Sunday, December 13, 2009
Week 5: Course Reflections
As soon as I gained a clear picture of the direction this course would take me, I realized that I had a unique opportunity to make an immediate difference on my campus by bringing to light the technological discrepancies found between the STaR Chart’s data and the actual situation we are facing in our district. I was able to use each assignment in helping my campus ultimately create the action plan that would move us into a position where we can successfully integrate the Technology TEKS into each subject’s curriculum and find funding to pay for the hardware and software that we need. Blogging for this course showed me that it will be a useful tool to communicate with teachers as we work through the technology action plan. As teachers become comfortable and experienced with it; we can proactively address any concerns that stakeholders might have when we teach students to blog. It’s a great introduction for stakeholders to experience so that they too see in the importance and benefits that it will bring to our students.
Saturday, December 12, 2009
Week 4 Action Plan Assignments 1-3
Susan Phillips, Section 1099
EDLD 5352 Instructional Leadership: The Technology Link
Week 4 Assignment, Part 1: Development of an organizational chart integrating technology
Matagorda ISD only has one campus, Matagorda Elementary with one administrator, Mrs. Laura Shay, who serves both as superintendent and principal.
District and Campus Leadership:
Administrator: Superintendent and Principal, Mrs. Laura Shay
Mrs. Shay serves in a duel role when it comes to integrating technology. She has to make superintendent level decisions concerning technology improvements and technology integration. In addition, as a principal, she has to be an instructional leader and model technology integration into instruction, ensure that Technology TEKS are being taught in the classroom, and coordinate technology support from a contracted service provided on an as needed basis from Mr. John Burns, as well as, assigning the technology coordinator, Mrs. Karen Petrosky, various tasks to complete. For Mrs. Karen Petrosky, this title is in addition to teaching full time. She receives a stipend for the extra work.
Business Manager: Mrs. Debbie Slotman
Mrs. Slotman works closely with Mrs. Shay concerning financial decisions and budgeted allocations to support technology needs. If we don’t have the funds to support our needs, she searches for grants that both she and Mrs. Shay write.
Technology Coordinator: Mrs. Karen Petrosky
Mrs. Petrosky, a full time science and social studies teacher, receives a stipend to perform various technology tasks as defined by Mrs. Shay. She adds software to computers, trouble shoots technology problems to decide if our contracted technology support person needs to be called, and installs printers.
Technology Support: Mr. John Burns
Mr. Burns owns a local computer store in Bay City, about thirty miles away. When we can’t solve our technology problems, we call him. His decision making level is limited to suggestions on the best way to solve technology problems.
District, Campus, and Classroom Leadership
Region III Shared Services: Education Service Center
Each year, Mrs. Shay pays for our Education Service Center’s Technology Shared Services. She identifies needed professional development for our staff and writes that into our professional development plans. Region III brings the latest technology to our campus and trains us in the latest software and internet resources. They also keep us informed of technology grants available. Their most recent focus is offering us professional development that demonstrates how we can integrate technology into daily instruction. Finally, they keep us connected to Discovery’s United Streaming, NetTrekker, and Digital Knowledge Center. Their decision making level is based on what we identify as our technological needs and then planning ways to meet those needs.
Classroom Leadership:
Teachers: PreK, Mrs. Janet Ryman; Kindergarten, Ms. Moira Gesford; 1st Grade, Mrs. Angela Burns; 2nd Grade; Mrs. Jami Casey; 3rd Grade, Ms. Patti Steed; 4th Grade, Mrs. Candace Browning; 5th Grade, Mrs. Karen Petrosky; 6th Grade, Mrs. Susan Phillips
Each teacher is responsible for teaching their homeroom grade level technology TEKS as well as incorporating technology TEKS in their instruction for the other grade level TEKS. Teachers are also required to complete the STaR Chart yearly. Teachers are able to decide how and when to use technology and integrate it into their instruction. Teachers determine the organizational layout of technology in the classroom as well as how and when they want to take all students to the computer lab as opposed to using the workstations in their classroom.
Week 4 Assignment, Part 2: Professional Development Planning
Matagorda ISD has written plans and support in place to meet our technology needs as evidenced through the District and Campus Improvement Plan as well as the TEA approved Comprehensive Technology Plan. We aren’t meeting them and student learning and academic growth are being restricted because of that. One part of solving the issues we face can be met through professional development.
