Professional Documents
Culture Documents
School Improvement
The Strategy Game Handbook
Beth Gulewich
ELP 551: Context and Challenges of School Improvement
Dr. Tim Drake
SCHOOL IMPROVEMENT 2
GAME STORY 3
PLAYER OBJECTIVES 3
MISSION STATEMENT 4
VISION STATEMENT 4
COMPONENTS / FRAMEWORKS 8
1. Bryk's Plan-Do-Study-Act Cycle (PDSA) 8
2. Bernhardt's Continuous School Improvement Framework 9-10
3. Murphy's Framework for School Improvement 11
SETUP 12
GAME CHARACTERS 12
TOOLS 13
1. NCStar 13
2. NC School Report Cards 13
3. NC Teacher Working Conditions survey with tips 13
4. Two-Way Communication 13
REFERENCES 22-23
GLOSSARY OF TERMS
School Improvement Plan (SIP)
School Improvement Team (SIT)
SCHOOL IMPROVEMENT 3
GAME STORY
Dear School Improvement Game players,
PLAYER OBJECTIVES
School leaders must define the SIT and process. This team will develop a SIP
and accompanying budget that aligns with the school's mission and vision.
The SIP must be approved via secret ballot vote by the majority of school staff. Then, the principal
must present the SIP to the Board of Education and receive the Superintendent's recommendations on
safety components of the plan. After official adoption of the SIP by the Board, the entire school as a
team implements and evaluates the SIP within the next two years before this cycle begins again.
Establishment of the SIT and development of the SIP will be defined by all requirements described
under Game Rules.
Figure 1: School Improvement Plan Development and Approval Process
SCHOOL IMPROVEMENT 4
School leaders must first explicitly analyze and state a school faculty's shared mission, vision and
values. Murphy (2013) reminds us with his essential lesson, The Paradox of Structure, that "in order to
capture and employ reform, good ideas need to assume a form, that is, structure...ensure that form
follows values and principles" (p. 71.)
GAME RULES
The following rules are also published in their entirety in name of the North Carolina General
Assembly as "Chapter 115C. Elementary and Secondary Education" at
https://www.ncga.state.nc.us/enactedlegislation/statutes/html/bychapter/chapter_115c.html. While
Rules 1 & 2 establish beliefs and an accountability structure, the development guidelines for your
School Improvement Plan begins with Rule 3 below:
SCHOOL IMPROVEMENT 5
SCHOOL IMPROVEMENT 6
NUMBER OF PLAYERS
Group building considerations for the SIT
Establish group's purpose, goals, and length of work.
Consider group member selection by weighing the goal of group cohesiveness including power
relations and the role of each member in the group's success.
Consider (sub)groups who might contribute a unique perspective.
Consider parents as important allies in coalition building, not cooptation or placation.
Determine member numbers by considering balance between representation and efficiency.
Consider ways to broker and guide relationships with community members.
(Drake & Goldring, 2014, pp. 49-50)
Partnership building with the SIT
The way school leaders exercise and distribute power is reflected in the way leaders view
partnerships. Auerbach (2012) describes a four partnership types on that describe how school leaders
share power, information, and decision making (p. 41).
SCHOOL IMPROVEMENT 7
SCHOOL IMPROVEMENT 8
groupthink: group cohesiveness that weakens the groups ability to weigh alternative options and
predict unexpected outcomes. (Drake & Goldring, 2014, pp. 51-52)
Figure 2. Bryk et al. (2015), Plan-Do-Study-Act Cycle (PDSA) (p. 122).
SCHOOL IMPROVEMENT 9
Figure 3. Bernhardt. (2013), Continuous School Improvement Cycle, (p. 19).
The five broad guiding questions located on the outside of Figure 4 address each of the continuous
improvement principles of plan, implement, evaluate, and improve.
Question 1: "Where are we now?" and subquestions; help school leaders assess where the school
is currently using a variety of data. Four types of data: longitudinal demographic data, perceptions
and organizational assessments (culture and climate), formative and summative assessments (school
learning), and summary of programs and processes.
Question 2: "How did we get to where we are?"; examines what is (not) working and how the
data is relational. The answers to these questions lead to a needs assessment that inform planning.
