Central Office Inquiry: Assessing Organization, Roles, and Functions to Support School Improvement (Student Achievement)

!AJPN=H-B?A'JMQENU Assessing Organization, Roles, and Actions to Support School Improvement Kim Agullard Dolores S...

Author: Kim Agullard and Dolores Goughnour

44 downloads 502 Views 813KB Size Report

This content was uploaded by our users and we assume good faith they have the permission to share this book. If you own the copyright to this book and it is wrongfully on our website, we offer a simple DMCA procedure to remove your content from our site. Start by pressing the button below!
Report copyright / DMCA form

DOWNLOAD PDF

!AJPN=H-B?A'JMQENU Assessing Organization, Roles, and Actions to Support School Improvement

Kim Agullard Dolores S. Goughnour

®

excellence in research, development, and service

"CPVU8FTU&E

"DLOPXMFEHNFOUT

WestEd, a nonprofit research, development, and service agency, works with education and other communities to promote excellence, achieve equity, and improve learning for children, youth, and adults. While WestEd serves the states of Arizona, California, Nevada, and Utah as one of the nation’s Regional Educational Laboratories, our agency’s work extends throughout the United States and abroad. It has 15 offices nationwide, from Washington and Boston to Arizona, Southern California, and its headquarters in San Francisco. For more information about WestEd, visit our website: WestEd.org; call 415.565.3000 or, tollfree, (877) 4-WestEd; or write: WestEd / 730 Harrison Street / San Francisco, CA 94107-1242.

This book is the result of a combined effort. First, we would like to acknowledge the additional members of our research team: Tracy A. Huebner and Grace Calisi Corbett. Our research team is grateful to our three research districts. Although the districts requested anonymity, their central office administrators, principals, and teachers graciously contributed time and insights so other educators could learn from their experience.

This book was produced in whole or in part with funds from the Institute of Education Sciences, U.S. Department of Education, under contract #ED01-C0-0012. Its contents do not necessarily reflect the views or policies of

We also acknowledge the many educators who reviewed our work along the way and participated in field testing the activities, in particular: Frederick W. Skoglund, retired school and district administrator; Patricia Tate, Assistant Superintendent in Phoenix, Arizona’s Osborn School District; and Janet Chrispeels of the University of California at San Diego. We also thank our editors: Jim Johnson for his assistance in translating the research to make it more accessible to practitioners, and Joy Zimmerman for her invaluable suggestions.

the Department of Education.

© 2006 WestEd. All rights reserved. ISBN-13: 978-0-914409-33-5 ISBN-10: 0-914409-33-6 Library of Congress Control Number: 2006922968

!AJPN=H-B?A'JMQENU

!KJPAJPO

'JPNK@Q?PEKJ

!D=LPAN#T=IEJEJC1QLLKNPBKN !KJPEJQKQO"EOPNE?P'ILNKRAIAJP

!D=LPAN3J@ANOP=J@EJCPDA"EOPNE?P!KJPATP

!D=LPAN!NA=PEJC=JHECJA@2DAKNUKB?PEKJ

!KJ?HQOEKJ

,KPA>KQPPDA2NU'P-QPO

2NU'P-QP

2NU'P-QP

2NU'P-QP

2NU'P-QP

0ABANAJ?AO

OOAOOEJC-NC=JEV=PEKJ 0KHAO =J@?PEKJOPK1QLLKNP1?DKKH'ILNKRAIAJPW

W!AJPN=H-B?A'JMQENU

'JPNK@Q?PEKJ

*OUSPEVDUJPO Why and how do districts need to change in this current accountability context? Achieving success for all students requires a consistent, systemic approach across the district, with all players working in sync. Such consistency begins with the superintendent and other key central office staff1 embracing and acting on a coherent theory of action about how schools improve. This theory of action (i.e., a system of beliefs that guides behaviors) must address both the process of school change and, equally important, the role of the central office in that process. In doing so, this shared theory sets the course not just for individual schools, but also for the district as a whole. Unfortunately, rather than functioning as well-organized, goal-driven systems, too many districts are characterized by a lack of unified direction, a lack of agreement about the central office role in supporting school improvement, and a lack of alignment between goals and strategies. This disjointed arrangement can lead to competing goals, programs, and initiatives; struggles over resources; and a depletion of energy. A central office lacking a systemic, coherent approach cannot give schools the help they need to improve student learning. Instead, it pulls schools in competing directions, leaving them feeling isolated and adrift. In districts taking a more cohesive approach to districtwide improvement, central office staff have a shared understanding of what it takes to bring about real school improvement, including what roles they must play individually and collectively and what structures must be in place to support that change. This shared understanding informs all decisions and drives central office staff to actively assist schools in implementing the identified structures. The purpose of this book is to help you undertake a central office inquiry, in which key staff reflect on their shared theory of action and examine their current organizational arrangement, their enacted roles, and their day-to-day activities, critically questioning whether and how their actions and structures are concretely helping the schools they serve. Our work here is based on several deeply held beliefs: We believe most central office staff are dedicated, intelligent people who took on their demanding jobs because of a deep commitment to students and education. We believe that current federal and state policies, coupled with a challenging local context, can often overwhelm the good intentions of those in leadership positions. And, finally, we believe that there are many possible routes to improvement, and the right one for any given district depends on the context — which is best understood by those within it.

1

By key central office staff we mean, minimally, decision-makers and other staff members working in areas related to school performance (e.g., curriculum and instruction, assessment, professional development, leadership development). In smaller districts, it may be appropriate and helpful to have all central office staff involved in the activities presented in this book.


Albert Einstein observed that “problems cannot be solved at the same level of awareness that created them.” Our intent here is to provide a structured reflection process that helps central office staff gain perspective on their work and how it does or does not support school improvement. The Try It Out activities found in chapters 1, 2, and 3 are designed to have participants hit the pause button, step away from their busy daily work lives, and, together, undertake a more objective examination of the system in which they work. One way that an effective external assistance provider helps a district is by providing a mirror on how the district operates, helping staff gain valuable perspective. The process we offer in this book is designed to help you gain that same internal objectivity without needing to rely on outside help. Undertaking this reflective process requires fearlessness, calm, and resolve. It also is likely to involve some pain, because critical self-examination inevitably identifies shortcomings. Because humans create their own perspectives based on past experience and their perception of the present, rarely do you find a group of people who all feel the same way about something. Thus, an additional source of discomfort may be hearing what others think and feel about your role and actions as a member of the central office staff. Remember, though, that such conversations are imperative in any effort to build an organization based on trust and open communication. The information presented in this book is based on an intensive three-year study of three school districts working to support continuous school improvement. The study sought to gain a clearer, deeper understanding of the role the central office plays in districtwide school improvement. We investigated the role of the superintendent and the improvement structures the central office employed to support school change. We then went to schools asking principals and teachers about their understanding and implementation of the improvement structures. (For examples of such structures, see p. 8.) Our research team collected both qualitative (interview and observation) and quantitative (survey and student achievement) data. All interviews and observations were transcribed and analyzed to look for patterns at the district level. Two surveys – the Principal Survey and Gibson and Dembo’s Teacher Efficacy Survey (1984) – were used to collect data from all principals in the study districts and all teachers in the study schools. A descriptive conceptual framework, built from organizational theory, evolved through our study of the central office data. The framework consists of three essential parts: s THEfilter that central office staff use to perceive events and information; s THEsense-making process within which central office staff select particular aspects of the environment on which to focus in building a shared theory of action and in joining efforts around specific goals; and s THEcontextual factors that impact how a district operates.

W!AJPN=H-B?A'JMQENU

'JPNK@Q?PEKJ

The term “filter” is used as something akin to a photographic filter for a camera lens. In this sense, the district filter serves to direct the intensity of focus, giving more light and contrast to some things and less to others. The filter also slows down or partially obstructs the flow of information and events into the realm of district action. The district filter, then, casts more light on and brings into closer view what is of importance to the district while shading out information and issues of less importance. How organizations filter information depends on their focus, current projects, interests, prior knowledge, and available time. Weick notes that it is “productive to look at the filters people invoke, why they invoke them and what those filters include and exclude” (1995, p. 57). Within our framework, the district filter consists of three interrelated parts: the superintendent’s perception of his or her role; the superintendent’s theory of action; and the central office shared theory of action. Ideally, these elements interact to generate a shared focus on continuous improvement. (See Conceptual Framework below.) Our analysis of the central office data from our study revealed how the superintendent’s perception of role, focus of attention, and theory of action are intertwined. We saw how different definitions of roles engender different beliefs about how best to improve schools and lead to different decisions about how to focus time and energy. It is important to note that we believe a superintendent’s perception of his or her role is fluid and influenced by environmental and ecological factors. For example, the looming threat of large budget cuts might cause a superintendent to deliberately alter his or her role to focus outward with the intent of influencing legislative decisions.

