Course Reflection

I envisioned “Instructional leadership” to mean that I would learn more about what it takes to recognize, understand, evaluate, and recommend research based instructional strategies and tools. First, an instructional leader knows his teachers. He knows their strengths and weaknesses. He is able to foresee problems and hopefully intercept them before they become mountains. The leader also develops professional development unique for the needs of his campus. He has a high level understanding of the district curriculum and exercises that knowledge in meetings while offering suggestions for enrichment or modifications.

Finally, an instructional leader incorporates many tools to foster student success. An instructional leader knows the different tools used by different contents and can make recommendations to teachers who are not fulfilling his expectations. For example, a teacher who refuses to implement these tools should be conferenced and redirected by the instructional leader. This course focused on one instructional tool, which is technology. Technology is a very important tool but it does not replace the foundation of good and effective teaching. Instructional leaders need to see and hear essential questioning techniques along with planned differentiated instruction.

To the extent of my expected outcomes, I received extensive knowledge of the importance of technology along with its pros and cons and how to manage such a challenge in the 21st century. I did not, however, receive the expected outcome of the basics of good and effective instructional techniques and strategies. The enhanced technology knowledge is directly relevant to the work that I perform for the district. The campus I serve knows that I represent the district. I represent the district philosophy and vision and will promote such to the administrators and teachers. Part of this vision deals with technology. Evidence of research for this philosophy and vision are critical for convincing others that it is not just another fleeting moment of grasping the latest trend. The knowledge gained arms me with relevant reasons to push the teachers toward the goal. In fact, today at a meeting I quoted some facts learned from “digital native” and “digital immigrant” thinking as a team told me a story of how they did not know how to get the smart board to do a particular function but the students did. The digital native students guided the digital immigrant teachers on what to do.

One outcome that was not achieved was exposure to essential questioning techniques and what a student centered classroom looks like on a day to day basis for any content. An instructional leader should be able to recognize an engaged classroom for all contents. For example, when I observe math teachers, I will see, hear, and understand things differently than perhaps the appraiser who has a history background. What is preparing me to know what a good and effective history classroom looks like? Perhaps it would have been advantageous for us to observe different contents to determine if we could evaluate instructional success. We could have engaged in discussions on the board about our successful content expectations and practices. I have learned a great deal from those in my group when they write about their personal experiences in the classroom. One such classmate is a librarian and I have found her contributions to be not only interesting but very valuable.

How does one measure success in carrying out course assignments? Is it based on a grade? Or, is it the intrinsic value gained and applied in the current position. If I base success on the grade, that is yet to be determined. If it is based on intrinsic value, the answer is, “Yes, I was successful.” I am an enthusiastic learner. Often times I hear others complain about a certain workshop, how they did not learn anything and that it was a waste of their time. I could not disagree more. Even when a speaker is not interesting or engaging, I still walk away better than when I arrived. One thing I found discouraging about this course was the discussion board reply criteria. While I do understand the importance of collaboration, it is extra challenging in a distance learning program because I do not like putting off my requirements until the day it is due. In fact, I like having my Sundays free to be with family and friends. However, for this course, I often found myself having to check the discussion board late in the week in order to achieve full credit. It can be discouraging feeling like I am at the mercy of someone else’s timing.

This course did teach me a great deal about the pros and cons of technology. It truly impressed me to be cognizant of implementation requirements, technology TEKS, professional development, and the variety of policy concerns such as copyrights and cyber bullies. I see more clearly now how the state expectations influence the district and campus goals through the use of the Long-Range Plan, Start Chart, and Campus Improvement Plan. It was interesting to see how they all affect and fulfill each other. Furthermore, it was fascinating to learn about the positions that support all these efforts. I did not know that some of those positions existed. I am more in tune with what needs to be happening in the classroom with technology as it relates to teachers and students. In my current position of a curriculum leader, I now have more tools to enhance my skills. For example, I have frequented some of the websites that were mentioned in the articles like freeplaymusic.com and have used them in my presentations with movie maker.

