Margaret+Hale

Title of Your Performance Improvement InterventionRocky Hill High School toc

**Problem Summary**
With the recent adoption of the Common Core State Standards by the state of Connecticut, English teachers at Rocky Hill High School are overwhelmed by the level of writing proficiency learners will be expected to demonstrate, specifically learners in General level courses. Most of the learners at the General level scored below the state’s goal in writing as measured by the current state standards and the Connecticut Academic Performance Test administered in March 2011. Though a correlation between the current assessments used by the state and the new standards is not yet available, commentary from the Connecticut Department of Education suggests that the expectations are rising. Research in the area of writing instruction suggests that frequent writing opportunities coupled with specific strategies, goal setting, and timely feedback are the most effective means of improving both student writing and self-efficacy. The RHHS English department needs to improve both its instructional and formative assessment practices in General level composition courses. Additionally, English faculty members need to achieve greater consistency in scoring assessments to better differentiate instruction and ensure that all students can effectively communicate in writing at a level on par with the state's goal.

**Background of Organization**
Built in 1980, Rocky Hill High School is located in Rocky Hill, Connecticut and serves its community members by providing 9th-12th grade education to approximately 785 students.

In May of 2011, the high school was awarded continued accreditation by the New England Association of Schools & Colleges (Allison, 2011); however was placed on warning status in the areas of Standards for Curriculum and Community Resources for learning. To improve curriculum, the Rocky Hill Public School district has begun curriculum revision using A Balanced Curriculum approach. While still in the early stages, curriculum in all disciplines is being aligned to the recently adopted Common Core State Standards and will include a scope, sequence, and common assessments which will better enable faculty to use data to evaluate the effectiveness of their instructional strategies and practice. Also new to the district is the adoption of Google Aps for Schools. This technological addition has provided students (as well as faculty and staff) e-mail accounts, data storage, as well as file sharing capabilities. Though still in its early stages, the district is laying the foundation for 21st century learning environment.

School documents that will be useful in developing an intervention to the above stated problem would include: district budget, Connecticut Academic Performance Test (CAPT) results, SAT results, and student records.

General information about Rocky Hill High School is made available to the community on the school’s website: [].

Rocky Hill High School’s annual reports (including those already listed above) and other public relations materials are available on the district’s public website (__ http://www.rockyhillps.com)/ __ and or intranet site. Non-published materials, including memos and working papers can be accessed directly at the high school and/or district offices.

**Stakeholders and Decision Makers**
The primary stakeholders addressed by this intervention plan include the learners in General level composition courses and the English department faculty at Rocky Hill High School. However, it is expected that parents, town officials and residents will obtain secondary benefits.

Instrumental to the successful implementation of the proposed intervention are: Principal Mario Almeida, Assistant Superintendent (and Curriculum Coordinator) Marian Hourigan, and the faculty members of the English department. Input from faculty and students will also be essential to better understand current instructional decision-making practices and attitudes toward writing and the writing process and to evaluate the success of the proposed intervention.

**Actual Current Performance. **
Currently, 70.6% of students performed at or above the established state goal on the Connecticut Academic Performance Test (CSDE, 2011). These students represent those enrolled in academic or honors courses. None of the students in general level courses met the state goal.

**Desired Performance. **
Consistent with the requirements of the No Child Left Behind act, **all** learners in General level courses will be able to perform at or above the state goal on writing assessments.

**Performance Gap. **
The performance gap, as measured as the difference between the actual and desired performance (Chevalier, 2007) indicates that 5.7% of students performed below the established level of proficiency on the Connecticut Academic Performance Test (CSDE, 2011), and 23.7% of the students, although deemed proficient, scored below the state’s goal.

**Cause Analysis. **
There are many driving and restraining forces (Chevalier, 2007) that have contributed to this performance gap that can be directly addressed by the high school (Appendix A). Of obvious relevance is the lack of a standard curriculum in the English department. This is currently undergoing development at the district level, though some faculty expressed concern that inclusion of suggested teaching strategies and training for CCSS would be desirable. (Many faculty are not really clear how the new standards are expected to be translated into instructional practice.) Curriculum is projected to be completed by the end of the 2011-2012 school year.

One significant factor that expressed by faculty was the time constraints which limited the number of writing assignments that could be provided and assessed in a reasonable time frame. Acknowledging that best practice suggests that learners should write often to improve their skill, the faculty does not feel that they have provided enough assignments to fully maximize learning potential. Also, teachers noted that in many cases and due to the individual needs of the learners, learners were unable to effectively revise their work, particularly in the areas of coherence and editing, without specific direction and often spend much of class time off task while waiting for individual instruction.

