School Planning In Ireland:Progress, Practice & Prognosis

NSPI Conference, April 2007

School Development Planning Initiative

Brief from NSPIBrief from NSPI

Review progress made in school planning in Ireland over the past 10 years

Comment on present situation

Give a perspective on the challenges and opportunities ahead

Progress

Practice

Prognosis

Abstract Abstract

This presentation will aim to: Outline major developments in school

planning in Ireland over the past 10 years Explore key aspects of current practice with

a view to identifying strengths and areas for improvement

Offer a perspective on the challenges and opportunities that will shape the context for school planning in the future

1997 Baseline 1997 Baseline

1997: Pre-1998!Before the ARCs…

Education Act 1998 Education (Welfare) Act 2000 Teaching Council Act 2001 Equal Status Acts 2000 and 2004 Education for Persons with Special Educational

Needs Act 2004 Various Regulations and Circulars relevant to

school planning Et cetera…

1997 Baseline1997 Baseline

WSE Pilot, 1998-99

Subject Inspection, reintroduced Sept. 2001

WSE Mainstreamed, 2003/04

Publication of School Inspection Reports, 2006

Looking at our School, 2003

Guide to Subject Inspection, 2004

Guide to Whole School Evaluation, 2006

Publication of School Inspection Reports, 2006

1997: Before …

1997 Context1997 Context

The Ireland of 1997 shaped the context for school planning in 1997.

What was Ireland like in 1997? Reflect on the■ Cultural ■ Economic ■ Political ■ Social….

What is Ireland like in 2007?

How have the changes impacted on schools?

What are the implications for school planning?

What changes are on the horizon?

SDP in 1997SDP in 1997

Not a statutory requirement….yet.

But school planning—a ‘hot topic’ since early 1990s and before that:

1971 Primary Curriculum advocated whole-school planning

1992 Green Paper mooted a statutory requirement for a school plan

SDP was being worked on by education consultants, university education departments, Teachers’ Centres, Trustees, VECs, pilot projects, pioneering schools…

A number of publications had appeared

Adopting ChangeAdopting Change

2.5% Innovators

13.5% Early Adopters

34% Early Majority

34% Late Majority

16% Laggards

[Everett M. Rogers (1995)  Diffusion of Innovations.  The Free Press: New York.]

Development since 1997Development since 1997

SDP is now part of the main stream

The majority of us can now “talk the talk”

How well have we been “walking the walk”?

Key Aspects of SDP ‘Talk’Key Aspects of SDP ‘Talk’

SDP ProcessSDP Process

SDP ProcessSDP Process

Review

Mission Evaluate Vision Design

Aims

Implement

School School ImprovementImprovement

School ImprovementSchool Improvement

Single-loop Improvement: What should be done is well known Goals and purposes are non-problematic;

what counts are results Improvement = increasing efficiency and

reliability Improvement = conformity in achieving

predetermined objectives and standards Focus of improvement—remedial

School ImprovementSchool Improvement

Double-loop Improvement: Ends and means of educating young people

are changing Improvement=responding appropriately to

these changes, changing the nature of the service to meet new needs

Improvement=becoming more adaptable and flexible to meet changing needs

Focus of improvement—developmental

PROGRESS AND ACHIEVEMENT

of theLEARNER

Resources

The Timetable

Guidance,pastoral care, behaviour & discipline

Decision making

processes

Staffing & their

organisation into groups

& teams

Staff development

Premises & school

environment

Partnerships with the

community

Curriculum & assessment/

organisational policies

Schemes of work

TEACHING

LEARNING

Adapted from Hopkins &

MacGilchrist 1998

By SDPS

The School Plan: Two PartsThe School Plan: Two Parts

Part 1: Relatively Permanent Features School’s mission, vision, aims School profile School policies, curricular & non-curricular School practices re review & evaluation

Part 2: Development Section Factors governing development needs List of school’s development priorities Set of Action Plans to address priorities

Aspects of SDP ‘Walk’Aspects of SDP ‘Walk’