Processes that are making an improvement should be replicated while those that are not should be
eliminated.
Question 3: "Where do we want to be?"; prioritizes planning on shared values and beliefs
through explicit statements of mission, vision, and goals.
Question 4: "How are we going to get where we want to be?"; concentrates on "goals, objectives,
strategies, activities, measurement of strategies and activities, person(s) responsible, due dates,
timelines, and required resources" (p. 18). Only these specifics can link the mission and vision to
predictable improvement outcomes. Bernhardt (2013) recommends maximizing staff commitment
through leadership structures, collaborative PD that shares data, and partnership involvement.
Question 5: "Is what we are doing making a difference?"; emphasizes continuous evaluation and
reflection that refers back to the mission and vision. This reflection must also evaluate the entire
system as well as the individual contributing parts and their alignment to the vision.
SCHOOL IMPROVEMENT 10
Figure 4. Bernardt (2013) Continuous School Improvement Framework (p. 14).
SCHOOL IMPROVEMENT 11
Murphy (2013) provides a framework for school improvement that starts with the Essential
Equation, "School Improvement = Academic Press + Supportive Community" (p. 27). This equation is
reminiscent of the school's mission and vision statements that call for "providing a relevant and
engaging education" (Mission statement) "through rigorous and innovative lessons...students who
value diversity, collaborate effectively, and share their talents to improve the world" ( Vision
statement). This is our Why.
Construction Principles vary greatly and are not well-researched. Guidelines are provided by the
NC General Assembly and are highlighted in this Handbook under Game Rules. One interesting
alternative to the standard small committee SIT at a comprehensive high school is the participation of
many teacher leaders in SIT goal committees such as Continuous Staff Improvement, Academic
Planning, Student Culture, and Student and Teacher Recruitment and Retention, and then PD sessions
with all staff participating in one of these committees to conceptualize the why, what and how of their
strategic plan. In this way, the construction principles are utilizing and strengthening positive
components of school culture, mainly relationships. This is our How.
The Integrative Device is the patterns of leadership which provides direct support to the entire
framework. Leadership does not play a central role, just as the heroic leader has been stripped of his
cap. These patterns of leadership are described as "integrative dynamic" and is the "essential enabling
element" (Murphy, 2013, p. 31) of school improvement. This is a plural Who.
Figure 5. Murphy, J. (2013) The Architecture of School Improvement (p. 28).
SCHOOL IMPROVEMENT 12
SETUP
GAME CHARACTERS
CHARACTE
CHARACTER RESPONSIBILITY R POWER POWER PLAYS
(1-10)
-Member of SIT
Instructional leader who supports
-Developer & Communicator of mission
teachers, provides for a safe and
& vision
Principal healthy school environment while 9
-Coherence builder: Establishes a
fostering dialogue between all
growth mindset, distributive leadership
stakeholders.
practices
(Step)parents
-Home educational support
Siblings
Parents & -Members of PTSA, Capital Foundation,
Extended family 8
Family Academic Boosters, Principal Advisory
Neighbors
Council
Close family friends
SCHOOL IMPROVEMENT 13
TOOLS
NCStar Website: http://ncstar.weebly.com/
NC School Report Cards: https://ncreportcards.ondemand.sas.com/src
NCEES SMART Goals: http://ncees.ncdpi.wikispaces.net/SMART+Goals
NC Teacher Working Conditions (TWC) survey: https://ncteachingconditions.org/
Here are some possible strategies to support response efforts of this perception data and attempt in
avoiding fluctuation that require guess work (such as 98.66% (2018), 67.32% (2016), and 93.5% (2014)).
1. NC TWC survey explanation provided to staff by SIP Chair prior to response window (March
1-April 4, 2018) with tracking system as aid to teachers, "Did I already complete this
paperwork?": Staff to email volunteer when completed, volunteer to check complete on master
list. Google Doc would also be effective. The SIP Chair emphasize that responses are
anonymous.
2. NC TWC codes provided to staff by SIP Chair (March 1)
3. PLT visits to answer questions and communicate importance of NC TWC survey.
4. Repeated reminders published in Staff Daily Bulletin and as Action Item in Principal's Weekly
Newsletter with help contact and "what-if" scenarios.
