With the lack of funding available to schools over the last few years, one of the consequences at Mission Viejo High School was an elimination of Department Chairs 5 years ago. This year, for the first time since, the district mandated that a leadership team be put back into place at each school. At the high school level, these would be compromised of curriculum leaders representing academic departments and other programs on campus. In September the Principal put out a call to all faculty interested in becoming curriculum leaders to represent their respective departments at all bi-monthly leadership meetings and activities and events that the leadership team would be responsible for (faculty meeting presentations, etc.), as well as take the lead in department meetings and represent his/her colleagues in curricular matters.
After filling out an application and interviewing with the Principal I was chosen as the Curriculum Leader for the World Languages Department. I have attended leadership meetings twice a month since September, made-up of the other Curriculum Leaders, as well as all of the school's administrators. The bulk of the meetings have centered around the curricular issue of how to address MVHS' two critical needs from the WASC action plan: 1. Narrowing the achievement gap between White students and English Learners, Hispanic and Socio-economically Disadvantaged. 2. Providing appropriate support and systematic intervention programs to help all students reach their maximum potential. Within these two broader contexts, specific focus has been on fair and common grading policies, access and awareness to a-g and higher-level courses, and the transition to the Common Core State Standards. Apart from participating in the discussions that take place during the curriculum meetings, I have also supported MVHS's critical needs by:
After working at MVHS for 9 years, I felt that it was excellent timing to apply for a leadership position under the new Curriculum Leader Model. Since it was made clear that many of the duties that had been part of the former Department Chair position (ordering supplies, helping create the master schedule, etc.) would not be part of the newly created positions, it was very appealing to me to be able to focus on curriculum, at both the school level and within my own department. Taking this position was also a way to really put into practice many of the theories and ideas that we were learning about and discussing in PLI almost immediately and on a daily basis. What I immediately tried to do from the very first department meeting was demonstrate democratic leadership. As many members in my dept. had previously had many disagreements and tension between themselves, I started off the first meeting asking everyone to please try to wipe the slate clean and start fresh, letting go of any negative feelings and emotions they may be harboring. I shared with them that I was growing and evolving both personally and professionally, especially within the context of leadership and wanted to respect everyone's opinions and experiences. I now know, after taking Prof. Price's course, I was demonstrating professional authority by exhibiting authentic respect for my colleague's voice. I also immediately began exhibiting what I believe to be Democratic Leadership by asking for everyones's opinion and input anytime curricular decisions were being made at department meetings. I would open the floor for discussion, and ensure that my colleagues were allowed to finish their thoughts before being cut off by someone else (which many people tried to do). After general discussions took place, I would then ask each teacher individually if he/she had anything additional they would like to share in front of the whole group. When it was time to make a final decision, we would all vote, and I would make sure that everyone had voted one way or another. I believe demonstrating both professional authority and democratic leadership served me, and my department quite well this year. Many teachers in my department complimented me on my leadership style and added that they were grateful everyone was allowed to express their opinions at meetings. One of the bigger victories for me this year in this new position was being able to establish professionalism and respect with a colleague with whom I could never really get along with before this year. Before PLI, I would have probably dismissed anything she had to say because I felt that she never respected me, and ignore her, or cut her off if I didn't agree with her. By evolving into a democratic leader and showing her that I valued her opinion, she slowly began showing me what I perceive as professionalism. There is no longer tension between us when we meet, and I do not dread department meetings knowing I will have to work with her. We are by no means best friends, and I still don't agree with everything she says or believes, but we are able to keep it professional and I still show her respect by allowing her to express her opinion and input.
Being a curriculum leader has also allowed me to gain confidence in my leadership abilities because I have been able to see the results and effects of demonstrating democratic leadership. It has pushed me outside of my comfort zone and made me really listen to opinions that differ greatly from my own and collaborate with all kinds of personalities as we work toward the common goal of improving student achievement. It has also given me the confidence to use my own voice and champion for a democratic education in which all stakeholders voices are heard.
CPSEL 1: Facilitating the development, articulation, implementation, and stewardship of a vision of learning that is shared and supported by the school community.
CPSEL 2: Advocating, nurturing, and sustaining a school culture and instructional program conducive to student learning and staff professional growth.
CPSEL3: Ensuring management of the organization, operations, and resources for a safe, efficient, and effective learning environment.
CPSEL 5: Modeling a personal code of ethics and developing professional leadership capacity.
CPSEL 6: Understanding, responding to, and influencing the larger political, social, economic, legal, and cultural context.
My leadership project focused on access to higher level courses (college prep and honors/AP/IB) for all students, with a specific focus on our Latino population. To accomplish this task, there were 2 components to my project, a policy analysis aspect that analyzed the protocol teachers use for recommending students in to these courses as well as the placement of students in classes by the guidance office. The second element of my project was the cultural awareness element, that aimed to create an awareness for all students of what the college preparatory and higher level course curriculum is on our campus and how to access it.
Policy Analysis: This tenet of my project sought to explore any barriers that students encounter when trying to access college prep (CP) and higher level course at MVHS that may be embedded in systemic policies. In order to accomplish this, I decided to focus on both recommendation policies and practices (teacher actions) as well as placement policies and practices (guidance office/student actions). The purpose was to examine and uncover any inconsistencies in either process that may be serving as barriers to students trying to access the higher level curriculum.
Activity 1: Review comparisons and contrasts between departmental policies for course recommendations in to Spanish 2 (CP) and AP Spanish and what criteria teachers actually use for this process.
In order to accomplish this I solicited feedback from the Spanish 1 teacher as to what criteria they used in order to recommend their students on to Spanish 2 during the recommendation process that occurs in the spring for the following academic school year. Because I wanted complete honesty, I felt that anonymity when responding was key so that teachers didn't feel they were being judged and would feel more open to share their actual practice. In order to accomplish this I created a link to a Google form that could be accessed without needing any log-in information or any other identifiable info. Once teachers accessed the link they were asked one open-ended question: "What are the necessary requirements in order for a Spanish 1 student to be recommended on to Spanish 2?". Google then generated a spreadsheet with all teacher's answers without any identifiable info. as to who had answered what. I then compared their answers with department policy to uncover any inconsistencies. I followed the same process to solicit information from Spanish 3 teachers and the recommendation process into AP Spanish.
Findings: After comparing the teacher's responses to department policies, inconsistencies were found in the recommendation process into both CP and AP classes in the World Languages Dept. At both levels, some teachers did not adhere to department policy by either requiring a higher, or lower, grade than is stated in department policy as a basis for student recommendation into the course. Additionally, some teachers require additional specific language skill requirements of the students before being recommended on to the CP or AP course, which is not part of the department policy.
Implications/Barriers/ Next Steps: Because of the inconsistencies being followed by teachers in the recommendation process, some students have a more difficult time accessing the higher level curriculum on our campus dependent on who their teacher is for the prerequisite courses. I believe the next step is to review department policies with all World Language teachers as well as re-examine them in order to determine if changes need to be made, or if the current policy is consistent with providing access to all students.
Activity 2: Review comparisons and contrasts between Guidance department policies for course placement with a teacher recommendation and what criteria the Student Services Technicians (SSTs) actually ue for this process.
The purpose of this activity was to examine the protocol for what course to enroll a student in when he/she does not want to take a CP (Spanish 2) or AP course, even with a teacher recommendation. I wanted to see if a student was allowed to drop a higher level class at their own discretion, or if there were policies and practices in place in the guidance office to encourage students to remain in these courses. I followed a very similar process as activity 1, soliciting the protocol that the guidance techs use for this scenario by having them fill out an anonymous Google form that asked them "What is the protocol for when a student receives a recommendation into Spanish 2/AP Spanish, but he/she decided that they do not want to take that class?". I then compared their answers to the guidance department policy on this protocol.
Spanish 2 Results AP Spanish Results
Findings: After comparing the SSTs responses with guidance department policies, inconsistencies were found in the protocol for allowing students to drop/un-enroll in a higher level course they were recommended for. While department policy is followed when students try to drop a CP course, one SST also requires the student to speak with a guidance counselor before wing allowed to drop. When looking at AP course placement, both respondents also follow guidance policy, however one encourages students to "try" the course for a few weeks before being allowed to drop.
Implications/Barriers/Next Steps: While the Student Services Technicians follow department policies of allowing students to un-enroll in a CP or AP course by counseling the student and requiring a parent note, at both the CP and AP levels, one of the SSTs also requires additional steps before allowing the student to drop the class. This results in some students being allowed to drop important course more easily than others dependent on who their SST is. While no barriers were discovered in the placement (or non-placement) process used by the guidance office, it behooves them to re-assess current policies. They may want to consider implementing the protocol that one of the SSTs uses of encouraging students to try taking the higher level courses they were recommended for for a few weeks before being allowed to drop it. The student may discover they want to continue in the course after giving it a try.
Activity 3: Comparing number of Latino students recommended from Spanish 3 to AP Spanish with actual enrollment.
The purpose of this activity was to analyze any barriers students perceived or encountered when trying to access the AP curriculum, even with a teacher recommendation, resulting in them not enrolling in the course. In order to accomplish this, I reviewed all of the Latino students that were recommended at the end of the 2012-2013 school year to take AP Spanish by their Spanish 3 teachers with the actual enrollment of Latino students in the AP course during the 2013-2014 year.
Findings: All Latino students that were recommended into the AP Spanish course enrolled in it the following year. An additional 5 Latino students that were recommended into the 4 honors course overrode the recommendation and matriculated into the AP course, resulting in a higher number of Latino students taking the AP course than were recommended.
Implications: The data shows that students who are recommended to take AP Spanish by a teacher enroll in the class. Additionally, as the 5 students who overrode the recommendations in order to take the AP class are all AVID students, it appears that these students are well-informed and equipped on how to override recommendations and understand the importance of accessing this curriculum.
Cultural Awareness: The purpose of this tenet of my project was to create an awareness for all stakeholders of the a-g requirement (CP and higher-level courses) and the differences between these classes and graduation requirement courses. I also hoped to gain an understanding of some of the perceived/actual barriers on campus in accessing these courses.
Activity 1: Project a-g; the purpose of this campaign was to create an awareness for all stakeholders of what the a-g requirement is, it's importance, the implications of to being "a-g eligible" and the courses on MVHS's campus that satisfy the requirement. In order to accomplish this I,
Activity 2: Exploring perceived/actual barriers on campus in accessing the a-g curriculum. The purpose of this was to gain an understanding of barriers prevalent on campus as perceived by teachers. This was accomplished by asking teachers at a faculty meeting to come up with a list of why they think students can't, or are not, accessing this curriculum. They were asked to discuss this issue with their peers in group of 5-8 and generate an anonymous list of perceived and real barriers.
Findings: After receiving all of the responses, I sorted all of the different reasons teachers listed for students not accessing the a-g courses into three categories of barriers: academic, deficit and systemic. Some academic barriers included lack of early academic interventions and academic preparation. Under systemic barriers some specific issues included a flawed recommendation process and staff inconsistency. Deficit barriers included lack of mail support, intrinsic student motivation, etc. Academic and systemic barriers accounted for 26 total responses, while deficit barriers accumulated 22 responses.
Implications/Next Steps: I decided to focus on systemic barriers by analyzing recommendation and placement procedures and policies in the Policy Analysis portion of my Leadership Project (see above). For both systemic and academic barriers, I decided to use the a-g campaign portion of my project to educate and create awareness for all stakeholders. I believe to focus on the deficit barriers, or the beliefs that not all students are capable of taking higher level courses, a complete shift in culture is needed on our campus. I have begun to try to tackle this by implementing a college-going culture that motivates students and help them to begin talking about college and the necessary requirements to be admitted to a 4 year university (see College Going Culture Campaign)
CPSEL 1: Facilitating the development, articulation, implementation, and stewardship of a vision of learning that is shared and supported by the school community.
