The principal's role in effective dual immersion programs

Curriculum

The Principals Role in an Effective Dual Immersion Program

This introductory literature review will provide a preliminary overview of relevant literature as it pertains to the challenges that affect the principal's role in student success, effective teaching practices and accountability. The literature review will provide information on (a) promoting collaborative problem solving and open communication, (b) collecting, analyzing and using data to identify school needs, (c) using data to identify and plan or needed changes in the instructional program, (d) implementing and monitoring the school improvement plan, and (e) using systems thinking to establish a clear focus on student achievement goals.

Schools across the country are struggling with severe issues ranging from indiscriminate eruptions of violence and collapsing facilities to staff deficits and never ending low academic outlooks for students. But a lot of people think that a shortage of competent education leaders is among the most severe of the issues. Without tough leaders, schools have little probability of meeting any other tests. Schools are constantly shifting. They are shifting in answer to a variety of pressures, including parent grievances about the superiority of education, labor market demands for more and more skilled workers, quick proceeds in technology, and the rising fame of public school options such as charter schools and support for vouchers for private education. No one can say for sure how the schools of this new time will differ from those of the past, but there can be little reservation that these schools will necessitate different kinds of leadership in order to be successful (Access Denied: Restoring the Nation's Commitment to Equal Educational Opportunity, 2001).

Effective leadership adds worth to the force of classroom and teacher practices and makes certain that permanent change flourishes. Consciousness of the school and teacher practices that impact student achievement is vital, but without effectual leadership, there is less of a chance that schools and districts will address these things in a rational and consequential manner. There are many leadership responsibilities that affect relationships to student achievement that, when time and again are implemented, can have a substantial impact on student achievement. These responsibilities include such tasks as instituting a set of standard operating measures and habits; involving teachers in the plan and execution of important decisions and policies; and supervising the success of school practices and their impact on student learning (Witziers, Bosker, & Kruger, 2003).

For the reason that leadership has such a major impact on student achievement, many state and district policymakers are changing leader preparation programs to a twofold focus on leadership abilities and management training. Principals have to have a basic core of knowledge, as well as management abilities, to enlighten and guide change. Also, as districts and schools move toward more and more data-driven systems, it is vital that principals understand how to interpret research findings and evaluative data (U.S. Department for Education Statistics, 2002).

Strong, collaborative leadership by the authority group is a main foundation stone of the basis for elevated student achievement. This type of leadership is necessary in shaping a community vision for children, creating long-range goals and plans for elevating the achievement of every child, enhancing the professional development and position of teachers and other staff, and making sure that the guidance, support, and resources needed for success are accessible. The authority team must work cooperatively and together to assemble their communities to aid in directing the educational services of today's students with future ready skills for optimal success and output to face the challenges of tomorrow (Prater, 2004).

Promoting collaborative problem solving and open communication

Creating a collaborative environment has been portrayed as the most important factor for victorious school improvement proposals (Balsamo, 2004). Nearly all modern school reformers call for augmented occasions for teacher collaboration (Marzano, 2003). Student achievement is thought to be the best when teachers and administrators work together, in small groups and across the school as a whole, in order to classify foundations of student success and then struggle collectively to put into practice school improvement (Smith, 2007). Generating and supporting change necessitates having a vital mass of educators within the school who are prepared and capable to function as change instruments (Prater, 2004).

Collaboration asks members of a school community to unite in enduring problem-solving projects. This necessitates pooling their knowledge, talents, and idea in order to move forward. In school systems, district and building leaders unite with teachers, support staff, and parents in teams in order to discover improvement issues. This is often easier said than done, successful collaboration entails leadership skills in generating frequent and diverse partnerships, supporting a vision, centering on group problem-solving, utilizing conflict resolution, and compromising (Donaldson, 2001).

