skip to main |
skip to sidebar
Best books for educational leaders
- A brief guide to cloud computing by Barnatt
- A whole new mind by Pink
- Dealing with difficult teachers by Whitaker
- Drive by Pink
- Education nation by Chen
- Failure is not an option by Blankstein
- Focus by Schmoker
- Getting things done by Allen
- Leadership & the force of love by Hoyle
- Leading school change by Whitaker
- Mastery of management by Kahler
- Playing for pizza by Grisham (just for fun)
- Results now by Schmoker
- School leadership that works by Marzano
- Teacher evaluation that makes a difference by Marzano & Toth
- The global achievement gap by Wagner
- The manufactured crisis by Berliner
- The wizard and the warrior by Bolman & Deal
- Visible learning by Hattie
- Where have all the leaders gone by Iacocca
Module 6 - Decisions... Decisions...
School leaders are regularly faced with critical decisions. Principals are often challenged to respond with action to improve student achievement, follow directives from the central office, support faculty and staff, advocate for students and comply with state law and/or department of education mandates. Give an example of a similar decision making situation with which you are familiar and discuss how it was addressed within your school. Please refer to a decision making model from our studies and evaluate its effectiveness for situation referenced.
Working in a title one school where 80% of our students are considered economically disadvantaged comes with many challenges. One of our challenges we have been working on the past couple of years is attendance. Our students range in age from pre-school through eighth grade. Many of our younger students have to rely on their parents to be the responsible ones to get them up and ready for school and most of our older students are able to take on this responsibility themselves, but all rely on their parents or guardians transporting them to school because we do not have school provided transportation. Because of this we have a huge attendance issue, with many kids being late or not coming at all, for no valid reason. Many times it is known that the parents did not want to get up in the morning to get their child to school or in some cases the child decided he/she did not want to attend for the day, and the parents let them make the decision.This has left us with more than 70% of our students with ten or more unexcused absences for the year.
ReplyDeleteWhen we discussed this issue as a staff we followed the Rational Choice Model.It was extremely easy identifying the problem, we had a huge discrepancy “between our existing and desired conditions” (Lunenburg & Ornstein, 2008, p. 156); the problem was our attendance rate with our students.From there we brainstormed all of the ways we could help our families get their children to school.We listed every idea staff had; we left nothing out, this was not the time to evaluate the idea, just a time to get all of the ideas down.After the conclusion of brainstorming, there were many alternatives we discussed, trying our best to evaluate how each of them may turn out.We often found ourselves trying to change those things we have no control over and ultimately we have no control over our student’s parents, but we do have major influence over their children.
We put into place many incentives for being on time and if they had to be absent we engrained in the students that they needed a valid excuse.We tried to implement the most valid alternatives we thought would make the biggest impact. We came up with a large list but ultimately kept coming back to the children themselves. Who has the most affect on parents, administration, school officials, or their own child?As a staff, from our brainstorming list and evaluating how our different options may turn out, we decided to work with the children.We immediately put incentives in place to be at school on time and not to miss school unless they were sick.If we could get the students to want to be at school all of the time or not to be late, we thought they would put pressure on their parents to make sure they came to school and on time.
We started holding monthly assemblies recognizing those students who had perfect attendance for the month. It was amazing how many students wanted that recognition and started getting upset with their parents if they were late, or didn’t come to school. We started each month fresh allowing students to feel the success of perfect attendance. This did not mean students could not be absent, but they had to have a doctor’s excuse if they were absent. Monthly drawings were also held and every student who had perfect attendance for the month got put into a drawing for a $20 gas card. This helped encourage our parents but it also put excitement into the children. Students really started to value being to school on time and not missing.(I ultimately wish students wanted to do this for intrinsic reasons but at least we had found extrinsic incentives to help push them.)
The first year we implemented the attendance incentives we saw a huge increase in students being on time and we had less unexcused absences. This is our second year, and those statistics are dwindling. It is time to re-evaluate our program and see what can be tweaked to increase our attendance rates once again and make sure there is a good determination for measuring the effectiveness of our decisions (Lunenburg & Ornstein, 2008, p. 158).
I’ve alluded to this situation previously in class. It is unavoidable to not reference, because it is having huge impacts, not only to staff, but students and families as well. Two years ago we lost a principal. In the past 2 months we have had district reconfiguration, resulting in principals being moved within the district. We have hired a new administrator to replace the one that left (there had been an interim). We now have lost another principal. We are in the process of hiring an assistant principal. It now appears that our superintendent is leaving prior to the end of her contract. This will result in an interim in that will bring us into the new school year in just a few short weeks, which will result in the person wearing two hats for a number of months. A classic example of what I call full-plate syndrome.
DeleteIn a scenario like this, not all possible alternatives can be considered. Within our power point presentation of this week’s class module there was a quote stating, “The fragmented and unpredictable workday of the principal is not conducive to rational decision making.” So, in an effort to honestly evaluate the state of affairs within my district I must say that we are operating within Herbert Simon’s Bounded Rationality Model, otherwise known as the Administrative Model.
There are five points within the bounded rationality model. The situation within our district and the decisions being made fit within the assumptions of this example.
1. Decisions of where to move administrators, who to hire, and how to handle the parting of ways with our superintendent all have incomplete and unknown variables at play. How far reaching problems are from these situations is impossible to quantify.
2. It is impossible for decision makers to understand all the alternative solutions to the problems at hand. The possibilities are limitless.
3. The alternatives being considered cannot be evaluated completely. There is no way to consider every possible alternative to apply to this situation. There is no way list a person that could fill each of these roles. There are people who we don’t even know that could adequately and effectively fill these positions.
4. Decisions must be made on other criteria than maximization or optimization, as our Lunenburg and Ornstein point out. Decisions must be made, time is of the essence.
5. There are a number of stakeholders in this situation: parents, students, teachers, and our community. We need to be mindful of all of these participants and made a decisions that we feel will be best for the greater good.
Since we are in the midst of all of these changes, it is impossible to evaluate the effectiveness of all these situations and the resulting effectiveness of the decisions being made. What I can see from decisions made thus far, is that things are not being done in haste. I think an example of this is how we had an interim fill our principal position for several months before they were eventually asked to fill the position permanently. Sitting on the assistant principal interviews, and seeing the process of narrowing down candidates to a second round, and to a third, it is evident that a lot of time and consideration are being given to this decision. With the interim in place for the next several months before a new superintendent is hired, shows that the school board is realizing the far-reaching effects of this position in our community and that they want time to find a candidate that bring us through this transitional phase of our district.
References
Jeffrey, Ed.D., J. (2014). Edl660 power point. Retrieved from https://blackboard.cmich.edu/webapps/blackboard/content/listContent.jsp?course_id=_94211 _1&content_id=_2928501_1&mode=reset
Lunenburg, F., & Ornstein, A. (2012). Educational administration concepts and practices. (6th ed.). Belmont, Ca: Wadsworth, Cengage Learning.
References
ReplyDeleteLunenburg, F.C. & Ornstein, A.C. (2008). Educational administration: Concepts and practices. Belmont, CA: Thomson.
At my previous school, we were trying to figure out new ways to improve enrollment. The preschool had been steadily losing families to surrounding schools because they offered longer days and different types of programs we did not.
DeleteUsing the Rational Model, we explored various options that would achieve this objective of increasing enrollment. (Lunenberg and Ornstein, 2012, p. 137) There are six steps generally involved in this model. The first is: identify the problem, which was low enrollment. Next, generate alternatives, evaluate the alternatives, choose one, then implement the alternative chosen and last evaluate the decision.
We discussed several possible ideas and after determining that many of the schools in the area were offering extended day programs, we decided this would be a solution. We implemented an extended day program which offered many additional educational programs such as; Spanish, yoga and more. I was the lead teacher in this program and wrote curriculum for it.
Midway through the school year we evaluated how the program was doing and what needed to be changed to make it even more successful. It was a good program and worked very well for families, especially for those who worked full time. The only problem with it was it needed a bit more flexibility, allowing people to drop in or use the extended day as needed. As the book states, “It is impossible to predict accurately all consequences associated with alternatives.” (p. 140) When changes are implemented you can use this model to explore as much as possible what decisions are best and all that may affect a decision but they are just predictions.
Lunenburg, F., & Ornstein, A. (2012). Educational Adminstration: Concepts and Practices. Belmont: Wadsworth.
In our school the current problem in enrollment we can’t get enough students in our school to keep up with the budget. Students will attend our school until 6th grade and then they will transfer to another school. Our school is a charter and we only have kindergarten through 8th grade. In order to continue to operate we need to get students to start at our school in kindergarten and stay through 8th grade.
ReplyDeleteWe first had a meeting with parents to see what their problems with our school were. Some of the issues they had were no athletics for middle school, transportation issues (we use local transit. We don’t own any buses), middle school environment and location. Next we got together as a staff and discussed how we could address these issues that were causing students to leave our school. The transportation issue, location and middle school environment were for the most part out of our hands. We have a great building and moving closer to the city and abandoning this building just does not make since. Transportation is out of our hands too because right now we do not have enough money to own our own bus and hire drivers. The environment parents want is one that will be similar to an area high school so that their children will be ready for high school but we do not have the funding to pay multiple teachers for each subject and an hour class period’s format. Athletics is possible but with a middle school of 14 students currently it makes it hard to play competitively enough so that the students will like it. In the end we decided as a staff that in order to make this happen we needed to get more middle school students.
