Figure 3.1 Improvement Planning Cycle
3
District and School Improvement
A Blueprint for Success
Effective school districts and schools are those that focus on continuous improvement. They regularly reflect on their practice and identify what is working and what is not. They determine the greatest area of need for their students and then collaboratively develop an improvement process to meet those needs. To improve graduation rates, schools should reflect continuously on their practice and make changes where necessary to ensure that all students are making progress toward achieving their graduation requirements.
Improvement is possible in every school. With focused attention and deep implementation of effective strategies, schools can improve and reach high levels of student achievement. Planning for improvement must be a cyclical and continuous process. It involves evaluating the current status, identifying a few precise goals, implementing research-informed strategies to achieve the goals, and monitoring progress. Too often, when districts and schools engage in the development of an improvement plan, they try to do too much, and the reality is that not much actually gets done. When improvement plans try to be everything to everybody, they become unmanageable and often are too vague. Deep implementation of a small number of precise goals greatly surpasses the shallow implementation of many goals. As Levin (2008) points out, “No organization can do everything at once at a high level, and successful large-scale improvement requires identifying and focussing relentlessly on a small number of high profile priorities which are most likely to improve student achievement” (p. 201).
The key to improvement is the implementation of effective processes that involve a whole district and school effort. The purpose of any improvement plan is that it results in action in the school and classroom, resulting in improved student learning. It is not sufficient to just develop the plan; even more important is to have an effective implementation process and a vehicle for monitoring progress. All too often, improvement efforts are too vague and do not involve those responsible for implementation. This chapter provides guidance for district and school leaders on how to develop a collaborative improvement process to ensure student achievement gains.
Consistency and Focus
The study of Mourshed, Chijioke, and Barber, titled How the World’s Most Improved School Systems Keep Getting Better (2010), suggests that by prescribing adequacy, an educational system can unleash greatness. By this statement, the authors are suggesting that a consistent minimum expectation, clearly articulated and supported, can provide the foundation for collaborative work that fosters the individual and collective creativity on which meaningful change so often depends. One such example of such prescribed adequacy has been the focus on and support of improvement planning processes in Ontario. As Ontario launched its reform initiative, all district school boards and schools were expected to conduct a self-assessment and to develop and implement improvement plans. The Ontario Ministry of Education provided districts and schools with a range of supports to assist with the improvement process. As a result, Ontario has managed to achieve significant gains in student achievement and has become one of five international systems identified as being on the journey from “great to excellent” (p. 19).
To effectively support the improvement of Ontario’s education system, it was important to provide some common frameworks within which school districts could work to become more informed, precise, and strategic in targeting areas for sustained improvement in student achievement. Once such frameworks were in place, a system to support the implementation of the improvement plans and the effective monitoring of that improvement was necessary. A fine balance for improvement was necessary, wherein the research-informed framework could be used, but in which the individual needs and strengths of the districts could be reflected in a differentiated model that engaged each district in the self-improvement process.
Achieving Continuous Improvement
Plan
• Establish an improvement team that is representative of the entire organization and will lead the improvement process.
• Conduct a needs assessment by gathering and analyzing current data.
• Engage all staff in a collaborative process to review findings and establish priorities or goals.
• Focus on outcomes for students.
• Develop SMART goals that include ambitious targets.
• Identify research-informed strategies that everyone will implement to achieve goals.
• Determine resources and professional development that will be needed.
• Develop monitoring strategies.
Act/Implement
• Implement strategies to achieve goals.
• Purchase or acquire necessary resources.
• Communicate goals and timelines to all stakeholders.
• Provide ongoing professional learning to support implementation.
Observe/Monitor
• Gather data at the onset of the cycle.
• Monitor progress regularly.
• Bring evidence of progress regularly to staff meetings.
• Share samples of student work to demonstrate progress toward goals.
• Ask staff to share successful practice.
• Encourage staff to share challenges and solve issues collaboratively.
Reflect and Assess
• Evaluate the effectiveness of the plan.
• Identify lessons learned and next steps.
The three main keys to system improvement are planning, implementation, and monitoring. The Ontario journey has been one characterized by action research and collaborative inquiry wherein districts and the Ministry staff learned together how current research should best be applied and which strategies were most effective within the context of a given educational unit (school, classroom, division, department, or district). An emphasis on improvement planning and effective processes was foundational to Ontario’s success. The strategies that resulted in steady progress in student achievement are grounded in international research and have application in jurisdictions beyond Ontario.
