School Leadership Development Program: Curriculum

Summary• School Change Possible if Headmasters (HM) Leverage their Position as School Leader to Impact Learning• Transformational HM Leadership Requires Capacity Building on 4 Levels• Integrated Curriculum of School Leadership Development Program (SLDP) Offers Holistic, Systematic Training for School

Change• Personal Leadership Lays Foundation for Systemic Change through Individual Change

GA1: HM Creates Stimulating Environment through Assembly, Bal Sabha, Sports, Library GA2: HM Reflects on Actions to Improve School Processes, Student Learning Outcomes and Stakeholder Engagement GA3: HM Systematises Administrative Work to Increase Involvement in Student Learning

• Instructional Leadership Improves Student Learning Outcomes (SLO) through Classroom Practices GA4: HM uses activity based instructional practice in Maths & Language for classes 1 & 2 GA5: HM establishes SLO based assessment GA6: HM creates SLO based lesson plans & review practice GA7: HM creates conducive democratic, child centric classroom environment GA8: HM Coaches Staff Through Demonstration Of Own Instructional Practices GA9: HM Coaches Staff through Regular Observation, Review & Feedback GA10: HM Helps Staff in Designing Data-Based Instructional Practices based on SLO GA11: HM Facilitates Creation of Learning Community among Teachers

• Organizational Leadership Ensures Collective Ownership for School Development GA12: HM Facilitates Staff Meeting for Collective Problem Solving, Decision Making & Planning GA13: HM Instates Parameters for Performance for Teachers w.r.t Evaluation and Instructional practices GA14: HM facilitates Collective Visioning & creating of School Development Plan (SDP) With staff

• Social Leadership Aims for Sustainable Change by Involving all Stakeholders GA15: HM builds Continuous Engagement with Parent Community GA16: HM Facilitates Regular Parent Meetings for All Classes through Teachers GA17: HM facilitates Regular School Management Committee (SMC) meetings with Members Participation

School Change is Possible if HMs Leverage their Position as School Leader to Impact Learning

HMs at the centre of a web of relationships that enable them to influence change:

• Within the school, HMs: Have the authority and ability to significantly

influence change within the school environment. Can influence learning outcomes; can articulate

vision for school, plan strategically and take decisions for better learning outcomes.

• In the larger education system: Recognised leaders within school community Link between schools and the larger system Pipeline for new administrators.

• Key Players in implementing National Curriculum Framework and Right To Education

Can create positive learning environment, implement Comprehensive Continuous Evaluation (CCE), reduce drop-outs, etc.

Can collaborate with community and School Management Committee (SMC) to create and implement a comprehensive School Development Plan (SDP)

Envisioning Headmasters as Key Players in School Reform

• Currently Most HMs motivated by credibility/security of the

job; struggling without identity as a school leader HM reduced to administrator- Time consumed by

Mid-day Meal, reports, Census, election duty. HM nominated based on seniority; no support or

assessment of leadership skills No performance assessment , low accountability

• SLDP Aims to Build intrinsically motivated HMs to improve the

functioning of their schools who introduce take action within their sphere of influence to positively impact quality of education

Ensure HMs prioritize the fundamentals of education (Student Learning )

Facilitate a shift towards an internal local of control, proactive problem solving and planning.

Transformational HM Leadership Requires Capacity Building on 4 Levels

Integrated Curriculum of SLDP Offers Holistic, Systematic Training for School Change

• SLDP provides headmasters with holistic training on the 4 aspects of school leadership.

• Change management is an arduous and abstract process; SLDP is guided by an Integrated Curriculum that outlines systematic, step-wise interventions to bring long-term change in the school.

• Curriculum facilitates HM growth on the 4 Leadership Levels. Each Leadership Level corresponds with specific Growth Areas (GA).

• Growth Areas are set to move progressively across 9 Growth Stages (Some may be less than 9)

• Defined Growth Areas and Growth Stages (GS) help HM to set small, step-wise goals towards school development; framework makes it easy to track and measure progress on the goals.

• Each growth stage has specific recommended actions that HM must complete to move into the next growth stage.

• Curriculum design allows HMs the flexibility to set goals according to their current individual and school needs

• Integrated approach ensures continuous work on multiple areas of improvement simultaneously.

Growth Area 1

Growth Area 2

Growth Area 3

Growth Area 4

HM may work on many Growth Areas simultaneously according to specific needs of his school. He can track progress on each GA separately, and can be on different levels of progress on each at any given time.

