Introduction

As educators, we expect students to demonstrate growth in knowledge, understanding, and ability. Likewise, as a school moves through the school improvement process, teachers should also demonstrate growth in knowledge, understanding, and ability. The path of school improvement has the potential to dramatically change the culture of the school. This article will highlight the changes that have taken place at Elm Dale Elementary School in Greenfield, Wisconsin, since 1992.

The Plan, Staff Involvement, and Ownership

As we embark on the development of our third cycle of school improvement planning and reflect on our previous plans, it is evident that as a staff we have grown tremendously in our understanding of school improvement. When we began to work on school improvement in 1992, the process was understood fully only by the administration. The principal directed even the Steering Committee, which consisted of three teachers and the principal. NCA was viewed as just another committee. Most of the teachers had the attitude of "this too shall pass." Each teacher was assigned to a committee that was responsible for the development of strategies and interventions for one of the goals. Even though the goal committees encouraged more teacher input, the mindset was to do the tasks required in order to meet the NCA guidelines for accreditation. It was a "learn as you go," step-by-step process with teachers having little understanding of where this process could take us. We weren't focusing on school improvement, but rather on "doing" NCA.

Even without full understanding of the process, teachers implemented the plan and submitted the data required for the documentation report. Many teachers resented having to complete all of the required documentation. They viewed it as something additional to do instead of a tool to improve student learning. Part of the reason for this attitude was that we were not using assessments already in place but created instead new ways of measuring achievement. These new assessments were esoteric in nature and were usually tallies of how often a technique was implemented rather than focusing on how the students performed. An example of this was our implementation of the Word Wall strategy to improve student communication and writing. We realized that the Word Wall strategy is highly effective when used correctly; however, teachers were told they must have a word wall in their classrooms, including the special area teachers. Rather than focusing on implementing and integrating Word Wall activities into classroom instruction, the focus of our plan was to tally the number of words put on the wall during the school year. We did not measure whether or not the students learned to spell and use the words. This oversight was a result of trying to make it easier for the teachers, but in doing so, the crux of school improvement was ignored. Therefore, Word Walls became isolated activities to complete rather than a vehicle to improve student achievement. As we reflected on our previous plans, we saw the flaws and weaknesses. This new insight was and is a reflection of where we were and how far we have come.

As we began our second cycle, teachers had a better understanding of the NCA process. Because Steering Committee members serve a three-year term, there were now pockets of understanding among the staff. At this point we recognized the flaws of our initial assessments and looked for more integrated ways to promote student achievement. Many of the assessments chosen for the second plan were valid measurements already being administered within our curriculum. Teachers were beginning to understand that data could show growth. Therefore, a pre-test and post-test was developed by the Steering Committee to measure aspects of our goals. The staff approved our measures and implemented them as part of our plan. Interventions became less dictatorial, and teachers were given more flexibility in techniques they used to achieve the goal. Teachers were able to select materials they felt best suited to the needs of their students instead of that decision being made as part of the plan. Teachers were empowered to carry out the plan, which helped them take on ownership. There were still those core resisters who had their doubts that what we were doing was effective, but they did what was asked of them to carry out the plan.

As we begin our third cycle, school improvement has become a teacher-owned process rather than a committee directed process. Teachers are identifying areas of need and generating ideas on how to meet those needs. Teachers are sharing expertise and new learning. Formally and informally, teachers are discussing ways to improve student achievement. Teachers have begun to see ways to incorporate goals into the curriculum, to measure these goals with established assessments, and to implement new strategies. The process has become a part of what we do and is no longer viewed as an add-on. The steering committee has taken on a role of facilitator rather than running the school improvement plan.

Analyzing Data

One of our greatest leaps in understanding is in the area of data analysis. When we started our first cycle, very little data analysis was done as a staff. Test scores were the concern of the principal and the teachers of the grade level that took the test. Teachers were not interested in test scores of students other than their own. Most of us were unfamiliar with trend data, statistical significance, or effect size. We didn't understand the need for standard scores for comparisons. The only type of scores that teachers were responsible for keeping was grades for report cards. Standardized test scores were kept in the cumulative folders in the office and were reviewed only if a student was referred for special education.

The type of data that is compiled in a school profile is not the type of information that our staff was accustomed to collecting or analyzing. Teachers did not understand the value of the profile in selecting goals. The profile was viewed as busy work for the committee to complete in order to meet the NCA requirements. As we approached our second cycle, the profile was used for goal selection. We began to understand that data were useful and could demonstrate growth. We used pre-tests and post-tests to show annual growth within a grade level. Teachers looked for ways to measure achievement within the goal areas using assessments that were part of the curriculum. Test scores were now reviewed to find increases in student achievement in the target areas. Because the goals were school wide, the test scores held more interest to teachers of other grade levels.

