November of 1994 found me anticipating the creation of my 10th school-year plan as a principal. I had done plans for elementary schools and high schools, both large and small, and no two processes were alike.
Our school district has been practicing site-based decision making for many years under the leadership of an innovative superintendent (see “On Tapping the Power of School-Based Management: A Conversation with Michael Strembitsky). Every three years, our district's board of trustees, through much community input, determines our district's priorities. These priorities provide a firm reference for all 200 schools, which must address them in their own plans. But how each school develops its plan is as individual as the school and its own community.
When I began working on our 1995–96 plan last year, we were at a crossroads. For two decades W. P. Wagner High School had provided vocational training for students in Edmonton. In 1991, the year I came here as principal, our board of trustees mandated that we become a high school of science and technology. The school had only about 300 students, even though we could easily accommodate 1,200. We are a school without an immediate attendance area, so all students of our large district may choose us over their local high school. In addition, the southeast part of the city, where we are located, was bulging with high school students, and there was a need for additional space for academic programming. Taking all this into consideration, our board determined that we needed a change in focus.
To give us more space for academic programs, the board was prepared to provide funds for building modifications. Funding allocations for each school are almost entirely student-driven, with eight levels of allocations depending upon student needs. A small amount of the allocation is related to considerations such as the size of the school, the number of programs, community use, and utilities.
Forging a New Identity
The years between 1992 and 1995 became exciting building years as students, staff, parents, and community members worked together to build a new school. By last year, anyone who had not walked into our building for four years would barely recognize Wagner. Enrollment was nearing 900 students. One year at a time we had developed 10th, 11th, and 12th grade academic programs. Our first group of new students would write grade 12 government exams in 1995. Our teachers were developing confidence in their abilities to teach in a variety of innovative ways. We had established student teams and clubs and an active parent organization. In general, we had built a reputation as a friendly, caring place, where academic standards were improving, and where there was a wide range of opportunities for young people.
Our challenge was this: How do we make the transition to a school of science and technology? We had begun to focus on science, technology, and mathematics, although still in limited ways. Our status was, in its way, a safe one; the new direction was more of an unknown. Further, we finally had some breathing room after three years of building; to go further would require still more hard work. Yet the new direction was more long-sighted, with potential for growth. If we did nothing more it was questionable if we could survive in an increasingly competitive education market.
Certainly if we were to realize the new vision, more people would have to share it and make it real. Our district does, in fact, require that each member of the school organization—student, staff, parent, and community—be given an opportunity to participate in the planning process, and that they be given the information they need to participate in an informed way. My task as a principal was to ensure that all the groups did help determine our direction and how we would spend our funding.
Community Conversation
In my years of preparing school plans, I have learned the overriding importance of open discussion—not so much to gain consensus (although it's nice when this happens), but to appreciate the diversity of opinions and ideas. Accordingly, at our November 1994 staff meeting, I began the planning process this way.
- What are three key things we are doing that we should build on for the future?
- What three areas should we consider modifying, radically changing, or doing away with?
- What three things are we not doing that should be part of our plan?
- If you were to tell someone what our school is all about, which three issues would you mention?
I also encouraged the teachers to talk to one another about these questions, as well as to students and community members.
At our December meeting, eight groups of about six teaching and support staff from various departments considered the questions and prioritized their responses. The following month, leaders of our teacher/advisor groups asked students to respond to the same questions. Each class named two students to an overall student planning group. This process was already well-established through our monthly principal's forum, where we ask classes to provide input on a wide range of issues.
Input from the community and from parents is not always as easy to obtain. We tried a number of approaches with varying degrees of success. We asked members of the parents' group the same questions we had asked the staff and students. And we also published a questionnaire in our monthly community newsletter. We did the latter because our parents' group, though sizeable, does not reflect the full range of viewpoints among parents and other members of the community.