As the instructional leader at the building level, the principal is the most important element to the successful implementation of standards-based instruction and, consequently, to student achievement (Balsamo, 2004). When troubles happen, principals must make sure that there are open lines of communication and collaborative problem solving methods in place in order to attain success. According to Smith, (2007), principals must lead their school all the way through the goal-setting procedure in which student achievement data is examined, development areas are recognized and actions for change are put into practice. This process entails working collaboratively with staff and school community in order to recognize inconsistencies between current and desired outcomes. The purpose is to set and prioritize objectives to help close the gap, to develop enhancement and monitoring strategies intended at accomplishing the objectives, and to communicate goals and change efforts to the whole school community. Principals must also make sure that staff growth needs are acknowledged in association with school improvement main concerns and that these needs are addressed with suitable professional learning occasions (Smith, 2007).

In the past there has been a tendency for principals to deal with instructional issues from the perspective of when they were teachers (Prater, 2004). Principals need to instead work directly with students, developing teaching methods and processes as a means for accepting teacher perspectives and for instituting a base on which to make curricular decisions (Smith, 2007). Schools need principals who will work collaboratively with everyone involved in order to determine the best ways to go about doing things.

Producing a collaborative environment has been portrayed as the single most significant issue for successful school improvement proposals (Balsamo, 2004). Collaboration promotes learning along with the standard of continuous professional growth. Structural support by way of planning meetings, informal problem-solving sessions, frequently scheduled professional development time during school, and shared planning periods for teachers who need to work together also contribute to organizational learning (Donaldson, 2001).

According to Prater, (2004) principal communication with staff is an element of principal managerial leadership. Effective principal communication practices include normal discussions with staff members in such areas as instructional, administrative, and budgetary decisions. Formal practices include goal statements, staff bulletins, newsletters and handbooks, staff meetings, parent and teacher conferences, and assemblies, along with informal practices such as conversations as opportunities to practice effective communication skills. One task of the principal is to make sure that school objectives and directives are interpreted into classroom practice. When leaders deal with constructing a shared vision, improving communication, and developing a collaborative decision making procedure, they become concerned in creating change.

The function of the principal is one which has been plainly shown to have a significant impact on the performance of the school, and the conviction that the principal has an impact on student learning has long been sustained in educational research. Frequently school leaders condemn the major function of the principal as one of instructional leadership; yet, there has yet to be developed a commonly accepted definition for that term. While most principals communicate to teachers that their main role is one of instructional leadership, they do not operationally define that term (Watkins, 1992).

Principal leadership is united closely with management of the curriculum and instruction. Principals may advance the task of sharing their knowledge with control or by focusing as an alternative on authorizing their teachers with information and offering support in using that information to develop practices (Edwards, 2006). The principal's job is to help their faculty to learn a new manner of thinking about curriculum as vibrant tools for improvement rather than stationary archives of student goals.

Successful problem solving in schools brings all concerned parties collectively to look at consequences, devise a common theory or understanding, reflect on possible reactions, classify needs for new resources and means, and move into accomplishment in reaction. The productive school community collaborates in the course of problem solving so that the progression is extensively regarded as lawful. Diverse viewpoints are welcomed and actions determined upon are widely accepted, which leads implementation being widely accepted. All through the process, the objective is to grow a common appreciation of the issue and to rally the school to respond intelligently and energetically (Smith, 2007).

According to (Donaldson, 2001), collaborative problem solving is improved by numerous conditions. Finding sufficient time is clearly a major problem. Human relations are vital. Teachers must trust each other, there must be norms that support productive criticism, and there must be techniques in place for combining and resolving disputes. Arrangements need to be in place that generates discussion for problem identification and decision making. These arrangements could be things such as normal team meetings amid teachers at the same grade level or department meetings within high schools and middle schools. Frequently useful are school connections to inside and outside sources of knowledge and scrutiny coupled to a readiness to learn from such sources. Also, schools must work to secure the power to proceed with actions that might go against existing policies and practices. By doing this they master the micro-politics of their districts and their communities.

In schools where circumstances to maintain collaborative problem solving are not in place, leaders must expertly manage two plans at the same time. They must establish the helpful conditions while taking on the problem solving process. They must construct the bus while maneuvering it. The essential of raising student performance does not permit pauses. If schools are to meet the test of incessant improvement, the commitment with both the procedure and the circumstances that support it are essential (Knezek, 2001).

