Victoria Bernhardt's Book Data Analysis For Continuous School Improvement

School Focus Applying Figure 1.1 from Victoria Bernhardt’s (2013) book Data Analysis for Continuous School Improvement it is this evaluator’s opinion that Portage High School is at a crossroads as a school of compliance and a school of continuous improvement (p. 4). Of the nine area of evaluation, Portage marks five in the area of compliance and four in the area of continuous improvement. Hence, the assessment is that Portage High School sits firmly as a school focused on compliance. This is a strong reflection of the building principal that feels that the use of data is wasteful endeavor. According the principal, “The experts in our building guide our processes; data does not drive our school. It’s only purpose is to determine

14). In the first area of “Where are we now?”(p. 15), a comprehensive look at all of the schools data (See Appendix A), Portage High School is missing data on the perceptions and organizational assessments of the learning environment. Secondly, a review of “How did we get to where we are?” (p. 16), an analysis of what is working and what is not working has not taken place. Additionally, under the sub-section of “Where do we want to be?” the school outlines its purpose in a belief state but does not lay out the school's mission, vision, or student learning standards. Furthermore, the question “How are going to get to where we want to be?” (p. 18) is answered with limited effectiveness, due to components missing from the vision but checks all the boxes of the Continuous Improvement Plan and Implementation Strategies. Finally, when purposed with the question “Is what we are doing making a difference?” the only answer that I can formulate is that external evaluation tools such as the ACT and Aspire provide feedback to Portage High

The most favorable response was to the question, “Staff at this school share a common understanding of instructional best practices” with a 92% agreement score. Conversely, the least favorable response was to the question, “I meet regularly and often with colleagues to plan for instruction,” with a 38% agreement score. Hence, the professional practices of the staff are considered to be superior but the organization of the schedule have not allowed for collaborative practices. Additionally, is in strong agreement (85%) that the staff does a good job identifying students who struggle