Figure 3.1 provides an overview of the improvement planning cycle.
Figure 3.1 Improvement Planning Cycle
Developing the Plan for Continuous Improvement
In developing the improvement strategy for Ontario, the province learned from the successes and failures in other jurisdictions around the globe, from current research, and from the extensive efforts of the province’s school districts over the preceding 8 years as they had addressed the issue of improvement in their districts. School districts and schools in Ontario were invited to submit their district and school improvement plans to the Ministry for analysis. It was through this analysis, which involved 72 district improvement plans and over 200 school plans, that the Ministry was able to determine strengths and challenges in the improvement process. What was discovered through this process was that there was great variability in how boards and schools viewed the improvement planning process. Not surprisingly, the boards and schools that were achieving continuous improvement shared some common characteristics in their planning process. These included
• an improvement team to guide the process,
• a collaborative and inclusive improvement process,
• an ongoing district/school assessment tool to determine the greatest area of need for students,
• the identification of a small number of precise (SMART) goals,
• the establishment of ambitious targets based on both external standards and internal measures,
• the identification of research-informed strategies,
• a focus on equity of outcomes,
• identification of required resources,
• a commitment to meeting professional learning needs,
• a system for monitoring progress with specific timelines,
• a willingness to revise the plan as needed
• a formal evaluation of the effectiveness of the plan, and
• identification of lessons learned.
In all of these schools and districts, the improvement process was collaborative, involving all stakeholders. It was clear that educators in these districts did not settle for the status quo; they were focused on continuous improvement. They used their data to narrow their improvement focus and set priorities. To determine a small number of SMART goals, staff conducted a needs assessment to determine the area of greatest need for students.
Developing precise SMART (specific, measurable, attainable, results-based, and time-bound) goals is critical to moving a school or system forward. The goals should have a focus on outcomes—that is, what students will do differently once the goal has been attained—and are measured using the same data and evidence that were used to identify the learning need initially. Appendix 1 provides a template for reflective questions that can be used with staff when developing SMART goals.
Ontario, like many jurisdictions, has a process to assess student performance. These tests in reading, writing, and mathematics are administered in Grades 3 and 6, and in Grade 9 for mathematics. Finally, a test of literacy (Ontario sets the standard at a Grade 9 level of reading and writing as a graduation requirement) is administered in Grade 10. These achievement data, in addition to diagnostic and classroom assessments, are used as the basis for setting precise goals. It is very important that the goals and the strategies intended to bring them about be focused on actions that may be measured in the school year and not based solely on year-end and standardized testing results. This matters because if the key measurement of student progress is not made until after the school year has finished, there can be no in-cycle adaptation. As well, there will be no real sense of whether the strategies are working or not within a time frame that allows for improvements and modifications to be made in time to benefit the students.
As goals were identified, district and school teams focused on the critical few areas rather than the superficial many. An effective plan usually contains no more than two or three SMART goals. Ambitious targets were set within the SMART goals, and baseline data were identified.
Target Setting
A powerful strategy that was used in Ontario when working toward improvement goals was the establishment of ambitious but attainable achievement targets. Every district and school in the province was required to establish targets for improving student achievement. The targets were specified within the districts’ SMART goals. Staff from the Ministry of Education reviewed the targets with all districts and assisted them in revising targets that were not overly ambitious. Districts and schools were explicit about their achievement targets and the timeline for meeting their goals. Progress in meeting targets was monitored regularly. If progress was not being made, then Ministry staff worked with districts and schools to revise current improvement strategies. The province not only expected districts and schools to establish targets but also lead the way by establishing provincial targets for Grade 6 reading, writing, and mathematics and for graduation rates.
It is important to view target setting not as a prediction based on past performance but rather as a commitment to reach a stated goal that will lead to improvement. When setting targets, improvement teams should review achievement data and other relevant information to determine gaps between the current state and the desired goals of student achievement. Targets are like road signs that help us measure our progress along our improvement journey. Ensuring that all districts and boards establish achievement targets provided a clear focus for improvement in Ontario. The key aspect of the target-setting process was that specific targets were not imposed on districts or schools by the province. Districts and schools set their own targets based on their current attainment levels in consultation with Ministry staff.
Through careful analysis of trends in achievement data, targets can be set to provide a focus for improvement efforts. By establishing clear targets, it is evident that the organization is committed to improvement. Targets should clearly articulate the number or percentage of students who will meet specific achievement goals by a given point in time. It is important that targets are developed collaboratively with staff, discussed openly, and monitored regularly.
