A Final Reflection

Starting with week one, there were a number of highlights worth emphasizing upon reflection that stuck with me. First and foremost, the very concept that action research itself was a reaction and an alternative to more traditional educational research approaches. Specifically, traditional educational research has been primarily a linear activity applied by principals and teachers based on the finding of experts outside of the school environment (Dana, pg 4). This has resulted through the years in a top-down approach that often creates a professional development culture based on the rigid implementation of new foreign initiatives that fail to account for everyday events in public schools. In contrast, action research aims to reverse more traditional approaches by grounding research in the realities of local campus practice and incorporating administrators/teachers as collaborators in the research process, all of which helps to generate a bottom-up approach. As I’ve learned not only in EDLD 5301, but throughout the Lamar Academic Partnership, this type of approach fosters greater campus change because both administrators and teachers are more likely to embrace research findings based on the information they themselves have collected and interpreted.
The framework for action research also offers educational leaders a unique way of turning research practice into habit. As an aspiring administrator, I am constantly looking for ways to increase my organization, minimize my stress level, while at the same time maximize my productivity. At the heart of action research is the idea that it’s habitual, not something on a list of things to do. Dana states that engaging in inquiry becomes a natural way principals can be assured that their campuses are taking a proactive learning approach, and making action research/inquiry a part of everyday regular practice, rather than apart from it (Dana, 2009). When action research practices become everyday habit, educational leaders are capable of taking on more responsibilities, while at the same time ensuring that student learning is proactively molded by locally developed best practices.
One final thought or highlight that I took from my Lamar research class was the fact that simply sharing ideas for positive student growth with others opens a world of opportunities for change. Specifically, I’m speaking about the power of open communication. In my conversations with my site-supervisor, I found that our talks yielded far more positive ideas and direction for my action research topic than simply reading journals and various other periodicals on my own. I welcomed the experienced perspective that my site-supervisor gave. It provided me with valuable insight and helpful techniques for approaching educational problems on a campus level. This experience was a highlight for me, and its one that I hope to carry on in my journey through the Lamar Academic Partnership program for educational administration.

Reference:
Dana, Nancy Fichman (2009). Leading with passion and knowledge: The Principal as Action Researcher. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.

Site Supervisor Conference and Consensus

During a programming meeting for the upcoming school year, my principal and I took time to discuss my draft action research plan. It was a natural transition in our conversation because we had been reviewing the projected special education caseload for our campus. As we reviewed the reasoning and foundation for my study we began discussing which special education students we felt would benefit most from the two proposed inclusion classes. With a better idea of which students to group into the two proposed classes our conversation turned to what needed to take place for those students to be included. One key insight that I took from this was that we would need to schedule a number of ARD meetings before the beginning of school in order to maintain individual IEP compliance and begin providing inclusion services. As our conversation progressed, we also discussed personal, resources, and allotted planning time. Of these three topics, maintaining and allotting adequate planning time for the general education and inclusion teachers was of particular interest to my principal. Her main concern was making sure that both teachers go beyond their normal planning to ensure that both have enough time together to adequately prepare inclusion instruction. We talked about a couple ideas for guaranteeing plenty of planning time that I had noted on my class discussion board this week. Specifically, by aligning the inclusion teacher’s planning period with the appropriate grade level planning periods, we could assure that when the general education teacher is planning that the inclusion teacher is not teaching. This would also require some tweaking of the master schedule and individual grade level schedules. The second idea that we discussed would involve offering those teachers involved in my study two half day planning sessions per nine weeks period. By building teacher planning time into their day we could also assure that all key stakeholders are provided extra support to plan for student success accordingly. My principal agreed that both ideas were worth looking into more in order to make certain that both teachers planned accordingly. With these suggestions on the table, my principal agreed that my draft action research plan was in line with what we had discussed during the last school year when we reviewed my internship plan and that she was prepared to support its implementation during the upcoming school year.

Draft Action Research Proposal

Implementing Full Inclusion Models on an Elementary Campus

*The following draft action research process overview follows the eight basic steps outlined in the Harris text for implementing research projects aimed at school improvement. Chapter three from the Dana text were also referenced to supplement the action research framework.

