Module 2

• The relationship of accountability policies to the day-to-day work of students, teachers, and leaders in classrooms and the school.
• How teachers and school leaders can "own" the value-added and standardized test data results, and make them tools to help improve instruction and make choices about resources to support learning and teaching.
• Some new possibilities for data collection, analysis, and applications that weren’t possible until fairly recently, due to technology advancements and as a result of increased focus on achievement gaps and related issues which have fundamentally changed the educational landscape.
• How value-added and growth model approaches to analyzing assessment results link to curriculum design, formative assessments, and content across the whole school.

1. Creating a Data-Driven Learning Community
   
   Instructional leadership shared between teachers and principals is known to improve both pedagogy and student achievement (Marks and Printy, 2003; O’Donnell and White, 2005). The emergence of instructional leadership, which can be defined as a blend of staff development, curriculum development, and ongoing student performance dialogues, has provided contemporary evidence that school improvement can be related to effective practices of instructional leadership. In fact, as early as 1989, teachers and principals recognized a link between school effectiveness and instructional leadership (Smith and Andrews).
   
   Through the 1990s, studies continued to examine instructional leadership practices through a lens of leader (principal) and follower (teacher). The studies indicated that traditional leadership practices were seen to interfere with teacher leadership, causing teacher docility and reducing teacher innovation. However, a review of the literature in 1996 by Sheppard and associates, found a direct and positive correlation between instructional leadership and school improvement, specifically related to teacher commitment, professional involvement, and innovativeness. Most importantly, the studies also confirmed that effective schools used instructional leadership as a means to evaluate and supervise instruction, coordinate the curriculum, monitor student progress, and protect instructional time (Leithwood, 1994; Sheppard, 1996).
   
   Throughout the past ten years, the literature continued to indicate a positive relationship between school improvement and instructional leadership. By the late 90’s more studies found that promoting teachers’ professional development was one of the most “influential” leadership behaviors related to teacher commitment, involvement, and innovativeness (Blasé, 1993). Clark and Clark (1996) identified specific leadership processes that emphasized the “centrality of instruction and learning as well as professional development.” These included shared governance, personal development, shared vision, and webs of communication. In 2003 Marks and Printy quantified the impact of shared governance on student achievement. A subsequent meta-analytical study conducted by Marzano, Waters, and McNulty (2005) indicates that "[a] highly effective school leader can have a dramatic influence on the overall academic achievement of students" (p. 10).
   
   Some scholars in instructional leadership are still reluctant to make a direct relationship between instructional leadership and student achievement (Gonzalez, Glasman, and Glasman, 2002). Others have used longitudinal analyses to quantify the relationship as substantial (Marks and Printy, 2003). Given that student achievement and growth are significant parts of the current definition of school reform, instructional leadership can contribute to positive school reform. Most likely, as the use of growth scores continues to influence measures of school success, studies will continue to examine the link between student achievement, student growth/gain and effective leadership practices, both at the school and classroom level. This is especially true if the scholars in the field continue to recognize that the “facilitation of learning and growth are the number one responsibility of the educational leader” (Glanz and Neville, 1997).
   
   The Professional Learning Community: Using Value-Added Measures within a Context of Instructional Leadership
   
   Creating learning communities, where teachers and principals work with parents in a collaborative environment of shared responsibilities, has been recognized as essential for school reform (Goals 2000). The 1994 adoption of Goals 2000 nationally recognizes that learning communities help to raise student competencies in “crucial” subject areas, increase parent participation, promote student readiness to learn, and increase graduation rates. In addition, recent research confirms the importance of instructional leadership for school reform and school improvement (Blasé, 2003). Combining instructional leadership with the development of effective learning communities builds a “powerful, constructivist leading and learning environment, (Lieberman, 1995)”
   
   Studies by Snyder (1996) and Leithwood, Leonard, and Sharratt (1997) describe learning communities as schools that provide a supportive and shared leadership model, engage in collective learning, provide time to talk and problem-solve, and share professional practice. Successful learning communities advance dialogue and openly communicate on issues of student progress and professional practice. Barth (2006) purports that teachers' professional practices improve through collegial interactions. School-level learning communities can promote a type of "internal accountability system" as evidenced in case studies by Abelman and Elmore (1999).
   
