SCHOOL SELF-ASSESSMENT:
A DATA-DRIVEN APPROACH FOR
IMPROVING TEACHING AND LEARNING
Pritha Gopalan, Ph.D.
Academy for Educational Development
Tel. 212-367-4596
Alexandra Weinbaum, Ph.D.
Academy for Educational Development
Tel. 212-367-4577
"School Self-Assessment provides us with a jump start,
a process of constant renewal linking practice and reflection."
(Bernard Lane, teacher/ parent, Webber Middle School)
The Academy for Educational Development's (AED) School Self-Assessment
Project is an approach that enables schools to collect and use data to enhance
teaching and learning. A school undertaking self-assessment involves its
whole staff in a process of goal-setting regarding student learning, and
sets in motion an ongoing cycle of internal self-review and external peer
review. This enables the school to develop a culture of inquiry, reflection
and continuous improvement.
This article seeks to highlight the aspects of the School Self-Assessment
Project that build expertise among school administrators and staff to collect
and use data to further their school's teaching and learning goals. The
article begins with a synopsis of varied approaches to school self-assessment
(in the general sense) and explains AED's rationale for basing its School
Self-Assessment Project on the school quality review of New York State's
approach; it then describes the varied phases of the School Self-Assessment
Project in a mini case study from the perspective of a participating school;
in a concluding section, the article describes the project's growing contribution
to an infrastructure that supports self-assessment in the state and summarizes
feedback on the project from a cross-section of participants.
Why School Self-Assessment?
The first phase of the project consisted of an investigation by AED of approaches
to self-assessment currently in use in schools and districts around the
country. One of the goals of this aspect of the project was to determine
how the Self-Assessment Project could help schools become aware of how to
use data to improve teaching and learning.
One of the major sources of data available to all schools participating
in Michigan
Middle Start is the School Self-Study developed by the Center
for Prevention Research and Development (CPRD) at the University of
Illinois. This entails surveys of teachers, administrators, and students
in Michigan middle schools participating in Middle Start. CPRD provides
each school with the results of its surveys, together with written guidelines
for using the results in planning for middle-grades improvement.
AED has found that the extent to which schools use the data in the Self-Study
varies greatly. Two goals, therefore, of the School Self-Assessment Project
are to help schools become more knowledgeable about the many forms of data
at their disposal, including the Self-Study data; and to improve their capacity
to use what they learn from a review of data to inform their discussions
of the quality of instruction and student outcomes.
The forms of self-assessment that AED reviewed included the following:
- San Francisco Unified School District's use of school data, which
focused on training principals to use data to identify issues in their schools
that affected student progress and to communicate with school staff and
parents about student outcomes and needs.
- Handbooks for conducting an assessment of middle schools, including
materials developed for the Middle Grades Assessment Program by the Center
for Early Adolescence (formerly at the University of North Carolina). The
handbooks are particularly concerned with helping schools assess whether
they are implementing practices that support the development of young adolescents.
- Assessment materials published by the National Middle School Association
(NMSA) to help school staff, administrators, and parents determine the extent
to which their schools are supportive of and implementing exemplary middle-grades
practices.
- A survey of how eight Middle Start schools that received comprehensive
or focus grants used self-assessment processes. In 1996, AED surveyed eight
Middle Start schools that had received comprehensive and focus grants on
their experiences with self-assessment. We concluded that a fair amount
of self-assessment was being conducted in the schools, but that very little
of it focused on the effectiveness of teaching and its relationship to student
achievement and learning. To the extent that schools did report this type
of self-assessment, they focused exclusively on improving students' test
scores on the Michigan standardized tests (MEAP).
- School self-assessment through an external/internal review process.
The final aspect of AED's investigation into self-assessment focused on
a particular form of self-assessment, originally developed in Great Britain
and adapted for use in the United States, first in New York, and later in
other states and districts. In the United States, this form of self-assessment
is called a school quality review. It is a democratic approach to school
improvement and places great responsibility in the hands of school staff
and other members of the school community for improving the school.
