Aspects of Coaching

• This semester as I ventured into my first instructional coaching experience I felt a wide array of emotions. Some of these emotions included excitement, motivation and passion. On the other hand, I also felt nervousness, hesitancy and fear. Although I was excited to help integrate technology into other classrooms, I was anxious about the impact I would have on my colleagues. The process entailed much more than I previously thought instructional coaching would, and proved to be a learning experience for not only my coaching participants. As I reflect on the steps taken thus far and prepare for the continuation of our partnership, I consider the coaching systems, and behaviors that I've taken as an instructional coach. 

Although my current coaching partnerships are for a class assignment, two colleagues of mine requested one-on-one assistance after participating in a technology training during our grade-level professional learning communities. This provided the perfect opportunity to transition into a teacher-initiated coaching system. According to Marzano and Simms (2013) this system is enacted when a teacher asks their administrator for a coach, or arranges for their own coaching (p. 211). I knew that my coaching experience would be that much more meaningful knowing that my teacher-coachees wanted to grow professionally, as opposed to mandated instructional coaching.

I am in a school that does not participate in school or district-wide coaching programs, so the basis of my coaching preparation was solely from my class and personal study. In areas where there are coaching programs in place, specific guidelines are often used to guide the selection of coaches. Additionally, these guidelines may specify expectations for the coaching partnership (Marzano & Simms, 2013, p. 212). I can definitely see the importance and need for these guidelines in formal coaching situations. In my personal study of instructional coaching, I came across the article, Things to Consider Before Becoming an Instructional Coach. I found that although I was not using the article as a guide before choosing to become an instructional coach, I could relate to the guidelines that were provided and found meaning behind each of them.

I am extremely lucky in my current coaching partnerships because I am working with two teachers who are motivated to grow professionally and ready for change, especially as it relates to technology integration. However, although they are both motivated and anxious to begin using technology in their classrooms, the need for differentiated coaching is evident. According to Marzano and Simms (2013)  the process outlined in Coaching Classroom Instruction can be used with any teacher to improve instruction, but some aspects of the partnership should be tailored to fit the specific teacher and situation (p. 213). The experience level of my current coachees differ greatly with one of them having a great deal more experience than me and the other a couple years less than me. Marzano and Simms (2013) point out that coaches should take a teacher's level of experience into account when making coaching decisions (p. 214). I've noticed that in my current partnerships, the newer teacher wants more of a co-teaching/hand-holding relationship when it comes to integrating technology into her classroom, while the more experienced teacher prefers a brief tutorial with guidance and then time to work on her own. The difference in their styles naturally leads to different coach-teacher conversations. My conversations with the newer teacher are more direct and coaching, while my conversations with the veteran teacher are more reflective.

Both of my coachees chose beginning elements under the design question "What will I do to engage students?" (Marzano & Simms, 2013, p. 27) to become growth goals. This design question correlates nicely with technology integration. As we've progressed from forming trust, writing the growth goals, one-on-one coaching, modeling and co-teaching, I will continue to provide informal and formal feedback in order to move my coachees from beginning to applying and hopefully, ultimately, increase their use of technology in the classroom.

References:

Marzano, R. J., & Simms, J. A. (2013). Coaching classroom instruction. Bloomington IN: Marzano Research.

Virtual Coaching and the Coaching Continuum

Although the field of instructional coaching is still relatively new, technology is already transforming the discipline. Researchers Haag, et. al. (2011) argue that for professional development to be successful it must include on-going modeling, practice, feedback and reflection over time. Additionally, according to researchers Joyce and Showers (2002), even trainings that include demonstrations, practice sessions and feedback, do not necessarily lead to visible transfer of knowledge to classroom teaching. Instead, they found a "large and dramatic increase in transfer of training" when coaching was added to the initial training (as cited in Marzano & Simms, 2013, p. 5). Therefore, in an effort to provide immediate, individualized feedback and on-going modeling, instructional coaches are turning to technological innovations to assist their coaching.

