Being a STaR in Leadership, Administration, and Instructional Support
The Texas Campus School Technology and Readiness (STaR) Chart has four key areas in which a campus is evaluated for its technology readiness. The third area is Leadership, Administration, and Instructional Support and consists of six domains: leadership and vision, planning, instructional support, communication and collaboration, budget, and leadership and support for online learning.
On the campus statewide summary in 2007-08, 49% of Texas schools scored in Developing Tech and 45.5% scored in Advanced Tech. Only 3.6% of schools scored at the highest level of Target Tech; conversely, a small 2% of schools scored at the lowest Early Tech level. Thus, a vast majority of Texas schools fell in the middle range of readiness and implementation in this area.
The STaR Chart summaries for the past three years for my individual campus, Terra Vista Middle School, show similar results. For each of the past three school years, my campus scored at the Advanced Tech level with consistent scores of 17, 17, and 18 in the key area of Leadership, Administration, and Instructional Support.
Unfortunately, neither the state or campus levels scored at the highest tier, Advanced Tech, for this key area of Leadership, Administration, and Instructional Support. I would suggest that educational leaders take a close look at their Campus Improvement Plans to ensure that it is grounded in research, focused on student success, and rich in technology. Furthermore, campus leaders need to allocate discretionary funds and other resources to advance the implementation of all the technology strategies needed to meet the goals and objectives outlined in the Campus Improvement Plan.
Summary of the 2010 Progress Report on the Texas Long Range Plan for Technology
Since the link did not work for the 2008 Progress Report, I will summarize the 2010 Progress Report instead. The Progress Report analyzes the growth of the Long Range Plan for Technology from September 2008 to August 2010. Divided into two sections, it first shows the trends in the state summary of the campus STaR chart data in the four key areas. Secondly, it summarizes the services provided by the twenty regional education service centers to meet the recommendations of the plan.
In addition, the report also shares exciting news from the results from the Speak Up 2009 Survey. Results "indicate that students have become self-directed learners who are using technology and web applications to access content, acquire knowledge, and develop their own content" (2010, p. 7). In fact, students are well-equipped to use a vast array of digital content and internet resources. The state is also making strides in its implementation of digital content through the Texas Virtual School Network (TxVSN), Project Share and Texas Education on iTunes University.
Finally, the Progress Report looks toward the future. The strategic plan for 2011-2015 takes into consideration the tightening budgets the state and local agencies currently face. At the same time, the strategic plan holds fast to the objectives set by the long range plan. Thus, a compromise has been reached; research and development will continue to find technology sources that provide more for less cost. No matter what the cost, students must be "powered up" when they enter today's schools.
Summary of NETP 2010
On March 5, 2010, the U.S. Department of Education Office of Educational Technology published a draft version of the National Educational Technology Plan 2010. Its first goal is to raise nationally proportion of college graduates from the current 39% to 60% of our population holding a 2-year or 4-year degree in 2020. The second goal is to close the achievement gap so that all students graduate from high school ready to succeed in college and careers.
To achieve these goals, this plan urges the education system to create a clear vision; collaborate to make structures and processes more effective, efficient and flexible; continually monitor and measure performance; and hold ourselves accountable. Two areas essential to the achievement of these goals are learning and teaching. "Outside school, students are free to pursue their passions in their own way and at their own pace" (2010, vi). This world needs to be brought into the classrooms as well. "Teams of connected educators (need to) replace solo practitioners and classrooms (need to be) fully connected to provide educators with 24/7 access to data and analytic tools as well as to resources that help them act on the insights the data provide" (2010, viii). Thus, increased technology implementation would benefit both teachers and students, and thus work to close the achievement gap and increase our number of college graduates.
Professional educators need 21st century resources to enable connected teaching. In fact, the technology for connected teaching is available now, but many educators do not have the understanding of and ease with technology to support it. Thus, it is imperative that this gap in technological skills of educators be closed so that the achievement gap of all students will close as well.
TVMS is a STaR!
Week 3 Report
The most essential element of any action plan is a needs assessment, according to Dr. Abernathy, because it gives focus and vision. The most common needs assessment used in creating campus and district improvement plans is the AEIS (Academic Excellence Indicator System) report. According to the 2010 AEIS report, Frenship ISD needed to improve performance in high school mathematics as well as overall performance of special education and at-risk students. Thus, in our district improvement plan, ARRA IDEA Stimulus funds were assigned to “improve math and reading skills of identified special education and at-risk students by providing a balanced curriculum” (2011, p. 6). Furthermore, a majority of the STaR charts for campuses in our district showed needs in the two key areas of Teaching & Learning and Educator Preparation & Development. As a result, ARRA IDEA Stimulus funds were also allocated to “increase professional skills and strategies of general ed and SPED teachers” (2011, p. 6). Indeed, these needs assessments provided great insight, focus, and vision in developing the district improvement plan.
