Candice

8843-7103_PII_Template.dot



May 18, 2011 - It has been great working with everyone this quarter! I have valued your input. I have attached my final project in case it is easier to review in that format. Look forward to chatting with everyone in our final week.

**Performance Improvement Intervention** **General Education and Special Education: Bridging the Performance Gap** **Understanding the Individual Education Plan and Classroom Accommodations**

**Candice R Jones** **A00129005** **candice.jones2@waldenu.edu** **EDUC 8843-1 Leading and Managing Educational Technology** **Timothy Powell, PhD** **Walden University** **May 18, 2011**

**Executive Summary** Teachers today seek knowledge and understanding of their special education students but find themselves frustrated with their lack of implementation knowledge. Strategies aligned with implementing the special education student’s Individual Education Plan (IEP) and the accommodations needed to meet that student’s academic requirements can be accomplished while engaging those students in the core curriculum if teachers are able to gain the knowledge needed to differentiate the instruction. Communication and planning are factors which affect the teacher’s ability to implement the IEP as well. To fill this gap in student performance it is imperative that teachers receive on-going training and support through a training program which fosters continuous improvement, current knowledge and application of strategies to effectively implement IEPs, a support system which partners general education teachers, special education teachers, and administrators, and provides time to strategize, implement and reorganize. The performance improvement intervention outlined in this document proposes a program which has the components needed to fill the performance gap and meet the standards outline for success. The monetary costs over a time are minimal in comparison to the gains in teacher knowledge, improvement in school environment, and improvement in student achievement. At a low cost of just over four-thousand dollars per year teachers would be provided with a continuous training and support system which will support student achievement through strategic planning and fosters differentiation of instruction and full implementation of IEP’s in the classroom.

