Project Success

Greetings. It is my pleasure to introduce you to the first issue of the Success Project publication. This publication has been developed as a tool for everyone working to promote improvement in schools and districts across the state.

The Success Project has been in place since 1997 as a collaborative approach to providing technical assistance to districts. The Project’s success hinges on sharing a common understanding of school improvement and developing synergistic methods to serve school districts. The focus of our efforts has been to work with districts that are in danger of losing accreditation as measured by MSIP.

The Annual Performance Reports (APR) have provided us with the basis for determining which districts are targeted as potential districts in need of assistance.

By focusing on districts that are in greatest immediate need we have been able to develop partnerships with several districts in their efforts to raise performance prior to their MSIP review. This was our starting point. The challenge ahead of us is to continue to serve districts with the greatest need while broadening our scope of work to help districts not only sustain the short term improvement they have achieved but also to develop methods to address long term sustained school improvement.

This publication will provide summaries of research, book reviews and success stories in a way that is helpful to you as you plan for school improvement.

Much progress has been made in Missouri to focus on issues school improvement and what is best for the children in our schools. As we continue to move forward in providing schools with assistance, it is our hope that the children will always be the focus of the work we do and that we can progress toward reaching "Making a positive difference through education and service."

Marilou Joyner

table of contents

It’s Yours

A sign of SUCCESS—what an interesting title for a newsletter. When Marcie Haws and I met with Pat Smith, OSEDA journalist extraordinaire, she agreed enthusiastically to provide technical assistance in the development of this newsletter. After a few days of reflection, she provided suggestions, including this title, for our consideration. I immediately identified with the title and concepts she shared regarding content and style. Our hope is that you also find the information both informative and helpful. However, the real test will be that you find application to your work and are stimulated to contribute. We have confidence that you will do both.

A close look at our newsletter title is in order. It begins with "A." We intend to make each issue useful as a self-contained resource, but we also purpose to make it one in a series of "a" newsletters connected by a thread of ideas. Follow-up items regarding how you applied concepts and ideas are encouraged for sharing. It is the editor’s experience that good ideas generate even more good ideas. Please tell us your stories.

The word "sign" is defined in the American Heritage Dictionary as "something that suggests the presence or existence of a fact, condition or quality." In this case, the newsletter will strongly suggest that successful transformation of schools in Missouri is a fact, a condition and a quality in evidence. The sign isn’t the whole story. It can however lead us to the whole story. We hope to whet your appetite to explore some of the school success stories, research highlights, and book reviews in greater depth.

Success is the goal. We want to see schools where a culture of continuous improvement in student and teacher performance is the norm, where data is regularly used to testify to progress, and where all students eagerly anticipate what waits for them each day at school.

Send us your ideas, submit articles, review important books and research you have discovered and make this your publication.

Howard Jones

table of contents

Writings join hands in school improvement work

In this publication’s first book review, the reviewer elects to feature three books. In the work of school improvement, educational leaders are confronted with a myriad selection of approaches to fix their schools. It is sometimes difficult to see how the pieces come together. This review purposes to connect three important books by authors who have addressed many of the Success Team members in workshops.

Results: the key to continuous school improvement, by Mike Schmoker, and distributed as an ASCD publication, focuses our attention on the need to identify processes that really produce desired results. Teamwork, goals and the selective and judicious use of data are presented as the key components to achieving significant results. Schmoker emphasizes the importance of the "interdependency between collaboration and goals; between the both of these and purpose." Clear and specific goals, examined in both short- and long-term increments, ensure progress according to Schmoker. This reviewer was particularly struck by the author’s presentation of the value of unit-level benchmarks, or subgoals, developed to keep those involved encouraged and on track. The final chapter of the book stresses the importance of leadership in the school improvement equation. Practical recommendations, supported by real school examples, make this book important reading for educators.

Connecting nicely with Schmoker’s book, Victoria Bernhardt provides important ideas and practical tools in her Data Analysis for Comprehensive Schoolwide Improvement (1998) and a second book The School Portfolio: A Comprehensive Framework for School Improvement (1999). These two publications come from Eye on Education, Inc., 6 Depot Way West, Larchmont, NY 10538. Bernhardt’s books could be described as handbooks as they are full of excellent models, tables, graphs, and sample questionnaires. This reviewer noted the parallels between the model of multiple measures and the MSIP model. The school data page on the DESE web site groups data in categories of "demographics," "educational resources," "educational process data," and "educational performance data." Bernhardt’s model is expressed as "demographics," "perceptions," "school processes," and "student learning." The congruence of the two models for data makes Bernhardt’s work easily adaptable for Missouri schools. The belief that "data provide the power to make good decisions, work intelligently, work effectively and efficiently, change things in better ways, know the impact of our hard work, help us prepare for the future, and know how to make our work benefit all children" is consistent with Missouri’s emphasis on data. In The School Portfolio, Bernhardt presents excellent tools for the development of a document that makes evident progress in meeting desired goals. Sustained systemic reform is the ultimate goal.

