From Diagnosis to School Improvement

A case study of quality assessment, development and culture in a Polish secondary school

Jadwiga Brzdąk

Regional Examination Board, Poland

and

David Oldroyd

D3 Development Consultants, England/Poland

“What will the world be like in 2010? The simple answer is, we don’t know. So how one can predict what will be the circumstances in terms of education in nearly fifteen years away? We might predict that if current trends in technology and the globalisation of the economy continue that the world will probably need people who are highly skilled, highly knowledgeable and independent, but interactive, thinkers. The world will need people who are able to make decisions, to enable them to adapt to new work, or new techniques, or to be entrepreneurial, when changes in work require changes in the workforce… We believe that all schools will need to become learning organizations, either through the process of individual schools changing their culture and programs, or by it being forced on them, by governments or economic circumstances.” (Townsend et al., 1999)

The Challenge

Schools in Poland as elsewhere are currently challenged by major reform efforts and the increasing demands of their stakeholders, in addition to the uncertainties of the increasingly complex social context. Decentralization of decision-making and increasing autonomy are requiring more complex organizational structures and more vigorous strategic management within schools in order to meet these challenges. As van Weiringen (1999, p.289) suggests,

The slogan ‘The Learning Organization’ was used in the terms of reference of the 1997-99 EU-PHARE SMART (Strategic Measures for Achieving Reform Targets) project in Poland. The metaphor was a signpost for the innovations to be undertaken in four pilot schools in different parts of Poland. The gulf between the slogan and the reality of most teachers and students is large. The learning organization is a fashionable concept much featured in the literature (Oldroyd, 1998; Senge, 1990) but much harder to find in education systems. In fact, such organizations cannot be ‘found’: they can only be ‘perceived’ or ‘constructed’. But they can serve as compelling visions for people wishing to improve the quality of their schools. Most professionals would probably prefer to be supported as key actors in improving their school than to be forced by government or economic circumstances. The learning organization metaphor was the starting point for a supported school improvement initiative in Poland that adopted a ‘head, heart and hand’ holistic approach of ‘change from within’.
A simple definition of ‘quality’ is ‘fitness for purpose’. New managers in schools need support if they are to help their staffs learn how to understand school ‘purposes’ and create school processes and outcomes that ‘fit’ those purposes. This paper describes the case of one school’s efforts and the help its leaders and staff received in an attempt to become a ‘learning organization’. If the stakeholders (leaders, teachers, pupils, parents, inspectors) of the school could be helped to perceive their school as a learning organization, then the journey towards higher quality could proceed.

The School and Neighbourhood

Ligota General Lyceum Number 7 is an upper secondary school for students aged 15 to 18. In 1996 it celebrated its 50th anniversary. At present the school has 539 students taught by 30 full-time and 10 part-time teachers in 17 classes using 23 classrooms – including biology, chemistry, physics and information technology laboratories. It is a neighbourhood school because it is the only school in the district, quite distant from the city centre, a little forgotten by the Local Authority. The people living locally represent a cross-section of social strata ranging from manual workers to the well-educated. The Provincial Education Authority appointed a new headteacher from within the school in September 1997. This was her view of the school:

Ligota School 7 was selected to be one of four in the EU-PHARE SMART project on the basis of its ‘zero level’ of development according to local inspectors and public reputation. The project’s broad aim was to support educational reform in Poland. The ‘School Improvement’ sub-component aimed to design a strategy for realizing the learning organization concept and then to monitor the effectiveness of this strategy in four different types of pilot schools. On the basis of the evaluation of the pilot projects, recommendations for other schools in Poland, educational authorities and Ministry about school improvement would be formulated. In addition to the benefit of having a new headteacher, one of the Polish consultants lived in the neighbourhood of the school and had already had professional contact with some of the staff.

