sample school improvement plan

WHOLE SCHOOL CHANGE

PROJECT

2013

GOCERLER PRIMARY SCHOOL IMPROVEMENT PLAN 2012- 2016 This report is a school improvement plan prepared for GOCERLER PRIMARY SCHOOL

in Kepez/ Antalya. The plan is designed through the collaboration between the school and

the Middle East Technical University Societal Change Center (METU SCC). The project

is funded by TUBITAK and this report is published as an example of school improvement

plan. Hence justifications for each step or part are provided to some extent in case other

schools wish to initiate school change through adapting this plan. However one must be

careful that the plan is not applicable to every situation. Before using this report, it is

highly advised to review the plan in terms of its applicability to the specific school’s

context and student achievement since the physical (resources, policies, structures,

schedules) and people factors (attitudes, beliefs, and relationships) are different in each school;that is why same formulations do not apply to every context.

1 ∞WHOLE SCHOOL CHANGE PROJECT∞

Contextual Background and Rationale

Kepez Göçerler Primary School is located in Kepez on the north side of the center of Antalya. Even though

it is not far away from the center (almost ten kilometers away), it is located in an area which has

traditionally been squatted by the ones who immigrate from the nearby cities and the southeast part of

Turkey. The families mostly belong to low and low- middle classes and are occupied with insecure/ part

time jobs or jobs with minimum wages. Although recently there have been rural transformation projects

started to be implemented in the area, the school is still experiencing the difficulties of traditionally

associated SES problems.

The school has got four classes for each grade (4+4: A,B,C,D). Therefore a two tier pattern of schooling is

provided. As for the school environment, it seems to be safe and the area allocated for students to play

during breaks is big enough. However, there is no security staff. School population is more than school’s

capacity. It has 32 classes available and in each classroom there are almost 15 students per class- quite

effective. There are thirty-seven teachers and one headmaster and two assistant headmasters working at

the school. There are enough and appropriate technical services at school (language class, science class,

computer lab etc.)

In the recent years, school has been facing with decreasing achievement level in SBS and student

enrollment rates (even though the community population is in a huge increase). In the previous years,

school headmasters tried to start some initiatives however those were only quick fixes and did not result

in the desired outcomes. Therefore, to implement a more consistent and sustainable changes at the

school, the headmasters have contacted METU SCC and both collaboratively have set up a project to be

funded by TUBITAK (1) to improve the school’s image in the community, and (2) to develop a

collaboration project with a well-known university to motivate the staff and community, (3) to tackle the

low interest of families in their children’s schoolwork. Therefore improving student learning and

organizational capacity (which respectively increases student learning through building school capacity

for sustained change) are placed at the forefront of the agenda of the project so to cover these three

problems. Plus, as suggested by Hopkins (2001), these two together are essential since without capacity

building changes in classroom practices / student learning will not be school- wide and sustained into the

medium term.

The project takes four years/ eight terms and first term is taken up with the planning process, and the

following seven terms are followed by implementation and monitoring process as advised by EIC (2000).

At the end of the each term, a summative evaluation process will take up to determine the success of


whole process. As an ongoing basis, formative evaluation is done to prove where the plan is heading

towards. Now, this report is published at the completion of the first term of the plan, and is still being

implemented.

The planning process has started with a team of initial change agents which has been set up through the

collaboration of the METU SCC and the headmasters. The team is composed of three experts from METU

SCC, all headmasters along with eight teachers (from each grade) who are into professional learning or

development practices the most among all. The team leader is the headmaster in the school and the

monitoring team is the METU SCC team.

The team meets on a regular time to gather research data and analyze it to design a change process. The

process is proposed to be depicted under four phases. For each phase, the corresponding questions (see

Table 1) are set as a basis to act upon. Beside these questions, a framework (see Figure 1)1 representing

the change process is provided alongside.

