International Journal of Educational Development 29 (2009) 281–292

Continuous improvement in schools: Understanding the practice

Stephen Anderson a,*, Roshni Kumari b

a Ontario Institute for Studies in Education (OISE), University of Toronto, 252 Bloor Street West, Toronto, ON M5S 1V6, Canadab Aga Khan University, Institute for Educational Development, Karachi, Pakistan

A R T I C L E I N F O

Keywords:

School effectiveness

Educational improvement

Change strategies

School administration

Staff development

A B S T R A C T

This article investigates conceptually and practically what it means for schools to engage in the

practice of continuous improvement. The analysis draws upon prior research and discussion to

predict core elements of the practice of continuous improvement in schools. The predictions are then

applied to a case study of continuous improvement efforts in a Pakistani secondary school that was

involved in a 10-year school–university school improvement partnership. The article concludes

with a set of eight empirically based propositions about the practice of continuous improvement

schools.

� 2008 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

International Journal of Educational Development

journal homepage: www.e lsev ier .com/ locate / i jedudev

1 The secondary school that is the focus for the case study is one of nine schools

(three secondary, three primary) funded and governed by a faith-based community

organization in Karachi, Pakistan. In Pakistan, as in many developing countries there

are literally thousands of independent schools operating outside the government

public school systems. Some are private-for-profit schools and some are schools

created to serve the children of socio-economically elite families. Many, however,

such as the school and school system described here, are founded and run by

philanthropic community groups and non-governmental organizations, and serve

low to medium income communities not well served by the government sector.

Often these independent schools are part of larger school systems with governing

boards, central offices, and many of the characteristics of small to medium sized

school districts in North American. We have not chosen to highlight the contextual

1. Introduction

School improvement analysts have long recognized thatfundamental improvement in the quality of schools will nothappen simply as a result of the implementation of a new policy,program, organizational structure, or teaching practice. Theargument, instead, is that schools should become learningorganizations in which school personnel are engaged in contin-uous cycles of action, analysis of progress and results, and changedirected towards the attainment of a shared vision or goals (e.g.,Fullan, 2005; Hawley and Sykes, 2007; Copeland, 2003). Settingaside normative prescriptions for ongoing improvement, whatdoes it actually mean for schools to continuously improve? Whatdo the practice and outcomes of continuous improvement look likein schools that engage sustained improvement efforts over time?Case studies of school improvement are often limited to theimplementation of particular innovations, rather than continuousimprovement efforts, or are rendered as point-in-time portraits ofschool improvement-related goals, structures, and processes thatdo not describe or analyze the dynamics and outcomes ofimprovement over time. Current understanding of ‘‘continuousimprovement’’ in schools remains empirically and conceptuallyvague, and studies that specifically focus on this phenomenon arefew and non-cumulative (e.g., Hord and Boyd, 1995; Schroederet al., 2005; Copeland, 2006). This article considers findings from a

* Corresponding author.

E-mail addresses: sanderson@oise.utoronto.ca (S. Anderson),

roshni.kumari@aku.edu (R. Kumari).

0738-0593/$ – see front matter � 2008 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

doi:10.1016/j.ijedudev.2008.02.006

case study of continuous improvement efforts in a Pakistanisecondary school that was involved in a 10-year school–universityschool improvement partnership.1

2. Continuous improvement: rhetoric and reality in review

The idea that school personnel should be engaged in ongoingindividual and collective efforts to improve the quality of teachingand learning is not new. In the first edition of The Meaning of

Educational Change, for example, Fullan (1982) distinguished the‘‘specific vs. generic capacity for change’’, arguing that ‘‘imple-menting a particular specific change is not the primary goal. . .The

goal is to get good at change.’’ (italics in original; p. 292). In a 1993

differences of our case study school’s location in our analysis, because we believe

that the core findings about the process and outcomes of continuous improvement

are not so strongly shaped by local culture and context as to make them irrelevant

to schools outside of Pakistan. For a more culturally embedded analysis of school

improvement efforts in developing countries readers are referred to Khamis and

Sammons (2004, 2007) in Pakistan, and to Stephens (2006) more generally.

S. Anderson, R. Kumari / International Journal of Educational Development 29 (2009) 281–292282

review and analysis of the restructuring movement, Murphy andHallinger reported ‘‘a growing recognition that change is a process,a quest for improvement rather than a search for a final restingplace’’ (pp. 255). In the current era of performance-basedaccountability, the idea that schools are capable of incrementallyand continuously improving the quality of teaching and learningfor all students has become institutionalized in public policy insome spheres, notably the Adequate Yearly Progress provisions ofthe federal No Child Left Behind policy in the United States. It is ourcontention that despite embracing the rhetoric of continuousimprovement, the education research community has yet toproduce a substantial database on the practice of ongoingimprovement in schools and school systems around the world.In this review we address some key conceptual issues and pastresearch related to this phenomenon, as a way of setting up ourcase study analysis of continuous improvement.

2.1. The prevalence of continuous improvement in schools

Are most schools continuously improving? There is scantevidence to suggest that this is the case. There is a long history ofresearch and commentary on change in schools, ranging fromWaller (1932) to Lortie (1975) to Sarason (1982) to Rosenholtz(1989) to Cuban and Tyack (1995) that concludes that educators inmost schools are remarkably impervious to recurrent efforts tointroduce change in traditional schooling arrangements andpractices, and that even when changes appear to have takenplace, they often revert back to previous forms and norms ofpractice over time (e.g., Fink, 1999). At the same time, researchershave repeatedly identified selected school sites where ongoingefforts to improve the quality of teaching and learning do happenas a routine feature of the professional work of teachers andadministrators. This finding has sparked interest in the potentialfor continuous improvement as a more widespread phenomenonin schools. Rosenholtz’s (1989) classic distinction between ‘‘stuck’’and ‘‘moving’’ schools in her study of 78 Tennessee elementaryschools neatly encapsulated this distinction. Stoll and Fink (1996)developed a more comprehensive typology of types of schools,considered on two dimensions: current state of effectiveness orineffectiveness, and performance trends (improving, declining):moving, cruising, strolling, struggling and sinking.

Explanations for differences between schools where profes-sional efforts to improve are institutionalized in organizationalnorms, structures, and practices and those where such effortseither do not happen or occur in superficial and largely non-consequential ways have commonly focused on variations inorganizational culture (e.g., Firestone and Louis, 1999; Fullan andHargreaves, 1992; Cheng, 1993). Drawing from literature onQuality Management principles and practices in business and inschools, and on input from an expert panel of school personnel,Detert et al. (2001) identified nine core Quality Management (QM)practices and values/beliefs that they theorized would be keyfeatures of the organizational cultures of schools engaged incontinuous improvement: shared vision, customer focus, long-term commitment, change-orientation, teacher involvement,collaboration, data-based decision-making, systems orientation,and continuous improvement at the same cost. Application of thisQM framework to the comparative analysis of schools withreputationally strong and weak continuous improvement cultures,however, did not reveal robust differences between schools onthese dimensions of culture (Schroeder et al., 2005). The idea thatsome school cultures manifest values/beliefs and practices morestrongly oriented towards continuous improvement than others,however, remains strongly entrenched in the discourse on schoolimprovement (though the transfer of QM principles from business

as a model for continuous improvement in schools may bequestionable). Building upon the early research of Little (1981) andRosenholtz (1989), consensus has emerged around the concept ofcollaborative school cultures where school personnel engage incollective actions (as opposed to individualistic actions) toestablish and jointly pursue common goals for teaching andlearning, and where organizational leadership, norms, and workingconditions facilitate ongoing efforts to improve the accomplish-ment of those goals (e.g., Anderson, 1992). In the 1990s the conceptof collaborative culture was displaced by the concept of profes-sional community (e.g., Louis and Kruse, 1995) and eventually bythe concept of professional learning community (e.g., Thiessen andAnderson, 1999; DuFour et al., 2005; Retallick and Farah, 2005).The basic idea and finding that educators in some schools engage inintentional ongoing efforts to improve the quality of teaching andlearning is now accepted as fact. How prevalent these schools are,however, remains a mystery.

