Vol. 10, No. 1 Fall 2014
Principal Navigator The magazine of the Ohio Association of Elementary School Administrators serving Ohio’s pre-k, elementary, middle level, and central office administrators
HAVE YOU
Signed UP FOR
?
By now you’ve probably heard the buzz about our new service, the OAESA 360° Feedback Tool for Principals. You may have heard how OAESA 360° gathers critical evidence about your job performance through online assessments taken by you, your teachers, and your supervisors to identify your strengths, weaknesses, and blind spots. But did you know that OAESA 360° can help you track your growth and development over time? That’s why now is the perfect time to sign up for a year’s access. Let our feedback tool help you navigate through a successful 2014–15 school year. Whether this is the first time you’ve heard about OAESA 360° and you need more information or you are all set to sign up, just visit www.oaesa.org and click on the OAESA 360° icon at the top for all your OAESA 360° needs. Still have questions? Give us a call at 888.646.2372.
We invite you to share YOUR professional experiences, observations, and research with your colleagues by writing an article for the Principal Navigator magazine. We will soon be accepting articles for the following issue: Winter 2015
Theme had not been chosen at time of publication. Watch e-mail for more information! Article deadline is November 15, 2014.
If you are interested in submitting an article, please e-mail navigator@oaesa.org for guidelines.
Thank you for your contributions! We could not produce this magazine without them!
Vol. 10, No. 1 Fall 2014
Principal Navigator
The magazine of the Ohio Association of Elementary School Administrators serving Ohio’s pre-k, elementary, middle level, and central office administrators
Feature Articles 6
Response to Intervention and Decision-Fatigue by Kasey Spirakus, EdD
9
How a Solid RtI System Can Lead to Student Achievement for All by Todd Carmer
11 F.R.E.E.
by Candace Nespeca
26
Why Bother with OAESA? by Paul G. Young, PhD
37
Gifted Learners Respond to Intervention by Dr. Ursula Ricketts
Table of Contents 3
Executive Director’s Exchange by Julie Davis, EdD
5
SAIL for Education This I Know... by Paul Kulik, EdD
8
Highlighting a PrinciPAL Tom Bates
10 Advice from Your Secretary Ideas to Keep in Mind Throughout the Year 12
OAESA Board of Directors
16
Middle School Matters Including Gifted Students in Online Response to Intervention Programs by Sally B. I’Anson, EdD
18
OAESA Chalkboard: News from the Association
20
Central Office Connections An Intersection at the Corner of FIP and RtI by Mary Peters, PhD
23
Elementary Essentials Building Strong Relationships: Our Success with RtI by Vicki Scott
28
From the Desk of the Associate Executive Director Perspectives on OTES/OPES: Survey Results by D. Mark Jones
38
Your Honors 2014 Award Winners
40
Literacy LIVE Gallery
42
Legal Report Sexual Harassment in the Schoolhouse by Dennis Pergram, esq.
44
Important Tips to Help Educators Avoid Legal Trouble in 2014–15, Part One by Dennis A. Leone
48
Health Issues Epinephrine Autoinjectors in School by Ann Connelly
50
New Members
51
Sorry...We’re BOOKED
is proud to be sponsored by the following:
Corporate Members
GOLD Members
PLATINUM
Bowling Green State University Nova Southeastern Achievement Interactive Achievement
“Exclusive” Members
SILVER
The Chaddock Group Concordia University Chicago The Horace Mann Companies Ohio Tuition Trust Authority
Amplify Learning California Casualty’s A+ Auto & Home Insurance Lexia Learning Systems Mayerson Academy Rowland Reading Foundation
Members
BRONZE Members
FranklinCovey Martin Public Seating, Inc.
Retirement is about having the time and resources to do those things you enjoy most in life. Helping you plan to have the income necessary is where we come in. AXA can take some of the anxiety out of planning by breaking down your goals into small, manageable AXA offers a broad selection of retirement solutions that can help you save now and provide retirement income in the future.
Call us at 866-401-3030, option 8 to schedule an appointment.
“AXA” is the brand name for the AXA Equitable Financial Services, LLC family of companies, including AXA Equitable Life Insurance Company. AXA S.A. is a French holding company for a group of international insurance and financial services companies, including AXA Equitable Financial Services, LLC. The obligations of AXA Equitable Life Insurance Company are backed solely by their claims-paying ability. AXA Equitable Life Insurance Company (NY, NY) issues annuity and life insurance products. GE-93993 (5/14)
2 w Principal Navigator
Principal Navigator 2014–2015 Board of Directors President, Kevin Gehres, Van Wert City Past President, Elizabeth DiDonato, Claymont City President-elect, Heidi Kegley, Delaware City NAESP Representative, Jeromey Sheets, EdD, Lancaster City Federal Relations Coordinator, Aretha Dixon, Summit Arts Acad. Zone 1 Director, Teresa West, Vinton County Local Zone 2 Director, Dave Winebrenner, Kings Local Zone 3 Director, Stephanie Klingshirn, Mississinawa Valley Zone 4 Director, Troy Armstrong, Wauseon Exempted Village Zone 5 Director, Jonathan Muro, Madison Local Zone 6 Director, Erin Simpson, Wadsworth City Zone 7 Director, Melanie Pearn, Riverside Local Zone 8 Director, TBD Zone 9 Director, TBD Zone 10 Director, Timothy Barton, South-Western City Middle School Rep., Barbara Werstler, Twinsburg City Central Office Rep., Daniel Graves, Columbus City Assistant Principal Rep., Amanda Albert, Northmor Local Urban Rep., Gretchen Liggins, Cleveland Metropolitan Minority Rep., TBD
2014–2015 Editorial Committee Jeromey Sheets, EdD, Lancaster City, chair Julie Frank, Wooster City Keith Helmlinger, Sidney City Angela Schaal, Sylvania City Laurie Vent, Upper Sandusky Exempted Village Paul Young, PhD, retired Stephen Zinser, Cincinnati Archdiocese
OAESA Staff Julie Davis, EdD, Executive Director D. Mark Jones, Associate Executive Director Nancy Abrams, Business Manager/Admin. Assistant Donna Ball, Special Projects Coordinator Audrey Carson, Communications Specialist Tony Piehowicz, Corporate Membership Advisor Abigail Smith, Editor, Principal Navigator Joanne Turner, Coordinator of Office Operations Kathy Windau, Membership Coordinator
SAIL Staff Tyler Carson, Advisor, SAIL/Univ. Partnerships Melissa Butsko, Advisor, SAIL/Univ. Partnerships Unless otherwise noted, all articles published in the Principal Navigator become the property of OAESA and may not be reprinted without permission. The articles published in the Principal Navigator represent the ideas and/or belief of the authors and do not necessarily express the view of OAESA unless so stated. Advertising inquiries should be addressed to OAESA (Telephone: 614/794-9190, FAX: 614/794-9191, Email: info@oaesa.org). The Principal Navigator (ISSN 1088-078X) is published three times per school year by the Ohio Association of Elementary School Administrators, 2600 Corporate Exchange Drive, Suite 168, Columbus, OH 43231. Subscriptions are available only as part of membership. Annual membership dues in the Association are $250 of which $30 is for a year’s subscription to Principal Navigator. Periodicals postage paid at Westerville, Ohio and at additional mailing offices.
Executive Director’s Exchange by Julie Davis, EdD Welcome back, colleagues! I hope you had a wonderful summer and will be returning to the 2014–15 school year relaxed and recharged. Thanks for what you do each and every day for the students in Ohio and the educators who serve them. OAESA had a busy summer, including Literacy LIVE: our 57th Annual Professional Conference (see p. 40 for photos and a recap); the rollout of the new OAESA 360° Feedback Tools; the beginning of the Lunch and Learn webinars; and strategic planning for an exciting year ahead. Before you find yourself completely immersed in the new school year, I hope you’ll take time to check out some of our exciting opportunities! The OAESA 360° Feedback Tools were designed to offer insight for busy educators about job performance. Let’s be honest—we all like to know what others think about us and our work. Not to mention that evaluation frameworks, including OTES/OPES, require documentation of job effectiveness. These tools provide just that and more! We have a 360° Feedback Tool for principals and also one for teachers, and both provide a formative measure of educators’ skills. Both instruments include forty items designed to measure essential behaviors, based upon Ohio and national standards. For each item, you will score your own demonstrated behavior and will identify the degree of importance you believe that behavior holds for your current, specific assignment. After you’ve finished the assessment, you invite your supervisor and/or teachers to rate your performance on the same items. Upon completion, you can compare your scores with those from the other scorers to create a comprehensive picture of your performance. This evidence will provide you with critical information for professional growth. The process is quick, online, and anonymous. And it’s super easy to get started. Just visit www. oaesa.org and click on the OAESA 360° Feedback Tool button at the top of the page. I wanted to take the time to share with you a little about the 360° Feedback Tools in this issue of the Principal Navigator, so you have the opportunity to sign up for it now, gaining critical information about your job performance at the beginning of the year to help guide your work throughout the school year. On June 10–12, 2015, OAESA’s 58th Annual Professional Conference & Trade Show returns to Columbus, Ohio, with the theme of True Grit at the Hilton Columbus at Easton. We are excited to partner with Scholastic Book Fairs once again to bring you this conference, and like last year, you will be able to use Scholastic Dollars™ to pay for your registration! That’s right—you can attend the conference at no cost to you or your district. Best of all, you can earn Scholastic Dollars™ by providing book fairs to your students and families—events that everyone looks forward to! Take this opportunity to plan your school’s book fairs now, so you can use those dollars when registration opens this winter. Please see details on the following page for more information. I look forward to seeing you and your team of teachers in June! Not able to join us this past June for the Literacy LIVE conference? OAESA is offering encore performances of popular 2014 conference clinics. On the second Friday of each month, August through May, OAESA is hosting no-cost Lunch and Learn webinars from 1:00 to 2:00 p.m., featuring some of our great clinic presenters. Go to www.oaesa.org for a full listing of the program topics and registration details. I hope you enjoy this issue of the Navigator, as it offers many informative articles on RtI, and we at OAESA look forward to another fantastic year working with you!
POSTMASTER: Send address changes to Principal Navigator, Ohio Association of Elementary School Administrators, 2600 Corporate Exchange Drive, Suite 168, Columbus, OH 43231.
Sincerely,
OAESA is affiliated with the National Association of Elementary School Principals (NAESP).
Julie Davis, EdD Executive Director Fall 2014 w 3
with
June 10-12, 2015 Hilton Columbus at Easton
Schedule your school’s Book Fair and start earning Scholastic Dollars™ to use for 2015 Professional Conference registrations! Visit bookfairs.scholastic.com to schedule your Book Fair and to find more resources, including parent guides, a Book Fairs app, and reading events. Registration for the 2015 Professional Conference is available online at oaesa.org. Registration with Scholastic Dollars™ will be available online soon. Your total will automatically adjust to reflect the amount of Scholastic Dollars™ to be deducted from your Scholastic Dollars™ account (2 Scholastic Dollars™ for every $1.)
Conference to be held in the heart of Easton Town Center Easton has an ever-expanding collection of the nation’s premier retailers, showcasing a diverse mix of nearly 200 shopping, dining, and entertainment destinations, with several that are unique to Columbus and Ohio. Take advantage of this premier conference location and explore all that Easton has to offer!
by Paul Kulik, EdD
Having served as a building and district administrator for more than thirty years and ten years as a university instructor in educational administration, I have observed some of the finest educational leaders that our profession has to offer. At the same time, I have also experienced a few leaders who have not been successful and have theorized the reasons they have not been effective. With this understanding, allow me to focus on those leaders who share some common attributes/traits that enhance their abilities as effective leaders. This I know…leadership in today’s educational arena is not for the faint hearted. In their text, The Leadership Challenge, Kouzes and Posner describe personal-best projects of educational leaders (p. 14) and what distinguishing qualities allow them to be successful. They include relentless effort, steadfastness, competence, and attention to detail. With the volume of new state and federal initiatives in the past few years, educational leaders would be wise to consider the above when embarking on any new mandates, e.g., OTES, OPES, Third Grade Reading Guarantee, SLOs, etc. Never before have pressures from parents, community members, and legislators been as great as they are now, and educational administrators must remain focused and determined to “stay the course.” This I know…ethics in education is never more important than it is today. Parker Palmer (Meeting the Ethical Challenges of Leadership) uses a metaphor to demonstrate ethical and unethical leadership as a contrast between light and darkness. Those unethical leaders project shadows out of their inner darkness and face monsters of insecurity; battleground mentality (winners vs. losers); functional atheism (he/she has the ultimate responsibility for everything happening in the organization); fear of chaos (stifling dissent and innovation); denying death (facing the fact that projects are no longer useful); and evil (based upon jealousy, envy, and rage). Palmer contrasts the above with a description of ethical leadership (p. 64) characterized by ethical sensitivity, shown by leaders taking perspectives of others’ viewpoints, controlling social bias, interpreting situations, and communicating effectively. Further, he posits that ethical judgment is imperative as leaders understand and reason ethically, understand the consequence of their decisions, reflect upon process and outcome, and demonstrate coping skills and resiliency. Additionally, Palmer finds that ethical focus is seen when leaders respect others, cultivate conscience, act responsibly, value traditions/institutions, and are
able to display ethical identity and integrity. Lastly, Palmer shares that ethical action is the ability to resolve conflict and problems, assert oneself respectfully, take the initiative to implement decisions, and is characterized by courage, perseverance, and hard work. This I know…there has never been a greater need for our educational leaders to demonstrate moral strength and fortitude. In Gary Yukl’s text, Leadership in Organizations, Thomas Sergiovanni describes moral leadership (p. 120) as exhibited by successful leaders and observed in the qualities of adaptability, achievement orientation, assertiveness, cooperation, self-confidence, stress-tolerance, and decisiveness. At the same time, he asserts that a knowledge of group dynamics, persuasiveness, and being organizationally and socially adept are also essential if educational administrators are engaging in moral leadership. This I know…astute leaders recognize the strengths they possess, and when working from a position of power and potential, rather than one of deficiencies, they can ensure that our schools/districts continue to progress and grow. It is highly unlikely that today’s educational leaders will possess every skill/quality previously described. However, utilizing one’s leadership strengths/abilities while developing new and improved strategies to enhance the performance of all stakeholders, we can ensure that our institutions will continue to thrive and prosper. Having served six districts as an administrator for more than thirty-five years in the education field, I have seen too many quick fixes, fads, and absolutes to problems in education. However, in my mind, one overarching feature remains at the top of the list in making a significant difference in the education we provide our youth, and that is the quality of leadership offered to our students, staff, and parents/community. It is with this confidence and assurance that I can truly say, “This I know…” References Johnson, Craig E. (2005). Meeting the ethical challenges of leadership. Los Angeles: Sage. Kouzes, James M. and Posner, Barry Z. (2007). Leadership challenge. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Yukl, Gary (1989). Leadership in organizations. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Paul Kulik, EdD, is a retired principal from central Ohio. He currently serves as an instructor for the SAIL/CUC partnership programs. Fall 2014 w 5
Response to Intervention and Decision-Fatigue by Kasey Spirakus, EdD
“The whole purpose of places like Starbucks is for people with no decision-making ability whatsoever to make six decisions just to buy one cup of coffee. Short, tall, light, dark, caf, decaf, low fat, nonfat, etc. So people who don’t know what the hell they’re doing or who on earth they are can, for only $2.95, get not just a cup of coffee but an absolutely defining sense of self: Tall. Decaf. Cappuccino.” - Joe Fox in the movie, You’ve Got Mail (1998) How expertly screenwriter Nora Ephron describes choices we experience on a daily basis! Ms. Ephron didn’t know in 1998 what we know now. By having many choices, we do not get “an absolutely defining sense of self”; rather, we become tired with having to choose and are likely to make hasty decisions or none at all. Given too many choices, we become dissatisfied with the choice we made and may not follow through on choices that require action. This phenomenon, known as decision-fatigue, can affect many aspects of our lives. In a school setting, too many choices for student intervention, for example, may not be a good thing and may be counterproductive. We want to avoid making decisions for student intervention before key staff can properly identify the problem, or we risk dissatisfaction with what is ultimately decided. We also don’t want to make intervention decisions that result in a failure to implement an intervention as intended. And we want to avoid deliberating too long while students fall further and further behind in the classroom. Setting up habits and systems to avoid decision-fatigue can help us avoid making poor choices in intervention that delay student growth. Having a predetermined structure by which decisions are made may lessen the effect of decision-fatigue. Response to Intervention (RtI) is an ideal structure for decision-making because it includes a formalized process by which a problem is identified and choices are made, either by preselected interventions or through a collaborative problem-solving 6 w Principal Navigator
team. The RtI process is intended to lead toward a consistent and quality approach to a problem and to encourage that the integrity of the intervention delivered is satisfactory. RtI was conceived for school teams to provide early intervention for struggling students, typically in math, reading, and for behavioral difficulties. The model, which is usually a three- or four-tiered system of intervention, has been used to varying degrees and has been in use in Ohio for nearly ten years. The RtI system can be broken down in mainly two approaches: a problem-solving approach and a standard protocol approach. Either approach involves a few main components to its framework, including universal screening, increasingly intensive research-based interventions, progress monitoring, and intervention integrity. The use of a problem-solving model and high-yield interventions are not always compatible and assumes that teachers know how to find and determine quality interventions. Is the average teacher skilled at determining the degree by which a practice meets the definition of highquality research? Maybe. Do they have time during their day to research interventions? Probably not. Building leaders should know which common interventions are most likely to have the greatest effect on students and be ready to guide their teams on scientifically based research practices that are embedded into a decision-making framework, are available, and are ready to be implemented. In other words, if we are able to do our homework ahead of time and work high-yield strategies into an RtI process, we are more likely to influence student achievement. The term “scientifically based research” is used over one hundred times in No Child Left Behind (NCLB) documents. Scientifically based research includes research that employs systematic, empirical methods that draw on observation or experiment; involves rigorous data analyses that
are adequate to test the state hypothesis and justify the general conclusions drawn; relies on measurements or observational methods; is evaluated using experimental designs; ensures that studies are presented in sufficient detail and clarity to allow for replication; and has been accepted by a peer-reviewed journal or a panel of independent experts (No Child Left Behind Act of 2001, 20 U.S.C., §7801[37]), 2008). To review interventions based on the definition of scientifically based research in real time, however, is difficult for the most seasoned veteran without some sort of decision-making framework already in place. And many rely on their colleagues for guidance—colleagues who may or may not be versed on what makes an intervention high quality or even effective (Spirakus, 2014). A standard protocol approach of RtI uses preselected researchbased interventions and reduces the teacher’s decision making in intervention selection—and therefore the potential for decision-fatigue. The standard protocol approach is an intervention model designed to provide early intervention and tiered support for struggling learners. Considered a top-down approach in developing interventions, students are placed in tiered interventions based on established cut-scores of academic screening measures. The advantage to this approach is that school administrators can help predetermine quality interventions using scientifically based research and, those implementing interventions become experts. Fidelity checks, a method of monitoring the faithfulness of delivering an intervention as designed, are more easily monitored if members of the team are familiar with a few, high-quality interventions (Fuchs, Fuchs, and Compton, 2012). This approach is in contrast to the problem-solving approach that many school teams generally employ. Interventions that are selected are not a foregone conclusion, and the team determines the appropriateness of any intervention. The problem-solving process generally involves developing specific interventions that are selected via a group process and then implemented. Feedback on effectiveness is collected and the intervention modified, if appropriate (Carney and Stiefel, 2008). This model requires generalist teachers to become specialists in many, varied interventions, strategies and data collection, and implementation of an intervention with fidelity (Fuchs, Fuchs, and Compton, 2012). RtI is useful in considering the context in which decision-making may be made but also in a way to demonstrate a systematic application of evidence-based practices (Case, Speece, and Molloy, 2003). It is considered a strategy for meeting the goals of NCLB in demonstrating student achievement (Fuchs, Fuchs & Stecker, 2010). It is also a way to ensure that quality, scientifically-based research strategies are embedded into decision-making. By incorporating scientifically based research practices into an RtI decision-making framework we increase the quality of interventions and, logic suggests, increase the likelihood of desirable student outcomes. We know that teachers are faced with very many decisions on a daily basis and as such, may experience decision-fatigue. An RtI standard protocol model may help alleviate decision-fatigue and as such increase the satisfaction in choosing an intervention and following through with it as intended. RtI. By establishing an RtI model, school administrators can help select quality interventions that meet NCLB’s call for scientifically based research by embedding interventions that meet the definition in a preselected standard protocol manner. By doing so, not only can school administrators meet the requirements of using scientifically based research, they can also ensure the application of such intervention is used as intended and that teachers will become experts in quality interventions.
