Aug 28 2009
Intellectual property in schools ……………….
What is it?
Who defines it?
Who owns it?
Is it relevant in a virtual learning world?
Archive for the 'in-service for teachers' Category
Aug 16 2009
Drop out rate for students with disabilities – the case of New York
Thanks to Michelle Boutwell, SETRC trainer at Erie 2 CC BOCES who compiled the piece below.
State Performance Plan Indicator #2 addresses the drop out rate for students with disabilities. At the end of the first phase of our SPP, the expectation is that no more than 19.9% of SWDs will drop out (the bar will only get higher). When a district is targeted as being at risk or in need of intervention for SPP #1(graduation) and SPP#2, we focus our attention at all three levels of students’ school careers. We look for early warning signs at the elementary and middle school levels and target groups of students at the high school level who fall into the “at risk” category and see if we can keep them from jumping ship.
Here are some signs that you can look for in building risk profiles for your students: (2 or more research studies have supported these findings)
Elementary
• Low achievement (use universal screening data)
• Retention (student is older than his peers)
• Poor attendance
• Low socioeconomic status
Middle School
• High-risk peer group
• High-risk behavior
• Low achievement
• Retention (older than his peers)
• Poor attendance
• Low educational expectations from school personnel
• Low socioeconomic status
• High family mobility
• Low family expectations
• Low family contact with the school
• Low number of family centered conversations about school
High School
• High number of work hours
• Parenthood
• Low achievement
• Retention (older than his peers) 1 grade of retention increases the risk by 40%; 2 grades of retention increases the risk by 90%
• Attendance (Does your attendance policy contribute to low attendance?)
• Low educational expectations from the school
• Low commitment to school
• No extracurricular activity participation
• Misbehavior
• Low socioeconomic status
• Low education of parents
• Not living with both parents
• The top 5 reasons that students from ages 16-25 give for dropping out: (Rotermund, California Dropout Research Project, Statistical Brief #2, May 2007)
1. Classes not interesting 47%
2. Missed too many days of school 43%
3. Friends are not interested in school 42%
4. Excess freedom/too few life rules 38%
5. Failing school 35%
Once we identify the students who are at high risk of dropping out of school, our collective challenge is trying to prevent it. Between October 2005 and October 2006 enough students dropped out of US schools to fill 9, 690 school buses! Think about what that does to our country’s economic and health care challenges.
Check out the National Dropout Prevention Center Network at Clemson University for more information.
Aug 03 2009
Teacher Evaluations: Texas Case study
What do we as educators have as a come back when in the case of a Dallas school the majority of the teachers received a very high grade in their annual evaluations?
The Richardson Blog copied below provides keen insight into the quagmires faced by school administrators. I believe that teacher evaluations are a direct reflection of the school leader who sets goals at the beginning of the school year based on the school districts measurable objectives. All evaluations from those of the the support staff to those of the highest instructional leaders in the system should be measured against these set standards for growth, sustenance, outreach, etc.
|
Bio
E-mailA couple of months ago, the topic of teacher evaluations came up at another school district. So I asked the folks at RISD how they did it. I was told the district uses a system called Professional Development and Appraisal System (PDAS). It uses eight “domains” to group teachers into four categories. So I asked: How are teachers at specific schools doing? I was told: Hm. We’ve never looked at that. So I asked: Can you produce the data? The answer: Yup, for $88 of Uncle Belo’s money.
I got the data yesterday and will do more serious journalism about it anon. But my quick look reminds me of Garrison Keillor’s fictional Lake Wobegon: “Where all of the women are strong, all the men good-looking, and all the children are above average…”
No kidding, the data shows a bunch of teachers doing very well. I’ll dish a few details at the jump.
PDAS uses eight “domains”:
1) Active, Successful Student Participation in the Learning Process
2) Learner-centered Instruction
3) Evaluation and feedback on Student Progress
4) Management of Student Discipline, Instructional Strategies, Time/Materials
5) Professional Communication
6) Professional Development
7) Compliance with Policies, Operating Procedures and RequirementsImprovement of All Students’ Academic Performance
And it divides teachers into four categories: Exceeds expectations, proficient, below expectations, and unsatisfactory.
The data I have is divided by domain and by school, so I have 52 schools times 8 domains= 416 blocks of evaluations, that cover 2,346 teachers.
Only two teachers were considered “unsatisfactory” in any domain. One anonymous instructor at Dover Elementary ( I got no individual data) failed to make the grade in “Evaluation and feedback on Student Progress.” And one at Richardson North Junior High missed the mark at “Compliance with Policies, Operating Procedures and Requirements.”
No more than 41 teachers in the entire district ranked below “proficient” in any domain, and that was in “Compliance with Policies, Operating Procedures and Requirements.” For the math-challenged among us, that’s only 1.7%. For the domains that seem more closely yoked to actual instruction, the totals are about half that.
Twenty-three schools had no teachers ranked below “proficient” in any category.
These are pretty good results, to be sure. But are they realistic results? RISD has a good reputation, which doesn’t happen unless the teachers are pretty good.
A question for the assembled multitude: Based on your experience, are the teachers of RISD this good? And for you teachers: Do you think this evaluation system is fair and accurate?
Feb 27 2009
Self-Determination and Self-Advocacy: A curriculum for students
On February 2, 2009, Tom Duffy a trainer for the Model Transition Grant administered by the University of Buffalo, funded by New York State, visited the Hewes Center and conducted staff development around the topic of teaching self-determination and self-advocacy for students. Our Erie 2 CC BOCES is part of this grant which monitors the growth and progress of students with disabilities in terms of their post- secondary goals and transition to adulthood.
Our teachers were taught the meaning of self-determination and self-advocacy in light of life in general, their own needs and desires. Following this curriculum for this was discussed, shared and referenced.
The Hewes Center Special Education Team focused on indicator 13 and indicator 14. Summary conclusions included
1 all students grades 3-12+ will be invited to their CSE meetings.
2. Students will bring class work samples with them and will be schooled to speak about their future goals and ambitions.
3. Focusing on indicator 13 and 14 of the SED requirements that are now monitored for IEP development, students will be involved in the writing of their IEPs, understand what an IEP is and why they have one; know the difference between and IEP diploma and a Regents High School Diploma. These latter differences are a huge impact in terms of future employment and post-secondary training for students.
Nov 29 2008
High School’s change and its impact on schools
Open the link above to view a story of High School diplomas being awarded using the Internet. We have all heard of the Internet Universities that are becoming very popular because they are cheaper and more accessible to students, but high school? In W. New York we have rising numbers of students who are accessing college level courses via distance learning, while still in high school. Still other students are graduating simultaneously with high school diplomas and 2 years of college credit under their belt.
First set of Implications:
- Cost savings to college education ie. college level courses taught as electives to high school students
- The affect of public trust and tax payer funding of public school eduction versus college investment
- Are all teachers of high school prepared to teach this way? What particular skill sets are involved with this type of instruction?
- Is this type of virtual education one that will be recommended to certain types of students eg. advanced learners and denied others eg. special and alternative education.
- Curriculum course content exposure of high school student versus college student
- Teaching credentials of instructors
- Grade Inflation
- The impact of on-line high schools on discussions like regionalism and consolidation of schools in W. New York
- College level preparedness of students ie. their ability to access high end 4 year colleges as opposed to lower rated 4 year colleges.