5. Strategic email reminders or classroom visits to staff.
6. Use the TWC data and present to the staff in different ways/chunks what the data
communicated and how the SIT is responding to the TWC data.
STRATEGIES OF PLAY
Change and improvement takes strategic planning. Bryk et al. (2015) advise avoiding the traditional,
long-standing cycle of change in public education: “implement fast, learn slow, and burn goodwill as
you go” (p. 113).
SCHOOL IMPROVEMENT 14
School Improvement players are urged to follow the sequence of steps outlined below: 1) Data in
Context, 2) Alignment, 3) Coherence: planning, coordinating, and evaluating teaching and the
curriculum, 4) Opportunity Culture, and 5) Support / PD in order to stay focused on a favorable
outcome.
1. Data in Context
Bernhardt (2013) reminds us that multiple data points should include both quantitative and qualitative
data. In Figure 5, demographics, student learning and perceptions as well as qualitative data about
process preferences are considered when trying to meet the learning needs of all students. Several
types of qualitative and quantitative data are represented under Tools in the handbook. Careful
consideration should be given to the collection of student and family perceptual data. While surveys
are an efficient way of collecting varying perspectives, reliability increases greatly when students and
school leaders interact face-to-face. Student perceptual data can still be collected in survey form while
the school leaders is in the room to solicit more detailed information and navigate understanding.
SCHOOL IMPROVEMENT 15
2. Alignment
Does the SIP align to the school's mission and vision? Are we as a school faculty "provid(ing) a relevant
and engaging education and ...graduat(ing) students who are collaborative, creative, effective
communicators, and critical thinkers"? Are BHS students able to "through rigorous and innovative
lessons that invite risk-taking, ...become global citizens who value diversity, collaborate effectively,
and share their talents to improve the world." Know the school's mission and vision enough to utilize it
as a constant reminder of the why we all work towards. Once the SIP is drafted, evaluate and
reconsider if the data is telling the right story. All stakeholders and student groups should be
represented in the goals of the SIP. Consider the progress towards the vision in the form of objectives
or milestones. Is the vision so lofty that faculty are stuck in the implementation dip?
"Our school did not meet AMO targets in both English and Math. White students score significantly
higher on EOCs than minority students."
"Our school had a 0.9% increase in 9th grade retention over the last two years, and is the highest rate
in the district."
"There has been a significant increase in both number of students who receive referrals and the
number of written referrals in all. In addition, the majority of referrals are African American
students."
"In conclusion, professional development will be provided to address how teachers can differentiate
using data and effective engagement strategies in addition to closing the achievement gap within our
student body. Clearer school-wide expectations and systems will be put in place for instructional
strategies and behavior. Many of these strategies can focus on the 9th grade class to improve
promotion rate in addition to student services providing interventions for at risk 9th grade students."
Hattie (2009) asserts that "the most powerful effects of the school relate to features within schools, such
as the climate of the classroom, peer influences, and the lack of disruptive students in the classroom -
all of which allow students and teachers to make errors and develop reputations as learners, and
which provide an invitation to learn" (p. 33).
SCHOOL IMPROVEMENT 16
When considering professional support for all teachers, this model involving the roles of the principal,
case manager, and support provider are well mapped out and tested using the PDSA cycle. The goals
are to improve reliability of feedback and support, as well as to improve teacher effectiveness and
retention (Bryk et al., 2015).
Figure 6. Bryk et al. (2015), Prototype process map for the feedback-support-observation cycle (p. 129).
4. Opportunity Culture
A recently-exited high-school humanities teacher reminds us that even new teachers need
opportunities and guidance on how to exercise "leadership within the department, school, or
community (especially after year 1!)- what that can look like, how to go about doing it, etc. This might
also go hand-in-hand with being civically engaged, and potentially with PD opportunities" (C. Holmes,
personal communication, April 11, 2018). Some teachers are ready to learn and exercise leadership
skills sooner than predicted. These opportunities should not be stalled until a senior teacher leader
retires or relinquishes her leadership role. Here are some suggested strategies:
○ Expand leadership opportunities in PLTs, discussion groups, SIT membership for new
teachers
○ Shuffle Department Chair assignments
○ Experienced teachers with larger classes & more pay
○ Blended learning as a solution to staffing issues (NCASA presentation: J. Bartholomew
and Z. Chutz, personal communication, April 21, 2018)
○ Equity Audits (Skrla, Scheurich, Garcia, & Nolly, 2004)
SCHOOL IMPROVEMENT 17
Table 1: Drake (2018), Principles for Strategic Support / PD
SCHOOL IMPROVEMENT 18
Figure 7. Drake (2018): Key Questions: PD/Support
PLAY PITFALLS
“In the hurricane of school reform...deep down on the ocean floor, life goes on, undisturbed by the
roiling waters and huge waves on the surface. I [compare] that ocean floor to the nation’s classrooms,
where both change and continuity unfold in regular, undisturbed patterns” (Cuban, 2013, p. 20).
