2 Contents
2.1 School Improvement Planning

School Improvement Planning

The Task

The request was for a literature review supplemented by insights from “some key players in Ontario” in search of best practices with ideas for school improvement planning. Included is a section referencing the Effective Schools program. This paper would satisfy the task in the FNSSP work plan for “a review and written report of best practices literature on school success planning”.

Background

We know more about school improvement planning than we ever have before. Google school improvement planning and there are over a million hits and hundreds of thousands of hits on just school improvement templates alone. School Improvement is an attainable goal. It requires a compelling vision grounded in student learning to unite staff, parents and communities together. School improvement involves system thinking because of the relational, organizational and collective processes that embody schools and school systems. Ben Levin (2008), in How to Change 5000 Schools, writes that “improving schools is hard work. Lasting and sustainable improvement requires improving student outcomes across a broad range of important areas. … It means reducing the gaps of outcomes among different population groups. And in means doing it in ways that support positive morale among educators, students and parents” (p.2).

Literature Review

Schmoker’s (2006) says in Results Now, “a simple, unswerving focus on those actions and arrangements that ensure effective ever-improving instruction” (p.5). The literature indicates that now we have a better sense of what makes differences in terms of improving student achievement. The single most determinant is effective instruction, not socio-economic or family background. Research points to principals that are instructional leaders that construct self-managing learning teams that focus on achievement. Schmoker (2006), talks about buffer zones that insulate schools from external pressure and supervision. He and others write about the isolation of privacy of teachers working individually in their own classrooms. All of these “divert teachers from implementing effective strategies and continuously improving their practice” (Schmoker, 2006, p.23). Elmore (2000) in Building a New Structure for School Leadership mentions that an emphasis on constant change takes attention away from what real matters.

There is a direct correlation between educational attainment of children and the economic, social and emotional impacts on societies. Students’ willingness to commit to school and their futures is interconnected to their perceptions about their families, communities and teachers/administrators belief that they and learning are worth committing to (Darling-Hammond, 2009). NOTE: This is important to the schools supported by KERC because of the variables associated with the students. Administrators and teachers must understand that with strategic interventions and focused teaching, their students can succeed. For KERC and the Education Directors it reinforces the importance of linking community and working respectfully with Elders, while maintain high expectations.

School improvement planning centres around what Elmore (2002) refers to as the instructional core; that is the interaction of teachers, students and the curriculum. Students are at the centre and the aim is to raise the academic bar and close achievement gaps simultaneously. In Closing the Achievement Gap (2003), the authors of this compilation of articles note that six strategies are important to consider raising the achievement bar and closing gaps at the same time. These are: providing school-linked services and resources for communities and families, making classrooms and schools culturally compatible with students’ home backgrounds, having teachers who communicate high expectations, caring cultural sensitivity, giving students uninterrupted opportunities to learn, creating environments that foster resilience and building and sustaining high levels of teacher engagement and learning. Quality teaching matters and school improvement planning can provide the structure and direction to help make it happen¹. It is important for the school administrators and staff to maintain high expectations but also to begin to identify and systematically target some of these research-based interventions. The resources produced by KERC reflect the home backgrounds, linguistic and cultural identities needed to engage students.

Fullan and Sharratt (2009) argue in Realization that accountability has to be measureable. They discuss that educational pitfalls are caused by fragmentation, overload and a lack of coherence resulting from the attempted implementation of too many innovations. For them coherent and focused improvement requires “shared specificity and consistency of good practice” (Fullan & Sharratt, 2009, p.13). To achieve this goal, schools and school systems require the implementation of 14 research-informed parameters²:

• Shared beliefs and understandings with high expectations and supports for all learners;

• Embedded literacy coaches who can model practice and encourage shared and interdependent practice;

• Time-tabled literacy (and numeracy) blocks;

• Principals who understand and demonstrate instructional leadership including a sustained purposeful presence in classrooms;

• Early and ongoing interventions triggered by the use of student data (use of formative and summative assessment);

• A case management approach to students facing challenges in learning (teachers can in develop student and class profiles to inform their teaching practice);

• Focused learning teams and job-embedded PD at staff meetings aligned to the key goals;

• Ongoing in-school grade/department meetings with a focus on sharing data and improving achievement;

• Resources to support student learning including literacy rooms, leveled resources and assistive technology;

• Budget and other resources aligned to the key goals;

• Action research or teacher inquiry for the learning teams based on questions raised during examination of student data;

• Parental involvement;

• Cross-curricular approaches especially to literacy; and

• Shared responsibility and accountability.

Hattie (2009) just completed a synthesis of over 800 meta-analyses relating to student achievement. He examined research studies dealing with school improvement from USA, Canada, Australia, and New Zealand among others. His major message is clear – what teachers do, matters. Effective teaching is intentional and “uses deliberate interventions to ensure there is a cognitive change in the student” (p.23). Effective teaching not only requires a range of instructional strategies from individual teachers but also coherency from classroom to classroom. You may consider sharing excerpts with administrators and teachers so they understand that quality education requires coherency and intentionality. These findings should influence the types of ongoing professional learning supported by KERC. A question to consider is, what the current skill is and knowledge levels of administrators and teachers are and what do they require to excel?

One of his important findings is that the ³differences between teachers in the same school are greater than the differences between schools and that these differences affect achievement. ⁴Hattie argues that structures need to be put into place to ensure intentionality and coherency and encourage rich dialogue between and among teachers. School improvement plan can drive intentionality and coherency – but teachers must be targeted and not just schools.

