Creekview Middle School's STaR Chart results from 2005-2009 are summarized as follows: 1) The school scored in the "Developing Tech" range for Teaching and Learning and saw only a one point increase over three years, indicating more progress is needed in higher-level technology skills. 2) Educator Preparation scores decreased over four years, suggesting more professional development and higher-level thinking skills training are required. 3) Leadership/Support scores were in the "Advanced Tech" range but could be improved through increased collaboration and use of various media/budgets. 4) Infrastructure scores improved slightly but need 1:1 student access, fully equipped classrooms, and better technical support

1. Creekview Middle School Findings Eagle Mountain-Saginaw ISD

2. Agenda Introduction What is a Star Chart STaR Chart Components Classifications Overall Results Conclusion

3. Introduction Mary Craft 6 th /7 th Grade Science teacher Creekview Middle School

4. What is a STaR Chart? It is designed to help campuses evaluate progress toward short and long term technology goals. Teachers on every campus complete a STaR Chart at the end of every school year. The data is published by the state and school districts can evaluate the results. Star Chart Website

5. Four Components of the STaR Chart Teaching and Learning Educator Preparation and Development Leadership, Administration and Instructional Support Infrastructure for Technology

6. Classifications Four Levels: Early Tech Developing Tech Advanced Tech Target Tech

7. Teaching and Learning Assesses… Patterns of classroom use Frequency and design of instructional setting Content area connections Technology Application TEKS Implementation Student mastery of technology applications Online Learning

8. Creekview’s Results Year STaR Classification 2008-2009 Dev eloping Tech-14 2006-2007 Developing Tech-15 2005-2006 Developing Tech-13

9. Interpretation of Results Only a one point increase in teaching and learning More progress needs to be made Higher level thinking skills needed

10. Educator Preparation and Development Assesses. . . Content of professional development Models of professional development Capabilities of educators Access to professional development Levels of understanding Access to online learning

11. Creekview’s Results Year STaR Classification 2008-2009 Dev eloping Tech-12 2006-2007 Developing Tech-14 2005-2006 Advanced Tech-17

12. Interpretation of Results Educator preparation has decreased over the past four years. To improve we must: Have more professional development in technology Increase higher level thinking skills

13. Leadership, Administration and Instructional Support Assesses. . . Leadership and vision Planning Instructional Support Communication and Collaberation Budget Leadership and support for online learning

14. Creekview’s Results Year STaR Classification 2008-2009 Advanced Tech-17 2006-2007 Advanced Tech-16 2005-2006 Advanced Tech-13

15. Interpretation of Results Overall show 4 points of improvement Almost at Target Tech level To advance to target tech we must: Collaborate Use various media formats Use budget to meet all technology strategies

16. Infrastructure for Technology Assesses. . . Students per computer Internet Access Other Classroom technology Technical support LAM and WAM Distance Learning Capacity

17. Creekview’s Results Year STaR Classification 2008-2009 Advanced Tech-16 2006-2007 Advanced Tech-20 2005-2006 Advanced Tech-15

18. Interpretation of Results We are improving slightly Almost at Target Tech level To get to Target Tech we must: 1 to 1 access for students and computers Have fully equipped technological classrooms Have technical support with a ratio of 1:350

19. Overall Results for CMS 2008-2009 2007-2008 2006-2007

20. STaR Chart Conclusion We still have work to do 1 st Area of focus should be teaching and learning 2 nd Area of focus should be Educator Preparation and Development We can reach Target Tech in all four areas!