The first step for staff’s professional development will be the analysis of the last three year’s data gathered from the STaR chart. A PowerPoint outlining the meaning and importance of the STaR Chart will be part of that presentation. Teachers must understand what each statement of the STaR Chart is analyzing so that they give accurate information. By the end of their training, they will be able to understand why we aren’t meeting the technological needs as outlined by local, state, and national standards. In turn, we can focus on meeting those needs and have a common vision.
Additional professional development then can be planned for those teachers who need to update their own technology skills. For our science teachers, as two students suggested in their interview, they need training on the latest microscopes that can be linked to overhead projectors. Other teachers need to learn how to operate scanners, save to memory sticks, voice recorders, web cams, and digital and video cameras. Some teachers need to learn how to create their class web page and use the online grading system we’ve adopted.
Once they have a better understanding of technology applications, we can analyze our AEIS, AYP, and recent benchmark data to identify our needs. This is where our contracted technology services through Region III’s Education Service Center becomes a strong partner in professional development. They will customize professional development according to our needs. At this point it is to teach us how to integrate technology into instruction so that we can increase student learning to overcome our weaknesses as identified in the various report analyses.
Our administrator as well as business manager need to be a part of this training so that they know why the technology is so important in our daily instructional delivery. I especially feel that (as I identified through my interviews with Site Based Decision Making members) SBDM members and even school board members should have an open invitation to be part of this training so they have a better understanding of what their written strategies on the District and Campus Improvement Plan mean. When asked about Performance Objective 7: “Technology will be implemented and used to increase the effectiveness of student learning, instructional management, staff development, and administration,” they believed that the online programs that we are using (Voyager Ticket to Read, VMath, etc.) were meeting this need. That gave useful insight that they too need exposure and training on 21st century learning styles and teaching needs.
Week 4 Assignment, Part 3: Evaluation Planning for Action Plan
The initial evaluation for our district starts with an assessment of each teacher’s current technology skill level. I’ve developed a technology survey customized for each teacher on our campus according to the Technology TEKS that they will have to integrate into their instruction. My administrator and I also included some other tech skills that we would like teachers to be able to use such as blogging, maintaining their webpage, using the electronic grade book, creating student surveys and conducting online discussions using our school-wide internet site offered through eChalk. The result of the assessment will allow us to specifically plan for each individuals level of professional development. Both of us believe that teacher’s needs customized individual education plans such as we create for our students.
As we move on to helping staff understand the importance and meaning behind the annual STaR Chart survey we complete; we’ll use the PowerPoint that I created in Week 2 and introduce teachers to our online customizable survey offered through our eChalk subscription by showing them how to access and complete the questions on the school website. It’s similar to another online survey, Survey Monkey, and is very user friendly. We’ll be reinforcing the importance of technology by incorporating it into our training. The survey will allow us to gauge each teacher’s level of understanding of the STaR Chart while helping teachers see how useful the online survey can be in their instructional day with students. In a short follow up, during a weekly staff meeting, we can present the data to staff and show them how we use it to plan follow up professional developments. Again, modeling to teachers how they can do the same with their students without officially “teaching technology,” but integrating it into lessons.
When it comes to evaluating each teacher’s level of success as they complete the various technology trainings that administration has planned; there are several measurable tools we can use for evaluation. A formative evaluation tool is the certificate of completion that is provided to them. They can either provide that for their personnel file, or have the option to print a new list of completed trainings from Region III’s Educational Service Center. The second and most effective method of evaluation is documented observations that a PDAS certified staff member completes. It would be expected that the teacher has integrated their new skill(s) into instruction. As for maintaining web pages, using the online grading program, blogging, and internet based discussions with students; all of those areas can be monitored by administration at any point in time.
Evaluation of how teachers are using technology to gather data, analyze it, and use it can be found specifically in individual education plans, intervention plans, lesson plans, and tutorial plans. Our Student Success Committee meets the week after report cards are released. Each teacher is required to bring written plans on the students moving into TIER II and TIER III services. Their instructional and curriculum decisions have to be made using data. Our school’s RTI plan required them to bring the data that they used to make their decisions. TAKS test scores, benchmark results, online reading and math assessments, AEIS reports and online grade book summaries are all examples of data offered through technology.