CPSEL 2: Advocating, nurturing, and sustaining a school culture and instructional program conducive to student learning and staff professional growth.
CPSEL 3: Ensuring management of the organization, operations, and resources for a safe, efficient, and effective learning environment.
CPSEL 4: Collaborating with families and community members, responding to diverse community interests and needs, and mobilizing community resources.
CPSEL 5: Modeling a personal code of ethics and developing professional leadership capacity.
CPSEL 6: Understanding, responding to, and influencing the larger political, social, economic, legal, and cultural context.
Mission Viejo High School has a reputation of being one of the top schools in south Orange County. This has been a result of many accolades in both academics and sports, including California Distinguished Schools and National Blue Ribbon status, a robust, long-standing International Baccalaureate program, an award winning Model United Nations program, and the list goes on. With this great reputation, it was a shock to me, and many of my colleagues that only 47% of last year's graduating class met the UC a-g requirements. After polling the faculty on what we felt the barriers were in reaching this requirement, it became clear that awareness was a major issue that needed to be tackled-awareness for both faculty/staff and students and their families. Additionally, I felt that fostering a college-going culture throughout campus was essential in getting students interested and motivated to meet the requirements to be able to apply to California's public universities.
University Campus Tours
Being an AVID teacher has helped me to understand the positive impact that a college visit can have on a student. For many, it's their first time ever walking on a university campus, and the idea of college becomes very real and concrete for them. Many also begin to envision themselves at such a place in the near future and the importance of doing well in school and ensuring they meet eligibility requirements becomes a priority throughout their high school careers. To help continue building this college-going environment at MVHS, I took my junior AVID class to the University of California, Riverside and the University of Redlands for campus tours. They also attended information session regarding admission requirements, programs of study, campus life and financial aide at both schools.
College Door Signs
After visiting a high school where all teacher's doors had a sign that highlighted their college path, I thought this would be an excellent idea to implement at MVHS as we continue to try and foster a college-going campus. For this activity, I first made a sample door sign to present to the Leadership Curriculum team to explain why I thought this was a great tool to use on our campus. I shared that students often times ask me about where I went to college, which inevitably leads to a rich conversation with them about my higher education path and important information they need to know about how to achieve their goals of going to university as well. I explained that I felt that if every teacher had a sign on their door it would help to spark those conversations with other teachers, enabling the students to hear lots of diverse paths taken to earn a college degree and hopefully serve the purpose of sparking interest and motivation in students to be on the "college-goig path". The leadership team thought it was a great idea and I was given the green light to proceed. I created an email explaining to the faculty why the door signs were begin made, along with a link to a Google form where they could enter their college information. Because I felt that there would be more follow through and responses to the email if it came from administration, I sent the email to the Asst. Principal of curriculum, who then forwarded the email to the rest of the faculty. We are currently in the process of gathering all of the information in order to create signs over the summer and have them posted in each teacher's classroom upon their return over the summer.
Project a-g
The a-g requirement, also known as the subject matter requirement, is one of 3 necessary requirements students need to complete before being eligible to apply to both the University of California (UC) and California State University (CSU) systems as an incoming freshman. At a faculty meeting in the fall, we were all made aware that only 47% of last year's graduating seniors were "a-g eligible". I, like many of my colleagues was shocked at the low number and began to realize that I was also unaware of what the a-g requirements are outside of my own department. Additionally, I felt that if I was unaware of the requirement, many students were probably just as unaware, adding to the problem of non-completion. It became a priority for me to raise awareness of the "a-g" requirement for all stakeholders through various meetings and the creation of a visual awareness component.
Please see Leadership Project (Cultural Awareness tenet) for detailed information on this aspect of fostering a college-going culture.
I found this project to be one of the most satisfying of all of the others I completed on campus. As a teacher, I'm driven by teaching students new information and watching the "light bulb turn on" when students make connections or begin to understand something for the first time. I also love being able to share personal anecdotes with my students about going to college and my own experiences. Through this project I was able to do both. The education piece allowed me to share information about the a-g requirement with students, their family and the faculty/staff. This also led to question and answer sessions where both students and parents were able to get clarification on points of confusion, resulting in a great learning experience for all. Both the a-g campaign and college tours also allowed me to work with stakeholders that are outside of the school. The campus tours were inspiring to the AVID students and they returned to campus with a re-focus and commitment to begin 4 year eligible, which makes me extremely proud and happy. By having the faculty provide their college path information, many that knew I was behind the campaign approached me to tell me what a great idea it was and that they can't wait to get the signs up. I hope that this enthusiasm translates into positive conversations with students about college often, and throughout campus to help foster the college-going culture at Mission Viejo High School.
CPSEL 1: Facilitating the development, articulation, implementation, and stewardship of a vision of learning that is shared and supported by the school community.
CPSEL 2: Advocating, nurturing, and sustaining a school culture and instructional program conducive to student learning and staff professional growth.
CPSEL3: Ensuring management of the organization, operations, and resources for a safe, efficient, and effective learning environment.
CPSEL 4: Collaborating with families and community members, responding to diverse community interests and needs, and mobilizing community resources.
CPSEL 5: Modeling a personal code of ethics and developing professional leadership capacity.
CPSEL 6: Understanding, responding to, and influencing the larger political, social, economic, legal, and cultural context.
“If crime is a wound, justice should be healing.” Howard Zehr, widely known as the grandfather of restorative justice, and one of the founders of the growing movement in North America, advocates for a paradigm shift in thinking about how we respond, as societies, to harm. When crime or injustices occur in our schools, currently, most schools (and the criminal “justice” system) ask questions like: “What rule was broken? Who broke it? What punishment is warranted?” (CCEJ Training, 2013). Conversely, schools using restorative practices in schools ask the following questions: “Who was harmed? What are the needs and responsibilities of those affected? How do all affected parties together address needs and repair harm?” (CCEJ Training, 2013). These questions demonstrate a restorative cultural shift that should occur in the way we approach parents, families, students and all stakeholders that experience harm and conflicts. Currently, there is little research that examines the impact of restorative justice practices as an alternative or partial alternative to zero-tolerance policies at schools with predominantly students of color. There is none that look at these practices within a school that has an inclusion model for special education or at a K-8 school. Additionally, most of the research around restorative practices in schools in the United States has been in white communities.
Sandra Cisneros Learning Academy, like a majority of public schools in the United States, has depended on zero-tolerance polices to curve and minimize negative behavior. Despite the fact there is significant research pointing to the ineffectiveness of zero-tolerance policies in schools, these disciplinary policies have expanded in school districts nationwide, negatively affecting students of color (Schiff, 2013). Schiff explains that schools have failed to improve school cultures and environments through the use of suspensions, detentions, expulsion and other punitive responses. In other words, if schools redefined relationships of power and responded to student, parent and community needs in a collaborative and inclusive manner, youth would find school a place of more relevance. A push has been made in the last two decades to roll out zero-tolerance policies in our schools, yet Sumner (2010) states that no research has found that suspending or expelling misbehaving students for mundane and non-violent misbehavior improves school safety or student behavior. In fact, when these students are out of the classroom and at home, they have fewer opportunities to learn, and often result in finding themselves following a progression from schools, to juvenile hall, to the juvenile system, also known as the school-to-prison pipeline (Advancement Project, 2010).
My project was focused on implementing a spectrum of restorative practices at an urban, low-income school with predominantly students of color. At Sandra Cisneros Learning Academy, our restorative justice model was rolled out over the course of 10 months. Beginning in the summer of 2013 when I attended a Community Building training with the California Conference for Equity and Justice we started our journey of learning, and grappling with a new way of approaching various relationships at our school site. Making this paradigm shift was a constant attempt to minimize the zero-tolerance policies, such as, expulsions, out of school suspension, in school suspensions, detentions and other punitive consequences to respond to misbehavior but it also became a cultural shift experienced by adults, not just students.
Challenges are to be expected with change, and especially when asking it asks teachers to engage in a school-wide change initiative. Initially, getting buy-in from teachers was a challenge. Weekly community building circles were not being practiced by every teacher and there was a lot of skepticism around whether these practices could change student behavior and reduce misbehavior in the classroom. I believe there were two variables contributing to getting teacher buy-in. First, the RJ Task Force was comprised of the vice principal, dean, office manager, parent coordinator, and 4 teacher leaders. One of the teacher leaders is a resource teacher, another a 1st grade bilingual teacher, a 5th grade teacher and 7th/8th grade teacher. On several occasions after the Task Force planned and led two professional developments, teachers commented on the success of having such a diverse team of stakeholders working towards a collective vision and some even mentioned wanting to have a similar structure or committees for deciding curriculum and instruction. I strongly believe that this combined with numerous successful teacher/staff circles led to the buy-in of these RJ practices. You can walk through our campus and see teachers, campus aids, the dean, vice principals, and students leading circles and doing it with ease and confidence. They have acquired the language and most importantly, believe in the practices.
Another challenge was getting some members of the Task Force to fully buy-in to RJ practices and moving towards a school rollout. One person in particular was hesitant to make some of these cultural shifts and changes but was essential in making this program a success. Most of the RJ work should happen in the classroom with teachers in the classroom, through community building circles. This work is preventative and requires that teachers allow themselves to become transparent and vulnerable with students. In doing this and building honest and open relationships through honest and open conversations, a majority of teachers did this. Another important element after teacher buy-in was having the dean feel comfortable with Harm and Conflict circles as an approach to student discipline. Initially, there was some resistance but after supporting him in planning and facilitating his first few Harm and Conflict circles, the dean ran with this restorative justice approach as an alternative to traditional guardian-student-dean meetings as a way to hold meetings with students. This became a best practice for him and eventually was so bought-in that he presented on this practice to deans and vice principals in the organization.
PowerPoint Used for Official Rollout Professional Development:
Prezi Used for Teacher Education Program (TEP) Presentation:
Video for Promising Practice Conference:
A consideration for my project was the degree of restorativeness that our school sight adopted, since restorative practices fall along a continuum, from fully restorative to non-restorative (Zehr, 2002). We conducted initial surveys with teachers around their familiarity with restorative justice practices and circle.
Initial Survey Data:
The initial teacher survey response was 85% (22/26) and revealed some interesting information, around restorative practices. Important to note is that both the survey and the focus group were conducted after teachers had received one 2-hour PD on restorative justice practices. In response to the question that asked how often a teacher holds a council/circle, 15 (68%) of teachers have council once a week, 3 (14%) have it two times a week, 1 (4.5%) hold it three times a week, 1 (4.5%) holds it five times a week and 2 (10%) do not hold a council/circle. Of these teachers, 1 (5%) said they feel very comfortable holding a circle/council, 2 (9%) comfortable, 13 (55%) feel somewhat comfortable, 4 (27%) feel uncomfortable, and 2 (5%) teachers feel very uncomfortable. This information will likely inform the restorative justice’s task force next steps around professional development and teacher support with the community building council/circle. One teacher wrote in the survey in regards to restorative practices: “It's a positive shift in the right direction. It helps us acknowledge and nurture students humanity, it teaches them skills that they will need to resolve conflict in the future, and it will eventually lead to less suspensions on our campus.” The majority of teachers held similar views to this teacher’s comments around restorative justice practices. Only one teacher spoke negatively restorative justice practices and does not feel that they will be effective at changing student behavior.
