Leadership+for+Accountability

Back to 12-5388 Internship Back to Course Reflections

Leadership for Accountability
 There were many pieces of this course that were very familiar to me. Having served on our Campus Improvement Team (CIT) previously, I was familiar with the legalities and the procedures involved in developing a Campus Improvement Plan (CIP). I was aware of the required makeup of the committee including parents, faculty, community and business members. There is usually little disagreement in the development of the campus CIP. The interview with the principal illustrated that she tends to work toward consensus weighing the pros and cons of any issue. She agrees with Mark Fullen (2002) when he says, "The goal is not to innovate the most. Innovating selectively with coherence is better." She says if she anticipates disagreement she will look for examples of how other schools worked to solve similar issues on their campuses. One drawback to the CIP development is the time frame. The plan is constructed each year before the test scores from that year arrive making appropriate goal selection almost impossible. Having worked with colleagues on this process in the past, I believe we need to establish a committee of teachers to make recommendations for improvements to be considered by the committee, but the committee needs to come back and meet after the TAKS scores are received to ensure that the document they created identifies the areas of need that return as a result of the state test scores.  We need to be careful to avoid the trap pointed out in the reading entitled “How Do You Sustain Excellence?” that some schools “focus on improving the performance of students who with a bit of intensive intervention can get to the proficiency cutoff score.” With the resulting problem of “students performing significantly below grade level are treated as beyond hope.” (Reeves 2007). I think my plan would have to be a continually evolving plan as data from state and local assessments is disaggregated and analyzed for strengths and weaknesses in our students. Finally, we need to share leadership responsibilities in order to develop more teacher-leaders on our campus who can see the “big picture” and help others to see the overall view as well. If we focus on relevant lessons that make good use of the growing school consensus, incorporate the use of technology, find ways to meet the need for more dedicated time for core subjects, and stay focused on the belief that all students can learn, we will be off to a good start in school improvement.  The knowledge gained in this course was in methods to ensure coherence in group processes and in locating and analyzing the data from my school. In doing so I discovered we have a serious issue with our science scores. This will be an area I can address with some of my technology projects, primarily by providing support through the use of iPod devices for the English Language Learners (ELL) students who need more visual references to understand the material. This plan will address Standard TF-II "Educational Technology Facilitators plan, design, and model effective learning environments and multiple experiences supported by technology." It will also apply to Standard TF-II.B "Apply current research on teaching and learning with technology when planning learning environments and experiences." (Williamson & Redish, 2009). Assisting teachers in the use of the iPod videos will also address Standard TF-II.C,D,E, and F as I will assist teachers in identifying and applying instructional design principles and a variety of strategies to manage student learning while providing technology resources in the context of learning activities. If successful, this concept could be branched out to the other subject areas. Current learning theory embraces the concept of using multiple modalities in addressing student learning. This would reinforce the classroom content for all students. As this project progresses, I will be able to assess not only student learning, but teacher learning as they integrate new technologies and my own learning as I process what works best for these students.

Fullan, M. (2002) The change leader. //Educational Leadership 59//(8), 16-20 Reeves, D. (2007). How do you sustain excellence? //Educational Leadership 65//(3), 86-87. Williamson, J., & Redish, T. (2009). ISTE's Technology Facilitation and Leadership Standards. Eugene, OR: International Society for Technology in Education.

 || The Site Based Decision Making teams in my district are called Campus Improvement Teams (CIT). They conform to state law in that they are established to “review campus educational plans, goals, performance objectives, and major classroom instructional programs.” Our CIT is composed of 9 faculty members, the principal, and four parents. The school is still looking for a community/business representative willing to serve on the committee. Our school is located in a relatively low socio-economic status neighborhood with few local businesses. We have had community representation in the past, but even though we have requested the local civic associations to assist in finding someone to participate, no one has been willing to serve this year.  Until I interviewed the principal, I was unaware that she is unable to move money from one fund to another without CIT approval. The meetings are structured with an agenda and an opportunity at the end for members to voice other concerns. Both the principal and the CIT member interviewed report good consensus and cooperation among the members. Both indicated a lack of many conflicts and that those issues that are disputed tend to be solved by allowing everyone to voice their opinion. The principal stated that decisions are ultimately hers, but that it would be foolish to try to force an idea or program that does not have general agreement to at least try it and see if it works. She is opposed to change just for the sake of change and feels that if the team can get enough information and correct information that people can weigh the pros and cons of any issue. In essence, the principal agrees with the article by Michael Fullen when he states, “The goal is not to innovate the most. Innovating selectively with coherence is better.” (Fullen, 2002). She said if she wants to try something new, she will normally look for an example of success to share with the team. The team member reports the biggest disagreement she can recall coming over the dress code revisions and agrees with the principal that the team does stay focused on what is important for student learning as their number one priority.  While I am not surprised by any of the comments made by the principal or team member, I feel it would be advantageous for the principal to print a summary of the CIT in the weekly faculty newsletter after the meetings to improve the consensus across the campus and make the faculty more aware of the issues being discussed. There does seem to be a disconnect between the work of the CIT and the understanding of the general faculty about initiatives. School scores are normally published on school email when they are received at the end of the year, but whole faculty discussion on areas of strength or weakness are not normally included in any whole faculty meeting. Areas of weakness are normally discussed in department meetings with the effected department. Generally, the faculty is unaware of plans being made by the CIT until they are finalized and presented as something that will be done at a faculty meeting. While it is important for the CIT to reach consensus and hear all the input, small reports on topics of discussion might also help build campus consensus for new ideas. A discussion of how we can best support each other and particular areas of weakness might help build greater buy-in across the campus for improvement initiatives.  ||