Author archive

Derrick D.

I know that everyone is working hard on your 360 Reflective Papers and your Program Evaluations. It might be a little stressful right now, but keep pushing forward. We will get everything done. Keep encouraging each other to hang in there.  I thought a little comic relief may be in order. Please enjoy! (Parody of Jeff Foxworthy joke)

17 REASONS YOU MIGHT BE AN Ed.D STUDENT

 You might be an Ed. D student if…

1. You are thinking about how to keep your Capstone group from experiencing the Five Dysfunctions of a Team: absence of trust, fear of conflict, lack of commitment, avoidance of  accountability, and inattention to results (Lencioni, 2002).

2. You found no significant correlation between the scores for the female LCI Sequence scores and the male LCI precision scores.

 3. You used the Kruskal-Wallis statistical test to analyze your hypothesis that there was no significant difference between the medians of all three cohort groups.

4. Your LCI scores show a tendency to use Sequence and Precision and avoid Confluence.

 5. You have added only a few items to your WordPress site since FA1.

 6. Your MBTI results are ISFJ (Introversion, Sensing, Feeling, Judging).

 7.  You make your decisions using a human resource frame and believe that “people and organizations need each other” (Bolman & Deal, 2008, p. 122).

8. You carry a copy of a blue, APA manual (6^th edition) in your backpack.

 9. You read The Deep Blue Sea: Rethinking the Source of Leadership by Wilfred Drath without pulling your hair out.

 10. You felt Elena Zoffner should have stayed away from those electric pianos (Drath, 2001).

 11. You keep putting a parenthesis, an author, and a date behind every sentence you write.

 12. You understand that some leaders might cast shadows instead of light (Johnson, 2012).

 13. You know that social values center around order and individualism (Fowler, 2009).

 14. You know that leadership presence “can be developed and you will be a more effective leader when you invest some time and energy toward that goal” (Halpern & Lubar, 2003, pp. 3-4).

 15. You know that establishing Evaluator Credibility makes up the first of the eight Utility Standards (Yarbrough et al., 2011).

 16. You believe in Scriven’s recommendation that evaluators consider money and non-money costs when conducting a cost analysis (Mertens & Wilson, 2012).

17. You actually understood or remembered everything that was listed above.

Derrick D.

     Recently, a friend of mind that works in Apple County as a principal informed me that he has been researching other school divisions and their approach to technology access for students.  According to Part D-Enhancing Education Through Technology of the No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB) state and local agencies are tasked with making sure all students graduating from high school are technologically literate.  It mandates that educational institutions must accomplish three goals which are to “improve student academic achievement through the use of technology in elementary schools and secondary schools;”  “to assist every student in crossing the digital divide by ensuring that every student is technologically literate by the time the student finishes the eighth grade, regardless of the student’s race, ethnicity, gender, family income, geographic location, or disability;”  and “to encourage the effective integration of technology resources and systems with teacher training and curriculum development” (NCLB, 2002). 

     He feels that Apple County has been a leader with its attempts to accomplish these goals specified in the NCLB Act by establishing its 1:1 laptop initiative for the last eight years.  Students have been given access to computers or smart tablets starting in elementary school.  Several historically marginalized groups, such as English language learners (ELL), African-Americans, Hispanics, and low-income students, have been allowed to use these devices to enhance their learning experiences.

     Unfortunately, due to the lack of evaluative data on the effects of this 1:1 laptop initiative, critics are beginning to point out possible drawbacks.  These critics point out that  counties like Apple may be closing the digital divide by providing more access to technology, but the marginalized groups they thought were being helped, are using the “gadgets to watch shows and videos, play games and connect on social networking sites,” instead of using them for educational purposes (Richtel, 2012, p.1).

     My friend talked about working on several discipline-related issues involving the laptops.  He is concerned that some of the critics’ arguments are justified.  Some of the parents that he has spoken with are beginning to question whether this initiative is causing more harm, then good for their children.  Many of the students that are using the technology inappropriately come from these marginalized groups, whose parents did not grow up with this type of access to technology.  He has taken it upon himself to try and educate these parents about the many benefits that will come from the students having more access to technology.  Sometimes his explanations are not enough to change their minds.  He feels that school based administrators need more help from the County with this task. 

    He believes that as a school district, if Apple County wants to close the digital divide by promoting technological literacy for historically marginalized groups, it must focus on providing more training and education for its parents and teachers.  This focus will help these two groups recognized the importance and benefits of the 1:1 laptop initiative. These two groups advocating together will constitute a very powerful policy lever, which will help to promote and to drive the success of the program. 

     According to a study conducted by the Walden University Richard W. Riley College of Education and Leadership in which over 1,000 teachers were surveyed, it was shown that teachers did not feel prepared to incorporate technology into their curriculum after taking part in teacher preparatory programs (Kaplan & Steffens, 2009).  In Apple County, he is sure several teachers feel the same; therefore, the County needs to provide more training programs that focus on how to incorporate technology into the curriculum. 