**History. **
During the past eight years and continuing to the present, the Rocky Hill school district is experiencing significant administrative and demographic changes. There have been two superintendents in the past five years, and the current superintendent is scheduled to resign effective January 31, 2012. While the current superintendent has suggested and begun implementation of new initiatives to improve student learning, as they are not yet fully infused in the district, their continuation under the new administration is a concern for both faculty and community members. Additionally, under the student Choice Program in the state of Connecticut, Rocky Hill is welcoming increasing numbers of learners from poor performing districts. This is forcing the district to provide additional student support services for which it is not entirely prepared to do.

As was discovered in the recent NEASC accreditation, and likely due to the instability of the administration, the inconsistent instruction in the Language Arts Curriculum has led to significant learning gaps. Learners enter high school at highly variant skill levels; however, learning and instruction must go on. With the adoption of the Common Core State Standards, if action is not taken to immediately close the performance gap, it is likely it will widen.

**Mission and Vision. **
As stated in the Rocky Hill High School Mission Statement “Through high expectations and a challenging curriculum, all students at Rocky Hill High School will become responsible citizens who embrace learning as a lifelong process in an ever-changing world” (2008). Additionally, the mission statement defines expectations for students, specifically (with regards to this performance intervention) that they will “communicate effectively in writing” and be able to “evaluate their strength and weaknesses.”

**Goals. **
Beginning with the 2010 school year, the district administration has established both literacy and technology goals to focus the efforts of the school personnel. The general goals of the district are: Specifically, as it relates to this performance intervention initiative, the district seeks to achieve the following performance objectives: Teachers (specifically within the English department) will: Students will take a greater responsibility for their learning by:
 * 1) Literacy
 * 2) Faculty will develop skills in the application of technology and design learning environments that enhance and challenge students to use information technology in meeting high academic standards.
 * effectively differentiate their instruction to meet the individual needs of their learners;
 * provide timely feedback on written assignments; and
 * score assessments in a manner consistent with their colleagues.
 * regularly monitoring their learning needs and setting personal writing goals;
 * actively using the writing process; and,
 * applying feedback received on writing assignments.

**Interventions. **
To affect the closure of the performance gap here identified, there are three proposed interventions. Each intervention is aligned to a durational level of cost and results.


 * High end intervention**. Permanent closure of the performance gap addressed by this intervention plan can likely be achieved at a cost of approximately $54,000 to $87,000 with a recurring annual cost of $10,000 after the first three years. This would include the adoption of MyAccess or other automated writing evaluator (AWE) for all learners in grades six through twelve. Included in this proposal is the professional training for all Language Arts teachers in the target grades and unlimited access to online professional development courses through the service provider. By providing intensive and individualized instruction in earlier grades, teachers and learners will be able to more accurately and efficiently identify learning gaps.


 * Middle end intervention**. The district will adopt MYAccess or other automated writing evaluator (AWE) to aid learners in the writing process at a cost of approximately $16,500. The AWE will be provided to all learners enrolled in the General Level Language Arts courses for a period of three years.


 * Low end intervention**. The district will adopt Grammarly or other automated editing software to aid students in the writing process at a cost of approximately $5000. The software will be provided to all learners enrolled in General Level language arts courses for a period of three years.

**Rationale and Justification **
The proposed interventions, though not without drawbacks, can all have a positive impact on closing the performance gap. The low-end adoption of Grammarly or other online editing software is relatively inexpensive and would work. When presented to the faculty, they were very interested in this tool because of its relative ease of use. They felt it would place much of the responsibility on the learners to use the program. However, while the intervention will likely achieve some results, in the long term, it will not significantly eradicate the problem. Placing the entire burden of using the program on the learners will likely have a significant effect only on the learners who use the program diligently, though there is no measure available for tracking how much time and effort learners are spending with the program. Additionally, while the faculty viewed this as a time saver, unless learners in the lower grades are receiving instruction in the writing areas that are expected to be remedied by the online editing software, when the subscription to the service expires, it is likely the same issues will recur.

While the high-end strategy, permanent adoption of an AWE program to assist writing instruction for all learners, would likely permanently close the performance gap, faculty and administration are not entirely convinced it will. Making such an untested significant change and financial commitment is far beyond the readiness level of the major stakeholders in this organization.

Adoption of the proposed mid-level strategy, implementation of an AWE program for a limited time, with a target group of learners has the potential to close the performance gap during the implementation phase and the potential to sharpen teaching strategies, even if permanent adoption is declined. The primary benefit of using an AWE program is that learners will get immediate feedback on their writing. This was one of the significant restraining forces identified by the faculty (Apendix C) in that learners are often helpless to engage in the revision process until the teacher has had the time (another restraining force) to review their work. The program will provide feedback on the five domains of writing, thus suggesting to learners ways to revise. Additionally, the program provides a variety of analytic functions enabling teachers to quickly (within seconds) identify common deficiencies of class groups. Using this information, teachers can target instruction more quickly to meet learners’ needs. As learners use the program, they will be better equipped to ask questions about their writing if they receive feedback they do not understand how to apply. Adoption of this program will both eliminate some of the time constraints and individualization of instruction.

