Blog RSS Updates
Twitter
Facebook
|
|||||||||||
<< Back to Ask the Expert Home
Building Capacity for High School Improvement at the State, District and School Level
Question 4: As a state or district begins to develop its high school redesign plan, which stakeholders should be involved? Please discuss the necessary parties and expound on their roles for a successful high school improvement plan. |
Perhaps the most critical aspect of designing and implementing a plan for improving high schools at either the state or district level, is thinking strategically about involving a broad spectrum of stakeholders in the process. This is an essential "non-negotiable,” in order to achieve public policy agreement in support of secondary school transformation. Without involvement of others and "voices from the field,” PK-12 educators and SEA (State Education Agency) Leaders will ultimately find themselves as "voices in the wilderness" in terms of building support for their work. Drilling deeper into this topic is important because the planning process needs to be layered and conceptualized to be the linchpins of gaining both public and political support for changing the way high schools address 21st Century Learning. In most cases, this will call for dramatically new approaches in thinking about student proficiency and the ways in which schools are currently structured.
The initial phase of scaling up a secondary school redesign effort should include targeting the desired "endgame" or outcome by the leadership. For example, if the secondary school transformation work is to result in a change of policy, statute or regulation, careful thought must be given to what groups will be affected by the change. A second level of consideration is the determination of which organizations, agencies and partners will need to be at the table to fully comprehend the scope and magnitude of the work as it evolves over time. Lastly, but equally essential, is including high quality "thought partners" and potential collaborators in terms of implementing the new design and policies. In every sense of the word, widespread communication around secondary school transformation and the ultimate purposes for changing high schools /middle schools, will be needed for achieving final consensus. The guiding principle for stakeholder engagement in the area of secondary school transformation is to continuously think and plan for activities which will ensure that decisions are seen as the result of collective input and shared decision making.
In terms of deconstructing this answer, the first aspect noted above is to include groups of stakeholders who will be affected by any changes to the current system of secondary school education. Most likely this group will have firsthand knowledge of what is working, what isn't and what should change. Included here are students, parents, teachers, district and building administrators as well as elected school leaders. This layer of stakeholders would also involve administrative organizations, teacher unions, parent organizations and school boards. Input AND involvement throughout the planning and implementation phase of secondary school redesign work is fundamental to sustainable, systemic reform. Tactics for inclusive actions relative to these stakeholders would be public forums, focus groups, steering committees and advisory panels to name a few. However, the designation of these groups as official participants in the planning process must be done explicitly at the beginning and communicated widely.
Transforming secondary schools, in all likelihood, will be a highly political and labor intensive process. Oftentimes it is initiated at the Governor's Office, State Board or even legislatively. Regardless of where or what prompted the high school transformation work there will need to be a sophisticated understanding of what the role is for elected officials, state and local (maybe also federal), other state and local agencies (public and private), post secondary educators and the business community. This next layer of stakeholder engagement must be genuine and comprehensive in order to build public agreement around the components of any secondary school redesign work. Additionally, it is this next layer of involvement which will facilitate communication to the public and the common understanding for the purpose of the work. It also becomes the basis for establishing an effective communications plan, which is the bedrock for building momentum in the political process for developing a public policy framework for expectations and resources.
The third layer of stakeholder involvement addresses the issues of planning for design work that is premised on best practices, research and takes into account the contextual realities of the state or district. Targeting a group of thought partners to be included in the secondary school redesign work will ensure reflective construction of the model/ design. The prospect of achieving a comprehensive model for secondary school redesign which has the desired impact over time will be enhanced by involvement of both "experts" and implementation partners who have a proven record. It also will build capacity in the LEA/SEA to achieve more timely results. The involvement of these stakeholders should be considered on the front end of the planning process but also incorporate the flexibility to engage these partners as further work reveals itself.
Stakeholder engagement is the absolute required ingredient for success. As mentioned in a prior response, the planning, design, communication and public/ political process for secondary school transformation work necessitates an elaborate and well conceived stakeholder engagement plan. While this is NOT strictly a linear process, there is a sequence to the planning activity. Careful review and reflection on the plan is the first step for involving key contributors and stakeholders through seeking their input. In this manner, the secondary redesign initiative becomes the collective work of all from the very start.
|
||||