In the end we found that in order to grow our enrollment it wasn’t about keeping the middle school students it was about getting as many preschoolers and kindergarten in our school as possible and getting them to stay. After all 6th grade parents said they loved our school they just wished that we offered the things above. If we could get enrollment up in this way we could add more money to the budget and be able to provide middle school with the things they needed in order to want to stay.
The model we used was the Delphi method and the reason I compare it to this is because we did bring in the “experts”. We first thought the problem was the middle school students leaving before 8th grade so we brought in middle school parents (experts) and they told us why they removed their children. Then we discussed and brainstormed and finally came to a conclusion and moved on to a new problem. How do we get more kindergartners?
Depth of Knowledge
ReplyDeleteThe high school in which I currently work recently had a very extensive debate over bell scheduling for the 2014-2015 school year. Although my school has operated on a semester-long block schedule the past two decades, a brand new sister high school within the district opened its doors last fall by offering “flex-mod scheduling” which, without getting too technical, is very collegiate and offers prescribed study time to students.
In order to maintain the progressive reputation of my affluent school district, it was decided by the district that our current scheduling would have to be changed to bear a stronger resemblance to the brand new school and display an “escalation of commitment” (Lunenburg & Ornstein, 2012, p. 149) to flex-mod scheduling. This stirred a considerable amount of debate, because not only was flex-mod scheduling still in the infant stages of its trial at our sister high school, but word coming through the grapevine to faculty, administrators, and parents at my school was that it was largely ineffective. Ultimately my school, which was reluctant to change at all, settled on a compromise, known as “modified block scheduling”, which kept the same basic format as block scheduling but offered an advisory period for independent study.
References to Text/ Scholarly Research
There are many elements from Lunenburg and Ornstein (2012) that I found to be prevalent in my school’s quest to decide on a proper bell schedule. Firstly, it is very clear that my school followed the “bounded rationality model” (Lunenburg & Ornstein, 2012, p. 139) of decision making when trying to make its bell schedule decision. Although there were a few alternatives that were explored, administration and district educational leaders seemed to confine their options to block scheduling, flex-mod scheduling, and anything in between. Although I don’t profess to know all of the scheduling models, this appears to be a clear confinement of choices.
Throughout the process of the bell schedule decision, my principal displayed good communication and admitted throughout the process that her intuition (Lunenberg & Ornstein, 2012) told her that switching to flex-mod scheduling and relying on students studying independently for large chunks of the day was not a very good idea. She also looked towards group decision making (Lunenburg & Ornstein, 2012) by not only communicating with the district, but also by using professional development time to meet with teachers in groups and utilize the “nominal group technique” (Lunenburg & Ornstein, 2012, p. 151). Although I appreciate the methodology that she incorporated, I still believe that ultimately there was a “risky shift” (Lunenburg & Ornstein, p. 149) in our group decision making because we settled on a risky, modified block solution that was both untested and unproven.
Connection to Personal or Current Events
DeleteWe learned in module 3 that employees will almost always be resistant to change, and this is largely due to a fear of the unknown. Although I can’t say that I was in love with the idea of changing our scheduling, I do understand that sometimes change needs to occur in the face of adversity and without popular support. Despite this dynamic, I am still a bit disappointed in the way that my school handled this situation because I believe that they were very narrow-minded when considering alternatives to block scheduling. From personal experience, I can say that I worked in a school with a different type of block scheduling (which incorporated an x-block and differing block lengths depending on the day), and from my perspective it would have been a much better option than the schedule that my school settled upon. I am also a little bit frustrated with my school because I think that, to a degree, it fell victim to “groupthink” as defined by Lunenburg and Ornstein (2012, p. 147). Rather than give flex-mod scheduling a few years to prove itself at our sister high school, we felt pressure from the district to change immediately and the school leaders, teachers, and parents came up with a makeshift solution to alleviate those pressures. Although I am ultimately just a teacher with an opinion, I tend to think that this exercised very poor, rushed judgment on behalf of all parties.
References
Jeffrey, J. (2014). Decision Making [Powerpoint slides]. Retrieved from https://blackboard.cmich.edu/bbcswebdav/pid-2761583-dt-content-rid-25894665_1/xid-25894665_1
Lunenberg, F.C., & Ornstein, A.C. (2012). Educational administration: Concepts and practices (6th ed.). Belmont, CA: Cengage Learning.
The situation that I want to refer to happened when I was an IB physics teacher at Seoul Foreign School. The science department was having a very hard time meeting the lab requirements of the International Bachelorette program because the schedule we were using at the time was an 8 period day, of 47 minutes for each period situation. The time limitation of a 47 minutes a period did not give us the time necessary to do the type of labs expected in the IB program. This represented a significant problem as we were an IB school and the expectations that students meet the prescribed objectives are pretty ridged.
ReplyDeleteOur principal scheduled a dedicated meeting to discuss just this issue. The problem was presented and the faculty was informed that the issue had to be solved. We were also informed that any concerns about whatever change was being discussed was coveted and we were given the task of coming up with a schedule that met the science department needs along with the needs of the other IB classes, other than that all ideas were on the table for the present. We then broke into small groups and began to brainstorm. We did that for two or three weeks (I can’t remember some of the small details), and were given the opportunity to research other HS schedules that were used by other IB schools and we were given time as small groups to come up with Ideas. Then within the small groups a decision was made as to what that groups best Idea was. We then presented these in a meeting and started to discuss what Ideas were best, allowing the other groups to shoot holes in the ideas presented or talk about what could make specific ideas work better. After that was done we voted on the best plans and focused on them. After more discussion of the best plans focusing on their problems and trouble shooting the issues to make them work one plan was decided as the best option and more time was spent contemplating the plan, shooting holes in it, seeing its negatives and positives, trying to improve upon it. Once the plan was set it was then put to the faculty for a vote.
In the beginning of the process, before any real work was done, everyone was informed that whatever plan we came up with would need to pass a faculty vote with a 70% (it could have been 60%?) majority in order for it to be accepted for the one year trial. If it failed the process would begin all over again, until the necessary objectives were achieved. This in my mind was ingenious, as it forced the people who just wanted to sit back and shoot holes in ideas, or were by their general nature just a negative drain on the process to get involved and be constructive or shut up, because the imposition on their time was not going to end until there was an adequate (not necessarily perfect) solution. It worked, everyone worked diligently to come up with an idea that worked. There were compromises, gives and takes, times when groups fought for certain aspects that they saw as necessities and others that gave in on some of their wants in order to come up with a plan. The schedule voted upon passed with significant support and I even know people who didn’t like the plan that voted for it because they couldn’t see how they were ever going to come up with a better one.
...
When the next year rolled around and the evaluation meeting took place the new schedule was deemed a success. Not that it didn’t have problems. because it did. Adjustments were made for the next year, but in the end no one, not even the schedules strongest detractors, wanted to go back to our previous schedule or saw the need to look for another option.
ReplyDeleteI believe the success of the schedule was directly related to the collaborative decision making process that we went through to develop it. The schedule, developed by the stakeholders (which by the way included some students), was of the highest quality given the specific restrictions placed on us. It also ended up having almost universal buy-in and that was important, as when problems came up that next year, it seemed like there was a real effort on everyone’s part to figure out solution, to make it work, as we were all invested into making it succeed. No one sat back and through out “I told you so” bombs.
In the end I really did see the benefits that Lunenburg and Ornstein talk about in their book Educational Administration, Concepts & Practices of what they called Site-Based Decision Making (or Collaborative Decision Making). Decision quality, creativity, judgment, and accuracy were all high do to the number of motivated, well educated, intelligent people working together. But, most importantly, Everyone Understood both the product and the process and this brought about almost universal acceptance for using the schedule we had developed.
As an administrator we will constantly be asked to make decisions and some will be easy and some will be hard. Many decisions will make a change occur at school in some cases, and as we learned earlier when we make changes we need to make sure we are taking the proper steps to implement changes.
ReplyDeleteRecently, one major decision my school had to make was what mathematics curriculum we could implement because of our low MEAP scores that were almost to the point of putting us as a ‘Focus’ school. Our district used a form similar to the Rational Model, identifying the problem was quite simple, however all of the different curriculum's out there made evaluating them and finding the right was quite interesting. Staff went into classrooms that already had this curriculum and met with those teachers to ask questions and hear their thoughts about the curriculum. With several meetings and a curriculum director with a mathematics background, we finally decided on a curriculum and it was time to implement. This is our second year of sixth through eighth grade implementation and just received our MEAP scores from the fall. Each grade level saw increases in their scores, which has not happened in quite a while in my district, 7th grade increased by 14%! With data now available to back our new curriculum we are evaluating the curriculum and with no doubt all of our staff love it and we are going to continue using it at the middle school. It has also made our high school start looking at a new curriculum with more problems solving and exploring on the students part, which has just started to be implemented this year. By taking the time to dig deep into different curricula and sit in classrooms that already had it in place, I believe helped make the best decision for all and it has clearly worked dividends thus far.
I am currently in the process of deciding how to best meet the needs of my students, especially my special education students, which are experiencing negative growth on math measures.
ReplyDeleteAt this time, I am following the rational model for decision making as referenced in Educational Administration: Concepts and Practices by Lunenburg and Ornstein (p. 137). Since this decision does not need to me made immediately and there is no monetary cost associated with this decision, I am able to effectively utilize this model.