References Carney, K., and Stiefel, G. (2008). Long-term results of a problem-solving approach to Response to Intervention: Discussion and implications. Learning Disabilities: A Contemporary Journal, 6(2), 61–75. Case, L., Speece, D., and Molloy, D. (2003). The validity of a response to instruction paradigm to identify reading disabilities: A longitudinal analysis of individual differences and contextual factors. School Psychology Review, 32(4), 557–582. Fuchs, D., Fuchs, L., and Stecker, P. (2010). The “blurring” of special education in a new continuum of general education placements. Exceptional Children, 76(3), 301–323. Fuchs, D., Fuchs, L., and Compton, D. (2012). Smart RTI: A next-generation approach to multilevel prevention. Exceptional Children, 78(3), 263–279. No Child Left Behind Act of 2001, 20 U.S.C. (2008). Spirakus, K.R. (2014). Decisions, Decisions: A Qualitative Study of Intervention Selection by Special Education Teachers (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Concordia University, Chicago.
Kathleen Ryan Spirakus, Ed.D. obtained her doctorate in educational administration in July 2014 through Concordia University Chicago. She has served as a school psychologist and has been a pupil services director for the past sixteen years. She currently works in the North Royalton City School District. You may reach her by phone at (440) 582-9140 or e-mail at kasey.spirakus@northroyaltonsd.org.
Fall 2014 w 7
Highlighting a PrinciPAL Tom Bates 1) Tell us a little bit about your 8) What is the number one advice you would give background. your colleagues? I received my undergraduate degree in early and middle childhood education from The Ohio State University and my master’s degree in elementary administration from Ashland University. I was principal at Tremont Elementary School in Upper Arlington for the previous six years. With the 2014–2015 school year, I will be the Director of Elementary Learning for UA. Before my time in UA, I was a teacher and principal for the Dublin City Schools for twenty-four years.
2) What are a couple of words you would use to describe yourself? Compassionate and sensible.
3) What do you do to combat stress? While at work, I combat stress by getting into classrooms. After work I exercise and read for pleasure.
4) What do you read to stay current in your field? READ! Educational Leadership is a great resource to catch up quickly on current best practice. I also talk to colleagues and attend conferences and workshops when possible.
5) Name three expectations you have of yourself as an administrator. 1. Always make decisions based on what is best for students. 2. Get to know students and their parents. 3. Treat all staff members fairly.
6) Name three expectations you have of your staff. 1. Have a positive attitude. 2. Always deal with students in a kind manner. 3. Treat each other professionally.
7) What do you perceive is the top priority for a school administrator? The top priority for any school administrator is to understand the administrator’s role in establishing and maintaining a school’s culture— from instructional leadership to positive school climate.
8 w Principal Navigator
Build relationships with other administrators—both in your district and others. That’s why being a member of OAESA is so important (shameless plug!). We all deal with the same issues and need to support each other.
9) This issue deals with RtI. Can you share with your colleagues your experience with RtI? Do you have any advice to pass along, regarding RtI? RtI is a huge issue and a challenge for all of us. Principals need to get staff input and buy in for RtI to be effective. This typically can take several years to develop a good RtI model. Teachers being more skilled at using student data to make decisions is a great first step. My best advice is to use your school or district’s model with little variance and try to provide the time for teachers to collaborate to help improve student performance.
How a Solid RtI System Can Lead to Student Achievement for All
by Todd Carmer One of our biggest challenges as a K–2 primary building has been to create an effective RtI program that would integrate our assessments, curriculum, and interventions in a way that would allow no students to fall through the proverbial crack. Through building our RtI system, we were able to strengthen our Intervention Assistance Team (IAT) process while improving communication with teachers and supporting our district’s vision of “Every adult helping every child learn and grow every day.” The first and most important thing we did was to align our grading periods to our assessment cycle. We went to a three-grading-period (trimester) schedule, allowing us to assess three times a year. This allowed us to have data when we needed it. We use the NWEA MAP assessments in reading and math and also the DRA-2 reading assessment. We also aligned our grade cards to the Common Core State Standards, giving us several pieces of data to make informed decisions about student progress. We then created what we call RtI “check-in” meetings, which are scheduled after each assessment cycle. The school psychologist, the guidance counselor, and I meet with teachers during their planning time to go over each student’s data and pinpoint students who may potentially be brought up for IAT in the future. Our assessments allow us to measure how far behind a particular student may be, which then determines the amount of time allotted for interventions. Next, we discuss specific interventions the teachers can begin and how to best progress monitor their
progress and keep accurate data. Our first assessment cycle is completed at the end of September, so we are able to identify potential struggling students very early in the school year. One of the challenges we’ve had in the past is finding appropriate interventions for our process. We found that simply giving teachers regular opportunities to have instructional conversations allowed us to quickly build up a collection of interventions that are shared across grade levels and subject areas. My teachers have become much more comfortable with the process and now often come to IAT meetings with interventions already well under way, helping our meetings to be much more efficient and productive. Building an effective RtI system has taken us three years and a lot of trial and error. Everything in our system is done in “threes.” We have three grading periods, three assessment cycles, and three sets of check-in meetings. This structure allows us to have conversations about every student, regardless of when they come to our school. Teachers now know that these conversations are a regular part of each school year, which creates accountability for them to know the strengths and weaknesses of every one of their students. We have seen the benefits of our system through a reduced number of students evaluated and qualified for special education and higher student achievement among all students. RtI used to be something the teachers dreaded to hear, but now it has truly become one of the most important things we do. Todd Carmer has been in education for more than twenty years— eleven as a middle school teacher and nine as a building principal. He is currently the principal at Licking Valley Primary School in Newark. You may reach him by e-mail at carmert@lickingvalley.k12.oh.us. Fall 2014 w 9
Advice from Your Secretary
Ideas to Keep in Mind Throughout the School Year As a building principal, your actions help set the tone for your entire school. For most administrators, each school day brings many opportunities to make decisions that will impact not only the culture of your school but also the success of your staff, teachers, and students. The process you use to make these decisions is of paramount importance in your work as a school leader. A thoughtful principal will seek advice and input from a wide variety of sources, especially from the individuals who are most knowledgeable about the general operation of the building. And typically, nobody in the building epitomizes those qualities more than your trusted school secretary! At our spring Secretaries Conference, we took the opportunity to ask a select group of both elementary and secondary building secretaries from across Ohio what advice they would like to give to school principals to help them be more successful. The secretaries’ responses, generously offered in the spirit of improving the performance in administrators’ jobs, were both entertaining and insightful! Perhaps it is no surprise the majority of comments involved the theme of communication. Schools are fundamentally driven by systems of communication, and the more effectively and efficiently you communicate in your work, the more successful you are. Sitting at one of the most critical junctures of any school communications network is the building secretary. If you stop and think about the many roles they fulfill in any given day, the job of “chief communicator” is definitely at the top of that list. It also stands to reason that any communicator is only as good as the information they have at their disposal. Three specific examples of suggestions that many secretaries offered are as follows: 1. “When you are going to be out of your office, tell us where you are, how long you will be gone, and with whom we can share this information. We can help you and others by having answers to these simple questions.” 2. “When you have a faculty meeting while we are covering the office, take the time to share with us everything that was told to our teachers. Ultimately, we get asked questions about these topics or have a role in the implementation of any decisions, and it makes us all look bad if we have no clue about what is going on in the building.” 3. “Set a specific time for a short, weekly meeting with key office staff to preview the upcoming events so everyone is on the same page. That will give us a chance to ask questions, clarify responsibilities, and make suggestions to help everyone function effectively.” 10 w Principal Navigator
Another central theme many secretaries identified was how you interact with other staff members. Many respondents suggested that principals watch how teachers perceive them, encouraging principals to put away electronic devices when speaking with others so they feel you are fully engaged in the discussion. Texting or talking on cell phones during staff meetings or group conversations sends the unfortunate message that you are not really concerned with the business at hand. Teachers realize that you have very demanding jobs, but you can’t afford to leave anyone with the impression that you are too busy for them. Perhaps due to the onset of the teacher evaluation system, many secretaries offered another bit of good advice to principals. Try to find ways to be more visible and approachable around the building. They commented on how everyone recognizes the challenges you face with so many observations and walkthroughs required by OTES; however, as you may have also noted, they see great value in your regular presence around the building, informally talking with students and teachers during the day. OAESA has often heard principals lament the downside of too many required evaluations and the negative impact on your visibility and accessibility to others, and it seems that secretaries share in this concern. Finally, while the vast majority of the suggestions offered by the secretaries were intended to make you better administrators, a few were given simply to make your lives a little easier. Of these, OAESA’s favorite was a great tip for keeping harmony in the office: “Buy really good gifts for Administrative Assistants’ Day!”
F.R.E.E. by Candace Nespeca
We need more time in the day! How often do you hear this from your staff? Faced with inconsistent state assessment results but a dedicated staff and student body, the Parsons Elementary staff has come up with a creative approach to adding time to the school instructional day…without actually adding time. We call this time that we have stolen back F.R.E.E., which encompasses the strategic teaching methods of Front loading, Reteaching, Enriching, and Evaluating. At three a.m. one morning in early July, I was wide awake, thinking about school—yep, thinking about the students, staff, and families I would be seeing again after our six-week hiatus. As administrators, our time off is valued as a time to refresh, renew, and revise. As I lay there thinking about time, teaching strategies, and how we can fit it all in, I realized something. Often, certified teachers spend ten to twenty minutes each morning taking attendance and collecting parent notes and homework folders, while students complete morning journals and independent work. Now, don’t be mistaken, we have worked long and hard to make sure that the activities given to begin the day are meaningful and high level, but this was clearly not the best use of certified educators. Here at Parsons, I am lucky to have support personnel who are dedicated to student achievement and capable of assisting with these tasks while the teacher attends to teaching. So why not “free” up the certified teachers time and let them get down to the real business of teaching as soon as our students are in the building? So, August 1 arrived, and with my best “Hear me out: I think I have a great idea!” face on, I met with our Building Leadership Team. As they historically do, they jumped in and said, “Let’s do this. We think it can work.” We met during our opening staff meeting, discussed the prospective change, hammered out the details, and attempted to head off any stumbling blocks we could think of that would hinder our progress. Student absenteeism, tardiness in arrival, and late buses were a few roadblocks we knew we might encounter. One of the answers we found to deal with these issues was flexibility. Each teacher would have a plan and list of students in mind that they would be seeing during F.R.E.E. and a back-up plan/list if a child was tardy or absent. Although initially this seemed like a daunting task (preparing another lesson plan for two sets of students), teaching staff realized that during daily small group instruction, those plans were already in place. This would just be at a different time of day.
Here’s how it works: Each morning at 8:20, staff begin corralling our kiddos to get breakfast started a few minutes early. Doing this means an agreement and understanding among colleagues that a few minutes of morning planning time had to be given up. Thankfully, there’s not a more dedicated staff. They rolled their sleeves up and realized that if we are truly committed to student achievement, then trying something new and innovative was the next, necessary step. Next, our attendance SWAT team is deployed to take attendance and deal with the morning administrative-type tasks that were sucking our teachers’ time. Each teacher takes a small group of one to four students and completes one of the four tasks. These tasks are vital to daily success and finding time to complete RtI work with our kids. In addition to looking at this from an RtI perspective, we have seen a decrease in our discipline incidences, especially in our special needs population. Front loading students who have behavioral and academic challenges give them a leg up during the whole group lesson. This has been particularly helpful with our emotionally disturbed population of children. A simple introduction to new vocabulary or a new concept before it is taught in a whole group session is enough to boost confidence, spark cognitive memory, and create a successful learning experience where we might have struggled without it. As with all good intentions, evaluation is necessary to establish effectiveness and worth. Teachers have been held accountable for implementing F.R.E.E. with fidelity, so we can use data to check for effectiveness. We’ve had to make some adjustments, but in general the staff at Parsons will continue to use F.R.E.E. time for front loading, reteaching, evaluating, and enrichment. [Fall 2013] third grade OAA results came back, and we saw approximately a 7 percent increase in passage rates. Time will tell how much we will tweak and bolster this new initiative as we move forward to reach our ultimate goal: 100 percent student achievement.
