1. Anderson, Stephen E.; Rolheiser, Carol and Gordon, Kim.  “Preparing Teachers to Be Leaders.”  Educational Leadership 55, no.5 (February 1998): 59-61.

Part of a special issue on strengthening the teaching profession. An innovative teacher education program at the University of Toronto's Ontario Institute for Studies in Education, in partnership with the North York and Metropolitan Toronto Separate School Districts, began a two-year pilot program in 1995 that incorporated a school-improvement project into beginning teacher preparation. One of the major objectives of the project was to prepare pre-service teachers for their future role as collaborators with colleagues to make schools better places for living and learning.  Parameters that created a common understanding about the expectations of the project were school improvement, school-level projects, implementation status, school staff role, and teacher intern role.  The benefits of the project for interns included increased knowledge about conditions and processes facilitating change as well as about barriers to change.  In addition, the schools benefited because staff were pushed to clarify their understanding of school improvement and the work of school committees.  Features that were central to the project's success are outlined.

2. Baker, Paul J.  “Building Better Schools: How to Initiate, Sustain and Celebrate School Improvement.”  Planning and Changing 28, no.3 (Fall 1997): 130-138.

Part of a special issue on school improvement programs.  The process of changing schools can be started in many ways by many people with different agendas.  In the beginning stages of school improvement, questions relating to who, what, where, when, why, and how indicate a huge variety of starting points.  School leaders can develop school improvement plans that have increased likelihood of long-term success by paying special attention to the four aspects of implementation of shared decision-making, coordinated staff development, strategic plans and small-win tactics, and persistence for the long-term.  Local school improvement ventures require collaboration, demanding commitments of time and energy from administrators, teachers, students, parents, and others.  Public and semipublic celebrations of meaningful achievement are an important means of linking a school's mission to individual effort.  Events, processes, people's labors, efforts, and results are some of the many things that can be celebrated.

The focus of this study is the effects of a School Improvement Plan (SIP) on an urban elementary school. The school's regular education teachers were required to participate in one of five committees designed to prepare the SIP, which specified goals for improvement and the strategies for reaching them. Classroom observations were used by the researchers as the basis for teacher interviews and interviews with the principal. Interviews with nine teachers were used to create a survey for the remaining teachers to complete. Eighteen of the nineteen regular education teachers completed this survey, and their agreement with the opinions of the interviewed teachers was high. A list of factors that contributed to the ease and swiftness with which staff consensus was reached on restructuring activities was prepared. It includes: (1) increased staff collegiality; (2) increased interaction with community members; (3) increased teacher-student identification; (4) teacher participation in the reform effort; (5) consensus building workshops; and (6) the understanding that the SIP was not written in stone. Many of these factors reflect strong and effective leadership from the principal. Appendixes contain the coding schemes for the observations and the interviews.

Educator handbook.  2nd ed.  Toronto: Education Quality & Accountability Office, 2000. 

4. Favaro, Paul; Fine, Judith; Norman, Eva and Bell, Anne.  “Accountability and School-Based Planning: A Focus on Collaboration, Data Collection, and Communication.”  Orbit 28, no.3 (1997): 39-41.

 This article summarizes one school’s experience with integrating planning for improvement and accountability; the school’s improvement efforts are discussed within the context of basic accountability approaches. Concludes that real school improvement depends on a well articulated planning model that includes the whole school staff in its development, implementation and evaluation; on credible data regarding many aspects of school functioning and student learning; and on an adequate system of communicating the planning process and action plan to various stakeholder groups in the community.

4. Harris, Alma.  “What Works in School Improvement? Lessons from the Field and Future Directions.”  Educational Research 42, no.1 (Spring 2000): 1-11.

 Analysis of school improvement projects in Britain and elsewhere identified successful practices: vision, extended view of leadership, program-context match, multilevel approaches, and focus on student outcomes.  Projects failed when contextual factors were ignored, schools were treated the same, or single-level perspectives were adopted.  Evaluative evidence about school improvement is still lacking.

5. High, Carolyn.  “Collaborative Focus on School Improvement: Lakehead Board of Education.”  Orbit 27, no. 4 (1996): 27-30. 

6. Hunsberger, Phillip and Ryan, Thomas.  “The Jefferson School Improvement Plan: An Effort to Become “Learningful.””  Planning & Changing 28, no.3 (Fall 1997): 148-158. 

7. Kozlow, Michael.  “Using Data For School Improvement: A System‑Wide Approach.”  Orbit 28, no.3 (1997): 32-35.

 Discusses how schools in the North York Board use data in planning for school improvement. The board has implemented a three-year cycle of school self-reviews in which School Improvement Teams conduct an analysis of existing data, develop an action plan to address at least two areas for improvement, implement the action plan, and monitor the success of the plan.  During the first year of the cycle, schools conduct a comprehensive internal review and develop a detailed School Improvement Plan. In the second and third years, schools implement their improvement plans and monitor progress toward achieving the plan’s objectives.

