Ohio Improvement
Process (OIP)
Draft OIP Facilitator’s Guide
December 2008
T A B L E
O F
C O N T E N T S
Methodology Used in Developing the OIP………………………….4
Acknowledgments………………………………………………………5
Background………………………………………………………………7
Purpose of This Guide
How to Use This Guide
Overview of the Ohio Improvement Process (OIP)
Principles for the OIP
Documenting the Improvement Process
Preparing for the Ohio Improvement Process…………………...14
Introduction
Introductory Session With District Superintendent
Orientation for District Leadership Team
Stage 1: Identify Critical Needs……………………………………..33
Understand Structure and Requirements of the Decision Framework
Complete the Decision Framework
Identify and Affirm Critical Focus Areas
Stage 2: Develop Focused Plan…………………………………….54
Create SMART Goals
Develop Research Based Strategies and Indicators
Produce Research-Based Actions and Align Resources
DRAFT OIP Facilitator’s Guide
December 2008
2 of 95
Stage 3: Implement and Monitor the Focused Plan……………..86
Establish and implement collaborative structures, processes and
practices that support a culture of inquiry and distributive leadership
Implement the plan systemically and systematically
Monitor and analyze changes in student performance and adult
implementation and make and report course corrections to the plan
Stage 4: Evaluate the Improvement Process…………………….87
Evaluate Plan Implementation, Impact, and Changes
Report Summative Plan Progress
Modify Instructional Practice and Revise Plan
Conclusion……………………………………………………………...88
Acronyms……………………………………………………………….89
Glossary…………………………………………………………………90
Bibliography……………………………………………………………94
DRAFT OIP Facilitator’s Guide
December 2008
3 of 95
Methodology Used in Developing the OIP
The methods, techniques, and resources in this guide were selected through a process
that draws from the knowledge and experience of Ohio educators and from information
gleaned from a variety of documents from states and organizations. The content of the
guide also is based on the collective wisdom of many national, state, regional, and local
educators who have led district improvement planning during the past decade.
The Decision Framework is the primary tool used in Stage 1 (identifying critical areas for
improving student success to determine the highest priority needs). Ohio Department of
Education (ODE) staff developed this tool in consultation with a working group composed
of ODE staff, higher education staff, Great Lakes East Comprehensive Center, and district
central office staff. Initial drafts of the document were presented to focus groups
comprised of end users. Their feedback was used to revise the tool. A draft of the
Decision Framework and process to use the tool were piloted with 32 districts involved in
the State Personnel Development Grant (SPDG) during the 2007–08 and 2008-09
school years.
An external work group comprised of Ohio educators and facilitated by Great Lakes East
helped guide the development of the conceptual framework for Stage 2. The charge
given to this work group from ODE was to develop, pilot, and train providers in the use of
a process and associated products for implementing Stage 2 of OIP, the purpose of
which is to assist DLTs in the development of a focused plan leading to improved
student achievement. The work group used a variety of materials from Ohio, such as the
Ohio Department of Education Reference Guide to Continuous Improvement Planning
for Ohio School Districts, Second Edition as well as publications from other states and
organizations.
A draft OIP facilitator’s guide was sent to select Ohio school districts for review and
feedback. A structured feedback instrument was used to gain their feedback. The work
group reviewed the information, and changes were made to the document. A revised
draft of the document then was sent to state department personnel for their review and
comment. These changes were incorporated and presented to the single points of
contact for the regional service delivery system for their feedback.
A State Level Design Team (SLDT) was formed in May 2008 to refine the draft OIP
facilitator’s guide based on feedback provided by State Support Team facilitators who
implemented the process with the SPDG districts. The SLDT also recommended
methods and resources for Stages 3 and 4 and designed and delivered training for OIP
facilitators on the OIP process. This document is a work in progress; as additional
ideas, resources, methods, techniques, and research become available, the document
will be refined and improved. Supplemental resources developed by state support team
OIP facilitators to enhance the process are available on the ODE OIP website.
DRAFT OIP Facilitator’s Guide
December 2008
4 of 95
Acknowledgments
Regional providers who served as members of the State-Level Design Team, district
staff, ODE personnel, and partners participating in the development of this guide were
generous with both their time and attention.
Stage 2 Work Group and District Reviewers
Clemons, Vikki, Single Point of Contact (SPOC), State Support Team (SST) 13, Cincinnati
Csanyi, George, Single Point of Contact (SPOC), State Support Team (SST) 7, Tiffin
Humston, Eric, Single Point of Contact (SPOC), State Support Team (SST) 5, Piketon
McGlothlin, Russ, Assistant Superintendent, Maysville Local Schools, Zanesville
Skelton, Seena, Consultant, State Support Team 13, Cincinnati
Washburn Sr., Don, Field Liaison, Ohio Department of Education
Zake, Sue, Single Point of Contact (SPOC), State Support Team (SST) 1, Bowling Green
Dorr, Constance, Assistant Superintendent, Fostoria City School District
Hausterman, Tom, Associate Superintendent, Winton Woods City Schools
Lloyd, Jim, Assistant Superintendent, Olmsted Falls City Schools
McWilliams, Ellen, Assistant Superintendent, Akron Public Schools
State-Level Design Team
Region 1: Sue Zake, Brian Davis
Region 2: Larry Melia
Region 3: Cathy LaForme
Region 4: Candice Hazelwood
Region 5: Michele DiMuzio, Jane
Sadinski
Region 6: Marlene Graf
Region 7: George Csanyi
Region 8: Mary Ellen Murray
Region 9: Sue Long
Region 10: Betsy Apolito
Region 11: Jacqueline Burke
Region 12: Karen Merrin
Region 13: Vikki Clemons, Seena Skelton
Region 14: John Dorger
Region 15: Helen Flowers, Don
Washburn, Jr.
Region 16: Howard Martin
Ashland City Schools: Neil Gupta
Muskingum College: Linda Morrow:
State Personnel Development Grant (SPDG) – Cohorts 1 and 2
Region 1: Washington Local, Van Wert
City
Region 2: North Ridgeville City,
Sandusky City
Region 3: Olmsted Falls City, Euclid City
Region 4: West Geauga Local,
Painesville City Local
Region 5: Warren City, Ashtabula Area
City
Region 6: Lima City, Elida Local
Region 7: Marion City, Ashland City
Region 8: Barberton City, Cuyahoga
Falls City
Region 9: Canton City, Wooster City
DRAFT OIP Facilitator’s Guide
Region 10: Springfield City, Xenia City
Region 11: London City, Groveport
Madison Local
Region 12: Bellaire Local, Zanesville
City
Region 13: Winton Woods City, Fairfield
City
Region 14: Miami Trace Local,
Wilmington City
Region 15: Ironton City, Scioto Valley
Local
Region 16: Meigs Local, Trimble Local
December 2008
5 of 95
External Partners
Great Lakes East Comprehensive Center at Learning Point Associates, Naperville,
Illinois: Mark Mitchell, Sheryl Poggi, and Claudette Rasmussen
Leadership and Learning Center, Phoenix, Arizona: Connie Kamm and Denver,
Colorado: Brian McNulty
Ohio Department of Education
Barr, Stephan, Associate Superintendent, Center for School Improvement
Falor, Stephanie, Consultant, Office for Exceptional Children
Focht, Earl, Regional Manager, Office of Field Relations
Lather, Tom, Associate Director, Office for Exceptional Children
Mattei-Smith, Barb, Associate Director, Center for School Options and Finance
MacLearie, Margaret, Regional Manager, Office of Field Relations
Speers, Keith, Director, Office of Field Relations
Telfer, Deborah, Executive Director, Center for School Improvement
Troyer, Marilyn, Senior Associate Superintendent for Educational Programs
Vasu-Sarver, Sandy, Executive Director, Center for Students, Families and Communities
Washburn, Don, Sr. Field Liaison, Ohio Department of Education
DRAFT OIP Facilitator’s Guide
December 2008
6 of 95
Ohio Improvement Process
Background
DRAFT OIP Facilitator’s Guide

Purpose of This Guide

How to Use This Guide

Overview of the Ohio Improvement
Process (OIP)

Principles of the OIP

Documenting the Improvement
Process
December 2008
7 of 95
Purpose of This Guide
This guide was developed under the auspices of ODE, Center for School Improvement.
It was created to assist OIP facilitators in their primary work of building the capacity of
districts to engage in an improvement process that results in improved student
performance. The guide provides the necessary information and materials to facilitate
the OIP.
By using a common set of procedures and templates throughout the OIP, high-quality
services will be delivered more efficiently. The objectives in developing the guide are to:
 Promote visual and functional consistency within and across services to districts.
 Promote the use of research-based, processes, methods, and resources.
 Help maintain a reputation for high-quality services.
The benefits of using the guide will be:
 Increased confidence of districts in processes and services.
 Improved capitalization of OIP providers’ knowledge and skills.
 Reduced arbitrary decisions and reinvention of processes and resources.
Because no written set of materials can anticipate or address every circumstance in the
process or anticipate the needs of every district, OIP facilitators should contact a member of
the State Level Design Team for assistance and advice. Throughout the document, the use
of the phrase “district plan” refers to the CCIP.
How to Use This Guide
Each section of the guide is divided into a group of activities to support each stage of the OIP
which, when completed, will lead seamlessly into the next stage. They include the following:

Introduction provides information about the stage of the OIP, purpose, organization,
and definitions for terms used. Outcomes for each stage also are listed.


Procedures that describe what takes place before, during, and after each activity.


More on Facilitation provides additional specific facilitation information.
Resources that include templates and examples/illustrations that support the
activities. Navigation icons assist in identifying these throughout the document.
Tips are included throughout the document in shadow style text boxes. They include
but are not limited to customizing options, session management, and logistics.
Navigation icons are used throughout the guide as a reminder to provide OIP facilitators with
important information at a glance:
NAVIGATION KEY
ICON
PURPOSE
Reference

Alerts the OIP to access a reference.
Resource

Shows that an example or template is available.
Tool

Identifies tools provided by ODE
DRAFT OIP Facilitator’s Guide
December 2008
8 of 95
Overview of the Ohio Improvement Process (OIP)
The Ohio Department of Education (ODE) recognizes the value of planning in the
continuous improvement process and for the past decade has provided guidance and
support to districts and schools in this process. Several recent developments have
caused the ODE to revisit its current guidance.
Recent Developments
1) As technology has evolved and new learning has emerged about the effective
use of data in decision making and planning, ODE has identified and gathered
data and created tools for organizing and analyzing data.
2) Research has provided more concrete knowledge about what works and how
leadership in districts and schools should be distributed to improve instructional
practice and student performance.
3) Many federal and state initiatives have required a planning process―some due
to funding requirements, others due to the design of a project or program.
Although each of these initiatives is a worthy project or program, the planning for
each has fostered a design that is fragmented, often resulting in redundancy and
duplication of effort.
4) After numerous attempts, the 126th General Assembly created a coordinated,
efficient regional educational service delivery system to support state and
regional improvement initiatives and to promote a simplified approach to regional
service delivery. Substitute House Bill 115 clarified the roles and responsibilities
of regional service providers with an emphasis on assisting districts in improving
student performance.
Integrated, Research-Based Approach
Based on these developments, the department recognized that a more integrated
approach was needed that is consistently implemented throughout the state and reflects
development of a unified state system of support around a focused plan. This approach
is the Ohio Improvement Process (OIP). OIP brings together all the data, resources,
knowledge, and experience in planning and follows a four-stage cycle that will be guided
by regional educational service system providers.
 Stage 1: Identify critical needs of districts and schools.
 Stage 2: Develop a focused plan.
 Stage 3: Implement and monitor the focused plan.
 Stage 4: Evaluate the improvement process.
Within each stage, there is a set of well-defined elements that when completed lead to
the next stage. The OIP can be used at the district, school, or classroom level. For the
purposes of this document, the stages will be described for district-level use.
DRAFT OIP Facilitator’s Guide
December 2008
9 of 95
The OIP is based on the most recent research about what causes districts to improve.
This research states that:

To improve teaching and learning on a large scale, the whole district must be
involved, with strong lines of communication.

The role of district and school administrators should be refocused, with the
highest priority on improving teaching and learning where data are used as the
vehicle for changing conversations in ways that allow the most critical problems
the district faces to be identified and addressed.

It is important to give equal focus to the “how” as well as the “what” of improving
teaching and learning, continuously using a cycle of monitoring and evaluating
progress in order to constantly improve achievement.
District Expectations
Based on this research, the Ohio Leadership Advisory Council (OLAC) established
common expectations for districts in the planning process:

Collaborative structures and community engagement

Culture and expectation for the use of data in decision making

One plan with focused goals for achievement and instruction

Board alignment and support of district goals and district alignment and support
of school goals

Monitoring goals for achievement and instruction

Use of resources to support achievement and instruction, intentionally allocated
to the district plan
These common expectations are woven through the planning process described in this
document.
Stages of the Ohio Improvement Process
Stage 1: Identify Critical Needs of Districts and Schools uses state and district data to
identify the most pressing needs faced by the district. This stage primarily uses the
Decision Framework to look at data from four levels: student performance, instructional
management, expectations and conditions, and resource management.
Stage 2: Develop a Focused Plan is development of a focused plan. Stakeholders
including the local school board are involved in specific areas that require their
engagement and direction. During Stage 2, focus areas are turned into two to three
goals in two areas: 1) student performance and 2) conditions and expectations.
Strategies that are grounded in research to achieve the goals are created from the
causes of the most important and critical problems. Indicators for each strategy provide
the yardstick by which success is measured. Actions are developed for each strategy
and resources are aligned.
Stage 3: Implement and Monitor the Focused Plan requires that all district employees
know their responsibilities for ensuring that the goals and strategies are achieved
DRAFT OIP Facilitator’s Guide
December 2008
10 of 95
regardless of whether they have an accountability responsibility in the district plan or
whether they have specific tasks to achieve certain actions. In addition, this stage
requires that each school has an action plan that has been approved by the district and
is aligned to the district goals and strategies. Taken together, implementation of district
and school plans results in goal accomplishment. Stage 3 also requires that the district
and buildings have a process for checking the implementation of each strategy and
action taken toward reaching the goal. This can be accomplished in many ways, from
key staff members submitting implementation checksheets to district leaders conducting
walk-through observations to see whether the actions are occurring. Although actions to
reach a strategy and goal are reflected in what district employees will do, the
effectiveness of those actions results in improved student performance. Effectiveness
also is measured using the indicators that have been created for each strategy.
Stage 4: Evaluate the Improvement Process seeks to examine the summative impact on
student achievement, degree of implementation and indicators identified for each stage
of the OIP. This is the point at which the district determines whether goals have been
reached by assessing improvement (pre – post) using data that was collected in Stage
1. The district and school should identify the purposes of the evaluation and questions
that need to be addressed in the evaluation design early in the OIP so that the most
appropriate methods and procedures are used.
The OIP stages are recursive and, therefore, continually inform each other. As
districts/buildings move through the four stages of continuous improvement, data will
have a major role within each of the stages. As an integral part of the planning and
implementation process, data have many purposes. District leadership teams and work
groups can use data collection at the beginning of the planning process when
implementing a part of the plan, such as professional development, for updating a
current plan, or for preparing formative and summative reports to boards and
communities.
Principles of the OIP
The vision of ODE is “higher achievement for all students.” Each district and building is
working toward that end, as well as toward ensuring equitable access to high-quality
instruction for all student groups in keeping with federal and state laws. Continuous
improvement planning is the core process for improving instructional practice, leading to
higher achievement for all students. To guide the work, 8 planning principles have been
established. These are as follows:
1. Align mission and goals. The continuous improvement planning process should
be guided by the mission of the district. The questions should be: “Do the
strategies, actions, and resource allocations support our mission, and goals?”
and “Are our behaviors and decisions congruent with our mission and goals?”
2. Commit to a continuous process and use the plan as a dynamic document.
Districts that are fully committed to high performance view continuous
improvement as the core work of every level of the organization.
3. Move beyond preference and opinion by relying on quality data and data
interpretation. An effective planning process is predicated on the ability of the
district, building and classroom to collect, organize, analyze, and utilize data to
identify its highest priority needs for improved student achievement.
DRAFT OIP Facilitator’s Guide
December 2008
11 of 95
4. Use a collaborative, collegial process. Every plan gets its strength from the
people who are committed to it. To make sure the plan will yield positive results,
engage many parts of the community in understanding the plan, helping to make
it stronger and ultimately becoming invested in making it work. Include business
and community representatives, students, parents, teachers, administrators, and
district staff in the planning process, and make the draft plan available for input
from the entire community. Make sure the plan reflects the combined thinking
and planning of a collaborative team who support plan implementation.
5. Communicate with those who are affected by the success of the district at each
stage. District priority needs and causes may be related to the issues
communities and schools are seeing, and their thoughts may help the planning
team(s) better understand the situation. Multiple opportunities for communication
and feedback should be included throughout the process.
6. Produce one focused plan that directs all district work and resources. Heretofore,
districts have had many plans (e.g., technology, professional development, Title
I, Title II, special education, career and technical education) for many reasons
(e.g., basis of funding applications, federal or state requirements). Multiple plans
diminish the district’s ability to respond to the most critical needs. By developing
one focused plan that responds to the most critical needs, the district will
leverage resources to achieve lasting success.
7. Expect substantive changes in performance and behavior as a result of
implementing, monitoring, and evaluating the process and plan. The purpose of
having a well-conceived planning process is to produce a plan that, if
implemented with fidelity, will change student and adult behaviors that lead to
improved instructional practice and student performance.
8. Be responsive to district context. Each district is unique. Although the planning
process stages and elements are defined, they may need to be adjusted for
distinctive characteristics and individualized needs of each district.
Documenting the Improvement Process
After each stage, the district needs to document the process. The documentation can be
divided into three sections: methodology, summary and considerations, and final
statements. The following table provides guidance about what to document in each
stage. This information should be maintained by the program assistant assigned to the
process so that it is complete and accessible to anyone who may need the information.
In addition, the district should maintain a copy of the current mission, planning policy and
procedures, DLT members, and meeting agendas and minutes. The amount of
documentation should be detailed enough so that someone external to the district can
understand the process.
DRAFT OIP Facilitator’s Guide
December 2008
12 of 95
Methodology
Stage 1
Stage 2
Stage 3
Stage 4
Summary and
Considerations
Final Statements
 What data (including
source) were collected to
respond to each question
 Who including members of
the DLT (names, positions,
roles) collected, organized
and analyzed the data
 Completed decision
framework
 Summary of data to
support decision
framework results
 List of data that need to
be collected in the future
 Prioritized data
needs
 Quotes and
comments, if
desired
 How and when stakeholder
forums are conducted
 Who participates (names,
positions, roles) and how
they are prepared to do
their work
 How and when
communication will occur
 Summary of decisions
made
 Focused plan
 Analysis of prompts or
questions used to solicit
stakeholder input
 Summary of
communication activities
 Conclusion
statements
 Responses and
reactions to
communication
activities
 Quotes and
comments, if
desired
 What evidence was
collected to demonstrate
implementation of the
goals, strategies, and
actions
 Budget reports to
demonstrate funds were
used in support of the plan
 Data collected to measure
indicators
 Which explicit actions for
monitoring progress toward
the attainment of goals and
strategies are used
 Which data were used for
monitoring results
 How and when monitoring
tool place to review student
performance and adult
practices
 How and what periodic
corrections were made and
what they were
 Progress reports about
the degree to which the
plan was implemented
 Analysis of budget
expenditures
 Formative data about
the degree to which
indicators were met
 Summary of monitoring
results including data
analysis and
interpretation




Progress reports
Interpretation of
budget
expenditures in
relation to plan
accomplishment
Report about the
degree to which
indicators were met
Quotes and
comments, if
desired
 Which data were used for
 Comparison of planned
 Evaluation report
evaluating results
 How and when evaluation
took place
 How and what corrections
were made, and what they
were
results with
achievements
 Summary of plan
changes
 Conclusion
DRAFT OIP Facilitator’s Guide
December 2008
statements
 Recommendations
for changes to next
year’s plan
 Quotes and
comments, if desired
13 of 95
Ohio Improvement Process
Preparing for the Ohio
Improvement Process
DRAFT OIP Facilitator’s Guide

Introduction

Introductory Session with District
Superintendent

Orientation for District Leadership
Team
December 2008
14 of 95
Introduction
The foundation for creating a high-quality plan requires that a work
structure be created by identifying who will do the work, how the work
will be conducted, and when the work will be completed. The school
board’s role in preparing for plan development is to ensure that there is
a district policy that provides guidance to the district leadership. Without
a shared mission, there is no compelling reason why the plan should be
developed. A shared vision is vital for the district because it provides the
focus and energy to drive the work.
The outcomes expected from preplanning are as follows:

Define roles and responsibilities for each person and group participating in the
process.

Identify resources (people, time, and money) for plan development to gain the
long-term benefits of a plan that is “owned” by large numbers of stakeholders.

Prepare leaders and groups to work collaboratively, including the creation of a
master plan schedule.

