Principal led school improvement and teacher capacity building in the Barwon South Network : final report, May 2013

The period of interest for this report is the beginning of 2011 to the end of 2012. The period commenced when the Regional Network Leader of the Barwon South Network of schools in the Barwon South Region of the Department of Education and Early Childhood contacted the School of Education at Deakin University, Waurn Ponds Campus Geelong. The Regional Network Leader outlined a desire to engage with Deakin University to research a short-term-cycle model of school improvement to be implemented in the region. While the model was expected to be taken on by all schools in the region the research was limited to the 23 schools in the Barwon South Network with four schools to be investigated more closely for each of two years (2001 & 2012) – eight focus schools in total.

Many positive outcomes flowed from the implementation of short-term-cycle school improvement plans and their associated practices but there was wide variation in the nature and degrees of success and of the perception of the process. The research team asked the following questions of the data:

1. What aspects of the School Improvement Plan (SIP) approach were important for initiating and supporting worthwhile change?
2. What might we take from this, to provide guidance on how best to support change in teaching and learning processes in schools?

The School Improvement Plan (SIP) worked in a range of ways. At one level it was strongly focused on school leadership, and a need to improve principals’ capacity to initiate worthwhile teaching and learning processes in their schools. Underlying this intent, one might think an assumption is operation is that the leadership process involves top down decision-making and a willingness to hold staff accountable for the quality of their practice.

The second strong focus was on the translation into practice and the consequent effect on student learning, involving an emphasis on data and evidence led practice. Hence, along with the leadership focus there was a demand for the process of school improvement to reach down into students and classrooms. Thus, the SIP process inevitably involved a chain of decision-making by which student learning quality drove the intervention, and teachers responsible for this had a common view. The model therefore should not be seen as an intervention only on the principal, but rather on the school decision-making system and focus. Even though it was the principal receiving the SIP planning template, and reporting to the network, the reporting was required to include description of the operation of the school processes, of classroom processes, and of student learning. This of course placed significant constraints on principals, which may help explain the variation in responses and outcomes described above.

The findings from this study are based on multiple data sources: analysis of both open and closed survey questions which all teachers in the 23 schools in the network were invited to complete; interviews with principals, teachers and leaders in the eight case study schools; some interviews with students in the case study schools; and interviews with leaders who worked in the regional network office; and field notes from network meetings including the celebrations days. Celebrations days occurred each school term when groups of principals came together to share and celebrate the improvements and processes happening in their schools. Many of the themes emerging from the analysis of the different data sources were similar or overlapping, providing some confidence in the evidence-base for the findings.

The study, conducted over two years of data collection and analysis, has demonstrated a range of positive outcomes in at the case study schools relating to school communication and collaboration processes, professional learning of principals, leadership teams and classroom teachers. There was evidence in the survey responses and field notes from ‘celebration days’ that these outcomes were also represented in other schools in the network. The key points of change concerned the leadership processes of planning for improvement, and the rigorous attention to student data in framing teaching and learning processes. This latter point of change had the effect of basing SIP processes on a platform of evidence-based change. The research uncovered considerable anecdotal and observational evidence of improvements in student learning, in teacher accounts in interview, and presentations of student work. Interviews with students, although not as representative as the team would have liked, showed evidence of student awareness of learning goals, a key driver in the SIP improvement model. It was, however, not possible over this timescale to collect objective comparative evidence of enhanced learning outcomes.

A number of features of the short-term-cycle SIP were identified that supported positive change across the network. These were: 1) the support structures represented by the network leader and support personnel within schools, 2) the nature of the SIP model – focusing strongly on change leadership but within a collaborative structure that combined top-down and bottom-up elements, 3) the focus on data-led planning and implementation that helped drill down to explicit elements of classroom practice, and 4) the accountability regimes represented by network leader presence, and the celebration days in which principals became effectively accountable to their peers. We found that in the second year of the project, momentum was lost in the case study schools, as the network was dismantled. This raised issues also for the conduct of research in situations of systemic change.