Initial Perceptions and Prescriptions

Before the detailed planning of the pilot project took place the enquiry group of four Polish consultants (one per school) decided to find out how the term ‘effective school’ was understood in all the pilot schools. In the research conducted in Ligota School 7 in January 1998 a questionnaire was distributed to:

• the headteacher,
• 26 teachers (67% of all staff),
• 81 parents (17%) from four forms (one from each level),
• 87 students (18%) from four classes (one from each level).

The respondents were asked to choose the 10 most important indicators of an effective school out of a given 28, deliberately mixed. The most common features that they associated with an effective school were, in rank order:

1. Clear aims and goals,
2. A fair system of student assessment,
3. Competent management,
4. Effective learning during lessons,
5. Modern teaching aids and equipment,
6. Positive school and class climate,
7. Usefulness of knowledge and skills,
8. Teachers and students as partners,
9. A wide range of extra curricular activities,
10. Professional development for teachers.

The questionnaire included open questions asking for proposed changes that should be introduced to the school to make it more effective. Among the proposals were: improving teaching methods, introducing a wider range of extra curricular activities changing the students’ assessment system and better use of lesson time for effective learning.
The analysis of the questionnaire revealed contradictions and similarities of perceptions between the groups of respondents. The ‘effective school’ meant for parents the one that provides their children with learning skills and fair assessment. However, for teachers it meant a well-equipped school. The students emphasized a friendly atmosphere and fair assessment. None of the groups had been informed in advance about the questionnaire or the project. They were only asked to take it seriously, which they did. It was important to get a solid diagnosis at the outset of the SMART programme. After the data had been processed, the proposals from the questionnaire became the basis of a school development plan.

Detailed Diagnosis of the School

The next step was a series of workshops organized to report the findings of the survey and to refine further the recommendations for improving the quality of the school. These were held for the teachers and for three students and three parents from each class. Posters were displayed outlining the theme of the workshop – ‘The quality of our school’ and possible areas for improvement:

The school climate	Flow of information
Teaching and learning	Co-operation with the local community
Assessment	Extra curricular activities
Teaching	Finances
Management	Discipline
Social education

The respondents worked in groups discussing the effectiveness of each area of school work. Then they wrote answers on coloured ‘post-its’ to the following questions (different colour for every question):

1. What does it look like now?
2. What it should be like?
3. Why is it not as it should be?
4. What should be done to make the visions of improvement come true?

The parental group was not familiar with that kind of work but showed great enthusiasm, while students exhibited a very mature approach to the activity. They were glad that somebody wanted to talk to them about their essential school problems. The situation revealed in school in June 1998 was in general not bad, although there were a few examples of inappropriate teacher-student relationship. The processes of teaching and learning were most criticized with such comments as: “Students are not taught how to learn, they are not encouraged to do independent thinking, encyclopaedic knowledge is demanded from them. Teaching methods are out of date. The assessment is unjust, too severe, not systematic, every teacher uses his or her own system of assessment”. The diagnosis revealed perceptions of how much teachers differed from one another – from those who taught in an interesting way to those who seemed unfit for the teaching profession. They were seen as all being paid on an equal basis although their work was not of an equal standard. The school lacked a guidance programme. In-service training activities for teachers were not co-ordinated. Discipline was improving but left much to be desired, although the headteacher was praised for her ambitious plans.
The students’ image of school proved interesting. When answering the question “What should it be like?” they gave themselves free rein. Their wishful thinking included: “Friendly school atmosphere; a better school environment than the surroundings of the school; students and teachers committed to school; no waste of time during lessons; a school where learning and independent thinking are being taught; the same rules for assessment for the whole school; assessment criteria made clear to students”. Students wanted sensible homework and to have their teachers constantly developing themselves and using modern active methods of teaching. They wanted to be involved in creating a school-based curriculum, improvement programmes and extra curricular activities. They would be happy if every classroom was equipped with a computer working on a school network. What should be done to make the visions come true? Students proposed training teachers in interpersonal communication, assessment and active teaching methods. They also suggested finding sponsors who would help the school to fulfil the most urgent needs.
The teachers agreed with the need for their professional development, and what is more, they proposed that constant raising of the teaching standards should be a priority. However, they said they would feel better motivated were they paid extra money for outstanding work. They also acknowledged the need to involve students and parents in school life.

