Melinda Hammond
ADMS 625
Dr. Shelia Bailey
Field Project #1
Collaborative Program for School Improvement
One of the biggest achievement gaps throughout education is inclusion. Whether you’re
considered a top achieving school or a low achieving school, all schools seem to struggle with
closing the gap between general education and special education. For the past couple of years,
my current school has seen a huge difference in the SOL scores at the end of the year. The
general education population always seems to surpass the special education population. For
example; general education overall passing percentage for the Algebra I SOL may be 85% while
the special education may be 30%. Leaders continue to ask, “What’s going on in the
classrooms” and “How are you reaching all students”. However, the questions such as, “How
can we improve the scores next year” and “What type of training is needed for improvement”
should be asked.
Training seems to be the underlying source for improvement (Bateman & Bateman,
2006). Most teachers are unaware of how to make improvement because they’re verbally given
suggested strategies instead of modeled and hands on training (Bateman & Bateman, 2006).
Therefore, I proposed a very intense collaboration training program for improvement. The
duration of the training is three days. Observations and walk-throughs will be conducted
throughout the year to ensure implementation. Training will take place either during staff
professional development or back to school week for teachers depending on the convenience of
the school. The training will be mandatory for all collaborative courses. If a teacher is schedule
to teach World History I but they do not have any collaborative classes for the year, they are still
required to attend the training. The principal will make the final decision whether or not elective
course teachers should attend the training. The overall design of the program will hold teachers
accountable, introduce them to new teaching styles, provide opportunities to visually experience
live training, model new teaching styles and receive constructive feedback.
Below is a tentative schedule/timeline for the training.
-
Each teacher will be required to complete a survey on inclusion before attending the training.
Teachers will be split up into groups according to their teaching schedules.
There will be at least 5 – 6 sections of each topic depending on the number of teachers,
therefore 10 – 12 instructors will be needed.
If unable to secure 10 – 12 instructors, teachers will rotate through the sections with the
instructors provided.
-
Day 1: Styles of Collaborative Teaching
8:00 – 8:30
8:30 – 9:00
9:05 – 10:05
10:10 – 11:10
11:15 – 12:15
12:15 – 1:45
1:45 – 2:45
2:50 – 3:50
3:55 – 4:55
5:00 – 5:15
Check in/Breakfast
Introduction
Team Teaching
Station Teaching
Parallel Teaching
Lunch
Re-Teaching
One Teach, One Observe/Support
One Teach, One Monitor/Support
Closing
-
-
Day 2: Classroom Training
8:00 – 8:30
8:30 – 9:00
9:05 – 10:05
10:10 – 11:10
11:15 – 12:15
12:15 – 1:45
1:45 – 2:45
2:50 – 3:50
3:55 – 4:55
5:00 – 5:15
Check in/Breakfast
Introduction
Effective Use of Media and Technology
Time and Classroom Management
Modifying Lesson Plans
Lunch
Transitioning between Activities
Student Grouping
Culture and Diversity Awareness
Closing
Day 3: Implementation
8:00 – 8:30
8:30 – 9:00
9:05 – 10:35
10:40 – 12:10
12:15 – 1:15
1:15 – 2:45
2:50 – 4:20
4:25 – 5:15
Check in/Breakfast
Introduction
Session 1
Session 2
Lunch
Session 3
Session 4
Reflection/Closing
Introduction will review the agenda, the data
from the previous year pertaining to SOL
percentages and the results from the survey.
Each class will have 2 instructors.
Instructors will give an overview of the teaching
style and teach a lesson using the style.
Teachers (along with their collaborative partners)
will maintain a log where they’ll work together
to determine lesson topics to use the teaching
style.
-
-
Same as day 1
The SOL scores from the previous year
will be reiterated to make sure teachers
remain focus.
Teachers will pick 4 (demonstrate 1 per session) teaching
styles, prepare a 15-20 minute lesson with their collab
partners, teach the lesson, and receive constructive
feedback from their audience.
Teachers will rotate through the sessions.
Audience will give constructive feedback
One session – all administrators
Two sessions – a set of instructors (divide in half)
One session – a set of teachers
Each session will include the other teachers scheduled
Additional Stipulations:
-
-
-
-
-
Each set of collaborative partners will undergo 8 observations throughout the school year (2
per marking period).
Team of observers will include: Administrators, Admin Aides, Department Chairs, and
Department Specialists.
o Observations can also be used for yearly evaluations.
Teachers must complete weekly lesson plans.
o Lesson plan must give detailed specifications on each person’s responsibility.
o Weekly lesson plans should be prepared during common planning periods.
Teachers must complete weekly progress reports with reflection.
o Progress report will also include a scale rating each other’s performance in the
classroom.
o Progress must be submitted to department chairs by Friday of each week.
Teachers must maintain a folder including weekly lesson plans in a centralized location in
the classroom.
o Observers should be able to determine and following along with the lesson plan when
they enter into the classroom.
IEP meetings should be held during planning period, before school, or after school.
o Having meetings during class time should be the last resort. Collaborative partners
should be notified at least 72 hours in advanced and coverage should be provided.
Principal Feedback:
1. Where are the “holes” in the paper? Are the required essential elements for effective
collaboration based on the literature and research? What is the back-up plan if you’re
unable to secure enough instructors? You need to take that into consideration. Get with
department chairs and venture outside of the building. Could be a possible advantage to
receive input for instructors outside of the building.
2. Could the program as written be accomplished? Yes
3. What are the cost implications? Materials and equipment
4. What in-service requirements would be needed to complete this task as you described?
Making sure instructors are trained volunteers (preferably recommended)
5. What are the educational implications? Will the program as written improve educational
achievement of students with disabilities? Students will be more engaged and teachers
will be using more 21st century skills. Yes it would!
6. Will the program as written improve performance of students with disabilities?
Absolutely, it will create differentiation and variation in the classroom. More
collaboration amongst teachers will be used in the classroom and it holds teachers
accountable.
References:
Bateman, D., & Bateman, C. F. (2006). A Principal's Guide To Special Education. Arlington, VA: Council for
Exceptional Children.
Education, V. D. (2011). Regulations Governing Special Education Programs for Children with Disabilities
in Virginia. Virginia: Commonwealth of Virginia Department of Education.