Final Post Reflection

One understands that effective school leadership requires twenty-one responsibilities, but that the mastery of all twenty-one is beyond the capacity of most people (Marzano, Waters, & McNulty, 2005, p. 99). Pitfalls that one would need to be aware of as a first year principal as mentioned by Marzano, Waters, & McNulty (2005) include developing a strong leadership team, selecting the right work, distributing some responsibilities throughout the leadership team, identifying the order of magnitude implied by the selected work, and matching the management style to the order of magnitude change initiative. Many of the strategies and action steps identified in the action plan would help to support these five steps.

Developing a strong leadership team is the only way to address all twenty-one responsibilities. Nurturing a shared vision and belief system among different groups of individuals is paramount to raising student achievement. “Shared vision is essential to a successful change process and an absolute requisite for any learning organization” (DuFour & Eaker, 2008). The leadership team must actively and collaboratively pursue the implementation of the vision on a daily basis. Distribution of responsibilities through the leadership team allows all stakeholders to have a voice in the school improvement process. Additionally, buy-in by the school community is more likely to occur.

The leadership team must also select the right work that has the greatest chance of raising student achievement. Marzano, Walters, & McNulty (2005) identified thirty-nine action steps at both the school level and the teacher level. These action steps are based on a foundation of gathering school data from a variety of sources such as state assessments, quarterly benchmarks, and student work. Additionally, the inclusion of climate survey data is also critical for gathering feedback from students, teachers, and parents. Bernhardt (2000) notes that implementing an effective data analysis process helps to replace hunches and hypothesis with facts; identify root causes of problems not symptoms; assess needs and target resources to address them; set goals and determine whether they are being accomplished; and focus staff development efforts and track their impact (p. 34).

The Organization and Administration course  has helped to heighten my belief in the inclusion of an honest discussion of integrity, fairness, and ethical behavior in one’s practice. Senge (2007) speaks about a movement within learning organizations where individuals seek the intrinsic benefits of their work. He speaks of the importance of personal mastery in one’s job and the need to continually reflect, clarify and deepen one’s personal vision. More importantly, he asks individuals to question their “mental models” and note the effects it has on their teaching practice. This act of continual personal reflection helps to bring to the surface  internal viewpoints and hold them to rigorous scrutiny. In a time where increased an increasingly diverse population of students continually streams into the public school setting, educators must reflect on their practice to ensure that their actions are based on fairness and integrity for all students.

Individual Reflection: Co-Teaching Model

The co-teaching model that I am most familiar with in my previous high school was the One Teaching, One Drifting approach (Friend & Coach, 2003). The general education teacher normally planned and instructed the lesson, while the special education teacher moved through the class assisting students as needed or addressing behavior problems. This lead support role seemed to develop naturally right at the start of the school year. I saw this happening for several reasons: it was the easiest approach to implement for teachers; general educators and special educators were not given their class assignments until the start of the school year; and general and special educators often were not given the opportunity to plan during the school day. Additionally, this lead support approach did not require teachers to develop a deep, collegial relationship instead allowing them to remain distant.

From the students’ point of view, one teacher was seen as the main teacher. This person was the one that did all of the teaching. This was the course content expert. The special education teacher was seen as an assistant who walked around the classroom and addressed classroom misbehaviors. 

The relationship between these two adults was, at best cordial, but at times shallow or superficial. I’ve observed general educators develop deep resentments towards the special educators. They felt as though they were doing all of the work and that the special educators contributed little to nothing to instruction and planning. The reality in this high school was that there were simply not enough special educators for all of the co-teaching classrooms. 

The special educators were often made to feel like visitors to another person’s space. It was not unusual to walk into a co –teaching classroom and see the special educator with a small cart on wheels or a small area carved out in the back of the room with their instructional materials. The cart lends itself to a brief or temporary condition.

The upgrade of curriculum for the 21^st century meant that for this high school the general educators needed to become more proficient with instructional strategies that addressed a diverse learning population. While observing an Algebra 1 classroom that contained students that belonged in co-teaching classrooms the veteran teacher shared with me a variety of instructional strategies, flexible groupings, and the addition of a mastery learning model to ensure that all of her students were successful. High School Assessment (HSA) scores supported the work this teacher was doing in spite of the lack of an available special education teacher. 

