Posts Tagged ‘Tracking Student Progress’

Capstone–Standard 02 Meta-Reflection: Learning Environment

Standard 02 Meta-Reflection: Learning Environment

Creates and maintains school-wide and classroom environments that are safe, stable, and empowering.

Initial reflection during C & I Orientation:

In my role as the special education curriculum leader in an inclusion setting, I must ensure that a continuum of services is available for consideration by each student’s IEP Team. I must see to it that my students are provided services in the “least restrictive environment” and that they are given the opportunity to access free and appropriate public education.

Meta-Reflection following completion of EDU 6655 Human Development and Principles of Learning:

I enjoyed the opportunity to have guidance in this course toward some of the most recent brain research relating to education. While reading the first week’s chapters and articles, I found myself most intrigued and inspired by the Jossey-Bass descriptions of “mirror neurons”, and saw for myself many possible explanations of experiences encountered within my family (a brother who is severely disabled, and my father having suffered two gunshot wounds to the head) as well as those of students within my classroom. I found reading the article, On Empathy: the Mirror Neuron System and Art Education, to be very informative. In settings where I hear people (including my students) share their challenging, real-life stories find that I experience what some might refer to as “compassion fatigue”—therefore, I am interested in the impact of stress on learning. As stated within the Jossey-Bass Reader in Chapter 4, “It is increasingly recognized that efficient learning does not take place when the learner is experiencing fear or stress…inappropriate stress has a significant effect on both physiological and cognitive functioning….stress or fear also affect social judgment, and responses to reward and risk” (p. 44).

In my first paper written for this course, Personal Background Reflection Paper (please see link to Artifact 2.1 below), I reflected on my own childhood experiences in comparison to that of many of my students, and discussed how these intertwining factors influence my teaching interactions with students. As authors Stiggins, Arter, and Chappuis (2006), have clarified, the distinction between assessment of learning vs. for learning, places the emphasis on helping students answer the three questions, “ ‘Where am I going?’; ‘Where am I now?’; and ‘How can I close the gap’?”

Within my second paper, Professional Philosophy of Education and Developmental Theory (please see link to Artifact 2.2 below), I expressed thoughts pertaining to Erik Erickson’s developmental theory. “Erikson defined eight developmental stages during which a crisis must be resolved in order for a person to develop psychosocially without carrying forward issues tied to the previous crisis…” Author, Crain, states, “The adolescent’s primary task, Erikson believed, is establishing a new sense of ego identity—a feeling for who one is and one’s place in the larger social order. The crisis is one of identity versus role confusion” (p. 291). A reflective process I use with students (described below), is one method I believe helps them engage in the development of their ego identity:

Currently in my position as a special education teacher in a largely “inclusive” high school in terms of service delivery, much of my work with students is conducted in the context of individual appointments in my office. One tool that I use regularly with my students is a self-evaluation process—involving both written and verbal responses to a weekly progress report including; detailed listings of assignments, scores, current grade-to-date, attendance, etc. for each of their six classes. An overarching purpose of the use of this tool is to assist students with developing self-advocacy skills as they strive to succeed in high school as well as prepare for post-secondary endeavors. The reflective exercise guides the students through the process of reading information pertinent to their day-to-day life as a student. The completion of the form requires analysis of their current progress as well as the development of strategies for establishing and reaching both short and long-term goals, and encourages students to take ownership, responsibility, (and credit) for their actions and efforts (James, 2012).

Ironically, just this week in April of 2013, as I am working on completing the requirements for my master’s degree by writing/rewriting reflections on my own learning as a graduate student, a dramatic event occurred within my classroom as a student was completing his own written reflection. (Note: As of result of new learning in my graduate studies, I have increased the level of expectation for student reflection to include more extended written responses. The following account of a very recent experience relates also to the use of technology in the classroom—proving that even outdated technology can be used to connect with students).

Since I don’t have enough computer access for all students in my special education Learning Strategies class, I have chosen to use small keyboards to have students write reflections on a regular basis. Although the small, “NEO” keyboards are outdated devices, they are available for my use. Each device holds 8 separate “files” which I have students use to make progress notes in response to specific prompts at various times throughout each term. Files 1-6 are reserved for periods 1-6, and file # 7 is for “other”. Usually, I encourage student to describe in File # 7–accomplishments of which they are MOST proud. I upload their responses regularly and find this process to be extremely valuable in helping me maintain a connection with students and to assist me as I endeavor to respond to their individual needs. Some students are able to express so much more in writing than they would in face-to-face conversations.

