Reflection on Leadership Standard 1

As a mathematics department chair and instructional coach I promoted the success of all students by facilitating the development, articulation, implementation, and stewardship of a vision of learning that is shared and supported by the school community. Our districts goal of improving each student by one band on the California Standards Test until advanced fit well with the vision I had for our department that every student would be learning and improving, and when they did not additional supports would be in place to ensure they did. Besides over identifying honors level students, our district had been treating all learners the same regardless of the knowledge they brought by lumping them together and accepting the failure of those who were unable to perform. I was able to shift the paradigm at our site by creating classes to meet students where they were at and challenging them to progress, placing them appropriately in those classes, and intervening when students were not being successful in the new environment.

We started with honors level courses and regular courses in mathematics when I began as department head. Under the old mathematics standards, material was covered too quickly so some learners did not have adequate time or access points to the curriculum and they struggled. Others were able to pick up the material quickly and got bored with the spiraling of the same content year after year. I was able to institute a sixth grade pre-algebra program for advanced learners that later led to seventh grade pre-algebra and eighth grade geometry, which kept our most advanced learners challenged and learning new material. For those with a lower level of success, I created an algebra readiness program with the goal of getting them back to grade level mathematics by ninth grade at first and later by eighth grade by shifting the course to the seventh grade year. Some, including some students with disabilities, needed a Tier III Response to Intervention as they were so far below grade level, so we were able to add another course, Developmental Math, to meet their needs. Finally, we were able to provide a curriculum to existing special education classes so our most needy students would have a guaranteed and viable curriculum rather than relying on teacher created materials. The higher level courses were based on the standards for their respective courses, and the lower level courses were based on the standards for eighth grade general mathematics. Once the offerings were in place, then we had to facilitate the

development of a shared vision for the achievement of all students based upon data from multiple measures of student learning and relevant qualitative indicators. One way we accomplished this was through proper student placement.

I was able to lead a team of teachers in revising the sixth grade student placement process. The teacher recommendation system was skewed based on teachers viewing their own best students as top achievers mathematically. I led a team of teachers in creating a rubric based teacher recommendation system. The team I led also produced a placement exam for all incoming seventh graders. All students were given the opportunity to participate in the honors level program at the sixth grade level; however, those students also took the UCI/UCSD algebra readiness exam in addition to attending a Summer Honors Mathematics Program developed by myself and small team of teachers. Therefore, multiple measures were employed to evaluate students including their grades and the information above. A spreadsheet was created to give the evaluator all the information at once to make a decision for proper placement one student at a time.

Once students were adequately placed in a course that challenged them at an appropriate level, students who remained unsuccessful received mathematics intervention through a short-term elective pull out program designed to aide all learners regardless of their level. Changing the model of instruction was crucial in the success of this program; rather than whole group re-teaching only, we were able to build in small group and even one-on-one instruction. We were able to leverage and marshal sufficient resources, including the technology of the PLATO Learning System, to implement and attain the vision for all students and all subgroups of students. My field study and district alternative evaluation describe the process in detail and provides artifacts. We were able to harness the influence of diversity to improve teaching and learning within small groups. While students were receiving re-teaching through a different technology-based model, teachers were even able to work with students one-on-one. Teachers were able to properly identify students for shortterm, two to three week long, interventions through various custom formative assessments focused on critical course content throughout the year, and students were able to test out of the intervention through similar

summative assessments. Benchmark exams developed by Action Learning Systems through a partnership with myself through a different field study were also utilized in placement at every level.

With all the changes to the system, one barrier remained, grading practices. Through work facilitating the department PLC, we were able to identify differences in grading practices/outcomes through an excel spreadsheet I developed, research grading practices as part of the PLC including 15 considerations for grading, three of which are included here as an example, and revise our grading practices as a department to allow students to demonstrate their learning after the interventions and to change grading from being punitive in nature to more motivational in nature.

I hope to improve the mathematics intervention at my K-8 site in the future. Designing an intervention for elementary school within the new Common Core State Standards presents a unique challenge, which I have already started to work on through my final field study. Next steps include: working with the principal in the design of the program; working with teachers on the standards, assessments, and qualitative observations to place students into the interventions; and possibly working with students themselves during the intervention if given the chance.