In order to meet the needs of students, district administration looked to technology for solutions. As mentioned above, ARRA IDEA Stimulus funds were allocated to provide a balanced curriculum for identified special education and at-risk students. Total funds of $364,727 provided the following: (a) APEX web-based curriculum at our alternative campus; (b) READ 180 and System 44 software integration for struggling middle school students; and (c) ALEKS web-based math program at the high school for at-risk and special education students. These are just a few examples of how technology is being used to deliver and enrich instruction for at-risk and special education students. However, technology is also integrated regularly to instruct the general population as well. In the elementary campuses, SMART boards allow students to walk up and manipulate the content with a touch of a finger. At the secondary level, students use Interwrite pads and Classroom Performance System (CPS) “clickers” to illustrate and demonstrate their knowledge to their peers. Lexia software for reading and Waterford software for reading, math, and science are used on a daily basis at our elementary campuses. For our middle schools and high school, mobile labs are brought into the classrooms for a myriad of projects ranging from web quests and simulation labs to internet research and group presentations. Our district educational software manager, Emily Nowlain, has seen a huge increase in the integration of technology in the classroom in the past two years. “Teachers are becoming more comfortable with the new technologies and allowing students to use them. At the high school, some teachers are even using Facebook to communicate with their students about upcoming assignments and projects.” It is exciting to consider the possibilities of future integration of teaching, learning, and technology.
The needs of our students reflected the needs of our teachers as well. With campus STaR charts showing many of our campuses with low scores in the two key areas of Teaching & Learning and Educator Preparation & Development, a sum of $85,597 was allocated for professional development for secondary math and science teachers as well as $32,867 for “mentor teachers to assist new teachers with instructional strategies for special needs students” (2011, p. 6). These two strategies align closely with the recommendations for professional development provided by Dr. Abernathy and Ms. Cummings. In the interview, they suggested that professional development be provided as close to the classroom as possible. Another suggestion was to pair up veteran and rookie teachers to focus on student work and projects. Terra Vista Middle School principal Brent Lowrey agrees. “Staff development must be embedded in the campuses. It doesn’t work when 150 people sit in a big room and listen to an ‘expert’. Teachers don’t take the new learning back to their classrooms. It only works when the ‘expert’ is there to follow up with the teachers individually, to watch them practice the new strategies with their own students, and to provide feedback and even model as needed.” Thus, it would seem that our district improvement plan is on the right track in its approach to meet the needs of teachers.
My personal journey in integrating technology mirrors the trend of the teachers in our school district. During the past two years, my comfort level with Interwrite pads, CPS units, and TI-Inspire has greatly increased. In the world of mathematics, it is critical for students to practice the skills themselves instead of just watching the teacher. Thus, it has been exciting and personally invigorating to turn over the reins, so to speak, to my students. In the past, I would do 80% of the talking in a given lesson; today, my students teach each other 75% of the time. I facilitate and provide feedback as needed; I also ask pointed questions to check for understanding and extended the learning. However, my classroom has definitely evolved from teacher-centered to student-centered, due mainly to the integration of technology into my classroom.
To complete any action plan, one must gather input from all stakeholders, including students. In fact, Ms. Cummings stressed in her interview that student input is critical, especially in the field of technology integration. Thus, I followed her recommendation and interviewed students about their use of technology to improve their learning and academic performance. I started with my seven-year-old son ------, a first-grader at ----------------- Elementary School. His job everyday is to turn on the Elmo and hand his teacher the Interwrite Pad. He takes this responsibility very seriously; no other students have this same job. Also, as a child with Asperger’s Syndrome, ------- has access to several technologies to assist his learning. For example, he has an IPod with earphones so that he can listen to music when the classroom activity becomes too overwhelming. In addition, our curriculum technologist filmed students lining up, eating the cafeteria, sitting in the library, and performing other activities. She then uploaded these videos to an IPod Touch for -------- to watch before going to an assembly, for example, so that he can review the expectations and be better prepared to meet those expectations. ------ is a prime example of how technology can be used to differentiate instruction to the meet the needs of individual students.