The coaching continuum (for both traditional and virtual coaching) calls for an instructional coach to help their mentee complete a self-audit in order to choose a strategy or behavior to improve upon. The coach then guides the teacher through the process of deeper understanding behind theory and research of one or more of the forty-one teaching elements (Marzano & Simms, 2013, p. 37). The coach then ultimately strives to guide the teacher from the beginning level to developing, from developing to applying and from applying to innovating. Although there are several coaching models to consider when guiding a teacher through the process, virtual coaching may provide the most effective feedback and reflection over time.

Virtual coaching, or "bug-in-ear" technology, as it is referred to in the Educational Leadership article The Power of Virtual Coaching, is an example of the compelling role that technology can have on instructional coaching. Virtual coaching uses advanced online and mobile technologies to allow teacher and coach to interact before, during and after real-time classroom experiences from remote locations (down the hall or across the country). Although it may sound expensive and time consuming, virtual coaching is actually a savings in time, money and travel. In fact, both teacher and coach only need a computer with access to high speed internet. Most coaching sessions take place over Skype, which is free for use. Virtual coaching is built around feedback, which is given while the teacher is still teaching (Marzano & Simms, 2013, p. 16). Like traditional coaching, the coach's role is to provide tips and guidance when needed, and unlike traditional coaching, intervene when a teacher is struggling mid-lesson. How better to model effective teaching strategies and provide job-embedded professional development than real-time "bug-in-ear" coaching?

References:

Haag, K., Kissel, B., Shoniker, R., & Stover, K. (2011) Differentiated coaching: fostering reflections. The Reading Teacher, 64(7), 498-509.

Marzano, R. J., & Simms, J. A. (2013). Coaching classroom instruction. Bloomington IN: Marzano Research.

Professional Development: Partnership Approach vs. Traditional Approach

It's Autumn in the South. In addition to the changing colors of leaves, pumpkin everything, and the approaching holiday season, this means football. This time of year, the names of football coaches are as common in households across the South as the question, "what's for dinner?" Although, this may come as surprising, I always knew I wanted to be a coach. I enjoy guiding others to get better at something that I love and I got to do just that as a high school cheerleading coach for three years. My main reason for stepping down from that position was my decision to begin working on my Ed.S. In my discussion with my principal, I told him that it was not my desire to be a "coach" throughout my teaching career. I wanted to shift my focus to becoming an instructional teacher leader. Little did I know at the time that I would still be a "coach", just of another type. According to Richard Gauthier and David Giber, "coaching is all about helping transport someone from where he or she is to where he or she needs to be. The verb 'coach' derives from the old English noun describing the vehicle for transporting royalty, moving from one place to another via the coach" (Marzano & Simms, 2013, p. 4). As a world history teacher, I love that the term originates from the transportation of royalty! 

In Coaching Classroom Instruction, Marzano and Simms provide substantial research and theory surrounding the history of coaching as well as research on the benefits of coaching. As research indicates, "teacher effectiveness is directly linked to student achievement" and therefore it is "well worth the effort to support teacher growth and performance through coaching" (Marzano & Simms, 2013, p. 3). As educators, our sole focus should be on student growth and achievement. Why wouldn't we participate in instructional coaching relationships if the research points to increased effectiveness on student achievement? Through my initial reading of chapters one and two of Coaching Classroom Instruction, I've concluded that often times we, as educators, administrators and teacher leaders, assume that whole group professional development and training is enough. I believe that administrators and teacher leaders are hopeful that other professionals participating in the training will take back what they learn to their classrooms, but unfortunately research shows that isn't the case. As referenced by Marzano and Simms, Bruce Joyce and Beverly Showers conducted research on the effectiveness of coaching as early as 2002. In their research they found that, "even when training included demonstrations, practice sessions, and feedback, it did not noticeably affect teachers' transfer of their learning to the classroom (effect size = 0.0)." There was however, a "large and dramatic increase in transfer of training - effect size of 1.42 - when coaching was added to an initial training experience" (Marzano & Simms, 2013, p. 5).