**General Education and Special Education: Bridging the Performance Gap** **Understanding the Individual Education Plan and Classroom Accommodations** **Morrow High School** **Problem Summary** There is a misunderstanding and lack of information by general education teachers when collaborating with special education teachers in regards to students with special needs and the accommodations and modifications needed in the classroom. Many times general education teachers are unsure of the processes and the strategic implementation required when serving special education students. There is a need for deeper understanding and differentiation of instruction when serving special education students in the general education classroom. **Background of Organization** Morrow High School is a public school located in Morrow Georgia, a suburb of the city of Atlanta. The school was built in 1969 and was the third high school built in the Clayton County Public School district. The school is under Title One funding and has approximately 2000 students. The special education department serves 160 students which are served in the general education and special education setting. The majority of the students in special education are served in the general education setting with accommodations and modifications provided by a general education teacher. This information is valuable to the problem and the gap in communication between the teachers in the special education department and the general education teachers. Providing information to the general education teachers through an in-service and reference program is the focus of my project. Information can be found on the county Web site as well as through personnel working for the system. The URL for Clayton County Public Schools is [] and the URL for Morrow High School is [], both Web sites can be used to gather additional information about the school and school system. **Stakeholders and Decision-Makers.** The people affected by my plan will include, staff, administrators, and students. The decision makers will be my principal, Patricia Hill, and the assistant principal, Larry Roberts, who is the designee for special education. Teachers will be the best sources of information for my project. I plan to interview both special education and general education teachers in determining the areas of need in the performance of their jobs of teaching students with disabilities and information dissemination. General education teachers and special education teachers who instruct special education students will help to provide insight into the environmental and individual areas in terms of performance gap. Interviewees in these areas include general education teachers Felecia Williams, Cynthia Roberts-Ellison, Chervona Clark and Kimberly Grant and special education teachers Deborah Roberts, Angela Baker, James George, and Khadija Mathis. Informal interviews were conducted and summarizations of the results are outlined. Interview questions are outlined in Appendix A and results are presented in Appendix B. The administrators indicate that training and time are important factors in closing the performance gap. Ms. Hill, principal, indicated that communication between teachers and proper training would support proper implementation of accommodations. Dr. Roberts, assistant principal stressed a need for proper training to address the performance gap. The general education teachers felt that proper training, cooperation of the special education team, and time to engage special education teachers in planning would be helpful. Special education teachers stressed inclusion in the planning process as a need and stress the need for understanding on the part of the classroom teacher. **Performance Gap: Cause Analysis** **Actual Current Performance.** General education teachers fail to recognize accommodation and lack knowledge of means to provide accommodations to students with special needs. Understanding of the student’s Individual Education Plan’s (IEP) is not viewed as a conditional of the general education teacher’s job responsibilities. These responsibilities fall only to the special education teacher. These factors affect the working relationships of the general education teacher, the special education teacher, the student, and the administrators. **Desired Performance.** IEP’s are implemented using strategies outlined by special education teachers. Special education students receive accommodations and modifications as outlined by their IEP and the general education teacher is partnered with the special education teacher in understanding and implementing the IEP as a team. The general education teacher will work with the special education teacher to document interventions and retain performance data which will be reported to the IEP team at the students annual review. The data will drive Response to Intervention strategies which will increase student performance or accommodations will be reassessed. Teachers who struggle in implementing will receive additional training increasing performance. **Performance Gap.** Although the performance gap will vary between individual general education teachers and given factors such as experience and time working with special education teachers and special education students, further investigation will provide insight into a difference in the understanding and implementation of IEP’s in the general education classroom. **Cause Analysis.** The teachers interviewed believe the problem developed due to lack of time, in planning and lack of training. Many factors have contributed to the performance gap. The problem developed in my school because of many factors including lack of knowledge about the implementation of the IEP in the general education classroom and lack of communication with special education teachers. Many general education teachers view the implementation of the IEP as the responsibility of the special education teacher. Many general education teachers have not been provided with current training concerning the federal laws associated with the implementation of an IEP. General education teachers lack knowledge of current strategies and interventions associated with the implementation of an IEP. The lack of training in these areas and the lack of ongoing support in the area of intervention strategies is one factor which is a cause for these factors in regard to lack of knowledge. Environmental factors also play a large role in the performance gap (Chevalier, 2007). An important factor is time, not enough time to communicate between teachers and planning is different (not common). Time is also a concern in the area of time for training. Teachers must be provided time to train as well as time to plan and implement strategies associated with the implementation of the IEP. The factors that affect performance are highly environmental, of the environmental factors all are a restraining force except “clear expectations” (Chevalier, p.115, 2007). Individual factors are of concern as well but are mixed in driving and restraining forces. **Organizational History and Background** **Goals.** The identification of the gap and closure of the gap will only occur if in line with organizational beliefs (Chevalier, 2007). The organizational goals are found in the schools mission and vision statements. The school seeks to transfer a skill set which will foster growth and development in a student beyond high school and in addition, the school seeks to become a school of excellence and high achievement (Morrow High School, 2011). In order for the school to reach its full potential, factors such as full implementation of special education students’ IEPs along with accommodations and an understanding of each student’s specific need must be understood and implemented by all classroom teachers. In order to fill this performance gap an intervention is necessary. **History.** Morrow High School has served special education students beginning with the introduction of federal legislation. Over the years and the introduction of federal law addressing special education, Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) 1975, and continuing with revisions through the current law, IDEA 2004, Morrow High School has served students with disabilities (United States Department of Education, 2010). Students are served in the general education and special education settings for disabilities including specific learning disabilities, emotional behavior disabilities, other health impairment, speech and language disorders, autism, and mild intellectual disorders. **Mission and Vision.** The Mission of Morrow High School: “To provide all students with a high quality education which will allow them to graduate and continue on to college, Technical school, military or the workforce with the highest possible skill set” (Morrow High School, 2011). The Vision of Morrow High School: “To be the highest academic achieving school in Clayton County, the Metro Area and the state of Georgia in the next 5 years” (Morrow High School, 2011). **Three Intervention Strategies** The intervention strategies proposed address the performance gap outlined in this project. The factors contributing to a performance gap are outlined by Chevalier (2007) and are addressed using low-cost strategies, medium-cost strategies, and high-cost strategies. Each of these strategies are explained below and will be followed by a follow up explanation and choice for the best intervention to meet the needs of the filling the performance gap. **Low end intervention.