Monday, March 21, 2011
Action Plan: Reference List
Fullan, M. (2002). The change leader. Educational Leadership, 59(8), 16-20.
Jones, L., & Crochet, F. (2007). The importance of visions for schools and school improvement. Retrieved from the Connexions website: http://cnx.org
Learning Point Associates. (2004). Guide to using data in school improvement efforts: A compilation of knowledge from data retreats and data use at Learning Point Associates.
Peterson, K. (1995). Critical issue: Building a Collective Vision. North Central Regional Educational Laboratory.
Professional Development Planning: Matching training to teacher and student learning needs. PowerPoint retrieved from Lamar University EDLD 5333 electronic resources. March 16, 2011.
Quality Learning: Model of a School Vision. Retrieved February 27, 2010, from leading-learning.co.nz:http://www.leading-learning.co.nz/creating-vision.html
Reeves, D. (2007) How do you change school culture? Educational Leadership, 64(4), 92-94.
Texas Education Agency. (2010). AEIS Multi-year history report.
The Education Trust (2004). The ABCs of AYP.
Jones, L., & Crochet, F. (2007). The importance of visions for schools and school improvement. Retrieved from the Connexions website: http://cnx.org
Learning Point Associates. (2004). Guide to using data in school improvement efforts: A compilation of knowledge from data retreats and data use at Learning Point Associates.
Peterson, K. (1995). Critical issue: Building a Collective Vision. North Central Regional Educational Laboratory.
Professional Development Planning: Matching training to teacher and student learning needs. PowerPoint retrieved from Lamar University EDLD 5333 electronic resources. March 16, 2011.
Quality Learning: Model of a School Vision. Retrieved February 27, 2010, from leading-learning.co.nz:http://www.leading-learning.co.nz/creating-vision.html
Reeves, D. (2007) How do you change school culture? Educational Leadership, 64(4), 92-94.
Texas Education Agency. (2010). AEIS Multi-year history report.
The Education Trust (2004). The ABCs of AYP.
Sunday, March 20, 2011
Action Plan and Evaluation
Professional Development 1: August
Teachers work in groups to analyze Multi-Year History Report of AEIS data to find trends and patterns of weakness in our school. Teachers will create a S.M.A.R.T. goal to address weaknesses.
Resources:
1. AEIS Reports from 2007-2010
2. "Professional Development Planning: Matching Trainings to Teacher and Student Learning Needs "
3.“S.M.A.R.T. Goals” Learning Point Associates, Inc., (2004).
Evaluation: reviewed at faculty meetings.
Professional Development 2: Create a Vision: August
Teachers will work collectively to create a meaningful vision designed to meet the needs of all students and create a campus culture that supports all stakeholders, and to reflect the technology needs required for students to thrive in a 21st century global society. This will be a principal led training based on the following resources:
1. “The Importance of Visions for Schools and School Improvement”
2. House Bill 4-5
3. “Quality Learning: Model of a School Vision”
4. “Critical Issue: Building a Collective Vision”
5. “How Do You Change School Culture?”
Evaluation:
1.The Vision Product
2.Evidence of application of vision will be in the Campus Improvement Plan.
Professional Development 3: Mini-lesson on state data terms: September
Using PowerPoint to display examples, principal will guide the teachers through a mini-lesson on the meanings of AYP, TPM, and House Bill 3. Principal will facilitate the process to determine a campus AYP rating.
Resources:
1.“The ABCs of AYP” (2004)
2. Analysis of Major Provisions of House Bill 3 (2009)
3. 2009 AYP Manual, Exhibit 1: AYP Indicators Chart with TPM
Evaluation: Teacher feedback during Data Software professional developments sessions will prove understanding of data analysis and provide greater success during training.
Professional Development 4: Technology Presentations: Ongoing at Faculty Meetings
To improve decision making for technology integration and training, teachers will present a 5 minute presentation of a technology application they have implemented in their classroom to expose staff to innovative means of integrating technology and see who they can turn to for help
One presentation per regularly scheduled faculty meeting throughout the year. Staff can work individually or with a partner.
Evaluation: Assessed by use of District Improvement Plan p. 27: Lesson plans and walk through observations will provide evidence of integrating technology into the classroom. STaR chart will show measurable increase in teachers moving towards “TARGET” area. Increased participation in district technology workshops can be measured via survey or through increased enrollment.
Professional Development 5: Software training: September - October
Teachers will become efficient in the use of district programs for tracking data such as AWARE, AIMS web, Eduphoria, ARI, AMI. Meetings will be led by Campus Technology Specialists during team meetings.
Evaluation: Facilitator will provide survey to assess the needs of the staff. STaR chart will show measurable improvement as teachers move to TARGET area.
