(c) In examining school districts to see which will be the most responsive to innovations, the State educational agency may wish to use the following criteria:

(1) Initiating mechanisms, the continuing flow of new knowledge into the school district from outside sources. This new knowledge may flow through print or other mass media, through training programs, through professional meetings, or through interpersonal communication with persons outside the school district;

(2) Sustaining mechanisms, or the capability of the school district to respond to and act upon such new knowledge. These mechanisms are within the school district, itself, and are relatively impervious to manipulation by outsiders. Among the internal conditions which will influence the ability of the school district to change are (i) the degree of commitment and support for high quality educational programs within the community, (ii) the degree to which the school district demonstrates "openness," or willingness to perceive problems and to make use of information from outside sources, (iii) the degree to which there is open communication between administrators and teachers about task-related matters, and (iv) the degree of flexibility there is in school budget; and

(3) Performance feedback transmissions, which are dependent on the clarity and measurability of objectives of the school district and the nature and degree of communication concerning desired goal attainment within the schools. Clearly related to this, of course, are similar communications about the effect of any trial innovation on goal attainment;

(d) Adopters of innovations tend to go through a series of five stages culminating in adoption. Rejection of an innovation may occur at any point in the process. These stages are as follows:

(1) Awareness, the point where the potential adopter learns of an innovation, or of some alternative to his current practice;

(2) Interest, the stage in which the more innovative of the potential adopters seek out additional, more technical information about the innovation;

(3) Evaluation, the stage during which the potential adopter makes an "in-thehead" assessment of the relevance of the innovation to needs, to apparent advantages, and to potential problems for him. Most potential adopters at this stage rely heavily on interpersonal communication with program developers and/or earlier adopters;

(4) Trial, the stage in which the potential adopter makes an actual field test of the innovation on a limited basis. The late adopters are likely to omit this stage, since they can see the benefits that adopting the innovation have brought to the majority of their

peers who have already adopted the innovation; and

(5) Adoption, the final stage, when the adopter decides to make full-scale continuing use of the innovation until it is replaced by a better program. In both trial and adoption stages, the direct, first-hand experience of an adopter and the advice, assistance, and encouragement of expert consultants or even earlier adopters are the most important information sources.

(e) To facilitate change, the adopter should seek more information about the innovation, then turn toward more technical information sources which provide more detailed information, such as government bulletins, integrative reports, or expert advice. The more innovative the adopter, the more likely he is to use technical information sources; the less innovative, the more heavily he will rely on interpersonal communication, particularly with individuals he knows and believes to have more expert knowledge.

(f) Innovators should not rely on attractive color brochures or individual reports of Title III projects which are so popular among most educational dissemination personnel. They are useful for little more than making others aware of the existence of an innovation. Such information is unconvincing for those same potential adopters as they move closer to evaluation, trial, and adoption of the new practice, and may even be misleading.

(g) If a State educational agency is to facilitate the spread of improved educational practices, it is important that it tailor its strategy and activities to the actual conditions and constraints in the local school districts. The following are constraints that the State educational agency may face:

(1) The pluralistic nature of the decisionmaking process in American public education. The pluralistic system of decisionmaking in American government reflects American values, but it does make the problem of system-wide educational change slower and more difficult; there is no single locus for making and implementing educational decisions. An innovation is likely to be adopted if the adopting unit-be it a person or an organization-perceives greater relative advantage through adoption of the innovation than in continuing current practice. Most changes of any significance involve a number of congruent decisions in different loci: Policy decisions by the school board, management decisions by superintendents and principals, subject matter decisions by supervisors, and implementing decisions by each classroom teacher involved. However, one fact stands out: unless the superintendent, who can allocate resources and influence behavior, is supportive of innovation, it probably will not occur. It is important, therefore, that superintendents of

schools continuously encourage activities which will better meet local needs. Every effort should be made to provide them with information and assistance which will help them make informed decisions regarding the allocation of resources. Efforts should also be made, of course, to communicate with and assist the decision-makers and implementers at other levels, who are necessary participants in the adoption process.

(2) The statement of educational goals. Educational goals, like many others, are often stated in unmeasurable terms. In determining whether an innovation should be adopted, the relative advantage of the innovation is compared to current practice in terms of the goals of an organization. When the goals are not stated in clear, measurable terms and when there are conflicts among goals, it becomes difficult to identify any clear advantage in any single practice over any other. This condition suggests the need for the formulation of more precise, operational, and attainable educational goals if educational improvement is to be determined. It should be recognized that explicit goal definition is, in itself, an educational innovation.

