Hammond Indiana's School Improvement Program

Hide Document

rl

ALBERT SHANKER

P,esldent

rr~~OF

fl 16.4CI-ERS ~ .

n
n
555 NEW JERSEY AVENUE. NW
WASHINGTON. DC 20001


2021879-4400

l~

1

[ j

fl

\ j HAMMOND, INDIANA'S SCHOOL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM

r1

L


l J

I. INTRODUCTION
r \

I

t -
j

-

The Hammond Federation of Teachers (AFT Local .394), under

, the leadership of President Pat O'Rourke, is co-participant in
[ the construction of a program of shared school ownership. The
l concept of ownership is important to this school-based


"

management program because it is a key component of "good"

;

r schools according to the research of the Kettering Foundation,

"

, one of the sponsors of this unique project. The design of the

,

"

entire program is unique, but of particular significance in
Hammond is that teachers can, on a building by building basis,

r

( set aside elements of their collectively bargained contract to
l j embark on endeavors that the teachers feel will improve the
school's educational program.


,

r
l I
, J


r ; II. PROGRAM SPONSORS AND/OR CONTRIBUTORS

L )

-Kettering Foundation's Institute for De:velopment of
Educational Activities (IDEA)
-Eli Lilly Endowment Foundation

\ I

-Indiana Criminal Justice Planning Agency (seed money)
-Hammond Pederation of Teachers
-Sammond Board of Education .


l ~

,

III. SCHOOL BASED PARTICIPANTS
-School Administration
-Parents


L "

~ J


rl
l-j

[1

-Students

-Faculty
-Comm unity Representatives

\~

-'

I~ SAMPLE LIST OF SUBJECTS WHICH HAVE BEEN CHANGED A~

1

SCHOOL BUILDING LEVEL

r

l j

-Kindergarten Curriculum
-Procedure for development of master school day schedule

fJ

-Length of school day
\ ,I -Teacher to teacher coaching (mentor teacher)


-Building-unique discipline procedures
rJ -Teaching methodology changed on a building basis as a
l , result of a group of teachers' research


-Parent involvement in creating school based .discipline
r 1, procedures
-} -A non-threatening peer evaluation program has been piloted

t j

in one building
and could be done differently in another

building
r 1 -Development of a business education partnership with
l J Inland Steel which has demanded adjustment of the Science

Department schedule in one building

,

r

'\ j
V. PROCESS

[ ( 'l'he process, as well as the product, is what makes this
i program so unique. A key concept is c·.... nership of schools by

l

J
parents, students, community representatives, teachers and
administrators. This ownership takes place at the building

r

level. Testimony to this ownership is the ability of a school
t , based SIP team to change the curriculum, discipline process,
length of school day, number of faculty, allocation of funding,

,

i
etc.. The HFT has a very comprehensive contract which
extensively addresses working conditions. Despite this, the HFT

l J
has added language to the agreement which allows, at the
building level, a group of teachers involved in the process to
set aside the contract and waive the grievance procedure to
accomodate a change in the .school program. Each individual is
still protected by the contract because prior to .the
implementation of any proposed building level change which would
contravene the contract each person votes his/her position on
the change according to the attached Semantic Differential
Voting Procedure. Consensus must be ach:eved thru the process

, .

and 'then the change is limited to a specific length of time (not
, , to exceed one year); criteria for evaluation must be

, J


flJ

P


,
J

I~


1

t~-l
[J

l

f J

1

r

l

-l 1

[ -
J

[ 1

\
l

,
,

r

[

r 1

l
J
,

r

l
]

:

l_-,

r

,

l

l
)

r
'

\
,


established; data must be developed on the impact a~d success of
the experiment, and finally an assessment must be made of the
school experiment.

VI. BRIEF HISTORY
In late 1981 Hammond school administrators began meetir.g
with educational consultants from the Kettering and Eli Lill:!
Foundations to review a limited Secondary School Inprovement
Project taking place in Indianapolis, Indiana. By spring of
1982 the Kettering Foundation's IDEA program was funding
facilitator training programs for administrators, teachers,
community representatives, etc., in the Hammond School System.
The program at that time was limited to a pilot project in
Hammond High School. The high school project identified three
areas in which they wished to make improvements: attendance,
drop-out reduction, and increased parental involvement.
Significant improvement was achieved in all three areas.
Attendance was increased 3.3 percent. Membership in parental.
programs rose dramatically. In one year parent participation in
a ninth grade orientation meeting rose from a low· of seven
parents to three hundred. The parent booster organization
doubled its membership. Academic failures were down by 382 artd
by virtue of cause or coincidence, but certainly good fortune,
for the first time in years Hammond Higi"'. School had not one, but
six National Merit Scholarship winners.

(

During the 1984-85 school year the program was expanded to
three buildings with results warranting, in .the current school
year, district wide school building participation.

Throughout the entire development the HFT, under the
leadership of Patrick O'Rourke, facilitated the implementation
of this enormously sucessful program.