1997-2007

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

1999-2002: Profile of 209 Schools

School Review

Priorities Agreed

Planning Structures

Action Plans

Policies

Mission, Vision, Aims

School Plan completed

Action Plans implemented

Arrangements formonitoring

Arrangements forevaluating outcomes

Arrangements forreporting

Trends in SDP ProcessTrends in SDP Process

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

2002/03 2003/04 2004/05

Review

Design

Evaluation

0

50

100

150

200

250

2005/06

Action Planning

Board Briefing

School Meeting

Evaluation

Guidance Planning

Mission, Vision, Aims

Parents' Briefing

Policy Formulation

Preplanning

Progress Check

Review

SDP Introduction

Seminar on 1 Priority

Steering Committee

Subject DepartmentPlanningTask Group Meeting

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

2006/07 (to March 07)

Action Planning

Board Briefing

School Meeting

Evaluation

Guidance Planning

Mission, Vision, Aims

Parents' Briefing

Policy Formulation

Preplanning

Progress Check

Review

SDP Introduction

Seminar on 1 Priority

Steering Committee

Subject DepartmentPlanningTask Group Meeting

ProgressProgress SDP under way in most schools Structures in place for planning

SDP Specific - SDP Coordinator, Steering Committee, Task Groups, Policy Formulation/Review Committees…

Pre-existing structures SDP scheduled in School Calendar

Whole Staff Working Groups Subject Departments…

Huge variations in the system

Progress evident in current practiceProgress evident in current practice

Less concentration on the defensive production of policies

Needs of students more central Greater emphasis on improving learning

and teaching—a planning focus rooted in the day-to-day reality of the classroom

Growth in collaborative reflective practice Stronger focus on aligning CPD with the

school’s priorities for development Movement towards more systematic use of

data at relevant stages in the planning process

Points from PracticePoints from Practice

Still a tendency to focus on documentation as an end in itself rather than as a reference point

School Plan often lacks a coherent structure, conveying no sense of where the school is at and where it is going…

Insufficient attention to outcomes as opposed to inputs…

Rigorous school self-review and systematic school self-evaluation not yet well-established

Limited partnership involvement Particular concern re limited BOM involvement Doing the thing right vs doing the right thing

Challenge:Challenge:

Achieving CoherenceAchieving Coherence

Too many piecemeal projects with superficial implementation create overload, fragmentation, incoherence and confusion

To realise the vision, there must be people building capacity and shared commitment, so that the moral imperative becomes a collective endeavour with everyone understanding and aligning with the big picture

(Leading in a Culture of Change, Personal Action Guide and Workbook. Michael Fullan, 2003.)

Challenge:Challenge:

Overcoming FatalismOvercoming Fatalism

“A barrier to school planning is a sense of fatalism among teachers in the face of decisions made outside the schooldecisions made outside the school. They see their involvement in planning as having little effect…… Their view of themselves is that of a technician implementing someone else’s agenda.” (David Tuohy)

Prioritiesselected

Year One

Start of

Cycle End of

Cycle

Year Two Year Three

Evaluationnext cycle

Challenge:Challenge:

Managing TimeframesManaging Timeframes

Ideally, planners should be mindful of 3 timeframes:

Long term

Medium term

Short term

DGL, Unit 2; Davies and Ellison

Prognosis Prognosis

…the future is not what it used to be… New models of CPD Teaching Council School improvement—SSE, WSE, SI & TE Towards 2016 NCCA proposals Inclusion Emerging issues…

…we see in a glass, darkly…

PrognosisPrognosis

Move towards coherence within ‘big picture’

Streamlining Greater focus on school self-evaluation,

using Looking at our School More target-setting More structured post-evaluation follow-

through: Respond to reports in planning mode Take ownership of planning agenda Develop a coherent strategy for addressing

recommendations within SDP context

LAOSLAOS - School Operation - School Operation

Student support

Student support

Learning & Teaching in

subjects

Learning & Teaching in

subjects

CurriculumProvision

CurriculumProvision

SchoolPlanning

SchoolPlanning

SchoolManagement

SchoolManagement

5 AREAS5 AREAS

PrognosisPrognosis

The Learning School

Adopt / adapt –What next?

EVALUATEoutcome impact

Monitor actions

& impact

IMPLEMENT

Research / INSET / Consult

FormulateAction Plan

Document Analyse Prioritise

REVIEWCurrent

experience

Values the school

serves

Vision without action is merely a dream

Action without vision just passes the time

Vision with action can change the world