Administrators

• Admin Forum
• Assessment
• Calendar
• Employment Opportunities
• Facts About Funding
• Legislative Updates
• PLC Forum
• State Assessment Reports
• State Improvement Plan

Home

NDE Organization

• State Board of Education
• NDE Administration
• NDE Offices
• Councils & Commissions
• NDE Staff Directory

The SIP/PLC Connection

Responses to The SIP/PLC Connection

1. Gary Obermeyer says:
   November 30th, 2007 at 1:05 am

   One of the goals of continuous school improvement is to move from periodic reporting to continuous reporting, and to turn the reporting mandate into an opportunity for just-in-time support for schools.

   With the online SAGE pilot, we set up group spaces where each action step is a discrete discussion thread (the SAGE application automatically generates the group spaces).

   The strategy is simple... to capture what happens within grade level teams when it happens, while it's fresh in everyone's mind, and when a response from the external facilitator and/or resource person is likely to have greater benefit and more impact.

   We encouraged grade level teams take a few minutes at the end of each meeting to indicate a) which action step(s) their work related to, b) what they did, and c) why they did it (i.e. intended student outcomes). In other words, the team has discretion as to how the time gets used, but has an obligation to report how it was used.

   There are a number of benefits to online reporting. The first comes from making reflection part of the workday - and make theories of change explicit. The second benefit comes from making the work visible so that others ask questions, offer support, etc. For peers (within and potentially beyond the school building) it's an opportunity to learn from and with each other (a virtual PLC). For the principal, it's a window on the school improvement work. And, for the external facilitator, district resource persons, or professional developers it's an opportunity to provide continuous, just-in-time support, council, & assistance. The overarching aim of this work is to embed reporting into the daily work of schooling in order to enable and put an emphasis on supporting the school.

   When we began the SAGE pilot, I anticipated playing four roles in the online group space: 1) critical friend - affirming, probing, nudging, challenging at appropriate times in order to clarify and deepen thinking as it relates to the action steps. 2) resource person - looking for online resources that might inform, support, and/or extend thought and action in pursuit of the goals and action steps.
   3) broker - making connections between the school staff and external trainers, professional developers, etc. 4) editor/reporter - synthesizing the conversations and reports to assist in the process of quarterly and annual reviews of the work.

   Initially, I assumed that these roles would be transferred to district level staff. Now, in retrospect (and through the insights of my own critical friends) I can see that 1 & 3 are more logically vested with the principal, while 3 & 4 could be met by persons located at the district or RPDP level.

   • Does any aspects of this strategy match your approach to SIP reporting?
   • Does it suggest strategies you have not yet tried?
   • Are there refinements you can offer?

   Gary

2. Gary Obermeyer says:
   December 4th, 2007 at 4:23 am

   Working on this question of the SIP/PLC connection reminded me of a book that I've used in the past... It's called Getting Excited About Data, by Edie Holcomb, Corwin Press. I'm re-reading it as part of this inquiry.

   The version I have (first edition) was published in 1999. The second edition is available from Corwin Press at http://www.corwinpress.com/booksProdDesc.nav?prodId=Book226172

   The full title of the book is Getting Excited About Data: How to Combine People Passion, and Proof. As you might expect, it attempts to get people engaged in data around issues that matter.

   The book is divided in three sections: the first provides a knowledge base and foundation for the rest of the book, the second answers the "how to" questions regarding the seven components of change, and the third section addresses how it all fits in the context of district-wide improvement efforts.

   Dr. Holcomb identifies 7 components of change: mission, concerns, priority goals, study, strategies, assessments, and action plans. She illustrates the role of four kinds of data: baseline data, focusing data, designing data, and monitoring data.

   Essentially, the book is about alignment and ownership... which is the main reason I believe that it's appropriate to this conversation. I've attached a copy of a key illustration from the book to show you how everything fits. Although the Holcomb model uses different terminology than SAGE, it's highly compatible with the approach to school improvement in Nevada.

   I'll collect and share the "ah has" that occur to me as I read the book. If you are familiar with Holcomb's work we'd appreciate hearing your view of how you've used it. If this is your first exposure to Getting Excited About Data, we'd like to hear first impressions as well.