(20 U.S.C. 844a(b)(1)(A)); (45 CFR 118.22(a) and (c))

§3.2 The unique resources of the State educational agency.

(a) The State educational agency possesses certain capabilities which assist the agency in facilitating educational change. Underlying all other consideration, the statutory position of the State as the responsible agent for education in the United States mandates a leadership role in educational improvement by the State educational agency.

(b) The State educational agency may fulfill its leadership role in the following ways: (1) Quality education requires a certain critical mass of resources if there is to be real equality of educational opportunity for all our children. With the wide divergence in tax base among school districts, the State is the most natural governmental unit to serve as the planning base for education. Local school programs must necessarily reflect the prevailing norms of the local school district, with the possibility that the needs of all members of the community will not be recognized and dealt with. For example, there are communities where 85 percent or more of the public school graduates go on to higher education. The objectives and curriculum of the schools in this type of community are likely to stress academic excellence over all other possible educational values. Yet the 15 percent minority in that community may well be part of the majority of public school students of the entire State. The only assurance that their needs will be

served equitably is the mediating influence that State educational policy may have on local norms.

(2) The State educational agency can be a facilitator of change because of its unique position as a source of expert advice and staff service to the legislative and executive branches of the State government. There is evidence that State legislatures view the State educational agency in many cases, as the major source of assistance in formulating educational policy. Through the types of communications it provides to the Governor and the State Legislature, the State educational agency can assure the development of sound, rational State policy on education and provide the intellectual basis for the policymakers to make fiscal and other decisions which permit implementation of that policy.

(3) The State educational agency may use its regulatory function to facilitate change. Although the regulatory function can be performed in a manner which is deadening and inhibiting, it can also be used as a means of encouraging educational improvement. Assuring the presence of qualified teachers is a regulatory function, but one that should assure better, not worse, education. If certification requirements are used as a means of preventing trial and assessment of staff differentiation in the schools, this can inhibit educational change. However, such inhibition results more from the way the regulation is implemented than from the standard, itself. The regulatory function can also be used to encourage more explicit statements of educational goals at the local level and to assure justification of proposed new courses of action. If exercised in this way, it is possible to develop procedures for regulating educational improvement rather than for blocking it and to have guidelines for further waiving of regulations under appropriate conditions, or even for amendment of regulations in a manner consonant with changing educational practices developed under Title III of the Act.

(4) The role of the State educational agency in educational finance should be a powerful instrument for change. The State's financial authority will not foster educational change, however, if all financial transactions between State and local educational agencies are based on formula grants. Most Title III innovations involve some degree of risk taking. It requires the potential for acquiring or reallocating money for trial and installation of changes. The State can facilitate change by providing risk capital and fiscal flexibility, as well as incentives for local schools to seek changes which lead to educational improvement. In such programs, it is highly advisable to require commitment of local funds to the innovative

17

effort from the very beginning, with increasing allocation of local resources as the project progresses. Data in both education and other fields show that an innovative program which involves the use of local monies from the beginning is more likely to be installed than one which receives full funding from outside sources.

(5) Because of the State educational agency's intermediate position between local and national resources, it can have a great impact on local change processes through the information regarding innovation which it transmits to local schools, and its role as a linker agent in matching needs and resources. To perform this function effectively at appropriate intervals and in forms which are timely and useful, the State education agency should continuously keep abreast of proven practices in education. The agency's linker role can be established through a State educational agency information center which links distant resources to local needs. Without such a center, State dissemination efforts are likely to be intermittent, unfocused, and only partially effective. The State agency should set up an information system under Title III of the Act. Such a system should have five essential requisites.

(1) The system should provide comprehensive, up-to-date, practical, and accessible information. Often, information seekers make first and most frequent use of the most accessible information source, even when that source may not provide the best information.

(ii) The system should make available information tailored in format and content to the requirements of persons who have different educational roles and who are at different stages of the adoption process. Unless the State's information program is based upon continuing assessment of the characteristics and needs of its users, it will be a waste of money and effort. The following table suggests information relevant to each stage of the adoption process:

(iii) The system should provide effective timely two-way communication between the school and the community, and facilitated by regulations which mandate increased efforts toward such communication. Since community concern for and participation in educational dialogue enhances the innovativeness and responsiveness of schools, the State educational agency, in its leadership role and in its provision of staff services to elected State officials, should emphasize this dialogue.