Post Survey Data:
The end of the year survey response was 100% (30/30). This survey included the administrators, which the first did not. In response to the question that asked how often a teacher holds a council/circle, 23 (76.67%) of teachers have council once a week, and 7 (23.33%) said it was not applicable, 4 administrators took the survey so that might account for the N/A responses to some of the questions. Additionally, our resource teachers (3) who push-into the classrooms and do not technically have their own room, so this may also account for some of the N/A responses. Of the responses, 10 (34.48%) said they feel very comfortable holding a circle, 11 (37.93%) comfortable, 8 (27.59%) feel somewhat comfortable, 0 (0%) feel uncomfortable, and 0 (0%) teachers feel very uncomfortable. There was a significant shift in teacher's comfort levels with holding circle and I would attribute this to the PDs and asking teacher's to facilitate/practice planning and holding circle with the teachers. Furthermore, members of the task force frequently assisted grade-level teams with planning for circle.
Some of the teacher responses to the end-of-year survey:
Pre and Post Suspension Data:
The suspension rate from July-January 12/13 vs 13/14:
Suspension Rate 12-13: 5.1%,
Suspension Rate 13-14: 2.2%,
Single Student Suspension Rate 13-14: 2.2%
The dean, held Harm and Conflict: approximately 60-80
Pre expulsion circles: 5-8
Re-entry circles: 2
To continue supporting students, families and teachers in this work, the Task Force should consider inviting a parent leader to be an active member in the Task Force and to attend retreats and meetings. Additionally, having a community member and a student present would ensure that all major stakeholder's voices were heard in the implementation of restorative justice practices.
To better serve our students who face disciplinary consequences at our school site, I would have set time aside during our Task Force meetings to identify students in need of a smaller circle of support made up of teachers and staff members. Proactively meeting with struggling students and creating a network of support could deter any future instances of misbehavior.
My identity as a leader developed significantly because I was able to implement a vision, affecting students, staff and the entire school community (Standard 1). Essentially, I was able to move from an individual vision towards a collective vision. I would say that teachers and those on the Task Force appreciated the honesty, openness and transparency that I brought to the team. Additionally, we were always very productive and were able to accomplish so much that it was a rewarding experience for those involved in the process. In fact, many teachers echoed the need for other similarly structured teams at the school so that teachers and other stakeholders could have an active voice in areas such as budgetary and curricular decisions. Working with the task force allowed me to support teachers in the classroom with planning their community building circle lessons, with the Dean in facilitating Harm and Conflict Circles, with the Parent Coordinator by supporting parents and directly with students; giving me a pulse on a majority of the school community (Standard 4).
My strength as a leader was empowering others involved in the work to take active roles in moving along the vision. Prior to being on the Task Force, the resource teacher had never facilitated any PDs, but took an active role in the Promising Practice Presentation Workshop and at the second staff Restorative Justice PD. Empowering educators to take ownership of the work is crucial when working towards accomplishing a collective goal. Recognizing and bringing out people's own leadership strengths is crucial because no work can be done alone. Building understanding of the project and my individual vision was vastly important in moving towards a collective understanding and vision and I accomplished this through circle. Circle is a structure that democratizes spaces by giving everyone a shared opportunity to voice their ideas and reflections. Circle creates spaces of care, and empathy. Being a circle keeper and developing more than 30 adult's capacities to facilitate circle built collective care and created an abundance of authentic connections and networks at our school site. Realizing this strength of a facilitator within the educators helped in creating a trusting and loving environment.
Standard 1: A school administrator is an educational leader who promotes the success of all students by facilitating the development, articulation, implementation, and stewardship of a vision of learning that is shared and supported by the school community
1.1 Develop a Shared Vision: Facilitate the development of a shared vision for the achievement of all students based upon data from multiple measures of student learning and relevant qualitative indicators. Communicate the shared vision so the entire school community understands and acts on the school’s mission to become a standard’s-based educational system. Use the influence of diversity to improve teaching and learning.
1.2 Plan and Implement Activities Around the Vision: Identify and address any barriers to accomplishing the vision. Shape school programs, plans, and activities to ensure that they are integrated, articulated through the grades, and consistent with the vision.
Standard 4: A school administrator is an educational leader who promotes the success of all students by collaborating with families and community members, responding to diverse community interests and needs, and mobilizing community resources.
4.1 Collaborate to Incorporate the Perspective of Families and Community Members: Recognize and respect the goals and aspirations of diverse family and community groups. Treat diverse community stakeholder groups with fairness and respect. Incorporate information about family and community expectations into school decision-making and activities.
It is my hope that the restorative justice practices and this model for approaching conflict and harm at our school site, will thrive and grow in the years to come. It is my hope that students and parents will become even more involved in the planning and development of this program and that they take more active roles in the Task Force. I anticipate that in the future, if we get all major stakeholders to be a part of the Task Force, that there will be a greater understanding, commitment and most importantly, increased positive relationships that help grow caring relationships at the school site that will work together to create positive change in the school community. Additionally, I would like to have a quarterly circle where community members, parents and students are invited to participate in a circle at the school. In order to provide parents, students and teachers with the necessary support in the area of restorative justice, there needs to be a full-time restorative justice coordinator; having a restorative justice program is hugely time consuming and at many schools, the dean has been replaced with an RJ coordinator.
PowerPoint used for Camino's Promising Practice Workshop:
Sample Circle Lessons Grades K-8
]]>
Linwood E. Howe’s Leadership Team is made up of one grade level lead kindergarten through fifth grade, a special education lead teacher, the physical education coordinator, and the school principal. We 2-3 times a month to discuss issues that come up throughout the school year.
Being the first grade leadership representative for the school’s leadership team, has been a big responsibility this year. With the change to the CCSS, we have had a lot more meetings this year than in previous years. We have had several half-day meetings to look at and revise the school’s schedule, calendar, programs, and community events. Leadership team has also had to have several impromptu meeting this year to discuss staff climate and bring up issues or concerns of the staff.
As a member of the leadership team, I have participated in multiple day-long district professional development sessions on creating a positive and healthy school climate/culture, establishing Professional Learning Communities, and Response to Intervention. I have also worked with my fellow leadership team members to help solve school wide and grade level issues or concerns including: school wide bell schedule, morning flag salute routines, grade level assessments, implementing grade level PLCs, planning grade level intervention times and activities.
I learned that when teachers are in a state of transition, like the one we are currently experiencing in education with CCSS, staff climate is likely to weaken. Some teachers are afraid of change, so they start talking and stirring up others staff members. Through this experience, I learned that school leaders need to address and prepare their staff for a period of transition in order to maintain positive staff climate. Being on my school’s leadership team has shown me just how important it is to build a trustworthy, caring, and collaborative leadership team to see problems in different ways, develop multiple ways to resolve the issues, and to help keep a positive staff climate to maintain a healthy school culture.
STANDARD 1: A SCHOOL ADMINISTRATOR IS AN EDUCATIONAL LEADER WHO PROMOTES THE SUCCESS OF ALL STUDENTS BY FACILITATING THE DEVELOPMENT, ARTICULATION, IMPLEMENTATION, AND STEWARDSHIP OF A VISION OF LEARNING THAT IS SHARED AND SUPPORTED BY THE SCHOOL COMMUNITY.
1.1 Facilitate the development of a shared vision for the achievement of all students based upon data from multiple measures of student learning and relevant qualitative indicators.
1.2:Communicate the shared vision so the entire school community understands and acts on the school’s mission to become a standards-based education system.
1.3: Use the influence of diversity to improve teaching and learning.
1.4: Identify and address any barriers to accomplishing the vision.
1.5: Shape school programs, plans, and activities to ensure that they are integrated, articulated through the grades, and consistent with the vision.
1.6: Leverage and marshal sufficient resources, including technology, to implement and attain the vision for all students and all subgroups of students.
STANDARS 2: ADVOCATING, NUTURING, AND SUSTAINING A SCHOOL CULTURE AND INSTRUCTIONAL PROGRAM CONDUCIVE TO STUDENT LEARNING AND STAFF PERSONAL GROWTH.
2.1: Shape a culture in which high expectations are the norm for each student as evident in rigorous academic work.
2.2: Promote equity, fairness, and respect among all members of the school community.
2.4: Guide and support the long-term professional development of all staff consistent with the ongoing effort to improve the learning of all students relative to the content standards.
2.5: Provide opportunities for all members of the school community to develop and use skills in collaboration, distributed leadership, and shared responsibility.
2.7: Utilize multiple assessments to evaluate student learning in an ongoing process focused on improving the academic performance of each student.
STANDARD 3: ENSURING MANAGEMANT OF THE ORGANIZATION, OPERATIONS, AND RESOURCES FOR A SAFE, EFFICIENT, AND EFFECTIVE LEARNING ENVIRONMENT.
3.1: Sustain safe, efficient, clean, well-maintained, and productive school environment that nurtures student learning and supports the professional growth of teachers and support staff.
3.3: Establish school structures and processes that support student learning.
3.4: Utilize effective systems management, organizational development, and problem-solving and decision-making techniques.
3.5: Align fiscal, human, and material resources to support the learning of all subgroups of students.
3.6: Monitor and evaluate the program and staff.
3.7: Manage legal and contractual agreements and records in ways that foster a professional work environment and secure privacy and confidentiality for all students and staff.
The Cotsen Foundation develops artful teaching. As a Cotsen Fellow I chose to focus developing my craft as a teacher in the area of mathematics. Cotsen supports teachers through thoughtful professional development that focuses on developing strong teachers that actively engage students. The Cotsen Fellowship is a two year commitment.
As a Cotsen Math Fellow, every week I plan a math lesson, am observed teaching mathematics by my math mentor, and then debrief and plan next steps. My mentor and I focus on the goals, that I picked at the beginning of the year, to focus on developing my craft as a teacher. As a fellow, every week I reflect on my mathematics lessons and my teaching goals. Every month, all fellows and our mentor meet for an inquiry meeting to research successful teaching strategies in mathematics and discuss progress on our teaching goals.
Every other month, Cotsen provides professional development opportunities for fellows. All professional development sessions are based on what fellows want to learn. Training sessions were lead by experts in the field of children’s mathematics. This year the Costen Fellows at my school site, have been focusing on Cognitively Guided Instruction (CGI). We have had four professional development sessions with Angela Chan and we also saw Dr. Megan Franke speak about CGI at a mathematics convention. I have also learned about number talks and the importance of mathematical reasoning and critical thinking in the development of number sense.
The Cotsen Fellows at my school site, Linwood E. Howe, decided that we wanted to impact mathematics instruction beyond our classrooms. We thought about how great it would be if other teachers at our school and in Culver City Unified started teaching mathematics using CGI. Cotsen supported our idea by hiring Angela Chan to watch our CGI lessons, debrief with us, and then help us develop even better CGI lessons. This helped prepare us for opening up our doors for our first CGI Day. All the schools in Culver City Unified were invited to watch us teach a CGI mathematics lesson. Our CGI Day was held on Tuesday, April 29, from 9:00-3:30. CGI Day was a great opportunity for us to share the positive impact that teaching with CGI has made in our classrooms. It was also a great way to motivate the teachers that attended to learn more about and try CGI in their own classrooms with their students.
Through my experience as a Cotsen Fellow, I have learned that one of the most effective ways to get teachers to try teaching mathematics using CGI, was to invite them into my classroom to see, first hand, the positive impact CGI has on student learning. When teachers saw the positive impact that CGI had on students’ mathematical understanding, most of them immediately wanted to go back to their own classroom and try to use CGI to teach a mathematics lesson. I also learned that implementing one amazing teaching strategy in my classroom was not enough. To expand on my teaching of mathematics in a student centered way, I started giving number talks in my classroom, implemented a Math Wall, and started Math Workshop time. The blend of CGI and number talks, Math Wall and Math Workshop really helped my students understand key mathematical concepts and learn how to think critically.
STANDARD 1: A SCHOOL ADMINISTRATOR IS AN EDUCATIONAL LEADER WHO PROMOTES THE SUCCESS OF ALL STUDENTS BY FACILITATING THE DEVELOPMENT, ARTICULATION, IMPLEMENTATION, AND STEWARDSHIP OF A VISION OF LEARNING THAT IS SHARED AND SUPPORTED BY THE SCHOOL COMMUNITY.
