June+Field-based+Activities

June 2009 Field-based Activities Monthly Report



Field-Based Reflections June 2009

Week 1

The Comprehensive Needs Assessment was created and “fine-tuned” by the committee. We spent a great deal of time through the week working on writing the Comprehensive Needs Assessment so that each department would address the needs of the students. Each teacher was asked to complete the Comprehensive Needs Assessment individually. Our CNA was developed using the “Creating the School Profile” (Creating, 2006). Each teacher’s answers were brought to the department meeting and the results were compiled by grade level in each of the departments. The results of the Comprehensive Needs Assessment were used along with the TAKS results for 2008-2009 for the campus by subject, grade level and sub-groups. Some of the Comprehensive Needs Assessment results did not coincide with the TAKS results. However, most of the items on the Comprehensive Needs Assessment were reflective of the TAKS results. This data was used in part to create the ICAP (Campus Improvement Plan). The ICAP draft was written using data from the Comprehensive Needs Assessment, TAKS results, Best Place to Work Survey (Spring 2009), and the Campus STaR Chart (2008-2009) (STaR Chart, 2009). There were specifics about classroom instruction, tutoring programs, and professional development opportunities. It is to be reviewed by all campuses in the learning community (feeder patter) before the end of June 2009. Attending the Comprehensive Needs Assessment training in May was helpful as we prepared our Comprehensive Needs Assessment. At the training, we prepared drafts of possible goals for the ICAP. After receiving and reviewing the Comprehensive Needs Assessment results, we were able to use many of the draft goals after making a few changes. The problems we had were with the Federal Programs Department at the district office. Calls and requests for clarifications were not returned. This was also the time we received both good and bad news. We were a TEA Recognized campus. However, we did not meet AYP. Four LEP students were miscoded and this placed us at 94% participation rate in Language Arts. The district has filed an appeal with TEA but at this time, it has been on all of the television stations and in the newspaper that we did not meet AYP and we are at Stage 1, Year 2 (2009 Campus, 2009). The big concern that I have with the campus goals for the ICAP is they are supposed to be realistic goals. The superintendent wants the campuses to be at 90% in all subjects to become a TEA Commended campus. Our Science TAKS results for subgroups will not be able to make that percentage based on past results (Eastwood Middle, 2009). We need to realize that our goals should be related to the current reality and we need to address our current needs and deficiencies (Williamson & Redish, p. 181). References //Creating the School Profile//. (2006). Retrieved May 8, 2010, from txcc.sedl.org/./cna1_ho4_usdoe_create_sch_profiles.doc //Eastwood Middle School ICAP//. (2009). Retrieved May 8, 2010, from [] //STaR Chart//. (2009). Retrieved May 8, 2010, from [] //2009 Campus AYP//. (2009). Retrieved May 8, 2010, from [] Williamson, J., & Redish, T. (2009). //ISTE's Technology Facilitation and Leadership Standards// (First ed., p. 181). Washington, D.C.: International Society for Technology in Education.

Field-Based Reflections June 2009

Week 3

This week, Malinda Villalobos and I met with the principals and the ICAP (Campus Improvement Plan) representatives from the learning community (feeder patter). There were two people from the Division of Academics, and principals and representatives from four elementary schools, two middle schools, and one high school.

As I sat and listened to each campus present, the first thing I realized was there was no vertical alignment in the learning community. Each school did their own their thing with their own programs and didn’t know what or how the other campuses were performing. I felt as if everything was secret and no one was willing to share what worked and what didn’t. It was a very interesting situation. Principals appear to be very territorial and do not take “constructive criticism” or suggestions well. In fact, some became defensive and did not appear to hear the comments. The ICAP representatives were very different from the principals. We wanted to hear comments and discuss possible changes and recommendations. One of the representatives is also a campus technologist. She and I shared a great deal of information. We discussed the different technology that we would like to see implemented on our campus based on the Comprehensive Needs Assessment. I don’t see our campus using “collaborative and project-based learning…or technology to support the pedagogy and philosophy second” (Solomon & Schrum, 2007). I don’t think our campus has the funding to stretch to technology.