Conceptual Framework

District Filter Contextual factors, shifts, and shocks

Local Context

Superintendent’s Theory of Action

Superintendent’s Perception of Role

Central Office Shared Theory of Action

Focus on Continuous Improvement

Central Office Staff

Action

= sense-making


School Improvement Structures

Another finding points to the relationship between the central office’s shared theory of action and the creation and implementation of school improvement structures, such as new strategies, staff positions, or programs. We found that the theory of action and the related structures are interdependent: Structures without theory lead to fragmentation, and theory without structures remains just that – theory. More specifically, greater districtwide implementation appeared to result when the central office adhered to an explicit, shared theory of action. In all three research districts we found central office staff acting as agents of change in an effort to improve student achievement. Each central office battles the forces of inertia within its district and state by working to change policy, positions, curriculum, instruction, assessment, and norms of interaction. It was evident that these battles consumed individual attention and energy and pulled staff away from acting on their own beliefs about school improvement. Communication emerges as either the best friend or the worst enemy of efforts to develop and implement coordinated, focused structures for school improvement. Ongoing dialogue and “sense-making” creates and recreates staff focus, allowing it to be consistent yet dynamically responsive to changes in the environment. On the other hand, poor communication leads to individual sense-making that over time veers in diverse directions and begins to fray the edges of the focus, ultimately leading to its dissolution. In Chapter 1, we begin this inquiry with a Try It Out activity that helps you take stock of what your district is already doing to support continuous school improvement. Each Try It Out symbol includes the page number for a specific activity related to the concepts presented in the chapter. The activities build on one another and, at times, require information generated in a previous activity. Each activity concludes with a list of questions for reflection. (We recognize that most readers will want to peruse the book in its entirety before completing individual activities, but it is important to understand the relationship of the placement of the Try It Out symbols to the inquiry process presented in the book.) This first activity engages central office staff in examining their theory of action and the structures currently in place to help schools improve. In Chapter 2, we then examine the contextual factors affecting districts, including their impact on roles and functions of central office staff. Among these factors are the historical role of the central office and the impact of the local context, federal and state policy, the governing board, and local and national organizations. Finally, in Chapter 3, we address development of a cohesive central office theory of action with aligned roles, functions, and structures. In Chapters 1 and 3 you’ll find some key findings from our study highlighted in the margin. Because the districts in our study have asked to remain anonymous, we identify their superintendents by pseudonyms: Superintendent Harry, Superintendent Linda, and Superintendent William.

W!AJPN=H-B?A'JMQENU

!D=LPAN

#T=IEJEJC1QLLKNPBKN

U O F N F W P S Q N * U D J S U T J % T V P V O J $POU How does the central office determine what structures are needed to help schools continuously improve?

A district’s school improvement structures can be positions, strategies, programs, or approaches (e.g., adding a literacy coach position to a school, reciprocal teaching, Math Counts). There are several approaches school districts take in identifying and selecting improvement structures for their system. Some districts may choose to have schools engage in site-based planning processes that identify specific school needs and solutions. In other districts, the central office may decide to select school improvement approaches based on broad districtwide needs identified through data analysis. Some may decide to build on existing strengths, as when, for example, a district that has already invested significant resources in teacher professional development in literacy decides to implement peer coaching in this curricular area. A district may also decide to use some combination of these approaches. Whatever strategies are chosen, the process works best when schools participate in the choice. AL IG NMENT O F STRU C T U R E S

Regardless of how improvement structures are selected, they should be in harmony with the central office’s espoused theory of action (see box on page 10). For example, if the central office theory of action holds that schools improve through identifying and meeting local needs, the central office would minimize mandates that override site-based decision-making. District structures should also be aligned and support each other. In illustration: if a math focus is chosen, the district may adopt specific math strategies, provide ongoing professional development with accompanying materials, and create a site-based math coach position to support school-level implementation. To further strengthen implementation, another position might be added at the district level to provide ongoing assistance and professional development to site-based coaches. This coherent approach — a theory of TRY IT action driving aligned structures at all levels of the system — furnishes optimal support for implementation. The figG O T O PA G E 2 9 ures on the next two pages offer examples of improvement structures and help illustrate strong and weak alignment.

> >1A OUT


Example Structures From Research District 1 Looking across the intended outcomes, it is evident they all focus on strengthening the school plan and improving student achievement. Structure > >

Improvement Process

Site-Based Coach

Regional Supervisors

Description

Four steps: creating current status statements, identifying immediate needs, creating action plans, and monitoring outcomes

School-level position created to supAdministrative position that oversees port the creation and implementation the principals’ work on the school of the school plan plan

Target Audience

Principals and schools

Schools

Principals

Intended Outcome

Whole-school creation of a plan that guides continuous improvement with the outcome of improved student achievement.

School plans will be stronger and therefore improve student achievement..

The school plans will be stronger and therefore improve student achievement.

Example Structures From Research District 2 Looking across the intended outcomes, it is evident the walkabout and leadership institute are aimed at the principal. The literacy initiative is focused on K-3 teachers, while the walkabout is to benefit all classroom teachers. The literacy initiative is not connected to any other structure. Structure > >

The Walkabout Process

Literacy Initiative

Leadership Institute

Description

Observing school and classroom practices and discussing implications

Program to support literacy instruction and build teachers’ skills in teaching literacy

Programs to support and build administrators’ capacity as instructional leaders

Target Audience

School administrators, Classroom teachers

Elementary schools (primarily K-3 teachers)

Administrators at various levels (prospective, new, and veteran)

Intended Outcome

s !WARENESSOFEXISTINGINSTRUCTIONAL practices

s #ONSISTENTANDSTRONGLITERACYINstruction in grades K-3 districtwide

s $EVELOPMENTOFKEYATTRIBUTESOF strong instruction

s #OMMONUNDERSTANDINGOF district’s literacy goals

Develop and support cadres of school site administrators focused on instructional leadership

s )DENTIFYINGSTAFFSINSTRUCTIONALSKILLS s #OMMONLITERACYTRAININGFORALL elementary teachers and weaknesses

W!AJPN=H-B?A'JMQENU

!D=LPAN

Example Structures From Research District 3 All structures focus on teachers. Aspects of the focus on professional development – reading, and school-level study groups – are related to the school-based staff developer. The connection between the content of the professional development focus and the new teacher program is unclear. It is also unclear how content areas other than reading are connected to the school-based staff developer. It does not appear that the school-based staff developer is connected to the new teacher program. Structure > >

Focus on Professional Development

School-Based Staff Developer

New Teacher Program

Description

A mixture of approaches to PD, including: endorsements in reading and ELL, school-level study groups, school-level inservice, district-level new teacher training, district math training

Full or part-time school-level professional developer position filled by a teacher leader

Mandated state teacher induction program

Target Audience

Teachers

Teachers

New teachers

Intended Outcome

Teachers will be more skilled and able to implement their skills in the classroom.

Teachers will be better literacy New Teachers will receive continuing instructors through the support of the certification and be more prepared for school-based staff developer. teaching in the district.

Criteria outlined by state program designed by district

CENTR AL OFFICE SUPPORT F O R STRUCTURE S

One way the central office supports school improvement is through assisting principals and/or school staff to understand and implement the structures. This means that central office staff themselves must understand the specific structures, their intended use and alignment with the district goal, and what effective implementation looks like. This does not mean they become experts in all the structures but that they are well-versed and able to go into the schools and communicate with principals and/or teachers about implementation issues. They also play a key role in observing, giving feedback, and assisting in problem solving. Their presence alone can serve as a reminder for schools to maintain the course. If principals and/or teachers perceive that the central office does not support their efforts, they may begin to pursue their own direction with no one to help them, thus leading to isolation. They may begin to grab at other programs because they’re not getting the immediate results from the TRY IT current direction. The school then loses momentum and focus. Staff morale may decline. Over time, this begins to G O T O PA G E 3 0 debilitate the central office shared theory of action, leading to fragmentation and retreat into individual silos.

> >1B

3FTFBSDI'JOEJOH Strong central office support of improvement structures fosters school level imple mentation. It is imperative that central office staff voice agreement with structures, expect schools to imple ment them, and know what good implementation looks like. They should strive to observe implementation in action.

OUT


5D=PEO=2DAKNUKB?PEKJ One’s theory of action is a set of assumptions that should guide decisions and actions. Argyris and Schön (1974) differentiate between theories that are merely espoused and those that are enacted (i.e., in use). An espoused theory may not be enacted and an enacted theory may never have been espoused. Espoused theories can be captured by asking someone what they would do in a particular situation. A theory in use is evidenced through actions. These theories operate in many aspects of our lives. For example, there are various espoused theories on childrearing. With newborns and toddlers, most often our stated beliefs include the importance of keeping them safe and healthy and teaching them to be nice. Actions that follow these beliefs include using car seats, closely supervising children, and guiding their interactions with other children. As children age, assumptions and beliefs about what is important to their development also change. At school age, we espouse the importance of children developing responsibility, with expectations for them such as keeping their room clean and feeding the family pet. To ascertain if these theories are in use, parenting behaviors must be observed. Applying the construct of espoused theory of action to the central office is a bit more complex, but it works similarly. For example, Superintendent Harry espoused that school improvement was about changing individual behavior and that efforts to change behavior had to be designed to match how the individual learns. Further, these individuals needed to feel ownership in the learning process for this change to occur. Superintendent Linda’s assumptions about school improvement centered on quality professional development for teachers. She defined quality professional development as ongoing and concentrated, with 50 percent of the time spent in teacher instruction and the other 50 percent in classroom implementation with feedback. In both of these sitations, the enacted theory would be found through observing the superintendent’s actions.