Collaboration Is Essential
In districts and schools that were improving student achievement, staff worked collaboratively to identify a small number of research-informed strategies that they felt would have the greatest impact in achieving their SMART goals and achievement targets. By working together, they were able to use the collective expertise and knowledge of the staff to identify strategies that research supported and that their experience showed would work. In these schools and districts, equity of outcomes was a central part of the discussion; the goal was not just to raise the bar in student achievement but also to close gaps between students.
Timelines for the implementation of improvement strategies and monitoring strategies were clearly identified. Establishing frequent checkpoints to determine progress in achieving goals enabled staff to make mid-course corrections in the plan as needed. The responsibility for monitoring progress was shared among all staff. They identified specific points in time when they would evaluate the plan to determine lessons learned—what worked well, what didn’t, and why.
To achieve continuous improvement, educators must commit to meeting regularly to reflect on their practice, examine achievement data, raise questions, and collaboratively problem solve collaboratively. There is a great deal of collective wisdom, knowledge, and experience within districts and schools. The secret to continuous improvement is to tap that collective talent. District and school administrators should work with their staff to build professional learning communities that take collective responsibility for continuous improvement. As Schmoker (2005) points out,
If there is anything that the research community agrees on, it is this: The right kind of continuous, structured teacher collaboration improves the quality of teaching and pays big, often immediate dividends in student learning and professional morale in virtually any setting. (p. xii)
Finding ways to engage staff in the improvement process is essential if districts and schools are to meet with success. Throughout this chapter, a number of strategies are shared that will promote a collaborative approach to district and school improvement.
Effective improvement processes facilitate the involvement of parents and the school community. Parents and community members can provide valuable insights into their perception of strengths and areas in need of improvement. Through town hall meetings, surveys, and information evenings, districts and schools can gather valuable data. Communicating the improvement plan and providing regular updates in progress can be a powerful tool to gain support and strengthen the credibility of the district or school.
Effective Improvement Plans
From our analysis of Ontario district and school improvement plans, it was clear that there was some confusion about what constituted a good improvement planning process. In many cases, boards and schools simply listed all of the things they were currently doing, rather than just focusing on the greatest area in need of improvement. Frequently, we saw goals that were not specific, plans with too many initiatives, a lack of evidence that a comprehensive analysis of available data was occurring, or little or no attention to monitoring processes.
It is a fallacy to think that if something is not in the school improvement plan, then it is not important. Having a specific focus for improvement does not mean that this is all we care about. It means that this is what we are focusing our improvement efforts on at this particular point in time. Improvement plans should focus on the most urgent learning needs of our students as priorities. Finding the focus for improvement plans means identifying the critical few things we need to pay attention to at this particular time. The focus is not forever; it lasts only until we achieve our goal, and then we move on to another area of need. It is important for schools and districts not to lose sight of the successful practices that have brought them to their current level while maintaining their focus on continuous improvement.
What an Improvement Plan Is Not . . .
• Not an annual report
• Not a narrative of everything currently being done
• Not a list of events
• Not a static document
• Not a document that the principal develops in isolation
An improvement plan should focus only on those things that we intend to improve or refine, not on everything that we are already doing.
Components of Effective Plans
Effective improvement plans share some common components:
A district or school self-assessment, which includes an analysis of school data (e.g., student assignments, school grading reports, diagnostic assessments, external state/provincial assessments, disciplinary records, attendance records, graduation rates, etc.)
A small number of SMART goals
A manageable number of research-informed strategies that will be implemented to achieve the goals
Targeted resources
Professional learning requirements
Strategies to engage parents/community
Monitoring strategies and timelines
Measures of progress in achieving goals
Overall evaluation of the plan
Lessons learned and next steps
Appendix 2 provides a sample template for developing improvement plans.
It is critical to the success of the improvement plan that key stakeholders have a role in its development. Districts and schools should develop an improvement team to guide the improvement process. The team should have representation from a wide range of stakeholders. Everyone involved in the implementation of the plan should have an opportunity for input. By involving staff in the examination of school data through a school self-assessment, questions begin to arise:
• In what areas are our students most successful? How do we know?
• In what areas of the curriculum do our students have difficulties?
• Who are the students who are struggling?
• What are some possible causes for their difficulties?
• What are the greatest areas of need for our students?
By engaging staff in such discussions, the focus for improvement can be narrowed and improvement goals be established. Appendix 3 provides some key questions to support improvement planning at the district level, while Appendix 4 and 5 provide sample improvement plan checklists.