Fall 2014 w 11
OAESA Board of Directors 2014–2015
12 w Principal Navigator
Kevin Gehres President
Van Wert Elementary 10992 State Route 118 South Van Wert, OH 45891
(419) 238-1761 k_gehres@staff.vwes.net
Heidi Kegley President-elect
Frank B. Willis Intermediate 74 W. William St. Delaware, OH 43015
(740) 833-1700 kegleyhe@delawarecityschools.net
Elizabeth DiDonato Past President
Eastport Avenue Elementary 1200 Eastport Ave. Uhrichsville, OH 44683
(740) 922-4641 edidonato@claymontschools.org
Jeromey Sheets, EdD NAESP Representative
Tallmadge Elementary 611 Lewis Ave. Lancaster, OH 43130
(740) 687-7336 j_sheets@lancaster.k12.oh.us
Aretha Dixon Federal Relations Coordinator
The Arts Academy at Summit 1100 10th St. NW Canton, OH 44703
(330) 452-6537 paydock_a@ccsdistrict.org
Teresa West Zone 1 Director
Central Elementary 507 Jefferson Ave. Mc Arthur, OH 45651
(740) 596-4386 teresa.snider@vinton.k12.oh.us
David Winebrenner Zone 2 Director
Kings Jr. High 5620 Columbia Rd. Kings Mills, OH 45034
(513) 459-2951 dwinebrenner@kingslocal.net
Stephanie Klingshirn Zone 3 Director
Mississinawa Valley Elementary 10480 Staudt Rd. Union City, OH 45390
(937) 968-4464 stephanie_klingshirn@darke.k12.oh.us
Troy Armstrong Zone 4 Director
Wauseon Primary 940 E. Leggett St. Wauseon, OH 43567
(419) 335-4000 t.armstrong@wauseonindians.org
Jonathan Muro Zone 5 Director
Madson Middle School 1419 Grace St. Mansfield, OH 44905
(419) 522-0471 jmuro@misd.net
Erin Simpson Zone 6 Director
Overlook Elementary 650 Broad St. Wadsworth, OH 44281
(330) 335-1420 wadc_simpson@wadsworthschools.org
Melanie Pearn Zone 7 Director
Madison Avenue Elementary 845 Madison Avenue Painesville, OH 44077
(440) 357-6171 melanie.pearn@riversideschools.net
To Be Determined Zone 8 Director
Zone director information not available at the time of publication
To Be Determined Zone 9 Director
Zone director information not available at the time of publication
Timothy Barton Zone 10 Director
Alton Hall Elementary 1000 Alton Rd. Galloway, OH 43119
(614) 801-8000 timothy.barton@swcs.us
Barbara Werstler Middle School Representative
Geo Dodge Intermediate School 10225 Ravenna Road Twinsburg, OH 44087
(330) 468-2200 bwerstler@twinsburg.k12.oh.us
Daniel Graves Central Office Representative
Columbus City School District 270 E. State St. Columbus, OH 43215
(614) 365-5000 dgraves@columbus.k12.oh.us
Amanda Albert Assistant Principal Representative
Northmor Elementary 7819 State Route 19 Galion, OH 44833
(419) 947-1900 albert.amanda@northmor.k12.oh.us
Gretchen Liggens Urban Representative
James A. Garfield Pre-K–8 3800 West 140th St. Cleveland, OH 44111
(216) 920-7000 gretchen.e.liggens@cmsdnet.net
To Be Determined Minority Representative
Fall 2014 w 13
Ohio Zone Map
4
7
6
5
8 10
3 2 Adams Allen Ashland Ashtabula Athens Auglaize
2 4 5 7 1 3
Belmont Brown Butler
8 2 2
Carroll Champaign Clark Clermont Clinton Columbiana Coshocton Crawford Cuyahoga
8 3 3 2 2 7 8 5 6
Darke Defiance Delaware Erie Fairfield Fayette Franklin Fulton
9
1 3 4 10 5 10 3 10 4
Hocking Holmes Huron
1 8 5
Jackson Jefferson
1 8
Miami Monroe Montgomery Morgan Morrow Muskingum
3 9 3 9 5 9
Sandusky Scioto Seneca Shelby Stark Summit
5 1 5 3 8 6
Trumbull Tuscarawas
7 8
Knox
10
Noble
9
7 1 10 3 5 4
Ottawa
4
3 7 5 6 1 3
Gallia Geauga Greene Guernsey
1 7 3 9
Lake Lawrence Licking Logan Lorain Lucas
Hamilton Hancock Hardin Harrison Henry Highland
2 4 5 8 4 2
Madison Mahoning Marion Medina Meigs Mercer
Union Paulding Perry Pickaway Pike Portage Preble Putnam
4 9 10 1 7 3 4
Richland Ross
5 1
10
Van Wert Vinton
4 1
Warren Washington Wayne Williams Wood Wyandot
2 9 8 4 4 5
Zone 1 Nov. 5
E N O GS
ZMEETIN
4 1 0 2 L L A F
LaRosa’s Pizzeria 966 E. Main St. Jackson, OH 45640
Zone 2 Oct. 2
5:00–7:00 pm
5:00–7:00 pm
Dave & Busters 11775 Commons Drive Springdale, OH 45246
Zone 3 Oct. 9
10:00–2:00 pm
Miami County ESC 2000 W Stanfield Rd. Troy, OH 45373
Zone 4 Oct. 15
2:00–4:00 pm
Wood County ESC 1867 North Research Dr. Bowling Green, OH 43402
Zone 5 Nov. 18
5:30–7:30 pm
Baker's Pizza Sports Shack 224 N Sandusky Ave. Bucyrus, OH 44820
Zone 6 Sept. 25
5:00–7:00 pm
Winking Lizard 1615 Main St. Penninsula, OH 44264
AGENDA Each zone meeting provides: • • • • • •
Opportunity to network with colleagues Critical legislative and legal updates presented by OAESA staff Valuable information and open discussion about OTES and OPES Overview of new Restraint and Seclusion policy Discussion and opportunity to provide feedback about the Third Grade Reading Guarantee Prizes and refreshments
Do not miss this important opportunity to connect with your zone! To register, visit www.oaesa.org/events. Questions? Call the office at 614.794.9190.
Zone 7 Oct. 8
5:00–7:00 pm
Panini’s Grill 7580 Fredle Dr. Concord, OH 44077
Zone 8 Oct. 21
8:30–11:00 am
Schoenbrunn Inn 1186 W. High Ave. New Philadelphia, OH 44663
Zone 9 Oct. 29
8:30–11:30 am
Zanesville Country Club 1300 Country Club Dr. Zanesville, OH 43701
Zone 10 Oct. 16
4:30–7:00 pm
Film room at Buckeye Hall of Fame Grill 775 Yard St., #100 Columbus, OH 43212
2600 Corporate Exchange Drive, Suite 168 Columbus, OH 43231 Phone: 614.794.9190 Fax: 614.794.9191 Toll Free: 888.OH.OAESA www.oaesa.org
Middle School
Matters by Sally B. I’Anson, EdD
Including Gifted Students in Online Response to Intervention Programs Despite our cultural history of celebrating and supporting excellence in business, finance, sports, music, and fine arts, our schools have been unable to support the successes of students who display academic giftedness. I suspect the reason for this is what I will call the Triage Model of Education. Triage is a medical term to describe the process of determining the priority of patients’ treatments based on the severity of their condition. This rations patient treatment efficiently when resources are insufficient for all to be treated immediately. Most educators would agree that students identified as having cognitive and/or physical disabilities and who are performing below grade-level peers are viewed and treated as having more educational needs than students that are identified as gifted. Are gifted students being ignored? In this article, I will suggest online Response to Intervention (RtI) as a method to bring Gifted Students’ needs back into focus for teachers and schools. The ongoing fiscal struggles schools face to provide adequate and appropriate staff and instructional resources to meet the needs of all students are difficult. When coupled with the financial ramifications schools suffer if they fail to meet state and federal achievement targets, schools are all but forced to focus their expenditures on programs that address the needs of lower-achieving students. This allocation of resources to the bottom quartile takes the lowest performers and pushes them toward the mean. However, it also has the unintended consequence of regressing the top 3 to 5 percent of students toward the mean. If left unmet, the needs of the gifted student create learning gaps and challenges that not only inhibit academic growth but also may ultimately cause them to lose ground in terms of academic performance. Perhaps the greatest disservice to the gifted learner, as a result of this imbalanced allocation of resources, is that incredible untapped potential goes unrealized. Utilizing RtI systems and software that has been purchased to address the needs of our lowest 16 w Principal Navigator
performers, online RtI, can quickly and efficiently also be used to monitor the needs and progress of gifted students. Despite abundant field research studies, scholarly articles, and books to guide teachers and schools in addressing the needs of the gifted learner, many schools also lack the requisite staff to help meet the needs of those exceptional students. Using staff that is already familiar with RtI processes and procedures, as well as the use of online RtI software, gives teachers and schools a leg up when using these systems and tools to track gifted students’ interventions and progress. Therefore, tailoring an aspect of that model to fit the evaluation and performance tracking of the gifted learner is not a new concept to them. The recent trend of increasing research in the assessment arena directed toward the creation, administration, and data analysis of performance is a bright spot on the landscape for gifted students. Assessments for the gifted learner should be relevant and address real problems, require the learner to synthesize rather than summarize information, and include student reflection and teacher feedback. These “next generation” assessments require the teaching-and-learning cycle to look significantly different than in the past. The good news is that teaching strategies, such as inquiry-based, project-based, and place-based learning, are exactly the instructional practices that engage the gifted student and include
assessments types that are adequate and appropriate measures of academic growth. Using an on-line RtI tool that incorporates qualitative and quantitative data and analytics from these types of learning, as well as the tracking of interventions for gifted students, can have a significant, positive impact on getting a clear picture of the learning needs of our top performers. In order to have a profound, lasting, and positive effect on gifted student success, the stakeholders in a child’s education must have ready access to the full picture of student data. Traditionally, the collection of
comprehensive student data has been extremely time intensive and has presented many challenges. Teachers and administrators were forced to collect data from a number of online and offline sources. Even then, much of that data was incomplete, inaccurate, or out of date. Data collection is particularly difficult in the area of gifted education. Many students that are gifted are gifted in areas outside of the four core areas where assessments are typically less formalized and often given outside of specified testing windows. Ohio’s Written Education Plan is no exception. However, including gifted learners in an online RtI program can provide an efficient and accurate solution many of these time consuming data challenges facing schools. All of the adults on a gifted student’s success team need access to the most up-to-date assessment data, discipline and attendance data, grades, and up-to-the-minute intervention notes from a variety of professionals in the building or system. These data create a clear picture of how a gifted student has performed in the past, how he or she is currently performing, and also the plans or interventions the team has decided will best meet the needs of the student going forward. Including your gifted students in an online RtI system is an effective way to ensure that their needs are being evaluated and addressed through an ongoing, team-based, and data-driven approach designed to help them meet their learning targets. Including every gifted student in
your RtI program is an outstanding way for a teacher team, school or school district to stay actively engaged in an on-going monitoring of the challenges and progress gifted students are making. In addition, an online RtI tool can help teachers, schools and divisions begin to evaluate aspects of their gifted program that are most effective. Using data collected in an online RtI allows decisions regarding the teaching of gifted students to become more grounded in data. Working together to celebrate and support the success of our most intellectually able students is a long-term strategy to sustain our great country. Sally I’Anson, EdD, is the Director of Professional Development at Interactive Achievement. She has trained educators in curriculum, instruction, and assessment strategies and data-driven educational practices. She has taught at many levels, served as an administrator in private, public, and charter school settings, and consulted with state departments of education. Follow Sally on Twitter @SallyIAnson1.
Fall 2014 w 17
A S E OA
d r a o b k l a
Ch
News fro m the Association out
Reminders: Don’t fosrga etgreaabt time
your fall zone meeting! It’ agues and for networking with colle s from OAESA. RSVP getting important update ls about the meeting today! See p. 15 for detai in YOUR zone. tired principals will Are you retiring soon? Re ietta for a luncheon gather on the river in Mar ned! Future events cruise in October. Stay tu are being planned.
SAIL fo
r
has 24 s Education tud 60 slated ents graduating this sum to me date is O begin on Augus t 25. The r and over ctober 2 0 next star . SAIL is SAILforE now on t du. Twitter @ The fina lO Septemb ILA Institute w ill be he er. The f ld in oc convers ations w us will be on cr ucial ith speaker s Mike S keynote t aver and Brian M cNulty. Ohio
Instru Leadectional Acad rship emy
18 w Principal Navigator
On Aug. 4, Ready School coaches and Project Manager Zana Vincent held an orientation meeting with team representatives from the three new school sites that are joining the Ohio Ready School Network. The new sites are Westwood Elementary in the Wellington Local School District; Mount Healthy South, Mount Healthy City School District; and Evamere Elementary in the Hudson City School District. The statewide Ready School Professional Development Forum will be held on Oct. 28 in the Columbus area. Keynoters are Daniel Hodgins and Ann Anzalone both experts in the field of early educattion, pre-K to grade 3.
for ig month ss b a is discu August to meet and schools e te it m m o C e upcoming plans for th sticky notes are a few se year. On the far. so ld e we’ve h ional and Profess nch y c a c o v d A The OAESA ommittees shared lu C in Conference ugust 5 to discuss ways n A a together on spective committee c re h c a r. which e the othe the work of t n e m le p m co
Our soci al media p going st rong! Fin resence is du (faceboo k.com/o s on Facebook aes we have 239 likes a) where o (twitter. com/oae r on Twitter sa) have 716 follower where we s! Join th conversa e tion!
fessional o r p e h T bus on mittee: m m lu o o C C t in e nce Confere e committee me e tagline for Tru They c h conferen and developed t ’ for Success.” for the August 5 ucators Partnerin a new schedule ing the g ld d Grit: “E g on developin excited to be ho ston! in a are work i. format, and are us at the Hilton E r Weds.–F e back in Columb ns c municatioats m o c conferen e h :T h mmittee hosting Twitter c the o C s n o i after egin nicat Commu e would like to b out this will come mmittee b committe ek. More details a eptember. The co they are t once a we rson meeting in S sk members wha d in the a e first in-pe sted that OAESA s can be includ e le also sugg o these book tit s reading, News. e monthly
And don’t fo rge Did you kno t to check out our othe r w OAESA ha s a Pinterest social media ventures. Check it ou site (pintere t for st.com/oaes you subscrib the latest pins for educ a)? ators. And m e to our blo g at ake sure oaesa.word press.com fo r all the latest from the associati on.
Fall 2014 w 19
Central Office
Connection by Mary Peters, PhD
An Intersection at the Corner of FIP and RtI Response to Invention (RtI) has much in common with Formative Instructional Practices (FIP) that thousands of educators across our state have begun to adopt. The success of RtI is dependent upon FIP. RtI and FIP both address the need to create classroom environments where students and teachers respond to accurate information about student learning. FIP focuses on the informal and formal ways teachers collect and document evidence of student learning and then uses that information to adjust instruction and move learning forward. Like RtI, FIP is a problem-based model designed to help teachers and their students become clear about where they are in their learning, where they need to go, and how to close the gap between present and future. Although RtI was originally conceived as an approach for the early identification of students with disabilities, its purpose is not merely to identify. Rather, its intent is to increase the responsiveness of educators to meet the needs of all struggling students. This preemptive framework implements structures for educators to collaborate, make data-based decisions, and establish classroom strategies specifically designed to increase student success. If classroom-based strategies prove insufficient,
McTighe
educators have evidence to suggest the need for additional supports or interventions. FIP is supported by the Ohio Department of Education because it provides teachers with the foundational understanding and vision for embedding the very skills that RtI requires into practice. Both RtI and FIP apply to all learners—including those who are gifted. The four core components of FIP, outlined in free online learning modules, most closely reinforce Tier I of RtI. Tier I starts with a rigorous curriculum- and evidence-based, high-quality instruction. The four core components of FIP—creating clear learning targets; collecting and documenting evidence of student learning; analyzing evidence and providing effective feedback; and cultivating student ownership—work together to help teachers build a relentless orientation toward instruction and assessment that will help each student meet or exceed standards-based learning targets. When effective instruction is the focus of RtI, the relationship between FIP and RtI becomes even clearer. Jay McTighe (2008), whose work has been used to build RtI systems, addressed several important considerations for effective instruction that are explicitly tied to FIP. In the table below, you can see how FIP complements McTighe’s effective instructional design steps.
FIP
Establish relevant goals based on content standards, course, or program Create clear learning targets that guide your instruction and planning. objectives. Specify the enduring understandings that are embedded in Learning targets can be revealed in numerous ways to support inquirythe goals. These goals are relevant to students’ experiences and interests based instruction. in order to engage them in learning. Define what students will know and be able to do and how the knowl- Create and share student friendly learning targets so that students unedge and skills will help students master the enduring understandings. derstand learning expectations and how the learning is relevant. Develop essential questions that foster inquiry, understanding of the big Cluster or pair your learning targets in ways that promote deeper underideas, problem solving, and transfer of learning. standing and connections to prior learning across content areas. Determine what evidence to gather so students can show that they have mastered the targeted knowledge, skills, and understandings. This evidence is composed of authentic, complex performance tasks that provide students opportunities to grapple with ideas and issues.
Collect and document evidence of student learning that is well-matched to the learning targets. Develop and use assessments—both formal and informal—that help with the ongoing collection of accurate information about what students know and can do.
Clear criteria for assessing the products or performances are established and communicated to the students. Teachers may differentiate specific tasks to maximize students’ chances of demonstrating what they know, understand, and can do.