The mystery is confounded by the emergence of governmentaccountability policies that set academic performance standardsfor students and schools, and that attempt to require under-performing schools to undertake actions that will progressivelyimprove student performance as measured on governmentapproved standardized tests. These sound like continuousimprovement policies, though that may be more illusory thanreal. First, the pressure to improve centers mainly on schoolswhere significant numbers of students are not performing at orabove minimum acceptable standards, and where there aresignificant gaps between categories of students based on race,SES, English language proficiency, or special educational needs.There is a growing research literature on low performing schoolsthat ‘‘turnaround’’ and schools that improve despite exceedinglychallenging socio-economic and demographic circumstances (e.g.,Fullan, 2006). Expectations of continuous improvement diminishin schools where the majority of all students are performing atadequate levels in accordance with government mandatedstandards. We have no idea of how many of those schools fitthe model of a moving or continuously improving school asdescribed by Rosenholtz (1989), or whether they might simply bemaintaining in a strolling or cruising mode as characterized byStoll and Fink (1996). In the business sector the most successfulcompanies are characterized in part by their commitments andefforts to continuously improve (Collins and Porras, 1994; Collins,2004). Should we expect less of our schools? What does continuousimprovement mean for academically high performing schools?

Second, even in schools that experience the greatest pressure toimprove, we do not have a good idea of how many actuallyundertake and demonstrate continuous improvement on govern-ment prescribed performance measures over time, and what thismeans in practice. Evidence of system-wide improvements instudent test results over time in large numbers of schools (e.g.,Texas, England, Ontario) are accompanied not only by positivestories of change, but also by concerns about the ethics and equityconsequences of an emphasis on test preparation over otherlearning goals (e.g., citizenship, arts, healthy living, technicalvocational skills) (McNeil, 2000). Furthermore, even in reportedlybest case scenarios of large scale reform effects across schoolsystems, analysts have noted the common phenomenon of aresults plateau (Fullan, 2005, 2006). With targeted goals andintensive investment in capacity building for improvement,particularly in underperforming schools and districts, it isdemonstrably possible to improve the academic performance oflarge numbers of schools as measured by standardized test scoresin basic skills areas such as reading, writing and mathematics.Within a few years, however, the initial improvement trends tendto flatline. Fullan argues that policies and strategies that are

S. Anderson, R. Kumari / International Journal of Educational Development 29 (2009) 281–292 283

effective in getting the improvement ball rolling may need tochange in order to stimulate further improvement. The implicationis that the process of continuous improvement itself may need tobe continuously improved!

2.2. Multiple innovations and continuous improvement

Does continuous improvement in schools mean that schoolpersonnel adopt and implement multiple changes in curriculum,teaching methods, and related-organizational conditions?Obviously ‘‘Yes’’, but the relationship between the multiplicityof innovations or changes a school might undertake andcontinuous improvement cannot be taken for granted (Anderson,1991; Wallace, 1991). The mere incidence of multiple innovationsis not an indicator of continuous improvement. Negative images ofinnovation overload and of so-called Christmas tree schoolsopportunistically regaled with the superficial and uncoordinatedadoption of all the latest fads in educational programs andpractices, are more characteristic of how the phenomenon ofmultiple innovations has been viewed than of continuousimprovement. While one might reasonably expect continuousimprovement in schools to involve multiple change initiatives overtime, we do not really have a good handle yet on patterns of changeover time that are associated with positive evidence of improve-ment in schools.

The idea of continuous improvement is or should be aboutdeepening expertise with existing programs and practices, not justabout adding or replacing them with new ones. In their classicconceptualization of in-service training effects on teachers, Joyceand Showers distinguished between situations in which the goalfor teacher learning is to refine what teachers already do versusthose in which the goal is to learn to use methods and programsthat are new to the implementers (Joyce and Showers, 1980).Presumably, the practice of continuous school improvement wouldinvolve a mix of both kinds of innovation for teachers, not simplythe ongoing adoption of new programs and practices.

2.3. Change over time versus continuous improvement

Hargreaves and his associates conducted a retrospectiveinvestigation of change in eight Ontario and New Yorksecondary schools covering a span of 30 years (see theme issueEducational Administration Quarterly 42(1), 2006). They refer totheir study as an investigation of ‘‘change over time’’. Thisphrase aptly captures the school histories of change arising fromvaried sources (e.g., school personnel, government and districtreform initiatives, demographic change in school communitiesand populations served, administrator and staff turnover), butwithout a presumption that those changes add up to ongoingimprovement (cf. Louis et al., 1999). This broader perspective onchange in schools serves as an important reminder that animportant dimension of continuous improvement is how schoolpersonnel manage progressive improvements in performancewithin a context of other change forces that may or may not fitthe planned change agenda of the school. In several of theschools studied by Hargreaves and his team, for example, thechange stories were less about continuous improvement thanabout attempts to maintain earlier school programs, practicesand philosophies in the context of leader and staff turnover,government and district policy trends, demographic shifts, andcommunity expectations (Hargreaves and Goodson, 2006; Gilesand Hargreaves, 2006; Fink, 1999). While the researchers did notassess improvement over time, they had a lot to say about thesustainability of innovations in the case study schools over the30 years.

2.4. Cumulative effects versus continuous improvement

In the early 1980s research teams in the United States reportedfindings from investigations of the long-term impact (10–13 years)of federally mandated policies aimed at improving educationalopportunities for students disadvantaged from the mainstream forreasons of poverty, English proficiency, and special and vocationaleducation needs (e.g., Knapp et al., 1983; Kirst and Jung, 1980). Thecumulative effects were not just on extending services to theintended beneficiaries, but also on the complexity of the local andstate educational bureaucracies, and on a gradual accommodationwithin the education system to the additional administrative andpersonnel requirements and costs of delivering these specializedprograms on a routine basis. From a continuous improvementperspective, however, the researchers did not report any evidenceof changes in the quality of the new education programs andservices over time; it was more about federal policies andimplementation structures at the state and local level settling inas institutionalized features of the public education system. To theextent that current arguments for continuously improving schoolsare linked to accountability policy trends and demands ineducation, the findings from these studies suggest the practiceof continuous improvement in schools stands a greater chance ofbecoming an institutionalized feature of school, district, and stateoperations as people become more certain about what it is they aretrying to improve, as tasks associated with the work of continuousimprovement (e.g., data collection and analysis, school improve-ment planning and reporting) become embedded in local jobdescriptions and budgets, as interest groups within and outside thesystem (e.g., community groups, organized education profes-sionals, municipal governments, media) focus attention onaccountability and improvement evidence, and as politicalinterests sustain this ideology.

2.5. Scaling up versus continuous improvement

It has become popular in education circles to talk about ‘‘scalingup’’ of education quality (e.g., Elmore, 1995). In its essence, scalingup means taking something that is working well in one or a smallnumber of settings and replicating that practice and success inmany settings. The idea of scaling up has evolved out of earlierconcepts of innovation diffusion and dissemination (e.g., Anderson,1996). It is important to be clear about what it is that people arethinking of when they talk about scaling up. Is it a specific researchor practice validated program such as the early reading interven-tion program called Reading Recovery developed originally in NewZealand and now implemented in thousands of elementary schoolsacross North America? Is it a particular teaching strategy, such ascooperative group learning? Maybe it is a form of governance, suchas school management councils and school development plan-ning? Maybe it is a model for whole school improvement andpractice, such as the Accelerated Schools comprehensive schoolreform model in North America, BRAC in Bangladesh, or Escuela

Nueva in Colombia? One could argue that increasing the number ofeducators and schools who are implementing programs andpractices targeted for scaling up amounts to continuous improve-ment across a school system, whether at the district, state, ornational level. We are getting better, we say, because more peopleand settings are using the programs and practices that we think areeffective. In our view that is a limited view of improvement. It maybe continuous in terms of increasing the scope of implementation,without being continuous in terms of developing and assuring thequality of expertise and results in their use where adopted.Ultimately, it may be more appropriate to think about scaling upless in terms of programs or practices, than in terms of the

S. Anderson, R. Kumari / International Journal of Educational Development 29 (2009) 281–292284

achievement of desirable targets for student and school perfor-mance across a school or school system.

2.6. Sustainability and continuous improvement

In the education change literature the concept of sustainabilityhas supplanted the concept introduced in the mid-1970s ofinstitutionalization of educational innovations (Berman andMcLaughlin, 1976; Fullan and Pomfrett, 1977; Miles, 1983). Asoriginally construed, institutionalization signified a phase afterinitial implementation, when a new policy, program or practiceeither got incorporated into ongoing use as the normal way ofdoing things, or was discontinued due to such factors as loss offunding, staff turnover, competing practices, and low participantcommitment (see Anderson and Stiegelbauer, 1994, for a review ofresearch on factors contributing to institutionalization). Institu-tionalization remains a useful way of thinking about the possibleoutcomes of implementing new programs and practices over time,given the amount of money, professional time, and energy that isinvested in educational change initiatives. That said, innovationsare always susceptible to institutionalization in practice at sub-optimal levels of impact. This can arise when new programs orpractices do not produce the benefits claimed by their promotersdue to low quality of implementation, to poor fit with local contextand needs, or simply because they do not work as intended. Sub-optimal effects may also occur when the benefits of new programsand practices do not extend equitably to all students or teacherstargeted for implementation. If institutionalization leads tosustaining ineffective or ineffectively implemented programsand practices then we should question the premise of institutio-nalization as a goal. As early as the mid-1980s some educationscholars argued that ongoing refinement and eventual renewal ofexisting practices with new more effective ones were moreappropriate goals for implementation (Crandall et al., 1986; cf. Halland Loucks, 1977). Beyond initial implementation, sustainabilitywould not mean routine use of those programs and practices,rather their ongoing adaptation in light of local impact, needs, andconditions.