1 The naming of the phases are done this way by merging two perspectives into change process, one of which

belongs to Fullan (1999) and the other of which belongs to Hopkins (1995). Both of the scholars highly emphasize

that the phases are not linear in nature and the change process is not unidirectional. It is complex in a sense which

Phase 2. Initiation

Prioritize Needs and Focus

Areas to determine school

mission and a shared

vision.

Phase 3. Implementation

Plan

Goals

Startegies

Action Plans

Phase 3. Formative

Evaluation & Monitoring

Interventions

Trainings

Back-up classes etc.

Student Learning

Organization

Capacity

Phase 1.

Assessment Data

Gathering and

Analysis to find out

the current

strengths and areas

of needs

Figure 1. Overall Framework of School Change Process


Even though the process is outlined in a collaborative manner by the project team as shown above in

Figure 1, it must be noted down that this project belongs to neither a person nor a team but to the whole

school and even the community. Besides, the team is agreed on the idea that this is a school plan in

which school staff, parents and students must share some responsibility in terms of academic, personal

and social development of the students. Therefore, (1) to inform the whole school, (2) to facilitate the

process of school staff and community members’ adherence to the plan2 (to increase their ownership

over the plan) and (3) to set up a common language for the school improvement plan3, a number of

seminar days have been organized. The change team, parents and school staff and one student from each

classroom have participated in the seminars. Mostly high importance of initiating a change at school (the

concerns of the headmaster leading to apply for a project) has been discussed along with the importance

of setting up a school improvement project. Besides, before deeply delving into planning and

implementation of the project plan, it is significant to point out that some ideas are repeatedly

emphasized and intensely underlined by the leading scholars such as M. Fullan, S.E. Anderson, P. Berman,

R. DuFour, R. Elmore, G. Hall & S. Hord, A. Harris, D. Hopkins, A. Hargreaves, M. McLaughlin, A.

Lieberman, K. Leithwood. Therefore, these highly emphasized points have been discussed in the seminars

as well to point to the above- stated aims of the seminars. The participants’ feelings, assumptions and

perceived/ observed practices on these points have been asked for and at the end of the seminars the

following points are ended up with highly discussed by the participants with the aid of the leadership of

the team.

(1) Change is an organizational process over time not an event.

(2) Change is complex not linear and it is both exciting and challenging. Mostly the effects are becoming

vivid at the third or fourth year of implementation.

(3) Teachers are the main agents of change and without parental support change does not yield to the

desired outcomes.

(4) Students are asked for fully involving in school life since the power of pupil voice is well welcomed.

cannot be divided into units or phases. Therefore, even though the arrays give the impression of unidirectionality, it

is a compex process. Just to depict simply in what order the planning is designed, the framework is provided. 2 Implementation difficulties may be minimized by involving people in the preparation of the plan process and

having them feel the plan as their own product and change as their own mission (Hall & Hord, 2001). 3 An organization does not change until the individuals within it change (Hall and Hord, 2001).


Phase 1: Assessment

The assessment process is done on the basis of two foreground points of the project agenda: (1) student

learning and (2) organizational capacity. For each, a number of questions are outlined and a number of

data gathering tools are used. Even though the questions are allocated between two of them, they are

not mutually exclusive, but rather wholly integrated and related main issues.

The following table (benefitted from Barge, 2011 and EIC, 2000) summarizes the assessment process:

Questions/ Concerns Tools Person Responsible

Applied to whom?

Stu

den

t Le

arn

ing

1.) What are the students’ learning needs

and strengths4 when the annual subject

grades are compared within the last

three years’ trends?

Annual

Grade

Spreadsheet

The

Headmaster

(analyzed by the

team members who

are familiar with

qualitative r.m.)

2.) What particular areas (such as

reading, problem solving in math etc.) in

each subject5 are the students

performing well/ poorly?

Interviews6

Surveys7

Team Parents and

Teachers

3.) Do the following practices align with

the constructivist8 student learning? If

not, what is missing?