** The low-cost strategy I propose for closing the performance gap of understanding and implementation of the special education student’s IEP would be to provide a training session during the pre-planning session of the school year. This would be a cost effective means of filling the gap in knowledge/skills (Chevalier, 2007). This would combat the restraining forces of required knowledge and required skills, and would provide cross-training for general education teachers. Teachers and administrator report that training in the implementation of classroom accommodations is necessary to increase effectiveness. But this approach will only fill the gaps in human performance (Chevalier, 2007). The training would consist of three hours of training during the pre-planning session prior to the beginning of the school year. The training will deliver information regarding the implementation of accommodations outlined by the student’s IEP’s and will also outline the procedures for planning lessons and working with special education teachers as partners in the classroom. The training will open the door to communication and allow general education teachers time to ask questions and propose learning strategies of their own. The participants in the training sessions would include all school level personnel who have direct academic contact with student’s whom have IEP’s and will include general education teachers, special education teachers, paraprofessionals, and administrators. **Middle end intervention.** The medium-cost strategy I propose would include the training outlined in the low-cost solution but would also include strategies to address many of the other restraining forces and enhance the driving forces as outlined below. The steps taken for medium-cost strategy would include addressing INFORMATION – expectations would be outlined and supported by administration, relevant feedback would be provided by observation and meetings to discuss implementation with the department chairs, guidelines will be developed outlining proper procedures, performance coaching will be implemented using data from observation and surveys. RESOURCES – materials and tools – purchase behavior manuals which include interventions. Teachers have computers which is a strength to enhance this strength links to relevant web sites would be sent weekly. Addressing time – allow teachers time to practice and share knowledge as part of the faculty meetings and at work sessions throughout the year. Clear process and procedure - teachers understand the process importance. Safe organized environment – not an issue. INCENTIVES – financial incentives – provide stipends for teachers to attend training and sessions to work together throughout the year; other incentives – provide small incentives in form of recognition certificates and small gifts; enriched jobs - allow teachers to attend outside training and provide information to other teachers in additional training sessions; positive work environment – allow teachers to become a part of the solution will increase positive atmosphere. MOTIVES – motives aligned with work –driving force; employees desire to perform – driving force; expectation realistic – driving force; recruit/select right people – driving forces as well. CAPACITY – capacity to learn, capacity to do what is needed, recruit/select right people, emotional limitation – all are driving forces. KNOWLEDGE/SKILLS – All are restraining forces, except placement and are outline in the low-cost strategies and would be implemented under medium-cost as well. (Chevalier, 2007). **High end intervention.** The high-cost strategy would include addressing all the areas outlined under the low-cost and medium-cost strategies, however with a budget of $50,000.00; teachers could be given monetary rewards for successfully implementing the plan and for teaching children with special needs. In this aspect, teachers of students with special needs who successfully complete training throughout the year and continue to implement successful execution of accommodations as outlined by a continuous performance assessment and mentoring relationship with their supervising assistant principle will be rewarded with a performance based stipend. By providing performance stipends teachers will be motivated to attend all training sessions and implement the IEP’s as outlined in the assessment. This process will help to close the performance gap through motivating the teachers by rewarding them for their commitment. Experts in the field could hold work sessions for the teachers and hold sessions for the parents and members of the community. **Appropriate intervention.** Of the three intervention strategies outlined to close the performance gap, the middle end strategy is most appropriate and would provide the most gain in closing the gap. The justification will be outlined in the next section. The choice of utilizing the middle end strategies hinges on cost effectiveness, the direct relationship outlining the human performance factors, and the ability to implement a strategy which addresses the areas of need after analysis of the performance gap. The low end intervention does not provide for long standing support and tends to fall under the guise of trendy or one-shot fixes that are not proven to last in our school, or anywhere for that matter. The high end strategy is not likely to be adapted because of the costs involved. Our school district has struggled with funding due to economic shortfalls. This year the school calendared was shortened by five days, initially resulting in pay cuts for employees and cuts to programs. In addition, the initial budget for the 2011-2012 school year for the school district was short by over six-million dollars, which caused many cuts included an additional five day furlough to be tacked on to the end of the 2010-2011 school year. With these financial restraints, the high end intervention could not be implemented at this time. **Justification for Intervention Strategy** My choice to propose to the organization as a solution to close the performance gap is the middle end intervention. The middle end intervention allows for continuous improvement through coaching and progress performance assessment as outlined by Chevalier (2007) and includes strategic planning by allowing for the inclusion of the stakeholders in the development and implementation of the project (Kaufman, Oakley-Browne, Watkins, & Leigh, 2003). The middle end intervention also addresses the needs assessment outlined in the development of the intervention plan. Weaknesses effecting the performance gap are addressed in all areas outlined in the implementation of the intervention and strengths are played upon to help close the performance gap. Data from informal interviews indicate the need for continuous support and training which are included in the middle end intervention. An additional strength of the middle end intervention is that it is focused on the five roles of an effective manger (Chevalier, 2003). Limitations which may arise are pressure for time as other projects later in the school year may compete for training and assessment time, motivating factors must be monitored to ensure their feasibility and necessity, and the training must be keep current and monitored for repetitiveness. This strategy is more likely than the low end and high end interventions to close the performance gap because it incorporates continuous improvement and does not require large amounts of revenue to implement. Data gathered through informal interviews of special education teachers, administrators, and general education teachers indicates that training is needed and necessary. General education teachers indicate a desire to implement the IEP as outlined but lack skills to address the situation, special education teachers and general education teachers lack planning time and administrators require information and training to understand the process and provide guidance to teachers. These areas of concern will be addressed through the implementation of the middle end interventions. The middle end interventions will allow for training and the development of a knowledge base, as they will include an intense training course during pre-planning which will be followed by continuous and additional training throughout the school year and regulated through performance assessment. The rejection of the low end intervention is based on the shortfalls within the intervention. The one strength of the plan would be that it would not require the time and resources associated with the ongoing professional development involved in the implementation of the middle end intervention. The low-end intervention would require only a short training session and no additional funding would be needed. However, the low end intervention only addresses immediate needs. The plan does not include strategic planning and an overall view of the performance gap (Kaufman et al., 2003). Kaufman (2003) describes a short term fix as giving in to the quick fix, and this does action does not address the long term payoff needed to address this gap and promote positive social change within the organization. Quick fixes have not been successful in the past at our school as supported by the informal interviews conducted. Ms. Williams, a general educator stated that the trainings attended by teachers are seldom taken seriously because teachers attend are taught interventions or are trained regarding new