Focus On Results

A Newsletter from Focus on Results • Winter 2006

In this newsletter, we highlight the importance of Superintendents and Central Services in supporting the work of school improvement. Included in this issue is an interview with former Edmonton Superintendent, Angus McBeath, an excerpt from the Cross City Campaign for Urban School Reform study on the impact of district policies and classroom practice and a tool that helps districts assess their own level of support and plan strategies for improvement.

Getting District-Wide Results Institute

On February 3, 2006, central office teams, principals and consultants from districts across North America participated in an institute co-sponsored by Focus On Results and the Cross City Campaign for Urban School Reform. Participants came from such diverse places as Edmonton, Alberta; Springfield, Illinois; Portland, Oregon; Elizabeth and Passaic, New Jersey; Boston, Massachusetts; Columbus, Ohio; and, multiple districts across southern and northern California.

The focus of the institute was to provide participants with an opportunity to learn and share concrete strategies to help accelerate the improvement work in their districts and to plan for long-term, system-wide growth in student learning, with an emphasis on how Central Office can support schools in their improvement efforts.

Angus McBeath delivered the keynote address and also participated in individual and small-group discussions to share the improvement efforts in Edmonton during the five years he served as superintendent.

An Interview with Angus McBeath

In the past year, several publications, including Education Week, the Los Angeles Times and Educational Leadership, have featured articles about the Edmonton story. Many districts, such as Baltimore, Maryland; Washington, D.C.; New Orleans, Louisiana; and, Oakland, California, are studying Edmonton or have announced commitments to emulate aspects of the Edmonton model. State, business, and education leaders across the country have flocked to Edmonton to visit the district and its schools in order to access Angus McBeath's expertise and to gain knowledge that could help improve the schools in their own states and districts. Recently, we had an opportunity to speak with Angus about the improvement efforts in Edmonton.

Why do you think everyone is so interested in Edmonton Public Schools?

Edmonton Public Schools has long attracted visitors who are interested in learning how to reform their own jurisdictions in order to better achieve results for students and their parents. Of most interest to visitors is how Edmonton opened its boundaries up to students, sent a very large level of resources and authority out to schools, changed its central office to one that is viewed as central services, developed well over 30 programs of choice that all but eliminated private and charter schools in the city, and most recently, how Edmonton implemented a fundamental change process which raised student achievement results and high school graduation rates.

What evidence can you site that would help our readers see that the programs, policies and structures that you have put in place in Edmonton, to improve student achievement results, have actually worked?

The evidence is seen in our student achievement results. We've made significant gains in all of the main academic areas and we've also managed to improve our high school completion rate over the past few years. (Click here to see charts of growth in academic areas and high school completion rates.)

What are the key elements that you have put in place in Edmonton, since your appointment as superintendent, that have led to instructional improvement in your district?

One of the first things that we did was to truly take stock of our achievement results including our high school completion rate, and determined that what we were achieving with our students was simply not good enough. Secondly, we decided that we needed to develop a district-wide improvement process that would involve all staff, students and parents/guardians and that we would need to provide extensive professional development of all staff in the district in that process. Working collaboratively with an outside consulting organization, we hired turn-around consultants from Focus on Results, as we believed that their track record showed improvement over time in districts where they had worked. With their assistance, we asked each of our schools to implement an improvement framework that consisted of eight expectations. Monthly training, focused on teaching processes designed to help school principals and school instructional leadership teams work with their own staffs in implementing the eight expectations, was quickly established. Instructional walk-throughs, where staff learned how to observe best teaching practices and give quality feedback, became part of the norm. Thirdly, we strengthened the way we collect, use and display student achievement results in order to help our schools better use data to make good instructional decisions.

Equally important to our efforts was the establishment of a student achievement team in central services composed of principals who had worked successfully in improving achievement in their own schools. The purpose of this team of principals was to design and implement training materials, drive the student achievement agenda in the district and provide pressure and support for principals who needed help in moving their schools forward. This team also helped organize full-year training for school and central staff and facilitated monthly coaching for all principals. Eventually, this team absorbed the collection and distribution of student assessment information for the district.