Curriculum Delivery

Instruction/ Teaching and Learning

Practices

Assessment Types

Teacher/Family/ Community Support

School Culture9

Interviews

Surveys

Classroom

Video Tape

METU SCC Administrators,

Parents and

Teachers and

randomly selected

students from each

classroom

Class Observations

and Exam Paper

Samples/Teachers

and Students

4 Focusing on strengths is also important so that only weaknesses-focused discussions may lead to demotivation

among the participants or make the staff feel that they are not doing anything good at school (EIC, 2000). 5 Turkish (reading/writing), Maths, Science, Social Sciences, English (basically) 6 Analysis must be done by someone expert on interview analysis. 7 Survey should be developed based on/ after the analysis of the interviews done and applied to all parents. 8 The curriculum standards must be in alignment with national standards. 9 The reason of the inclusion of this element in this table is explained below.


Org

aniz

atio

nal

Cap

acit

y 1.) What elements maximize and what

barriers exist in creating professional

learning or development skills/

knowledge at school context?

Interviews METU SCC Teachers

2.) Do the following practices maximize

will/motivation towards change? If yes,

how? If no, why?

Leadership

Family/ Community Support

School Culture

Interviews

METU SCC Teachers and

Headmaster (only

2nd and 3rd

dimensions to be

asked)

Table 1. Questions to Assess the Current Strengths and Weaknesses of School Context

As a result of the data gathering based on Table 1, the following information is summarized from each

data sources in each bullet. It must be noted down that root causes are not the following statements but

rather only the findings (problems) obtained from the data gathering process. Any analysis activity is not

done here, but in the phase 2 in the priorities part.

For the first level, generally reading and writing skills along with math are emphasized to be the

weakness points by all of the interest groups (headmasters, teachers, parents, students).

According to the headmaster, almost half of the last three years’ math and reading/ writing skills

grades are below the criteria of success (4 or 5) according to the grade spreadsheets. Some

students are reported having difficulties reading and writing correctly, even at the 4th grade. For

the second level, student achievement is mostly described by all of the interest groups in terms

of national achievement standards (SBS) and include some evidence of in- school achievement

data. Teachers and parents mostly emphasize what knowledge/ skills students’ lack of in the

multiple- choice exams taken. Again, the knowledge and skills they have difficulties with are

mostly math, science and reading. Teachers believe that students lack of analytical/critical

thinking (hence they hold low expectations of success from students and they mostly base their

ideas on the los SES level of the neighborhood). Only a few students are quite successful at every

subject at school.

Assessment types done in the school are mostly based on assessing knowledge not skills or not

related to the curriculum goals. Raw Information- retaining questions (- OECD PISA exam level 1


type of questions- all relevant information is explicitly present and the questions are clearly

defined) are mainly asked, and mostly feedback on the performance or student work is not done

systematically.

Professional learning activities are mainly confined to generic practices which are provided by

the MONE. These trainings are reported not to be linked to specific needs of teachers for

professional development. In a year, only one time monitoring practice is done only for a lesson.

This is also so routine that it does not provide any information on what specific knowledge or

skills teachers need in order to improve themselves in their profession.

In- school professional learning environment does not exist that school culture type seems to be

so congenial that teachers have limited opportunities to work with colleagues. They hold short

conversations on daily problems or events (may be also related to profession- related activities

but only unsatisfying ones). Even though a culture of professional inquiry (only for their own

classes – not whole school) is existent between the teachers and administrators, they generally

leave the school immediately when the lessons finish.

Headmasters are trusted by both parents and teachers (in a way, a sign of the existence of

mutual trust at school). They are believed to be seeking and integrating new experiences to the

school setting by both groups. They encourage teachers to work effectively in terms of making

the most of the school time to increase student achievement. However, one missing point here is

the coordination and coherence between the leadership works and teaching/ learning practices

and student achievement. The things done are mostly quick fixes to the problems. This is

believed to be related to the lack of distributed leadership in the school setting.