   Traditionally, to foster this conversation among the stakeholders, principals and teachers have used a wide variety of measurements, including teacher satisfaction surveys, parental satisfaction discussions and surveys, national and state achievement test scores, report card data, and classroom based assessments. Each can provide valuable information within an instructional leadership design since they provide qualitative and quantitative feedback about students and the school as a whole. With the increased emphasis on meeting state and national standards, the use of summative assessments such as achievement tests are vital and will remain as key components for meeting district and state goals.
   
   But what if we begin to introduce a new tool within the dialogue, a tool that will show not only achievement, but also growth? And what if we make the assumption that all schools are engaged in the dialogue of continual progress and all schools embrace proven researched-based instructional leadership strategies? Would growth measures change the nature of communication within these learning communities and perhaps provide additional insight that was not readily available 10-20 years ago? The answers have yet to be investigated empirically over time since value of this kind of assessment is still being realized. However, it seems likely that within a learning community model, this growth data could improve the dialogue by providing valid and reliable feedback on:
   
   
   1. The impact of the instructional program from year to year.
   2. The performance of the individual student compared with prior years.
   3. An awareness of the need for schools to stretch the curriculum despite positive results on summative assessments.
   
   
   This is only a partial list of possible uses of value-added data will contribute to the dialogue on school improvement within the context of instructional leadership. Instructional leaders, principals or teachers, within a learning community, need to explore every tool available to engage in the continual process of open and honest dialogue among stakeholders. The Blasé (2003) summary of instructional leadership research indicates that effective instructional leaders share governance, foster a learning community of open dialogue where teachers are encouraged to learn from each other, share instructional strategies based on measures of student success (both achievement and growth), and continually reflect and support each other within an environment of respect and trust. Recognizing the complexity of the process of teaching and learning, value-added measures are a critical additional resource for the professional learning community.
   
   (Please see the Resources section for full document file, including references.)
   
   We have included a series of materials (“Getting Ready For Value-Added”) created by Battelle for Kids for P-12 schools, focusing on building a strong climate and focus on using value-added measures as a key part of continuous improvement throughout the school. These materials can be adapted for the preparation of both teachers and school administrators, and we encourage you to use them with both groups. As we describe above, of creating a climate for success and supporting all students in a school requires everyone’s commitment. The School Improvement Model (Battelle for Kids, 2006) is presented below, as a summary of how the various sources of data can be brought into the school to launch good discussions and explorations about where to focus to help more students achieve to higher levels.
   
   The rest of Module 2 resources will examine various aspects of value-added data, achievement data, and other data sources such as perception data, and connect these to the work that teachers and administrators do regularly in a successful school.
   
   
   
   In Module 1, we examined value-added analysis and calculations, and considered what these mean conceptually and in practice in various scenarios. It is now time to look at some specific value-added reports, as used in Ohio and other EVAAS (Educational Value-added Assessment System) states, and to get comfortable reading, understanding, and interpreting them. Let’s begin with the report itself. Please read and follow the “Anatomy of Value-Added Reports” activity to get a thorough overview of the report and what each part of it means.
   
   Now that you’ve reviewed the “Anatomy” activity, you have seen that there are a number of very useful data points included on the reports. It is essential, however, that you and your school team colleagues take these data results a step further—they must be interpreted and next steps put into effect in order to make the knowledge you have gained support student achievement. We want to draw your attention to three aspects of the report data in particular that can help your school team decide where to focus their attentions:
   
