D. Deming L20357497
Week 5
EDLD 5333 Leadership for Accountability
Week 5: Reflections
Part 1: Site-Based Decision-Making
At the campus level, site-based decision making (SBDM) is a collaborative effort among professional staff, parents, and community members to improve student achievement by addressing the outcomes of all students and determining goals and strategies to ensure improvement. Under state law, the Site-Based Decision-Making Committee establishes and reviews campus educational plans, goals, performance objectives, and major classroom instructional programs.
Prior to completing this assignment, you will conduct two interviews—one with a member of the Site-Based Decision-Making Committee at your selected campus and the other with the campus principal or SBDM chairperson. Your interview questions should include:
Use the questions provided to guide your interview to increase your knowledge regarding the SBDM’s functions and effectiveness.
1. How is the role of the SBDM committee well communicated to faculty and staff? Give at least one example to support your answer.
2. How are SBDM committee members selected?
3. How often does the committee meet? Are meeting agendas provided before the meetings, and are minutes provided to all personnel after the meetings?
4. What topics are typically addressed in the meeting agendas?
5. Does the committee member you interviewed believe that he or she is providing valuable input and that the input is factored into the decision-making process? Give an example.
6. Describe one issue the committee has been instrumental in resolving at your school.
7. Describe the decision making models, consensus building, and conflict resolution strategies used by the committee.
(i.e., consensus, nominal group process, or other decision-making models).
8. What is your impression of the effectiveness of the committee in improving the school and student performance? Ask for examples of ways the committee has contributed to improved student and school performance.
9. What is the process for ensuring the resources designated in the campus plan are provided?
10. What is the process currently used to develop the campus improvement plan?
Reflection One: Site-Based Decision-Making
Remember, this is a journal entry. However, as with any scholarly writing, you should use:
· citations from the research when applicable.
· professional writing protocols.
· professional language.
1. What important information did you obtain about site-based decision making from your interviews with the SBDM member? The campus principal?Record your reflection in the form of a 150-word essay.
Use the interview questions to guide your writing.
Write reflectively instead of in a question-and-answer style.
2. What information from the interviews aligned with your understandings of site-based decision making? What information did “not” align with your understandings of SBDM? (1-2 complete paragraphs)
3. What surprised you about the information that was shared?
Type your response in the space below. The textbox will expand.
The Manhattan Middle School vice-principal, Brent Graham, requested that we meet in person to answer the Site-Based Decision Making (SBDM) questions about our school in Boulder, Colorado. He felt the recent history of the school affected our current SBDM process; we have had three principals in three years. Presently, we are in our first year of implementing SBDM procedures under the current administration. As Mr. Graham explained, inconsistency with instructional leaders influences the SBDM process. Mr. Graham continued by stating that ineffective communication of the new SBDM process resulted in angst from many staff members. He shared the example that he and the principal, John Riggs, created seven committees at the beginning of the year (team leaders Positive Behavioral Intervention and Support (PBiS), Talented and Gifted, staff climate, technology, Parent/Teacher Organization, building beautification) and presented them to staff members without clarifying the responsibilities and purpose. Staff members did not understand what they were signing up for and this caused frustration. This example stresses the importance Adams (n.d.) mentioned in her video presentation; “It’s important for the team to understand the scope, including the limits, of their responsibilities” (Week 5 SBDM Roles and Responsibilities).Mr. Graham continued by stating that each committee needed to meet once a month and the agenda included topics generated from the feedback of the SBDM team and the PBiS surveys. Typically, committee decisions are made through a “B” decision-making process; “…a “bureaucratic” decision that is made by the principal(s) in consultation with a specific organization in the school”, and consensus from the group is needed before changes are decided (Nye & Capelluti, 2003, p. 8). Due to its newness, it is not possible to ascertain whether the SBDM committees are effective in improving the school and student performance, as data-driven results are not available. In Mr. Graham’s opinion, the strongest issue that has been resolved this year is recognition from the staff that they are instrumental to the change process.
At this time, the process for developing the campus improvement plan, or the Unified Improvement Plan (UIP) in Colorado, involves using the district UIP form and assessing school needs with the Parent Action Committee (PAC). Then, it is presented to the staff for feedback and prioritization of needs and processes. From this point, it would go to the leadership team for revisions before the creation of mission and vision statements. Committees can request resources in their reports and the principals will determine whether the school budget can accommodate the materials.