Revisit or create a shared mission among district and community stakeholders.
Introductory Session With District Superintendent
Before meeting with the superintendent, as much data and information as possible
should be gathered about the district so the OIP can be discussed within the district
context. This includes the following:





State assessment results
Current CCIP
Demographics (number of buildings, enrollment, attendance, and so on)
The OIP Facilitator should contact the superintendent’s office and set up a mutually
agreeable time for this first conversation. It is advisable to ask for at least two hours of
uninterrupted time. Also, it is a good idea to request that one or two (but no more) other
persons who may have a leadership role participate in the meeting. This may be another
district or building administrator, member of a currently operating leadership committee,
or a trusted district employee. A sample agenda follows. Note that the format also serves
as a record of the meeting discussion and decisions. In this way, the agenda and
minutes of the meeting can be captured in one place. An agenda and meeting
summary template for this and other meetings is provided as Resource 1.
The OIP facilitator will need to bring handouts to correspond to the agenda. Minimally,
this includes the OIP Overview Visual (Resource 2), “OIP on a Page” (Resource 3),
Decision Framework Flowchart (Resource 4), the Chart of Time Needed to
Complete the OIP (Resource 5), and a blank template of Schedule for Plan
Development (Resource 6). These resources will assist the OIP facilitator in impressing
upon the district the logic of the process as well as the resources needed to be
successful. This will ensure that no surprises arise and will form the basis for securing
commitment to implement the process with fidelity.
DRAFT OIP Facilitator’s Guide
December 2008
15 of 95
SAMPLE AGENDA
Ohio Improvement Process
Date: September 5, 2008
Time: 9:00 a.m.–11:00 a.m.
Location: Tactful School District Office
Attendees: Superintendent T. B. Wise; Curriculum Director F. T. Child; Regional
Facilitators Ima Winner and Ura Saint
9:00 a.m.–
9:15 a.m.
Introductions and Purpose
9:15 a.m.–
9:45 a.m.
Overview of the Four Stages of the
Ohio Improvement Process (OIP)
9:45 a.m.–
10:15 a.m.
Roles and Responsibilities of DLT
including working with BLTs
10:15 a.m.–
10:45 a.m.
District Leadership Team (DLT)
Orientation
10:45 a.m.–
11:00 a.m.
Securing Commitment and Next
Steps
Summary of Discussion/Decisions:
During the meeting, there will be several critical points that the OIP facilitator will need
to discuss with the superintendent. Agreements reached during this meeting will help the
process flow smoothly. The OIP facilitator will need to be familiar with the Ohio
Differentiated Accountability Model and be able to discuss with the Superintendent how
his/her district relates to the model. Following are talking points that correspond to the
above agenda and the handouts:
DRAFT OIP Facilitator’s Guide
December 2008
16 of 95
AGENDA TOPIC
Introductions and
Purpose
OIP FACILITATOR TALKING POINTS
HANDOUTS
When introducing yourself, share your experience and
training in the OIP to lend credibility to your role as
external facilitator.
See Background—
Overview for details
Explain why the ODE is embarking on this improved
continuous improvement process.
Using the OIP Visual, review the four stages.

Explain how this process is different from other
continuous improvement processes and the way
CCIPs have traditionally been developed:




Overview of the 4
Stages of the Ohio
Improvement
Process
Facilitated
Data Driven
Focused, Coherent—One Plan
Collaborative and Collegial
OIP Overview
Visual, “OIP on a
Page,” Decision
Framework
flowchart
(Resources 2, 3, 4)
Walk through the OIP on a Page to illustrate how the
elements result in completing each stage and how the
stages inform each other.
Discuss how the OIP will be replicated in all buildings
using Building Leadership Teams (BLTs) to assure
alignment and build capacity
Describe the Decision Framework flowchart illustrating
how using data and responding to analysis questions
result in primary causes of the most critical problems
the district is facing to improve student achievement.

Review the roles and responsibilities of the groups
and individuals that are needed to ensure a
collaborative, collegial, and successful process (see
More on Facilitation below).
Chart of Time
Needed to
Complete the OIP
(Resource 5)
Highlight the DLT’s role, including discussion of:
Roles and
Responsibilities
(more detail below)





Current district teams and relationship to DLT
Roles throughout the four stages and beyond OIP
Membership, representation, and length of service
Communication within and across DLT
Work with BLTs to develop school improvement
plans based on data, support implementation and
monitor progress
 Decision-making process
TIP: The DLT
should be
no more than
20 and no
fewer than
7 persons.
Identify the role of the superintendent as steward of
the process, policy implementer, and participant on
the DLT as a shared leader, either as chair or cochair.
Emphasize the superintendent’s responsibility to fully
participate.
DRAFT OIP Facilitator’s Guide
December 2008
17 of 95
AGENDA TOPIC
OIP FACILITATOR TALKING POINTS
HANDOUTS
Agree on a structure (organizational chart) for the OIP
process (see example below).

DLT Orientation

Securing
Commitment and
Next Steps
Set the agenda for the first session with the DLT to
include the messages the superintendent will deliver
and the role of the OIP facilitator in the process.
Schedule for Plan
Development
(Resource 6)
Determine how the Schedule for Plan Development
will be completed (before, during, or after the DLT
meeting).
Seek and document agreement on the following:







Membership and meeting schedule for the DLT
(including orientation date)
Selection of chair/cochair and program assistant
Role of OIP facilitators (internal, if appropriate,
and external)
Stakeholders and how they will be involved
Draft agenda for the DLT orientation
Message points for superintendent to deliver to
DLT
Commitment to follow the OIP
Meeting Agenda
Summary of
Discussions and
Decisions
(Resource 1)
After the meeting, the summary of the discussion and decisions should be finalized
and sent to the superintendent as a record of the meeting and a prompt to follow up on
the agreements.
More on Facilitation
One of the most important decisions the district will make in the process is selecting the
right people for the work. The following provides guidance on helping with these
decisions.
Superintendent
The superintendent, in addition to being on the DLT, has other responsibilities. As a
vision/mission keeper, resource allocator, and architect of the plan, the superintendent
also must assume the following responsibilities:

Oversee the OIP, establishing additional procedures if needed.

Select district leadership team.

Set direction and expectations for DLT.

Engage staff and community in planning process.

Create collaborative structure for plan development.

Foster culture of continuous improvement.

Approve a single, focused, data- and research-based plan.
DRAFT OIP Facilitator’s Guide
December 2008
18 of 95

Budget the plan.

Monitor plan development.

Hold participants accountable for results.

Communicate plan content, process, and results.
The superintendent will need to identify a structure for how individuals and groups will
work together, including determining who has decision-making authority, how
communication should flow, and how relationships are structured. Identification of other
resources to support the process will be a responsibility of the superintendent.
Structure: The following diagram illustrates a proposed structure for the district planning
process:
Facilitator
Board of Education
District Leadership Team
(including Superintendent)
Superintendent
Goal 1 Work Group
Goal 2 Work Group
Stakeholder
Input
Goal 3 Work Group
Decision Making: Regardless of the management structure that is used, there will be
decisions to be made by either an individual such as the superintendent or by groups
such as the DLT or work groups. It will be important that everyone knows which
decisions they can and cannot make. The OIP facilitator, in concert with the
superintendent, should determine the types of decisions that can be made by each
group or individual.
The decision-making process depends on a) the number of people affected by the
decision and by the impact the decision’s outcome will have on the plan, b) how much
energy and support people must contribute to make the decision’s implementation a
success, and c) how critical the decision is to the mission and success of the district.
The type of decision-making process used rests on how clear and certain a course of
action is. Decisions that clearly have only one correct answer require one type of
decision-making process, whereas decisions with many viable choices require another
type of process.
DRAFT OIP Facilitator’s Guide
December 2008
19 of 95
Communication: There can never be enough communication. The superintendent will
need to consider how, what, and whom to communicate about the OIP. As a part of the
standard DLT agenda, it is suggested that a communication record or log be developed.
This document will assist in determining who needs to know what, when, and how. It
also will serve as a log of what has occurred. Communication needs to be transparent
and every layer of the system needs to be involved. A sample format follows:
COMMUNICATION RECORD/LOG
Date
Audience
Content/Format
Objective
Results
Feedback
Additional Resources: Equipment, including laptop computers, LCD projectors, and
sound systems, as well as space for meetings available either through the district or the
community will be needed. If the district does not have free access to these resources,
they will need to be budgeted. There are not many material or supply costs to the OIP.
However, there are some items that need to be budgeted. These include the following:

Refreshments for stakeholder forums

Newsprint and markers

Folders or binders for district leadership team

Substitute costs for building-level teacher leaders participating on the DLT or
work groups
District Leadership Team (DLT)

Membership of the DLT should include individuals with key positions at the
various levels of the organization, for example:
director), school board
o superintendent,
members,
o treasurer,
o stakeholders representing
o building-level administrators,
parents, local businesses,
and community organizations,
o teacher leaders,
o program directors (e.g.,
director/supervisor of special
education, curriculum
o groups such as teacher’s
union representation will need
to considered

The DLT shifts the focus from an individual to a team that can function as
purposeful communities.

Those chosen for the team should be able to communicate effectively and
influence others.

The size and composition of the DLT is important to the success of the process.
The DLT should be small enough to enable efficient communication and
coordination but large enough to represent all areas of the district. In a large
DRAFT OIP Facilitator’s Guide
December 2008
20 of 95
district, the team may include up to 20 people, whereas in a small district, the
team may be as small as seven people.


It is desirable to have the superintendent serve as an active participant and
he/she may be the chair. The chairperson of the team, if not the superintendent,
should be an individual who can represent the team to the superintendent and
should be in constant communication with the superintendent. The chairperson
must be able to articulate the work of the team, build consensus among team
members, and serve as the primary liaison with the OIP facilitator to adjust the
process.

The superintendent may choose to have a cochair. The benefit to having a
cochair is that if one of the two is not available, there is a “back-up.” The
downsides of having cochairs are the needs for constant communication to
ensure a consistent message and for giving both cochairs equal weight in
decision making (one cannot overrule the other).

A rotation cycle for the DLT that allows for a core membership group with others
serving a specified term may be necessary. For example, it is unlikely that all
building-level administrators or teacher leaders can serve on the DLT. However,
these individuals could rotate every other year to ensure a broader base of
representation, as could teacher leaders and external stakeholders. It is
suggested that individuals be asked to serve staggered terms of at least two
years but no more than four years in order to have a balance of new and
experienced members. In some cases, a rotation may not be required,
particularly in small districts.

The DLT needs to understand that this work continues after the plan is
developed, the work of continuous improvement is ongoing and involves the DLT
in all four stages of the OIP.
It is estimated that during a two- to three-month period for Stage 1, DLT members will
need to devote time to completing Stage 1 of the OIP with additional time by the
chairperson/cochairs to plan and communicate with the OIP facilitator, superintendent
and team members. The same time estimate applies to Stage 2. Consistent attendance
is important for continuity. If a member is frequently absent, the superintendent may
need to seek a replacement during the data review and planning process. Designees for
DLT members should be allowed only in rare circumstances. A summary of the
responsibilities of the DLT is identified below, several of which are drawn from the Ohio
Leadership Development Framework.







Implement planning policy.
Promote commitment to continuous improvement.
Maintain districtwide focus on high achievement for all students.
Facilitate the efforts of work group(s).
Develop a single district improvement plan that focuses on a limited number of
district goals for instruction and achievement.
Convey to schools and the community the district’s mission for guiding the
development of the focused plan.
Ensure that schools have focused building improvement plans that are aligned to
the district’s goals.
OIP Process Guide
21 of 95
December 2008




Monitor the progress of the district plan, performance and indicators and make
necessary adjustments based on data.
Communicate to ensure coherence and continuity.
Provide opportunities for meaningful input and feedback from internal and
external stakeholders.
Make decisions regarding financial and capital management aligned to district
goals and strategies.
Board of Education
There are several ways in which the local board of education can participate in the
planning process and support the individuals and groups who are working on the plan.
These include:

Make planning a district priority, as evidenced through planning resources.

Expect superior performance from all.

Share the excitement.

Be neutral while others are voicing opinions.

Hold individuals and groups accountable for meeting their timelines and process.

Ask for progress checks on plan development.

Recognize the team for its hard work and commitment to the process.
The specific responsibilities of the board members are identified below:

Create and adopt planning policy.

Approve goals prior to full plan development.

Adopt focused plan/budget.

Monitor plan results (indicators).

Communicate goals, progress, and expectations to community.
Stakeholders
Stakeholder forums occur at least twice during the OIP. Stakeholders are individuals or
representatives from organizations that are affected by the education system. It is
important to include stakeholders who provide a variety of perspectives. The same
stakeholders will not necessarily participate in both forums. At the beginning,
stakeholders will be invited to comment on the mission in the context of critical needs
identified through the Decision Framework. The amount of time each invited stakeholder
will be asked to devote depends on which type of forum the district chooses. The focus
of the feedback during Stage 2 is to provide input into the draft district plan.
Stakeholders also will have the option of participating in the required public hearing
about the entire plan. It is estimated that stakeholders will need to devote a total of about
four hours of their time.
OIP Facilitator
Facilitation of the process cannot be underestimated. The OIP facilitator's role is to help
manage the progression of the discussion and process. The district may choose to use a
OIP Process Guide
22 of 95
December 2008
facilitator external to the district or a trusted employee who will be accepted by everyone
as an internal facilitator. An OIP facilitator must:

Serve as a critical friend who is a trusted partner, advocates for the success of
the work, asks thought-provoking questions, and provides focused constructive
feedback.

Manage and direct meeting processes using a range of facilitation strategies.

Understand meetings and make decisions affecting meeting dynamics.

Keep the group focused on outcomes.

Coplan with district leadership team chair(s).

Act as a critical friend to ensure all responses are open and honest.
It is estimated that the OIP facilitator will need an average of one day per week during Stages
1 and 2 of the process, or a total of about 25 days, to adequately do this job. The most
expensive cost associated with the OIP process may be the facilitator; however, often
the state system of support can designate a person to perform this valuable service.
Program Assistant
It will be important to designate a program assistant to undertake a variety of tasks,
including arranging meetings, distributing agendas and materials, communicating with
team members, taking meeting minutes, and creating and formatting documents. It is
suggested that at least a one-third time position be devoted during Stages 1 and 2 of the
process and less time during Stages 3 and 4. This person becomes responsible for
inputting information and editing the draft and final plan.
Goal Work Groups
Membership of the work groups will vary greatly by district. Groups may be used to
collect, organize, and summarize data during Stage 1. The goals will determine group
membership during Stage 2. These groups may include content (e.g., literacy or
mathematics) or program specialists with interdisciplinary perspectives and skills,
teacher leaders from multiple levels, classified staff, parent and family representatives,
public and private early learning representatives, student support services
administrators, building-level administrators from multiple levels, special education
designees, English language acquisition designees, assessment administrators, pupil
personnel services administrators, and building and grounds administrators. Individuals
who will be affected by the plan should participate. Goal work groups have two primary
functions:

To review district goals and the data upon which the goals were developed.

To develop the strategies, indicators, and actions for the goals.
The work groups will vary in size based on the goals identified by the DLT. Some
individuals may need to participate in multiple goal work groups. For example, if the
district has three goals and each includes professional development, it may be
necessary to have the district’s professional development specialist(s) participate in
each group. In addition, the work groups may need to call in others as appropriate to
assist with working on a particular strategy or set of actions. It is estimated that during a
two- to three-month period, the work groups will need to devote approximately 20 to 30
hours for Stage 2.
OIP Process Guide
23 of 95
December 2008
Orientation for District Leadership Team
Before orienting the DLT, and within a week or two of the introductory meeting with

the superintendent, the OIP facilitator will need to meet with the chair/cochair to build an
agenda, prepare packets, and make meeting arrangements. A meeting management
checklist that can be used to prepare for this meeting as well as future DLT meetings is
provided at the end of this section. The agenda should be sent to the DLT by the
superintendent at least two weeks in advance of the meeting. (A sample agenda
follows.) Handouts should include the OIP Overview Visual, “OIP on a Page”
(flowchart of stages and basic elements), a template of Schedule for OIP, the
Chart of Time Needed to Complete the OIP, the Decision Framework flowchart,
Orientation PPT and Meeting Management Checklist (Resources 2 through 8).
SAMPLE AGENDA
District Leadership Team—Ohio Improvement Process
Date: September 15, 2008
Time: 9:00 a.m.–11:00 a.m.
Location: Tactful Local School District Office
Attendees: Superintendent T. B. Wise; Curriculum Director F. T. Child;
DLT members; Regional Facilitators Ima Winner and Ura Saint
9:00 a.m.–
9:15 a.m.
Introductions and Purpose
9:15 a.m.–
9:30 a.m.
Set Ground Rules
Identify Group Assignments
9:30 a.m.–
10:15 a.m.
Overview of the Four Stages of
the Ohio Improvement Process
10:15 a.m.–
10:45 a.m.
Roles and Responsibilities
10:45 a.m.–
11:15 a.m.
Create/review a Schedule to
Complete OIP
Chair-Cochair
11:15 a.m.–
11:30 a.m.
Commitment and Next Steps
Superintendent
Superintendent
Chair-Cochair
Regional
Facilitators
Superintendent
Summary of Discussion/Decisions:
OIP Process Guide
24 of 95
December 2008
During the meeting, there will be several critical issues that the OIP facilitator will
TIP:
Community
schools
establish
Community
School
Leadership
Teams
(CSLT)
rather than a
DLT.
need to discuss with the DLT. Whether a team or group is meeting for the first time or
they have been working together for many years, they can be more effective when
they are properly prepared for their work. Most meetings have an opening as the first
agenda item. One suggested opening follows in the section under “Introductions and
Purpose”.
Introductions and Purpose
The orientation should begin with participants introducing themselves, perhaps having
individuals:


Give his or her name and current affiliation.
Complete the following phrases:

My experience with continuous improvement planning is….

I think the greatest challenge this group will face is….

I believe this group has a wonderful opportunity to….
After the agenda for the orientation has been reviewed, the superintendent should
provide the charge to the district leadership team. The charge should identify the
following:

Purpose (e.g., develop a data driven, research-based focused plan)

Desired result (e.g., improved student achievement and changes in educator
practices)

Level of authority (decision making)

Communication linkages

General timeline

Resources available

Expectations for membership

Importance of getting the district needs assessment and plan right—they affect
the quality of building plans
Once the superintendent has provided the charge, the chair or OIP facilitator should
explain the district planning policy.
Setting Ground Rules
A vital first step is the development of guidelines for participation, often referred to as
"ground rules," to provide a frame to ensure open, respectful dialogue and maximum
participation. Most educators have participated in developing or using ground rules, so it
is easier to list those rules commonly used and then ask for additional ground rules from
the participants. When somebody proposes a ground rule, other participants should be
asked if they agree to it. If most do, it should be added to the list. When listing ground
rules, explain the intent behind each of them. For example:
OIP Process Guide
25 of 95
December 2008

Listen actively—that is, respect others when they are talking by paying attention
and keeping an open mind. The goal is not to agree; it is about hearing and
exploring divergent perspectives.

Speak from your own experience instead of generalizing (I instead of they, we,
and you).

Practice timely attendance—this requires everyone
to be on time when the meeting starts, not to leave the
room except when absolutely necessary, and to stay
until the end of the meeting.

Do not be afraid to respectfully challenge one
another by asking questions, but refrain from personal
attacks.

Participate to the fullest of your ability; growth
depends on the inclusion of every individual voice.

Be conscious of body language and nonverbal
responses; they can be as disrespectful as words.
Give examples.

Focus on ideas, not people.
TIP: Some groups will
include individuals who
inhibit group progress, for
example, power seekers,
time dominators, clowns,
recognition seekers. As a
preemptive strike, these
types of individuals may
need to be discussed as
ground rules are
established.
It also is important to set a ground rule for how participation will be managed. For
example, should participants raise their hands to be called on, or should people speak
freely? Some people—especially those who tend to be introverted—need more time to
process thoughts before speaking, so the latter option may exclude them from the
discussion. Still, the formal process of raising hands to be recognized may detract from
the collective atmosphere needed to discuss multicultural issues.
Once everyone agrees to the ground rules, they should be posted and visible during
each meeting. They then can serve as a reference when there is a sense that
participants are failing to sufficiently follow one or more of the items. It is everyone’s
responsibility to challenge participants on the ground rules early and often. If the ground
rules are not adhered to early in the process, it may become impossible to enforce them
later. If a particular ground rule is routinely broken, it should be bounced back to
participants.
Identifying Group Assignments
Group ground rules and assignments form the basic structure of the group. A group
assignment is a pattern of behavior expected of a group member. Each member of the
group should assume a job, although assignments can be changed or rotated from
meeting to meeting. The following list of common assignments can serve as a starting
point. Roles should be selected appropriate to the meeting.

Chair. Keeps group on track—guides discussion, reminds group of objective, and
regulates group activities.

Recorder. Serves group memory function, takes minutes of the meetings, and
keeps the group’s records and history.
OIP Process Guide
26 of 95
December 2008

Timekeeper: Monitors the use of time as allocated in the agenda, and reminds
group when time exceeds the allocated time.

Assurance Checker: Keeps group focused on the process, assuring the intent is
followed.

Initiator–Contributor. Offers ideas and suggestions and proposes solutions and
new directions.

Information Seeker. Requests clarification, solicits evidence, and asks for
suggestions and ideas from others.

Opinion Seeker. Requests viewpoints from others and looks for agreement and
disagreement.

Information Giver. Acts as a resource person for the group and provides relevant
and significant information based on expertise or personal experience.

Clarifier–Elaborator. Explains, expands, and extends the ideas of others;
provides examples and alternatives.

Director. Draws together ideas of others, shows relationships between facts and
ideas, and promotes teamwork and cooperation.

Devil’s Advocate. Challenges prevailing point of view for the sake of argument in
order to test and critically evaluate the strength of ideas, solutions, or decisions.

Process Observer. Takes note of how the group is functioning and provides a
summary at the end of the meeting or at appropriate times during the meeting.
This person collects descriptive information that might include information about
who talks to whom, what strategies group members are using, how groups
accomplish their work, and what roles group members assume.
Overview of the Four Stages of the OIP

Several PowerPoint slides are provided (Resource 7) for the facilitator to use in
presenting the OIP to the DLT. These slides provide basic information and may be
augmented based on the facilitator’s knowledge of the district. Some key concepts to
highlight during the presentation are as follows:

The process will use a combination of state and district data to identify the most
critical needs.

