Your SlideShare is downloading. ×
Waddle Kam3application PDF
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in...5
×

Thanks for flagging this SlideShare!

Oops! An error has occurred.

×
Saving this for later? Get the SlideShare app to save on your phone or tablet. Read anywhere, anytime – even offline.
Text the download link to your phone
Standard text messaging rates apply

Waddle Kam3application PDF

476

Published on

Published in: Education
0 Comments
0 Likes
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Views
Total Views
476
On Slideshare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
0
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
5
Comments
0
Likes
0
Embeds 0
No embeds

Report content
Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

Cancel
No notes for slide

Transcript

  • 1. No Child Left Behind & Professional Development Prepared by Ann Waddle May 2007 (c) 2007 Ann Waddle 1
  • 2. Resources Information about NCLB is from documents available on-line (May 2007) unless otherwise noted on the slide. A complete list of resources is available at the end of the presentation. (c) 2007 Ann Waddle 2
  • 3. NCLB-systemic reform Include stakeholders Set goals Design and implement Review and revise (c) 2007 Ann Waddle NCLB is a model of reform based on the systems theory. Bertalanaffy, Banathy, and Laszlo are some of the classic systems theorists who were the first to suggest that the whole organization is more than just the pieces put together. The organization is also the interaction between all those pieces. Stakeholders, which for us would include teachers, parents, administrators, and community members, design the process. The process is not always to correct a problem, because when the problem is fixed—the organization collapses. Often the process is designed to achieve improvement, as in the case of NCLB. An integral part of the systems model is to incorporate feedback from the process to revise and refocus the design. 3
  • 4. All means all! All staff is trained to meet individual needs of all students, but particularly the lowest achieving students of any program that is included in the schoolwide program. (c) 2007 Ann Waddle So stakeholders….look at this statement from the Iowa State Department of Education, used in NCLB materials. ALL STAFF includes volunteers, principals, paraprofessionals, bus drivers, and lunch ladies in “all staff”! Time is one problem here, with having enough time to provide professional development for support staff a problem. Look at the rest of the sentence, too. Lowest achieving students of ANY program— so if a child is struggling in AR, in technology, in the after school program--we need to be sure to work to meet that child’s needs. 4
  • 5. Table Talk Take a few minutes to discuss with the others at your table the staff in your school responsible for working with the lowest achieving students. What training does this segment of your staff have? What professional development is provided for this staff? (c) 2007 Ann Waddle Is the person with the most training and expertise the person most often working with at-risk students, or do volunteers and EAs work with them often? Is there on- going training/professional development? Who plans in-service/staff development— who picks the topics? 5
  • 6. Professional Development High-quality On-going Across grade levels Teacher-generated Aligned with schoolwide program goals Research-based (c) 2007 Ann Waddle NCLB uses these terms to describe professional development. But what makes “high-quality” professional development? We might assume if it is on-going, across grade levels, and teacher generate, it would be high-quality, but are we sure☺ Also, we might infer that if professional development is aligned with schoolwide goals in Title I schools, it would be more effective. And how about research-based? What research is available? 6
