Policy studies for education leaders Exercises Chapter 11.

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
Subchapter M-Indian Self- Determination and Education Assistance Act Program Part 273-Education Contracts under Johnson-OMalley Act.
Advertisements

Migrant Education Comprehensive Needs Assessment
Parents as Partners in Education
Help! They Don’t Speak English:
The Anatomy of Systemic Support for Immersion Programs.
Dr. Elena Izquierdo UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS AT EL PASO
ELL Reading Committee 1 School House Road Reading, PA x321 Improving Reading Performance for ABC School District Presented to: ABC.
Looking into the relationship between teacher and principal evaluation
1 Program Improvement Update Foundations for writing the LEA Addendum.
A Team Effort To Develop A Successful Program For English Language Learners Irene Jiménez Director of Bilingual/ESL Programs Hays CISD
1 Referrals, Evaluations and Eligibility Determinations Office of Vocational and Educational Services for Individuals with Disabilities Special Education.
No Child Left Behind The Basics Of Title 1 Every Child - Now! Focus on the critical nature of doing what’s right and what’s needed – today - to help every.
Context for El Paso’s K-16 Partnership K-12 Enrollment in twelve El Paso area school districts:167,269 Ethnic breakdown of student enrollment: Hispanic:88.1%
Texas Administrative Code (TAC), Title 19, Part II Chapter 89. Adaptations for Special Populations, Subchapter BB. Commissioner's Rules Concerning State.
Developing Literacy in English- language Learners: Key Issues and Promising Practices Diane August David Francis Claude Goldenberg Timothy Shanahan.
How to Write Goals and Objectives
Carey Walden. The problem Reading = foundation for Language Arts, Critical Thinking, history, the sciences, and much more Urban environments= stressful,
ESL English as a Second Language Virginia Road Elementary School Prepared by: Laura Kulers Mrs. Ada Jimenez-Parker, Principal Dr. Diane Ramos-Kelly, Superintendent.
Flexible Scheduling Improving Student Learning Through Expanded Use of the Library Media Center Library Media Center Mr. Brown's class enters Mrs. Smith's.
Forming Disciples for the New Evangelization: Archdiocesan Religion Curriculum Guide Session II: Curriculum Design and Purpose Dr. Harry J. Dudley Introduction.
Striving Readers Comprehensive Literacy Program (SRCL) SRCL is a comprehensive literacy development education program to advance literacy skills for students.
INTRODUCTION: TODAY’S LESSON  Good evening everyone. My name is Amaryllis Monroig-Velez. Hello everyone. My name Tahmeena. Good evening everyone. My name.
TIMELESS LEARNING POLICY & PRACTICE. JD HOYE President National Academy Foundation.
Student Assessment Inventory for School Districts Context setting, assessment scenarios, and communications.
Curriculum & Alignment Institute Susan McCauley, Ph.D.
A better place to live Parents’ Reading Meeting Developing reading skills through home languages.
PREPARED BY DR. HAROLD SMITH EDAD 5399 Bilingual/ESL Education.
Planning for Secondary Growth DIPBLE nvironments CCRCTEL earning 2014RISDF lexible September 22, 2014.
The 100 Day Transition Report. Objectives  Review Guiding Beliefs  Discuss 100 Day Activities  Discuss Findings  Discuss Next Steps.
MSAD # PROPOSED BUDGET. MSAD #11 District Goals The budget was developed to ensure implementation of the district goals and to prepare students.
One Voice – One Plan Office of Education Improvement and Innovation MI-CSI: Do Stage Implement Plan and Monitor Plan.
Listening, Learning, and Leading Emmanuel Caulk August 24, 2015.
Families as Partners in Learning Principals and teaching staff Why are partnerships important?