Growth Stage 5

Growth Stage 2

Growth Stage 4

Growth Stage 6

Personal Leadership Lays Foundation for Systemic Change through Individual Change

Currently As Personal Leader

School environment not favorable for effective student learning

There is little use of mediums like art, sports, music, reading to make the learning process enjoyable for students to accelerate their learning

HM creates a stimulating school environment to improve learning quality

Focuses intently on creating a culture in which each child can learn by encouraging use of different innovative mediums and instructional practices

Little initiative by HM to reflect on ways to grow as a leader and improve school process

HM takes little time to reflect on his own behavior and actions that need improvement in order to positively impact school processes, or to review student progress.

HM reflects on his actions & behaviours , takes initiative to plan for school improvement

HM takes initiative to reflect upon school processes, involvement of stakeholders and his own behavior to discern patterns, outline areas of improvement, plan

HM embroiled in time-consuming administrative work due to inefficient time management

Inefficient systems and manner of completing administrative work is a major drain on HM’s time and energy, taking focus away from his responsibility towards student learning outcomes

HM systematises administrative work for optimum use of time

Develops systems for maintaining records, structuring administrative tasks and delegating responsibilities to minimize time spent in official data and reporting work by staff and self.

GA1: HM Creates Stimulating Environment through Assembly, Bal Sabha, Sports, Library

Currently

• Irregular, mechanical morning assembly

No sense of community. Underutilization of platform to acquaint students with information beyond curriculum, appreciation, value education

• Neglect of sports , art and music

Lack of medium for interaction with children, conflict resolution skills including team work, fair play, communication, and positive attitude.Failure to foster expression and creativity, building a joyful school environment

• No encouragement to reading as a regular practice

Overlooking the opportunity to broaden students’ horizons, knowledge and excitement to learn

Growth Stages in SLDP

GA2: HM Reflects on Actions to Improve School Processes, SLO and Stakeholder Engagement

Currently

• HMs unable to set aside time to reflect No time to think about role, actions and impact of decisions and programs implemented on relationships with stakeholders, improvement in school processes and student learning outcomes

• Inability to reflect on behavior vis-à-vis different stakeholders Prevents HM from discerning patterns and areas of improvement in relationships, affecting capacity to engage better, give feedback and encourage more involvement in his initiatives.

• Lack of review Hinders realistic assessment of how actions are linked to ultimate vision for the school, loopholes in implementation and progress towards goals. Limited input for further planning

Growth Stages in SLDP

GA3: HM Systematises Administrative Work to Increase Involvement in Student Learning

Currently

• HM reduced to administrator-

Majority of HM’s time consumed by administrative work and submitting reports such as data for Mid-day Meal, Sarva Shiksha Abhiyan (SSA, a Govt of India program) reports, Census, election duty

• Ineffective system for data compilation and documentation, absence of computerization

Significant increase in time required for completion of administrative tasks

• Fatigue with paper-work

Unproductive utilization of time drains energy and resources, takes focus away from core objective of school- student learning outcomes.

Growth Stages in SLDP

A Headmaster in Jhunjhunu addressing the students during Morning Assembly

Instructional Leadership Improves Student Learning Outcomes through Classroom Practices

Currently As Instructional Leader

Classroom environment that fails to foster learning, rote based learning methods

Use of traditional methods that are unable to engage children’s interest and do not take individual learning needs into account; Lesson plans not aligned with classroom data

HM creates democratic, child centric environment, focus on Learning

Instructional practices that give space to creativity and self-constructed learning, cater to different learning levels in the class; Planning driven by CCE and SLO data to set further targets

HM fails to role-model best practices

HM spends little time in the classroom to devise and demonstrate innovative instructional strategies, create processes for CCE and lesson planning that can be replicated by teachers in their own classrooms

HM takes initiative to coach Staff

HM uses new instructional methods in his own classroom to give demo to teachers, initiates data-driven planning and regular assessments; Coaches teachers through role-modeling, regular observation and actionable feedback

No platform for peer learning among teachers

Teachers do not get the opportunity to share best practices or learn from each others’ success in the classroom, little support for challenges faced in classroom

Learning community among teachers

Regular staff meeting and mock sessions used as platforms for cross-learning; staff engages in collective problem-solving for better SLO

GA4: HM uses activity based instructional practice in Maths & Language for classes 1 & 2

Currently

• Traditional, rote-based teaching methods

Slow and ineffective learning as students do not feel excited to participate in the learning process. No use of creative Teaching Learning Material (TLM)

• Lessons designed for homogenous group

Do not cater to individual students’ needs as they are based on the assumption that all students have a similar pace of learning

• Lessons not aligned to the larger aims of education

Use of teaching methods that ‘give’ or ‘impart’ knowledge and facts to students instead of allowing the space and opportunity to children to construct their own learning.