The process highlights the importance of the DLT and the role the DLT plays in
developing a coherent district plan that rolls down to all schools in the district.

The process will result in one focused plan, eliminating the need for multiple
plans (technology, professional development, Title I, and so on).

The process is collaborative, not developed by one or a few people, and engages
internal and external stakeholders.
Roles and Responsibilities

The DLT needs to understand their role and the time commitment they are making to the
OIP process and beyond the OIP.
OIP Process Guide
27 of 95
December 2008
One of the first steps is to introduce the Ohio Leadership Development Framework,
including the research base and the self-assessment resource. If time and technology
allow, each participant should complete the self-assessment online. This will provide
baseline leadership information and data that can be used at Level III of the Decision
Framework.
One option for the DLT to become familiar with the Ohio Leadership Development
Framework is to divide into groups of six, with one of the Framework areas assigned to
each group. The group should consider the responsibilities of the DLT in relation to the
areas and respond to these questions:
□
What are we doing now?
□
How did it come to be this way?
□
What are we going to do to ensure we can meet these responsibilities?
Groups may then report to the whole group after recording responses to the last
question. Groups may wish to revisit these, as appropriate, at future DLT meetings.
Creating a Schedule for Completing the Process
The schedule for completing the process initially will be developed during the first DLT
session and will be updated and checked throughout the OIP. An example of a partially
completed timeline follows. A blank template for scheduling is provided (Resource 6).
Partial Sample Schedule for OIP Template
Leadership Team Meeting Schedule
□
First and third Thursday of each month
Preparation for Leadership Team Meetings
(Chair/Cochairs and OIP Facilitator)
□ Second and fourth Thursday of each month
Start Date: August 25, 2008
Actual Completion Date: ____________
Timeframe – Process
PREPARE FOR PLAN DEVELOPMENT

August 25–
Sept. 15,
2008
OIP Process Guide
Introductory
Session with
Superintendent
DLT
Orientation
Projected Completion Date: Feb. 28, 2009
Tasks
Responsibility
Expected
Date of
Completion
Select facilitator and program
assistant
Superintendent
August 27
Determine decision-making
authority
Superintendent
August 27
Choose DLT members and
appoint chair
Superintendent
Sept. 1
Review structure and
organization of the DF
Supt/Chair
Sept. 5
Create schedule for plan
development
Supt./Chair
Sept. 5
Purchase supplies and
materials
Program Asst.
Sept. 5
28 of 95
Date of
Completion
December 2008
Timeframe – Process
Tasks
Responsibility
Expected
Date of
Completion
Communicate time
commitments
Superintendent
Sept. 3
Develop materials, agenda for
DLT orientation
Chair/OIP
Facilitator
Sept. 8
Orient district leadership team
Chair/OIP
Facilitator
Sept. 15
Revisit vision and mission
statements
DLT
Sept. 15
Make vision/mission visible
throughout the district
Superintendent
After Sept.
15
Date of
Completion
Commitments and Next Steps
In order to maximize and effectively use time, the district leadership team should
evaluate each meeting. This can be done quickly and need not take much time on the
agenda. Two options for evaluating meetings are as follows:

Plus/Delta—Members identify what worked well and what could be improved by
using self-adhesive notes or offering ideas that are written on newsprint.

Stop/Start/Continue—Each member writes one item that should be stopped (i.e.,
discontinue doing), one that should be started (i.e., something to improve the
meetings), and one that should be continued (i.e., is working well).
After the meeting, the summary of the discussion and decisions should be finalized

and sent to the DLT as a record of the meeting and a prompt to follow up on the
agreements. A checklist (Resource 9) can be used periodically to evaluate meeting
effectiveness during a period of time. This allows everyone in the group to provide
written feedback.
More on Facilitation
As an OIP facilitator of a process, not a program or initiative, it is important to employ
certain behaviors. These include the following:

Maintain neutrality.

Maintain a sense of humor.

Provide an equitable process.

Be empathetic—show understanding of the parties’ situations, needs and
feelings.

Listen, paraphrase, clarify, and reflect.

Intervene appropriately.

Be authentic—without defensiveness or hidden agenda—explain your reasons
for the decisions you make.
Encourage interaction.

OIP Process Guide
29 of 95
December 2008

Provide a safe environment.

Confront and challenge—but only after empathy and respect have been
established.


Don’t talk too much.
Be an energizer—set a positive tone.

Keep the group moving on the problem or discussion.

Avoid interpersonal confrontation.

Act as the process guide—don’t get involved in the content.
All teams, including DLTs, go through stages of team development. Each stage has
certain characteristics that influence how the OIP facilitator responds to the group.
These stages and the team characteristics are described below. It is the OIP facilitator’s
responsibility to move the team to Stage Four as quickly as possible. It is likely that even
within one meeting, a DLT may move in/out of several stages. The OIP facilitator needs
to adapt to where the DLT is and use appropriate responses as described in the third
column. Facilitation becomes that of a critical friend, shifting the role of the OIP facilitator
from passive to actively challenging the DLT to focus on improving instructional practice
and student performance and making data-based choices.
STAGE OF TEAM
DEVELOPMENT
TEAM CHARACTERISTICS
OIP FACILITATOR RESPONSE
Stage One:
Forming
Testing, polite, impersonal
watchful, guarded
Be more directive by clearly articulating
the purpose of the meeting/group and
discussing ground rules for group
functioning
Stage Two:
Storming
Infighting, controlling, conflicts,
confronting people, opting out,
difficulties, feeling stuck
Help members deal with conflict, clarify
differing viewpoints, make sure hidden
agendas or viewpoints are revealed.
Stage Three:
Norming
Getting organized, developing
skills, establishing procedures,
giving feedback, confronting
issues
Use problem-solving skills to mediate
differing positions, clarify any role
ambiguity and when appropriate refocus
the purpose or rules for group
functioning
Stage Four:
Performing
mature, close, resourceful,
flexible, open, effective,
supportive
Serve as a collaborator and keep the
group moving in a nondirective manner
Vision/Mission
Most districts have a vision or mission—and often principles or ideas—that articulate
their perspective about education in their community. Sometimes these are voiced in a
motto or statement that communicates what the district considers to be its purpose. The
important part of having a mission is not the statement itself as much as it is the
collective understanding of how the statement encourages specific behaviors and
attitudes. A shared mission can be achieved by learning and identifying the reason a
OIP Process Guide
30 of 95
December 2008
district exists (mission). The role of data in shaping the future and identifying mission
(e.g., improved student achievement) cannot be underestimated because it will ensure
that the district’s most crucial needs guide the work of district employees.
If the DLT feels it is necessary to revisit the district mission, this process should occur as
part of Stage 1 so the identification of critical needs is not delayed.
The following questions may help OIP facilitator’s in working with DLTs that choose to
revisit the district mission:

Is there an educational, legislative, or political benefit to revising the mission?

Have changes in data resulted in new understandings about students, educators,
or the community?

Have community demographics shifted since the mission originally was
developed?

Does the district desire to engage the community at this time?

Who was involved in developing the current mission? Are they still the primary
stakeholders?

How long ago was the current mission developed? Is it still timely?
Once these questions have been answered, the district can choose one of two options
for the mission review. If the answer to most of the questions is “no,” then the district can
undertake a quick review. If the answer to most of the questions is “yes,” then the district
could use focus groups to gather stakeholder input into the revision of the mission.
During the revision process, the district will need to determine who will be involved in the
process. Generally, the DLT conducts a quick review. A more complete revision of the
mission using focus groups engages the DLT and internal and external stakeholders.
Whichever process is used to develop or revise the mission statement, it should be
checked against these criteria:

Is the mission short and sharply focused?

Is the mission clear and easily understood? Can it stand on its own? Is it in
language that students, parents, educators, and the community can understand
and not misinterpret?

Does the mission define why the district does what it does?

Does the mission define why the organization exists?

Does the mission provide direction for doing the right things?

Does the mission inspire commitment?
The following anatomy of a mission statement shows how the criteria can be applied:
Why the district exists
Direction
for doing
right
things
The Perfect School District educates all students in our diverse population so each meets or
exceeds Ohio’s academic standards in a safe and affirming learning environment and becomes a
lifelong learner and productive citizen.
Short and focused: 34 words
Why the district does what it does
OIP Process Guide
31 of 95
December 2008

If the district recently has engaged stakeholders in describing its shared mission, it may
choose to do a quick review of the statement and revise as necessary. Use of the data
from the Decision Framework will be especially helpful. This process should not take
more than two hours to complete and can be conducted by the DLT. If the team finds
dissonance between the mission and what they are doing, then it may need to consider
using focus groups to revitalize the mission. A review of the mission statement should
include the following steps:
1. Write the district mission statement at the top of a page that is divided into three
columns. At the top of the first column, write “what we say”; in the second
column, write “evidence to measure it”; in the third column, write “evidence we
need.”
2. Write each individual part of the mission statement in the “what we say” column.
3. Write the evidence that can measure what is said in the mission statement. For
example, “data show that third graders are making steady gains in reading,” or
“average daily attendance is 97 percent.”
4. If necessary, gather more evidence to show whether what is said actually is
happening within the district.
5. If the district mission statement doesn’t adequately represent what is happening
and what should happen now, then create a new statement.
It is essential that the results related to the mission be communicated regularly to
stakeholders.
OIP Process Guide
32 of 95
December 2008
Ohio Improvement Process
Stage 1: Identify Critical Needs
OIP Process Guide

Understand Structure and Requirements
of the Decision Framework (DF)

Complete the Decision Framework

Identify and Affirm Critical Focus Areas

Content

Expectations and Conditions
33 of 95
December 2008
Introduction
A plan is strong only if reliable and useful data have been collected,
organized, analyzed, interpreted, and prioritized. It is the prioritization of
data that yields the few district goals that form the basis of the plan.

Stage 1 of the Ohio Improvement Process allows the district to take a
variety of state and district- and building-level data (e.g., grade or
department short cycle assessment results, universal screening and
diagnostic assessment results, behavior/climate information, perception information, and
program information) and filter it through the Decision Framework, the major tool used
throughout the OIP. This Decision Framework tool details questions that participants
will ask in order to identify and analyze the critical components for improving the
academic performance of all students including subgroup populations. A flowchart
illustrating the levels and organization of the Decision Framework are included in the
prior Section.
The outcomes expected from Stage 1 are as follows:
▪
Summarize and analyze data sets.
▪
Understand and apply data to the Decision Framework.
▪
Interpret key findings/information from needs assessment.
▪
Prioritize list of data-based critical problems from Decision Framework.
Understand Structure and Requirements of the
Decision Framework (DF)
TIP:
Community
schools use
the
community
schools
decision
framework,
which is a
hybrid of the
district and
building
Decision
Framework.

Before meeting with the District Leadership Team again (second DLT session), the
OIP facilitator will need to meet with the DLT chair/cochairs to build an agenda, prepare
packets and make meeting arrangements. The purpose of this session is to become
familiar with the organization of the Decision Framework (see Tools) and the questions
that guide the analysis of data in order to complete the Decision Framework. The
meeting management checklist (Resource 8) can be used as an aide in preparing for
the meeting. The agenda should be sent at least a week before the meeting. Request a
copy be emailed to you. A sample agenda for this second DLT session follows. Within
each agenda item, time should be built in for questions. The DF may be sent to the DLT
before the session if the chairs/cochairs believe that the members will have the time to
familiarize themselves with the content before the meeting. If members of the DLT have
access to laptop computers, they should be asked to bring them. Other options are to
conduct the meeting in a computer lab or in a room that has an LCD projector to display
the Decision Framework.
OIP Process Guide
34 of 95
December 2008
SAMPLE AGENDA
District Leadership Team Meeting
Date: September 22, 2008
Time: 8:30 a.m.–12:00 p.m.
Location: Tactful School District Office
Attendees: Superintendent T. B. Wise; Curriculum Director F. T. Child; DLT Cochairs; DLT
Members; OIP Facilitators Ima Winner and Ura Saint
8:30 a.m.–
8:45 a.m.
Meeting Purpose, Ground Rule
Review, and Assignments
Superintendent
8:45 a.m.–
9:15 a.m.
Overview of the Decision
Framework Structure &
Questions
Explanation of Types & Methods
of Data to Respond to Questions
OIP Facilitators
9:15 a.m.–
11:30 a.m. inc. break
Identifying Data to Complete the
Decision Framework
DLT Members
11:30 a.m.–
11:45 a.m.
Agreement on Data to be
Collected
Chair/Cochairs
11:45 a.m.–
12:00 p.m.
Confirmation of Assignments &
Next Steps
Superintendent
Summary of Discussion/Decisions:


During this second session, the DLT will become knowledgeable of the structure and
requirements of the Decision Framework (DF) and will identify existing district data that
correlate to the Decision Framework questions. The DF should be presented formally
(large group presentation) with ample opportunity to respond to questions.
Understanding the four levels of inquiry that comprise the Decision Framework and
how they relate to each other is important. The Decision Framework flowchart
(Resource 4) is a good resource to use to explain these relationships. Point out that
Levels I and III produce the district goals and strategies. Actions are also generated from
the Decision Framework. Following are talking points that follow the above agenda.
OIP Process Guide
35 of 95
December 2008
AGENDA TOPIC
Meeting Purpose,
Ground Rule
Review, and
Assignments
OIP FACILITATOR TALKING POINTS
Purpose of session is to know how the DF works, understand the data
needed to respond to the DF, and identify existing and needed data for
the district to complete the DF.
Review the agreed upon ground rules that were identified at the first DLT
meeting.
Determine who will fulfill assignments for this session, for example,
timekeeper, process observer, devil’s advocate.
▪
Level I: Student Performance
Level 1 requires the district to examine specific academic content areas,
beginning with reading and math. Each content area focuses on the
specific grade levels of concern using point data and trend data. Analysis
includes district, building-level, grade-level(s), and subgroup information
relevant to the content area. Each content area then stands alone for
further analysis in Level 2. Level I focuses on identifying:
o The weakest grade-level or grade level band for reading and math.
Overview of the
Decision
Framework
Structure &
Questions
o Subgroups with poor performance and/or significant gaps.
o The magnitude/scope of these problem areas across the district.
▪
Level II: Instructional Management
Level II is completed for each academic area independently.
▪
Level III: Expectations and Conditions
Level III is completed independently of content areas.
▪
Level IV: Resource Management
Level II and III results are analyzed in relation to Level IV.
Each level has questions that are used to assist the district in analyzing
data in order to respond to each DF item. A summary profile is provided
at the end of the DF.

Explanation of
Types of Data &
Methods of Data
Collection to
Respond to
Questions
OIP Process Guide
Describe the four types of data that can be collected to respond to each
question: 1) achievement/student performance, 2) perception, 3)
program, and 4) demographic.
Most data are collected using one of four methods: 1) surveys (which
may be collected from all respondents (e.g., all teachers) or through
sampling (e.g., a designated number of teachers from each grade
level/school), 2) interviews/focus groups (usually a sample of potential
respondents that are representative of the district demographics (e.g.,
parents representing grade levels, culture, ethnicity), 3) observations
(classroom, programmatic—e.g., afterschool programs, 4)
documents/records (e.g., assessment results, demographics, policies,
lesson plans, meeting agendas/minutes).
36 of 95
December 2008
AGENDA TOPIC
OIP FACILITATOR TALKING POINTS

The DLT may use Resource 10 or 10A to determine additional types of
data and methods of data collection that the district may need to
complete the DF. This resource provides a list of possible data needed
for informed, data-based decisions necessary to complete each level and
area of the Decision Framework. The list includes ideas of where a
district may find local data. It is not all inclusive but may serve to
stimulate ideas for data sources. Bolded data sources in Resource 10
and 10A are pre-populated in the Decision Framework by the Ohio
Department of Education.
Identifying Data to
Complete the
Decision Framework
TIP: Ideally, each
area should have
at least one data
source.
Otherwise, the
analysis will rely
on opinion, not
fact.
OIP Process Guide
This tool has two facilitator uses: 1) to guide the discussion to determine
what data the district has readily available that can answer the questions
in the Decision Framework, and 2) to provide an organizer for
summarizing data to support Decision Framework ratings/judgments.
Few districts will have data for every question in the Decision Framework.
If there is no data, the OIP facilitator needs to help the district make a
choice to either 1) identify data that needs to be collected for future
decisions, 2) collect data in the very near future to respond to questions
in the Decision Framework, 3) include data collection in the district plan
as an action, or 4) choose to disregard the question at this time.
Whichever choice is made, the district/OIP facilitator will want to make
note of it.
If the DLT is 10 members or fewer, this activity can be done in whole
group. If the DLT is larger, then the DLT can be divided in half, with each
group taking responsibility for two of the levels. If the latter is the case,
have the DLT members self-select which group to be in but ensure the
number of members is fairly balanced in size. Each group will need a
facilitator, timekeeper and recorder. The two overriding questions are as
follows:
What data and information do we have to respond to this item?
Have the group look at the items for each Level/Area, taking one area at
a time.*Ask the group to scan the items within each area for two to three
minutes, making individual notes of any data the district currently has to
respond to the item.

Using an LCD projector, project Resource 10 or 10A. Record the
name of the district document that provides information to
respond to each item. Only list a data source once even though it
may respond to several items.

Once all existing data have been identified, ask if the group
believes any additional data need to be collected. Make a list of
these data. Explain that this may be data collected for this plan or
may be collected for next year’s plan. To be realistic in identifying
any new data that need to be collected, the whole group will need
to look at data needed for all four levels before a decision can be
made about what to collect.

After completing each area, reach consensus on the data that will
37 of 95
December 2008
AGENDA TOPIC
OIP FACILITATOR TALKING POINTS
be collected for this plan, and data that will be collected in the
future (possible action in the completed plan.) If there is
considerable “data needed,” use the following questions to
determine what is critical:
Will the data be the only source of data for this area, or will it
supplement other existing data?
Can the data be collected efficiently and in time to complete the
Decision Framework?
What resources (people, technology, etc.) would be needed to
collect the data?
If we don’t have this data, will we be able to make an informed
determination/rating?
In thinking about what data needs to be collected, the DLT will need to
discern meaningful data from irrelevant information. Doug Reeves
suggests asking the question:
“Will this piece of data help change curriculum,
assessment and instruction and thus improve student
achievement.”
Once the list of existing and needed data has been identified, ask the
group to scan the list to ensure it is reasonable for the district at this time.
Agreement on Data
to Be Collected
Identify who will be responsible for either gathering existing data or for
determining how the data will be collected and by when. This should be
written next to each of the data items so there is a visible record of
assignments.
It is possible that the people who know about the data, have the data, or
who can collect the data are not on the DLT. It will be important for DLT
members to identify these individuals and seek their cooperation in this
task.
Confirmation of
Assignments &
Next Steps
Poll members to ensure they understand their assignments. Another
option is to have the DLT member summarize what he/she has agreed to
do. This is important as it compels individuals to honor their commitment
publicly.
The chair/cochairs should summarize the next steps to include:

Date of next meeting

Initial agenda for next meeting (complete the DF)

How to get assistance with assignments, if needed
*Level I has two areas (overall student performance and subscale performance). Level II A,
B, C has a total of nine areas. Level III A, B, C has a total of 15 areas. Level IV has four
areas.
OIP Process Guide
38 of 95
December 2008
After the meeting, the summary of the discussion and decisions should be finalized and

sent to the DLT as a record of the meeting and a prompt to follow-up on the agreements. The
OIP facilitator should work with the chair/cochair to identify how follow-up will occur to assure
that assignments are completed on time and with quality. Follow-up can occur through written
reminders (notes, e-mails, memos) and/or personal contact. Periodically, a checklist
(Resource 9) can be used to allow group members to evaluate meeting effectiveness
over a period of time.
More on Facilitation
A variety of data sources can be accessed to complete the DF. These data, some of which
are provided by ODE and prepopulated into the Decision Framework (see list below), will be
used to respond to the essential questions in the Decision Framework.
Level III
Data
Level I Data
Prepopulated Data in the Decision Framework
▪
District performance on OAT and OGT (overall and subgroup data)
▪
Building performance on OAT/OGT for all students and for each subgroup
(minority students, students with limited English proficiency, students with
disabilities, students with economic disadvantage)
▪
Student performance data related to content areas
▪
Kindergarten Readiness Assessment Literacy (KRA-L) data
▪
Disciplinary actions (occurrences, suspension, expulsion)
▪
Attendance data
▪
Graduation data
▪
Drop-out data
Additional Data Available from Statewide and Specialized Tools
▪


