ºÝºÝߣ

ºÝºÝߣShare a Scribd company logo

Advance Organizer Case Study 9.18.09

•Download as DOCX, PDF•
•
WSU Cougars
WSU Cougars

The Fair Hill School District implemented a Learning Improvement Calendar (LIC) to provide three hours of weekly teacher collaboration time. The LIC aims to prepare students for further learning and careers by improving classroom practices, engaging all students, and increasing academic rigor through collaborative teacher work. However, external factors like community support, policies, funding, and politics could impact the success of the LIC. District culture and structures must also align to support the goals of increased teacher collaboration and improved student outcomes.

1 of 3
Download to read offline
COHERENCE ANALYSIS: ADVANCE ORGANIZER FOR A CASE STUDYMISSION, THEORIES OF ACTION, AND STRATEGYMISSION: The Fair Hill School District will prepare all students for the next levels of learning, satisfying and sustaining work, and effective participation in a dynamic, global society. B. THEORIES OF ACTION: How will our leadership behavior impact the instructional core? IF we create and support regular opportunities for teacher collaboration with appropriate goals, THEN teachers will create and continuously improve classroom practices for meeting the district mission.
IF teachers collaborate to design instructional practices for meeting the needs of all students, THEN all students will become more effectively engaged in their own learning.
IF teachers collaborate to design curriculum with appropriate increases in rigor for all students, THEN all students will learn at higher levels. C. STRATEGY: By adjusting school start and end times for students, the Fair Hill School District will develop a Learning Improvement Calendar. The calendar (LIC) will provide a block of three hours once each week for teacher collaboration around clear goals to help advance the district mission. EXTERNAL ENVIRONMENTA. Local external actors. Are external actors (i.e., Schools Foundation, Chamber of Commerce, local press, community leaders, day care providers, Scouts, YMCA and others) aligned with the district in support of a modified calendar for teacher collaboration? If not, what is their status? Are they unaware? Neutral? Skeptical? Hostile? What is needed to gain or increase their support? B. Law and policy. What federal, state and local policies support or limit our Learning Improvement Calendar? Are there potentially achievable changes in law, regulation or policy that would be beneficial? How should we advocate for these? C. Funding. Is current funding for our LIC adequate? Are there potential supports that would make teacher learning time more valuable? Can we lessen the impact on parents and the community? What public and/or private funding sources can be tapped to provide more funding? What conditions would we have to meet to access new funding? D. Union contracts. What current contractual agreements with our bargaining units help or hinder the success of Fair Hill's LIC? What new agreements would be most beneficial? How should we approach negotiations and general labor relations on these matters? E. Politics. What are the current political influences on the district? (Demographic divisions? Community or school rivalries that limit cooperation? Joblessness? General attitudes toward government and accountability? Attitudes toward public education generally or the district in particular?) How do local politics affect cooperation with the inconveniences of the calendar? Are there positives we can we leverage to strengthen support? DISTRICT CULTURECurrent norms. If our LIC for teacher collaboration represents what we believe, do current norms within our district support or hinder our strategy? Where do we see evidence that new norms or behaviors are needed?