   
   1. The ability to compare school and grade level results with a growth standard, state averages, and the state’s and your school’s past averages. Consider the patterns. Don’t just focus on negatives—it is more important to celebrate (and maintain) the positive growth areas. It is also important for the faculty in the school to take the next step in exploring what these results mean. For example, if you have above-average growth in one grade, and below-average in the next, what can you learn about what is different in these two grades? Remember though, this is about learning and improving the future, not blaming for the past!
   >
   2. The diagnostic report data, which allows focus on quintiles. These quintiles break students into groups (lowest twenty percent to highest), based on past performances. These can help uncover patterns of where the school is working successfully with students who may have differing needs, and where things are not working as well. Be sure to also look at patterns over time. It is not uncommon for a school to focus so much attention on, say, the lowest performing group of students that the higher-quintile students see a drop in support and achievement results. But once again, resist the temptation to focus on just the “problem areas.”
   3. Finally, be sure to combine value-added report data with other, related sources of data. For example, one can better interpret state performance indicators by looking at these “achievement status” measures alongside value-added ratings. Similarly, considering the diagnostic quintile-group information along with AYP group results can provide added insights. DON’T assume that the quintile groups and AYP groups are the same (in fact, we should hope that they are NOT)—but combining “inside information” about who these students actually are in each quintile and in AYP groups can help faculty see new solutions.
   
   
   
   1. Understanding students’ progress: instructional leadership in the classroom and throughout the school.
      
      Linking Instructional Leadership to School Improvement
      
      Instructional leadership shared between teachers and principals is known to improve both pedagogy and student achievement (Marks and Printy, 2003; O’Donnell and White, 2005). The emergence of instructional leadership, which can be defined as a blend of staff development, curriculum development, and ongoing student performance dialogues, has provided contemporary evidence that school improvement can be related to effective practices of instructional leadership. In fact, as early as 1989, teachers and principals recognized a link between school effectiveness and instructional leadership (Smith and Andrews).
      
      Through the 1990s, studies continued to examine instructional leadership practices through a lens of leader (principal) and follower (teacher). The studies indicated that traditional leadership practices were seen to interfere with teacher leadership, causing teacher docility and reducing teacher innovation. However, a review of the literature in 1996 by Sheppard and associates, found a direct and positive correlation between instructional leadership and school improvement, specifically related to teacher commitment, professional involvement, and innovativeness. Most importantly, the studies also confirmed that effective schools used instructional leadership as a means to evaluate and supervise instruction, coordinate the curriculum, monitor student progress, and protect instructional time (Leithwood, 1994; Sheppard, 1996).
      
      Throughout the past ten years, the literature continued to indicate a positive relationship between school improvement and instructional leadership. By the late 90’s more studies found that promoting teachers’ professional development was one of the most “influential” leadership behaviors related to teacher commitment, involvement, and innovativeness (Blasé, 1993). Clark and Clark (1996) identified specific leadership processes that emphasized the “centrality of instruction and learning as well as professional development.” These included shared governance, personal development, shared vision, and webs of communication. In 2003 Marks and Printy quantified the impact of shared governance on student achievement. A subsequent meta-analytical study conducted by Marzano, Waters, and McNulty (2005) indicates that "[a] highly effective school leader can have a dramatic influence on the overall academic achievement of students" (p. 10).
      
      Some scholars in instructional leadership are still reluctant to make a direct relationship between instructional leadership and student achievement (Gonzalez, Glasman, and Glasman, 2002). Others have used longitudinal analyses to quantify the relationship as substantial (Marks and Printy, 2003). Given that student achievement and growth are significant parts of the current definition of school reform, instructional leadership can contribute to positive school reform. Most likely, as the use of growth scores continues to influence measures of school success, studies will continue to examine the link between student achievement, student growth/gain and effective leadership practices, both at the school and classroom level. This is especially true if the scholars in the field continue to recognize that the “facilitation of learning and growth are the number one responsibility of the educational leader” (Glanz and Neville, 1997).
      
      The Professional Learning Community: Using Value-Added Measures within a Context of Instructional Leadership
      
      Creating learning communities, where teachers and principals work with parents in a collaborative environment of shared responsibilities, has been recognized as essential for school reform (Goals 2000). The 1994 adoption of Goals 2000 nationally recognizes that learning communities help to raise student competencies in “crucial” subject areas, increase parent participation, promote student readiness to learn, and increase graduation rates. In addition, recent research confirms the importance of instructional leadership for school reform and school improvement (Blasé, 2003). Combining instructional leadership with the development of effective learning communities builds a “powerful, constructivist leading and learning environment, (Lieberman, 1995)”
      
      Studies by Snyder (1996) and Leithwood, Leonard, and Sharratt (1997) describe learning communities as schools that provide a supportive and shared leadership model, engage in collective learning, provide time to talk and problem-solve, and share professional practice. Successful learning communities advance dialogue and openly communicate on issues of student progress and professional practice. Barth (2006) purports that teachers' professional practices improve through collegial interactions. School-level learning communities can promote a type of "internal accountability system" as evidenced in case studies by Abelman and Elmore (1999).
      
