This study provides preliminary evidence from an Italian in-service training program addressed to lower secondary school teachers which supports school improvement plans (SIPs). It aims at exploring the association between characteristics/contents of SIPs and student improvement in math achievement. Pre-post standardized tests and text analysis of SIPs were performed regarding a sample of 248 schools (13,816 students) participating in the project. Results show differences in planning strategies: better school improvements are associated with the ability to carry out a careful analysis of the context, prioritize elements in the diagnostic phase of the process and detect specific improvement goals.
ArmstrongJ. S. (1982). The value of formal planning for strategic decisions: Review of empirical research. Strategic Management Journal, 3, 197–211.
2.
BeachR. H.LindahlR. (2004). Identifying the knowledge base for school improvement. Planning and Changing, 35(1–2), 2–32.
3.
BeauregardR. A. (2012). Planning with things. Journal of Planning Education and Research, 32(2), 182–190.
4.
BellL. (2002). Strategic planning and school management: Full of sound and fury, signifying nothing?Journal of Educational Administration, 40(5), 407–424.
5.
BerryF. S.WechslerB. (1995). State agencies’ experience with strategic planning: Findings from a national survey. Public Administration Review, 55(2), 159–168.
6.
BobicM. P.DavisW. E. (2003). A kind word for theory X: Or why so many newfangled management techniques quickly fail. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 13(3), 239–264.
7.
BolascoS. (1999). L’analisi multidimensionale dei dati [Multidimensional data analysis]. Roma: Carocci.
8.
BormanG. D.HewesG. M.OvermanL. T.BrownS. (2004). Comprehensive school reform and achievement: A meta-analysis. In CrossC. T. (Ed.), Putting the pieces together: Lessons from comprehensive school reform research (pp. 53–108). Washington, DC: National Clearinghouse for Comprehensive School Reform.
9.
BrysonJ.RoeringW. D. (1987). Applying private-sector strategic planning in the public sector. Journal of the American Planning Association, 53, 9–22.
10.
CityE.ElmoreR. F.FiarmanS. E.TeitelL. (2009). Instructional rounds in education: A network approach to improving teaching and learning. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Education Press.
11.
ColemanJ. S.CampbellE. Q.HobsonC. J.McParlandJ.MoodA.WeinfeldF. D.YorkR. L. (1996). Equality of educational opportunity. Washington, DC: US Government Printing Office.
12.
CreemersB.KyriakidesL. (2008). The dynamics of educational effectiveness: A contribution to policy, practice and theory in contemporary schools. London: Routledge.
13.
CreemersB.KyriakidesL. (2010). Explaining stability and changes in school effectiveness by looking at changes in the functioning of school factors. School Effectiveness and School Improvement: An International Journal of Research, Policy and Practice, 21(4), 409–427.
14.
CreemersB.KyriakidesL. (2012). Improving quality in education: Dynamic approaches to school improvement. London: Routledge.
15.
CurtisR.CityE. (2009). Strategy in action: How school systems can support powerful learning and teaching. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Education Press.
16.
DoudJ. L. (1995). Planning for school improvement: A curriculum model for school based evaluation. Peabody Journal of Education, 70(3), 175–187.
17.
DunawayD. M.KimD.SzadE. R. (2012). Perceptions of the purpose and value of the school improvement plan process. The Educational Forum, 76(2), 158–173.
18.
Education Improvement Commission. (2000). School improvement planning: A handbook for principals, teachers and school councils. Toronto: Education Improvement Commission.
19.
FernandezK. E. (2011). Evaluating school improvement plans and their affect on academic performance. Educational Policy, 25(2), 338–367.
20.
FullanM. (2005). Leadership and sustainability: System thinkers in action. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin; Toronto, Canada: Ontario Principals Council.
21.
HalachmiA. (1986). Strategic planning and management: Not necessarily. Public Productivity Review, 40, 35–50.
22.
HayesD.ChristieP.MillsM.LingardB. (2004). Productive leaders and productive leadership: Schools as learning organisations. Journal of Educational Administration, 42(5), 520–538.
23.
HofmanR. H.DijkstraN. J.HofmanW. H. A. (2005). School self-evaluation instruments: An assessment framework. International Journal for Leadership in Education, 8(3), 253–272.
24.
HofmanR. H.DijkstraN. J.HofmanW. H. A. (2009). School self-evaluation and student achievement. School Effectiveness and School Improvement: An International Journal of Research, Policy and Practice, 20(1), 47–68.
25.
HuberG. P. (1991). Organizational learning: The contributing processes and the literatures. Organization Science, 2(1), 88–115.
26.
Hummel-RossiB.AshdownR. (2002). The state of cost-benefit and cost-effectiveness analyses in education. Review of Educational Research, 72(1), 1–30.
27.
Istituto nazionale per la valutazione del sistema educativo di istruzione e di formazione (INVALSI). (2009). Rilevazioni degli apprendimenti. Scuola primaria. Prime analisi [Surveys on learning. Primary school. First analyses]. Rome: INVALSI.
28.
Istituto nazionale per la valutazione del sistema educativo di istruzione e di formazione (INVALSI). (2010a). Servizio nazionale di valutazione 2010–11: Le rilevazioni degli apprendimenti a.s. 2010–11 [National Evaluation Service 2010–2011: Technical report on student achievement 2010–2011 school year]. Rome: INVALSI.
29.