Professional Development 6: Video Conference: Spring
LIS will partner with a west coast school in a live video conference. Their students will create an interactive presentation for us on a topic of their choice. LIS teachers will pose interesting true/false questions about Texas—allowing out-of-state students to guess by paddles. Teachers will learn procedures for hosting a conference and will witness the excitement from this technology.
Evaluation: Survey Assessment to provide feedback from the teachers on the video conference experience designed as part of the Week 3 Report of technology needs. This will meet Campus Improvement Goal #23. STaR chart will show measurable growth trends as teachers begin use video conferencing as a normal part of learning.
Professional Learning Community: by December
Using provided resources as a guide, teachers will design activities/programs the school can host to improve student learning based on the data and our S.M.A.R.T. goal
Resource: “Nine Ways to Improve Student Learning”; Funding for programs;
Evaluation: TAKS results will provide measurable differences in scores for sub groups or overall campus improvement
Overall Evaluation/Assessment: End of Year
Site Based Decision Making Committee will meet at end of the action plan to evaluate the professional developments implemented through this action plan. Evidence of measurable assessment will be used to enhance their decision-making regarding the integration of technology in the classroom, and the use of technology for “mining” for data to the District Technology Committee—providing supporting evidence such as the following:
• Campus STaR results
• Examples of increased use of technology for learning
• Artifacts from teacher usage of data analysis and the resulting actions/interventions
• Summary of the teacher created plan intervention program that was based on the needs assessment data
• Chart showing results of TAKS scores for students who participated in the intervention program
• Principal reflection on the action plan with recommendations with technology needs
Teachers work in groups to analyze Multi-Year History Report of AEIS data to find trends and patterns of weakness in our school. Teachers will create a S.M.A.R.T. goal to address weaknesses.
Resources:
1. AEIS Reports from 2007-2010
2. "Professional Development Planning: Matching Trainings to Teacher and Student Learning Needs "
3.“S.M.A.R.T. Goals” Learning Point Associates, Inc., (2004).
Evaluation: reviewed at faculty meetings.
Professional Development 2: Create a Vision: August
Teachers will work collectively to create a meaningful vision designed to meet the needs of all students and create a campus culture that supports all stakeholders, and to reflect the technology needs required for students to thrive in a 21st century global society. This will be a principal led training based on the following resources:
1. “The Importance of Visions for Schools and School Improvement”
2. House Bill 4-5
3. “Quality Learning: Model of a School Vision”
4. “Critical Issue: Building a Collective Vision”
5. “How Do You Change School Culture?”
Evaluation:
1.The Vision Product
2.Evidence of application of vision will be in the Campus Improvement Plan.
Professional Development 3: Mini-lesson on state data terms: September
Using PowerPoint to display examples, principal will guide the teachers through a mini-lesson on the meanings of AYP, TPM, and House Bill 3. Principal will facilitate the process to determine a campus AYP rating.
Resources:
1.“The ABCs of AYP” (2004)
2. Analysis of Major Provisions of House Bill 3 (2009)
3. 2009 AYP Manual, Exhibit 1: AYP Indicators Chart with TPM
Evaluation: Teacher feedback during Data Software professional developments sessions will prove understanding of data analysis and provide greater success during training.
Professional Development 4: Technology Presentations: Ongoing at Faculty Meetings
To improve decision making for technology integration and training, teachers will present a 5 minute presentation of a technology application they have implemented in their classroom to expose staff to innovative means of integrating technology and see who they can turn to for help
One presentation per regularly scheduled faculty meeting throughout the year. Staff can work individually or with a partner.
Evaluation: Assessed by use of District Improvement Plan p. 27: Lesson plans and walk through observations will provide evidence of integrating technology into the classroom. STaR chart will show measurable increase in teachers moving towards “TARGET” area. Increased participation in district technology workshops can be measured via survey or through increased enrollment.
Professional Development 5: Software training: September - October
Teachers will become efficient in the use of district programs for tracking data such as AWARE, AIMS web, Eduphoria, ARI, AMI. Meetings will be led by Campus Technology Specialists during team meetings.
Evaluation: Facilitator will provide survey to assess the needs of the staff. STaR chart will show measurable improvement as teachers move to TARGET area.
Professional Development 6: Video Conference: Spring
LIS will partner with a west coast school in a live video conference. Their students will create an interactive presentation for us on a topic of their choice. LIS teachers will pose interesting true/false questions about Texas—allowing out-of-state students to guess by paddles. Teachers will learn procedures for hosting a conference and will witness the excitement from this technology.
Evaluation: Survey Assessment to provide feedback from the teachers on the video conference experience designed as part of the Week 3 Report of technology needs. This will meet Campus Improvement Goal #23. STaR chart will show measurable growth trends as teachers begin use video conferencing as a normal part of learning.