I M P O RTAN C E O F COM MU N I C AT I O N I N CON T I N U O US S C H O O L I M PROV E ME N T

Open communication is critical to school improvement. An important role of the central office is to establish channels of communication for dissemination and collection of information, such as weekly visits to schools, district staff attendance at school and principal meetings, and using newsletters and suggestion “boxes.” To ensure effective dissemination of information, multiple ongoing opportunities to engage in communication with schools must be consciously created and maintained. It is most effective when communication includes both verbal and written forms and formal (e.g., monthly administrator meetings, handbooks) and informal (e.g., telephone conversations) channels. Effective leaders provide information in ways that do not antagonize their constituency, and they allow differences to emerge and be discussed. Words or tones that are condescending, accusatory, and/or demeaning are monitored and removed.

W!AJPN=H-B?A'JMQENU

!D=LPAN

Providing consistent information is paramount. This means all administrators communicate the same message so schools get consistent information. For example, a superintendent might request that each assistant superintendent have their assigned schools write a report about progress toward their achievement goals. The expectations for this report, including the amount and kind of data to be included and the required format, would be clearly detailed and communicated so each principal would get the same information and therefore create the required report to specifications the first time. Furthermore, the message itself must be clear and unambiguous. Without ongoing access to consistent information, schools often waste valuable resources correcting mistakes made as a result of miscommunication. This may lead to resentment and unwillingness to complete district requests. Established and trusted channels for communication are essential at all levels and are a core feature of reforming districts (McLaughlin & Talbert, 2003). As with information dissemination, the central office must also create ongoing opportunities for principals, teachers, and staff to provide both formative and summative input related to continuous improvement efforts. These contributions can provide new ideas, approaches, and information about the impact of improvement actions. It is important to establish both formal (e.g., surveys, committees) and informal (e.g., central office staff attending school functions to engage school staff in conversation) means for collecting ongoing input. However, multiple channels of communication are only effective if the central office staff identify and diminish what Argyris and Schön (1996) refer to as defensive routines. These are actions or policies intended to protect an individual or organization by deflecting or bypassing interaction that might cause embarrassment or be a threat to the current conditions. Having such defenses only serves to “reinforce existing feelings of mistrust, cynicism, and lack of confidence in the other parties [willingness] to dialogue” (p. 100). Continuous improvement is a dynamic process requiring constant reflection and questioning. Dialogue among school staff, among central office staff, and between the two provides opportunities to reflect and examine the process and the results of actions. Creating and sustaining a trusting and open relationship between central office and school staff is crucial to establishing open dialogue. Without such a climate, individuals at all levels may be unwilling to honestly share ideas, efforts, feelings, and concerns. Central office staff must model risk-taking behavior and open communication to foster a district climate of trust. When central office staff publicly acknowledge what they plan to do differently and then give evidence of change, they demonstrate that they, too, are engaged in improvement. By asking for school staff feedback about the enactment of roles and the


> >2 TRY IT

OUT

G O T O PA G E 3 5

results of actions, central office staff model inquiry and risk-taking. Over time, this creates a safe environment for principals and teachers to communicate openly about their continuous improvement efforts. By completing Try It Outs 1 and 2, you have documented your district’s espoused theory of action, improvement structures, the curricular areas they address, the intended implementer(s), accompanying resources, and the role of the central office staff in supporting implementation. In the next chapter, we explore the context that both shapes the school improvement structures and defines central office staff roles and functions.

W!AJPN=H-B?A'JMQENU

!D=LPAN

3J@ANOP=J@EJCPDA

%JTUSJDU$POUFYU Why is purposeful, proactive change so difficult for school districts?

Contextual factors – aspects of the district environment – impact the way the central office conceptualizes its purpose and how individual staff define and enact their roles. These factors work on two levels. One concerns the broader historic and traditional roles found across districts; the other concerns local contextual aspects unique to the district —“how things get done here.” It is difficult to change practices entrenched in daily district operations, to break out of molds that have existed for so long. Many times these organizational factors are unrecognized or unconsciously accepted by people within the organization. H I S TO R I C A L RO L E O F T H E C E N T R AL O F F I C E

By the late nineteenth century, bureaucratic arrangement of school systems was common, a response to the management demands of increasingly large numbers of schools and students. Furthermore, it paralleled the industrialization of the workforce, with its emphasis on efficiency and control. Two aspects of the bureaucratic organization, as described by educational historian Joel Spring, are most evident in today’s districts: “a hierarchy with a superintendent at the top and orders flowing from the top to the bottom of the organization, and clearly defined differences in roles of superintendent, principals, assistant principals, and teachers” (1995, p. 139). Federal and state policy adds to the hierarchical nature of central office staffing. Many times districts create director positions to oversee discrete federal or state programs. Because these programs often have a separate budget, a clearly defined population or program area to serve, and detailed regulations, the directors become expert in their respective areas and may not have the opportunity to interact or overlap with other program directors or managers. These factors led to the traditional configuration of central office staff in isolated program silos. For example, when federal funding for Title I began in the mid-1960s many districts found the need to hire a Title I director to manage fund distribution and the required paperwork. The Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) provides another example of a federal program spurring the creation of a central office position. Many districts have a dedicated position to oversee special education funding and the federal requirements districts must meet to be compliant. More recently, a new position has appeared in some districts: director of school reform. This person is most OOAOOEJC-NC=JEV=PEKJ 0KHAO =J@?PEKJOPK1QLLKNP1?DKKH'ILNKRAIAJPW

often responsible for overseeing school improvement initiatives and appears to be an outgrowth of the federal and state focus on school reform. In this environment of program experts and disconnected entities, proactive and purposeful change is often difficult. There may be a lack of understanding and communication between staff in these separate programs; they may view their goals as disparate or competing. Though the federal government advocates alignment and cooperation between programs, for those entrenched in traditional thinking it can be difficult to find the common ground. THE IMPACT OF LO C AL CONTE XTUAL FACTOR S ON THE CENTR AL OFFICE

The district and community context impacts both the configuration and the role of the central office. For example, in small rural districts often the superintendent is also the school principal and possibly a teacher. Conversely, large districts find the scope of work so immense they split the central office into regions and may have regional superintendents. In these two extremes, roles and functions are defined and enacted quite differently. Purposeful, proactive change is challenging in both of these contexts, in one because of the multiple tasks undertaken by a single individual, and in the other because of the complexity of coordination across multiple regions. Local characteristics (e.g., economic conditions, linguistic diversity, community values and beliefs) also impact the district and therefore the role and function of the central office. For instance, if the district serves a suburban community where parents are absent for long hours, before- and after-school programs are paramount. Providing extended-day programs then becomes a primary duty of the district and influences scheduling and resource allocation. Possibly the most difficult thing to overcome in undertaking proactive change is conventional wisdom. Often people within the central office, or any organization, do not question the purpose of their actions. They are so caught up in the daily doing — the completion of the paperwork or the task — they don’t pause long enough to ask why they are doing this beyond the immediate short-term objective. Perhaps they rationalize they’ve done it this way for years and it seems to have always worked. Deadlines and requirements drive the day. The immediacy of program demands means there is no time for reflection and collaboration. M E D I AT I N G T H E I M PAC T O F P O L I C Y C H AN G E S

Shifts, that is, subtle changes in policy direction, require minor adjustments on the part of a district. An environmental shift occurs when a governing agency modifies an expectaW!AJPN=H-B?A'JMQENU

!D=LPAN

tion or requirement. For example, a state in which one of the research districts is located adopted a coaching model to implement the findings from the Report of the National Reading Panel: Teaching Children to Read. The state provided limited funding to train school-level literacy coaches. The district had schools select a teacher to act as coach in addition to his or her regular duties, and the district provided training and materials to the coaches along with monetary compensation. In turn, coaches offered professional development to teachers at their site after school hours. This initiative did not require major changes at the school or central office level. It caused a shift. In contrast, shocks in policy direction often cause major disruption to the organization. Shocks create either an extreme number of issues or issues extreme in nature that often consume the attention of central office staff. An example of a shock is No Child Left Behind. Many districts are hard-pressed to respond to the state Adequate Yearly Progress requirements and have been forced to narrow their focus, to the exclusion of content areas not currently tested by the state.

3FTFBSDI'JOEJOH Central office staff can medi ate the impact of shocks by establishing and enacting: s AUNIFIEDAPPROACHTOCONtinuous school improve ment, and s ASHAREDUNDERSTANDING of their role in supporting improvement.

3OEJC=3JEA@LLNK=?DPK'JPACN=PA=.KPAJPE=H1DK?G Superintendent Harry believes in being proactive. One of the main tasks of the superintendent is to monitor the internal and external environment. He has positioned the district to be able to integrate shocks and shifts with minimal disruption to the system. Their school improvement process seems to act like an organizer. Because the process is just that – a process – the superintendent is able to integrate emergent state and federal mandates into the process with ease. For example, the state passed an English Only proposition. Harry used this as an opportunity for teachers to review the district’s entire English Language Learner (ELL) program, using a variation of the school improvement process. A total redesign of the ELL program emerged. This new design then became one of the district initiatives each school must address in its improvement plan. Another example was state-level teacher incentive pay. Because the district had the improvement process in place, Harry incorporated the incentive pay into it at the school level. He felt that this would further motivate the school as a whole to seriously undertake school improvement. The school improvement process is an example of a structure that provides a unified approach to supporting all of a school’s improvement efforts. It acts as an organizer, something that builds shared understanding of school-level needs and/or provides a cohesive approach to addressing school-level needs for principals and teachers to engage in joint sense-making. By following the process, the school creates an improvement plan that guides all the school’s actions, including professional development. It was a natural place to insert a school-level ELL goal. Further, because the improvement plan was a district requirement, utilizing teacher incentive pay to support total school involvement in creation of the plan was an easy and natural move.


