Fuhs+Past+Drafts

=Just for clarity I am using this page to house my past drafts. The current draft will be here.=

** Effective Integration of Technology at America’s Choice at SAND **

** America’s Choice at SAND **


 * Problem Summary **

The Federal No Child Left Behind Act (2002) requires schools to measure and assess the impact of technology in their classrooms. America’s Choice at SAND School (SAND) is a public K-8 school located in Hartford, CT. SAND is experiencing difficulty effectively integrating technology in the classroom. All classrooms have portable SMART boards, projectors, assess to high-speed wireless and wired Internet, and at least 3 computers. The teachers have additional access to a document camera, 4 digital cameras, and 20 iPod touches. Unfortunately, a recent survey by the school’s newly formed Technology Committee shows that only 20% of teachers reported using their SMART boards on a daily basis. Indicating that current technology is not being effectively integrated in the classroom.


 * Background of Organization **

SAND is located in the South Arsenal neighborhood in the north end of Hartford, CT. The school was originally a series of 12 multi-instructional areas (MIAs) located throughout the neighborhood, giving the school its original name SAND (South Arsenal Neighborhood District) Everywhere School. In 1994, a new building was built and the 12 MIAs were housed in the same building for the first time since the school was created.

Because of low academic performance on state-mandated standardized test, the Hartford Board of Education decided in 2008 to redesign the school. In the spring of 2009, the Board formally approved the school’s redesign plan that called for the school to adopt the America’s Choice reform model. The AC model is a comprehensive reform model developed to turn around struggling students. The model has a five-prong approach:


 * 1) Creating a standards-based system with assessments that monitor progress and inform instruction
 * 2) Aligning instruction to standards and focusing teaching on moving students from where they are to where they need to be
 * 3) Strengthening instructional leadership
 * 4) Building professional learning communities
 * 5) Engaging parents and the community

Along with this five-prong approach, the AC model also emphasizes a workshop model in all subject matters (America’s Choice, 2012). The model was initially successful. In the 2009-2010 school year, SAND School made significant improvements on the Connecticut Mastery Tests. This success prompted then principal, Desi Nesmith to invest in several technology initiatives for the school. Although the technology was purchased, there was no formal professional development offered for teachers.

Unfortunately, SAND’s success was short-lived. In the 2010-2011 school year, after facing a turn over in administration, the school failed to make annual yearly progress. This lead the School Governance Council to hire a new principal, Dr. Sylvia Hall.

Presently, the South Arsenal neighborhood is home to approximately 7,890 people. The neighborhood has a strong Puerto Rican heritage with nearly 50% of residents identifying with this ethnic background (Hartford Public Library, 2012). The school is central located within the neighborhood and a vast majority of students live within walking district. Nearly 100% of the students at SAND are minorities. 35.7% are black and 64% are Hispanic. More than 95% of the students qualify for free or reduced lunch (Achieve Hartford, 2010).

// Additional Information //

Hartford Public Schools: []

America’s Choice at SAND School: []

America’s Choice: []


 * Stakeholders and Decision-Makers **

The primary stakeholders of this invention plan are the students of SAND school. Others who will be impacted by this plan include: teachers, staff, administrators, parents and family members of SAND school. SAND School principal Dr. Sylvia Hall and the school’s Technology Committee will be responsible for the implementation of the intervention plan.


 * Performance Gap: Cause Analysis **

SAND School is not effectively integrating technology into daily lessons in order to prepare students for Common Core standards and meet NCLB mandates. The school is does not have an integrated technology plan and is not meeting the educational technology standards defined by the International Society for Technology in Education.


 * Actual Current Performance. ** Technology exists within the school building. According to a survey conducted by the Technology Committee the present technology in the building is not being used effectively. Approximately 20% of classroom teachers presently use their SMART board daily. 40% use their SMART board occasionally (2-3 times per week) and 40% use their SMART board rarely (0-1 times per week). Computers in the classroom are used most often for 60% district mandated test prep, 20% recess, 10% class projects, 10% other educational sites. Technology usage is not addressed in the school's mission statement. There is a technology committee that was recently formed in November 2011.


 * Desired Performance. ** Teachers will use technology frequently and on a daily basis. All lesson plans will incorporate some type of technology. Teachers and students will be made aware of the National Education Technology Standards (ISTE, 2007) and the school as a whole will work towards gaining a proficiency level in these standards. The technology committee will routinely host professional development session centered on technology integration.