Evaluation of the success of administration and Site Based Decision Making team member’s involvement in learning more about educating students in the 21st century can be easily gathered from sign in sheets and professional development continuing education certificates. In order to incorporate the importance of using technology with instruction, our online survey offered through eChalk is available for these specific groups of people to complete. Each has a school email address, even our SBDM members, as they are a part of our school family.
EDLD 5352 Instructional Leadership: The Technology Link
Week 4 Assignment, Part 1: Development of an organizational chart integrating technology
Matagorda ISD only has one campus, Matagorda Elementary with one administrator, Mrs. Laura Shay, who serves both as superintendent and principal.
District and Campus Leadership:
Administrator: Superintendent and Principal, Mrs. Laura Shay
Mrs. Shay serves in a duel role when it comes to integrating technology. She has to make superintendent level decisions concerning technology improvements and technology integration. In addition, as a principal, she has to be an instructional leader and model technology integration into instruction, ensure that Technology TEKS are being taught in the classroom, and coordinate technology support from a contracted service provided on an as needed basis from Mr. John Burns, as well as, assigning the technology coordinator, Mrs. Karen Petrosky, various tasks to complete. For Mrs. Karen Petrosky, this title is in addition to teaching full time. She receives a stipend for the extra work.
Business Manager: Mrs. Debbie Slotman
Mrs. Slotman works closely with Mrs. Shay concerning financial decisions and budgeted allocations to support technology needs. If we don’t have the funds to support our needs, she searches for grants that both she and Mrs. Shay write.
Technology Coordinator: Mrs. Karen Petrosky
Mrs. Petrosky, a full time science and social studies teacher, receives a stipend to perform various technology tasks as defined by Mrs. Shay. She adds software to computers, trouble shoots technology problems to decide if our contracted technology support person needs to be called, and installs printers.
Technology Support: Mr. John Burns
Mr. Burns owns a local computer store in Bay City, about thirty miles away. When we can’t solve our technology problems, we call him. His decision making level is limited to suggestions on the best way to solve technology problems.
District, Campus, and Classroom Leadership
Region III Shared Services: Education Service Center
Each year, Mrs. Shay pays for our Education Service Center’s Technology Shared Services. She identifies needed professional development for our staff and writes that into our professional development plans. Region III brings the latest technology to our campus and trains us in the latest software and internet resources. They also keep us informed of technology grants available. Their most recent focus is offering us professional development that demonstrates how we can integrate technology into daily instruction. Finally, they keep us connected to Discovery’s United Streaming, NetTrekker, and Digital Knowledge Center. Their decision making level is based on what we identify as our technological needs and then planning ways to meet those needs.
Classroom Leadership:
Teachers: PreK, Mrs. Janet Ryman; Kindergarten, Ms. Moira Gesford; 1st Grade, Mrs. Angela Burns; 2nd Grade; Mrs. Jami Casey; 3rd Grade, Ms. Patti Steed; 4th Grade, Mrs. Candace Browning; 5th Grade, Mrs. Karen Petrosky; 6th Grade, Mrs. Susan Phillips
Each teacher is responsible for teaching their homeroom grade level technology TEKS as well as incorporating technology TEKS in their instruction for the other grade level TEKS. Teachers are also required to complete the STaR Chart yearly. Teachers are able to decide how and when to use technology and integrate it into their instruction. Teachers determine the organizational layout of technology in the classroom as well as how and when they want to take all students to the computer lab as opposed to using the workstations in their classroom.
Week 4 Assignment, Part 2: Professional Development Planning
Matagorda ISD has written plans and support in place to meet our technology needs as evidenced through the District and Campus Improvement Plan as well as the TEA approved Comprehensive Technology Plan. We aren’t meeting them and student learning and academic growth are being restricted because of that. One part of solving the issues we face can be met through professional development.
The first step for staff’s professional development will be the analysis of the last three year’s data gathered from the STaR chart. A PowerPoint outlining the meaning and importance of the STaR Chart will be part of that presentation. Teachers must understand what each statement of the STaR Chart is analyzing so that they give accurate information. By the end of their training, they will be able to understand why we aren’t meeting the technological needs as outlined by local, state, and national standards. In turn, we can focus on meeting those needs and have a common vision.