To create a purposeful and thoughtful approach to continuous improvement, central office staff scan the environment and engage in sense-making during ongoing communication. Through such scanning, staff pick out clues that assist them in predicting what may come next both locally (e.g., demographic shifts) and more broadly (e.g., policy shifts). This knowledge feeds into the creation of a unified plan (i.e., one with coherence between its different parts) that can integrate potential shocks, thus helping to avoid derailment of the plan and focus. T H E RO L E O F T H E G OV E R N I N G B OA R D

The local governing board can be a major support for continuous district improvement. The most important variables in this interaction are how the governing board perceives its role and whether it has a trusting relationship with the superintendent. To better understand the board’s current role, it is helpful to look at its evolution. Efforts to centralize schools in the 1890s to 1940s were spearheaded by a group of elite business and professional leaders seeking to impose the corporate model on school districts. Their overall intent was to diminish the corruption that existed in large districts. As part of this model, the superintendent was to have total administrative power joined with a “non-political” board. The non-political emphasis was to counter current practice where board members were typically intent on protecting personal interest or the particular group they represented. It is interesting to note that in 1885 the major concern about school boards is similar to today’s — the selection and retention of appropriate members (Tyack, 1974). In the early 1900s, school boards increasingly became like a board of directors, where the superintendent set the agenda and provided the initiative and the members provided support. Today, most view policymaking and the selection and supervision of the superintendent as the appropriate role of the governing board. However, the enacted role of the governing board varies from district to district. In some instances there is a climate of trust and cooperation between the superintendent and the governing board; in others this is not the case. Many times accusations of micromanaging and a focus on personal agendas are tossed about. This erodes trust and thus impedes communication and cooperation. Tyack notes that in the early 1900s these same issues were at play and impacted the degree to which board members delegated power to the superintendent. Goodman, Fulbright, and Zimmerman (1997) and the International Association of School Boards (2000) identify trust and collaboration as important characteristics that promote clarity and a shared understanding of district goals. Furthermore, they hold that the board must permit the superintendent and central office to function as the instructional leaders of the district. Without these relationships and clearly defined roles, little productive, focused work can be accomplished. W!AJPN=H-B?A'JMQENU

!D=LPAN

Along with clarity of roles, trust, and open communication, it is imperative that the board understand what goals and strategies are in place to support continuous improvement. The board cannot support district efforts without a clear understanding of its improvement goals. Two areas affected by this understanding are communication with constituents and setting policy. For example, in the research districts, when board members understood the focus on literacy and the accompanying professional development needed by teachers, they were able to explain to their constituents the need for teacher professional development days. Thus, when parents approached them angry about the early-release days policy, they were able to explain the necessity of this action in view of the overall district focus on literacy and student learning. T H E I M PAC T O F T H E L ARG E R CON T E X T

Both local and national organizations impact the district particularly through their expectations for high school graduates. These expectations can color the curriculum as well as preparation programs offered. Most common among these are local business and industry demands for graduate employment readiness. Requirements can include preparation in technology (i.e., computer skills) and writing and speaking skills. Beyond skillbuilding courses, school-to-work programs that provide job experience can also change the focus of the curriculum. National organizations such as the National Science Foundation, National Council for Teachers of Math, and National Council for Teachers of English impact district direction through the promotion of rigorous content standards. If the district chooses to incorporate these standards into its curriculum, instructional materials and curriculum guides may need revision. Professional development focused on teaching to the standards and using the aligned instructional materials must be offered. In these and other similar ways, national organizations can redirect the focus and resources of a school district. Teacher unions and organizations can also influence district direction. Demands for changed working conditions and higher teacher salaries can affect the allocation of district resources. For example, the length of the teacher workday, often a high priority for teacher organizations, may determine when the district can provide professional development. If teachers must be compensated for any required activity that goes beyond the usual workday, these additional monetary outlays may hinder district professional development goals. The most widespread parent organization active in schools and districts is the Parent Teacher Association (PTA) and, at the secondary level, the Parent Teacher and Student Association (PTSA). The PTA’s mission is threefold: to act in the best interest of children and represent that interest before decision-making organizations; to assist parents in developOOAOOEJC-NC=JEV=PEKJ 0KHAO =J@?PEKJOPK1QLLKNP1?DKKH'ILNKRAIAJPW

ing parenting skills; and to encourage involvement in public schools. Parent organizations can be the source of support for school and district improvement when members serve on school governance committees and improvement teams, communicate with other parents about the school goals, coordinate volunteers, and, most traditionally, raise funds for school needs. Parent organizations are more active in some schools than in others. Schools that serve the most needy children often have the least active parent organization and may struggle to get parents involved in the school. As part of improvement efforts, and in some cases spurred by NCLB legislation, more schools and districts are undertaking learning-related parent involvement efforts. The federally legislated School-Parent Compact requires schools to involve parents in school planning, establish TRY IT communication processes for parents and teachers, and provide ways that parents can support learning. Collaborative partnerships are increasingly being introduced to G O T O PA G E 3 9 best meet the needs of the school.

> >3 OUT

By completing Try It Out 3, you have examined the impact on your district of a number of broad historical, national, and state factors. Additionally, you have identified the local contextual factors that shape your community needs. In the next chapter, we examine whether the district’s espoused theory of action is shared among central office staff, if the school improvement structures are aligned with the theory, and how contextual factors impact both the theory and the structures.

W!AJPN=H-B?A'JMQENU

!D=LPAN

!NA=PEJC=JHECJA@

5IFPSZPG"DUJPO How do districts begin the process of change?

Districts must accept the need for change and agree to engage in the process. Many times central office staff think things are going along fine and see no need for change. Other times, the problem of school improvement is positioned in the school and not owned by district leadership. Central office staff may view their role as “fixing the schools.” This is a false perception. Central office staff must own the problem along with schools and must simultaneously engage in self-inquiry and change along with schools. Schools need a district office that provides a clear unified direction along with support and resources that assist them in achieving the shared goals. This calls for central office staff to analyze school needs and align their own roles and functions to best support those needs rather than maintaining their current organizational arrangement out of comfort or tradition.

1QLANEJPAJ@AJP5EHHE=I"AO?NE>AOPDAHECJIAJPKB0KHAOEJ 1QLLKNPKB!KJPEJQKQO'ILNKRAIAJP “I got rid of one of my assistant superintendents and had to restructure the federal projects department to free up well over $500,000. With this, we will fund the area superintendents and create a school-level position to oversee the implementation of programs at each school. We also eliminated some positions in our curriculum department. When I first came to the district, we initially had to front-load resources to create the curriculum at the district level. Now, however, we’ve got to implement it. You can’t have people at the district office when the action is in the schools. So you take what’s over here and you move it over there. And we have [district] people who are now back in the classroom. I think what happens in a lot of organizations is they create positions for where they are at a given point in time. In the evolution of their processes and programs, they’ve put the positions in place. Then the need shifts. But instead of moving positions, they add them. What happens when you do that, you don’t have enough resources. I think it’s a misuse of resources. We don’t need as many people at the central office now.”


T H E SU PE R I N T E N D E N T ’ S RO L E , T H E O RY O F AC T I O N , AN D F O C US

To understand the central office one, must understand the superintendent’s perception and enactment of his or her role. The term “role” is used to capture the way in which the superintendent characterizes his or her part in the functioning of the district (e.g., change agent). Certain roles feel more natural for a particular superintendent or seem more valuable in meeting the district’s needs. The role may change over time, depending on how the superintendent perceives these needs. For example, Superintendent William began his tenure with a focus on gaining the support of the local business community. When state budget cuts threatened the district, he shifted his attention and spent most of his time at the legislature. Understanding the superintendent’s perception of his or her role gives insight into what he or she believes to be the work of the district.

0AOA=N?D"EOPNE?P1QLANEJPAJ@AJPO0KHA"AO?NELPEKJO Superintendent Harry believed his role in the district was to bring vision and to ensure the system had direction and processes in place that enable people to focus on achieving the vision. He spent his time teaching people about the processes, including the creation and use of handbooks for specific guidance on each step. Superintendent William described himself as a CEO and instructional leader whose role was to create a positive image for the district, garner the needed resources, and establish a focus on student test scores. He used his time to establish and maintain communication with the local business community. Superintendent Linda conceptualized her role as direction-setter, which included monitoring and adjusting, facilitating and supporting, taking a balcony view, and working on relationships that maintained the direction.

3FTFBSDI'JOEJOH The superintendent’s ability to mold and articulate a coherent sense of the central office role in supporting school improvement creates a starting point for building a shared theory of action.