In our third cycle, our staff has shown dramatic increases in understanding test data. At a recent faculty meeting, teachers were shown the trend data of the fourth grade state achievement test. Not only did the teachers understand what was being presented, but also they were also interested in how and why the change (or lack of change) took place. Due to the school improvement process, teachers are coming to the realization that they are accountable for the test scores because not all of the learning takes place in the grade that gives the test. For the past couple of years, an item analysis has been completed on the second and fourth grade standardized tests to share with the staff. Teachers are willing to look at format, content, language, and syntax used in the test. This has contributed to opening a dialog among the staff. Topics that have been discussed include how content is being taught, whether the vocabulary and syntax that are used on the test are also used in our classrooms, whether the exercises that the students are asked to do on the test are being done in a similar fashion in our classrooms, and whether the students are exposed to the same type of questions. One example of this is that we focus on performing tasks such as generating a letter. Our classroom assessments showed that students could correctly compose a letter following proper format and punctuation. However, on the test they were asked to select the correct form for the closing of a letter. Less than 80% of our students were able to select the correct answer. There was a discrepancy between being able to do the task and to critically analyze the answer choices and choose the correct response. This discovery led us to think about exposing students to varying ways of answering questions.

Today our teachers are interested in data. There are many positive comments about the item analysis, the sharing of yearly assessment scores for the goal areas, and how that year's achievement scores fit into the trend data. The achievement of our students is viewed as a validation of our efforts and encourages us to continue with the NCA school improvement process.

How the Culture Changes

Since 1992 when we first started to work on school improvement, there have been many changes in the way things are done in our building. Discussions have opened up between grade levels concerning the strategies and interventions used to meet student needs. In addition to making us aware of what is going on in other classrooms, it has created a teamwork attitude that has facilitated grouping within and across the grade levels. The staff has become more comfortable with sharing their expertise and stepping forward to take leadership roles that were formerly held by the principal. Staff meetings have also undergone a metamorphosis. Meeting agendas that were once a laundry list of housekeeping items have become forums for moving forward with our school improvement plans. These forums have involved discussions of strengths and weaknesses of our plan, new or ongoing concerns about our student population, and ways to address those concerns. Because these discussions are taking place, instructional strategies are being used that are not necessarily listed in our plan but still foster student achievement. We have started to think "outside the box." Changes in programming and instruction that appeared unworkable previously have now started to seem possible. Exciting things are beginning to occur. We have moved from knowing we are doing a good job to being able to prove with data that what we are doing is effective and has impacted student achievement and test scores.

The Steering Committee meetings have also changed. At one time these meetings were organized, planned, and directed by the principal. In the past, the Steering Committee members had no idea what was going to happen at a meeting. The members arrived at the meeting not knowing what to expect. Because we were new to the NCA process, the tasks were unfamiliar and the committee members needed to learn as they worked through each task. Our level of understanding was such that even the second cycle continued to be "a learn as you go process." We have since come to know what to expect and the tasks that need to be accomplished. Because our teachers are on a three-year term for this committee, each year there is a new member. Several teachers have expressed an interest in serving on this committee, and the teachers who are on the committee often don't want to leave. Recently we have created a transitional position in which the exiting member of the team stays on in a consulting role to acclimate the newest team member to the required tasks. This ensures the continuity of the work and the effectiveness of the new team member.

Conclusion

The school improvement process has dramatically changed how we view education and student needs, which in turn has changed the culture of our school. We have evolved from "doing" NCA to institutionalizing the school improvement process. This process has become the framework by which educational decisions are made. The level of professionalism has increased among the staff. We have become more comfortable with the process. Conversations occur formally as well as informally within and among grade levels to share knowledge, expertise, and support as we look for ways to improve. As a staff, we are better able to recognize student needs and generate solutions. We have learned how to critique assessments and use data to measure growth. We are able to critically analyze our plan for strengths and weaknesses. We have begun to understand test scores, trend data, and significance of change as a means to measure student achievement. Although change is always unsettling and does not happen overnight, the results are worth our efforts. We were fortunate to have the support of the staff and the administration in our efforts to continually improve. While there are those who will always question the decisions, those doubts make us evaluate what we are doing rather than just accepting it at face value. We have come a long way since 1992. Through each cycle we have moved further along in understanding the process of school improvement. Our ability to identify needs, implement strategies, and measure student growth has validated our efforts as professional educators.