      In terms of parents, Apply County should establish parent workshops to show parents how the technology will help their children become more successful and more competitive after high school.  To help provide evidence, Apple County should start conducting surveys with students who have experienced the 1:1 laptop initiative, and are currently in college or have graduated to find what they perceived were the benefits from more accessibility to technology.  Surveys should be conducted also with the parents of these previous students.

     He said that he is very fortunate to have the opportunity to work in a county that believes in providing access to technology for all marginalized groups within the school district.  He believes the 1:1 laptop initiative will benefit students and will help to close the digital divide for historically marginalized groups.  This is why he is advocating for the Apple County School Board to institute more training programs for teachers and parents, so they can promote this program even further.

Derrick D.

When I was a teacher, I gave my students more than one chance to turn in late assignments.  They would lose points, but I felt that my ultimate goal as an educator was to make sure the student learns the material.  If I gave the student a zero and moved on, he/she would not learn the concepts.  Others might argue that allowing students to turn in late work does not teach them responsibility.  These educators feel that giving students multiple opportunities to turn in late work condones procrastination.  There is a fear that those students would become accustomed to this practice and would continue to develop poor work habits later in life.  I understood both sides of the argument, but I felt that it is very hard to recover from a zero. 

When I started my new position as principal, it was my goal to establish a policy that could address both sides of the issue.  Reflecting on Lowi’s policy types, I felt that this policy fell into the regulatory category, because the rule would affect all teachers within the school (Fowler, 2009).  Fowler stated that no policy would “please” all stakeholders and regulatory policies are often “filled with conflict” (Fowler, 2009, p. 243).  I expected much conflict, but I followed Fowler’s advice for educational leaders who intend to introduce or change policies, which is to avoid “1) making too many policy changes of the same type close together, 2) making too many policy changes that activate the same individuals and groups at about the same time, and 3) making a combination of changes that activate too many people and groups in the policy arena at the same time” (Fowler, 2009, p.246).  I had several ideas or changes that I wanted to make during my first year, but I decided to limit the number of major changes.  I chose grading as the first issue to put on the table for discussion.

After given all parties in the debate a chance to express how they felt about the grading of late and incomplete work, we were able to narrow it down to two groups with opposite opinions.  Group one consisted of educators that felt a student should be given multiple chances to turn in assignments with a late penalty and Group two, educators that felt a zero should be given with no option for making the assignment up.  The compromise came through analyzing the similarities between each group’s opinions.  Both groups felt that students should be held accountable for school work.  Group one felt making the student to do the assignment, even for reduced credit, shows the student he/she can’t just get away with not turning it in.  Group two felt that the zero would be the motivating factor that shows a student there are consequences for not doing the work.

To get both groups to agree with a standard policy regarding zeros, a plan was developed to incorporate a little of both ideologies.  The new policy would require all teachers to give students a chance to turn in late assignments for reduced credit only up to a certain time frame. After the deadline, the zero would be added.  However, any student with an average less than fifty percent at the end of a marking period would be given a fifty, so he/she had the possibility of recovering by the end of the year.  Each group saw that the policy incorporated a piece of its basic platform. 

According to Fowler (2009), one of the most important tasks of the school leader is to implement the policy.  Since the policy was adopted, my goal is to monitor its implementation. It is very easy for a person to agree in principle to a policy change, but will he/she actually carry the policy out?

Derrick D.

     I was speaking to a principal friend of mine a few weeks ago named Robert.  Robert is employed in a county in the western part of Virginia.  He informed me that his county had established a policy to give SOL type assessments to their students at the end of first semester.  The tests were developed by the specialists, and the schools were not allowed to see the questions prior to the testing date.  Due to the changes in Standards of Learning (SOL’s) tests, many of the specialists were not sure what types of questions should be added to the assessments.  The Department of Education released only 10 sample questions as a guide for the counties around Virginia.  The schools in Robert’s county were given a directive to not review prior to these assessments.  The rationale behind this was to get “a true picture of where the students were at that point in the year.”  It was also mandated that the assessments be counted as a quiz grade.  The rationale behind this was because many principals felt students would not take it seriously if it did not have a grade attached to it.

     This created an ethical issue for Robert.  He said that he was very torn between what his personal beliefs were and his county’s directive.  He felt that it was not fair to give students an assessment without reviewing for it.  Robert explained that if you are holding the student accountable by attaching a grade to the assessment, it was only fair to give them a chance to review.   He had doubts about this policy; however, due to its regulatory nature, and the possible penalties for not following it, Robert implemented it at his school.  He was very surprised that none of the teachers at his school came to him with the same questions about the ethical issues of the policy. 