1.1 Facilitate the development of a shared vision for the achievement of all students based upon data from multiple measures of student learning and relevant qualitative indicators.
1.5 Shape school programs, plans, and activities to ensure that they are integrated, articulated through the grades, and consistent with the vision.
1.6 Leverage and marshal sufficient resources, including technology, to implement and attain the vision for all students and all subgroups of students.
STANDARD 2: ADVOCATING, NUTURING, AND SUSTAINING A SCHOOL CULTURE AND INSTRUCTIONAL PROGRAM CONDUCTIVE TO STUDENT LEARNING AND STAFF PROFESSIONAL GROWTH
2.1 Shape a culture in which high expectations are the norm for each student as evident in rigorous academic work.
2.2 Promote equity, fairness, and respect among all members of the school community.
2.3 Facilitate the use of a variety of appropriate content-based learning materials and learning strategies that recognize students as active learners, value reflection and inquiry, emphasize the quality versus the amount of student application and performance, and utilize appropriate and effective technology.
2.4 Guide and support the long-term professional development of all staff consistent with the ongoing effort to improve the learning of all students relative to the content standards.
2.5 Provide opportunities for all members of the school community to develop and use skills in collaboration, distributed leadership, and shared responsibility.
2.6 Create an accountability system grounded in standards-based teaching and learning.
2.7 Utilize multiple assessments to evaluate student learning in an ongoing process focused on improving the academic performance of each student.
STANDARD 3: ENSURING MANAGEMENT OF THE ORGANIZATION, OPERATIONS, AND RESOURCES FOR A SAFE, EFFICIENT, AND EFFECTIVE LEARNING ENVIRONMENT.
3.3 Establish school structures and processes that support student learning.
3.4 Utilize effective systems management, organizational development, and problem-solving and decision-making techniques.
3.5 Align fiscal, human, and material resources to support the learning of all subgroups of students.
STANDARD 6: A SCHOOL ADMINISTRATOR IS AN EDUCATIONAL LEADER WHO PROMOTES THE SUCCESS OF ALL STUDENTS BY UNDERSTANDING, RESPONDING TO, AND INFLUENCING THE LARGER POLITICAL, SOCIAL, ECONOMIC, LEGAL, AND CULTURAL CONTEXT.
6.6 View oneself as a leader of a team and also as a member of a larger team.
6.7 Open the school to the public and welcome and facilitate constructive conversations about how to improve student learning and achievement.
Overview
"Mathematics is a more powerful instrument of knowledge than any other that has been bequeathed to us by human agency."
-Descartes.
Students, especially marginalized students (students with an IEP, students with unstable homes, and ELLs), show a lack of mathematical knowledge in number sense and problem solving skills. Since these mathematical skills form the foundation of Algebra, most marginalized students are not meeting high school graduation requirements and/or college admittance requirements in mathematics. “Algebra is the key to the future of disenfranchised communities” because it the gatekeeper to higher mathematics as well as “the gatekeeper for citizenship; and people who don’t have it are like the people who couldn’t read and write in the industrial age” (Moses & Cobb, 2001). When students in disenfranchised communities are not passing courses that meet graduation requirements, they are not given access to the higher education track that other students have the opportunity to access.
The Graduate School of Education and Informational Studies at UCLA published a report, which showed “despite the demonstrated importance of students explaining their thinking, teacher-centered instruction continues to dominate elementary and secondary classrooms. Moreover, the vast majority of teacher queries consist of short-answer, low-level questions that require students to recall facts, rules, and procedures, rather than high-level questions that require students to draw inferences and synthesize ideas” (Franke, Webb, Chan, Battey, Ing, Freund, & De, 2007). The report goes on to recommend that, “teachers need to scaffold, monitor, and facilitate discourse around the mathematical ideas in ways that support student learning. Teachers need to ask questions, engage students with one another, support students in articulating their mathematical thinking and find ways to engage students in comparing ideas or coming to consensus” (Franke, Webb, Chan, Battey, Ing, Freund, & De, 2007).
My research has found CGI to be able to improve students’ mathematical knowledge, especially students in an urban environment, by changing the way teachers teach mathematics. By starting with what students already know and then guiding them to more complex mathematical ideas, all students are successful. By actively engaging in peer teaching and mathematical discussions, students are able to learn higher-level mathematical concepts from others and solidify their mathematical knowledge. My PLI Leadership Project will test out whether implementing Cognitively Guided Instruction (CGI), in mathematics, will improve marginalized and struggling students’ number sense and problem solving skills. By improving number sense and problem solving skills in marginalized student groups, I am hoping that these groups will be successful in higher level math/algebra courses and therefore be able to graduate high school and/or go on to receive a higher level education.
My leadership role within this project was to:
1. Attend and actively participate in ongoing training, over multiple days, in CGI pedagogy. Attend Cotsen math conferences (where CGI was highlighted by Dr. Megan Franke) and CGI networking events. Observe exemplary teaching at various school sites, where teachers have successfully implemented CGI strategies in their own classrooms.
2. Implement a new mathematics teaching pedagogy, CGI, that places an emphasis on number sense, critical thinking, and problem solving skills. This pedagogy also naturally lends itself to developing the Standards for Mathematical Practice (SMPs) within students. We have identified our restraints to be our district adopted math curriculum (Envision) and have been given permission, by the district, to abandon this curriculum if we feel it necessary to successfully implement CGI.
3. Support my first grade team in implementing CGI across our grade level. Sharing Math Wall activities with my team members and explaining the thinking behind each one of the activities. Lead my team in planning CGI math instruction/activities and writing CGI word problem together. Facilitate a discussion around our findings, what our students did, and our next steps.
4. Model CGI pedagogy by opening my classroom for other teachers to observe CGI through situated learning.
5. Conduct action-research that answers the question, “How can we better develop our students’ critical thinking and problem solving skills, as well as their understanding of key mathematical skills that are the foundation of algebra?”
6. Facilitate a first grade presentation of how CGI has positively affected students' mathematical thinking and problem solving abilities.
“Children who think relationally identify number relations and reason about which transformations make sense in a particular problem. Students who lack opportunities to explore these ideas often fail to take advantage of the structure of the number system so that the learning of both arithmetic and algebra becomes harder than it needs to be” (Jacobs, Franke, Carpenter, Levi, & Battey, 2007).
Knowing that this problem exists in the field of education, and seeing how well my students do with mathematical concepts at the elementary level, I was curious to see where students start to “hit the bump in the road” to higher-level mathematics. I decided to research my school’s CST scores in mathematics and compare it to my district’s high school CST scores in mathematics. After gathering and analyzing all of the data, I was shocked to discover a downward spiral of mathematics scores on both Culver City High School’s CST test and exit exam (CAHSEE). At my elementary school, Linwood E. Howe Elementary in the Culver City Unified School District, there were huge discrepancies in CST math scores between marginalized groups. For the 2010-2011 school year, all marginalized subgroups underscored the White subgroup. These subgroups underscored the White subgroup from 56%-20%. I was curious to see if this trend would repeat itself at the high school level, or if the education debt would get larger or smaller over time and with more courses and choices of course being offered.
After seeing the CST mathematics scores for Culver High School, the only high school in the Culver City Unified School District, I was floored. Scores on the mathematics portion of the CST drastically dropped across all subgroups. The educational debt between the marginalized subgroups and the White subgroup, performing at the proficient/advanced level, ranged between 34%-19%. In general, all students’ mathematical skills became worse as their knowledge of mathematics advanced due to higher-level math courses. It seems as though the opposite should happen; as students’ mathematical knowledge advances, so do their skills. Culver City High School's did not meet their percentage proficient rate for mathematics on the CST for the 2010-2011school year. The high school’s CAHSEE scores show that 86% of ELLs were not proficient in high school mathematics. On top of everything, the mathematics text/instructional materials that were being used at the high school were over 13 years old (adopted in 2000).
When conducting my literature review, I discovered that early childhood researches (Clements & Sarama, 2011) found that young children have the potential to learn complex and sophisticated mathematics and that their knowledge of mathematics predicts their later school success. Clements and Sarama (2011) have also found that students from low-resource communities may have fewer opportunities to mathematize tacit knowledge; to reflect on and represent the situations with cognitive tools. These children are also less able to explain mathematical ideas and processes. Clements and Sarama (2011) go on to warn “children must learn to mathematize their informal experiences by abstracting, representing, and elaborating them mathematically. If they do not, they miss the opportunity to learn the language of mathematics.” These early childhood researchers support CGI pedagogy because, “teachers need integrated knowledge of all three components of learning trajectories: the mathematical content (goal), the developmental progressions of children’s thinking and learning, and instructional tasks and teaching strategies that help children move along those progressions” (Clements & Sarama, 2011).
I also learned that, “the transition from arithmetic to algebra has proven difficult for students, and it is now widely recognized that students need earlier opportunities to engage in algebraic reasoning” (Jacobs, Franke, Carpenter, Levi, & Battey, pg. 259). Many researchers have found that students should be exposed to algebraic thinking as early as kindergarten, in order to “provide a foundation for smoothing the transition to algebra in later grades” (Jacobs, Franke, Carpenter, Levi, & Battey, pg. 260). Mathematical researches from all over the country have found relational thinking to be a powerful and unifying idea that helps engage teachers in conversations that support the use of students’ algebraic reasoning. Jacobs, Franke, Carpenter, Levi, and Battey (2007) define relational thinking as looking at expressions and equations in their entirety, noticing number relations among and within these expressions and equations. Researchers have also found that “by focusing on relational thinking, teachers can effectively integrate the idea of relations into the learning of arithmetic so that the concepts and skills that students acquire during elementary school are both enhanced and better aligned with the concepts and skills that they need later to learn algebra” (Jacobs, Franke, Carpenter, Levi, & Battey, 2007. Mathematical scholars argue that the “fundamental goal of integrating relational thinking into the elementary curriculum is to facilitate students’ transition to the formal study of algebra in the later grades so that no distinct boundry exists between arithmetic and algebra” (Jacobs, Franke, Carpenter, Levi, & Battey, 2007). The findings of their research show that students in participating teachers’ (those who were trained in and taught relational thinking) classrooms scored significantly better than students in classrooms of nonparticipating teachers.
Based on my literature review I decided to implement CGI pedagogy when teaching mathematics. Cognitively Guided Instruction (CGI) (Carpenter, Fennema, Franke, Levi, & Empson, 1999) is a professional development program based on the integrated program of research focused on four key components: the development of students’ mathematical thinking, instruction that influences that development, teachers’ knowledge and beliefs that influence their instructional practices, and the way that teacher’s knowledge, beliefs, and practices are influenced by their understanding of students’ mathematical thinking. The model of children’s thinking, which is the basis for CGI, is built on an extensive research base. In one study, (Peterson et al, 1989) researchers found that classes of teachers whose beliefs were more consistent with principals of CGI tended to have higher levels of student achievement than classes of teachers whose beliefs were less consistent with principals of CGI. In another study, Villasenor and Kepner (1993) found that urban students in CGI classes performed significantly better than a matched sample of students in traditional classes. All of these studies show that students having longer participation in CGI classes showed greater gains in the upper grades during the second and third years of study. CGI is a great teaching tool for marginalized groups because it is, “particularly effective in ameliorating the negative effects of some educators’ low expectations for African American children’s’ learning of mathematics through providing learning trajectories that help teachers see what children can do and how they can be helped to progress to higher levels of mathematical thinking” (Clements & Sarama, 2011). All of the research articles that I have read on elementary mathematics have consistently demonstrated that CGI students show significant gains in problem solving.
My PDSA Cycle outlines the problem I am trying to address, assumptions, activities, and anticipated results of the action-resaerch project.