The school quality review process, as developed and refined in Great Britain
is described and analyzed by Thomas Wilson in his discussion of how to improve
accountability for teaching and student learning. This process was adapted
for New York State under the leadership of the former education commissioner,
Thomas Sobol, by David Green, a former director of Her Majesty's Inspectorate.
For several years, New York State piloted a school quality review that focused
on training teachers, administrators, and community members in the process
of conducting evidence-based school reviews. As in Great Britain, the reviews
used a school's definition of its mission and goals as the basis for the
review within the context of the state's and district's goals and priorities.
The reviewers focused primarily on teaching and learning and on the systematic
collection of evidence regarding how well the school's goals were being
realized through its instruction. In New York State, schools volunteered
to be reviewed.
School quality reviews are continuing in a modified form under the present
New York State education commissioner, Richard Mills, and have also been
introduced into Illinois, including into middle schools participating in
the Association of Illinois Middle Schools (AIMS). An analysis and guide
based on the New York State experience, Outside/Inside, Inside/Outside
was developed by the National Center for Restructuring Education, Schools
and Teaching.
From the interviews with participants in school self-assessment initiatives
and from research about other self-assessment approaches currently used
in middle schools, AED concluded that of all the self-assessment processes
that had been investigated, the school quality review was the most relevant
and promising for Michigan Middle Start for the following reasons:
- Its focus on teaching and learning
- Its effectiveness as a professional development experience
- Its validation of what schools are doing well
- Its fostering of a culture of ongoing reflection on teaching and learning
School Self-Assessment and Michigan Middle Start
The School Self-Assessment Project, as implemented in Michigan, is an evolving
component of Michigan Middle Start, a statewide middle-grades reform movement
sponsored by the W.K. Kellogg Foundation. The project began in 1996 with
five schools (referred to henceforth as the "first cohort." In
1998, three more schools (the "second cohort") joined the project.
The schools represent rural and urban schools with middle-grades serving
low-income students. They are located in various parts of Michigan and include
small and large schools, schools with K-8 populations, and schools serving
only middle-grades students. The project establishes collaborations between
a school and a technical assistance partner in the same geographic area.
AED conducts self-assessment training institutes, provides networking opportunities
for schools, coordinates the work of technical assistance partners, builds
acceptance of the process among districts, and documents and evaluates the
effectiveness of the project in promoting classroom-level change.
In Michigan, the project has significantly advanced the original process
through enhancements, such as school stakeholders' involvement in the ongoing
design and implementation of the process, regional technical assistance
partners who assist schools on site, statewide networks of schools within
the project, and linkages to the middle-grades reform infrastructure of
Michigan Middle Start.
AED is also documenting the initiative as it unfolds statewide. Documentation
activities for 1998-99 are mainly focused on leadership development in schools
through participation in school self-assessment; changes in classroom instruction,
student learning, and school climate; and the project's efforts to build
local capacity in implementing the process statewide.
Components of School Self-Assessment
The components are designed to help a school develop a culture of inquiry,
reflection, and continuous improvement, with a primary focus on teaching
and learning. The following example of Butzel Elementary/Middle School,
the first school to undergo an external review (in spring 1998) illustrates
the components of the school self-assessment process, including orientation,
the professional development institute, schoolwide training, internal review,
external review, and ongoing follow-up.
Orientation
Several members of the Butzel staff and community attended the day-long
orientation meeting held by AED in spring 1997, along with members of the
other schools in the first cohort. As an introduction, they participated
in a goals-sorting activity, in which they selected three to five goals
for their school using the Michigan curriculum frameworks. As a next step
they described what these goals might look like in the classroom and school.
Almost immediately participants understood that school self-assessment was
(in the words of participants) "non-threatening," and "not
trying to catch you doing something wrong." It differed from other
modes of accreditation and review in that it was a form of peer review that
used a school's own goals, rather than an externally mandated checklist,
as the basis for review. The peer review sought to find evidence of how
a school was fulfilling its goals. In the words of a participant, school
self-assessment "involved critical friends who helped us break down
barriers to doing what's best for children."