     After the assessment results were analyzed, it was apparent that the majority of schools did poorly on them.  Several specialists and others began to question the legitimacy of the tests as predictors of students’ academic performance in terms of SOL’s.  After Robert reviewed his school’s data, he noticed that the majority of his students failed the assessments.  Many received grades below 50.   Robert decided that it would be unethical to still hold the students accountable.  He made a decision to allow the teachers to remove the assessment as a quiz grade from the students’ records. 

     Robert knew that he was putting his job on the line, but he was willing to take that chance.  The decision did not come easy for him.  Robert told me that he contemplated over what could possibly happen.  He thought about those on his staff that were not fond of his leadership style.  They could see this as a way to try to discredit him as a leader, and report this action to his supervisor.  Robert told me that he prepared for the phone call and how he would justify his decision to his supervisor.  However, during a principal meeting, it was evident that several other principals in Robert’s county were feeling the same way about the assessments.  Their director gave them the choice about whether or not to count the assessments at their individual schools.

     This seems like a happy ending because Robert wasn’t reprimanded for going against the regulatory policy.  However, I asked Robert how he would feel if he was penalized for making that decision based on his values and what he thought was the ethical thing to do.  Would this make him more cautious about questioning directives in the future?  If the “cost” of doing the right thing meant he could lose his job next time, would he still make the decision?   In the current state of the economy, could he afford to lose his job for what he felt was an ethical issue based on his values? Robert’s supervisor may have seen it as not a matter of ethics.  To him it may be just an employee not following a directive.  After listening to Robert’s ethical issue, I wondered what I would do in his situation.  Can you really follow Kant’s Categorical Imperative when your job may be at stake?

Derrick D.

     There is currently a bill before the Virginia General Assembly to change the contract renewal date for probationary teachers from April 15 to June 15.  It is House Bill 76.  The bill will also change continuing contract teachers’ renewal dates to June 15 if it passes.  A regulatory policy is defined as “formalized rules expressed in general terms and applied to large groups of people. They either reduce or expand the alternatives available to those regulated” (Fowler, 2009, p. 242).  This bill will create a regulatory policy because it will require school divisions to change their current teacher observation timelines. This policy will be easy to implement because it involves just moving the deadline of contract renewals by two additional months; however, I think it will affect principals greatly. 

     There are some positives aspects of the bill.  It will allow for more time for teacher observations.  In my current county, we have to let our human resources department know in early February if we are considering certain teachers for nonrenewal.  Due to this short time period, you are limited on the amount of time you have to do quality observations.  You have to make a decision about whether to keep a teacher, when there are still additional months remaining in the school year.  If something goes wrong after April 15, you are kind of stuck.  You can still place the teacher on a structured growth plan to help the teacher improve, but you will need to keep the teacher until the next April 15 deadline.  With a longer deadline (June 15), you will be able to access the teacher’s ability more thoroughly. 

     Another advantage would be not having to inform a teacher in April that he/she will no longer have a job after the school year.  Imagine having to still work with that teacher for an additional two months.  The teacher’s loyalty to the school could decrease and his/her work performance may go down. There is a reason why you don’t want to renew that teacher, so why risk creating additional problems. It would be better to wait until June 15, which is closer to the end of the school year. 

            I am able to see some disadvantages, such as not having enough time to secure new teachers to replace the nonrenewal ones.  If you wait until the June 15 deadline, you will have to begin your hiring process over the summer months.  Many potential candidates may not be available for interviews due to summer vacation and some may be selected by other principals that decided not to wait until the June 15 deadline. 

            There is also an ethical piece to consider.  As a principal, you will probably know by the beginning of 2^nd semester if you plan to not renew a teacher’s contract.  However, you decide to keep it a secret, fearing that if the teacher knew, he/she would “check out” early.  The teacher may begin to lose interest; therefore, this could affect the learning of the students.  Do you not tell the teacher, so that he/she will continue teaching to the best of his/her ability?  The Interstate School Leaders Licensure Consortium (ISLLC) developed six standards for educational leaders.  Standard 5 states, “a school administrator is an educational leader who promotes the success of all students by acting with integrity, fairness, and in an ethical manner” (ISLLC, 1996, p.18). Are you promoting the success of the students by deciding not to tell the teacher?  If the teacher already has deficiencies, will the situation get worst if he/she begins to resent the school, the students, and you because he/she is being let go?  Is it unethical to go about the rest of the year talking to this teacher like everything is normal? What if it is March and the teacher that you plan to let go tells you she wants to buy a new car in a few weeks?  I pose these questions because I honestly don’t know how I would answer them myself.  I present myself to others by saying, “My main focus is always the students;” however, I don’t know if I could do that to a fellow educator.  If I am up for nonrenewal and I wanted to buy a house, I would want my principal to let me know that I am losing my job.  The information he holds could save me from a possible financial disaster.