      Traditionally, to foster this conversation among the stakeholders, principals and teachers have used a wide variety of measurements, including teacher satisfaction surveys, parental satisfaction discussions and surveys, national and state achievement test scores, report card data, and classroom based assessments. Each can provide valuable information within an instructional leadership design since they provide qualitative and quantitative feedback about students and the school as a whole. With the increased emphasis on meeting state and national standards, the use of summative assessments such as achievement tests are vital and will remain as key components for meeting district and state goals.
      
      But what if we begin to introduce a new tool within the dialogue, a tool that will show not only achievement, but also growth? And what if we make the assumption that all schools are engaged in the dialogue of continual progress and all schools embrace proven researched-based instructional leadership strategies? Would growth measures change the nature of communication within these learning communities and perhaps provide additional insight that was not readily available 10-20 years ago? The answers have yet to be investigated empirically over time since value of this kind of assessment is still being realized. However, it seems likely that within a learning community model, this growth data could improve the dialogue by providing valid and reliable feedback on:
      
      
      1. The impact of the instructional program from year to year.
      2. The performance of the individual student compared with prior years.
      3. An awareness of the need for schools to stretch the curriculum despite positive results on summative assessments.
      
      
      This is only a partial list of possible uses of value-added data will contribute to the dialogue on school improvement within the context of instructional leadership. Instructional leaders, principals or teachers, within a learning community, need to explore every tool available to engage in the continual process of open and honest dialogue among stakeholders. The Blasé (2003) summary of instructional leadership research indicates that effective instructional leaders share governance, foster a learning community of open dialogue where teachers are encouraged to learn from each other, share instructional strategies based on measures of student success (both achievement and growth), and continually reflect and support each other within an environment of respect and trust. Recognizing the complexity of the process of teaching and learning, value-added measures are a critical additional resource for the professional learning community.
      
      
   2. Value-added measures and standards-based curriculum, instruction and assessment.
      
      It is exciting to have the technologies and knowledge about learning that we have today, as we have many options available now that weren’t available to teachers, leaders, and schools even in the recent past. We can more easily collect, track, and analyze data with great sophistication, and supports like the EVAAS value-added methods provide a level of access to data users that has not been available before. In addition to this, great strides have been made by content-area experts working at the national, state, and local levels to develop standards and learning goals that can provide a good curriculum focus. Combined with the advancing knowledge about how students learn, educators are in a better place than ever before to help all students succeed, regardless of the variety of challenges which they may face in meeting achievement targets.
      
      It is easy to be overwhelmed, though, so let’s put it in perspective—work with these data should be primarily (if not entirely) focused on understanding where students are now, where they need to go, and what they need to get there. One can make a good argument that because schools exist to support students, their data and energies should all be focused on that goal. Even data about the most basic school processes—the bus schedules, or budgeting—can and do have an effect on student success. Data that schools use should be organized in a focused effort that
      
      
      • begins with curriculum and learning goals,
      • loops through instructional choices and information about needed supports and materials,
      • gathers assessment information about student progress, and finally,
      • loops back to the learning goals to begin the process once again.
      
      
      Rick Stiggins offers seven steps for pulling curriculum, instruction, and assessment together in a way that will help ensure the success of all students, particularly those students who have traditionally not been served by the “testing regimen” of schools to sort and rank learners. These steps are summarized below:
      
      
      1. Teachers provide student-friendly achievement targets from the beginning of the learning.
      2. Teachers provide students with models of both strong and weak work.
      3. Teachers provide students with continuous access to descriptive feedback about their work.
      4. Students are taught self-assessment and goal setting based on their self-assessments.
      5. Teachers organize instruction to teach one facet of target learning at a time, to not overwhelm students.
      6. Students are taught how to do focused revision of their work.
      7. Students are taught self-reflection skills and how to track their own growth in learning.
      