  • 7. Who knew! The Role of Mentoring in Promoting Use of Research-based practices in Reading Comparing Four Literacy Reform Models in High Poverty Schools Teacher Quality and Students Placed At Risk Accountability by Design in Literacy Professional Development (c) 2007 Ann Waddle Here are a few of the articles used for background as this was created. The complete list is in your handout. Vaughn, S. & Coleman, M. (2004). The role of mentoring in promoting use of research-based practices in reading. Remedial and Special Education, 25(1), 25-38. Retrieved July 28, 2006, from Academic Search Premier database. Tivnan, T., & Hemphill, L. (2005). Comparing four literacy reform models in high- poverty schools: Patterns of first-grade achievement. The Elementary School Journal, 105(5), 419-441. Retrieved January 13, 2007, from Academic Search Premier database. Shen, J., Mansberger, N. B., & Yang, H. (2004). Teacher quality and students placed at risk: Results from the Baccalaureate and Beyond Longitudinal Study 1993-97. Educational Horizons, 82(3), 226-235. Retrieved April 14, 2007, from Academic Search Premier database. Kinnucan-Welsch, K., Rosemary, C. A., & Grogan, P. R. (2006). Accountability by design in literacy professional development. The Reading Teacher, 59(5), 426-35. Chard, D. (2004). Toward a science of professional development in early reading instruction. Exceptionality, 12(3), 175-191. Retrieved July 28, 2006, from Academic Premier Search database. 7
  • 8. Reflection Now take a few minutes to reflect on the professional development your school offers staff members who work with the lowest achieving students. Does the PD meet these criteria? High-quality On-going Across grade levels Teacher-generated Aligned with schoolwide program goals Research-based (c) 2007 Ann Waddle Have tables report out on how they support teacher-generated staff development, how it is on-going, how it is across grade levels/departments 8
  • 9. Research-based practices Experiment model Randomized Controlled trial Relevance to NCLB goals (c) 2007 Ann Waddle According to NCLB, these are the criteria for scientifically based research. You no doubt conducted research experiments at some point in your college career. Remember—you had to have a control group and an experimental group—and the participants needed to be randomly selected for each group. When studying education, however, this creates a dilemma for many researchers. Are you going to NOT use best practices in one group? Are you NOT going to provide on-going professional development for ½ the staff? And can you really create a matching population to mirror the faculty at Darden? Is there another school with the same mix of ethnicity and experience in the teaching staff? Very little research exists that fits this model. 9
  • 10. WWW.WHATWORKS.ED.GOV The US Dept. of Education has created a website that is a “Consumer Reports” for teachers. Beginning Reading, Elementary Math, ELL, and Early Childhood. (c) 2007 Ann Waddle The government has found 7 research reports that meet their criteria for beginning reading—that is, reading intervention for K-3, designed to increase skills in phonics, phonemic awareness, vocabulary, and comprehension. 5 reports on elementary math—that is math intervention designed for use in elementary schools with attention to student outcomes related to math achievement. 8 reports on ELL--intervention is offered to students in K-6 classrooms. In addition, curricula are being characterized based on whether they target special subpopulations of children (e.g., learning disabled, language impaired, ESL). The review could include studies in which students may no longer be considered limited English proficient by the school, but where students still possess limited English language skills. 8 reports on early childhood--designed for use in center-based settings with 3- to 5- year-old children who are not yet in kindergarten or children who are in preschool, with a primary focus on cognitive and language competencies associated with school readiness 10
  • 11. Scientifically-based RESEARCH Title II funds in the past have been used for disconnected, one-time workshops as well as for yearlong study groups focused on literacy. Little research is available on the outcomes of these. (c) 2007 Ann Waddle Only 28 reports met the criteria for early childhood and elementary. Nothing is posted for professional development. 11
  • 12. Highly-qualified Teachers Two conferences = doctoral degree 95% are highly qualified, but 25% are certified in content area. (c) 2007 Ann Waddle States have been allowed to set the criteria for “highly-qualified” teachers. Yet the standards vary dramatically. For instance in Georgia, attending 2 conferences is considered the same qualification as earning a doctoral degree. I attended a very effective conference for kindergarten teachers as well as a national reading association conference, but work on my doctoral degree is not at all the same. In Utah, 95% of teachers are considered highly-qualified, but only 25% of secondary school teachers in Utah are certified in the area they teach. If teachers are not certified in the area they are teaching, how can they be highly qualified? 12
