SCHOOL IMPROVEMENT PLAN

SCHOOL  IMPROVEMENT PLAN

Darvesh Karim

Assistant Instructor

Professional Development Center, North

University Road, Konodass, Gilgit.

Ph. No: (+92) 05811-454132-4 Ext: 3017

Fax No: (+92) 05811-454135

Cell No: (+92) 03465419307

Email (Official): darveshkarim@pdcn.edu.pk

Email (Private): dk_hunzai@yahoo.com, darvesh.karim@gmail.com

Online Blogs: www.dkhunza.blogspot.com; www.scribd.com/dk_hunzai

            An effective school is one that enhances all aspects of students’ achievement and development (Stoll & Fink, 1996). The process of change that leads to an effective school is ‘school improvement’ which is “a systematic, sustained effort aimed at change in learning conditions and other related internal conditions in one or more schools, with the ultimate aim of accomplishing educational goals more effectively” (Van Velzen in Hargreaves & Hopkins, 1994, p.117). Literature suggests that initiatives for school improvement can not successfully be introduced without teachers’ support and their active participation (McMahon, 2001). This paper presents a teacher-led School Improvement Plan (SIP) for a specific school; it includes the context where the plan will be implemented; and the five phases of change process, information; interest; preparation; early use; and routine use.

The Context

            Aga Khan Diamond Jubilee High School, Sost is the biggest private school of upper Hunza, which is located in district Gilgit, Northern Areas of Pakistan. This school was established in 1976 when community constructed a six rooms building under the supervision of [1]AKES’ P, North. At present, it has more than fifteen rooms and one head teacher’s office cum staff room; most of these are built by the community. Students’ enrollment consists of more than 300 boys and girls. Almost eight male and nine female teachers working and usually all the teachers have an average of five periods per day. This school appears more a community school as all teachers and students are from the same community, additionally community fulfils the requirement of land for constructions.

            Most of the teachers are hardworking and motivated, they do every thing they know and are willing to improve their teaching practice. There is no issue of students’ dropout or absenteeism; teachers’ turnover is also very rare. After becoming high school in 1998, there is also some improvement in teachers’ behavior and attitude towards students. Classrooms are now more decorated by charts and displays, which are mostly prepared by teachers. In spite of all these things, teaching in this school is teacher centered and focus is on students’ rote learning or memorization.

To address these issues, as a teacher, I don’t have a variety of choices (such as develop child-centered curriculum; redesign assessment system; introduce new books). Therefore, I will work with teachers to facilitate them develop professionally. Literature suggests that professional development of teachers is essential and core to bring about change and school improvement (Frost & Durrant, 2002; Holden, 2002; Fullan, 1999). For professional development of teachers various methods or strategies are used such as action research; participating in courses; use of information technology and many others (Craft, 2000). However, mentoring program seems more appropriate for my school, as mentoring has become essential in the process of educating for change (Fletcher, 2000), additionally, the school is already familiar to it and acknowledges its positive impact.

Mentoring simply means one-to-one support to a novice teacher by an experienced one (Fletcher, 2000); however, mentoring can also successfully be used for non-coping teachers who have been working for many years but struggling with effectiveness of teaching strategies (Flesch, 2005). To support teacher learning, I will adapt this model of mentoring given by Hudson (2005), it involves (a) personal attributes of a mentor; (b) his/her understanding of system’s requirements; (c) pedagogical knowledge of area; (d) feedback; and (e) modeling by mentor. Hoban (2002) says that if there is a framework to support teacher learning, the chances for change are increased.

Phases of School Improvement

This SIP uses mentoring strategy and it aims to develop teachers’ pedagogical knowledge in one core subject, mathematics. It also focuses some other important areas such as how children learn, child-centered learning, preparing low-cost and no-cost resources, and classroom management. The duration of this SIP is one academic year; i.e. September 2008 to July, 2009.