During the course of the leadership project, several challenges were posed that required changes to be made to the original implementation plan, as described below:
I conducted a pre-assessment and a post-assessment to see the effects CGI pedagogy has had on my students' understanding of mathematical skills, critical thinking, and problem solving.
Upon analyzing the pre-assessment and post-assessment data that I collected, I found that all of my student groups (English Language Learners, Students with Disabilities, and Non EL/Non SDC) improved in their mathematic explanations, strategies and approaches, recording of thinking, and accuracy. I also showed my students their pre and post-assessments, so they could compare how they have grown as mathematicians through the year. All of my students stated that they think they are better mathematicians now (in May) and that they loved doing CGI number stories to learn math.
Upon reflection on the implementation of CGI pedagogy to teach mathematics, there are a few modifications that could be integrated for even better student outcome, including:
Through my action-research leadership project, I have improved how I teach mathematics. My project has not only had a positive impact on my class, it also had an impact on all of the first grade students. The impact my project has had will continue into the next academic school year (2014-2015) when all kindergarten through second grade students will receive mathematics instruction through CGI. My students have a passion for mathematics and they view it as both fun and challenging. I know where my students are at, in relation to the mathematical standards they are expected to learn, and where they are still developing their understandings of mathematical skills and concepts.
This leadership project has forced me to become a leader on campus and has allowed me to further my love of mathematics. My concept of leadership has also changed through this project. Before I started this project, I thought leadership was the principal, but now I know that a school is comprised of teacher leaders. I have become a leader of mathematics both at my school site and at the district level. Teachers come into my classroom to watch me teach mathematics through CGI and they ask me for advice when choosing number sets for their CGI problems. I have also learned that leaders need to get more than the support of their teaching staff if they want to implement a change, they also need to get the support of their parent community. This might mean that they need to hold parent meetings and/or present to the school board. The experiences and skills that I have utilized during this leadership project will help guide me through my future leadership roles.
Standard 1 Facilitating the development, articulation, implementation, and stewardship of a vision of learning that is shared and supported by the school community.
1.1 Facilitate the development of a shared vision for the achievement of all students based upon data from multiple measures of student learning and relevant qualitative indicators.
1.2 Communicate the shared vision so the entire school community understands and acts on the school’s mission to become a standards-based education system.
1.3 Use the influence of diversity to improve teaching and learning.
1.4 Identify and address any barriers to accomplishing the vision.
1.5 Shape school programs, plans, and activities to ensure that they are integrated, articulated through the grades, and consistent with the vision.
1.6 Leverage and marshal sufficient resources, including technology, to implement and attain the vision for all students and all subgroups of students.
Standard 2 Advocating, nurturing, and sustaining a school culture and instructional program conducive to student learning and staff professional growth.
2.1 Shape a culture in which high expectations are the norm for each student as evident in rigorous academic work.
2.2 Promote equity, fairness, and respect among all members of the school community.
2.3 Facilitate the use of a variety of appropriate content-based learning materials and learning strategies that recognize students as active learners, value reflection and inquiry, emphasize the quality versus the amount of student application and performance, and utilize appropriate and effective technology.
2.4 Guide and support the long-term professional development of all staff consistent with the ongoing effort to improve the learning of all students relative to the content standards.
2.5 Provide opportunities for all members of the school community to develop and use skills in collaboration, distributed leadership, and shared responsibility.
2.6 Utilize multiple assessments to evaluate student learning in an ongoing process focused on improving the academic performance of each student.
Standard 3 Ensuring management of the organization, operations, and resources for a safe, efficient, and effective learning environment.
3.1 Sustain safe, efficient, clean, well-maintained, and productive school environment that nurtures student learning and supports the professional growth of teachers and support staff.
3.3 Establish school structures and processes that support student learning.
3.4 Utilize effective systems management, organizational development, and problem-solving and decision-making techniques.
3.5 Align fiscal, human, and material resources to support the learning of all subgroups of students.
3.6 Monitor and evaluate the program and staff.
Standard 4 Collaborating with families and community members, responding to diverse community interests and needs, and mobilizing community resources.
4.4 Communicate information about the school on a regular and predictable basis through a variety of media.
Standard 5 Modeling a personal code of ethics and developing professional leadership capacity.
5.1 Model personal and professional ethics, integrity, justice, and fairness, and expect the same behaviors from others.
5.3 Use the influence of office to enhance the educational program, not personal gain.
5.4 Make and communicate decisions based upon relevant data and research about effective teaching and learning, leadership, management practices, and equity.
5.5 Demonstrate knowledge of the standards-based curriculum and the ability to integrate and articulate programs throughout the grades.
5.6 Demonstrate skills in decision-making, problem solving, change management, planning, conflict management, and evaluation.
5.7 Reflect on personal leadership practices and recognize their impact and influence on the performance of others.
5.8 Engage in professional and personal development.
5.9 Encourage and inspire others to higher levels of performance, commitment, and motivation.
Standard 6 Understanding, responding to, and influencing the larger political, social, economic, legal, and cultural context.
6.1 Work with the governing board and district and local leaders to influence policies that benefit students and support the improvement of teaching and learning.
6.2 Influence and support public policies that ensure the equitable distribution of resources and support for all subgroups of students.
6.4 Generate support for the school by two-way communication with key decision-makers in the school community.
6.6 View oneself as a leader of a team and also as a member of a larger team.
The council consists of 5 parents, 3 teachers, 1 classified staff member, and the principal. The Site Council and the principal work together to make recommendations about spending the school’s categorical funds. Site Council meets monthly, from 3:20-4:20 pm on a Monday. Everyone is welcome to attend site council meetings.
At the beginning of the 2013-2014 school year, the school site council sat down and had a meeting that was devoted to going over both the district safety plan and our current school safety plan. We used the School Board Meeting Staff Report from January 22, 2013, to guide our discussion. As elected members, we looked to see where the district's vision of safety was inlined with our own school safety plan and where there were gaps in our school's safety plan. We also used the district's safety plan to also go to the district with safety needs and concerns, so that the district would use their safety funds to help us address our school's safety concerns and requests.
As an elected member of the site council, I bring up questions, concerns, or requests from teachers at my school site. I act as a representative of the school’s teaching staff when voting on school issues. I also have the responsibility of bringing back site council news and discussion points to the teaching staff. As a two-year member of site council, I helped create a new school safety and emergency plan. Another responsibility that I have is to analyze the school’s budget and brainstorm what teachers see as the needs of the school. This helps the whole school site council make a more informed decision for school purchases. Through may role as a council member, I have been able to use my influence to help the school purchase two laptop carts to address the school’s disparity in technology.
Since the new funding formula for education passed by Governor Brown, I have met several times with the site council to analyze the district’s goals for their Local Control Accountability Plan. We meet to make sure that the district’s goal for parent involvement, student outcomes, course access, implementation of the CCSS, student engagement, student achievement, school climate, and basic services align with our school’s focus.
As an elected member of school site council, I have learned that it is very important to have a member of each stakeholder group have representation at council meetings. Every stakeholder group comes to the site council meetings with their own agenda and thought on how to spend the school’s categorical funds. It is important to hear what each stakeholder group values and sees as an educational necessity for their child. It is important for the school leader to hear everyone’s needs and it is also important for teachers and parents to hear each other’s needs before making a decision.
STANDARD 1: A SCHOOL ADMINISTRATOR IS AN EDUCATIONAL LEADER WHO PROMOTES THE SUCCESS OF ALL STUDENTS BY FACILITATING THE DEVELOPMENT, ARTICULATION, IMPLEMENTATION, AND STEWARDSHIP OF A VISION OF LEARNING THAT IS SHARED AND SUPPORTED BY THE SCHOOL COMMUNITY.
1.1 Facilitate the development of a shared vision for the achievement of all students based upon data from multiple measures of student learning and relevant qualitative indicators.
1.2:Communicate the shared vision so the entire school community understands and acts on the school’s mission to become a standards-based education system.
1.3: Use the influence of diversity to improve teaching and learning.
1.4: Identify and address any barriers to accomplishing the vision.
1.5: Shape school programs, plans, and activities to ensure that they are integrated, articulated through the grades, and consistent with the vision.
1.6: Leverage and marshal sufficient resources, including technology, to implement and attain the vision for all students and all subgroups of students.
STANDARD 3: ENSURING MANAGEMANT OF THE ORGANIZATION, OPERATIONS, AND RESOURCES FOR A SAFE, EFFICIENT, AND EFFECTIVE LEARNING ENVIRONMENT.
3.1: Sustain safe, efficient, clean, well-maintained, and productive school environment that nurtures student learning and supports the professional growth of teachers and support staff.
3.3: Establish school structures and processes that support student learning.
3.4: Utilize effective systems management, organizational development, and problem-solving and decision-making techniques.
3.5: Align fiscal, human, and material resources to support the learning of all subgroups of students.
3.6: Monitor and evaluate the program and staff.
3.7: Manage legal and contractual agreements and records in ways that foster a professional work environment and secure privacy and confidentiality for all students and staff.
STANDARD 4: A SCHOOL ADMINISTRATOR IS AN EDUCATIONAL LEADER WHO PROMOTES THE SUCCESS OF ALL STUDENTS BY COLLABORATING WITH FAMILIES AND COMMUNITY MEMBERS, RESPONDING TO DIVERSE COMMUNITY INTERESTS AND NEEDS, AND MOBILIZING COMMUNITY RESOURCES.
4.1: Recognize and respect the goals and aspirations of diverse family and community groups.
4.2: Treat diverse community stakeholder groups with fairness and respect.
4.3: Incorporate information about family and community expectations into school decision-making and activities.
4.5: Communicate information about the school on a regular and predictable basis through a variety of media.
To meet the demands and needs of switching from the California State Standards to the Common Core State Standards (CCSS), Culver City Unified School District (CCUSD) put together a CCSS mathematics committee. The mathematics committee is made up of three separate committees that have a few overlapping members. The largest committee is the grade level CCSS in Mathematics Committee; there is also a CCSS in Mathematics Assessment Committee, and a very small Elementary Math Textbook Adoption Committee.
As a member of CCUSD’s grade level CCSS Mathematics Committee, I attend various meetings at the district office and my school site. One of my grade level tasks was to analyze the kindergarten, first grade, and second grade CCSS in mathematics. I worked with members in my grade level to create student friendly “I can…” standards, so students can easily access the CCSS. We also identified essential standards, gaps and overlaps from one grade level’s CCSS to the next, and we also identified standards that are new (first time being introduced) to a grade level. As a committee member, I was also responsible for looking at the current math curriculum and identifying where it meets CCSS in mathematics and addresses the standards for mathematical standards, and where the math curriculum is lacking in regards to meeting CCSS in mathematics. I have also started to develop activities and lessons that are examples of things teachers can do in their classrooms to address the disparities between the current math curriculum and the CCSS in mathematics.
I am also a member of CCUSD’s CCSS in Mathematics Assessment Committee. Our committee meets to develop district grade level informal assessments and formal benchmark tests that meet both the CCSS and the Standards For Mathematical Practices. We take samples of the teacher created assessments to different grade levels throughout the district in order to get feedback about the assessments and make the proper suggested changes.
I am also a member of the Elementary Math Textbook Adoption Committee. As a member of this committee, I critically review state approved math curriculum for the upcoming adoption year. I analyze the curriculum and document strong and weak points in regards to the CCSS and the Standards For Mathematical Practice. I also take into account the different teaching styles that teacher’s have and their personal strengths or weakness in regard to mathematics. This will help the committee make a more informed decision when adopting textbooks.