One educational value of blogs in the 21st century is the opportunity to converse with a global community. This course allowed me to experience blogging for the first time. I have a few friends who blog about their interest such as family and political views. Until now, I did not see the value in doing that nor did I think it would be a fun activity. One reason I did not think it would be fun was because I did not understand how it worked; I thought it would be a difficult task. Now I know better. As a follower of someone’s blog, I can keep up with great ideas on any item of interest. It was truly enlightening to read my classmates’ entries. I feel as though I know them even if I have never met them face to face. This is an important facet for the 21st century learner as it allows people to become more collaborative and knowledgeable. It also fosters communication skills.

Exposure to inappropriate material on the internet is always a concern for parents and schools. Anyone can blog. On the concern list are issues such as accessibility, privacy, and security. It may be difficult for someone to determine if the blogger is truthful or deceitful with the information posted. Some blog sites do not have any effective regulations in place. We have to be especially careful about what we read. For example, the article about public relations nightmares mentioned a case where a trustee sued an anonymous blogger and Google for false information (Levine, 2008). Bad publicity could be one detriment and other could be parents holding a school responsible for exposing their child to an inappropriate blog. It can be difficult for teachers, too, especially if someone gets a hold of their password. Cyber ethics should be a foundational part of technology TEKS from K-12 with district policy in place for situations that might arise.

Blogging for stakeholder communication has a wide range of applications. Some Web logs are used for collaborative spaces. Students can communicate with each but also with the teacher in evaluating a process or product. Parents can access the blog to determine correct information concerning an objective presented by the teacher. The latest news and events can also be communicated quickly and effectively. For example, power points can be posted to a blog. This allows for a different venue of reading finding out information. Audio files can also be posted through a Web log. This would be especially advantageous for families wanting more exposure to a certain language. Furthermore, stakeholders can obtain instant information regarding news about the district and or campus. This is also an asset to people considering moving into the district. Quick information accessibility is something we have all come to expect. Safe blogging can be another effective communicating tool.

The person ultimately responsible at the district office is the Superintendent. We have a Superintendent who is very aggressive about technology integration that ranges from teacher and student use in the classroom to supporting efforts for distance learning opportunities.

One of the Associate Superintendents oversees the technology and school services from the Instructional Support Center. Stakeholders involved in the district Technology Vision are Elementary and Secondary Curriculum Councils, administrators and teachers. The vision and beliefs of the district are based on data using the TEKS, STaR Chart and Portrait guiding documents (Cypress-Fairbanks Independent School District, 2009-2010).

The Associate Superintendent of Curriculum and Instruction and School Administration is supported by the Assistant Superindents of Instruction at two different levels: elementary and secondary. These people are responsbile for communicating goals to the District Coordinators who then in turn inflitrate the campuses through support of the technologists.

The technologist organization is arranged in the following manner:

Each content has at least one very important position played by the Instruction Service Center (ISC) Technologist. This person(s) is responsible for relaying information from the Director of Instructional Technology and District Coordinator to the coaches and curriculum specialist. The ISC Technologist will also provide technology training for coaches and curriculum specialist. The ISC Technologist, curriculum specialists, and coaches work closely together to evalulate individual campus needs for materials, software, curriculum, and training. It is their goal to embed technology within the curriculum. This places a prominet responsibilty upon the teacher to comply with the direction of the district.

The Principal attends curriculum and administrative counsels with the Superintendents, Directors and District Coordinators. This is one avenue of communication between ISC and the individual campuses. Another avenue of communication is through the campus curriculum coaches. I am a secondary math curriculum coach for a high school campus. I meet with the Principal, Associate Principal, and Director of Instruction on the first Thursday of each month to report on the implementation of district expectations. In addition to that meeting, I periodically meet with the Director of Instruction and Assistant Principals with concerns or celebrations of the math teachers or student needs. Furthermore, I work with the Academic Achievement Specialist to pinpoint strategic efforts for at risk students. We also work together to interpret and discuss Summative Formative Data and failure rates. Each of these meetings facilitates support of the organizational chart being implemented and monitored.

The District Action Plan mentions technology at each level. For example, “integrate new textbook and technology into the curriculum” is a strategy for improving achievement in elementary math. The person responsible is curriculum coordinator, coaches, and classroom teachers (Cypress-Fairbanks Independent School District [CFISD], 2008-2009, p. 8). Likewise, this is sited again for improving achievement in secondary math with more specificity on the people responsible. The strategy specifically states that the coaches are to assist teachers and teams with lesson planning and technology integration (Cypress-Fairbanks Independent School District [CFISD], 2008-2009). Science and social studies also includes technology as a strategy at the elementary and secondary levels. Furthermore, the district action plan includes an objective for teachers to expand their effective use of instructional technology for higher level thinking. These objectives are seen in lesson plans, modeled by teachers, implemented by students in their embedded coursework.