There is additional research on the idea that a partnership approach results in more effective teaching than the more often used traditional approach. In 2007, Jim Knight concluded that educators were four times more likely to transfer new knowledge and skills they learned in a coaching relationship than those learned in traditional, lecture from an expert, sessions (Marzano & Simms, 2013, p. 6). In fact, Knight reported previous findings from Robert Bush, that traditional professional development usually only leads to "about a ten percent implementation rate" whereas when "teachers receive an appropriate amount of support for professional learning, more than ninety percent of them embrace and implement programs that improve students' experiences in the classroom" (Marzano & Simms, 2013, p. 6). 

This research is eye opening to me. Why do we, as administrators and teacher leaders, so often neglect the coaching aspect when research shows its effectiveness? Instead, we deliver valuable information to our faculty in whole group settings and expect them to transfer that knowledge, new strategy, technology, etc. into their teaching on their own. If we are really concerned with teacher effectiveness that results in student achievement, we must refocus our professional development model to include instructional coaching. 

References

Gardner, A. (2014, August 12). Instructional Coaching. Retrieved from: http://www.cleanvideosearch.com/media/action/yt/watch?v=32a5pR3CUEc

Marzano, R. J. & Simms, J. A. (2013). Coaching classroom instruction. Bloomington IN: Marzano Research.

Miller, B. (2013). What makes mentoring and coaching different? Retrieved from: http://blog.vistage.com/business-leadership/what-makes-coaching-and-mentoring-different/

NETS-C

Statement of Purpose

ISTE.NETS-C Advancing Digital Age Coaching

The following describes current achievements and beliefs in each of the six strands of NETS-Coach and affirms future goals as a full-time Technology Leader, aligned with NETS-C. The bullet points in each section list evidence of growth and achievement within that area.

1. Visionary Leadership

Like most educators, during the first few years of my teaching career my vision pertained almost exclusively to my own classroom. I spent countless hours preparing lessons as well as strengthening my classroom management. Beginning my very first year, I planned and coordinated the use of technology in my classroom to support a digital-age education for my students. However, now that I am in an instructional leadership position, in addition to full-time teaching, I participate in discussions concerning all classrooms and all students. As the school Technology Coordinator, I am part of administrative decisions regarding the development and implementation of instructional technology across all curriculums, as well as technology usage for teacher productivity. Additionally, I work closely with the county technology department to ensure that we are working toward their vision for the county. 

• Regular meetings with the administration concerning vision and goals
• Regular meetings with school technician concerning technology needs to reach goals
• Constant contact with county technology resource teacher concerning county vision
• Regular meetings with social media team to encourage positive PR using social media.

As a full-time Technology Leader, I will inspire and participate in the development and implementation of a shared vision for the comprehensive integration of technology

2. Teaching, Learning and Assessments

Early in my Ed.S. program, I read a statement about the 21st century shift in pedagogy and emphasis on technology integration that stuck with me. The author pointed out that in teaching and learning, the verbs remain the same (students need to be able to think critically, present logically, communicate effectively, as well as read and write efficiently and logically). However, the nouns are the tools used to accomplish these tasks and they change rapidly. To be effective, educators must realize that while the verbs, the skills that students should be equipped with are fundamentally the same, the tools and pedagogy of getting them to that point have changed. Not only must we look at technology integration, we must look at how we teach and the way we structure our lessons.

 

Technology for technology's sake is not the answer. In fact, sometimes technology isn't the best fit for a lesson or learning model, but technology definitely enhances assessment with real time data and provides for differentiated instruction. I strive in my classroom to use technology for both delivering content as well as assessing learning. In my leadership role, I enjoy helping other educators find ways to teach using technology (if it is the best fit for the task they have in mind) as well as assess using a variety of technological tools. As the University of Montevallo social studies content specialist this spring, I met with pre-service teachers and shared countless practical tips, lessons, and classroom procedures, many of which included technology devices and tools.