Narrowing Down the Issues
What did we get from all this information? Some interesting feedback. For one thing, we saw tremendous similarities among the groups' responses. There was a strong correlation of responses on such topics as the need to build on our number one strength—our positive, caring environment; the need to maintain our edge in using technology and to extend electronic communication and videoconferencing to all curriculum areas; and the need to continue communicating the status of student achievement to students and parents. Opinions were most divided on three other issues: whether our emphasis should be on educating academically superior students or on expanding our offerings for a wide range of students; the role of our daily directed study session; and the direction our athletic program should take.
All groups received feedback on their responses. Their input was valuable. It helped to identify the issues; it helped staff members, students, parents, and other community members understand one another's attitudes and viewpoints; and it confirmed that we were on the right track.
From everyone's responses, we identified seven topics for further discussion and input: enrichment programming, public relations, course consistency, teacher/advisor programs, athletics, technology directions and replacement plans, and professional development. We then named a staff leader for each topic and invited teachers to volunteer to be part of at least one staff discussion group. (About a third of the staff volunteered to take part in two or more groups.)
I continued to be concerned that I was learning too little about more personal experiences. I wanted to hear directly from each staff member, so I set up a series of small group breakfast sessions over the next two months. What I got from these was some of the passion and rationale for what I had heard in the larger, more general discussions.
Near the middle of February, I tried another angle. I asked staff to jot down responses to this question: What are the two greatest barriers to doing your job as well as you want to do it? Once again, useful ideas surfaced.
At a staff workshop in February, we posed the crucial question: What does a school of science and technology look like? We looked at the topic through the eyes of various groups—the full staff, students and potential students, parents, the business and university communities. More than anything, this awareness session underscored the need to clarify our overall direction, and it also pointed up the fact that we didn't necessarily all agree on what this direction should be.
Presenting the Draft
Once a first draft of our plan was completed, it was time for reaction. And reaction we certainly did get. A group of parents volunteered to individually go through the document and provide their input. The student planning group reacted to various issues. At a four-hour afternoon/evening session for interested staff, about a third of our teachers reviewed each priority.
Some reactions I was prepared for, some I wasn't. To me, the document reflected the combined efforts and input of all the groups. Many staff saw this and were pleased with how the entire package had come together. But a few actually wondered if I had made a lot of it up! I continue to search for ways to help all staff see the larger picture. (Whether this is a fault of our process or a reality of any organization, I don't know, but it's frustrating.)
The final part of the process was to provide feedback for our total school community. We gave staff members who had reviewed the draft document copies of the complete plan, and all staff members, highlights of the document. We gave students the highlights as well. We also gave parents who had provided direct input their own copies and included a summary of plans in the Principal's Message in our community newsletter. We made a brief presentation on the plan to a subcommittee of our board of trustees.
Reflections of a Community
We now had a 1995–96 plan that was based on our real needs. We chose to make our plan a living document that would outline everything of importance for the coming year. (It was so comprehensive that it looked like it would be a huge amount of work to implement.) The job now is to break the plan down into smaller chunks and make it happen.
- clarification of our school's overall purpose and the direction in which we'll take it, including building a strong connection between academic math and science and real-world applications;
- a plan for a major community partnership in the sciences;
- a plan to further implement technology throughout the school;
- student achievement targets (as part of a district directive);
- guidelines for enrichment and special needs programming;
- course consistency guidelines;
- communication and public relations ideas;
- ways to make sure that our teachers help shape our professional development programs;
- attendance and retention plans;
- a plan for involving all user groups in our athletic programming; and
- the necessary financial documents.
No school plan will include everything that everyone wants. But each student, teacher, parent, and community member must see that some aspect of his or her input has been considered and included.
I still wonder how I can ensure that those who really want to be involved are involved, and that those with —al interest are heard but not forced into something they are not interested in. Perhaps the answer lies in one of the least talked about abilities every principal needs—the ability to really listen. The beauty of school-based management is that we are close to those who really care, close enough to really listen—if we want to.
