Reaping the benefits of school development planning - 1

The school development planning process in Malta started evolving in 1997, when assistant directors who had shadowed H.M. inspectors at the Scottish Office in Edinburgh, held a meeting about the subject for heads of school.

Later on in the year, the Education Division invited the Scottish Office to Malta and they delivered a short course. It had as its main speakers H.M. inspectors from the Scottish Office. The seminar informed and inspired the participants (heads of school) who subsequently launched school development planning in their respective schools.' (Knowing Our School', - Dept of Operations, Education Division, Malta, May 2004. Preface by G. Bonello, Chairman, SDP Committee, p. xiii).

I consider myself privileged to have been part of the group of heads who attended the afore-mentioned seminar. The speakers from the Scottish Office of Education not only succeeded to give us all a very clear overview, but they also enthused us all to adopt school development planning at our respective schools.

What had started earlier as a pilot exercise, left to heads to adopt or discard, has in time found its way as an integral part of the national minimum curriculum, and schools are now duty bound to collate their individual school development plans. 'The development plan of each school must clearly show that the school has a clear educational vision, clear educational goals and a concrete and realistic strategy regarding how these educational goals must be reached.' (Creating the Future Together - National Minimum Curriculum, Ministry of Education, Dec. 1999, p. 85).

A decade later, I am convinced that a lot of headway has been achieved in this regard. However, my frequent contacts with both state and non-state schools makes me constantly aware that there are still quite a number of hurdles to be overcome and dark spots to be looked into in order to reap the best benefits that a sound school development process is bound to provide our schools, and ultimately to the students' learning outcomes.

It is very unfortunate that to date, after a 10-year period of practice and experimentation in this regard, no deep and scientific soul searching has been undertaken to take stock of the situation of school development planning in our schools. Such an exercise would certainly provide us with validated information about what the real situation is at the micro level of our educational system, so that the necessary measures may be taken in hand.

Schools must speak for themselves

Schools' autonomy is very slowly but steadily taking over from the decentralisation process initiated some years back. Schools must therefore speak for themselves more and more vigorously. Some schools are able to speak for themselves with a high degree of self-awareness and self-assurance. They know their strengths and are secure enough to acknowledge their weaknesses.

It is an index of a nation's educational health when its school communities have a high level of intelligence and know-how to use the tools of self-evaluation and self-improvement. It is unhealthy for a system to rely mostly on an external body to constantly and routinely police its schools.

The soon-to-be posted College principals, as education leaders, need to be constantly aware of their role to promote further autonomy for their respective schools. It may be tempting for them to fall into the trap of putting on the wrong cap of 'maxi' heads of school to the detriment of their real function as principals and with a negative spillover effect on the autonomous operations of each and every school within their respective colleges.

The primary goal of healthy school evaluation systems is to effectively help schools to improve through critical self-reflection. It is concerned to equip teachers with the know-how to evaluate the quality of learning in their classrooms so that they do not have to rely on an external view. At the same time such a perspective is welcome, because it can enhance and strengthen good practice.

I envisage that the recent agreement reached between the education authorities and the MUT will facilitate the immediate setting-up of the Directorate for Quality and Standards in Education (DQSE) and the Directorate for Educational Services (DES). I am sure that the latter will urgently look into the fine-tuning of the external auditing exercise presently being undertaken at our state schools to widen its scope and direct its focus beyond diagnostically reporting to schools and to the education authorities.

The external audit teams have to be primarily a body of experts that offer effective service and support to help struggling schools and provide them with adequate resources and expertise to enable them make significant improvements in their teaching/learning process.

School effectiveness

A discussion of school effectiveness in OECD countries notes that no common definition exists across member countries (Chapmand & Aspin, 1994). Herein lies a fundamental problem of school effectiveness. What does 'School Effectiveness' actually mean, and does it mean the same thing to different people?

One simplistic definition of effectiveness is the production of a desired result or outcome (Levine & Lezotte, 1990).

I tend to define a school as effective if it:

• Promotes progress in all its pupils beyond what would be expected considering their initial attainment and background;

• Ensures that each pupil achieves the highest standards possible;

• Enhances all aspects of pupil achievement and development;

• Continues to improve from year to year.

What is school improvement?

Although people have approached change in many ways, a widely accepted definition of 'school improvement' emanates from the 14-country International School Improvement project (ISIP). It is: "A systematic, sustained effort aimed at change in learning conditions and other related internal conditions in one or more schools, with the ultimate aim of accomplishing educational goals more effectively' (van Velzen et al. 'Making School Improvement Work, Leuven, Belgium, ACCO, 1985, p. 48).

This definition highlights the importance of careful planning, management and continuity even in the face of difficulties. It also emphasises a teaching and learning focus as well as the need for supporting organisational conditions.

Additionally, it indicates the intricate relationship between school improvement and change. School improvement's ultimate aim, however, is to enhance pupil progress, achievement and development. This is the bottom line. Drawing on my experience and earlier definitions encountered on the way, I tend to define school improvement as a series of concurrent and recurring processes in which a school:

• Enhances pupils' outcomes;

• Focuses on teaching and learning;

• Builds the capacity to take charge of change regardless of its source;

• Defines its own direction;

• Assesses its current culture and works to develop positive cultural norms;

• Has strategies to achieve its goals;

• Addresses the internal conditions that enhance change;

• Maintains momentum during periods of turbulence;

• Monitors and evaluates its process, achievement and development.

Mr Chetcuti is a retired head of school. He spent his last 16 years of his career as an educator, in the role of administrator in various state schools, first as assistant head and then as head of school. Prior to his retirement he was head of school at Lorenzo Gafà Boys' Secondary school - Vittoriosa, and at Guzeppi Despott Boys' Junior Lyceum, Verdala, Cospicua.

(To be concluded)