In the mid-1980s and into the 1990s the approach toeducational change shifted from an innovation-focused strategyto whole school strategies, such as effective schools projects,Comprehensive School Reform models, and restructuring oftraditional roles, structures, and organizational processes (e.g.,site-based management, increased teacher participation in deci-sion-making, school choice). One aim of restructuring and someCSR models (e.g., Accelerated Schools) was not simply to createmore effective schools, but to create schools with the organiza-tional will and capacity to engage in continuous renewal andimprovement (Murphy and Hallinger, 1993). If we embrace theidea that school improvement should be a continuous process, nota product of idiosyncratic changes program and practice, then it isrelevant for us to think about the sustainability of the organiza-tional mechanisms that facilitate continuous improvement, notjust about the sustainability of particular classroom innovations(Anderson and Stiegelbauer, 1994; Copeland, 2006). Fullan (2007)characterizes this as the sustainability of system capacity toengage in the process of continuous improvement. This focus forsustainability differs from one limited to sustaining particularprogram innovations.

There is one further dimension or focus of sustainability thatneeds to be considered—the sustainability of positive studentoutcomes. When we see evidence of schools where a majority ofstudents are performing at or above acceptable standards onsystem accountability measures, there is talk about the importanceof sustaining high levels of student performance, in addition to

raising the performance of those who are not at that level. Andwhen large numbers of students are not performing at acceptablelevels, but progress is being made, we talk about sustainingimprovement over time. Thus, there are three concurrent focusesof sustainability and continuous school improvement: (1) effectiveinstructional programs and practices; (2) organizational leader-ship and structures that enable and support continuous improve-ment as a regular feature of organizational culture; and (3)desirable student learning outcomes. With this in mind, it alsobecomes appropriate to question the goals or targets forimprovement.

2.7. The target(s) for continuous improvement?

What are continuous improvement efforts directed towards?The obvious response is student learning outcomes, particularlyunder the performance accountability policy regimes that havebecome so pervasive in public education sectors worldwide. Yetwhen we examine research that actually examines continuousimprovement efforts over time, we find that the practice ofcontinuous improvement cannot be portrayed simply in terms oflongitudinal changes in student learning outcomes and ininstructional practices directly linked to learning outcomes. It isrelevant to distinguish the distal aims for improvement in studentlearning, such as increasing the level of student academicperformance, reducing performance gaps between higher andlower performing student groups, and improving the nature ofstudent learning outcomes (e.g., shift from content recall toproblem solving cognitive objectives), from the proximal aims forimprovement directed at manipulable conditions known orpresumed to affect student learning.

Copeland (2003) conducted an investigation of the implemen-tation over a 5-year period of a continuous improvement modelthat emphasized use of a cyclical process of inquiry focused onstudent learning, collaborative decision-making, and leadershipdistribution in 86 San Francisco Bay area schools. Of the manyinteresting findings from this study, four are particularly relevantto our discussion here. One is that school personnel were atdifferent starting points in terms of their prior experience withschool improvement, use of data, participatory decision-making,and shared leadership. For many schools this required a shift in theprofessional culture and skills over time. Second, the researchersidentified developmental stages in the practice of inquiry-basedreform, and tracked movement over several years of some schoolsfrom novice, to intermediate to advanced stages of implementa-tion of the processes and culture of continuous improvement.Third, while principals played a key role as catalysts in initiatingreform and as facilitators in sustaining the improvement practices,they increasingly enabled the distribution of leadership functionsand practices more broadly to teachers with appropriate expertisein the schools. In particular, they shared responsibility for leadingand supporting reform efforts with teacher leaders and teamsacting in reform coordinating and support roles. Leadershipturnover was the most serious challenge to continuous improve-ment work in the more advanced schools. Copeland concluded thatsustainability of continuous improvement is ultimately dependentupon schools finding ways to embed ongoing reform work into theculture of the school (cf. Fullan, 2007). Finally, while Copelandprovided evidence of change in organizational structures, leader-ship roles and use of data-based inquiry focused on studentlearning at the school and grade/department levels, he did notprovide evidence of changes in teaching practices or learning in theschools. From this and other sources reviewed, we see the need todistinguish the professional practices of continuous improvementfrom the outcomes of continuous improvement practices for

S. Anderson, R. Kumari / International Journal of Educational Development 29 (2009) 281–292 285

students. Schools that seriously engage in continuous improve-ment practices, such as those described by Copeland and others(e.g., Hawley and Sykes, 2007) may introduce multiple innovationsin organizational arrangements, leadership, school planningprocesses, collegial work, performance assessments of studentlearning and teaching, instructional materials and practices,community relations, and so on, all directed towards incrementalimprovement in targeted learning results for students. While all ofthis counts as the practice of continuous improvement, the impacton student learning is not guaranteed.

2.8. Practicing continuous improvement

From the preceding review and selected research that directlyaddresses the phenomenon of continuous improvement, whatpredictions can be made about the practice and outcomes ofcontinuous improvement in schools? Here we highlight some keyexpectations as a prelude to our case study of a secondary schoolengaged in continuous improvement over a period of 10 years. In acontinuously improving school:

� t

he school culture would exemplify the characteristics of aprofessional learning community, but the development of thatculture may grow over time (e.g., consensus on goals, commit-ment to quality teaching and learning, norms and practices ofjoint work and learning among teachers, shared leadershiplinked to expertise, regular monitoring of progress and results ofimprovement efforts, leadership for change aligned with sharedgoals and evidence of progress, organizational structures andprocesses that enable the collaborative pursuit of improvedlearning); � e fforts to improve student learning would include refinements

and changes in curriculum and in teaching practices, but also inleadership and in organizational arrangements and processesthat affect the capacity of school personnel to determine andaddress perceived needs for improvement;

� t he leadership tasks, roles, organizational arrangements and

processes associated with continuous improvement wouldbecome embedded as a routine feature of the professional workculture of the school, but the practices and structures associatedwith continuous improvement practices would also be suscep-tible to ongoing change;

� i mprovement efforts over time would be increasingly directed

towards needs and solutions determined by school personnel,using externally sponsored innovations as tools for theaccomplishment of school goals, not as the basic rationale forchange;

� t urnover in leadership and in the teaching corps would be

strategically addressed to socialize new faculty into goals, normsand practices of professional work, and to sustain the directionsand processes of ongoing improvement practices and initiatives;

� c ollective monitoring and evidence-informed stock taking of

school performance (e.g., student results, teaching practices,support systems) by school personnel would occur on a periodicbasis, and follow-up plans would be developed and enacted;

� f aculty understanding of needs for improvement in student

learning and teaching interventions would become increasinglyclear and targeted over time; and,

� t here would be tangible evidence of change in student learning

associated with improvement-related initiatives in the schoolover time, though these trends might be marked by periodicplateaus and renewed initiatives to continuously improve.

We will revisit to these predictions in the analytical discussionfollowing the case study.

3. Background to the study

3.1. Aga Khan University Institute for Educational Development

The Aga Khan University Institute for Educational Develop-ment (IED), located in Karachi (Pakistan), provides in-serviceeducation to teachers and administrators from schools inPakistan and certain other regions of the developing worldincluding East Africa and Central Asia. Founded in 1993, the IEDapproach to whole school improvement involves the participa-tion of selected personnel from cooperating schools in multiplestrands of professional development: a masters degree programthat equips key teachers to serve as instructional leaders,referred to as Professional Development Teachers (PDTs), intheir home schools; 3-month certificate and 12-month diplomaprograms to enhance participating teachers’ subject knowledgeand methods (English, Mathematics, Science, Social Studies);and a diploma program for school managers to strengthen theircapacity to manage and lead school development. A key featureof the cooperating school concept is the idea that school cadresof teachers and administrators trained over time in a commonarray of teaching methods and school improvement strategies(e.g., peer coaching) will work together to improve teaching andlearning.