The superintendent is key to creating the central office’s shared theory of action. With the superintendent’s theory as a starting point, staff can have a dialogue and forge a common understanding about their role in encouraging and supporting school improvement efforts. In Superintendent Linda’s district, the elementary and secondary superintendents agreed that quality professional development is at the heart of school change. The theory expanded to include the necessity of building the district’s internal capacity to provide that professional development, since the district was in a remote location and the cost of importing consultants was prohibitive. Carrying out a cohesive theory of action can be problematic. At times the superintendent may become overwhelmed by information and events and cannot focus attention on school improvement. Superintendents are continually bombarded with demands from community members, parents, board members, principals, teachers, stu-

W!AJPN=H-B?A'JMQENU

!D=LPAN

dents, and federal, state, and local agencies. The myriad demands of running a district can consume the attention of the superintendent and thwart the enactment of his or her theory of action. As mentioned earlier, Superintendent Linda believed her role was to put systems in place and then take a balcony view to allow for monitoring and adjusting. But the demands of the growing district, building facilities, and enforcing policy pulled her attention away from overseeing the systems. As a result, a system to provide the professional development so key to school improvement was never developed. Instead, uncoordinated “quality” professional development sprang up in many different programs creating competition between programs, for teacher time and resources. ALIGNMENT OF THE CENTR AL OFFI C E S TA F F ’ S T H E O RY O F ACT I O N

The superintendent plays a crucial role in bringing the central office staff together to form a group and create a shared theory of action about how best to support school improvement. Within meetings, staff actively process information by selecting salient aspects of pressing issues on which to focus. Responses to new information are generated and decisions made in ongoing interaction. Having ample opportunities to process ideas and information assists the central office staff to coordinate their work, to align projects and initiatives with the shared theory of action, and to align efforts across initiatives and/ or projects. These opportunities may take the form of weekly assistant superintendents meetings to discuss school implementation of a literacy coach program. During these meetings, participants can discuss how specific schools are building the trust level so that classroom teachers are comfortable when the coach comes in to observe them. Issues associated with implementation, like finding release time for coaches to visit classrooms, can be discussed, possibly leading to decisions about using a roving substitute to provide the coach with more time. Participants can also discuss and share ideas about how to respond to an apparent need for further training for the coach. When central office staff hold a shared theory of action and when they engage in ongoing processing and coordination of information, the messages shared with schools become more focused and coherent.

3FTFBSDI'JOEJOH A shared theory of action is created and re-created through ongoing interaction of key office staff, including the superintendent.

1QLANEJPAJ@AJP&=NNU"AO?NE>AO0AOLKJ@EJCPK,AS'JBKNI=PEKJ “We, the area superintendents and myself, looked at the improvement plans submitted by the schools in the district. We looked at the data analysis portion and saw some disconnects. We saw people using faulty data sources. So what we did during summer professional development was train them to find sound data sources. Once they were using good data, we trained them to use data effectively. Each year we take a look at the plan, and we take them to the next plane.”


Trust and open communication among central office staff are essential to building a shared theory of action. The superintendent is key to building a climate in which staff feel safe to honestly express thoughts, ideas, and concerns, where critical questioning of everyone’s ideas is allowed. To build this type of climate, the superintendent must be willing to publicly critique his or her own work. This means sharing his or her own certainties and uncertainties, and being open to questions and answers. Staff must be invited to analyze issues along with the superintendent rather than be given or “sold” an answer after it’s decided. When staff do share, they cannot be penalized or shut down. If this occurs, staff receive a strong message that it is unsafe to take risks. The theory of action exists within the minds of the individual central office staff members and, moreover, in the interaction of the group. It acts as a filter for internal and external information. It is as if specific sensors are acquired, attuned to information pertinent to the common theory of action and assisting central office staff to “separate signal from noise” (Weick, p.120). Without a shared understanding of the overall picture of how the central office supports school improvement, staff members operate from individual theories that may or may not be congruent with that of the superintendent and other central office staff. Without a collective understanding, the possibility of the central office speaking with one voice or acting as a unit is not possible. Central office staff must enact individual roles, guided by this shared theory, in support of continuous improvement. They must demonstrate full engagement in school improvement efforts. This may include verbal support with principals and school staff and attendance at district- and school-level activities. Yet continuous improvement is not limited to school-level change. It also encompasses ongoing reflection by central office staff on how their actions align with and support the district direction. This involves receiving feedback from principals and teachers about the effectiveness of their role in supporting the school improvement efforts. Through reflection and feedback, they continuously focus their attention on the agreed-upon roles. CON T E X T UA L FAC TO R S T H AT I M PAC T T H E T H E O RY O F ACT I O N

The central office’s theory of action and role in supporting school improvement must be responsive to the contextual needs of the district and the community. For example, in a large district, the strategy for spurring continuous improvement may be to work through principals. Central office may not have the personnel resources to work directly with schools, so they focus on principal professional development and support to maximize implementation efforts. By contrast, in districts with fewer schools, central office staff may work directly with school staff in their change efforts. As another example, consider W!AJPN=H-B?A'JMQENU

!D=LPAN

a district with many identified low-performing schools. In this context, the central office staff may define their role specifically as focusing on the labeled schools and finding ways to support improved performance. Resources also influence how the central office enacts its supporting role. Wealthier districts, for example, may have more expendable income and may be better able to provide quality professional development and/or materials. In poorer districts, however, access to outside expertise may be limited. In this context, the central office may choose instead to send some teachers or district staff to professional development sessions and charge them with teaching TRY IT others in the district. This scenario may also be true for rural districts that, unlike most urban or suburban disG O T O PA G E 4 5 tricts, do not have easy access to outside expertise.

> >4 OUT


W!AJPN=H-B?A'JMQENU

!KJ?HQOEKJ

$PODMVTJPO

Our emphasis throughout has been on a process of mutual inquiry — whereby the central office, along with schools, engages in self-examination and change. This contrasts starkly to a process in which the central office tells schools what to do differently and then supervises their efforts to ensure they’re doing it correctly. Co-inquiry and joint continuous improvement creates a shared ownership for both the issues and the efforts. To some, the idea of engaging in this type of open inquiry is disconcerting. It may seem that the current state of the district is good enough, that you are already pulling in the right direction, that you are getting some increase in student learning, and that some people are changing, albeit reluctantly. There may be a concern that creating open dialogue may pose a threat to this tenuous progress, creating a disturbance and uncertain, uncontrollable conditions. Yet, as Margaret J. Wheatley (1999) points out, It is chaos’ great destructive energy that dissolves the past and gives us the gift of a new future. It releases us from the imprisoning patterns of the past by offering us its wild ride into newness. Only chaos creates the abyss in which we can recreate ourselves (p.119). To undertake this process, one must believe that the answer to addressing the needs of the students the district serves is created through a respectful open collaboration of the school community. Collaboration is both a vehicle and an outcome of the approach presented in this book. Engaging in dialogue about the central office theory of action, roles, and functions is a collaborative act. The level of collaboration is deepened through the common language built among district staff. Collaboration is also key to central office and school interaction and is built through this process of mutual inquiry. When the theory of action is internalized by central office staff, it influences how they speak and act. In meetings where curricular, instructional, and management decisions are made, the underlying thought is: how does this align with the total district direction? This critical questioning causes staff to bring structures into alignment because they understand the overarching goal. In the research study that led to this book, districts that had a shared understanding and accompanying vocabulary and that identified and supported OOAOOEJC-NC=JEV=PEKJ 0KHAO =J@?PEKJOPK1QLLKNP1?DKKH'ILNKRAIAJPW

the implementation of aligned structures were able to achieve districtwide implementation of the improvement structures. The structured reflection process is designed to engage central office staff in examining their own practice as it relates to continuous school and district improvement. There are many ways to use this book; you do not have to follow each activity exactly. You may select to subtly integrate some of the questions and portions of the exercises provided into your daily activities. No matter which approach you take, your level of reflection about the issues presented will deepen and growth will occur. The aim, as stated in the introduction, is to alter your level of awareness in order to assist you in leading your district’s continuous improvement efforts.

W!AJPN=H-B?A'JMQENU

2NU'P-QP

"/PUF"CPVUUIF5SZ*U0VUT The Try It Out activities that follow were conceived with the assumption that a district’s central office inquiry is led either by the superintendent or by an assistant or associate superintendent — someone who is in the position to convene busy central office staff and engage with them in the structured series of reflective exercises proposed here. Some district leaders will want to facilitate the activities themselves. Others may opt to appoint someone else to prepare necessary materials and lead the group interaction. This second option allows the person leading the inquiry to completely engage in the Try It Out activities rather than trying to balance the dual roles of facilitator and participant. Whether facilitating and participating in the activities or simply participating, the leader of the inquiry will want to do some preparation work well in advance of each activity. Doing so allows the leader to anticipate and be prepared for the group interaction and responses; modify or add to an activity, if needed; and be ready to check his or her own perceptions against those of other central office staff. Thus, the activities include a “preparation” step specifically designed for the inquiry leader. (Depending on his or her role in the district, an appointed facilitator may want to carry out this part of the activity as well, for many of the same reasons.) The facilitation directions that follow the preparation step are written with a facilitator in mind, whether that individual is the inquiry leader or someone appointed by the leader. Because we do not know the specific context of your district, we cannot say who, how many, or even what role types should participate in these activities. The leader of the central office inquiry is in the best position to make these decisions. Factors influencing the decisions include the size of the central office staff, the organization of the central office, how these individuals and groups operate alone and collectively, the level of trust and openness among them, and the leader’s desired outcome from this inquiry. At times, it may be best to work first with a small group (e.g., the cabinet). This group can help to make decisions about how to use these activities and what issues to include for consideration. You may then choose to expand the group to include other central office staff for activities that pertain to their work.


