Posting of action plan for technology integration into instructional and organizational leadership

Part 4 of week 4 assignment for EDLD 5352 - Instructional Leadership (The Technology Component)

Week 4 Assignment, Part 2: Professional Development Planning

Using the campus and district improvement plans, and any suggested technology improvements, develop professional development activities that include the following:

·       Reference analysis and lessons learned about the technology needs from the Week 3 report;

·       Addresses professional development designed to improve the gathering, analysis and use of data from a variety of sources;

·       Includes professional development to improve decision making in the integration of technology with instructional and organizational leadership.

Instructional and organizational leaders on our campus must look at our STaR chart results, our AEIS reports, and our AYP data to analyze how we are doing in terms of meeting our campus and district improvement plan goals and our academic achievement goals.  If the STaR chart indicates that we do not have enough training or support in certain areas, then they must act to rectify that.  If it indicates that we have plenty of resources and support on those areas, but the implementation is lacking, then campus leadership must step in to correct the problem.  They must also keep in mind how that technology ties into the academic achievement indicated on the AEIS reports and our AYP data.

Our district provides training on a new system that is being implemented called, iXplore.  This system has many features, but the main component that applies to this week’s assignment is the gathering and analysis of data.  Our district has spent many days training our campus technology liaisons on the system.  In turn, our campus technology liaisons have spent hours with each of our teams training them on the system.  It will allow teachers to gather data from district benchmark assessments (currently administered every six weeks) and analyze them by teacher and by period.

Our campus also has two other data gathering and analysis tools that teachers are trained on at the beginning of every year.  These tools allow them to gather and analyze data from every summative assessment given during the year (typically every two or three weeks).  This data can be disaggregated by several demographics.  It can also be broken down by STAAR Reporting Category and TEK.

Our professional development to improve decision-making in the integration of technology with instructional and organizational leadership must be done at the district level.  Our administrators from the technology department and the curriculum, instruction, and school administration department must get together and map out ways that our campus leadership can get the training they need to implement the appropriate technology on their campuses.  Our curriculum coordinators are taking steps to meet those needs by introducing new technologies to our instructional leaders during periodic meetings.  However, this does not replace the need for actual professional development on those specific technologies.  Once the key decision makers are together to set priorities for professional development of leaders, then there will be a more clear picture of which technologies are priorities, need the bulk of the support, and should have professional development planned around them.

Week 4 Assignment, Part 3: Evaluation Planning for Action Plan

The technology action plan integrating instructional an organizational leadership must include evaluation components that provide measurable outcomes designed to address the following:

·       Uses data and other analysis from the Week 3 report, including using the campus and district improvement plans, and local or state technology plans;

·       Provides assessments and/or monitoring reports measuring professional development designed to use technology to improve the gathering, analysis and use of data from a variety of sources;

·       Provides assessments and/or monitoring evaluating professional development to improve decision making in the integration of technology with instructional and organizational leadership.

Evaluation components for the technology action plan for integrating instructional and organizational leadership will include collecting data from the STaR chart and results form annual AEIS reports along with our AYP data.  These data sources will indicate areas that need further growth in terms of technology and academic achievement.  The role of instructional and organizational leadership is to find a way that we can grow in both areas by improving instructional and organizational practices.  Analyzing our results and our campus and district improvement plans in terms of technology and student achievement will help in the decision making process.  Then the leadership must determine specific action steps that will allow us to continue to make progress in the appropriate direction for the goals that need further growth.  Once these decisions are reached, then the professional development plan can be modified to meet the campus needs.

The professional development can be monitored using our district’s online learning management system.  All staff members must register for professional development online, so we can track the professional development courses that our campus staff is attending.  We also have the ability to require that a certain number of hours per year are directed towards campus specific professional development courses.  This means that the teachers must sign up for these courses to earn professional development hours in this specific category.  That information can be monitored by reports that our campus technology liaison has access to.  Also following these professional development courses, we conduct surveys using Google Docs or Survey Monkey to gather feedback from our teachers about how they valued the course and how we can make it better.

