ILD: Reflections from the TEC

I’m taking my ILD course to earn a mid management (principal) certification in Texas. As part of one of the assignments, I had to reflect on parts of the Texas Education Code. The section below contains my reflections.

Reflections on the Texas Education Code

Campus Planning and Decision-Making TEC 11.253, 11.254

The mandate that each school creates and uses a site-based decision-making committee supports student achievement by democratizing, at least to some extent, the critical decisions a campus makes to promote student achievement, involving representative stakeholders from among teachers, parents, administration and the community. The committee is charged with developing a campus improvement plan that outlines goals to promote student achievement and ties them to financial and personnel resources and mandates that schools measures progress toward the achievement of these goals. To the extent that a school uses this system with fidelity, the obvious benefits of having SMART goals, measurable progress, multiple sources of data, and stakeholder input will augment and focus the school’s efforts to be more successful.

Teacher Appraisal TEC 21.351, 21.352 and  Administrator Appraisal TEC 21.354

The teacher and administrator appraisal system is quite simply a means by which the SBOE attempts to make sure that our students have the highest quality teachers and administrators working to promote student achievement. This area is fraught with political and ideological controversy, which is not surprising given how vague this section of the TEC outlines expectations for districts. However, Texas has a long tradition of respecting LEAs and the wording of this section may be a reflection of that philosophy.

Professional Development TEC 21.451 and Assessment of Academic Skills 39.023, 39.0231, 39.024

The professional development section of the TEC is short and sweet. It directly states that the goal of PD is to improve education in the district, thus supporting student achievement. The LEA is able to determine the focus of PD as it relates to the needs of students in their district, but the SBOE does provide suggestions including technology, classroom management or working with students with disabilities. The SBOE does state that professional development may not violate the law, including Supreme Court rulings.

Standardized testing is a highly political issue with opinions ranging from the US Dept. of Education and NCLB to local groups of parents who believe it is legal for them to have their children “opt out” of standardized testing all together. Not surprisingly, this section of the TEC is very detailed. By carefully outlining requirements for standardized testing, the SBOE supports student achievement by creating a set of criteria for the whole state to aspire toward achieving. If each LEA were allowed to develop its own criteria, as in the case of the recent survey requirements of HB 5, then all districts would be highly rated, even if the students were genuinely struggling in a district with little or no educational supports. Obviously, standardized testing can be overly used and emphasized. Finding an optimal balance that supports achievement, satisfies national and state legislators, and allows students and teachers to focus on learning the goals and objectives in the TEKS rather than “teaching to the test” is something that we have yet to find.

Curriculum/TEKS 28.001, 28.002

This section of the TAC provides the “nuts and bolts” that guides what is being taught in classrooms across the state. This section provides general subject area requirements which are then further specified into a series of goals, objectives, and performance indicators for every class taught in the state. This section outlines not only core academic subjects that must be taught, but also elective and enrichment courses designed to help students develop into well rounded adults. A series of clarifications follow which further state that districts may allow for independent study, substitue ASL as a foreign language, provide for daily physical activity, and provide Career and Technology Education, to name a few.

Preconceived Stereotypes in Training

With all the discussion in the media lately about prejudice, racism and bias, I thought it might be good to reflect on my own biases and preconceived notions when training others. The longer I work with groups of people the easier it is to develop preconceived notions. For technology training it’s not so much about race or gender as it is age. I’ve always assumed that if you remember 8 track tapes (like me), then you will have a harder time or even be resistant to #EdTech professional development.

Raise your hand if you know what this is?

A couple of weeks ago, I was conducting a training in Kansas to a group of teachers new to #EdTech in general. They had been issued their devices a week prior and my task was to help bring them up to speed. In this particular group of teachers was a veteran teacher of 52 years in the classroom. He sat up front next to his principal. I immediately identified him in my mind as a person likely in need of some additional assistance. To be honest, I had already decided that what he gets from our training might be very limited. He’s significantly older and that automatically means he will struggle and perhaps give up in frustration.