methods and then teachers are left to implement or many choose not to because of time constraints and lack of resources and support. I one-shot training such as the low end intervention would fall into the same category and would fail to close the performance gap. The high end intervention finds its strength in increasing motivation. Although teachers are self motivated and for the most part seek to improve society through inspiring young minds, encouraging implementation through stipends for high performance are motivating factors. Increasing awareness by informing the public and providing expert training to teachers by pay for additional expert sessions and trainings will also foster excitement and increase motivation but the downfall to this intervention is the cost factor. Our district has had to cut programs and has cut teacher pay through furloughs twice in this school year. Although the high end intervention would increase awareness, provide excitement, and increase motivation within the community and the school it is not a necessary measure to close the performance gap. These additional measures would help to promote the interventions outlined in the middle end intervention but are not necessary for success. In addition, the costs occurred to implement the high end intervention prevent the plans execution at this time. The organizational goals of the school and the district are centered on student success. Student success which can be transferred to the “real world” when the student leaves high school. These goals apply to all students. In order to meet these needs the performance gap must be filled in meeting the needs of our special education students in the acquisition of knowledge. The middle end intervention proposed will give teachers the knowledge and understanding needed to create a learning environment in which all students’ needs are addressed through implementation of the IEP and differentiation of instruction allowing special needs students to focus on their assets and unique learning styles. **The Manager’s Many Roles** The project manager’s role would be that of a coach, leader, counselor, motivator, and teamwork development. The department chairs would be developed as first line coaches who would be trained by the project manager in the utilization of the tools outlined by the situational leadership model. The initial coaching role would already be in place, as the project manager would outline the management plan for each of the department chairs with the implementation of the middle end intervention. The department chairs’ roles would include leadership as they seek to close the performance gap through the implementation of IEP’s in the classroom through and by classroom teachers, these leaders would assess performance using situational leadership in an ongoing process which includes assessment of willingness and ability to perform the job. The needs of the teachers will be addressed through training, motivation, and counseling by the department chairs. In addition, teachers will develop teamwork through additional planning and meetings to attend to concerns and needs and development of strategies to fill the performance gap. Administrators will address the needs of the leaders through coaching and the roles outlined in each area in the same manner the department heads address these areas with the individual teachers. (Chevalier, 2003) Resource management techniques will include a tracking system used to develop the needs of the organization through performance assessment. Data will be collected which follows the needs, performance assessments, and concerns of the stakeholders. This data will be analyzed and assessed and changes will be implemented through the continuous training process. This process with take place with the development of assessment tools through surveys and interview data and held in a data base for assessment. Delivery system management will include recording of all training sessions which will be held on the schools server for later viewing and reference. Teachers will have access to all sessions. Additional training modules will be included as enhancements and surveys will be conducted to determine the effectiveness of training. Presentations will also be available using Power Point presentations. A blog will be set up so that teachers can share additional information and strategies and helpful links to Web sites will be provided as well. Surveys will be conducted and recorded concerning the implementation of the intervention. The surveys will be sent to all stakeholders at the conclusion of each major training and bi-monthly to check the progress of the intervention and adjust the implementation toward continuous improvement. These surveys will include open ended questions in an effort toward continuous improvement and additional trainings will be implemented as outlined by the strategic plan and the results of performance assessments. **The Manager as Change Agent** The manager’s role as a change agent will include a combination of centralized and decentralized hybrid diffusion system (Rogers, 2003). The project manager will use the roles described in the previous section to initiate the original implementation which will involve a top down or centralized system. Decentralization will occur as peers (teachers) work together to proliferate the change (Rogers, 2003). Evaluation of the project and feedback from participants will be taken into consideration and the end users needs will drive changes to the project. This process will allow the program to develop contingent upon the needs of the user (Rogers, 2003). **Financial and Budget Information.** Appendix C. The intervention strategy chosen to address the performance gap is the middle end strategy. The cost to initiate the middle end strategy would be as follows: Ø 5 During common planning Ø 4 (Quarterly) in Faculty Meetings Ø 2 Paid Saturday Strategy Meetings 2 hours each || Cost Associated Ø $0 Ø $0 Ø $25.00 per hour 50 teachers, total cost $2500.00 || Ø Purchase 2 plaques to award collaboration of the year Ø Certificates Ø Desk gifts – pencils, pens, etc || Gift Costs Ø $22.50 each x2, total $45.00 http://www.trophycentral.com/simenplaq.html Ø $0, print from computer Ø $20.00 per teacher x 25, total $500.00 || **Total Cost Five Year Plan: $21,875.00** || The budget allows for the plan to be implemented over a five year period. A strength of the middle end strategy is its implementation over an extended time period. By continuing to address the performance gap through evaluation of the program and through performance evaluations of those engaged in implementing the strategy the “novelty factor” is removed and the strategies are soon absorbed in the everyday working of the classroom (Kaufman et al., 2003). It is imperative that the continued evaluation and needs assessments continue throughout the program to ensure stability and decrease participant perspective of fads associated with the implementation of new programs (Kaufman et al., 2003). **Project Assessment.** The project will be evaluated through a series of formative and summative assessments. The department chairs and assistant principals will visit the collaborative classrooms four times during the school year. These visits will occur toward the end of each nine week grading period. The formative assessments will occur during the first three phases and the final summative assessment will occur at the end of the school year. The formative assessments will begin with an interview with the teacher prior to the observation. The formative assessment is presented in Appendix D. The questions included in this part of the formative assessment will focus on checking for understanding and will allow teachers to opportunity to have their questions answered concerning any aspect of meeting the needs of the student and satisfying the requirements of the IEP. The observation piece of the formative assessment will focus on determining the level of implementation which is taking place in the classroom and will allow observers to determine the level of intervention needed to fill the performance gap. The teacher will then meet again with the Department Chair to discuss results and needs for additional training. The summative assessment will be conducted prior to the end of the school year. The summative assessment is included in Appendix E. The summative assessment will focus on follow through concerning implementation of suggested interventions and will also measure the effectiveness of additional training sessions. Student data will also be gathered and analyzed in the form of student grades and work samples. The summative assessment will be utilized to measure teacher awareness and project effectiveness. At the end of each year, the assessors will convene and analyze project effectiveness and plan the steps for the next year’s implementation. At the completion of the five year cycle, the project will be analyzed and changes/adjustments to the plan will be evaluated.
 * **Strategic Action** || **Cost** ||
 * Initial 3 day training || No cost associated with training, training will take place during pre-planning ||
 * 25 possible collaborative and small group classrooms || Purchase PRIM Manual for each classroom $40.00 each, total $1000.00 http://www.hawthorne-ed.com/pages/pre-referral/pr2.html ||
 * Additional Training Sessions
 * Incentives (Gifts)
 * Food and drink for meetings || 11 meetings, 30.00, total $330.00 ||
 * || **Total Cost Per Year: $ 4375.00**