There are four key processes in the improvement cycle: observe, reflect, plan, and act. In the observation stage, the process calls for the analysis of evidence in a self-assessment process. The reflection on those observations is manifested by the development of SMART goals that are student focused and intended to address the greatest area of need as identified through a self-assessment of the district or school. The planning phase considers the explicit and research/evidence-informed strategies that will be implemented to attain the goals developed. Also in the planning phase is the consideration of what resources will be developed and allocated to support the strategies created. Determining who will be responsible for various aspects of implementation of the plan is vital. Finally, a professional learning strategy, aimed at building the capacity of educators to deliver the strategies and achieve the goals, should be developed. Ongoing reflection is essential so that staff can review the progress being made, evaluate the effectiveness of the plan, and make revisions where needed if progress is not being made.
Self-Assessment
Any improvement endeavor must be grounded in the common understanding that there are issues that require improvement. In education, these issues are most commonly some measure of student achievement, leading us to conclude that some students are not achieving at appropriate levels. Therefore, it is necessary that educational systems—be they classrooms, divisions or departments, schools, regions, districts, or an entire province, state, or nation—engage in open, honest, and evidence-informed self-assessment of the metrics by which they measure success and of the processes, practices, and strategies by which they currently seek to leverage changes in learning.
To improve student achievement, schools can engage in a collaborative self-assessment process to determine what is working well, and areas in need of attention and further development. Self-assessment enables an organization to get to know itself better, identify priorities for improvement, and leverage change. Research has shown that there are a number of factors that correlate school effectiveness to improved student achievement (Lezotte, 2005; Marzano, 2003). The question we should ask ourselves is whether those factors are in place in our districts and schools.
Ontario developed a number of tools to assist school districts in conducting an assessment and structure a plan for improvement. This allowed for each district’s individual needs, strengths, and characteristics to be reflected, while also establishing a common framework to measure effectiveness. The K–12 Improvement Planning Assessment Tool (for more information about this tool, see http://www.edu.gov.on.ca/eng/policyfunding/memos/september2012/ImprovePlanAssessTool.pdf) first directs districts to consider a broad scope of evidence as an indication of where issues of student learning need to be addressed. The tool outlines potential sources of data and questions that districts can consider with respect to student achievement data, demographic data, program data, and perceptual data. Guiding questions for data analysis provide prompts that assist teams in making sense of the ample data sources that are available to them. This common framework, the “prescribed adequacy” of Mourshed et al. (2010) report, allows the creativity and differentiated strategies of each district to “unleash greatness” and contribute to the overall improvement of student outcomes as they move through the remaining stages of the improvement cycle.
Ontario realized that continuous improvement could not be attained through top-down measures and edicts for change. For true reform to take hold, educators needed to be given the opportunity to take responsibility for professional accountability. To that end, the Ministry of Education constructed a tool for boards and schools to use to measure their own effectiveness. This tool is known in Ontario as the School Effectiveness Framework (SEF). Additional information about SEF can be found on the Ontario Ministry of Education website: www.edu.gov.on.ca; see also Ontario Ministry of Education, 2010. When creating this framework, the Ministry looked for successful practices within the province and internationally, as well as examining current research by leaders in the field.
Ontario is not alone in its commitment to self-assessment. In the United Kingdom, Ofsted (2006) has stated that self-evaluation is becoming more important in the work of schools, colleges, and local authorities. In 2009, the Australia Capital Territory Department of Education and Training published The School Improvement Framework, which outlines processes for self-assessment, planning, external validation, and reporting that enable all schools to account for their performance and achievement in a transparent manner. The expectation is that between 2009 and 2013, all school communities will use the framework to “reflect on the quality of their practices, identify strategic priorities, and implement effective, engaging, and challenging programs for all students” (p. iii). Educators in many jurisdictions are finding self-assessment to be foundational to school improvement.
The Ontario Ministry of Education’s Literacy and Numeracy Secretariat (2008) saw school self-assessment as
a process undertaken collaboratively by the school, in which all staff members systematically gather and analyse evidence about how well their students are doing and then use this evidence to assess aspects of the school’s performance. School self-assessment is forward thinking about change and improvement. It involves groups of teachers with their leadership team reflecting on their work together. (p. 11)
The SEF was designed to help schools and boards conduct a self-assessment based on the key components that make schools effective. The tool was not used to evaluate schools, but rather to stimulate discussion and enable staff to focus on the areas in need of improvement. Too often, accountability measures are imposed from outside of an organization. The SEF recognized the professionalism of district and school educators to assess their effectiveness and determine the steps needed to improve. The focused discussions that that took place because of school self-assessments resulted in more precise improvement planning and a shared understanding of what makes schools effective. The Ontario philosophy respected the professionalism of educators and believed in their desire to bring about improvement from within the profession.