VII. SUMMARY AND MAJOR PROGRAM FEATURES
1.) The Hammond SIP Program represents a very successful
and sophisticated level of whole school partnership.

2.) The Hammond Federation of Teachers has devised a
unique and adaptable method for balancing the potentially
conflicting interests of building based work decisions against
the, need for a district wide strong collective bargaining
agreement. I


n


n


\ d

tJ
P


l J

rJl j

r 1

! \

[ ~

I

l ,

r


I

l J

t' :>.
I

l J
r


l ,


3.) The SIP Program was very thoughtfully and gradually
introduced into the system over a three year period.

4.) Throughout the entire period of the experiJ1lent data
has b.een collected and the program monitored to ascertai::: its
success and alter its design as necessary.

5.) Demographics

• of students 15,000

t of buildings 30 school sites

t of faculty 930

6.> Approximate three year costs for consultant fees,
substitute teachers, meetings and travel: $90,000.00.


7.) The HFT has cooperated in: the establishment of a.
possible prototype of what the Carnegie Reports espouses as an
ideal school atmosphere for greater teacher autonomy and school

development (pgs. 57-58 of report). .

"

~.'

8.> In the bargaining scheduled for the 1986-87 school
year the union is considering modifying the system for changing
building-based-decisions to create a slightly less cumbersome
procedure. However, the current system is not really viewed as
burdensome.

9. )
Beginning with the 1986-87 school year a new
bargaining unit position will be created to oversee the
implement'ation of the educational related initiatives including
SIP, Critical Thinking, ER& 0, Peer Evaluation and Mentoring.
The funding for this full time position will come from the local
city school system and a grant from the Teacher Quality
Committee of the State Department of Public Instruction. The
$95,000.00 necessary for the progr~m will afford salary, travel
and staff released time.

10.) Dean Evans formerly of the Kettering Foundation and a
creative force in the initiation of this progran: is now the
State Superintendant of Public Instruction. He was aFPointed to
complete the term of an otherwise elected position. He enjoys
broad based support and respect. Additionally, he is very ~roud
of the Hammond School System's cooperation and success. Hammond
is very much the Indiana success story.

,

l J


ARTICLE 7

PROFESSIONAL DEVELOpHE~

7.1 SCHOOL I..ROVEHElIT PROCESS (SIP)'
••
The H-..on' Te.cher.· Fe'er.tion .n' the lo.r' en'or.e the School
I.prove.ent Proce... Thi. proce••• pre.ic.te' on the pr~i.e of
shered deci.•ion _ ..inl .t the buil'inl level. is .n opportuni t, for
feachers to h.ve sh.re' ownership of the school in which the,
te.ch. The N.-.ond Te.chers· Federstion .nd the losr' believe th.t
when te.chers .re provid•• the opportunit, throulh SIP to share in
the ownership of '.ci.ion••t their buil.inl. this proce•• viII
I~.' to _.i.iEinl educ.tion.1 opportunities for Ha-.on'·•

• tudent••
b.
A specific proce'ure .u.t be followed .houl' a buil.inl ....e. 51'
decision require. devi.tion fro. the Ha-.ond Contract. The
proce'ure .ust inclu'e the follovinl: (I) concen.us .u.t be re.che'
b, usinl th. MO'ified Delphi Croup Proce.s as u.e' b, SI' tea.. in
the H.-.ond School. Whereb, ••all Iroup. 'iscuss the potential
benefit. and potential probl ... of .n, propp.ed chanle, (·2) a
deter.inalion of the ti.. of the trial te.t, which .., not e.cee'
one echool ye.r, .ust be eet.bliehed an'. () criteria .ust be
est.blished by the f.culty which viii be .cceptable .s evidence
th.t this nev procedure is succe••ful at the en' of the trial te.t
period.
c.
Follovinl the proces. referred to a. the MOdified Delphi Croup
Proces•• the f.cu't, .hall vote on the proposed chanle b, u.inl the
S~ntic Differenti.1 Votinl Procedure detailed belov•.
Scale

~
I believe this i. a lOud idea and 1 enthu.ia.ticall,
endor.e a li.ited trial test of this idea b.se' on our
criteria for .ucce••-failure.

,

I feel this idea ha...rit .nd .upport a li.ited trial

t••t
ba••d on our criteria for succ•••-f.ilur••

)
I .. veilhinl the .dv.nt'le. and di ••dvantale. of this
idea .nd believ. it is worth, of • li.it.d tri.1 t ••t.

2
I .. not convinced this id.a i. f•••ible but •• villinl
to t .... a vait-and-.e. po.ition by .upportinl a li.ited
trial t••t.