More comprehensive descriptions of the IED teacher educa-tion for school improvement model and reports of research onvarious aspects of its implementation and impact are accessiblein several edited books and journal publications (e.g., Halai andRarieya, 2004; Retallick and Farah, 2005; Farah and Jaworski,2006; Khamis and Jawed, 2006; Khamis and Sammons, 2004,2007). Many of these prior publications are explicitly framed asinvestigations of the professional development experiences ofeducators trained in the IED programs, and as follow-up studiesof their attempts to implement innovative teacher leader andschool management roles and practices in cooperating govern-ment and independent schools. This study is not framed as anevaluation of IED’s school improvement model and its imple-mentation, though as described below, the original research onwhich the case is based was conducted by the authors as part ofan impact evaluation of the impact of IED inputs in sevenschools. Rather, the case study analysis presented here takes anIED cooperating school as an example of a school involved incontinuous improvement efforts over a sustained period of time,and endeavors to describe and analyze the continuous improve-ment process and outcomes from the perspective of the schooland its personnel. Through our analysis we have attempted toproblematize and to draw out insights about the process ofcontinuous improvement in schools that are potentially general-izable to other schools and settings. Our intent here is not tocompare the experiences of this school with other IEDcooperating schools in the original study, nor with prior researchon the implementation and impact of IED inputs in cooperatingschools. We note, however, that prior evaluation research onIED’s impact on teachers and teaching, school management, andstudent achievement has consistently led to the conclusion thatthe utilization and effects of IED’s school improvement inputs ishighly context dependent and not predictable from the schoolimprovement model as such (e.g., Khamis and Sammons, 2004,2007). Reflecting that reality, our analysis positions the IEDinputs as a key human capacity building resource utilized togood advantage over a sustained period of time by schooladministrators and teachers in the case study school, butrecognizes that the driving force for ongoing improvementoriginates from within the school and the school system ofwhich it is a part.

S. Anderson, R. Kumari / International Journal of Educational Development 29 (2009) 281–292286

3.2. The research study

The original case study was conducted as part of an impactevaluation of the effects of IED inputs on teaching (content,methods), academic leadership and coordination, teacher–teachercollaboration, and student learning in Karachi secondary schools.Using a critical case sampling strategy, schools were selected thatwould provide a good test of IED’s whole school improvementstrategy. The sample consisted of seven long-term cooperatingschools (e.g., 8–10 years) from both the government andindependent sectors. All were high input schools in terms of thenumber of staff attending IED programs.

The data were gathered by a research team from the Aga KhanUniversity Institute for Educational Development and the Uni-versity of Toronto during the 2003–2004 school year. The dataincluded interviews with school administrators and teachers (IEDand non-IED trained), classroom observations (two per teacher) ofIED and non-IED-trained teachers in four curriculum areas(mathematics, English, social studies, sciences), a student focusgroup interview, content analysis of samples of student work andschool tests, collection of in-school and external examinationresults (over a 5–10-year period), records of school improvementactivity (school development plans, professional developmentactivities), and informal observation of teachers professionalactivities (e.g., staff room activity, training events, meetings)during site visits. This article highlights findings from one of theindependent sector case study schools. The authors were theprincipal investigators for this school (Anderson and Kumari,2005). The ‘‘story’’ from this case was, in the researchers’ judgment,a good example of continuous school improvement activity, hencethe focus of this article.

4. Case study: CBO Girls Secondary School

Girls Secondary School is one of several elementary andsecondary schools founded and governed by a community-basedorganization (the ‘‘CBO’’) in Karachi. The schools were establishedwith the intent to provide high standards of education to childrenof low to lower middle income families at accessible costs. In 2003,total enrolment in the CBO school system stood at about 2400students. For our study we concentrated on the lower secondary(Classes VI, VII, VII) branch of the Girls Secondary School. Each classcontained two sections of 40 heterogeneously grouped (i.e., mixedperformance levels) students, for a total of about 240 girls. Theschool system adhered to the government curriculum andprepared students for public school matriculation exams. Allcourses were taught in English, except for social studies, Islamiat(religious education), Urdu and Sindhi. The professional staff atGirls Secondary included a head teacher and 20 classroomteachers. The teachers were well educated. Among 15 lowersecondary teachers teaching mathematics, science, social studiesand English, all held bachelors’ degrees, and eight had masters’degrees mostly related to their teaching assignments. Of 20teachers at Girls Secondary during the year of our study, nine hadbeen there since at least 1994. Four had 3–7 years experience at theschool, and seven 2 years or less (four were transfers within theCBO system). Over this same decade an additional 24 teacherscame and went for various reasons (e.g., marriage, higher payingjobs at other schools). A principal presided over all the CBO schools.The principal and heads were accountable to the CBO governingboard and its Education Committee. The school day was from7:30 a.m. to 1:30 p.m., with seven 40 min periods of instructionand one mid-morning break. Teachers also reported for duty onSaturday mornings, when they met in subject-related groups forindividual and joint professional activities (lesson planning,

analyzing student performance data, training) led by IED-trainedteacher leaders. The CBO school system held additional teacherdevelopment activities during annual ‘‘Summer Camps’’ in July.Other areas of school activity were managed by school heads andteachers through a system of councils—Academic Council (e.g.,timetabling, school examinations), Discipline Council (e.g., studentproctors, school cleanliness), and Non-Academic Council (extra-curricular activities).

4.1. History of school improvement

The CBO school system’s decade-long (1994–2004) cooperationwith IED is a significant element in the story of schoolimprovement within Girls Secondary and the other CBO schools;however, it is really a story of how the CBO system made strategicuse of IED professional development inputs as resources for its ownevolving vision and approach to continuous improvement in thequality of teaching and learning. CBO faculty identified five phasesof school improvement activity, each marked by the adoption andimplementation of particular ‘‘models’’ of school improvement—(1) pre-IED; (2) peer/team teaching; (3) pools system; (4) guidanceand counseling; (5) student-focused. The beginning of each newphase and model did not mean the abandonment of prior schoolimprovement strategies. Earlier strategies evolved into institutio-nalized features of the school context, within which new strategieswere added to or integrated.

4.1.1. Pre-IED phase

In 1985 CBO regained control of its schools (private schools inPakistan were nationalized from 1972 to 1985). CBO school systemauthorities were unhappy with the quality of teaching, and werealso committed to shifting to English medium instruction. At thistime, the Education Committee took responsibility for arrangingteachers’ professional development. Selected teachers were sentfor short courses or workshops on teaching methods in thesummer offered by various providers (e.g., British Council, bookpublishers). The CBO authorities were dissatisfied with the lack ofcoordination and continuity in teacher development focus, and theabsence of any organized approach to sharing knowledge and tosupporting implementation in the classroom. The creation of IEDwith its multi-tiered system of professional development pro-grams for teachers, and later for heads, was welcomed as analternative to this fragmented non-systematic approach to teacherdevelopment and school improvement.

4.1.2. Phase 1: Peer/team teaching

CBO enrolled one teacher in the first IED M.Ed. program. Uponher return in 1995, the Board approved her designation as aProfessional Development Teacher (PDT), and a plan for her toteam plan and teach with two un-trained teachers as a way ofdisseminating the teaching methods she acquired through hertraining. This pairing of trained and un-trained teachers wasreferred to as ‘‘co-teaching’’. Other CBO teachers began attendingIED 3-month certificate programs in English, social studies,science, and math during the 1995/1996 school year. The co-teaching model was expanded with each set of returning trainedteachers. The Board endorsed a plan organized by the PDT with thecooperation of school heads that provided for shared planning timefor co-teachers, and staffing and scheduling arrangements so theycould teach different sections of the same class and subject atdifferent times to enable mutual observation. As access to trainingand participation in the peer/team teaching system expanded to allthe CBO schools, the school system authorities decided that therewas a need for greater coordination and cooperation with the PDT’sefforts. In 1996, they appointed a Boys School head who strongly

S. Anderson, R. Kumari / International Journal of Educational Development 29 (2009) 281–292 287

supported the school improvement arrangements as principal ofall the CBO schools, with authority to oversee the enactment ofschool improvement efforts led by the PDT. By April 1997, 19 CBOteachers (including eight from Girls Secondary) had completedcertificate courses and were teamed with one or more untrainedco-teachers. Another was enrolled in the M.Ed. program.

During Phase 1 three strands of change were introduced intothe classrooms. First, the trained teachers began practicingteaching methods that they had learned in IED programs, suchas lesson planning, cooperative learning, mind mapping, ques-tioning skills, using manipulatives, problem solving activities,role play, and other activity-based student-centered methods.These were shared with non-trained teachers through the co-teaching system, and through faculty workshops in the 1996Summer Camp (now taught by the PDT and other trained teachers,rather than by external providers). The PDT and her co-teachersalso initiated two innovations based on their early experienceswith the new methods. First, they changed the format of schoolexam questions to better align with the activity-based andproblem solving methods of instruction being used. Second, theydeveloped a process for ‘‘informal evaluation’’ of student socialskills and engagement in the more student-centered andinteractive learning activities (e.g., taking turns, using soft voices,class participation). These site-based innovations eventuallyspread to all subjects and teachers and were institutionalizedas school policy.