References Chevalier, R. D. (2007). A manager's guide to improving workplace performance. New York, NY: American Management Association. Clayton County Public School. (2011). Mission, vision, belief statement, and goals. Retrieved March 27, 2011, from [] Kaufman, R., Oakley-Browne, H., Watkins, R., & Leigh, D. (2003). //Strategic planning for success: Aligning people, performance, and payoffs.// San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass/Pfeiffer. Morrow High School. (2011). Mission &vision. Retrieved March 27, 2011, from [] Rogers, E. M. (2003). //Diffusion of innovations// (5th ed.). New York, NY: Free Press. United States Department of Education. (2010, November 19). Thirty-five years of progress in educating children with disabilities through IDEA. Washington, DC: Author. Retrieved March 28, 2011, from []

**Appendices** Appendix A: Interview Questions Interview Questions: Principal: 1) What are your concerns with collaborative classrooms in terms of communication? 2) What issues do you believe influence proper implementation of accommodations in the classroom? 3) Are there factors which could improve teacher performance in regards to implementation of accommodations that you suggest? Teachers: 1) What factors influence implementation of special education student accommodations? 2) How could your performance be improved in the area of implementation of accommodations?

Appendix B: Interview Transcripts or Summary Summary of Informal Interviews: Principal and Assistant Principal: 1) What are your concerns with collaborative classrooms in terms of communication? The administrators, have noticed a disconnect between collaborative teaching teams whom have worked together less than 3 years. There are numerous teams in this situation due numbers of special education students in the classrooms and lack of communication between the teachers. They believe collaborative planning and ongoing training may help. They also believe that both teachers should be engaged in teaching the curriculum and in applying accommodations. Teachers should work as a collaborative team.  2) What issues do you believe influence proper implementation of accommodations in the classroom? Administrators are concerned with logistics, records of accommodations and implementations should be logged. They are concerned about awareness as well. They want to be sure that teachers are aware of student’s needs. 3) Are there factors which could improve teacher performance in regards to implementation of accommodations that you suggest? Differentiation of instruction and teacher attention to commentary should apply an additional layer to reach students with disabilities. Implementations of the accommodations are important and training in these areas could help.  Teachers: 1) What factors influence implementation of special education student accommodations? General Education Teachers rely on Special Education Teachers to provide accommodations, several believe that teaching the curriculum is their job and “special education services” fall beyond their control. They state that at times special education teachers are pulled away from the classroom and services may not be implemented in this case. General Education Teachers state they do not have enough knowledge and have not been provided with training to implement fully the IEP. Special Education Teachers feel that the General Education Teacher should be able to implement the IEP as they provided them with the documentation. Special Education Teachers state that duties should be shared. 2) How could your performance be improved in the area of implementation of accommodations? General Education Teachers stated that training in the implementation of IEP’s and accommodations would be helpful. All teachers agree that training which is supported throughout the year and is ongoing would increase their abilities to perform in all capacities of implementation. All teachers agree that time to plan and work together would also increase their knowledgebase allowing them to plan for implementation and to respond to the needs of students on and individual basis. All teachers welcome support and constructive criticism from administrators. Guidance is welcome.

Appendix C. Budget Ø 5 During common planning Ø 4 (Quarterly) in Faculty Meetings Ø 2 Paid Saturday Strategy Meetings 2 hours each || Cost Associated Ø $0 Ø $0 Ø $25.00 per hour 50 teachers, total cost $2500.00 || Ø Purchase 2 plaques to award collaboration of the year Ø Certificates Ø Desk gifts – pencils, pens, etc || Gift Costs Ø $22.50 each x2, total $45.00 http://www.trophycentral.com/simenplaq.html Ø $0, print from computer Ø $20.00 per teacher x 25, total $500.00 || **Total Cost Five Year Plan: $21,875.00** ||
 * **Strategic Action** || **Cost** ||
 * Initial 3 day training || No cost associated with training, training will take place during pre-planning ||
 * 25 possible collaborative and small group classrooms || Purchase PRIM Manual for each classroom $40.00 each, total $1000.00 http://www.hawthorne-ed.com/pages/pre-referral/pr2.html ||
 * Additional Training Sessions
 * Incentives (Gifts)
 * Food and drink for meetings || 11 meetings, 30.00, total $330.00 ||
 * || **Total Cost Per Year: $ 4375.00**

Appendix D: Formative Evaluation Instrument Post Observation Interview: Observation:
 * Teacher Name: ||
 * Collaborative Partner: ||
 * Subject: ||
 * Observer: ||
 * Number of Training Sessions Attended? ||  ||
 * Collaborative Planning Used? How many? ||  ||
 * List Questions of Participant: || Answers Given: ||
 * Accommodations Accessible? ||  ||
 * Observation Of Differentiation? ||  ||
 * Individual Student Needs Recognized? ||  ||
 * Both Teachers Involved in Student Focused Learning? ||  ||
 * Describe the Learning Environment ||  ||
 * Describe Student Engagement ||  ||
 * Additional Comments/Suggestions: ||

Appendix E: Summative Evaluation Instrument Post Observation Interview: Observation:
 * Teacher Name: ||
 * Collaborative Partner: ||
 * Subject: ||
 * Observer: ||
 * How effective were the training sessions? ||  ||
 * Was feedback effective? ||  ||
 * Were any sessions missed? ||  ||
 * Accommodations visibly used or understanding of use displayed ||  ||
 * Differentiation used in student focused lessons ||  ||
 * Individual Student Needs Are Recognized ||  ||
 * Both Teachers Involved in Student Focused Learning ||  ||
 * Learning Environment Encourages Student Interaction ||  ||
 * Grades are Consistent with Modifications of Assessments ||  ||
 * Additional Comments/Suggestions: ||

