More Evidence
This page provides links and summary information on reports, research and books on school improvement and professional learning. Most support the contentions of this site, but some are examples of differing views.
Sustainability of Professional Development in Literacy Author: Helen Timperley, Gwenneth Phillips, Joy Wiseman and Irene Fung, 2003
This paper is a summary of research commissioned for the NZ education department. It is a strongly argued and supported argument in support of the views on this site.
"The research found that the following messages are important:
The schools that are most successful in sustaining high levels of achievement are those whose teachers base their teaching methods on student achievement information.
Professional development needs to focus on raising teachers’ expectations of student achievement.
Student achievement must be the criterion or touchstone for measuring the effectiveness of teaching methods.
The concept of “being professional” changes when student achievement is the touchstone. For example, professional autonomy may hinder rather than support the goal of improving student achievement.
Professional development programmes need to be integrated into teachers’ everyday working responsibilities rather than be isolated, one-off programmes held off-site.
Teachers must have ongoing support if professional development is to have a long-term, positive effect on student learning.
The schools that are most successful in raising student achievement are those that create strong professional learning communities."
It is based on studies of early literacy which is a field that has been the subject of intense study in recent years, so the practitioners have rich resources to call on. This is quite different from the situation regarding the use of ICT in learning where the field is new and constantly changing.
Professional Learning Communities: Developing a School-Level Readiness Instrument
This short Canadian report reviews literature and makes a strong case for the effectiveness of professional learning communities, and has developed some instruments to measure readiness for PLCs. They emphasise that Fullan and others point out that PLCs are unlikely to work of the district and state education bodies do not follow suit. This report is a useful reminder that it is difficult to achieve the appropriate culture for PLCs to survive and that they do not just involve school levell change. The bureauracracy has to be more open as well.
Louisiana Staff Development Council’s End of Grant Report, 2001
This report reinforces the importance of the elements in bold below, which seem to be summed up by No.8.
"Common success factors found in all the high poverty, high performing schools visited
A variety of approaches to professional learning are present (coaching, mentoring, examination and reflection around student work and instructional practices, visitation to other classrooms and other schools, conferences, workshops, serving on curriculumcommittees, etc.).
The principal and entire staff have a strong sense of efficacy – they believe in the power of teaching and their own ability to ensure that every student learns, regardless of the obstacles.
Instructional leadership and faculty collaboration are key.
The schools spent a great deal of time and attention on data analysis, especially looking at student test results to determine not only areas of broad, common needs, but also areas of specific strength and weakness for each student.
The entire faculty demonstrated great flexibility in trying different approaches to meet student needs – grouping and structuring, use of materials, a variety of instructional strategies – all with an eye toward continuous assessment. Is it working? Are the students learning better this way?
Standards-based instruction was pervasive throughout all the classrooms and teachers could readily discuss how the lessons for the day fit into the overall picture of the subject area standards.
All schools had excellent school-wide discipline characterized by a shared sense o responsibility for all the students.
Student learning was the school’s greatest priority – more than teacher preferences."
This detailed literature review by a noted Finish expert on school improvement draws a well documented distinction between high-stakes testing and intelligent accountability. Sahlber, like other writers, places high importance of trust within healthy organisations.
Abstract
Externally mandated accountability policies that hold schools, teachers and students accountable for predetermined outcomes have become common solutions in educational change efforts to improve performance of education systems around the world. This is happening parallel to declining family and community social capital in most parts of developed world. This article argues that whilst evidence of impact of such high-stakes school accountability policies to improve quality and efficiency of education remains controversial, the current practices of determining educational performance by using primarily standardised knowledge tests and examinations as main means of holding schools accountable for what they do is not a necessary condition of much needed educational improvement. Furthermore, there is growing evidence that increased high-stakes testing brought along by school accountability policies in schools is restricting students learning with ideas, engaging in creative action and understanding innovation. Finland as an example I suggest that in order to create contexts for worthwhile learning in schools, educational change should contribute to strengthening social capital in schools and their communities through building trust and collective responsibilities within and between schools. Relying on international experiences I conclude that education policies should promote more intelligent forms accountability matching them with by external accountability needs and encourage cooperation rather than competition among teachers and schools.