From Diagnosis to Plans

It seemed sensible to start the process of the change by focusing on areas of need about which both the teachers and the headteacher were largely in agreement. Teachers who were against any change were in the minority and were overlooked. The central need was to support effective learning during the lessons. Some training could be arranged, but it was expensive. As a supplement, training materials were provided and two teachers who already had some experience as advisory teachers at the Provincial In-service Centre were identified to lead future training and to help to create self-study groups. The main tasks planned in the pilot project were:

1. To raise teaching and learning standards by
   • preparing subject curricula to ensure cross-curricula coherence
   • creating a school-based assessment system
   • salary allowance for additional responsibility
   • using modern active teaching methods
   • modernization of equipment used for teaching
2. To create a positive school climate that supports the learning process by
   • developing a policy about the display of pupils’ work around the school
   • creating a friendly school and classroom atmosphere
   • building a positive image of the school in its community
3. To restructure the staff to create subject teams of teachers with leaders who became the middle management team, supporting the school director in her actions and taking some responsibility for development work.
4. To request financial support from the local government to pay extra money to the middle management team.
5. To provide workshops for teachers on:
   • positive thinking,
   • active teaching methods,
   • techniques of accelerated learning
   • development planning
   • student assessment
   • vision, mission and school-based curriculum
   • school self-evaluation
6. To equip the school with publications on:
   • positive thinking (as negative thinking is very common),
   • active teaching methods,
   • techniques of accelerated learning,
   • problem solving.
7. To create a positive image of the school in its environment
8. To report conclusions and recommendations about the school improvement process.

On the basis of these priorities the management team together elaborated a detailed action plan for the coming school year and created a school-based staff development programme incorporating the identified training topics. Each of the team leaders also made a plan with the teachers in their team that included arrangements, on a voluntary basis, to observe one another’s teaching. In addition, the professional development co-ordinator worked out a plan for every individual teacher and discussed with colleagues which training courses offered by the Provincial In-service Education Centre they might attend.

Implementing the Plans

Restructuring the roles and tasks of the teaching staff

In June 1998 the process of building the new organization structure began. The co-ordinator of school-based professional development was appointed and became a member of management team. The teachers were divided into 5 groups, each with it’s leader. Job descriptions were negotiated with the new co-ordinator and team leaders and small honoraria were obtained from the project and school budgets to provide a financial incentive for undertaking the extra responsibilities. The new management and team structure and responsibilities are presented in Figure 1. At the workshop in September, the staff created the metaphor for the new organization of the five-petal flower. It symbolized the commitment to growth (from the soil of the local community) and a positive culture (flowers stimulate positive feelings). Each petal represented a team of teachers and the heart of the flower was the management team (the head, deputy head and professional development co-ordinator, joined by the five team leaders). The Ligota flower symbolized also the vision of interdependence and mutual support of the united staff that was essential if the learning organization concept was to become a reality.

Figure 1 – The restructured school organization

Initiating school-based professional development

In August the management team participated in a workshop organized for the four pilot schools involved in the SMART programme. For the first time the management team presented their plans, ideas, visions and doubts. They felt like a real team, not a group of teachers. They had already learned much and were now committed to improving the school, believing they could succeed. The in-school training on positive thinking that had already been provided influenced this attitude. The sequence of workshops that had been provided by the authors of this paper was:

• June 15th – ‘Positive thinking–school improvement is in our hands’
• August 31st – ‘Accelerated learning in a classroom – a way to success’
• September 1st – ‘Support for accelerated learning – structures, roles and culture for a Learning Organization’.