Teachers and students collect and analyze accurate information they can use to move learning forward. Only when teachers (and students) are clear about where students are in their learning can they use feedback effectively.
Students benefit from reflecting on and self-assessing their learning.
FIP focuses on helping students take ownership of their learning by using self-assessment and peer feedback to cultivate student ownership.
20 w Principal Navigator
For RtI to be successful, teacher teams need to work together to create options for students that help them to grow and be successful. Universal Design for Learning (UDL) principles are useful to help teachers design instruction for all learners by considering options that differentiate instruction. A new series of FIP modules has recently been released—Reaching Every Student modules. These modules are designed to provide teachers with examples that deepen their use of formative instructional practices with diverse learners. Each module is intended to expand on the foundational principles of FIP and to help teachers consider options consistent with UDL that address some specific needs of English language learners, gifted learners, and students with disabilities. Each module also provides classroom-based scenarios and opportunities to engage in problem solving.
Teachers may find that the Formative Instructional Practices: Reaching Gifted Students modules are especially useful as they design and deliver instruction for their gifted students. This module is intended mainly for classroom teachers interested in improving instruction for gifted students, as well as for gifted intervention specialists who may be beginning their journey with FIP. It can be used as a companion to the Foundations of Formative Instructional Practices and the FIP in Action modules. Below are some critical questions to consider about current practices in your classrooms and some FIP tips you can use to advance gifted students’ progress. For more strategies and tips, be sure to check out the Reaching Gifted Students module as well as other FIP in Action modules that depict many strong examples of differentiated practice in various grades and content areas.
How FIP Can Help Gifted Students Progress Core Component of Formative Instructional Practice
Critical Questions
FIP Tip
Clear Learning Targets
What does your learning progression look like? You can implement new standards by creating clear learnHow do students move beyond mastery-level tar- ing targets appropriate for your gifted students. Based on gets? where students are entering into the learning, you may need additional “going beyond” learning targets.
Collecting and Documenting Evidence
Are you collecting and documenting evidence Ensure your collection and documentation of evidence that will impact your ability to make strong in- aligns to the learning targets and the social/emotional structional decisions about where students are en- needs of the student. tering the learning and how they are progressing?
Analyzing Evidence and Providing Effective Feedback
How could assignments or assessments be made more effective if you were to more often abandon the grade attached and instead focus on descriptive feedback?
Give students the opportunity to practice interpreting rubrics and use them in your feedback so students have an idea of where they are and how they can improve their work.
Student Ownership
How can you encourage peer-to-peer relationships by teaching students to successfully give peer feedback—especially for those students who may struggle socially?
To engage gifted students in ownership of the learning targets, teach them to use goal setting, progress monitoring, engage in peer feedback, and reflect or assess their progress.
(continued on page 22) Fall 2014 w 21
As Danielson (2007) noted, effective teachers actively and systematically elicit information about students’ understanding in order to monitor their progress and make instructional decisions. FIP shows teachers how to build their skills and knowledge to do this well. When implementing FIP with fidelity, teachers will see that they are responding to student needs in the right way, at the right time—all of the time.
References Danielson, C. (2007). Enhancing professional practice: A framework for teaching. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development. McTighe, J. (2008). Connecting content and kids: Integrating differentiation and understanding by design. Workshop presented October 2008 at the Wisconsin Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development Conference, Appleton, WI.
Mary Peters, PhD, is a senior project director at Battelle for Kids, overseeing the FIP Your School Ohio partnership with the Ohio Department of Education. Prior to joining Battelle for Kids, she served as the director of assessment and planning for the Westerville City School District where she was responsible for building the district’s assessment system. She also formerly served as a special education teacher, supervisor, and college instructor. She is passionate about making sure all students have access to a high-quality education. Follow Mary on Twitter @DrMaryP56, e-mail her at mpeters@ battelleforkids.org or reach her by phone, 614-481-3141.
22 w Principal Navigator
Elementary
Essentials
by Vicki Scott
Building Strong Relationships: Our Success with RTI Around fifteen to twenty years ago, there was a movement to create Intervention Assistance Teams (IATs) to identify and provide support and intervention for students with behavioral, social/emotional, and academic needs. The team generally consisted of a couple classroom teachers, an intervention specialist or two, the guidance counselor (if your school was lucky enough to have one), the principal, and sometimes the school psychologist. During that time, our IAT functioned well and did a nice job in identifying students whose teachers had concerns. But we realized our system had flaws. We had monthly meetings, our teachers completed referral forms, and we spoke about the needs of the students. We ultimately had similar conversations about the same students—month after month. Often the teacher who worked with the student daily and who knew the needs of the student best was not a part of the conversations about the student. Our conversations were based mainly on generalizations. We would end the meeting by simply stating, “We will continue to monitor this student.” What did that really mean? What was going to change for that student? What real intervention was taking place for that child? Who was monitoring the progress of the student? Who was supporting the classroom teacher in her efforts in providing effective instruction? So, like many of us do when we are searching for an improved system of addressing student learning needs we turned to the experts and read several books on Response to Intervention (RtI) systems. Many of the books we read shared schedules, documentation forms, and various structures of intervention systems. Using what we gleaned from our study, we implemented an RtI schedule where each grade level had specific time (usually a thirty-minute block) for intervention, and we created several forms for documentation so the interventions could be clearly tracked. The IAT continued to talk about the needs of the student. We quickly learned that more documentation forms do not increase accountability or communication like we had hoped. We learned teachers spent as much time complaining about the increased paperwork as it took to complete the paperwork. We learned that we continued to miss the mark in meeting the needs of the students because we were more focused on talking about the problems and documenting the needs of the students
but not enough time in addressing the real issues. So we worked to simplify the process by addressing the real issues in our RtI system. What we needed in order to improve our RtI work included: All the team members who provided instruction and support to the student were to be present at the table when the student needs were discussed; a shift in our focus, from speaking about the problem to creating a plan to meet the learning needs of the student; the classroom teacher who interacts with the child daily, the intervention specialist who has a wealth of knowledge in multiple approaches in meeting the diverse learning needs, and any member of the school team who might have the ability to provide intervention or support (LLI teacher, Reading Recovery teacher, intervention tutor, Title I math teacher, support staff, etc.). All of us needed to be sharing information at the same time—candid, safe discussions about the learning environment and instructional approaches to meet the needs of the student. After identifying our needs, we made necessary changes to the process: We did away with many of the forms and worked to streamline our efforts in focusing on the child and identifying where the breakdown in acquiring the skill started. We created a mastery flowchart about learning sequence in both reading and math. We examined our current discussions, and committed ourselves to identifying where the deficit begins. We knew we needed all of the professionals who interacted with the child at the table at the same time, so we ended the era of IAT meetings and started a new era of grade-level RtI meetings. We are now committed to monthly grade-level meetings—intentional time set aside to discuss any and all needs of the student, of the teacher, and of the classroom. Each classroom teacher at the specific grade level and anyone who works with students at that grade level meets for thirty to forty-five minutes to identify students who have a concern, define the root cause of the concern, and discuss ways to intervene, including instructional approaches. Each month we discuss the progress of students and any continued areas of concern. We discuss what is working and what has shown little impact. We add support, if we are able, or make necessary adjustments. As a team we share strategies, brainstorm alternative schedules, or accommodations. We discuss various structures that may be helpful, and we celebrate success together. The team receives immediate feedback and support that can be implemented that day. Teachers feel supported and have gained the feeling of “I’m not alone.” We strive to find creative ways of working together, so the needs of the student can be addressed immediately and successfully. (continued on page 24) Fall 2014 w 23
We have also added a social worker to our team to help us address the social/emotional and mental health needs of our students and families. We work hard to identify individual student needs. We know through experience, some academic or behavioral struggles may have little to do with lack of understanding of academic concepts or behavior expectations. We work to identify the root or the source of the difficulty and work to address that need as a team. We create a wrap-around approach to support the whole child. We build confidence with the child and set and achieve goals. We also create an environment that meets the need of the student by modifying the student’s schedule, accommodate the curriculum, increase movement, alter the presentation of activities or assignments, and declutter classrooms, knowing that less often equals more. We have encouraged teachers to visit each other’s classrooms and coach each other in instructional methods. Wisdom lies within. We are fortunate to have much experience and knowledge in our building. The goal is to find ways to spread that wealth of knowledge to each other. Our goal is not to change the student but to adapt the classroom environment and instructional practices to meet the needs of the student. We meet the students where they are and build the program from there. We have also invited students to breakfast groups. Small groups of students share breakfast with a teacher while engaging in conversations. 24 w Principal Navigator
These groups instill a sense of belonging, support language development, and builds relationships. This practice is becoming more and more important to our building. Our RtI is shifting away from simply identifying students with need to improving teacher effectiveness. “It’s what you do, not what you know” mentality helps guide our practices. Somewhere I read effective teachers are worth thirty points on an achievement test. All the studies and research tells us effective teaching is key. With that in mind, our goal this year is to spend less time talking about what the students are or are not doing and paying closer attention to what we are doing. We know we cannot control what a child does or does not do when he is not at school. We know we cannot control the quality of interactions a child has outside of school hours. But we can control what happens with that student during the six to seven hours he is in our classrooms. It is our job to make those school hours count. Our RtI structure builds and strengthens relationships. By creating a supportive environment where teachers can have conversations about the needs of their students, as well as plan to find ways to meet those needs—sometimes going beyond the classroom walls—has created an environment that truly is conducive to meeting needs. We have increased communication with those professionals who interact with the students,
and we have improved relationships between teachers in the building, which transfers into improved relationships with the students. Our conversations have become more meaningful as we discuss things that really matter. Teachers no longer have the overwhelming feeling of being alone and that no one is listening.
From a Teacher’s Perspective: When asked the question, “What makes Laurelville so successful at early intervention?” I reflect on three key ingredients. 1. Leadership This starts from the top. At Laurelville, we have the support and the guidance of many individuals. We have a superintendent who is willing to work with building principals and staff to ensure we have what we need. We have an outstanding curriculum director who works directly with teachers to support their needs and to provide feedback when questions and/or concerns arise. And we could not ask for a better leader in our building principal. She is direct, confident, and clear on her expectations. This is probably the most important role in the intervention success that we have had because she works day in day out with the teachers to model what strong leadership should look like. As classroom teachers, we are able to transfer that leadership into our own classrooms and lead our students in the education process. The day has passed where a teacher can simply just “teach.” It has become much more than that. 2. Instructional Practices Instructional practice is of course very important. The ability to change how you teach to best fit the kids is one of the most important things that we are able to accomplish. We have a staff that is willing to sit down with a small group of students and try something new. We are willing to not just think inside the box and give the kids the strategy that we like or the strategy that works for us. We are willing and able to provide the kids with multiple ways of looking at things. This is so important in intervention because we know all kids do not learn the same. Teachers at Laurelville work hard. We are able to look at a group of kids and together figure out how to best instruct them. Is it always a simple answer? No. There is a process. There are proven instructional strategies that we use. Here is the key though, no matter what the instructional practice is: simple, abstract, proven, or something new; the delivery of the material and having a relationship with your students is what really matters. The practice that a teacher is using or is going to use needs to be mastered. It cannot be something that is just thrown together that morning. In order to have a strong instructional practice, there needs to be specific planning. And the greatest planning comes through working together as a team. This leads to the third and final ingredient.
and review what is going on in the classroom. Even though she is very busy and could simply state she does not have enough time to meet with every grade level monthly, she has made a commitment to set aside time to work directly with us. This is a priority of hers. And this time together pays off. In addition to our monthly meetings with our principal, grade level teams meet weekly as well. These are not just passing in the hallway meetings. We sit together and we have rich conversations about what is happening in our classrooms, what needs exist and how we can work together to find success for each student. We coach each other in best practices and support each other. Are there times when difficult conversations have to happen? Yes. But because of our closeness and sense of trust, we are able to understand why we are here. It is for the kids. To provide a successful intervention program, the teachers have to work with intention, work together to address each learning need and to implement the most appropriate plans. These are the key ingredients that help make us successful. It goes back to the old saying, “We are only as strong as our weakest link.” When we realize we have a weak link, we try our best to surround that weakness with support, with encouragement, and with a sense of urgency to improve. It is our job as teachers, principals, coordinators, and superintendents to strengthen these kids and help turn them into strong and independent learners. We cannot be the weak link. We have to be the ones to stay strong, stay fresh, and be willing to change our practices for what is best for particular groups of kids. We have to be the ones to grow, to learn, and become better if we want to help all of our learners become successful. We have to be the ones that tell a child he can, tell her not to give up, tell a group that they are making progress. We have to be the ones to motivate a child that is struggling to learn, struggling to try or struggling to be successful. We have to be the ones to make the intervention process work. Vicki Scott is a principal at Laurelville Elementary in the Logan Elm School District. During her eighteen years in education, she has functioned as a principal for eight years, a guidance counselor for four years, and a middle school language arts teacher for six years. Laurelville Elementary is an Ohio Ready School participant and RttT Early Childhood grant recipient SPARK.
3. Teachers that plan The teachers at Laurelville go above and beyond what is expected of them. If you walk around the school in the morning you will not see teachers sitting alone in their classrooms waiting for the students to arrive. You will not see them trickling in right at the time the contract says to be at work. What you will see is groups of teachers talking, communicating, and collaborating. The intervention process cannot and will not work without this sort of atmosphere. Working together and having professional relationships with each other is a building expectation. In fact, our principal meets with each grade level once a month to go over Fall 2014 w 25
Why Bother with
OAESA? by Paul G. Young, PhD
Most every human struggles to understand one of life’s basic questions: “Who am I?” Many new principals, as they cross the line from teacher to administrator, often struggle adjusting to their new identity and perspectives as an administrator. They find the principalship to be full of unique challenges, stress, long hours, and a lonely walk. As many ponder the “Who am I?” question, they might relate with comedian Lily Tomlin’s comment, “I’ve always wanted to be somebody, but I see now I should have been more specific.” In the busyness of the principalship, if you don’t know who you are, someone will tell you. And you might not always like what you hear. That’s why it’s important that collectively, as principals, we know who we are, what we do, and what we believe. As schools and the principalship change, keeping up can be a constant challenge. To create a positive identity and cope with the stress, principals need support. That leads to this question to ponder, “Why bother with OAESA?” In 1986 Jonn Simmons, my colleague (and eventually my mentor) from a neighboring school, visited me on my first day as a principal at Glenford Elementary School (Northern Local Schools, Perry County). We talked about many things that day, but before leaving, he strongly suggested that I join both OAESA and NAESP. He also invited me to attend OAESA’s fall conference with him. I wasn’t very aware of the benefits of either group, but I followed Jonn’s advice, paid the dues out of pocket, and went about trying to figure out who I was and what I was doing. 26 w Principal Navigator
As the weeks in the principalship unfolded, I realized I was alone, nervous, overwhelmed, and insecure. At OAESA’s fall conference, I experienced an epiphany: the professionalism of colleagues from all parts of Ohio was impressive, and I was relieved to learn that my feelings of confusion and self-doubt were commonly shared by others. I was moved by the inspirational words of keynote speakers and noticed that others were as well. As I attended workshops and spoke with other principals, I discovered a supportive collegiality that dramatically lessened my feelings of insecurity and isolation and increased my confidence. I left my first conference knowing it wouldn’t be my last. I felt comfortable that other OAESA members and staff would answer my questions, provide guidance and professional development, look out for my interests, and help me define who I would become as a principal. Many of today’s principals might view my experiences of nearly thirty years as historical reflection from a bygone generation. Schools are different, principals’ needs have changed, and technology certainly provides more rapid forms of communication. Yet human needs haven’t changed. Person-to-person contact is essential for sharing, learning, and growth. The principalship remains one of the loneliest positions in a school system. Every school is unique. And as one first experiences the principalship, with its evolving challenges, he or she might question, as I initially did, “Why bother with OAESA?” In the busyness of your work, you may become distracted from caring for yourself. Let me remind you that: You are important. You deserve job satisfaction, praise and recognition, and self-selected opportunities for growth and development. Principals do important work, and the importance of that work is best
understood and supported by members of professional associations. You are your school’s leader. Before take-off, in the event of a loss of cabin air pressure, airline flight attendants instruct each passenger to put an oxygen mask on themselves first before helping their traveling companions. If you don’t take care of yourself, no one will, and you won’t be able to lead if you lack necessary sustenance. OAESA can be your sustaining oxygen mask. You are not a lone ranger. The fictional character of the Lone Ranger was so named because he was the last survivor of a group of Texas Rangers. You aren’t the last surviving principal. But you might be if you and your colleagues don’t band together to care for and protect each other. Don’t drag anchor on the advancement of the principalship by refusing to be part of the group. Leadership is often lonely. It can also be dangerous.1 Principals need constant support to survive and thrive through inevitable and vulnerable aspects of leading. That support can come from many sources, but OAESA and NAESP exist for the sole purpose of speaking for and supporting principals, while other organizations have different missions. How you look, think, speak, and interact as a principal determines your success! Hopefully, as you read this, you’ve received support and benefits from your state and national professional associations. But if you know a new principal or a nonmember colleague, reach out with a personal contact and invitation for them to join both groups. Benefits of your membership require engagement. Model engaged learning for your students by actively participating in committees; by attending professional meetings, workshops, and conferences; and by reading, writing, speaking, and connecting with others in our great state. In her bestseller Mindset: the New Psychology of Success2, worldrenowned Stanford University psychologist Carol Dweck explains the differences between fixed and growth mindsets—a mental attitude or disposition that predetermines a person’s responses to and interpretations of situations. Principals have either fixed or growth mindsets. The differences are contrasted by those who allow themselves to be worried about being evaluated (or about evaluating others) and find it safer and easier to adhere to a fixed mindset—looking smart, surviving, tolerating, and avoiding unnecessary obstacles and challenges. But fixed mindsets limit learning, growth, and progress. It will be impossible to survive if all principals lose their courage and desire for innovation. Principals who develop a growth mindset embrace challenges, become inspired by the success of others, and persevere with the development of the hardy characteristics of grit. Both OAESA and NAESP exist to lead principals in the development of growth mindsets.