Visible Learning, (Hattie, 2009) in chapter six, deals with the contributions and importance of schools. Chapters eight through ten explore detailed findings on curricular and teaching approaches, which I did not include because many of the conclusions are stated elsewhere. Specifically dealing with school-based factors, Hattie’s research analysis indicates that:

• Smaller schools with specific structures that encourage more dialogue between teachers and more focus on individual students can positively impact achievement ; but this must be intentional and focused on improving teaching and learning⁵;

• Mobility is a negative factor; the more changes the less likely students will succeed (NOTE: interesting to consider staff turnover in some of the schools that KERC supports and if this effect is similar to moving students to a new school);

• Principals that are comfortable and knowledgeable as instructional leaders positively impact staff and students; especially⁶

  • Promoting and participating in teacher learning and teacher development;

  • Establishing collaborative environments

  • Planning, coordinating and monitoring teaching and learning

  • Visiting classroom on a regular basis to obtain observational data and demonstrate a purposeful presence to enable the provision of formative and summative feedback

  • Strategically resourcing –aligning resources to the key goals and targets;

• Class size needs to be reduced to less than 15 before differences occur and even with that teachers need to be intentional and differentiate⁷

  • Emphasizing the role of the student in learning

  • Using Formative assessments and diagnostic evaluations

  • Integrating a variety of concrete manipulative materials

  • Understanding and applying individualized (differentiated) instruction;

• Ability grouping (tracking) is often done because of perceived societal components (poverty, ESL, special education) and often has a negative effect on achievement when students of poverty and challenging circumstances are isolated together;

• Small group learning and multi-year grouping positively can impact when effective instructional strategies and formative assessments are used intentionally;

• Using Effective and results-based classroom management techniques and strategies

  • Teacher ability to identify and act appropriately on potential behavior problems

  • The presence of well-articulated rules and norms of behavior – decreases disruptive behaviours, which negatively impact learning

  • Clarity of purpose that classrooms were learning environments – goals and specific learning outcomes

  • Ongoing, clear and timely targeted feedback

  • Degree of student/teacher cooperation – positive interpersonal relationships including peer-to-peer learning; and

• Positive Peer Influences – positive and caring – low peer acceptance can result in diminished engagement and perceptions of self-worth so use techniques to develop and sustain positive interactions and resiliency.

If, as many of the previous researchers conclude, improvement doesn’t just happen; it has to be deliberate and intentional, then school improvement planning matters. Research indicates that improvement planning requires results. In Ontario schools and school systems as well as many other jurisdictions, SMART goals are used to indicate targets and measure in results in their improvement plans. They are drawn from an analysis of the school’s student data and collaboratively set by administration and staff. The creation of SMART goals and an improvement plan cannot just be the work of principals.

SMART goals are:

• Specific

• Measureable

• Attainable & Ambitious

• Results-based

• Time Specific “by X, student achievement in Y as measured by Z will occur”

This allows for the identification of specific student achievement targets and a phased approach to improvement planning. School improvement planning assumes collaborative teams working on coherent goals across the school. It is important to set the climate and culture for improvement though high expectations of student learning outcomes. Trust is critical and relationships matter (Levin, 2008). The aim is to focus on substantive and connected change. The goals will never be realized unless they are accompanied by the means to allow teachers and students to achieve them.

The literature recommends learning teams, where teachers come together to set a goal related to the school’s SMART goals. The experts recommend a small number of SMART goals, no more than three or four. Based on the SMART goals a problem or question is developed using teacher inquiry or action research as it is sometimes called. All teachers are engaged by working together to build diagnostic assessment, then use the intervention accompanied by assessments for learning to enable the gathering of student data and artifacts (examples of student work)⁸.

For instance, in Ontario moderated marking is a function of these learning teams and the data is analyzed to see how effective the intervention(s) are. Teachers looking at data together reflect on the interventions and then suggest continued action based on the data. Fullan (2009) refers to this as “co-learning” and he writes that that “learning is the work”. The collaborative learning must be linked or aligned to the actual results. Hammond Darling (2009) writes that the aim of school improvement must be reciprocal, intelligent accountability.

To close gaps, the school data needs to be aggregated across grades and then disaggregated to determine under-achieving cohorts (Levin, 2008). These can include identifying underachieving cohorts such as some boys’ ability to master reading and writing, students experiencing learning difficulties, students with hearing or vision problems, and English Language Learners (ELL) to name a few. The strategies should be focused on the areas the data indicate require the most work and will contribute to increased achievement. For instance implementing boy-friendly strategies as outlined in current Ontario Ministry resources such as Me Read? No Way! These may include non-fiction reading and writing, active learning, competition, authentic problem based learning.

Schmoker (2006) and others talk about the importance of literacy in school improvement. Underdeveloped literacy skills are the number one reason why students are retained, given remedial support, disengaged and drop-out from school. “Literacy is pivotal to acquiring the type of education that is the path to economic and political power.” (Schmoker, 2006, p. 56) According to The Literacy and Numeracy Secretariat’s research, Elmore, Reeves and Schmoker and others recommend that the following components be present in improvement planning focused on raising literacy achievement:

• An understanding of balanced literacy and the developmental stages;

• An emphasis on non-fiction texts;

• Purposefully engaging authentic forms of literacy;

• Coherent instruction;

• Higher-order literacy including analysis and synthesis

  • Critically examine evidence in a text

  • See the world from multiple points of view

  • Make connects and detects patterns among ideas and perspectives

  • Imagine alternatives (What if, what else)

  • Understand relevance (what difference does it make); and

• Strategic reading and writing to build comprehension and engagement

Research indicates the aim is to look for the smallest number of key factors, such as implementing an effective literacy program, which you need to focus on based on the analysis of student data. A school cannot implement all of the Marzano Nine Effective Instructional Strategies, or the 6 Components of a Balanced Literacy program. The data should be transparent to staff and students. Analysis of underachieving cohorts will identify that each of these groups require a different set of targeted interventions; however many of these can loosely be categorized as differentiated instruction. In Ontario the approach to differentiation and universal design are outlined in Learning for All, 2009 (Appendix A, Attachment 1). Experts such as Fullan, Elmore and Marzano suggest using research-informed instructional strategies that will address the needs of the students. What teachers need, the experts remind us, is a roadmap (school improvement plan) and learning teams, not isolated workshops or conferences. They need to see the strategies in action and learn from one another using their student s’ work as samples to drive improvement.

It is the administrator’s role to mobilize and engage staff. Fullan (2009) refers to this as “motion leadership” or leadership that creates positive movement among staff⁹. Principals’ role are to set the structures in place to build staff capacity so that staff in turn can improve their practice to impact student achievement. This requires creating common learning time and providing the resources and professional learning that targets the areas the school has selected to focus their improvement on. ¹⁰Reeves (2006) now writes that it takes approximately 25 to 29 hours of focused in-school, job-embedded learning before coherent improvements in teaching and learning are obvious. In this way, administrators build both individual teacher efficacy and collective efficacy, both of which are needed for schools to improve using norms of collegiality and adult learning.

