School Improvement Conference April 27, 2006 Framing the Framework

1. School Improvement ConferenceApril 27, 2006Framing the Framework Dr. Yvonne Caamal Canul, Director Office of School Improvement

2. My School has a School Improvement Planning Process YES NO I understand the school improvement process YES NO STOP

3. School Improvement Framework • For today… • Don’t think about “the plan” • Don’t think about NCLB • Don’t think about EdYES! • Don’t think about compliance • Don’t think about external accountability • Think about coherence

4. School Improvement Framework • For Today… • Think about the language we use to describe continuous school improvement • Think about the conversations we have that are about teaching and learning • Think about the systems we have in place that encourage and foster a shared understanding about continuous improvement

5. School Improvement Framework • Think about how the SI Framework can help us develop and sustain INTERNAL ACCOUNTABILITY • Today is about helping you in the journey towards developing mental models, a shared understanding, and protocols of practice about school improvement

6. SIF for Internal Accountability • SIF: A blueprint for building an internal accountability system

7. Basic Assumptions About Accountability • Schools address accountability using their own internal standards – BEFORE policy or legislation created accountability standards. • Internal accountability precedes and determines external accountability. R. Elmore

8. Basic Assumptions About Accountability • Highly aligned and coherent accountability systems have shared protocols for guiding their accountability discussions. • Highly aligned and coherent accountability systems don’t need external accountability standards. R. Elmore

9. Responsibility Expectations Accountability Elements of Internal Accountability Systems How individuals view their own participation in the organization – role, function, practices, responsibility, work. How the organization describes the work, practices, and participation of the individual in the organization. The routines, practices, processes, protocols that organize the work. R. Elmore

10. Coherence in Accountability • Coherence is the degree to which an individual describes the system as others do and in accordance with how the organization accounts for the work. All are on the same page and describe “protocols of practice” in similar ways. • Demonstrated “protocols of practice” can help determine the extent to which coherence is possible. • The culture of teaching is not based on “protocols of practice”, but rather craft and context. R. Elmore

11. R Low Internal Accountability • Default Culture of Accountability • Individual responsibility trumps expectations • Individual level, wide variability • Low transparency • Weak norms of practice • Low agency – not responsible for results, assignment of causality with other forces • Atomized organizations when pushed by external accountability become more atomized A E R. Elmore

12. E R A High Internal Accountability • Professional Accountability • Large intersection • High alignment between individuals and organization • High level of coherence • High transparency • Explicit norms, processes, structures of accountability and protocols of practice • High support, focused • High agency – if I can’t WE can R. Elmore

13. C T S Effective Internal Accountability Systems • Identify their core technology • Content/Curriculum • Teacher/Instruction • Student/Learning • Focus discourse on evidence • Depersonalize practice • Develop protocols of practice • Distribute voice and leadership • Create continuity and depth over time R. Elmore

14. Effective Internal Accountability Systems • Have a language to describe what they do. • Have a capacity to discuss the core technology of the organization. • Have processes that guide practice. • Have norms that encourage everyone to speak once before anyone speaks twice. • Have norms that encourage rotating leadership. • Can remove “history” from deep dialogue. R. Elmore

15. SIF as Shared Language • Have a language to describe what they do. • SIF as shared lexicon • Have a capacity to discuss the core technology of the organization. • SIF has 5 strands, 12 standards, 26 benchmarks • Have processes that guide practice. • SIF has rubrics for 90 characteristics • SIF describes the core technology in a language we ALL can share and provides processes to guide the practice of school improvement. • SIF was written BY educators FOR educators • SIF is research-based

16. SIF Guides Internal Accountability • SIF can provide schools with internal accountability standards, benchmarks, processes, and focused inquiry. • SIF helps put guideposts around the conversation about continuous improvement. • SIF can help everyone understand their role in the core technology of schools. • SIF can help the organization discuss their expectations for how we frame our thinking about our work.

17. The Future of the Framework • Collective Construct • Foundation for Assistance • Statewide Internal Accountability • Support for COHERENCE

18. Thank You OSI Advisory Group SIF Work Groups OSI Staff The State Board of Education for endorsing this vision Our colleagues who have embraced this journey