4.1.3. Phase 2: Pool system

From March 1997 forward CBO teachers were organized incurriculum-related groupings, called ‘‘pools’’, led by teachersappointed as pool heads: the Languages Pool, Social Studies Pool,Mathematics Pool, and Science Pool. The rationale for creating thepools system was to extend involvement in school improvementactivities to all teachers on a continuous basis, to engage teachersin collaborative school-based professional work, and to spreadleadership for improvement beyond the heads and PDTs. Up to thispoint teachers of subjects not targeted by IED programs, andteachers who had not taken part in the co-teaching scheme werenot full partners in school improvement. Along with the pools, theCBO Board approved the establishment of a School ImprovementCenter, to be led by IED-trained Professional DevelopmentTeachers in partnership with the pool heads, under the authorityof the principal.

The original pool system was system-wide. Teachers from allschools and campuses met together in their pool groups under asingle pool head. Pool heads were senior teachers who hadcompleted IED training, initially at the certificate level, and from1998 onward at the Subject Specialist Teacher level (a 12-monthdiploma program). Pool activities were planned and facilitatedjointly by the pool heads under the leadership of the PDTs (asecond PDT completed the M.Ed. program in 1998), with inputfrom teachers in each pool. Each pool group met once a month onSaturdays during the school year on one of the campuses. Poolmeeting activities included analysis of teachers’ needs forprofessional support; teacher workshops and seminars on areasof identified needs; time for work on things like syllabus review,textbook analysis, lesson planning, preparation of exam papers,and the informal evaluation process; and opportunities for sharingand problem solving about the implementation of changes inteaching methods, assessment, etc. Pool groups also provided abasis for planning and delivering the yearly Summer Camps. As thepool heads gained experience, the PDTs direct involvement in poolactivities diminished, though they continued to provide overallleadership for the pool system and school improvement activities,and guidance and support to pool heads.

The formally organized system of co-teaching arrangementsstopped once the pool system was in place. Within the pools,however, teachers were encouraged informally to pair up andcoach one another in the use of new methods of teachingemphasized in pool workshops and presentations. This wasfacilitated by pool heads. Training was given to teachers on theprocess of peer coaching as learned in IED programs. Concurrentwith creation of the pools, the PDTs set up their own schedule ofcyclical teacher observation and coaching across all the schoolsand class levels. The school improvement functions of the PDTsbecame a full time job at this point.

During this phase of the CBO school improvement story, theemphasis on change in the classroom remained focused on theteaching methods adopted from IED teacher developmentprograms, on refining implementation of the informal evaluationprocess across all subjects and classes, and on refining the internalexamination formats to better match the teaching and learningprocesses in use. By June 2001, 79 teachers across the system hadcompleted subject specialist programs at the certificate or diplomalevels at IED. There were two PDT graduates of the M.Ed. program.These inputs were partly offset by teacher turnover; 25 IED-trainedteachers left the school over this same period. The SchoolImprovement Center’s in-house professional development pro-gram reached its zenith at the 2001 Summer Camp. The PDTs andother IED-trained teachers delivered an on-site certificate programaccredited by IED for 25 CBO elementary school teachers.

4.1.4. Phase 3: Guidance and counseling

Phase 3, beginning at the start of the 1998/1999 school year,was characterized less by organizational restructuring than by theintent to take stock of school improvement progress across thesystem, and to rethink and revise the supervisory support systemfor improvement in teachers’ professional practices. The initiativesassociated with this phase are more grounded in the experience,reflections, and creativity of school personnel than in inputs fromsources directly linked to IED.

School sources describe several reasons for Phase 3. Due toongoing teacher turnover, new teachers were constantly beingappointed. They needed systematic guidance and counseling aboutteaching methods and other professional expectations (e.g., lessonplanning, correcting student workbooks). Given the growingdiversity of teacher experience, strategies were needed to identifyand respond better to teachers’ individual needs for support andimprovement, not just to their collective needs. The array ofteachers in leadership roles across the system (school heads, PDTs,pool heads, council heads, subject heads, principal) made itconfusing for teachers to know who to turn to for help for what.School system leaders also believed that continued improvementwould require an increasingly precise targeting of interventions toteaching and learning situations where adequate performance wasnot being demonstrated.

The ‘‘solution’’ to these concerns developed along three paths:(1) revision of the teacher appraisal system; (2) systematicobservation and coaching of all classroom teachers by the PDTs;and (3) direct consultation with students by supervisory personnelregarding their learning difficulties. The existing teacher appraisalsystem consisted in little more than a single classroom observationeach year by school heads. Other criteria were vague andundisclosed, although annual salary increments were linked tothe appraisals. Between 1998 and 2001 the PDTs in consultationwith school heads, pool heads, and system officials developed anew appraisal process. People in different leadership positions (i.e.,school heads, pool heads, council heads) were assigned respon-sibility for evaluating and supporting different aspects of teacherperformance, such as lesson planning, homework correction,

S. Anderson, R. Kumari / International Journal of Educational Development 29 (2009) 281–292288

classroom teaching, and execution of council duties. The return of asecond PDT to the CBO schools in 1998 also made it possible toincrease the scope of PDT observation and coaching to all teachers.

A third monitoring and evaluation initiative undertaken duringPhase 3 was a decision at the level of the Principal and school headsto visit all classrooms and to consult students directly about theirlearning difficulties (e.g., subject areas, topics, teaching methods,language problems) without teachers in the room. Informationfrom these meetings was then shared with the PDTs and poolheads, so that they could undertake professional support inter-ventions as needed. On the one hand, this was simply another wayof trying to identify needs for improvement directly connected tostudent performance. On the other hand, it is not hard to see howteachers might regard this as an expression of distrust in theirprofessional judgment and a threat to job security.

The initial vision for Phase 3 included research and evaluationof school improvement progress and results. While the revisions tothe teacher appraisal system, the increased monitoring of class-room teaching, and the assessment of student perspectives onteaching and learning can be seen as forms of research andevaluation, the PDTs did not undertake more formal research onthe systems’ school improvement efforts. In consultation with thePrincipal and heads, however, they did summarize longitudinaldata on various indicators of student and teacher performancefrom existing records, such as annual examination results, recordsof student use of library resources, students’ ‘‘informal evaluation’’marks, reflective notes in teachers’ diaries, and the PDTs’observations. These data were shared internally and externally(e.g., presentations at IED), served as evidence for school-basedreflection and discussion on school improvement, and fed into thedevelopment of the succeeding phase of improvement.

4.1.5. Phase 4: Child-focused model

The intent to undertake a child-focused model of schoolimprovement was formally announced by the School ImprovementCenter (SIC) leaders in August 2001. School sources attributed theorigins of the child-focused concept to ongoing discussions betweenthe SIC team, heads, and Principal about student results and toprofessional readings supplied by the Principal. The rationale for thisphase of improvement was as follows. The teacher developmentapproach to school improvement promoted through the IED in-service programs and through the peer/team teaching and poolssystems substantially changed teaching, learning, and examinationpractices and teachers’ professional collaboration within the CBOschools. Those changes, however, had not led to substantialimprovements in the academic ‘‘results’’ (i.e., test scores, gradesin courses) for so called ‘‘below average students’’. The newapproach proposed to shift the focus of intervention from teachersto students, with an emphasis on identifying and providing needs-based assistance to all low performing students.

Core elements of the child-focused model in action includedcontinuous assessment of student performance (three times ayear) by Class teachers in consultation with the subject teachers,the development of a ‘‘performance sheet’’ to record and track theassessments, more frequent consultation with parents of studentsidentified as having problems, differentiation of classroominstruction according to student need, the scheduling of extraclasses and tutoring for identified students, and more frequenttesting of these ‘‘special needs’’ students. Teachers were requiredto provide additional assistance to weak students during their freeperiods, morning assemblies, on Saturdays, or during Wintervacations. Alternating subject areas were emphasized in differentweeks. The CBO management also mandated a ‘‘targeted results’’policy. All teachers were expected to strive for 100% clear passresults, with 50% of their students earning A or A+, and 50% B. Some

teachers interpreted the targeted results policy as a mandate towhich they had to comply, rather than a goal to steadily worktowards over time. Differences in interpretation of the policy andthe consequences for teachers whose students did not meet thestandards were still being worked out at the time of our study.Implementation of the student-focused assessment system andtargeted results policy got underway during the 2002/2003 and2003/2004 school years. This coincided with a significant change inleadership and organization of school improvement in the schools.

