Criteria are needed to help schools develop improvement plans and to evaluate those plans. This article describes a rubric created to provide such criteria. We also present findings from an evaluation using the rubric and report a study of practitioner perceptions regarding improvement planning and plan implementation. Evaluation findings indicate that the plans were generally of inferior quality. Perceptual data suggest causes of this finding include weak internal linkages within plans and lack of teacher involvement in establishing school goals and instructional priorities. The data show troubling disparities in perceptions between administrators and teachers regarding planning and plan implementation.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
BodillyS., & BerendsM. (1999). Necessary district support for comprehensive school reform (pp. 111–119). In OrfieldG., & DeBrayE. H. (Eds.), Hard work for good schools: Facts not fads in Title I reform.Cambridge, MA: Civil Rights Project, Harvard University.
2.
BuchananT. K., & TashakkoriA. (1999, April). Reading instruction in the primary grades. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Montreal.
3.
CeperleyP. (2000). Timber Mountain breakdown: How a fuzzy vision derailed one school's reform effort (pp. 119–142). In TaylorD. L., & KemperE. A. (Eds.), Evaluating the effectiveness of Title I schoolwide programs: Evidence from the field.New York: AMS Press.
CochL., & FrenchJ. R. P.Jr. (1948). Overcoming resistance to change. Human Relations, 1, 512–532.
6.
CollinsR. A., & HansonM. K. (1991). Summative evaluation report: School-based management/shared decision-making project.Miami: School Board of Dade County.
7.
CrossC. (1990). Selected addresses, speeches, and remarks of the assistant secretary of education for educational research and improvement, April 17–August 7. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 323 672).
8.
FitzpatrickK. A. (1988). Indicators of schools of quality: Schoolwide indicators of quality (vol. 1). Shaum, IL: National Study of School Evaluation.
9.
FreemanJ. A., & TeddlieC. (1996, April). A phenomenological examination of “naturally occurring” school improvement: Implications for the democratization of schools. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, New York.
10.
GlickmanC. D. (1993). Renewing America's schools: A guide for school-based action.San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
11.
KushmanJ. W., & YapK. (1999). What makes the difference in school improvement? An impact study of Onward to Excellence in Mississippi schools. Journal of Education for Students Placed at Risk, 4, 227–298.
12.
MacGilchristB., & MortimoreP. (1997). The impact of school development plans in primary schools. School Effectiveness and School Improvement, 8, 192–218.
13.
O'DayJ. (1999, April). Capacity building under the gun: Some thoughts on low performing schools in high stakes contexts. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Montreal.
14.
PurkeyS. C., & SmithM. S. (1982). Too soon to cheer? Synthesis of research on effective schools. Educational Leadership, 40(3), 64–69.
15.
RenihanP. J., & RenihanF. I. (1994). Institutionalizing school improvement: A recipe for success. NASSP Bulletin, 78(559), 84–92.
16.
SchlechtyP. C. (1988). Leading cultural change: the CMS case. In LiebermanA. (Ed.), Building a professional culture in schools (pp. 185–221). New York: Teachers College Press.
17.
TaylorB. O., & BullardP. (1995). The revolution revisited: Effective schools and systemic reform.Bloomington, IN: Phi Delta Kappan Educational Foundation.
18.
TaylorD. L., & KemperE. A. (2000). Title I schoolwide programs: Evidence from the field.New York: AMS.
19.
TaylorD. L., & TashakkoriA. (1997). Toward an understanding of teachers’ desire for participation in decision making. Journal of School Leadership, 7, 609–628.
20.
TaylorD. L., TashakkoriA., & HardwickJ. (1996, January). Considering teachers’ sense of efficacy and attributions for students’ success: A descriptive study. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Southwest Educational Research Association, New Orleans.
21.
TaylorD. L., & TeddlieC. (1999). Implementation fidelity in Title I schoolwide programs. Journal of Education for Students Placed at Risk, 4, 299–310.
22.
TaylorD. L., & TeddlieC. (2000). Different roads to success: A comparison of Title I programs in one southern school district. In TaylorD. L., & KemperE. A. (Eds.), Evaluating the effectiveness of Title I schoolwide programs: Evidence from the field (pp. 49–82). New York: AMS Press.
23.
TeddlieC., & StringfieldS. (1993). Schools make a difference: Lessons learned from a 10–year study of school effects.New York: Teachers College Press.
24.
VroomV., & YettonP. W. (1973). Leadership and decision making (pp. 11–58). Pittsburgh: University of Pittsburgh Press.
25.
WangM. C., WongK. K., & KimJ. R. (1999). The need for developing procedural accountability in Title I schoolwide programs.Publication Series No. 2. Philadelphia: Mid-Atlantic Regional Educational Laboratory.
26.
WeissC. H., & CamboneJ. (1994). Principals, shared decision making, and school reform. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 16, 287–310.
27.
WongK. K., & MeyersS. J. (1998). Title I schoolwide programs: A synthesis of findings from recent evaluations. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 20, 115–136.
28.
YairG. (2000). Not just about time: Instructional practices and productive time in school. Educational Administration Quarterly, 36, 485–512.