Included in this intervention is on-site training for the teachers and an online professional development resource kit available anytime.

Even if the organization is prevented from permanent adoption, use of the program for a durational period coupled with training from the service provider will likely bring attention to the specific areas of writing that need to be addressed and can inform instructional practice and future curriculum revision. However, and as anticipated by this proposal, if the durational adoption of this intervention is met with great success, it will likely provide data to support the adoption of the high-end strategy proposed.

**The Manager’s Many Roles **
Successful implementation of this proposed intervention will require the effective management of people, resources and technology. Donaldson, Smaldino, and Pearson (In Januszewski & Molenda, 2008) suggest a combination of management and leadership functions: planning, monitoring, controlling, setting direction, aligning and motivating.

<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 16px;">As a leader of this project, my primary task is to communicate the direction and purpose of this project, adoption of AWE, as an effort to introduce a new tool to better facilitate instructional and learner performance. I will also need to demonstrate how the AWE is clearly aligned with the organization’s goals to improve learner writing performance and assessment consistency. Above all, I will need to motivate the faculty using the AWE to not only use the AWE, but to reflect on how the tool is capable of meeting the goals of the project and improving their instructional practice.

<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 16px;">As a manager for this project, I will need to plan the implementation of this intervention. Beginning with communications with the service provider to activate a school and communicating access for faculty and learners to the AWE, also included is the proposal presented here along with coordinating training sessions for faculty and learners. Opportunities for faculty to share their observations and comfort using the AWE throughout the initial phase of implementation will also need to be provided to adequately support faculty as they adjust to new teaching methods and learn to use the data provided by the AWE to measure learner performance.

<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 16px;">AWE’s provide a means to gather data to monitor the use of the product as well as learner performance. At regular intervals (weekly/monthly) I will need to view that data and analyze the changes in learner performance, login patterns, and time spent in the program in the various writing tasks. Sharing this information with the faculty will enable us to monitor changes in learner and faculty performance and continually measure the effectiveness of the implementation. Ongoing evaluation will inform the need to intervene with additional support measures to ensure the goals of the project are achieved.

<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 16px;">Fortunately the resources necessary for this intervention are few: subscription to the AWE service provider and scheduling of classes in the computer lab. As previously mentioned, use of the AWE is easily tracked through the analytics of the software program. The program itself, including technology support, is managed by a website provided by the service provider. The administration of the organization has already established each writing course two days per week in the computer lab, seamlessly providing this necessary resource.

<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 16px;">Stakeholders will be able to access the AWE directly through the internet. The school district has in place a recently upgraded fiber optic network and already provides wireless service throughout the buildings. Teachers will receive two on-site training days to learn how to use and manage the AWE at the classroom level, and online training modules are available for teachers to use at their discretion through the service-provider website. An orientation lesson is provided to the teachers to introduce the AWE to their students. <span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 16px;">Information directly related to the use of the AWE and assessment practices will be gathered and stored in the AWE program. Additionally, faculty and learner users will complete surveys during the first year of implementation to evaluate user perceptions on the program. The surveys will be facilitated through Google Forms, currently stored on the district’s servers. The program manager will analyze this information on a weekly/monthly basis and share this information with the participants during monthly meetings and/or e-mail communications.

<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12pt;">Write an introduction here. <span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12pt;">Supporting documentation for your budget, including links to Web sites where purchases can be made and the costs of implementation. <span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12pt;">Describe the formative evaluation plan you will use. Include your formative evaluation instrument in an Appendix. <span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12pt;">Describe the summative evaluation plans you will use. Include your summative evaluation instrument in an Appendix.
 * <span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12pt;">The Manager as Change Agent **
 * <span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12pt;">Financial and Budget Information. **<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12pt;">Tentative budget for your intervention strategy, along with supporting documentation; consider technology purchases, personnel training, additional support, and other considerations specific to your proposal.
 * <span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12pt;">Project Assessment. **<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12pt;">Describe how the project objectives will be evaluated.

<span style="display: block; font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12pt; text-align: center;">References

Chevalier, R. (2007). A managers guide to improving workplace performance. New York, NY: AMACOM. Connecticut State Department of Education (2011). Connecticut education data and research: District and School Snapshots. Retrieved from []

<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 16px;">Donaldson, J., Smaldino, S., & Pearson, R. (2008). Managing. In A. Januszewski and M. Molenda (Eds.) Educational technology: A definition with commentary (pp. 175-193). New York, NY: Taylor & Francis Group.