As a member of all three district math committees, I have learned how important it is for school districts to have teachers that specialize in subject area content. My district has heavily relied on teachers who understand mathematics, like myself, to help create district wide benchmarks, adopt textbooks, and analyze CCSS. I have also learned that teachers will listen to other teachers and take their advice, over a district mandate that tells teachers what to do. Being on these math committees has also helped me to understand why change and transition can be so difficult for some teachers and school leaders. I also learned just how powerful it can be when a district doesn’t decide on assessments and textbooks, but has teachers make key decisions. Giving teachers the power to make important district wide decisions creates a positive impact and allows everyone to be a stakeholder in education.
STANDARD 1: A SCHOOL ADMINISTRATOR IS AN EDUCATIONAL LEADER WHO PROMOTES THE SUCCESS OF ALL STUDENTS BY FACILITATING THE DEVELOPMENT, ARTICULATION, IMPLEMENTATION, AND STEWARDSHIP OF A VISION OF LEARNING THAT IS SHARED AND SUPPORTED BY THE SCHOOL COMMUNITY.
1.1: Facilitate the development of a shared vision for the achievement of all students based upon data from multiple measures of student learning and relevant qualitative indicators.
1.2: Communicate the shared vision so the entire school community understands and acts on the school’s mission to become a standards-based education system.
1.3: Use the influence of diversity to improve teaching and learning.
1.4: Identify and address any barriers to accomplish the vision.
1.5: Shape school programs, plans, and activities to ensure that they are integrated, articulated through the grades, and consistent with the vision.
1.6: Leverage and marshal sufficient resource, including technology, to implement and attain the vision for all students and all subgroups of students.
STANDARS 2: ADVOCATING, NUTURING, AND SUSTAINING A SCHOOL CULTURE AND INSTRUCTIONAL PROGRAM CONDUCIVE TO STUDENT LEARNING AND STAFF PERSONAL GROWTH.
2.1: Shape a culture in which high expectations are the norm for each student as evident in rigorous academic work.
2.2: Promote equity, fairness, and respect among all members of the school community.
2.3: Facilitate the use of a variety of appropriate content-based learning materials and learning strategies that recognize students as active learners, value reflection and inquiry, emphasize the quality versus the amount of student application and performance, and utilize appropriate and effective technology.
2.4: Guide and support the long-term professional development of all staff consistent with the ongoing effort to improve the learning of all students relative to the content standards.
2.5: Provide opportunities for all members of the school community to develop and use skills in collaboration, distributed leadership, and shared responsibility.
2.6: Create an accountability system grounded in standards-based teaching and learning.
2.7: Utilize multiple assessments to evaluate student learning in an ongoing process focused on improving the academic performance of each student.
STANDARD 3: ENSURING MANAGEMANT OF THE ORGANIZATION, OPERATIONS, AND RESOURCES FOR A SAFE, EFFICIENT, AND EFFECTIVE LEARNING ENVIRONMENT.
3.1: Sustain safe, efficient, clean, well-maintained, and productive school environment that nurtures student learning and supports the professional growth of teachers and support staff.
3.3: Establish school structures and processes that support student learning.
3.4: Utilize effective systems management, organizational development, and problem-solving and decision-making techniques.
3.5: Align fiscal, human, and material resources to support the learning of all subgroups of students.
3.6: Monitor and evaluate the program and staff.
3.7: Manage legal and contractual agreements and records in ways that foster a professional work environment and secure privacy and confidentiality for all students and staff.
STANDARD 5: MODELING A PERSONAL CODE OF ETHICS AND DEVELOPING PROFESSIONAL LEADERSHIP CAPACITY.
5.1: Model personal and professional ethics, integrity, justice, and fairness, and expect the same behaviors from others.
5.2: Protect the rights and confidentiality of students and staff.
5.3:Use the influence of office to enhance the educational program, not personal gain.
5.4: Make and communicate decisions based upon relevant data and research about effective teaching and learning, leadership, management practices, and equity.
5.5: Demonstrate knowledge of the standards-based curriculum and the ability to integrate and articulate programs throughout the grades.
5.6: Demonstrate skills in decision-making, problem solving, change management, planning, conflict management, and evaluation.
5.7: Reflect on personal leadership practices and recognize their impact and influence on the performance of others.
5.8: Engage in professional and personal development.
5.9: Encourage and inspire others to higher levels of performance, commitment, and motivation.
5.10: Sustain personal motivation, commitment, energy, and health by balancing professional and personal responsibilities.
The purpose for my leadership project was creating a cultural awareness that acknowledged the relevant policies used to identify students for special education. Taking a close look at data and systems that lead to the reasons or affects of disproportional representation/ identification of colored students in special education. The 1997 reauthorization of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) attempted to address the disproportionate special education enrollment for students in specific racial or ethnic groups. The intention was that my awareness project would promote the advancing of educational equity of students with special needs at my school site.
As a special education teacher it frustrates me when the solution to helping an at-risk or struggling student is to seek assessment for special education services. It seems that students are being given up on rather than being supported. Students are labeled as having a disability and their success is justified by their disability. It’s acceptable if they don’t achieve because they have a disability. At a school site where a majority of students are English Language Learners I feel that many students are being referred or identified based on their language or the fact that their English Language Development is not being supported. A long-term goal of providing awareness to this issue is that students’ needs will be met collaboratively and addressed through the use of different modalities of effective teaching and teacher collaboration.
The team was comprised of the School Psychologist, myself (Resource Specialist), Intervention Coordinator, and EL Coordinator, parents, as well as referring general education teachers. The School Psychologist provided data as well as names of students that were green lighted with assessments that did not qualify for special education services based on them not meeting safeguards that were not met prior to assessment. My role as a Resource Specialist and Student Success Team coordinator was to work with the Intervention Coordinator to provide Learning Center services and intervention opportunities as well as continuous progress monitoring to track growth. The EL Coordinator was valuable in addressing concerns with English language development. Parents were extremely valuable in this project, if not most valuable. Their awareness in data and the process of identifying students for special education allowed them the opportunity to understand requirements and safe guards prior to agreeing to assessment. Referring teachers were essential for the buy in necessary to develop a strong tier two intervention that will provide students the opportunity to be successful in an inclusive general education setting. Together with stakeholders, research and professional development series that includes teacher awareness training, examinations of how students are identified for special education, increased and improved monitoring and early identification of kids at risk for reading problems.
Below you will find a comprehensive visual of the literature review and root cause analysis that informed the development of the logic model for this project. The logic model will outline the problem, assumptions, activities, and anticipated outcomes of the action-research project.
There is a wealth of information regarding the disproportionate identification among certain sociodemographic groups that are disadvantaged. With my specific focus area, overrepresentation of minority students in special education, I was specifically interested in the inequalities in identification (dispelling low expectations/deficit thinking) and how the affects of low economic status suggests that identification of learning problems reflect social differences rather than learning differences (Shifrer et al. 2010). Much of the research points to the fact that an overrepresentation problem has existed for more than twenty years, and though some progress has been made the overrepresentation of minority groups still exist today. Moreover, studies identified that the subjectiveness to identifying students contributes to the disproportionate identification. Most studies emphasized the need to prevent the misidentification of students by creating a prereferral process that eliminates biases. Though creating a strong referral process will not eliminate the overrepresentation of groups it will shine a light on the inequality.
Over Representation of Minority Students in Special Education Logic Model
SITUATION: |
At present minority students are being over identified for special education services -Students are assumed to have learning disabilities rather than considering other circumstances that are affecting their academic abilities. |
PRIORITIES: |
-Identifying other supports to provide interventions and safeguard prior to turning to special education assessment as a solution. -Dispelling low expectations and deficit thinking. |
INPUTS |
OUTPUTS |
OUTCOMES |
|||
Activities |
Participants |
Short-term |
Medium-term |
Long-term |
|
School Psychologist Intervention Coordinator Bilingual Coordinator ELD Expert (Title III Coach)
My role as Resource Specialist -Learning Center -Saturday School -Green Machine (tutoring) -Student Success Team -Language Acquisition Team |
Conduct PD’s Develop Resources Train Parent Workshop
|
School Psychologist Intervention Coordinator Bilingual Coordinator ELD Expert (Title III Coach) -Teachers who lack knowledge of criteria and process of identifying students for special education.
|
-Teachers and Staff will be aware of issues (overrepresentation of minorities in special education) -Teachers will be able to identify alternative interventions and resources -Parents will be aware of SST process (prereferral) and other available resources
|
-Reduction in special education referrals -Teachers will be able to access and identify resources to provide individualized instruction and intervention -Students needs will be met collaboratively and addressed through use of different modalities of effective teaching/collaboration
|
-Students eligibility and future academic opportunities are greater and not limited by a label
|
ASSUMPTIONS |
EXTERNAL FACTORS |
1. Supported by principal 2. Teachers will cooperate with new practice 3. Parents will support inclusive education and interventions
Challenges and Changes |
During the course of the leadership project, several challenges arose that required changes to be made to the original implementation plan.
Fidelity of Implementation: Since there is limited opportunity to create for planning time and quality professional development. My focus was shifted to creating an awareness of prereferral success and overall special education referrals.
Data Collection: The Intervention Coordinator, a vital team member of the project left in the middle of the school year. Originally it was planned to have some quantitative data, but the project only allowed for anecdotal data from the school psychologist. There was not a track of referral cases over the previous years with correlation to the students who were referred for special education and whether or not they went through the appropriate channels before assessment was recommended.
The focus of the project was to create an awareness of the over representation of minority students in special education. Through improving the schools pre referral interventions it was expected that there would be a limited number of referrals for special education, and those students that were referred would have gone through a comprehension pre referral process.
Ariel’s progress with and without intervention.
In Kindergarten, Ariel was provided with intervention in the Learning Center and made significant improvement. In first grade intervention was not consistent as well as SST actions were not carried out at home which led to Ariel’s regression in progress. Now that Ariel fell behind and action steps were not completed, Ariel’s progress has regressed and assessment has been formally requested. Ariel was assessed this school year (as a second grader) and was found eligible for special education services under the eligibility of Other Health Impairment (OHI).
My school was scheduled for Division of Special Education’s Strategic Operating Plan (SOP) pre-referral data collection visit. The purpose of the visit was to collect data related to the SOP, and is not evaluative in nature. District- wide data will be examined and used to make future recommendations for pre-referral activities and supports for our students.
The data analysis team sat with me for approximately four hours as we reviewed the pre-referral an intervention procedures as well as all cases that were green lighted for assessment. Overall, there were only five initial assessments this school year. Though there isn’t a log from last year, as the Resource Specialist I am confident that there were more last school year, as I am required to complete the academic assessment.
Each student that was recommended for assessment went through Coordination of Services Team (COST) and Student Success Team (SST). The awareness created through my plan and the professional developments that I provided the staff provided an awareness of the overrepresentation of minority students. Providing teachers with additional support and strategies at COST meetings allowed students underlying needs to be met before wrongly being marginalized.
Upon reflection there are modifications that could be integrated for better outcomes.
-Collaboration with a greater team to develop further interventions and strategies that can be put in places to prevent special education referrals.
-Developing parent workshops that explain the pre referral process in detail in order to receive support and input from a valuable stakholder group.
Through this action-research leadership project, my identity as a leader has grown immensely. This project has forced me to assert myself in a leadership position and has provided me confidence. I’ve become a leader by possessing a transparent vision of educating all of our students and ensuring that they have an equal opportunity to quality education. My work identifies the plethora of reasons over representation of minority groups exist, but it’s what I can do as a leader to identify the underlying reasons to create a culture of high expectations for all students. I must continue to work diligently to continue redefining the goals and functions of special education in an increasingly diverse society. With that said my project could make a difference for students and save them from the unnecessary, negative connotation of being learning disabled “different” or less able than others. I will continue to create an awareness while facilitating my vision. Through the course of my leadership project I have been able to use tools that I found helpful such as referencing literature to inform my research as well as developing a root cause analysis to identify the root of an issue.
During the course of my leadership role in planning, developing, implementing and evaluating this leadership project, the following CPSEL standards were met.