  • 13. Highly-qualified Teachers High poverty vs. low poverty Urban vs. rural New teachers (c) 2007 Ann Waddle Peter Tuerk in 2005 found the number of highly qualified teachers is related to the level of poverty of students in a school, and is also connected to the community context—large city, small urban, or rural. Large city contexts had a much stronger negative relationship between quality teachers and percentage of students from poverty than rural contexts. Also, new teachers could be rated based on their college GPA, but when placed in high poverty schools and/or in urban settings, their performance was much lower than their GPA predicted. 13
  • 14. Subject-area knowledge Highly-qualified teachers with subject-area knowledge have a positive effect on student achievement. New teachers have a negative effect. (c) 2007 Ann Waddle Shen, Mansberger, and Yang published a report in 2004 based on information from 1993-1997. The results might be different now, after 5 years of NCLB, but they found a negative affect on student achievement from new teachers with varying qualities, such as college GPA and level of certification. What about Title I reading and math teachers? NCLB’s Toolkit for Teachers says “Such a teacher must pass a rigorous state test in the subject are OR demonstrate competency in that subject through the state’s high, objective, uniform state standard of evaluation (HOUSSE) procedures.” 14
  • 15. New Teachers On the other hand, new elementary school teachers must pass a rigorous state test in all areas of the elementary school curriculum. As a practical matter, most states are already requiring new teachers, whether generalists or specialists, to pass a general test before they can obtain full state certification. (c) 2007 Ann Waddle In these states, teachers who choose to pursue subject-area specializations will already have satisfied the requirements for being highly-qualified in elementary school. 15
  • 16. Table Talk Discuss with your colleagues how our state defines highly-qualified teacher criteria. Are all members of your staff highly- qualified? Did they all meet the same standard? How many new teachers are on your staff? Do you have many doctoral degrees on your staff? Do you have many who have attended 2 conferences? Who are you recruiting? (c) 2007 Ann Waddle Have tables report out on highly-qualified staff issues—how many have masters or doctoral candidates or degrees in your schools? What about para-professionals? How are they qualified? Title I reading and math teachers—how much experience, how many degrees? Pre-retirement role? 16
  • 17. NEXT STEPS… As you and your leadership team plan for professional development— (c) 2007 Ann Waddle 17
  • 18. Research Based www.whatworks.ed.gov (c) 2007 Ann Waddle 18
  • 19. Schoolwide Plan SIPS section 5 (c) 2007 Ann Waddle 19
  • 20. On-going Follow-up Regularly scheduled Documentation (c) 2007 Ann Waddle 20
  • 21. Teacher-generated Suggestion box SIPS input Grade-level… vertical- horizontal (c) 2007 Ann Waddle 21
  • 22. Resources Theorists for systems model Ludwig von Bertalanffy Banathy Laszlo Fullan Senge Also, a handout is available with all resources listed! (c) 2007 Ann Waddle In your handout—you have this list of resources that have been used in creating this presentation. Some have been highlighted that deal most specifically with professional development for literacy and for students living in poverty and/or at risk. Also, you have a copy of excerpts from some of these articles. Remember—these have been pulled out of context, but if you see something that interests you, I’ll be glad to help you locate the entire document. 22
