Shelby High School

Part 4: Analysis of Instructional and Organizational Effectiveness

This section of our school improvement plan provides an overview of the analysis of instructional and organizational effectiveness the administrators, teachers, parents and support staff conducted to help us identify Shelby Junior/Senior High School’s strengths and limitations. The results of this analysis are summarized on the following pages. We used this information to help identify ways we could build on our strengths, as well as address the limitations of our school’s instructional and organizational effectiveness, as we developed our School Improvement Plan.

To assist us in identifying the strengths and limitations of Shelby Junior/Senior High School’s instructional and organizational effectiveness, the “Survey of Instructional Effectiveness,” based on the NSSE’s Indicator’s of Schools of Quality was administered to administrators, teachers, and support staff in December, 2003.

The results of the survey indicated that we demonstrated evidence of progress in all seven surveyed areas. Averages range from a possible high of 4 and a low of 0. Curriculum average 2.38; Instructional Design average 2.26; Assessment average 2.47; Educational Agenda 2.28; Leadership for School Improvement average 2.29; Community Building average 2.56; and Culture of Continuous Improvement and Learning average 2.48. With respect to the analysis of the school’s organizational conditions, the survey indicated that “Developing a Shared Belief and Mission,” “Promotes Quality Instruction and an Academic Learning Environment,” Fosters Community-Building conditions within the School,” and “Supports Productive Change and Improvement” were areas of strength, but the extent to which the school defines measurable goals focused on student learning is limited.

In regards to Indicators of Quality Instruction the analysis indicated that “Actively Engages Students in their Learning,” “Expands Instructional Support for Student Learning,” “Selects the Appropriate Method of Assessment,” “Collects a Comprehensive and Representative Sample of Student Achievement,” and “Develops fair Assessments and Avoids Bias and Distortion,” were areas of strength, but the extent to which the school employs data-driven instructional decision making and aligns instruction with the goals and expectations for student learning is limited.

Based upon the analysis of the Instructional and Effectiveness Survey three priorities were identified:

1.     Aligns Instruction with goals and Expectations for Student Learning.

2.     Employs Data-Driven Instructional Decision Making