Tuesday, as I was uploading and reading student reflections, I noticed the reflection of one very quiet and studious student was prefaced with the comment: “Mrs. James, be sure to read paragraph # 7″. As I continued to upload his work, I found a most heart-wrenching, yet beautifully written expression from this student who had recently been placed on probation. It was evident that he was experiencing a downward spiral toward severe depression. His cry for help included the words, “I can’t go out and make friends or give a shout out to others about my emotions. I get it out in writing or typing now. I stay silent and lonely to rot away…” Thankfully, I was able to talk with him after class and set up an appointment for him to meet with the counselor. The student and I have agreed that he will continue to use writing as a way to help him process his intense emotions.

An example of how research validates the threatened needs of this young man to be connected with his friends and to know that someone cares is referenced in my third paper, Professional Analysis of Developmental Appropriateness (please see links to artifacts 2.3.1, 2.3.2, and 2.3.3 below). As I discuss the Individual Transition form of the Individual Education Plan (IEP), I make the suggestion that work habits and interpersonal skills should be addressed on this form for secondary students because these skills relate to Kohlberg’s Level II Conventional Morality. Crain refers to Kohlberg’s Level II Conventional Morality—Stage 3. Good Interpersonal Relationships. “At this stage children, are by now usually entering their teens—see morality as more than simple deals. They believe people should live up to the expectations of the family and community and behave in “good” ways. Good behavior means having good motives and interpersonal feelings such as love, empathy, trust, and concern for others” (p. 161).

In my Week 4 Blog for this course, EDU 6655: Mind and Brain….Techniques–backed by research? (James, 2012), I expressed my conflicting thoughts about controversial brain research. I conveyed my tendency to agree with author, Hyatt, who suggests “that much of the rush by educators to provide ‘brain-based’ learning opportunities for children is based on information that is selective, oversimplified, or incorrectly interpreted, and he strongly urged that educators and the public exercise great caution when trying to apply findings from brain science to educational interventions” (Hyatt, 2007, p. 120).

Based on my informal, anecdotal research gleaned as an educator in the classroom from 1980 to the present, high school students generally experience a relatively high degree of stress–which I maintain to be a contributing factor to some of the struggles I observe in their lives. My goal is to continue in my endeavor to use any means available to meet the needs of my students as I address Standard 2: Create and maintain school-wide and classroom environments that are safe, stable, and empowering. In the process of completing the requirements for this course (see links to artifacts below), I appreciated the opportunity to reflect with a fresh and guided focus on my years in the classroom and I intend to continue to view new research as it becomes available. I believe new insights will continue to come, along with validation for long-held convictions.

References

Arter, J., Chappuis J., S.,  Stiggins, R. (2006). Classroom assessment for students learning. Doing it right, using it well. Boston, MA. Pearson Education, Inc.

Crain, W. C. (2011). Theories of development: Concepts and applications. Boston, MA: Prentice Hall.

Hyatt, K. J. (2007). Brain gym[R]: Building stronger brains or wishful thinking?. Remedial and Special Education, 28(2), 117-124.

James, L. (2012). Professional philosophy of education and developmental theory, Seattle Pacific University.

James, L. (2012). EDU 6655: Mind and Brain….Techniques—backed by research?, WordPress  blog, Seattle Pacific University. Retrieved from https://lpettengilljames.wordpress.com/2011/10/23/edu-6655-mind-and-brain-techniques-backed-by-research/

Jossey-Bass Inc. (2008). The Jossey-Bass reader on the brain and learning. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Links to artifacts for Standard 2:

EDU 6655-ARTIFACT 2.1 Personal Background Reflection Paper

EDU 6655-ARTIFACT 2.2 Final Professional Philosophy Paper

EDU 6655-ARTIFACT 2.3.1 Final Paper SECONDARY TRANSITION Form Analysis

EDU 6655-ARTIFACT 2.3.2 TRANSITION Form Analysis.list

 EDU 6655-ARTIFACT SECONDARY TRANSITION pp

Exhibit 1: Educator Learning: Tracking Student Progress

Exhibit 1, Artifact 3–email to KHS faculty

Exhibit1, Artifact 2– COLLABORATION SHEET-1

Exhibit 1, Artifact 1–SMART Goals 2011-12

EDU 6600: Communication and Collaboration

Laurie James’ Exhibit 1: Educator Learning: Tracking Student Progress        

Exhibit type A: Educator Learning. Identify a school improvement goal and show how related educator learning can be planned based on the needs of the school (data that illustrates the need via student achievement, faculty input, and/or community sources) leveraging effective designs for school based collaborative strategies.