Assessing and/or monitoring the evaluation of professional development to improve decision-making may need to be done in two different ways.  One part of the effort would be to have the instructional leaders gather evidence in the form of observations regarding the level of integration of specific types of technology.  The point would be to see which types of technology was actually integrated effectively into instruction versus which ones were not utilized effectively or not at all.  This would be compared to the types of technology that was supported by professional development.  Since the decisions on professional development was based on the campus and district technology plans and the goals of both groups, we would hope to see those types of technology being integrated into instruction.  If that were not the case, then further investigation would need to be done to identify the reasons. 

A secondary part of the assessing and/or monitoring process would be to include more feedback from the teachers.  We would ask teachers to reflect on what specific types of technology they planned to integrate into their instruction after the professional development.  Later on, we would follow up with a survey asking them what they integrated and how.  We would also need to include components that asked them what they did not incorporate.  Finally, there would need to be questions regarding why they were able to incorporate some and not incorporate others.  The point here would be to find out what made some types of technology easier to integrate, and what were the barriers to integrating other forms.

This process does not give us black and white data from which we can base our decisions.  It requires thoughtful deliberation on the part of instructional and organizational leadership to get to the facts behind the data.  However, I believe that this can lead to improved decision-making for the integration of technology.
 

STaR Chart Prezi

STaR Chart on Prezi

STaR Chart Presentation

This was part of my Lamar University graduate school assignment for EDLD 5352 (Instructional Leadership), week two.  The assignment was to create a presentation using a Web 2.0 tool, and embed it into my blog.  Since I've learned to always have a Plan B when dealing with technology, I have a couple of backup plans.  I will include a link to my presentation using the Web 2.0 tool, Prezi.  In case the hyperlink does not work, I will include the web address of the Prezi.  I will include my outline of my speaker notes that go along with the Prezi.  Finally, I will attempt to embed the Prezi in my next post.


Here is a link to my presentation using the Web 2.0 tool, Prezi.

STaR Chart Prezi
In case that link does not work, here is the web address below:
http://prezi.com/tgi0dkshph1d/star-chart/

I also tried the embed feature from Prezi, but it just ended up being a mess of code instead of the presentation.  I finally figured out how to do that, so I have embedded that Prezi above.

Finally, here is the outline of my presentation.  (Speaker notes)

Agenda

What is STaR?

Why is it important?

What does it tell us?

How can we use it?

What are our next steps?

Introduction

What is STaR?

Why is it important?

Closer Look

What does it tell us?

Areas

    Teaching & Learning

                                    Educator Preparation

                                    Administration & Support

                                    Infrastructure

Levels of Progress

Early Tech

Developing Tech

Advanced Tech

Target Tech

How can we use it? 

Annual report based on our teacher survey results

We can pull up any past years. (hyperlink)

Conclusion / Plan of Action

Where are the schools in Texas, overall?

            State Graphs

How have we been doing as a campus?

            Campus Graphs

            Discuss trends 

What are our next steps?

            Target Tech is the goal

            Set personal, team, department, campus goals in the coming weeks

            Follow up meeting to discuss and refine those goals will be scheduled

Educator Preparation and Development - STaR Chart

(Based on Lamar Assignment EDLD 5352 - Week 2)

Educators must strive to continue to grow professionally by staying up to date with the latest technology and how it can be used in the classroom.  They must be able to use the technology to bring about the learning that is planned for.  This professional development requires time and resources that are already stretched.  It also requires a commitment by the school system to provide the structure in which these new tools can be developed and used. 

In my analysis of the statewide campus summary of the STaR Chart feedback, I have noticed that the largest majority of schools fell into the Developing Tech category of this particular area, Educator Preparation.  Out of all four areas and four categories, this was the single biggest group.  Also, on my particular campus, this area, Educator Preparation, had the lowest average score over the last three years.  This indicates that although the other areas are improving, we are not keeping up with that growth in Educator Preparation.  I think there are two fundamental problems in the way we attack this issue. 

The first is that we do not provide adequate, strategic, structured, differentiated, and systematic professional development.  What we provide is usually a broad overview of available resources, and then we expect the teachers to spend time investigating, practicing, and implementing these tools.  However, educators are under constant pressure for short-term improvement, so their own long-term education is neglected.  We must differentiate our professional development programs.  We target their needs based on their readiness for certain types of technology.  It must be structured to help them to integrate it into their specific practices.  Finally it needs to be part of a system that will help them become well rounded in a specific skill set.  These new skills need to become part of their normal activities; otherwise the learning will be short lived. 