Alongside the finding of evidence of positive outcomes in the case study schools overall, was the finding that the SIP processes and outcomes varied considerably across schools. A number of contextual factors were identified that led to this variation, including school histories of reform, principal management style, and school size and structure that made the short-term-cycle model unmanageable. In some cases there was overt resistance to the SIP model, at least in some part, and this led to an element of performativity in which the language of the SIP was conscripted to other purposes. The study found that even with functioning schools the SIP was understood differently and the processes performed differently, raising the question of whether in the study we are dealing with one SIP or many. The final take home message from the research is that schools are complex institutions, and models of school improvement need to involve both strong principled features, and flexibility in local application, if all schools’ interests in improving teaching and learning processes and outcomes are to be served.

Principals' perceptions of the use of total quality management concepts for school improvement in Mauritius : leading or misleading?

As a small island country, Mauritius is relying on its human capital and innovative hi-tech industry to ensure future economic viability in the global market. As such, Mauritian education authorities are seeking ways to raise educational standards. One idea being canvassed is that Total Quality Management (TQM) could provide the framework for Mauritian school leaders to deliver imperatives for change and improvement and to achieve the aim of ‘world- class quality education.’ This paper reports the findings of a research into Mauritian principals’ current practices in line with TQM tenets and their perceptions about the usefulness or otherwise of ideas implicit in TQM. The findings indicate that whilst principals agree with current progressive notions and thinking compatible with the TQM philosophy, they have not fully translated them into their practice. The paper identifies challenges and opportunities worthy of discussion for school improvement in twenty-first century Mauritius with its high-tech, world-class ambitions.

Changing teaching practice using a school improvement cycle

This paper discusses the actions, strategies and responses of teachers during their involvement with a short cycle school improvement model in four schools. The school improvement cycles are designed to build the leadership of principals to support teachers at an individual level through a web of decision making and practices. In these cycles, teachers are both more supported and more accountable for implementing changed classroom practices in order to bring about improved student outcomes. T he school improvement model follows a pattern of decision making and negotiation across and between layers of leadership within the network and the school, but for improvement to occur at the level of the student, the teacher’s pedagogical practices need to be r(e)negotiated to ensure that teaching practice meet the needs of the students.
However, evaluating teacher practice is risky business. Teachers can say, and believe, that their practices are providing the best for their students, but this is an area of uncertainty. Using a number of strategies including observation of teacher meetings, teacher interviews and video capture, the research will investigate the issue of how directives for change are translated into classroom practice. The observation of meetings of teachers will provide an indication of the type of change required and the proposed strategies. Video-capture, which is followed by teacher interviews, will provide further information about changing teaching practice.
With teacher permission, students in the research will also view the video snippets to indicate what particular pedagogy was instrumental in their learning, providing substantial feedback to the teacher on what works best for that cohort of students at that time. Teachers will be provided with the opportunity to reflect on and learn from their practice, using video-capture as a self-reflective tool. Teachers can employ video capture as a strategy to assess their management of students, their pedagogical approaches, teaching strategies and student responses and is an emerging area of research of interest to teachers and teacher educators (e.g. Seidel, Sturmer, Blomberg, Kobarg, Schwindt, 2011). The paper will provide examples of changed teacher practice through vignettes of a number of schools, teachers and classrooms and will explore the methodological reflexivity associated with this dual role of the research: to evaluate, and to support improvement.

Knowledge mobilization on decision making for school improvement : Canadian principals learning network.

Principals duties have expanded beyond instructional leadership. Roles now include being curriculum leader, supervisor, manager, head of finance, administration, compliance, and legal matters, and so on. These additional responsibilities impact their decision-making in relation to teaching, learning and school improvement in general. How, and on what basis, they make these decisions is crucial both to their development as instructional leaders and to educational reform processes. To contribute to knowledge on principals’ decision making skills, we have created a strategic knowledge mobilization initiative called 'Canadian Principals Learning Network (CPLN)'. Through a variety of face-to-face and online activities, it collaboratively links together an international group of practicing principals and university-based researchers with related expertise. This paper describes the initiative and outcomes.

Using the Safe Schools Hub as a Tool for School Improvement

The Safe Schools Hub is an online portal created by the Australian Government to support the National Safe Schools Framework. The Hub contains an extensive collection of resources for leaders, teachers, specialist staff, parents and students. This interactive workshop will explore a variety of ways in which school leaders and teachers can use selected resources from the Hub to facilitate positive school change in areas such as student wellbeing, teacher wellbeing, student safety and parent engagement. These resources include practical activities that can be used in staff meetings, the use of Appreciative Inquiry, a whole-school audit tool and parent surveys.