Finally, Building Leadership Capacity in Schools, (1998) written by Linda Lambert and published by ASCD, takes the essential element of leadership into new territory. Lambert stretches our concept of leadership beyond the assigned leader, i.e. the principal or superintendent, to the importance of leadership in teachers. "Leadership capacity" is expressed as "broad-based, skillful involvement in the work of leadership". In this broader interpretation of leadership, Lambert uses several case studies to support the notion that sustained school reform is dependent upon this broader base of leadership. This reviewer found the emphasis to be on the function of leadership in the school versus the position of leadership. Chapter six, "Essential Actions for Building Leadership Capacity in Your School and District," should be required reading for school administrators.

These three authors complement each other in many ways. One thing is certain: These writings are full of sound practical help for schools as they address the higher standards of 21st century society. Leadership, clear goals and the effective collection, interpretation and application of data are topics of the day.

Reviewer: Howard Jones

table of contents

In Webb City, Communication is Key

In December 1994, the Webb City R-7 School District underwent an initial review under the Missouri School Improvement Plan and was provisionally accredited. The results of this initial review failed to meet the expectations of the students, faculty, staff, administration, Board of Education and the community in general. It would have been easy to rationalize the various factors that came into play and resulted in the district being provisionally accredited. Instead, the commitment was made to address the 31 concerns cited in the process area, the five concerns cited in student performance, and to provide the resources necessary to correct them.

Setting the Stage

The following paradigm depicts the philosophy that served as the foundation for improvement efforts the district undertook to deal with the concerns of the 1994 Review.

Rather than blaming others, the district took responsibility.
Rather than to repeat the same mistakes, the district sought to learn from past mistakes.
Rather than believe the challenges were insurmountable, the district assumed a positive attitude toward meeting each challenge.
Rather than to continue to accept past traditions and practices, the district challenged itself to look at its traditions and practices and subsequently changed those that were deemed no longer viable.
Rather than being limited by past mistakes, the district chose to take new risks.
Rather than believing itself to be a failure, the district believed in its ability to succeed.

The Plan

In December, 1995, the District submitted an improvement plan to the Department of Elementary and Secondary Education in response to the official MSIP Report it had received in April. As the plan was developed, members of the administration agreed that they would not dwell on the "less than desirable" results of the review, but rather use it as a guide to develop strategies to significantly improve their educational programs. Specific areas were targeted as "critically important" to accomplishing substantive improvements, and the following actions were initiated.

What Happened?

Long Range Facilities Assessment: In November 1995, the administration met with the Board of Education and presented an aggressive facilities expansion recommendation. This proposal called for an immediate search of properties within the district for construction of three new school facilities. The addition of these buildings would enable the district to implement a full-day kindergarten program, deal with the district’s rapidly increasing student population, implement new programs deemed vital to educational improvement and continue focus on class-size reduction.

Professional Development: Through the Professional Development Committee, strategies were put into place to direct professional development activities toward the instructional needs of the district. Requirements assured that out-of-district PDS activities meet at least one of the improvement goals of the district. In-district activities were expanded from one, half-day workshop to two full-day workshops. The committee sought to bring in nationally known speakers to address topics critical to the district. Additionally, numerous after-school workshops that focused on specific topics of interest were presented. As a further enhancement, the district joined with over 40 other schools and established the Southwest Center for Educational Excellence to focus upon professional and curriculum development.

Test Taking Strategies: A review indicated that gaps existed in the testing program as it relates to national achievement tests and the MMAT. The district believed that a sporadic testing plan contributed to the lower test results by district students. In order to increase test-taking opportunities, the district began in 1995 giving all students, grades 1 to 9, the Iowa Test of Basic Skills. The MMAT was also given at all grade levels. In an attempt to prepare students for the MMAT, the district gave a practice test in the fall of the year. Also, computer disks that contained discarded test items were purchased and given to each teacher to use in testing situations throughout the year.

Instructional Focus: To ensure a greater instructional focus, the professional development priority for administrators became that of instructional leadership, which included "Leadership for Positive Change" as a major component. Much of the material used for this training was gathered at the annual "Teaching and Learning Conference," which was sponsored by the Missouri Department of Elementary and Secondary Education.

To coordinate this focus, the job description of the Assistant Superintendent of Schools was realigned to focus upon the coordination of curriculum and instruction. Curriculum committees were appointed and department/grade level chairpersons were appointed for the core areas. Also, the position of Director of Special Services was added to assure the improvement of services to the special-needs population.