The key purposes of the framework were to
• build board and school capacity in identifying strengths, areas that require attention, and next steps;
• foster introspection, reflection, and analysis;
• lead to better improvement planning with precision and intentionality;
• act as a catalyst for collaborative and collegial conversations about improvement from within;
• implement high-impact, research-informed strategies;
• determine the monitoring and feedback strategies necessary for improvement and accountability;
• provide a forum for consensus building around school improvement;
• develop a deeper understanding of the unique improvement needs of the school; and
• communicate, celebrate, and continue to build public confidence around school effectiveness.
The SEF, which was first developed as an elementary school tool and later expanded to serve secondary schools, focuses on six key areas for effective practice:
• School and classroom leadership
• Assessment for, as, and of learning
• Curriculum, teaching, and learning
• Programs and pathways
• Home, school, and community partnerships
• Student voice
The SEF provides evidenced-based indicators of successful practice in each of the above areas with potential examples of evidence that the indicator has been implemented. School leaders use the framework to conduct a self-assessment. Working as a team, they look for evidence within their school that the indicators are present. It assists schools in becoming more precise and intentional in their improvement efforts. By engaging in deep conversations, school staff are able to take collaborative action to improve identified areas.
Ministry of Education staff worked with educators across Ontario as they conducted, in many cases, what was their first school self-assessment using the SEF. The response was overwhelmingly positive. Teachers told us that when the whole staff engaged in the self-assessment, they felt empowered. They felt that their professional opinions mattered and that they were helping to shape the future direction of their school. The school staff felt that they were being more proactive in monitoring their own effectiveness. Decisions regarding school improvement were made in a more democratic fashion. There was greater sharing of information and a raised awareness of areas of concern. The teachers told us that through the process, they learned from their colleagues and improved their own practice. It was felt that the level of professionalism in the school was enhanced. Educators reported that participating in a school self-assessment was a powerful means of professional development. They said that the experience
• enhanced their self-knowledge,
• facilitated self-reflection,
• helped them to understand the school better,
• highlighted the good things they were doing,
• celebrated achievements to date,
• emphasized the impact of good teaching,
• built a sense of collective accountability,
• facilitated authentic collaboration in the development of the school improvement plan, and
• provided valuable data to inform improvement efforts.
To achieve continuous improvement, it is beneficial for schools to conduct a self-assessment to determine what is working well and the areas in need of improvement. It is just as important to acknowledge and celebrate strategies that are working as it is to identify areas of challenge. After all, if you can’t articulate it, you can’t sustain it. Effective schools are reflective schools.
Implementation
It is not sufficient to just develop the improvement plan; effective plans require a strong implementation process and a vehicle for monitoring progress. In the process thus far described, the key to implementation is the set of strategies and resources developed under each SMART goal. The engagement of staff in the planning process, so that they fully comprehend the nature of the needs assessment findings and why the strategies selected have been chosen, is essential to success. The vision for the plan must be clearly articulated. The more deeply it is understood, the greater the chance that it will be implemented successfully.
In organizations where change initiatives fail, it is usually because of inconsistent or superficial implementation. In districts and schools, we have often seen what appeared to be great ideas flounder because people did not pay enough attention to the hard work of implementing them. District and school leaders must make sure that the strategies in the improvement plan are implemented consistently and effectively by everyone involved. Benjamin (2011) points out, “The two most important reasons why employees fail to implement a strategy are unclear expectations and failure of the leaders to check for satisfactory implementation” (p. 27). It is important for those responsible for the improvement process to provide ongoing support to staff and to give them the opportunity to discuss implementation successes and challenges.
Key to the success of implementation is that educators are provided with opportunities to improve the knowledge and skills they will need for deep implementation. Offering ongoing professional learning provides the support needed for staff to implement improvement strategies. Current literature has shown that a collaborative professional learning community is necessary for improvement.
