Search results

This chapter examines the potential and barriers for evidence-based practices in Californian schools. In a large and complex school system, the state plays an important role in legitimating the use of certain types of evidence, but evidence-based practices are heavily determined by the resources, actors, and prevailing cultures in a local district environment. Until recently, high-stakes accountability policies mandated improvements in student test performance and intrusive interventions for failure. In recent years, the state has shifted to a different accountability approach that emphasizes local control and the use of multiple measures of school performance to pursue continuous improvement around locally developed goals and interventions. Amid this context, two stories arise about evidence-based practices in California. In one story, a set of major and highly touted districts have led the way in demonstrating evidence-informed continuous improvement district-wide. In these districts, the new state accountability approach, enabling leadership, long-term commitments to collective learning, networked opportunities to learn, and access to elite external expertise have contributed to fairly extensive practices of disciplined team problem-solving involving rich data. In a second story, schools and districts that face resource scarcity, high turnover, and conflict and in which past high-stakes accountability left a deep imprint on prevailing norms and routines, leaders and teachers have had difficulty establishing a conducive context for collective learning. However, given ingrained practices and limited absorptive capacity, it is not entirely clear how to enable productive evidence-based practices in such contexts.

This chapter analyzes data from a five-year case study of a secondary school undergoing turnaround, supported by a federal School Improvement Grant. The findings explore how neoliberal policies perpetuate structural inequities in the day-to-day activities of schools by describing how district choice and accountability policies marginalize students of color in low socioeconomic positions. Findings explore the challenges faced by school leaders in a neoliberal policy context and highlight the importance of policy context in a successful improvement effort. The complex web of neoliberal polices of choice and accountability led to lower enrollment, which decreased the school's base funding and led to a greater proportion of students with skill gaps, significant socioemotional needs and students in need of special education services. For school improvement to be successful and to close the opportunity gap, leaders must dismantle and disrupt racist systems and structures bolstered by neoliberal policies.

The purpose of this paper is to examine how US school leaders make sense of external mandates, and the way in which their understanding of state and district accountability policies affects their work. It is posited that school leaders’ responses to external accountability are likely to reflect a complex interaction between their perception of the accountability policies, the state and district contexts in which those policies are situated and their own leadership beliefs and practices.

The authors use both principal and teacher survey data to explore the question of how perceptions of external policy are associated with instructional leadership behaviors. Cases of seven principals are employed to flesh out the findings from the survey analysis.

It is concluded that external accountability policy may have a positive impact on instructional leadership – where they see those policies as aligned with their own values and preferences, and where they see their district leaders as supportive of school‐driven accountability initiatives. In these cases, school leaders internalize the external accountability policies and shape them to the particular needs that they see as priorities in their own school. Where one or the other of these factors is weak or missing, on the other hand, leaders demonstrate more negative attitudes to external accountability and weaker instructional leadership.

This analysis draws on a unique, large‐scale data base and uses a mixed methods approach to answer the question.

Continual improvement for competitive advantage is not the primary policy of organisations, either in theory or practice. A deductive rationale is presented for the emerging need to make “continual improvement for competitive advantage” the primary policy of any organisation. This is based on the inexorable acceleration of technical change and the Darwinian selective pressures of competition. Giving primacy to continual improvement naturally gives a different slant to company policies, strategies and objectives by subordinating them. Systematic continual improvement policy generates particular emphasis on people, planning, performance measures and procedures. Inductive study reaches similar conclusions but lacks the cogency of a rational framework. A continual improvement policy is a touchstone for the choice and use of planning and operational practices. A game plan for continual improvement is illustrated that integrates the planning, operation and evaluation of performance for the whole operation, its divisions and their personnel. The self‐assessment questionnaire technique offers a quick insight into an organisation′s preparedness for gaining competitive advantage through continual improvement.

This chapter describes how the New Zealand Ministry of Education’s Iterative Best Evidence Synthesis Programme seeks to improve education and serve the public good. New Zealand’s best evidence programme is used (1) to determine what works, why and how; (2) what makes a bigger difference and what does not work to improve learning for all students across policy, research and practice communities; (3) to spotlight expertise, tools and actions needed to mobilise knowledge and (4) to pinpoint challenges in the change process in order to strengthen knowledge mobilisation at the system level.

The quality function deployment (QFD) theory focuses on customer needs and expectations and methodically deploys them through product design, parts selection, process planning and production planning, leading to shorter design times and more customer‐oriented products. It is demonstrated that the QFD techniques can also improve the procedures that are used to formulate annual policy. Therefore a conceptual procedure is presented to formulate annual policy based on QFD techniques, and a case study is presented in which it is demonstrated that the QFD theory can function as an indicator of problems that have to be faced if one wants to improve towards more customer orientation and better communication, cross functional as well as between lower and higher management in the policy formulation process.

The purpose of this paper is to explore, through the use of a multidisciplinary lens, the policy context and the scope for improvements in university‐based public programmes focused on improving innovation in small and medium enterprises (SMEs).

The authors use the street‐level bureaucracy (SLB), combined with the systems of innovation approach (SIA) and diagnostic analysis (DA) to understand the context components that impact on public programme services. The study is part of a research programme oriented to the diffusion of information systems in SMEs and which used original interview‐based programme support case studies, interviews with regional policy managers, and documentation relating to the policy system and different public programmes. Although the empirical work was UK and European Union centric the results of the research have wide applicability.

The paper establishes the importance of programme contexts for diagnosing and providing a basis for public programme improvements. It further demonstrates the robustness of the context analysis framework to provide insights into proposed policy changes. The responsibility of improving programme contexts relies on actors that operate outside programme organisations, for instance EU funding bodies, government departments in charge of SME policies, public‐private partnerships, and private evaluators. Given this complexity it is suggested that SME associations have a potentially important role in increasing participation by SMEs in the public programme for innovation and knowledge support policy. Despite possible policy changes the requirement for public programme support for innovation and hence the role of universities as programme providers is confirmed and expanded.

The results demonstrate the value of a multidisciplinary framework to analyse programme interventions at both macro and micro levels and provide a basis for programme policy and policy implementation improvements.

This research is a novel attempt to use the SLB, SIA and DA to public programme university‐based interventions in SMEs and SME policies in general. It complements extant research on open innovation and knowledge exchange by extending the concept of public programme contexts. Beneficiaries of the findings include policy makers, programme organisations, universities, SME associations, and researchers.

English governance has repeatedly had a tendency to veer between national, regional and local centres of power and influence. This has often led to profound disagreements, sometimes even open conflict. National policy guidance is usually helpful, if developed through consultation, to steer a clear, coherent direction for the system. But a narrow, excessively top‐down, mechanistic target‐driven approach can lead to a prevailing culture of ticking boxes at the expense of real patient priorities. Government ministers and civil servants, however, are often caught in a tension between being too dogmatic, or alternatively too flexible and giving responsibility to local agencies, whereupon people may complain about a ‘postcode lottery’ in services. Balancing perspectives and narratives in a coherent way for policy development and implementation and service improvement is a major challenge of leadership. The creation of the National Institute for Mental Health in England (NIMHE) was designed to bring together the local, regional and the national in a form that would see policy and practice mutually developed and nurtured at all levels of governance.

This article briefly outlines some of the debates and discussions currently taking place in public health with regards to what ‘counts’ as evidence, as well as evidence use. This provides the context for describing a new programme of work currently being developed in Scotland by the national health improvement agency, as one of several support functions for the implementation of the Scottish Executive National Programme for Improving Mental Health and Well‐Being. This programme of work is aiming to support evidence into practice and practice into evidence in mental health improvement in Scotland.