One of the most crucial elements of what we did in Edmonton was to strengthen accountability for results. This involved not only the superintendent visiting schools three times a week, but each of the senior administration members (cabinet) going to schools and using a common protocol around achievement data, as well as the eight expectations.

Central Services established their own set of expectations for each department and training was provided for their staffs. Central office staff visited schools in order to find out how their services either supported or confounded school efforts to improve student achievement.

What support structures have you put in place to help principals, teachers, and central services (office) administrators improve their work?

The major support structure to help principals and teachers improve their work was the establishment of monthly training focused around the eight expectations related to each school's instructional focus area. This included training of staff to visit classrooms in their own schools, as well as classrooms in other schools. Schools were also provided with extensive criteria to help them self-assess how well they were implementing the eight expectations. District office professional development was strengthened to ensure that teachers had access to job-embedded professional development that would lead to improved instruction and increased student achievement results over time. In 2001, we established principal coaching and a student achievement office. Perhaps one of the most important supports established was to change the timetable of work for central administration that allowed them to spend a great amount of their time in schools looking at data and helping principals move their schools forward. This required other levels of staff in the district office to take more responsibility for ensuring that district level work was completed diligently and in a timely manner. We also amended the school budget process to make it a school planning process driven by student achievement data and focused around improvements to meet achievement targets. The establishment of achievement goals and targets aimed at all students helped to clarify where schools and central services would spend their time, resources and professional development efforts.

How are schools monitored, and how are adults in the system held accountable for measurable student outcomes?

Students in Edmonton take annual reading and writing district level tests, provincial (state) grades 3, 6 and 9 achievement tests, and grade 12 diploma examinations in the core subjects. These tests and examinations form a vital part of our accountability system. These results, along with teacher-generated grades for students, provide evidence of how schools perform over time. We also ask that each school measure student achievement throughout the year in their area of instructional focus. All results are published and achievement targets are revised annually.

These results, which are available to the school board and parents as well as the public on a school-by-school basis, are held to be a good proxy for whether or not schools are improving, not improving, or getting better over time. Using achievement data, I am able to decide which schools are improving and which schools are not making enough progress. I visit one-third of the schools annually (there are 208 schools) to determine how well each school is implementing the eight expectations around the instructional focus area, ask questions of the principals around results and targets for improvement, teacher professional development, and barriers to success. During my school visits, I walk-through classrooms with the principal in order to gain insight into the principal's knowledge of classroom practice, and their expertise in giving feedback to teachers.

If schools are not making sufficient progress on improving student achievement outcomes, I meet with each principal to establish an improvement plan, and provide them additional coaching support. I have principals report back to me monthly on the progress they are making. Senior administration and members of the student achievement team visit their schools regularly to ensure principals receive the support they need to move the school forward. This support might well include professional development for the principal and the staff.

Finally, each year principals fill out a satisfaction survey and provide feedback to each of the central services departments across district office. So, a central services department director or supervisor, at the end of the year, has data on the percentage level of principal satisfaction for their department.

What external help did you use to accelerate improvement during your time as superintendent?

The district has worked for over six years with the international consulting firm, Focus on Results, who provided the district with the instructional focus framework, training materials, and ongoing coaching of the superintendent, senior administration and other central staff in order to help the district develop its own capacity to improve student achievement outcomes. During the six years, the district went from being heavily reliant on the external support from Focus on Results to becoming almost self-sufficient this year.

What message do you want to give superintendents about their role in improving student achievement in their districts?