School improvement planning requires principals to monitor then with staff measure and then modify together. Administrators need to be visible in classrooms and halls and gather observational data on student learning. Both staff and students require focused and respectful feedback. Sometimes administrators are trapped by the “knowing-doing gap”, where they know what should be done but are consumed by the management demands of the job. Administrators need to model what they want teachers to do in classrooms. They must expect to encounter and to be respectful of resistance and be comfortable with ambiguity, where they will not know all the answers.

Ontario Context

Ontario as Canada’s largest province and its population of 13 million is nearly 40% of Canada’s total and Ontario has 2 million children in the 72 publicly-funded education school boards. The province is diverse –home to about half of Canada’s immigrants and 27% of students were born outside of Canada. The current education system was shaped by the British Literacy and Numeracy Strategy (1998-2002), which had been evaluated by Canadian educators such as Michael Fullan and Ben Levin. Ontario’s current system was designed by reflecting on what worked and what did not work with the English model.

In 2001, the Harris government released it’s All About Improvement: The report on effective schools, which is available on the Ministry’s web site. Chapter Four of their Report deals with school improvement. The report suggested the creation of some subject-based assessments that could support the EQAO data. The experts recognized the importance that student data can play in informing practice and improving learning. They made the recommendations for school improvement plans in a handbook (www.edu.gov.on.ca/eng/document/reports/sihande.pdf) and school reviews that would eventually lead to the creation of the School Effectiveness Framework. They suggested the development of key indicators and that schools could be assessed against these indicators. These formed the basis for the reforms initiated under the current provincial government. The current Teaching and Learning Critical Pathway chunks the school improvement plan into smaller, more manageable 4-6 week segments of classroom-applicable strategies and activities

In Ontario, all school boards and both elementary and secondary schools are:

• Designing a Tri-level strategy – what the Premier and cabinet focus on is what the Ministry focuses on is what the school boards emphasize and is what is done in individual schools by individual teachers and administrators;

• Establishing targeted SMART goals for provincial achievement that have high expectations for all i.e. 75% of students in grade 6 will meet or exceed the EQAO results or 85% of grade 9 students will graduate from high school by 2010;

• Developing and implementing plans based on the SMART goals using student data;

• Aggregating and disaggregating measurable student data using EQAO among other data sets (attendance, suspension, attitudinal) that identify achievement gaps as well as measure specific outcomes¹¹;

• Creating professional learning teams that explore aspects of student achievement and increasingly use action research (teacher inquiry) and focusing on shared leadership; and

• Building capacity at all levels through targeted professional learning and coaches sponsored by the Ministry’s Literacy and Numeracy Branch, the Regional Offices and the Leadership framework.

To ensure similar actions occur across all 72 school boards and provincially-aligned schools, the Ministry requires school boards to develop and submit district (system) improvement plans that are reviewed by the province annually and engage in self-monitoring using the School Effectiveness Framework or SEF. Each school in Ontario must develop their own improvement plan that aligns to the district and is monitored on an ongoing basis by principals. This includes the expectation that principals will be purposefully visible in classrooms. Supervisory Officers (superintendents) are required to monitor the school plans as well. Included in the Appendices is an example from the Durham District School Board.

The school improvement plan should indicate specific strategies or actions, roles including, monitoring, aligning resources with the SMART goals, and ‘look-fors’ so that everyone can situate themselves in the plan. In Ontario as elsewhere, literacy and numeracy are considered to be the fundamental building blocks for learning, whether it is first language or second language learning. The improvement plan should reference the linguistic, cultural and economic diversity of the school so that students see themselves reflected in the curriculum and all aspects of school life. This requires curriculum and instruction to be culturally relevant. Where possible, the province has been funding literacy and numeracy coaches and demonstration to model effective practices and to de-privatize the practice of teaching. Specific examples from Ontario school improvement plans have been included as attachments.

Schools and school districts have identified schools that have excelled in terms of consistently raising student achievement over several years. These schools are identified as “Schools on the Move”, which Ben Levin characterized as “engaging and inspiring”. Since these schools come from all parts of the province and all four publicly-funded systems, they are different but share common characteristics. School profiles outlining their individual success stories are available online at the Ministry web site at www.edu.gov.on.ca. These schools are available for school visits so they can act as demonstration schools where visitors can “observe what is happening in classrooms” by listening to the administration and teachers actively support learning. These schools are characterized by high expectations for all learners, demonstrated use of evidence and student data to inform teaching and learning and collaborative cultures.

The Ontario Ministry of Education has also developed an Aboriginal Framework for Education (Attachment 6). Reference is made to Aboriginal initiatives in other provinces later in this paper.

Other Provincial Jurisdictions

Several provinces have developed their own frameworks and I have included Manitoba, Alberta and British Colombia as examples. Additionally, I have included a district plan from New Brunswick in the e-attachments.

Manitoba

Manitoba Department of Education, Citizenship and Youth has developed a very detailed document for school planning. It is called Planning for Inclusive Schools (2004). The web site is http://www.edu.gov.mb.ca/k12/docs/support/school-based/inclusive.pdf. Additionally in their publication section there are 13 resources specifically tailored for Aboriginal Education.

In terms of school-based planning, in Planning for Inclusive Schools, the resource acknowledges that planning is an integrated process that involves various levels of involvement and focuses on alignment and accountability. Planning for Inclusive Schools notes that, “Effective school-based planning asks and answers questions about educational purpose” (p.1.4). It engages communities and school staff in setting priorities, identifying desired results, supporting what works and modifying what does not. School-based planning addresses “how various services and programming will support school-wide priorities” (p. 1.4).

In Section One: Setting the Stage, the department notes that school-based planning can enhance:

• Student achievement

• School improvement

• Responsibility

• Accountability

In the Manitoba context, the Comprehensive School Plan is aligned to the divisional (school district) plan and is a multi-year document collaboratively developed following a specified framework and submitted for review and approval. Eight specific steps that explain planning and reporting are identified on page 2.4 of the document. The continuous planning cycle answers the following:

• Where do we want to go?

• How will we know we are getting there?