Where resources are spread thin, I believe that a school principal would serve students well by implementing a co-teaching environment with novice teachers or teachers with little to no experience with differentiation strategies. A team teaching approach (Friend & Coach, 2003) would allow both teachers to share responsibilities for sharing and planning. Teachers work as a team to introduce information, facilitate learning, and address classroom management issues. This approach allows the novice teacher to develop a cadre of instructional tools to address the needs of all learners. The special educator role is respected and appreciated for not only helping students learn, but also providing one-to-one instruction for novice teachers on how to differentiate instruction.

Evaluating a co-teaching classroom requires a supervisor to implement similar strategies utilized when evaluating a general education classroom. As a supervisor, I would expect to see lessons that were student-centered, activities that were creative, encouraged collaboration and communication.  I would also expect to see recognition of diverse learners and learning styles. Since I would be evaluating a team teaching classroom I would also evaluate the roles of the two teachers (Arguelles, Schumm, & Vaughn, 1997). 

I would expect to see evidence of co-planning in the instructional strategies and how the students are assessed (Wilson, 2005). I would also evaluate how the teachers treated each other. Is it a collegial, cooperative, supportive relationship?

References

Arguelles, M., Schumm, J., & Vaughn, S. (1997). The ABCDEs of Co-Teaching. The Council For Exceptional Children: Teaching Exceptional Children, 30(2).

Friend, M., & Cook, L. H. (2003). Interactions: Collaboration skills for school professionals (4th ed.). Boston: Allyn and Bacon.

Wilson, G. L. (2005). This doesn’t look familiar! Intervention in School and Clinic, 40(5), 271–275.

Individual Reflection: Individualizing the Curriculum

The mastery learning model is the ideal approach to combine with the blended learning model in place at my school, ACCESS Online. Anderson (2009) noted some of the common features he observed when analyzing various mastery learning models: clearly specified learning objectives; short, valid assessments; mastery standards; a sequence of learning units; feedback on student progress; and additional time and help correcting specified student errors to assist students in meeting mastery standards. Furthermore, he states, “Learning-for-mastery students have outperformed students in conventional classrooms on measures of achievement, retention, learning rate, attitudes, and self-esteem (Anderson, 2009).

Math students enrolled in the ACCESS Online for credit recovery complete their lessons through Pearson Education’s NovaNet learning management system. Students logging into the site for the first time, are presented with a norm referenced achievement test, Basic Achievement Skills Inventory (BASI), to complete. The results help provide an evaluation of a student’s mathematics and reading skills for initial placement. Afterwards students are presented with a pretest. The results help to determine a prescribed course of action or a specific series of lessons to complete. Students are tested on learning objectives using formative and summative assessments. Assessment scores of 80% or higher allow the student to move through to the next lesson or unit. Assessment scores less than 80% allow the students to receive targeted, direct instruction in areas of weaknesses. Afterwards, students are allowed to repeat the assessment until a grade of 80% is earned.

Implementation of the NovaNet program began in January. Both face-to-face and online teachers have received ongoing professional development to better support the teaching and learning. Initial support for the program was high, due to the prescriptive nature of the program. However, pressure to push graduating seniors to complete the course by the end of April has brought up concerns regarding maintaining the integrity of the NovaNet program and whether or not students would able to complete all of the prescribed lessons in time. Additionally, teachers are often forced to go outside of NovaNet to locate or create activities that target weak areas in student learning. 

As a school leader, I would first use the research evidence suggested by Anderson (1985) to raise mastery standards from 80% to 85% to improve performance standards. Second, I would give math teachers time to collaborate and discuss corrective instruction that was targeted to the specific needs of the students in the credit recovery program. I would share with teachers that they could assemble already created presentations and web links in a program such as LiveBinder. This would create a single repository of digital corrective tools teachers could use for remediation. A second resource I would recommend would be the county supported Study Island, a web-based program that provides instruction, practice, assessment, and reporting built on state standards. This would also be a readily available tool for teachers to access for student remediation. 

Overall, I believe the mastery learning model is the best approach to improving performance standards for students in a blended learning course. Its prescriptive nature helps to ensure credit recovery students are receiving targeted instruction, while meeting state standards. Regular assessment of learning objectives helps to give the student, teachers, and administrators’ confidence that students are mastering the material. Ensuring teachers have access to a wide variety of remediation tools will allow critical corrective instruction that best meets the needs for all learners.

