Reflections+ISTE+TF+TL+Standard+IV

Technology Facilitation and Leadership (TF/TL) Standard IV addresses Assessment and Evaluation. Standard IV states: “Educational technology facilitators apply technology to facilitate a variety of effective assessment and evaluation strategies” (Williamson & Redish, 2009, p. 90). The standard also states: “Educational technology leaders communicate research on the use of technology to implement effective assessment and evaluation strategies” (Williamson & Redish, 2009, p. 90). The difference in Standard IV for educational technology facilitators and leaders is that facilitators are required to apply technology to facilitate while leaders should communicate research on the use of technology to implement effective assessment and evaluation strategies.
 * ISTE Technology Facilitation and Technology Leadership Standard IV - Assessment and Evaluation **

Standard IV is explored in EDLD 5333 Leadership for Accountability. The continuous campus improvement cycle involves setting goals and timelines and procedures for monitoring progress towards achieving the goals. Once the Academic Excellence Indicator System (AEIS) reports which are used as the summative evaluation for the school year are received and clear evidence of increased student performance is demonstrated, the campus improvement cycle begins again. The Site Based Decision Making Committee (SBDM) meets to discuss the performance of the campus and the campus performance objectives. The Campus Improvement Plan (CIP) is adjusted to clarify the vision and set new goals and objectives. The SBDM determines how much improvement is needed to move the campus to the next target or level and which student populations will need interventions. Data is shared with community members, parents and staff to provide opportunity for input. Professional Development will be scheduled to align with the campus needs as revealed by the data. SBDM determines which programs, processes, or procedures will be discontinued or modified to make room for new campus priorities. New benchmarks and assessments will be set for the following school year. With the new CIP come new goals and objectives, the campus improvement cycle begins again immediately.

In EDLD 5333 as an important component of the continuous improvement cycle, we created an action agenda for a campus professional development day that addresses the targeted campus needs and includes a timeline for follow-up professional development. Using the current AEIS report and CIS, were important factors in understanding the campus evaluation process.

In the article Backward Design for Forward Action, McTighe and Thomas (2003) state: “School improvement planning begins with a consideration of desired learning results, usually identified in the content standards of the district or state” (p. 52). The CIP goals and AEIS data were used as assessment measures to determine success of the professional development. Utilize interim assessments to adjust instruction. In a 2007 study, Young et al. indicate, “The assessment results were used to make adjustments to instructional strategies to meet the needs of individual students, and to make school wide changes to improve the overall program” (p. 46). The campus professional day and follow-up professional development were created to allow flexibility for adjustment as new data becomes available. According to Clune (2009), “For professional development, SCALE adopted an IFL model that relied on training of coaches and lead teachers who in turn would train teachers” (p. 5). The action agenda assignment provided professional development during the summer for mathematics team leaders who will serve as coaches and train other campus math teachers during the school year.  References

Clune, W. H. (2009). District-wide reform of mathematics and science instruction: Case Studies of four SCALE partner districts (WCER Working Paper No. 2009-2). Madison:

﻿ University of Wisconsin–Madison, Wisconsin Center for Education Research. Retrieved from http://www.wcer.wisc.edu/publications/workingPapers/ papers.php

McTighe, J., & Thomas, R. S. (2003). Backward design for forward action. //Educational Leadership//, 60(5), 52-55. Retrieved from

﻿ []

Williamson, J. & Redish, T. (2009). //Technology facilitation and leadership standards: What every K-12 leader should know and be able to do. Eugene, OR: International Society for

﻿  Technology in Education.

<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',Times,serif; font-size: 12pt;">Young, V. M., Humphrey, D. C., Wang, H., Bosetti, K. R. Cassidy, L., Wechsler, M. E., Rivera, E., & Murray, S. (2007). Renaissance Schools fund-supported schools: early

<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',Times,serif; font-size: 10pt; layout-grid-mode: char; line-height: 115%; margin: 0in 0in 10pt 0.5in; text-indent: -0.5in; vertical-align: sub;">﻿ <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',Times,serif; font-size: 12pt; layout-grid-mode: char; line-height: 115%; margin: 0in 0in 10pt 0.5in; text-indent: -0.5in;">outcomes, challenges, and opportunities. Retrieved from