RSA 2: SMART Goals, SMART Schools

http://web.ebscohost.com.cucproxy.cuchicago.edu/ehost/pdfviewer/pdfviewer?vid=14&hid=122&sid=970ae5c9-6cd4-4855-8228-b45fc8b19c39%40sessionmgr114

The article gives reference to a specific school in Wisconsin that has begun to set SMART goals that are directly tied to improvement of student learning. It emphasized that SMART goals be written by the teachers who will implement the goals with students and they should choose goals that are meaningful to them as long as they are related to student achievement. “What happens in these schools is beginning to happen in many schools across the country: Teachers take collective responsibility for improving student learning, and principals take responsibility for establishing school cultures where this can happen” (O’Neill 2000). The article also suggests using Pareto analysis to help focus and break down data on one or two goals. It is important to stay focused on specific goals for the year and be specific. If you set too many they will not be accomplished. The Pareto analysis asks teachers to further break down the goal into indicators, measures and targets (O’Neill 2000).

In DuFour, Chapter 6, it discusses the importance of SMART goals and linking them to district goals. Every goal that we set at Stevenson High School must be connected to our district goal. I believe it is a very powerful tool when you have many teams working toward the same vision. Instead of breaking it down into the Pareto analysis, it is suggested to set strategies and action steps, state who is responsible, set timelines and describe evidence of effectiveness (DuFour 2010).

Setting SMART goals seems to be at the center for assuring that the PLC’s maintain consistent focus on student learning and have a major impact of school success. It is important that when setting SMART goals that they are set by teachers implementing them, but continue to be linked with the school’s vision.

References:

DuFour, R., DuFour, R., Eaker, R., Many, T. (2010). Learning by doing: A handbook for professional learning communities at work (2nd ed., pp. 59-154). Bloomington, IN: Solution Tree Press.

O'Neill, Jan. "SMART Goals, SMART Schools." Educational Leadership 57.5 (2000): 46-50. ERIC. Web. 26 Jan. 2012.

RSA1: Leading edge: The best staff development is in the workplace, not in a workshop

http://theptc.squarespace.com/storage/images/Leading%20edge.pdf

As schools are being introduced to the PLC model and as schools are adding missions and visions for their school, it is necessary to consider when and how it will be presented to the staff. For schools that do not currently have common assessments, formative assessment, and set intervention plans it is important to consider how this information will be taught to the people who ultimately will be supporting and driving the model.

Chapter 3 alerted attention to creating a focus on learning for the students; there is also a learning curve for teachers to adjust their educational philosophies in order to switch to a PLC model. It is important to recognize how, when and what is presented to the teachers of the school and make it be of the upmost importance when schools are in the pre-initiation and initiation phases of moving toward the PLC model. Chapter 5 focuses on building the collaborative culture of a PLC it does not focus on how to present the information to teachers. I consistently believe Stevenson is in the sustaining stage, so most of the education philosophies are brought to new teachers through new teacher meetings, but what about a school that is just starting? And do our new teachers learn this philosophy best through new teacher meetings or are they learning through the day-to-day culture of the school? The article would point toward their day-to-day experience being more effective than the new teacher meetings. I would image that at schools in the initiation stages most of this information is probably presenting during staff development time. Should schools consider this article and ask themselves it teachers will get on board if they are taught in a workshop?

The main points of the article include, “School leaders must end this distinction between working and learning and create conditions that enable staff to grow and learn as part of their daily or weekly work routines” (DuFour 2004). The journal article discusses the ineffectiveness on on-site staff development and suggests the following to leaders developing on-site staff development:

1. It should have a clear, cohert focus.

2. Challenge teachers to apply new learning.

3. Ask, “Will this help improve and how can we measure the impact on student learning?”

4. Recognize that it will take time, patience and persistence.

References:

DuFour, R., DuFour, R., Eaker, R., Many, T. (2010). Learning by doing: A handbook for professional learning communities at work (2nd ed., pp. 59-154). Bloomington, IN: Solution Tree Press.

DuFour, Rick. "Leading Edge: The Best Staff Development Is in the Workplace, Not in a Workshop." Journal of Staff Development 25.2 (2004).

Gourmet Foods

A little taste of Gourmet Foods.