constant challenges and opportunities of our particular systems, often in an attempt to facilitate systems design and/or systemic change. 16

Full document contains 127 pages
Abstract:   The purpose of this report of a policy analysis was to identify dimensions found within systems theory and thinking literature to enhance states' departments of education school improvement policies. Policies centered in systems theory and systems thinking can assist local school districts in designing change initiatives that are purposeful and sustaining. The team reviewed literature focusing on systems theory, systems thinking, organizational development, and leadership. Through the review, five dimensions emerged as core systems concepts that could be general practices of school improvement. The dimensions were then validated in a review by an expert panel. Information gathered from the panel was used to strengthen the dimensions. The revised dimensions were used to assess the presence of systems theory and systems thinking concepts within states' departments of education school improvement policies. The team identified ten states where their departments of education provided school improvement policies to analyze through the dimensions which emerged from literature on systems theory, systems thinking, and an expert panel review. These states were selected using team produced criteria. The ten states where Arizona, Arkansas, Georgia, Kentucky, Missouri, Nebraska, Oregon, South Dakota, Tennessee, and Washington. The analysis of the states' departments of education school improvement policies contains two parts. The first part was a description of the format for each set of state policies. The second part listed each dimension and if that state's policies had information relating to the dimensions. The team developed recommendations for both state departments of education and local school districts. Ten recommendations were developed for states to use within the current policy documents. Eighteen recommendations were developed for local school districts. The report also includes possible consequences from the implementation of the recommendations.