 * Performance Gap. ** The performance gap exists between an inconsistent and ineffective use of technology and a cohesive, effective use of technology. Presently, the school is not preparing students for the 21st century workforce and educational landscape. Students are not being taught important 21st century skills and are being set up for failure later in their schooling. The school is also not providing quality professional development focused on technology integration. The school also lacks a comprehensive technology integration plan.


 * Cause Analysis. ** The gap presently exists because there is not a technology integration plan in effect for the school. There is also a severe lack of professional development centered on technology integration. Many teachers do not have the knowledge or background necessary to incorporate technology effectively.

America's Choice at SAND School is lacking an integrated technology plan. The building has several learning technologies such as SMART boards and computers, however these are not being used to their full benefit. Students are leaving AC @ SAND and entering high school without basic computer skills.

=
America's Choice at SAND School (AC @SAND) is located in Hartford, CT and was opened in August 2009 after being redesigned. The former SAND School had not meet AYP for several years and through the directive issued by the superintendent a committee was formed to redesign the school. The committee consisted of several key stakeholders, parents, community members, and teachers from SAND. The committee chose the America's Choice school design model and the Hartford Public School Board approved the designed in the spring of 2009.=====

Through several funding sources, the school has received SMART boards, projectors, classroom computers, a computer lab, an iPad cart with 20 iPads, 20 iPods, 10 Kindles, and a document camera. There have been no formal technology professional development sessions at the school in the past 3 years. There have been no plans to implement technology PD.

With Connecticut's adoption of the Common Core Standards, students will soon be taking standardized tests on a computer platform. Presently, Special Education students starting taking modified standardized testing on a computer platform in 2010-2011. There was a significant decrease in test scores that year; however it could not be determined if the new testing platform contributed to the decrease.

=
In the 2009-2010, school year, AC @SAND saw an enormous increase in test scores. The school met AYP goals established and was named the most improved elementary school in the district. The school had successfully completed one year of progress and needed only one more year of progress to make safe harbor. Reaching safe harbor, would essentially allow the school to start off fresh after years of failing to meet AYP in accordance with No Child Left Behind mandates. =====

=
Unfortunately, the school's principal chose to resign in December 2010. Following this the vice principal also resigned in January 2011. The school, suffering a lack of leadership, failed to meet the same goals. The school saw a 6% decrease in test scores and was placed on the below proficient box in the district performance matrix. This eliminated the school's autonomy in district. =====

The key stakeholders will be the students of AC @SAND. In addition, this plan will also impact the teachers and support staff of the AC @SAND.

The primary decision makers will be Dr. Syliva Hall, the present principal, and Jonathan Swan, the director of elementary schools.

Insight into the performance problem will be possible through an interview with Dr. Hall, and several members of the leadership committee: Pat McEvila, Nancy Medina, and Geraldo Heredia.

AC @SAND is not effectively integrating technology into daily lessons in order to prepare students for Common Core standards. The school is does not have an integrated technology plan and is not meeting the educational technology standards defined by the International Society for Technology in Education.

Technology exists within the school building. According to a survey conducted by the Technology Committee the present technology in the building is not being used effectively. Approximately 20% of classroom teachers presently use their SMART board daily. 40% use their SMART board occasionally (2-3 times per week) and 40% use their SMART board rarely (0-1 times per week). Computers in the classroom are used most often for 60% district mandated test prep, 20% recess, 10% class projects, 10% other educational sites. Technology usage is not addressed in the school's mission statement. There is a technology committee that was recently formed in November 2011.

Teachers will use technology frequently and on a daily basis. All lesson plans will incorporate some type of technology. Teachers and students will be made aware of the National Education Technology Standards (ISTE, 2007) and the school as a whole will work towards gaining a proficiency level in these standards.

The performance gap exists between an inconsistent and ineffective use of technology and a cohesive, effective use of technology. Presently, the school is not preparing students for the 21st century workforce and educational landscape. Students are not being taught important 21st century skills and are being set up for failure later in their schooling.

** Low end intervention. ** Tech Tuesdays and Lunch and Learn Series. These will be informal professional development sessions conducted by teachers for teachers. Topics will focus on various technology integration resources strategies, and ideas.