• How will be get there

• How will we show that we got there?

Alberta

The Alberta education web site, http://education.alberta.ca identifies current initiatives and resources available for the province’s schools. The Alberta Initiative for School Improvement (AISI) has a detailed resource package on school improvement (see attachment).

On February 10, 2010 in Edmonton the department will host an International Conference on School and System Improvement, http://education.alberta.ca/admin/aisi/symposium.aspx is the site for registration.

In Alberta, accountability is measured through the Accountability Pillar, which provides school authorities with a wide range of data that paints a picture of how they are performing. The framework focuses on more than student achievement, resulting in a more holistic approach to accountability. Other factors that impact student learning - such as safe and caring environments, parent involvement, and satisfaction with the education experience - are measured, providing a more complete perspective of the jurisdiction's overall learning environment.

When combined, this data provides a picture of where school jurisdictions are now - including areas of success and challenges that lie ahead. In order to complete the picture, school authorities need to analyze the detailed data that underlies the Accountability Pillar evaluations and the many variables that may affect results. These are integral to the school improvement planning process.

Alberta jurisdictions report their Accountability Pillar results to their communities, ensuring that the entire education system is more open and accountable to all Albertans. At the same time, students, parents and teachers are invited to provide input and feedback, which strengthens their sense of ownership in the system and its successes.

British Colombia

In British Columbia, the Ministry of Education’s web site is http://www.gov.bc.ca/bced. On it is a wealth of resource information. They too have a myriad of resources on Aboriginal education, http://www.bced.gov.bc.ca/abed. All schools since 2002 are bound by legislation to plan and report results based on student achievement. Included is a PDF of District 19’s improvement plan as another model. Their plan has three key goals and outlines the strategies and actions taken to implement the goals.

The Accountability Framework, rooted in the School Act, reflects a public commitment to improve student results. The Accountability Framework includes: Annual School Plans developed by School Planning Councils, Achievement Contracts supported by Aboriginal Education Enhancement Agreements, and District Reviews.

The British Colombia Accountability Framework:

• Defines ‘accountability’ as responsibility for the improvement of achievement of each student in the province;

• Acknowledges that schools and districts are unique; and goals, objectives, targets, and evidence used to demonstrate improvement are determined by the district, with the expectation that each district will have targets for literacy (K-12), completion rates and Aboriginal student improvement

• Focuses on inquiry to identify areas of greatest need, monitor progress and critically analyze actions for effectiveness;

• Promotes evidence-based, data-driven decision making with a focus on assessment for learning; and
  Mandates parental involvement and encourages ongoing dialogue with all parents, partner groups, and the community.

In addition to creating school and district improvement plans, the Ministry of Education, Alberta created a provincial review mechanism. Improving student achievement for all students is the primary goal of the Ministry of Education. Ministry district reviews are one way to increase student achievement through a focused review of district results. Reviews are designed to provide feedback and recommendations to the district, the Ministry and the public regarding the school districts' work in improving student achievement. The reviews focus on key areas related to school and district improvement and the Ministry determines the districts to be reviewed each year. In each district a team chaired by a currently practicing or retired superintendent is composed of educators, parents and ministry staff.

School Planning Cycle¹²

• Collect Information

• Analyze

• Develop the Plan for Improvement

• Implement

• Review

School plans focus on student achievement. Student achievement includes intellectual, human and social development, and career development. School plans support safe, caring and orderly schools. School plans reflect the context of the school and the range of students served. School planning councils consider a range of information in their planning, including classroom, school, district and provincial data. School planning councils consider the performance of significant groups within the student body, such as, Aboriginal, ESL and special needs students. School boards determine the format, timing and process for submission and approval of school plans. School plans developed by school planning councils are an integral part of the district achievement contract and the Ministry of Education district review process.

The Process:

Collect Information
The school planning council considers:

• information about classroom, school, district and provincial achievement, satisfaction and safety,

• school and district profiles,

• school resource allocation information, including funding and staff allocations to the school,

• the values and perspectives of the school community, including specific groups such as Aboriginal, ESL and special needs students,

• the district achievement contract and, if applicable, the Aboriginal enhancement agreement and the district review report, and

• evidence of progress toward achieving current goals.

Analyze
The school planning council interprets information and identifies areas of strength and areas that need improvement. The school planning council shares its findings with the parent advisory council and the school community and solicits feedback.

Develop the Plan for Improvement
Using the information collected and analyzed, and input from the parent advisory council and school community, the school planning council develops plans for improvement.

Plans include:

• clearly stated goals,

• a rationale for the selection of the goals,

• an indication of specific performance targets for improving student achievement, and

• a description of the data the school uses to track its progress over time.

After consultation with the parent advisory council and the school community, the school planning council submits the completed plan to the school board for review. The school board may accept the plan, return the plan to the school planning council for modification or reject the plan and direct the principal to develop an alternate plan.

Implement
School planning councils make plans available to the school community and support the school community as it implements the plans.

Review
School planning councils monitor progress in implementing school plans and provide updates to the school community.

American Context

The Americans have been working on school and system improvement for a long time. Their research has focused on what works or is results-based. The current framework used is contained in federal legislation known as “No Child Left Behind”. It is worthy to note that Canada consistently outscores the USA on all international assessments. For more detailed information concerning the international assessments and its implications for learning, visit www.eqao.com. The consensus is that any strong program of improvement requires not just a focus on improving learning but the measureable targets, supports, strong instructional leadership, partnerships and monitoring to make it happen.

Marzano’s What Works in Schools: Translating research into action (2003) was a meta-analysis that analyzed and ranked school-level factors that influence student achievement. His Art and Science of Teaching(2007) is recommended for school-based learning teams working on school improvement. In that book, Marzano (2007) poses ten questions that develop a framework for effective instruction and then cites the research to support using specific strategies and interventions. He writes, “Studies demonstrate that effective schools can make a substantial difference in the achievement of students” (Marzano, 2007, p. 1). Marzano reiterates the importance of teachers in the process of increasing achievement. His research identified a variety of factors and the list below ranks them in order of impact on achievement outcomes:

• Opportunity to learn

• Time on Task

• Monitoring

• Pressure to Achieve

• Parental Involvement

• School Climate

• Leadership

• Cooperation

Another framework that is used in many systems is the Effective School Framework. Dr. Larry Lezotte, formerly from Michigan State developed the Seven Effective School Correlates or categories based on his extensive research. He wanted to ensure that schools could overcome achievement gaps (see attachment).