1) Examining the Work and Setting the Foundation- identify needs or topics for action research:

In 2001 No Child Left Behind (NCLB) became the first major overhaul of federal education standards since the 1960s when President Johnson signed the Elementary and Secondary Act into law. One of the binding pieces to the NCLB legislation is that requires all schools receiving title one funds to meet Average Yearly Progress (AYP) for all students, including those students who fall under specific demographic groups, such as student with disabilities. Because of this statute, schools have turned to more inclusive practices for all students, whether they be identified Limited English Proficient (LEP) or diagnosed with a disability. The purpose of my action research is to study full inclusion models employed throughout my educational region/school district and establish the practicality of implementing a full inclusion model to meet our unique campus needs.


2) Analyzing Data- identify data gathering strategies:

A number of data gathering techniques will be employed to supplement and build a stronger foundation for my action research on full inclusion models. Quantitative measures of student achievement (campus AEIS 2010 report; specifically the multi-year history report, the campus report summary, and 2010 student state assessment performance data), field notes focused on student behavior data during instruction, teacher surveys gauging student performance during large group activities, and literature gathered through electronic searches (ie; Texas Education Agency, educational journals, etc.) will be used to support possible findings for in favor of or against the implementation of a full inclusion model based on our unique campus needs.


3) Developing Deeper Understanding- additional data collection techniques:

As I compile my initial data, the necessity to make further inquiries in order to explore questions that may arise as I analyze data may be required. In an effort to develop a greater understanding of the data collected, interviews with both students and teachers placed in inclusive classrooms will be necessary to investigate in more detail the impact inclusive practices play on student performance and behavior. Additional electronic searches may also be required to uncover practical solutions to unforeseen concerns and supplement questions that arise through the analysis process unfolds.


4) Engaging in Self-Reflection- considerations regarding possible outcomes of action research:

By reflecting on the implications of potential research findings the following questions arose that summarize potential results of implementing or not implementing a full inclusion model;

-Will every student receiving specialized instruction benefit from inclusive large group instruction?
-Does implementing full inclusion models require that special education services abandon the continuum of services for student with special needs?
-Does not implementing a full inclusion model greatly decrease a student with special needs ability to meet grade level standards?
-Under a full inclusion model is there still a role for pull-out/lab support for students will specialized instruction?
-Does my campus have enough resources to implement a full inclusion model for all grade levels, or do we on the other hand have an abundance of untapped resources?
-If resources are not available locally to implement a full inclusion model, do we have the ability to acquire them?

Reflection on the implications of potential research findings helps to identify possible areas for continued analysis and/or a need to develop a deeper understanding for the impact possible research findings will have on my campus.


5) Exploring Programmatic Patterns- identify data patterns and their impact:

Its not only important that we analyze data, develop a deeper understanding of data, and engage in self-reflection, but its also important that we ask the right questions in order to properly identify programmatic patterns that could otherwise be lost if we simply rely on straightforward interpretations of data. With that said, truly establishing whether or not there is a practical value in implementing a full inclusion model on my campus rests on my identification of problematic patterns in the achievement data, cultural responsiveness, and equity. Harris points out that disaggregating data collaboratively offers researchers the opportunity to review data in a number of ways that can move beyond personal reflection to a more program oriented perspective (Harris, pg 64). By collaboratively asking hard questions regarding the validity of the data collected in comparison to other campuses and districts implementing full inclusion models, I can assure that the programmatic data of various demographic groups are experiences that maximize their potential for success free of biases.


6) Determining Direction: approach for implementing action research:
Before implementing my action research project I must first confirm my approach. Reaffirming research priorities helps provide a supportive foundation for building consensus among the stakeholders, which also in turn reiterates the direction the research will take as it progresses. This is accomplished by asking the right questions. The following questions provide an suitable gauge for double checking the route taken to implement action research on full inclusion models:

-Is my research goal realistic?
-Is my research approach clear to others?
-Do I have support from the teachers implementing the research and my administration?
-Is there a reasonable plan in place for monitoring the collection of data and realistically gauging implementing a full inclusion model?
-How can I adjust my investigation in the event that unforeseen obstacles are encountered?

These are just a few of the questions that will reaffirm my approach and determine a direction squarely focused on establishing the practicality of implementing a full inclusion model to meet our unique campus needs.