• Socrative assessments
• Nearpod assessments
• Edmodo assessments
• Quizlet assessments
• CPS/Exam View assessments
• Global Scholar (used only in English and math currently)
• Stride Academy (used only in English and math currently)

As a full-time Technology Leader, I will assist teachers in using technology effectively for assessing student learning, differentiating instruction and providing rigorous, relevant, and engaging learning experiences for all students.

3. Digital Age Learning Environments

The early model of education prepared students for the Industrial Age. This model is what Marc Prensky (author of From Digital Natives to Digital Wisdom) calls the "sit up straight, pay attention, take notes fantasy of education past." Today, fifteen years into the 21st Century, our schools and classrooms must no longer follow this same model because this model does not effectively prepare our students for their future. As an educator I realized the importance of incorporating emerging technologies as well as multiple learning strategies into my curriculum very early in my career. Each year I strive to create a digital age learning environment in my classroom by allowing and providing a technology-rich atmosphere. My curriculum is a blended model where students have an online presence via Edmodo as well as Google Apps for Education. Students use Edmodo and Google to communicate with me and other classmates as well as collaborate on assignments and turn in assignments electronically. Both learning management systems enable me to provide feedback as well as share information beyond the school day. In addition to the learning management system, students use a variety of Web 2.0 tools to enhance learning and engagement. I love sharing my ideas and what I've found to be effective with other educators. In my leadership role, I enjoy helping others incorporate technology into their curriculum, not only because it is innovative and enhances productivity but because in today's world, technology integration is what our students need to be successful in their future.

• Edmodo learning management system
• Google Apps for Education learning management system
• Hapara teacher dashboard
• 9th grade transition, QR scavenger hunt
• Nearpod interactive lessons
• Live polling such as Socrative and Poll Everywhere
• Quizlet for vocabulary
• Remind for text messaging
• QR codes
• Electronic primary document analysis
• Student creations using Tiki-Toki timelines, web mapping and countless Web 2.0 tools

As a full-time Technology Leader, I will continue to create and support effective digital-age learning environments to maximize the learning of all students.

4. Professional Development and Program Evaluation

Throughout my time as an educator, I’ve participated in countless professional development opportunities, especially PD concerning technology integration. During my first year teaching, I participated in a technology grant that provided on-going PD throughout the school year. At the end of my first year, I presented at the Alabama Educational Technology Conference and attended the International Society for Technology in Education Conference. I believe that these experiences very early in my career paved the way for my passion for technology integration.

Throughout my technology leadership role, I provide tech tips during faculty meetings and via email and assist faculty members with instructional technology. I relay information to the faculty from the central office and assist with any technology purchases as well as conduct inventory changes. I am responsible for the completion of the Transform2020 Technology Plan.  I serve as the first point of contact for technology integration as well as minor troubleshooting. Additionally, I assist the administration in evaluating the impact and effectiveness of technology usage on student learning.

• AETC presentation
• Shelby County Continuing Education PD, Nearpod
• Mathematics department PD, Nearpod
• Grade level PD, GAFE
• Grade level PD, Hapara
• Grade level PD, Google Classroom
• Individual and small group faculty requests for additional help
• Faculty instructional technology BINGO
• Facilitator of faculty meeting "Monthly Share Dare"
• U.M. content specialist workshops, March and May 2015
• Created TC electronic request form (and fulfilled requests)

As a full-time Technology Leader, I will conduct needs assessments, develop technology-related professional learning programs, and evaluate the impact on instructional practice and student learning.

 

5. Digital Citizenship

Our students are constantly participating in the digital world, whether it be in a controlled classroom environment or outside of school. Their entire existence has taken place during the digital age. In the future, they will continue to participate in the digital world in tremendous and newfound ways and perform jobs that are not even created yet. Therefore, it is more important than ever to educate students on ethical, legal, and safe uses of digital information and technologies. In my own classes, I spend time talking about the appropriate use of devices and internet safety. In my leadership role, I oversaw the implementation of the county digital citizenship program, SNCC. The administration and I decided that the program might go over better with our students if other students implemented it. Our student social media and PR team met with me on two separate occasions to go over the program and develop their lessons. On a late start school day, the team conducted the lessons throughout all history classrooms so that all students participated in the program.