Student Achievement Data identified in the Data Tools Catalog (summary of other
useful data tools)
http://education.ohio.gov/GD/Templates/Pages/ODE/ODEDetail.aspx?page
=3&TopicRelationID=3&ContentID=54928&Content=54947
▪
High-Quality Teacher Related Data on Professional Qualifications (Teacher
Distribution Data Analysis-TDDA and Teacher Distribution File—TDF)
▪
Leadership Data (online self-assessment survey based on the Ohio Leadership
Development Framework)
▪
Contextual Data identified in the Data Tools Catalog
Local Data
Local data will need to be collected by the district. The OIP facilitator will likely need to prompt
the conversation about available district data, which may include the following:
▪
Surveys of Enacted Curriculum Topographical Maps and Instructional Practices
Frequency Charts
OIP Process Guide
39 of 95
December 2008
▪
Curriculum Alignment Gaps Between Standards, Curriculum, Instruction, and
Assessments
▪
Teacher, Parent, Student, and Community Perception Surveys
▪
School and Classroom Observations
▪
Program Evaluations (afterschool and/or summer school, PBIS, character education)
▪
Assessment Data (short-cycle assessment, standardized assessments, diagnostic
assessments, screening, progress monitoring, classroom assessments, value added)
▪
Professional Development Data (evaluation results, attendance, agendas, schedule)
▪
Demographic Data (teacher attendance, enrollment)
▪
Documents/Records (lesson plans, policies, building schedules, grade-level meetings
agendas/notes/schedules, teacher evaluations, planning and budgeting procedures,
newsletters, parent communications, budgets, decision-making structures and
processes, audit findings and responses)
▪
Partnerships: membership, purpose, role, results
Collect, Organize, and Summarize Data
Completing Resource 10 should help the district identify gaps in data and determine the
most relevant information that needs to be collected. It will be the responsibility of the
person(s) assigned to the data to organize and summarize the data for the DLT to analyze it
efficiently. There are a variety of ways to organize and summarize data. Tables, charts,
graphs, and written narratives are the most common. When using tables, graphs or charts,
the source and timeframe of the data should be given. If at all possible, multiple years of data
should be provided. In order to determine trends, at least three years of data are needed. To
make comparisons, at least two years of data will need to be provided.
Data summaries are primarily looking for trends and patterns that provide a focus for district
goals and strategies. The DLT should also have on hand the following references available
on the Ohio Department of Education website (www.ode.state.oh.us):

▪
▪
Ohio Professional Development Standards
State Academic Content Standards
Although it is impossible to prepare OIP facilitators for all the ways in which data can be
organized and summarized, the following are common and simple examples of how this can
occur in preparation for the next DLT session. These are offered as ideas to help OIP
facilitators as they work with individuals to complete assignments.
Level I: Student Performance

Level I and Level IIA–2 calls on the DLT to analyze student achievement/performance data.
The Ohio Department of Education provides the district with state assessment data charted
and graphed. The Data Tools Catalog describes several formats for looking at state level
achievement data, both for accountability and diagnostic purposes. These tools allow
educators to drill down into the data, examine them from many lenses, link to standards, align
resources, perform local assessments, and examine other data sources. Two tools that are
particularly helpful are D3A2 (www.d3a2.org) and Success (www.success.ode.state.oh.us).
Success offers detailed state assessment (OAT and OGT including alternate assessments)
OIP Process Guide
40 of 95
December 2008
results by building, class and student. Data can be disaggregated by subgroup, item analysis
and manual re-rostering. D3A2 links state assessment results to aligned academic resources
from 14 content providers, including lesson plans, assessments, videos, and video distance
learning. One use of D3A2 is to check state assessment data to local data to increase
accuracy.
This is also where district assessment results can be discussed. Reports such as objectives
performance reports, subtest reports, skills reports, content cluster reports, and mastery
objectives reports will need to be considered in addition to those provided by the Ohio
Department of Education. Often district assessment data are provided in summary or
aggregate formats. However, if the district also wants to look at local data such as writing
rubric results, the team can summarize the data by charting the percentage of students who
performed at the desired level or above similar to other proficiency scores. Once all the
achievement graphs/charts are available, the DLT can use highlighters to emphasize the
numbers in the charts using the “stoplight” method* indicated by the colors below.
For some data, such as the KRA-L or DIBELS, the use of the stoplight method will need to be
modified. For example, the DIBELS data show the percent of students who are high,
medium, and low for the areas tested. The KRA-L data provide composite scores within three
bands. In both of these cases, the district may want to highlight with green (high on DIBELS,
Band 3 on KRAL), yellow (medium or Band 2), and pink (low or Band 1).
HIGHLIGHT
COLOR
MEANING
% OF STUDENTS
(SUGGESTED
CUT-OFFS)
Blue
Green
Yellow
Pink
WOW! Beyond Expectations
GOOD! Meets Expectations
CAUTION! Below Expectations
URGENT! In Need of Immediate Improvement
100%
80–99%
70–79%
0–69%
% OF STUDENTS
(OUR CUT-OFF
LEVELS)
*Taken from Data Retreat Facilitator’s Guide, North Central Regional Education Laboratory, 2001.
The samples below shows two data charts prepopulated in the Decision Framework with
numbers highlighted using the stoplight method described above.
Grade Level
2004–2005 SY
Metrics
Students Tested
Grade 3
Not Proficient
Students Proficient
Proficient Percentage
Students Tested
READING
Subscale
Vocabulary
Reading Process
Informational Text
Literary Text
OIP Process Guide
2005–2006 SY
2006–2007 SY
163
140
180
33
33
42
130
107
138
79.8%
76.4%
76.7%
168
168
139
3rd
4th
5th
6th
7th
8th
Grade
3
89.9%
81.6%
91.8%
87.3%
Grade
4
79.4%
83.1%
86.0%
77.9%
Grade
5
85.2%
84.6%
88.3%
87.7%
Grade
6
86.3%
82.0%
82.6%
90.7%
Grade
7
89.5%
86.5%
85.4%
86.0%
Grade
8
89.0%
87.2%
86.0%
87.8%
41 of 95
9–12th
(OGT)
OGT
82.4%
79.0%
80.1%
78.4%
December 2008
Three ways of analyzing achievement data to show comparisons are: a) yearly cohort group
comparisons, b) yearly grade-level comparisons, and c) within-year progress data. The
following is how these can be visually represented. State level data can only be applied to (b)
below. If the district wishes to do (a) or (c), it must rely on district or school level data.
a) Yearly Cohort Group Comparisons
Year 1
Grade 3
Year 2
Year 3
Year 4
Student Group A
Grade 4
Student Group A
Grade 5
Student Group A
Grade 6
Student Group A
b) Yearly Grade-Level Comparisons
Year 1
Year 2
Year 3
Year 4
Student Group A
Student Group A
Student Group A
Student Group A
Grade 3
Grade 4
Grade 5
Grade 6
c) Within-Year Comparisons
Year 1
Fall
Grade 4
Winter
Student Group A
Student Group A
Spring
Student Group A
As a reminder, Level 1 data will result in the identification of one to two priority
content areas, which will become the student performance goals.
Level II: Instructional Management
The questions in Level II are related to educator quality, curriculum, instruction and
professional development in the specific content area.

The Data Tools Catalog describes several tools that can provide contextual data to help
understand the causes affecting student achievement results. The Catalog only includes tools
sponsored by the Ohio Department of Education.
Level II A: Curriculum, Assessment and Instruction—One tool that is available statewide
is the Surveys of Enacted Curriculum (SEC) (www.seconline.org). This instrument
OIP Process Guide
42 of 95
December 2008
collects self-reported data on the alignment of instructional practices, standards, and
assessments. The data examine the extent of alignment between the enacted
curriculum (what is taught), the intended curriculum (what is required by Ohio
Academic Standards), and the assessed curriculum (what is tested by Ohio state
assessments). It is available in four subject areas: English Language Arts,
Mathematics, Science, and Social Studies. The Instructional Practices data cover
areas such as professional development, use of homework, and teacher opinions
and beliefs. The data are organized and summarized for easy use. The follow graphs
provide an example of how the intended, enacted, and assessed curriculum is
displayed.
Viewing Enacted, Intended, and Assessed Curriculum
Grade 8 Math
Intended
Enacted
Assessed
Level II B: Educator Quality, Teacher and Administrator Turnover, and Educator
Qualifications

The Data Tools Catalog describes the Teaching and Learning Conditions Survey, which
provides data on factors that affect teacher hiring, retention, and mobility across the state.
The online survey has fewer than 40 questions and can be completed in 30 minutes or less. If
the district has at least 40% participation, districts can receive school and district summaries.
Level II C: Professional Development
As indicated earlier, the SEC also provides data on professional development. The
district may also choose to summarize data gleaned from the Standards-Based
Individual Professional Development Plans (IPDP). Beginning in 2008–09, the IPDP
aggregated rubric results may serve as a valuable source of data for the district. The
System to Achieve Results for Students (STARS) provides dates and participant
information about professional development training. This data may be compared with
OIP Process Guide
43 of 95
December 2008
observation and achievement data at the classroom/building levels to determine if
professional development time and resources are being directed to the priority need
areas and to determine if there is an impact on student achievement as a result of
participating in professional development.
Level III: Expectations and Conditions
While Level II is focused on a particular content area, Level III has an overall
general/global effect on student academic performance across all content areas and is
viewed once. District personnel may also identify a specific issue that is unique to their
district or community that needs attention to promote, facilitate, or improve student
performance. Primary data sources in Level III are a) perception data, b) demographic
data such as mobility, attendance and discipline, 3) program data, and 4) processes and
procedures data. Following are ideas for organizing and summarizing this data.
a) Perception data will take unique formats depending on the nature of the data.
Persons assigned to summarize perception data will need to determine guidelines or
cut-off levels for survey data. Prior to looking at the data, the DLT members assigned to
this data should answer the question: What would positive results look like? For
example, if a survey was ranked on a 5-point Likert scale, positive results may be the
percentage of rankings of three or higher. The ranking percentage could be defined as
the cut-off level.
HIGHLIGHT
COLOR
SURVEY RESULTS (% OF
RANKINGS OF 3 OR HIGHER
ON A 5-POINT SCALE)
MEANING
Blue
WOW! Beyond Expectations
100%
Green
GOOD! Meets Expectations
75–99%
Yellow
CAUTION! Below Expectations
55–74%
URGENT! In Need of Improvement
0–54%
Pink
OUR CRITERIA
For other results, it may be useful to use a similar color-coding process as described
above. Because the perception items in the DF are similar across students, parents, and
teachers, the results from the questions asked may be shown as in the sample table
below. Is should be noted that there may be many questions for which the degree of
implementation is the considered judgment of the DLT and not based upon a survey or
other instrument.
% of Rankings of 3 or
higher on a 5-point
satisfaction scale
Focus on positive student
outcomes in (content area)
Parent Survey
Student Survey
Teacher Survey
EL
M
HS
EL
M
HS
EL
M
HS
80%
65%
40%
85%
75%
60%
95%
90%
85%
Safe environment for learning
Partners in educational process
Sensitivity to students needs
when they experience academic
OIP Process Guide
44 of 95
December 2008
% of Rankings of 3 or
higher on a 5-point
satisfaction scale
Parent Survey
EL
M
HS
Student Survey
Teacher Survey
EL
EL
M
HS
M
HS
and/or behavioral needs
Challenging (content areas)
curriculum

The Data Tools Catalog describes a K–12 school climate survey that provides data on the
quality and character of school life. The School Climate Survey (http://www.csee.net/climate)
classifies data into four areas: safety, teaching and learning, interpersonal relationships, and
institutional environment. Student data can be disaggregated by grade level and subgroup
and can be administered online and hard copy. These data are organized and summarized to
show rating patterns for each group for each dimension surveyed. Charts are organized
in two ways to make it easier to make different kinds of comparisons:
o
By climate dimension, showing the rating patterns for physical safety, socialemotional safety, and so on for students versus school personnel versus parents.
o
By population group, showing the rating patterns for students, then school
personnel, then parents for each dimension.
Profile charts of median ratings for different subgroups, school personnel, and parents
show perceptions of school climate dimensions in consistently different ways and which
dimensions might be most sensitive to different ratings for subgroups. Subgroups
include the following:
1. Students by grade, gender, race/ethnicity
2. School personnel by grade and experience
3. Parents by child, grade, race/ethnicity
b) Demographic data in the form of attendance and discipline data are provided through
the Ohio Department of Education. Mobility data must be obtained using district data.
Mobility is defined as students not in the same building 120 days before the state testing
window. Level III B.4 (Multiple Risk Factors) asks about the affect of certain
demographic characteristics on student performance. Using these characteristics, the
DLT members will need to look at the information for those students who have a pattern
of low-proficiency levels (pink if using the spotlight method). By each name, notations
should be made on a report according to the demographic data. It may also be
appropriate to code program data such as afterschool programs, summer-school
programs, tutoring, and other interventions provided to students. Coding may look like
this:
Code
Definition
PL
Proficiency Level—students who have a pattern of low proficiency, below
standards, at risk
M
Mobility—students not in the same building 120 days before the state testing
window
A
Attendance—students absent for any reason for five or more days.
OIP Process Guide
45 of 95
December 2008
D
Discipline—students referred for any reason two times or more, all students
expelled or suspended
AS
After School Program—students who attend 80 percent or more of the time
SS
Summer School—students who attend 80 percent or more of the time
T
Tutoring—students who receive tutoring
DLT members should look for patterns in the data. At this point, the DLT should not
concentrate on individual student names, but rather focus on patterns across all of the
students. It is important for the DLT not to attach causes to patterns. The DLT members
assigned will need to identify the patterns observed for all DLT members to view when
completing the Decision Framework.
c) Processes and procedures cannot be coded or analyzed. They should be reviewed
against the questions in relation to Level III A. In addition to knowing if the processes and
procedures exist, the district must also know if they are followed and if they are effective. For
example, requiring each building to have a data team and establishing procedures for the
data team to follow are good. However, the district must also have records, documents, or
reports that show how often the team meets and what they do when they meet. In general,
the questions for this level are: How frequently is it used? How is it used? and How effective
is it?
Level IV: Resource Management
Level IV analyzes how resources are used in the district. Resources are identified as people,
time, and money. Suggestions to analyze these characteristics to respond to the essential
questions are to examine district policies and procedures and analyze expenditures by
categories to determine if funds are being allocated to priority needs.
Complete the Decision Framework

5
The DLT is ready to complete the Decision Framework. While analysis can be
conducted with statistical programs and electronic data tools, the process of digging
through it, finding patterns and trends, diagramming observations, and collaborating
about what is seen is a very powerful process. Completing the DF by the DLT offers new
insights and illuminates views that might not have otherwise been seen if the DF were
done by a few people or by individuals. In fact, many districts that piloted the OIP
process found this to be the most robust part of the process. As team members analyze
the data and respond to the DF questions, not only do they see more clearly, they
engage in their own professional growth with their own data.
Before meeting with the District Leadership Team to complete the DF (may require

multiple sessions), the OIP facilitator needs to meet with the DLT chair/cochairs to
ensure that data has been collected, organized and summarized, develop an agenda,
prepare packets and make meeting arrangements. The purpose of these meetings is to
analyze the data and complete the Decision Framework. The meeting management
checklist (Resource 8) can be used as an aide in preparing for the meeting. The
agenda should be sent at least two weeks before the meeting. Request a copy be
emailed to you. A sample agenda for this DLT session(s) follows. It may be appropriate
to divide this agenda into three meetings as there may be a large quantity of data to
analyze, and there are approximately 175 areas to rate in the Decision Framework.
OIP Process Guide
46 of 95
December 2008
All data summaries will need to be submitted to the chair/cochairs one week prior to the
session. Submitting the information in advance of the meeting is necessary for the
program assistant to create the first section of the DF Wall (see description below). Let
DLT members know that they will be asked to give a three- to five-minute presentation
on their data summaries by Level/Area. The DLT may be sent a data packet with all
summaries before the meeting to allow them time to familiarize themselves with the
content before the meeting.
SAMPLE AGENDA
District Leadership Team Meeting
Date: December 4–5, 2008
Time: 8:30 a.m.–3:30 p.m.
Location: Tactful School District Office
Attendees: Superintendent T. B. Wise; Curriculum Director F. T. Child; DLT Cochairs; DLT
Members; OIP Facilitators Ima Winner and Ura Saint
December 4, 2008
8:30 a.m.–8:45 a.m.
Meeting Purpose, Ground Rule Review, and
Assignments
Superintendent
8:45 a.m.–11:30 a.m.
DLT Member Presentations—Data Summaries
by Levels/Areas, Analysis and Completion of DF
DLT Members
11:30 a.m.–11:45 a.m.
Presentation on Current CCIP Performance
Superintendent
11:45 a.m.–12:30 a.m.
Lunch
12:30 a.m.–3:30 p.m.
Analyze Data and Complete the DF
DLT Members
December 5, 2008
8:30 a.m.–12:00 p.m.
Analyze Data and Complete the DF
DLT Members
12:00 p.m.–1:00 p.m.
Lunch
1:00 p.m.–3:00 p.m.
Review DF Results and Confirm District Priority
Problems
3:00 p.m.–3:30 p.m.
Next Steps
OIP Facilitator (s)
Chair/Cochairs
Summary of Discussion/Decisions:

5

During these sessions, the DLT analyzes the available data and completes the Decision
Framework (DF). It is advisable that an organizer (e.g., Resource 10A) be used to record the
data summary. The role of the recorder will be critical to having a record of the DLT
discussion. Remind the DLT that Levels I and III produce the district goals.
OIP Process Guide
47 of 95
December 2008
One technique that can be used to present the data summaries is to combine a “Decision
Framework Wall” with a gallery walk. This will take approximately three hours to complete.
Following is a description:
A) Create a “Decision Framework Wall” by building three sections on a large wall.
1. The first section should be displayed on the left side of the wall. It contains the
data summaries from the Decision Framework and other local data. Tables,
charts, graphs and narratives should be displayed by DF level/area.
2. The middle section will include space for the Decision Framework questions.
The questions can be displayed using an LCD so as the DLT discusses the
question(s) in relation to the data summaries in the first section. This is the
point at which the DLT analyzes all data and information relative to the
question.
3. The third section displays the Decision Framework rating options for the
question(s). This is where the DLT discusses their criteria for the ratings and
makes a decision on the rating per question once all data has been presented
and analyzed. This may also be displayed using an LCD projector.
B) Beginning with Level I, each DLT member briefly presents the data summary for their
assigned Level/Area to the entire DLT. This presentation includes a brief explanation
of the process used to collect, organize, and summarize the data for the area
assigned and the results. Highlight observations, comparisons, and trends found from
the data. Continue the presentations until all Levels/Areas are presented. There are a
total of 30 areas. Budget three to five minutes for each presentation.
C) Assign one to two members of the DLT to serve as a docent for each of the Levels.
The docent role is to answer questions about the process/data but not to defend the
data. These individuals will not make formal presentations. The data should speak for
itself. The primary function of the wall is to allow group members to view the data, ask
questions, and discuss the data and results in their group.
In the proposed agenda, seven hours have been allocated, an average of 2.5
minutes per area (175 areas in the Decision Framework). Some items will not require
extensive discussion, as the data will be obvious. Other items may be able to be
clustered or the same data may be used to respond to several items, thus requiring a
limited time for discussion. Other items may require extensive discussion. It is
important for the OIP facilitator to keep the conversation moving and to make
decisions as quickly as possible. The amount of time needed depends on several
variables, for example, the number of DLT members, the quantity and quality of data,
and the “emotional” response to the data.
D) Once the Decision Framework is complete, the DLT looks at the results by Level
and identifies the district priority problems. After going through Level 1, district priority
student performance problems should be identified. This list can be created by
looking at the level/area from the DF with the lowest scores and highest level of
concern.
After the session(s), the completed Decision Framework (DF), which includes the profile

report, should be sent to all DLT members. The OIP facilitator will need to meet with the
chair/cochairs to identify any obvious data gaps found while completing the DF and
determine how these gaps will be addressed (possibly as actions in the plan that will be
developed in Stage 2). Periodically, a checklist can be used to evaluate meeting
OIP Process Guide
48 of 95
December 2008
effectiveness over a period of time (Resource 9). This allows everyone in the group to
provide written feedback.
More on Facilitation
Initial discussions relative to the Decision Framework are often focused on using existing
data to the greatest extent possible. That being said, it is also clear that there are
important questions that needed to be discussed in most districts for which data do not
often exist. For example, few districts can describe with any accuracy the level and
alignment of instructional practice. Similarly, many do not know if the “aligned” district
curriculum is used. Teacher mobility is not part of most district discussions (most
appropriate for medium to large districts). Additionally, many districts/buildings do not
conduct student surveys or parent/community surveys. Part of the job of an OIP
facilitator is to help the districts and buildings to consider whether a need exists to collect
this type of information and, if so, the best method of collection. In the meantime, district
leadership teams (DLTs) should be led to honestly discuss where they think they are
and what might need to be done immediately. In many cases, the best thing is to plan
for collecting the information before making judgments—recall that it is unusual for
administrators, teachers, parents, and students to have the same understandings
Following are questions organized by level and type of data that OIP facilitators can use as
they work with districts to complete the Decision Framework.
Level 1: Student Performance
KRA-L Data

In reviewing data for all students, what percent of the students are coming to school in each level?

What is the percentage of children that fall within each KRA-L score band (i.e., assess broadly for intense
instruction; access for targeted instruction; assess for enriched instruction) each year for the past 3 years?

What is the nature and extent of formal early learning experiences children may have had prior to entering
kindergarten and how do these experiences relate to KRA-L results? [compare data according to pre-school
experiences to see if the different experiences contribute to variations in student scores]
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
District pre-school
Title I pre-school
Head-start
Special education
Parent education program
Private preschools
Other public funded pre-schools

How do KRA-L data vary across subgroups of children [compare data according to major disaggregated groups
to determine if a single group or several groups are coming to school significantly behind their peers]?

What mechanisms are in place to monitor ongoing literacy progress in preparation for 3rd grade OAT reading
subtest?
OIP Process Guide
49 of 95
December 2008
State Test Data:

In reviewing disaggregated student data, are there achievement gaps among the groups and what is happening
to the gap(s) over time? Are they widening, staying the same, closing?

How many (number, percentage) students’ scores count in more than one subgroup?

Subscale scores: If you see a cluster of low scores (for instance, in math you might see geometry as well below
par or perhaps 5th grade has a sudden drop off), look at the subscale scores for each of the buildings to see if
those results tend to stand up. If the results are similar in both low performing and high performing buildings, the
probability of cause of the problem increases in areas such as: curriculum alignment, instructional materials
alignment, or lack of professional development across the district.