Common values, dispositions and beliefs, primarily concerning promises to high goals for all students and making sure the well-being of all, along with social resources such as interpersonal belief and caring associations amongst educators and amid educators and students make probable collaborative improvement procedures. But, the significance of these circumstances goes beyond problem solving. They encourage learning and the engagement of staff and students as well as a sense that one is safe physically, socially and psychologically. When schools are places in which one feels concerned for, they are likely to be places that people care about (O'Donnell, 2002).

Collecting, analyzing and using data to identify school needs

Comprehending what the data tells a person about where their school is performing in relation to school and district objectives is the first step in data analysis. Looking to figure out why the data looks like it does is the next part (Edwards, 2006). Principals need to model for and train staff to frequently collect, analyze and utilize data to inform instruction. Principals need to ask for the contribution of the major players such as teachers, administrators, parents, and students in order to make sure that all insights and outlooks are embodied in the process (Marzano, 2003).

Data from a variety of sources can serve a number of significant staff development reasons. First, data on student learning gathered from standardized tests, district-made tests, student work samples, portfolios, and other sources present important contribution to the selection of school or district improvement objectives and provide focus for staff development efforts. This course of data analysis and objective advance characteristically concludes the content of teachers' professional learning in the areas of teaching, curriculum, and evaluation (Adkins, 1990).

Useful data are characteristically drawn from other sources, comprising norm-referenced and criterion referenced tests, grade retention, and high school achievement, reports of corrective actions, school destruction expenses, and enrollment in advanced courses, performance tasks, and participation in post-secondary education (Edwards, 2006). Data on individual tests can be examined to learn how much students advanced in one year as well as exact strengths and weaknesses connected with the focal point of the test. These data are characteristically broken down to reveal dissimilarities in learning among subgroups of students. The most ordinary way of breaking the data down includes by gender, socioeconomic status, native language, and race (Adkins, 1990).

A second use of data is in the plan and appraisal of staff development efforts, both for decisive and collective reasons. Early in a staff improvement effort, educational leaders must make a decision about what people will learn and be able to do and which kinds of confirmation will be acknowledged as pointers of success. They also establish ways to collect that evidence all through the change process to help make mid-course modifications to reinforce the work of leaders and providers (Adkins, 1990).

A third use of data takes place at the classroom level as teachers collect proof of improvements in student learning in order to establish the effects of their professional learning on their students. Teacher-made tests, assignments, portfolios, and other evidence of student learning can be used by teachers to assess whether staff development has had the desired effects in their classrooms. Since improvements in student learning are an influential motivator for teachers, confirmation of such improvements as a result of staff development experiences helps maintain teacher momentum throughout the expected aggravations and delays that go with multifaceted change efforts (Adkins, 1990). An additional benefit of data analysis, principally the assessment of student work, is that the study of such confirmation is itself a powerful means of staff advance. Teachers who utilize one of the many group processes accessible for the study of students work report that the resulting discussions of the assignment, the connection between the work and content standards, their outlook for student learning, and the utilization of scoring rubrics advance their teaching and student learning (Edwards, 2006).

If data are to offer significant direction in the process of constant improvement, teachers and administrators necessitate professional development in regards to data analysis, designing appraisal tools, putting into practice a variety of forms of evaluation, and comprehending which appraisal to use to make available the preferred information. For the reason that the pre-service preparation of teachers and administrators in assessment and data analysis has been feeble or absent, educators must have liberal chances to obtain knowledge and skills related to the formative classroom appraisal, data compilation, data analysis, and data-driven planning and assessment (Gerrell, 2005).

Data collection in schools is not a new notion. For years, districts have gathered a vast array of student and institutional information, including such items as test scores, enrollment data, budget and finance information and human resources data. In fact, many administrators have been dealing with endlessly expanding data reporting requirements for the past two decades. Many districts are now faced with tight budgets and limited resources, having to make tough decisions about cutting programs (Edwards, 2006). With a data-driven decision making system in place, administrators can rapidly and easily examine the correlation between student participation in these programs and other pointers such as student attendance, discipline incidents and student success, giving them a clear picture about the usefulness of each program. When required to make cuts, ineffective programs can be eliminated based on real-time facts and figures, rather than emotions or assumptions. Data-driven decision making has opened a new world of occasions for schools and a district to supply professional educators, students, and parent's access to large quantities of information. Today, schools can facilitate key decision makers with data and information to assist with more informed decision-making, increase overall school performance and advance student achievement (Adkins, 1990).