• Facilitated school-wide digital citizenship program

As a full-time Technology Leader, I will model and promote digital citizenship.

 

6. Content Knowledge and Professional Growth

Educators must engage in continual learning to deepen their knowledge in technology integration as well as improve and strengthen their ability to model and facilitate digital age learning. I am passionate about teaching and learning and a prime example of a lifelong learner. Since I started my formal education in kindergarten many years ago, I have only taken three years off from formal education (my first three years teaching). I am now pursuing my third degree, the Ed.S. in instructional technology from the University of Montevallo. In addition to continuing my formal education, I am constantly reading, researching and practicing new ways of teaching and learning. I am passionate about deepening my own understanding of technology integration as well as my understanding of teaching and learning as a whole.

• GOT-IT grant participation
• AETC attendee and presenter
• ISTE attendee and member
• Owens Young Technology Innovation Award winner (Chiquita Marbury)
• 2015 Outstanding Graduate Student, Ed.S. IT
• Montevallo's Excellent Educator Award
• ADK and Phi Mu scholarship recipient to further education
• Shelby County Schools Filtering Committee member
• Shelby County Schools Technology Planning Committee member
• Shelby County Schools Social Studies Curriculum team member
• U.M. College of Education Advisory Council member
• U.M. Content Specialist, conducted two workshops spring 2015

As a full-time Technology Leader, I will demonstrate professional knowledge, skills and dispositions in content, pedagogical, and technological areas as well as adult learning and leadership and continuously deepen my knowledge and expertise.

References

 

ISTE Standards for Coaches. (n.d.). International Society for Technology in Education. Retrieved from www.iste.org/nets

Pritchett Articles (2014)

Shelby County Reporter - Owens Young Award




Shelby County Reporter - Equipping the Future Generation




Shelby County Reporter - Salon Simulation

Technology Budgeting and Professional Development

In the twenty-first century, both technology and professional development are crucial and imperative aspects of all schools and educational organizations. While they are imperative, both require a great deal of funding, which requires systematic financial planning. Many administrators, instructional coordinators and other school leaders question the cost effectiveness of technology purchases. According to Piccano (2011), the basic question concerning the cost-effectiveness of technology is, “are the funds expended on technology worth the improvement in learning when compared to costs of other types of instructional delivery?" (p. 250). Additionally, although school leaders know the importance of professional development, often times it is overlooked when combined with instructional technology purchases because of the expenses associated with software and devices. The answer to Piccano's question about the cost effectiveness of technology is hard to justify and often convoluted. I would argue that the lack of funding toward professionally development is only inhibiting the cost effectiveness of technology purchases on learning because barriers that teachers and students hit interrupt instructional time and often discourage teachers from using technology in their curriculum, which therefore negatively impact the cost effectiveness of technology on learning. 

The Center for Implementing Technology in Education (CITEd) reviewed a variety of case studies related to technology integration.  "Four common strategies that teachers face in their efforts to integrate technology into their curriculum were identified: adequate time, both to identify and learn compatible and relevant software; scheduling of access to computers; adequate equipment and use; and adequate and timely professional development. These findings are consistent with national findings."  Of the four challenges, at least two of the four could be tackled with adequate professional development and training. The fact that appropriate monies are not allocated to training on use and implementation of instructional technology is negatively impacting any research conducted on the effectiveness of technology on learning. I would argue that if sufficient attention was given to professional development then the effectiveness of technology on learning would be much more apparent and would drastically increase because faculty and staff would know how to effectively and efficiently implement it into their curriculum.