I believe strongly in the power of developing principal mentoring partnerships. Throughout the nation, I’ve attempted to engage principals and lead them to discover the power of their professional associations, just as Jonn Simmons did with me. But I’m often met with comments such as, “I get why you’re into being a mentor and helping principals, but why should I bother with OAESA, or NAESP? I just don’t get that part. I’m not sure I really need to join them. What’s in it for me?” It’s simple and ever important: Professional associations help discern a clear definition of who you are. There is power in connectedness and strength in numbers. I may be retired, but I’ve never forgotten who I was as a principal, who supported me, or the legacy I aspired to leave behind for those who followed. I needed OAESA and NAESP. They shaped my identity. They never failed to remind me of everything that was important. You need them, too.
Paul G. Young, PhD, served as OAESA President in 1997–98 and NAESP President in 2002–03. After retiring from the principalship in 2004, he became a member of the Board of Directors of the National AfterSchool Association (NAA) and then NAA’s president and CEO in 2010. Paul retired from association work in 2012 and is currently an adjunct professor at Ohio University-Lancaster. He has written extensively on the principalship and afterschool-program leadership. His latest book, Lead the Way: 24 Leadership Lessons for Afterschool Program Leaders, is to be released in 2014. You can reach Paul at paulyoungohio@gmail.com.
1 Heifetz, R., & Linsky, M. (2002). Leadership on the Line. Harvard Business School Press. 2 Dweck, C. (2006). Mindset: The New Psychology of Success. Random House. Fall 2014 w 27
From the Desk of the Associate Executive Director by D. Mark Jones
Perspectives on OTES/OPES: Survey Results As the 2013–2014 school year unfolded, educators in Ohio found themselves in a “perfect storm” of reform initiatives derived from both the state and national level. While each well-intended effort affected the daily work of teachers and principals, perhaps none had as dramatic an impact, simultaneously positive and negative, as OTES and OPES. Indeed, many veteran principals remarked that the past school year was by far the most stressful experience of their careers and have questioned if they have the stamina to keep up the grueling pace that these evaluation systems demand. In an attempt to quantify the concerns of our members, OAESA and OASSA undertook two joint surveys of Ohio’s principals. The first was conducted in November, as principals started the initial round of observations and walkthroughs, while the follow-up survey was done in midMay, just after most evaluation work had been completed. The results
of these two surveys offer significant findings, regarding not only what our members like about OTES/OPES but also suggestions for changes that will greatly improve these evaluation models while maintaining the positive benefits they have generated. Recently, lawmakers included several revisions to the OTES/OPES framework in legislation passed as part of the midbiennium review. These revisions should address some of the concerns surrounding the evaluation model. Still, we urge legislators to carefully consider the input provided by Ohio’s principals—those who are on the frontlines of this work—as they discuss further changes to laws governing educator evaluations. Both the fall and spring versions of the joint survey included demographic questions that allowed for assurance of broad and fair representation of our membership, as well as an opportunity for disaggregation of the remaining data. For example, we asked respondents to identify themselves with respect to both level and category of their current position. The results from these two questions remained consistent across both survey periods. As shown below, Table 1 identifies the breakdown of respondents by level, while Table 2 displays them by category of assignment, taken from our spring survey.
Table 1 What is the level of your current assignment? Answer
0%
100%
Number of Response Responses Ratio 257
36.8%
Middle
86
12.3%
Junior High
27
3.8%
294
42.1%
District Office
30
4.2%
No Responses
4
<1%
Elementary
High
Totals
698 100%
Table 2 What is the category of your current assignment? Number of Responses
Response Ratio
Assistant Principal
208
29.7%
Principal
Answer
0%
100%
447
64.0%
Curriculum Coordinator/Director
14
2.0%
Other Central Office Administrator
23
3.2%
6
<1%
No Responses Totals
The next pair of questions (Table 3) asked respondents to indicate whether their districts were using OTES for teacher evaluation and to identify the extent to which their district was using electronic tools to assist them in completing evaluations. (Those not using OTES employed an evaluation process outlined in their current master contracts with local 28 w Principal Navigator
698 100%
teachers’ associations.) The survey revealed that most principals were using the OTES framework. However, the use of electronic tools was much less consistent, suggesting that when principals get more training with and access to technological evaluation tools, burdens/frustrations of this OTES process might be reduced.
Table 3 Is your district using the OTES model for teacher evaluation this year? Number of Responses
Response Ratio
yes
631
90.4%
no
64
9.1%
3
<1%
Answer
100%
0%
No Response Totals
698 100%
Is your district using any electronic tool (e.g., eTPES) to assist you in the evaluation process? Number of Responses
Response Ratio
Yes, the entire process is done electronically
320
45.8%
Some parts can be done electronically., others require paper and pencil.
179
25.6%
Only the final rating needs to be submitted electronically
161
23.0%
34
4.8%
4
<1%
Answer
100%
0%
none at all No Response Totals
698 100%
Workload Impact The next survey items were designed to quantify the impact on the day-to-day workload of principals. We asked how many licensed teachers each respondent was assigned to evaluate this school year. Table 4 (below) shows a set of three graphs, displaying the total responses from all who completed the survey and the results disaggregated by those who
used OTES, and those who did not. This comparison yields the first clue as to why our principals felt so overwhelmed this past year: the number of teacher evaluations required under OTES was significantly greater than those still working under previously negotiated evaluation language.
Table 4 Bar Graph of All Respondents: Is your district using any electronic tool (e.g., eTPES) to assist you in the evaluation process? Number of Responses
Response Ratio
Yes, the entire process is done electronically
320
45.8%
Some parts can be done electronically., others require paper and pencil.
179
25.6%
Only the final rating needs to be submitted electronically
161
23.0%
34
4.8%
4
<1%
Answer
0%
100%
none at all No Response Totals
698 100%
(continued on page 30) Fall 2014 w 29
Bar Graph of Respondents Using OTES: How many licensed teachers/educators have you evaluated this year? Number of Responses
Response Ratio
1-5 teachers
18
2.8%
6-10 teachers
23
3.6%
11-15 teachers
80
12.6%
16-20 teachers
146
23.1%
21-25 teachers
159
25.1%
26-30 teachers
114
18.0%
31-35 teachers
44
6.9%
36-40 teachers
20
3.1%
more than 40 teachers
20
3.1%
7
1.1%
Answer
0%
100%
No Response Totals
631 100%
Bar Graph of Respondents Not Using OTES: How many licensed teachers/educators have you evaluated this year? Number of Responses
Response Ratio
1-5 teachers
10
15.6%
6-10 teachers
8
12.5%
11-15 teachers
10
15.6%
16-20 teachers
8
12.5%
21-25 teachers
11
17.1%
26-30 teachers
10
15.6%
31-35 teachers
3
4.6%
36-40 teachers
1
1.5%
more than 40 teachers
0
0.0%
No Response
3
4.6%
Answer
0%
100%
Totals
Statewide, our principals were assigned to evaluate an average of 21.4 teachers this year. However, when broken down by evaluation systems, principals using OTES averaged 22.4 teachers, while principals using previously negotiated agreements averaged only 17.0 teachers. Considering that most previous agreements only required one observation per year compared to the OTES expectation of two observations and multiple documented walkthroughs, it is apparent why principals using OTES reported such a major increase in the time spent on evaluations this year. Principals using OTES averaged 11 hours and 15 minutes, while those not using OTES clocked in 8 hours and 36 minutes spent on evaluation. Interestingly, these two groups reported much closer numbers of teachers to evaluate and time spent on evaluation at the end of the year than on the survey we conducted in November. On that first survey, nonOTES principals evaluated an average of just over 13 teachers and spent about 7.33 hours/week on evaluations, while OTES principals evaluated slightly less than 24 teachers, spending more than 13.5 hours/week on
30 w Principal Navigator
64 100%
the process. The convergence of these numbers may be because in November, those non-OTES principals had likely not yet fully engaged in the evaluation cycle and weren’t spending as much time on the process as later in the year. Or perhaps the OTES principals became more familiar with OTES and had found ways to better manage the time requirements associated with it. In either case, both groups consistently reported that the ideal number of hours needed to effectively evaluate staff was about 6 hours/week. With respect to the impact on the principal’s workload, we asked respondents to identify which other focus areas they had reduced time spent on to accommodate time needed for OTES. Nearly every response revealed principals had to reduce time devoted to these critical areas between our November and May surveys, suggesting the problem of insufficient time to accomplish all responsibilities worsened, rather than improved. Table 5 below identifies areas that principals had to sacrifice to some extent in 2013–14 because of OTES.
Table 5 If the time spent on evaluating teachers has increased for you this year, what other activities have you reduced time spent on? Number of Responses
Response Ratio
informal time in the classrooms and around the building
537
79.2%
time meeting with parents
235
34.6%
time spent with students
542
79.9%
informal discussions with staff
483
71.2%
planning staff development activities
416
61.3%
personal time outside work
551
81.2%
reading or researching educational literature
452
66.6%
75
11.0%
Answer
100%
0%
Other Totals
Our final question related to workload asked principals to identify any supports that their school district offered to assist them with the increased demands of teacher evaluation. Possible supports were listed as options, as well as “My district offered NO additional supports,” which, unfortunately, was the most-often-selected choice. Table 6 displays the
678 100%
results to this question. Based on the high frequency of these items, it is clear that principals were often forced to sacrifice important tasks in order to implement OTES, and we should investigate further to determine if these “losses” can be justified by other gains.
Table 6 Did your district attempt to offer any of the following supports for implementing your teacher evaluation process this year? Number of Responses
Response Ratio
47
6.9%
131
19.4%
hiring outside evaluators to perform part or all of your staff evaluations
16
2.3%
hiring retired/other administrators to assist you with other building duties
38
5.6%
providing technological tools (e.g., iPad apps, etc.) to assist you with evaluations
217
32.2%
My district has provided NO additional supports.
293
43.6%
49
7.2%
Answer
0%
100%
hiring additional administrators at the building level assigned certain staff to others for evaluation (e.g., special ed, P.E., music, etc.)
Other Totals
672 100%
Ratings of Teachers Without question, the real value and purpose of any method of evaluation lies in its ability to accurately distinguish between various levels of quality, and therefore, allow for system improvement. By the end of the year, we heard from principals that OTES had produced some curious results, particularly related to the final teacher ratings. Initially, we assumed that the overall effect of placing significant weight (50 percent) of the final ratings on Student Growth Measures (SGM) would depress the number of teachers earning this highest rating. We based this on the guess that the Look-up Table used in this process (which is biased in favor of the SGM score over the Performance Rating assigned by the principal) would decrease the percentage of teachers rated as Accomplished by evaluators. In reality, the opposite occurred, with nearly double the number of Accomplished teachers than if left entirely to evaluators’ rating. Further, many principals reported that these inflated ratings were skewed heavily in favor of teachers who used Shared Attribution or SLOs to calculate their growth measures, while negatively impacting teachers
who were assigned their SGM rating through Value-Added scores. These results suggest we clearly need a more thorough analysis of the true effect created by each of the various methods of determining a teacher’s SGM on their final rating. Additionally, the Look-up Table used to arrive at the final ratings should also be carefully examined to determine if, indeed, it allows us to fairly distinguish between those teachers who are doing a solid job, and those who are providing truly exemplary classroom instruction. Because so many principals worried that their good teachers frequently earned the highest final rating of “Accomplished” while their outstanding teachers received only a final rating of “Skilled,” and then identified the use of SLO and Shared Attribution versus the application of Value Added scores as the reason, we are eager to see a more deliberate investigation into this phenomenon. The specific survey questions that documented this effect can be seen in Tables 7 and 8, shown below. Note that these tables depict two pairs of questions, with (continued on page 32) Fall 2014 w 31
each pair measuring both the percentage of teachers who fell in the “Accomplished” and “Skilled” categories. The first graph in each pair displays the percentages as rated by the principal on the Performance Rating,
while the second graph in each pair shows the percentages in these two categories on the Final Rating.
Table 7 Approximately what percentage of your teachers did you rate as “Accomplished” on the performance side of the OTES rubic? Number of Responses
Response Ratio
less than 10%
329
47.0%
10% to 20%
140
20.0%
21% to 30%
59
8.4%
31% to 40%
27
3.8%
41% to 50%
22
3.1%
51% to 60%
19
2.7%
61% to 70%
15
2.1%
71% to 80%
10
1.4%
81% to 90%
20
2.5%
6
<1%
did not use OTES
38
5.4%
No Response
15
2.1%
Answer
100%
0%
more than 90%
Totals
698 100%
Approximately what percentage of your teachers did you rate as “Accomplished” on the final rating side of the OTES rubic? Answer
0%
100%
Number of Responses
Response Ratio
30
4.2%
173
24.7%
10% to 20%
82
11.7%
21% to30%
58
8.3%
31% to 40%
44
6.3%
41% to 50%
37
5.3%
51% to 60%
45
6.4%
61% to 70%
32
4.5%
71% to 80%
36
5.1%
81% to 90%
53
7.5%
more than 90%
52
7.4%
did not use OTES
39
5.5%
No Response
17
2.4%
unsure less than 10%
Totals
Principals rated a much lower overall percentage of their teachers as “Accomplished” than were assigned that as a Final Rating once the Student Growth Measures were included in the calculations. This can be seen as a flattening of the bars in the second graph, as opposed to the larger spike in the top graph, where principals more often chose “less than 10 percent” as their response. The reverse effect can be seen below in Table 8, where the shift was toward a lower number of teachers earn-
32 w Principal Navigator
698 100%
ing an overall Final Rating of “Skilled” than were initially identified by their principals, perhaps because so many of these teachers had already been moved into the “Accomplished” category. Interestingly, this phenomenon of category-shift was much less obvious at the bottom end of the evaluation spectrum, where both the “Developing” and “Ineffective” groups were very similar in percentage between those identified by the principals and those receiving these as final ratings.
Table 8 Approximately what percentage of your teachers did you rate as “Skilled” on the performance side of the OTES rubic? Number of Responses
Response Ratio
less than 10%
13
1.8%
10% to 20%
19
2.7%
21% to 30%
16
2.2%
31% to 40%
35
5.0%
41% to 50%
36
5.1%
51% to 60%
45
6.4%
61% to 70%
73
10.4%
71% to 80%
134
19.1%
81% to 90%
185
26.5%
more than 90%
87
12.4%
did not use OTES
39
5.5%
No Response
16
2.2%
Answer
100%
0%
Totals
698 100%
Approximately what percentage of your teachers finished “Skilled” on the final rating side of the OTES rubic? Number of Responses
Response Ratio
unsure
32
4.5%
less than 10%
68
9.7%
10% to 20%
62
8.8%
21% to 30%
49
7.0%
31% to 40%
54
7.7%
41% to 50%
62
8.8%
51% to 60%
44
6.3%
61% to 70%
55
7.8%
71% to 80%
77
11.0%
81% to 90%
86
12.3%
more than 90%
49
7.0%
did not use OTES
39
5.5%
No Response
21
3.0%
Answer
100%
0%
Totals
By averaging the number of respondents in each percentage range of these graphs, it is possible to generate a number that estimates the overall percentage of teachers in each rating category, both from the prin-
698 100%
cipals’ Performance Rating on the rubric, and on the Final Rating. The shift toward higher ratings can be illustrated on the colored bars below.