At the close of the 2001/2002 school year three ProfessionalDevelopment Teachers and one other IED-trained senior teacherwere promoted to school heads on the main Girls and Boyscampuses. The previous heads (who were not trained as PDTs, andwho were not perceived as fully supportive of the improvementactivities of the PDTs) were dismissed. The outcome of this changein leadership affected the sustainability of some of the schoolimprovement structures and strategies introduced in earlierphases. The new heads were expected to perform the dual rolesof school section heads and of PDTs, though the time available forPDT work was reduced, and the expectations for head teacherresponsibilities were increased (e.g., budgeting). As a result, thePDT/heads stopped doing regularly scheduled classroom observa-tion and coaching of all teachers. Because they no longer sattogether in the former School Improvement Center office,communication between the PDT/heads also diminished, thoughthey continued to meet as a management team with the Principalon a monthly basis or as needed. Concurrent with the appointmentof the PDTs as school heads, the management decided todecentralize the pools. The restructured pool system becamecampus-based rather than system-wide, with separate pools andpool heads on each campus (though primary and secondaryteachers still sat together in the pools). According to administrativesources, the availability of IED-trained teachers to act as schoolheads and pool heads on each campus reduced the need forsystem-wide pool meetings. The decentralized system alsoallowed for more school specific pool activities if and whenneeded. In practice, however, one outcome of the change was asignificant reduction in the frequency of organized pool meetingactivities. Teachers continued to sit in their pool groups onSaturday mornings and continued to engage in informal co-teaching, sharing, and problem solving, as well as in routinesyllabus and lesson planning, recordkeeping, exam questionsetting, and so on. At the time of our study, however, no organizedplan for pool activities existed as before at Girls Secondary School.The pool heads and school head reported that pool activities werescheduled on an as needed basis (e.g., to review criteria for markingexam questions). The pool heads were actively performing some ofthe functions previously associated with the PDTs. For example,they were co-teaching newly appointed teachers to the school, andarranging for those teachers to observe more experienced teachersas part of their induction into school norms for classroom teaching.

These organizational shifts in Phase 4 coincided with a system-wide reduction in organized in-service training on teachingmethods. Teaching methods workshops in pool meetings and inSummer Camps stopped after the 2001 Summer Camp, and themanagement decided not to continue sending teachers for subjectspecialist training to IED. School personnel offered a variety ofreasons. The teaching methods had become the norm in class-rooms across the CBO system. The repetitious content of in-schoolworkshops was boring for teachers who had remained with theschools since the IED-supported era of school improvementactivity began. While the teacher turnover rate was not alarming,school officials were conscious that many of those leaving were‘‘trained teachers’’ who were using their new credentials to seekhigher paying jobs elsewhere. There were enough trained teachers

S. Anderson, R. Kumari / International Journal of Educational Development 29 (2009) 281–292 289

and teacher leaders remaining to continue inducting new teachersinto the instructional norms and practices now in place in the CBOschools in a more informal and decentralized way through thepools. The 2002 Summer Camp was devoted to in-servicepresentations to support the implementation of the student-focused assessment instruments. The 2003 Summer Camp focusedon in-house sessions intended to improve teachers’ Englishlanguage proficiency. Two new PDT’s returned to the CBO schoolsin 2003. Both were directed to tailor their ‘‘action plans’’ toassistance for students with special needs and assistance withEnglish language enhancement efforts, rather than to the teacherskills development focus of the original PDTs.

4.2. IED influence and continuous improvement outcomes

Significant change took place at CBO Girl Secondary Schoolduring a decade of cooperation with the Aga Khan UniversityInstitute for Educational Development professional programs—changes in teaching methods and teachers’ orientation to studentlearning, changes in the ways teachers interact professionally,changes in leadership and in the organizational structures thatguide and support teachers’ work, and change in the nature andquality of student learning. The case study picture certainly fits theimage of a school and school system engaged in the practice ofcontinuous improvement. Here we summarize our findings aboutchange over time and the influence of IED inputs (trainedpersonnel and knowledge) on improvement efforts and resultsin this school and system.

4.2.1. Change in instructional leadership and collegiality

New instructional leadership roles (e.g., principal, ProfessionalDevelopment Teachers, pool heads) were established to lead andfacilitate site-based school improvement planning and activities,utilizing teachers trained in IED’s degree, diploma and certificateprograms. These roles were differentiated from the traditionaladministrative roles of school and council heads. The evolution inthe organizational structure and game plan for school-basedimprovement through various ‘‘models’’ (i.e., peer/team teaching,pools, guidance and counseling, child-focused) proceeded as aprocess of strategic adaptation in the school system to increasingnumbers of IED-trained teachers at varying levels of expertise, andto the CBO management intent to scale-up the teacher traininginputs to teachers in all schools, subjects, and class levels. Changesin the infrastructure associated with the latter phases were lessdirectly a response to ongoing IED inputs than a result of schoolsystem and school leaders’ joint reflection and discussion aboutways to sustain the support system and to reduce dependency onIED, and about the cumulative results of teacher development onteaching methods and student learning in a context of teacherturnover and changing priorities for school development. Wenoted a trend at the close of our 10-year history of improvementefforts, however, towards a relaxation of some of the formalorganizational structures and processes that were key features ofthe collegial practice of continuous improvement (e.g., distinctProfessional Development Teacher leadership roles; systematiccollaborative teacher improvement activities), and an increasingreliance on informal norms and processes for sustaining teachers’professional community.

4.2.2. Change in teaching methods

Our interviews and observations of Girls Secondary Schoolteachers, complemented by our analysis of student work samplesand tests, confirmed the common use of the kinds of activity-based,student-centered, and cooperative group learning teaching strate-gies promoted in IED courses in all subject areas across Classes VI–III

(e.g., brainstorming, mind and concept mapping, role play, smallgroup learning, open-ended questioning). Diffusion and transfer ofthese teaching methods into teachers’ instructional repertoires wasstrongly supported by the variety of organizational innovations putinto place in the CBO system and Girls Secondary to assist teacherswith their use, and by the shared vision of teaching and learning anda collegial professional culture associated with implementing thoseteaching methods. Some changes in instructional practice were localinnovations developed as a result of faculty reflection on imple-mentation progress and effects on student learning (e.g., social skillsevaluation, changes in test question formats, standardized trackingof student progress). While teachers incorporated a variety ofteaching methods associated with IED inputs into their routinerepertoires of instructional practices, our classroom observationsprompted us to question the quality of teacher understanding andskill in the use of those methods. These concerns were linked to theapparent routinization in teacher use of those methods coupled withthe reported relaxation of systematic ongoing teacher developmentactivity.

4.2.3. Change in student learning

School personnel emphasized multiple dimensions of change instudent learning outcomes, including: greater emphasis on andevidence of knowledge comprehension; development of students’independent learning skills (finding information, solving problems);student accountability for learning beyond content presented by theteacher; and increased confidence among students to communicatetheir understanding, ask questions, and engage in open-endedlearning tasks. Teachers also referred to evaluation of students’social and communication skills. Our observations affirmed teacherclaims about student learning behaviors in the classroom. On theother hand, school personnel reported a decline in the proportion ofstudents receiving high marks on school exams from 1995 to 1998(the proportion of failing students did not increase). They attributedthis decline mainly to the changes that they made in examinationformat from rote response to more activity-based, problem solving,and open-ended questions consistent with the new teachingmethods and goals for learning. Our inspection of school recordsconfirmed the drop in test results for Classes VI–VIII at GirlsSecondary from 1995 to 2001. After a significant decline in thepercentage of students averaging A or A+ on annual examinationresults (10–15% drop) between 1994 and 1996, the pattern ofstudent results on school tests remained stable through 2001. Schoolpersonnel did not interpret the decline in test results as evidencethat the changed methods of teaching and learning should beabandoned. They remained convinced that the overall quality ofstudent learning had changed for the better as a result of the IED-inspired methods of teaching and learning. Faced with a stabilizedpattern of test results, however, they responded by shifting the focusof improvement activity from teacher development to studentlearning (e.g., systematic evaluation of student progress, individua-lized intervention for students not making satisfactory progress,school-wide achievement targets for all students). The shift to achild-focused improvement model coincided with an upward turnin school test result in 2002. The percentage of students averaging A/A+ on exams returned to levels not seen since 1994, and therewas noticeable decrease in the proportion of low performingstudents (D/F).