Parental involvement in their children’s learning in school setting is confined to seasonal parent-

teacher meetings. With the aid of the new online students’ grade monitoring (e- school), some

parents can follow their students’ achievement easily; however teachers report that the

neighborhood is not conducive to successful usage of this kind of implementation since most

families do not know how to use computer and even they do not have computers at home.

Only a few parents, again, support student learning in homework or school projects. The cultural

capital level of the parents (or parent education) is not reported to be high enough to

compensate their children’s learning weaknesses at school. Besides, it is also reported that

parents believe that students go to school and hence school must teach them everything well

without asking for parents’ help or collaboration for any time. Teachers and administrators

mainly believe that parents may not help their children in schoolwork due to the circumstances


they cannot control such as their lack of knowledge on particular schoolwork; however they

support more frequent communication between school and home.

Based on classroom observations and interviews, by the parents students are believed that they

have to be passive receivers of information transmitted from the teachers while teachers believe

that constructivist learning is important; however, curriculum content is so overloaded that they

do not have time to apply it to every class setting. They follow national curriculum through the

lens of the course books. Most parents and teachers believe that the course books are not

enough for the children to master the subjects for each grade.

Curriculum expectations are expressed primarily as activities rather than as learning goals, or

curriculum represents only a few types of objectives by the teachers and parents as well.

Curriculum outcomes are regarded as only grades. However, extracurricular activities offer most

students at least one opportunity (most of the time more) to show their knowledge acquired by

the curriculum. Finally, since the curriculum is textbook and assessment- oriented, learning goals

are not taken into account seriously hence no reference is made to students’ developmental

levels or prior knowledge.

In terms of discipline points, leadership works effectively and leaves some flexibility without

being highly rigid. Everybody knows discipline problems and most of the time headmasters

approach students and teachers with respect without being punitive. Plus, even though

homework policies are different in each class, again, students know that incomplete homework

is not well welcomed (not harshly punished though- reasonably fair enough).

The grades are determined on the basis of a combination of factors: exams, performance

homework and level of participation in the lessons. Students, however, believe that only exam

results are important. However, parents and teachers believe that grades also reflect to what

extent the students master the curriculum and how much they make effort.

These above- mentioned points are related to mainly the weaknesses which need to be improved

according to the perspectives of the interest groups. According to the findings, at first priorities are

defined and then these priority areas are designed as a survey template and whole school staff along

with parents and some students are asked to rate each item in terms of its relative importance to them.

According to the results, the following focus areas are determined and a new vision for school is

constructed through discussion among team members.


Phase 2: Initiation

First of all, school vision is determined as follows:

“We will establish clear learning goals, measure performance accordingly and

increase opportunities by increasing school capacity for all and each one of

our students. Everybody can learn and achieve.”

Then, priorities for the plan are determined as shown in Figure 2 after the responses to the survey by all

interest groups are analyzed by the team. Each priority is linked to other priority area that they should be

viewed as separate from each other. Plus, by delving into the analysis of the findings/ problems provided

above, root causes (related to the outlined priorities shown below in Figure 2), and what sound literature

review proposes for these problems are provided in Table 2. This process accelerates the phase of

determining goals, strategies and action plans in this project. Of course, all of what literature review

suggests are not included in the plan since school culture/ context determines the choices behind action

plans.

Teaching and Learning

Curriculum Alignment

Professional Development Professional Learning

Communities (distributed leadership)

Parental Involvement/ Support

Figure 2. Overall Framework of Priorities and Focus

Areas

Student Learning

Organizational

Capacity

School Culture


10 Mostly adapted from Danielson (2000) and Harris (2002) (and all course readings of EDS 553) 11 Teacher leadership roles should be defined in detail since research shows that problems with teacher leadership

arise when teacher leadership roles are not well defined (EIC, 2000). 12 As Harris (2002) proposes, successful professional developement activities are the ones which are embedded in

school culture and with a focus on collaborative action.