Getting Started: Widening Information

            This first phase takes a whole month (September-2008). During first two weeks (when AKES schools are conducting first semester of academic year) I will share my SIP with Head of Field Education Office (FEO Head), Teacher Educator of Mathematics & Science and the Head Teacher, for their formal approval and to take them on board. As, involving all stakeholders is necessary for a successful plan (Fullan, 2001; Hillman & Stoll, 1994; Fertig, 2000). In the meanwhile I will start talking to the Village Education Committee, which represents parents and teachers, to gain their support. Then I will start talking to teachers, formally and informally about the SIP; and share and exchange views about various matters such as, are teaching and learning different? How? Where does most of the time go in schools? In teaching or in learning? Why do teachers speak most of the time in the class? Is there any alternative? What happens if children are given opportunities for manipulating different objects? Do children learn better by doing? What are new strategies for teaching and learning? Which are applicable in our context, and to what extent? I will also start and continue teaching a class with new approaches (such as constructivist) and strategies (such project-based; problem solving; inquiry-based; group work) that I have been learning at the Aga Khan University, Institute for Education Development during Master in Education. I will do my best through modeling, though it is not easy, and give evidence from my own classroom that students are active and learn better when learning takes place in the class rather than teaching. By the end of this phase, I hope most of the teachers will become familiar with the forthcoming change process.

 

Pre-Intervention: Building Interest

            When teachers are well informed, next step is to build and increase their interest. This will be done through various strategies in this second phase (which consists of one month October-2008). For example, when students in my class are involved in learning and constructing knowledge by using various strategies such as group tasks; group discussions; preparing for and giving presentations; arguing for and against; agreeing and disagreeing; challenging ideas; and manipulating available no-cost and low-cost materials (e.g. use of stones, coal, rubber, foam, plastic, balloons, colored-buttons, match sticks, boxes etc to learn ‘mathematical operations’). I informally will invite other teachers to my class to make them observe students’ motivation, interest, passion, excitement, and their learning. Some times, I will take students out of the classroom to carry out some activities in the playground so that other teachers and students can observe them. In this way, as supported by Hallinger and Kantamara (2001), teaching and learning process will disseminate informally and there will be a desire among other teachers and students to do the same and even better.

Intervention phase-I: Preparing for Change

            When teachers are interested and motivated to bring about change, they need preparation. This third phase is dedicated to facilitate teachers prepare for change and it will takes about two months (November & December, 2008). I will keep my classroom open for observations; moreover, I will take feedback from observers for further improvement. Next, I will scaffold teachers who are willing and start co-planning for their lessons. However, at this stage, I will not observe their classes in order to give room to settle them down. As there are two teachers in each class so they will be encouraged and facilitated to observe and give feed back to each other. Furthermore, they will also be encouraged and supported in the process of reflection by providing some guiding questions (such as what did/didn’t go well? Why? Is there any alternative?). Additionally, I will share my successes and challenges with teachers and they will also be encouraged to share their successes and challenges and reflect. Finally, we will re-plan to overcome challenges, increase successes, and for further improvement.

Intervention Phase-II: Early Use

            This phase takes five and half months (16 February to 30^th June, 2009). During this phase, I will conduct weekly workshops for mentee teachers of mathematics. These workshops will focus mathematics subject (primary, middle & secondary level mathematics) and some general topics such as ‘how children learn’; child-centered learning; preparing low-cost and no-cost teaching and learning resources; assessment; and classroom management. Half of the teachers (one from each class) will participate in the first workshop and the rest in the next workshop. In this way usual classroom teaching practices will not suffer at all; furthermore, each teacher will have an opportunity to participate in workshops twice a month. At this stage teachers will be encouraged to keep and share their reflective journals, I will also give my comments on their reflections, and this way we will construct new meanings (Flecknoe, 2005). Next I will start observing mentees’ teaching practices and will give them constructive feed back with confidentiality and mutual respect. Fertig (2000) says that contextual change, with available resources, is significantly important and it has more chances of success.

I hope by the end of this phase most of teachers will start planning their lessons; maintain reflective journals; use a variety of strategies for teaching and learning; prepare low-cost and no cost resources; and use available resources effectively. As a result their will be a new culture of student-centered learning with more focus on children’s holistic development; moreover, teachers will start thinking to go beyond the textbooks.