According to (Gerrell, 2005), knowledge is power, and there's nothing more powerful than data to help district and school leaders grow a solid blueprint with quantifiable results for ongoing improvement. With the proper use of data, the Gerrell says that districts can:

Narrow achievement gaps - Data provides quantifiable confirmation, taking the passion and guesswork out of what can be tough calls for superintendents and school boards. With a successful data-driven decision making system, states and districts can more effortlessly analyze the performance data by significant student subgroups, dispute assumptions and address troubles at the school and classroom level. On a classroom level, a lot of principals are already utilizing data to settle on student composition. If they find that one or two classes are over-occupied with low accomplishing students, they can apportion extra support resources for those classrooms, or re-distribute students to other classrooms to balance the mix.

Improve teacher quality - Districts can utilize data-driven decision making systems to emphasize the specific and targeted professional development needs of district staff and make better staff development investments. For instance, an examination of student achievement data can help superintendents comprehend which instructional strategies are generating the best results and see where additional training might be required.

Improve curriculum development - Data-driven decision making system permits administrators and teachers to accept a proactive approach to curriculum design and development. Perceptions data, for example, can tell superintendents about parent, student and staff approval with the learning environment, which also could make known areas in need of improvement. Demographic data can be utilized to provide valuable information about meeting the learning needs of students now and in the future.

Find the root causes of problems - Data helps districts and administrators see things they might not otherwise see. When data is looked at from all angles, it may emphasize a program that, even though popular, is not aiding students to learn. Data can help drill down to the root causes of an issue, allowing districts to resolve the whole problem and not just the indicator. This gives educator's great insight into interventions such as summer school and after-school programs, permitting them to carry on promoting effective programs and to transform or discontinue programs that are not working.

Share best practices - data can offer useful information within and across classes and schools in arrangements that educators at all levels can rapidly use to settle on best practices. These instances of performance excellence can then be shared with other schools and educators, in order to provide the chance for staff to learn from each other.

Communicate more effectively with key stakeholders - As an alternative to responding defensively to critics or the media, data can give administrators with facts and figures that tell a more absolute story and help key audiences appreciate the root causes of the troubles faced by their schools.

Motivate students and increase parental involvement - by examining data, teachers can recognize a student's weakness in a particular area. Instead of reviewing the complete curriculum, which can be overpowering for a lot of students, special focus can be given to just the areas the student needs to focus on to improve test scores. Teachers can support students by showing them how triumphant they were in other strands, while helping them to concentrate on the task at hand. This approach also can be very inspiring for parents, helping to augment their participation in everything from nightly homework to long-term educational planning.

Data provide a method in which to evaluate what students are learning and the degree to which students are making advancement toward objectives. Nevertheless, making sense of data requires notions, theories, and interpretative frames of reference. Utilizing data systematically to ask questions and acquire insight about student progress is a rational way in which to watch continuous improvement and adapt instruction to the needs of each student. Armed with data and the means to tie together the information data can provide, educators can make instructional changes aimed at improving student achievement, such as:

prioritizing instructional time targeting supplementary individual instruction for students who are struggling with particular topics more simply identifying individual students' forces and instructional interventions that can aid students in continuing to progress measuring the instructional usefulness of classroom lessons refining instructional techniques examining school wide data to reflect on whether and how to adapt the curriculum based on information about students' strengths and weaknesses

Using data to identify and plan for needed changes in the instructional program

Principals need to lead their school through the process of identifying school improvement goals and objectives in the arrangement with school district and state standards, and shaping the strategies that will encourage the attainment of those goals (Knezek, 2001). Strategies are a huge investment of resources so schools need to be meticulous in their evaluation and selection of school improvement strategies to make sure of a wise investment (Riehl, 2000). Principals also need to develop the ability of their staff to implement strategies by identifying staff needs and providing fitting staff development occasions (Riehl, 2000).