      
      We highly recommend contacting the Assessment Training Institute at the link below, to order a free copy of the DVD presentation which discusses these steps in detail, “New Mission, New Beliefs: Assessment for Learning.”
      
      As part of these resources, we have included a short clip here about the differences in how learners can be impacted by our traditions of assessment.
      
      Having watched this clip, consider with your colleagues the following questions about data uses, assessments, and how value-added progress measures may be best used in schools.
      
      
      • What traditional practices and beliefs about the uses of assessments to motivate students need to change in order to move from “rank ordering” kids to supporting the achievement of all students?
      • What are some parallels that can be drawn between “assessment FOR learning” and value-added progress measures, both at the student level and with regard to the expectations of how educators in a school work with kids?
      
      
      
2. Applications and Implications of Teaching
   
   One of the most powerful shifts in perspectives that has occurred in the last 20 years or so related to our societal commitment to and expectations of schools is the idea that “teaching matters.” Value-added analysis is just one of the more recent ways to analyze data to provide evidence that good teaching can mitigate, even entirely overcome, outside disadvantages that impact students. It used to be that schools were not expected to be able to do much beyond providing an opportunity to access learning. It was assumed that the greatest predictors of students’ future success were the community and home factors to which they were born. We now understand that schools can make a huge difference if teaching and support, and good data and understandings from the data, are brought together in the right ways. If you wish to explore these issues further, we have included the “Understanding Factors Related to Student Learning” presentation from Battelle for Kids.
   
   
   1. Assessment basics: many ways to understand students’ learning.
      
      A number of sources of data must be brought together in order to move from curriculum learning goals to improving teaching in ways that will truly support students in reaching the achievement targets. Teachers and school administrators alike—as well as students, as Stiggins eloquently describes in the video referenced above—must become assessment experts. For teachers, this means gaining expertise in how to design activities that will meet the basic structure of good assessments:
      
      
      1. A set of understandings about how students develop competence in a subject domain—assessments must be “looking for” the right learning progressions at the appropriate time.
      2. An activity or set of activities that permit observation of these student competencies. These opportunities to see the learning must be aligned with the learning goals (e.g., giving a word problem to a student who cannot read well is not a good observation opportunity for the simple mathematical operations that the word problem may be trying to represent).
         
         
         1. A clear set of rules for interpreting what is observed related to the learning that the assessment is attempting to measure.
            (see Pellegino, J.W., et al., Eds., 2001)
         
         
         (For more detail on assessment, we recommend Knowing What Students Know: The science and design of educational assessment.
      
      
      These basics are important ground rules for any attempt by a teacher to gather good information about students’ learning, whether formal or informal (a test or a walk-around-the-class impromptu discussion), and whether formative or summative in nature. Clearly, these expectations require that teachers first make some very clear choices and possess very clear understandings about what students should be learning and how learners go about mastering those achievement goals.
      
      Teachers can then bring their students into the process, helping them become able to assess their own progress and to participate in understanding and recognizing their own learning growth. This is great intrinsic, or internal, motivation, and tremendously powerful in helping learners become successful.
      
      School leaders must become adept at understanding what various sources of data about student achievement can and cannot tell about the work that students and teachers are doing together. Learning to ask the right questions of teachers about what and how they are using assessments—both formal and informal, and formative as well as summative—will help the entire school team make better choices about supporting student achievement. And as described above, the value-added results can help focus attentions on grades and content areas that seem to be doing particularly well with various groups of learners, or which are having challenges.
      
      One interesting source of data that we are collecting in Ohio related to the use of assessments “FOR” learning is included with our resources—the “Ohio Survey of Classroom Assessment Practices.” Battelle for Kids is finding some strong connections between instructional implications and dispositions towards assessments (see…). These local data findings, combined with the research support that you can find at many of the assessment-related organizations that we have listed in our “Assessment Resources” are providing strong evidence that it is well worth the effort to reform how assessment data are used in the school.
      
