ISLLC Standard III: A school administrator is an educational leader who promotes the success of all students by ensuring management of the organization, operations, and resources for a safe, efficient, and effective learning environment. The administrator facilitates processes and engages in activities ensuring that stakeholders are involved in decisions affecting the schools.
Name/Situation: "Schedule Schedule, Whose Got The Schedule?"
Problem: Degree to which stakeholders have input into the decision-making process.
Key Issues/Questions:
1. How do you solicit stakeholder input?
2. To what extent should stakeholders be involved in the decision-making process?
Introduction:
The elementary school currently in question is a Title I elementary school in its final year of implementing a School Wide Grant. One component of the grant requires that the school participate in a yearly survey to assess current program and operations issues. Recent results of the school improvement survey have revealed concerns related to transition periods and interrupted instructional times that are associated with the current school-wide schedule.
Currently, the schedule is designed so that below grade level students at all grade levels (K-2) are pulled for resource/supplemental assistance in both reading and math. The instructional periods last for approximately 45 minutes. Each resource teacher pulls students from an average of 5 classrooms. There is a 5 minute transition period between classes. Results of the survey indicated that teachers feel that there are a significant number of disruptions when students are pulled and that noise levels in the halls increase during transition times. In addition, the survey indicated that teachers feel that the transition time between classes is not adequate travel time and therefore results in missed instruction time for students who are already working below grade level.
Traditionally, the school-wide schedule has been the sole repsonsibility of the assistant principal. The assistant principal indicated that there were some issues related to personnel/student ratio that may prohibit a change in the current schedule.
Analysis and Solution:
An accomplished response reflects that the administrative team has evaluated the current situation and established a plan for implementing a more effective school-wide schedule. One critical issue is for the administrative team to acknowledge that stakeholder input is important. Therefore, the administrative team suggested that a scheduling committee be developed in order to determine the best model to meet the needs of each stakeholder group.
The administrator began by instructing grade level/special areas teams to develop a "wish list" of priorities for scheduling. Each stakeholder team was then asked to choose a representative who would share these concerns with the school-wide committee. Some of the concerns that were revealed included: 1) one grade level requested lunch/recess time to be consequtive so that there were no gaps in the instructional period, 2) another grade level team requested that the afternoon rest time come at the last period of the day so that all instruction is completed prior to this time, 3) another grade level team requested that specials be offered in the afternoon rather than morning so that there was a longer a.m. instructional period, 4) a special areas team requested that grade levels be scheduled consecutively rather than randomly so that there would be less time involved in changing over materials, and 5) another special areas team requested that groups be scheduled so as to allow for collaborative planning.
The school-wide scheduling committee also looked at the survey results and identifed two additional concerns that they felt should be factored into the schedule: 1) the possibility of tranistioning on or above grade level students rather than below grade level students and 2) the possibility of not tranistioning kindergarten students at all but rather providing their services through a collaborative model.
The school-wide scheduling committee looked at each of the parameters for scheduling and prioritized each "wish" based on its relevance to a small group as opposed to the school as a whole. Many of the requests seemed feasible. However, it was noted that because there are currently 12 homerooms at each grade level, it is mathematically impossible to schedule all twelve classes so that the grade level as a whole has a collaborative planning time. A compromise was suggested which allowed teachers to work in "pods" of 4-5 teachers within the grade level. Each pod was scheduled so that they would have a common planning time.
Further, as the committee began to discuss the issue of "rest-time", they came to a concensus that this time should be shortened to a break and that these students would no longer "rest" for 30 minutes. It was felt that this time would be better used instructionally.
In regards to scheduling all specials in the afternoon, it was discussed that this is not feasible for all grade levels as there are not enough periods in the afternoon for all grade levels. However, the scheduling committee did honor this request for the particular grade level that had noted it on their "wish list".
Finally, the committee felt that there was ample evidence to support a collaborative reading program for kindergarten students and a pull-out program for students in grade 1 and 2. As a concession, kindergarten students would recieve math instruction in whole group as opposed to collaborative. This concession is necessary due to the limited number of resource teachers. In addition, they agreed that the pull-out program should focus on students who are working on or above grade level in order to limit the distractions that would be involved with transitioning below grade level students.
Response to Questions:
In the scenario above, the administrator solicited stakeholder input by insuring that each stakeholder had the opportunity to list out specific requests prior to the development of the school-wide schedule. In addition, the administrator insured that each stakeholder group was represented during the final decision-making process. Stakeholders should have input into all aspects of the decision-making process. However, ultimately, the adminstrator must make the final judgement call regarding decisions.
Evaluation:
A rudimentary response to the scenario above would have reflected that while an administrator may be aware that a change is needed, they are less willing to implement that change because it would involve significant time and effort to develop an alternate plan of action. The admnistrator who responded in a rudimentary manner might ask a select group of teachers for their input regarding changes in the schedule but would then work alone to determine if those changes are feasible.
Unfortunately, this response does not allow the administrator to brainstorm ideas and plan strategically with other stakeholders. In addition, by only requesting the input of a few personnel, the larger group of stakeholders have no say in the decision-making process. While the administrator may make changes to the schedule, the new schedule may not reflect the wishes of the group as a whole and may not be designed to meet the needs of the learners as identified in the school improvement survey. Unfortunately, this creates a situation which limits stakeholder support and by-in. The administrator will most likely find themselves in the postion of having to re-evaluate the schedule again in the near future.
However, the response above does not fall victim to these circumstances because the adminsitrator responded in a more proficient manner. The proficient response reveals that the administrator not only values the input of all stakeholders but recognizes that the final plan for implementation must reflect the stakeholder input. In addition, the response indicates that the administrator's leadership style is one that encourages team-work and collaboration.
Guidleines:
1. Input that is solicitied should be considered of value and implemented to the fullest extent possible.
2. Request for input must be genuine.
3. Stakeholder input is critical to any organization.