  • 23. Resources on professional development Anderson, B. T.; Brown, C. L.; Lopez-Ferrao, J. (2003) Systemic reform: Good educational practice with positive impacts and unresolved problems and issues. Review of Policy Research, 20 (4), 617-627. Birman, B. F. & Porter, A. C. (2002). Evaluating the effectiveness of education funding streams. Peabody Journal of Education, (77)4, 59-85. Retrieved April 12, 2007, from Academic Premier Search database. Brownell, M. T., Adams, A., Sindelar, P. , Waldron, N., and Vanhover, S. (2006) Learning from Collaboration: The Role of Teacher Qualities. Exceptional Children, 72(2), 169-185. Retrieved April 14, 2007, from Academic Premier Search database. Chard, D. (2004). Toward a science of professional development in early reading instruction. Exceptionality, 12(3), 175-191. Retrieved July 28, 2006, from Academic Premier Search database. Dole, J. A., Liang, L. A., Watkins, N. M., & Wiggins, C. M. (2006). The state of reading professionals in the United States. Reading Teacher, 60(2), 194-199. Gersti-Pepin, C. I. & Woodside-Jiron, H. (2005). Tensions between the “science” of reading and a “love of learning”: One high- poverty school’s struggle with NCLB. Equity & Excellence in Education, 38, 232-241. Retrieved April 14, 2007, from Academic Search Premier database. Hirsh, S. (2005). Professional development and closing the achievement gap. Theory Into Practice, 44(1), 38-44. Retrieved July 17, 2006, from Academic Premier Search database. Kinnucan-Welsch, K., Rosemary, C. A., & Grogan, P. R. (2006). Accountability by design in literacy professional development. The Reading Teacher, 59(5), 426-35. Porter-Magee, K. (2004). Teacher quality, controversy, and NCLB. Clearing House, 78(1), 26-29. Retrieved April 10, 2007, from Academic Premier Search database. Rhodes, C. S., Wolf, L. B., and Rhodes, G. J. (2005). “Professional Development Laboratory: Center for Literacy and Community Services”. Journal of Children and Poverty, 11(1), 77-85. Shen, J., Mansberger, N. B., & Yang, H. (2004). Teacher quality and students placed at risk: Results from the Baccalaureate and Beyond Longitudinal Study 1993-97. Educational Horizons, 82(3), 226-235. Retrieved April 14, 2007, from Academic Search Premier database. Thornton, B., Peltier, G., & Perreault, G. (2004). Systems thinking: A skill to improve student achievement. Clearing House, 77(5), 222-227. Tivnan, T., & Hemphill, L. (2005). Comparing four literacy reform models in high-poverty schools: Patterns of first-grade achievement. The Elementary School Journal, 105(5), 419-441. Retrieved January 13, 2007, from Academic Search Premier database. Tuerk, P. W. (2005). Research in the high-stakes era: Achievement, resources, and No Child Left Behind. Psychological Science, 16(6), 419-425. Retrieved April 14, 2007, from Academic Search Premier database. United States Department of Education (March 2006). Designing schoolwide programs: Non-regulatory guidance. Retrieved May 11, 2007, from http://www.ed.gov/policy/elsec/guid/edpicks.jhtml?src=ln Vaughn, S. & Coleman, M. (2004). The role of mentoring in promoting use of research-based practices in reading. Remedial and Special Education, 25(1), 25-38. Retrieved July 28, 2006, from Academic Search Premier database. Walpole, S., Justice, L. M., & Invernizzi, M. A. (2004). Closing the gap between research and practice: Case study of school-wide literacy reform. Reading & Writing Quarterly, 20, 261-283. Retrieved on July 15, 2006, from Academic Premier Search. (c) 2007 Ann Waddle 23
  • 24. Resources on background of NCLB and systems model of change Banathy, B. H. (1996) Designing social systems in a changing world. New York: Plenum Press. Bertalanffy, L. von (1968) General system theory: Foundations, development, applications, (rev. ed). New York: George Braziller. Fullan, M. (2001). Leading in a culture of change. New York: Jossey-Bass. Hoff, D. & Manzo, K. (2007) Bush claims about NCLB questioned. Education Week, 26(27). Retrieved June 25, 2007 from Academic Search Premier database. Laszlo, E. (1996) The systems view of the world: A holistic vision for our time. Cresskill, NJ: Hampton Press, Inc. Senge, P. M. (2006) The fifth discipline: The art and practice of the learning organization. New York: Currency-Doubleday. Sternberg, R. (1997, March). What does it mean to be smart? [Electronic version]. Educational Leadership, 54(6), 20-24. United States Department of Education (March 2006). Designing schoolwide programs: Non-regulatory guidance. Retrieved March 10, 2007, from http://www.ed.gov/policy/elsec/guid/edpicks.jhtml?src=ln United States Department of Education, (n.d.) A capsule view of the history of federal education legislation(pdf). Retrieved March 10, 2007, from http://www.ed.gov/policy/gen/leg/edpicks.jhtml?src=ln Whitehouse, 2007. Building on results: A blueprint for strengthening NCLB. Retrieved March 17, 2007, from http://www.whitehouse.gov/stateoftheunion/2007/initiatives/education.html (c) 2007 Ann Waddle 24

×