More Related Content

Advance Organizer Case Study 9.18.09

  • 1. COHERENCE ANALYSIS: ADVANCE ORGANIZER FOR A CASE STUDYMISSION, THEORIES OF ACTION, AND STRATEGYMISSION: The Fair Hill School District will prepare all students for the next levels of learning, satisfying and sustaining work, and effective participation in a dynamic, global society. B. THEORIES OF ACTION: How will our leadership behavior impact the instructional core? IF we create and support regular opportunities for teacher collaboration with appropriate goals, THEN teachers will create and continuously improve classroom practices for meeting the district mission.
  • 2. IF teachers collaborate to design instructional practices for meeting the needs of all students, THEN all students will become more effectively engaged in their own learning.
  • 3. IF teachers collaborate to design curriculum with appropriate increases in rigor for all students, THEN all students will learn at higher levels. C. STRATEGY: By adjusting school start and end times for students, the Fair Hill School District will develop a Learning Improvement Calendar. The calendar (LIC) will provide a block of three hours once each week for teacher collaboration around clear goals to help advance the district mission. EXTERNAL ENVIRONMENTA. Local external actors. Are external actors (i.e., Schools Foundation, Chamber of Commerce, local press, community leaders, day care providers, Scouts, YMCA and others) aligned with the district in support of a modified calendar for teacher collaboration? If not, what is their status? Are they unaware? Neutral? Skeptical? Hostile? What is needed to gain or increase their support? B. Law and policy. What federal, state and local policies support or limit our Learning Improvement Calendar? Are there potentially achievable changes in law, regulation or policy that would be beneficial? How should we advocate for these? C. Funding. Is current funding for our LIC adequate? Are there potential supports that would make teacher learning time more valuable? Can we lessen the impact on parents and the community? What public and/or private funding sources can be tapped to provide more funding? What conditions would we have to meet to access new funding? D. Union contracts. What current contractual agreements with our bargaining units help or hinder the success of Fair Hill's LIC? What new agreements would be most beneficial? How should we approach negotiations and general labor relations on these matters? E. Politics. What are the current political influences on the district? (Demographic divisions? Community or school rivalries that limit cooperation? Joblessness? General attitudes toward government and accountability? Attitudes toward public education generally or the district in particular?) How do local politics affect cooperation with the inconveniences of the calendar? Are there positives we can we leverage to strengthen support? DISTRICT CULTURECurrent norms. If our LIC for teacher collaboration represents what we believe, do current norms within our district support or hinder our strategy? Where do we see evidence that new norms or behaviors are needed?
  • 4. New norms. Specifically, what new norms and behaviors would bolster the effectiveness of the LIC?
  • 5. Models and incentives. If there is a gap between existing and desired norms, how can new norms be embedded in our district culture? Are district leaders currently seen as modeling desired behaviors? What incentives exist for teachers to adopt new behaviors?
  • 6. District/community differences. What communications and/or other efforts can bridge the differences between district culture and external environment to increase support for the LIC? 2STRUCTURES AND SYSTEMSRoles and responsibilities. What decision-making structures touch and influence the LIC? Is control of LIC activities centralized or building-based? Is it clear who is responsible for modifying the function or format? Is it clear who is accountable for results? Does the Board have a role--and, if so, is that role clear? Do parents and community members know where to take questions or concerns about the LIC? What "role and responsibility" questions should be clarified for greater transparency, coherence and effectiveness?
  • 7. Informal structures and norms. What informal structures (social networks) affect the LIC? Have these structures created norms that enhance or limit its effectiveness?
  • 8. Systems. Do systems exist for collecting input, evaluating and increasing the effectiveness of the LIC in meeting its stated goals? For working collaboratively with student performance data? For regularly informing stakeholders, external actors and others of LIC results? For ensuring sufficient resources to meet stated goals? For negotiating contractual changes, as needed, to ensure LIC impact on the instructional core? For maintaining internal and external support? For accountability? What systems should be created, changed or eliminated to improve coherence? RESOURCESMoney. Do we have enough funding behind the LIC to make it successful? (Consider transportation needs, additional responsibility compensation for teacher leaders, curriculum consultants, technology and software, data production, etc.)
  • 9. People. Do we know enough about staff skills and abilities to match experience and opportunity? Are teacher-leaders sufficiently distributed at the sites to help guide collaborative work? Are individuals with the appropriate knowledge and skills prepared to help with group facilitation, data interpretation, software and technology, analysis of curriculum and lesson design for cognitive demand? Are we adequately integrating leaders in lesson design for special needs and ELL populations?
  • 10. Physical assets. Do we have enough school buses to implement transportation for the LIC? Are appropriate meeting areas, technology tools, books and other materials available for LIC activities? STAKEHOLDERSWho are stakeholders? Which groups, both inside and outside the district, have a legitimate interest in the district and ability to affect the strategy? Who are natural allies and detractors?
  • 11. What are stakeholder impacts? Are any stakeholders causing us to take positions that are incoherent with the goals of our strategy? Is the LIC impacting stakeholders in a way that creates resistance? What modifications would make the strategy more coherent with stakeholder interests?
  • 12. Communications. How effective are communications with stakeholders about the LIC? How should they be modified to build greater support? Can we proactively build stakeholder support for the LIC? 3