Professional Development Institute
Butzel participants attended the three-day institute offered by AED during
the summer. Prior to this, they implemented the goals-sorting activity in
their school and collaboratively developed school goals that stressed building
a nurturing environment to enable students to express themselves in a literate
manner. At the institute, a core group of administrators, staff, parents
and community members sent by each school used school goals agreed upon
by the entire group as a framework within which to "review" a
fictional school. AED facilitators set up a simulation of a review in which
participants -- organized in teams of 8 to 10 -- reviewed student work and
"visited" classrooms (observed videotapes) for evidence that the
fictional school under review was addressing its teaching and learning goals.
The teams worked under the guidance of a "senior reviewer," (who
was experienced in conducting school reviews in New York State), discussed
and weighed evidence, resolved differences of opinion, and developed a collective
perspective on how well the school was fulfilling its goals. The teams then
wrote a report that was intended to "mirror" a school back to
itself. They also posed "questions for reflection" to the school,
which urged it to consider ways in which it could address goals better by
building on the resources that already existed within the school. At all
times, AED facilitators urged review teams to adopt a constructive tone
so that the school would find the report useful, without being prescriptive.
A good report, AED senior reviewers advised, lets a school know that the
team has "gotten" the school; if the team has not done so, the
report will not be useful.
Schoolwide Training
A Butzel teacher described the institute's usefulness: "It has
a purpose and goes hand-in-hand with teaching and learning. I could come
back to my school and confidently share it with the staff." At this
stage, the school also began its relationship with its technical assistance
(TA) partner, the Michigan Coalition of Essential Schools. The core group
and the TA partner began a series of workshops that involved the larger
school and community in learning the components of the simulation -- focusing
on goals, gathering evidence through analysis of student work and observations
of classrooms, developing a collective perspective on reporting the evidence
to the school, and framing questions for reflection that would enable the
school to work constructively toward its goals. A member of the core group
who led the training recalled, "They liked the training so much that
when it came time to leave they said, 'Do we have to go?' We had parents
and teachers, and they all felt it was something very good."
Internal Review
At the end of the schoolwide training workshops, Butzel posted its goals
throughout the school. Teachers began to review their practices in the classroom
through the lens offered by these goals. Two immediate steps that staff
took to make Butzel a more nurturing environment were, "speaking less
harshly to students," and "finding a way to guide kids without
discouraging them." To focus on the school's literacy goal, teachers
helped students improve their writing and speaking skills in creating a
"walking museum" to celebrate Black History Month. Staff and administrators
also discussed ways in which their school improvement plan could speak to
the goals they had devised.
The greatest benefit of the process to school improvement was that it involved
staff schoolwide. In the words of the principal, "School self-assessment
has brought a lot of the staff in. There are staff here that have refused
to attend workshops and make changes of any kind. But even they have begun
to move when they see that there is a better way."
Preparation for review further fostered collaboration and sharpened staff's
sense of where their school was relative to the goals. Through preparing
a school profile, compiling student work, and coordinating arrangements
for the external team's visit, they built up momentum for the process.
External Review
The external review is both a culmination and a beginning, as seen in the
experience of Butzel and other schools. The review is conducted by a team
with middle school experience that has been trained in conducting school
quality reviews. Butzel's external review team, for instance, was composed
of 10 people, including the senior reviewer, middle school teachers and
administrators, and the school's TA partner. During the week of the review,
members of the external team shadowed students, visited classrooms, studied
the school profile and student work samples, and interviewed staff, administrators,
community members, and students, always keeping in focus the school's goals.
At the end of the week, the team presented an oral report to the school,
along with questions for reflection. The report represents the collective
perspective of the team. The senior reviewer sent the school a copy of the
report in writing a few weeks after the review. Although tired from the
elaborate preparations for review, staff were energized by the team's careful
study, attention to evidence, and the constructive tone of questions.
Ongoing Follow-up
With the assistance of its TA partner, Butzel embarked on follow-up
planning and implementation to improve teaching and learning in ways that
spoke to the goals. The immediate impact of the review was a schoolwide
meeting to debrief the report and make sense of the questions posed for
reflection. The school found that the issues raised by these questions were
pressing ones if the school was to address its literacy goals at the same
time that it strengthened its nurturing environment for all students. The
school decided that it would use the questions for reflection as the basis
for developing its school improvement plan. The principal said that it was
the first time that the entire school participated in the development of
the plan, and that there was real ownership among teachers and parents of
the goals that the plan set forth.
