Principals and superintendents are regularly required to write improvement plans. These are typically derided as being “left on the shelf” when they are supposed to be “living documents”. The implication is that educational leaders are not working on their plans the way they are supposed to. Isobel Stevenson suggests that the format of the plan itself is the reason for its lack of utility; instead, we should be less concerned about action steps and deadlines and more concerned about putting serious thought into designing a strategy that has the power to meet its student achievement goals.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
BarberM. (2015). How to run a government: So that citizens benefit and taxpayers don’t go crazy. London, UK: Penguin.
2.
BrykA.S.GomezL.M.GrunowA.LeMahieuP.G. (2015). Learning to improve: How America’s schools can get better at getting better. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Education Press.
3.
CurtisR.CityE.A. (2009). Strategy in action. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Education Press.
4.
DemingW.E. (2000). Out of the crisis. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
5.
ReevesD.B. (2006). The learning leader: How to focus school improvement for better results. Alexandria, VA: ASCD.
6.
SchmokerM.J. (2011). Focus: Elevating the essentials to radically improve student learning. Alexandria, VA: ASCD.
7.
W. K. Kellogg Foundation. (2004). Logic model development guide: Using logic models to bring together planning, evaluation, and action. Battle Creek, MI: Author.
