Successfully reported this slideshow.
We use your LinkedIn profile and activity data to personalize ads and to show you more relevant ads. You can change your ad preferences anytime.

Analyzing Change: Learnia Implementation at the Elementary Level


Published on

by Jennifer Morris

Published in: Education, Technology
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

Analyzing Change: Learnia Implementation at the Elementary Level

  1. 1. Analyzing Change: Learnia Implementation at the Elementary Level Jennifer Morris Rutgers University
  2. 2. ContextContext • Suburban K-8 school district – At time of initiative: District Factor Grouping (DFG) of I • 3 elementary schools • 1 middle school • Poor NJASK scores in Language Arts (LA) and Math at grade levels 3-8
  3. 3. Leadership StructureLeadership Structure Technology Director Supervisor of Special Education Middle School Vice Principal Middle School Principal Elementary Principals (3 in total) Assistant Superintendent for Curriculum and Instruction Director of Bulidings and Grounds Director of Transportation Business Administrator/ Board Secretary Director of School Aged Child Care Superintendent
  4. 4. The ChangeThe Change • Learnia – Software – Aimed at improving NJASK scores • Learnia data is a predictor of NJASK performance – Pre and Post test format • October/November • March/April
  5. 5. Program TimelinesProgram Timelines Year 1 Elementary Implementation Timeline September 2009 Program Adoption Teachers Told by Principals PD for Program Provided the Next Day September 2009 First and Only PD Session (30 minutes) Presented by Technology Teacher in Each Building End of October 2009 All Elementary Students Take Pre-Test November 2009 All Elementary Teachers Given 1/2 Day Release Time to Grade Language Arts Open-Ended Questions w/ the Assistant Superintendent End of November 2009 Teachers to Imput all Scores from Open-Ended LA Responses into District's Learnia Database for Future Analysis and Use December 2009 Supposed to Begin Data Informed LA Instruction Based on Learnia Data Gathered in November March/April 2010 Students Take Learnina LA Posttest March/April 2010 Grade Open-Ended LA Reponses without Relase Time and Imput Data into District's Database Year 2 Proposed Implementation at Elementary Level These steps did not occur in my building October/November 2010 Students to take both Math and LA Pretest in School Computer Labs at Their Own Pace and Time November/December 2010 Teachers are to Score All LA Open-Ended Questions and All Open-Ended Math Questions No Release Time Granted December 2010 All Student Open-Ended Learnia Data to be Entered into District's Database March/April 2011 Students to take Both Math and LA Posttest in School Computer Labs at Own Pace and Time April 2011 Teachers are to Score All LA Open-Ended Questions and All Math Open-Ended Questions No Relase Time Granted April 2011 All Student Open-Ended Learnia Data to be Entered inro District's Database Year 3 Proposed Implementation at Elementary Level ? ? ?
  6. 6. Program OutcomesProgram Outcomes • No Impact on Instructional Techniques – Data not influencing practice • Time Taken Away from Teacher Planning – Individuals and Teams • Increased Teacher Frustration • Elementary Schools’ Implementation Different than Middle School’s Implementation • Teachers Left Hanging – Sense of helplessness increased
  7. 7. DiagnosisDiagnosis • Lack of Communication – Where’s the Guiding Idea/Vision? • No Formal Support System – Lack of Extensive Professional Development – Supplied Teachers with 1/2 Day of Release Time • Denied teachers who asked for another 1/2 day of release time during year 2 of plan – Teachers Were Unable to Develop Shared Meaning • Inconsistent Implementation Strategies – Local Level • Elementary Schools • Middle School • Lack of Accountability---All Levels – No Data Discussions – No Check-ins – No Real Plan • Capacity to Implement Plan was not in Place
  8. 8. PrescriptionPrescription • Initiation-- Plan to Build Capacity – Create a feasible program implementation timeline – Check that technology is available to successfully implement program – Ensure that teachers know what data informed decision making is – Create a PD plan • Schedule teacher release time • Extensive training on how to implement program and use data it provides • Review NJASK holistic scoring rubric for NJASK (LA and Math)
  9. 9. PrescriptionPrescription • Implementation--Communicate, Model, Support, and Accountability – Communicate • Reason for initiative • Ultimate goal (vision) • Action Plan – Model • How to use data • How to score LA and Math open-ended questions using NJASK Holistic Scoring Rubric • Data discussions in small and large groups – Support • Teachers and Building Administrators – PD activities – Reaching out – Being present in classrooms during testing and scoring – Accountability • Establish benchmarks for teachers, administrators, and students to reach every year • Examine teacher and school databases – Use data during discussions
  10. 10. PrescriptionPrescription • Institutionalization-- Continued Communication and Training – Continued Communication • Consistent dialogue between central office, building administrators, and teachers – Goals (Vision) – Accountability Measures – Continued Training • Establish a plan so new teachers and administrators can learn about the process, why it is important, and how to implement it effectively