Consider that the data portrayed show only percent (%) proficient. For those student groups not meeting the
state standard for AYP, look for other signs of significant progress that indicate they are likely/not likely to be
proficient by 2013-14.
o Is a significant percentage of a student group moving from “below basic” to “basic” over the last three years?
o If you average the scale scores for the various groups, is the student group in question progressing at a
faster rate over the last three than the others student groups or faster than the “all” group category? If that
trend continues, could you determine that most of the students will be proficient by 2013-14?
o Do value-added data reflect positive progress even though the percent of proficient students may not meet
state standards? Is this progress sufficient to ensure students will graduate with a solid education?
o Are other assessment data used to gauge student progress against grade level standards and/or their
response to intervention for the purpose of modifying instructional practice (see Assessment Questions)?
Level II: Instructional Management; Educator Quality; Professional Development (PD)
Curriculum:

If a student group is not performing well (e.g., English Language Learners), are there materials that teachers can
use as part of the routine instruction to improve success?

Are instructional responses to cultural differences a possible partial cause of student underachievement?
o Are teachers aware of cultural differences among the student body?

Are additional high quality materials, aligned to the curriculum, available to help students succeed (reading
sources, universally designed software, on-line tutoring, etc.)?

Are curricular materials challenging to the students but within their ability level?
Instruction:

Is there agreement at the district level on what constitutes high quality teaching and learning?

Have teachers been trained in and do they regularly employ differentiated instruction in their classrooms?


o Does the district expect more challenging opportunities to be provided to all students who are typically
succeeding well in class?
o Does the district expect more challenging opportunities to be provided to high-able learners?
o Does the district expect instruction to be modified, as needed, to meet the instructional needs of struggling
learners?
Is the Survey of Enacted Curriculum used to identify the:
o Degree of alignment with state standards and assessment?
o Degree to which teaching targets higher levels (higher order thinking skills, 21st Century skills, etc.) of
learning?
Is after-school tutoring available to students who are not achieving at grade level? Are the tutors highly trained in
OIP Process Guide
50 of 95
December 2008
the content area?

Are students’ language and culture positively integrated into the teaching/learning process?

If a student group is not performing well, especially SWD and/or ELL, but other groups are, is the district sure that
these students have access to and are participating in regular classroom instruction and learning?
Assessment:

Does the district review universal screening data for incoming kindergarten students to ensure that instruction is
differentiated to meet all learners’ needs?

Do data collected from other assessments (e.g., DIBELS, diagnostics, standardized, common formative
assessments) validate or challenge the results of the state assessments?
o Do any of these assessments allow the district/building to dig deeper into a subset of the content area (i.e.,
reading comprehension, fluency, vocabulary, etc.)?

Is progress monitoring or other strategies used to gauge students’ response to interventions to improve access to
grade-level content and to reduce inappropriate referral to special education?
Professional Development:

Is there a commitment to full implementation of any evidence-based practices learned through professional
development?

Is there a process in place for principals, teacher teams, and/or building leadership teams to frequently
observe/monitor classroom instruction to ensure that the “learnings” from professional development are being
consistently implemented at a high level?

Are teachers provided with opportunities to learn from each other?

Does the district have a policy on PD that is aligned with and/or does the district operate in accordance with the
Ohio Standards for Professional Development?
Level III: Expectations and Conditions
Climate:

Is there an account of instructional time lost due to assemblies, field trips, special programs, play day,
celebrations, magazine/book sales, walk-/bike-a-thons, announcements, etc.? If not, should there be?

What percent of the instructional time in each building is lost?

What policies/practices are in place to minimize the loss of instructional time?

Is there a proactive and positive behavior policy in place to minimize discipline referrals and increase access to
instruction?

Is the first language and culture of children valued? In what ways?

If there is a drop in discipline occurrences, are data reviewed to ensure that the drop is due to intentional changes
at district/building/grade levels, and NOT due to:
o
o
o

Increased drop-outs at the high school
Decreases in student attendance
Decreases in student enrollments
If there is an increase in graduation rate, are date reviewed to ensure that the increase is due to more students
graduating, rather than a decrease in the number of students available to graduate (i.e., more high school
students going to community schools).
OIP Process Guide
51 of 95
December 2008
Leadership:

Is the use of shared leadership models supported by the district?

Are leadership teams used to gain focus and alignment of the work across the district?

Are all teachers expected and encouraged to serve on leadership/data/professional learning teams?

Does the district have a policy on prevention/intervention that
o
o
o
o
o
Addresses adult actions necessary when children are not meeting grade-level indicators?
Ensures the use of a consistent prevention/intervention approach on a district-wide basis?
Reduces the inappropriate identification of children as students with a disability (SWD)?
Reduces the disproportionate representation of children from racial/ethnic groups as SWD?
Improves access to challenging curriculum and instruction for all learners?

Does the district have in place practices (e.g., accelerated learning strategies, differentiated instruction,
before/after/summer experiences, etc.) to systematically accelerate the learning of students who are below grade
level to ensure that they graduate at or above grade level?

Has the district eliminated barriers and improved access to accelerated content and placement, including dual
credit options, for high-able learners?
o
Has the district ensured equal access to accelerated content and placement for all students, particularly
those from traditionally underrepresented groups?
Parent/Family, Community, Student Engagement:

Do students generally believe the daily classroom work is challenging and relevant?

Do students generally believe that homework is value added and extends their learning?

Do parents generally believe the district/school curriculum is challenging and is adequately preparing their child
for post-secondary opportunities?
Identify and Affirm Critical Focus Areas
An understanding of the factors that contribute to each of the priority critical problems is
necessary to set goals and identify strategies to address those needs. Only those problems
designated as high priority will be addressed in the improvement plan. The district will use the
information from Stage I to consider the causes of these problems.
The Decision Framework Profile identifies upper level causes. The Decision Framework
results identified one to two performance priority areas that emerged from the data and data
analysis in level I, e.g., reading and mathematics. These should be set aside while the
relationship among the remainder of the causes is examined. The expectations and
conditions focus area will be identified from the review of these relationships.

Relation diagrams are sometimes used to study the relationships between causes. The
interrelationship diagram is used when a complex issue is studied with multiple causes.
Resource 11 describes a process to create a relation diagram. At the conclusion of
examining the relationships, the DLT should have a clear idea about the expectations and
conditions priority area. If there is more than one priority area that is identified, the DLT will
need to prioritize and select the one area that will be addressed in the district plan. Causes
OIP Process Guide
52 of 95
December 2008
that do not relate to the area selected will need to be temporarily set aside for Stage 2
consideration (strategies and actions).
At this point the results from the Decision Framework are presented, interpreted, and
prioritized by the district leadership team. It is very important that the district be focused on a
limited number (i.e., two to three) of priority needs. Focusing on more than that will cause
staff, students, and families to be overwhelmed and struggle to respond to them effectively.
Looking at the list of critical district problems, the DLT identified one to two performance
priority areas that emerged from the data and data analysis in Level I. The DLT also identified
one priority area from the Level III and IV data and data analysis that applies to the district as
a whole and does not directly affect the content priority area(s). For example, the data may
show that students who have low proficiency in reading are also the students who have poor
attendance. Attendance data emerge from Level III but relate to reading and may be one
cause of low reading. Therefore, this critical problem is not universal for all students or adults.
However, if the data from Level III show that there are insufficient processes and procedures
that are consistently implemented across the district; this may be a critical problem that
focuses on adult behaviors and environmental issues. This would then become the
expectations and conditions priority area. The content priority area(s) and expectations and
conditions priority area become the district goals.
Before beginning Stage 2, the DLT should take some time to affirm that the right content and
expectations and conditions priority areas have been selected. This will occur through
dialogue among the DLT members.
Looking back at how the questions for this area were answered in the DF, the DLT should
ask the following questions:
1) Were the responses to the questions accurate and reflective of data versus opinion?
2) Are the data to support the selection of these priority areas strong, for example,
quantitative and qualitatively balanced, high response rate on surveys?
3) Is the ratio of questions to the rating high?
4) Do these areas have the leverage to improve student learning and change teacher
practice?
Once the DLT is satisfied with the answers to these questions, it is ready to begin
development of the focused plan (Stage 2).
The DLT may also want to consider what the district could do to improve the Stage 1
process. Suggestions should be recorded.
OIP Process Guide
53 of 95
December 2008
Ohio Improvement Process
Stage 2: Develop Focused Plan
OIP Process Guide

Create SMART Goals

Develop Research-Based Strategies and
Indicators

Produce Research-Based Actions and
Align Resources
54 of 95
December 2008
Introduction
A plan is strong only if reliable and useful data have been collected.
Developing a few (i.e., two to three) district goals in two areas (i.e.,
student performance and conditions and expectations) that staff
members must act upon form the cornerstone of the plan. These
goals and the strategies to achieve the goals are created from the
causes of the most important and critical problems. Selected
strategies must be research- or evidence-based and consistently
used throughout the district. The indicators for each strategy must be quantifiable and
provide the yardstick by which success is measured. Actions are the bricks and mortar of
the plan, providing the specific events that will occur to accomplish the strategy. Once
the actions are identified and the plan is assembled (mission, goals, strategies,
indicators, actions), it is reviewed in draft form by many stakeholders, including a public
review of the plan that is called for by the local board. Once the draft plan has been
reviewed, it is finalized and adopted by the local board. Following adoption of the plan,
responsibilities and resources for plan implementation are developed.
The outcomes expected from Stage 2 include the following:
▪
Develop focused SMART (Specific, Measurable, Achievable, Relevant, Timely)
goals
▪
Determine prioritized cause-and-effect relationships
▪
Compose strategies for each goal
▪
Establish indicators and baseline and progress measures for each strategy
▪
Create actions that have the greatest likelihood of increasing student
performance and changing teacher-leadership practices
▪
Review, revise, and adopt a district plan
Create SMART Goals
Before meeting with the District Leadership Team to develop goals (sixth DLT


session), the OIP facilitator will need to meet with the DLT chair/cochairs to build an
agenda, prepare packets, and make meeting arrangements. The purpose of this meeting
is to develop SMART goals. The meeting management checklist (Resource 8) can be
used as an aide in preparing for the meeting. The agenda should be sent at least a week
before the meeting. Request a copy be emailed to you. A sample agenda for this DLT
meeting follows. Within each agenda item, time should be built in for questions.
A key concept to emphasize with the Superintendent and chair/cochairs is that the district
will have two to three focused goals. Therefore, if the district has a current CCIP with more
goals than two to three, multiple plans with multiple district goals, or goals that do not match
the two types of goals identified above, the OIP facilitator will need to work with the
Superintendent/chair/cochairs to determine how these current goals will either be
abandoned, revised, or merged with the goals that are developed based on the Decision
Framework priority areas. If the district previously has established goals that align with the
two types of goals, they can serve as a beginning point or reference.
OIP Process Guide
55 of 95
December 2008
SAMPLE AGENDA
District Leadership Team Meeting
Date: December 20, 2008
Time: 8:30 a.m.–10:30 a.m.
Location: Tactful School District Office
Attendees: Superintendent T. B. Wise; Curriculum Director F. T. Child; DLT Cochairs;
DLT Members; OIP Facilitators Ima Winner and Ura Saint
8:30 a.m.–
8:45 a.m.
Meeting Purpose, Ground Rule
Review, and Assignments
Superintendent
8:45 a.m.–
9:00 a.m.
Communicate Research Base and
Importance of Focused Goals
OIP Facilitators
9:00 a.m.–
9:15 a.m.
Goal Criteria and Examples
OIP Facilitators
9:15 a.m.–
10:15 a.m.
Create District Goals
10:15 a.m.–
10:30 a.m.
Next Steps
DLT Members
Superintendent
Summary of Discussion/Decisions:
During this
meeting, the DLT will create goals based on Level I and Level III of the
Decision Framework (DF). The OIP facilitator will need to introduce the concept of a
SMART goal and show how these differ from goals that have been developed in the
past. The goal-setting process should take no more than a few hours. Following are talking
points that follow the above agenda.
AGENDA TOPIC
OIP FACILITATOR TALKING POINTS
HANDOUTS
Purpose of meeting is to create SMART goals.
Meeting
Purpose,
Ground Rule
Review, and
Assignments
OIP Process Guide
Review the agreed upon ground rules that were identified
at the first DLT meeting.
Determine who will fulfill assignments for this meeting, for
example, timekeeper, process observer, information
seeker.
56 of 95
December 2008
AGENDA TOPIC

Communicate
Research
Base and
Importance of
Focused
Goals

OIP FACILITATOR TALKING POINTS
HANDOUTS
Relationship to Leadership (DLT) Role
Grain Size
Visual—
Resource 12
o Setting focused, realistic, and measurable goals is
central to an effective planning process.
o An analysis of 27 studies conducted since 1970 by
the Mid-continent Research for Education and
Learning (McREL) found that when district leaders
establish goals and keep those goals in the
forefront, there is a strong correlation to improved
student achievement (Waters & Marzano, 2006).
o According to the Ohio Leadership Advisory Council
(OLAC), there should be a limited number of district
goals that allow for concentrated focus on the core
work that needs to be done to improve student
performance (Ohio Leadership Development
Framework, 2007).
 Importance of Goals
o Help define the district’s mission.
o Provide direction and focus to the district’s work
and they help avoid chaos.
o Help motivate staff by clarifying and
communicating what the district is striving to
achieve.
o Help staff and leaders become aware of problems
in a timely fashion, which in turn leads to healthy
solutions.
o Help the district plan ahead and be prepared.
o Serve as a basis of recognizing and measuring
accomplishments and successes.

Types of Focused Goals
o
Student Performance Goals focus specifically on
closing a gap between current student
performance and preferred performance levels.
These goals generally begin with “All students. . .
.”
o
Expectations and Conditions Goals improve or
increase the opportunities or potential for
improved learning. These goals often focus on
adult and/or student social behaviors and
environmental issues.
Note: It is possible that a district may need to develop an
additional goal in a cross-content or system wide area.

OIP Process Guide
Goal, Strategy, Action, Indicator Definitions
57 of 95
December 2008
AGENDA TOPIC
OIP FACILITATOR TALKING POINTS
HANDOUTS
Share Resource 12 and explain the differences between
goal, strategy and action in terms of the grain size and the
difference between performance indicator (goal) and
progress indicators (strategies). This should be revisited
when strategies and actions are developed.

Difference Between District and School Plans
It will be helpful to demonstrate the difference between a
district and a school plan. The key differences to
emphasize are:
Goal Criteria
and
Examples

o
District goals and strategies will be used by
building leadership teams (BLTs) to create school
actions.
o
The district has the responsibility to approve
school plans.
o
The district will need to provide resources and
support to schools in the implementation of plans.
o
Buildings cannot add or modify goals or strategies
but based on building data may not address all
strategies in the school improvement plan.
Goals need to be written using SMART criteria. Review
the SMART criteria, providing examples of goals that
meet and do not meet the criteria. It may be useful to
explain the SMART of each goal by providing an anatomy
of a poor and acceptable goal. See Resource 13 for
acceptable goal examples broken down by the SMART
criteria. Resource 13 also provides an illustration of a
district and school plan that may also be used by the OIP
facilitator in thinking about the categories of expectations
and conditions goals and ways to describe measures for
both types of goals.
Sample
Goals—
Resource 13
S = Specific
M = Measurable
A = Attainable and Achievable
R = Realistic and Relevant
T = Timely
Performance indicator is the gauge by which a goal is
determined to be achieved. Performance indicators
usually are written quantitatively, such as return on
investment (ROI) for financial goals, customer satisfaction
rates for parent and community engagement goals,
reduction in time for internal business process goals, or
increases in student performance for learning goals.
OIP Process Guide
58 of 95
December 2008
AGENDA TOPIC
Create
District Goals

OIP FACILITATOR TALKING POINTS
A key concept to emphasize is that the district will have
two to three focused goals. Therefore, the
Superintendent and/or chair/cochairs will need to explain
how the district has elected to create two to three
focused goals.
HANDOUTS
SMART
Goal
Checklist—
Resource
14
Creating goals may be done by dividing the number of
district leadership team members by the number of goals.
Each group will then draft one goal which is then
presented to the remainder of the team. The whole DLT
then evaluates each goal, making any changes
necessary to ensure it meets the criteria for a SMART
goal. Resource 14 provides a checklist for this purpose.
Once the goals are drafted, the OIP facilitator should ask
the DLT to respond to the following questions:
o Is the goal clear and easily understood?
o Can it stand on its own?
o Is it in language that students, parents,
educators, and the community can understand
and not misinterpret?
If the language is unclear, it may be helpful to create a
two-column chart (see below) and guide the DLT through
a discussion of each goal.
What It Isn’t
What It Is
The Superintendent will need to share how the goals will
be approved by the Board of Education.
Next Steps
The chair/cochairs should summarize the next steps to
include:
o
Date of next meeting
o
Draft agenda for next meeting
After the session, it becomes the superintendent’s responsibility to secure the
approval of the local board of education. Endorsement of the goals is of paramount
importance at this juncture in the process as the goals are the platform for the remainder
of the plan.
The approved goals should be sent to the DLT as the basis for developing strategies.
Periodically, a checklist can be used to evaluate meeting effectiveness over a period of
time. This allows everyone in the group to provide written feedback. An example of a
checklist is provided at the end of the previous section.
OIP Process Guide
59 of 95
December 2008
More on Facilitation
Communicating the criteria for SMART goals can be aided by the OIP facilitator knowing
the criteria in detail. The following provides detailed explanation of each criterion. OIP
facilitators will find that developing a goal is not as simple as it appears. There are
generally three hurdles that DLTs experience as they develop a goal. These are:
First Hurdle: Timeline - Goals are generally multiple year and DLTs often struggle with
when to set the end point, particularly in light of federal requirements that impose
deadlines. The plan, however, is not an accountability plan but a performance
improvement plan. Therefore, the DLT should consider a timeline that is realistic,
generally two-three years.
Second Hurdle: Reasonable and Realistic Measure - All grades in all content areas are
not ordinarily at the same starting point (baseline measure)
nor are subgroups within those grades and content areas.
TIP: Facilitators should be
Districts generally want to set a specific percent of
prepared to help the DLT
improvement to close a performance gap, e.g., 7% increase
answer the following questions
in proficiency. However, this percent may not be
to overcome the three hurdles
appropriate for all grades or subgroups. One option is to
to goal development:
select a percent and then determine how that percent
1) What is the appropriate
increase, e.g., 7%, will affect all grade levels. For example,
timeline for a goal?
if 3rd grade reading is at 85.5% proficiency with the special
2) What is a reasonable and
education subgroup at 65%, 4th grade at 78% with the
realistic measure for the goal
special education subgroup at 56%, 5th grade at 53.8% with
that addresses all grade
the special educations subgroup at 40%, is 7% gain
levels and subgroups?
reasonable and does it set the district on the right trajectory
3) What summative
for all students to be proficient? Also, is the 7% calculated
assessment will be used to
from the baseline or added to the baseline (Does 53.8% go
measure progress for all
to 60.8% or 57.6%?) Averaging percents across
grade levels and
grades/subgroups is not advisable. Another option is to set
subgroups?
a separate increase for each grade/subgroup. These are
sticky questions that must be tackled if the goal measure is to reasonable and realistic.
Third Hurdle: Assessment Instrument for Measurement – Identifying a summative
assessment for grades 3-8 and 10 is relatively easy as the OAT/OGT provides this
annual data for multiple years. Districts do not always have summative data for grades
K-2, 9, 11 and 12 and may not have a clearly articulated assessment system. The OIP
facilitator should help the district describe its current assessment system. Gaps in the
system may inform strategies, progress indicators and actions. Data to measure goals
is usually available annually. Some instruments can be used both for summative
(annual) assessment and formative assessment. For example, the Dynamic Indicators of
Basic Early Literacy Skills DIBELS provides data that measures from beginning to end
year (summative) but also provides progress monitoring data on a monthly or more
frequent basis (formative).
Most reading and math series provides formative
assessment data such as skill or theme tests but may not provide summative data.
Some assessment instruments only provide summative data, such as the Ohio
Achievement Test. If the district has only state assessment data available, it may
choose to only include those grades tested in the goal until such time that data for the
other grades is available.
OIP Process Guide
60 of 95
December 2008
SMART Goal Criteria
Specific
Goals should be straightforward and emphasize what the district wants to happen.
Specifics help focus efforts and clearly define what the district is going to do. Specific is
the what, why, and when of the SMART model:
o WHAT are you going to do? Use action words such as direct, organize,
coordinate, lead, develop, plan, build, and so on.
o WHY is this important to do at this time? What does the district want to ultimately
accomplish?
o WHEN is the district going to do it?
It is best to formulate goals that are very specific and clear. Instead of setting a goal to
ensure that all students meet or exceed high academic standards, set a specific goal to
ensure all students meet or exceed standards and benchmarks in reading.
Measurable
In the broadest sense, the goal statement is a measure for the district: If the goal is
accomplished, then it is a success. Set goals that can be measured, so the district can
see when change occurs. Goals should address what the district will see when it
reaches the goal. For instance, phrasing a goal along the lines of “The district wants to
improve reading by X percent” shows the specific target to be measured. In contrast, a
goal phrased like “The district wants all students to read with comprehension” is not
measurable. When the district measures progress, it stays on track, reaches its target
dates, and experiences the exhilaration of achievement.
Attainable and Achievable
When the district identifies goals that are most critical to improving student performance,
the district begins to figure out ways it can make them come true. By setting goals that
are attainable and achievable, the district can develop the attitudes, abilities, skills, and
financial capacities to reach the goals, and then it will begin to see previously overlooked
opportunities to move closer to the achievement of its goals.
Realistic and Relevant
“Realistic” and “relevant” are not synonyms for “easy.” Realistic, in this case, means
“doable.” It means that the learning curve is not a vertical slope, that the skills needed to
do the work are within reach, and that the goal fits with the mission of the district. A
realistic goal may push the skills and knowledge of the people working on it, but it
shouldn’t break them. The goal needs to be realistic for the district but should not be so
incremental that substantive growth is not expected. For example, a goal for all students
to meet or exceed standards in reading may not be realistic for some districts, especially
if a large percent of students are below proficiency. It may be more realistic to set a goal
for a designated percent of students to meet or exceed standards in reading. The district
can then choose to work toward reducing the percent in a realistic, yet ambitious effort.
Sometimes these are referred to as stretch goals. Too difficult and the district is setting
the stage for failure, but too low sends the message that the district isn’t very capable.
Set the bar high enough for a satisfying achievement. Goals must also be relevant.
Relevant goals address the most important and significant aspirations that the district
must target in order to improve student learning.
OIP Process Guide
61 of 95
December 2008
Timely
It is important to set a timeframe that is measurable, attainable, and realistic for each
goal. Putting an end point on the goal gives a clear target to work toward. If the district
does not set a deadline, the commitment is too vague: Without a time limit, there is no
urgency to start taking action, making it difficult, if not impossible, to achieve success.
Throughout Stage 2
OIP facilitators will need to emphasize that overall improvement work, focused on how to
implement a plan to improve student learning, is of greater importance than completing
each plan cell perfectly. Facilitator judgment will determine when the right time is to
introduce a plan template for optimal understanding and a readiness to think about
implementation.
At each point in the plan development, i.e., developing goals, creating strategies,
identifying actions, determining measures, wordsmithing will occur. This can bog down
the process; therefore, it is advisable that once the key concepts are agreed to, ask pairs
of people to work on specific language and then bring back to the whole.
During Stage 2, planning for monitoring (Stage 3) and evaluation (Stage 4) occurs. It is
likely that monitoring and evaluation actions will be written into the plan. Therefore, it will
be important to think about realistic resources (time, people, money) and processes for
monitoring and evaluation. For each strategy and associated actions, the OIP facilitator
should pose the questions:
How will you implement the strategy and actions?
How will you monitor the strategy and actions?
Develop Research-Based Strategies and Indicators
Before meeting with the District Leadership Team to develop strategies and indicators