Professional Learning Community: by December
Using provided resources as a guide, teachers will design activities/programs the school can host to improve student learning based on the data and our S.M.A.R.T. goal
Resource: “Nine Ways to Improve Student Learning”; Funding for programs;
Evaluation: TAKS results will provide measurable differences in scores for sub groups or overall campus improvement
Overall Evaluation/Assessment: End of Year
Site Based Decision Making Committee will meet at end of the action plan to evaluate the professional developments implemented through this action plan. Evidence of measurable assessment will be used to enhance their decision-making regarding the integration of technology in the classroom, and the use of technology for “mining” for data to the District Technology Committee—providing supporting evidence such as the following:
• Campus STaR results
• Examples of increased use of technology for learning
• Artifacts from teacher usage of data analysis and the resulting actions/interventions
• Summary of the teacher created plan intervention program that was based on the needs assessment data
• Chart showing results of TAKS scores for students who participated in the intervention program
• Principal reflection on the action plan with recommendations with technology needs
Job Descriptors for Integration of Technology
Job Descriptors for Key Personnel for Integration of Technology:
Superintendent/Director of Operations
Collaborate with Assistant Superintendent, Director of Technology Operations, and Director of Instructional Technology to oversee the general facilitation of technology needs of the district; recommend the technology budget (as part of annual budget) to the school board
Assistant Superintendent/Director of Curriculum/Co-Director of Operations
Work with District Site Based Decision Making Committee to incorporate technology needs and goals into the District Improvement Plan; Work with Technology Committee, Director of Instructional Technology, and Campus Technology Specialists to assess the district and campus needs and write the goals into the District Improvement Plan based on STaR chart data and Texas Long Range Plan for Technology; recommend technology budget to the superintendent;
works closely with Director of Instructional Technology to oversee the implementation of technology applications in the classrooms
Director of Technology Operations
Maintain network and network security ; design and oversee day-to-day operations and staff;
update system nightly; install and secure all automated services/programs for security and back up;“Puttin’ out fires” (Quote) as we are understaffed, director steps in to assist with help-desk support requests; attend yearly “boot camp” training sessions to keep up with cutting-edge technology
Director of Instructional Technology
Collaborates with Campus Technology Specialists on needs, assistance, and resources for instructional technology; facilitates technology staff development for district; facilitates training for implementing technology as a tool for learning; attends ISTE and TCEA conferences to maintain knowledge of cutting-edge software and hardware; recruits teacher-mentors to serve, assist, and train other teachers; write grants to obtain technology funding for the district; collaborates with Campus Technology Specialists, as a District Technology Committee using STaR data to assess campus needs, set campus goals, and set district goals
Technicians and Programmers
Microsoft Engineer/Specialist: Coordinates, updates, and repairs software; maintain and manage the system machines; work with Campus Technology Specialists to problem-solve and train for basic repairs; act as first line of repair to the “end user” ; supports the Director of Instructional Technology to provide high quality services for student learning
Campus Technology Specialists
Promote and assist teachers in the integration of technology for learning; provide “just in time” support to teachers; collaborate with teachers and technology committee to learn of technology and professional development needs; write technology goals for Campus Improvement Plan; act as first line of support for technology assistance
Teachers
Implement technology application TEKS; continue to obtain training in technology; provide a high quality education that help our students thrive in a 21st century global technological society
The Role of the Principal
It is the role of the principal to provide the financial support; through budget and planning, a principal supports technology needs for his/her campus. This requires that a principal collaborates closely with key personnel—the Campus Technology Specialist, the Site Based Committee, and STaR data to assure that up-to-date technology, software, hardware, and staff development training is provided. As a role-model for technology the principal supports his/her staff and the Campus Technology Specialists by using up-to-date technology for staff development sessions or faculty meetings. The principal must maintain good relationships and must know the needs of technicians, programmers, and the Director of Operations for Technology--in order to create a healthy work atmosphere and to help the staff avoid conflicts with these support services personnel. Using walk-throughs and lesson plans as a resource, it is the responsibility of the principal to make sure faculty are implementing the technology application TEKS presented in the Texas Long Range Plan for Technology, NCLB, and the Texas Administrative Code. As the leader of the campus, it is critical for the principal to communicate legal and ethical expectations to all campus staff through training, communication, modeling, and supervision on a regular basis. It is the job of the principal to supervise the continued use of data programs such as Eduphoria, AWARE, or AIMS Web so that teachers and leaders can make data-based decision making. To sum it up, the principal’s role is “in the middle” of all other stakeholders: a communicator, a teacher, a role-model, and main line of support.