The first week of the new school year was organized in such a way that all teachers were able to work in their subject teams on development plans. The results were impressive: the plans were coherent, based not on wishful thinking but on identified priorities and feasible tasks that would help to achieve the aims of each team. Two teachers from the school conducted the next workshops for their colleagues. Their topics included: ‘Methods and techniques for measuring students’ achievements’ and ‘A school-based assessment system’.

Changing the school culture

The school has changed very much. The teachers feel more responsible for the accomplishment of the development plan, as they created it themselves. They undertake many interesting initiatives. They practice what they learned from the positive thinking and accelerated learning workshops. They are more praising and use affirmations with the students about the expectations of success, which are displayed on the classroom walls. They apply active methods, using more visual and kinesthetic inputs, playing background music to create a positive environment for learning in the classroom, encouraging students to make mind maps to accelerate their learning, and many other techniques introduced in the workshops. Boyd (1998) characterizes an effective school culture as ‘integrative’ by which he means that high academic expectations are integrated with a high level of caring for the socio-emotional state of the learners (and of course the same applies to the teaching staff). By injecting through the training workshops concepts and techniques from both these dimensions, a major contribution to shifting the culture of both classroom and the school in general was made.
Students’ opinions are taken into consideration while making decisions about the school development strategies. This is particularly appreciated by the students and deepens their identity with the school. The theatrical group now works very effectively and has solved the formerly serious problem of meeting after classes. The appearance of school is changing: it has introduced a display policy and now school corridors are covered with posters made by students. Two large coloured boards have been installed and the young art teacher displays students’ work there. At Christmas time the school windows were decorated by first grade students with colourful transparent paper simulating stained glass. The students also made Christmas cards that were sent to retired teachers, friends and sponsors of the school. An acronym BASIS (Belonging, Aspirations, Security, Identity, Success) was used in the workshops to focus attention on the socio-emotional needs of students and the need to incorporate ‘the heart’ as well as ‘the head’ into teaching and learning.

Changing the school’s reputation

Van Wieringen (1999, p.288) identifies four ‘key community bodies’ to whom schools in an increasingly deregulated administrative environment become accountable: resource providers, client groups, competitors and regulatory bodies. Pleasing the provincial inspector who represents the regulatory body was a concern. But the main concern for reputation focused clearly on the parent and student ‘client groups’ as the headteacher’s view of the school’s changing reputation after one year indicates:

Of course, a spin-off resulting from the school’s improving reputation would be an improved competitive position in relation to the competitor schools in the city centre which formerly attracted the most able students from the Ligota area.

Evaluating the Change Strategy

What worked well?

The school has managed to implement all plans made at the beginning of the school year. The new roles and tasks for the teaching staff made them a little anxious but more active. Lessons now can be observed not only by the headteacher but also by a subject team leader. In this way the teaching methods and techniques can be better evaluated than before. Arranging the school timetable so teachers are able to work together with colleagues from another subject team was very important: for the first time teachers systematically discussed their problems, planned what they want to do and who was to benefit.

What problems arose?

The school met some difficulties and obstacles when introducing the project. Not every student and teacher wanted to undertake such a difficult task. The teachers had to be reminded about the planned tasks and encouraged to work more intensively. Involvement in the programme made them face many demands such as implementing new teaching methods, co-operation with colleagues from the subject team and undertaking new initiatives. The teachers were encouraged to participate in training conducted by the co-ordinator of school-based professional development or the two other teachers identified as workshop leaders. During lesson observations either by the school head or team leaders much attention was paid to applying new teaching methods and maintaining a friendly classroom climate. The fact is that not all teachers have used new active teaching methods, but the hope is that it is only a question of time.
The school has been highly satisfied with the co-operation of the inspector from the Provincial Education Authority who has appreciated efforts aimed at changing the school image. However, the same cannot be said about the city authorities, which have remained indifferent. When entering the SMART programme the school counted on more interest and support than was received, both from the city authorities and Local Education Authority. The senior management team, the teachers, students and parents have come to realize that the quality of their school depends largely on them.
The two consultants, together with the school head and senior management team, undertook many activities: they diagnosed the work of school, and planned and conducted a number of workshops for teachers, students and parents. The new members of school middle management took many initiatives. In March 1999 a follow-up evaluation was made of how effective those activities were and what were their implications for improving the quality of teaching and learning in the classroom. First, the same students who had participated in the first survey were asked to answer the following questions:

• What has been changed in the school since entering the SMART programme?
• What else should be changed?
• What can students, parents, teachers, the inspector do to make things better at school?