In looking at the Campus Improvement Plan (CIP), technology is listed as a strategy for math pullout programs for grades 10 and 11. Technology is also a classroom goal to support the needs of diverse learners. Specifically, COWS, Smartboards, and interactive technology tools are listed as ways to improve student success. Another area of integration of technology is sheltered language classes.

My action plan this week will specifically address TAKS math scores because that is an area of great concern. It is my intent to create an action plan that will involve the necessary stakeholders and provide professional development for teachers to integrate differientated instruction through technology to support increased student achievement.
The stakeholders in the organizational chart are derived from the Campus Improvement Plan (CIP). The focus of the CIP is the math TAKS results. One key group that supports the CIP is called “Cougar Smart Team which is a TAKS intervention Team comprised of the following: Principal, Director of Instruction, Associate Principal, Lead Counselfor, Academic Achievement Specialist, science/math department chair, and volunteer teachers. This TAKSmart group is a collaborative group lead by the Academic Achievement Specialist (AAS). The other two people responsible are the Principal and Director of Instruction. This group meets bi-monthly to discuss data and strategies for 10th through 12th grade test takers. Their resources include TAKS scores, SFA (Summative Formative Assessment) scores, test scores, grade reports, and interventions.

The action plan addresses the item in the CIP concerning math TAKS pullouts. Students will attend two 1-period sessions per week beginning the first week of February and lasting for 10 weeks. Program facilitators are teachers and substitutes. Targeted students are those who have scored between 2000 and 2125, Grade 12 TAKS exit failures, TAKS A, and TAKS M test takers.

I. Substitutes (3) for 2 day per week pull outs beginning the first week of February, 2010.
a. Tuesdays: teachers will work with small groups of students (8 to 12) using three modes of technology using COWS: Plato, Study Island, and TEA online TAKS tutorials with use of calculators.
b. Thursdays: coach and teacher will implement TAKS strategies through differientated instruction including student use of smartboard, airliner, and calculators as follow up to Tuesday’s computer activities.

II. Training for teachers to be provided by the math coach
a. Calculator
i. Many calculator strategies are used on the math TAKS test. Teachers need to be proficient in modeling these strategies through use of document camera. Students should also use document camera to share their proficiency.
ii. Calculator strategies will also be implemented by the students with the program “Smart View” in conjunction with the smartboard.
iii. Specific graphing calculator training to include:
1. graphing, tables, lists
2. order of operations
3. statistical analysis
b. Smartboard
i. Activities and games will be made available to teachers and students in the pullout program. These will be created by the math coach. The math coach will train the teachers on facilating uses; students will perform interactivities.
c. Airliner and document camera
i. Activities and games will be supported by the choice of a slate (airliner) and/or document camera.
d. Computer software for TAKS tutorials and practice sessions
i. Plato
ii. Study Island
iii. TEA TAKS online

III. Evaluation
a. Teacher/Substitute
i. Weekly monitoring of activities and reflections
ii. Make adjustments in objectives based on student needs
b. Student
i. Weekly monitoring of online practice scores
ii. Make adjustments in objectives based on practice scores
c. Overall evaluation
i. Goal of at least 50% of all students pulled pass TAKS in April 2010

Data has been collected from the last TAKS test taken by the targeted students. The scores range from 2000 to 2125. These students are very close to passing TAKS. The CIP includes the pullout program as part of the campus goal. My visit with the Director of Instruction stated that the teachers who participated in the program last year did not implement any computer technology. Implementing computer technology this year fulfills the campus and district expectation that technology be a tool for TAKS achievement. Additionally, data is being gathered by appraisers through mega monitoring. Part of the mega monitoring currently taking place emphasizes the use of effective technology. Therefore, appraisers already know the teachers who will be most familiar with the software we will use in the spring. Furthermore, the students in these classes are getting exposed to the software which will save basic how-to time in the spring.

