star chart

401 views
307 views

Published on

0 Comments
0 Likes
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Views
Total views
401
On SlideShare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
10
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
2
Comments
0
Likes
0
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide

star chart

  1. 1. TEXAS STaR Chart <br />Creekview Middle School Findings<br />Eagle Mountain-Saginaw ISD<br />
  2. 2. Agenda<br />Introduction<br />What is a Star Chart<br />STaR Chart Components<br />Classifications<br />Overall Results<br />Conclusion<br />
  3. 3. Introduction<br />Mary Craft<br />6th/7th Grade Science teacher<br />Creekview Middle School<br />
  4. 4. What is a STaR Chart?<br />It is designed to help campuses evaluate progress toward short and long term technology goals.<br />Teachers on every campus complete a STaR Chart at the end of every school year.<br />The data is published by the state and school districts can evaluate the results.<br />Star Chart Website<br />
  5. 5. Four Components of the STaR Chart<br />Teaching and Learning<br />Educator Preparation and Development<br />Leadership, Administration and Instructional Support<br />Infrastructure for Technology<br />
  6. 6. Classifications<br />Four Levels:<br />Early Tech<br />Developing Tech<br />Advanced Tech<br />Target Tech<br />
  7. 7. Teaching and Learning Assesses…<br />Patterns of classroom use<br />Frequency and design of instructional setting<br />Content area connections<br />Technology Application TEKS Implementation<br />Student mastery of technology applications<br />Online Learning<br />
  8. 8. Creekview’s Results<br />
  9. 9. Interpretation of Results<br />Only a one point increase in teaching and learning<br />More progress needs to be made<br />Higher level thinking skills needed<br />
  10. 10. Educator Preparation and Development Assesses. . . <br />Content of professional development<br />Models of professional development<br />Capabilities of educators<br />Access to professional development<br />Levels of understanding<br />Access to online learning<br />
  11. 11. Creekview’s Results<br />
  12. 12. Interpretation of Results<br />Educator preparation has decreased over the past four years.<br />To improve we must:<br />Have more professional development in technology<br />Increase higher level thinking skills<br />
  13. 13. Leadership, Administration and Instructional Support Assesses. . . <br />Leadership and vision<br />Planning<br />Instructional Support<br />Communication and Collaberation<br />Budget<br />Leadership and support for online learning<br />
  14. 14. Creekview’s Results<br />
  15. 15. Interpretation of Results<br />Overall show 4 points of improvement<br />Almost at Target Tech level<br />To advance to target tech we must: <br />Collaborate<br />Use various media formats<br />Use budget to meet all technology strategies<br />
  16. 16. Infrastructure for Technology Assesses. . . <br />Students per computer<br />Internet Access<br />Other Classroom technology<br />Technical support<br />LAM and WAM<br />Distance Learning Capacity<br />
  17. 17. Creekview’s Results<br />
  18. 18. Interpretation of Results<br />We are improving slightly<br />Almost at Target Tech level<br />To get to Target Tech we must:<br />1 to 1 access for students and computers<br />Have fully equipped technological classrooms<br />Have technical support with a ratio of 1:350<br />
  19. 19. Overall Results for CMS<br />2008-2009 2007-2008 2006-2007<br />
  20. 20. STaR Chart Conclusion<br />We still have work to do<br />1st Area of focus should be teaching and learning<br />2nd Area of focus should be Educator Preparation and Development<br />We can reach Target Tech in all four areas!<br />

×