Universal Design for Learning (UDL) Systems Change

UDL Implementation: A Tale of Four Districts shares how four school districts piloted processes and tools developed to support the UDL implementation process: Baltimore County Public Schools in Maryland, Bartholomew Consolidated School Corporation in Indiana, Cecil County Public Schools in Maryland and Chelmsford Public Schools in Massachusetts (“National Center,” 2014). With a grant from the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, these districts worked with the Center for Applied Special Technology (CAST) to develop and implement an effective and sustainable district plan to support the integration of Universal Design for Learning (“National Center,” 2014). I will share some of the salient points about the Chelmsford Public School’s experience in implementing UDL systems change, who the key players were, and what made their plan a success.

Chelmsford Public Schools (CPS)

There are three significant points to note about the the Chelmford Public School’s  experience in implementing UDL that contributed to its success:

Integration of UDL with State and District Initiatives and Requirements

• CPS understood that UDL would not be successful if it was just another initiative or requirement in their district and that aligning district initiatives with UDL would strengthen UDL implementation.
• They developed their five-year strategic plan and incorporated UDL principles into their district goals to support higher achievement of academic goals for all students. This way, UDL is not an add-on but a framework for decision-making.
• By incorporating UDL into their district strategic plans, CPS’s district strategic plan informs the school improvement plans, which inform department goals, which inform teacher practice, which then informs instructional goals. This created connection and coherence so that UDL didn’t feel like just another initiative in the district (“National Center,” 2014).

Collaboration Is Key

• CPS felt that collaboration between educators is a primary and effective means of supporting UDL in the district – they believe their most important resource is their professional staff and their ability to learn from each other.
• The CPS administration listened to educator concerns and developed collaborative strategies and structures to support them: after-school time was found for them to work together; the groundwork for professional learning communities (PLCs) was laid by sending educators to PLC workshops; and the district partnered with three other local districts that had also taken UDL workshops to share ideas, successes and challenges.
• CPS infused UDL in their co-teaching model because they found that when general education teachers worked together as co-teachers with special educators, there was an enriched level of instruction and their data indicate improvement of student scores as a result.
• CPS developed a successful mentoring system that increases educator knowledge and the practice of UDL – videotapes and practice lessons were created and demonstrations and workshops were presented throughout the district.
• CPS successfully utilized a “train the trainer model” as part of the UDL implementation project. Teachers developed a professional development module to sustain innovative UDL practices (“National Center,” 2014).

Establishment of Data Collection and Evaluation Processes to Measure Progress

• CPS collected data and used it to identify causes of proficiency gaps and created a model to identify “smart” goals (which are created using UDL guidelines) and define strategies and action steps to attain those goals.
• The district evaluates student success every year by using existing data such as district benchmarks and nationally normed assessments and found that since incorporating UDL, there has been student improvement in all the participating UDL classrooms.
• Thus, establishing data collection and evaluation processes are key to measuring student progress and the resulting data motivates teachers to continue to develop UDL lessons, parents are excited by their children’s success, and all stakeholders see the value of the UDL framework (“National Center,” 2014).

For CPS, administrators and teachers were the key players in implementing UDL systems change. Administrators educated themselves on the UDL framework, aligning district initiatives with UDL and incorporating UDL into district goals — essentially making UDL the framework for decision-making throughout the district. Administrators knew that collaboration between educators would be a primary and effective means of supporting UDL in the district so they created various collaborative strategies and structures to support them which increased teacher knowledge and practice of UDL, which in turn enriched instruction and improved learning and test scores (“National Center,” 2014).

Exploring UDL Within a School or Agency 

In their book, Universally Designed Leadership, Novak and Rodriguez (2016) offer some ideas about the Explore phase of UDL implementation in schools and systems:

Collaboration…Districts cannot commit to meaningful goals by developing them in isolation – teachers, students, parents, and community members are part of the system and so, district goals need to align with a shared vision.

UDL as a decision-making tool…A school district needs to work through the Explore phase collectively with stakeholders and design a strategy for this phase so that stakeholders don’t think UDL is just another initiative or phase.

Maximizing student learning and improving schools…Districts need to understand the work ahead (the “what”), know how to do the work (the “how”), and create a culture of continuous improvement, sustained engagement, and self-reflection (the “why”).