An effective implementation strategy identifies a lead person who, together with the team, articulates a clear plan, builds a collaborative culture, provides ongoing professional learning, identifies indicators of progress, monitors progress closely, and communicates regularly with all those involved. It is not uncommon for school improvement efforts to fail when there is a lack of communication. Those who are intimately involved and leading the process sometimes forget to keep others abreast of progress. A fear of the unknown can cause people to quietly sabotage change efforts.
When improvement efforts flounder, it is often because those responsible for the implementation do not see the need for change or have not had any input into the process. Building a school or district improvement plan is a collective activity that should involve many people from across the organization. People need to feel that they have a stake in the initiative and in its outcome. A keystone of effective implementation is to build a team of people who work together to make the change happen. Capitalizing on the collective knowledge and expertise of staff will strengthen the improvement process and facilitate deep implementation of improvement strategies.
Monitoring Progress
By establishing measurable progress indicators, systems and schools will be able to monitor progress in achieving goals in the improvement plan more easily. It is also essential to collect data regularly to assess improvement in student achievement. The results of the analysis of the data should be communicated widely so that stakeholders are aware of progress in achieving goals. If progress is evident, then the school should stay the course on the strategies it is using. If, however, the data reveal little or no progress, then the school team needs to discuss further steps that can be taken. Regular monitoring makes mid-course corrections possible.
Effective monitoring strategies identify the individuals who will take the lead in the monitoring process and clearly specify the role of everyone in the organization. Checkpoints and timelines are clearly articulated. It is critical that schools and districts establish a baseline of data, so that progress can be measured against the starting point. Everyone in the organization should be aware of the school’s or district’s goals, measurable targets, and ongoing progress.
It is important to keep the school or district improvement plan front and center at all times. Regular updates on progress made and discussions of challenges faced should be provided at regular staff meetings. Staff can bring samples of student work and assessments to meetings where they can collaboratively discuss whether student work is demonstrating progress in achieving achievement goals. Staff bulletins and newsletters can also provide regular updates. Providing staff with opportunities to share promising strategies that have helped move the improvement agenda forward will provide valuable professional learning opportunities. Some key questions can be asked during staff meetings to facilitate discussions about progress:
• Where were we when we started?
• Where are we now?
• Who are the students who are still struggling?
• What interventions can we provide?
• What evidence do we have that current strategies are working?
• Are there additional strategies we need to employ? If so, what are they?
• Do we have the necessary resources to facilitate continuous improvement?
• What additional professional learning do we need?
• How will we know when we have achieved our goal?
School and district self-assessments can be used not only when determining priorities for improvement initially, but also when monitoring progress in achieving improvement goals.
Engaging a critical friend can also be an effective way to monitor progress. Sometimes, it is helpful to have someone from outside the organization review progress on agreed upon indicators. A critical friend is someone you trust and who will provide open, honest, and direct feedback on predetermined criteria. A critical friend can look at a situation through fresh eyes and help school members gain insights that they might not see on their own.
Earlier in this chapter, we discussed the SEF as a tool used in Ontario for schools to conduct self-assessments. The SEF is used not only for school self-assessments but also for district reviews. The district reviews are conducted by system teams that consist of central office staff and school administrators. The intent of the district review is to provide schools with an impartial assessment of their school’s effectiveness. The district review team acts as a critical friend. It conducts a school visit, examining predetermined indicators and providing feedback in a nonevaluative way. The process is about professional learning and continuous improvement; it is not an evaluation of the school principal or teachers. The intent is to inform the school improvement process. The information gathered in district reviews is helpful in two ways. First, it provides valuable observations to the school improvement team for their future planning. Second, by conducting reviews in many schools across the district, system leaders can determine trends and gather data that will help inform the district improvement process.
It is critical to the improvement process both at the district and school levels to develop a comprehensive monitoring system so that progress can be tracked and adjustments made to the plan to ensure continuous improvement. Improvement processes can only be deemed successful if they result in improved student learning.
Lessons Learned
As work within Ontario continues, it has become evident that the complex and varied strategies that have been implemented need to be explicitly interconnected and aligned. If key stakeholders do not see these strategies as integral components of a coherent improvement system, they may become overwhelmed and overlook their relevance, misconstruing them as disparate elements of a disintegrated whole. Alignment is critical to success.
Developing and implementing an improvement planning process can be a challenging task, and one that often requires several iterations and developmental changes as it becomes a part of the fabric of any system. Ontario’s experience was no different, and there were several key lessons learned:
• Monitoring matters.
• Differentiation is a key.
• Plans must be focused on a few key, overarching areas with an alignment of strategies.
• Full system improvement requires focus on processes and people above content.
