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.