Comprehensive School Improvement Plan: The final component was the development of a plan for improving the district. This effort began with a Goals 2000 Grant and resulted in a significant The final component was the development of a plan for improving the district. This effort began with a Goals 2000 Grant and resulted in a significant change in instructional delivery at the high school. These changes included initiation of a tech-prep curriculum, block scheduling, and obtaining A+ designation. This plan was revised during the 1997-1998 school year and resulted in increasing "community buy in" for efforts to improve the district.

With the unwavering support of the Board of Education, the administration developed a plan that focused on the aforementioned efforts. The district committed itself to systematic infusion of new funds made available through The Outstanding Schools Act (S.B.380) to ensure that the district made progress in the areas of greatest need. The district made every effort to be certain that patrons were kept informed of all improvement efforts. They, in turn, demonstrated their commitment to educational improvement by passing two separate bond proposals (the second one passing with 78 percent approval). As the result, three new school buildings were constructed and ready for use during the 1998-1999 School Year.

It is truly the students’ future upon which the Webb City R-VII School District is focused, and the work continues.

Ronald Lankford, Supt.
Webb City, R-7 School District

Update: 11-2000
The intensity of effort to improve student performance in Webb City did not let up with the successful MSIP review. Dr. Lankford enthusiastically states that what he really likes to talk about is what is happening now. Considerable emphasis is being placed on the areas of reading and math. New curriculum and programs, two additional specialists (reading facilitators) employed to work directly with teachers in diagnosing and addressing reading deficits, major grant initiatives to fund further improvements, and continued monitoring of progress in all areas provide evidence of sustained effort to perform at a constantly higher level.

table of contents

The Efficacy of Teams: Part 1

The educator has most often been instructed in self-reliance. Close the door and face 25 to 30 students with the necessary confidence to prepare this group of young minds for the next level of schooling. How much preparation have educators been given in working as effective members of a team? In fact, other than an occasional textbook-selection committee assignment or work on an IEP team, opportunity to function as a part of an ongoing dynamic team hasn’t been a part of the typical school culture. The middle school movement has championed the need for team planning time, but often questions remain regarding the effectiveness of these teams. From this historical perspective, we come to the challenges of serving on Success Teams as effective change agents and respondents to real needs in helping school districts improve student performance.

Emerging from the tremendously effective use of teams in Japan, America’s business and industry has embraced the use of self-directed and vertical teams. In a survey of 476 U.S. Fortune 1000 companies (Larson, 1989), 7 percent of the workforce is organized in teams, and subsequent surveys have revealed plans for much greater use of teams. Devine and Clayton in 1999 found that nearly half (48 percent) of the organizations surveyed used some type of team. With the propensity toward the use of teams and the importance of the economic "bottom line," a considerable number of studies can be found regarding the effectiveness of teams in the business and industrial setting. Work teams have been formed as autonomous work groups, self-managing teams, vertical teams, quality circles, problem-solving teams and project teams to name a few. Moses and Stahelski, in their study "A Productivity Evaluation of Teamwork at an Aluminum Manufacturing Plant" make a statement that could be made about education. They begin their study saying,

"Global economic competition and continuous technological innovations make environmental conditions more complex and create a greater need for greater problem-solving effectiveness in organizations. As a response to these conditions, workers are more specialized and better trained. However, despite better training, individual employees in hierarchical workgroups are unable to solve these increasingly complex problems, making the supervisor-subordinate model of management less appropriate." Obviously, the challenges facing schools are no less complex and challenging. Analogous to the teams of specialized workers in the industrial setting is the potential for uniting subject matter specialists and even students as vital learning teams in the school setting.

In the private sector, several firms have specialized in training corporate workers to participate as effective team members. One such firm, LDG & Associates, lists six attributes of highly effective work teams: common purpose, clear roles, accepted leadership, effective processes, solid relationships, and excellent communication. LDG states that "A group of people is not a team. A team is a group of people with a high degree of interdependence geared toward the achievement of a goal or completion of a task…it is not just a group for administrative convenience." They go on to say that "Every work group can become a work team and every work team can become a superior work team.

That individuals perform separate and uncoordinated tasks does not prohibit them from working together to accomplish a whole host of integrated functions that are characteristic of team behavior. They can . . . share ideas, improve all jobs and work processes as a group – whether the job or process is theirs or not . . . develop coordinated responses to organizational changes that effect the whole group . . . build respect . . . participate in setting common improvement goals . . . initiate common actions for performance."

All of this seems appropriate for Success Teams. Each team could spend productive time self-evaluating its sense of common purpose, clarifying roles and responsibilities, accepting leadership responsibilities, improving processes for effective work, strengthening relationships and improving communication.