In order to get more information about general education students, I interviewed my 11-year-old daughter ---------, a sixth-grader at ------------ Middle School. One of her favorite classes is multimedia, an elective course in which she develops skills in Word, Excel, PowerPoint, and various other media software programs. Technology is not limited to this one class, however. She experiences lab simulations in science, investigates using web quests in social studies, develops PowerPoint presentations of book summaries in English, creates character analyses using Wordle in reading, and explores properties of geometric figures with the SMART board in math. At the end of the day, --------- pulls up videos on YouTube that they watched in science and social studies to share with us what she learned. When I reflect on my elementary and middle school experiences, it is amazing to see how much the classroom has changed within 20 short years. I have no doubt that the world will continue to change; it is our responsibility as educators of future generations to not only keep up with the changes, but to actually strive to stay ahead of the curve. To accomplish this task, it is imperative to listen to our students and to conduct needs assessments continually.
Action Plan
In the week 3 report, I shared that according to the 2010 AEIS report, Frenship ISD needed to improve performance in high school mathematics as well as overall performance of special education and at-risk students. Thus, in our district improvement plan, ARRA IDEA Stimulus funds were assigned to “improve math and reading skills of identified special education and at-risk students by providing a balanced curriculum” (2011, p. 6). Furthermore, these funds were allocated to purchase the ALEKS web-based math program at the high school for at-risk and special education students. However, minimal training was provided for the high school teachers in how to successfully implement this program. They were expected to just “play around with it” and see what they could figure out.
Fortunately, the ALEKS program is user-friendly, and teachers quickly figured out the basics of how to create individual accounts for their students and administer tutorials and progress monitors. Unfortunately, teachers could not figure out how to assimilate and evaluate the data from the myriad of progress monitors. Furthermore, they didn’t know how to utilize our Eduphoria Aware data analysis system to its full capabilities to help identify weaknesses in their students. Thus, I would ask Mrs. Spicer if a consultant could visit the high school campus and train the teachers in how to access and analyze data trends from the various assessments. I would also ask Emily Nowlain, our district instructional software manager, or Elisha Reese, the high school curriculum technologist, to train the high school teachers in how to create monitor groups in Aware to track data trends for their at-risk and special education students. With this detailed information, teachers could provide instruction differentiated to each individual student’s needs.
In order to evaluate the success of the trainings, classroom visits and interviews would need to be conducted. I would visit the math labs that target at-risk and special education students to monitor how well the teacher is differentiating instruction. I would also interview teachers about their comfort levels in maneuvering through both the ALEKS and Aware programs and how they are using the data gained from these programs to adjust their instruction. Additionally, I would ask teachers to create reports from both the ALEKS and Aware programs to demonstrate their proficiency in assimilating data. Finally, I would track the progress of students in both the ALEKS and Aware programs to evaluate the success of the differentiated instruction provided in the math labs.
Through this action plan, not only has technology been integrated into the classroom, but also professional development has been provided to support the teachers in its implementation. Both pieces are critical in order to successfully reach students. It does no good to purchase a spaceship if the teachers don’t know how to fly it. The spaceship will take the students nowhere; in fact, it will do more harm than good. Technology is powerful, but it can be dangerous if not handled properly.
Web Conference:
"Oh, what a tangled web we weave..." That was the thought that kept running through my head last night as I participated in the web conference with 57 other participants. Due to the vast number of attendees, we could only chat instead of using the microphones. It was nearly impossible to keep up with the three-four conversations going on at once. My eyes could not keep up with the words as they were typed. To complicate matters further, the screen kept jumping in and out, giving me a headache and almost a case of vertigo.
Despite all these technical glitches, the web conference would have been tolerable if everyone would have stayed on the topic of the Week 4 assignment. Instead, 90% of the conversations were about ILD, LCE, PDAS, TK20, and other topics not pertinent to this class. Participants needed to be considerate of the fact that we are all at different stages of our graduate courses; some students were in their fifth course, while others were preparing to graduate. Ms. Cummings tried to keep everyone on track, but I can't count how many times she typed, "Please refer to Dr. Rucker's website". Participants would not get the message; they would continue to ask questions. It was very frustrating, to say the least.
If I were to rate the experience overall, I have to admit that it was neat to chat with people from across the state. It was amusing to watch their postures and facial expressions change throughout the course of the hour. Also, to be fair, I was exposed to a lot of information that I had not considered yet, such as the ILD, LCE, and TK20 portfolio. However, I do not think the conference accomplished its objective of answering questions about the Week 4 assignment. One girl had the same question that was answered 4 different ways, but no one else seemed to have any issues with the assignment. Overall, it did expose me to the power of web conferencing, and it gave me practical experience in the pros and cons of such an activity. It definitely gave me food for thought in how to use this tehcnological tool most effectively in my classroom.
No comments:
Post a Comment