      The National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP), also known as "the Nation's Report Card," is the only nationally representative and continuing assessment of what America's students know and can do in various subject areas.
      
      The National Center for Fair & Open Testing (FairTest) works to end the misuses and flaws of standardized testing and to ensure that evaluation of students, teachers and schools is fair, open, valid and educationally beneficial.
      
      Understanding by Design (UbD) is a framework for improving student achievement. Emphasizing the teacher's critical role as a designer of student learning, UbD works within the standards-driven curriculum to help teachers clarify learning goals, devise revealing assessments of student understanding, and craft effective and engaging learning activities.
      
      ASSESSMENT FOR LEARNING: Formative Assessment That Can Improve Student Learning. Website for Rick Stiggins’ related work.
      
      Blueprints for Ohio's Achievement Tests. Test blueprints contain information about individual tests, including the number of test items and the number of points for each test item. In addition, test blueprints identify the number of test items by category: short-answer, multiple-choice or extended-response. Blueprints for reading, writing, mathematics, science and social studies are available.
      
      
   2. Multiple data sources to get the big (and more accurate) picture about student progress.
      
      Randomly focused assessment and achievement data are not much help. Teachers, students, and school leaders must connect these data sources within a framework of other data that will enable everyone to better understand the context of learning and the “learning journey” that each student is making. These data include the following:
      
      
      • How standards have been translated into specific learning goals and how curriculum, instruction, and various assessments are aligned.
      • Information about school policies and instructional choices, as well as general functions—how things are done at the school. This includes school supports and finances.
      • Perception data (noted in our “School Improvement Model” above). What do students, teachers, parents, board members, and community think about the work of the school, and does this match the school’s “reality”?
      • Data about the students themselves, and the community in which they live (which may or may not be the community in which the school is placed—this too is important for educators to understand). Just as we worked with the census data in Module 1 to better understand the context of the learning results, these types of data should be understood by members of the school community. A caution though—make sure to be open and explicit about addressing any unspoken beliefs related to these demographic data findings which may affect expectations of students.
      
      
      This is a good point to apply the value-added data results in a way that takes advantage of these multiple sources of data in order to understand the big picture. Work with the “Multiple Patterns Activity” below to be a “detective” about what might be causing school value-added results:
      
      Multiple patterns activity (BFK); post Gain Patterns Activity and Answers files; also "Identifying gain patterns…" doc.
      
      Finally, we want to note one resource at the Ohio Department of Education that brings a number of sources of data together in ways that should make it easier for educators to do “detective work for school improvement.” The D³A2 project, (Data-Driven Decisions for Academic Achievement), is described at this link: http://www.d3a2.org/.
      
      
3. Applications and Implications for Leadership at all Levels
   
   We cannot emphasize this enough: value-added methods are about learning and improving future results, not blaming for the past! Creating a positive climate for data use, encouraging the exploration of options, making it part of the process to fail and try again, is just as important for the adults in the school as it is for the student learners. This perspective on learning and participating in a learning community begins with teacher and leader preparation, and is reinforced daily through choices that educators in all types of leadership roles make in their work.
   
   In considering the formal leadership structures typically in place in the district and school, it is important to understand and respect that the ability to get the best data and interpretations about what is happening in the classroom lies closest to the students. Leaders need to expect and support this work, and to provide the guidance and professional development to help ensure that everyone in the district and school has the skills to participate in the process.
   
   For further reading, we have included in the Resources section a number of documents that discuss the benefits that teachers, principals, and superintendents may expect from value-added measures.
   
   
   1. Interpreting and communicating about results with parents and community.
      
      It is essential that school leaders and teachers are proactive in interpreting and explaining value-added ratings, both good and poor, to parents, community members, and others with a stake in the work of the school. It is frustrating that the media tend to focus on negatives, and too often educators only take the time to communicate outside the school walls once a year when reports come out. Setting a regular pattern of communication with key constituents about the climate of learning and improvement that the school is trying to achieve makes it easier to tout successes and answer negative reports. Media also tend to boil results down to the basics—it is their job to simplify in reporting, but they also do not have access to the “behind the scenes” information that educators in the school can see. School leaders and teachers owe it to themselves to practice interpreting the data available on their school, first for their own use, then for their students’ progress, and finally to help parents and the community at large become understanding partners.
      