Standard 1 Facilitating the development, articulation, implementation, and stewardship of a vision of learning that is shared and supported by the school community.
1.1- Facilitate the development of a shared vision for the achievement of all students based upon data from multiple measures of student learning and relevant qualitative indicators.
1.2- Communicate the shared vision so the entire school communit understands and acts on the school’s mission to become a standards-based education system.
1.3- Use the influence of diversity to improve teaching and learning.
Standard 2 Advocating, nurturing, and sustaining a school culture and instructional program conducive to student learning and staff professional growth.
2.1-Shape a culture in which high expectations are the norm for each student as evident in rigorous academic work.
2.3- Facilitate the use of a variety of appropriate content-based learning materials and learning strategies that recognize students as active learners, value reflection and inquiry, emphasize the quality versus the amount of student application and performance, and utilize appropriate and effective technology.
2.4- Guide and support the long-term professional development of all staff consistent with the ongoing effort to improve the learning of all students relative to the content standards.
Standard 3- Ensuring management of the organization, operations, and resources for a safe, efficient, and effective learning environment.
3.2- Utilize effective and nurturing practices in establishing student behavior management systems.
3.3- Establish school structures and processes that support student learning
Standard 4 Collaborating with families and community members, responding to diverse community interests and needs, and mobilizing community resources.
4.1- Recognize and respect the goals and aspirations of diverse family and community groups.
Standard 5 Modeling a personal code of ethics and developing professional leadership capacity.
5.1- Model personal and professional ethics, integrity, justice, and fairness, and expect the same behaviors from others.
At the beginning of the 2013-14 school year, the Los Angeles Unified School District announced that all schools would be moving forward with full implementation of the Common Core State Standards.
The reality is that the responsibility for ensuring high-quality, transformative professional development and fidelity of implementation falls squarely on the shoulders of the school leaders.
In my position as a Common Core Expert in Elementary Mathematics, I was able to use my knowledge of Common Core to design and deliver professional development to K-5 teachers who teach at any of the 98 schools within ESC-West.
One of the greatest challenges I faced along with the rest of the ESC-West Common Core implementation team, was providing professional development that would meet the diverse needs of our teachers at varying knowledge of Common Core. Additionally, we were also faced with the challenge of working with teachers who come from a wide range of school contexts. Ultimately, as a team we developed a professional development module that would serve to provide every single teacher in our ESC with a general overview of CCSS shifts, essential components of CCSS lessons, and a review of resources to aid in their future planning of CCSS instruction.
The process of developing, planning, and delivering a professional development module to such a wide audience required a great deal of collaboration and reflection as a Common Core team. I facilitated the module twice a month from February 2014 to May 2014 and was able to reach 124 teachers. As a Common Core team we met weekly to reflect on feedback from participants and discuss ways to refine the module. Part of that included designing and incorporating a lesson plan template, creating sample reference binders with CCSS resources, and modifying the framework of the day to suit the needs of participants. In the end, I modified the module in order to meet the needs of our adult learners, who had such varying knowledge of CCSS instruction. For next year, I would definitely work on providing a module that targeted a single grade level or perhaps a span of two grade levels.
As a CCSS Teacher Facilitator for Elementary Mathematics my role is to support implementation of common core instruction in mathematics at each of the 18 schools in my network of schools. The “Pathways to Common Core Planning” professional development module (Project 1) was developed to provide all K-5 teachers in ESC-West with a comprehensive overview of common core instruction and planning, but did not fully address specific grade level concerns of teacher participants. In order to reach and attend to the varying needs of all schools within my network of schools, I designed and facilitated a series of after school professional development opportunities in addition to establishing a “Promising Practices” professional learning community (PLC) that meets monthly.
After the first wave of teachers who received the K-5 common core module, the feedback indicated that teachers wanted subsequent support that was more grade level specific. In order to meet those needs for the teachers within my network of schools, I developed and provided a series of after-school (2 hour) professional development opportunities that were grade level specific and targeted a specific math content domain within the context of engaging students in the eight mathematical practices. Teachers were able to attend on a volunteer basis after school and principals had the option of paying teachers training rate for attending.
Teachers really appreciated the hands-on task-based framework of the after school series and left feeling a lot more knowledgeable about the standards for mathematical practice.
The first thing I did was to meet with each the principals for each of the schools in my network. During the initial meeting, the principal and I discussed the results of a needs assessment and how I could best support her staff. During those meetings, I learned that 13 of the 18 schools have out-of classroom instructional support personnel (coordinators and/or coaches) who are already leading the professional development at their school sites. Those principals expressed interest in having me support the instructional leaders at their school sites who have already been working on common core implementation. The idea of establishing a “Promising Practices” PLC came about to meet those needs.
The first meeting of the “Promising Practices” PLC was held on February 14, 2014 and was met with great enthusiasm from the participants. Their feedback indicated that they were eager to share the work that they have been doing at their school sites as well as learning about what others have done at their respective schools. Each subsequent meeting has focused on providing the participants with the latest information of district initiatives related to common core and a short presentation from two PLC members about the current work at their sites. In addition, I always present one common core math strategy or resource that they can take back to their schools.
I received positive feedback from both initiatives and am planning on developing both further for next year. I also added an online component to extend both the “Math Practices in Action” after-school PD and the “Promising Practices” PLC by utilizing todaysmeet.com as a forum for participants to interact live during our meetings. Additionally, I set up a CCSS support group on edmodo.com, which currently has 36 members and is open to all of our K-5 teachers as a forum for them to share or access common core resources online. It is also a quick and easy way for teachers to contact me; teachers often post questions, and I am able to provide them with an almost immediate response, often sharing files or links directly with them. It’s even more exciting when another teacher member answers or helps before I do, because it indicates that teachers see this forum as a safe space to foster professional growth and collaboration with colleagues!
Standard 1 - A school administrator is an educational leader who promotes the success of all students by facilitating the development, articulation, implementation, and stewardship of a vision of learning that is shared and supported by the school community.
Standard 2 - A school administrator is an educational leader who promotes the success of all students by advocating, nurturing, and sustaining a school culture and instructional program conducive to student learning and staff professional growth.
Standard 3 - A school administrator is an educational leader who promotes the success by ensuring management of the organization, operations, and resources for a safe, efficient, and effective environment.
Standard 5 - A school administrator is an educational leader who promotes the success of all students by modeling a personal code of ethics and developing professional leadership capacity.
Standard 6 - A school administrator is an educational leader who promotes the success of all students by understanding, responding to, and influencing the larger political, social, economic, legal, and cultural context.
The purpose of my project was to provide focused professional development on Universal Access Strategies supported through grade level collaborative (GLC) meetings and reciprocal peer observation in order to improve the quality of instruction for English Learners, a struggling subgroup at our school. However, all learners stand to benefit from the school-wide implementation of the four Universal Access Strategies: cooperative and communal learning environments, instructional conversations, academic language development, and advanced graphic organizers.
Teachers participated in a variety of professional development opportunities focused on building capacity with Universal Access Strategy use. Some of it was whole-staff professional development delivered on Banked Time Tuesday. Teachers also continued their conversations into their grade level collaborative meetings. Finally, teachers paired up with a colleague of any grade level to observe and be observed by, in order to build capacity of access strategy use in their instruction. Teachers were not limited to any particular subject area and were not required to submit any lesson plans. The only two stipulations were that during the observation they make note of access strategy use and that they debrief with one another after the observation.
This project supports findings of school Spring Review for 2012-13 school year. The school review team, which included teachers, administration, and parents, chose to adopt the district's four access strategies that support English Learners and Standard English Learners along with students with disabilities. Teachers also stressed the need to see the strategies in practice and more opportunities to learn from one another. The four Access Strategies are also cited as a focus for instruction in the school's Single Plan for Student Achievement (SPSA).
Teachers need support with using strategies that support all learners.
According to the SPSA and the 2013 School Spring Review, English Learners who make up more than 50% of our student population, are not receiving access to the core curriculum. Their scores took a dip in ELA at all grade levels. In fact, percent proficient rates were not met in any subgroup in ELA or Math. And though the percent proficient or advanced for all students remained unchanged at 42.7%, among our English Leaner subgroup there was a 4% drop. Math CST proficiency among all students had a 7.9% drop. However, among our English Learner subgroup there was a 14.2% drop. The classroom observations during the Spring Review brought to light that teachers are not consistently implementing Access Strategies to support all learners as a part of their instruction. Because the use of Access Strategies (Cooperative/Communal Grouping, Academic Language, Graphic Organizers, and Instructional Conversations) is an instructional focus listed in our SPSA, the Spring Review team decided to make it a focus area for improvement. The LSLC met to review these findings and used the data to plan out professional development designed to meet the goals set in the 2013-14 SPSA and 2013 Spring Review. The plan for professional development included: PD focused on implementation of Access Strategies, CCSS, grade level planning, and a peer observation cycle. The peer observation was to be focused on building teacher capacity of Access Strategy use to provide equal access of the academic program for all learners, especially English Learners.
The action research team consisted of the Principal, Title I/EL Coordinator, RSP teacher, teachers and parents (members of Local School Leadership Council and ELAC). The role of the action research team was to provide input with planning of professional development, including reciprocal peer observations, assisting with the development of the project timeline, and support with analysis of school data.
As noted in the timeline above, throughout the entirety of this improvement plan, various stakeholders were consulted. Any plans, forms, or data collection attempts were jointly developed with our school’s Local School Leadership Council (LSLC), which includes our Principal, UTLA Representative, Parent Representative, parents, and teachers. Teacher surveys were anonymous. Student survey/focus group was also designed to be anonymous, but teachers did not wish to have their students participate.
Edith Galvan, SRLDP teacher and Local School Leadership Council (LSLC) member, helped me develop a teacher survey to assess teacher attitudes and knowledge surrounding the series of professional development events that were implemented from August 2013 through November 2013. These included a focus on implementation of Access Strategies to support all learners, CCSS in ELA and Math, grade level collaborative planning, and one round of peer observations. Members of the LSLC including parents, teachers, the school principal, and the UTLA chapter chair reviewed the survey and suggested that we clarify the language on a few items. After the revisions were made, the survey was developed as a Google form and emailed to all teachers on Tuesday, November 12, 2013. Teachers were asked to complete the survey as part of their grade level meeting that day.
The format of the survey was quite simple; teachers were asked to indicate to what extent each statement was true by ranking from 1 to 5, 1 being not at all and 5 being completely or 100%. Thirty teachers participated in the first cycle of PD and Peer Observations. Twenty-six of them completed the survey. In the summary below, answers of 1 or 2 are categorized as “Disagree”, answers of 3 are considered “Neutral”, and answers of 4 or 5 are categorized as “Agree.”
Ultimately, what I am trying to accomplish is improved student achievement for all learners, but especially for marginalized groups such as English Learners and Students with Disabilities. As discussed above, few teachers at Carson-Gore Academy were making use of the four Access Strategies: Cooperative/Collaborative Groupings, Instructional Conversations, Academic Vocabulary, and Advanced Graphic Organizers, even though these are listed as an instructional focus in our SPSA. English Learners (who make up over 50% or our population) are not gaining access to core content. As a social justice educator I have a responsibility to all students, including groups of students whose academic needs are not being met. It is my contention, that if we make a collective effort at our school to build teacher capacity of Access Strategy use through a more holistic approach, we will be more effective in our efforts to improve teacher practices that are designed to meet the needs of English Learners.
Teachers, much like their students, learn more effectively when they are able to focus on a set objective that they perceive as being relevant or of value. They learn more by exploring and doing rather than being lectured to. And, as my research suggests, providing teacher with quality and focused PD is not enough. That is why my improvement plan also incorporates opportunities for praxis and reflection through peer observation and feedback sessions in addition to grade level collaboration and planning, all of which should focus on topics presented at PD. This allows for teachers to continue their learning and conversations beyond the PD and apply new pedagogy into their instruction. Peer observations provide them with opportunities to learn from their peers and provide their peers with constructive feedback for them to continue refining their practice as well.
