Chain of Influence from Policy to Practice

1
Chain of Influence from Policy to Practice

• Presentation to ICSEI
• January 2009
• Helen Timperley and Judy Parr
• University of Auckland

2
New Zealand Policy Goals

• Aspirations
• All students have knowledge and skills to be
  successful citizens
• Reality
• High average scores internationally with a long
  tail of achievement

3
Broader Policy Framework

• Self-managing schools
• Limits Ministry mandates to require schools to
  adopt particular programs or approaches
• National guidance provided through curriculum and
  regulation

4
New Zealand Literacy Strategy

• Five strands focused on improved student outcomes
  for those achieving least well
• Professional development a major strand and is
  the focus of this paper
• 91 schools 2004-05 (cohort 1)
• 112 schools 2006-07 (cohort 2)

5
Student outcomes Writing

• Average effect size gain
• 1.2 approx. equivalent to 2.0 to 2.5 times the
  expected gain over two years
• For the lowest 20 of students, effect size
• 2.3 approx. four times the expected gain over
  the two years.

6
Student Outcomes Reading

• Average effect size gain
• 0.9 approx. equivalent to twice the expected
  gain
• For lowest 20 of students effect size gain 1.9
  approx. equivalent to four times expected gain
  

7
Explaining Success

• Sense-making theory
• Mediation processes between policy messages and
  practitioner beliefs
• Assumes policy-making and interpretation occurs
  at each level
• National ministry
• Project leadership
• Visiting facilitators
• School leaders
• Teachers

8
Research Question

• How were policy messages conveyed and understood
  at each level of the system?

9
The Literacy Professional Development Project

• PD providers contracted by the Ministry
• Project leaders employ and train visiting school
  facilitators
• Who work with principals, school-nominated
  literacy leaders and teachers
• Begins with an analysis of student needs (surface
  and deep features of reading or writing)
• Together with teacher knowledge and practice

10
Study Method

• Part of a five-year research project
• This study focused on tools and their use
• Contract between Ministry and providers
• Milestone reporting
• Six project tools
• Interviews (2 Ministry, 2 project leaders, 6
  facilitators, 30 school leaders, 6 teachers)

11
Two Parts to Interview

• Understanding of tools
• Perceptions of own learning needs and those for
  they had responsibility
• For example
• MoE (own) School leaders (own)
• Project leaders Teachers
• Visiting facilitators Students
• School leaders
• Teachers
• Students

12
Self-identified Policy Learning Needs

• Understand how PD strategy is translated into
  practice across layers of the system and make
  appropriate system responses
• Identify what they need to know about each layer
  so can support all learning
• E.g. Limits of the project for lowest achieving
  students

13
Policy Beliefs about How to Achieve Outcomes

• Those within the system (from project leaders to
  students) engaging in an inquiry process
• To be clear about their own learning needs, to
  receive quality information about them and to be
  involved in relevant decisions.
• Identify what each layer needs to know so policy
  makers can support the learning.

14
Inquiry Process Modelled Throughout the System

• Contract and milestones focused on evidence of
  student outcomes and teacher knowledge and
  practice
• Formed the basis of conversations between
  Ministry and project leaders about what working
  well and what not working
• Conversation continued with facilitators who
  modelled it with schools

15
and through Project Tools with Leaders

• Each contracted outcome converted into
  three-phase evidence-informed matrix for use with
  school leaders
• Phase 1 Developing awareness, engaging
• Phase 2 A readiness to take risks
• Phase 3 Evaluating change and embedding a
  sustainable evidence-based model

16
then through Different Tools for Teachers

• Classroom observation tool with student
  interviews designed to help teachers answer the
  question
• To what extent did my teaching help the students
  to understand the intended learning goals and
  their progress towards them?

17
Qualities of Tools

• Those effective in conveying policy / project
  messages
• Required the user to provide evidence that
  located their practice or their student outcomes
  in relation to a goal
• Described progressions needed to reach the goal
• Were embedded in project routines

18
Interpretation of Policy Messages

• Did not remain static at each level of the system
• Most stayed consistent with the intent
  translating relatively abstract policy speak to
  very practical classroom speak
• A few messages lost in translation particularly
  inquiry

19
E.g. Teachers Self-Identified Learning Needs

• PCK for deeper literacy features
• Improve quality of own writing and knowledge of
  language features
• Using data to teach to needs rather than the
  curriculum
• Targeting resources to learning needs

20
Who was pivotal in conveying the policy messages?
21
(No Transcript)
22
Conclusions

• For policy goals to make sense and to make a
  difference
• Goals appropriately focused and strategies
  soundly based
• Both system and professional inquiry, knowledge
  building and learning
• Tools and routines effectively convey policy
  messages
• Key personnel span system boundaries