   Gary

   holcomb_data_chart.JPEG
3. Gary Obermeyer says:
   December 5th, 2007 at 4:49 am
   I've attached a better scan of Edie Holcomb's data model.
   Holcomb's Data Model
4. Gary Obermeyer says:
   December 5th, 2007 at 11:48 pm

   So, what are you thinking so far about the SIP/PLC connection?

   I'm hoping we can get a few voices in the mix to get a sense of what's happening, and whether or not this conversation is relevant to your work.

   While you're thinking about what you want to say, I'd like to report on an "ah-ha" that came from a phone conversation, and indirectly from my reading of Holcomb. It relates to reporting and ongoing support for school improvement action steps.

   I mentioned earlier that I've worked with online reporting of improvement plan implementation. In the experimental work I've consciously applied four roles: 1) critical friend --affirming, probing/clarifying, challenging, etc., 2) resource provider -- pointing to online resources related to issues, concerns, needs identified by the teams, 3) broker/facilitator -- bringing other people to the conversation when I'm not able to provide the necessary expertise 4) synthesizer/editor -- to provide periodic summaries of improvement efforts

   My initial assumption was that these capacities could be developed and assumed by persons at the district level. Or, in the case of schools in 3rd and 4th years of Needs Improvement (AYP), the School Support Team can assume these roles. Now, I'm also thinking about the possibility that principals and maybe to some extent SIP Teams share this responsibility as well. At least when it comes to ongoing conversation about school improvement action steps, perhaps these are the communication roles to be played by school level leadership. This would not preclude others from the district (or beyond) to also be a part of the communication loop, but the first line of communication would be between the school-wide leadership team and grade/department level teams.

   What do you think?

   Gary

5. Roy Casey says:
   December 11th, 2007 at 2:30 pm

   Gary: Great to hear from you about the available resource. WNRTP has developed and implemented a Leadership Academy. Within the academy we have three strands: SIP Implementation, Advanced T4S and Coaching, and New Site Administrators (within the first three years).

   The SIP strand provides workshops and activities throughout the year with a focus on the "implementation" and "evaluation" of the SIP plan. On-going guided mentoring monthly has created a new level of tension for the administrator and one that is great!

   The Advanced T4S strand was started by Huck Fitterer from WestEd and WNRTP will have multiple sessions throughout the school year helping the administrator to focus on individual and school improvement through data gathering and coaching both for the individual and groups. We will be in actual classrooms observing teachers as we practice the refined learning. A PLC format will be used for the process of learning.

   Perhaps the most exciting strand is the "new administrator" strand! We have thirty-three participants in region (participants from all five counties). We started with creating a vision and understanding the culture of their buildings followed by a full day of SIP training. We finished our third in a series of six trainings with a focus on "instuctional leadership and PLCs." We provided a three hour awareness workshop utilizing "The Power of Professional Learning Communities at Work--Bringing the Big Ideas to Life" and "Whatever It Takes" along with their textbook,"The New Principal's Fieldbook--Strategies for Success" to begin their learning. They talked about the three levels of "risk" in relationship to the content of a PLC. The structure for this strand is to provide a workshop followed by a group PLC by district focused on their needs including a discussion of learning, collaboration, and results. We meet once a month with each participant individually to talk about issues, make classroom observations, monitor the implementation of their SIPs, personal/professional goals and to help them gather artifacts and rate themselves using the rubric from "What Principals Should Know and Be Able To Do."

   The feedback from the assistant/associate superintendents and superintendents at the last governance board meeting was overwhelming positive for the Administrative Academy. The process used is that of a PLC!

   Enough for now off to Douglas to work with two of the participants for the day! Casey

6. Leslie James says:
   December 11th, 2007 at 5:41 pm

   As the Director of the Western Nevada Regional Training Program, thank you, Casey, for informing the administrator online forum of all the deep professional development you are doing through the 3 strands of the Leadership Academy.