The second fundamental problem with the way we attack this issue is we do not set them up for success.  A component of this is time.  I have learned that unless we take something off of their plate, we should not put something else on it.  I know that is easier said than done, but we must make an effort to streamline some systems that allow teachers to take something off of their plate before placing a professional development goal onto their plates.  Now, with that comes a set of structured supports and accountability.  Teachers must be held accountable to implementing the technology they learn into their lessons.  They should be allowed to investigate, practice, and implement these tools with our support.  That support and time costs money, but it is money worth investing.  Once these teachers begin their journey to “Advanced Tech”, and then they are more likely to continue without our constant prodding and nagging.  It becomes something they want to do and enjoy doing for their students, because they have seen it work in their own classrooms.

I just finished my web-conference for week 1 of EDLD 5352 Instructional Leadership for my Lamar grad school program. 

Lesson learned:  
Communicate clearly, and then seek to clarify what you thought was clear in the first place... inevitably some will not have found it as clear as you intended it to be.  This will decrease frustration levels for both parties, and you will learn the difference about what you thought you communicated and what you actually communicated.

Background:
During the web-conference, I realized that many people have concerns about the Tk20 portfolio system, the EPIC portfolio system, and how ILD fits into the program (degree requirements and/or principal certification).  Many people shared that they are doing both, Tk20 and their EPIC portfolio.  I was frustrated about these questions when I began my program also, and to me this illustrates the importance of clear communication.  Some people had clear communication about what they would be required to do, and those people experienced less frustration.  Other people did not seek clarification and their frustration level grew.  These people ended up doing work in both systems, which resulted in time spent on duplicating their work.  During the web-conference my "lesson learned" became more important to me.  I cannot have this type of confusion/frustration at my school.  As an instructional leader, I have to make sure I work on clarity of message.

Here is a post of my Draft Research Project Report per EDLD 5397 - Internship for Supervision - Week 3 Assignment - Part 3.

Culture of Differentiation:

How to Get More Teachers to Use Differentiated Instruction and Make It a Part of Campus Culture

Three years ago, our campus was introduced to differentiated instruction.  Differentiated instruction was made a priority by our administration, and it was even included in our Campus Improvement Plan.  However, differentiated lessons are rarely seen in the classrooms.  A review of lesson plans from the math department showed that differentiated lessons were not used at all until administration mandated that they be included in the lesson plans at least once each six weeks.  Even after that, we see only one to three differentiated lessons each six weeks depending on the team.  One of our teams uses differentiated lessons once per six weeks.  Another team uses differentiated lessons twice per six weeks, and another team uses differentiated lessons three times per six weeks.

My vision and hope for this project is that we help more of our teachers to meet the students at their level.  We have students at different levels within the same classrooms.  If we are able to find ways to make differentiating instruction more of a part of our campus culture, then we will see teams/teachers plan with specific student needs in mind.  Their lessons will designed to accommodate their different interests, learning styles, and readiness levels.  The students will benefit from a more interesting and engaging environment.  Learning will not be frustrating.  It will be fun.  Teachers will benefit by seeing their students reach their potential.  Teachers will have to work less in their rooms since the work will be done more by their students than by the teachers.  Everyone benefits from a well-differentiated classroom.

I plan with each grade level team every time they meet to discuss lesson planning.  During those meetings I will observe how they implement differentiated lessons into their team plans.  I will note how many times they use a differentiated activity and how that lesson is differentiated (readiness, interest, and learning style).  I also observe each teacher regularly, so I will also note how that teacher implements those lessons in their own classroom.  I hope to have each teacher implementing at least one differentiated lesson each week.  That will mean a 200% to 300% increase in the implementation of differentiated instruction in the math department.

As we try to implement differentiated instruction into our classrooms, we must support our teachers during the entire process.  According to an John Holloway in an article about preparing teachers for differentiated instruction, “school leaders must provide all teachers encouragement, support, and nurturing – all delivered through effective professional development that is founded on competent training and effective mentoring and that is conducted by experienced, skilled professionals” (Holloway, 2000, p. 83).