W!AJPN=H-B?A'JMQENU

2NU'P-QP

> >1 TRY IT

OUT

Taking Stock: Inquiry Into District Espoused Theory of Action and Adopted School Improvement Structures from Chapter 1: Examining Support for Continuous District Improvement

Part A Purpose: To help central office decision-makers uncover the district’s espoused theory of action. (Note: It is okay if the central office theory of action is not explicit or shared at this point; one purpose of this book is to assist in developing a shared theory of action about districtwide improvement.) Inquiry leader preparation: Schedule a meeting of key central office decision-makers. In advance of the meeting, think about and write down what you consider to be the district’s espoused theory of action for school improvement. It may be helpful to use the following statement as a model: Our district believes teachers are the key to school improvement; therefore, quality professional development is critical. Quality is defined as ongoing and concentrated, with 50 percent of the time spent building teacher knowledge and the other 50 percent spent in classroom implementation with feedback. Facilitation directions Getting ready To prepare for the meeting, create and give to each invited participant a worksheet that includes the definition of an espoused theory of action (use excerpts from the chapter), the model statement (see above), and directions asking participants to write what they consider to be the district’s espoused theory of action for school improvement. Ask participants to save what they have written and bring it to the scheduled meeting. At the meeting (SUGGESTED TIME FOR FIRST STEP: APPROXIMATELY 15 MINUTES) Organize participants into small groups (ideally, triads) and ask them to share and discuss what they have each identified as the district’s espoused theory of action, using the worksheet completed prior to this session. Keep the focus on the espoused theory by asking participants to identify examples of how the theory has been explicitly communicated within the district.


If members of a small group find great similarity in their perceptions about the district’s espoused theory, they should try to identify the specific district communication — either verbal or written — that may have led to their shared understanding. Similarly, if their perceptions differ, they should first try to identify the sources of their disparate understanding (e.g., conflicting information in district documents, lack of information). Then, they should look for similarities across their individual perceptions. Have them make a list of these similarities to share with the whole group. (SUGGESTED TIME FOR NEXT STEP: APPROXIMATELY 20 MINUTES) After the small groups have had time to discuss, have each one report to the full group. If there is a common understanding among the groups of the district’s espoused theory of action, write the theory on a piece of chart paper and label it as “district’s espoused theory of action.” If there is disparity among the groups’ perceptions, facilitate a discussion aimed at building agreement about an espoused theory of action for the district. If needed, the lists of similarities created by small groups can serve as a starting point. Do not let participants get bogged down in discussing individual words; keep them focused on the big picture, reminding them that this is a draft theory, not necessarily the final espoused theory. Once they have identified common ground, document it as “district’s espoused theory of action.” This documented version of the district’s espoused theory does not necessarily need to be a complete, coherent theory. It may simply be a representation of what the central office staff has been able to agree on to date. After the meeting Make a copy of the agreed-upon espoused theory of action and give one to each participant, including the inquiry leader, to save and use in subsequent activities.

Part B Purpose: To help central office decision-makers build a shared understanding of school improvement structures. Inquiry leader preparation: Schedule a meeting of key central office decision-makers. In advance of the meeting, convene a sub-group of decision-makers (e.g., the cabinet) to identify the district’s school improvement structures. Select no more than five of the most important structures currently in use and list them on the District Improvement Structures worksheet (page 32). Save this partially completed worksheet for use in the next stage of this activity. W!AJPN=H-B?A'JMQENU

'JPNK@Q?PEKJ

Facilitation directions Getting ready To prepare for the meeting, make copies of the partially completed District Improvement Structures worksheet (with the “structures” column filled in). Give one to each central office decision-maker who has been invited to participate in the upcoming meeting, including those who helped to identify the selected structures. Ask each one to complete the additional columns of the worksheet in relation to each given structure (see the example below). Ask participants to bring their completed worksheet to the scheduled meeting.

Sample Response to District Improvement Structures Worksheet What structures are in place to support continuous school improvement?

Curricular area(s) structure addresses

Who is/are the intend- What resources (e.g., professional ed implementer(s) of development, fiscal, material, personthe structure? nel, time) are in place to support the person(s) listed in previous column?

What is the role of the central office in implementing this structure?

Literacy Initiative

Language arts — reading and writing

K–6 Teachers

* Funds for teacher PD

* Provide training for literacy coaches

* District-level director

* Provide materials

* Literacy coaches

At the meeting (SUGGESTED TIME FOR FIRST STEP: APPROXIMATELY 7 MINUTES FOR EACH STRUCTURE DISCUSSED) Organize participants into small groups and have them share and discuss what they have documented on their District Improvement Structures worksheet. Ask them to talk about every structure individually to gain an understanding of each other’s perceptions about existing school improvement structures. Make sure the group documents all points made during the discussion. (SUGGESTED TIME FOR NEXT STEP: APPROXIMATELY 20 MINUTES) After the small groups have discussed the structures, have each one report to the whole group. Using one piece of poster-sized chart paper for each improvement structure, record all the responses, structure by structure. If subsequent small groups repeat something that has already been reported, simply put a checkmark beside the first recorded response. (Save these completed charts to use in Try It Out 4.) (SUGGESTED TIME FOR LAST STEP: APPROXIMATELY 15 MINUTES) After all small groups have reported, review with the whole group the district’s espoused theory of action, as articulated in Part A. Then, use the guiding questions on page 33 to facilitate a whole-group discussion to help everyone gain a deeper understanding of the district improvement structures and the degree to which they do or do not support the espoused theory of action. OOAOOEJC-NC=JEV=PEKJ 0KHAO =J@?PEKJOPK1QLLKNP1?DKKH'ILNKRAIAJPW

District Improvement Structures What structures are in place to support continuous school improvement?


Who is/are the intended implementer(s) of the structure?

What resources (e.g., professional development, fiscal, material, personnel, time) are in place to support the person(s) listed in previous column?


W!AJPN=H-B?A'JMQENU

2NU'P-QP

Guiding Questions Do we have a shared understanding about each structure? (Discuss each structure separately.) How well do we support each structure? (Address each structure separately, considering all resources.) Do we support some structures less well than others? How so? How are the structures related to each other? How do they support each other? Do they compete with each other? If so, how? Are the structures aligned with each other? Are they aligned with our espoused theory of action (developed in Try It Out 1, Part A)? How many curricular areas do we address with the structures? What is the number of structures per curricular area? Is there a combination of structures that provides optimal support to those who are expected to implement them? How much and what type of support do we provide per curricular area? Per structure? (Consider resources.) Are we spread too thin? Other observations? What did we learn from doing this activity?


W!AJPN=H-B?A'JMQENU

2NU'P-QP

> >2 TRY IT

OUT

Inquiry Into District Communication from Chapter 1: Examining Support for Continuous District Improvement

Purpose: To help central office decision-makers examine their channels of communication. Inquiry leader preparation: Schedule a meeting of key central office decision-makers. In advance of the meeting, make copies of and fill out the two worksheets on pages 36 and 37: Communication/ Dissemination and Communication/Collection. In the first, list existing district mechanisms or channels for disseminating information. (Include videos and DVDs under “written.”) When you have completed this worksheet, reflect on the guiding questions on page 36. In the second chart, list existing mechanisms or channels for collecting information (e.g., feedback, ideas). In parentheses behind each item here, list who has access to this mechanism or channel (e.g., suggestion box [teachers]). When you have completed this worksheet, reflect on the guiding questions that start on page 37. Facilitation directions Getting ready To prepare for the meeting, make a poster-sized version of each of the blank worksheets: Communication/ Dissemination and Communication/Collection. At the meeting (SUGGESTED TIME FOR FIRST STEP: APPROXIMATELY 30 MINUTES) Have participants work together to fill out the two charts you have created, starting with Communication/Dissemination. As they identify existing district mechanisms or channels for disseminating information, record their responses on the chart. Once the group has completed the task, facilitate a discussion about the district’s information dissemination efforts, using the guiding questions on page 36. (SUGGESTED TIME FOR NEXT STEP: APPROXIMATELY 30 MINUTES) Follow the same process for the second chart, Communication/Collection, asking participants to identify district mechanisms or channels for collecting information and, also, to identify who has access to each one. Record this latter information in parentheses behind each mechanism or channel (e.g., suggestion box [teachers]). Once that chart is complete, facilitate a discussion about the district’s information collection efforts, using the guiding questions that start on page 37. OOAOOEJC-NC=JEV=PEKJ 0KHAO =J@?PEKJOPK1QLLKNP1?DKKH'ILNKRAIAJPW

Communication/Dissemination Written

Informal

Formal

Verbal

Guiding Questions Are there multiple channels of dissemination? What are the gaps? Are there ongoing opportunities for dissemination? What are the gaps? Is there enough information captured in handbooks or other written material, or do we give most of the information orally? What are the gaps? How can consistency of oral information be ensured across the district? How well do we utilize email? Are principals and teachers bombarded to the point that they don’t read email? Other observations? What did we learn from this activity? W!AJPN=H-B?A'JMQENU

2NU'P-QP

Communication/Collection Summative

Informal

Formal

Formative

Guiding Questions Do we provide enough opportunities for principals, teachers, and staff to give feedback? How do we know it is enough? What is the timing of our input gathering? Do we get input as we create new initiatives or make decisions? Do we get feedback on decisions? Do we get feedback on how well something is working once it is in place? Do teachers, principals, and community members feel their feedback is valued and has influence on decision-making?