Percentages based only upon Principal Ratings of Teacher Performance:
4% Ineffetive
8% Developing
70%
18%
Skilled
Accomplished
Percentages based upon Final Ratings after SGM calculations are included:
5% Ineffective
10% Developing
48% Skilled
What is perhaps most striking about these estimated percentages is that the bar reflecting the principals’ ratings of their teachers is extremely close to the stated targets for teacher evaluation provided to principals in their OTES training for the credentialing process, where they were told that only about 15 percent of their staff should qualify as Accomplished, while the majority would likely fall into the Skilled category. From the bar graphs above, it appears that principals can make the argument that
37% Accomplished
their ratings of teachers, derived from performance on the rubric, were much more in line with the intended final results than actually occurred by factoring in the Student Growth Measures (SGM). This outcome lends support to reducing the weight of the SGM in the calculation of an educator’s Final Rating, giving more credence to the Performance Rating. This conclusion can also be supported by the results of an item on the survey that measured precisely that concept, as shown below in Table 9. (continued on page 34) Fall 2014 w 33
Table 9 Considering the weight of the two areas (student growth measures and performance on standards) in OTES/OPES that are combined to yield a final rating, which one of the following choices best reflects your opinion? Number of Responses
Response Ratio
Student growth measures should have greater weight than performance on standards in determining the educator’s final rating.
39
5.5%
Performance on standards should have greater weight than student growth measures in determining the educator’s final rating.
433
62.0%
Both components should have equal weight in determining the educator’s final rating.
207
29.5%
19
2.7%
Answer
0%
100%
No Response Totals
Further evidence that our principals believe the current method of calculating a teacher’s SGM is less than ideal can be documented by their responses to a question that specifically measured that concept. We provided them with three possible responses to the question of how they viewed the equitability of the various methods of determining a teacher’s impact on student growth. A small percentage indicated they were uncertain, but an even smaller number felt comfortable with the view that
698 100%
the various methods are fair and accurate. By far, the vast majority of our principals agreed that some methods of calculating the teachers’ SGM are much more rigorous than others, underscoring the perception that the current plan is inherently unfair, and benefits some while harming others. This apparent inequity will become even more troublesome as the ratings become even more “high stakes.” See Table 10 below.
Table 10 Given the various options for determining a teacher’s rating on Student Growth Measures (Value-Added scores, Vendor Assessment date, SLO calculating, Shared Attribution, or combinations of these), which of the following comments best reflects your opinion of these different methods? Number of Responses
Response Ratio
Although different, each option provides an accurate and fair measure of the teacher’s impact on student growth.
28
4.1%
Some methods are much more rigorous than others, creating significant inequities in how these various calculations influence a teacher’s rating.
574
84.1%
Teachers’ perceptions of the differences between these various methods have caused hard feelings and resentment among staff.
358
52.4%
36
5.2%
Answer
0%
100%
I’m not sure about how the various methods impact teachers’ ratings. Totals
While these are admittedly preliminary findings from the inaugural year of the new evaluation framework, they certainly suggest that deeper investigation is warranted to confirm these numbers. Especially troubling is that more than half of principals reported their teachers perceived an inequity between methods for determining SGMs and that these perceptions created hard feelings among staff. Such an unintended outcome is unfortunate because if left unaddressed, this resentment could undermine all efforts to build a sense of cooperation, shared purpose, and synergy for instructional improvement among teachers. Additionally, if this evaluation framework is viewed as inherently flawed by educators, yet
682 100%
eventually used to compare individual teachers or determine differences in compensation, it could result in a massive protest by those evaluated under the system. This reaction would be understandable and clearly indicates that further examination of the results is warranted before these evaluations are used for purposes of this nature. At the very least, however, the combined implications from these results reveal that not only do our principals want their assessment of teacher performance to carry greater weight than it currently does, the data proves they are also doing an excellent job of applying the rubric to evaluations with fidelity.
Legislative Options Recently, other legislative efforts were presented that offered alternatives to the original requirements, intended to address a few problematic issues. One such suggestion involved exempting certain groups of employees from the requirements of evaluation under OTES, while an34 w Principal Navigator
other sought to expand the number of evaluation categories in an effort to provide greater distinction between levels of performance. Our survey asked two questions about member’s perceptions about these ideas. The first item described three specific groups of teachers iden-
tified as logical for exemption from evaluation under OTES and asked our members if they would support excluding these teachers from the process. To varying degrees, our members were in favor of this suggestion, as these are groups that are either already completing an extensive
evaluation process (Resident Educators) or will have no real benefit from the evaluation results (retiring educators or those absent for a significant portion of the year.) See Table 11 below.
Table 11 Would you be in favor of exempting any of the following teachers from the OTES process? Number of Responses
Response Ratio
Resident Educator teachers (already rigorous evaluation in place)
444
66.7%
Teachers who submit a letter of retirement to district by December 1st
609
91.5%
Teachers who are on an approved leave of absence for 70% or more of year
572
86.0%
Answer
100%
0%
Totals
In addition, the respondents were asked about expanding the number of rating categories, from four to five, through the addition of a new category called Effective—suggested as an intermediate classification between Developing and Skilled. The suggestion is based on the theory that a wide variance exists within the current rating of Skilled, which at present would include teachers who may be rated in many performance areas as either Developing or accomplished but who are pulled up from
665 100%
Developing by higher SGMs or down from Accomplished by lower ones. The net effect of this regression toward the middle is to have different levels of performance all lumped under the same category of Skilled, so some lawmakers suggested that it might help to further refine the levels by adding another classification. Overall, our principals were less certain this was a desirable or necessary addition, but no clear majority opinion could be identified. These results are displayed in Table 12.
Table 12 Would you be in favor of expanding the OTE/OPES evaluation rubic to include a fifth rating category, called “Effective,” placing it in between the current categories of “Developing” and “Skilled”? (This has recently been proposed by legislators.) Number of Response Ratio 100% Responses Answer 0% yes
259
37.1%
no
299
42.8%
unsure
134
19.1%
6
<1%
No Response Totals
698 100%
OPES Evaluation On the November survey, we asked our participants if they were being evaluated themselves using the OPES framework this year. The question was included because, although all administrators were required to be evaluated beginning this past year under OPES, many principals had reported they had not yet been told anything at all by their district supervisor about their own evaluation process. In the late fall, we still had
more than 10 percent of our principals indicate that they were not being assessed using the OPES format, so we included the exact same question on the year-end survey, expecting that, by that point in time, the problem would have been corrected. To our surprise, the percentage of administrators who have yet to be exposed to the OPES requirements remained around the 10 percent figure, consistent with the fall findings.
Table 13 On average, how much time did you spend each week to document evidence for your own OPES evaluation? Number of Responses
Response Ratio
less than one hour
292
41.8%
one to two hours
Answer
0%
100%
200
28.6%
two to three hours
87
12.4%
three to four hours
32
4.5%
four to five hours
17
2.4%
more than five hours
23
3.2%
47
6.7%
No Response Totals
678 100%
(continued on page 36) Fall 2014 w 35
In addition to monitoring the respondents participation rate with OPES, we also wanted to measure the workload impact from this new administrator evaluation. We repeated a similar question from November, asking those who were being evaluated under OPES to estimate how
much time per week they spent documenting evidence for their own evaluation. The results on both surveys were nearly identical, as respondents estimated they are averaging about 1.5 hours per week on this task. See Table 13 for the breakdown by participants in the May survey.
Overall Reflections At the close of the survey, we asked participants two questions to gauge the overall impression of the evaluation processes they are currently using. The first asked them to rate their current evaluation method, on a scale from one to ten, in terms of its effectiveness in facilitating instructional improvement in their staff. Then we compared responses from principals using the OTES to those still operating under their current master agreement. Both groups provided similar feedback, and the average rating was nearly the same (an average score of 5.6 for 690 respondents), matching the findings from the November survey. The final item on our survey was an open-ended response to add any comments. More than four hundred of the nearly seven hundred participants took the extra time to include their own final reflections. These final comments are far too numerous to list, but in general, expressed the belief that the OTES framework has both strengths and weaknesses. The
principals were positive regarding the rich, meaningful conversations with teachers about the art and science of instruction that the model produces, as well as the discussions centered on ways to improve their practice as an educator. Likewise, they appreciated that the OTES framework enhances their image as an instructional leader with teachers, and that it has created a â&#x20AC;&#x153;common language of assessmentâ&#x20AC;? with their ranks. Equally as obvious is the fact that the time demands associated with the framework, as simply overwhelmed principals. The common sentiment was that unless some changes are made to lessen this time burden, it will be increasingly difficult to sustain the energy and effort required to meet these demands and provide the kind of fidelity to this process that we all desire. Hopefully, we can work with other interested parties to preserve all the positive outcomes from OTES while still providing the kind of relief our principals and teachers desperately need and deserve.
D. Mark Jones is the Associate Executive Director of OAESA. Before joining the association in the summer of 2013, Mark served as an elementary principal in Pickerington City Schools for thirty-three years. You can reach Mark by e-mail at mjones@oaesa.org.
New, no-cost resource for members!
1-2 p.m. on the second Friday of each month. Visit oaesa.org for more info.
LuNCH AND
LEARN WEBINAR SERIES
36 w Principal Navigator
Sept. 12
One Districtâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s Focused Response to the Third Grade Reading Guarantee
Oct. 10
Preparing for Restraint and Seclusion
Nov. 14
Motivating 21st Century Learners
Dec. 12
Literacy Improvement in a Value-Added Environment
Jan. 9
Flipping Communication
Feb. 13
The Danger of Positive Labels
Mar. 13
Challenging Talented Readers
Apr. 10
Understanding the Literacy Process
May 8
Causes and Solutions for Weak Comprehension
Gifted Learners Respond to Intervention
by Dr. Ursula Ricketts
Response to Intervention (RtI) seeks to provide support for students with learning and behavioral needs. This approach is typically utilized for children with learning disabilities or challenges (Fuchs and Fuchs, 2006). However, this approach seeks to recognize and provide support for students with different skills, including gifted learners. A gifted leaner has exceptional talent and can use that talent to demonstrate remarkable achievement. Often these learners perform high above their peers, and intervention is necessary to connect these children to opportunities, resources, and recognition. RtI uses high quality instruction with a rigorous implementation. A potential obstacle to this much-needed implementation is the lack of sufficient subject matter expertise (VanTassel-Baska and Stambaugh, 2005). Gifted students bring a significantly enhanced knowledge base to the classroom, and teachers who can advance them in this knowledge base are required for success. Teachers with strong classroom management skills have the necessary skills to manage the plethora of learning tasks as well as the organizational tools needed for teaching different types of learners. Teachers’ effectiveness is contingent upon their knowledge about how to work with gifted students. Knapp (1997) clarified that the engagement of teachers in professional communities is important in implementing high quality instruction. RtI includes ongoing screening and monitoring of the student’s rate of learning and his or her achievement level. Universal screenings must be used to determine the strengths and capabilities of gifted students. Recognizing their abilities will assist teachers in providing the appropriate instruction to meet the needs of these advanced learners. This will also assist in the provision of learning opportunities that will meet the highest standard for the gifted students. A complement to universal screenings would be effective progress monitoring. This would be used to document mastery for the gifted student. When documented mastery has been distinguished, the students should be provided with many opportunities to continue learning with enriched and advanced materials aligned to their area of strength and capabilities. Wiggins and McTighe (2006) discuss three categories for assessment. Some assessments, like traditional quizzes and tests, reflect what students should have learned in the classroom. However, for the gifted learner, a good response to intervention would be open-ended, complex assessments that allow the learner to experience enduring understanding—to give gifted students value beyond the classroom. In RtI, a tiered approach to instruction includes a differentiated method that is matched to students’ needs, which is critical for gifted learners. A gifted learner is often characterized as an independent thinker with high intellectual ability, who likes to create and invent, exhibits original thoughts in oral and written expression, formulates abstract thoughts, is inquisitive, and has a large vocabulary. Instruction that is universally designed will provide a challenge for the gifted learner. One approach for differentiation is the Universal Design for Learning (UDL) framework. This framework provides rich supports for learn-
ing. Educational outcomes for diverse learners, enhanced by providing flexible methods of presentation, and gives students with diverse learning styles a variety of ways to acquire information and knowledge. This framework includes flexible means to engage the gifted learner’s interest to challenge them appropriately while motivating them to learn (Rose and Meyer, 2002). RtI provides parents with information about their child’s progress, so they can recognize their vital role in the success of their child. The information should include a description of the instruction and interventions being used, the other stakeholders involved in the delivery of the instruction, and the learning and behavior goals for their child. Joyce Epstein divided school/parent-involvement programs into several broad categories. Two-way communication is needed toward educating families about a student’s progress and the available school services. Another aspect would be to provide parents opportunities to communicate with the school, potentially through volunteer opportunities or by finding ways to recruit and train parents to work in the classrooms. Facilitating learningat-home opportunities, where teachers can share ideas to promote athome learning with high expectations and tools would enable parents to become better partners. Providing decision-making opportunities would include parents as partners in school organizations to assist with the facilitation of meaningful instruction. Examining RtI beyond just being strategies for intervening with struggling leaners is the first step in the acknowledgement of the enormous benefit for gifted learners. Educators must create a vision for the learner and identify instructional ends or what will the learner know and retain. Next it is critical to be open to what constitutes acceptable evidence. Student assessment data should come from multiple sources and include multiple assessment methods. The plan should include instructional methods and procedures that complement the vision and instructional ends. Gifted students don’t just learn more—they learn differently. A final component to this process would be for parents to be provided with specials workshops or seminars to gain a full meaning of giftedness and how RtI can provide enhancements. References Council for Exceptional Children (2007). CEC’s position on Response to Intervention: The unique role of special education and special educators. Fuchs, L. S., & Fuchs, D. (2006). A framework for building capacity for responsiveness to intervention. School Psychology Review, 35 (4), 621–626. Knapp, M. (1997). Between systemic reforms and the mathematics and science classroom: The dynamics of innovation, implementation, and professional learning. Review of Educational Research 67 (2), 227–266. Rose, DH, & Meyer, A (2002) Teaching Every Student in the Digital Age: Universal Design for Learning Alexandria, VA: ASCD. Wiggins and McTighe (2006). Understanding by Design. Pearson: Merrill Prentice Hall. Van Tassel-Baska, J., & Stambaugh, T. (2005). Challenges and possibilities for serving gifted learners in the regular classroom. Theory into Practice, 44(3), 211–217.
Ursula Ricketts, EdD, is an associate professor with Concordia University Chicago. Dr. Ricketts has been an educator for over twenty years. She has researched and presented on culturally responsive teaching and diversity in teaching. You can reach her by phone at (708) 209-3461 or by e-mail, Ursula.ricketts@cuchicago.edu.
Fall 2014 w 37
Your
Honors
Congratulations to our 2013â&#x20AC;&#x201C;14 award winners! OAESA presented these honors during dinner this past June at the 57th Annual OAESA Professional Conference & Trade Show.
2014 Hall of Fame Schools
The OAESA Hall of Fame Award recognizes schools throughout the state that offer exemplary educational programs. OAESA requests nominations in the fall, and applications are mailed to nominees shortly after. The staff of nominated schools completes the application form, and the Hall of Fame Committee scores the school. After scores are tabulated, another group of Hall of Fame Committee members visits the top schools to make the final decision. Winners also receive a financial award as part of the honor. This yearâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s winners are:
Pickerington Elementary Pickerington Local Schools Pickerington, OH Melissa Moriarty, Principal
Crestwood Elementary Swanton Local Schools Swanton, OH Angela R. Belcher, Principal
Timberlane Learning Center Northridge Local Schools Dayton, OH Heather Koehl, Principal
Madison Avenue Elementary Riverside Local Schools Painesville, OH Melanie Pearn, Principal
38 w Principal Navigator
Granby Elementary Worthington City Schools Columbus, OH Patti Schlaegel, Principal
Toll Gate Middle School Pickerington Local Schools Pickerington, OH Kara Jackson, Principal
2014 Distinguished Principal Award
2014 Outstanding Assistant Principal Award
Dr. Rachel L. Jones Gurney Elementary Chagrin Falls Local Schools
David R. Winebrenner Kings Junior High Kings Local Schools
2014 Secretary of the Year Award
D. Richard Murray Service Award
Connie Lauth St. Marys Intermediate School St. Marys Schools
Kevin R. Connors Attorney at Law Peterson, Conners, Fergus, and Peer, LLP Fall 2014 w 39
This past June OAESA, in partnership with Scholastic Book Fairs, held its 57th Annual Professional Conference and Trade Show at the Kalahari Resort in Sandusky, Ohio. We welcomed over 350 principals and teachers from across Ohio (and outside the state as well!). From preconference activities, including a new unconference, to our closing session, featuring award-winning author Blue Balliett, Literacy LIVE offered excellent keynote speakers, informative clinics on trending topics, and valuable networking opportunities for all. Designed as a parody of Saturday Night Live, the conference also gave attendees the opportunity to unwind and relax with the Literacy LIVE Band, singing with keynote Pam Allyn, Clifford the Big Red Dog, a lollipop game in the trade show, and an all-new format with skits and shorts performed by OAESA board members and staff. Check out the collage on these two pages for a quick recap, and we count on seeing you next year in Columbus for True Grit : Educators Partnerinâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; for Success!