TEXAS LITERACY INITIATIVE.  San Antonio Independent School District (SAISD) will partner with an approved service provider to deliver literacy readiness.
Lincoln Spanish Immersion Parent Presentation. General Information Approved on May 21, 2012 First day of school September 4, 2012 K-1 classroom 21 students.
From Research to Reality: How to Start an Elementary World Language Program in Your District Mandy Madderom Gina Pagel Waunakee Community School District.
AGENDA  A teacher’s perspective  Barb Schmidt Stevens High School  Acacia Trevillyan South Park Elementary  Review steps to create a quality CFA 
Targeted Assistance Programs: Requirements and Implementation Spring Title I Statewide Conference May 15, 2014.
STUDENT SUPPORT SERVICES The “Tween” Years — Increasing Academic Rigor Administrators’ Management Meeting for Exceptional Education and Student Services.
Dual Language Program Parent Orientation New Caney ISD
Title I Schoolwide Program Proposal for Change. What is Title I  Title I — A Federal Program with the goal of Improving The Academic Achievement Of the.
Superintendent’s Entry Plan Dr. Lory D. Morrow. Dr. Lory Morrow will begin serving as superintendent of Davidson County Schools on January 1, The.
FEBRUARY KNOWLEDGE BUILDING  Time for Learning – design schedules and practices that ensure engagement in meaningful learning  Focused Instruction.
Putting It All Together Diane Gross USD 261 8/11/06.
EDU 385 CLASSROOM ASSESSMENT Week 1 Introduction and Syllabus.
Family Literacy What is Family Literacy? Family Literacy Programs are designed to demonstrate the importance of reading at a basic level. Programs may.
1 RESPONSE TO INSTRUCTION ________________________________ RESPONSE TO INTERVENTION New Opportunities for Students and Reading Professionals.
CUSD TWO-WAY SPANISH/ENGLISH IMMERSION PROGRAM Report to the Governing Board May 10, 2012.
“A Truthful Evaluation Of Yourself Gives Feedback For Growth and Success” Brenda Johnson Padgett Brenda Johnson Padgett.
High Schools That Work An evidence-based design for improving the nation’s schools and raising student achievement.
Dual HPS. Welcome! Thanks for being here.
The Comprehensive Literacy Plan Pennsylvania KeystonestoOpportunity Tom Corbett Governor Ron Tomalis Secretary.
Diocese of Fort Worth Curriculum Development Process Professional Development Evaluation Report EDU: Dr. Ballenger Authors: Pamela Cooper, Charlene.
Chapter 11 POLICY EVALUATION: DETERMINING IF POLICY WORIIS.
Administrator-Association Collaboration-from MOUs to Problem-solving SIOUX CITY COMMUNITY SCHOOL DISTRICT.
Dr. Vashti K. Washington Superintendent of Schools Presented by Dr. A. Lee Holmes Chief Officer of Academics and Human Resources September 9, Presented.
Key Stage 3: The Wasted Years? Ofsted September 2015 and follow up survey (September 2015 – still to be published) of transition arrangements.
About District Accreditation Mrs. Sanchez & Mrs. Bethell Rickards Middle School
Office of Service Quality
Office of Service Quality
Benefits of Culturally and Linguistically Diverse Classrooms
Second Language Acquisition Important points to remember.
“ Language Maintenance versus Language of Instruction: Spanish Reading Development among Latino and Latina Bilingual Learners” Authors: C. Patrick Proctor,
PENFIELD CENTRAL SCHOOL DISTRICT: K-5 LITERACY CURRICULUM AUDIT Presented by: Dr. Marijo Pearson Assistant Superintendent for Curriculum, Instruction,
Response to Intervention (RtI) Aldine ISD District Staff Development August 18, 2009.
Home Reading Language Project Developing reading skills through home languages Miss Lee, Mrs Byfield & Mrs Motala 20 th November 2015.
SCEP Evaluation Albany Elementary School.
St. John’s International School
Taylor ISD Title I Parent Meeting
Parental Involvement Sharing “Small Wins” Yolanda Wilson
Presentation transcript:

Policy studies for education leaders Exercises Chapter 11

1. Questions and activities for discussion 1.1 Discuss why people feel nervous about evaluations. 1.2 Find an evaluation that used quantitative methods and one that used qualitative ones. What methods of each type were used? Contrast the kinds of information yielded by each approach. 1.3 Find an evaluation report and evaluate it, using the criteria discussed in this chapter. 1.4 List the evaluation and monitoring techniques used by your SDE and identify the major indicators. Do they distort the behavior of your state’s educators in any way? How would you improve them?

Case-study: The middle school proposal goes down in flames A school superintendent decided to evaluate the curriculum and organization of the district’s junior high schools (grades 7-9) and formed a panel of evaluators consisting of the elementary, junior high, and senior high school principals and a teacher at each level. They were requested to complete a written report for the superintendent within five weeks of commencing the evaluation.

The panel prepared the report for the superintendent based on their own know beliefs about the school system and its needs, supplemented by limited staff and student perceptions collected with a survey instrument.

Included in the report were sections on academic achievement of local junior high school pupils, national trends in junior high school organization (stressing the advantages of the middle school concept), present and projected enrollments, gaps in the junior high school curriculum, and the physiological and social development of students in the junior high age group. The report recommended that the school system shift to a middle school organization, with grades 6, 7, and 8 in the middle schools, and grade 9 going to the senior high schools.

When the report was published, elementary and senior high parents were disturbed that specific concerns of theirs had not been addressed in the report. Elementary parents, especially, ere upset about the prospect of the loss of the school leadership provided by sixth-grade students.

They suggested, among other things, that many parents looked to sixth graders to escort their younger children safely to and from school. Senior high parents were alarmed at the potential overcrowding that would be brought about by the addition of grade-9 students.

Representatives of both parent groups complained to the school board. The board itself was irritated because the report did not assess the disadvantages and cost implications of the suggested reorganization and the advantages and disadvantages of other possible organizational changes. The board supported the parent groups and rejected the middle school concept.

Questions: 1. Using the criteria provided in this chapter, what were the weaknesses of this evaluation? 2. If you had been a member of the school board, how would you have voted on the panel’s recommendation? Why? 3. What could the superintendent have done to encourage a more credible evaluation? What could the panel of evaluators have done? 4. Reading between the lines, how do you think that the politics of evaluation affected this situation?

3.News story for analysis: District believes in bilingual education Austin, TX-Any time a school administration undertakes significant change, rumors and half-truths inevitably circulate. As expected, this has occurred with the launching of the Austin Independent School District’s blueprint to address the needs of chronically under-performing schools. Among the current rumors and half- truths, the notion has surfaced that this administration does not support bilingual education.

As the district administrators responsible for bilingual education, we want to lay that idea to rest right now. Make no mistake-AISD unequivocally supports effective bilingual education as the best means to successfully educate students who speak little or no English.

Our philosophy is based on several important tenets: The primary language is the most powerful tool a student has to attain full intellectual and social development. The patterns of the language learned at home are the foundation for academic achievement in all-English classrooms. The use of the primary language to develop vocabulary, comprehension and the mechanics of language in bilingual education and in English as a second language programs are powerful in raising academic achievement.

Fluency and literacy in the native language commensurate with a child’s age is vital for academic success in the second language. We can’t be any more straight- forward than that. That’s what we believe, and that’s what we practice every day in our 575 bilingual classrooms.

Undoubtedly, the cause of the recent confusion has been a misunderstanding by some members of the Harris Elementary community. A number of teachers at Harris practiced a dual-language bilingual education program, this year, funded by an outside grant.

We aren’t opposed to a dual-language approach in which Spanish speakers learn English and English speakers learn Spanish-if it is done well. Success requires every child to have both a command of their home language and to be on grade level in literacy skills in the native language if they are to fully benefit from the second language.

We’ve engaged national experts in bilingual education and literacy, Dr. Alba Ortiz of the University of Texas and Dr. Diane August of the Center for Applied Linguistics, to work with our staff in analyzing the dual-language program at Harris, and to suggest ways to make it more effective for the school year, the last year of the grant. Review of the dual- language program evaluation revealed no single, comprehensive, cohesive approach to implementation being used at Harris.

A number of dual-language approaches were being used with varying degrees of effectiveness. There was also no continuity from grade to grade. A significant number of students were performing below grade level in their native language because they weren’t given the opportunity to have a good, solid basis for literacy before going to a second language. They, therefore, weren’t developing their literacy in either language.

We believe a dual-language approach can be effective if properly applied. We want to establish the efficacy of dual- language programs. We certainly don’t want them to fail. There are several sound approaches to bilingual education, but they must be properly implemented. That’s out bottom line. We believe in bilingual education. But we believe in doing it well, so that all our students attain great academic success, opening up worlds of opportunity for them in their adult lives.

Questions : 1. What problems did the evaluation of the dual-language program at Harris reveal? 2. Was the evaluation summative or formative? 3. What players in this evaluation arena can you identify? What other players may be involved? 4. What tactics have the implementers used to discredit the evaluation?