If one starts with an end in mind then they have an apparent understanding of their destination. This allows one to know where they are going so that they better understand where they currently are and what steps are necessary to go in the right direction. Principals need to lead their school throughout the path of identifying school improvement objectives and aims in the arrangement with school district and state standards, and of figuring out the strategies that will endorse the achievement of those objectives. Strategies are a huge investment of resources, both time and money, so schools need to be meticulous in their evaluation and selection of school improvement plans to make sure of a sensible investment. Principals also need to construct the capability of their staff to put into practice strategies by recognizing staff needs and providing suitable staff development occasions. When a school dedicates substantial time and effort to the continual assessment of a particular condition or outcome, it informs all members that the condition or outcome is measured to be important. On the other hand, inattention to monitoring a particular factor in a school designates that it is less than necessary, regardless of how frequently its importance is verbalized (Knezek, 2001).

Data is the key to unremitting improvement. When one plans, they must utilize data to give insight and focus for the objectives. Data patterns make known strengths and weaknesses in the system and offer excellent direction. When one does collect data, it will tell them the impact of their strategies. By way of collaborative reflection, one can study the feedback offered by data and begin to understand when to remain on the course and when to make changes. Then one can act accordingly to improve their strategies. Ultimately, the entire cycle starts all over again (Riehl, 2000).

According to (Knezek, 2001), in order for data to be effectively integrated into the school improvement cycle, school and district representatives have to form a team. A team, instead of an individual or a small group, is warranted for this work for the following reasons:

The steps to place data into the school improvement cycle take a lot of work and necessitate the dedication of a lot of people.

Data come from an assortment of sources. It is important to have representatives with dissimilar perspectives in order to make sure that various sources of data do not go unnoticed.

Discussions are richer and more diverse with numerous points-of-view and insights.

Distribution of information is much easier when there are many people who can remember and share experiences.

The effort required to maintain continuous school improvement during the current and following school years is much easier when tasks are divided amid a team of people.

For these reasons, district and school leaders should work to augment a leadership team that comprises members from the school and from the wider community to include parents, business leaders, and others with an interest in the school (Riehl, 2000).

Gathering the data should be a deliberate, decisive process. Helpful data will guide the school improvement team in increasing improvement goals for the benefit of all students. "The four types of data to collect and use as indicators of school or district success and progress are as follows: achievement data, demographic data, program data, and perception data. These four specific types can be used as a framework for the school improvement team to move forward with data" (Harris, 2002).

Student achievement data are the most significant kind of data that should be focused on. Educators should comprehend that achievement data comes in structures other than standardized test data. A complete assessment plan can make use of data from each of three tiers: annual data, large-scale assessment data, periodic assessment data and ongoing classroom assessment data. These tiers differ according to their purposes, rate, and kind of feedback that they provide, and their targeted audience (Harris, 2002).

Demographic data are the second kind of data to gather and look at. In an age of answerability and growing school choice, schools must cautiously watch their communities and come to know them well. When figuring out which demographic data to gather, the objective is to systematically know the school population in order to elucidate troubles and needs. Data may be gathered on each student's gender, ethnicity, or economic status; this data is fairly static. Behavioral data, like student attendance or school suspensions, is dynamic (Harris, 2002). According to (Hart, 2006) data should be gathered that shows the following:

Demographic statistics on the students that register in schools and their parents

Mobility samples in and out of grades and schools

Student transportation necessities

Rate of enrollments in special programs, such as English as a second language (ESL), special education, or after-school programs

Neighborhood distinctiveness

Parent participation

Behavior and social issues of students

It is best to gather student data longitudinally over a five-year period so that trends can be looked at and predictions made. Data from preceding years should be ordered in a way that will facilitate associations from year to year (Knezek, 2001).

Program data are the third type of data to gather. Good sources of information about the excellence of programs in schools are frequently concealed and not gathered. These data are not always easily quantifiable but are significant and frequently telling in how they can maintain a hypothesis. Time should be taken with the leadership team in order to sort out the issues they have about their programs. In particular, data should be gathered when there are questions about student achievement or student accomplishment (Harris, 2002).

