The Impact of School Development Planning on Teachers Instructional Practice

1. The Impact of School Development Planning on Teachers’ Instructional Practice

2. Context Brandon School Division serves 7300 students; diverse backgrounds, 22 schools Brandon: southwest corner of Manitoba; wheat capital of Canada; agrarian Population: 45,000; situated 100km north of USA/Canada border

3. Context Mission: Educate whole child; maximize abilities, strengths for personal and civic development Vision: Centre of Excellence; exemplary pedagogy, effective leadership, partnerships Strategic Directions: Diversity, Literacies, Safe and Respectful Learning Communities, School Change

4. Context Purpose: improve quality of student achievement through interdependent relationship of organization development and staff development Little documented evidence that SDP validates its purpose

5. Purpose of Research Overarching ? ascertain impact of SDP on student achievement initially by obtaining teacher perspectives Focused Initial Step (Aims) ? obtain indication of degree to which SDP is influencing and impacting teachers’ instructional practice; reasons for such and degree to which reasons reflect key criteria of school development: teaching effectiveness and cultural norms

6. Methodology 2006-2007 conducted by Superintendent and Assistant Superintendents; scripted meetings with 385 teachers in small groups (76.6% of Division teachers) Question: “What impact does your school’s development plan have on your daily classroom instruction?”

7. Methodology content of transcripts analyzed for meaningful patterns or themes as presentational meaningfulness unit of meaningfulness: teachers views of impact of SDP on daily classroom practice data revisited several times – loop like pattern of multiple rounds; interative set of processes

8. Methodology data coded to identify recurring words, phrases, topics repetition frequency yielded 22 themes Table 1: Initial Patterns of Teachers’ Responses

9. Methodology provides organized, compact summary of information analysis yields discernible systemic patterns and inter-relationships Table 2: Summary Patterns of Teachers’ Responses

10. Methodology Triangulation of data reduction results (table 2) using criteria of Stoll & Fink Typology Model (1995) Typology of Schools Change Model illustrates characteristics of school development from moving to failing Model utilizes two key criteria (with contributing factors) teaching effectiveness and cultural norms Tables 3 & 4 illustrate teachers’ responses analyzed according to factors of each criteria

11. Results and Discussion

12. Results and Discussion

13. Results and Discussion

14. Results and Discussion

15. Results and Discussion

16. Results and Discussion

17. Conclusion

18. Conclusion literacy development differentiation of teaching strategies inclusion of students with diverse learning needs

19. Conclusion MODERATE and NARROW correlational interface in factors of: teaching and curriculum frequent monitoring of student progress shared vision and goals

20. Conclusion MODERATE and NARROW correlational interface in factors of: collegiality mutual support shared goals

21. Conclusion Incidental reference made to purpose of SDP to improve quality of student achievement; focus of conversations was on teaching. Internal Divisional Research “a snapshot in time” of dynamically changing pedagogical and cultural practices.

22. Conclusion Most significant work – expand impact of SDP on all areas of teaching effectiveness and cultural norms. e.g. instructional leadership, high expectations, student involvement and responsibility e.g. responsibility for success, lifelong learning, risk taking, celebration and humour Next phase of Research: to determine impact of school development planning on student engagement in learning and achievement.

23. Sample of References Selected Elmore, R.F., & City, E.A. (2007). The road to school improvement: It’s hard, it’s bumpy, and it takes as long as it takes. Harvard Education Letter, 23(3), 1-3. Hargreaves, A. (2007). The long and short of educational change. Education Canada, 47(3), 16-23. Hopkins, D. (2001). School improvement for real. New York: Routledge Falmer. Sarason, S.B. (1995). School change: The personal development of a point of view. New York: Teachers College. Stoll, L., and Fink, D. (1995). Changing our schools: Linking school effectiveness and school improvement. Buckingham, UK: Open University. Wheatley, M. (2002). Turning to one another: Simple conversations to restore hope to the future. San Francisco: Berrett-Koehler.