The first step for me is to identify the problem. The problem, as demonstrated by data from MEAP, NWEA, and Aimsweb, has shown that all students, including special education students, are not showing growth on math measures. In some cases, we are showing negative growth in specific math standards. As a district, we know that math is an issue. We are currently exploring the option of investing in a new math series. However, as the building leader, I cannot wait until the 2015-2016 school for the new series. I know that I need to act now to try to prevent anymore backsliding of test scores. A representative from the ISD special education department presented me with data, drilled down to the specific grade level content expectation, to show that across grades 3-5 measurement and geometry are showing this biggest trending magnitude.
One alternative is for my building to agree to the partnership with the ISD. This partnership has pros and cons but is one way to accomplish my goal of increasing math scores. Another alternative is to do nothing and continue with the way things have been going. A third option is to change how special education service is delivered and try to do more push in math programming. A fourth option is to focus on a few key evidence-based strategies, which would be taught school-wide, as determined by our school improvement team.
After brainstorming all of my options, I must then evaluate all of my alternatives. While evaluating my choices, I will keep in mind: the possible positive/negative outcomes that could exist, the value of each outcome, and the likelihood that each option has of meeting my needs. I need to weigh the risk that each outcome has and how likely each option may have to meet my needs. I would prefer to choose the option that has the most certainty of improving student test results and has the least amount of risk.
Option 1 was accepting the partnership with the ISD special education department. This option is supported by research. The partnership would provide evidence-based materials that have been proven to improve test scores, training for my special education teacher, access to data collection, opportunities for fidelity checks, and support from ISD members on troubleshooting/strategy improvement. There is also the option of training general education teachers or parapros for a small fee. The cons that are associated with this option are that we will be required to follow a model created by the ISD, fidelity checks would be required, materials would remain property of the special education department, only special education students would be given the workbooks/materials, I would need to gain teacher support of a new program, and we would not have control over the delivery model. Additionally, we had a partnership with the ISD in the past that was not handled in the best way. Many negative feelings were created and there are still some residual side-effects from that last partnership.
Option 2 was to do nothing. We would incur no additional monetary costs. This would not change teacher schedules, we would not have to worry about teacher buy-in for a new program, and we would retain local control of our programs. The negatives would be that we would not be actively finding solutions to support our students’ needs, no new ideas would occur, student tests scores would potentially continue to decline, and our accountability to stakeholders would be jeopardized.
Option 3 was to have our special education teacher do more push-in programming. The positives for this option are that general education teachers receive extra support, students are accessing general education curriculum with support from two teachers, special education minutes are met, schedules would not have to be changed, and no new program would need to be learned. This is an option that we have been trying in some grade levels, however, we are not seeing data that supports this as an effective model. Additionally, this model does not target specific areas of need for each student. We would not be meeting the needs of these students. Another negative would be that this model does not provide for a tier 2 (intervention layer) for these students so they would not be receiving any additional help outside of the general education setting.
ReplyDeleteOption 4 would be for our school improvement team to decide on a few evidenced-based strategies that could be implemented school-wide to improve math scores. Positives for this solution are: no additional cost, it would be done school-wide allowing for common language across the building, all students would have access to the strategies, teachers would retain local control of what they were teaching, strategies would be implemented that target specific math standards, and we would be able to fulfill our school improvement plan. The downside would be: lack of funds to purchase any needed resources, small scale implementation (our building only), the strategies we pick may not improve student test scores, no scope/sequence, only a few specific strategies instead of a wide range of math skill strategies, teachers may not implement strategies correctly or effectively, no monitoring system or a fidelity check would need to be created, special education students would not have a program specifically designed for them (school-wide strategies), and not all stakeholders would be allowed to give input on which strategies were chosen.
At this point an alternative must be chosen. James March (p. 138) suggested 5 types of alternatives that an administrator may choose: good alternative (high probability that a positive outcome will occur and low probability a negative outcome will occur), bland alternative (low probability that a positive or negative outcome will occur), mixed alternative (high probability that both a negative and positive outcome will occur), poor alternative (low probability that a positive outcome will occur and a high probability that a negative outcome will occur), and uncertain alternative ( it is uncertain whether a positive or negative or any consequence will occur).
The probability that option 1 (working with the ISD) would provide positive student outcomes is likely. Teachers and students would benefit. The only probability that things may not go well are that teachers will feel others are in control of their teaching. I have spoken with our special education teacher to get his thoughts. He was quite excited about the new materials and receiving training on how to use the program. The probability is low for a negative outcome if all involved are aware that past negative feelings could be a potential pitfall. If things are handled delicately, the probability will remain low.
When evaluating option 2, doing nothing, there is potential to create a bland outcome or even a poor alternative. The results would potentially be that students’ scores could continue to decline, but that is still an unknown. Stakeholders could be upset with negative trends, however, they have not done anything to show they are unhappy up to this point. We only have data from recent trends and prior knowledge to use to make this assessment.
The push-in program, option 3, has the potential for mixed results. It could provide positive results because the general education teachers would be given more support in the room and the special education teachers would be aware of strategies that are being used in the classroom. However, there is a potential for negative results because the special education students are not receiving any additional support (tier 2intervnetions). Students would still be receiving instruction that may be above their skill range. In order for the special education teacher to help students meet their individual needs, more minutes may need to be added to their already very busy schedules.
ReplyDeleteAllowing the school improvement team to seek out some evidenced-based strategies (option 4) may provide mixed results. We have no idea that the strategies that are chosen would be successful or if they will actually improve student data. Teachers may or may not deliver the instruction effectively. If the school improvement team picks effective strategies and teachers are able to implement them effectively, then the results could be quite high. However, if teachers are upset that their voices were not heard, they may be unwilling to carry out the instruction. Similarly, if teachers feel that they are not given sufficient training or time to learn the new strategy they may not be on board with the initiative. This could then bring negative results. This also puts a lot of responsibility on the school improvement team to seek out evidence-based strategies on their own time. I would be trusting that they sought out many different strategies and evaluated each for potential pros and cons. This could actually be an uncertain alternative.
While reviewing all of my options, I think I may be ready to implement a decision. I am leaning toward choosing option 1, accepting a partnership with the ISD, because this option seems the most likely to have a favorable outcome. I am aware that there is a potential for some negativity among a few staff members. This is an area that I plan to address with our representative from the ISD. I also will need to get approval from the superintendent. This option is also being offered to all of the buildings within our district. If the superintendent decides to implement this plan district-wide, then we would be ready for this option to occur.
Since this option has not been implemented yet, I am not able to evaluate the effectiveness on this option. However, if this plan is implemented, I would be able to gauge the effectiveness of the program after each benchmark testing window. These windows occur three times a year. Additionally, our data would be measured against others buildings that participate in the program. We would be able to determine if the interventions were effective across the district. At the end of the year, a determination could be made as to whether to continue the partnership for the following school year.
References
Lunenberg, F.C., & Ornstein, A.C. (2012). Educational Administration: Concepts and Practices (6th ed.). Belmont, CA: Cengage Learning
I now see that the rational decision making model recently helped our staff to work toward the solution of a big problem in our building. Too many of the students in our building were struggling to find success due to missing assignments. At first glance, one may think that this is the problem. However, it was just one of many symptoms. At our first meeting, our staff had some ideas as to what the root problem might be. Some teachers felt numerous failing students were lazy, unmotivated, and didn’t care. Others felt there may be learning disabilities involved. And still others blamed the parents. And they were all right, but we still had to figure out why.
ReplyDeleteWe are a Title I building and students who are economically disadvantaged face many challenges that other students often do not. Before our second meeting, a few of the teachers from our MTSS team decided to each call the parents of several failing students in their classes and get their perspective. It was as simple as asking the parent, “How do you think we can better help your child here at school?” Not all responses were helpful, but there were several parents who were honest in expressing what they felt the problem was. These parents were often not home in the evening to help students stay organized and get their homework done. Some also admitted that they didn’t feel equipped to help their students with their homework. This information brought a lot of clarity and focus to our staff. Definitely an ah-ha moment.
The staff did have an opportunity to generate alternatives, but we constantly had constraints in mind such as staffing and financial issues. Our administration and MTSS team actually took the reins after that and evaluated the options we had brainstormed. We had put things on the list such as before and after-school tutoring and lunchtime tutoring. Our absolute favorite, however, was to provide a study-skills class in place of an elective for these students. They ran with this idea. They met numerous times to develop a plan that would allow us to actually put this into action. I don’t remember how many times they were shot down by our curriculum directors and superintendent for one reason or another. But they would come back together and develop a solution and present to upper administration again until they made it happen.
The time between our first meeting and implementation was almost a full year. An enormous amount of thought and planning went into it. We had one study skills class in place for each of our three grade levels. Student progress was tracked weekly, communication between teachers and parents was mandatory, and consistency and organization were required. There was definitely a learning curve. We found that there were teachers in the building whose style lent itself very well to this class and others that did not match at all. For many students, this class was just what the doctor ordered. For some students, unfortunately, results were not coming. We found that recurring behavior problems had to be dealt with and sometimes even removed from the class. Lots of trial and error.
DeleteAt the end of each year, the program was evaluated. Changes continued to be made, but the program ran for three years with wonderful results. I am sad to say that the program was cut for financial reasons. Definitely a sad and frustrating day for us.