   From what you stated, there is a lazer-like focus in your regional PD on alignment: student learning, professional learning support, data - aligned to standards, curriculum, instruction, assessment, observation/evaluation for feedback... which is what school improvement is all about.

   Question:

   Would you explain what you mean by "On-going guided mentoring monthly has created a new level of tension for the administrator and one that is great!"?

   It seems "tension" is stimulation necessary for change/growth, and "change" is all about learning! We often want learning to be linear from A --> B, but it is often more complex than that and that is where "tension" comes into play. It is important to hear about this phenomenon from someone who is doing this work. Mentors as growth facilitators can apply this with principals and teachers, principals can apply this with teachers, and teachers can apply this with students.

   You listed some great resources:

   • "Whatever It Takes by DuFour, DuFour, Eaker and Karhanek (National Educational Service).
   • "The Power of PLCs..." by DuFour, DuFour and Eaker (new video set - www. Solution-Tree.com)
   • "The New Principal's Fieldbook - Strategies for Success" by Robbins and Alvy
   • The rubric from "What Principals Should Know and Be Able To Do" by the National Association of Elementary School principals.

   Question:

   Is "Learning by Doing" ("how to" handbook) by DuFours, Eaker and Many a resource you have accessed in your professional development work?

   ---

   Request for others to share in this online network...

   Participants in this online administrator forum would love to hear from each other, including from other Regional Professional Development Program staff regarding your PD work connecting PLCs and SIPs. Thank you, Gary and Casey, for your effort in providing information in this thread on behalf of the administrators.

7. Gary Obermeyer says:
   December 12th, 2007 at 5:06 am

   Thanks, Roy, for describing the three strands of the Western Region Leadership Academy. I had the same question and assumption as Leslie about your "tension" comment... I'd love to hear more.

   I also find myself wondering whether any of the 33 principals in the WNRTP Academy might like to share (with this forum) their learnings and questions regarding the SIP implementation and monitoring? I'm intrigued by the clear focus on "instructional leadership and PLCs" and can't help but wonder how that plays out in grade level and/or department teams meetings... and whether/how this collaborative time gets monitored/reported.

   By the way, I hope it goes without saying that these questions are simultaneously addressed to all Forum members. If you know of resources that are helpful in building the SIP/PLC connection, or reporting protocols that you have developed, please don't be bashful about sharing.

   Gary

8. Gary Obermeyer says:
   December 16th, 2007 at 8:32 pm

   I was reviewing the SIP/PLC Connection thread, and I noticed that I left out an important detail... the SIP reporting protocol.

   btw, I know that many members of the Admin Forum have devised/developed reporting protocol. If that includes you, would you be so kind as to share the protocol and what you've learned along the way?

   My experience....

   I've found that reporting protocols make a huge difference in terms of both form and substance. Individual reports contain more useful information, and taken as a group there's a greater likelihood of finding connections and common threads... a prerequisite if the SIP team is to have meaningful interaction with staff teams.

   In my early efforts with reporting protocols, the reports were structured as end-of-meeting reports...

   1. What action step(s) did you address today?
   2. What are the intended outcomes in terms of student learning?
   3. What did you do/accomplish?
   4. What are your next steps?
   5. What additional resources are needed?

   This approach often falls short in terms of both form and substance because it is difficult to know exactly how much time to allocate. If insufficient time is allocated, the reports end up rushed, shallow, etc., or the reporter is left with the responsibility of completing the report later, on his/her own time and not necessarily reflective of the whole team. If too much time is allocated, collaborative time is short-changed.

   The solution is simple... use the reporting protocol as a meeting organizer...

   At the beginning of the meeting, the team answers the first two questions: 1. What action step(s) are we addressing today? 2. What are the intended outcomes in terms of student learning? (this makes the theory of change explicit)

   During the meeting, a recorder keeps track of actions, decisions, etc. in order to answer the third question: 3. What did we accomplish?

   That leaves two questions to address at the end of the meeting: 4. What are our next steps? 5. What resources are needed?