Superintendents are almost invariably overwhelmed by the demands on their time. A great deal of their efforts are directed towards dealing with the urgency of the moment and many believe that others in the organization will be the ones to address improved student results. Districts will always have crisis and urgent matters to deal with and school boards and provincial/state offices of education will have their mandates and agendas to keep superintendents busy beyond reason. In my view, it is crucial that the superintendent lead the district to improved student achievement outcomes. The superintendent, more than any other figure in the district, possesses the moral imperative and authority to give this job the attention it needs. The superintendent may well not have much experience in this area, but he/she can learn, like all other staff in the district, to improve their skills in leading change for improvement. Other work will not go away, but it can at least be shared with other leadership staff, and elected officials can be helped to view improved student learning as more important than some other district issues. Superintendents leading the training of principals and central services (office) staff is vital. Superintendents using student achievement data in all their speeches and writings is critical in order to raise everyone's level of urgency and have an impact on keeping the achievement agenda moving forward. Nothing is more important than superintendents visiting schools and classrooms and making principals accountable for the results achieved in schools. The superintendent also has to accept responsibility for the results achieved in the district and ensuring that there is a solid plan for school and district improvement over time.

Recent News: Angus McBeath joins Focus on Results

Angus McBeath has been named Superintendent Emeritus at Focus on Results. With over 32 years experiences in education, Mr. McBeath brings a successful track record of improving district-wide results in a diverse urban system.

"Angus is an extraordinary leader," said the Senior Executives of FOR. "His experience, dedication and focus on student learning will enhance the services Focus on Results is currently providing to schools and districts across North America."

Most recently, Mr. McBeath served for four years as Superintendent of Edmonton Public Schools in Edmonton, Alberta. Under his leadership, Edmonton saw consecutive years of steady growth in all academic areas, as well as notable and significant increases in high school completion rates.

Mr. McBeath is also a Senior Fellow in Education with the Atlantic Institute for Market Studies, a public policy think tank in Atlanta Canada.

As Superintendent Emeritus of FOR, Mr. McBeath will provide specialized executive coaching and leadership development to superintendents, cabinet members and other district leaders working to improve district-wide student results.

Edmonton is only one district with a story about how they have moved from Central Offices to Central Services in support of student learning, yet the lessons learned in other districts are notably similar. Cross City Campaign for Urban School Reform offers the lessons learned and recommendations below from a three-year examination of district and school interactions around instructional reform in the Chicago, Milwaukee, and Seattle School Districts.

The following information, providing a school-level view of these interactions, was drawn from interviews of 185 school-level staff members at 23 schools along with 82 cabinet and mid-level central office staff members, and was published earlier this year in the research report by Cross City Campaign: A Delicate Balance: District Policies and Classroom Practice.

Lessons Learned

District-wide instructional policies and mandates had little impact on improving classroom instruction.
Despite sweeping initiatives to improve student achievement, few district policies were able to improve teacher practice. Milwaukee teachers reported that district policies and tools, such as standards and curricular materials, had modest effects on instruction because the policies did not relate specifically to actual classroom practices. Few Seattle policies were targeted directly at improving instruction. School level staff interpreted many district policies as shallow and uninformed because the central office staff knew little about the culture of their schools.

The districts' rhetoric about improving instruction did not match the reality of their relentless focus on increasing standardized test scores.
In spite of superintendents' and central staff's rhetoric about improving classroom practice and transforming teaching and learning, their communications about meeting standards were defined by increased test scores, particularly in Chicago and Seattle. Chicago principals and teachers in high, middle, and low achieving schools all heard the central office's message loud and clear: the driving priority was increased test scores. The Seattle school leaders felt that if their test scores were good, no one cared if they were teaching to standards, utilizing the adopted curriculum, or using the classroom based assessments. As one principal stated, "At the same time that they ask you to think out of the box, they are also becoming more and more prescriptive."

Teacher voice and expertise were excluded from policy development and implementation discussions.
Teachers generally felt isolated from most discussions and decisions about instructional improvement that occurred outside their schools. Chicago teachers had few interactions with central office staff and learned about district policies through their principals, through instructional materials, or through large, district-sponsored meetings. Milwaukee classroom teachers rarely saw central office personnel. Some teachers served on district committees that sought feedback on the implementation of district policies already formulated. Seattle school staff noted that they had little or no input into the design of important policy instruments, limiting the school's opportunity to have a voice in shaping district policies. Consequently, school views differed considerably from those at the central office.