Istituto nazionale per la valutazione del sistema educativo di istruzione e di formazione (INVALSI). (2010b). Le competenze in lettura, matematica e scienze degli studenti quindicenni italiani: Rapporto Nazionale PISA 2009 [Reading, math and science literacy of 15-years-old Italian students: PISA National technical report 2009]. Rome: INVALSI.
30.
Istituto nazionale per la valutazione del sistema educativo di istruzione e di formazione (INVALSI). (2010c). Le prove del Servizio Nazionale di Valutazione 2008–2009 – Analisi Tecnica [Tests of the National Evaluation Service 2008–2009 – Technical Analysis]. Rome: INVALSI.
31.
KaplanR. S.NortonD. P. (2005). The office of strategy management. Harvard Business Review, 83(10), 72–80.
32.
KellyL. K.LezotteL. W. (2003). Developing leadership through the school improvement process. Journal of School Improvement, 4(1). Retrieved 12 January 2013, from http://www.ncacasi.org/jsi/2003v4il/develop_leadership.
33.
KruseS. D. (2001). Creating communities of reform: Continuous improvement planning teams. Journal of Educational Administration, 39(4), 359–383.
34.
LanciaF. (2004). Strumenti per l’analisi dei testi. Introduzione all’uso di T-LAB [Tools for text analysis. Introduction to the use of T-LAB]. Milan: FrancoAngeli.
35.
LevineD. U.LeibertR. E. (1987). Improving school improvement plans. The Elementary School Journal, 87(4), 397–412.
36.
LevittB.MarchJ. G. (1988). Organizational learning. Annual Review of Sociology, 14, 319–340.
37.
LockheedM.HarrisA.JayasunderaT. (2010). School improvement plans and student learning in Jamaica. International Journal of Educational Development, 30(1), 54–66.
38.
McNamaraC. (2003). Field guide to nonprofit strategic planning and facilitation. Minneapolis, MN: Authenticity Consulting.
39.
MintropH.McLellanA. M. (2002). School improvement plans in elementary and middle schools on probation. The Elementary School Journal, 102(4), 275–300.
40.
MintzbergH. (1994). The fall and rise of strategic planning. Harvard Business Review, 72(1), 107–114.
41.
MoreC. (2011). The effect of Appreciative Inquiry as organizational development intervention on organizational planning and service quality improvement in St. Francis School (ICSE). Revista de cercetare si interventie sociala, 33, 27–43.
42.
OpferD.PedderD. J.LaviczaZ. (2011). The influence of school orientation to learning on teachers’ professional learning change. School Effectiveness and School Improvement: An International Journal of Research, Policy and Practice, 22(2), 193–214.
43.
Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development. (OECD). (2010). Education at a glance. Paris: OECD.
44.
PhillipsP. A.MoutinhoL. (2000). The strategic planning index: A tool for measuring strategic planning effectiveness. Journal of Travel Research, 38, 369–379.
45.
PreedyM.GlatterR.LevaçicR. (Eds.) (1997). Educational management: Strategy, quality, and resources. Buckingham: Open University Press.
46.
RamanujamV.VenkatramanN.CamillusJ. C. (1986). Multi-objective assessment of effectiveness of strategic planning: A discriminant analysis approach. The Academy of Management Journal, 29(2), 347–372.
47.
ReevesD. B. (2006a). Achievement, equity, and leadership: The Clark County School District commitment to success. Englewood, CO: The Leadership and Learning Center.
48.
ReevesD. B. (2006b). The learning leader: How to focus school improvement for better results. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
49.
ReezigtG. (2001). A framework for effective school improvement. Final report of the ESI project. Groningen, The Netherlands: GION, Groningen Institute for Educational Research, University of Groningen.
50.
ReezigtG.CreemersB. (2005). A comprehensive framework for effective school improvement. School Effectiveness and School Improvement: An International Journal of Research, Policy and Practice, 16(4), 407–424.
51.
RobinsonR. B.PearceJ. A. (1983). The impact of formalized strategic planning on financial performance in small organizations. Strategic Management Journal, 4(3), 197–207.
52.
SchechterC.SykesI.RosenfeldJ. (2004). Learning from success: A leverage for transforming schools into learning communities. Planning and Changing, 35(3/4), 154–168.
53.
ScheerensJ. (2000). Improving school effectiveness. Paris: UNESCO International Institute for Educational Planning.
54.
SchutzR. E. (1980). The design of school improvement efforts. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 2(6), 31–36.
55.
SilinsH.MulfordB. (2002). Schools as learning organisations: The case for system, teacher and student learning. The Journal of Educational Administration, 40(5), 425–446.
56.
SirinS. R. (2005). Socioeconomic status and academic achievement: A meta-analytic review of research. Review of Educational Research, 75(3), 417–453.
ThoonenE. E. J.SleegersP. J. C.OortF. J.PeetsmaT. T. D. (2012). Building school-wide capacity for improvement: The role of leadership, school organizational conditions, and teacher factors. School Effectiveness and School Improvement: An International Journal of Research, Policy and Practice, 1(20), 1–20.
59.
US Department of Education. (2006). LEA and school improvement non-regulatory guidance. Office of Elementary and Secondary Education. Washington, DC: US Department of Education.
60.
WongK. K. (2003). The new politics of urban schools. In PelisseroJ. P. (Ed.), Cities, politics and policy (pp. 283–311). Washington, DC: CQ Press.