      We have included two activities from Battelle for Kids, opportunities to practice navigating the data reports.
      
      BFK: Data Scavenger Hunt (activity and answer files); ALSO, "102ResourceNavigationDemo.doc" file for practice with what the K12 reports look like.
      
      
   2. Accountability implications and supporting teachers and students.
      
      School leaders who take the time to look at their multiple sources of data can begin to ask the right questions that will help steer the entire school toward better support of learning and teaching. It is important to practice working with data, to take the time to be thoughtful, and to include fellow administrators and teachers in looking at the data to help avoid misinterpretation. We’ve included another activity designed for P-12 professional development as an example of how looking at only one source of data can result in erroneous conclusions. Leader preparation programs should take the time to give their students opportunities to practice working with real-world data examples and to discuss and interpret these with peers and mentors.
      
      BFK: Example of achievement data masking differences in schools.
      ETS Value-added booklet, if electronic version is available
      
      
   3. Program evaluation opportunities.
      
      Some final examples are included that illustrate how value-added results can be used as a basis for program evaluation. These are offered as discussion prompts for teacher and school leader education, and also as resources for education about program evaluation and design of evaluations that utilize value-added progress measures.
      
      BFK notebook, pages 29-37 - Program Eval Implementation Stories
      
      
   4. Professional development resources available.
      
      

 

Bibliography

Abelmann, C., Elmore, R., Even, J., Kenyon, S., and Marshall, J. (1999). When accountability knocks, will anyone answer? CPRE Research Report Series, RR-42. Retrieved October 9, 2006 from http://www.cpre.org/Research/Research_Project_A-1.htm.

Barth, R.S. (2006). Improving relationships within the schoolhouse. Educational Leadership, 83(6), 8-13.

Blasé, J. (1993). The micropolitics of effective school-based leadership: Teachers’ perspectives. Educational Administration Quarterly, 29(2), 142-163.

Blasé, J., and Blasé, J. (2003). Breaking the silence: Overcoming the problem of principal mistreatment of teachers. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin.

Clark, D. C. and Clark, S. N. (1993). Better preparation of educational leaders. Educational Researcher, 25(8), 18-20.

Glanz, J., and Neville, R. F. (1997). Educational supervision: Perspectives, issues, and controversies. Norwood, MA: Christopher-Gordon.

Goals 2000: Educate America Act of 1994, P.L. 103-446, H.R. 1804 (1994).

Gonzalez, M., Glasman, N.S., and Glasman, L.D. (2002). Daring to link principal preparation programs to student achievement in schools. Leadership and Policy in Schools, 1(3), 265-283.

Leithwood, K. (1994). Leadership for school restructuring. Educational Administration Quarterly, 30(4), 498-518.

Leithwood, K., Leonard, L., and Sharratt, L. (1997, January). Conditions fostering organizational learning in schools. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the International Congress on School Effectiveness and Improvement, Memphis, TN.

Leiberman, A. (1995). Restructuring schools: The dynamics of changing practice, structure and culture. IN A. Leiberman (Ed.), The work of restructuring schools: Building from the ground up (pp. 1-17). New York: Teachers College Press.

Marks, H., and Printy, S. (2003). Principal leadership and school performance: An integration of transformational and instructional leadership. Educational Administration Quarterly, 39(3), 370.

Marzano, R.J., Waters, T., and McNulty, B.A. (2005). School leadership that works: From research to results. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.

O'Donnell, R., and White, G. (2005). Within the accountability era: Principals' instructional leadership behaviors and student achievement. NASSP Bulletin, 89(645), 56-71.

Sheppard, B. (1996). Exploring the transformational nature of instructional leadership. The Alberta Journal of Educational Research, 42(4), 325-344.

Smith, W., and Andrews, R. (1989). Instructional leadership: How principals make a difference. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.

Timperley, H. (2005). Instructional leadership challenges: The case of using student achievement information for instructional improvement. Leadership and Policy in Schools, 4(1), 3-22.