|
Documenting Patterns in Teacher’s Relationships: Their Impact on K-12 Education
|
| Presenter(s):
|
| Kathy Gullie, State University of New York at Albany, kp9854@albany.edu
|
| Abstract:
When looking at the impact of teachers’ professional development on student outcomes, there appears to be an evaluation gap between documenting involvement in professional development and documenting outcomes that represent the acquisition of skills and the transference of those skills to the real world. Current leadership models that stress a stakeholder based approach to the establishment of peer to peer relationships suggests possible solution to the development of evaluation criteria that will help bridge this gap. The purpose of this paper is to report on successful methods of documenting K-12 teacher interactions and their relationship to instructional practices and students’ subsequent outcomes. Findings are based on the result of two consecutive, three year Mathematics Science Partnership grants that unitized leadership theory for pattern matching when analyzing case studies, interviews, observation and focus group data
|
|
The Use of School Climate Data for School Improvement
|
| Presenter(s):
|
| Sarah Gareau, South Carolina Educational Policy Center, gareau@mailbox.sc.edu
|
| Diane Monrad, University of South Carolina, dmonrad@mailbox.sc.edu
|
| John May, University of South Carolina, mayjr@mailbox.sc.edu
|
| Karen Price, South Carolina Educational Policy Center, pricekj@mailbox.sc.edu
|
| Diana Mindrila, South Carolina Educational Policy Center,
|
| Ishikawa Tomonori, University of South Carolina, ishikawa@mailbox.sc.edu
|
| Abstract:
Previous research suggests that school climate data can be very useful in understanding the complex dynamics of the relationships between organizational-level contexts and evaluation outcomes. While measures of school success are essential for schools to show progress under state and federal accountability requirements, assessing school climate as a critical element of school improvement has received only passing interest from policy makers. The purpose of the current collaborative work is the analysis of 2008 and 2009 school climate surveys and the development of 4-year school climate profiles (2006-2009) focused on low-performing schools, including a 4-year comparison of mean factor scores by organizational level, percentile ranks of survey factor scores by organizational level, and item-level percentage agreement indices. A discussion of the profiles’ development, meaning, and use for evaluation quality provides a practical application of school climate data.
|
|
From Monitoring to Evaluation and Back Again: Implications for Organizational Leadership, Budget, and Success
|
| Presenter(s):
|
| Lisa Schmitt, Austin Independent School District, lschmitt@austinisd.org
|
| Karen Cornetto, Austin Independent School District, kcornett@austinisd.org
|
| Lindsay Lamb, Austin Independent School District, lindsay.lamb@austinisd.org
|
| Abstract:
Over the past decade, the Austin ISD Board of Trustees adopted a policy governance management model, under which district administration reported monthly the district’s status on indicators viewed as evidence that policies outlining student expectations and district operations were implemented. This piecemeal monitoring approach, however, led the Board to request a new format that considered a holistic picture of performance at each level (elementary, middle, and high). The transition from performance monitoring towards a systemic academic program evaluation resulted in a unique collaboration among evaluators, district administrators, and campus administrators who provided the Board an integrated, user-friendly report describing internal research on what matters most to student achievement at each level, evidence on programs that influence what matters, and plans for addressing what matters most effectively in the future. This session outlines the challenges and rewards of transitioning from monitoring to evaluation, and discusses the necessary relationship between the two.
|
|
The Utility of Situation Models for Capturing the Present State of a School-Wide Initiatives
|
| Presenter(s):
|
| Chad Green, Loudoun County Public Schools, chad.green@loudoun.k12.va.us
|
| Abstract:
Honig’s (2008) model of central offices as learning organizations suggests that administrators can cultivate six different school capacities regardless of the school’s level of engagement in teaching and learning practices (from expert to novice). These six capacities were aligned with the NSDC’s (2001) context standards to develop an exploratory conceptual framework that guided the collection, analysis, and interpretation of data from two school-wide initiatives at different stages of implementation. Each initiative served as a leverage point for documenting the coherence and alignment of the school’s program practices within the framework. The resulting situation models (Kintsch, 1988; van Dijk and Kintsch, 1983) revealed different patterns of interrelationships for each school that corresponded to their stage of program implementation.
|
| | | |