There are First and Second Generation correlates. In the First Generation, the principal as instructional leader effectively and persistently communicates the mission of high expectations and excellence to staff and community. The underlying assumption is that all schools will focus on improving learning as their primary goal and that schools will be accountable for measureable results. . In the First Generation, the emphasis is on establishing a culture of change. The Second Generation moves the emphasis to distributed or shared leadership where teachers are equal partners in the process and the emphasis is on achieving coherency and intentionality across the school in every class.

Effective School Correlates

1. Caring and Safe Schools

   1. First Generation Correlates - In the effective school there is an orderly, purposeful, businesslike atmosphere which is free from the threat of physical harm. The school climate is not oppressive and is conducive to teaching and learning.

   2. Second General Correlates - Learning for All must move beyond the elimination of undesirable behaviour. The second generation effective school practice will place increased emphasis on the presence of certain desirable behaviours (ie a caring adult for every student, an emphasis on social responsibility). These second generation schools will be places where students actually help one another.

2. High Expectations

   1. First Generation Correlates - In the effective school there is a climate of high expectations in which the staff believe and demonstrate that all students can attain mastery of the essential school skills, and the staff also believe that they have the capability to help all students achieve that mastery.

   2. Second General Correlates - In the second generation, the emphasis placed on high expectations for success will be broadened significantly. Teachers will anticipate that some students will work at a different pace and they will develop a broader array of responses to student needs. For example, teachers will implement strategies, such as reteaching and regrouping, so that all students can achieve mastery. Implementing this expanded concept of high expectations will require the school as an organization to reflect high expectations. To be effective these strategies will require the cooperation of the school as a whole. Teachers cannot implement most of these strategies working alone in isolated classrooms. High expectations for success will be judged, not only by the initial staff beliefs and behaviours, but also by the organization’s response when some students struggle.

3. Instructional Leadership

   1. First Generation Correlates – In the effective school the principal acts as an instructional leader and effectively and persistently communicates that mission to the staff, parents, and students. The principal understands and applies the characteristics of instructional effectiveness in the management of the instructional program.

   2. Second General Correlates - In the second generation, instructional leadership will remain important; however, the concept will be broadened and leadership will be viewed as a dispersed concept that includes all adults, especially the teachers. This is in keeping with the teacher empowerment concept; it recognizes that a principal cannot be the only leader in a complex organization like a school. With the democratization of organizations, especially schools, the leadership function becomes one of creating a “community of shared values”.

4. Clear and Focused Mission

   1. First Generation Correlates - In the effective school there is a clearly articulated school mission through which the staff shares an understanding of and commitment to the instructional goals, priorities, assessment procedures and accountability. Staff accepts responsibility for students’ learning of the school’s essential curricular goals.

   2. Second General Correlates - In the second generation, the focus will shift designing and delivering a curriculum that responds to the demands of accountability, and is responsive to the need for higher levels of learning. This will require substantial staff development. Teachers will have to be better trained to develop curricula and lessons with the “end in mind.” A subtle but significant change in the concept of school mission deserves notice. Throughout the first generation, effective schools proponents advocated the mission of teaching for Learning for All. In the second generation the advocated mission will be the expectations that all students can learn and that the aim is to close achievement gaps.

5. Opportunity to Learn and Student Time on Task

   1. First Generation Correlates - In the effective school teachers allocate a significant amount of classroom time to instruction in the essential skills. For a high percentage of this time students are engaged in whole class or large group, teacher-directed, planned learning activities.

   2. Second General Correlates - Now teachers are being asked to stress the mission that assures that the students master the content that is covered. In the next generation, teachers will have to become more skilled at interdisciplinary curriculum and they will need to learn how to comfortably practice “organized abandonment.” They will have to be able to ask the question, “What goes and what stays?” One of the characteristics of the most effective schools is their willingness to declare that some things are more important than others; they are willing to abandon some less important content so as to be able to have enough time dedicated to those areas that have the greatest impact and are valued by the community.

6. Frequent Monitoring of Student Progress

   1. First Generation Correlates - In the effective school student academic progress is measured frequently through a variety of assessment procedures. The results of these assessments are used to improve individual student performance and also to improve the instructional program.

   2. Second General Correlates - Teachers will pay much more attention to the alignment that must exist between the intended, taught, and tested curriculum. Two new questions are being stimulated by the reform movement and will dominate much of the professional educators’ discourse in the second generation: “What’s worth knowing?” and “How will we know when they know it?”

7. Home School Relations

   1. First Generation Correlates - In the effective school parents understand and support the school’s basic mission and are given the opportunity to play an important role in helping the school to achieve this mission.

   2. Second General Correlates - In the second generation, the relationship between parents and the school must be an authentic partnership between the school and home. In the past when teachers said they wanted more parent involvement, more often than not they were looking for unqualified support from parents.

Curriculum Management Systems Inc. led by Dr Fenwick English in 1979 designed a system for auditing school districts using curriculum as the key focus, which is used today in many American school boards and internationally and currently sponsored by Phi Delta Kappa with information on their web site www.pdkintl.org . An external review team audits the policies, procedures, curriculum and resources for the board that supports the design and delivery of curriculum. It gathers data from multiple sources including interviews and focus groups, document analysis and observational data. The audit emphasizes teaching, curriculum and learning. There are five standards: control of resources, programs and personnel, clear and valid objectives for students, demonstrated internal consistency and rational equity, use of results from district, state and/or national and international assessments to adjust, revise, improve or terminate programs and strategies and improved productivity.

In Deciding What to Teach and Test: developing Aligning and Auditing the Curriculum, English (200) examines the ongoing practice of schools. The book explores the design and development of curriculum and the importance of coordination across grades and subjects as well as articulation from one grade to another. The book aims to shift the locus of control from the student (blaming the victim) to the school as the unit responsible for improving learning. There are specific criteria suggested for effective school plans. The improvement plan should:

• Be strategic and aligned with a district or larger central plan (if one exists) with a limited number of key measureable goals;

• Distinguish roles and responsibilities;

• Use specific data sets and strategies aligned to the analysis of data;

• Align staff development to the improvement plan, job-embedded and supported by resources –too much staff development is fragmented and sporadic;

• Align resources to the key strategic goals; and

• Ensure monitoring and evaluation components are built into the plan.