It was a true measure of success that the teachers themselves suggested how to make the process more structured, and that they are eager to continue.
My overall goal was to see evidence of access strategy use in ALL classrooms (even if to varying degrees), 100% participation in the peer observation cycle, and enough positive feedback from the staff to continue developing (and adding additional layers of depth) to the peer observation cycle. My principal has reported seeing evidence of more widespread Access Strategy use, but we are still not at 100%. At the conclusion of the first cycle, teachers completed an online survey and attended a staff meeting to debrief about the first cycle of PD and peer observations. Teachers were asked how we could refine the process, whether we can establish an even clearer focus by choosing just one of the Access Strategies to work on, and whether a feedback form with guiding questions would help.
Overall, teachers find Access Strategies and Peer Observations as valuable and relevant to their work. However, they also reported that the PD provided was not sufficient enough to prepare them for full implementation at this point. They want more opportunities for PD, grade level collaboration and planning, as well as more opportunities to conduct peer observations. Teachers also decided that we should choose one Access Strategy to focus on; a majority chose Cooperative/Communal Groupings as the focus strategy. Finally, teachers also decided that we should develop a feedback form for to teachers to use during the peer observation in order to facilitate a more effective debrief session.
We will use the input from the staff and various stakeholders to continue refining the process for our second cycle of PD and PeerObservations as well as developing our new SPSA and categorical budgets for 2014-15. I anticipate that the SPSA writing team will consider including measurable outcomes related to implementation of Access Strategies. Additionally, it would be of note if they were to include focused PD and GLC meetings paired with Peer Observations in the new SPSA, which will ultimately guide all instructional and budget related decisions made at the school in the future.
Of the 651 students at the school, 53% have been identified as English Language Learners (ELLs). That is, 53% of the school’s students speak a language other than English at home, and upon receipt of scores of the California English Language Development Test (CELDT), have been identified as needing targeted English Language support. Based on their scores from the test, students are assigned a level (1-5), each with a set of skills that must be mastered before proceeding to the next level. Students who have been identified as ELLs are then enrolled in Structured English Immersion (SEI) classrooms as Limited English Proficient Students (LEP), and their progress monitored, with the express intent of having them master the necessary language skills and exit (reclassify) the ELD program as Reclassified Fluent English Proficient students (RFEP).
Several norms have been put in place to ensure the success of this subgroup of students. In order to oversee the students’ progress in English Language Development (ELD), level-specific portfolios are assigned to each student. Instructors use the skills and standards of their students’ levels to inform ELD instruction and necessary student work to include in the portfolio as evidence of mastery of the skills. The portfolios, with the student work included, are then given to the Categorical Programs Advisor to review.
Students who have been identified as ELLs, and have been receiving targeted support for 5 years without reclassifying become members of a subgroup, and are designated Long Term English Learners (LTELs). Because the success of this subgroup is still paramount, meetings with parents and students are established to better facilitate their learning.
Aside from monitoring their progress through the ELD portfolio system, these students also receive support in the form of data-driven intervention and tutoring programs, during the instructional day, after school, and summer break.
As the Categorical Programs Advisor, my goal was to do everything in my power to facilitate the progress of those students enrolled in the SEI program at my school site.
I took my cues from the many minds that authored the Common Core State Standards: work backward. Ensuring the success of these students meant going beyond my own monitoring responsibilities, I had to ensure I built campus-wide capacity.
I revised the portfolio review process in order to facilitate turn ins. Teachers have so many responsibilities as it is, I wanted to make sure that ELD portfolio reviews were as streamlined and transparent as possible. I took the time to inform teachers of my approach: I would ask that teachers band those students they thought were ready to either move up or reclassify, I also asked teachers to include multiple work samples in order to paint a clearer pictures of student progress, and I would ask that each teacher grade each standard assessed individually. In turn, I would provide teachers with labels with the standards printed on them to adhere to the student work samples, I would include progress monitoring rosters with comments (e.g., calling attention to a student that may be close to reclassifying), I would make sure there were memos reminding teachers of upcoming due dates, and should they have missed the turn-in date, I would follow up with a reminder memo.
Teacher’s Assistants were next. I made sure that they were given multiple opportunities to be trained in several intervention programs that would help our ELLs achieve proficiency in English Language Arts. And because monitoring and evidence of monitoring is key, I created and trained them in the use of, an intervention attendance/hour log for the purposes of ELD progress monitoring and monitoring our ELLs’ Response to Instruction and Intervention (RTI2).
Finally came the students. I had already established norms that would facilitate the faculty and staff’s capacity, I also worked to make sure that the students themselves received every attention and opportunity to progress and reclassify. In-school intervention was already established, but there was the time outside of school to think about.
Research shows that without proper stimulation, some of what has been learned during the academic year is forgotten during the summer. How then could I ensure that students performed at their best on the CELDT, which is administered at the beginning of the year? I developed a “CELDT Boot Camp” to take place in the weeks leading up to the beginning of the new school year, a task that necessitated further teacher training, and coordinating.
It is a credit to the faculty and staff at the school that the norms I established continue in my absence.
I was particularly anxious to help those ELLs who had become LTELs. District requirements stipulated that teachers, parents and students be made aware of what LTEL status entailed. Because balancing the schedules of teachers, the LTEL Designees, and parents could be difficult, it was incumbent upon me to find a solution that was efficient for all involved. With the help of the LTEL Designee, I coordinated with those teachers who had LTELs in their classrooms to set up times either before or after parent/teacher conference appointments to discuss the student’s progress with all the necessary parties present.
Standard 1 - A school administrator is an educational leader who promotes the success of all students by facilitating the development, articulation, implementation, and stewardship of a vision of learning that is shared and supported by the school community.
Standard 2 - A school administrator is an educational leader who promotes the success of all students by advocating, nurturing, and sustaining a school culture and instructional program conducive to student learning and staff professional growth.
Standard 3 - A school administrator is an educational leader who promotes the success by ensuring management of the organization, operations, and resources for a safe, efficient, and effective environment.
Standard 4 - A school administrator is an educational leader who promotes the success of all students by collaborating with families and community members, responding to diverse community interests and needs, and mobilizing community resources.
Standard 5 - A school administrator is an educational leader who promotes the success of all students by modeling a personal code of ethics and developing professional leadership capacity.
Standard 6 - A school administrator is an educational leader who promotes the success of all students by understanding, responding to, and influencing the larger political, social, economic, legal, and cultural context.
ELD Schedule, Portfolio Feedback, Due Dates Memo and Reminder, ELD Portfolio Review Checklist, EL Monitoring Roster with Feedback, and AMAO Requirements Certification Form
]]>I can’t remember a single instance of my own parents involving themselves with my schools. They attended parent conferences and awards assemblies readily enough, but neither my mother nor my father was a part of campus parent groups.
As a teacher I had always worked to maintain a welcoming and vibrant classroom environment, my parent conferences always included refreshments, and my status as a bilingual Spanish speaker ensured easy communication with my students’ parents. As a Categorical Programs advisor, however, the scope of my environment widened to encompass the whole school. Parent involvement had moved beyond classroom volunteering and conferences, and juice and cookies wouldn’t cut it anymore – or at least, not at the quantities that I was used to purchasing.
I had to get parents to invest in the school and not just their child’s classroom, but how to get parents to that level?
In Field of Dreams, Kevin Costner plays the role of Ray Kinsella, an Iowa corn famer who begins hearing a mysterious voice whispering, “If you build it, he will come.” Costner’s character interprets that as a directive to build a baseball field on his land, which he does, and is then surprised by the appearance of the Chicago Black Sox players.
Well, I may not have heard the disembodied voice of a slightly notorious baseball legend, but never the less I, like Costner’s character, felt compelled to build something so that parents would come. Fortunately the professionals had already built the school, and it became my duty to build a welcoming environment, a type of construction more suitable to my skills than the actual construction of a school, and the construction of a baseball field.
The school’s main office and main entrance were the first places to get a make over. The outside bulletin board would become the main means of communicating the dates of important council meetings. Inside the main office we would decorate the bare walls with student and family centric information. Three of the four bulletin boards centered on the school’s attendance, reclassification of ELLs, and test performance, the fourth would consist of opportunities for and pictures of parent and family involvement with the school. The bulletin boards mounted around the campus would receive similar aesthetic treatments, particularly the board outside of the school’s Parent Center.
That done, I felt that I had “built it” and parents did come. The issue then became one of parent capacity and agency. I worked tirelessly with the help of the Parent Representative to train and inform parents of their rights and power at the school through participation in the ELAC and SSC.
But still, there was more to do.
When the school first opened, I worked alongside another teacher to establish the school’s participation in the Reading is Fundamental of Southern California book give away. That first year, it was just my partner and myself developing literacy events and coordinating the two book events. The following year, I strove to involve parents in the effort.
I began by asking parents what they felt comfortable contributing, and after some discussion, it was decided that they would decorate the venue for the give away. By the second event of that year, I was collaborating with parents not only in a decorating capacity, but having them involved in the give away itself. Parents became an integral part of the event: they would hand out stickers and book marks, read aloud to the children, help them select a book, and some even volunteered to dress up in costumes depending on the theme (at the time of this publication, we have had parents dress up as Clifford, The Cat in the Hat, and Santa Claus). I provided them with refreshments and lunch after the end of the event.
My efforts didn’t end there. I noticed a particular parent was consistently present and invested in the success of the events, and so I asked her if she would like to become more involved. She was delighted, and so I invited her along to the Reading is Fundamental warehouse where the books are picked up for distribution, and had her help me write up the reports of the events that are required by Reading is Fundamental.
This year I made sure that same parent attended the Reading is Fundamental training along with myself, and I am overjoyed to report that she is now the point person, and running the events on her own.
As a transformative leader, I must endeavor to establish a school culture in which all stakeholders understand the value of a collective community of learners--one in which parents aren't just involved but wholly engaged and adding to the value of our school community.
My experience working with parents has solidified my belief that parent engagement is more than just flyers sent home along with homework. It has opened up opportunities for more parent involvement with fundraising efforts, and community-building events.
As much influence as teachers have over a student’s achievement, there is no doubt that parents wield a sizeable amount of power and influence over their children’s success as well. It then falls to the school to establish means to involve parents in their child’s education at home and at school.
The district has established several organizational bodies – English Learner Advisory Committee (ELAC), Compensatory Education Advisory Committee (CEAC), School Site Council (SSC) – to include parent voices in school decisions. It falls to the Categorical Advisor and the administration to run the elections for the governing boards of these committees, the training of the individuals elected, and the collection/maintenance of meeting minutes.
It is up to individual schools, however, to ensure parent buy-in and participation in these organizations, and in the school community at large.
Standard 1 - A school administrator is an educational leader who promotes the success of all students by facilitating the development, articulation, implementation, and stewardship of a vision of learning that is shared and supported by the school community.
Standard 2 - A school administrator is an educational leader who promotes the success of all students by advocating, nurturing, and sustaining a school culture and instructional program conducive to student learning and staff professional growth.
Standard 3 - A school administrator is an educational leader who promotes the success by ensuring management of the organization, operations, and resources for a safe, efficient, and effective environment.
Standard 4 - A school administrator is an educational leader who promotes the success of all students by collaborating with families and community members, responding to diverse community interests and needs, and mobilizing community resources.
Standard 5 - A school administrator is an educational leader who promotes the success of all students by modeling a personal code of ethics and developing professional leadership capacity.
Standard 6 - A school administrator is an educational leader who promotes the success of all students by understanding, responding to, and influencing the larger political, social, economic, legal, and cultural context.