   This way, reporting is a part of the process and not an afterthought. Even if time runs short for the closing activity, the meeting notes provide sufficient data to reach the conclusions later. And, if the reporting is done online, questions 4 & 5 can be more easily addressed by the whole team, between meetings. And, the end-of-meeting reports provide data for the SIP/Leadership Team to use in planning subsequent meetings.

   Does this make sense? How does it compare with the practice in your school/district? What lessons or questions do you have?

   Gary

9. Roy Casey says:
   December 19th, 2007 at 1:01 am
   The "tension" that I spoke about refers to the amount of pressure that an administrator must assert to create a change. It is knowing that people and practices will change when the tension is appropriate. A great description is simply this: If you stretch a rubber band too tight it may break and change will be negative or if you don't stretch it enough then little change is made and all remains the same. When speaking of this please consider using a rubber band as a visual. Teachers and administrators will certainly understand. In our last administrative PLC we planned for and used tools from Data Driven Dialogue and the conversation came alive. Try using a Consensus-o-gram or Here's What, So What's, and Now What and watch your data come alive too! Happy Holidays! Casey
10. Leslie James says:
    December 20th, 2007 at 5:45 pm

    Thanks, Casey, for your explanation of "tension".

    Your comments stimulate my thinking (good tension!), so here's my food for thought...

    Changing can be a delicate balance between stretching and breaking. It's important to remember that the feeling of discomfort/anxiety that can accompany the change/growth process is often a good thing because it means we are "getting out of the box" and moving to a new level of awareness, understanding and action implementation. I call that process of discomfort "going through the tunnel to get to the light on the other side". Change in the right direction can bring the wonderful benefits of new energy, excitement, passion and synergy. Maintaining the status quo and not changing can also take energy and be stressful because then one is "out of alignment" with the natural flow of inevitable change. I guess if one chooses not to attain new awareness or act on it, it's sad "dead wood"!

    I think what can be really stressful for staff is "false starts" - jumping on a band wagon without really understanding what is needed - or heading in a great direction but doing so without writing a thorough theory of change/action for systemic growth. Writing a good theory of change and action is essential when writing the components of a school improvement plan because going through this process helps you think through the details and question what exactly needs to happen to achieve intended results and avoid pitfalls. Writing this theory can be the glue that connects data, research/best practice, goals, objectives and action steps. I hear many stories of schools implementing a new initiative (e.g. PD for differentiated learning) and then getting stuck without the intended results (e.g. staff "didn't like it"). There are often missing pieces in the theory of change/action (e.g. sufficient coaching etc). It can be hard to back track and fill in the gaps when the flow is interrupted and people are confused about and/or disheartened with the lack of results. PLCs as an ongoing inquiry learning/planning/teaching/evaluation process is another example. PLCs when implemented well will get student achievement results. PLCs when not implemented well will not get intended results.

    So - planning well is everything.

    Thanks also, Casey, for the mention of the Data Driven Dialogue tools you said made your conversation come alive. As I mentioned on the PLC forum 7/07... "Many of you know that a wonderful toolkit for focusing and guiding collaborative inquiry, problem solving, and planning efforts to improve student learning is "Data-Driven Dialogue: A Facilitator's Guide to Collaborative Inquiry" by Wellman and Lipton."

    Happy holidays!

11. Gary Obermeyer says:
    December 26th, 2007 at 3:43 pm

    As we approach the end of the year, I'd like to bring closure to the initial phase of the SIP/PLC Connections conversation and let you know what's coming next year. But, first, I want to say a big THANK YOU to all who contributed - in the thread itself as well as by email (there were many more emails).

    This conversation has helped me focus on reporting protocols in the context of continuous school improvement. Three key ideas emerged for me in this exchange... The first is that reporting is not something to be left for the end of grade-level/department team meetings; rather, protocols can be used as team meeting agendas. Secondly, when applied in an actual school settings, reporting protocols need to relate to the specific area of learning and/or point of inquiry. Which led to the final key idea... that designing/writing reporting protocols is a logical role for SIP Teams (the tension-making that Roy Casey described can be a shared responsibility).