As a future administrator, I feel this was an excellent example of the rational decision making model. I see the importance of a well-organized plan. In addition, I learned that what we may initially see as the problem, may only be a symptom to the problem. It took some real discussion and investigation to get to the real problem. There are so many things that have to be considered when initiating change. This makes me think of the behavior decision making model in which Simon and Zey state that we can’t possibly foresee every possible obstacle and consequence linked to our choices. I also came to value persistence even more. It can take a long time for an idea to finally be accepted; some may never get to the point of implementation. It can be heartbreaking, but that doesn’t mean we stop trying to make positive changes that will move our building and district in positive directions.
Lunenburg, C. & Ornstein, A. (2012). Educational administration: Concepts and practices (6th ed.). Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.
One major issue that plagued our school for many years were the dwindling number of graduating high school seniors. Students were able to successfully complete elementary and most of middle school without showing immediate signs of dropping out or failing grades. However, when a student reached the high school level the percentage of students that dropped out or failed to pass grew at a high rate. After the principal analyzed the data and gathered suggestions from the staff team he implemented a new program identified as Academic Acceleration. Since our school is a Title I school, we realized the many of your students needed additional instruction time because they weren’t being encouraged at home to excel in school. This instructional time was an extra class period added onto the end of the school day for students to attend if they received a C or lower in any class. The teacher would be responsible for re-teaching the subject in a different way to ensure the student had the opportunity to pass.
ReplyDeleteFrom the text it is easy for me to identify the decision make process used by the administration team. With a rational process that took time and several steps to complete before the team implemented it is clear they followed the Classical Decision-Making Model to implement Academic Acceleration. The school board and principal took time to seek out the best way maximize their investment to help students graduate from high school. Originally the small graduating classes were identified early on in the process. Several alternatives such as tutoring and intervention strategies and academic acceleration were suggested and evaluated by the administration and school board for a lengthy amount of time to ensure an effective program would be implemented. Academic was the alternative selected and it was implemented the next school year. After the first year of the program several adjustments were made to make it more successful. (Luneburg & Ornstein, 2008, p. 156-158)
In my current district, we have expanded significantly over the course of the last four and a half years. When I first started there, we were a K-8 school with just over 300 students in attendance. Currently, we are a Pre-K – 12th grade school with nearly 1,200 students in attendance. Next year, we anticipate we will be the largest charter school in Southfield. We have also expanded from one building to four buildings, and anticipate having five buildings next year.
ReplyDeleteThe growth and expansion of our district is absolutely incredible. I am thrilled to be a part of a successfully growing charter school when so many schools are not doing as well. However, we got to where we are today with decisions being made by our leadership team. In many cases, the decisions were made between administration, our school board, and our management company. Unfortunately, the input of the teaching staff has not always been a priority, although I know that the leadership team has the best interests of our staff and students at heart.
As a middle school teacher, I have remained in the same building throughout the growth process. When we acquire a new building, our school budget is swallowed up by the necessities required to equip the new building to open as a school and serve student success. Thus, each new building has received laptops, projectors, furniture, and much more modern technology. In my building, we still have computers that are ancient and white boards as our main methods of teaching. Much of the middle school staff have opted to purchase their own projectors and document cameras. The perspective I have on the decisions that have been made along the way has left me feeling a little left out on the decision making process.
Thus, I do believe that the decisions to expand while being an incredible opportunity may have been made using the Behavioral Decision Making Model. Decisions were made to satisfy the group as a whole. I believe that it was based on the most ideal “optimum” outcome for the district. However, I would have preferred to participate in the decisions as a Collaborative Decision Making model (Lunenburg, 2008). I believe that the input of the teachers could have helped to conserve funding and apply it uniformly throughout the district. We have a wealth of knowledge to offer if we can come together and share our experience. I feel that the concept of group think occurs frequently within any leadership team because they continuously work together and tend not to stray from the majority.
This is partly the reason why I want to join the leadership team in my district. I believe that they have an amazing vision that I want to assist with. I also would like to incorporate the voice of the teachers in their decisions. We have such a high turnover rate because I believe teachers feel that they don’t really belong to a “community.” Maybe if they feel that their input is valued, they will be more likely to stay. I do believe that the collaborative decision making model is the best way to make decisions within a district. I intend to use this model as a future administrator.
Lunenburg, F. C., & Ornstein, A. C. (2008). Educational administration: concepts and practices (5th ed.).
Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.
Two years ago my school in Detroit was the second highest performing school within all of the management company's charter schools nationwide. Last year we were the second to lowest performing school. What happened? The way in which instruction was given changed. During the successful year, every teacher taught only in small group workshop settings. Students were grouped according to their ability levels and then taught very specific objectives to meet their individual academic needs. The following year, top-level Directors of School Quality (DSQs- superintendents) wanted to see more whole group instruction that was based off of grade-level curriculum. Small group instruction was still being done, but not focused on and not given adequate instructional time.
ReplyDeleteI believe this led to the poor academic growth that year. Students were being taught at levels that far exceeded their abilities and thus poor grades and poor behavior followed.
Considering the behavioral decision-making model, Lunenburg and Ornstein state, "Decisions will always be based on an incomplete and, to some degree, inadequate comprehension of the true nature of the problem being faced" (Lunenburg & Ornstein, 2008). The problem faced was not poor academic performance, but a lack of public school-like standardized curriculum. The DSQs simply wanted to see at-grade-level curricular tools inside the classroom being utilized. It seemed, however, that they did not adequately understand or rationalize the problem that would arise after adding this into a low performing student-body. Instead of exploring all possibilities the leaders seemed to "satisfice." They simply chose "...the first alternative that satisfies minimal standards of acceptability without exploring all possibilities" (Luneburg & Ornstein, 2008). I think if more time was devoted to applying the need of curricular tools and reflecting on students' needs, then we may have been a top-performing school two years in-a-row. A quick and easy route is convenient, but not always the most productive.
Reference
Lunenburg, F. C., & Ornstein, A. C. (2008). Educational administration: concepts and practices (5th ed.).
Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.
Unfortunately in today’s society every school needs to have a plan of action for an armed intruder in the building. It’s sad that this is a real threat, but an administrator is responsible for the safety of all students while they are in the building. Our first job is to give our students the best education possible but if they loose their life it makes no difference. Therefore, this is a very important consideration.
ReplyDeleteOur school decided to revise the original plan of the, “shelter in place,” policy. This was that teachers and students would hide in the corner of the room and hope the angel of death passed them by. Our administration decided to bring in an outside expert, our local Chief of Police, to review the policy and offer suggestions for improvement. It was decided that we were doing the worst thing possible because we had created a single spot for a gunman to spray bullets at. This would probably lead to more deaths rather than less. A different policy of moving children out of the building and away from the danger has now been instituted. Hopefully this will minimize injuries in the case of an intruder.
This is an excellent example of the use of the behavioral decision-making model. (Lunenburg & Ornstein, 2004) Yes there was an outside expert that was brought in to help with the decision making, but the other major components fit with this model. First, there is no way to know the exact problem. It’s a bit strange because you are preparing for a problem that may never occur and even if it does there’s no way predict exactly what will happen. Second, since it’s impossible to know exactly what the problem will be there’s no way generate all the possible solutions. So according to the behavioral model a decision must be made based on forecasting the problem and may not be the perfect solution, but the best based on the information we have.
Lunenburg, F.C., & Ornstein, A.C. (2004) Educational Administration Concepts and Practices. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth/Thomson Learning.
As a school administrator, I feel that you are consistently faced with decisions to make daily. As our text states, these are programmed decisions in which prior knowledge is already in place and the outcome has been determined based on a previous experience. Administrators will also be exposed to non-programmed decisions. I feel that these occur less consistently but administrators must be prepared to handle them. The third type of decision is the strategic decision. This type of decision has long-term implications for the organization and needs to be thoroughly thought out. (Lunenburg & Ornstein 136)
ReplyDeleteAt my current school, I am the go to person when my principal is out of the building. One day when I was “on duty” our administrator had sent out an email stating that children may not be held inside during recess due to not completing their school work. This was becoming an increasingly large problem in our school as students who needed physical activity were having it revoked due to not completing their work. My principal asked me to lead the staff meeting that day due to her absence and discuss with the staff what we would do to solve this problem school wide. At our staff meeting, we worked through the rational model of decision-making.
When first beginning the meeting, I asked the staff about the problem at hand. It of course started off very hostile but I had them lay their concerns on the table to begin. I reiterated to the staff that the problem was indeed what each had suggested. (Identifying the problem.) Next, I asked for input on possible ways we could avoid keeping the children inside during recess. (Generating Alternatives) After compiling the list on the whiteboard, we discussed which of these possible solutions we wanted to try as a collaborative staff. (Evaluating Alternatives) We erased some and starred some at this point. The final step in the rational model was to choose an alternative. The alternative we chose for this decision was to send children who are struggling to work in their classroom to another teacher’s classroom before recess even approaches. Although during this meeting many teachers were very bitter about this situation to begin with, the collaborative decision that was made among staff members was immediately implemented the very next day and it also has continued to prove to be an effective decision to this day. I believe allowing teachers investment in the decision making process certainly helps to produce an outcome that is shared and supported by all.
Lunenberg, F.C., & Ornstein, A.C. (2012). Educational Administration: Concepts and Practices (6th ed.). Belmont, CA: Cengage Learning
Sorry for the username. This is Clifton Murray.
ReplyDeleteCurrently in my school district a decision was made to cut back on the amount of out of school suspensions given to students in our school system. Let's take a minute and understand my school district.
The district is divided into two sides which are west and east. The west end population is composed of higher income families. The east end is the exact opposite with lower income families. Currently, the system makes decisions trying to make all schools in the district equal. This is not working what so ever.