Perception data from the school community are the fourth kind of data to gather and look at. These data can be informative for the reason that they help educators pay attention to the views and ideas of the school community. Educators need to be familiar with the numerous different members of the school community, and comprehend that how they value the school's services impacts students strongly (Harris, 2002).

Achievement, demographic, program, and perception data are best looked at through each of their own lenses. Then, when brought all together by evaluating everything to the achievement data, obvious patterns can emerge. These patterns aid in developing improvement plans and strategies.

For the reason that the chief importance in school improvement is on student learning, investigation of achievement data is the first lens for all other data analyses. As team members sort through the other three lenses, demographic, program, and perception data, persist their study utilizing the achievement lens (Harris, 2002).

Implementing and monitoring the school improvement plan

Even obviously stated curricular goals will lose their potential to drive the efforts of a school if no effort is made to gather and examine accurate information about student achievement that is reflective of those goals (Wardlow, 2008). In most companies, what gets looked at gets done. Staffs learn what principal's value by observing what they pay attention to. Paying attention to the foundation values and priority goals of the school is the most important way for leaders to communicate successfully (Hart, 2006). When a school dedicates substantial time and effort to the recurrent assessment of a particular situation or outcome, it notifies all members that the situation or outcome is thought to important (Marzano, 2003). On the other hand, inattentiveness to monitoring a particular factor in a school designates that it is less than essential, regardless of how frequently its importance is verbalized (Marzano, 2003).

School improvement planning is a process by which schools set objectives for improvement, and make decisions about how and when these objectives will be attained. The final goal of the process is to advance student achievement heights by enhancing the way the curriculum is delivered, by generating an affirmative environment for learning, and by rising the degree to which parents are concerned in their children learning at school and in the home (DiPaolo & Tschannen-Moran, 2003).

A school improvement plan is a plan that sets out the change a school needs to make to advance the level of student achievement, and shows how and when these changes will be done. School improvement plans are discriminating. They assist principals, teachers, and school councils answer questions on what to center on now and what will wait until later. They persuade staff and parents to watch student achievement levels and other factors, such as the school surroundings, that are known to manipulate student success (Hart, 2006). With current and dependable information about how well students are performing, schools are better able to react to the needs of students, teachers, and parents (DiPaolo & Tschannen-Moran, 2003).

Hart, 2006, says that a school improvement plan is also a means by which the public can hold schools answerable for student success and through which it can gauge improvement. One of the first things in developing an improvement plan entails teachers, school councils, parents, and other community members working jointly to gather and analyze information about the school and its students, so that they can figure out what needs to be improved in their school. As the plan is put into practice, schools persist to collect this kind of data. By comparing the new data to the original information on which the plan was founded, they can then gauge the success of their improvement plans. Real change takes time, as it does not happen overnight. It is important that all those involved understand this as they enter into the school improvement planning process. Incremental improvements are important, and they should be distinguished, but they do not comprise lasting change. School improvement plans are thus best designed as three-year plans. In order to set an objective for improving the manner in which the curriculum is delivered, principals, teachers, school councils, parents, and other community members contributing to the improvement planning process must comprehend the expectations set out by the principal and how well the students in their school are attaining those potentials (DiPaolo & Tschannen-Moran, 2003).

Gauges of success provide schools with averages against which they can gauge their advancement towards their improvement objectives. Meeting the performance objective is the definitive display of success, but action teams should also develop pointers that act as yardsticks or highlights along the way. In fact, each strategy could have a consequent pointer of success, marking the conclusion of that step on the course to meeting the objective. Indicators of success are performance based and measurable or, in the case of increased parental participation, observable (Hart, 2006).

Improvement plans should be monitored on a continuing basis in an informal way.

Principals should drop by classrooms frequently and discuss the progress of various strategies with teachers. They should also meet with school councils in order to talk about issues related to the plan. Teachers and parents should also discuss the progress of strategies on an informal basis from time to time. Additionally to these routine monitoring processes, the principal, staff, parents, and students all need to have precise opportunities to evaluate the status of various strategies in the plan, offer their opinions on the progress made, and suggest revisions in order to maintain the focus on improvement (DiPaolo & Tschannen-Moran, 2003).