Rocky Hill High School. (2008). Rocky Hill high school mission statement. Retrieved from [] Rocky Hill High School English Faculty (2011, December 21). Interview by M. C. Hale [Summary notes]. Meeting of Rocky Hill English Department Faculty.

**<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12pt;">Appendices ** <span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12pt;">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.

<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12pt;">Appendix A: Formative Evaluation Instrument <span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12pt;">Appendix B: Summative Evaluation Instrument <span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12pt;">Appendix C: Interview Questions


 * Interview Questions **


 * 1) What, in your opinion, is the main reason students in general level courses are performing below the state goal in writing?
 * 2) What would you like students to be able to do in your classes?
 * 3) How do you plan your instructional activities?
 * 4) How do you measure/assess student writing?
 * 5) In an ideal world, how many writing assignments should students complete each semester?
 * 6) How many writing assignments do you give in a semester?
 * 7) What types of feedback do you provide to students on writing assignments?
 * 8) Based on the district’s established objectives for both faculty and students, how do you feel this group of teachers is prepared to meet them? What will you need to accomplish these objectives?
 * 9) Do you ever share assessment measures with each other?
 * 10) What types of training have you had in writing instruction in the past five years?
 * 11) What types of training have you had in differentiation in the past five years?
 * 12) Do you feel you have the necessary materials and time to do your job?
 * 13) How do you feel about your work environment?
 * 14) How are you rewarded for your work performance?
 * 15) Why do you teach?

<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12pt;">Appendix D: Interview Transcripts or Summary

Table 1

Summary Results of Cause Analysis Interview Questions


 * |||||||||||||| Environment  ||||||||||||||   ||
 * |||| Information ||||  ||||||   |||| Resources ||||   ||||||   |||| Incentives ||||   ||
 * - Previous lack of a clear curriculum and consequential lack of vertical alignment of learner expectations for courses causes inconsistencies in both teaching and learner achievement.

+The district has begun to revise and establish curriculum to guide instruction in line with the recently adopted Common Core State Standards. |||||||||||||| +There are adequate text books, minimal access to the computer lab, and the faculty has amassed a large collection of writing prompts and instructional activities. |||||||||||||| -There are no reward systems in place. ||
 * - Staff has not received adequate training in differentiated instruction. |||||||||||||| -Time: This is the greatest challenge cited by the faculty. Classes meet for only 43 minutes daily. While there is no immediate possibility of changing to a block schedule, teachers believe it very challenging to provide individual/differentiated instruction in such a short period.

Additionally, there is little to no time allotted for faculty to share information and discuss teaching strategies. This is believed to contribute to the faculty having inconsistent expectations among various course offerings. |||||||||||||| -Employee needs: Faculty would benefit from professional development opportunities that are more directly in line with their teaching needs. ||
 * -There are very few performance coaching and feedback opportunities for faculty. Tenured faculty are only observed once every five years. |||||||||||||| -/+Processes: Faculty understand the procedures of the daily schedule at the school, though specific teaching strategy procedures for differentiated instruction are unclear (as related to performance expectations). |||||||||||||| +The overall work environment is positive. Leadership in the school desires the success of its faculty and is open to innovation that will lead to success. The faculty, though, believes much of their successes are more likely a result of their personal motivation. ||
 * |||||||||||||| +The environment is both physically and emotionally safe. ||||||||||||||  ||
 * |||||||||||||| Individual  ||||||||||||   ||
 * |||| Knowledge/Skills ||||  ||||||   |||| Capacity ||||   ||||||   |||| Motives ||||   ||   ||
 * + Faculty are extremely knowledgeable in their discipline; however, are unclear on the best methods for differentiating instruction. |||||||||||||| +Faculty members have a great capacity for learning and often have sought independent learning opportunities to enrich their personal knowledge. |||||||||||| +Motivation for success is strong with all members of the faculty. They are highly interested in the success of their students.

+ The faculty strive to perform their best at all times. ||
 * -Faculty are properly assigned to courses for which they are qualified to teach; however, as mentioned as an environmental factor, time is not provided for individuals to share their expertise with their colleagues. |||||||||||||| +There do not appear to be any emotional limitations that would interfere with the faculty’s performance. ||||||||||||  ||
 * -Employees are as aware of their colleagues responsibilities as they should be. Again, this is primarily a result of lack of curriculum. ||||||||||||||  ||||||||||||   ||

<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12pt;">Appendix E. Budget <span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12pt;">Appendix ?: Detailed and appropriate technical information for implementing your intervention <span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12pt;">Appendix ?: Layout sketches, if relevant <span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12pt;">Appendix ?: Specifications of equipment and purchases <span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12pt;">Appendix ?: Data charts and graphs, as relevant <span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12pt;">Appendix ?: Resources that support your proposal