Our instruction must meet our students’ needs.  With students from so many diverse backgrounds, there is a need to create equity in our mathematics classrooms.  Goldman and Knudsen discuss three principles that can create that equity.  Making math relevant to their real lives, including hands-on activities, and adapting to meet your students’ needs are principles that can create that equity and opportunity for all of our students (Goldman & Knudsen, 2004).

The decision making process for what topic to research for my action research project involved me and my principal.  We considered the most critical need for our students in the mathematics classrooms.  We determined that differentiating instruction for our students’ diverse needs was the most critical need for our campus.  Therefore, we decided to make differentiated instruction the focus of my research project.  We wanted to make differentiated instruction part of our campus culture.

Once my principal and I determined what my action research project would be, I communicated that vision to my department through department meetings and professional development.  Over the course of a semester of department meetings and five summer professional development sessions I made my vision of a campus of differentiated instruction clear.  Each department meeting included time to discuss the importance of differentiation and data to illustrate our students’ varied needs and backgrounds.  Each professional development was centered around differentiated instruction.  That included ways to discover the students’ varied interests, readiness level, and learning style.  It also included ways to design lessons that addressed those various needs.  This vision was also communicated to students throughout the year by interest surveys and targeted student conversations by their teacher, instructional specialist, and counselors.  Parents heard the vision during open house meetings with their child’s teacher.  Community members and other stakeholders saw the vision during our site-based decision making committee meetings throughout the year.

The strategy used for organizing the implementation of the project involved various people on the campus, but most of the duties rested with me.  There is no money available for this project.  There were some opportunities for professional development related to differentiation in our district and on our own campus.  I would follow up and help them plan differentiated lessons.  I would also plan differentiated instruction showcases for our campus with the other instructional strategiests.  I would document the frequency of differentiated instruction lessons in their lesson plans and in their classrooms.  Finally, I would model differentiated lessons in their classrooms and conference with each teacher about the learning of each child in their classes.

Since differentiation was an essential part of our school improvement plan, it became a priority for every classroom on our campus.  Our comprehensive needs assessment of the students on our campus indicated that we had students with varied academic gaps in all student populations.  We had larger groups of English Language Learners, higher mobility rates, and a higher population of Economically Disadvantaged students than any other school in our district.  Consensus was built within grade level teams about prioritizing differentiated instruction among our team goals.  Conflict was inevitable as we moved into this new frontier, but individual conversations helped teachers deal with their apprehensions.  Those conversations continue, since the resistance to change persists.  Although the resistance is declining.

Differentiated instruction encompasses the very idea of meeting the needs of students with diverse backgrounds, exceptional needs, and abilities.  Helping teachers to implement differentiated instruction into their classrooms and create a campus culture of meeting every child at their level.  Our school and community have needs that are not the same as any other in our district.  As we deal with the highest povery rate in our district, we also deal with the highest number of English Language Learners.  This project of integrating differentiated instruction into our campus culture will help meet the needs of the school and community.

References

Goldman, Shelley V., Knudsen, Jennifer. (2004) Principles for making middle school mathematics more equitable.  Classroom Leadership, March 2004, Vol. 7 (6), Found at: http://www.ascd.org/publications/classroom-leadership/mar2004/Principles-for-Making-Middle-School-Mathematics-More-Equitable.aspx.

Holloway, John H., (2000) Preparing teachers for differentiated instruction.  Educational Leadership, September 2000, Vol. 58 (1). pp.’s 82-83.

Educational Leadership - Research Course Reflection (Week 5)

Early in week one in our Educational Leadership – Research course I learned what makes action research different from conventional research.  A quote from our text describes action research as a “systematic, intentional study of one’s own professional practice” (Fichtman, 2009, p. 9).  This helped turn on a light bulb for me.  Studying my own professional practice helps me grow and focus on the things I can control.

Comments from our discussion boards and blogs helped reinforce a certain aspect of my plan.  I plan to frame my action research within the framework of an important current initiative that the school is adopting for the future.  Working within this structure can add credibility to my plan and ensure it is not thrown out for the next big thing in education.

So, going forward I need to focus on things within my control, and I need to stay within our current campus framework.