In Chapter 11 of Educational Leadership and Planning for Technology, Piccano suggests a professional development planning model to be integrated with technology planning and that "professional development is a product of the larger technology planning model" (pg. 217). After technology planning , the professional development model includes: planning for professional development; assessing needs; designing a program that meets the needs of both district and school; and providing incentives for staff to participate; implementing the program and evaluating and reviewing the program" (pg. 217). There are multiple ways to design technology professional development, including hands-on activities, one-on-one coaching, and training the trainer. Furthermore, CITEd's review shows that "in addition to effective professional development, supporting technology integration also entails the following elements: establishing communities of practice, providing administrative support, and creating relevance to context and curriculum." In conclusion, school leaders should take measures to ensure that the technology budget includes monies for professional development and training. Securing devices and equipment is only half of the battle. Faculty must be educated on the need, use and implementation of instructional technology purchases so that they can effectively and efficiently integrate it into their curriculum.

References

Image retrieved from: http://techintegrationmethod2.weebly.com/

Center for Implementing Technology in Education. Learning from case studies of technology integration. http://www.cited.org/index.aspx?page_id=149#case

Piccano, A.G. (2011). Educational leadership and planning for technology. (5^th ed.) Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson

Decisions, Decisions, Decisions!

                                                                                                                                                                "Hardware add-ons, software updates, modifications, and new releases are commonplace in computing life. As a result, the number and types of decisions have grown considerably in the past 20 years" (Piccano, 2011, p. 187). It's obvious to state that in today's world, technology hardware and software evaluation is a major task of school leaders, administrators and technology specialists. In addition to hardware and software, now there are also decisions to be made about applications (apps), web 2.0 tools, cloud storage and instructional technology usage in general. Considering Apple apps alone, there were 20,000 education and learning apps developed by the year 2012 (Rao, 2012). Three years later, we can only imagine how many more education applications are available (and we're just talking Apple apps here!) According to Piccano (2011), "even after hardware or software has been selected, new models or new versions quickly appear - requiring yet another decision" (p.187).

To help sort through all of these decisions, Piccano (2011) offers seven criteria for selecting hardware and six criteria for software. Among the criteria for hardware evaluation are: "performance (how well does the hardware work?); compatibility (does the hardware work with other equipment?); modularity/expandibility (can the hardware grow as applications grow?); ergonomics (is the hardware designed with people in mind?); software availability (is the software you wish to use currently available?); vendor (what is the reputation of the manufacturer in terms of technical support, maintenance, and industry position?); cost (what are the costs?)" (p. 190). Software evaluation includes, "efficiency (how well are the programs written?); ease of use (how easy is the software to use?); documentation (what is the quality and quantity of the documentation?); hardware requirements (what hardware is needed to run the software?); vendor (same) and cost (same)" (p. 197).

More important than hardware and software decisions, are decisions concerning the educational effectiveness of the program (whether it be hardware or software). At first glance, it seemed that this important factor was left out of Piccano's hardware and software criteria guidelines. However,  In Appendix C of the text, Piccano compiled an extensive list of criteria for developing a software evaluation form or checklist for schools or districts. According to Piccano (2011), "an evaluation form helps define the evaluation procedure itself, and administrators and teachers should work together to develop what they feel will work best in their schools" (p. 208). The evaluation factors are grouped into eight categories: general, content, appropriateness, questioning techniques, approach/motivation, evaluator's field test results, creativity, learner control, learning objectives, goals and outcomes, feedback, simulations, teacher modifiability, evaluation and record keeping, documentation and support material, technical quality, start-up and implementation, graphics and audio, probeware and peripherals included in the software package, and hardware and marketing issues (p.289-294).  All of these factors together, along with the hardware and software criteria, will greatly help any school or district determine the most effective technology components to enhance their curriculum.

References

Image retrieved from: http://sellingwithsean.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/05/Decisions-Decisions-910x1024.png

Instructional Software Evaluation Factors: http://www-personal.umich.edu/~sdbest/techplan/maps/App_e.htm

Piccano, A.G. (2011). Educational leadership and planning for technology. (5^th ed.) Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson.

