Meeting the Spirit of AYP Through School Reform: Accountability Is Outcomes Based, But Input and Process Driven

by Troy V. Mariage and Linda Patriarca

Return to Main Article

Definitions

What are Inputs?

Inputs refer to any sub-system that a district changes, alters, or creates with the intention of improving processes/outcomes. For example, inputs could be the implementation of a new curriculum such as Everyday Mathematics (2004), a new program such as positive behavior supports (Sugai, Horner, & Gresham, 2002), new teaching practices such as Guided Reading (Fountas & Pinnel, 1996), or organizational changes such as extended school day or year-around school. Inputs, however, should not be thought of merely as activities, resources or materials. They are the activities, resources, and materials that are shaped, guided, and informed by the cultural values, beliefs, and dispositions of the institution.

What are Processes?

Processes refer to the actions, interactions, or sequences between and among the inputs. Examining processes informs us about how the program is being implemented or managed. For example, when we examine the processes of change, we are focusing on how teachers are enacting the new curriculum, program, or teaching practices and asking questions about fidelity of implementation or problems/obstacles encountered in instituting the change. As we examine processes, though, we must keep in mind that they are inherently social, value laden, political, and power filled and, as such, communicate powerful messages (some intended and other unintended) to stakeholders.

What are Outcomes?

Outcomes are the products or the results of the changed inputs and processes across several different dimensions. Outcomes always come at multiple levels. The deepest levels involve changes in people’s values, beliefs and dispositions—the hardest to achieve and the most difficult to measure. The most superficial levels involve changes in tangibles (such as textbooks and materials)—the easiest to achieve and the least difficult to measure. Outcomes, like processes, fall into two categories—intended and unintended. Therefore, we must examine not only the outcomes we intended to achieve but must also look “consciously” for any unintended outcomes. Unintended outcomes could impact positively or negatively on the ability to sustain improvements or obtain additional improvements in the future.

What are Drivers?

Although accountability is based on changing outcomes, inputs and processes are the “deep” drivers. For example, the 4th grade MEAP reading scores in a given building is an outcome. But to affect this outcome requires altering some input (e.g., adopting a new curriculum) or some process (using a set of explicit instructional strategies) or both.

References

Barth, R. S., (2002). The culture builder. Educational Leadership, 59(8), 6-11.

Everyday Mathematics®, Second Edition Update © (2004). New York: Wright Group/McGraw-Hill.

Fountas, I. & Pinnel, G. S. (1996). Guided reading: A good first teaching for all children. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.

Fullan, M., (2002). The change leader. Educational Leadership, 59(8), 16-20.

Fullan, M., (2003). Change forces with a vengeance.

Mariage, T. V., & Patriarca, L. (September, 2004). Meeting the challenge of adequate yearly progress: Improving student outcomes through systemic reform. FOCUS on Results. Michigan Department of Education, Office of Special Education and Early Intervention Services.

Sirontik, K. A., (1987). The school as the centre of change. (Occasional Paper No. 5). Seattle, WA: Center for Educational Renewal.

Sugai G., Horner R. & Gresham, F. (2002). Behaviorally Effective School Environments. In M. Shinn, H. Walker and G. Stoner (Eds.), Interventions for Academic and Behavior Problems II: Preventive and Remedial Approach (pp. 315-350).

TOP of Page