Mr. Graham’s responses matched those of the SBDM members I interviewed. Mrs. Barb Miller, the equity specialist and librarian, and Mr. Ben Johnson, the music teacher, expressed difficulties with the implementation of SBDM committees. While they both felt that their input has been valuable, lack of clarity has made it difficult throughout the process. They explained that leadership positions rotate yearly, with the intention of every member having a voice. Most meetings operate through open discussions, with a majority vote needed for the resolution of issues or addition of agenda items. However, they were concerned that the teams did not include community members, parents, and students. Furthermore, they claimed the distribution of work was not even, partly due to the fact members did not know their responsibilities before signing up for SBDM teams, and that the number/times of meetings prevented consistency. Similar to Mr. Graham, they could not provide concrete examples of school or student improvements as the Transitional Colorado Assessment Program (TCAP), the Colorado Measures of Academic Success (CMAS), and the school climate results were not available.
This information aligned with my understanding of SBDM in several ways. First, a clearly outlined process for team collaboration needs to be presented. Second, the forming of an agenda should be based on data and school and student needs. Third, the needs assessment process should follow the suggested format: “gather data, analyze data, identify areas of improvement/opportunity, prioritize areas of improvement/opportunity, and identify solutions or strategies for improvement” (Adams, n.d., Data-Based Decision Making). These components are essential to create and build consensus and share ownership across the curriculum.
My biggest surprise was the importance of consistent communication throughout the SBDM process; “The power of organizational change is realized when every employee, stakeholder, and student understands how his or her work contributes to improving student learning” (Marino, 2007, p. 12). Although it can be time-consuming, “…consensus is an optimal method for resolving educational policies and issues because it incorporates the varied knowledge and experience of all involved” (Richardson, 2005, p. 35). SBDM participation also requires “…a deep level of trust and openness” (Richardson, p. 33). To throw members into a process they are not familiar with can cause confusion and lack of efficiency. Instructional leaders should realize that explanation, training, and input is vital in the SBDM process if they hope to inspire ownership and appreciation of the decision making process. Only then, can schools increase the morale and on-going productivity of SBDM teams to improve student performance.
Adams, N. (n.d.) Week 5 Site based decision making (video file). Retrieved from Online site:
https://luonline.blackboard.com/webapps/blackboard/content/listContent.jsp?course_id=_77350_1&content_id=_1448325_1&mode=reset
Adams, Adams, N. (n.d.). Week 3 Standards and accountability (PDF document). Retrieved
from Lecture Notes Online site: https://luonline.blackboard.com/bbcswebdav/pid-1448368-dt- content-rid-11213491_1/courses/EDLD_5333_P05_2014_90_AP3/EDLD_5333_mastercourse_2012_ImportedContent_20121113044002/Assets/Reviews/EDLD5333%20Week%203%20Review%20Slides.pdf
Marino, J. (2007). A new paradigm for organizational change: Involving customers and
stakeholders in the improvement process.The Journal of Quality & Participation, 30(1), 10-12.
Nye, K., & Capelluti, J. (2003). The ABCs of Decision Making.Principal Leadership, 3(9), 8-10
Richardson, M. (2005). Consensus leadership.Principal Leadership, 6(4), 32-35.
Part 2: Reflection on Next Steps
As we stressed in this course, campus improvement is an ongoing, continuous process. When a campus receives its summative data reports, then the improvement cycle should begin again immediately.
In your second reflection, you will reflect on the action plan you developed earlier. Use the following scenario to think about your action plan and how you would be able to move that plan to another level.
“Move forward in time to the end of the school year. Imagine that you and your staff implemented the action plan which resulted in increased student performance on the latest Accountability reports. Your campus has moved a step closer to your goal of becoming an exemplary (high performing) campus, and you want to maintain the momentum. What will you do now?”
Remember, this is a journal entry. However, as with any scholarly writing, you should use:
· citations from the research in APA format.
· professional writing protocols.
· professional language.
· Think about your action plan from the Week 4 Application assignment. What have you learned in this course about the continuous campus improvement cycle that will dictate your next steps? (1-2 complete paragraphs)· What will be your next steps in the continuous improvement process? How will you carry the action plan forward and maintain momentum toward your ultimate goals? Outline and reflect on your next steps in this process. (1-2 complete paragraphs)
Type your response in the space below.
