plans.
2.3—The school is aware of and monitors predominant instructional practices.
2.4—The school provides teachers with clear, ongoing evaluations of their pedagogical strengths and weaknesses that are based on multiple sources of data and are consistent with student achievement data.
2.5—The school provides teachers with job-embedded professional development that is directly related to their instructional growth goals.
2.6—Teachers have opportunities to observe and discuss effective teaching.
Level 1 of the HRS hierarchy is foundational because it addresses foundational human needs. If students, teachers, and parents do not perceive the school as safe, supportive, and collaborative, they will focus their attention on getting these needs met, as opposed to on the content addressed in school.
Level 2 deals with effective teaching. It appears second in the hierarchy because it is one of the hierarchy’s most influential and alterable variables. Research has consistently supported the notion that the quality of teaching a student receives has a profound effect on his or her academic achievement (Nye, Konstantopoulos, & Hedges, 2004). Additionally, deliberate practice can enhance teachers’ pedagogical skill (Ericsson & Charness, 1994; Ericsson, Krampe, & Tesch-Romer, 1993).
Level 3 deals with a curriculum that is both guaranteed and viable. Guaranteed means that no matter who teaches a given course or grade level, students in that course or grade will receive the same content. Viable means that the content has enough focus that teachers have adequate time and resources to teach it. Some educators have asked why a guaranteed and viable curriculum does not appear second in the hierarchy. Placing a guaranteed and viable curriculum before teaching would imply that it is more important to student learning than teaching. However, we assert that an effective teacher can overcome a weak curriculum, whereas a strong curriculum cannot overcome a weak teacher.
The first three levels of the hierarchy represent work in which all schools must engage at all times. Culture, teaching, and curriculum are the bedrocks of schooling. Then, levels 4 and 5 in the hierarchy represent systems change. Level 4 identifies a form of recordkeeping and reporting that allows schools to monitor individual students’ status and growth in specific topics. This represents a major shift in the way a school is run. Level 5 goes even further. It not only allows educators to monitor individual students but also allows students to move through the curriculum at their own pace.
Once a school has established the right work, it can follow four steps that lead to HRS status. As we discuss in subsequent chapters, these four steps become integrated into the PLC process. For a particular indicator, one collaborative team might take the lead for some or all steps. For another indicator, all collaborative teams might share equal responsibility.
The Four Steps
We have developed the following four steps in our work with more than six hundred schools relative to the HRS process. In effect, if a school engages in the actions described in these steps, it will attain high reliability status, leading indicator by leading indicator.
The four steps include:
1. Create lagging indicators and establish criteria for success.
2. Collect data on school status regarding lagging indicators.
3. If the school hasn’t met lagging indicator minimum requirements, refocus on actions inherent in associated leading indicators.
4. Continually collect data on lagging indicators and respond accordingly.
Create Lagging Indicators and Establish Criteria for Success
Конец ознакомительного фрагмента.
Текст предоставлен ООО «ЛитРес».
Прочитайте эту книгу целиком, купив полную легальную версию на ЛитРес.
Безопасно оплатить книгу можно банковской картой Visa, MasterCard, Maestro, со счета мобильного телефона, с платежного терминала, в салоне МТС или Связной, через PayPal, WebMoney, Яндекс.Деньги, QIWI Кошелек, бонусными картами или другим удобным Вам способом.