Monitoring Matters
As an educational system observes evidence that compels them to effect a change in practice after careful reflection and planning, the successful implementation of change strategies will hinge heavily on monitoring of practice and outcome. Monitoring involves not only determining whether improvement strategies are being implemented consistently, but also measuring progress in improved student achievement. In Ontario, we found that improvement was only possible when everyone charged with the implementation of improvement strategies was also intimately involved in monitoring progress. Building capacity with educators so that they were confident in assessing their own effectiveness was a key factor in Ontario’s success in improving student achievement.
Differentiation Is Key
It is important to recognize that all districts and schools have unique characteristics. Improvement efforts will only succeed if we recognize those differences and allow a degree of flexibility in establishing improvement efforts. That being said, there are some recognized factors that, if in place, will assist in continuous improvement. To assist districts and schools, it is helpful to develop some common frameworks that will support improvement efforts while still allowing for local autonomy. In other words, we recognized that a one-size-fits-all approach would not work, but that there were some common actions that everyone needed to put into place. Dufour (2007) talks about the importance of “loose-tight” leadership. He states that such leadership fosters autonomy and creativity within a systematic framework that stipulates clear, nondiscretionary priorities and parameters.
In Ontario, we developed common frameworks for system improvement to provide a foundation for consistent action—the “prescribed adequacy” that Mourshed et al. (2010) described as a precursor to “unleashing greatness” through the work of educators within such a framework. Once these frameworks were established, a critical element of implementation surfaced: the need to allow for the molding of the frameworks to fit the individual circumstances and contexts of the districts or schools involved. This differentiation of application was necessary for several reasons. Different districts and schools within those districts had unique needs. Within the schools, different classrooms, departments, or divisions may have had varying strengths and needs on which an improvement focus was needed. A second reason was to allow for a molding of the process by the staff charged with carrying out the improvement strategies. The engagement of staff in the process of conducting the needs assessment and deriving the key goals and strategies is essential to their understanding and subsequent engagement in the task of effecting changes in practice. Although a system-wide goal is required, it needs to allow for some flexibility for individual schools, so that while a goal may be the improvement in a particular element of literacy as reflected in the system’s provincial test results, each school needs to reflect on what its contribution will be and whether it will be able to focus on that element in addition to others, especially if it is already doing well in addressing that learning need. Again, the system would need to develop assessments of the learning needs that would allow that school to monitor its progress in changing student learning results without having to wait for provincial testing scores after the year has ended.
Focus and Alignment
With improvement cycles, research (e.g., Reeves, 2009; Schmoker, 2011) indicates that only a small number of priorities should be addressed in an improvement plan. Attempting to address a large number results in an ineffective disbursement of resources and attention, resulting in educators feeling frustrated and overwhelmed. Keeping improvement focused to a few critical goals and allowing for individual flexibility within smaller elements of the system are two keys to success. Related to this is the capacity at all levels of the education system to understand how various supports for education are related and aligned. Where connections can be observed and made explicit, resources can be pooled, and initiatives and strategies can be presented clearly to staff as an array of tools with which to address learning needs.
Pay Attention to Processes and People
As systems work to address learning needs and teaching practice in a broad fashion for all students in the system, the focus needs to move from the what of education (the curriculum standards and content) to the how of education (the processes of implementing curriculum, good pedagogy, assessment and evaluation practice, how we listen to students etc.). In Ontario, this meant engaging district leaders, school administrators, teachers, school support staff, teachers unions, politicians, community members, and parents in the discussion of processes being used to achieve improvement goals. Gathering feedback along the way was critical to the Ontario strategy. Processes were modified as data were gathered to further refine the strategy. Current research played a pivotal role in determining the processes that would be used. These processes were then tailored to meet local needs. One of the most powerful messages that was reinforced throughout our improvement process is that people matter most in any reform effort. The perspective of those who do the work must be incorporated throughout the process. This contributes to energy, motivation, and the desire and will to stay the course.
Summary
To improve graduation rates, districts and schools must see a need for improve. They need to examine the current state and envision their preferred future. Improvement will only happen if everyone who has responsibility for our students is engaged in the process and has ownership of the outcomes. Only then will we begin to see results. We cannot be satisfied with the status quo; too many of our students are not reaching the goal of graduation. By working together, districts and schools can develop an effective blueprint for improvement. Improvement planning is a cyclical and continuous process. Our efforts must be never ending. The process is one of analysis of data, determining the greatest area of need, building capacity, implementing required strategies, monitoring progress, and revising our efforts as needs evolve. The evidence is clear: When we get it right, the result is greater success for our students.