Action teams should consequently incorporate into the plan a series of checkpoints for status updates. These should be formal assessments of the plan in progress. Status updates serve several purposes. The school improvement plan is a procedure. As in any procedure, some strategies will have the preferred impact and others will not. Some time lines will be sufficient, but it will become obvious over time that others are not. Status updates sustain the idea that the plan is a working document and can be adjusted as necessary. Status updates also provide ideal opportunities for superintendents to talk about progress on a school's improvement plan with the principal, teachers, and school council members. By incorporating in opportunities for assessment, the plan also supports schools to take risks in setting goals and to test new strategies. If these risks and experiments establish, after time, to be ineffective, goals and strategies can be attuned to make sure that the school upholds its focus on improvement (DiPaolo & Tschannen-Moran, 2003).

Student performance often improves when teachers utilize curriculum-delivery strategies that specifically address the needs of the students. When the school environment is positive, and when parents are involved in their children's education there is also improvement. In planning improvements, consequently, schools should institute one priority in each of three areas: curriculum delivery, school environment, and parental involvement. In order to set a goal for improving the way curriculum is delivered, principals, teachers, school councils, parents, and other community members participating in the improvement planning process must appreciate the expectations set down (O'Donnell, 2002).

Using systems thinking to establish a clear focus on student achievement goals

Schools are infamous for having an extensive list of priorities that change often, and are monitored occasionally, and leave the teacher without an obvious sense of what is important for them to stress in their classrooms (Moore, 2003). Effectual principals appreciate the importance of focus and help make sure that all parts of the school community are conscious of and in alignment with the school's improvement efforts to advance student learning. They comprehend that all parts of the school and school district system are interrelated and that it is vital to align school goals with district and state standards and goals (Knezek, 2001).

Educators who comprehend that schools are multifaceted interdependent social systems can move their school systems forward. Unfortunately, a lot of education leaders today fall short of taking hold of the inter-connectedness of these workings, resulting in little or no progress. As such, a lot of intended changes address only symptoms, not the fundamental core causes, of the problems (Knezek, 2001). Consequently, meaningful improvements do not take place. On the other hand, a number of outstanding education leaders are gradually moving toward advances that consider schools as organic organizations competent of learning and continuous improvement (Moore, 2003).

Frequently leadership decisions cause numerous complex and unforeseen reactions. Systems' thinking consists of the ability to understand and sometimes to predict interactions and relationships in multifaceted, dynamic systems. These are the kinds of systems that educators are surrounded by and entrenched in everyday. Systems thinking encourage leaders to utilize such concepts as continuous incremental improvement, organizational learning, and feedback loops (Moore, 2003). Systems' thinking necessitates leaders to see the whole school as a complex organization with many interdependent components.

A systems perspective allows educators to make decisions related to improvement of student achievement and understand the impact of each decision on the school as a whole. However, the No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB) has broken up the status quo of schools and has forced education leaders to re-evaluate various methods of organizational change. The act has required all public schools to develop clear definitions of achievement, which provide the basis to evaluate progress. There are five disciplines that learning organizations consistently exhibit-personal mastery, mental models, a shared vision, team learning, and systems thinking. The fifth discipline, systems thinking, is especially appropriate for schools that are attempting to advance student achievement (Knezek, 2001).

Systems' thinking acknowledges that effective system improvements have minimum short-term effects and significant long-term effects. In education, new programs endlessly follow new programs without effective evaluations or sufficient time for changes to impact student achievement. When educators plan programs and related evaluations, appropriate questions help them focus thinking and expectations. Prior to implementing a program, educators should consider what the program is trying to accomplish, if the school has the necessary resources, money, time, and skills, when the short-term outcomes take place, and when will that long-term outcome be expected. However, educators need to keep in mind that system changes have long-term effects (Witziers, Bosker, & Kruger, 2003).