** Middle end intervention. ** Technology Integrationist. America's Choice at SAND will develop a Technology Integrationist position. This person would be responsible for helping teachers integrate technology into their lessons. The Technology Integrationist would also be responsible for maintaining and planning for new technology purchases.

** High end intervention. ** Technology Department. Hartford Public Schools would create a Technology Department. This department would hire technology integrationists at all schools. The department head would be responsible for planning and conducting professional development relevant to the districts technology needs.

**Problem Summary**
America's Choice at SAND School is lacking an integrated technology plan. The building has several learning technologies such as SMART boards and computers, however these are not being used to their full benefit. Students are leaving AC @ SAND and entering high school without basic computer skills.

=
America's Choice at SAND School (AC @SAND) is located in Hartford, CT and was opened in August 2009 after being redesigned. The former SAND School had not meet AYP for several years and through the directive issued by the superintendent a committee was formed to redesign the school. The committee consisted of several key stakeholders, parents, community members, and teachers from SAND. The committee chose the America's Choice school design model and the Hartford Public School Board approved the designed in the spring of 2009. =====

Through several funding sources, the school has received SMART boards, projectors, classroom computers, a computer lab, an iPad cart with 20 iPads, 20 iPods, 10 Kindles, and a document camera. There have been no formal technology professional development sessions at the school in the past 3 years. There have been no plans to implement technology PD.

With Connecticut's adoption of the Common Core Standards, students will soon be taking standardized tests on a computer platform. Presently, Special Education students starting taking modified standardized testing on a computer platform in 2010-2011. There was a significant decrease in test scores that year; however it could not be determined if the new testing platform contributed to the decrease.

=
In the 2009-2010, school year, AC @SAND saw an enormous increase in test scores. The school met AYP goals established and was named the most improved elementary school in the district. The school had successfully completed one year of progress and needed only one more year of progress to make safe harbor. Reaching safe harbor, would essentially allow the school to start off fresh after years of failing to meet AYP in accordance with No Child Left Behind mandates. =====

=
Unfortunately, the school's principal chose to resign in December 2010. Following this the vice principal also resigned in January 2011. The school, suffering a lack of leadership, failed to meet the same goals. The school saw a 6% decrease in test scores and was placed on the below proficient box in the district performance matrix. This eliminated the school's autonomy in district. =====

**Stakeholders and Decision Maker**
The key stakeholders will be the students of AC @SAND. In addition, this plan will also impact the teachers and support staff of the AC @SAND.

The primary decision makers will be Dr. Syliva Hall, the present principal, and Jonathan Swan, the director of elementary schools.

Insight into the performance problem will be possible through an interview with Dr. Hall, and several members of the leadership committee: Pat McEvila, Nancy Medina, and Geraldo Heredia.

AC @SAND is not effectively integrating technology into daily lessons in order to prepare students for Common Core standards. The school is does not have an integrated technology plan and is not meeting the educational technology standards defined by the International Society for Technology in Education.

Actual Current Performance
Technology exists within the school building. According to a survey conducted by the Technology Committee the present technology in the building is not being used effectively. Approximately 20% of classroom teachers presently use their SMART board daily. 40% use their SMART board occasionally (2-3 times per week) and 40% use their SMART board rarely (0-1 times per week). Computers in the classroom are used most often for 60% district mandated test prep, 20% recess, 10% class projects, 10% other educational sites. Technology usage is not addressed in the school's mission statement. There is a technology committee that was recently formed in November 2011.

Desired Performance
Teachers will use technology frequently and on a daily basis. All lesson plans will incorporate some type of technology. Teachers and students will be made aware of the National Education Technology Standards (ISTE, 2007) and the school as a whole will work towards gaining a proficiency level in these standards.

Performance Gap
The performance gap exists between an inconsistent and ineffective use of technology and a cohesive, effective use of technology. Presently, the school is not preparing students for the 21st century workforce and educational landscape. Students are not being taught important 21st century skills and are being set up for failure later in their schooling.