MCREL or Mid-Continent Research in Education and Learning is one of several large federally- funded education research centers in the USA and is led by Robert Marzano. Another is SEDL (The Southwest Education Development Laboratory). They too focus on issues impacting improvement and in their guide (see attachments) they suggests that the following questions should be asked of school plans to measure effectiveness:

Do the plans map out a clear course of action? Whether and to what degree the plans provide clear direction about who will take which actions and by when. Do the plans address monitoring the implementation of the plan? Is there a clear process? Who is responsible for monitoring the implementation of the plan? Do the plans identify evidence of implementation and outcomes? Were the district and school plans implemented with fidelity? Do the plans identify the professional learning and resources required for implementation?

At the other end of the continuum, the district and schools may actively use

a planning document to guide their work, hold staff members accountable

for the plan, provide ongoing support as needed, and update the actions

and deadlines in the plan as the work unfolds throughout the year (p.118-122).

The Center for Comprehensive School Reform and Improvement www.centerforcsri.org

The purpose of The Center was to assist schools and school districts contemplating or engaged in school reform and improvement. This included information about research-based strategies and assistance in using that information to make positive changes. The Center’s mission was to help schools organize, plan, implement, and sustain improvement.

The Center's Resources and Services

The Center brought education research and strategies directly to you through free resources and technical assistance. Our resources include:

• A searchable online database with nearly 5,000 abstracts of school improvement studies, research reports, and articles.

• Thought-provoking webcast discussions with national experts and local practitioners on timely education topics.

• Regularly published materials (newsletters, issue briefs, and research briefs) on topics pertinent to school improvement.

• Online and telephone reference services: Our "Ask the Expert" service allowed educators to get fast answers to questions about school improvement.

• Research-based guides, tools, and information to help schools increase academic achievement or all students.

The purpose of The Center was to assist schools and school districts contemplating or engaged in school reform and improvement. We provided them with reliable information about research-based strategies and assistance in using that information to make positive changes. The Center’s mission was to help schools organize, plan, implement, and sustain improvement.

The Center's Resources and Services

Their resources base includes:

• A searchable online database with nearly 5,000 abstracts of school improvement studies, research reports, and articles.

• Thought-provoking webcast discussions with national experts and local practitioners on timely education topics.

• Regularly published materials (newsletters, issue briefs, and research briefs) on topics pertinent to school improvement.

• Online and telephone reference services: Our "Ask the Expert" service allowed educators to get fast answers to questions about school improvement.

• Research-based guides, tools, and information to help schools increase academic achievement for all students.

Internationally

New Zealand

Maori education and culture are important in New Zealand and some of the lessons learned are relevant to KERC. New Zealand’s leading researchers from the University of Auckland completed a best evidence synthesis of the research comprising over 250 pages entitled School Leadership and Student Outcomes: Identifying What Works and Why. This links to the research on school improvement. The authors talks about the importance of establishing clear goals on student achievement that have staff commitment. To do this “leaders need to have an understanding of why goal setting is important and some knowledge of how goal setting works” (p. 40). Additionally the researchers emphasize the need for:

• Resourcing strategically

  • Clear criteria

  • Alignment to key goals

• Planning, coordinating and evaluating teaching and the curriculum

  • Promote collegial discussions

  • Provide active oversight into teaching/learning practices and coordinate the teaching program

  • Observe classrooms and provided directed feedback

  • Ensure systematic monitoring of student progress and the use of assessment results for program improvement

• Promoting and participate in teacher learning and development

  • Ensure an intensive focus on teaching-learning relationships

  • Promote collective responsibility and accountability for increasing student achievement

  • Provide advice on how to solve teaching problems

• Ensuring an orderly and safe environment

  • Protect teacher time

  • Ensure consistent discipline routines

  • Identify and resolve conflicts quickly and effectively

• Creating educationally powerful connections

  • Student identities and teaching practices – culturally responsive and differentiated

  • Support coherency of effective practices

  • Ensure effective transitions from one educational setting to another

• Engaging in constructive problem talk

  • Engage teachers in inquiry and discovery of action

  • Share research and effective practices

  • Lead discussions on the merits of various approaches and strategies

• Selecting, developing and using smart tools or ones that promote student learning and have a research-base that impact student achievement

• Sustaining communities

  • Build relational trust with students, teachers, parents and communities

  • Demonstrate norms of respect

  • Be open to discussions “open-to-learning discussions”

Voices from Educators:

I spoke to 6 provincial experts including current directors, superintendents, principals and Ministry officials. This is their feedback.

The key points related to school improvement planning is that too often schools try to do too much. They need to examine their data to determine the greatest area of need for their own cadres of students. They need to identify a small number of SMART goals (2 to 4) and then a few high yield strategies (Douglas Reeves says no more than 5-7 strategies). Goals need to address what we want the students to be able to do. Below are a few points related to improvement planning:

Effective school improvement efforts include:

• Ensuring a collaborative and inclusive improvement process;

• Conducting a comprehensive needs assessment

• Determining the area of greatest need for students

• Setting ambitious targets;

• Developing a well designed plan;

• Implementing a “significant few” strategies;

• Employing strategies to achieve equity of outcome;

• Monitoring progress;

• Revising as needed in a timely fashion;

• Evaluating effectiveness of the plan and identifying lessons learned

Components of an Effective Plan

Comprehensive Needs Assessment (Self Assessment and School Data)

• A small number of SMART Goals

• A manageable number of research-based strategies that will be implemented to achieve the goal

• Resources

• Professional development supports

• Strategies to engage parents/ community

• Monitoring strategies and timelines

• Measures of progress in achieving goals

• Strong and clear communication strategy

Summary:

Current research and lessons from the field reveal the following common practices are evident in effective schools. Schools must demonstrate:

• The belief that every child can learn and is capable of achieving high levels of achievement;

• A coherent focus on learning and continuous improvement;

