The experience of participating in the campus and district level improvement committees is a powerful one for anyone hoping to lead at a campus or district level. The process of leading both levels of this type of committee is very similar but the reality of leading at a district level seems a bit more challenging considering that representatives from across the district may present a more diverse audience than a campus level committee. For instance, members of a campus level committee will likely live in the same area of the district and will likely share cultural, ethnic, and economic similarities while the geographical differences of district level committee members may indicate large differences in the cultural, economic, or ethnic make-up of the committee members. Also, the level of familiarity with all members of a campus level committee will be much more intimate for the leader who will likely have daily contact with the members. Conversely, the level of familiarity the district level leader will likely enjoy with members of the district level committee will be much more distant. This could lead to a more formal feel to meetings and may serve as an obstacle to meaningful conversation and discussion. To prevent the level of familiarity or the diversity of the group from becoming an obstacle to progress, the leader must carefully design the processes used to identify needs and gain input from the committee members. Leaders of a district level committee must carefully communicate in order to successfully engage a diverse group of participants as are included in a committee of this sort. I feel confident in leading an improvement initiative at the campus level but honestly feel like I need more experience at the district level to sharpen my communication skills with the diverse groups present in my district specifically the more affluent community.
Through my involvement in the improvement committee at the campus level, I determined the need for updated and accurate data to help guide the conversation toward improvement. This really is not a new concept, I know, but we have honestly been data poor in the formulation of our new campus improvement committee. We are in a unique position since we are a newly formed campus. Our student body is comprised of students who attended both of the existing middle school campuses last year. So much time was spent formulating and planning for our one-to-one iPad initiative, the new policies and procedures for a new building, and planning and executing professional development for our new staff on the new technology we would use for the coming school year, that data-mining for our new student body was placed as a low priority. As a team, we had to wait until we had data to mine. In retrospect, data did exist in the way of discipline, achievement, and demographics which we could have compiled and disaggregated early in the school year to help us plan for the opening but we did not do so. Now that we have experienced a full semester and conducted our own operations we now have dat that we should access to guide our improvement efforts.
Another observation and recommendation I believe will be beneficial to our district as a whole is to address the need of our LEP/ESL sub group achievement. This area of our district achievement was our one shortfall and was the obstacle to earning a recognized district rating. I recommend that an initiative be formed to address this need through professional development designed to equip every core and elective teacher with the instructional strategies, tools and philosophical understanding to better address the needs of our ESL and LEP students. Professional development must be planned, instructional strategies must be required and checked, and follow up training must be conitinued at every campus in the district.
Finally, the campus at which I serve is 70% economically disadvantaged. Many of our students live in sever poverty. Yet, no specific training was planned or provided to teachers who were assigned to the campus from the existing two middle school campuses in the district to address the need that this poverty creates for our students. Many of the teachers have little experience teaching students from poverty and informal surveys indicate that less than 30% of the teachers have had specific professional development to help them understand and address the challenges that teaching students from poverty presents in the classroom. I recommend that a formal professional development plan be formulated to train teachers in the characteristics of learners from poverty and in specific strategies that will have a positive impact on instruction and learning.
Through my involvement in the improvement committee at the campus level, I determined the need for updated and accurate data to help guide the conversation toward improvement. This really is not a new concept, I know, but we have honestly been data poor in the formulation of our new campus improvement committee. We are in a unique position since we are a newly formed campus. Our student body is comprised of students who attended both of the existing middle school campuses last year. So much time was spent formulating and planning for our one-to-one iPad initiative, the new policies and procedures for a new building, and planning and executing professional development for our new staff on the new technology we would use for the coming school year, that data-mining for our new student body was placed as a low priority. As a team, we had to wait until we had data to mine. In retrospect, data did exist in the way of discipline, achievement, and demographics which we could have compiled and disaggregated early in the school year to help us plan for the opening but we did not do so. Now that we have experienced a full semester and conducted our own operations we now have dat that we should access to guide our improvement efforts.
Another observation and recommendation I believe will be beneficial to our district as a whole is to address the need of our LEP/ESL sub group achievement. This area of our district achievement was our one shortfall and was the obstacle to earning a recognized district rating. I recommend that an initiative be formed to address this need through professional development designed to equip every core and elective teacher with the instructional strategies, tools and philosophical understanding to better address the needs of our ESL and LEP students. Professional development must be planned, instructional strategies must be required and checked, and follow up training must be conitinued at every campus in the district.
Finally, the campus at which I serve is 70% economically disadvantaged. Many of our students live in sever poverty. Yet, no specific training was planned or provided to teachers who were assigned to the campus from the existing two middle school campuses in the district to address the need that this poverty creates for our students. Many of the teachers have little experience teaching students from poverty and informal surveys indicate that less than 30% of the teachers have had specific professional development to help them understand and address the challenges that teaching students from poverty presents in the classroom. I recommend that a formal professional development plan be formulated to train teachers in the characteristics of learners from poverty and in specific strategies that will have a positive impact on instruction and learning.
No comments:
Post a Comment