Tuesday, March 8, 2011
Participating in a Web Conference
Today I participated in my first web conference. I didn't know what to think at first. I thought maybe it was like Skype, but the group told me it compared more to messenger, or IM, as the majority of us were typing in lieu of video and audio participation.
What a great way to conference with a group who are spread out across the country. In a large district with multiple administrators, it is an easy way to host a meeting. In a smaller district (where staff needs to stay on campus more often) it is also a great substitute for traditional meetings.
When an important staff member is on extended leave, it is a solution to bring them to required meetings.
I enjoyed it, and see the value it will have in the future of education.
What a great way to conference with a group who are spread out across the country. In a large district with multiple administrators, it is an easy way to host a meeting. In a smaller district (where staff needs to stay on campus more often) it is also a great substitute for traditional meetings.
When an important staff member is on extended leave, it is a solution to bring them to required meetings.
I enjoyed it, and see the value it will have in the future of education.
Sunday, March 6, 2011
Saturday, March 5, 2011
BLOG 3: Reflection of NET Draft 2010
The goals proposed in the NET Draft are from the Obama administration: to raise the number of college graduates and prepare "all high school graduates ready to succeed in college and careers" (U.S. Department of Education, p.2). To summarize it, we must be innovative and strategic to achieve these aggresive goals and their challenges.
Learning directives state that "we focus what and how we teach to match what people need to know, how they learn" (p.vi) State of the art technology allows us to personalize learning to fit each one's needs by differentiation, individualization, and personalization. It will allow them to "take ownership of their learning" (p. 12).
To make future connections, competencies such as critical thinking and complex problem solving must be integrated into the curriculum (p.10). Assessment helps us measure the things that matter---in order that we might find the strengths and weaknesses in our teaching and learning and use that data for "continuous improvement" (p.35). In order that we move past our traditional role of teaching, there must be an infrastructure that provides for staff training (p.ix).
The NETP learning goals are that we revese standards to "reflect 21st century expertise" and adopt the technology resources that would support it. Teaching goals include developing online communities for educators, technology training for pre-service and in-service educators, and to use the technology to obtain the best resources (p.xiii).
An issue I see as a current concern in the draft plan is regarding the challenges and problems--we don't have the funds for the research and development needed to address them. Th ue examples of "on-demand learning," while very exciting, all require funding for the initial set up, but also the funding of training for the staff.
Another issue that tends to get in the way of these goals is the potential of Universal Design. It sounds great! Universal online texts, assessments, and standards will do a great job of "leveling the playing field," as they state on page 32, but one controversy I foresee would be the conflict between state and federal standards. At what point is a state allowed to be its own entity versus a "universal" system.
The Principles of Connected Teaching, page 40, sound quite exciting but "futuristic." It seems so far away, yet we know that technology increases faster than we can imagine. It definitely leaves a tough problem for us, as educators, to catch up!
U.S. Department of Education, Office of Educational Technology. (2010). Transforming American education: Learning powered by technology. Retrieved from http://www.ed.gov/sites/default/files/NETP-2010-final-report.pdf.
Learning directives state that "we focus what and how we teach to match what people need to know, how they learn" (p.vi) State of the art technology allows us to personalize learning to fit each one's needs by differentiation, individualization, and personalization. It will allow them to "take ownership of their learning" (p. 12).
To make future connections, competencies such as critical thinking and complex problem solving must be integrated into the curriculum (p.10). Assessment helps us measure the things that matter---in order that we might find the strengths and weaknesses in our teaching and learning and use that data for "continuous improvement" (p.35). In order that we move past our traditional role of teaching, there must be an infrastructure that provides for staff training (p.ix).
The NETP learning goals are that we revese standards to "reflect 21st century expertise" and adopt the technology resources that would support it. Teaching goals include developing online communities for educators, technology training for pre-service and in-service educators, and to use the technology to obtain the best resources (p.xiii).
An issue I see as a current concern in the draft plan is regarding the challenges and problems--we don't have the funds for the research and development needed to address them. Th ue examples of "on-demand learning," while very exciting, all require funding for the initial set up, but also the funding of training for the staff.
Another issue that tends to get in the way of these goals is the potential of Universal Design. It sounds great! Universal online texts, assessments, and standards will do a great job of "leveling the playing field," as they state on page 32, but one controversy I foresee would be the conflict between state and federal standards. At what point is a state allowed to be its own entity versus a "universal" system.
The Principles of Connected Teaching, page 40, sound quite exciting but "futuristic." It seems so far away, yet we know that technology increases faster than we can imagine. It definitely leaves a tough problem for us, as educators, to catch up!
U.S. Department of Education, Office of Educational Technology. (2010). Transforming American education: Learning powered by technology. Retrieved from http://www.ed.gov/sites/default/files/NETP-2010-final-report.pdf.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