I .. stronll, oPpo.ed to this i'ea but 1 would not

•••rcis. a v.to to pr.v.nt a li.it.d trial t ••t.

o
I •• so oppos.d to ev.n a li.it.d tri.l t ••t of this idea
th.t I vould e.erci.e • veto if it v.r. vithin ., pover·
to do '0.

d.
Durinl the ti.. trial, data .hall ... collected which viII be used
to d.t.r.in. the .ucc••• or failure of the propo.e' chanle. The
••t••hall be pr••ented to the f.cult, follovina which the Croup
Process shall be repe.te. in or'er to re.ch concen.u. relar.inl the
..tension or ter.in.tion of the n.v i'ea or practice. Sinca the
School I.prove.ent Proc••• repr...ent•• ' .. parture fr_ eai.tinl
pr.ctic•• it .h.ll ... subj..ct to r .. viev b, the parti....urinl the

t .. ra of this Contract.

...
A Iri..v.nc.. which .11"1'" th.t • School I.,ro....ent project
viol.te•• pro.i.ion of this Contr.ct 8o.t be.r tha .ilnatara of •
te.cher who in'ic.t•• b, hi. School I.,ro.e.ent S...ntic
Diff.r..nti.1 .ot. th.t h .. woul' .eto th.. ,roject if it vera withl.
hi. paver to '0 .0.

f.
Th. S,.te.-Vi'e School I.,ro....nt 'ro,r•• Deai,n le.iev C..-cil
viII be con••ne' wh.. n ••er • SIP propo••1 r ..uire•••e.ietioe fro.
• polic, other th.n the H-..on' Contr.ct. The l...on' Te.cher.'
Fe'er.tion luil'in, I.pre.ent.ti...t the .ffected .chool .h.ll ..
con.i'ere' a ~.ber of the De.i,n le.iev Council.
,.
The D ••iln le.i.v Council .h.ll for..r' .11 r..ue.t. to tha
Superint..n.ent of School. for .ction.

7.2 .UI EVALUATIOll STUDY COfOIIT1'EE
The laaaon' T...cher.' F.der.tion .nd the E.,loyer .h.ll fora ••tu.,
coaaitt.... for the .chool , ••r 1985-86 for th.. purpo.e of .tu.,inl the
f....ibilit, of involvinl ••,.ri.need te.ch..r. in th.. proce•• of te.cher
e••lu.tion. In ."ition, th.. coaaitt....h.ll .tu', an
Int.rn-Int..r.ention 'ro,r••• th.. purpo.e of which waul' .. the tr.inin.
.n' e••lu.tion of belinninl te.ch..r.. The coaaittee .hall report it.
initial fin.inl' to the r .. specti... p.rtie. b, Ma, I, 1.86.
I.pl....nt.tion of the coaaittee report .a, be con.i'ere' for
i.,l....nt.tion in the 1986-87 .chool ,e.r.


7.) 1'!AClf!l 11IC!lITlft STUDY CROUP

Th.. fin.inl' of the H-..on' Te.cher Incenti.e Stu', Croup .hall ..
re.ieve' b, the ,.rtie.. 'ropo.e' incenti.e option..., be i..l...nt"
'urinl the tera of this contr.ct b, .Ire...nt of the ,.rtie••

7.4 IUSIR!SS-!DUCAtIOll "I1WEISHIPS
The H • ..on' te.cher.' '''er.tion .n' the E.,lo,er .ill cooper.te in .n
effort to buil' partner.hipa vith the pri••te .ector to i.,ro... the
qu.lit, of it. e'uc.tion.l prolr... A '.rtner.hip i•• autuall,
b .. nefici.1 rel.tion.hip betveen bu.in.....n' e'uc.tion b.... on ..etinl

PRch of h.-rs nppds t hrnuJth _ vi !Ie u~r of 4!"OIch ot hl"r" , ..snurt·PII. An
addi! ion~1 ai.. of this .Hort is tn provide a _tl."eI hy whi("h bu~in..s.
p';"pl .. ~nel ..ducat..rs can ("_bin.. r.....u..·... and ...p .. rti·... to a'dr•••
.. "tu,,1 n .. eds by R.lt inR 'ir..("tl, involv.. d in cI ...sro..... or b...in....

~("t ivj t i~5.

7. ~ HAHMOND f:DIJCATlON FOIlNDATIOII
Th.. H.......nd r.."d...rs' F .. d.r.tion an' the E.,lo,.. r viII ("ontinu.. to
racilit.t.. thO' drv.. loPftf'nt of the Ha....nel Eelucation Foun'ation. The
purpo•• of th.. F""ndatinn is tn enhanc .. th.. qu.lity of life in the
e....unity by i..prnvinR and ...panelinl ,,'ucati..nal opp .. rtuniti.... An
addition,,1 ptl~pO"" of the Fnun'ation i" to .ti..ull".. th.. prof....ion.l
d .. v .. loplOPnt of th.. t""t·hinl "t.rr an' th.. i.pro.....nt of t ...chinl
-.th..ds d... iRn .. d to .....t th.. n .... ds of H......nel· ••tu'..nt ••




Hide Document