"An iron law of school improvement is that structural changes never have, do not now, and never will
predict organizational success...The form [of the structural change] follows values and principles.
Going in the opposite direction, that is assuming structura will alter values, is highly
problematic"(Murphy, J. & Torre, D. S., p. 63, 71).
His answer, "many policymakers see schooling as a collection of complicated structures that can be
broken down into discrete segments and re-engineered through algorithms and flow charts to
perfection" (p. 115). As in Figure 8 below, any weight applied to an individual part of the whole will
throw the balance in a classroom off, straining the teacher, classroom, or role of the physical
environment amounting to significant negative pressure on student learning. All classroom learning
environments are complex.
Dominant reform strategies that haven't worked: change teachers and we will change classroom
instruction! Reformers' linking assumption: "structural changes would alter dominant teaching
SCHOOL IMPROVEMENT 19
practices. Teachers would adopt intellectually ambitious, inquiry-driven, skill-rich forms of teaching
that would be superior to what has routinely occurred in classrooms" (p. 113). Established structures
that raise the quality of teacher: recruiting, credentials for hiring, alternative credential pathways,
accountability structures, merit-based pay, market-based choice options for families, and improving
electronic technologies (does not guarantee that teacher-centered practices will change to
student-centered).
Cuban (2013) reminds us that policymakers err when they make three assumptions:
2) "Public schools and classrooms are complicated not complex systems" (p. 114);
Figure 8: Burns, A., & Knox, J. S. (2011). Classrooms as complex adaptive systems: A relational model.
SCHOOL IMPROVEMENT 20
2,165 very diverse students. The practices of daily teaching and learning are indeed complex and
disjointed. However, school improvement efforts can be achieved when school faculty actualize their
interdependent collective efforts towards one goal. Robinson et al. (2012) defines this as the
coordination mechanism, an organizational structure or process.
Focus is another key mechanism is sustaining coordination and coherence. Robinson et al. (2012)
describe "senior leaders in the two improving schools deliberately maintained continuity of focus from
year to year, incrementally pursuing their long-term goal...lifting achievement targets by modest but
challenging amounts every year" (p. 22). Goals are not so scattered and lofty that progress cannot be
perceived and frustration dictates yet another change in course. This is Krashen's second language
1, input should be one step beyond the learner's competency or
acquisition input hypothesis of i+
frustration will rule the learning attempt.
Bryk et al. (2015) promote a user- and problem-centered approach to decision making instead of the
top-down district to school initiatives that are often not connected to the needs of a school and quickly
lose support because of their lack of a well-considered rollout.
Definition for user-centered: respecting the people who actually do the work by seeking to understand
the problems they confront; engaging these people in designing changes that align with the problems
they experience.
"It is essential that all involved in the work be active agents in its improvement. This means that all
those engaged in educating students must own the outcomes of their efforts and be actively learning
how to improve these outcomes" (Bryk et al., 2015, p. 34).
SCHOOL IMPROVEMENT 21
Pitfall 5: Solutionitis
Bryk et al. (2015) caution that solutionitis is "the propensity to jump quickly on a solution before fully
understanding the exact problem to be solved" (p. 24). Groupthink leads a SIT to formulate a solution
based on past experienced, professional knowledge, and shared beliefs that is actually an incomplete
analysis of the problem to be addressed with potential problem-solving alternatives. In short, lazy
thinking leads a group to see complex matters through a narrow lens. Listen to voices of dissent.