Teac

hin

g an

d L

ear

nin

g

Problems Root Causes Literature Review10

Low achievement level in math, reading/ writing, and science

Many factors (including the ones listed below + low achievement expectations from students + no monitoring/ feedback

Research- based instructional or learning ways: - careful lesson planning/ maximization of learning time or on- task time - articulation of learning goals to the students - monitoring of student work and diagnostic feedback - learner- centered and active learning practices (critical thinking, inquiry- based etc.) - using assessment results to inform teaching methods - teacher knowledge significantly affects student achievement - communication of high expectations by the teachers/ parents - helping students identify goals for learning - helping students with back- up classes/ assigning remedial work - high standards of content knowledge and high levels of assessment

Lesson content and in- school assessments missing in developing students’ critical thinking skills

Lack of alignment between assessment and lesson content Low- level cognitive inquiries in teaching & learning Lack of adequate teaching/ learning practices in constructivist teaching/ learning

National constructivist curriculum defined as either assessment content or course books

Lack of alignment between national curriculum and course content and course books

Curriculum expectations and outcomes defined as high grades, neither learning outcomes nor high quality learning

Lack of alignment between curriculum expectations/ outcomes and learning outcomes/ high quality learning

Pro

fess

ion

al L

ear

nin

g C

om

mu

niti

es

Incoherence between the leadership works and teaching/ learning practices and student achievement

Lack of distributed leadership which highly focuses on student achievement

Research- based capacity increasing ways: - consensus, collaboration and cooperation between teachers and headmasters - whole- school participation11 in continuous collection, organization and evaluation and analysis of school data and discussion on it with the aid of determined roles for each teacher (or unit)

Congenial school culture type in terms of dialogue among teachers

Lack of professional learning community

Pro

fess

ion

al

De

velo

pm

en

t

Unrelated trainings and little or no feedback to teacher in the professional development practices

Lack of in- school systematic professional development activities

Research- based ways of setting a systematic in- school 12professional: development: - interventions (trainings, one- legged interviews etc.)


13 Parental Improvement is so important; however also parents’ attitutes, beliefs and behaviors at home make a lot of

difference to student achievement. According to the studies, school improvement plans with no effect on student

achievement are explained by the effect of external factors- parents’ education-. Therefore, it is important for this

resport to involve parents wholly into the process. Through establishing a lifelong learning environment at school.

continuous monitoring and support through measuring stages of concern and levels of use of what is learnt - reflection & enquiry workshops on professional development practices (enquire whether the practice has resulted in changed attitudes, beliefs, behaviours) - giving leadership roles to teachers to go into data gathering and analysis of student achievement level to increase cognitive and emotional attachment to the job - mutual observation and professional partnerships are key to improving the quality of teaching - teachers’ applying action research in classrooms increase classroom practices and hence student learning

Par

en

tal I

nvo

lve

me

nt

Little or no communication between home and school (sometimes only in the seasonal parent meetings)

Low community/ teacher/ headmaster support for parental involvement

- first of all, by improving students’ self- regulation skills through (to minimize the effect of inequality between parents with different socio- economic backgrounds) Research- based ways/ Student achievement increases: - when parents supervise how students spend their time - when parents read to the children13 - take an interest in students’ progress and demonstrate this through continuous communication with school and providing information to them about how their children spend their time at home and children’s concerns/ problems/ needs with the school

Table 2. Overall Framework of Priorities, their Root Causes and Literature Review on Both


Phase 3: Implementation

At this phase, three questions (as extracted from Mooney & Mausbach, 2008) are taken into

consideration.

“1. What goals do we need to take us where we are going?

2. What strategies will we need to get there?

3. What action steps will help us get the work done?” (p. 81)

Priorities are determined and root causes of these priorities are explained along with research- based

ways of increasing student achievement and organizational capacity. As explained just at the beginning of

this report, organizational capacity building is also for the sake of increasing student achievement even

though the main aim behind is to build the capacity for sustained change. Therefore, all priority areas

first serve as ways of increasing student learning. Plus, all priority areas are linked to each other since for

a goal it is not possible to just focus on an area in developing strategies or action plans.