References

Anderson, L.W. (1985). A retrospective and prospective view of Bloom's "Learning for Mastery". In M.C. Wang & H.J. Walberg (Eds). Adapting instruction to individual differences (pp.254-268). Berkeley, CA: McCutchan.

Reflections on Influences of School Curricula

Schools curricula is influenced by the federal, state, and local government; courts; professional organizations; local educational leaders; and classroom teachers. Each of these forces has exerted their unique authority, control, and values on curriculum development.

The federal government has used its dollars to steadily exert its influence and control over the direction of curriculum and education since the 1960’s with the push for bilingual education and education of the handicapped. The next two decades brought in a more conservative approach to federal influence by giving states greater control and flexibility over how it distributed funding. As the country moved into the 21^st century, politicians controlled the give and take of federal dollars with the addition of standards-based teaching and increased accountability through high stakes testing. Today the federal government continues to influence school curricula through the implementation of the Race To The Top (RTTT) competition. States, dealing with ever decreasing budgets and facing the possibilities of deeper cutbacks, my state included, have felt the pressure to participate in the policies dictated by RTTT to ensure existing programs remain in effect and to reduce the possibility of additional teacher layoffs and larger class sizes. I am watching administrators and teachers jump through hoops as they attempt to meet the federal guidelines of this grant. However, it appears that Fullan's description of administrator's "dependency issue" is keeping many of the schools' in my district from truly improving upon the teaching and learning.

The courts role in school curricula has been to ensure the upholding of the rights of citizens as it relates to equity and access. Glatthorn, Boschee, Whitehead (2007) state that in the eyes of the courts, “Education is no longer seen as a privilege, but as a right for all” (p.126). Courts ensure compliance with federal regulations and have the power to withhold dollars or administer fines, if states are not abiding by rulings that have a direct impact on curricula. I see the courts biggest influence in my school district as it relates to special education and the enforcement of the Individual Education Plan or IEP for students.

The role of professional organizations as is relates to curricula is to ensure that the best researched-based practices for teaching and learning are communicated to local, state, and federal agencies. Professional organizations conduct lobbying efforts to influence the direction of curriculum such as with No Child Left Behind. Glatthorn, Boschee, Whitehead (2007) note that “professional organizations also publish curricular guidelines or model scope and sequence charts” (p.123). Finally professional organizations help to influence school curricula by conducting professional development opportunities to address new strategies or ideas.

Local education leaders and teachers play key roles in school curricula. In many school districts, superintendents assign an assistant superintendent with the task of overseeing curriculum development and implementation. This role is complicated by the fact that many assistant superintendents are tasked with a myriad of responsibilities besides school curricula. Additionally, budget cuts often leave many assistant superintendents with limited staffing to effectively implement curriculum changes. As it relates to principals, Glatthorn, Boschee, and Whitehead (2007) note that there seems to be a higher likelihood of elementary principals who “play an active role in curriculum leadership” as opposed to secondary principals who are “more likely to delegate these roles” to other teachers or department heads (p. 127). Teachers more often than not are tasked with the key role of implementing the curriculum. They are faced with both internal and external pressures to improve student achievement. Learning communities can go a long way in helping teachers develop the practices needed to properly implement the curriculum. Support from building administrators can also help ease this process and allow teachers the necessary time and resources to improve the teaching and learning in the classroom.

How do curriculum definitions, curricular history, and theoretical approaches and policy progress relate to major societal forces such as technology and the world at large?

Curriculum definitions, curricular history, theoretical approaches and policy progress all relate to major societal forces such as technology and the world at large because educators are continually encouraged to expand their level of knowledge, to challenge existing thinking, and to collaboratively work with groups of learners to seek news ways to improve upon teaching and learning. Educators understand that curriculum is under constant change due to cyclical questioning of existing ideas and beliefs on a global level. Finally, educators work to ensure that what they teach contributes to the growth of the whole child and that their students grow to become productive, contributing members to a global society.

As Fullan (1997) suggests, school leaders must listen and learn from others that may disagree with their ideas. From conflicts and disagreements often come more creative approaches to handling more complex issues. His idea of school leaders understanding the importance of “reculturing” is critical in bringing about and sustaining a positive, collaborative support network needed when curriculum implementation goes wrong. Fullan’s recommendation that school leaders understand how their tone sets the stage for how others may react in the face of difficulties can help send out a hopeful message to staff and help them understand the larger goal of raising student achievement.