VICTORY OUTCOMES
Dear School Improvement Game players,
You might be asking yourself, "How do I know if I've won?" The game
can follow many roads and utilize a combination of strategies that fit
the context of your school. Strong, clear goal setting will lead your
team to victory. Remember your SMART goals, data, alignment to your
team's mission and vision, providing opportunities for all teachers and
students to grow, but most of all support in teaching and learning.
In conclusion, never underestimate the power of hope. Murphy's (2013) with his essential lesson, The
Doctrine of Winning Early, asserts that "school improvement goals are usually achieved in the far
future. The distance between here and now and there and then can be quite lengthy. Change works
best when it is chunked into manageable units so that ongoing victories are secured, especially in the
early segments of the trip. Short term wins...undermine skepticism and doubt and nurture the sense
of possibility" (p. 97). Victory will come at different intervals, but certainly in the near future.
SCHOOL IMPROVEMENT 22
REFERENCES
Auerbach, S. (Ed.), (2012). School leadership for authentic family and community partnerships: Research
perspectives for transforming practice. New York: Routledge.
Bernhardt, V.L. (2013). Data analysis for continuous school improvement, 3rd Edition, New York: Routledge,
pp. 11-26.
Burns, A., & Knox, J. S. (2011). Classrooms as complex adaptive systems: A relational model. TESL-EJ:
Teaching English as a Second Or Foreign Language, 15(1), 25.
Bryk, A. S., Gomez, L.M., Grunow, A., and LeMahieu, P. G. (2015). Learning to improve: How America’s
schools can get better at getting better. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Education Press, pp. 21-34, 113-140.
Cuban, L. (2013) Why so many structural changes in schools and so little reform in teaching practice? Journal
of Educational Administration 51: (2), pp. 109-125. Retrieved from:
https://doi-org.prox.lib.ncsu.edu/10.1108/09578231311304661
Day, C., Gu, Q., and Sammons, P. (2016). The Impact of Leadership on Student Outcomes How Successful
School Leaders Use Transformational and Instructional Strategies to Make a Difference. Educational
Administration Quarterly, 52( 2), pp. 240-254.
Drake, T.A. and Goldring, E. (2014). The politics of school-level community engagement and decision making.
In Jane C. Lindle (ed.) Political Contexts of Educational Leadership: ISLLC Standard Six, pp. 37-60.
Fusarelli, L. D. and Petersen, G. J. (2014). The politics of district-level decision making. In Jane C. Lindle (ed.)
Political Contexts of Educational Leadership: ISLLC Standard Six, pp. 61-77.
Lee, V., Smith, J., Perry, T., Smylie, M. (1999). Social support, academic press, and student achievement: A
view from the middle grades in Chicago.
Leithwood, K., Seashore Louis, K., Anderson, S., and Wahlstrom, K. (2004). Executive summary: Review of
research: How leadership influences student learning. Retrieved from http://conservancy.umn.edu/
bitstream/handle/11299/2035/CAREI?sequence=1
Murphy, J. (2013). The Architecture of School Improvement: Lessons learned. Corwin Press, Thousand Oaks,
CA.
Murphy, J. and Torre, D. S. (2014) Creating productive cultures in schools : for students, teachers, and parents.
Corwin Press, Thousand Oaks, CA.
Public Schools of North Carolina (2016, July), “North Carolina School Improvement Planning Implementation
Guide,” retrieved from: http://www.ncpublicschools.org/docs/program-monitoring/
SCHOOL IMPROVEMENT 23
planning/sip-guide.pdfwake
Robinson, V. (2007) The impact of leadership on student outcomes: Making sense of the evidence. Australian
https://research.acer.edu.au/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1006&context=research_conference_2007
Robinson, V., Bendikson, L., Mcnaughton, S., Wilson, A., and Zhu, T. (2017). Joining the dots: The challenge
of creating coherent school improvement. Teachers College Record. 119. Retrieved from:
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/322220390_Joining_the_Dots_The_Challenge_of_Creating_C
oherent_School_Improvement
Skrla, L., Scheurich, J. J., Garcia, J., and Nolly, G. (2004). Equity audits: A practical leadership tool for
developing equitable and excellent schools. Educational Administration Quarterly 40(1), pp. 133-161.
3.
Water from the heavens! Electricity from the source!
Both of them mad to create something!