Again through discussion among team- work and taking Table 2 into main account, goals- strategies and

action plans are developed. A great emphasis on specific learning outcomes is put rather than general

ones since as Hopkins (2001) clarifies successful school improvement projects place an emphasis on

specific learning outcomes. At this phase all teachers are invited to review the end- product and make

comments on it. Then, the reviews are analyzed and the last draft is proposed by the team as follows:

Priority Area Student Learning

Goal By each term, students will improve math, Turkish/ literature and science skills mainly by constructing critical thinking skills (or higher order of thinking and problems solving) and by increasing their previous scores at least by 3 points.

Strategy Developing a skill- based/ constructivist alignment among curriculum, assessment and teaching.

Focus Area14 / Due Date

Action Plans

PD, TL / 25.01.13

1. Invite three professors (for each subject) from the Fac. of Edu. at METU to train teachers in skills- based math teaching and learning; and the type of assessments which support student learning at high levels (presentation of theory and description of the skill & construction of learning goals)

PLC, PD / 01.02.13

2. Assign teachers to subject- area teams and assign one member of the project team as the leader to the subject- area teams, and through discussion they develop rubrics to guide them to align curriculum and lesson content to their assessment types

PLC, PD /

3. Set up monthly subject- area team meetings (1) to support staff in their questions in developing skill- based lesson plans and exams, and (2) to connect them with the professors in the faculty of

14 Teaching and Learning: TL, Professional Learning Community: PLC, Professional Development: PD, Parental

Support: PS


Till the end of the project

education at METU so that they can discuss their concerns with them (Inquiry and reflection onto what is learnt and how it is applied)

TL / Till the end of the project

4. Organize seminars with students to present the ways of how they can study each subject above and what learning goals are expected from them, and then student teams are arranged and they are asked to reflect on what they learn in each seminar and how they are studying and the outcomes of these

TL/ Till the end of the project

5. Organize remedial learning classes for the ones left behind and a different teacher from their own teaching the same subject teaches in these classes.

PS/ At the beginning of the each term

6. A seminar is organized for the parents and they are asked to fill in forms twice a week (about how their children spend their time in a day) and give all to the teacher at the end of the months.

Sources of Evidence

Determine Ts’ level of Use- Informal interviews to be conducted by project team Samples of student work, exams, assignments, Classroom observations Student grades- to evaluate if the desired point is achieved (Pre/ post test evaluation)

Possible Indicators

Signs of critical thinking skills (higher order of thinking and problems solving) Signs of the development of higher- level understanding Higher Grades

Completed by Project team15 and Teachers

Monitored by Headmasters

Priority Area Student Learning

Goal Every student will be able to read and write in standard Turkish, and per each term, at least three books from the school library will be read by each student.

Strategy Developing a community-wide reading culture.


Action Plans

PS / Ongoing process

1. Increase the number of books in the library, and involve community and parents to find sponsorships to fund the process

PLC, PS / Ongoing process

2. Assign teachers roles to organize reading reflection sessions with students and voluntary parents each week.

TL / Ongoing process

3. Organize writing compositions school wide and on grade level at least three times each term.

15 METU SCC team stands as advisors since one of the aims of the project is to increase school’s capacity to conduct

change to ensure sustainability. 16 Teaching and Learning: TL, Professional Learning Community: PLC, Professional Development: PD, Parental

Support: PS


PLC / Till the end of the project

3. Set up monthly subject- area team meetings (1) to support staff in their questions in the organization of meetings, (2) to motivate them to read more books to lead the parents and students.

Sources of Evidence

Determine Ts’ level of Use- Informal interviews to be conducted by project team, Samples of student work, exams, assignments, Classroom observations

Possible Indicators

Signs of more students voluntarily reading more books Signs of the development of higher language skills

Completed by Project team and Teachers

Monitored by Headmasters

Priority Area Organizational Capacity

Goal Each teacher will be able to conduct action research after equipped with action research skills and monitor the change process and self- evaluate based on the research findings.