The same questions were then put to several teachers, parents and the inspector who supervises this school. Here are some answers.

Changes resulting from the SMART programme

Students: “In some lessons we make mind maps instead of traditional notes or repetitions. We like the place on the second floor to display students work (drawings, paintings...). In some classrooms the tables have been arranged in the way which enables group work. We work better when listening to baroque music – it makes us more active’.
Teachers: “Some of us have changed our attitude to assessment, we use new teaching methods and techniques. Interdisciplinary co-operation has been started, especially in the biology- chemistry team and humanities. Teachers of the Polish language, history and art give students projects to make and they assess the results together. The appearance of some classrooms has changed (desks arrangement, decoration, students’ work display). The Students’ Council started to co-operate with the headteacher. The process of creating a new, school-based assessment system has begun’.
Parents: “I have noticed an improvement of school image in our local community. In the school itself teachers’ commitment, use of active teaching methods and display of students’ work is evident’.
Inspector: “Within the past few months of watching the changes at Ligota School, I value the most the following:

• acquiring the skill of the development planning by the teaching staff – I show the action plans for the school and the subject teams as examples of good practice for other schools I supervise.
• the teaching staff have become open to change; they have stopped complaining and started solving problems instead.
• lately there have been no complaints about the work of school whereas there were very many in the previous period.”

Continuing needs

The students would like to have more practical activities and better use of lesson time for work. They believe it might make their homework easier. They also want to have time for discussion with the class tutors. Students suggested increasing their contribution to fulfilling the school aims. Some of their proposals are interesting though not all are realistic: they include the school fair, an auction of the students’ art work, the sale of self-made cookies and pies, decorating their own classrooms and creating a music group.
Teachers proposed developing procedures for rewarding their innovative work, with the best teachers being promoted and get more money, to encourage them to even better work. They would like to learn how to plan pastoral care activities in school in order to make the students more active and more responsible for the outcomes of the learning process.
A final evaluation on a larger scale was conducted by a questionnaire addressed to all teachers, students and parents. They were asked to assess 15 areas of school improvement on the scale 1 – 5 by allocating two grades: one for the present state and one for how they saw it a year ago (before SMART). The fifteen areas were:

school climate	school discipline
democracy at school	flow of information
school management	parental involvement
teachers’ help in choosing learning techniques	equality in distribution of teachers’ additional responsibilities
variety of teaching methods	co-operation with the local community
objectivity of assessment	teachers’ professional development
pastoral care programme	equipment and teaching resources
after school activities

Improvements in every single area were identified by all the groups, although differentially. Students were again the most severe judges. They are very impatient and want big changes to happen overnight, but they have noticed improvement in how the school looks, meaning mostly the introduction of the display policy. They think highly of school management and of their implementation of active teaching methods learned at the SMART training workshops. Parents value mostly (much higher than a year ago) school management and discipline, climate, democracy of school life and better planned pastoral care activities. The biggest improvements from the teachers’ point of view have happened in the flow of information within the school, discipline, pastoral care and teaching methods.

Conclusions

The experiment at Ligota School 7 can be seen against the backdrop of major trends affecting schools in post-communist countries. It is an example of a European Union-funded project that draws on technical assistance and theories from western education systems. The Learning Organization metaphor is an invention of theorists (incorporated into the project terms of reference) and it is based on an open system and human relations model of school organization and leadership as set out in Figure 2, summarizing Karstanje’s typology.