Another way appraisers are monitoring the integration of technology is by calling all teachers’ attention to it as a PDAS requirement. All teachers on campus have been informed of the district and campus expectations and that consideration will be given on their professional evaluation tool. Mega monitoring and PDAS are two tools that are requiring effect use of technology.
Through the identification of student need in the CIP, teachers will receive professional development training in Study Island, Plato, and TEA TAKS online tutorials as well as calculator, smartboard, airliner, and document camera training. This will be monitored by appraisers prior to the TAKS pullout program by mega monitoring and attention to the technology requirement in the PDAS to ensure teacher and student readiness.

Star Chart Presentation Pp

Check out this SlideShare Presentation:

Star Chart Presentation Pp

View more presentations from cgbarker.

STaR Chart: Teaching and Learning

The local data over the last three years is static with a score of 13. How is the STaR Chart data used? Is it communicatetd to the campus? Is the data collected reviewed and goals/ plans made accordingly? How valid is the data?

Each category received a score of 2 except “Content Area Connections” received a score of 3. This data would indicate that in “patterns of classroom use” teachers use technology to direct instruction, improve productivity, and model technology. It also indicates that students use technology to “access, communicate and present information.” My question is, “How often?” What qualifies a teacher to use technology to direct instruction? Under the category of “frequency/design of instructional setting using digital content” we are saying that most teachers have regular weekly access and use of technology, digital resources for curriculum acitivities. The only criteria that separates “devloping tech” from “advanced tech” is mobile technology. This is too vague to be considered a valid rating.

Under “content area connections” we show a rating of a 3. This is surprising to me because I definitely do not see most teachers using technology for support and development of higher-order thinking. Furthermore, when there is collaboration, it is usually not centered around the application of technology. So, there again, the data seems invalid.

The area of “technology applications TEKS implementation” rating of developing technology shows that at least four courses are offered and at least two taught. This is measurable, valid data. Under “student mastery of TA” we show that 26 to 50% of students are receiving integration in core classes and TA courses. This, too, is more measurable than the first three cateogies.

Finallly, in “online learning” we deem ourselves as developing tech because most teachers customize several web-based lessons for TEKS and learning activities. Unfortunately, this is not measurable, reliable data. How many is several? How does “customize” compare to “use”?
The campus statewide summary shows an expected trend. The expected trend would be that “early tech” and “developing tech” should be on the decline and “advanced” and “target” techs should be on the increase if campuses are using and integrating technology. This trend has not been seen on my campus over the last three years.

Recommendations? Collect real data: how many teachers out of the core contents are really fulfilling the “developing tech” rating? If they are, then what are they specifically doing? How can their “doing” influence the rest of their department and/or campus staff in the way of professional development and support? Utilize these teachers to model and support specific campus technology goals. Include teacher and student use as part of PDAS to hold teachers accountable, set specific goals for individual teachers and align their training accordingly.

How do the TEKS lay the foundation? Spiraling and Scaffolding!

The Pre-K TEKS lay the foundation for student performance in a variety of ways. Students are exposed to an assortment of word processing and spreadsheet software in addition to multimedia applications such as movie makers. They are also called upon to evaluate appropriate tools to accomplish a process or product. These skills provide rich choices to students as they progress through their education. It is unfortunate that students are still encouraged to make posters in high school for a project when they could be applying those foundational technology tools they have used and enjoy creating and presenting.

Spiraling or scaffolding curriculum expects the alignment of the foundational skills. In Grades 6-8 students plan, create, and edit documents. In high school, they apply problem-solving strategies such as design specifications or algorithm development. In middle school, students will use word processing and spreadsheets whereas high school students use visual organizers to design solutions such as flowcharts or schematic drawings.

Another example of alignment concerning problem solving is that middle school students are expected to use groupware, collaborative software, and productivity tools to create products. High school students are expected to use navigation of LANs and WANs for research and/or sharing resources.

It is imperative that teachers integrate these technology skills in their contents. I now see so much waste of acquired skills not utilized at the high school level. It does not surprise me that students appear to be bored and unengaged if they have in fact acquired the expected skills in a previous grade. Everyone knows what happens when skills are not practiced; they are lost, they loose their value.

Pre-K Through 12 Technology TEKS

In looking at the Pre-K Technology Applications, I choose to look at grades 6 through 8 because I am involved with grades 9 through 12. I wanted to know what students entering high school should know about technology.

In the area of foundations, students are expected to demonstrate knowledge and appropriate use of hardware components, software programs, and their connections. They should also use data input skills appropriate to a task and comply with the laws and issues concerning the use of technology.