May 8, 2011

**The Manager as Change Agent** The manager’s role as a change agent will include a combination of centralized and decentralized hybrid diffusion system (Rogers, 2003). The project manager will use the roles described in the previous section to initiate the original implementation which will involve a top down or centralized system. Decentralization will occur as peers (teachers) work together to proliferate the change (Rogers, 2003). Evaluation of the project and feedback from participants will be taken into consideration and the end users needs will drive changes to the project. This process will allow the program to develop contingent upon the needs of the user (Rogers, 2003). **Financial and Budget Information.** The intervention strategy chosen to address the performance gap is the middle end strategy. The cost to initiate the middle end strategy would be as follows: **Total Cost Five Year Plan: $21,875.00** ||
 * **Strategic Action** || **Cost** ||
 * Initial 3 day training || No cost associated with training, training will take place during pre-planning ||
 * 25 possible collaborative and small group classrooms || Purchase PRIM Manual for each classroom $40.00 each, total $1000.00 http://www.hawthorne-ed.com/pages/pre-referral/pr2.html ||
 * Additional Training Sessions
 * 5 During common planning
 * 4 (Quarterly) in Faculty Meetings
 * 2 Paid Saturday Strategy Meetings 2 hours each || Cost Associated
 * $0
 * $0
 * $25.00 per hour 50 teachers, total cost $2500.00 ||
 * Incentives (Gifts)
 * Purchase 2 plaques to award collaboration of the year
 * Certificates
 * Desk gifts – pencils, pens, etc || Gift Costs
 * $22.50 each x2, total $45.00 http://www.trophycentral.com/simenplaq.html
 * $0, print from computer
 * $20.00 per teacher x 25, total $500.00 ||
 * Food and drink for meetings || 11 meetings, 30.00, total $330.00 ||
 * || **Total Cost Per Year: $ 4375.00**

The budget allows for the plan to be implemented over a five year period. A strength of the middle end strategy is its implementation over an extended time period. By continuing to address the performance gap through evaluation of the program and through performance evaluations of those engaged in implementing the strategy the “novelty factor” is removed and the strategies are soon absorbed in the everyday working of the classroom (Kaufman et al., 2003). It is imperative that the continued evaluation and needs assessments continue throughout the program to ensure stability and decrease participant perspective of fads associated with the implementation of new programs (Kaufman et al., 2003).

Still working on the evaluations - any suggestions here are appreciated! Thanks! Here is what I have so far

**Project Assessment.** The project will be evaluated through a series of formative and summative assessments. The department chairs and assistant principals will visit the collaborative classrooms four times during the school year. These visits will occur toward the end of each nine week grading period. The formative assessments will occur during the first three phases and the final summative assessment will occur at the end of the school year. The formative assessments will begin with an interview with the teacher prior to the observation. The questions included in this part of the formative assessment will focus on checking for understanding and will allow teachers to opportunity to have their questions answered concerning any aspect of meeting the needs of the student and satisfying the requirements of the IEP. The observation piece of the formative assessment will focus on determining the level of implementation which is taking place in the classroom and will allow observers to determine the level of intervention needed to fill the performance gap. The teacher will then meet again with the Department Chair to discuss results and needs for additional training. The summative assessment will be conducted prior to the end of the school year. The summative assessment will focus on follow through concerning implementation of suggested interventions and will also measure the effectiveness of additional training sessions. Student data will also be gathered and analyzed in the form of student grades and work samples. The summative assessment will be utilized to measure teacher awareness and project effectiveness. At the end of each year, the assessors will convene and analyze project effectiveness and plan the steps for the next year’s implementation.

