The New School Organizational Chart

Figure 3.3 outlines the key features of the desired school operational

infrastructure that would fully integrate behavioural learning supports with classroom instruction and school-wide implementation. This operational infrustructure was designed with DL and the Change PLC which are necessary for developing a comprehensive and equitable system to address the barriers to both behavioural learning and teaching.

Figure 3.3 was designed utilizing existing staff and refocusing the role of the school-based 0.2 FTE Inquiry and Innovation Coordinator (I&I Coordinator). The

original role of the I&I Coordinator was to encourage teacher/staff innovation and inquiry with the new curriculum and assessment practices. This implementation plan would require the I&I Coordinator to take a leadership role in the planning process for directly teaching students the desired behaviours while also encouraging leadership in others. These conversations would occur at the Change PLC meetings. In addition, staff time during the work week would be required for the Change PLC to meet regularly in order to share data and create short and long-term action plans and next-steps. This would be

accomplished by adjusting the length of one school day per week to permit teachers and other staff to meet during the work day. This would not require additional funding but instead, a modification to the school day for students. The challenge would be to first work this through with the Board, both the teacher and support staff unions, and then with the parent community so they understand the rationale for releasing students earlier on one school day and lengthening the other days just enough to maintain the Ministry prescribed number of instructional minutes per week. With this in place, there would be no cost for teacher release time to attend PLC meetings as they would all be held during the work day.

Figure 3.4 illustrates the seven essential components that are addressed in this OIP. The first three are the school-based components which are star shaped and include

Figure 3.3 The New School Strategic Organizational Chart. This chart indicates the

original aspects of the organization (in black) and the additional components as the result of a DL approach as suggested through this OIP (in yellow).

School Inclusion Advocates, School Principal Leadership, and the School Change PLC. The four essential District components are circle shaped and include the District Learning Framework, District Social Justice Advocates, District Leadership (including District Governance & Ministerial Orders), and the District Safe Schools Committee. These seven essential components have the potential to bring about significant change but they hinge on the skill set of the school principal as they build and distribute leadership to their staff giving them responsibility and accountability in ensuring the vision for the desired future state is maintained.

The function of the school Change PLC is to work on system/organizational development while focus groups take on specific items to accomplish in the short-term and provide information back to the Change PLC. The school Inclusion Advocate would serve as a known safe person at school while also taking a lead role with the focus groups to ensure that the voices of both visible and invisible minorities are considered.

Figure 3.4. These are the seven essential components of this OIP.

A budget would also need to be identified and secured from both District and/or school funding in order to assist with safe school intervention strategies. The resources

for such intervention strategies would have to be prioritized through the allocation of the school’s instructional resources budget that they receive each year for supplementary materials. Technology would also be required to develop a record keeping system for student behaviour if one is not already in place. DGPS has a readily available PBIS data collection tool that can be provided to each school free of charge. However, of all the items listed above, the largest demand would be on time for staff to meet and plan. The case would have to be made to staff that the Change PLC meeting time during the work day was a significant win and the expectation is that other meetings would need to be scheduled during the week once students are dismissed at the end of the teaching day. These after school meetings would not need to be long, but if regularly scheduled and efficiently run the work would stay on schedule. Therefore, in order to ensure continual coordination and cohesion, the principal, I&I Coordinator, Inclusion Advocate, and focus group leaders must be present when the Change PLC team meets to work on change plan development and implementation during the work day, and other smaller group meetings would need to be held after school.

As the school’s main change agent, the principal would continually be involved in articulating both the need for change and the desired future state. At the same time the principal would need to manage the school’s structural changes and staff’s emotional and behavioural responses to change efforts so that ethically, nothing gets compromised to a danger point (Cawsey et al., 2016). The principal, together with their teacher leaders, would need to consider the question, “How can this change be put into place without seriously straining the organization of the school?” The principal and other staff leaders would work on the Change PLC to formalize a structure that would enable the school to carry on operating effectively while implementing the school-wide changes to managing student behaviour. The Change PLC would specify midpoint goals and timelines that would help motivate all stakeholders. The goals would need to be far enough away to provide direction but close enough together to provide a sense of progress and

accomplishment while also providing an opportunity for midcourse changes in plans (Cawsey et al., 2016, p. 328).