CONTEXT: The data that illustrates the need for tracking individual student achievement is based upon: (1) District requirement for each school to submit an annual Comprehensive School Improvement Plan, (2) Legal requirements to provide Free and Appropriate Public Education (FAPE) to student’s with Individual Education Programs (IEPs) as well as to, (3) Comply with newly articulated mandates from the Office of Superintendent of Public Instruction (OSPI) via our special education administrator’s directives. The first identified school improvement goal related to Exhibit 1 is: Kingston High School Improvement Goal # 2: Decrease drop-out rate from 9th grade to graduation. Objective A: Increase the number of students on track to graduate with class. Objective B: Decrease the number of students receiving F’s, especially in the 9th grade. The second required school improvement goal is to increase documentation related to progress reporting on students’ IEP goals, in accordance with OSPI mandates as outlined by our district’s special education director, in September of 2011.

Each PLC group in our school was required to complete new “SMART” goals for the 2011-12 year (Artifact #1). These were due to the Leadership Team—October 24th, and will be compiled into our 2011-2012 School Improvement Plan–prior to submission to the school board. Our Special Education PLC team agreed to include within our SMART goals—requirements set forth by OSPI—regarding collaboration:

….The general education teacher and the special education teacher must collaborate on a regular basis to monitor and assess the student’s progress toward achieving the IEP goals. This communication should be documented. The special education teacher is responsible for keeping progress documentation in order to assess progress in coordination with the general education teacher. The general education teacher should request consultation with the special education teacher if additional assistance if needed in order to implement the goals for the student….(NKSD, Special Education Director, 2011)

PLANNING, ENGAGEMENT, ANALYSIS, RESEARCH-BASED: The approach I have initiated and intend to follow through with for planning, engagement, and analysis of the use of the newly designed “Collaboration Sheet for Special Education and General Education Teachers” (Artifact # 2) is to ensure that each of my colleagues (fellow IEP case managers) and I, strategically communicate with each general education teacher, regarding each student on their respective lists. The information noting areas of qualification (located in the center of the document) will be taken into consideration when implementing accommodations and modifications across any/all subject areas (if applicable). The information on the right-hand side of each form will be used for tracking performance on specific IEP goals in the areas of reading, writing, and/or math—with English and math teachers, respectively. Notations will be made to document conversations, emails, interventions used, and progress made. This ongoing documentation on the “Collaboration Sheets” will become especially critical as we near the end of each quarter and considerations are made regarding student grades. Process outlined in an email to KHS staff (Artifact #3). Please note: Although the information pertains to each member of our SE PLC and we each collaborate with general education teachers, the email is written from me personally, since I am the team member who coordinates the specific and individualized lists.

As I consider the above described school improvement goals and exhibit, I relate most readily to the section in Zepeda’s Chapter 8, entitled, Getting Down to Brass Tacks. Zepeda reminds us that although many different approaches can be used for evaluating educational programs as well as professional development, “….there are some generally accepted evaluation processes that are particularly applicable to educational programs: selecting a focus, establishing an evaluation agreement, collecting data, organizing and analyzing the data, and reporting the results to stakeholders” (p. 48). Clearly, the issues involved in fully implementing student IEPs, including tracking of progress, use of accommodations and modifications, and communication to all required parties of the IEP team, relate to the above outlined processes. Additionally, I see correlation between legally required IEP processes and the information presented in Figure 2.10:

What Evaluation Reports Can Do (p. 56): 1) Demonstrate accountability 2) Convince 3) Educate 4) Explore and investigate 5) Document 6) Involve 7) Gain support 8)Promote understanding and 9) Promote public relations

TIMELINE:

September 6, 2011      Provide student names with corresponding case manager to GE teachers

September 14, 2011    Provide IEP information, accommodations and goals to GE teachers

October 23, 2011        Submission of PLC Smart Goals to KHS Leadership Team/School Board

October 26, 2011        Individual collaboration sheets to GE teachers, data to case managers

Ongoing:                    Both GE and SE teachers review and track progress throughout each term with consultation during planning time/before/after school, as required.

November 9, 2011       End of Term 1—post grades for review by November 15th

January 31, 2012        End of Semester 1—post grades for review by February 5th

April 13, 2012             End of Term 3—post grades for review by April 18th

June __, 2012              Team will review student data and tracking procedures with GE

June 15, 2012              End of Semester 2 – post grades for review by June 21st

RESOURCES: It is anticipated that the work for this exhibit will be conducted during the parameters of the school day—during planning time, before and after school, and during weekly Professional Learning Community sessions.

ATTACHED DOCUMENTS:

Attachment 1 — KHS, Special Education PLC Smart Goals 2011-2012

Attachment 2 – GE / SE Collaboration sheet example

Attachment 3 – Email to KHS faculty

References:

Zepeda, S. (2008). Professional Development: What Works. New York: Eye on Education.