(eighth DLT session or continuation of seventh session), the OIP facilitator will need to
meet with the DLT chair/cochairs to build an agenda and make meeting arrangements.
The purpose of this meeting is to develop strategies and indicators. If the Decision
Framework Results (by level) and Profile identifies a large number of areas with high
priority, the DLT may need to use a process that examines the cause and effect among
the areas in order to identify a manageable number of cross-cutting strategies.
Resource 15 (Affirm Cause and Effect for Developing Strategies) provides a sample
agenda and materials for the OIP facilitator to use in this situation. The meeting
management checklist (Resource 8) can be used as an aide in preparing for the
meeting. The agenda should be sent prior to the meeting. Request a copy be e-mailed to
you. A sample agenda for this DLT meeting follows. Within each agenda item, time
should be built in for questions.
A key concept to emphasize with the Superintendent and chair/cochairs is that the
district will have a few (no more than four) focused strategies for each of the two to
three goals.
A district strategy must influence education throughout the district or have significant
impact on overall district performance. It must be flexible enough to enable different
buildings, grade levels, disciplines, and/or administrative functions to craft actions
OIP Process Guide
62 of 95
December 2008
appropriate to their setting, the groups they serve, and their data needs. Because of this,
it is important that the membership of each goal work group be customized based on the
goal. Each group must include building-level representation. Building-level
representation is important because each building will use the goals and strategies as
the foundation for creating its own school improvement plan. The individuals suggested
on page 23 of this Guide are the likely candidates for goal work groups. Generally, goal
work groups should be no more than 10 persons. If the group needs additional input on
a specific strategy, select individuals should be brought into consult with the group, but
they should not become a standing member of the group.
SAMPLE AGENDA
District Leadership Team Meeting
Date: January 18, 2009
Time: 8:30 a.m.–11:00 a.m. and 1:00–3:30 p.m.
Location: Tactful School District Office
Attendees: Superintendent T. B. Wise; Curriculum Director F. T. Child; DLT Cochairs; DLT
Members; OIP Facilitators Ima Winner and Ura Saint
8:30 a.m.–8:45 a.m.
Meeting Purpose, Ground Rule
Review, and Assignments
Superintendent
8:45 a.m.–9:15 a.m.
Strategy Criteria and Examples
OIP Facilitators
9:15 a.m.–10:30 a.m.
Create Research Based
Strategies
10:30 a.m.–11:00 a.m.
Evaluate and Refine Draft
Strategies
11:00 a.m.–1:00 p.m.
Lunch/Break
1:00 a.m.–1:30 p.m.
Indicator Criteria and Examples
1:30 a.m.–2:30 p.m.
Create Progress Indicators
2:30 p.m.–3:00 p.m.
Evaluate and Refine Indicators
DLT Members
3:15 a.m.–3:30 a.m.
Next Steps
Chair/Cochairs
Goal Work Groups
DLT Members
OIP Facilitators
Goal Work Groups
Summary of Discussion/Decisions
During this meeting, the DLT will create strategies based on the Decision Framework
Profile results. The OIP facilitator will need to introduce strategy criteria, discuss what it
means to be “research- or evidence-based,” and show how the strategies that will be
developed differ from strategies that have been developed in the past. Showing
OIP Process Guide
63 of 95
December 2008
examples of strategies from the CCIP and examples of well-developed strategies may
be helpful. The strategy and indicator development process should take no more than a few
hours. Following are talking points that follow the above agenda.
AGENDA TOPIC

Meeting
Purpose,
Ground Rule
Review, and
Assignments
OIP FACILITATOR TALKING POINTS
HANDOUTS
Purpose of meeting is to create research-based
strategies. Review Strategy and Indicator Definition in
Resource 12. Defining strategy is important in the plan
development process because educators typically reach
for short-term remedies that are popular, such as
authentic assessment, professional learning
communities, and curriculum mapping, without having
an overall strategy that justifies the choice or allows the
district to evaluate whether the remedy is working to
achieve goals.
Grain Size
Visual—
Resource 12
Review the agreed upon ground rules that were
identified at the first DLT meeting.
Determine who will fulfill assignments for this meeting,
for example, timekeeper, process observer, information
seeker.
Strategies are action oriented and they describe the key
approaches the district will implement. They are written
as specific, measurable statements about what is going
to be accomplished to meet a need and get closer to
reaching a goal within a given timeframe.
Strategy
Criteria and
Examples
Strategy criteria are as follows:
 Limited to a reasonable number per goal (2-4)
 Focused
 Feasible
 Practical
 Based on decision framework profile results
 Consistent with current research
 Written using clear jargon-free language that is
able to stand on its own without additional
explanation
 Often multiyear
To help the goal work groups prepare to write strategies,
sharing a sample strategy that meets the above criteria
and working as a group to build a sample strategy (learn
by doing) will help them know what is expected and allow
for questions to be raised that may inform the process. It
may also be helpful to show strategy examples from the
CCIP and compare them to the sample. A sample goal
and strategy might look like this.
OIP Process Guide
64 of 95
December 2008
AGENDA TOPIC
OIP FACILITATOR TALKING POINTS
HANDOUTS
Goal:
By 2011, all students in Grades K–12 will
improve performance on the OAT/OGT
(grades 3-8 and 10) and local summative
assessments (grades K-2, 9 and 11) by ____
% each year in reading.
Strategy:
Write the standards-based curriculum so as
to focus every administrator, teacher, staff
member, and student on understanding and
application.

Create
ResearchBased
Strategies
TIP:
Emphasize
the
importance
of
accelerating
subgroup
performance
to meet all
school
progress.
The purpose of this activity is to identify cross-cutting
ideas that will result in a manageable number of
strategies. Using the Decision Framework Profile,
share the recurring ideas and seek agreement
(manageable number, e.g., two to four) on the strategy
categories. This may require prioritizing and merging of
ideas. Divide each goal work group by the number of
strategy categories and have each subgroup write a first
draft strategy statement that will address the needs
listed.
Once the strategies are drafted, they need to be
checked against the most current research available on
the topic. This task serves two functions: 1) to help
provide focus to the strategy and 2) to increase the
likelihood of improving student performance, assuming
that the strategy is successfully implemented.
The Ohio Department of Education defines researchbased practices as the process of reviewing, assessing,
and applying proven strategies to address data-determined
needs. Research-based solutions should be evaluated on
two dimensions: quality and relevance. The questions that
need to be answered are as follows:
o
o
o
o
o
OIP Process Guide
Decision
Framework
Results
To what degree are our strategies grounded in
research or evidence?
Are there systematic, empirical methods that draw
on observation or experiment?
Is there rigorous data analysis that is adequate to
test and justify the general conclusions drawn?
Has the strategy been evaluated using experimental
or quasi-experimental designs with appropriate
controls to evaluate the effects?
Is there sufficient detail and clarity to allow for
replication?
65 of 95
December 2008
AGENDA TOPIC
OIP FACILITATOR TALKING POINTS
o
HANDOUTS
Has the strategy been accepted by a peer-reviewed
journal or approved by a panel of independent
experts?
A source or explanation should be provided in response
to each question. If the group cannot answer a
question, then it may need to call on others in the
district or search for the answers through the Internet or
by interviewing experts in the field. Once the group feels
confident that the strategies it has developed are based
on prioritized data needs from Stage 1 and are
grounded in scientific- or evidence-based research, the
group is ready to present to all the goal work groups.
Evaluate and
Refine Draft
Strategies
Each of the goal work groups will need to share its
strategies with each other. These should be provided in
writing and also displayed so that all participants can
see them. It is suggested that they either be written on
flip chart paper or projected on a screen.
Strategy
Evaluation
Checklist—
Resource 16
As each goal work group presents, it will need to
describe how the strategy meets the above criteria and
respond to questions from the other goal work groups.
Each group then should meet to make any necessary
revisions and submit the revised statement to the DLT
member of their group. The district leadership team will
need to meet to review the strategies, examining them
for redundancy, overlap, and coherence in order to
ensure a reasonably structured set of strategies.

Either the DLT or the Goal Work Groups should review
all goals and strategies and evaluate the strategies
using the Strategy Evaluation Checklist—Resource
16.
A strategy indicator is the gauge by which a strategy is
determined to be met. There are two types of strategy
indicators: adult implementation and student performance.
Strategy
Indicator
Criteria and
Examples
A baseline measure is established for each type of
indicator. Short-term progress measures are set to assess
degree of changes in knowledge, skills, attitudes, policies
and/or practices and student performance. It is easiest to
begin from the baseline and list progress measures that
demonstrate a change, e.g., increase in percentages. It
is also advisable to identify the data source for each
indicator, e.g., as measured by____.
Indicators are developed for each strategy, generally one
adult implementation and one student performance,
although it is possible and desirable, that some of the
OIP Process Guide
66 of 95
December 2008
AGENDA TOPIC
TIP: Data
sources for
indicators
may include
classroom
observations,
survey data,
formative
assessment
results,
analysis of
lesson plans
or team
meeting
notes.
OIP FACILITATOR TALKING POINTS
HANDOUTS
same indicators will be used across strategies. That is why
indicators cannot be finalized until all strategies have been
developed.
The questions that the district leadership team needs to
ask itself are as follows:
o
o
o
What evidence would make us feel we are making
progress?
How can we collect this evidence?
Of all the measures we could have chosen, why
did we chose these?
For each strategy, two types of measures will need to be
developed:
o
o
Baseline measures: These help to identify the
starting point for change and provide a reference
point in identifying realistic progress measures.
Progress measures: These assess movement
toward achieving strategies. They are shortterm (e.g., quarterly for districts or monthly for
buildings) measures of changes in knowledge,
skills, attitudes, policies, and/or practices and
student performance. They help to determine
whether the district is improving.
Strategy indicator criteria are:

Data should be available, reliable, accurate,
valid and reflect reality

Data should be able to be collected on a regular
basis, e.g., quarterly for districts, monthly for
buildings.

Data should be understandable, meaningful and
easily communicated

Cost of getting data should be acceptable
The OIP facilitator shares an indicator that meets the
criteria and build a sample indicator (learn by doing) with
the group to help the group know what is expected and
allow for questions to be raised that may inform the
process. This may be done in pairs, triads, or as a whole
group depending on size of group and time allotted to task.
A sample goal, strategy, and indicator might look like this:
Goal: By 2011, all students in Grades K–12
will improve performance on the OAT/OGT
(grades 3-8 and 10) and local summative
assessments (grades K-2, 9 and 11) by ____
% each year in reading
OIP Process Guide
67 of 95
December 2008
AGENDA TOPIC
OIP FACILITATOR TALKING POINTS
HANDOUTS
Strategy: Write the standards-based English
Language Arts (ELA) curriculum so as to focus
every administrator, teacher, and student on
understanding and application.
Adult Implementation Indicator: 100 percent of
K–12 teachers, students, and administrators in
the district will consistently implement the
district standards-based ELA curriculum as
evidenced by an analysis of lesson plans and
classroom observations.
Baseline Measure: Less than 20 percent of K–
12 teachers, 5 percent of students in Grades K–
12, and 35 percent of administrators can
articulate the district K–5 standards-based
curriculum. Level of implementation is unknown.
Progress Measures: 10% increase every four
months
Create
Indicators
TIP:
Identify a
goal and/or
strategy
manager
who
oversees
implementation. This
provides
opportunity
for shared
leadership
across the
DLT.
OIP Process Guide
Goal work groups will need to review the final draft of the
strategies. All data applicable to the goal and strategy
should be made available to the group. The groups should
work on the same strategies they developed in the
morning, and devise baseline and progress measures by
responding to the following baseline and progress
questions:
Baseline Questions
o What does the data say about where the district
is in relation to this strategy?
o If there is insufficient data to create a baseline,
what and how will data be immediately collected
to form a baseline?
Progress Questions
o How would it be determined whether the district
was successful at the end of three years if this
strategy were fully implemented with integrity?
o What are the changes in knowledge, skills,
attitudes, policy, and practices and student
performance that should be seen during the
course of three years?
o What evidence will be needed to know if the
changes occur?
o What data need to be collected or are available
to document the changes?
o What procedures will be followed for collecting
the data?
68 of 95
December 2008
AGENDA TOPIC
OIP FACILITATOR TALKING POINTS
o
o
How will the data be displayed and
communicated?
How will it be ensured the indicator(s) will be
measured consistently and accurately?
Each of the goal work groups will need to share their
indicators with each other. These should be provided in
writing and also displayed so that all participants can
see them. It is suggested that they either be written on
flip chart paper or projected on a screen.
Evaluate and
Refine
Indicators

HANDOUTS
Indicator
Evaluation
Checklist—
Resource 17
As each goal work group presents its indicators, it will
need to describe how the indicators meet the above
criteria and respond to questions from the other goal
work groups. Each group then should meet to make any
necessary revisions and submit the revised indicators to
the DLT member of their group. The DLT will need to
meet to review the indicators, examining them for
redundancy, overlap, and coherence in order to ensure
a reasonably structured set of indicators.
Either the DLT or the Goal Work Groups should review
and evaluate the indicators using Resource 17.
The Superintendent will need to share how the strategies
and indicators will be communicated to the board of
education and how stakeholder input will be gathered and
used.
Next Steps
The chair/cochairs should summarize the next steps to
include:
o
o
Date of next meeting
Procedures for gathering stakeholder input
o
Draft agenda for next meeting
After the meeting, the strategies and indicators should be written and sent out to the
DLT in preparation for developing actions. Soliciting stakeholder input into the goals,
strategies and indicators will occur at this juncture. There are several options for obtaining
feedback from stakeholders about the goals, draft strategies, and indicators. A brief
explanation of each follows.

Electronic or Paper Survey
Creating a survey can be a relatively easy and inexpensive method of collecting
feedback about the goals, strategies, and indicators. Some surveys use open-ended
prompts. This type of survey often is mailed to stakeholders who then complete the
survey and mail it back to the district. Resource 18 provides a sample survey. The
district leadership team reviews the responses and makes adjustments as they deem
appropriate.
OIP Process Guide
69 of 95
December 2008
Surveys also can be electronic. There are websites such as www.surveymonkey.com
where surveys can be produced and analyzed for free (depending on the number of
respondents and the complexity of the survey) or at minimal cost. This type of survey
can use a combination of forced responses and short-answer questions. The benefits of
an online survey include their low cost to administer and that the software program
analyzes the data. The data also can be sorted by respondent group. The downside of
using this technology is that it may not be readily available to all stakeholders from
whom the district desires responses.
Focus Groups
As described earlier, focus groups, or focused group interviews, are facilitated group
discussions in which an interviewer asks a group a series of questions. Group members
provide responses to the question and a discussion ensues.

District Leadership Team Interviews
Another method to gather stakeholder input about the goals, strategies, and indicators is
for each member of the district leadership team to interview five persons who represent
their constituent group and meet specified conditions. Questions for the interviews
should include qualitative and quantitative questions. Once the indicators are finalized,
they should be included in a spreadsheet or project management tool which can easily
be updated and forwarded to district leadership team members. An interview protocol
can be found in Resource 20.
More on Facilitation
The amount of empirical research to support educational improvement is somewhat
limited because it requires the publication of findings in refereed journals (scientific
publications that employ a process of peer review), duplication of the results by other
investigators, and a consensus within a particular research community about whether
there is a critical mass of studies that points toward a particular conclusion.
Even if educators have access to the scientific evaluation, the research literature
sometimes fails to provide clear direction. In these cases, educators must rely on their
own reasoning processes as informed by experience.
Produce Research-Based Actions and Align Resources
Before meeting with the DLT to develop actions (ninth DLT meeting), the OIP
facilitator needs to meet with the DLT chair/cochairs to build an agenda and make
meeting arrangements. The purpose of this meeting is to develop actions for each
strategy. The stakeholder input should be reviewed prior to this meeting, and goals,
strategies, and indicators revised by the Superintendent and chair/cochairs if necessary.
These should be sent to the DLT prior to this meeting.

The meeting management checklist (Resource 8) can be used as an aide in
preparing for the meeting. The agenda should be sent prior to the meeting. Request a
copy be emailed to you. A sample agenda for this DLT meeting follows. Within each
agenda item, time should be built in for questions.
The most important thing to remember is that each action for achieving the goal or strategy
should either have a direct impact on students or indirectly impact students, such as ongoing
professional development and capacity building.
OIP Process Guide
70 of 95
December 2008
Each district will approach action development differently depending on how they are
organized. For example, if a district has groups or teams that work on specific initiatives,
for example, Reading First, Technology, Professional Development, then these are the
groups or teams that need to be organized for this task. If a district has departments that
have defined work plans (written or unwritten), for example, Curriculum or Teaching and
Learning Department/Team, Assessment Department/Team, then these are the groups
or teams that need to be organized for this task. Basically, any structure (team,
department, work group) within a district that has responsibility for a plan or scope of
work needs to engage in this part of the process.
Each district group/team/department needs to review its current plans, programs, and
practices for three purposes.
1. The first and most important purpose is to decide which actions should or should
not continue based on whether they are consistent with the Stage 1 results. It is
important to remember that the plan will have a limited number of actions to
implement the strategies and achieve the goals.
2. The second purpose is to ensure that the actions meet federal, state, and district
requirements, for example, districts are federally required to coordinate and
integrate services include appropriate actions to promote effective parent
involvement.
3. The third purpose is to ensure that proposed actions are grounded in research.
NCLB requires districts to use scientifically based research to guide decisions
about which actions to implement. There are many actions a district could identify
to implement a strategy. As the Institute of Education Sciences points out, many
of these actions claim to be able to improve educational outcomes and, in many
cases, to be supported by evidence. This evidence often consists of poorly
designed and/or advocacy-driven studies. Districts must sort through these
claims to decide which interventions merit consideration.
This is one of the most difficult parts of the process to facilitate as it generally requires
abandonment or modification of programs and/or initiatives that someone or some group
in the district is involved with. It is important to remind the DLT that the intent is to have
one focused plan that drives district work, not another plan to add to existing plans.
OIP Process Guide
71 of 95
December 2008
SAMPLE AGENDA
District Leadership Team Meeting
Date: February 15, 2009
Time: 8:30 a.m.–11:00 a.m. and 1:00 p.m.–3:30 p.m.
Location: Tactful School District Office
Attendees: Superintendent T. B. Wise; Curriculum Director F. T. Child; DLT Cochairs;
DLT Members; OIP Facilitators Ima Winner and Ura Saint
8:30 a.m.–
8:45 a.m.
Meeting Purpose, Ground Rule
Review, and Assignments
8:45 a.m.–
9:15 a.m.
Review Goals, Strategies &
Indicators and Action Criteria
Chair/cochairs
9:15 a.m.–
10:30 a.m.
Keep, Drop or Modify Actions
DLT/Goal Work Groups
10:30 a.m.–
11:30 a.m.
Generate Actions
DLT/Goal Work Groups
11:30 a.m.–
1:00 p.m.
Break/Lunch
1:00 a.m.–
2:00 p.m.
Prioritize Research- or
Evidence-Based Actions
2:00 a.m.–
2:45 p.m.
Consideration of Universal
Actions
DLT Members
2:45 a.m.–
3:00 p.m.
Affirmation of Actions
DLT Members
3:00 a.m.–
3:15 p.m.
Monitoring Approach
DLT Members
3:15 a.m.–
3:30 a.m.
Next Steps
Chair/Cochairs
Superintendent
OIP Facilitators/
Chair/Cochairs
Summary of Discussion/Decisions
OIP Process Guide
72 of 95
December 2008
During this meeting, the DLT will create actions for each strategy. The action
development process may take several hours. Following are talking points that follow the
above agenda.
AGENDA TOPIC

Meeting Purpose,
Ground Rule
Review, and
Assignments
Review Goals,
Strategies,
Indicators and
Action Criteria
Keep, Drop,
Modify Actions
TIP:
Facilitators will
want to
continually ask
the DLT:
OIP FACILITATOR TALKING POINTS
Purpose of meeting is to create research-based actions
or specific steps to operationalize the strategy and
achieve the goal. Review Action Definition in Resource
12.
Determine who will fulfill assignments for this meeting,
for example, timekeeper, process observer,
information seeker.
Engage the DLT and goal work groups in reviewing
the Board of Education approved goals, strategies
and indicators. A thorough understanding of these is
the basis for developing the district and building level
actions.
BoardApproved
Goals,
Strategies,
Indicators
Criteria for Actions: Specific, discrete, actionable, and
relevant. Often short-term and can be assigned. Each
action statement should begin with a verb.
Depending on the number of current plans the district
has, it may be necessary to use groups for this task.
Using current plans (also may need to consider
applications, performance reports/agreements, event
calendars, and other documents which require the
department to take action).