How to Re-Create These Strategies
Fundamental Beliefs: Effective district and school improvement processes can lead to success.
Key Strategies:
• Establish a district or school improvement team that is representative of the organization.
• Collaboratively develop a self-assessment based on research-informed indicators related to improved student learning.
• Determine the current status and the preferred future for students.
• Determine the greatest area of need for students and establish a small number of SMART goals.
• Establish ambitious yet attainable achievement targets.
• Ensure that the improvement plan is developed collaboratively.
• Establish a few research-informed strategies to achieve goals and implement those strategies deeply.
• Provide necessary resources and professional learning to support those responsible for implementation of the plan.
• Monitor progress regularly and communicate with all stakeholders.
• Engage critical friends to assist in monitoring progress and facilitate discussions about next steps.
• Revise the plan as needed.
• Celebrate successes.
• Evaluate the effectiveness of the plan and lessons learned to inform next steps.
Engaging All Staff: Teachers and school administrator engagement is critical in the implementation of any successful improvement initiative. Working together to examine student data can be eye-opening. When staff work together to analyze the current reality and discuss their hopes, dreams, and expectations for their students, they recognize the moral purpose of their work. Providing staff with an active role in the improvement process will build ownership. Inviting input regarding professional learning that will support improvement efforts will show staff that they will be supported. Sharing progress regularly is important; teacher efficacy improves when they see that their efforts make a difference.
Resources and Supports: The reality today is that many schools and districts have limited resources. That is why it is so important to determine priorities and align resources accordingly. Too often, we see funds spent simply because they were spent in that manner the previous year. The old saying “If you keep doing what you are doing, you will keep getting the same results” applies in this situation. To support new priorities, you will undoubtedly have to stop doing some things. When we are faced with “no new dollars,” we have to be creative and focused in aligning our budget to the strategies that matter most at this particular point in time. Work with staff to collaboratively determine priorities for precious budget dollars.
Key Point: Effective improvement processes do not take more money; they take a willingness to look inward and make changes where needed.
Australia Capital Territory Department of Education and Training. (2009). The school improvement framework. Canberra, ACT: Author. Retrieved from http://www.det.act.gov.au/_data/assets/pdf_file/011/64298/School_Improvement_Framework.pdf
Benjamin, S. (2011, May). Simple leadership techniques: Rubrics, checklists, and structured collaboration. Phi Delta Kappan, 92(8), 25–31.
Dufour, R. (2007, November). In praise of top-down leadership: What drives your school improvement efforts—evidence of best practice or the pursuit of universal buy-in? The School Administrator, 10(64), 38–42.
Levin, B. (2008). How to change 5000 schools: A practical and positive approach for leading change at every level. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Education Press.
Lezotte, L. (2005). More effective schools: Professional learning communities in action. In R. Dufour, R. Eaker, & R. Dufour (Eds.), On common ground: the power of professional learning communities (pp. 177–191). Bloomington, IN: National Education Service.
Marzano, R. (2003). What works in schools: Translating research into action. Alexandria, VA: ASCD.
Mourshed, Mona, Chijioke, Chenezi, & Barber, Michael. (2010). How the world’s most improved school systems keep getting better. New York: McKinsey & Company.
Ofsted. (2006, July 4). Best practice in self-evaluation: A survey of schools, colleges and local authorities. Manchester, UK: Author. Retrieved from http://www.ofsted.gov.uk/resources/best-practice-self-evaluation-survey-of-schools-colleges-and-local-authorities
Ontario Ministry of Education. (2010). School effectiveness framework: A support for school improvement and student success. Toronto: Queen’s Printer for Ontario.
Ontario Ministry of Education, Literacy and Numeracy Secretariat. (2008). The school effectiveness framework: A collegial process for continued growth in the effectiveness of Ontario elementary schools. Toronto: Queen’s Printer for Ontario.
Reeves, D. (2009). Leading change in your school. Alexandria, VA. ASCD.
Schmoker, M. J. (2005). Here and now: Improving teaching and learning. In R. Dufour, R. E. Eaker, & R. B. Dufour (Eds.), On common ground: The power of professional learning communities (pp. xi–xvi). Bloomington, IN: National Education Service.
Schmoker, M. J. (2011). Focus: Elevating the essentials to radically improve student learning. Alexandria, VA: ASCD.