For the record… I was totally wrong!

This gentleman was a delight and continues to be an inspiration to me personally. Yes, he struggled. What’s amazing is that he never wavered. He never said, “I can’t do it.” He never let the person next to him “take over” and do things for him. He never gave up.

As he left the training room, he took time to thank me and let me know how much he enjoyed it. The last thing he said to me was, “I don’t have all this down right now, but if you come back in a year, I’ll be great at it!”

This experience reminded me that people can continue to surprise, challenge, educate and even delight you. It’s one of the most enjoyable aspects of training and teaching in general. I can only hope and pray that after 52 years in the business to still have such an amazing attitude and enthusiasm about learning.

Effective Teacher Professional Development Occurs on the Job or in Job-Embedded Training

On the job or job-embedded training

Who hasn’t attended a tech workshop at a conference, been all fired up to implement some of the new ideas, only to have difficulty making them work in the classroom? The closer that a training is to the context, location, and need of the teacher, the more likely that learning will be generalized and extend into actual classroom practice. Professional development needs to be part of the teacher’s daily schedule during class time or prep time. Big ideas and big changes are hard to implement. A series of baby steps leading, when followed consistently, up to that same change are much easier to accomplish.

Professional Development also need to be monitored and followed up on to ensure fidelity. You treasure what you measure and a an admin is only as good as his/her follow through. Some teachers will naturally gravitate toward improvement and change, while others will need the occasional nudge to embrace a culture of PD and growth.

Say what you like about the tenets of [professional development], at least it’s an ethos.

Effective Teacher Professional Development is Shaped by Data

 Shaped by Data

Teacher professional development, like anything these days, has been shown to be more effective if it is based on data. Data driven goals and objectives can form the subject or basis of PD and help make that connection between professional practice and student need. In Texas, I particularly like the work of Ervin Knezek and the Lead4ward team in this area. What they have done is to help school districts by developing templates and models which can be used to disaggregate data to identify what teachers need to know and what students need help learning. He additionally identifies “process standards” that target a number of student objectives. These standards can be adapted quite easily for project based learning. His work, though specific to Texas, can be contextually extended to Common Core in that you must triage your goals based on data into what the teachers need to work on through PLCs or PD, what the students need additional help and support to increase achievement, and what (in my opinion) can be strategically targeted for adaptation or adoption of 21st Century Skills.

No, Donny, these men are nihilists, there’s nothing to be afraid of.

 

Effective Teacher PD Must Be Connected to Practice, Pedagogy, and Content

Connected to classroom practice, pedagogy, and content

This seems self evident, but I’ve attended many PD sessions and have heard feedback from colleagues who attended tech trainings that were not explicitly targeted to their classroom practice, pedagogy and content. The TPACK framework is a good visual model of how the areas of technology, pedagogy, and content area knowledge intersect to form tech rich classroom practice. Many effective trainings will fall into intersections of any two of these three elements. It helps teachers to know during and in advance of training which areas are targeted.

Too often technology PD falls into what I classify as a “spray and pray” category where skills are broadly covered in the hopes that teachers will adopt one or more practices they view. Based on my experience, this doesn’t work very well at all. If you truly want to change teacher practice, PD needs to occur in the context of where they work, classroom or in the school, and it has to focus on issues immediately relevant to them.

The following two coaching roles or strategies as defined by ISTE will help to establish relevancy to the teachers’ needs:

• Providing just-in-time, just enough advice or training on teaching strategies, or integrating technology.
• Co-planning technology-rich, active, engaging learning activities with collaborating teachers.

 

There are a variety of other coaching roles or strategies but these seem to be a good starting point for teachers who are newer to technology integration. Focus on student outcomes and achievement works better once a basic level of proficiency has been achieved and the teacher sees positive benefits of adding these methods of instruction.