Figure 2 - Continuum of leadership and organizational models

BUREAUCRATIC LEADER	↔	INSTRUCTIONAL LEADER
(control and command)		(involve and empower)

Rational Goal Model	Internal Process Model	Human Relations Model	Open Systems Model
Productivity in terms of student outcomes with central inspection and accountability	Rule-bound culture either central or local with inspection. Persists in the Kuratoria	High staff involvement; scope for action on curriculum and staffing	Surviving, competing in a turbulent environment

Level of School Management Autonomy

LOW

↔

HIGH

[adapted from Karstanje, 1999]

The shift in style and role of the school leader from left to right across the spectrum of models can be seen as a central requirement of a commitment to the vision of the learning organization. Ligota was fortunate to have a new, open-minded and courageous school director who was prepared to take the risks and strain involved in attempting the transformation of structures, culture and processes within the school, along with a shift in her own leadership style. She had to risk the disapproval of the provincial authority (Kuratorium) that still exists in the rule-bound culture of what are euphemistically now called ‘former times’. The indifference of the external administrative officials should not surprise. Only the ‘protection’ and status of belonging to an international project may have legitimated the school’s exercise of autonomy in several areas during the project.
Van Wieringen (1999, p.293) identifies six areas of autonomy that schools in post-communist countries may eventually acquire:

1. Community-oriented – autonomy to target clients and allocate resources.
2. Normative – choice of values and mission.
3. Product – choice of objectives.
4. Process – internal organization.
5. Financial/material – control of budgets.
6. Employment conditions – legal conditions of service and staff quality.

The Ligota experiment encouraged the school to venture into all except perhaps the last of these. Time will reveal whether the temporary boost and consultancy support from the project can be sustained, whether the staff and leadership are now sufficiently empowered to maintain their momentum. The ‘regression to norm curve’ of innovations that run out of steam is very familiar even in systems with a tradition of openness and professional autonomy. Building an alliance with the parents and the students as well as the teachers and concentrating on psychological morale and cultural change in addition to technical and structural improvements should increase the probability of sustainability. But the innovations remain vulnerable to changes of personnel, intervention by the local authority, the end of the ‘Hawthorne effect’ and of external support.
It is likely that the recommendations to the Polish Ministry of National Education arising from the SMART pilot experiments (see Appendix 2) will be out of tune with the times. They suggest developing a cadre of consultant/trainers and training materials to disseminate the school improvement approach developed in the SMART project. But there is strong evidence that quality development has undoubtedly been successfully initiated on three levels: individual, team and whole school. An holistic approach was adopted to quality improvement. The strategy involved a combination of personal, professional and organizational development with a particular emphasis on the core mission of any school – teaching and learning in the classroom. Many of the elements of the strategy are well known from the literature on school effectiveness and improvement:

• Active commitment and shared vision of the headteacher.
• Ownership of the innovations by the people who have to implement them.
• Diffusion of leadership and the creation of a team-based organization.
• Delegation of responsibility to staff and students .
• Creation of a positive psychological and physical environment in the school.
• Expecting, rewarding and celebrating success.
• Raising the school’s reputation and gaining support from the community.
• Creating roles for managing and implementing a continuing programme of school-based staff development.

Scheerens (1997) points to two major approaches to school effectiveness derived from organizational theory:

1. Partial autonomy at school level to find routes to school improvement and measure performance against externally defined standards.
2. Implementation of externally developed structured programmes.

