Developing a Comprehensive Improvement Plan for school (what is sometimes called a Campus Improvement Plan or CIP) can often become a mindless and cliché act of routine or ritual. Throughout my career as an educational leader I have heard of campus principals simply taking last year’s CIP and changing the dates so that it becomes this year’s CIP. This is unfortunate since this document is intended to a) drive the change initiatives for campus improvement (as the name implies), b) guide budgetary decisions for the campus and its principal through the year, and c) be a site-based, democratic project of collaboration.
Under No Child Left Behind Act federal law as well as state law require schools to conduct a comprehensive needs assessment (CNA) as part of the planning and decision-making process. In States, such as Texas, Texas Education Code (TEC) states that “the plan must include provisions for a comprehensive needs assessment addressing student performance on the student achievement indicators, and other appropriate measures of performance… Campus-level committees must assess the academic achievement for each student in the school using the student achievement indicator system.”
This means annually having a committee come together to review relevant data and use those data to drive school improvement and decision-making. According to NCLB Comprehensive Needs Assessment guide,
the purpose of a CNA is to examine multiple sources of data to identify the priority needs and direction for the school. This critical process is the prework to the development of the district and campus improvement plans and decisions regarding the justification for use of NCLB and other funds. The data helps schools monitor and assess the impact of programs, instruction, and other resources related to student achievement by developing a school profile. When conducted thoroughly, the CNA tool provides schools with identified strengths and weaknesses and specifies priorities for addressing student achievement and meeting challenging academic and performance standards. Conducting a CNA is a process, not an event. (p. 1)
This document goes on to say,
To facilitate the process and ensure buy-in from stakeholders, it is recommended that the district/school organize all staff and other potential members into committees, each focused on gathering data for their assigned category area. The committees ideally are comprised of members that are required under NCLB to carry out the campus plan: parents and other members of the community, teachers, principals, administrators (including administrators of NCLB programs), and if appropriate, pupil services personnel, technical assistance providers, school staff, and if the plan relates to a secondary school, students from such a school. (p. 2)
This means deciding what you want to measure and report; determining who will be responsible for organizing, developing, and updating the profile; developing a management system for collecting and organizing the data in the profile; selecting the type and amount of data to collect; assessing the baseline of the data available in each area of focus; and determining any additional information that is needed and the procedures for collecting it. Finally, a written narrative should be developed to support the story the data present and a presentation made of the varied formats for illustrating the narrative with charts, graphs, and tables. Stakeholders involved in this process are generally comprised of teachers, parents, librarians, business and community members, and district level educators such as directors of curriculum and instruction and technology directors.
With the committee the campus leader should follow a five-step process. This begins with reviewing the purpose and outcomes for conducting the CNA, then establishing the subcommittees for each area of the CAN (demographics, technology, student achievement, etc.). Next the committee determines which types of data will be collected and analyzed by the committee to develop the school profile. Step four is determining areas of priority and summarizing needs. The final step is to connect the CNA to the district/campus improvement plan development and review process.
Overall, in my experience, these needs assessments were successful however frustrating. Involving stakeholders tended to be the most frustrating piece. Typically, teachers could see this as just one more thing on their plate, another must-do on their lists. Parents and community/business members often were busy or simply did not want to be bothered. Attempting to get ideas or authentic input when they did show could be another issue.
After all the data sources were considered and the final CIP was developed it was rewarding to have a meaningful document and plan to guide decision-making initiatives and school improvement efforts. Knowing that ultimately it was a democratic process and a work focused on student learning was equally rewarding.
Learning Principals 
You stated “Overall, in my experience, these needs assessments were successful however frustrating. Involving stakeholders tended to be the most frustrating piece. Typically, teachers could see this as just one more thing on their plate, another must-do on their lists. Parents and community/business members often were busy or simply did not want to be bothered. Attempting to get ideas or authentic input when they did show could be another issue.” What would you do differently to achieve buy in and change the perception of just another task to conduct.
Was the end results explained and the process described to help enlighten the teachers to facilitate effective communication and the desire to apply more than minimal effort.
You also stated “After all the data sources were considered and the final CIP was developed it was rewarding to have a meaningful document and plan to guide decision-making initiatives and school improvement efforts. Knowing that ultimately it was a democratic process and a work focused on student learning was equally rewarding.” can you described how this process benefited the student body and the quality of their education?
The CIP would be completed each school year? So school officials, teachers, and parents would come together to create one for each school year?
I can see how this could be a good document however, very time consuming to have to go through the steps each year, hence why it seems like most schools just change the date on the CIP or change one or two minor things.
As a teacher, I think it is important for there to be Improvement Plans in place, I am not sure the best way to go about these or to implement them because there are so many things that school officials are completing on a regular basis, as with teachers. Overall, the purpose of the CIP makes a lot of sense and could be beneficial if the project is done correctly and regularly.
Yes, you are correct. It is supposed to be a yearly endeavor, and the process requires no less than two meetings a year (I believe some administrations recommend four). One factor that I left out of this particular discussion is the fact that the CIP is considered a “living document” by many school leaders. This means that changes can be made throughout the year as long as those changes are based on student needs and school improvement efforts. However these changes should be a) data-driven and b) include input or be based on input from the campus improvement committee (i.e. site-based decision making committee). Technically this implies a reconvening of that team. But you are also correct on this how time consuming it is–especially trying to get this group of individuals together twice a year.