Institutionalization: Routine Use

            After this whole year extensive process which involves teachers, head teacher, community, and [2]Field Education Office (FEO) officials; it is supposed and expected that majority of teachers will adopt these changes as their routine use. My own personal commitment in this regard and contribution as a ‘change agent’ will also help the school to get these changes institutionalized. However, certainly there will be some challenges as Fullen (1991) says that conflicts and disagreements are not only inevitable but fundamental to successful change; and a significant change surely involves some ambiguity and uncertainty for the individuals about the meaning of change. So I must consider and respect each one’s opinion as there is no ‘one’ reality but these are ‘many’. Another issue will be provision of resources and material for the workshops and classroom practices. This issue will be handled through the support of VEC and FEO.

Conclusion

            The SIP seems quite appropriate, feasible, well planned, and contextually relevant; and it takes all stakeholders on board. Its ultimate aim is to enhance all aspects of students learning outcomes by using a variety of teaching and learning strategies. Changed classroom practices will be evidence to show that that school is learning (Dimmock, 2000). To monitor and evaluate the SIP Guskey’s (2000) model will be adapted and followed (see Appendix). However this SIP is not written on stone and may be changed, if need arises, according to the situation, needs and requirements of teachers, children, school and the administrators.

REFERENCES

Craft, A. (2000). Continuing professional development: a practical guide for teachers and schools. London and New York: Open University Press.

Dimmock, C. (2000). Designing the learning-centered school. London: The Falmer Press.

Fertig, M. (2000). Old wine in new bottles?. School Effectiveness and School Improvement, 11(3), 385-403.

Flecknoe, M. (2005). The change that count in securing school improvement. School Effectiveness and School Improvement, 16(4), 425-443.

Flesch, G. (2005). Mentoring the non-coping teacher: a preliminary study. Journal of Education for Teaching, 31(2), 69-86.

Fletcher, S. (2000). Mentoring in schools: a handbook of good practice, London: Kogan Page Limited.

Frost, D., & Durrant, J. (2002). Teachers as leaders: exploring the impact of teacher-led development work. School Leadership & Management, 22(2), 143-161.

Fulan, M. (2001). The new meaning of educational change (3^rd ed.). New York: Teachers College Press.

Fullan, M. (1999). Change forces: the sequel. London: The Falmer Press.

Fullan, M.  (1991). The new meaning of educational change. London: Cassell Education Limited.

Guskey, T. R. (2000). Evaluating professional development. California: Crown Press Inc.

Hallinger, P., & Kantamara, P. (2001). Exploring the cultural context of school improvement in Thailand. School Effectiveness and School Improvement, 12(4), 385-408.

Hargreaves, D. H., & Hopkins, D. (1994). The empowered school, London: Cassell Educational Limited.

Hillman, J., & Stoll, L. (1994). Understanding school improvement. School Improvement Network Research Matters, 1, 1-4.

Hoban, G. F. (2002). Teacher learning for educational change a systems thinking approach, Buckingham: Open University Press.

Holden, G. (2002). Towards a learning community: the role of mentoring in teacher-led school improvement. Journal of In-Service Education, 28(1), 9-21.

Hudson, P. (2005). Identifying mentoring practices for developing effective primary science teaching. International Journal of Science Education, 27(14), 1723-1739.

McMahon, A. (2001). A cultural perspective on school effectiveness, school improvement and teacher professional development. In A. Harris & N. Bennett. (Eds.), School effectiveness and school improvement: alternative perspectives. London: Continuum.

Stoll, L., & Fink, D. (1996). Changing our schools. Buckingham: Open University Press.

---

[1] Aga Khan Education Services Pakistan (AKES,P), North is a non-governmental organization which works under the umbrella of Aga Khan Development Network (AKDN) in Pakistan and provides education to majority of people in Northern Areas of Pakistan. 

[2] Field education Office works under the supervision of Central Office of AKES, situated in Gilgit city. FEOs are mostly established in subdivisions of five Districts of northern Areas  to provide material and financial  resources at door steps of AKES schools in Northern Areas.