The Ligota School 7 case seems to be a hybrid of the two. From the outside came the concepts, the assessment instruments, the consultancy advice and the training related to the vision of the learning organization and a holistic (head, heart and hand) approach to school and classroom improvement. But these external contributions were used to encourage school level ‘autonomous’ exploration of scope for action in order to ‘fit the purposes’ identified by the key stakeholders. This type of autonomous school improvement in a number of western countries has been overtaken by government-imposed approaches associated with the new managerialism of accountability in the public sector – ‘the big stick’ approach. Government agendas involve the introduction of explicit standards and performance indicators, a stress on measurable outputs, efficiency and productivity, competitive league tables and market forces (the Rational Goal Model in Figure 2). Attention is turning away from the ‘softer’ approach symbolized by the Ligota flower, involving teacher empowerment and democratic leadership that starts from the perceptions of the stakeholders’ needs.
The contribution of the two SMART consultant/trainers was obviously significant in motivating and training the staff and providing management consultancy to the team of eight managers. To use another mnemonic device from the consultants’ workshops – the 5Rs of school improvement – the school was restructured and recultured and the teachers reskilled and revitalized in their personal values and confidence. The resourcing of the project was not on a large scale. The external consultants gave a total of around 15 days over 18 months, adopting an approach which allowed them to hand over responsibility to school staff to continue the school-based training. The team leaders, co-ordinated by the professional development co-ordinator, became the engines for powering the innovation. The honoraria for the middle managers were nominal and the team leaders said they would have been happy to proceed without the financial incentive. However, creating this middle layer of leadership is one of the major recommendations made to the Ministry of Education Policy Group on School Improvement as a result of the pilot experiments.
At a time when the prevailing strategy of educational reform seems to be a top-down drive for accountability using measurable outcomes of test and examination scores to compare schools, identify ‘failing schools’ and blame teachers, the SMART approach swims against the tide. It starts with the perceptions of the key stakeholders, focuses on the psychological needs of both the clients and the teachers, provides support for creative classroom teaching and learning and encourages self-belief and self-help. Its symbol is the flower grown by the staff, not the ‘big stick’ wielded by the visiting inspectors. To paraphrase the opening quotation, the Ligota School 7 aimed:

Ten messages from Ligota’s teachers

It is fitting to conclude with the voices of the Ligota teachers, each of whom took responsibility for making improvement happen. These suggestions were put together in a final review of the project when they were asked to reflect on their experience of quality improvement.

1. Any time is right to start the development process at school.
2. Remember that change takes time. Don’t worry about the lack of immediate success.
3. It is advisable to start with training on positive thinking and interpersonal communication. Everybody works more effectively in a positive environment and active training methods require people to co-operate.
4. Shared effort, teamwork and responsibility are needed because you cannot succeed alone.
5. Learn to notice and celebrate even small successes. Nothing motivates more than feeling you have succeeded.
6. Look for support in Local Education Authorities. Even if they are not able to support the school financially they can at least notice your efforts and improvements.
7. Do not be afraid of restructuring the teaching staff and differentiating their salaries.
8. Ensure good information flow. If you want to get students and parents involved into school life they have to be well informed.
9. Promoting the school in the local community is a very important issue.
10. Remember that school quality depends most of all on how all implemented changes effect everyday work in the classroom.

References

Bolam, R and F van Wieringen (eds) (1999), Research on Educational Management in Europe, New York, Munster: Waxmann.
Boyd, W L (1998), “Environmental pressures, management imperatives and competing paradigms in educational administration” in Johansson and Lindberg, op.cit.
Johansson, O and L Lindberg (eds) (1998), Exploring New Horizons in School Leadership Umĺa, Sweden: Centrum for Skolledarutveckling.
Karstanje, P (1999),”Developments in school management from a European perspective” in Bolam and van Wieringen, op.cit.
Oldroyd, D (1998), “The School as a Learning Organization”, Nowe w Szkole No. 2.
Senge, P (1990), The Fifth Discipline: The art and practice of the learning organization. New York: Century Business.
Townsend T, P Clarke and M Ainscow (eds) (1999), Third Millennium Schools: a world of difference in effectiveness and improvement. Lisse: Swets and Zeitlinger.
Van Wieringen, F (1999), “Social context of educational management’ in Bolam and Wieringen, op.cit.