Parents approached the school board talking about the amount of suspensions given to students on the east end of county. The parents looked at some data from an west end school and determined that schools on the west end have the answer for suspensions. These parents pushed and pushed until the school board gave in and made changes to the suspension policy. Now I really don't think the parents understood what they were asking for but they got it. We can only suspend students in extreme cases only and students know this because of the parent and community involvement. Please keep in mind that our students in the east end are 85 percent free and reduced lunch and have very challenging backgrounds. We have had physical altercations with no suspensions, students using profanity towards teachers, and students skipping class at will. We do have detentions, community service, and in school suspension in place but out of school suspension is not a choice.
Recently a parent that fought to get out of school suspension taken away from the schools had an issue with her son being beat up in the restroom. We followed the policy and gave the student detention for the offense and the parent lost it. She wanted more to be done of course because it was her child at this point. She is currently trying to reinstate out of school suspensions.
This decision is truly within the behavioral decision making model. This model will always be based on an incomplete and, to some degree, inadequate comprehension of the true nature of the problem being faced according to text written by Lunenburg and Ornstein. Also the text states that alternatives are always evaluated incompletely because it is impossible to predict accurately all consequences associated with each alternative.
We currently have no alternative school in my district and clearly there is an need for one. If we wanted to cut back on the amount of suspensions something should have been put into place to replace it. Nothing was and for that we had an Little Shop of Horrors on our hands for a couple of months. I would loved to see the district use the classical decision making model. This model identifies the problem, generates alternatives, and evaluates alternatives to make sure you choose the right one.
ReplyDeleteOne action that we are trying to combat in the building I work in is bullying. As a staff we have discovered that while students and parents are aware of what bullying is and it’s occurrence in school, there seems to be some disconnect in the home to school and student to teacher communication. From our principal, as a staff, we have been given the responsibility to clearly define and reiterate to students and parents what bullying is and what they are to do. By given this task, I feel as a staff we are approaching it from the Classical/Rational Choice Model. According to Ducker, we were able to state what the problem is, in addition to brainstorming and evaluating options to choose; as a staff we are able to create an easy to read and understand pamphlet about bullying for our students and parents. In addition to this, we have been able to implement not only in school but also at home teaching points and situations for students and parents to identify scenarios that are displaying acts of bullying. Since this is a new process that we are implementing, the evaluation is still an ongoing process and will be conducted through this point of the year, until the end.
References
Lunenburg, F.C. & Ornstein, A.C. (2008). Educational administration: Concepts and practices. Belmont, CA: Thomson.
It is in my opinion that there is not just a single decision method when it comes to decision making as an administrator the type used has to be per occasion. Meaning that one can not apply the same decision making method to every situation being all situation are not the same.
ReplyDeleteComing from a small town in New York I have witnessed changes in the school district that administration has had to make over the years. The first being when I was still in school the school had to decide whether it was more beneficial to build a new high school or to repair the boiler in the old one. The things that had to keep in mind that even if the the repairs where only one forth of the cost the school didn't meet current day needs. The school didn't have a modern day gym in fact it didn't have one at all. The school could only hold about 300 students at a time but the up and coming years the freshman classes where increasing. Going to the board meeting it was easy to witness "group think" method was well embedded with their favoritism of a new school and the lack of willingness to hear options to keep the old school open . In the end it was determined that a new school was to be built.
During school I participated in a group called peer mediation. This group was put in place as a alternative to disciplinary measure by the principal. This group would sit and hear out what had happen then as a round table would hear out what each member had to say. Then as a group would decide the fate of the student. This is a prime example of normal group technique.
A good example Contextual Reality is when the school district needed to decide if closing one of the two elementary schools was beneficial for the school. Just recently in the past few years the district has received federal aid and there was an expansion and improvement to the each school in the district. But with the loss of jobs and the decline of the economy has forced parents to move and reduce the amount of students in the district. Due to this there became a decline in the need for two elementary schools and a need to close one. There where many factors that needed to be considered being 1.5 million would need to be paid back to government over a 5 year period if the school was to close. The structuring of the remaining three schools would need to be considered being the school that was closing housed grades K-3rd. As well as bus routes would need to be redesigned being children on that side of town that currently walked to school could no longer walk. The school closed the placed K-3 in the other elementary, moved 4th grade to 7th in middle school, and combined 8th graders with the high school students.
All these examples prove that across the board the same decision method could not be implement for all situations. In my opinion it is best to be able to identify the type of decision making method needed and apply it for best results.
Student safety is the number one concern of any school district. Recently, the district that I work in had a scare. A student that smelled of marijuana was subject to a search. During the search, marijuana, a handgun and ammunition were found. While this is very alarming to think about what could have happened, I am very interested to see how the situation will be dealt with.
ReplyDeleteWorking in a very strong district with excellent leaders, I am really interested to see what moves will be made. So far, the Superintendent has sent out a letter explaining the incident to parents. She insured the student safety and was very informative and transparent. I am not surprised at the proactive approach the Superintendent took to inform the community immediately after the school day. By doing this, I believe she was not leaving any of the parents in the dark. She was also able to get to them before the media did which would have made matters a lot worse as parent would have felt the district was hiding extremely important information.
At this point, the media has covered the incident. Like the incident would for any school, it has given us a “black eye” that will be tough to overcome. I believe the Rational Decision-Making Model (Lunenburg & Ornstein 139) would be the best to use in this type of situation. By taking a look at all the possible angles, our administration will bring up some issues and solutions that they may not have thought of before and that will help them in this case regarding the “clean up”. I have seen some social media from our school Twitter that reaches out to the students saying, “Thursday was a rough day, but we are not going to let one person or event define us. We know the quality of school and the students we have. Thursday is not what we’re about!” I believe this is the first step in the process of bringing our district back together.
As far as the incident itself, the administration will likely use a programmed decision (Lunenburg & Ornstein 136) as will the law. The student that broke the law will suffer the consequences set forth by our justice system.
The decisions that still need to be made are: How is the district going to follow up with the parents/guardians to assure safety measures are being taken? How are they going to answer to the media when interviews are going to be done?
As we speak, I am sure the administration is using the Rational Model and going through all of the different scenarios. I am sure they are figuring out procedures and safety measures to insure our students’ safety. The rational model is going to be key in pulling the district out of this mess.
Lunenberg, F.C., & Ornstein, A.C. (2012). Educational Administration: Concepts and Practices (6th ed.). Belmont, CA: Cengage Learning
This year our school was designated as a Michigan Priority because it was in the bottom 5% of schools in the state. With the designation and my appointment as Principal, a lot of change was on the horizon. Because our staff has endured many changes over the years without much of their input, it was very important to me that they had an integral role in the devising a plan. Based on our academic performance, we needed to show immediate growth in reading and math. After analyzing our data, we knew that differentiated instruction would be absolutely imperative. Therefore, we began polling and talking with staff to devise school wide differentiation strategies and other strategies to help close the gap between our high performers and our struggling learners. One of the changes the staff wanted to see is Flexible Grouping. This is where students are grouped by their instructional level for reading and math. To make this change, teachers had to really understand the role data would play in ensuring its effectiveness. The staff rallied around data mining and really began to use data to inform instruction.
ReplyDeleteIn the situation, we used the group decision making model. Using the group decision making model allowed for the best teacher buy-in. “Experts advise school districts that a proven method to increase school effectiveness is to involve school employees in the decision-making process” (Lunenburg & Ornstein, 2008, p. 146). Having the staff take the initiative to implement and monitor the strategy has helped our children grow. When making school wide changes, I feel that it is very important to involve as many staff as possible. The people executing the strategies must be prepared and ready to contribute to the effort. Our staff is very diverse in teaching expertise and number of years at the school; therefore, groupthink was not a huge factor. We have several staff members who naturally play the role of devil’s advocate; so, we were able address many concerns during our planning stage.
Personal curriculums have been a much discussed topic this year at my school. My colleagues within the special education department (all veteran teachers with at ten years of experience) have interpreted the state and district's personal curriculum personal curriculum guidelines as a way to excuse special education students from foreign language requirements-as a general rule-without individual considerations. My principal (who is in his second year with the school) disagrees with my colleagues interpretations of personal curriculums. He believes the development and implementation of p.c.s should be the exception, not the rule.
ReplyDeleteQuietly, my colleagues have continued to develop and implement p.c.s using their interpretations of the state and district guidelines. My principal eventually caught wind of the decisions that were made without his knowledge.
Eventually, my principal had to make everyone in my department understand that the state and district guidelines were not up for individual interpretation. In the meeting, he provided the interpretation and answered questions about the guidelines-without allowing debate. During this meeting, I believe his goal was to eliminate the "group-think" problem of group decision decision making, identified by Lunenburg & Ornstein (2008). However, as the meeting continued, he made a point to have the staff understand that the actual decision-making process regarding individual students and personal curriculums are intended to be group-decisions.
The group-decision making process that we attempt to utilize with personal curriculums is the classical decision-making model. As a personal curriculum committee, we attempt to identify the students academic issues. Based on the identified issues we then generate curriculum alternatives for that student. As a committee, we then evaluate the curriculum alternatives and choose the most rational one-based on the needs of that student. We then develop the curriculum for that student and generate a schedule that follows the agreed upon curriculum. At the conclusion of each semester, the committee evaluates the effectiveness of the personal curriculum-with a focus on whether its meeting the student's individual needs.