5. Discussion

At the conclusion of our review of past research related tocontinuous improvement in schools we offered several predictionsabout the practice and outcomes of continuous improvement. Thepreceding case study analysis is consistent with those predictions,

S. Anderson, R. Kumari / International Journal of Educational Development 29 (2009) 281–292290

while providing some caveats and nuanced insights into thephenomenon. We contend that CBO Girls Secondary School didcome to exemplify the characteristics of a professional learningcommunity, and that the story of continuous improvement is asmuch about initiatives undertaken to develop and sustain thatprofessional culture as about the effects on teaching and learning.Girls Secondary did not become a professional learning commu-nity overnight. This was due to the time that it took to scale upparticipation in the improvement efforts to all teachers, to theneed to strategically reconfigure the leadership and structuralarrangements several times during the process, and to the timerequired for norms of collegial professional work to settle in topractice. As predicted, the practice of continuous improvementincluded a major emphasis on change in teaching methods andcurriculum (expectations for learning, materials), while simulta-neously addressing changes in leadership roles and relationships(at the system and school levels), professional developmentpractices and arrangements, and teachers’ collaborative workactivities and relationships. Furthermore, the organizationalinfrastructure designed to support ongoing improvements inteaching and learning itself became an object for continuousimprovement in response to changes in context associated withearlier improvement efforts (e.g., the search for efficient andeffective ways to scale up training and participation to allteachers, teacher turnover, early implementation experiences andresults for head teachers, teachers, and students). The challengesto continuity in new professional norms and in expectations forhow teachers would teach were effectively addressed through theschool-based professional learning culture and systems (poolgroups, peer coaching, workshops). The eventual promotion ofProfessional Development Teachers to school section headpositions ensured continuity in school support for changes inprofessional beliefs and practices introduced in the first 8 years ofimprovement efforts associated with the partnership with IED.However, amalgamation of the PDT and head teacher roles alsoappeared to represent at least a temporary threat to sustainabilityof school leadership for continuous improvement. As evidencedby the evolution through four strategically designed organiza-tional models and game plans for school improvement, school andschool system leaders and teachers did engage in periodic stocktaking of progress towards the vision for teaching and learning.Unlike the kinds of formal school improvement planning andinquiry cycles and procedures described by some observers andadvocates of continuous improvement (e.g., Hawley and Sykes,2007; Copeland, 2003), the cyclical improvement processemployed in the CBO system was less formalized, and lessgrounded in systematic inquiry (e.g., needs assessment, actionresearch). It appeared more as a process of reflective practice thanformal inquiry at the system level, drawing upon availableevidence that was being routinely gathered, and upon thequalitative experience-based knowledge of key leaders in theimprovement process, such as the principal, PDTs, pool heads, andschool heads. As predicted, the improvement processes did resultin credible evidence of change in the desired directions in teachingpractices and in student learning. However, teacher expertise inthe use of new teaching methods and student learning outcomesas measured by test scores also plateaued within a few years.Awareness and dissatisfaction with this results pattern, particu-larly the lack of evidence of ongoing improvements in student testscores on in-school examinations led to shifts in schoolimprovement activity from an emphasis on teacher development,to new policies and strategies for teacher evaluation, and to moresystematic methods of tracking individual student success andintervening throughout the school year, rather than respondingonly to mid-term and final test results.

We conclude this discussion with a set of propositions about theprocess of continuous improvement based on our case study ofCBO Girls Secondary School. These propositions are consistent withthe earlier predictions from past research as elaborated above, butalso incorporate some other dimensions of the CBO case that werenot predicted, particularly the key role of school system levelleadership in setting and sustaining the vision and in creating thepolicy and organizational conditions conducive to improvement. Inshort, continuous improvement at Girls Secondary has to beunderstood in relation to plans and support for improvement at theschool system level.

1. D

ynamic vision for school development. Continuous improvementis rooted in school system commitment to widely commu-nicated and understood long-term visions for school develop-ment and performance, and for the school system’s role inenabling movement towards that vision over time. While thelong-term visions remain constant, short-term goals andorganizational practices for accomplishing those goals are notstatic. They progressively evolve in response to ongoing capacitybuilding inputs, innovation (both classroom and organizational)efforts, practical experience, and systematic reflection by schooland system personnel on evidence of progress and results.

2. S

ustained leadership commitment and trust. Continuous schoolimprovement depends upon sustained commitment to changeand improvement by school system and school leaders. Theysupport significant recurring investments in professionaldevelopment and experimentation with innovative classroompractices and organizational structures. There are no quick fixes.They persist in their support for innovations through earlyimplementation challenges before abandoning or committing toinstitutionalization of changes. School system authoritiesdemonstrate a high degree of trust in the judgment andrecommendations of school personnel, but are not hesitant toremove persons in positions of leadership who prove uncom-mitted to the system vision and short-term goals.

3. S

trategic interaction with external resources. Leaders in con-tinuously improving schools and school districts effectively seekout, leverage, and use external resources to further system/school goals for change and improvement. These organizationsare not driven by external influence; they create ways to takeadvantage of external policies, resources and other inputs in theservice of local development and improvement agendas. Key tostrategic use of external resources is the fact that system leaderspay attention to the organization structures and processes thatneed to be in place internally in order to make productive use ofthe external inputs.

4. In

vestment in collective professional capacity development. Whileimprovement in student learning is the ultimate aim, the meansto achieving that end is through sustained investment indeveloping the knowledge and skills of classroom teachers andof personnel who provide instructional leadership. The profes-sional development effects on teachers and school leaders aregreater when the knowledge base accessed by school partici-pants is coordinated and coherent over time and across roles. Itis not simply a matter of providing the same individual PDinputs to many teachers and principals. School system leaderscreate organizational structures and processes that enableschool personnel to work collaboratively within and acrossschools on the diffusion, application, adaptation, and inventionof new ideas and practices in the process of improvement. It isthe collective, not the individual capacity of school professionalsthat grows. Professional development efforts and effects areenhanced by the development and enactment of personnelpolicies designed to recruit, select, retain, and promote people

S. Anderson, R. Kumari / International Journal of Educational Development 29 (2009) 281–292 291

who are committed to core organizational visions, goals, andnorms of professional work.

5. L

eadership differentiation and distribution. The differentiationand distribution of leadership roles and responsibilities forimprovement in teaching and learning are integral to creating aprocess of continuous improvement in schools and schoolsystems. This includes formally distinguishing instructionalleadership roles, responsibilities, authority and rewards fromconventional administrative and student support roles at schooland system levels. Continuous improvement is more likely tooccur when positions are (re)defined to lead and facilitate theprocess (not just added on to existing workloads), and when theorganizational conditions are created to enable those roles to beenacted in collaboration with existing roles. This includes schoolsystem investment in developing the professional knowledgeand skills associated with new leadership expectations.

6. P

rogressive alignment and synergistic interaction of practices and

structures affecting teaching and learning. Continuous improve-ment is not just about getting better at one thing, such asteaching methods, or even student results. Anderson (2002)identified multiple organizational conditions that influence thequality of teaching and learning, and that need to be addressedin a coordinated way in the improvement process over time:teacher development, school and system management, teachingand learning resources (curriculum, materials), instructionalleadership development, monitoring and evaluation of studentlearning and of improvement efforts, teacher working condi-tions, funding for school and teacher development, and parent/community involvement. Alignment cannot be accomplishedsimultaneously in all dimensions, hence the notion of progres-sive alignment. The synergy created from coordinated actionacross multiple components of the education enterpriseproduces teaching and learning effects that are greater thanthe separate effects of those components separately.

7. C

onstant reflection on progress in school development and student

learning. Continuous improvement requires periodic reflection onprogress and results in relation to the core vision and moreimmediate goals, based on a combination of experiential (e.g.,faculty input) and empirical (e.g., monitoring and test data)evidence, and followed by actions that address perceivedimprovement gaps and issues. This is not just about organizingevents and processes that enable data collection, reflection andplanning. It is also a matter of system and school personnel havingthe disposition and power to reflect and act upon their success orperceived barriers to improvement, and to make changes.

8. E

volutionary restructuring of support for improvement. Contin-uous improvement involves periodic questioning and reflectionon the organizational infrastructure that supports and enablesimprovement to happen, and the willingness and the power ofschool system and school leaders to rethink and restructure theorganization in light of evidence of the progress and results ofimprovement efforts for teachers and for students. Over time,sustained improvement in schools and school systems mayevolve through progressive phases of improvement, marked bythe introduction of new organizational structures and processes,or major revisions of previously introduced organizationalinnovations to support ongoing change. Care is taken to preserveand build upon elements of the antecedent support systems thatworked well in the improvement process.