Q OOAOOEJC-NC=JEV=PEKJ 0KHAO =J@?PEKJOPK1QLLKNP1?DKKH'ILNKRAIAJPW

Do all principals feel safe enough to give feedback to any central office staff member? Why or why not? If not, what must we do to change this? Do all teachers feel safe enough to give feedback to any central office staff member? Why or why not? If not, what must we do to change this? Other observations? What did we learn from this activity?

W!AJPN=H-B?A'JMQENU

2NU'P-QP

> >3 TRY IT

OUT

Inquiry Into Factors Impacting the District Context from Chapter 2: Understanding the District Context

Purpose: To help central office decision-makers assess how various contextual factors are supporting or constraining the district’s continuous improvement and investigate what is being done or could be done to mitigate any constraining factors. Inquiry leader preparation: Schedule a meeting of key central office decision-makers. In advance of the meeting, use the Weighting Contextual Factors worksheet (page 41) to identify and document policies, resources, practices, and/or groups that support or constrain continuous district improvement. Under the headings federal/state law and district policy list specific laws or policies that are influencing the district. (If there are more than two noteworthy laws or policies, add rows to the bottom of the chart.) Once you have identified the factors that you believe are constraining improvement, list up to four of them on the Investigating Constraining Factors worksheet (page 42 To gain greater clarity about each one, describe it in detail on the worksheet, including s WHOANDWHATITAFFECTSEG WHATCENTRALOFlCESTAFF PROGRAMS ORPOSITIONS s WHATRESOURCESAREAFFECTEDEG lSCAL MATERIAL TIME FACILITIES sHOWDISTRICTORGANIZATIONS ROLES ORFUNCTIONSINmUENCETHEFACTORSIMPACTEG IFANDHOWCENTRALOFlCE staffing patterns, individual roles, or actions either increase or mitigate the factor’s impact); and sWHATTHEDISTRICTISCURRENTLYDOINGORCOULDDOTOMITIGATETHEINmUENCEOFTHISFACTOR Use the guiding questions on page 43 to investigate patterns across factors and the relationship of the factors to the district’s espoused theory of action. Facilitation directions Getting ready To prepare for the meeting, make a poster-sized version of each of the two blank worksheets, Weighting Contextual Factors (page 41) and Investigating Constraining Factors (page 42). Be sure to leave adequate room for


listing specific laws or policies under Federal/state laws and District policies. There are two spaces provided for these two factors; if you think the group might identify more than two laws or policies, create additional rows. Have enough small, colored stickers (in a color other than red or green) so that each participant has one for each factor. For yourself, have as many red stickers and as many green stickers as the number of factors you are likely to end up with on your chart. At the meeting (SUGGESTED TIME FOR FIRST STEP: APPROXIMATELY 30 MINUTES) Start the meeting by briefly reviewing the Weighting Contextual Factors poster to ensure that participants have a common understanding of what is meant by each term, particularly funding streams, program silos, and conventional wisdom. Have the group identify any relevant federal or state laws to list for consideration and weighting. Do the same for district policies. Then, ask participants to individually rate the impact of each factor by placing a colored sticker on the poster under the heading that represents what they believe to be the factor’s effect (i.e., supports continuous improvement, constrains continuous improvement, minimal impact). After everyone has done this, review the ratings as a group. If most participants have indicated that a factor supports continuous improvement, place a green sticker next to the factor. If most participants have said that a factor constrains improvement, place a red sticker next to it. If there is a relatively even split between supports and constraints, have group members discuss their reasoning and reach consensus. Then, place the appropriate sticker next to the factor. (Note: minimal impact is a neutral response and should not be considered as either supporting or constraining improvement.) (SUGGESTED TIME FOR NEXT STEP: APPROXIMATELY 7-10 MINUTES FOR EACH FACTOR DISCUSSED) Next, of those factors that have been identified as constraining improvement, have the group choose no more than four (based on what they consider most significant). List these factors on the Investigating Constraining Factors poster. Then, for each factor, have the whole group discuss and answer the questions at the top of each column. Write their responses on the chart. After the chart has been completed, use the guiding questions on page 43 to further explore the factors.

W!AJPN=H-B?A'JMQENU

2NU'P-QP

Weighting Contextual Factors Factor

Supports continuous improvement

Constrains continuous improvement

Minimal impact

Federal/state law*:

Federal/state law:

District policy:

District policy:

Funding sources Program silos Conventional wisdom Local governing board Business community University Teacher unions/associations Credentialing organizations Teacher certification Parent teacher associations/ organizations Other:

*For federal/state law, list the laws that are currently having the most influence on your district. Consider shifts and shocks, as discussed in Chapter 2.


Investigating Constraining Factors Factor

Who and what is affected (e.g., staff, programs, positions)?

What resources are affected (e.g., fiscal, material, time, facilities)?

How do district organization, roles, or functions Influence level of impact?

What can we do/are we doing to bring this into balance?

W!AJPN=H-B?A'JMQENU

2NU'P-QP

Guiding Questions Examine the “district organization, roles, or functions” column. Is there a pattern or relationship across the answers listed for individual factors? Examine the “who and what” column across the factors. Is there a particular person, position, or resource that is impacted more that others? If so, why? How do contextual constraints influence the district’s espoused theory of action? Do contextual factors pull staff away from building and sustaining a shared theory of action? From enacting the theory? How do contextual factors influence the role of the central office staff? How much power does conventional wisdom hold in the district? Other observations? What did we learn from doing this activity?


W!AJPN=H-B?A'JMQENU

2NU'P-QP

Inquiry Into Shared Theory of Action, Roles, and Functions

> >4 TRY IT

OUT

from Chapter 3: Creating an Aligned Theory of Action

Purpose: To help central office decision-makers examine and compare the district’s espoused and enacted theories of action. Inquiry leader preparation: Schedule a meeting of key central office decision-makers. In advance of the meeting, use the District Improvement Structures worksheet that was completed by you and other central office decision-makers in Try It Out 1, Part B, to identify the district’s enacted theory of action. You can infer the enacted theory by carefully reviewing the worksheet to look for patterns (e.g., all structures are focused on teachers) and connections (e.g., teachers receive professional development in math and there is a math coach at each school) across the structures. From these, you can infer the enacted theory of action in your district, as in the example below.

Example Completed Guiding Questions Worksheet What structures are in place to support continuous school improvement?


Who is/are the intended implementer(s) of the structure?

Literacy Initiative

Language arts — read- K – 6 Teachers ing and writing

What resources (e.g., pd, fiscal, material, personnel, time) are in place to support the person(s) listed in previous column?


* Literacy coaches * Funds for teacher PD

* Provide training for literacy coaches

* District-level director

* Provide materials

Enacted Theory of Action We believe that a strong literacy focus is essential for schools improvement. To support this focus, we have a literacy initiative (“what structures” column) for K-6 teachers (“intended implementer” column). Our role is to provide literacy coaches, funds for teacher professional development, and a district-level literacy director (“resource” column).


Write what you perceive to be your district’s enacted theory of action and then compare it with the espoused theory of action that you and other central office decision-makers agreed upon in Try It Out 1, Part A. Using the guiding questions that start below, compare your district’s espoused theory of action with what you have identified as its enacted theory. Facilitation directions Getting ready To prepare for the meeting, make a poster-sized version of the blank District Improvement Structures worksheet from Try It Out 1, Part B, on page 32. On it, consolidate the information that was developed and documented in that same activity about each identified improvement structure. (Remember, the information was captured on a separate piece of chart paper for each structure.) On another piece of poster-sized paper, write the district’s espoused theory of action, as agreed upon in Part A of Try It Out 1. And on a third piece, copy the example from page 45. At the meeting (SUGGESTED TIME: APPROXIMATELY 1-1/2 HOURS) Direct participants’ attention to the District Improvement Structures chart, explaining that they will be reviewing it in order to ascertain the district’s enacted theory of action. Tell them they will be looking for patterns (e.g., all structures are focused on teachers) and connections (e.g., teachers receive professional development in math and there is a math coach at each school) across the structures, from which they will infer the district’s enacted theory. Walk them through the example, noting how the information about the structure points to the enacted theory. Then, facilitate a discussion in which, extrapolating from the information on the chart, they determine the district’s enacted theory of action. Write that theory of action on another piece of poster-sized paper and display it next to the chart of the espoused theory of action, which you prepared in advance. Lead a discussion about the theories, using the guiding questions that start below.

