Program sustainability, as defined by Shediac-Rizkallah and
Bone (1998) is the capacity of the program to effectively provide the intended
services over a long period of time. Continuous improvement strategies are
needed to gain program sustainability. Administrators must include
pre-implementation strategies that clarify the plan of action, implementation
training with support, and capacity building for post-support maintenance in
order to ensure sustainability. During the pre-implementation phase of the program,
specific factors are to be taken into consideration. For example, Han and Weiss
(2005) pointed out that administrators’ attitudes about the program play a role
in teacher motivation. The implementation phase requires continuous support in
various forms. Coffey and Horner (2012) suggested that administrators provide
relevant resources, prepare staff for new expectations, and provide a
collaborative environment where feedback is customary. The final and ongoing
phase to promote sustainability includes steps to ensure that teachers have
internalized the mission and are intrinsically motivated to maintain the
program procedures with the ability to adjust as needed. As Fullan (2010)
expressed, “individual capacity thrives if it is integrated with strategies and
experiences that foster collective capacity.” After a period of supported
training, the staff involved in the implementation and maintenance of the
program should have gained the capacity to become a factor in its successful
sustenance. Therefore, neither continuous improvement nor sustainability can
exist without the other.
In my particular setting, new intervention programs are implemented
in phases beginning with the dissemination of information that includes a time
frame. Mourtos (2006) advised that distribution of the workload over time and
among as many staff as possible will make the program sustainable. The
implementation process that I have experienced involved the assignment of
program managers from the district. These individuals sent out detailed
instructions and requested feedback about the process and to request
suggestions. Training was provided in the form of professional development
sessions with follow-up activities. Finally, implementation was expected to
follow the process precisely. Progress is monitored through surveys, visits,
and feedback from the school administration. This process was effective;
however, another element might be included to ensure sustainability. The
Kentucky Department of Education (2013) provided a set of effective practices
which included using results of assessments to learn about the effectiveness of
the program to guide continuous improvement.
Shediac-Rizkallah, M.,
& Bone, L. (1998). Planning for the sustainability of community-based
health programs: Conceptual frameforks and future directions for research,
practice and polity. Health Education Research, 13(1), 87-108.
Retrieved from http://her.oxfordoxfordjournals.org
Han, S., & Weiss, B. (2005).
Sustainability for teacher implementation of school-based mental health
programs. Journal
of Abnormal Child Psychology, 33(6), 665-679. doi:10.1007/s10802-005-7646-2
The Kentucky Department of Education (2013, November
14). Kentucky
Department of Education : Best Practices and Sustainability. Retrieved December 15, 2013, from
http://education.ky.gov/school/bpsust/Pages/default.aspx
Coffey, J., & Horner, R. (2912). The
sustainability of school-wide. Council
for Exceptional Children, 78(4), 407-422. Retrieved from http://www.cec.sped.org/
Mourtos, N. (2006). A sustainable, systematic
process for continuous improvement.Global Journal of
Engneering, 10(2). Retrieved from http: //www.engr.sjsu.edu/~nikos/pdf/GJEE-06-2.pdf
No comments:
Post a Comment