Rao, Leena. (2012). Apple: 20,000 Education iPad Apps Developed; 1.5 Million Devices in Use at Schools. http://techcrunch.com/2012/01/19/apple-20000-education-ipad-apps-developed-1-5-million-devices-in-use-at-schools/

Data Analysis and An Overview of the K-12 Graduation Tracking System (GTS)

In the field of education, data can be a scary yet imperative term. The task of data analysis within a school, although overwhelming at times, is necessary according to Piccano (2011) because, among other things, "given the extensive reporting requirements of various governmental agencies, school leaders need to be able to demonstrate that they have access to and can provide critical data about their schools. Failure to do so can jeopardize budget requests, grant applications, and overall credibility with governmental officials" (p. 53). Now, more than ever, there is a growing push for schools to take on a data-driven decision making model for not only school policies and procedures but also for curriculum decisions. The simplest definition of this data-driven decision making model is "the use of data analysis to inform the courses of action involving policy and procedures, whereas, data analysis is used to inform and does not replace the experience, expertise, intuition, judgement, acumen, and compassion of competent educators" (Piccano, 2011, p. 69). The initial questions of how and why lead us to who will take on this task. As schools begin to approach the process of implementing a data-driven model, they will quickly realize the need for someone with technical skill and statistical expertise to analyze and interpret data. According to Piccano, this person must "possess a number of skills, especially familiarity with information systems and fundamental statistical analysis, and serves as an important resource person for others (administrators, teachers, parents) in using data effectively" (p. 75).

I began wondering how this process looks in a K-12 setting, specifically in a high school. STI's InformationNOW (INOW)  is currently used in all schools throughout the state of Alabama. What many users aren't aware of, are the many add on features of INOW. One of these features, used extensively at Montevallo High School, is the Graduation Tracking System (GTS) through the INFocus information system software. According to the State Department of Education (2013) "the GTS utilizes existing STI technology to capture student information pertaining to attendance, behavior and course performance data as 'high yield' indicators" (p. 3).

Once a school decides to use the GTS method for student intervention and procedural decision making, identifying the team is the most important task.According to the training manual provided by the State Department of Education (2013), the purpose of the GTS Team is to review and discuss the information available in the INFocus tool, particularly about individual students identified as at risk of dropping out of school. The Team should meet at set intervals throughout the school year and continuously monitor student behavior changes and effectiveness of interventions. The Team should be comprised of individuals who have broad knowledge of student needs, appropriate interventions, and have the authority to resolve obstacles. Select individuals should serve on the team over multiple years to ensure continuity and consistency (p. 7-8).

At Montevallo High School, the 9th grade team was the first group to work with a graduation coach and GTS. This year, the graduation coach is following the data of the original 9th graders (10th graders now) and the current class of 9th graders.

Table 1 shows the suggested schedule for implementing the GTS (State Department of Education, 2013, p. 5).

TABLE 1

Once the team and target students are identified, the GTS data is reviewed to identify any students that are at risk for dropping out as determined by the high yield indicators (attendance, behavior and course performance). 

Table 2 shows an example school and system benchmark for the three indicators (State Department of Education, 2013, p. 9).

TABLE 2

Once a student is flagged in the GTS system for one or more of the indicators, the Team then makes intervention decisions based on that student's data.

Table 3 shows example questions for the Team to consider in their interval meetings (State Department of Education, 2013, p. 11).

TABLE 3

Table 4 provides example dropout prevention strategies (State Department of Education, 2013, p. 13).

TABLE 4

Schools that do not employ a graduation coach can easily adopt this method of teaming and intervening. However, someone will need to be given access to the INFocus reports and be named as data analyst. Lastly, Piccano stresses that, as with any technological system, "success and progress will depend on the ability of institutional leaders to harness and convert information resources into knowledge about what is happening within an organization while monitoring the forces that influence it from the outside" (p.54). With that said, the people at the center of the INFocus Graduation Tracking System are integral to its success.

For more information on GTS and training materials, see Introduction to GPS

References

Image retrieved from: http://spotfire.tibco.com/blog/?p=21624

Piccano, A.G. (2011). Educational leadership and planning for technology. (5^th ed.) Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson.

State Department of Education. (2013). Introduction/Implementation process for the K-12 graduation tracking system (GTS). Montgomery, AL: State Department of Education.