Additional professional development then can be planned for those teachers who need to update their own technology skills. For our science teachers, as two students suggested in their interview, they need training on the latest microscopes that can be linked to overhead projectors. Other teachers need to learn how to operate scanners, save to memory sticks, voice recorders, web cams, and digital and video cameras. Some teachers need to learn how to create their class web page and use the online grading system we’ve adopted.
Once they have a better understanding of technology applications, we can analyze our AEIS, AYP, and recent benchmark data to identify our needs. This is where our contracted technology services through Region III’s Education Service Center becomes a strong partner in professional development. They will customize professional development according to our needs. At this point it is to teach us how to integrate technology into instruction so that we can increase student learning to overcome our weaknesses as identified in the various report analyses.
Our administrator as well as business manager need to be a part of this training so that they know why the technology is so important in our daily instructional delivery. I especially feel that (as I identified through my interviews with Site Based Decision Making members) SBDM members and even school board members should have an open invitation to be part of this training so they have a better understanding of what their written strategies on the District and Campus Improvement Plan mean. When asked about Performance Objective 7: “Technology will be implemented and used to increase the effectiveness of student learning, instructional management, staff development, and administration,” they believed that the online programs that we are using (Voyager Ticket to Read, VMath, etc.) were meeting this need. That gave useful insight that they too need exposure and training on 21st century learning styles and teaching needs.
Week 4 Assignment, Part 3: Evaluation Planning for Action Plan
The initial evaluation for our district starts with an assessment of each teacher’s current technology skill level. I’ve developed a technology survey customized for each teacher on our campus according to the Technology TEKS that they will have to integrate into their instruction. My administrator and I also included some other tech skills that we would like teachers to be able to use such as blogging, maintaining their webpage, using the electronic grade book, creating student surveys and conducting online discussions using our school-wide internet site offered through eChalk. The result of the assessment will allow us to specifically plan for each individuals level of professional development. Both of us believe that teacher’s needs customized individual education plans such as we create for our students.
As we move on to helping staff understand the importance and meaning behind the annual STaR Chart survey we complete; we’ll use the PowerPoint that I created in Week 2 and introduce teachers to our online customizable survey offered through our eChalk subscription by showing them how to access and complete the questions on the school website. It’s similar to another online survey, Survey Monkey, and is very user friendly. We’ll be reinforcing the importance of technology by incorporating it into our training. The survey will allow us to gauge each teacher’s level of understanding of the STaR Chart while helping teachers see how useful the online survey can be in their instructional day with students. In a short follow up, during a weekly staff meeting, we can present the data to staff and show them how we use it to plan follow up professional developments. Again, modeling to teachers how they can do the same with their students without officially “teaching technology,” but integrating it into lessons.
When it comes to evaluating each teacher’s level of success as they complete the various technology trainings that administration has planned; there are several measurable tools we can use for evaluation. A formative evaluation tool is the certificate of completion that is provided to them. They can either provide that for their personnel file, or have the option to print a new list of completed trainings from Region III’s Educational Service Center. The second and most effective method of evaluation is documented observations that a PDAS certified staff member completes. It would be expected that the teacher has integrated their new skill(s) into instruction. As for maintaining web pages, using the online grading program, blogging, and internet based discussions with students; all of those areas can be monitored by administration at any point in time.
Evaluation of how teachers are using technology to gather data, analyze it, and use it can be found specifically in individual education plans, intervention plans, lesson plans, and tutorial plans. Our Student Success Committee meets the week after report cards are released. Each teacher is required to bring written plans on the students moving into TIER II and TIER III services. Their instructional and curriculum decisions have to be made using data. Our school’s RTI plan required them to bring the data that they used to make their decisions. TAKS test scores, benchmark results, online reading and math assessments, AEIS reports and online grade book summaries are all examples of data offered through technology.
Evaluation of the success of administration and Site Based Decision Making team member’s involvement in learning more about educating students in the 21st century can be easily gathered from sign in sheets and professional development continuing education certificates. In order to incorporate the importance of using technology with instruction, our online survey offered through eChalk is available for these specific groups of people to complete. Each has a school email address, even our SBDM members, as they are a part of our school family.
Sunday, November 29, 2009
Texas S Ta R Chart Presentation
Check out this SlideShare Presentation: It explains STaR, its four key measurement areas, rating levels, reviews Matatagorda Elementary's past three years of STaR results, and concludes with suggestions and a focus.