Infrastructure and Capacity Building
While a linear process of implementation is implied above, there are many
opportunities for participants to reconvene to rework, refine, and advance
the framework that guides self-assessment. In addition, AED has emphasized
the importance of a supportive infrastructure of school networks, resource
materials and local expertise, as well as the formation of an advisory group
with statewide membership to strengthen and sustain the project in Michigan,
as described below.
Formal and Informal Networks: Butzel participants, for instance,
were formally and informally networked with participants from Beaubien,
T.S. Nurnberger, Webber, and West Iron. Networking promoted ongoing dialogue
among participants on ways to improve institutes and workshops, clarify
review procedures, and structure follow-up after external review.
Resources/Materials: AED facilitators and participants jointly
developed resources, such as a publication titled Guidelines to Conduct
a School Quality Review and an advanced institute to train potential
senior reviewers in Michigan.
Local Expertise: The cadre of trained participants from both
cohorts also represent the pool of local expertise within Michigan for the
ongoing implementation and expansion of the initiative. In 1998-99, several
members of the first cohort have trained schools in the new cohort.
Advisory Group: AED facilitators, along with representatives
from both cohorts, are planning an advisory group to develop guidelines
for connecting school self-assessment with district/state procedures for
school assessment and accreditation. Another important item on the group's
agenda is identifying in-state resources and leaders that will grow the
initiative after the period of the grant.
Participant Feedback
The Michigan School Self-Assessment Project has won the attention of schools,
parents, and districts alike. A parent who has been involved with the unfolding
of school self-assessment in his child's school said, "I am amazed
by this process. I attended the meeting in the summer and as a parent saw
the other side of the street for the first time." School district officials
in the Upper Peninsula and Detroit have been impressed with the gains made
by schools participating in school self-assessment. At the conclusion of
a professional development institute a prominent Detroit school district
official said, "Every school in Detroit will need to begin school self-assessment
soon. You all will be the stars. You can inform the district about bringing
school self-assessment into new schools." A district superintendent
from the Upper Peninsula similarly said, "We are writing a proposal
to influence the state accreditation process so that school self-assessment
might be accepted as an alternative to it."
Conclusion
The project impact on Butzel and other schools is currently being documented
through interviews with school leaders, teachers, and parents; through classroom
observations; the use of longitudinal survey data from teachers and students
and standardized test scores collected and analyzed by CPRD. Preliminary
findings suggest that the power of the school self-assessment process described
in this article lies in its use of school goals to assess teaching and learning;
its use of an evidence gathering methodology that is rigorous in its emphasis
on reporting "what is there;" and the involvement of the entire
school in the review process (goal setting, preparation, follow-up to the
review), thus permitting a momentum toward schoolwide accountability for
improving teaching and learning. This is especially valuable in light of
the difficulties, characteristic of many school reform efforts, of going
beyond organizational change to enhance student learning and achievement.
References
Ancess, Jacqueline. Outside/Inside, Inside/Outside: Developing and Implementing
the School Quality Review. New York: The National Center for Restructuring
Education, Schools and Teaching, 1996.
Darling-Hammond, Linda. The Right To Learn: A Blueprint For Creating Schools
That Work. New York: Jossey-Bass, 1997.
Kammer, Joel. "Three Takes on Accountability: The California Protocol."
Assessing Student Learning: From Grading to Understanding. New York: Teachers
College, Columbia University, 1998.
Olson, Lynn. "Critical Friends." Education Week on the Web, May
4, 1994.
The State Education Department, University of the State of New York. Developing
the School Quality Review Initiative. Albany, New York: New York State Education
Department, 1995.
Wilson, Thomas. Reaching for a Better Standard: English School Inspection
and the Dilemma of Accountability for American Public Schools. New York:
Teachers College Press, 1996.
Reprinted with permission from Schools in the Middle, a publication
of the National Association of Secondary School Principals (April 2000).
For more information concerning NASSP
services and programs, please call (703) 860-0200.