This course has shown me that even though principals need to begin the process of the continuous improvement process, schools can actively support “…the norms of experimentation, collaborative planning and development, and implementation of content aimed at collective goals” through Site-Based Decision Making (SBDM) teams, learning communities, and consensus (Joyce & Showers, 2003, p. 4). Collaboration and ownership of the school vision are essential because it “…allows for the development of a culture, one that establishes agreed-upon values and justifies its existence in the face of controversy” (Fridell, 2006, para. 2). The development of a positive, collaborative school climate is necessary because the planshould be flexible and continuallyreevaluated based upon thecurrentdata, assessment results, and local, state, and federal standards. Without the support of its stakeholders, trust, ownership, and sustainability could be compromised and result in lackluster results.When creating the goals for the continuous improvement process, it is necessary that they are specific, measurable, attainable, relevant and time‐bound (SMART) and driven by recent data (Adams, n.d., Standards and Accountability). The process of creating SMART goals can be time-consuming but it must involve the school community and be top and bottom based (Adams, n.d., Establishing Goals). This process could also involve the provision of additional resources; “…teachers need the skills to translate their interpretations of the assessment results into instructional actions that are matched to the learning needs of their students (Heritage, 2007, p. 144). Therefore, instructional leaders need to aware of the importance of observing, assessing, formulating, activating, and reflecting throughout the process to ensure the goals reflect the needs (Fridell, 2006).
In order to continue the momentum of an action plan, it is crucial to enlist the help of all stakeholders through SBDM teams, learning communities, and consensus. As Richardson (2005) states, “To facilitate academic success, schools must find a way to support students in all the ways they require. Educators must listen to students, know them well, and reflect on current efforts to educate and guide them; school leaders cannot simply dictate policy and make rules” (p. 33). This can be problematic for principals because it requires knowing when to implement participatory decision-making (Nye & Capelluti, 2003). The instructional leader should not make decisions alone because “too often, the most powerful party makes all the decisions, sometimes arbitrarily” and this possibility could seriously affect the school climate (Richardson, p. 4).
For these reasons, my next step would be to generate and present decision-making topics to the leadership team to share with staff members in their department. I would request that they identify their preferences on which topics should be A, B, C, or S decisions, as well as add any other topics they deem important. A topics are ones the principal should make, B topics include issues that the principal and select groups make together, C topics are ones that require consensus from all stakeholders, and S topics are issues that should include student input (Nye & Capelluti, 2003). The following step would be to create a school calendar to discuss the B, C, and S topics. The calendar needs to be created with the SBDM team to safeguard efficiency and attainable expectations. Additionally, collaborative partnerships not only demonstrate the value of stakeholders and an atmosphere of trust and transparency, they also “…greatly reduce the variation in teacher expectations” (Reeves, 2007, p. 86). However, set goals and strategies should not stagnant; it “…needs to be a moving picture— a video stream rather than a periodic snapshot” (Heritage, 2007, p. 141). Issues could arise that require the restructuring of meetings, methods of presentation, or additional training and data support. In the end, as long as collaboration is the focus, a positive school culture will occur that fosters academic success.
Adams, N. (n.d.). Week 1 Establishing goals (PDF document). Retrieved from Lecture Notes Online site:
https://luonline.blackboard.com/bbcswebdav/pid-1448401-dt-content-rid-11213489_1/courses/EDLD_5333_P05_2014_90_AP3/EDLD_5333_mastercourse_2012_ImportedContent_20121113044002/Assets/Reviews/EDLD5333%20Week%201%20Review%20Slides.pdf
Adams, N. (n.d.).Week 1 Standards and accountability (PDF document). Retrieved from Lecture Notes
Online site: https://luonline.blackboard.com/bbcswebdav/pid-1448342-dt-content-rid-11213493_1/courses/EDLD_5333_P05_2014_90_AP3/EDLD_5333_mastercourse_2012_ImportedContent_20121113044002/Assets/Reviews/EDLD5333%20Week%205%20Review%20Slides.pdf
Fridell, M. (2006). The New Principal's Role in Establishing a collaborative, Progressive Vision.
Heritage, M. (2007). Formative assessment: What do teachers need to know and do?Phi Delta
Kappan, 89, 140-145.
Joyce, B., & Showers, B. (2003). Student achievement through staff development. National
College for School Leadership, 1-5. Retrieved on December 7, 2014,
from http://forms.ncsl.org.uk/mediastore/image2/randd-engaged-joyce.pdf
Nye, K., & Capelluti, J. (2003). The ABCs of Decision Making.Principal Leadership, 3(9), 8-10.
Reeves, D. B. (2007). How do you sustain excellence?Educational Leadership, 65(3), 86-87.
Richardson, M. (2005). Consensus leadership.Principal Leadership, 6(4), 32-35.
Internship assignments: