A Program Evaluation of a Michigan Systemic Reform Initiative: The Michigan Education Leadership Collaborative

An 18-member Collaborative of Michigan educational organizations and agencies was formed in October 1994. The Collaborative was committed to systemic reform that included inclusive relationships, challenging ideas, and changed practice to ensure better teaching and learning for all students. The Col...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Main Authors Fenster, Mark J, Kingsley, David C
Format Report
LanguageEnglish
Published 01.04.1998
Subjects
Cooperation
Educational Change
Educational Improvement
Elementary Secondary Education
Instructional Leadership
Michigan
Partnerships in Education
Program Evaluation
Public Schools
Reform Efforts
School Districts
State Programs
Tables (Data)
Teamwork
Michigan
Online AccessGet full text

Cover

More Information
Summary:An 18-member Collaborative of Michigan educational organizations and agencies was formed in October 1994. The Collaborative was committed to systemic reform that included inclusive relationships, challenging ideas, and changed practice to ensure better teaching and learning for all students. The Collaborative made the assumption that it would take a broad-based, diverse group to develop and implement the kinds of ideas in the public schools that will create active life-long learners who are able to contribute to a diverse democracy operating in a global society. During the initial year, the Collaborative relied on a residential community/school district academy, and a series of four Friday Seminars/Saturday Institutes to sustain newly created leadership teams at the school district level. With guidance from the Collaborative, these leadership teams would develop a school improvement plan that (ultimately) would improve teaching and learning for all students. Once developed, the plans would be modified as necessary and eventually implemented in the school district. Results from this one year effort showed that participants selected to participate in the Collaborative's educational reform efforts donated hours of time to the cause of school improvement, reported individual growth and improved leadership skills, and were more likely to perceive reform efforts benefiting all students. Lastly, it is noted that six leadership teams were still actively working on school improvement plans in March 1998, two years after state funding ended. Only two districts are known to have stopped work on the project. An appendix presents the assessment of the effects of the community/school district academy formed by the reform plan. (Contains 1 figure, 11 tables, and 7 references.) (Author/SLD)