Aug
16
2009
uraimondo
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
11
2009
uraimondo
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4-94JhLEiN0
Go the link above to view the new wedding entrance set to the music of Forever by Chris Brown. This wedding took place in Minnesota, USA
Can you see the graduation class march in this same manner? Non- traditional, funny, inspiring, involved and partiscipatory. I loved it.
Aug
06
2009
uraimondo
Every year the school leadership at our BOCES changes. This is the normal turnover that takes place amongst Principals and Supervisors. This turnover is a result of retirements, staff taking positions in component school districts and others moving from one location/site to another. The vast spread of Erie 2 CC BOCES within Western New York allows for this geographical diversity and job relocation with respect to internal candidates. This same flexibilty is affored teachers as well as school support staff.
My colleague, Kevin Bourgoine who worked alongside me when he took ove r the Alternative Education postion at the Hewes Center will be moving to our satellite special education program based at Chautauqua Lake Central School. Kevin has replaced Jennifer Clark, former supervisor at Chautauqua Lake Central School who has moved to our LoGuidice Center Special Education program. LoGuidice Special Education programs were formerly supervised by Christine Burdick who has moved on to the Sherman School District to take over the Staff Development and Special Education supervisory role within that district. Joe Pagan, former Assistant Principal in the Jamestown School District, has assumed the title of Principal at the LoGuidice Center.
What do all these changes mean for program growth and instructional focus?
How does “new blood” infuse the leadership and organizational thinking which influences instructional performance and student achievement?
What do these leadership changes mean for the surrounding school districts that support BOCES programs?
These are just a few of the surface questions that come to mind when examining Leadership Transitions in any organization.
I am in the process of reading The 29% Solution by Ivan R. Misner, PhD and Michelle R. Donavan. This and other readings this summer will inform my thoughts on this subject.
Aug
03
2009
uraimondo
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.
A 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 Requirements 
Improvement 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?
Jul
30
2009
uraimondo
I am studying the readership of this blog via the clustermap that I have posted. Initially when I started this blog I intended it to be a communication tool with the faculty and staff
that I work with. My purpose was to encourage the development of classroom blogs increase the use of instructional blogging to improve students communication skills with
ineractive media. Today, in reviewing the readership of this blog, I want to reach out to the readership.
- What do you want to know about in terms of managing a school in New York State, in its broadest sense?
The above question is being addressed to readership throughtout the world. I do not mind what your current job is or whether you work in a school or not. Your questions need to be posted to this blog in the comments section and I will address them through my posts.
Bio
E-mail