7) Taking Action for School Improvement- creating a plan of action:

In order to organize my action research project, a written plan of action is necessary. This plan should outline the stakeholders responsible for implementing the research, the steps essential for monitoring the project, and summarize how the research findings will be addressed to the greater school community. The following brief outline summarizes the steps necessary for implementing action research on the practicality of full inclusion models.

-Persons responsible for implementation of research: administration, special education team leader, special education inclusion specialist, and general education teachers
-Focus: provide an inclusion model for one 4th and one 5th grade classroom focused on inclusion practices implemented during mathematics instruction in both classrooms for the entire school calendar year.
-Data Collection Step 1: nine weeks conference/planning sessions; every nine weeks special education team leader, inclusion teachers, and general education teachers will take one day to review general classroom data and individual general/special education student performance data. Interviews with teachers and students, along with planning for the next 9 week period, will also be conducted. *Local teacher surveys will be administered every 9 weeks.
-Data Collection Step 2: semester meetings/data review sessions; at the end of the fall and spring semester (prior to step 3- SBDM committee meeting), the special education team leader, principal, and assistant principal will review student performance data, teacher surveys, and discuss interview records.
-Data Review Step 3: end of year meeting; a comprehensive end of the year meeting will be held with the campus sight-based decision making committee to review the findings complied throughout the school year and discuss the possible expansion of a full inclusion model based on local research and campus successes.


8) Sustaining Improvement- tools for ongoing school improvement:

It’s important that regardless of the outcome of the proposed action research, that both the positive and negative pieces of research are used as learning experiences and spring boards for future research aimed at improving the overall school community. Action research should never be simply a beginning and an end, but rather a cyclical process whose end is the beginning of another cycle of inquiry and research. To maintain this cycle of research we must be willing to share our findings, accept differing perspectives, and always maintain a high level of consistency and programmatic equity. In doing so we will push our professional development to increase our understanding of student learning, thus enhancing overall student performance.


References:

Harris, S., Edmonson, S., and Combs, J. (2010). Examining what we do to improve our schools: 8 steps to improve our schools. Larchmont, NY: Eye on Education Press.

Dana, Nancy Fichman (2009). Leading with passion and knowledge: The principal as Action Researcher. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.

Week 2 Thought

This week I came across a quote that I felt summed up my feelings for more locally based professional development and inquiry.

"When educators research their own practices, they begin to visualize alternative arrangements for human and material resources to meet the needs of their diverse student groups, staff, and adminstrators. They are willing to invest more of their own resources and professional energy in larger efforts to improve schools" (Dana, pg. 62).


Reference:

Dana, Nancy Fichman (2009). Leading with passion and knowledge: The principal as Action Researcher. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.

How Educational Leaders Might Use Blogs

Blogs provide a new and evolving tool that educational leaders can use to capture active reflection, display action research as it unfolds, and model their commitment to being life-long learners.

What I've Learned About Action Research

Having read the first chapter of Nancy Dana’s book, Leading with Passion and Knowledge, I have a better grasp for what action research is and how it is conducted in educational settings. Researchers throughout the years have used a number of terms synonymously when referring to the concept of action research, such as practitioner inquiry and classroom research, just to name a few. While these terms do have slightly different meanings, at their heart is the same concept, a process an individual employs locally, intentionally, and methodically while studying educational practices with an end result being proactive change to improve student performance. From an administrator’s perspective, action research is a tool, when utilized properly that offers deeper insight into the impact that leadership practices play in school improvement efforts.

Traditionally, educational research has been primarily a linear activity applied by principals and teachers based on the finding of experts outside of the school environment (Dana, pg 4). This has resulting through the years in a top-down approach that often creates a professional development culture based on the rigid implementation of new foreign initiatives that fail to account for everyday events in public schools. In contrast, action research aims to reverse traditional approaches by grounding research in the realities of local campus practice, incorporating administrators and teachers as collaborators in the research process, all of which helps to generate a bottom-up approach. This facilitates greater campus change because both administrators and teachers are more likely to embrace change that is based on the information they themselves have collected and interpreted.


Reference:

Dana, Nancy Fichman (2009). Leading with passion and knowledge: The principal as Action Researcher. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.