When the Plan Becomes Part of the Problem

Conventional wisdom says that a person can never plan enough or be too prepared. Conventional wisdom is often correct. Many successful schools—those that ensure that all students achieve at high levels—follow a detailed and comprehensive school improvement plan like a blueprint. But if this is so, why is it that many other schools that produce equally detailed and comprehensive plans do not achieve these same results? In trying to deal with the complexities of school improvement, schools sometimes find that school plans at best don’t help and, at worst, actually become a part of their problem. This month’s newsletter explores four mistakes common to the school planning process and improvement plans and offers solutions to correct them.

Mistake #1: An improvement planning team with the wrong members (and usually too many of them).

When deciding on the composition of a school improvement planning team, many district leaders and principals err on the side of too much inclusion. They invite everyone and anyone with decision-making authority or with a connection to key stakeholder groups to participate. Their motive is good: If all groups are represented and have the opportunity to shape the improvement plan, everyone will support the plan when it’s time to implement it. But including everyone and anyone is a mistake.

Solution: Strategically select a school improvement planning team.

Building a quality team is an important first step in drafting a quality school improvement plan. Filibert (2003) asserts that “careful consideration is needed to determine who should be a part of the team and who is willing to look at the present and project into the future.” Leaders need to carefully consider the characteristics of an effective school improvement team when selecting members. Effective teams do include representatives of a variety of school community constituencies, but they are also of a manageable size (six to eight members); able and willing to work collaboratively with the building administration to ensure progress; and committed to the sometimes lengthy task of developing a meaningful school improvement plan (Barnes, 2004). Careful thought also should be given to clarifying the role of planning team members. Are they there to actively represent a stakeholder group and reflect the group’s opinions (e.g., teachers representing a grade level)? Or are they expected to represent the perspective of a particular stakeholder group but not speak for anyone else? Either role is appropriate and can serve the team well. However, the more clearly the expectation of participants is defined, the more effectively they will be able to contribute to the work of the planning team.

Mistake #2: An incomplete and unfocused needs assessment.

Sometimes school improvement planning teams go through the motions of conducting a needs assessment because “that’s what you’re supposed to do.” The team collects data haphazardly—the more numbers the better—with little thought given to why they are being collected and how they will be analyzed and even less thought to clarifying the connection between raw data and real improvement. A school improvement plan based on an unfocused needs assessment is a mistake.