Bollen and Hoyle (1990) define perceived cohesion as "an individual’s sense of belonging to a particular group and his or her feelings of morale associated with membership in the group."

In a study by Chin, Salisbury, Pearson, and Stollak titled "Perceived Cohesion in Small Groups," published in 1999, the researchers examine the importance of this perceived cohesion in small groups. The two primary dimensions are a sense of belonging and feelings of morale. Gibson, Randel and Earley conducted a thorough, statistical analysis of group efficacy and concluded that of the 19 characteristics examined, the strongest predictor of effectiveness was the measure.

Howard Jones

table of contents

So We Received Bad News, What Next?

In a recent meeting of several professionals who serve as school information/public relations specialists, the group grappled with the topic of releasing information that identifies areas of concern or problems in the district. The purpose of this article is to highlight some of that discussion with the hope it will be of use to local school administrators.

How the district administration handles information is critical to its impact, whether the information to be released is the result of the district’s annual performance report, test results which revealed less than desired improvement, receipt of a letter from the Commissioner of Education stating the district would not be accredited if the MSIP review occurred at this time, or some other negative status report.

Ultimately, the goal is to use any data or information to inform decisions for improvement. In fact, we all recognize that specific "bad news" can assist a district significantly as it seeks to rally the support of the community in improving its schools.

In a practical example, releasing a building inspector report that finds a school building structurally dangerous can serve as a vital wake-up call to the patrons to support an upcoming bond issue. Likewise, student performance data can alert teachers, students, parents and the community at large that there is work to be done.

The process of releasing information should bring the district closer together and be constructive – not divisive, creating panic, blame, a litany of excuses, or despair. We need to get past the "shame syndrome" and promote the fact that as individuals we all need to improve and that our schools are no different. In fact, our communities must create a culture of continuous improvement by their expectations and willingness to assume responsibility for playing a vital role in this improvement. Easier said than done? Probably, but school leaders can certainly play a vital role in the development of this climate.

In our discussion, we expressed the belief that the release of data/information is most effective when district leaders initiate that release in an open environment. Hidden data will often become inflated in value, be presented out of context, and create an air of suspicion. When the school initiates the release of information, administrators can strategically plan the timing and sequence of the release specifically for the audience.

With regard to sequence, the Board of Education, administrators, teachers and other internal groups should have an opportunity to know before the external publics are informed. Information can also be customized for each individual group relative to that group’s interest.

For example, the message to parents might be packaged slightly different than the report to the Chamber of Commerce. Terminology becomes important. We discussed the value of framing the presentation to the business community using expressions such as "our focus on quality," "preparing our students to compete," "quantifying results," and "customer service." Another valuable asset in framing the release internally is that areas of strength and positive factors can be used to balance areas of challenge.

It seems obvious, but ongoing analysis and discussion at board meetings, at the school and in the public serves to minimize the sensationalism attached to the big story. If the board has discussed test results, attendance and dropout data, and/or the complete annual performance report at least annually, the story is old news when officially released.

A clearly stated and frequently discussed comprehensive school improvement plan with scheduled status reports and a clear understanding of the standard we are trying to meet seems to be an important part of the ongoing effort to keep various publics informed and avoid overreaction to news.

In our discussion, we determined that both the content and the process of the release of information are important. Our way of looking at these factors in the context of MSIP and the annual performance report was to create two categories.

Content of Message

This is the new reality – "get over it".
No excuses.
Commit to continuous improvement.
Be certain that stakeholders understand the focus on student achievement.
Consider the information as an opportunity to take positive action.
Discuss community expectations.
Solicit partners in addressing the challenge.
Relate to CSIP.
It can be done - it is achievable.
It is a worthwhile goal.
Issue an invitation to participate in improvement initiative.
Include anecdotes and case studies of improvement efforts.

Process Considerations

Identify opinion leaders (in stakeholder groups) and communicate with them.
Create ownership through engagement.
Recognize "pain avoidance" as a motivator.
Be proactive in addressing groups with information.
Face to face presentation when possible.
Have a dialogue, not just a speech.

This list is not intended to be exhaustive, but a starting place to stimulate thinking regarding the release of information. Please feel free to add and adapt where needed.

Jim Morris, DESE
Brent Ghan, MSBA
Bruce Moe, MSTA
Mary Jo Burton, North Kansas City
Roberta Coker, Independence
David Clohessy, Riverview Gardens
Howard Jones, Project SUCCESS

table of contents

Related Sites:

Close the Gap Consortium

Missouri Department of Elementary & Secondary Education

Missouri Regional Professional Development Centers

For additional information contact: Howard Jones, Project SUCCESS Coordinator.

Project SUCCESS is sponsored by The Missouri Department of Elementary and Secondary Education

Please report site problems to Marcie Haws