Texas S Ta R Chart
View more presentations from Susan Phillips.
Week 2, Part 2: Using a Blog - STaR Analysis
Under the STaR category that I find most interesting at this point is, “Teaching and Learning,” with the ultimate rating being “Target Tech” charges teachers to serve as facilitators, mentors, and co-learners as they help students stay focused on inquiry as technology assists their learning process. Collaboration is used to suggest, assess, and implement solutions for real world problems, as well as communicate effectively. Technology is integrated into all subjects and lessons.
When I analyzed local data for my school, I realized that I have a strong disagreement with the “Advanced Tech” rating under “Teaching and Learning.” I know for a fact, as the District and Campus Curriculum Director and Testing Coordinator, teachers rely on our technology curriculum, TechWorks (2001), to cover the TEKS and believe that by setting aside a little time here and there for “computer work”; they are taking care of this responsibility. Another obvious indicator that proves that my district and campus isn’t accurately rated in that area can be found by listening to staff conversations in our Professional Learning Communities; I too am guilty. Technology TEKS haven’t been on any agenda since we formed our PLC’s two years ago. No one is talking about them. So for someone to read this report and think “Wow, Matagorda ISD, is close to being on target in this area,” is a false statement.
Our campus in comparison to statewide progress shows MISD with a rating above the state average, “Developing Tech.” Statewide 69.7% of campuses were at this level. Only 25.5% were at “Advance Tech.” I have to question the validity of those results after analyzing the data for my own campus.
I will create the STaR PowerPoint and schedule a staff development to facilitate awareness of the purpose of the STaR assessment, review MISD’s results from the last three years, and then provide everyone with a fresh copy of their grade appropriate Technology TEKS. I’ll schedule follow up trainings in conjunction with our Education Service Center to help foster technology integration into all subjects to a point at which teachers are comfortable with and using technology to foster student learning.
When I analyzed local data for my school, I realized that I have a strong disagreement with the “Advanced Tech” rating under “Teaching and Learning.” I know for a fact, as the District and Campus Curriculum Director and Testing Coordinator, teachers rely on our technology curriculum, TechWorks (2001), to cover the TEKS and believe that by setting aside a little time here and there for “computer work”; they are taking care of this responsibility. Another obvious indicator that proves that my district and campus isn’t accurately rated in that area can be found by listening to staff conversations in our Professional Learning Communities; I too am guilty. Technology TEKS haven’t been on any agenda since we formed our PLC’s two years ago. No one is talking about them. So for someone to read this report and think “Wow, Matagorda ISD, is close to being on target in this area,” is a false statement.
Our campus in comparison to statewide progress shows MISD with a rating above the state average, “Developing Tech.” Statewide 69.7% of campuses were at this level. Only 25.5% were at “Advance Tech.” I have to question the validity of those results after analyzing the data for my own campus.
I will create the STaR PowerPoint and schedule a staff development to facilitate awareness of the purpose of the STaR assessment, review MISD’s results from the last three years, and then provide everyone with a fresh copy of their grade appropriate Technology TEKS. I’ll schedule follow up trainings in conjunction with our Education Service Center to help foster technology integration into all subjects to a point at which teachers are comfortable with and using technology to foster student learning.
Monday, November 23, 2009
Week 1 Part 4 Technology TEKS Summary
Week 1 Part 4 Technology TEKS Summary
The TEKS for Pre-K students the focus is on teaching them the basic computer functions, methods for handling and managing input devices, and helping them gain confidence so they can move into an independent stage of software user. Pre-K students learn to:
· Start, use, and properly exit software programs,
· Use different input devices such as the keyboard, mouse, touch screen, and voice recorders,
· Learn and use academic technology vocabulary such as, “keyboard,” “mouse,” “printer.”
· Learn to like to use interactive programs such as using a storyboard and other informational texts,
· Effectively uses software programs targeted to assist with vocabulary development, math level, phonemic awareness, and
· Follow oral directions and/or picture cues to navigate programs.