Guiding Questions How similar are the district’s espoused and enacted theories of action? If our espoused and enacted theories of action are different, which one is more in line with your own beliefs? W!AJPN=H-B?A'JMQENU

2NU'P-QP

Does our enacted theory of action present a unified approach to continuous improvement? Is it able to absorb and mediate the shifts and shocks? Are there intended implementers who are not getting the support they need? Would other central office staff agree with our assessment? What about principals? Are resources aligned to support the district’s theory of action? What do our actions as central office staff convey about our theory of action? Is this aligned with your personal theory of action? Do staff spend time doing things right or doing the right thing? Other observations? What did we learn from this activity?

Going Beyond Your Own Observations Options for obtaining feedback on espoused and enacted theory of action, roles, and functions After completing the exercise above, you, as the inquiry leader, may wish to gather others’ perspectives (both inside and outside the central office) on the theory of action, roles, and functions at work in the district. You are in the best position to make a decision about engaging in this extended inquiry. This may be an opportunity to build trust and open communication. It may be that because you have shared your candid responses to the above questions, other central office staff will be more willing to share their views. You must assess the climate at the central office to determine what might work. Option 1: Individual Conversations or Group Dialogue If the central office staff have a trusting open relationship, it may be possible to ask them to give direct feedback on your assessment of the theory of action and roles of central office staff. This could be done in a large- or small-group setting or through individual conversations.


Option 2: Anonymous Surveys If there is some question about trust and open communication, anonymous surveys may work better. If the central office is quite small, this approach may not offer anonymity, which, in turn, may lead to more guarded responses. In this case, you may have to make the response group larger — other central office staff and principals — and ask them to not identify their group. You may also want to utilize an outside person to ask staff these questions, with guaranteed anonymity, and have this person present a compilation of answers without identifying the respondents.

W!AJPN=H-B?A'JMQENU

0ABANAJ?AO

3FGFSFODFT Argyris, C., & Schön, D.A. (1996). Organizational learning II: Theory, method, and practice (2nd ed.). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall. Argyris, C., & Schön, D.A. (1974). Theory in practice: Increasing professional effectiveness. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Agullard, K., Huebner, T. A., Goughnour, D. S., & Calisi Corbett, G. (2005, April). The impact of three different approaches to districtwide continuous improvement. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Montreal, Canada. Gibson, S., & Dembo, M. (1984). Teacher efficacy: A construct validation. Journal of Educational Psychology, 76 (4), 569-582. Goodman, R.H., Fulbright, L., & Zimmerman, W.G. (1997). Getting there from here. School board-superintendent collaboration: Creating a school governance team capable of raising student achievement. Arlington, VA: Educational Research Service & New England School Development Council. Iowa Association of School Boards [IASB]. (2000). IASB’s lighthouse study: School boards and student achievement. Iowa School Board Compass, 5 (2), 1-12. McLaughlin, M., & Talbert, J. (2003). Reforming districts: How districts support school reform. Seattle: Center for the Study of Teaching and Policy. Spring, J. (1997). The American school 1642-1996 (4th ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill. Tyack, D.B. (1974). The one best system: A history of American urban education. Cambridge: Harvard University Press. Wheatley, M. J. (1999). Leadership and the new science: Discovering order in a chaotic world (2nd ed.). San Francisco: Berrett-Koehler. Wieck, K. (1995). Sensemaking in organizations. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.


"MTPBWBJMBCMFGSPN8FTU&E Moving Leadership Standards Into Everyday Work

Strengthening Principal Practice

Descriptions of Practice

How Districts Are Moving Leadership Standards Into Everyday Work

WestEd

Karen Kearney

The fact that highly skilled school administrators are crucial to successful teaching and learning has long been recognized. But as the challenges administrators face have become more complex in this era of standards-based reform and high-stakes accountability, increasing attention has been focused on trying to identify the specific knowledge, skills, and dispositions that are essential to successful school leadership.

Just as principals guide and support teachers to be highly accomplished, district leaders must guide and support principals to continuously improve. This book provides valuable examples of how district and school leaders can work together through the evaluation cycle to raise the performance of site leaders. The included tools, ideas, and stories contextualize and connect national and state leadership standards, making them the practical, useful guidelines they were always intended to be for steadily improving administrator practice. Developed from a cadre of district teams who worked with WestEd in a “community of practice,” these examples illustrate how district and school leaders have made sense of leadership standards and used the descriptions of practice in Moving Leadership Standards Into Everyday Work to guide, support, and evaluate principals.

The Descriptions of Practice (DOPs) introduced in this publication were developed to enhance the usefulness of research-based leadership standards, including the widely used California Professional Standards for Education Leaders (CPSELs) and the nationally developed Interstate School Leaders Licensure Consortium (ISLLC) standards. For each of six broad standards, the DOPs identify the underlying goals and provide a detailed narrative describing specific administrator actions, attitudes, and understanding needed to attain each goal. The DOPs also depict what key aspects of each standard look like in action across a continuum of developing practice, as an administrator moves from being a tactical manager to a strategic instructional leader whose efforts result in improved student learning. Coupled with the standards, the DOPs provide readers with common concepts, language, and examples that, together, can serve several, sometimes overlapping, purposes: s ASASTARTINGPOINTFORDEVELOPINGCREDENTIALINGCRITERIA sASAGUIDEFORPLANNINGLEADERSHIPPREPARATIONORPROFESSIONAL development, sASABASISFORCLARIFYINGPERFORMANCEEXPECTATIONS AND s as a mirror for an administrator’s self-reflection and professional goal-setting. $15.95 | Paper | ISBN: 0-914409-17-4

$18.95 | Softcover | ISBN: 0-914409-27-1

To find information on our research and services, or to sign up for WestEd’s monthly E-Bulletin newsletter and other free reports, visit www.WestEd.org. To order call toll-free at 888 C-WestEd [888.293.7833]. To order online and to sign up for our email Product Alerts, visit www.WestEd.org/products.

Central Office Inquiry: Assessing Organization, Roles, and Functions to Support School Improvement (Student Achievement)

Enhancing Student Achievement: A Framework for School Improvement

Practitioner's Guide to Assessing Intelligence and Achievement

Teaching Practices and Student Achievement

The Organization of Inquiry

Teaching as Inquiry: Asking Hard Questions to Improve Practice and Student Achievement

Teacher-Led School Improvement

Equalize Student Achievement: Prioritizing Money and Power

Identifying, Assessing, and Treating Autism at School

Identifying, Assessing, and Treating Dyslexia at School

School Connections: U.S. Mexican Youth, Peers, and School Achievement

Office Home & Student 2007

The Educator's Guide to Assessing and Improving School Discipline Programs

School Effectiveness for Whom? Challenges to the School Effectiveness and School Improvement Movements

Connecting Teacher Leadership and School Improvement

School improvement after inspection?: school and LEA responses

Central Regulation of Autonomic Functions

Central Regulation of Autonomic Functions

Student Achievement Through Staff Development (3rd Edition)

Student Achievement Through Staff Development (3rd Edition)

Student Achievement Through Staff Development (3rd Edition)

A Guide to Literacy Coaching: Helping Teachers Increase Student Achievement

The Central Construction Office of the Waffen-SS and Police Auschwitz: Organization, Responsibilities, Activities

Guiding School Improvement With Action Research

Values Pedagogy and Student Achievement: Contemporary Research Evidence

Multiple Intelligences and Student Achievement: Success Stories from Six Schools

Leadership Capacity for Lasting School Improvement

Principals and Student Achievement: What the Research Says

Leadership Capacity for Lasting School Improvement

Leadership Capacity for Lasting School Improvement

Building Leadership Capacity for School Improvement

Central Office Inquiry: Assessing Organization, Roles, and Functions to Support School Improvement (Student Achievement)

Enhancing Student Achievement: A Framework for School Improvement

Practitioner's Guide to Assessing Intelligence and Achievement

Teaching Practices and Student Achievement

The Organization of Inquiry

Teaching as Inquiry: Asking Hard Questions to Improve Practice and Student Achievement

Teacher-Led School Improvement

Equalize Student Achievement: Prioritizing Money and Power

Identifying, Assessing, and Treating Autism at School

Identifying, Assessing, and Treating Dyslexia at School

School Connections: U.S. Mexican Youth, Peers, and School Achievement

Office Home & Student 2007

The Educator's Guide to Assessing and Improving School Discipline Programs

School Effectiveness for Whom? Challenges to the School Effectiveness and School Improvement Movements

Connecting Teacher Leadership and School Improvement

School improvement after inspection?: school and LEA responses

Central Regulation of Autonomic Functions

Central Regulation of Autonomic Functions

Student Achievement Through Staff Development (3rd Edition)

Student Achievement Through Staff Development (3rd Edition)

Student Achievement Through Staff Development (3rd Edition)

A Guide to Literacy Coaching: Helping Teachers Increase Student Achievement

The Central Construction Office of the Waffen-SS and Police Auschwitz: Organization, Responsibilities, Activities

Guiding School Improvement With Action Research

Values Pedagogy and Student Achievement: Contemporary Research Evidence

Multiple Intelligences and Student Achievement: Success Stories from Six Schools

Leadership Capacity for Lasting School Improvement

Principals and Student Achievement: What the Research Says

Leadership Capacity for Lasting School Improvement

Leadership Capacity for Lasting School Improvement

Building Leadership Capacity for School Improvement

Recommend Documents