Strategy To develop in- school systematic professional development activities


Action Plans

PD/ Whole First Term

Organize workshops with subject- area teams to learn collectively about “action research” with the aid of the personnel of METU SCC; and train teachers to create their own professional development portfolio.

PD/ The Second Term

Arrange & Support teachers to identify a problem with the teaching and learning process and collect information on the problem.

PD/ The Third Term

Arrange & Support teachers to analyze the problem with their subject- area team and decide about an action collaboratively.

PD/ The Fourth and Fifth Terms

Arrange & Support teachers to analyze the problem with their subject- area team and decide about an action collaboratively.

PD/ Last year

Arrange & Support teachers to evaluate the impact of the actions and come up with better action solutions for the following cycle.

Sources of Evidence

Determine Ts’ level of Use- Informal interviews to be conducted by project team Samples of teacher work/ portfolio Classroom observations Teachers’ rooms observation

Possible Indicators

Signs of collaborative and collegial type of school environment

Completed by Project team Monitored by Headmasters

17 Teaching and Learning: TL, Professional Learning Community: PLC, Professional Development: PD, Parental

Support: PS


Phase 4: Evaluation of the Project

During and at the end of the project, “celebrating the success and ensuring the success of hard work”

processes are initiated. In other words, evaluation is done to celebrate the success and ensure that the

plan is on its track towards desired results. It is important for school staff to see that the school

improvement plan is enhancing student learning and organizational capacity to build or keep the

motivation up for more and harder work in the meanwhile.

For the formative evaluation, teachers and project team are already encouraged to be involved in

assessing the effects of their work as outlined in the implementation part above (sources of evidence).

In formative evaluation, continuous feedback is aimed.

Summative evaluation needs to be occurred at the end of the third and fourth year, and only METU SCC

is responsible for collecting information. During this evaluation process, termination of the project is out

of question. The reason behind the selection of only METU SCC to make summative evaluation lies in the

nature of summative evaluation which requires outside experts to lend an outer eye on the process.

However, it must be noted down that as Fullan emphasizes: “However noble, sophisticated, or

enlightened the proposals for change and improvement might be, they come to nothing if teachers do

not adopt them in their own classroom”. Therefore, summative evaluation has composed of two parts:

make qualitative assessment of the grades and SBS exams within the last three and four years to see whether the process has the desired impact on student achievement,

conduct formal/ informal surveys to staff, administrators, students and parents on the effectiveness of this process ion their lives to check whether organizational capacity has increased.

The content of survey questions will be based on the evaluation of stated priority areas to ensure

whether the progress towards them is attained. Therefore this part has nothing to do with the evaluation

of goals or strategies, but feedback on these can be provided though.


References

Danielson, C. (2002). Enhancing student achievement: A framework for school improvement. Virginia:

ASCD.

Education Improvement Commission. (2000). School improvement planning: A handbook for principals,

teachers and school councils. Toronto.

Hall, G.E. & Hord, S.M. (2001). Implementing change: Patterns, principles and potholes. Boston: Alyn

and Bacon.

Harris, A. (2002). School improvement: What is in it for schools? London: Routledge.

Hopkins, D. (1995). Development planning for school improvement. London: Cassell.

Hopkins, D. (2001). School improvement for real. London: Routledge.

Fullan, M. (1999). Change forces: The sequel. London: Routledge.

Fullan, M. (2007). The new meaning of educational change (4th ed.). New York: Teachers College.

Mooney, N. J. & Mausbach, A. T. (2008). Align the design: A blueprint for school improvement. Virginia:

ASCD.

Reeves, D. B. (2006). The learning leader: How to focus school improvement for better results. Virginia:

ASCD.

Zmuda, A. , Kuklis, R. & Kline, E. (2004). Transforming schools: Creating a culture of continuous

improvement. Virginia: ASCD.