Continuous School Improvement...
In the same way that an elementary school teacher would not assume to know a student’s reading level or reading difficulty without listening to the student read, so too we should be unwilling to create school or district goals without “getting to know our schools.” Informal assessment in a classroom is intended to inform instruction. Likewise, informal assessment of classroom practice and educational tasks inform school reform.
The plan for school improvement should be a living document that is constantly revisited. It is at this point in the process that we must take a step back for a moment and reflect on what is working and not working within our system.
As there are changes in research regarding best practice, content or the methodology of the instructional core changes, we must reflect and revise our vision of the instructional core. When we realize that the theory is flawed, and may even be untrue, we must take the time to go back and refine the theory of action.
When we feel that the theory is solid, but maybe we are targeting the wrong leverage point, we may need to return to and revise our problem of practice.
Finally, it may occur that we just need more time continuing on the same problem of practice in which case we return to our network and continue the work of learning walks and the process of collective learning that emerges from the learning walks and analysis process.
State Model for Continuous School Improvement
When viewing the Sustainable School Improvement Cycle that is provided by the Oregon Department of Education (ODE), one can see the similarities to the model above. Instructional rounds simply offers a framework for helping a system to focus on making real change and offers the idea that one should be very selective about what change is made to the system. For real change to occur, it must happen within the instructional core. The framework and tools provided here are to help facilitate the continuous school improvement process.