Project Template
** Title of Your Performance Improvement Intervention ** ** Name of Organization ** Include a summary of the problem being experienced by this organization that you would like to address with your Performance Improvement Intervention. State the problem in general terms, as described from the organization’s point of view. Include a detailed description of the background of the organization from an historical perspective to demonstrate that you have a good understanding of the organization you will be working with. In this section include the following information: (a) when was the organization founded? (b) Where is it located? (c) Who is the organization’s clientele? (d) What information about the company would be useful to help you plan an appropriate intervention? (e) What is the URL of the web site for this organization? And (f) Do you have access to any public relations materials or annual reports for the organization? If so, where can you obtain these? Who are the people that will be affected by your plan? Which people in the organization make the decisions to implement the plan once it is developed? Who are the key personnel in the organization that can provide you with insights into the performance problem for which you will propose an intervention? List their names as possible interviews later in the project. What is the gap between where the organization currently is and where they want to be regarding the problem stated? States as the following: **History.** Start writing immediately after this level 3 heading and describe the history of the organization you are working with. You will include a paragraph briefly introducing your three intervention strategies here and then explain each in more detail. Share which of your three intervention strategies you selected to propose to the organization. Describe the strengths and limitations of each of the strategies you selected. Share why the intervention strategy you selected is more likely to resolve the problem than the other two. Include data from documents provided by the organization, interview data, or other information gleaned from the Web to support your choice. Share the strengths and weaknesses of each of the two intervention strategies you didn’t select. Describe why you rejected it supporting your decision with data and sound reasoning. Write one paragraph for each of the rejected intervention strategies. Demonstrate how your chosen interview strategy best meets the organizational goals stated in the performance gap in Module 2. Project management techniques: Explain your role as project manager for this intervention strategy. Resource management techniques: Describe the resources that will be used for this intervention and how they will be tracked. Delivery system management techniques: Identify the medium for the delivery of the intervention strategy and how the technology will be implemented within the instructional context. Information management techniques: Describe how information related to this intervention strategy will be stored, accessed, and processed. This may include information that l be used for evaluation of the intervention. Write an introduction here. Supporting documentation for your budget, including links to Web sites where purchases can be made and the costs of implementation. Describe the formative evaluation plan you will use. Include your formative evaluation instrument in an Appendix. Describe the summative evaluation plans you will use. Include your summative evaluation instrument in an Appendix.
 * Problem Summary **
 * Background of Organization **
 * Stakeholders and Decision-Makers **
 * Performance Gap: Cause Analysis **
 * Actual Current Performance. ** Describe the current situation that includes the identified performance problem.
 * Desired Performance. ** Identify would the performance look like is the problem were resolved.
 * Performance Gap. ** Explain the difference between actual and desired performance. The Gap is what will be solved by your intervention.
 * Cause Analysis. ** Why did the people you interviewed think this problem developed in their company? Why does this gap exist?
 * Organizational History and Background **
 * Goals. ** Describe the organizational goals as they relate to the problem you are resolving. Relate this to the gap you identified that is the subject of your PII
 * Mission and Vision. ** What is the mission of this organization? Describe the Vision of the organization. Most organizations have adopted a mission and vision statement that provides a foundation for the decisions that are made.
 * Three Intervention Strategies **
 * Low end intervention. ** Write your explanation here in sentence form.
 * Middle end intervention. ** Write your explanation here in sentence form.
 * High end intervention. ** Write your explanation here in sentence form.
 * Justification for Intervention Strategy **
 * The Manager’s Many Roles **
 * The Manager as Change Agent **
 * Financial and Budget Information. ** Tentative budget for your intervention strategy, along with supporting documentation; consider technology purchases, personnel training, additional support, and other considerations specific to your proposal.
 * Project Assessment. ** Describe how the project objectives will be evaluated.

References All references you used to develop your PII should be included in this list. Please remember to use APA 6th formatting for your references. You will also use hanging indentations for your references as shown in this example.

** Appendices ** NOTE that you may not need all of the Appendices listed below. Select the ones that are relevant to your project and include that data to support your work. Letter your appendices in the order they are referenced in your document. Each Appendix will begin on a new page. All of you will include Appendices A through E. Select the other topics and include them as relevant. You will letter the Appendices in the order you mention them in your paper, once you decide which ones you will use.

Appendix A: Formative Evaluation Instrument Appendix B: Summative Evaluation Instrument Appendix C: Interview Questions Appendix D: Interview Transcripts or Summary Appendix E. Budget Appendix ?: Detailed and appropriate technical information for implementing your intervention Appendix ?: Layout sketches, if relevant Appendix ?: Specifications of equipment and purchases Appendix ?: Data charts and graphs, as relevant Appendix ?: Resources that support your proposal