April 25, 2011

**Justification for Intervention Strategy** My choice to propose to the organization as a solution to close the performance gap is the middle end intervention. The middle end intervention allows for continuous improvement through coaching and progress performance assessment as outlined by Chevalier (2007) and includes strategic planning by allowing for the inclusion of the stakeholders in the development and implementation of the project (Kaufman, Oakley-Browne, Watkins, & Leigh, 2003). The middle end intervention also addresses the needs assessment outlined in the development of the intervention plan. Weaknesses are addressed in all areas outlined in the implementation of the intervention and strengths are played upon to help close the performance gap. An additional strength of the middle end intervention is that it is focused on the five roles of an effective manger (Chevalier, 2003). Limitations which may arise are pressure for time as other projects later in the school year may compete for training and assessment time, motivating factors must be monitored to ensure their feasibility and necessity, and the training must be keep current and monitored for repetitiveness. This strategy is more likely than the low end and high end interventions to close the performance gap because it incorporates continuous improvement and does not require large amounts of revenue to implement. Data gathered through informal interviews of special education teachers, administrators, and general education teachers indicates that training is needed and necessary. General education teacher indicate a desire to implement the IEP as outlined but lack skills to address the situation, special education teachers and general education teachers lack planning time and administrators require information and training to understand the process and provide guidance to teachers. These areas of concern will be addressed through the implementation of the middle end interventions. The middle end interventions will allow for training and the development of a knowledge base, as they will include an intense training course during pre-planning which will be followed by continuous and additional training throughout the school year and regulated through performance assessment. The rejection of the low end intervention is based on the shortfalls within the intervention. The one strength of the plan would be that it would not require the time and resources associated with the ongoing professional development involved in the implementation of the middle end intervention. The low-end intervention would require only a short training session and no additional funding would be needed. However, the low end intervention only addresses immediate needs. The plan does not include strategic planning and an overall view of the performance gap (Kaufman et al., 2003). Kaufman (2003) describes a short term fix as giving in to the quick fix, and this does action does not address the long term payoff needed to address this gap and promote positive social change within the organization. Quick fixes have not been successful in the past at our school as supported by the informal interviews conducted. Ms. Williams, a general educator stated that the trainings attended by teachers are seldom taken seriously because teachers attend are taught interventions or are trained regarding new methods and then teachers are left to implement or many choose not to because of time constraints and lack of resources and support. I one-shot training such as the low end intervention would fall into the same category and would fail to close the performance gap. The high end intervention finds its strength in increasing motivation. Although teachers are self motivated and for the most part seek to improve society through inspiring young minds, encouraging implementation through stipends for high performance are motivating factors. Increasing awareness by informing the public and providing expert training to teachers by pay for additional expert sessions and trainings will also foster excitement and increase motivation but the downfall to this intervention is the cost factor. Our district has had to cut programs and has cut teacher pay through furloughs twice in this school year. Although the high end intervention would increase awareness, provide excitement, and increase motivation within the community and the school it is not a necessary measure to close the performance gap. These additional measures would help to promote the interventions outlined in the middle end intervention but are not necessary for success. The organizational goals of the school and the district are centered on student success. Student success which can be transferred to the “real world” when the student leaves high school. These goals apply to all students. In order to meet these needs the performance gap must be filled in meeting the needs of our special education students in the acquisition of knowledge. The middle end intervention proposed will give teachers the knowledge and understanding needed to create a learning environment in which all students’ needs are addressed through implementation of the IEP and differentiation of instruction allowing special needs students to focus on their assets and unique learning styles. **The Manager’s Many Roles** The project manager’s role would be that of a coach, leader, counselor, motivator, and teamwork development. The department chairs would be developed as first line coaches who would include training in the utilization of the tools outlined by the situational leadership model. The initial coaching role would already be in place, as the management plan would be outlined for each of the department chairs with the implementation of the middle end intervention. Their roles would include leadership as they seek to close the performance gap through the implementation of IEP’s in the classroom through and by classroom teachers, these leaders would assess performance using situational leadership in an ongoing process which includes assessment of willingness and ability to perform the job. The needs of the teachers will be addressed through training, motivation, and counseling by the department chairs. In addition, teachers will develop teamwork through additional planning and meetings to attend to concerns and needs and development of strategies to fill the performance gap. Administrators will address the needs of the leaders through coaching and the roles outlined in each area in the same manner the department heads address these areas with the individual teachers. (Chevalier, 2003) Resource management techniques will include a tracking system used to develop the needs of the organization through performance assessment. Data will be collected which follows the needs, performance assessments, and concerns of the stakeholders. This data will be analyzed and assessed and changes will be implemented through the continuous training process. This process with take place with the development of assessment tools through surveys and interview data and held in a data base for assessment. Delivery system management will include recording of all training sessions which will be held on the schools server for later viewing and reference. Teachers will have access to all sessions. Additional training modules will be included as enhancements and surveys will be conducted to determine the effectiveness of training. Presentations will also be available using Power Point presentations. A blog will be set up so that teachers can share additional information and strategies and helpful links to Web sites will be provided as well. Surveys will be conducted and recorded concerning the implementation of the intervention. The surveys will be sent to all stakeholders at the conclusion of each major training and bi-monthly to check the progress of the intervention and adjust the implementation toward continuous improvement. These surveys will include open ended questions in an effort toward continuous improvement and additional trainings will be implemented as outlined by the strategic plan and the results of performance assessments.


 * April 24, 2011 Update to Appropriate Intervention**

**Appropriate intervention.** Of the three intervention strategies outlined to close the performance gap, the middle end strategy is most appropriate and would provide the most gain in closing the gap. The justification will be outlined in the next section. The choice of utilizing the middle end strategies hinges on cost effectiveness, the direct relationship outlining the human performance factors, and the ability to implement a strategy which addresses the areas of need after analysis of the performance gap. The low end intervention does not provide for long standing support and tends to fall under the guise of trendy or one-shot fixes that are not proven to last in our school, or anywhere for that matter. The high end strategy is not likely to be adapted because of the costs involved. Our school district has struggled with funding due to economic shortfalls. This year the school calendared was shortened by five days, initially resulting in pay cuts for employees and cuts to programs. In addition, the initial budget for the 2011-2012 school year for the school district was short by over six-million dollars, which caused many cuts included a additional five day furlough to be tacked on to the end of the 2010-2011 school year. With these financial restraints, the high end intervention could not be implemented at this time.


 * April 17, 2011**


 * I believe the best intervention for my plan would be the Medium-Cost Strategy - of course I would love to implement the high-cost strategy but it is really dreaming big and the costs would out weigh the benefits. Low-cost strategies would not foster an environment of learning which is a factor in the success of this project.**

**April 06, 2011**

**Assignment A3.1 Intervention Strategies** Low-Cost Strategy: The low-cost strategy I propose for closing the performance gap of understanding and implementation of the special education student’s IEP would be to provide a training session during the pre-planning session of the school year. This would be a cost effective means of filling the gap in knowledge/skills (Chevalier, 2007). This would combat the restraining forces of required knowledge, required skills, and would provide cross-training for general education teachers. But this approach will only fill theses gaps in human performance (Chevalier, 2007).