Overall, I believe my principal successfully handled the personal curriculum situation at my school by implementing a classical-decision making approach. He identified the issue that existed with misinterpretations of personal curriculum guidelines. Once he identified the issue, he called attention to them and provided solutions, and expected those solutions to be implemented. Once the solutions are implemented, he evaluates his staff on the effectiveness of the implementation. While effectively solving the misinterpretation issues with the class-decision making model, he also kept the integrity of the personal curriculum committee decision making process by valuing their group-decision making process that also incorporates the classical-decision making model.
Three Rivers Community Schools has recently been making a lot of decisions in regards to the safety of our students. Given the recent school shootings it’s important for schools to be prepared for a possible attack on students and staff.
ReplyDeleteWhile there has never been any violent attacks on students in Three Rivers administration wanted to make sure that we have the best possible plans in place for protecting our students and that we learned from other tragedies in hopes of protecting our students. When our current lockdown plans were assessed it was discovered that they had several flaws. These flaws were then evaluated and fixed. The school district leaned on local law enforcement when coming up with our new lockdown plans and looked at things that can be done to prevent an attack from happening in the first place.
I believe the district used the rational choice model when making decisions for student safety. They looked at what we were currently doing and what other districts were doing and evaluated what we needed to change. Changes were implemented over time and then studied and evaluated again. From there further decisions were made. While some of the changes were small hopefully the time and effort that went in to them was beneficial. Simple things like not announcing lockdown and instead using codes. Not announcing lockdown over but waiting until a school official unlocks your door. Also having police visit the building is a positive way on a regular bases. This idea I feel was the best. It allows the children to become comfortable with the officers and allows the officers a chance to become familiar with the building. All the ideas were thought out, planed and implemented.
Lunenberg, F.C., & Ornstein, A.C. (2012). Educational Administration: Concepts and Practices (6th ed.). Belmont, CA: Cengage Learning
Recently I was involved in a situation where a decision needed to be made. The issue regarded a 6th grade student and remarks that were made regarding teacher. My responsibility at my current school is to work with students, parents, and teachers regarding student behavior. About a week ago, my presence was requested in a classroom. As I approached the classroom there was a student standing outside the door. When I came into the room the teacher, Mrs. J, asked me to come with her to speak to the student outside. Once we were outside, the Mrs. J told the student to repeat to me what he said. The student stated, “I was asked who I hated the most and I answered Mrs. J.”. Mrs. J then told him to tell me the rest of what he said. The student stated “I said I wished she would die in a fire.”
ReplyDeleteAt this point I realized I had a confession and possibly a threat towards an employee, which carries severe consequences. At this point I had to make an interim decision to ease the tension between the student and Mrs. J, so I chose to remove the student from the class and stay in the Intervention Room while I investigated further. This connects with the theory that “the fragmented and unpredictable day of a principal is not conducive to rational decision making” (Morris, 1981). I did not have all of the facts surrounding the incident, and I wasn’t sure that it constituted a threat as the student didn’t say that he wanted to burn her personally. I knew that Mrs. J did not want him in her class and felt threatened by the remarks. I also knew that I needed to provide the student due process and fully investigate the incident before we could award consequences. I also was in the middle of something else when the problem arose and needed to attend to that matter first. As hectic and tense as the situation was, I decided that the removal was the best decision.
There were more decisions to be made down the road with this incident based on additional information that was accumulated. For the purpose of this blog post I am focusing on my original decision to remove the student from class. As I review the rationale behind the choices I made it is clear that I followed the Classical/Rational Choice Model by Ducker. The problem was identified when I met the teacher and the student. I “generated alternatives” when I considered alternative decisions. Options were evaluated as I weighed the consequences of each decision. I chose an option and implemented it by removing the student from class (Ducker, 2006).
Evaluation of my decision came today, when I met with the parent to discuss the investigation. While I learned more information throughout the date of the incident, it took most of that day to determine what was actually said and the context of the remarks. The parents were initially unhappy that their child was removed from class for most of the day. However, when I explained the rationale behind making the decision they understood why the course of action was taken. Ultimately, the child was removed to ease tension with the teacher, eliminate any possible threat, and also keep the student from peers so they were unable to corroborate a story. The negative aspects to the decision are that the student missed instruction from his classes and had to make up the work using alternative means.
Kurt Lewin’s model is a three-step model that developed the concept of force-field analysis. Lewin believed that “we should think about any change situation in terms of driving forces or factors acting to change the current condition and resisting forces or factors acting to inhibit change.” (page 191) When school administrators are thinking about the change they need to think about the current condition and the desired outcomes, you do this “by increasing the driving forces, reducing the resisting forces, or considering new driving forces.” (page 191) You will be more successful if you reduce the resisting forces because only increasing driving forces often tend to be offset by increased resistance.
ReplyDeleteThere are three steps to the model: unfreezing, moving, and refreezing. When you are unfreezing you are reducing the forces acting to keep the origination in its current condition. You can do this by introducing the new information that point out the issues of the current state. Moving is when the change takes place, this is when you start implementing the new values, attitudes, and behaviors. Finally, you need to refreeze; that is when you stabilize the change and make the change the new norm.
I like the way this model is set up. Many times administrators think increasing the driving forces rather than reducing the resisting forces. I feel many people think if they only bring the positives of the change, and don’t think about the push back teachers might do, then the driving forces are going to be much lower than the resisting forces, and in the end the change process will fail. That make since, but I would not have thought about focusing on the resisting forces.
Reflecting on this process and the changes that have taken place in my building, the administrators have followed this process. They are pre-corrected the resisting forces, and reduced them. My administrators also worked to increase the driving forces.
It is a part of our human nature to like the status quo. We get comfortable in our routines, like the predictability they bring to our days, and feel confident with how our day-to-day work activities will flow. Therefore, many people in a typical organization, such as the school setting, will be resistant to the idea of an impending change Kurt Lewin known as “the father of social psychology” (http://managementisajourney.com/unfreeze-change-refreeze-is-this-a-childs-game/) is the theorist behind Force-Field Analysis. Lewin looks at human behavior during change as a balancing of forces. These forces according to Lewin are opposing forces, some for the change and others resisting the change. It is similar to pros and cons when attempting to make a decision. Whichever force is greater will win. A good leader will work to increase the driving forces (pros), decrease the resisting forces (cons), or consider new driving forces when working to effectively implement change. Reducing the resisting forces is considered the better strategy choice, according to Lewin, because increasing driving forces often increase resistance. (Luneburg and Ornstein, 2012, p. 190). Similar to one of the laws of physics, when there is a force pushing in one direction an equal and opposing force is pushing back. Therefore, it is a delicate balancing act to successfully introduce and implement change in an organization.
ReplyDeleteKurt Lewin provided a sequence of steps to explain the way the process of change occurs in an organization. The role of the leader is critical during each of the following steps.
• Unfreezing: This is the beginning of the change process. At this point, the members of the organization are favoring the status quo. People are resistant to change for several reasons. They may feel anxious as they fear the unknown, may believe the change interfere with their financial stability, self-esteem or other basic needs, reduce their skill set, or threaten their influence and power in the organization. During this stage, leader or leaders are attempting to reduce the resisting forces wanting to avoid the change. Leaders can work to reduce these forces by utilizing one or more of the strategies outlined in our text. Such strategies include: involving members in the change process, communicating openly and honestly particularly with information about the inadequacies of status quo, providing members with the support, making sure members know how they will benefit and to have developed a great plan before every starting the process (Luneburg and Ornstein, 2012, pp. 186-189). This is one of the most important parts of the process as a leader works to get all involved members on board with the change.
• Moving: Once the members of the organization have been unfrozen, Lewin believes that acceptance of change can occur. This is when a mind shift takes place during the development of new values, attitudes and behaviors occur. During this process, people may be more fearful as they process their change in thoughts, feelings and/or behaviors. They have realized that change is necessary, or inevitable, and they are trying to make peace with it. This is the time when supportive leaders can dig in and help members work through their fears, feelings, thought and behaviors.
• Freezing: At this stage, members of the organization are adapting to the “new” normal. This will become the new status quo until it is time to unfreeze, and change again. Rewards are beneficial at this stage.
Decision-making or problem solving takes place often in a school setting. When I first started my career in education, our school staff participated in Koalaty Kid Training. This training gave me different tools to use to solve problems and come up with a group decisions. Now, not many staff members use any of these tools because they either did not see value in them, the process was too long, they don’t remember them or they are leaders at our school and were not originally trained in them.
ReplyDeleteA major decision that was made at our school previously by another administrator was revamping our school-wide positive behavioral support plan. I don’t believe this school leader used the tools from Koalaty Kid Training, but did go through a decision-making model, which more followed the rational model (Lunenburg & Ornstein, 2012). In the spring of 2013, our school leader started gathering data on discipline by doing a survey with staff and compiling all discipline slips from the last year to be able to identify the problem. She presented the findings to the staff. It appeared that what we were using in the past was not working real well.