(iv) In its leadership and through its regulatory role, the State educational agency as part of its system can promote the enhancement of improved performance feedback transmissions within and between school districts. As part of its leadership role, the State educational agency also should communicate to local districts means of defining goals operationally and methods of assessing the degree of their attainment. In some cases, it may even be possible to stimulate statewide participation in the development of model educational objectives. As a regulator, the State educational agency may require operational specification of objectives in proposals for Federal or discretionary State funds; it may require by regulation that participation in certain State programs be based upon operationally stated objectives, or it may offer incentives for provision of undisputable evidence of satisfactory performance.

(v) At the highest level the system should include communications to the State legislature in performance-oriented terms whenever possible and offers assistance in the formulation of legislative proposals for im

proved goal definition and performance as sessment in education.

(20 DB.C. 843′) 4. 8448, 63 ( and (1), 883) Æ OFF 216.22

PART 4—ASSESSMENT OF EDUCATIONAL NEEDS 14.1 Planning for a needs assessment

(a) An educational needs assessment

from private nonprofi: elementary and ser onde schools

d. Sufficient funds should be allocater to adequater accomplish a comprehensive educations needs assessment and lines of communication and responsibility should be clearly established Financia resources nee essary for planning and implementing & needs assessment might come from a variety

under Title II of the AC. & technicus for

a State and Federa. sources in addition, to

identifying those educational objectives which are most important in & giver instruetional situation. The concept of educationa needs assessment provides for (a) the ident)fying of a desired learner outcome and (b the ascertaining of the learner's current status with respect to that outcome The educational needs constitute the difference between the current status and the destred status. The following illustration represents this concept.

DESIRED LEARNER OUTCOMES

mmus

CURRENT LEARNER STAWOS
equals

AN EDUCATIONAL NEED

(b) The assessing of educational needs should be learner-oriented, focusing on the behavioral needs of children in the cognitive, affective, and psychomotor domains. Such needs assessment is important for making any significant improvement in educational outcomes and should be carefully planned and implemented with both shortand long-range objectives.

(c) Planning for a needs assessment is a departmentwide effort. The Title III monies may be combined with State and local monies to finance a needs assessment representative of all groups of persons who will be users of the needs assessment results and all persons whose specific skills will be useful in conducting the needs assessment studies should participate in the planning. It is suggested that they include:

(1) Appropriate representatives of State educational agencies, including persons responsible for administering State and federally supported programs, and those responsible for administering programs in the education of the handicapped; (2) appropriate representatives of the U.S. Office of Education; (3) appropriate representatives of local educational agencies; (4) representatives of professional organizations; (5) appropriate consultants (e.g., university-based evaluation specialists); (6) representatives of school boards of education; (7) representatives of State advisory councils for Title III; (8) representatives of State boards of education; (9) appropriate legislators and their staff consultants; and (10) representatives

Tie II funds. The possibility of a coonerstive effort among State educationa agencies ir planning for needs assessments including # pooling of financial resources, should be explored

te: Other resources contributing to the planning and implementing of & needs se sessment should include personnel from var ious agencies and representatives of private nonproft: elementary and secondary schools, and special ac hoc groups which in the past hat beer, especially concerned with needs assessments existing strategies used ir needs assessments literature related to the subject both technical and popular and existing sources of data. A needs assessment should refer to a variety of asts sources with special attention given to timeliness. accuracy and manageability (accessibility and usefulness of data.

(f) Special competencies in system design, survey research design, statistics and messurement theory, sampling, and data processing is important in the planning stages. Special competencies in developing behan joral objectives, survey research, statistics, sampling, and data processing is also impor tant in conducting the assessment.

(g) A commitment to the needs assece. ment and its potential results should be obtained from the Department, the Chief State School Officer, the Title III State Advisory Council, the State Board of Educa tion, and appropriate representatives of private nonprofit elementary and secondary schools. It might be desirable to have a needs assessment steering committee to monitor, review, and revise strategies on a regular basis. Planning should include the means to facilitate reliability and validity checks of data collected and the means to make these data available to decisionmakers.

(h) A strategy for a needs assessment should be sufficiently constructed so as to consider all of the important elements and should include development and/or selection of learner goals and objectives, design of instruments for data collection, and determination of a means for precise analysis of data. The entire range of the student's achievement in all areas of learning should be included in the assessment of student needs. This would provide for student sue cess as well as student deficiencies. The overall concept of the assessment of the students' educational needs could be defined as