Appendix

RECOMMENDATIONS TO THE MINISTRY OF NATIONAL EDUCATION TASK FORCE ON SCHOOL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT June 1999

1. Make it a high priority to pay the teachers a proper professional salary to bring Poland in line with EU countries.
   When teachers have to take second and third jobs it is hard for them to become innovative in their professional work. Being rewarded at lower rates of pay than manual workers is sapping to the morale of graduates.
2. Create a career ladder and salary increments for teachers including a new rank of team leader and a senior management structure.
   This will provide incentives for talented teachers to seek promotion based on high levels of performance. As in other European countries it will help to create a team approach to curriculum planning, teaching and assessment within schools.
3. Organize schools to encourage collaborative team working among the teachers and empowering team leadership from a Senior Management Team.
   Change from within is a powerful and targeted way of raising the quality of classroom learning. Improvement in classroom teaching is the main locus for school improvement. Strong leadership at Department (Middle Management) level as well as at the whole school level is a clear finding in research on effective schools. The power of teams working together to create synergy is well known in many areas of public service and other sectors.
4. Use both internal and external change leaders to bring about school improvement.
   This strategy was employed in the Nowa Szkola project and Wizytators (Inspectors) are being re-trained to support the implementation of reforms. Creating a special senior management role to co-ordinate school-based staff development in each school means that continuous leadership in developing teachers’ pedagogic skills is available, both at school and district levels.
5. Encourage a continuing, vigorous process of school development planning based on careful diagnosis of each school’s specific needs and priorities by consulting parents and students as well as teachers and ‘wizytators’.
   Needs and plans can be efficiently compiled and monitored during implementation by a Senior Management Team and Department Teams of teachers.
6. Make School-based Staff Development, co-ordinated with external professional development opportunities, a key element in each school’s development plan.
   In the pilot project School-based Staff Development based on the needs identified in school diagnosis (Parent, Student, Teacher and Wizytator perceptions), was targeted on creating more positive school cultures (psychological and physical environments for learning) and on introducing more powerful and interesting learning activities across all subjects (accelerated learning). The school-based training was supported with special resources for the teachers.
7. Encourage Gminy and Kuratoria to support the developments outlined in the above recommendations.
   Some leaders in the educational system which administers schools still appear reluctant to give scope to individual schools to experiment and take some initiatives of their own. Rather than obstruct such initiative, they should support and encourage school improvement in every way possible.
8. Identify a national institution to mastermind the development and dissemination of the school improvement processes which have been found to succeed in the pilot schools.
   CODN (National In-service Centre) with the support of the relevant Ministry task force could serve this purpose. Alternatively, provincial educational administrations could co-ordinate regional dissemination based on Provincial In-service Training Centres along the lines of the new ‘Gimnazium 2002’ project.
9. Be sure to connect the several reform initiatives that impact on individual schools. For example,
   • Let the Nowa Szkola-trained internal change agents become co-ordinators for WDN (School-based Staff Development) as members of the senior management team.
   • Train wizytators and new gymnasium school directors to play a role in supporting WDN.
10. Create a cadre of consultant/trainers to act as external change facilitators and disseminators of the SMART School Improvement approach.
    The core of this cadre could be the four local consultants for the SMART pilot schools who could become trainers of trainers with perhaps some foreign expert support. The new cadre should be drawn from people already experienced in educational management and teacher in-service training.
11. Develop a series of one-day training workshops for these trainer/consultants or teachers from within the school to use in school-based staff development.
    Suggested topics: Positive Thinking; The School as a Learning Organization; School Self-diagnosis: Accelerated Learning; Assessment; Team Leadership; School-based Staff Development; Improving the School Environment; School Development Planning.
12. Provide a ‘White Paper’ outlining a national vision of the effective self-developing school (School as Learning Organization) and the conditions required to promote the necessary processes of school improvement.
    Developing and motivating resourceful teachers and leaders in self-developing schools is a necessary complement to reorganizing the school system and inspection processes or setting performance targets. A coherent strategic planning for initial and continuing professional development should be high national priority.