These foundation skills will prepare the students in a purposeful, playful, and playful way for the technology TEKS that follow year after year. The technology TEKS take a child from an introductory level, to an applied level, and finally a mastery level as demonstrated through scope and sequence documents. For instance under the foundation domain, a Pre-K student is introduced to (1) Foundations: The student demonstrates knowledge and appropriate use of hardware components, software programs, and their connections. The student (A) uses technology terminology appropriate to task and grade level. This expectation is taught at an introductory level in Pre-K and Kindergarten, but during the 1st and 2nd grade year the student is expected to work move from the introductory level to an applied level. The same is for the other TEKS. The TEKS don’t change, what changes is the level in which the student is expected to perform as he or she advances grade levels.
The TEKS for Pre-K students the focus is on teaching them the basic computer functions, methods for handling and managing input devices, and helping them gain confidence so they can move into an independent stage of software user. Pre-K students learn to:
· Start, use, and properly exit software programs,
· Use different input devices such as the keyboard, mouse, touch screen, and voice recorders,
· Learn and use academic technology vocabulary such as, “keyboard,” “mouse,” “printer.”
· Learn to like to use interactive programs such as using a storyboard and other informational texts,
· Effectively uses software programs targeted to assist with vocabulary development, math level, phonemic awareness, and
· Follow oral directions and/or picture cues to navigate programs.
These foundation skills will prepare the students in a purposeful, playful, and playful way for the technology TEKS that follow year after year. The technology TEKS take a child from an introductory level, to an applied level, and finally a mastery level as demonstrated through scope and sequence documents. For instance under the foundation domain, a Pre-K student is introduced to (1) Foundations: The student demonstrates knowledge and appropriate use of hardware components, software programs, and their connections. The student (A) uses technology terminology appropriate to task and grade level. This expectation is taught at an introductory level in Pre-K and Kindergarten, but during the 1st and 2nd grade year the student is expected to work move from the introductory level to an applied level. The same is for the other TEKS. The TEKS don’t change, what changes is the level in which the student is expected to perform as he or she advances grade levels.
Sunday, November 22, 2009
Week 1 Part 3 Key Ideas of the Long-Range Plan for Technology Reflection
The most amazing learning experience I enjoyed through the analysis of the Long-Range Plan occurred when I realized that such a plan existed. I realized that as an interning Assistant Principal I need to share this information. I don’t expect each staff member to analyze it to the extent that I did, but it lays out the path that we are heading down and gives meaning to changes that we, as teachers, have experienced. Some of the present infrastructure issues we are experiencing with very basic operations became even more important when considering where we are headed. I see now that we need to prepare our campus by establishing a faster response to technological difficulties, establishing ongoing professional development for staff on tech tools such as digital cameras, scanners, downloading videos, incorporating PowerPoint lessons, integrating technology effectively into lessons, creating evaluations of technology in the classroom, and staying on top of cutting edge technological developments. Not knowing where we are heading with the Long-Range Plan allows us to trivialize current technological situations. As a teacher, I recognize that I am in desperate need of developing my own professional development plan. As curriculum director, I recognize that I need to help staff develop one to meet their needs so that they can take the time to prepare and learn what they need to learn instead of waiting until the last minute and being overwhelmed.
Week 1 Part 2 Reflection on the Technology Assessments
Both assessments showed that although I know how to use technology to fit my needs for student instruction, staff training, and various tasks such as creating newsletters; I am not comfortable enough nor have the proper technological vocabulary to expand on student instruction past my current curriculum. TEA’s Technology Applications Inventory revealed that I need instruction in the areas of virtual environment, graphic files, project management tools, and designing rubrics. The SETDA teacher survey supported that conclusion and elaborated that my technological inadequacies, along with most of our teachers, is negatively impacting student learning. Although we are provided year round state of the art laptops, Verizon wireless cards, and multitudes of other technology; it’s not being carried over to the students. The SETDA results also pointed out a need for data collection so that we can identify and address our weaknesses and create a technological vision. Most shockingly, as the SETDA showed, our administration supports, recognizes, and rewards teachers who pursue using technology for teaching and learning. This evaluation tool is going to be a huge asset to our campus. It’s much more in-depth than the STAR survey we complete each year. As curriculum director, I am going to use it at our next staff meeting and then plan our January – May professional development plan around the results. It will also provide me with a tool to present administration showing where we need to use our resources the most. My opinion is that administrators will see that although they are providing the resources and support for teachers, it’s not trickling down to impact student learning. The assessments are excellent sources for analysis both on the personal and school-wide technological occurrences.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)