• A culture of collaboration (PLC);

• Shared leadership;

• That school improvement planning is a whole school responsibility;

• Ambitious targets and identify precise strategies to achieve targets

• The effective use of data to inform school planning decisions and classroom instruction;

• A shared understanding of the school’s current reality;

• Increased content and pedagogical knowledge;

• Job embedded professional learning is in place;

• A collective response to giving time and support to struggling students;

• The use of formative assessments that determine students’ understanding of the essential learnings;

• The effective use of data to inform school planning decisions and classroom instruction;

• A shared understanding of the school’s current reality;

• Increased content and pedagogical knowledge;

• Job embedded professional learning is in place;

• A collective response to giving time and support to struggling students;

• The use of formative assessments that determine students’ understanding of the essential learnings;

• Evidence of timely explicit feedback and interventions;

• Budget decisions support goals in improvement plans;

• Time has been allocated for uninterrupted blocks of time for literacy and numeracy;

• Instructional time is valued (distractions are eliminated)

• Celebrate successes

• Goals and priorities are clearly communicated

• Effective community partnerships are established to enhance student learning (e.g. volunteers, social agencies, community groups)

Considerations for Moving Forward

Long Term

• Think long-term - establish a cyclical process that can be used for 3-5 years

• Ensure a framework for refining the plans, monitoring both the improvement plans and the implementation of the plans similar to the cycle on page 14-16

• Ensure a plan for professional learning that supports the improvement plans

  • Ensure the staff at KERC are trained so they can act as coach/mentors

  • Train the school-based administrators and education directors so they can assist the teachers –this includes data literacy, improvement planning, instructional rounds and other aspects of instructional leadership

  • Train the teachers remembering the aim is job-embedded and ongoing learning (45-49 hours)

• Based on an analysis of the completed plans – review and revise the current template for improvement planning that you have created – make sure it is used by all schools (it could be modified for local context) to assist with central analysis and allow KERC to create targeted resources and PD

Shorter Term

• Request that the schools that have completed their improvement plan send it in for external review

  • Continue the current analysis of the plans –it will inform decisions on professional learning opportunities

  • The analysis and feedback can be done within a month or less for those schools ¹³and individual and a collective analysis can be completed

• Consider adapting the Ministry’s draft Board and Improvement Planning Assessment Tool (Appendix B)

• Review the completed school improvement plans – based on the results of the review

  • Provide detailed feedback with suggestions for refining the plan¹⁴

    • All plans should have delineated measureable goals, specific strategies or activities, timelines, role responsibilities, budgets (budget lines) identified for resources required, professional learning, monitoring, indicators of success

  • Adjust the plan template/process based on the review of plans

    • looking at current patterns based on the analysis of the existing plans

    • aligning to effective practices as outlined in this paper

  • Have the remaining schools used the revised template/process so they can complete their school improvement plans

    • Review those plans following a parallel process

  • Work with the school that have completed plans on issues to develop a clear action plan with timelines and indicators of success to implement the plan

  • Provide for training so principals can monitor and know what they are monitoring

    • train principals to be purposefully in classrooms with look-fors or indicators – instructional leadership

  • Provide for training, either directly at the school working with the principal, education director and staff or centrally using the template to complete the improvement plan

    • You could assign a staff member/consultant¹⁵ to work with 2 or 3 schools directly to provide ongoing support and training for the administration and staff

      • They would visit the designated school several times during the year –another level of monitoring implementation

      • Available by email and telephone for ongoing support and mentoring

  • Provide training for the remaining principals so they can monitor and know what they are monitoring

  • Provide targeted and aligned professional development based on the goals and implementation issues

• Ensure a focus on a few key measureable goals that are sustainable and attainable in literacy and numeracy based on the data and in discussion with staff at each school

• The plans must have measureable SMART goals (two to four only) that focus on improved learning outcomes especially in reading, writing, oral language and mathematics as the foundational keys i.e. inferencing, making connections and meaning

• Continue the excellent curriculum development work and the ongoing support and add the data and targeted PD and monitoring

• Gather, aggregate and disaggregate and analyze student data sets that schools already have accumulated to provide the data to inform the plan and its implementation

• Identify underachieving cohorts and then support schools in targeted PD

• Provide ongoing training in data literacy (could use a webinar approach)

• For the longer term there will have to be some customized standard assessments designed to be used across the schools¹⁶

• Continue to develop and nurture school-based learning teams – focus should be on implementing the school improvement plan - build allies and shared leadership

• Support capacity building of principals, educational directors and teachers – use the free webcasts and resources on www.curriculum.org

• Monitor – once all the plans are complete and the schools are implementing the plans - consider having joint teams give feedback to the school based on their plan using a similar process to the School Effectiveness Framework

• The process as the literature indicates is cyclical – need to be in a constant state of review and revision

• Continue the excellent work building community and parent alliances and involving Elders

• Stay positive and persistent – you have come so far

Additional Resources

Included are several school plans including templates and concrete examples from London Catholic, Toronto Catholic from Ontario. Also included are:

• An 2009 improvement Plan from Revelstoke District in British Colombia

• An improvement planning guide from North Carolina for 2009-2010

• An improvement plan resource from SEDL –Southwest Education Development Laboratory

• A district plan from New Brunswick

For ongoing support that your leaders could access consider the National Staff Development Council (NSDC) offers e-learning courses including one on “raising achievement through school improvement planning” at www.nscd.org. The same is true of the School Improvement Network, www.PD360.com supported by ASCD. The What Works Clearinghouse is supported by the US` Department of Education. Its web site is http://ies.ed.gov/ncee/wwc/pdf/practicesguides/dddm_pg_092909.pdf.

EQAO Resources for Educators

Using Data to Promote Student Success (www.eqao.com)

School Improvement Planning Guide (www.eqao.com)

EQAO Guide to School and Board Improvement Planning (www.eqao.com

References

Barber, M., & Fullan, M. (2005, March). Tri-level development: It’s the system. Education Week, pp. 15-16.

Downey, C., Steffy, B., Poston, W. & English, F. (2010) Advancing the Three-Minute walk-Through. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Elmore, R. F. (2000). Building a new structure for school leadership. Washington, DC: The Albert Shanker Institute.