Medium-Cost Strategy: The medium-cost strategy I propose would include the training outlined in the low-cost solution but would address many of the other restraining forces and enhance the driving forces. The steps taken for medium-cost strategy would include addressing INFORMATION – expectations would be outlined and supported by administration, relevant feedback would be provided by observation and meetings to discuss implementation with the department chairs, guidelines will be developed outlining proper procedures, performance coaching will be implemented using data from observation and surveys. RESOURCES – materials and tools – purchase behavior manuals which include interventions, teachers have computers strength – send links to relevant web sites; time – allow teachers time to practice and share knowledge as part of the faculty meetings and at work sessions throughout the year; clear process and procedure - teachers understand the process importance; safe organized environment – not an issue; INCENTIVES – financial incentives – provide stipends for teachers to attend training and sessions to work together throughout the year; other incentives – provide small incentives in form of recognition certificates and small gifts; enriched jobs - allow teachers to attend outside training and provide information to other teachers in additional training sessions; positive work environment – allow teachers to become a part of the solution will increase positive atmosphere. MOTIVES – motives aligned with work –driving force; employees desire to perform – driving force; expectation realistic – driving force; recruit/select right people – driving forces as well. CAPACITY – capacity to learn, capacity to do what is needed, recruit/select right people, emotional limitation – all are driving forces. KNOWLEDGE/SKILLS – All are restraining forces, except placement and are outline in the low-cost strategies and would be implemented under medium-cost as well. (Chevalier, 2007).

High-Cost Strategy: The high-cost strategy would include addressing all the areas outlined under the low-cost and medium-cost strategies, however with a budget of 50,000; teachers could be given pay raises for successfully implementing the plan and for teaching children with special needs. Experts in the field could hold work sessions for the teachers and hold sessions for the parents and members of the community.

Reference: Chevalier, R. D. (2007). A manager's guide to improving workplace performance. New York, NY: American Management Association.


 * March 31, 2011**




 * March 27, 2011**


 * Assignment A2.1 **


 * The Performance Gap**

Problem Restated: General education teachers successfully implementing the IEP of special education students by providing accommodations and strategic differentiated instruction based on individual strengths and weaknesses.

Present Level of Performance: General education teachers fail to recognize accommodation and lack knowledge of means to provide accommodations to students with special needs.

Desired Level of Performance: IEP’s are implemented using strategies outlined by special education teachers.

Lack of knowledge about the implementation of the IEP in the general education classroom and lack of communication with special education teachers. Not enough time to communicate between teachers, planning is different (not common), lack of knowledge by the general education teacher concerning IEP’s. Environmental Factors: Information driving forces: clear expectations. Restraining forces: relevant feedback, relevant guidelines, & performance coaching. Resources: driving forces: none restraining forces: materials/tools, time, clear processes/procedures, & safe/organized environment. Incentives: driving forces none. Restraining forces: financial, other, enriched jobs, positive work environment. Individual Factors: Motives driving forces: motives aligned with work, employees desire to perform. Restraining forces: expectations are realistic, recruit selection of right people. Capacity driving forces capacity to learn, capacity to do what is needed, emotional limitations. Restraining forces: recruit/select the right people. Knowledge/Skills driving forces: required knowledge Restraining forces: required skills, placement, cross-trained.
 * Cause Analysis**
 * 1) Why do you think this problem developed in your company?
 * 1) Why does this gap exist?

The factors that affect performance are highly environmental, of the environmental factors all are a restraining force except “clear expectations”. Individual factors are of concern as well but are mixed in driving and restraining forces.

**Additional Background Information:**

It is important to understand the mission of an organization in order to close the performance gap. The identification of the gap and closure will only occur if in line with organizational beliefs (Chevalier, 2007).

Morrow High School’s Mission (Morrow High School, 2011) To provide all students with a high quality education which will allow them to graduate and continue on to college, Technical school, military or the workforce with the highest possible skill set.

Clayton County’s Mission and Beliefs (Clayton County Public Schools, 2011) Mission Statement The mission of Clayton County Public Schools is to be accountable for providing a globally competitive education that empowers students to achieve academic and personal goals and to become productive, responsible citizens. Belief Statements


 * || Education is the shared responsibility of the home, the school, and the community. ||
 * || An involved parent will enhance the educational experience of every child. ||
 * || Communication and understanding among all stakeholders of our diverse community are essential to achieving the goals of education. ||
 * || Learning is most productive when the needs of each child are met through instruction provided by competent teachers. ||
 * || We believe that learning is a continuous process. ||
 * || A learning environment where children experience security, care, dignity, and respect is essential. ||
 * || We believe that children have first priority on all of our resources. ||
 * || Children must accept responsibility for their learning and improvement of their future.

References: Chevalier, R. D. (2007). A manager's guide to improving workplace performance. New York, NY: American Management Association. Clayton County Public School. (2011). Mission, vision, belief statement, and goals. Retrieved March 27, 2011, from [] Morrow High School. (2011). Mission &vision. Retrieved March 27, 2011, from [] ||

March 20, 2011


 * Assignment A1.3**

Name of the Organization: Morrow High School

Problem Summary: Misunderstanding and lack of information by general education teachers when collaborating with students with special needs and the accommodations and modifications needed in the classroom.

Background Information: Morrow High School is a public school locating in Morrow Georgia, a suburb of the city of Atlanta. The school was built in 1969 and was the third high school built in the Clayton County Public School district. The school is under Title One funding and has approximately 2000 students. The special education department serves 160 students which are served in the general education and special education setting. The majority of the students in special education are served in the general education setting with accommodations and modifications provided by a general education teacher. This information is valuable to the problem and the gap in communication between the teachers in the special education department and the general education teachers. Providing information to the general education teachers through an in-service and reference program is the focus of my project. Information can be found on the county Web site as well as through personnel working for the system.

URL Clayton County Public Schools [] URL Morrow High School []

Stakeholders & Decision Makers: The people affected by my plan will include, staff, administrators, and students. The decision maker will be my principal. Teachers will be the best sources of information for my project. I plan to interview both special education and general education teachers in determining the areas of need in the performance of their jobs of teaching students with disabilities and information dissemination.