Information acquisition expects middle school students to use a variety of strategies to acquire information from electronic resources, in a variety of formats (such as bitmap, video, storage devices), and evaluate the acquired electronic information. Part of the evaluation process requires the student to resolve information conflict and validate information through accessing, researching, and comparing data. This is a critical skill because anyone can put anything on the internet. Teachers need to be well versed in guiding students to seek reliable, credible information.

The next area addresses problem solving. Students are expected to use appropriate computer-based productivity tools to create and modify solutions to problems using word processing tools as well as spreadsheet data, formulas, and charts. Furthermore, students are expected to use research skills and electronic communication to create new knowledge. Finally, students are expected to use technology applications to facilitate evaluations of the process and product of a task.

Finally, the area of communication expects students to formats digital information for appropriate and effective communication. This includes the creation of slide shows, posters, multimedia presentations, newsletters, etc. The student should also be able to deliver the product electronically in a variety of media. Students also use applications to facilitate evaluation of communication. This would allow students to track trends, use tools such as database managers, design for content delivery, and evaluation relevance.

So How Bout That Long-Range Plan?

Given the evolving state of global economics, constant and instant communication/information, and increased life expectancy, we are in an urgent situation concerning education. We can no longer afford to teach in the graveyard: aligned desks with quiet, paper and pencil note taking students. Digital students in today’s classroom should be actively engaged in gathering information, exploring new ways to apply that information, and collaborating globally to problem solve.

The Texas Long-Range Plan for Technology is an ambitious attempt to address many challenges in preparing our increasingly diverse population with timely and appropriate technological educational environments. Some of these challenges include accessibility, consistency, and integrating technology applications across all contents and all levels. One goal is for all students to be technologically literate by the end of 8th grade.

The implications for this plan include funding on many levels, ongoing professional development, and curriculum alignment, relevance and application. Each of these requires communities of educators and stakeholders to form an alliance of accountability, responsibility, and commitment to providing the best possible scenario for all Texas students. Educators are to be prepared and supported through state, local, and regional services. Collaboration among educators and stakeholders supplies a foundational support of the infrastructure for technology.
Planning for the future and actually accommodating those plans are daunting tasks. Staying current with technology software seems almost impossible. However, the Long-Range Plan for Technology provides the basic foundational goals to sustain the evolution of the 21st century student.

As an instructional leader, it is overwhelming to digest all the immediate needs. Immediate needs are funding, building and materials, and professional development. The current economic crisis further complicates the implementation of curriculum resources and alignment. The infrastructure is weakened by lack of commitment among stakeholders. These urgent issues create difficult barriers. A successful infrastructure system: creates equitable access to all e-learning technologies; provides timely technical assistance; maintains secure and accurate data; provides data standards to support all users. Data showing student achievement through technology learning environments should afford opportunities for validation.

What can we do now? Education leaders need to serve as technology integration models, provide and support professional development, research ways to overcome the barriers through positive collaborative communities.

Week 1 Technology Responses and Reflections

Certainly this is ironic, but yesterday I experienced my very first computer virus. The virus looked like a pop up advertisement stating a serious virus was entering my computer. I closed the warning. Bingo. That was just one of the moves that would activate the worm. I did not know really what to do except begin the on demand scan from the software that is loaded on the laptop. It did not help. So, I learned more than I bargined for and I think this happens in the technology world, no matter our profession.

The Technology Applications Inventory might be able to skim the surface of the four strands of Foundations, Information Acquisition, Solving Problems, and Communication. However, the speed at which technology evolves can catch anyone in a weak moment of surprise and not knowing exactly what to do. For the foundations category, I ranked myself 17 out of 18. For the other three, I felt 100% proficient in each. However, after my experience, I am not so confident.

For the SETDA survey, I choose the one as the teacher. The questions that impressed me the most were the ones asking about data being collected to determine some facet of technology. As a secondary math curriculum coach, I am data driven daily. One goal is to track the technology being used in the classroom. Another is to evaluate new tools. Then, we face the old problem of out with the old, in with the new. This forces us to continually research appropriate software and then prepare professional development for the teachers. They are not always receptive, which makes our job even more challenging. Without a doubt, however, data does show the students more engaged when technology is available.