Elmore, R., City, E., Fiarman, S. & Teitel, L. (2009). Instructional rounds in education. Boston: Harvard Educational Press.

English, F. (2003). Deciding what to test and teach. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Fullan, M. (2008). The six secrets of change: What the best leaders do to help their organizations survive and thrive. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Fullan, M. (2001). Leading in a culture of change. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Fullan, M., Hill, P., & Crevola, C. (2006). Breakthrough. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.

Fullan, M. & St. Germain, C. (2006). Learning places: A field guide for improving the context of schooling. Thousand Oaks, C: Sage.

Goleman, D., Boyatzis, R., & McKee, A. (2002). Primal leadership: realizing the power of emotional intelligence. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press.

Hammond-Darling, L. (2009). America’s commitment to equity will determine our future, Phi Delta Kappan 91(4), 8-14.

Hargreaves, A., & Fink, D. (2006). Sustainable leadership. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Hargreaves, A. & Fullan, M. (Eds.). (2009). Change wars. Bloomington, IN: Solution Tree.

Hargreaves, A., Moore, S., Fink, D., Brayman, & White, R. (2003). Succeeding leaders? A study of principal succession and sustainability. Toronto, ON: Ontario Principals’ Council.

Hargreaves, A. & Shirley, D. (2009). The fourth way. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Harvey, S., Goudvis, A. (2000). Strategies that work: Teaching comprehension and understanding. Markham, ON: Pembroke Publishing.

Hattie, J. (2009). Visible learning: A synthesis of over 800 meta-analyses relating to achievement. Routledge: London.

Heifetz, R.A., & Linsky, M. (2004). When leadership spells danger. Educational Leadership, 61(7), 33-37.

Karasek, R. A. (1979). Job demands, job decision latitude, and mental strain: Implications for job redesign. Administrative Science Quarterly, 24(2), 285-308.

Leithwood, K., Day, C., Sammons, P., Harris, A., and Hopkins, D. (2006). Seven strong claims about successful leadership. London: DfES.

Leithwood, K., & Levin, B. (2005). Assessing school leader and leadership programme effects on pupil learning: Conceptual and methodological challenges (Research Report RR662). Nottingham, UK: Department for Education and Skills.

Leithwood, K., & Mascall, B. (2008). Collective leadership effects on student achievement. Educational Administration Quarterly, 44(4): 529-561.

Leithwood, K., Seashore Louis, K., Anderson, S., & Wahlstrom, K. (2004). How leadership influences student learning. Washington, DC: Wallace Foundation.

Levin, B. (2008). How to change 5000 schools: A practical and positive approach for leading change at every level. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Education Press.

Marks, H. M., & Printy, S.M. (2003). Principal leadership and school performance: An integration of transformational and instructional leadership. Educational Administration Quarterly, 39(3): 370-397.

Marzano, R. (2007). The art and science of teaching. Alexandria, VA: ASCD

Ontario Ministry of Education (2008a). A detailed review of the research on leadership and student achievement: A support document for the Leadership Self-Review Tool. Toronto: The Institute for Educational Leadership.

Ontario Ministry of Education (2008b). Putting Ontario’s Leadership Framework into action: A guide for school & system leaders. Toronto: The Institute for Educational Leadership.

Ontario Ministry of Education (2008c). Reaching every student: Energizing Ontario education. Toronto: Ontario Ministry of Education.

Ontario Ministry of Education (2007). Preamble to the leadership frameworks for principals and vice-principals and for supervisory officers. Toronto: Ontario Ministry of Education.

Popham, J. (1995). Classroom Assessment: What teachers need to know. New York: Allyn & Bacon.

Reichert, M. & Hawley, R. (2009). Reaching boys: An international study of effective teaching practices. Phi Delta Kappan 91(4), 35-40/.

Reeves, D. 92005). Accountability in action: A blueprint for learning organizations. Englewood, CO: Advanced learning Press.

Robinson, V. M. J., Lloyd, C. A., & Rowe, K. J. (2008). The impact of leadership on student outcomes: An analysis of the differential effects of leadership types. Educational Administration Quarterly, 44(5): 635-674.

Schmoker, M. (2006). Results Now. Alexandria, VA: ASCD.

Wagner, T., Kegan, R., Lahey, L., lemons, R., Garnier,, J., Helsing, D., Howell, A. & Rasmusson, H. (2006). Change Leadership: A practical guide to transforming our schools. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Wallace Foundation (2008). Becoming a leader: Preparing school principals for today’s schools. Retrieved June 8, 2009 from www.wallacefoundation.org/SiteCollectionDocuments/WF/Knowledge%20Center/Attachments/PDF/becoming-a-leader.pdf.

Waters, T., Marzano, R. J., & McNulty, B. (2003). Balanced leadership: What 30 years of research tells us about the effect of leadership on student achievement. Aurora, CO: Mid-continent Research for Education and Learning.

Appendices

Appendix A

Excerpts from Learning for All (2009) – Introduction

• The entire document is included as a PDF attachment

Background

In 2008, the Ontario government released Reach Every Student: Energizing Ontario Education, in which it articulated its commitment to “raise the bar” for all students in Ontario schools and to “close the gap” in student achievement. It identified the following three core priorities in its efforts to meet that commitment of

• High levels of student achievement

• Reduced gaps in student achievement

• Increased public confidence in publicly funded education

The overall government strategy requires a concerted focus on the effective implementation of evidence-informed assessment and instruction that benefit all students, and particularly those who may require more support.

Much work has already been accomplished by Ontario school boards and schools in raising levels of achievement and closing the gap among students from Kindergarten to Grade 12. These efforts have been connected with strategic initiatives such as the Literacy and Numeracy Strategy (i.e., Professional Learning, Ontario Focused Intervention Partnership, Tutoring Initiative, Character Development Initiative, Schools on the Move, and Ontario Statistical Neighbours), which provides support to school boards to help improve student achievement in Kindergarten to Grade 6. The Literacy and Numeracy Strategy has provided precise, intentional, and strategic planning to support

Our Mission

Our commitment is to every student. This means …. [ensuring] that we develop strategies to help every student learn, no matter their personal circumstances.

(Reach Every Student: Energizing Ontario Education, 2008)