Match each action to the approved strategies.

Keep actions that do not fit with one or more
strategies on a separate list for future discussion
with the DLT. It is important that district staff know
that the final set of actions will become the work for
which they will be held accountable. In addition,
every district department/team may not have actions
for every goal and/or every strategy.

Determine whether each action should be kept (K),
dropped (D), or modified (M). If an action requires
modification, make the adjustments in some means
that will make proposed changes obvious. The
following criteria may be used when deciding
whether to keep, drop, or modify an action:
o
OIP Process Guide
Grain Size
Visual—
Resource 12
Review the agreed upon ground rules that were
identified at the first DLT meeting.
How does the
improvement
work relate to
the on-going
work of the
district?
How do these
actions replace
and change the
work rather than
“add on” to the
work of the
district?
HANDOUTS
If the action is fully completed, will it contribute to
implementation of the strategy?
73 of 95
December 2008
AGENDA TOPIC
Generate Actions
OIP FACILITATOR TALKING POINTS
o
Does the action reach the targeted student
population and content area(s)?
o
Does the action reach a critical mass of targeted
school staff, students, and/or families?
o
Given the overall goal of improving student
performance, do the benefits outweigh the
costs, i.e., time, people, money, materials,
supplies, technology?
Identify possible new actions by examining the causeand effect diagrams and/or the Decision Framework
Profile to check that the priority causes are addressed
either by existing actions or by new actions. It is possible
that a cause may need to be worded as a possible
action. An example of reworking is as follows:
HANDOUTS
Decision
Framework
Profile
Cause: The bargaining agreement prevents us from
offering after professional development.
Possible action: Negotiate the bargaining agreement
to allow after school professional development on a
pilot basis.
Determine which actions have strong or possible
evidence of effectiveness once a complete list of
possible actions by strategies has been developed. This
can be accomplished by asking two questions:
Prioritize
Research- or
Evidence-Based
Actions
o
Is the action/intervention backed by strong
evidence of effectiveness?
o
If the action/intervention is not backed by
strong evidence, is it backed by possible
evidence of effectiveness?
If the answer to both questions is negative, then the
district should conclude that the proposed action or
intervention is not supported by meaningful evidence.
This information should be strongly considered when the
DLT prioritizes actions.
Before the DLT prioritizes, it should identify overlaps,
conflicts, relationships, and logical sequence between
and among actions listed for each strategy. Combine
actions that duplicate or overlap.
Review the entire set of actions for each goal and
strategy and ask the group to think about these
questions:
o
OIP Process Guide
Will this set of actions allow the district to
74 of 95
December 2008
AGENDA TOPIC
OIP FACILITATOR TALKING POINTS
o
o
o
HANDOUTS
accomplish its goals and strategies and enable
the district to meet the indicators that have been
set?
Is this the right set of actions to sufficiently
address the goals?
Can this set of actions be accomplished
within one year)?
Are the actions supported by strong or
possible evidence-based research?
Using “dot voting,” reach consensus on critical actions for
each strategy.
In order to have systemwide coherence, the district
will need to take the set of actions from the above
tasks and examine them through universal actions:
professional development, communication,
technology, resource management, and data. This
task can be accomplished by small groups for
efficiency. For each strategy and set of actions, the
group should ask the following questions:
Consideration of
Universal Actions
o
What, if any, professional development and
support is needed for this action to occur?
o
Who needs to know about this action, when do
they need to know, and how will they be
informed about it?
o
What technology is needed for this action to
be implemented efficiently and effectively?
o
What resources (time, people, materials,
supplies, and funds) are needed to support
this action? Will this require reallocation of
resources?
o
What data are needed to support this action?
How and by whom will the data be collected?
When and for what purpose will it be
collected? Are the data for evaluation and
monitoring?
Responses to these questions may result in additional
actions for the district plan. The district also will need to
examine each of the proposed actions to ensure that
each meets the criteria of a good action statement.
Consider whether the action is to be developed,
implemented, evaluated, or monitored.
Affirmation of
Actions
OIP Process Guide
Once the above task has been completed, ask the
whole group to review the plan for coherence and
75 of 95
December 2008
AGENDA TOPIC
OIP FACILITATOR TALKING POINTS
HANDOUTS
alignment. Make any final adjustments as necessary.
Complete the Plan
Implementation
Details
Once all actions are complete, ask the DLT to identify
the monitoring evidence/data sources that will be used to
document that the action is implemented.
Responsibilities, timelines and resources will also need
to be assigned to each action. The DLT will want to
strive for a balance of person/groups responsible for
actions steps. Tasks for each action will be generated
by the person/groups responsible for each action and
reviewed by the strategy managers to ensure equitable
distribution of assignments. Tasks are a list of activities
that need to be taken for someone to complete an
action. At this point the resources needed for each
action can be stated in general terms, e.g., software
license, printing costs, training materials for a specified
number of individuals. At a later time, the treasurer or
other person responsible for fiscal funding sources will
develop detailed budget breakdowns that correspond to
the implementation details.
A discussion on the approach the DLT will take to
monitor the entire plan needs to occur. Considerations
may include:
Monitoring
Approach
o
Including actions in the plan that ensure
monitoring occurs
o
Development of a separate document that
describes the monitoring approach
o
Frequent, e.g., quarterly, discussion of
monitoring results at DLT meetings
Depending on the decisions reached, the DLT may need
to schedule a separate session to discuss specific
monitoring processes or it may identify a subcommittee
to develop alternative proposals for presentation to the
whole DLT. It is important that time and attention to this
topic be scheduled.
The Superintendent will need to share how the plan be
reviewed, revised and adopted.
Next Steps
OIP Process Guide
The chair/cochairs should summarize the next steps to
include:
o
Date of next meeting
o
Draft agenda for next meeting
76 of 95
December 2008
In addition to assigning a position to each action, the district may choose to list other key
personnel who also will work on the action. By doing this, the district indicates that there are
multiple people who will actively participate in completing the action, yet one individual will still
be held responsible and accountable for completion.

After the meeting, the plan should be put into the appropriate template (CCIP, district
developed or ODE provided—see Resource 21) and checked against the district plan
criteria (see Resource 19). The plan should be edited and sent to the DLT and Goal
Work Groups.
Another important task after the strategies and actions are complete is to allocate and
align resources to them. It is the DLTs responsibility to intentionally align resources to
achieve the plan goals. In planning, a resource allocation decision is made for using all
available resources, for example, human resources, funding in the near term, that is, year, to
achieve goals and strategies for the future. Resource alignment and allocations have two rts:
First, there is the basic allocation decision and second there are contingency mechanisms.
The basic allocation decision is the choice of which items to fund in the plan during which
year (if the plan includes multiple year strategies and actions), and what level of funding they
should receive. It is suggested that districts have a solid idea of funding resources for each
strategy for the next three years.
There are two contingency mechanisms. There is a priority ranking of items, showing which
items to expand or advance if more resources should become available; and there is a
priority ranking of some items in the plan, showing which items could be reduced or
postponed if funding is reduced.
The DLT will need to consider the following basic tenets when aligning and allocating
resources:
▪
Does our resource allocation reflect that student performance is our highest
priority?
▪
Will our budget demonstrate accountability to our internal and external
stakeholders?
Are our budget decisions based upon relevant data?
Will our budget process measure the results of our goals, strategies and actions?
Does our budget leverage resources from a variety of sources in order to
maximize full implementation of the plan?
Are our resource allocation decisions based on population-based need in order
to achieve results in increased student performance and changes in teacher
practice?
▪
▪
▪
▪
More on Facilitation
TIMELINES
Each action will need a timeline that provides a deadline for the action to be completed. The
individuals who will become responsible for the action will create more detailed timelines in
the future as they assign tasks to each action.
OIP Process Guide
77 of 95
December 2008
The first activity in creating timelines is to draft a sequence of the actions in a three-year plan
by indicating the implementation year. (The plan may be two to five years depending on the
district’s approach.) Reviewing the strategy indicators will provide a basis for determining
what and how much needs to be accomplished over a three-year period. Use a logical
sequence and levels of implementation (development, implementation, monitoring, and
evaluation) to guide the determination of the year to implement. Once this is completed,
the team or group should undertake the actions identified for year one and complete the
timelines in the plan format. The actions listed for years two and beyond should be
documented and maintained for future plans.
Because timelines are affected by a variety of unforeseen factors, it is advisable for the
district plan to use a quarter-calendar system for documenting key deadlines. Quarters could
correspond, for example, to a fiscal calendar or to the school year calendar. In any case,
timelines must be realistic. Considering each action in terms of development, implementation,
evaluation, and monitoring will help put actions into a logical sequence.
As the timelines are being identified, it is suggested that the district create a plan calendar.
This can be easily accomplished by making a chart of each month used in the above timeline
and then abbreviating each action next to the month it is listed. This activity will help the
district to determine if actions are realistic given the human resources needed to accomplish
them and to ensure there is no duplication of effort. For example, if more than one action calls
for teams to work on an action and the team members are likely to be the same individuals,
the calendar will help identify if team members have schedule conflicts or if the pacing of
actions for the team is realistic. Major actions that affect many people in the district may need
to be placed on the official district calendar that is distributed to all employees.
MONITORING EVIDENCE/DATA SOURCES
Evidence of completion of each action will need to be documented and maintained in a
portfolio by the program assistant. It is advisable to have no more than two forms of evidence
for each action. It also is likely that the same form of evidence may apply to multiple actions.
On the plan, evidence can be denoted in key terms or coded using a list of evidence that has
been generated. Sources may include but are not limited to observation summaries,
schedules, written policies or procedures, professional development training, analysis of logs,
analysis of assessment results, meeting summaries and decisions.
RESPONSIBILITIES
Responsibilities in the plan need to be specifically referenced. They must designate
accountability and show a clear relationship between the actions and who has responsibility
for them. Some guidelines for assigning responsibility are:
□ Do use position titles, e.g., English
Language Arts Coordinator.
□ Do not use specific names, e.g., Mary Smith.
□ Do assign one position, e.g., Assistant
Superintendent for Curriculum.
□ Do not assign multiple departments, teams,
positions, e.g., ELA Coordinator and
Assistant Superintendent for Curriculum.
OIP Process Guide
78 of 95
December 2008
□ Do provide a position title for someone
who is employed by the district.
□ Do not assign someone who is not an
employee of the district, e.g., PTA President.
□ Do assign a position to someone who
is actively employed.
□ Do not assign a position that is currently
vacant.
□ Do assign a position to someone who
will be and can be held accountable
for completing the action.
□ Do not assign a position to someone who
has no control or responsibility for the action.
□ Do assign a position to someone who
is close to and has a relationship to
the action.
□ Do not assign a high-level administrator to
each action, e.g., indicating the
superintendent is responsible for every
action.
RESOURCES (BUDGET, MATERIAL, TECHNOLOGY)
Once action monitoring evidence/data sources, responsibilities and timelines are assigned,
resources including a detailed budget of estimated costs will need to be developed in
consultation with the district staff who are responsible for fiscal resources. Once the detailed
budget breakdowns are completed, these will need to be rolled up by strategy. These budget
figures become the basis for the district Comprehensive Continuous Improvement Plan
(CCIP) funding application for the upcoming year. Integrating the CCIP with the resource
allocation part of the district plan ensures that federal and state entitlement and competitive
funds are used to support the district strategies.
This process can be tedious but it is critically important. Frequently, individuals who work on
budget line items arbitrarily allocate a lump sum figure to an action, e.g., $10,000, but do not
take the time to think through the actual costs. Lump sum estimations usually are incorrect
and result in budgets being under- or overestimated, creating spending difficulties for the
district. It may be advisable to seek assistance from someone in the treasurer’s office during
the development of the detailed budget.
An example of a detailed budget is shown below:
Example of a Detailed Budget Breakdown
Action A.2: Examine and remedy, if necessary, the district curriculum to determine if
important concepts and processes are well represented through pictures, figures, charts,
video clips, or other graphic formats in addition to narrative descriptions.
Object Code
Detailed Budget Breakdown
TOTAL
X
Salaries/Stipends
4 Elementary, 1 Middle & 1 HS ELA teacher leader @ 20 hours X $35/hr.
$25,200
X
Fringe Benefits
6 teachers leaders $700 X .0765 (FICA)
$535.50
OIP Process Guide
79 of 95
December 2008
Example of a Detailed Budget Breakdown
Action A.2: Examine and remedy, if necessary, the district curriculum to determine if
important concepts and processes are well represented through pictures, figures, charts,
video clips, or other graphic formats in addition to narrative descriptions.
Object Code
Detailed Budget Breakdown
TOTAL
X
Materials/Supplies
ELA graphic organizer laminated charts X 90 classrooms @50
ELA video clips X 90 classrooms @150
Bar coding labels for above $200
$4500
$13,500
$200
X
Purchased Services
External facilitator for 8 days @ $750/day including travel expenses
$6000
X
Capital Outlay
SmartBoard @ $15,000
$15,000
X
TOTAL
$64,936
In creating a detailed budget, it is important to consider the following questions:
Will staff be needed to carry out the action?
If yes, will the staff be dedicated by: a) a certain percentage of a job, e.g., 0.20 FTE; b)
position, e.g. four literacy coaches; c) stipends for beyond the work schedule, e.g., 20 hours
per person, or d) substitute costs? Once it is determined who will be needed, the amount of
money for the position or the stipend can be determined based on district negotiated
amounts. If fringe benefits such as Social Security (FICA), and health and life insurance are
needed, these will need to be calculated as well. Generally, if stipends are paid, FICA will
need to be calculated at a rate of 0.0765. The detail will be written in the detail budget
breakdown column of the plan with a total for that item included in the salary/stipend column.
Will any materials or supplies be needed to carry out the action beyond what is provided by
the district as part of its ongoing operational budget?
If yes, the amount and types of materials and supplies will need to be determined. The
treasurer should be able to provide common costs of materials and supplies. Typical
materials and supplies include flip chart paper, markers, paper, and copier toner. Unique
supplies or materials may include tables and chairs for a teacher planning room. Technology
equipment that costs less than a certain amount (see district procedures) may be included in
the materials and supplies column.
Will other services be needed to carry out the action?
If yes, the type of other services and the associated costs will need to be identified. Typical
other services (sometimes referred to as purchased services) include travel and
accommodation costs, rental costs, membership fees, maintenance costs, refreshment costs
(for nonemployees), and contracted services. Again, the contractual agreement or district
procedures likely will provide guidance on the amounts that can be budgeted. For example,
lodging to attend a meeting may need to meet the state-approved hotel rate or consultant
fees may be limited. Most districts do not allow the use of federal and state funds for
refreshments for employees of the districts; these funds can be used for meetings involving
parents and/or community representatives.
OIP Process Guide
80 of 95
December 2008
Will any capital outlay be needed to carry out the action?
It is unlikely that capital will be used when developing a budget breakdown because it covers
items that are expensive, e.g., technology equipment over a specific amount (see district
procedures), or assets that are related to district infrastructure, e.g., building materials or
construction costs.
Once all actions are estimated, the budget will need to be rolled up to the strategy and goal
level. The DLT will need to review the resource allocation decisions by determining the
benefits of the actions to implement the strategy and determining if there are any gaps
between costs and resources. This may require the group to evaluate the overall strategy in
relation to the following questions:
o
o
o
o
o
Which strategies were assigned the highest priority?
Which actions are critical to accomplishing the strategy?
Are the costs associated with the critical and noncritical actions
proportionate?
Are there actions that support more than one strategy?
Are the actions relevant and culturally responsive, i.e., is there a contextual fit
between the setting or culture in which the actions will be implemented?
The funding source(s) for each action also will need to be identified. This should become the
responsibility of the treasurer’s office in consultation with the DLT. If a gap exists between
available resources and the costs of strategies, the DLT should examine whether the district
is committing resources to discretionary activities that are not part of the plan. If this is the
case, they should recommend to the superintendent and treasurer that resources be shifted
from these activities to the strategies and actions in the plan. For example, if the district has
always funded an event that has become a tradition, such as an arts showcase with limited
student involvement, and this showcase does not directly relate to one of the strategies, this
activity may need to be abandoned or another organization such as the local area arts
council may need to be approached to take over responsibility.
The guiding principle in allocating resources should be that the strategies outlined in the
CCIP take precedence over any discretionary activities not in the plan.
If a gap still remains, the goal work group can explore the following options:
o
o
o
o
o
Which actions can be eliminated or scaled down without jeopardizing the
strategy?
Which actions can be redesigned for greater cost-effectiveness?
Which actions can be combined or leveraged to share resources and returns?
Which actions can be postponed until new or additional funds are available?
Which actions can be funded through alternate funding sources?
It is important for the DLT to know what fund sources are available in the district so they may
be considered during the budgeting of actions. The treasurer’s office should provide a list of
funds available by amount and limits to the DLT when they begin the budgeting process.
OIP Process Guide
81 of 95
December 2008
RESEARCH- OR EVIDENCE-BASED ACTIONS
To answer the question of whether an action is research- or evidence-based, the district
must look at the quality of studies (i.e., randomized controlled trials that are welldesigned and implemented) plus the quantity of evidence needed (i.e., trials showing
effectiveness in two or more typical school settings, including a setting similar to that of
the district, schools, or classrooms). If both quality of the study and quantity of evidence
exists, the answer to the first question is positive. Types of studies that can be
characterized as having possible evidence are randomized controlled trials whose
quality and quantity are good but fall short of strong evidence and/or comparison group
studies in which the intervention and comparison groups are very closely matched in
academic achievement, demographics, and other characteristics.
Other important factors to consider when considering implementing an evidence-based
action or intervention are:

▪
Whether an evidence-based intervention will have a positive effect in the district or
schools will depend on close adherence to the details of its implementation (fidelity).
▪
When implementing an evidence-based action or intervention, it is important to collect
outcome data to check whether its effects in the district or schools differ greatly from
what the evidence predicts.
Although districts are encouraged to use scientific- or evidence-based research actions or
interventions, the reality is that they are available on selected topics. The Ohio Department of
Education has identified some of these for schools, such as those contained in the Ohio
Professional Development Standards and work undertaken in the area of literacy. Once
the list of actions is developed, the work group may wish to validate the actions against what
strong evidence has been shown to work. If there are discrepancies, the group should make
any needed course corrections. This may be in the form of adding a new action or modifying
an existing action to make it more explicit.
For example, if the strategy is “Strategy A: Write the standards-based curriculum so as to
focus every administrator, teacher, staff member, and student on understanding and
application,” actions may include the following:

Action A.1: Evaluate the district curriculum to determine if important content is
reviewed at least several weeks or several months after the time that it is first
encountered by students.

Action A.2: Examine and rectify, if necessary, the district curriculum to determine if
important concepts and processes are well represented through pictures, figures,
charts, video clips, or other graphic formats in addition to narrative descriptions.

Action A.3: Determine the degree to which deep (as opposed to superficial) questions
are included in the curriculum guides.

Action A.3: Evaluate examples and instructional materials to identify which aspects of
abstract concepts and their concrete representations are included in the curriculum
guides.
Facilitation tools such as dot voting, electronic response systems are tools that assist with
consensus building.
OIP Process Guide
82 of 95
December 2008
DOT VOTING
Dot voting is used to prioritize items.
1. Revisit the items you are asking individuals to prioritize.
2. Allocate a designated number of dots to each person. The number is determined by
the number of items, the number of participants, and the number of items you wish to
select from the total.
3. Ask each person to use their allotted dots to vote on those items they think are most
important. Before the voting begins, explain the guidelines.

You cannot buy and sell dots.

You cannot lobby a colleague to mark a statement.

You cannot mark more than one statement.