The districts failed to provide the kind of support and capacity building that school staff needed to achieve the districts' ambitious goals.
School leaders faced the daunting challenge of implementing large scale reforms without having the comprehensive infrastructure needed to support new skills and knowledge development. In Seattle, the district tended to overestimate individual schools' capacity to make sense of guidelines and their ability to design programs that might lead to improvements in teaching and learning. Without adequate professional development and necessary resources, schools saw the district's demands for accountability as unfunded mandates. In Milwaukee, central office staff paraphrased the superintendent as having said, "Give me 160 excellent principals and I'll give you a great district." This sentiment demonstrated the kind of relationship many central office leaders envisioned between schools and the central office.

Principals had multiple responsibilities that often worked at cross purposes with their role of instructional leader.
The principal's job grew increasingly complex due to external pressures and demands of accountability and internal needs to increase the capacity of school staff. Almost every Seattle central office department called the principals with questions ranging from discipline data, to bus schedules, to requests for payroll figures. One principal, in deciding not to worry about the district's indecisions stated, "I'm just going to sit out until the district has figured out what its focus for the schools really is." Milwaukee principals frequently commented that it was difficult to perform multiple functions that included instructional leadership, student discipline, professional development, budget oversight, marketing, personnel decisions, fundraising, and community relations.

Professional development was fragmented and not directly tied to district initiatives. School leaders had little patience for district provided, top-down staff development that did not relate to work going on in the schools and in the classrooms. Chicago teachers were typically critical of the district's efforts at professional development, describing a range of problems from facilitators' lack of preparation to a one -size fits-all approach. A CPS administrator described central office efforts as "drive - by", uncoordinated, and not focused on the core of what teaching is about. In Seattle, professional development for teachers was improving, however, there was no overarching strategic plan for professional learning.

Principal leadership was an important determinant in how district-wide policies were implemented.
Astute principals helped teachers make sense of district initiatives. The role of Milwaukee principals was an important factor in how school staff perceived and participated in school operations. The extent to which principals involved teachers in working the school's education plan affected teachers' perceptions of the quality and legitimacy of the plan. The strength of school leadership in Seattle was key in determining the school's ability to use district policies to further school goals, mobilize resources, and to create a vision that motivated the community to engage in new ideas about instructional practice.

Recommendations

Superintendents need to have a vision of good instruction. Improving test scores is not a vision. It is a political slogan that is used to satisfy politicians and the business community. Instead, superintendents need to spend time in classrooms and have conversations with principals and teachers about how to channel district resources and energy into making that vision of good instruction a daily reality in every classroom.
Central office policies and mandates should be evaluated based on how they help principals and teachers improve instruction and student learning. Policies that cannot stand up to this scrutiny should be eliminated. School staff need to be involved in designing instructional policies and in making decisions about how they will be implemented.
Districts should be responsible for providing a plan, a realistic time-line, and sufficient resources to build staff capacity when new instructional policies are adopted. In these plans, the district needs to allow adequate time and opportunity for teachers to observe new instructional methods. The district needs to provide resources for coaching and content experts to work alongside teachers as they learn how to use the new methods, and they need to supply the resources to purchase the necessary tools and materials.
Student academic needs should drive the district's policy agenda. Principals and teachers routinely assess student learning and have first-hand knowledge of their academic needs. Central office staff should draw on that enormous expertise when they design new policies and implementation strategies and when they create new communication and support structures.
Professional development should be school-based and embedded in teachers' daily work. The district's role is to provide the conditions and resources so that school staff have ample opportunities for individual and group learning that builds knowledge, capacity, and collaboration.
If teachers and principals are to truly focus on instruction, central office demands need to be drastically reduced. School staff can no longer be expected to juggle multiple responsibilities and comply with extraneous requests that are cumbersome distractions to teaching and learning.

After reading the interview with Angus McBeath and the excerpt from the research report by Cross City Campaign for Urban School Reform, we suggest you use this activity to engage members from your central office staff and site leadership in a conversation about improving districts and how these ideas can impact the work in your own district in supporting school improvement. Click here to access the tool.

Close this window