Many traditional principals address symptom after symptom and thus resolve low-leverage problems. It is not enough to see a particular structure underlying a particular problem. This can lead to solving a problem, but it will not change the thinking that produced the problem in the first place. For many years, education leaders have treated symptoms, such as low achievement scores, as root causes. Unfortunately, the low achievement will continue to occur because the root causes are ignored. The identification of root causes and appropriate application of high-leverage solutions are very complex tasks. A variety of approaches may be necessary to obtain a thorough understanding of how a complex system works. Schools need to develop effective leaders who have diverse perspectives and are capable of implementing change (Witziers, Bosker, & Kruger, 2003).

Staff development that has as its goal high levels of learning for all students, teachers, and administrators necessitates a kind of expert learning that is quite different from a workshop-driven approach. The most influential shapes of staff development take place in continuing teams that meet on a consistent basis; if possible a number of times a week, for the reasons of learning, combined lesson planning, and problem solving. These teams, frequently called learning communities or communities of practice, function with a dedication to the norms of continuous improvement and experimentation and employ their members in improving their daily work to move forward the achievement of school district and school goals for student learning (Adkins, 1990).

Learning teams may be of different sizes and serve dissimilar purposes. For instance, the faculty as a whole may meet once or twice a month to reflect on its effort, engage in appropriate learning, and evaluate its progress. Additionally, some members of the faculty may serve on school improvement teams or committees that focus on the goals and methods of school wide improvement. While these teams make significant contributions to school culture, learning environments and other priority issues, they do not take the place of the day-to-day professional conversations focused on instructional issues that are the trademark of effective learning communities (Witziers, Bosker, & Kruger, 2003). Learning teams meet almost every day and concern themselves with sensible ways to improve teaching and learning. Members of learning communities take shared accountability for the learning of all students characterized by team members. Teacher members of learning teams assist one another in looking at the standards students are necessary to master, planning more effectual lessons, critiquing student work, and solving the frequent problems of teaching (Adkins, 1990).

The teams decide on areas in which additional learning would be helpful and read articles, attend workshops or courses, or invite consultants to aid them in obtaining the necessary knowledge or skills. In addition to the regular meetings, participants monitor one another in the classroom and conduct other job-related responsibilities (Knezek, 2001). Learning communities are often strengthened when other support staff, administrators, and even school board members choose to participate, and when communication is facilitated between the teams. Because of this universal focus and clear direction, problems of disintegration and incoherence that characteristically foil school improvement efforts are done away with (Adkins, 1990).

Administrator learning communities also meet on a normal basis to intensify participants' understanding of instructional leadership, recognize realistic ways to assist teachers in improving the superiority of student work, critique one another's school improvement efforts, and learn vital skills such as data analysis and providing helpful feedback to teachers (Knezek, 2001). A lot of educators also benefit from participation in regional or national subject-matter networks or school reform consortia that connect schools with common interests. While most such networks have face-to-face meetings, increasing numbers of participants use electronic means such as e-mail, lists, and bulletin boards to communicate between meetings or as a substitute for meetings. Such virtual networks can provide important sources of information and knowledge as well as the interpersonal support required to persist over time in changing complex school wide or classroom practices (Witziers, Bosker, & Kruger, 2003).

According to Knezek, (2001), school boards in districts with high student achievement tend to exhibit the following:

Consistent expression of the belief that all students can learn and that the school can teach all students. This no excuses belief system results in high standards for students and a continuous devotion to improvement. In low-achieving districts, board members often limit expectations and frequently focus on factors that they believe keep students from learning, such as poverty, lack of parental support or societal factors.

Are far more knowledgeable about teaching and learning issues, including school improvement goals, curriculum, instruction, assessment and staff development. They were able to clearly describe the purposes and processes of school improvement efforts and identify the board's role in supporting those efforts. They could give specific examples of how district goals were being carried out by administrators and teachers.

Use data and other information on student needs and results in order to make decisions. The high-achieving boards regularly monitor progress on improvement efforts and modify direction as a result.

Create a supportive workplace for the staff. Boards in high-achieving districts support regular staff development in order to help teachers be more effective, support shared leadership and decision making among staff, and regularly express appreciation for staff members.