You cannot ridicule someone for their dot placement.
4. Reach consensus by:
a) Reviewing the items with the most dots and seeking agreement from the
group. This may be done by polling, standing up to show agreement, and so
on.
b) Reviewing the items with the least dots and seeking agreement from the
group that these items will not be considered at this time.
c) Discussing the remainder of the items and seeking agreement whether to
keep or drop them.
OIP Process Guide
83 of 95
December 2008
Review, Revise, and Adopt Plan

Engaging a broad base of stakeholders to review the draft plan will help build ownership
and commitment to plan implementation. Section 3302.04 of the Ohio Revised Code
(S.B.55) requires districts to hold at least one public hearing (with at least two weeks
prior notice) about the final draft of the plan prior to board adoption. Major federal and
state plan requirements are included in the References should this information be
needed. Depending on the degree to which the board desires to engage their
constituents in reviewing the plan, there are several formats which could be used. Below
is a range of options for the board to consider.
STANDARD BOARD MEETING
Boards hold regularly scheduled meetings and follow standard procedures under the
Open Meetings Act to inform the public about these meetings. One option is for the
board to put the plan before the public by placing it on the agenda of a regularly
scheduled board meeting. This will necessitate the board either to make the plan
available to the public prior to the meeting such as on the district website or to present
the contents of the plan at the board meeting.
PUBLIC HEARING
The main purpose of most public hearings is to obtain public testimony or comment.
Some form of public notice is required for all public hearings. Because all public hearings
are considered public meetings under the Open Public Meetings Act, the notice
requirements of Section 3302.04 of the Ohio Revised Code (S.B.55) must be followed.
Board meeting chambers where public meetings usually are held often will be the best
place to hold a public hearing. The primary concern is to provide time in the agenda for
all attending members of the public to speak if they so desire.
TOWN MEETING
Town meetings create an opportunity for the general public to give the board direct,
substantive feedback on the plan. Town meetings focus on discussion and deliberation
among citizens rather than speeches, question-and-answer sessions, or panel
presentations. Diverse groups of citizens participate in round-table discussions,
deliberating in depth about the plan.
DISTRICTWIDE MEETING
Although there has been building- and district-level involvement in plan development, not
all staff members will have had the opportunity to review the entire plan. Therefore, the
board may wish to have an open meeting for anyone interested in reviewing the plan.
This can be accomplished in several ways. The meetings could be held at each building
in the district, by job-alike groups (e.g., principals’ meeting, teacher leader meeting,
grade-level meeting) or for the entire district. Districtwide meetings could be held in
similar fashion to the town meeting above. This also presents an opportunity for the
district to explain the relationship between the district and school plans. The district
leadership team may want to create a synopsis of the plan for distribution to all staff.
Following the public hearing, there are a few tasks that need to be accomplished before
the plan is submitted to the board for adoption.
OIP Process Guide
84 of 95
December 2008
CONSIDER PUBLIC HEARING COMMENTS
Incorporating the information from the public review allows the district one more
opportunity to create a plan that is clear to all stakeholders and inspires everyone to
embrace implementation. Each of the comments from the public hearing needs to be
seriously considered by the DLT. A response to each comment should be developed in a
format that can be shared with the local board and, if requested, with those who
participated in the public review.
REVISE PLAN

Based on the decisions made in regard to the public review comments, the plan may
need to be revised. If that is the case, the revisions need to be made and approved by
the district leadership team. Once changes are made, it is suggested that a single
individual (rather than a team) edit the plan and finalize any visuals that are used as
illustrations in the plan. If the superintendent or board has any guidelines about style or
format, these should be made clear at this time. The Ohio Department of Education has
created a plan template that a district may wish to use (See Resource 21). Possible
guidelines may include, but are not limited to, the following:
□
□
□
Use (font), (font style), (XX)” margins for narrative portions and at least (XX) line
spacing.
Use the template provided by the Ohio Department of Education.
Limit the number of pages to no more than XX pages, including cover page and
table of contents. Page orientation may be portrait or landscape. Number pages
(X of X).
SECURE BOARD APPROVAL
The final plan should be formally presented at a board meeting. The board may wish to
hold a signing ceremony or other event to celebrate adoption of the plan and to
recognize those who contributed to its development. The plan should immediately be
placed on the district website. A summary of the plan should be made widely available
and the local press should be informed.
BUILDING LEVEL OIP
Once the district plan has been approved, the DLT will need to facilitate the Ohio
Improvement Process (OIP) with each building in the district. This will include working
with Building Leadership Teams (BLTs) to complete the building-level Decision
Framework and develop action plans that respond to identified critical needs and align to
district goals and strategies.
OIP Process Guide
85 of 95
December 2008
Ohio Improvement Process
Stage 3: Implement and
Monitor the Focused Plan
OIP Process Guide

Establish and implement
collaborative structures, processes
and practices that support a culture
of inquiry and distributive
leadership

Implement the plan systemically
and systematically

Monitor and analyze changes in
student performance and adult
implementation and make and
report course corrections to the
plan
86 of 95
December 2008
Ohio Improvement Process
Stage 4: Evaluate the
Improvement Process
OIP Process Guide

Evaluate Plan Implementation,
Impact and Changes

Report Summative Progress

Modify Instructional Practice and
Revise Plan
87 of 95
December 2008
Conclusion
Over the past 10 years, the Ohio Department of Education has provided guidance to districts
that are involved in the continuous improvement process. This guidance has benefited
schools and districts. However, the department recognizes that it needs to model continuous
improvement and that the guidance and support needs to be constantly improved. The work
that has gone into development of the OIP Facilitator’s Guide is the culmination of that
improvement.
This guide should be considered as a whole. A high-achieving education system accomplishes
all the stages outlined in this guide. The result is a coherent plan that drives actions across the
system at the district and school levels. The objective is not to simply comply with state and
federal requirements; it is to improve education for every student in every school.
Districts that have just finished using this guide to work through planning or are now
implementing and monitoring the district plan will have accomplished or be on their way to
accomplishing the following:
□ Completed a comprehensive and systematic analysis of the district’s critical areas for
improving student achievement through the decision framework process
□ Focused on a few issues that have the greatest impact on student achievement by
determining cause-and-effect relationships
□ Developed a limited number of SMART (Specific, Measurable, Achievable, Relevant,
and Timely) goals that respond to the most critical student performance needs
□ Agreed on research-based measurable strategies to reach the goals
□ Indicated a limited number of actions with purposeful timelines, and designated
responsible person(s) and necessary resources to implement the strategies
□ Determined focused, content-specific, high-quality professional development for
administrators, faculty, and staff
□ Identified specific parent involvement actions to meet the needs of parents and students
□ Created a schedule and explicit steps to monitor strategies, actions, student
performance, and adult practices
□ Established methods/techniques to communicate the plan, plan progress, and results
□ Engaged internal and external stakeholders throughout the process
The participation of the board of education, superintendent, and district leadership team is
essential for the process to be effective. They can contribute to school and student success
when they are focused on fulfilling key leadership responsibilities and using the process
described in this guide. These responsibilities include:
□ Collaborative goal setting for achievement and instruction
□ Board alignment and support of district goals
□ Monitoring goals for achievement and instruction
□ Use of resources to support achievement and instruction
As districts improve through effective continuous planning, the planning process itself also will
improve. It may be difficult to believe when the first written plan is just being implemented, but
districts that are willing to continue focusing their efforts on the effective use of data and
planning eventually will notice that the process seems effortless and that it is has become
essential to their continued success.
OIP Process Guide
88 of 95
December 2008
Acronyms
Ohio Leadership Advisory Council
AMAOs
OSBA
Annual measurable achievement objectives
Ohio School Boards Association
AYP
PTA
Adequate yearly progress
Parent Teacher Association
BASA
SEA
Buckeye Association of School Administrators
State educational agency (in Ohio, the
Department of Education)
BLT
SIP
Building Leadership Team
School improvement plan
CCIP
SPED or SpEd
Comprehensive continuous improvement plan
Special education
CSLT
SBE
Community School Leadership Team
State Board of Education
DLT
District Leadership Team
ELL
English language learners
ESL
English as a second language
ESEA
Elementary and Secondary Education Act
LEA
Local education agency (district)
LEP
Limited English proficient
NCLB
The No Child Left Behind Act
ODE
Ohio Department of Education
OLAC
OIP Process Guide
89 of 95
December 2008
Glossary
Achievement Gap: The disparity in academic performance on tests among identified
groups or the difference between how a group performs compared with what is expected
of that group. Typically the disparity is defined in terms of white students and students of
color, and between students who receive a free or reduced-price lunch and those who do
not.
Actions: Specific steps to operationalize a strategy and achieve a goal.
Building Leadership Teams (BLTs): A team of individuals who promote a culture of
common expectations or commitment by maintaining a school-wide focus on improving
student achievement and who foster shared leadership and responsibility for the success
of every child through the creation of purposeful communities.
Capacity Building: Providing opportunities such as job-embedded staff development,
coaching and time for reflection on effective instructional practices that enhance the ability
of teachers and administrators to positively affect student learning.
Community School Leadership Team: Refer to District Leadership Team
Common Formative Assessments: Teacher generated periodic or interim
assessments that are collaboratively designed by teams for specific units of instruction.
Created as short matching pre- and post- assessments to ensure same- assessment to
same-assessment comparison of student growth, common formative assessments
usually contain a blend of item types, including selected response and constructed
response, representing power standards.
Consensus: After discussion, a group has reached consensus on a decision if most
team members agree with the decision and if those who disagree are willing to accept the
decision and try to make it work. Consensus allows those who disagree to gather more
data and raise an issue again if indicated.
Content Standards: Specific, measurable descriptions of what students should know
and be able to do at each grade in each curriculum area.
Continuous Improvement Framework: The concept that effective schools are engaged
in a long-term process of improvement of teaching and learning that is demonstrated by a
pattern of continuous improvement of learning for every child. The continuous
improvement cycle includes determination of prioritized needs, planning for focused
improvement, implementation of the plan, and monitoring and evaluation of the results.
Cultural Competence: Demonstrating a set of values, behaviors, attitudes, and practices
that enable people to work effectively across racial, ethnic, and cultural lines.
Culturally Relevant Educational Practices: Using the cultural knowledge, prior
experiences, frames of reference, and performance styles of ethnically or economically
diverse students to make learning encounters more relevant and effective for them.
Culturally Responsive Teaching: Understanding and applying knowledge of how
culture can affect the ways in which children process and organize information,
communicate verbally and nonverbally, and perceive their physical and social
environments.
Data-Driven Decisions for Academic Achievement (D3A2): An Ohio Department of
Education initiative that provides a systematic approach for Ohio educators to access
data and aligned resources. Users are able to identify and access resources to meet
DRAFT OIP Facilitator’s Guide
December 2008
90 of 95
specific needs from different systems that communicate using common standards, for
example, Schools Interoperability Framework (SIF) to ensure consistent data standards
and the Ohio Standard Identifier Code (OSIC) to show alignment to Ohio’s Academic
Content Standards.
Data-Driven Decisions: Districts and schools knowledgeably and effectively use a range
of data at the classroom, school, and district levels to improve instructional support and
practices.
Data Teams. Refer to Professional Learning Community
Decision Framework: A needs-assessment tool that uses essential questions that can
only be answered with student achievement data, perceptual data, and other forms of
data at the state and local level. The essential questions are organized around four levels
and begin at Level 1 with a focus on student performance in content areas by grade level,
building, and subgroup. Levels 2–4 ask essential questions related to the critical student
performance problems identified in Level 1 and uncover possible causes of these
problems tied to the following: curriculum, instruction, assessment, teacher quality,
professional development, leadership, school climate, parents and family, community
involvement, and allocation of resources.
District: Individuals and organizations that play a role in the education of students who
live in a specific local area.
District Leadership Team (DLT): A team of individuals who promote a culture of
common expectations or commitment by maintaining a district-wide focus on high
achievement for all students.
Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA): The Elementary and Secondary
Education Act. Passed in 1965 as part of President Johnson’s War on Poverty, this Act
authorizes the federal government’s single largest investment in elementary and
secondary education. The ESEA focuses on children from high-poverty communities and
students at risk of educational failure. The Act authorizes several well-known federal
education programs including Title I, Safe and Drug Free Schools, Bilingual Education
(Title VII), and Impact Aid.
English as a Second Language (ESL): Refers to nonnative English-speaking students
or programs pertaining to the teaching of nonnative English speaking students.
Ensure: Make certain or guarantee.
Evidence of Success: Tangible documentation that shows progress toward achieving a
strategy.
Expectations and Conditions Goal: A broad statement that specifies a desired change
to improve or increase the opportunities or potential for improved learning and identifies
the end result to be achieved within a given timeframe.
Extended Learning Time: Extend the amount of time students have available for school
by providing before and after school and summer learning opportunities, modified school
calendars, and changes in the structure of the school day. In addition, extended learning
time can be provided by reducing/eliminating pullout programs that interrupt regular
instructional time, increasing the focus on learning during scheduled class time by
reducing extraneous activities, and scheduling longer blocks of time for classes.
First- and Second-Order Change: First-order change is change in specific structure or
practices with the focus on how those changes are operationalized. This is contrasted to
OIP Process Guide
91 of 95
December 2008
second-order change, in which the emphasis is on addressing the underlying beliefs to
which the change was in response.
Formative Assessment. Assessment carried out during the instructional process for the
purpose of improving teaching or learning. To be effective, teachers must be skillful in
using various assessment strategies and tools such as observation, student conferences,
portfolios, performance tasks, prior knowledge assessments, rubrics, feedback, and
student self-assessment. More importantly, they must have a deep understanding of the
formative assessment process and understand its close relationship to instructional
scaffolding.
Grade or Department Level Teams. Refer to Professional Learning Community
Hypothesis: A premise, suggestion, or assumption about why a problem exists.
Indicator: There are two types of indicators. A performance indicator is the gauge by
which a goal is determined to be met. A progress indicator is the gauge by which a
strategy is determined to be met. Progress indicators have a baseline measure
established and short-term progress measures to assess degree of changes in
knowledge, skills, attitudes, policies and/or practices; and documentation is identified to
provide evidence that the indicator is met.
Mission: The district’s purpose or reason it exists. Fulfilling the mission is how a district
realizes its vision.
Mobility: Students not in same building 120 days before test window.
No Child Left Behind (NCLB) Act: The common name for federal Elementary and
Secondary Education Act (ESEA), signed into law by President Bush in 2002, which
mandates proficiency of all students by 2014.
Nonnegotiable Goal: Goals upon which all staff members must act.
Observation: A statement that reflects an opinion, statement, or comment about data.
Pattern: Data that show a relationship within the same set of data, for example, multiple
grades, discipline, behaviors.
Problem Statement: A declaration of a systemic challenge or obstacle faced by an
organization that is based on multiple data points.
Professional Learning Community: Designed to increase teacher and/or district staff
capacity in meeting the challenge to close achievement gaps and raise the bar for all
students. Characterized by continuous, school-based/district-based professional
development, mutual support and coaching with peers, dedicated time for collaborative
work, and permission to take risks as a staff to learn, practice, and hone their skills.
Effective school and district leadership is fundamental to creating professional learning
communities. Other terms may be used such as data teams, grade level teams,
department teams, etc. to describe a professional learning community in a district or
building.
Randomized Controlled Trial: Studies that randomly assign individuals to an
intervention group or to a control group in order to measure the effects of the intervention.
Research-Based Practices: The process of reviewing, assessing, and applying proven
strategies to address data-determined needs.
OIP Process Guide
92 of 95
December 2008
Root Cause: The deepest underlying cause or causes of positive or negative symptoms
within any process that if dissolved would result in elimination or substantial reduction of
the symptom.
Stakeholder: Anyone who affects or is affected by the success of the district. Typical
stakeholder groups include students, teachers, paraprofessionals, support staff, school
administrators, students’ immediate family members, school board members, community
leaders, local business and industry representatives, and citizens who live in the
community (ies).
Standards: Subject-matter benchmarks to measure students’ academic achievement.
Curriculum standards drive what students learn in the classroom.
Standards-Based Learning: A performance-based educational system that places
significantly greater emphasis on how well students meet specific learning goals and
places significantly less emphasis on state-level laws and rules dictating how instruction
is provided.
Strategy: Key approaches the district will implement that are written as specific,
measurable statements about what is going to be accomplished to meet a need and get
closer to reaching a goal within a given timeframe.
Student Performance Goal: A broad statement that specifies a desired change in
student performance to close a gap (what one aims to accomplish) and identifies the end
result to be achieved within a given timeframe.
Summative Assessment: Assessments, e.g., state assessments, district benchmark
assessments, end-of-term or semester exams, given periodically to determine at a
particular point in time what students know and do not know relative to content standards
to help evaluate the effectiveness of programs, goals, and/or alignment of curriculum.
Summative assessments are too far down the learning path to provide information at the
classroom level and to make instructional adjustments and interventions during the
learning process.
Tasks: A listing of steps that need to be taken for someone to complete the action.
Trend: A statement based on at least three years of data from the same data source.
Vision: A shared understanding of what the district wants to create (picture of the future)
by stakeholders who are committed to its realization.
OIP Process Guide
93 of 95
December 2008
Bibliography
Bolam, R., McMahon, A., Stoll, L., Thomas, S., & Wallace, M. (2005). Creating and sustaining
professional learning communities. Research Report Number 637, General Teaching
Council for England. London: Department for Education and Skills.
Coalition for Evidence-Based Policy. (2003). Identifying and implementing educational
practices supported by rigorous evidence: A user friendly guide. Washington, DC:
U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for
Education Evaluation and Regional Assistance.
Frank, S., & Miles, K. H. (2007). District resource allocation modeler (DREAM): A web-based
tool supporting the strategic use of education resources (Working Paper 19). Seattle,
WA: School Finance Redesign Project.
Garmston, R. J., & Wellman, B. M. (1999). The adaptive school: A sourcebook for developing
collaborative groups. Norwood, MA: Christopher-Gordon Publishers.
Garet, M. S., Porter, A. C., Desimone, L., Birman, B., & Yoon, K. (2001). What makes
professional development effective? American Education Research Journal, 38(4),
915–945. Retrieved October 22, 2007, from www.aztla.asu.edu/ProfDev1.pdf
Kansas Education Resource Management Study. (2006). Synthesis of highly resourceeffective strategies.
Kentucky Department of Education. (2006). Kentucky district improvement planning roles and
responsibilities: Guidance for districts. Frankfort, KY: Author. Retrieved February 5,
2008, from http://www.education.ky.gov/NR/rdonlyres/83C23D26-9E3F-4BB7-BC12DE44D68DAA40/0/DistrictPlanningRolesResponsibilities.pdf
Krueger, R. A. (1994). Focus groups: A practical guide for applied research (2nd ed.).
Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Lanford International, Inc. (1999). Langford quality learning: Tool time.
Learning Point Associates. (2007). The professional learning communities resource book.
Unpublished manuscript.
Marzano, R. J., Waters, T., & McNulty, B. A. (2005). School leadership that works: From
research to results. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum
Development.
Marzano, R. J., Pickering, D. J., & Pollack, J. E. (2001). Classroom instruction that works:
Research based strategies for increasing student achievement. Alexandria, VA:
Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
McBeath, A. (2006). Getting districtwide results. Chicago: Cross City Campaign for Urban
School Reform.
North Central Regional Education Laboratory. (2001). Data retreat facilitator’s guide.
Ohio Department of Education. (2000). Reference guide to continuous improvement planning
for Ohio school districts (2nd ed.). Columbus, OH: Author.
Ohio Department of Education. (2005). Professional development standards. Columbus, OH:
Author.
OIP Process Guide
94 of 95
December 2008
Ohio Leadership Advisory Council. (2007). Ohio leadership development framework.
Columbus, OH: Ohio Department of Education.
Parsad, B., Lewis, L., and Farris, E. (2001). Teacher preparation and professional
development: 2000 (NCES Publication No. 2001-088). Washington, DC: National
Center for Education Statistics. Retrieved October 22, 2007, from
http://nces.ed.gov/pubs2001/2001088.pdf
Pashler, H., Bain, P. M., Bottge, B. A., Graesser, A., Koedinger, K., McDaniel, M., & Metcalfe,
J. (2007). Organizing instruction and study to improve student learning (NCER 2007–
2004). Washington, DC: National Center for Education Research, Institute of
Education Sciences, U.S. Department of Education. Retrieved February 5, 2008,
from http://ies.ed.gov/ncee/wwc/pdf/20072004.pdf
Porter, A., Garet, M., Desimone, L., Yoon, K., & Birman, B. (2000). Does professional
development change teaching practice? Results from a three-year study.
Washington, DC: US Department of Education. Retrieved October 22, 2007, from
http://www.ed.gov/rschstat/eval/teaching/epdp/report.pdf
Porter, B. (1999). Grappling with accountability: Resource tools for organizing and assessing
technology for student results. Sedalia, CO: Education Technology Planners.
Senge, P. M. (1990). The fifth discipline: The art & practice of the learning organization. New
York: Doubleday.
Stanovich, P. J., & Stanovich, K. E. (2003). Using research and reason in education: How
teachers can use scientifically based research to make curricular and instructional
decisions. Jessup, MD: ED Pubs.
Standard & Poor’s. Stewart, M., & Kingston, J. (2006). Kansas Education Resource
Management study. Phase III: A synthesis of highly resource effective district
strategies. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Vescio, V., Ross, D., Adams, A. (2006). A review of research on the impact of professional
learning communities on teacher practice and student learning. Teacher and Teacher
Education. Paper presented at the NSRF Research Forum, Denver, CO.
Waters, T. J., & Marzano, R. J. (2006). School district leadership that works: The effect of
superintendent leadership on student achievement. Denver, CO: Mid-continent
Research for Education and Learning.
Weisbord, M. R., & Janoff, S. (1995). Future search: Finding common ground for action in
organizations. San Francisco: Berrett-Koehler.
Wiggins, G., & McTighe, J. (2007). Schooling by design: Mission, action, and achievement.
Alexandria, VA: Association of Supervision and Curriculum Development.
Yoon, K. S., Duncan T., Lee. S. W.-Y., Scarloss, B., & Shapley, K. (2007). Reviewing the
evidence on how teacher professional development affects student achievement
(Issues & Answers Report, REL 2007–No. 033). Washington, DC: U.S. Department
of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for Educational
Evaluation and Regional Assistance, Regional Education Laboratory Southwest.
Retrieved February 5, 2008, from
http://ies.ed.gov/ncee/edlabs/regions/southwest/pdf/REL_2007033.pdf
OIP Process Guide
95 of 95
December 2008