Now, it’s time to make changes to the ICAP and complete with all the budget allocations. Our ICAP received many good comments. The suggestions were good and I believe that we will be implementing them. However, our concern now is that if we are not granted the appeal, the campus must prepare a two-year ICAP.

I met with Sara, the budget clerk, to discuss the Compensatory Education and Title I budgets. Yes, it was done out of order. We placed everything from these budgets into the appropriate lines of the ICAP. Sara said all money in these two accounts must be on the ICAP. She must reference everything purchased specifically on an ICAP strategy. All of these changes were made on the ICAP (Eastwood Middle, 2009). Access to our ICAP is available to all employees on our campus through the district created site, Datamart. At Datamart, we are able to find data necessary for decision making. This includes details about our students, including historical data such as grades, TAKS scores, identification such as Gifted and Talented, Special Education, and Limited English Proficiency. We integrate technology-driven date collection for school improvement (Williamson & Redish, 2009).

References

//Eastwood Middle School ICAP//. (2009). Retrieved May 8, 2010, from [] Solomon, G., & Schrum, L. (2007). //Web 2.0 new tools, new schools// (First ed., p. 79). Washington, D.C.: International Society for Technology in Education. Williamson, J., & Redish, T. (2009). //ISTE's Technology Facilitation and Leadership Standards// (First ed., p. 83). Washington, D.C.: International Society for Technology in Education.

Field-Based Reflections June 2009

Week 4

I attended my first Holiday Exchange Professional Development. The district is providing all teachers in the district the opportunity to attend professional development through the summer and then those days will be used in lieu of returning two days before the students in January 2010. The reasoning for this is that January 2010 is too late for professional development to be implemented effectively for the current school year. All opportunities had to be reviewed by the principal to be approved. Malinda met with the teachers to find out which professional development choices they were interested in attending and how they would be used in the classroom.

I learned so much from “Research Strategies for Language Arts, Social Studies, Science and Fine Arts”. We learned the Big 6 Research Method. Working with colleagues, we learned how to gather reliable information from reliable sources. We learned whys to cite sources. The best part was new ways to use technology to create differentiated products to display knowledge.

Throughout the training, I made notes to take back for the school year for different ideas for different grade levels and subjects. The technology ideas were all applications that we have on our campus. Perhaps that is the reason I was so pleased with the workshop. We don’t have to spend additional campus funds for applications. However, should the students need additional applications, there are many open sources available to us now. My teachers will have to realize “there are tools free and available for all, rather than installing the software on the computers” (Solomon & Schrum, p. 13). We have both Macs and PCs on the campus. The students have access to applications to create PowerPoints, use MovieMaker or iMovie, create newspapers/newsletters, or comics using ComicLife. If teachers would like to use something different, I believe that working together we can find other applications to meet their needs. The assessments for this type of work might be challenging for “low-tech” teachers. However, as stated by Wiggins, 1993) “…students must use knowledge to fashion performances effectively and creatively…” (as cited in Solomon & Schrum, 2007, p. 168). The projects the teachers are now assigning are “low-tech” and I would like to see them move up the technology and embed technology more in the different classes. According to Pitler, Hubbell, Kuhn & Malenoski, as “…technology standards becoming an integral part of students’ education, teachers are more enthusiastic than ever to learn new technologies and methods” (p. 1). One of the NETS*S indicates that “students will use critical thinking skills to plan and conduct research, manage project, solve problems, and make informed decisions using appropriate digital tools and resources” (Williamson & Redish,p. 62). I also see it as a great way for students to research, take notes, and cite sources. The issue I see at this point as most challenging is the lack of computers on our campus. With 860 students and one computer lab, it becomes difficult to schedule time.

References Pitler, H., Hubbell, E. R., Kuhn, M., & Malenoski, K. (2007). //Using Technology with Classroom Instruction that Works// (p. 1). Alexandria, VA: ASCD. Solomon, G., & Schrum, L. (2007). //Web 2.0 new tools, new schools// (First ed., pp. 1-2). Washington, D.C.: International Society for Technology in Education. Williamson, J., & Redish, T. (2009). //ISTE's Technology Facilitation and Leadership Standards// (First ed., p. 1). Washington, D.C.: International Society for Technology in Education.