40 w Principal Navigator
Fall 2014 w 41
Legal Report by Dennis Pergram, esq. of Manos, Martin, Pergram & Dietz Co., LPA
Sexual Harassment in the Schoolhouse Sexual harassment in the workplace is one of the most talked about, but often one of the least understood, areas of the law. What was tolerated many years ago now is actionable and can lead to a principal: (1) being sued for sexual harassment, (2) being terminated for sexual harassment, and (3) losing his/her license for sexual harassment. Each of those consequences will be separately discussed.
Personal Liability for Principals In 1986, the United States Supreme Court declared for the first time that “sexual harassment” is a violation of Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act, as amended. Sexual harassment is also a violation of Ohio law under Chapter 4112 of the Ohio Revised Code. The leading case under Title VII is Harris v. Fork Systems, Inc., 114 S.Ct. 367, wherein the United States Supreme Court chose a middle path between two positions that were being advanced. One position was that conduct is actionable if it is merely offensive. The other position, which was the position adopted by the District Court and the Court of Appeals in Harris, as well as the courts in Rabidue v. Osceola Refining Co., 805 F.2d 611 (6th Cir. 1986), cert. denied, 481 U.S. 1041, 107 S.Ct. (1983), 95 L. Ed. 2d 823 (1987), and Vance v. Southern Bell Telephone and Telegraph, 863 F.2d 1503 (11th Cir. 1989), was that the conduct is not actionable unless it seriously affects the employee’s psychological well-being. Justice O’Connor delivered the opinion of the Supreme Court, and in choosing the “middle path,” she indicated that a mere utterance of an epithet which engenders offensive feelings in an employee does not sufficiently affect the conditions of employment to implicate Title VII; how42 w Principal Navigator
ever, Title VII does come into play before the harassing conduct leads to a nervous breakdown. Justice O’Connor acknowledged that the Court was not providing a mathematically precise test for determining when there is a hostile work environment case, but that the Court could say that whether an environment is “hostile” or “abusive” can be determined only by looking at all of the circumstances. Justice O’Connor further indicated that some of the factors that need to be inquired into are: 1. The frequency of the discriminatory conduct; 2. Its severity; 3. Whether it is physically threatening or humiliating or merely an offensive utterance; 4. Whether it unreasonably interferes with an employee’s work performance; and 5. The effect on the employee’s psychological well-being. The leading case in Ohio is Hampel v. Food Ingredients Specialties, Inc., 80 Ohio St. 3d 169 (2000), where the Supreme Court of Ohio held that the following elements must be established for a claim under Ohio law: 1. that the harassment as unwelcome, 2. that the harassment was based on sex, 3. that the harassing conduct was sufficiently severe or pervasive to affect the “terms, conditions, or privileges of employment, or any other matter directly or indirectly related to employment,” and 4. that either (a) the harassment was committed by a supervisor, or (b) the employer, through its agents or supervisory personnel, knew or should have known of the harassment and failed to take immediate and appropriate corrective action.
Federal law and Ohio law are very similar in defining sexual harassment, but there is one major difference. Under federal law, supervisors and managers may not be sued under Title VII for sexual harassment; however, under Ohio law, a supervisor or manager (principal) may be held individually liable for engaging in sexual harassment. This exposure to individual liability for sexual harassment resulted from the 4-3 decision in Genaro v. Central Transport (1999), 84 Ohio St. 3d 293. Although there have been legislative attempts to protect supervisors and managers (principals) from individual (personal) liability for sexual harassment, those attempts have been unsuccessful. The problem for a principal is that the principal may not have insurance protecting him/her from a sexual harassment lawsuit as their insurance policy may not cover the same and the principal’s employer (the board of education) and its insurer may decline to defend the principal or indemnify him/her in the sexual harassment lawsuit.
Termination under R.C. 3319.16 for Sexual Harassment Under Ohio law, a board of education may terminate a principal’s contract for “other good and just cause.” Although that term may seem vague, sexual harassment could certainly fall within the meaning of “other good and just cause.” It is also important to recognize that although the sexual harassment may not constitute a violation of federal or Ohio law, the board of
education may have policies that are stricter than federal or Ohio law and conduct that is not a violation of federal or Ohio law still may constitute “other good and just cause.”
Discipline by the State Board of Education (ODE) Section 3319.31 of the Ohio Revised Code provides that an educator may be disciplined for, among other things, conduct that is unbecoming to the educator’s position. That term may seem vague, but sexual harassment could very well fall within the meaning of conduct unbecoming to the educator’s position. If, after an investigation, ODE concludes that the educator should be disciplined for engaging in sexual harassment, the educator could receive (1) a letter of admonishment, which is a public record and is considered to be discipline, (2) a consent agreement, which provides for, among other things, a suspension, sexual harassment training, or a fitness to teach evaluation, or (3) a license suspension or revocation. Sexual harassment includes many forms of offensive behavior and a principal must be aware of what is considered to be sexual harassment by the courts, his/her employer, and ODE. Dennis Pergram, esq., legal counsel to OAESA, is a partner in the law firm of Manos, Martin, Pergram & Deitz Co., LPA, a former chairperson for the Ohio State Bar Association Committee, and has practiced school law for over thirty years.
Fall 2014 w 43
Important Tips to Help Educators Avoid Legal Trouble in 2014–15 by Dennis A. Leone
Please Note: OAESA will be printing this article in two parts, featuring part two in Winter 2015. The advice in this article is not necessarily the opinion of OAESA but of the author. Today, perhaps more than ever before, teachers and administrators face legal challenges on a daily basis in their jobs. This can be aggravated by unclear new laws, conflicting court decisions, and citizens who seem ever ready to litigate. Educators often can get themselves into legal hot water without realizing they are doing so. This article provides readers with warnings in controversial areas that have emerged in recent years as the basis of lawsuits against teachers, administrators, and school boards. While litigation against public educators often is inevitable, becoming informed about potential problem areas is the best first step to avoid and minimize the prospect of stumbling into costly legal entanglements. I wrote this article to serve as a guide for legal hot-button issues that can both trap and embarrass educators if they are not careful. *** The mother who angrily called me one afternoon was right. I was wrong. “Sir, I wish to make myself abundantly clear,” she said. “I do not want my ex-husband’s mother to have personal access to my daughter Jennifer at school again. I am Jennifer’s sole custodial parent. Do you understand what I am saying?” “Yes ma’am,” I replied, after pausing. “I understand, and it won’t happen again.” The above scenario actually happened in May of 2010 when I was serving as a principal of a seven-hundred-pupil junior high school in Lancaster, Ohio. A frail, elderly looking grandmother appeared in the office at my school on a Monday around noon. “Hi, I missed the birthday party of my granddaughter Jennifer on Sunday afternoon,” she said. “Jennifer 44 w Principal Navigator
texted me last night and said that I could give her these new shoes today at the end of her lunch period, after she was finished eating. May I please do that now because she should be done with her lunch?” After determining Jennifer’s last name, I checked to see if she was finished eating her lunch. She was. I then made a judgment—inappropriately—that since the lunch period was nearly over, I would permit the young lady to come to the office to visit with her grandmother. The two met for about ten minutes, had a private conversation in the corner of the front office, and exchanged hugs. While it seemed innocent to me at the time, I later learned that for a variety of family-related reasons (none of which were really any of my business), Jennifer’s mother had prohibited her daughter from seeing her grandmother. Right or wrong, that was the mom’s right to do. Jennifer’s mother also chose to share with me over the phone that her ex-husband’s mother was not in attendance at the previous day’s birthday party because she had not been invited. *** My decision that day as principal was misguided. Thinking back on it, the grandmother had no official reason to even be in the school that day. She wasn’t there for a concert, a basketball game, an art show, or an open house. She wanted one-on-one access with a child that she had no business seeing. It is not hard to imagine what types of things the grandmother might have said to Jennifer privately that day that would be upsetting to Jennifer’s mother. Noncustodial family members have no legal right to have access to a child at school without the school being given permission by the child’s custodial parents or by a court of jurisdiction. Case closed. Educators and support personnel, if they are not careful, can get themselves in major trouble in such situations. Releasing a child at the end of the school day to a noncustodial parent or an unauthorized person can become an educator’s worst nightmare. A recent jury verdict in San Diego, California, for example, awarded $2.8 million to a father and his young son after an elementary principal wrongly released the boy to unauthorized persons. In this case, the boy was released to his noncustodial mother and her new boyfriend. They bolted for Mexico.
Damages of $3,500 also were assessed against the principal (Carey, 2013). Making sure school personnel stay updated on the custody arrangements of the school’s pupils is one tip for helping educators keep out of legal trouble. Many principals have turned this challenge into a positive communication effort by annually requesting custody updates and changes from all parents to prevent unauthorized persons having access to their children. When parents are told this is done to the ensure safety for their children, appreciation and support likely will be the end result. Here are more important legal tips that should serve as reminders for all educators. The following information can be used by principals during end-of-summer teacher meetings and orientation sessions for new faculty, by superintendents at administrative summer retreats and monthly meetings with building administrators, and by educational administration professors who teach courses in school law, educational leadership, and the superintendency.
Educator-Student Legal Issues for School Leaders: Educators are faced with one-to-one communications and interactions with students and their parents that can be both challenging and complex. Often, such exchanges will have legal overtones without the educator even realizing it. The following five illustrations, like the one above pertaining to a grandmother improperly gaining personal access to her granddaughter at school without permission from the student’s custodial parent, will assist educators to legally prepare for their interactions with parents and students during the 2014–15 school year.
Noncustodial Parents Attempting Unauthorized Participation: Educators need to be careful about their conversations with noncustodial parents who wish to discuss a matter involving their biological child or their child’s specific educational program. While Ohio law and the Federal Educational Rights Privacy Act (FERPA) of 1974 permit noncustodial parents to obtain copies of school records that pertain to their biological children, this does not necessarily translate into noncustodial parents having any decision-making rights about their child’s education, absent being given such permission by a court of jurisdiction or by the custodial parent (Crowley v. McKinney, 400 F3d 965, 7th Cir., 2005). Some noncustodial parents, through electronic means, may even try to trick educators into believing they have been given permission by their former spouses to engage in decision-making conversations about their biological children. Once in a while, noncustodial parents may attempt to do this through innocent-looking emails
to the teacher or the principal. When there are shared-parenting court orders in place, both parents have equal rights for participation and communication—even if only one of them is serving as the residential parent of record. In such situations, both must be invited to participate in activities like parent-teacher conferences and IEP meetings.
Conduct Unbecoming Implications of Inappropriately Releasing Pupil Information: “Since you disciplined my child, I want to know what discipline was handed out to the other student.” Parents have said that to me many times over the years. This request, however, does not legally open the door to give parents any information about the disciplinary disposition of another student. It is perfectly fine for school officials to provide parents with general information about the school district’s standard disciplinary consequences that students will receive for certain misconduct. This can be done without actually telling a parent what punishment was given to another student and often will serve as sufficient information for them. While educators are sometimes asked inappropriate questions by parents during nonschool hours about another student’s behavior, educators need to remember that pursuant to Ohio’s privacy law and FERPA regulations, a student’s disciplinary record is protected, confidential information. Failure to abide by these legal mandates also could be considered as “conduct unbecoming of an educator,” triggering a possible license suspension or revocation by the state of Ohio. It deserves noting that on March 11, 2008, the Ohio Board of Education adopted regulations specifying thirty-five different offenses that may translate into “conduct unbecoming of an educator.” These may include using confidential student or family information in a nonprofessional way; engaging in gossip, malicious talk, or disparagement about students or their families, providing access to confidential student information (continued on page 46)
June 10-12, 2015 Hilton Columbus at Easton
Saddle up—you’re in for a great ride at our 58th annual professional conference! Take the happy trails back to Columbus at the Hilton Easton. We’re rounding up powerful keynote speakers, all-new clinic sessions, and plenty of networking opportunities centered around the theme of grit. See you there, pardner!
Fall 2014 w 45
without parental consent; failing to report a peer’s conduct that is detrimental to the health, safety, and welfare of students; and misrepresenting one’s self when reporting information regarding the evaluation of students. Educators can access a complete listing of the conduct unbecoming offenses on the home webpage of the Ohio Department of Education (ODE) and clicking on “Licensure Code of Professional Conduct for Ohio Educators.” The Licensure Code is enforced by ODE’s Office of Professional Conduct.
Parental Rights to Bar Public Photos of Their Children: Remember that when a news reporter comes to a school with the intent of taking photos or filming children, educators need to make sure they know whether any parents had previously demanded that their child not be part of any such photo session or filming. Custodial parents, for a variety of purposes, may have legitimate personal reasons for not wanting the news media to advertise the school location of their child on television or in the newspaper. (Federal Educational Rights Privacy Act, 1974). We need to respect the wishes of custodial parents in this regard to avoid possible legal claims.
Teachers “Sending” a Pupil to the Office: Be careful about “sending” a misbehaving child to the office during the school day. It is entirely possible that after a teacher instructs a student to report to the principal’s office, the pupil may instead simply choose to walk out of the building. This very thing happened with a small child in Worthington, Ohio, a few years ago. The teacher wrongly assumed that the child followed her instructions to report to the principal’s office. Police found the youngster one mile from his school, talking to a homeless person. As one might guess, school officials were blamed for “allowing” the child to leave the building. In situations like this one, there can be a time lapse before school officials even know that a child is missing. This event, unfortunately, became a news media event in Worthington and a public relations nightmare for the school. Had the child been harmed, it also could have become a liability problem for the school district and even the teacher. If assistance is needed in a classroom because of student misconduct, it is often better for the teacher to call the office for help or to send a trusted student to the office to obtain administrative assistance. Doing so will keep the misbehaving student supervised, minimize the chances of an unmonitored child leaving the school rather than reporting to the principal’s office, recognize the school’s in loco parentis duty of care obligations (New Jersey v. TLO, 1985), and therefore reduce the possibility of litigation against the school.
Posts by Educators on Social Media Sites: Not only is it unwise for educators to “friend” any of their students on Facebook or to ask students for their social media passwords, it is also risky for educators to post anything electronically about themselves they would not want to see on the front page of the local newspaper. Unfortunately, some educators have felt compelled to express themselves publicly on social media by making derogatory remarks about their schools, posting controversial photos of themselves, or telling the world how much fun they had on their spring break in college. Such posts can be self-destructive and are not really in an educator’s best interests, personally or professionally. Educators who think their electronic expressions
on social media are private communications that should not adversely affect them professionally are not being realistic. (Richardson v. Beckon, 2009 and Spanierman v. Hughes, 2008). In fact, teachers may be engaging in “conduct unbecoming of an educator”—pursuant to the Licensure Code of Professional Conduct for Ohio Educators—if they use technology “to intentionally host or post improper or inappropriate material that could reasonably be accessed by the school community.” Simply put, inappropriate electronic communications, including suggestive emails exchanged with students, can jeopardize the professional career of educators. References Carey, Kimball. (2013). Bricker Bullet No. 2013-08. Bricker & Ecklar, LLP. Columbus, OH. Carey, Kimball. (2013) Anderson’s Ohio School Law Manual. LexisNexis Group: New Providence, NJ. Ramirez et al v. Escondido Unified School District et al, Case No 11cv1823 DMS (BCS), United States District Court, Southern District of California, 2013. Ohio Revised Code Section 3319.321(B)(5) – Record Confidentiality. The Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act of 1974 (FERPA) 20 USC 1232g New Jersey v. T.L.O., 469 U.S. 105 S.Ct. 733, 83 L.Ed.2d 720, 1985. Spanierman v. Hughes, 576 F. Supp.2d. No. 3:06 CV01196 (DJS), 2008. Richardson v. Beckon, No. 08-35310 DC. No. 3:07 CV05590 (JKA), 2009.
Dennis Leone served as a public school district administrator for thirty years in Ohio between 1980 and 2010, including twenty-three years as a superintendent of schools. He currently teaches school law courses for Ashland University as an assistant professor of educational administration.
Lexia Reading Core5®, the newest program from Lexia Learning, helps students of all abilities in grades pre-K—5 develop fundamental literacy skills. • Browser-based, iPad® ready • Explicit, systematic, personalized learning in the six areas of reading instruction • Norm-referenced performance data and analysis without a test event • Designed to specifically meet rigorous state standards
Donna McEnery 978-405-6257 DMcEnery@lexialearning.com
Lexia Logo - CMYK Blue: C42, M8, Y0, K40 Orng: C0, M65, Y100, K0 RS Tag-Corisande Reg.
A Rosetta Stone® Company
www.lexialearning.com
Lexia Logo - PMS Ctd Blue: PMS 5415C Orng: PMS 158C RS Tag-Corisande Reg.
A Rosetta Stone® Company
46 w Principal Navigator Lexia Logo - Black Blue: K100% Orng: K50% RS Tag-Corisande Reg.