Sandwich Public Schools

My school district has a history of poor and disjointed communication. The superintendent along with each building principal has a different approach to and frequency of communication. Rarely is parent and community feedback actively sought, although our superintendent of two years reaches out to parents and community members through “office hours” at the local library once a month and parents know they can reach out to their principal at any time. Other than that, parents and community members attend school committee meetings to speak at public forum if they have a concern or issue they wish to address or grips on two Sandwich Facebook groups and a school Facebook group. Every superintendent who has been hired in the 15 years I have had children in this district has come in and created new programs and instituted new curriculum that come and go so teachers, students, and parents are vary of the next “new thing” and students being “guinea pigs.”

Because of declining enrollment in our school district (and other districts in our region), the Sandwich Public Schools closed one of three K-8 elementary schools almost three years ago and created a Pre-K to Grade 2 school and a Grades 3-6 school with the goal of making curriculum and teaching practices more uniform as well as achieving efficiencies in use of resources (money, capital, materials, etc). At this time, the 7th and 8th grades were moved to the high school and a STEM Academy was created with STEM teachers being trained in Project Based Learning and Project Lead the Way. The district has also been focused on keeping students from leaving the district and choosing other high school options (e.g. religious, charter, private schools).

The following is on the front page of the Sandwich Public Schools website:

Sandwich Public Schools: We are a unified community of four schools – each representing its own grades/levels, designed to meet the unique needs of all learners.

Is this the district’s vision? Mission? I’m not sure because neither is articulated in the above statement. It is a very poor vision/mission focused on the “unification” or  consolidation of schools three years ago. I also would venture to say that in its creation, no feedback was solicited from stakeholders — teachers, staff, parents, students, or community members. I know my feedback was not sought out.

What appears to be a bit more promising is the district’s commitment to curriculum:

The Sandwich Public Schools is committed to providing curriculum that engages students in:

1. Deep understanding of content;
2. Effective approaches to learning that consider the child, the content, and the skills being taught; and,
3. Developing a sense of responsibility for their own learning.

Other commitments:

1. We provide instruction based on the belief that all students can learn.
2. We provide opportunities for students to show what they have learned with authentic and student-centered assessments.
3. We respect the process of learning, and value student growth (Curriculum, n.d.).

These statements sound like the UDL framework and its purpose (e.g. expert learners) but I have no way of knowing if the UDL guidelines are utilized within my school district. Just looking at what passes for a vision/mission statement tells us that even if UDL is utilized in some way, the district has not yet used it as a decision-making tool that is incorporated into their district strategic plans and aligned with their vision — which should be a shared vision created collaboratively with stakeholders (Novak and Rodriguez, 2016). I honestly believe that implementing the UDL framework in the Sandwich Public Schools would improve student learning but they will have to work through the Explore phase of UDL implementation collaboratively with stakeholders so that they don’t think UDL is just another initiative that will come and go (Novak and Rodriguez, 2016).

Data Informs Best Practice

Novak and Rodriguez (2016) offer several ideas for considering how data informs best practices that can be enriched by the UDL framework. As I am not a teacher, I am unsure of the structures that the Sandwich Public Schools have in place (organization structure, programs, curriculum plans/models, resources) that they can leverage for understanding their systems data culture.

Novak and Rodriguez (2016) state that collaborating with stakeholders to create a needs assessment is a critical step for districts in the Explore phase of UDL implementation. Uncovering information about their performance is a very personal pursuit for a district as it feels like an analysis and attack of the work of the people involved in the data collection and analysis (Novak and Rodriguez, 2016). The authors note that to begin conversations about data, a district must first gather information about their data culture. As mentioned in the text, I suspect that feedback would tell the Sandwich Public Schools that stakeholders feel that data collection and data-based decision-making will be just another initiative given the district’s history of employing programs and initiatives that have turned out to be passing fads. Some initial sources of data that the Sandwich Public Schools could consider in the Explore stage of UDL implementation would be state assessment data (e.g. Massachusetts Comprehensive Assessment System or MCAS) as well as benchmark assessment data that teachers collect on every student throughout the school year. After a district’s understand their data culture, the authors go on to state that protocols for data collection must be determined, data must be gathered, themes explored and identified, and then district strengths and needs can be pinpointed.

---

References

Curriculum. (n.d.). Retrieved from https://www.sandwichk12.org/teaching-learning/curriculum

National Center on Universal Design for Learning. (2013). Chelmsford MA Public Schools. Retrieved from http://www.udlcenter.org/implementation/fourdistricts/chelmsford

National Center on Universal Design for Learning. (2014). UDL Implementation: A Tale of Four Districts. Retrieved from http://www.udlcenter.org/implementation/fourdistricts

Novack, K. & Rodriguez, K. (2016). Universally Designed Leadership: Applying UDL to Systems and Schools. Wakefield, MA: CAST Professional Publishing.