Growth Stages in SLDP

GA5: HM establishes SLO based assessment

Currently

• Irregular assessment of learning levels

Teachers not aware of individual students’ learning level and hence unable to extend necessary support to optimize learning

• Lack of assessment and review in turn affects SLO

In absence of assessment records and clear indicators of student learning levels, difficult to set or achieve realistic targets for SLOs

• Assessment through term end exams daunting for students and stressful for teachers

Inability to incorporate innovative, task-based assessment methods and CCE into regular classroom practice creates term-end stress

Growth Stages in SLDP

GA6: HM creates SLO based lesson plans & review practice

Currently

• Lack of regular planning for classroom

Surface level classroom planning that is not aligned to the aims of education

• Lesson plans do not reflect the current learning level of students

Failure to follow data-based planning in accordance with needs of different learning levels in the class. Inability to make SMART plans for the classroom (Specific, Measurable, Attainable, Relevant, Time-bound)

• Lack of SLO based planning and review in turn affects learning quality

Ineffective teaching that fails to build on previous learning because of unrealistic estimates of current learning levels

Growth Stages in SLDP

GA7: HM creates conducive democratic, child centric classroom environment

Growth Stages in SLDP

Currently

• Dull and Fearful classroom environment

‘Chalk and Talk’ teaching methods that fail to excite students, make learning an uphill and stressful task

• Teachers as ‘providers’ of education

Teacher seen as intimidating authority figures who impart knowledge instead of facilitators that allow children to construct learning by experiencing

• Limited opportunity for student ownership and peer learning

Students perceived as ‘receivers’ of knowledge, who passively participate in prescribed classroom activities- learning is not a collaborative process

GA8: HM Coaches Staff Through Demonstration Of Own Instructional Practices

Growth Stages in SLDP

Currently

• Lack of initiative by HM to coach teachers on instructional strategies

No platform created by HM to initiate pedagogy related discussion.

• Inadequate use of opportunities to role model innovative practices for staff

No demo classes or mock sessions to coach staff on Activity Based Learning (ABL) strategies or CCE based lesson plans

• Lack of encouragement for use of resources to optimize student learning

No systematic plan or concrete effort to encourage use of resources like library and Maths lab on regular basis for effective learning

GA9: HM Coaches Staff through Regular Observation, Review & Feedback

Growth Stages in SLDP

Currently

• Class observation treated as official task instead of valuable team practice

HM conducts irregular class observations, mostly for the purpose of maintaining required logs

• HM is unable to give balanced feedback

HM not equipped to give actionable feedback to staff to outline concrete steps that can be taken in the classroom to enhance student learning

• Surface level Feedback that does not take student data into account

inability to identify unique challenges of individual classrooms and customize suggestions accordingly

GA10: HM Helps Staff in Designing Data-Based Instructional Practices based on SLO

Growth Stages in SLDP

Currently

• Weak link between assessment methods and teaching objectives

Assessment processes a weak reflection of targeted learning outcomes

• CCE data remains an official formality, not used as basis for classroom planning

There is no discussion of SLO data obtained through CCE and how it can form the foundation for further classroom planning.

• No processes to review the impact of innovative classroom strategies on learning outcomes

Lack of clarity on which processes should be retained and where changes are required for better SLO

GA11: HM Facilitates Creation of Learning Community among Teachers

Growth Stages in SLDP

Currently

• No cross-learning platform for teachers

Staff meetings neglect discussion of innovative practices for teachers to benefit from each other’s expertise

• Underutilization of team resources leading to Uni-dimensional view of teaching

Individual planning unable to benefit from inputs and perspectives that team discussions can provide

• Lack of collaborative practice in the team

Teachers focused on individual classrooms instead of collectively working towards improving quality of education by collaboratively designing TLMs and activities.

An SLDP Headmaster Conducting a Drama-Based Activity for Classroom Learning

Organizational Leadership Ensures Collective Ownership for School Development

Currently As Organizational Leader

Irregular staff meetings that focus on admin work, no discussion or planning on SLO

Staff meetings remain an under-utilized platform primarily focused on administrative work; no focus on team-building, problem solving and planning

HM facilitates staff meeting for collective problem solving & planning

Regular staff meetings help with set processes for setting agenda, prioritizing action on problems that impact student learning, reviewing progress

Low accountability of teachers in the absence of review or feedback

No review of individual classroom targets, translating into low accountability or scope for improvement as there is no feedback mechanism

Parameters for teacher performance w.r.t student learning outcomes or SLOs

HM regularly observes classrooms and reviews students data to identify areas of improvement and give individual feedback to teachers

No attempt to form a detailed School Development Plan (SDP)

The SDP remains and official requirement, little understanding of SDP as a valuable planning tool for improved performance and tracking