8. Myers, Charles B.  “A Study of the Practice-Based Professional Improvement Project: Teachers Improving Their Own Practice.”  2000.  14 Pp.  (ED 444 991).  

 This paper describes the development and implementation of the Practice-Based Professional Improvement Project, a teacher-led high school improvement project that has improved academic success at several inner-city high schools in Nashville, Tennessee.  The project believes that: teachers are key to school improvement; most teachers sincerely want to strive to help student learn; and most teachers are informed, skilled professionals who want to improve their teaching.  Teachers collaborate to identify their own goals for improving student learning, develop and implement plans to accomplish their goals, and assume responsibility for results. The project emphasizes school activities intended to meet teacher-identified school needs.  A case study of the project's first 2.5 years included: data gathered by individual project participants, reflective journal entries, meeting notes, planning materials, and recorded observations of meetings and teaching; artifacts from and observations of teaching; student reactions and comments; samples of student work; student academic performance data; and written project plans and reports.  Lessons learned include: teacher power, willingness, authority, and ownership are critical to success; implementing this project involved difficult cultural and locus-of-authority shifts; teacher and student working relationships are more important than project design; and teacher participation must be voluntary.

9. Schmoker, Michael J.  “Focus : It’s About Time.”  Education Week 16, no.28 (April 9, 1997): 42, 47. 

This book contains readings supplement information provided by a group of principals, teachers, and researchers participating in the U.S. Department of Education's National Satellite Teleconference, "Students at the Center." The March 1998 broadcast shared key findings on planning, implementing, and sustaining comprehensive school reform. Readings are organized around critical reform aspects: improving student learning, creating a professional learning community; and engaging families and communities. The readings specifically concern developing  school-improvement plans, focusing on instruction, redefining school leadership,pursuing data-driven school improvement, identifying effective learning communities, and involving parents and the community in students' learning. Selections include: "Focus on School Improvement: A Planning Guide" (Far West Laboratory); "Theories of Learning and Teaching: What Do They Mean for Educators?" (Suzanne Wilson and Penelope Peterson); "Leadership and Organizational Vitality" (Lee Bolman and Terrence Deal); "Data Driven School Improvement" (James Johnson); "Professional Learning Communities: What Are They and Why Are They Important?" (Shirley Hord); "Constructing Communities of Cooperation" (Ann Lockwood); "Excellence in Professional Development and Professional Community" (Judith Warren Little); "School, Family, and Community Partnerships" (Mavis Sanders); "Community-Based Learning: A Foundation for Meaningful Educational Reform" (Thomas R. Owens and Changhua Wang); and "New Directions in Parent Involvement" (Norm Fruchter). Resources and directory information are provided.

 “The SILC School Improvement Planning Process. The SILC Road.”  1999.  17 Pp.  (ED 439 476).

 This guide outlines a school-improvement process to help schools develop an information system that improves services to students and their families. It looks at ways to build a leadership team that can orchestrate the work of families, school professionals, administrators, and students through the school-improvement process. It describes how to develop an information loop by generating a school profile that uses pictures, graphs, and text, all of which provide stakeholders with information about the school. The booklet also discusses how to decide on focus areas for change by analyzing the school profile, by gathering more information about a focus area, by developing target goals, and by scanning for potential resources. The text then details how to create an action cycle for each target goal. The action cycle prompts those in the school community to ask what they are trying to accomplish and how they can foster active involvement. It teaches how to scan for resources and how to get results. The guide demonstrates how to use quarterly checks to stay on track and how to develop new focus areas. The booklet closes with a series of questions on students and families, teaching and learning, community and culture, and systems thinking and doing.

11. Stoll, Louise.  “Supporting School Improvement.”  Education Canada 38, no.2 (Summer 1998): 14-21,36. 

The collaborative process intervention (CPI) for initiating schoolwide change is an alternative to strategic and other school improvement planning.  This approach uses visioning, benchmarking, survey feedback, quality teams, scoreboarding, reward structures, continuous improvement, and other collaborative techniques to make institutional improvements.  It can easily be adapted for schools and districts based on their unique needs and characteristics.  Furthermore, it can be used as a catalyst to initiate change by schools that are experiencing acute or chronic educational problems.  The stages involved in the five-phase CPI strategy, which relate to planning, assessing, executing, implementing, and evaluating, are described.

Back to Library Services Home Page
Back to TCDSB Home Page