We then had a really long meeting training to brainstorm ideas of what we can do with our students. This was our generating alternatives step. Lots of ideas were presented. Then we had a long discussion about each idea. We talked about if the new idea was research based, could be done by the staff we currently had in place, the cost of doing it, how would we communicate it, was it age appropriate and could we gather data to make sure it was effective? After evaluating our ideas, it was time to choose one. It was the beginning of the 2013-2014 school year that our staff spent a day on how we would implement this new plan. We decided on working on our students to be Whole Body Listeners. We would teach the kids at the beginning of the year what it looks like and sounds like using books, pictures, class discussions, videotaping, and role-playing. We purchases visuals and placed them all over the school. All teachers had a pocket chart with each student’s name and a green card. If the student was not listening with a certain part of their body (eyes on speaker, hands still, feet still, mouth quiet, ears listening)(Wilson& Sautter, 2011), then a visual of a yellow would be put by his or her name and three yellows would then equal a red. A calendar was made so parents were informed daily of which color their child received for what part of the body and why. It is not meant for punishment, but for learning and praising appropriate behavior. After a semester of implementations, we looked at our data and adjustments were made to our plan so there was consistency in every classroom. At the end of the year, we started the rational decision process again because we identified that this did not work for all kids and then we started to generate some ideas for those students.
As stated above this model took a year and a half and we are still working on improving it. Not all decisions at school can take this long. I do think it worked well for getting all the staff involved with the implementation of it. All of our staff is doing it and gathering the data.
Lunenburg, Fred C. & Ornstein Allan C. (2012). Educational Administration Concepts and Practices. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth/Cengage Learning.
Wilson, Kristen & Sautter, Elizabeth (2011). Whole Body Listening at School. Social
Thinking.
School leaders are faced with critical decisions, and it is very important that they go about it in a successful way to ensure that the change will be successful, and many teachers will support the change. This can be a very daunting task, and it is sink or swim. Principals are challenged every day to respond with action to improve countless tasks.
ReplyDeleteMy principal had the same uphill battle that Summers from Harvard did, teachers that were somewhat complacent, and there were many changes and decisions that needed to be made. I’m sure the amount of changes and decisions that she was bombarded with when walking into our building was overwhelming. I came in when the changes and big decisions were almost finished.
Lockwood’s main goal is student achievement. When looking to improve student achievement the school improvement team brought data to staff meetings, teacher started looking at MEAP data, and DIEBLES data to see where the change needed to start. They used the nominal group technique making a decision about a new reading curriculum. “As in brainstorming, individuals are brought together to develop a solution to a problem. Unlike brainstorming, the nominal group technique is concerned with both the generation of ideas and the evaluation of these ideas. “(page. 151)
They first started by making a list of possible curriculums and then they recorded the ideas into one list. From there they talked about each curriculum. They brought with them data, and other schools comments that were already implementing that particular reading program. After they ranked and discussed again. Finally, they voted, but nothing was made final until they were all able to walk away and fully think about that decision making process. This was a collective decision, and not one that Lockwood made by herself. That makes the decision making process that much better because many minds together make for a better answer in the end.
The demographic at the time was 80% veteran teachers. These teachers had been at our district for at least 10 years. Therefore, she knew she was dealing with these teachers that would have fear of the unknown. “People like stability; they may have invested a great deal of time and effort in the current system.” (Page 187) Teachesr definitely did, so Lockwood took a slow and careful approach to implementing the decision making process.
She always included ANYONE and EVERYONE to the decision making process that went on during the school improvement meetings. “One of the best methods for overcoming resistance to change is to invite those who will be affected by the change to participate in planning, design and implementation. “ (page 188) She also supported us the entire way, which is so important. “Effective implementation of change requires support from top-level administrators…” (Page 189).
In the end, Lockwood is a great example of how to successfully make decisions. That just reconfirms how important it is to look at all aspects of the decision making process before jumping straight into it without a plan or knowing your teachers.
Our district leadership team recently had to make a decision to reconstruct our special's schedule. We have had the same schedule for years and it was not working to its fullest potential for teachers or students, it was just "always how we did it." This schedule involves 5 teachers, 3 elementary buildings and 950-1000 students. We had to consider contractual pieces, limited availability of resources (gym availability, computer lab availability), effective use of time, and most importantly, what is best for kids. The process we went through was a true example of the group decision making process. One of the biggest benefits for this decision was the creativity involved. According to Lunenburg and Ornstein, "more participation leads to more creative thinking, which often result in more feasible solutions to problems" (p.146). With the dynamics of the groups members involved in reconstructing this schedule, we were able to come up with creative ideas and build off of each other's thoughts. This allowed for a more solid and complete picture when decision making. We were able to come up with goals that we wanted to meet with the new schedule and prioritize them and then work through the process to reach those goals. It is important to note that the group was comprised of members that differed in skill and ability and we were able to have a division of labor (assigning tasks) throughout the process. These are elements that, according to Lunenburg and Ornstein, make a group perform better than individuals.
ReplyDeleteWith creativity and teamwork, we were able to devise a schedule that met all of our goals and that we are more than content with. We will now live and breathe the schedule for a school year and be able to reflect on its true effectiveness, which is a part of the rational model. Lunenburg and Ornstein state that, "The decision making process does not end when the decision is implemented. The school administrator must evaluate the decision - that is, determine the extent to which the solution achieved the school district's objectives" (p.139). A good leader always brings the decision through the evaluation process after implementing it. This is how we evolve and become more complete with the process.
School administrators face challenges and make critical decisions on a daily basis. Student achievement is a point of emphasis for any administrator in today’s schools and its an area that leaders are expected to improve. At my previous school, student achievement in all of the core content areas was unsatisfactory. Math was an area of extreme weakness for my school, so my principal decided to make a change.
ReplyDeleteMy previous school could be considered a sick school and one that embodies a cold climate. Trying to change anything at the school is near impossible. The lack of buy-in from staff prevents any improvement from occurring. According to Lunenburg & Ornstein (2008), an organization that has a closed climate is when staff behavior can be construed as inauthentic and the organization seems to be stagnant (p. 98). Lunenburg & Ornstein (2008), continue to explain that a sick school is one that is lead by someone that provides little direction and exhibits scant encouragement (p. 100). The definitions for a sick school and cold climate unfortunately resonate loudly at my previous school and leadership didn’t do much to steer the building in the right direction.
I want to first start off by stating the my principal had great intentions of improving our school’s math scores, but she did so in a way that provided little direction and even less encouragement. My former principal wanted to improve our math score by creating a “math lab” day. This day would take place on every Monday and there would be no specials for that day. Math lab consisted of 45 minute blocks where specials teachers and classroom teachers would meet with small groups for individualized math instruction. Math lab was presented to us before winter break and we were told that lesson plans would be provided to each teacher. “Great!” “Awesome!” “Amazing idea!” - These were all comments made by teachers as we left for winter break. We were informed that math lab would be supported by the principals, special education teachers, and even community members. Lesson plans would be made for us, teachers would have a maximum of 6-7 students, what a great idea. At least at first.
Day one, back from winter break we started math lab! What was a great idea on paper quickly took a turn for the worse. No one knew what the expectations were, no one knew what to do, and no one was there to explain it on the morning we launched our first math lab. Where was math lab? Who is in charger? Where is our principal? What do we do with the kids? How do we know what level they were on? - These are all questions I was asked because I was the first to arrive to our designated location for math lab. Each and every week thereafter even got worse. People started to take Mondays off because of how chaotic it was and substitutes then had to cover for missing teachers. Teachers were making up lesson plans on the spot. Leadership was nonexistent. What was once a great idea on paper turned out to be a complete nightmare when trying to execute the plan. Math lab could have been much more effective had my principal followed a straightforward decision making model like the Classical Decision Making Model described in Chapter 6 of Educational Administration by Lunenburg & Ornstein (2008).
DeleteAccording to Lunenburg & Ornstein (2008), the classical decision making model assumes that decision making is a rational process that maximizes the chances of achieving desired outcomes (p. 184). There are logical steps to this process that I think would have made math lab more effective. First identify the problem (math scores are down), generate alternatives (gather ideas from staff), evaluate alternatives (bring ideas to leadership team and evaluate), choose an alternative (vote as a staff, or have leadership team decide), implement the decision (try out it out), and then evaluate the decision (survey, staff meeting, etc.). Most, if not all of these steps, were omitted from the process when making the decision on implementing math lab. If I were in the position of my principal I would have wanted more input from staff. I would have elicited ideas from staff and brought them to the leadership team instead of springing the idea on everyone right before winter break. Also, after coming up with the idea I would want to give my staff ample time to prepare and adjust to the changes. Following the classic decision making model would have definitely helped in this situation.
References
Lunenburg, F. C., & Ornstein, A. C. (2008). Educational administration: concepts and practices
(5th ed.). Belmont, CA: Wadsworth
School leaders are faced with decision making on a regular basis. As the textbook states on pg. 136 “These decisions may ultimately influence the school’s clients, the students”. Therefore it is very important that leaders make the best decisions which have to be done though a process. At our school there have been many areas that we have been working on changes for. One in particular dealt with our behavior system. There had been many teachers concerned with the effect our old system was or wasn’t having on our students. We were seeing more cons than pro’s so; our leader had to make the choice of keeping the current one or changing over to a completely new system. The action our school leader followed relates very well with the “rational model”. Our school took steps in the decision making of our new system for behavior. This module has shown us that in the rational model, there are six steps. There were numerous staff meetings discussing the issue. After the issue had been identified and agreed upon within each grade level, we looked at alternatives, looking at what others schools were using and also by looking at what research suggested. Our leadership team and school leader had meetings discussing and evaluated the results of the alternatives, later implementing the decision. We are currently using PBIS within our school for behavior management and we have seen remarkable results, with outstanding student behaviors and attitude. Going through a process when making a decision can possibly increase the chances of a school building achieving their goals.