    As I mentioned at the top of the thread, I am working with a pilot effort in Washoe to build capacity for online facilitation of continuous school improvement. We'll be working with a dozen schools for the balance of the year as we experiment with the technology and reporting protocols. From time to time, I will share our latest questions and discoveries in the hope that it will continue to stimulate conversation on the topic of SIP/PLC connections.

    Happy Holidays! Gary

12. Gary Obermeyer says:
    February 5th, 2008 at 9:02 pm

    I'd like to share a tool that can be used to assess the implementation a school improvement plan.  Based on protocols built into NDE's School Support Team Quarterly Reports, it asks four questions about each action step:

    1. What has been accomplished so far?
    2. What has been the effect on student learning?
    3. What barriers have you encountered?
    4. What are your next steps?

    Asking these questions periodically helps keep a focus on the improvement priorities and opens the door to professional judgment, especially question 2.

    Gary

    SIP Interview Form
13. Gary Obermeyer says:
    February 24th, 2008 at 6:22 pm
    SIP Reporting Protocols

    As you may recall, my theory of change with regard to the SIP/PLC connection is that explicit reporting protocols can improve both the functioning of collaborative teams as well as the effectiveness of SIP implementation.  Along the way, I began to experience a feeling of apprehension (first expressed in Ray's thread) about the danger of over-managing the improvement process and limiting the discretion of collaborative teams. The more I thought about it, the more it seemed to boil down to a tension between the need to be accountable and desire for professional judgment. So, I began exploring the possibility of striking a balance.

    One of the sources I like to refer to when considering PLCs, is Learning by Doing (Dufour et.al., 2006).  I have taken comfort in the passages that says: "A PLC is composed of collaborative teams whose members work interdependently to achieve common goals linked to the purpose of learning for all." (p. 3).  In fact, reporting protocols are the means to assure that collaborative teams are pursuing common goals.

    So, what I'm now trying to pull together all the factors/considerations related to reporting protocols.  I'm sharing what I have so far and asking for your feedback...

    1. What is the nature of the protocols? Do they focus on results? Do they also provide opportunities for collaborative teams to identify needed support/resources?
    
    2. Who develops the protocols (Principal, SIP/Leadership team)? Is there a structure and system in place to represent the views of all the collaborative teams in the building?
    
    3. How are the protocols implemented?  Do they help provide clarity for collaborative efforts? Is documentation a shared/distributed responsibility? Is sufficient time allocated for reporting?  
    
    4. What happens to the reports?  Who sees them? Are reports easily accessible? Is there a synthesis after each meeting?  Is there an analysis of progress over time?  Is there a timely response to identified needs?

    Note: for the purpose of this discussion, let's assume that we're working with a quality school improvement plan, with realistic and shared goals.  Is there anything you would add to, edit, delete from the list?

    Gary

14. Diane Mugford says:
    February 27th, 2008 at 9:27 pm
    Hi Gary - I am just beginning to investigate the issue of reporting protocols as it relates to the SST whose team I am on.   I have asked for input from the admin staff and other team members about whether any protocol does exist. So far is seems that there is none (at least at this school). So yes, the protocol should in the main have these features:
    
    * Aligned to action steps (and of course ultimately, "backing up" to goals and action plans from the SIP
    
    * Specific and measurable by data (whether "hard" or "soft" data)
    
    * Allowing for evalutation and reflection by the team upon what works & why, or what works & why not, with next steps resulting from this shared evaluation of progress
    
    I have been looking at Schmoker's ideas for this and have not yet proposed such a protocol to my team.
    
    I guess it is synergistic and seredipitous (or merely a part of the refining the process of change) that this is also Ray's topic. As we look at supporting changed school cultures and evolving models of leadership, it is evident that being fine-grained, focused on specific data (with a useful interpretation of sources as summative, interim, AND formative), and as part of reflective, cyclical practice is most constructive. Also we need to look at the issue of how we are supporting the evolution of shared leadership. In the case of many schools, there has not been a precedent of shared leadership and responsibility.
    
    That's all for now --- if anyone has a good protocol that teams can easily use, will buy into,  and that supports ongoing and reflective practice, please share.
    
    Regards,
    
    Diane

Leave a Reply