A Rosetta Stone® Company
e t at D en e 5 m h 1 p e t 4–20 velo v Sa 01 De 2 al n sio s e of Pr
Aspiring to the Superintendency November 6, 2014
Beginning Administrators Academy Part I: September 15 & 16, 2014 Part II: December 10 & 11, 2014
Join fellow administrators for this two-part academy that will kickstart your new career. Return to the building armed with the strategies, information, and valuable connections every successful administrator and school community needs.
You’ve mastered the art of building-level administration. Now it’s time to level up. This workshop will show you challenges faced by today’s superintendents, the politics of the position, how to work with school boards, how to negotiate your Fall Secretaries Conference contract, and—most importantly—what principals November 20 & 21, 2014 This workshop is designed to give your DON’T know about the position. secretary, the ultimate multitasker, the tools necessary to maintain your building ment & organization, technological skills, legislative updates.
Evaluation Conference January 21, 2015
One of the hottest topics for the Ohio administrator is evaluation. This conference provides the latest updates in the areas of both teacher and principal evaluation, including input from the Ohio Department of Education. Be sure to attend this one!
Legal Seminar
Assistant Principals Conference March 16 & 17, 2015
The sessions and topics at this conference have been chosen with the diverse position of the assistant principal in mind. This is an opportunity to meet, talk, get new information, and share ideas on how to navigate the many challenges happening in education today.
at the root of your growth Preparing to Lead
February 5, 2015
Laws and legal issues are constantly changing, especially in the education sector. Administrators should be well educated about changes taking place. In this seminar, we will demystify these legislative issues and bring you up to speed with what you need to know.
March 12, 2015
Hot Topics Conference March 5, 2015
Feeling the heat from all the initiatives and demands as an administrator these days? Don’t sweat it. Get your burning questions answered at this conference. Our experts will explain and address all recent issues affecting education and administration at the time of the conference.
Are you just getting your principal license? Make sure you attend this workshop! Get an in-depth look at administrative contracts, the hiring process, perfecting your résumé, interviewing successfully, and negotiating istrators and get to know your future colleagues on this informative day.
Fall 2014 w 47
Health Issues by Ann Connelly
Epinephrine Autoinjectors in school
You may be aware that Ohio Substitute House Bill 296 was passed by the legislature and signed into law by Governor Kasich this spring. You may know that it has something to do with people with allergies and epinephrine autoinjectors— but what does that mean for you? First, a brief review: Ohio Revised Code (ORC) 3313.713 is the law that allows schools to administer prescription medication and includes requirements such as locking medication and training for school staff. Under this law, students with allergies may have a prescriber’s order for an epinephrine autoinjector that is kept with other student medications. Second, ORC 3313.718 is the law that allows prescribers to write orders that a student may self-carry an epinephrine autoinjector. The law requires the student provide the school with a backup autoinjector to be kept along with other student medications. Third—the new law: Ohio Substitute House Bill 296 made changes in a number of laws that deal with medication administration, storage (including pharmacy license requirements), training and reporting requirements, and other issues related to undesignated epinephrine autoinjectors belonging to the school. Some highlights of the law are: • The act does not require schools to have epinephrine autoinjectors but sets out requirements to be followed for those that choose to have them. • The act addresses the board of education of each city, local, exempted village, or joint vocational school; the governing authority of a chartered or nonchartered, nonpublic school; the governing authority of a community or STEM school; and the board of trustees of a college-preparatory boarding school. 48 w Principal Navigator
• The entities listed above: May procure epinephrine autoinjectors for each school operated by the district to have on the school premises for use in emergency situations; Are encouraged to maintain, at all times, at least two epinephrine injectors at each school operated by the district; Must adopt a policy governing their maintenance and use created in collaboration with a licensed health professional authorized to prescribe drugs; and Shall have a policy that includes a prescriber-issued protocol specifying definitive orders for epinephrine autoinjectors and the dosages of epinephrine to be administered through them.
To recap: Schools in Ohio may now choose to have epinephrine autoinjectors on hand that can be administered to anyone having a lifethreatening allergic reaction. If they choose to have them, they must collaborate with a prescriber to obtain a prescription, develop a policy and protocol for their use, and train staff to use them appropriately. When developing the protocol, the law states the prescriber and school representatives must: • Identify one or more locations in each school in which an epinephrine autoinjector must be stored; • Specify the conditions under which an epinephrine autoinjector must be stored, replaced, and disposed; • Specify the individuals, in addition to a school nurse or athletic trainer, who may access and use an epinephrine autoinjector to provide a dosage of epinephrine to an individual in an emergency situation; • Specify any training that employees must complete before being authorized to access and use an epinephrine autoinjector;
• Identify the emergency situations in which employees may access and use an epinephrine autoinjector; • Specify that assistance from an emergency medical service provider must be requested immediately after an epinephrine autoinjector is used; and • Specify the individuals, in addition to students, school employees or contractors, and school visitors, to whom a dosage of epinephrine may be administered through an epinephrine autoinjector in an emergency situation.
Frequently Asked Questions How do you find an authorized prescriber with whom to collaborate? There are several suggestions for finding someone to write your prescription and help develop your protocol and policy. Your school may already have a medical director—that would be the appropriate person to do this. If you do not have a medical director, you could consider contacting your local health department to see if the physician there would work with you. Depending on your community, you may also have access to a prescriber, such as an allergist or a hospital representative, that would work with your school. How do you get an epinephrine autoinjector? Once you have a prescription, the law allows schools to accept donations of epinephrine autoinjectors from a wholesale distributor or accept donations of money from any person to purchase epinephrine autoinjectors. It also allows wholesale distributors to donate epinephrine autoinjectors. In addition, some manufacturers are providing two free autoinjectors to each school building this year as the law rolls out. The new law removed the requirement that schools have a terminal distributor’s license from the Ohio Board of Pharmacy in order to possess them. What else does the law require? If your school decides to get epinephrine autoinjectors, the law states the school shall report to the Ohio Department of Education (ODE) that they have the devices. If the school’s medication is administered, then the school must notify ODE. While the law does address liability, it is strongly encouraged that your school board, superintendent, board of trustees, or governing body consult their legal counsel to determine if they want to possess epinephrine autoinjectors. If they choose to do so, then they must identify and consult with a licensed prescriber to develop and implement a policy that includes the points required by the act. The Ohio Department of Health School Nursing program has created a train-the-trainer program for school nurses to use to train staff.
It will not be required that schools use this training, but it will address the points needed for you to train those who are not school nurses or athletic trainers. The training is available on OhioTRAIN (https://oh.train. org)—Course #1051726. As with everything else, your school administration must evaluate the resources of your community to determine the best way to provide this care, if you choose to do so. There are methods to procure epinephrine autoinjectors and train staff in a cost-effective manner. The ability to have an epinephrine autoinjector on hand in your school, with staff trained to administer it, can literally be a lifesaver. Ann M. Connelly, MSN, RN, LSN, NCSN, is the supervisor of the School Nursing Program at the Ohio Department of Health. You can contact her by calling 614-728-0386 or by emailing her at ann.connelly@odh.ohio.gov.
Fall 2014 w 49
New Members Zone 1
Cara Bullington Nancy Burnem Katharine Erb Tina McWilliams
Zone 2
Ligia Cuevasâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;Johnson Valerie Davis Corina Denny
Zone 3
Lee Benson Erin Elsner Shawn Heimlich Kelly Hicks Gary Miller Haley Moore
Zone 4
Mary Born Chad Brinkman Kasey Chapman Angela Hickman-Richburg Bryan Hieber Jack Hunter Jenny Johnson
Zone 5
Kori Bernal Cheryl Cronbaugh Lesley Glase Jennifer Lawson Mark Lowrie Steven Mohr
Zone 6
Sarah Appleby Christina Bauer Lisa Brown Brenda Budzar Charles Callahan Kimberly Dittmann Kendra DiVito 50 w Principal Navigator
Karen Ochsenbein Brittany Peffley Tara Richards Joshua Riffe
Nicholas Neria James Weeks Jennifer Wilcox
Jamie Pund Cheryl Romstadt Jill Roode Debra Southward Mary Troxtell
Zone 7
Tania Bertolone Holly Bowser Christopher Dodd Katherine Jernigan Elizabeth Kadvan Craig Knouff Courtney McElhaney
Zone 8
Thomas Brown Kimberly Dannemiller Darrell Haven Carla Kolp William Love Nicole McDonald
Randi Radovanic Donald Shymske Carla Sziber George Wetzel Rob Wludyga Matthew Zakrajsek
Lisa Owen Tim Pancake Tiffany Turner Derek Varansky Eric Vizzo
Zone 9
Tom Bradford Angela Maag Betsey Murry Michael Myers Jill Proudfoot Annette Rosebrock Kim Rupley Anne Subleski
William Noggle Robert Painter Sean Sindelar Brett Thompson Kara Wright
Martha Hasselbusch Ariel Hayes Elizabeth Marshall Michael Ptacek Denise Ressler Nicole Rucci-Macuada
Zone 10
Jill Abraham Jason Adams Pamela Artrip Jennifer Blosser Andrew Cly Nathan Collins Rhonda Corven Shannon Finley Amy Isaacson Allison Jenison Anders Johansen Janice MacDonald Brooke Marshall Sarah Mastrine
Ryan Mocarski Angela Moore-Tyler Andrew Perkins Mary Pettigrew Theresa Pinkstock Darin Prince Ashley Sagle Michael Schultz Christina Sommerkamp Andrew Walsh Toby West Jessica Wills Jennifer Young
Sorry...
We’re BOOKED Implementing Response to Intervention: A Principal’s Guide by Susan L. Hall As I write this review, I recognize the importance of presenting Response to Intervention (RtI) to staff as a data-based process within the core curriculum, rather than as an isolated initiative. RtI links with other academic initiatives, including the Third Grade Reading Guarantee with the requirement for early reading intervention and Universal Design for Learning with its emphasis on flexible curricular approaches to meet individual needs. Understanding RtI as a framework for data-driven instruction to address core skill deficits helps with staff buy-in for implementation. The guide offers research and practical approaches to improve reading in elementary and middle schools, focusing on K–3 with guidance on instruction at Tiers 1, 2, and 3; suggestions for staffing, including having an RtI coordinator; and use of data. Strong leadership will yield results including improvement of reading skills in early grades so that students can read to learn in the content areas and reduction of special education referrals due to targeted general education intervention. Although early intervention is desirable, research shows that intensive instruction at middle school will improve reading accuracy and comprehension. When initiating middle school RtI, it’s beneficial to start with one grade level and carefully monitor results, instead of taking on the whole building and risk losing focus. I am fortunate to have strong support at district and building level for RtI, and I have had the opportunity to present strategies to future teachers with a school team. A key presentation point was that knowledge of strategies alone will not produce positive results. Strong administrative support and dedication of staff to intervention integrity and fidelity is needed. When RTI works, the team process can feel as rewarding as the product of significant academic growth in students.
We extend our appreciation to Corwin Press for providing these publications to our reviewers.
You can order these books and many other educational materials at
www.corwinpress.com
Or call 800-233-9936 Or fax to 800-417-2466 Or mail to 2455 Teller Road, Thousand Oaks, CA 91320
Effective RtI is essential to helping students work to their academic potential, leading school teams toward successful collaboration, and using data to drive instruction. I recommend this guide to help you and your team work toward academic success for all students. Reviewed by Annemarie Nosse, school psychologist and aspiring principal, Elyria City Schools
RtI Is a Verb by Tom Hierck and Chris Weber In these days of trying to find just the right tools to become competent practioners in our response to intervention (RtI) programs, RtI Is a Verb is a significant resource for educators. The authors give the appropriate amount of research and background to lay a foundation for the RTI process. Within the chapters of RtI Is a Verb, the authors make a connection between research and best practice. They devote much attention to the importance of solid instruction in Tier 1, while also stressing that collaboration between staff members can be the key to discovering the interventions needed for each student to reach his or her full potential. Chapters that focus upon the academics as well as the social and behavioral aspects of a student discuss the significance of the whole student in the RtI process. The book contains practical ideas and forms to support the collection of information for educators. RtI Is a Verb is rich with appropriate examples of assessments, strategies, and resources to use in establishing a working and successful RtI process. This book demonstrates what the catchy title suggests: it is filled with inspiration and ideas that work! Reviewed by Mrs. Patty Minrovic, principal, Miller and Craddock Schools
Those with purchase orders for large quantities or who need assistance matching our books to their district’s initiatives or school needs can speak with a sales manager by calling 800-831-6640. Fall 2014 w 51
Fall Secretary Conference November 20 & 21, 2014
Embassy Suites Columbus $260 Staff of Members â&#x20AC;˘ $360 Staff of Nonmembers This workshop is designed to give your office staff, the ultimate multitaskers, the tools necessary to maintain your building and office. Topics include time management and organization, technological skills, office management, networking, and legal and legislative updates.
serving ohio’s preK, elementary, middle level, and central office administrators
Membership Form Tell Us About Yourself! Professional Plus ...................... $350.00 Professional ........................... $250.00 Aspiring Plus ............................ $160.00 Aspiring ................................... $60.00 Associate Plus ........................ ...$160.00 Associate ................................. $60.00 Retired ..................................... $60.00 Institutional ............................... $60.00
Name E-mail address School Position Title Years in this Position: _ 2 years or fewer _ 11-20 years
_ 3-10 years _ 20+ years
For $100, your professional, aspiring, or associate membership can be upgraded to a PLUS membership allowing 12 month access to the OAESA 360 Feedback Tool.
(Total number of years in this position, not necessarily at your current school)
Active..................................... $235.00 Institutional Active ..................... $280.00 Emeritus ................................. $118.00 Retired .................................... $60.00 Associate ................................. $135.00 Aspiring Principal ........................ $80.00
School Address City, State, Zip Code School Phone
Total:______ Method of Payment
School Fax
Full Payment (Check or credit card) Purchase Order #______________
School District
(Payment due within 30 days—See Expiration Policy)
Payroll Deduction: $275, includes professional memSchool Information (check all that apply) _ PreK _ Elementary _ Middle
bership ($250) and processing fee ($25). Maximum of 10 equal installments.
_ Public _ Private _ Parochial _ Charter _ Title I _ Urban _ Suburban _ Rural
Make check payable to OAESA for both your OAESA and NAESP membership fees. OAESA 2600 Corporate Exchange, Suite 168 Columbus, OH 43231 Fax: 614-794-9191 · Phone: 614-794-9190
Home Address
Card Type: _ Master Card _ Visa _ Discover _ American Express
City, State, Zip Code Card Number Cell/Home Phone Preferred Address:
Expiration Date _ Home _ School
Referred By (if applicable) Membership Renewal Date:
Cardholder Name Signature Any account with an outstanding balance more than 30 days delinquent will be suspended and must be brought current before membership can be reinstated.
Periodical Postage Paid Westerville, OH
LEADERS FOREVER
INSPIRED DOCTOR OF EDUCATION AND MASTER’S DEGREE PROGRAMS IN OHIO
NOVA SOUTHEASTERN UNIVERSITY ABRAHAM S. FISCHLER SCHOOL OF EDUCATION Education is your passion. You have been transforming and leading schools long enough to know that you are ready to make your mark. You want to continue to inspire and be inspired. Recognized for excellent online curricula, the Fischler School’s master’s and doctoral programs are ideal for educators and educational decision makers who want to increase their knowledge, expertise and marketability while saving completion time. Enjoy small class sizes while receiving support services throughout the duration of the program. Join the thousands of Fischler graduates that have become successful educators in public and private schools as well as superintendents, heads of school, and principals throughout the United States and abroad. State Approved Programs Offered in Ohio: M.S. in Educational Leadership M.S. in Reading Education M.S. in TESOL Ed.D. in Educational Leadership For more information on programs and endorsement areas, call
888-431-1008 or visit fischlerschool.nova.edu/Ohio
Nova Southeastern University admits students of any race, color, sexual orientation, and national or ethnic origin. Nova Southeastern University is accredited by the Southern Association of Colleges and Schools Commission on Colleges to award associate’s, baccalaureate, master’s, educational specialist, doctorate, and professional degrees. Contact the Commission on Colleges at 1866 Southern Lane, Decatur, Georgia 30033-4097 or call 404-679-4500 for questions about the accreditation of Nova Southeastern University. Nova Southeastern University programs meets the Ohio Board of Regents Chancellor’s minimum standards for authorization appropriate to the degree level, including the required number of credit hours for each degree designation and culminating program experience. The Reading Education and TESOL specializations align with the Ohio Department of Education’s standard for endorsements in those areas. In addition, the Educational Leadership specialization within the Master of Science in Education and concentration within the Doctor of Education align with the Ohio Department of Education’s standards for Building Principal Licenses (grades PK-6, grades 4-9, and grades 5-12).