ReplyDeleteReference
Lunenburg/ Ornstein Educational Administration Sixth Edition
One of the bigger decisions we've made recently was to implement the AP program. There have been lots of decisions with regards to that. How do we schedule the classes? What books do we use? Which students do we allow take the class? Which teachers should teach the classes? When looking at the five different models, we've used mostly consultative decisions.
ReplyDeleteFor instance, when considering which students do we allow to take the classes, we discussed this as an AP team, and their suggestions were taken in consultation. The ultimate decision was made as a "group" between the vice principal and I. However, the books that we use was a group decision made between myself, the vice principal, and the teacher. And in reality, it was the teacher that made the decision, and just ran the decision by myself and the vice principal.
I think that, generally, the decision making models worked well as we are all excited and have gelled well as a team. I think one of the deficiencies of the process was not the processes themselves, but that we could have been more systematic about articulating a) what our decisions that need to be made are and b) setting and expectations on how those decisions would be made. this probably would have streamlined some of the things we did.
The situation that came to mind actually involves two items in the prompt. A few years ago, our principal faced the daunting task of having to increase our students’ performance on the Maryland Schools Assessment (MSA), which was the state test that determined whether or not we met Annual Yearly Progress (AYP). Our school had not met AYP in the previous 5 years, and it was crunch time. Clearly Mr. Ingram, our principal needed to improve student achievement while complying with the federal mandates of No Child Left Behind.
ReplyDeleteMr. Ingram felt that data was very important for the decision making process. As he was identifying the problem, he poured over the data that showed our students’ readings scores were always very close or barely passed the necessary standard. In addition, the math scores were always extremely low. Mr. Ingram, therefore, felt it was necessary to improve both programs, with an emphasis on improving math performance.
This is where things seemed to fall apart. I’m not sure that Mr. Ingram took all alternative measures into account. I had heard that he met with our math department chair to come up with solutions, but never included more of the staff in the decision making process. I feel that group decision making would have been a very valuable asset in this process, seeing as how the entire staff would be charged with improving student performance in a variety of ways. Mr. Ingram must have taken a few alternative measures, evaluated them, and came up with ways the school would work to help students.
During the school year, teachers were asked to put up math strategies in their classroom. They were also required to show how they were using the reading toolbox strategies in their lessons. Saturday School opportunities were put in place, as well as after-school MSA tutorials. Even homeroom was affected as it was expanded by 20 minutes to start the day with MSA test-taking strategies.
Implementing these decisions seemed to work, as test scores improved the first year Mr. Ingram was principal and by his second year, we had (barely) met AYP as a school. However, the achievement was marred by rumors that Mr. Ingram tampered with tests at his previous school to meet AYP, and may have done so at our school. That made evaluation of the decisions made somewhat difficult in the end.
These rumors certainly weren’t helped by the amount of group think that stemmed from the implementation of all of the new initiatives. Once again, Mr. Ingram did not use group decision making in his approach, and so many staff members were not supportive of the changes. Pressure and stereotyping became clear problems, as those that tried to support the changes were chastised and those who attempted the risky behavior of avoiding implementing the new changes thought the administration could do nothing about it.
Based on this experience, and knowing how increasingly involved the federal government is becoming in schools, I would make sure that any decisions I make as principal come from as many alternatives as possible. To do this, I would utilize the strengths of my staff and use focused group decision making to help with the process. That way, the teachers will have more understanding of what we are trying to accomplish and have more acceptance of whatever we put in place.
A few years back my school was in need of eliminating one section of third grade. There were four sections and the following school year there would be only three. The principal at that time struggled with the decision of which teacher to move out of third grade. He was concerned that the one teacher chosen to move would feel disliked by him. He delayed making the decision and finally on the last day of school after dismissal shared his decision with the staff…at the end of a retirement luncheon. In trying not to hurt one teacher’s feelings, the principal ended up moving three out of the four third grade teachers to other grade levels creating a larger number of staff movement. Instead of one teacher feeling disliked, he managed to upset many staff members as they focused on the one teacher remaining in third grade, and how she was his “favorite”.
ReplyDeleteAlthough staffing is typically a principal decision, I believe that this decision would have been better handled if the principal utilized the Collaborative Decision Making Model as described in our text. First, gathering the entire staff or at least a large group of people would have provided all with a better understanding of the decision to be made. Secondly, having a large number of people sharing their ideas would have garnered some options not thought of by the principal himself. In an attempt to avoid groupthink, making each member a “critic” would also bring to light the consequences of various ideas. Additionally, if the entire staff was involved, they could have divided into smaller groups to discuss and generate ideas before bringing them to the entire group. Thirdly, sleeping on the decision for a night or two would also provide members time to think and reflect on the pros and cons of the agreed upon decision before the final vote. Utilizing this model would also help staff members accept the decision being made since they have a part to plan in creating a plan, and thus many upset staff members would have been avoided. Had the principal followed this model, there would have been no need for the “big announcement” as everyone would have been in on the process from the start. Sadly, many staff members still host angry feelings toward this former principal.
Reference
Lunenburg/ Ornstein Educational Administration Sixth Edition
One problem our district has faced as I am sure many others as well, is how to better manage our attendance policy to reduce tardiness and absences of students. This topic is becoming increasingly more important as the accountability of student performance is being linked to teacher evaluations. As we all know one cannot teach a student who isn’t in a seat.
ReplyDeleteIt is my understanding the approach/s used to tackle this problem was rational or classical decision making style while involving a component of group or collaborative decision making as well. “The rational model assumes that decision making is a rational process whereby decision makers seek to maximize the chances of achieving the desired objectives by considering all possible alternatives, exploring all conceivable consequences from among the alternatives and then making a decision.” (Lunenburg/ Ornstein p137.) Our administration agreed that attendance was a serious issue facing our building, identifying the problem. Next they collaborated to generate alternative solution’s to change the processes. They then evaluated the alternatives and selected the changes that would best help to solve the problem. The implementation of these changes occurred in the 2013-14 school year, it was met with some resistance, mostly by students and parents. At the end of the school year the process was evaluated through parent, student and staff surveys in addition to the data collected regarding the effectiveness of the new process (was there a reduction in absences and tardiness).
The previous attendance policy had no ties to GPA or class credit the only penalty for poor attendance was punitive, detentions or suspensions. Three tardies equaled a detention and six was a misconduct (2 detentions) at nine tardies and all there after the student was suspended for a day. The new policy now ties class credit and GPA to attendance and is as follows: If a student has more than 10 absences (excused or unexcused) in a class they lose credit for the class unless they receive a passing grade on the final exam in which case they will receive credit but not the GPA points. If the student scores above 70 percent on the final they will receive credit and GPA points. The tardy policy was unchanged with regard to punitive penalties but included tardiness of more than five minutes was now deemed an absence. Also implemented was tardy sweeps; these are done at random between classes and required all students in the hall without a pass to report to a designated area where they would receive a detention. Their detention slip then served as their pass back to class.
Upon further evaluation it was revealed that this approach did have moderate success, detentions for tardiness fell by almost 20 percent over the course of the year with the greatest decline in the second semester. Furthermore first hour attendance also saw a spike (students showing up and being on time) the second semester but I do not recall the exact figure. It was noted in the survey that the staff was really in favor of the tardy sweeps and would like to have more of them.
Reference
Lunenberg, F.C., & Ornstein, A.C. (2012). Educational Administration: Concepts and Practices (6th ed.). Belmont, CA: Cengage Learning
The middle school that I am currently working at opened in August 2012. The year before its grand opening, my principal was asked by the superintendent to do something new and different with the new school. The superintendent wanted to open a school that was different from all of the rest in our district and it was my principal’s job to find and implement the new idea. My principal took on the challenge and visited several schools around the United States to find that different environment.
ReplyDeleteMy principal fell in love with the Expeditionary Schools that he visited. Students and teachers were partnered together to tackle new learning and students were engaged and eager to learn in every setting that he observed. He presented the idea to the superintendent and was approved to take on the challenge in the new school.
Once the idea was approved, my principal began interviewing and talking with teachers about joining his staff in August 2012. He presented the idea to all of the teachers that he interviewed and gave everyone a warning of that it was going to be different and lots of hard work. Teachers would be giving up eight meeting times during the summer to begin the journey the summer before the grand opening of the school. Teachers were hand selected by the administration team and the Expeditionary Learning theme was kept in mind throughout the selection process.
This nonprogrammed decision was made by the building principal and approved by the district’s superintendent. We continue to improve during each and every school year. Now, as we approach the start of our third school year, our students are showing increases in both their learning and relationships at school. The atmosphere is much different than any other school that I have walked into and the principal continues to make decisions with his staff in order to fit the educational needs of our students.
Like others have stated, school principals face opportunities to make decisions on a daily basis. As the text states, "School administrators at all levels make decisions. These decisions may ultimately influence the school's clients, the students" (Lunenburg & Ornstein, 2012, p. 136)
ReplyDeletePersonally, I can remember a situation where our principal made the decision to amend our attendance policy. He used a variety of techniques that were described in our text, including collaborative decision making. I think that by including many of us in the decision, he insured that the decision would be thought out carefully. He also served as the devil's advocate at these meetings, to try and make sure that the group was not experiencing group think. The policy that resulted was much different than what we were used to. It tied attendance to grades, and gave students an incentive to attend school.
As a result, the policy has been very successful. There were surveys passed out to the staff and the community that were very positive.
Lunenberg, F.C., & Ornstein, A.C. (2012). Educational Administration: Concepts and Practices (6th ed.). Belmont, CA: Cengage Learning