References

Anderson, S.E., 1991. Principal’s management style and patterns of teacher imple-mentation across multiple innovations. School Effectiveness and SchoolImprovement 2 (4), 286–304.

Anderson, S.E., 1992. Building collegiality: innovation vs. school improvementapproach. The Canadian School Executive 12 (1), 3–8.

Anderson, S.E., 1996. Dissemination techniques in education. In: Plomp, T., Ely, D.(Eds.), International Encyclopedia of Educational Technology. 2nd ed. ElsevierScience, White Plains, NY, pp. 282–289.

Anderson, S.E., 2002. The double mirrors of school improvement: The Aga KhanFoundation in East Africa. In: Anderson, S. (Ed.), Improving Schools ThroughTeacher Development: Case Studies of the Aga Khan Foundation Projects in EastAfrica. Swets & Zeitlinger Publishers, Lisse, The Netherlands.

Anderson, S.E., Kumari, R., 2005. Continuous improvement at CBO Girls SecondarySchool. In: Halai, A., Anderson, S. (Eds.), Case studies of school improvement inPakistan. Unpublished research report. Aga Khan University Institute for Edu-cational Development, Karachi, Pakistan.

Anderson, S.E., Stiegelbauer, S., 1994. Institutionalization and renewal in a restruc-tured secondary school. School Organisation 14 (3), 279–293.

Berman, P., McLaughlin, M., 1976. Implementation of educational innovation.Educational Forum 40 (3), 345–370.

Cheng, Y.C., 1993. Profiles of organizational cultures and effective schools. SchoolEffectiveness and School Improvement 4 (2), 85–110.

Collins, J., 2004. Good to Great. HarperCollins, New York, NY.Collins, J., Porras, J.I., 1994. Built to Last: Successful Habits of Visionary Companies.

HarperCollins, New York, NY.Copeland, M., 2003. Leadership for inquiry: building and sustaining capacity for

school improvement. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis 25 (4), 375–396.

Crandall, D., Eiseman, J., Louis, K.S., 1986. Strategic planning issues that bear on thesuccess of school improvement efforts. Educational Administration Quarterly22 (3), 21–53.

Cuban, L., Tyack, D., 1995. Tinkering Toward Utopia: A Century of Public SchoolReform. Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA.

Detert, J., Seashore Louis, K., Schroeder, R., 2001. A culture framework for education:defining quality values and their impact in U.S. High Schools. School Effective-ness and School Improvement 12 (2), 183–212.

DuFour, R., Eaker, R., DuFour, R. (Eds.), 2005. On Common Ground: The Power ofProfessional Learning Communities. National Education Service, Bloomington, IN.

Elmore, R., 1995. Getting to scale with good educational practice. Harvard Educa-tional Review 66 (1), 1–26.

Farah, I., Jaworski, B. (Eds.), 2006. Partnerships in Educational Development. Sym-posium Books, Oxford, UK.

Fink, D., 1999. The attrition of change: a study of change and continuity. SchoolEffectiveness and School Improvement 10 (3), 269–295.

Fullan, M., 1982. The Meaning of Educational Change. Teachers College Press, NewYork, NY.

Fullan, M., 2005. Leadership & Sustainability: Systems Thinkers in Action. Corwin,Thousand Oaks, CA.

Fullan, M., 2006. Turnaround Leadership. Jossey-Bass, San Francisco, CA.Fullan, M., 2007. Educational reform as continuous improvement. In: Hawley, W.

(Ed.), The Keys to Effective Schools: Educational Reform as ContinuousImprovement. Corwin, Thousand Oaks, CA, pp. 1–12.

Fullan, M., Hargreaves, A., 1992. What’s Worth Fighting for in Your School. TeachersCollege Press, New York, NY.

Fullan, M., Pomfrett, A., 1977. Research on curriculum and instruction implementa-tion. Review of Educational Research 41 (1), 335–397.

Firestone, W., Louis, K.S., 1999. Schools as cultures. In: Murphy, J., Louis, K.S.(Eds.), Handbook of Research on Educational Administration. 2nd ed. Jossey-Bass, San Francisco, CA, pp. 297–322.

Giles, C., Hargreaves, A., 2006. The sustainability of innovative schools as learningorganizations and professional learning communities during standardizedreform. Educational Administration Quarterly 42 (1), 124–156.

Halai, A., Rarieya, J. (Eds.), 2004. IMPACT: making a difference.Proceedings of anInternational Conference held at AKU-IED. Aga Khan University Institute forEducational Development, Karachi, Pakistan.

Hall, G., Loucks, S., 1977. A developmental model for determining whether thetreatment is actually implemented. American Educational Research Journal 14(3), 263–276.

Hargreaves, A., Goodson, I., 2006. Educational change over time? The sustainabilityand non-sustainability of three decades of secondary school change andcontinuity. Educational Administration Quarterly 42 (1), 3–41.

Hawley, W., Sykes, G., 2007. Continuous school improvement. In: Hawley, W. (Ed.),The Keys to Effective Schools: Educational Reform as Continuous Improvement.Corwin, Thousand Oaks, CA, pp. 153–172.

Hord, S.M., Boyd, V., 1995. Professional development fuels a culture of continuousimprovement. Journal of Staff Development 16 (1), 10–15.

Joyce, B., Showers, B., 1980. Improving inservice training: the messages of research.Educational Leadership 37 (5), 379–385.

Khamis, A., Jawed, S., 2006. School improvement: cases from Pakistan. In: Farah, I.,Jaworski, B. (Eds.), Partnerships in Educational Development. Oxford Studies inComparative Education. Symposium Books, UK, pp. 171–182.

Khamis, A., Sammons, P., 2004. Development of a cadre of teacher educators: somelessons from Pakistan. International Journal of Educational Development 24 (3),255–268.

Khamis, A., Sammons, P., 2007. Investigating educational change: The Aga KhanUniversity Institute for Educational Development teacher education for schoolimprovement model. International Journal of Educational Development 27 (5),572–580.

S. Anderson, R. Kumari / International Journal of Educational Development 29 (2009) 281–292292

Kirst, M., Jung, R., 1980. The utility of a longitudinal approach in assessing imple-mentation: a thirteen year view of Title I, ESEA. Education Evaluation and PolicyAnalysis 2 (5), 17–34.

Knapp, M., Stearns, M., Turnbull, B., David, J., Peterson, S., 1983. Cumulative effectsof federal policies at the local level. Education and Urban Society 15 (4), 479–499.

Little, J., 1981. Norms of collegiality and experimentation: workplace condi-tions of school success. American Educational Research Journal 19 (3), 325–340.

Lortie, D., 1975. Schoolteacher: A Sociological Study. University of Chicago Press,Chicago, IL.

Louis, K.S., Kruse, S., 1995. Professionalism and Community: Perspectives fromUrban Schools. Corwin, Thousand Oaks, CA.

Louis, K.S., Toole, J., Hargreaves, A., 1999. Rethinking school improvement. In:Murphy, J., Louis, K.S. (Eds.), Handbook of Research on Educational Adminis-tration. 2nd ed. Jossey-Bass, San Francisco, CA, pp. 251–276.

McNeil, L., 2000. Contradictions of School Reform: Educational Costs of Standar-dized Testing. Routledge, New York, NY.

Miles, M., 1983. Unravelling the mystery of institutionalization. Educational Lea-dership 41 (3), 14–19.

Murphy, J., Hallinger, P., 1993. Restructuring Schooling: Learning from OngoingEfforts. Corwin, Newbury Park, CA.

Retallick, J., Farah, I., 2005. Transforming Schools in Pakistan. Oxford UniversityPress, Karachi, PK.

Rosenholtz, S., 1989. Teachers’ Workplace: The Social Organization of Schools.Longman, New York, NY.

Sarason, S., 1982. The Culture of School and the Problem of Change. Allyn and Bacon,Boston, MA.

Schroeder, R., Febey, K., Seashore, K., 2005. Organizational Culture for ContinuousImprovement: An Empirical Study in Four Schools. Unpublished manuscript.

Stephens, D., 2006. Culture in Education and Development: Principles, Practices andPolicy. Bristol Papers in Education. Symposium Books, UK.

Stoll, L., Fink, D., 1996. Changing Our Schools. Open University Press, Buckingham,Great Britain.

Thiessen, D., Anderson, S.E., 1999. Getting into the Habit of Change in Ohio Schools:The Cross-Case Study of 12 Transforming Learning Communities. Ohio Depart-ment of Education, Columbus, OH.

Wallace, M., 1991. Flexible planning: a key to the management of multiple innova-tions. Educational Management and Administration 19 (3), 180–192.

Waller, W., 1932. The Sociology of Teaching. John Wiley & Sons, New York, NY.