HM facilitates collective visioning & creating of SDP with staff

HM and staff collaboratively arrive at a vision for their school, identify areas for school improvement, devise time-bound action steps and use SDP to review progress

GA12: HM Facilitates Staff Meeting for Collective Problem Solving, Decision Making &

PlanningGrowth Stages in SLDP

Currently

• Infrequent staff meetings

Significance of staff meetings as a valuable team process is neglected

• Staff meetings focused on administrative issues

Agenda of meetings limited to official documents and administrative issues instead of strategies for improving student learning outcomes

• No meeting records maintained or review of prior decisions

Issues of discussion and actions decided to be taken are not reviewed in subsequent meetings, leading to low implementation and poor tracking

GA13: HM Instates Parameters for Performance for Teachers w.r.t CCE and Instructional

practicesGrowth Stages in SLDP

Currently

• No parameters to assess classroom practices

Lack of parameters translates into difficulty in tracking performance and giving feedback for improvement

• Low accountability for SLO

Absence of parameters that link teacher performance to student outcomes leads to low accountability with regard to instructional practices as there is no system to bind the two together

GA14: HM facilitates Collective Visioning & creating of School Development Plan With staff

Growth Stages in SLDP

Currently

• Absence of ‘problem-solving’ approach to the school’s issues

HM and staff unable to prioritize and act on issues that can be solved collaboratively for better SLO, parents not engaged in the problem-solving process

• SDP lacks collective vision, robustness

SDP is drafted as an official requirement; does not reflect the collective vision of HM and staff for the school and tends to touch issues only on the surface level instead of being based on the school’s actual needs

• No review or tracking of actions on SDP

NO system to ensure that action is being taken on items decided on the SDP, review of action not taken up.

An SLDP Headmaster facilitating an activity for Creative Problem Solving during Staff Meeting (Yellow Hat Technique based on Six Thinking Hats by Edward de

Bono)

Social Leadership Aims for Sustainable Change by Involving all Stakeholders

Currently As Social Leader

Community not engaged in or aware of school activities

Infrequent interaction with parents, low engagement with community leading to limited understanding of their unique characteristics and challenges

HM builds continuous engagement with community

Regular home visits by staff and HM to build relationship with community, understand their circumstances and seek support for school activities

Irregular parent meetings with low teacher participation and parent attendance

Parent meetings held one a term, interaction limited to official information on awareness programs, etc. Low teacher buy-in due to perceptions about parents’ lack of interest in school affairs.

HM facilitates regular parent meetings for all classes through teachers

Regular parent meetings held to discuss children’s learning and development with parents. Teachers plan collaboratively to devise strategies to improve parent involvement

SMC not functional, no involvement in SDP

SMC exists primarily on paper- no meetings or discussions to plan SMC involvement in school process, hence community view not represented in SDP and low support from parents/community

Regular SMC meetings

SMC meets regularly, involved in drafting of the SDP and suggests concrete ways to involve parents and community to support children’s learning. Reviews SDP periodically to track action on decisions taken, ensure accountability.

GA15: HM builds Continuous Engagement with Parent Community

Growth Stages in SLDP

Currently

• Home visits neglected as important strategy to engage with parentsStudent home visits are infrequent, made only in case of dire need; not included in concrete plan for parent engagement

• Interaction with parents limited to information disseminationInteraction is often one-way, aimed at giving information about govt schemes, etc. Little attempt is made to understand issues faced by parents.

• Child learning and development not the focus of interaction with parentsNo systematic attempt to discuss child progress in detail with parents and jointly arrive at solutions that would facilitate learning.

GA16: HM Facilitates Regular Parent Meetings for All Classes through Teachers

Growth Stages in SLDP

Currently

• Infrequent parent-teacher meetings (PTM)No platform for regular discussions with parents about their children’s progress or functioning of the school

• Low parent attendance in meetingsWeak relationship between school and parents , and lack of awareness about importance of meetings, fails to draw parents to school

• Limited parent involvement in school events and issues Parents not aware of pertinent school issues or how they can extend support, and hence not supportive of efforts towards school improvement

GA17: HM facilitates Regular SMC meetings with Members Participation

Growth Stages in SLDP

Currently

• SMC reduced to a formal structureInfrequent interaction and meetings with SMC; exists mostly on paper, or for clearing SSA expenditure which requires their formal approval

• No involvement of SMC in SDPNo discourse with SMC members on school issues to invite their inputs or ask for support. SDP does not reflect the perspective of the community and parents

• No SDP review or sharing of updates with SMCAbsence of review practice further reduces extent of SMC involvement in school functioning; no tracking mechanism to ensure accountability to parent community

A rally organized by the HM of a Mumbai school to raise community awareness about education