What are the different types of assessments and evaluations used in your educational setting?

Various forms of assessment are used in school settings. Assessments are used to determine the quality of the whole school as well as the assessment performance of the teachers and students within the school.

The Southern Association Colleges and Schools (SACS) is built on a set of quality standards and accreditation that applies to public schools accredited by the formed Council on Accreditation and School Improvement (CASI) (SACS CASI, 2005). These assessment standards are built on guidelines that are directed by an evaluation process through a committee. SACS CASI ensures that schools who are accredited "(a) meet standards, (b) engage in continuous improvement, and (c) provide for quality assurance (SACS CASI, 2005, p. 4). Each school under the 5-year cycle review must provide a summary of evidence that illustrates the effective processes of the school's vision, profile, plan, and results.

In a school setting, SACS CASI is a very important assessment process for a school. It validates the quality and belief of the purpose and existing standards in a school that must be evident and viable for student success. The school's organization and culture is based upon the driving directions of the SACS CASI standards; beliefs and mission; governance and leadership; curriculum; instruction; assessment and evaluation; resources; support services for student learning; stakeholder communications and relationships; and continuous process of school improvement (SACS CASI, 2005). The school's Local Educational Agency (LEA) spend tremendous amounts of dollars each year to ensure that these standards are the guiding principals within each school through staff development, quality assurance visits, and results from standardized testing, as well as yearly professional evaluations of staff and teachers.

Teachers undergo in-depth assessment and evaluation process using the state's Teacher Performance Appraisal Instrument (TPAI). School administrators use the TPAI to assess teachers during classroom instruction. This assessment tools evaluates teachers on management of instructional time; management of student behavior; instructional presentation; instructional monitoring; instructional feedback; facilitating instruction; communicating within the educational environment; and performing non-instructional duties (NCDPI, 2007). Each area in the assessment requires a check rating the teachers' performance from above standard, at standard, below standard, and unsatisfactory. Supporting evidence from the observation must be written in a narrative format to support the checked rating of the teachers' performance. The TPAI is very detailed and supports the SACS CASI standards that teachers must utilize daily in the classroom in order for students to demonstrate positive academic performance on state standardized tests.

At present time, the ultimate assessment is the academic performance on reading and math standardized tests. The results determine if a school has met adequate yearly progress (AYP) based on the federal guidelines of No Child Left Behind (NCLB). This assessment tool is a very informative tool and seems to be the tool to determine if the teaching quality is as effective as needed and there is evidence that the quality indicators of SACS CASI are in fact in place in the school setting. It has been witnessed that schools demonstrating quality achievement have been noted as below standard due to the assessment findings of the NCLB. For example schools in Maryland that were once known for their academic student successes are now going through dramatic changes because the schools are not meeting adequate yearly progress (AYP) under NCLB (Fletcher, 2005).

Various levels of assessment are valuable tools in providing information. The key to any assessment is to be informed as to what the assessment tool will actually measure. Clawson (2006) provides a true picture of results measure. Results measures monitor past performance, but they don't shed much light on the current processes that determine whether the goals will be achieved.

References

Clawson, J. G. (2006). Level three leadership: Getting below the surface (3rd ed.).Upper

Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.

Fletcher, M. A. (2005). Federal mandate: Is the No Child Left Behind act making the

grade? The Crisis, 112, 16-19.

Public Schools of North Carolina. (2007). Teacher Performance Appraisal Instrument. Retrieved April 11, 2007, from http://www.dpi.state.nc.us/

SACS CASI Accreditation Standards. (2005). Accreditation Standards for Quality Schools. Retrieved April 11, 2007, from http://. sacscasi.org

Does educational organizations ever try to implement too much?

The major scenario affecting the educational work setting is the development of learning communities in the school system. The local educational agency (LEA) is instructed by the State Department of Public Instruction to implement learning communities at each school. The State Department of Public Instruction is voicing this directive as a result of the LEA's sanctions due to the federal mandates of No Child Left Behind. As Clawson (2006) notes effective leadership does not "put the cart before the horse" (p. 117). In other words, the goal of learning communities in this LEA is to develop educators to be more driven in their own professional development utilizing research-base instruction from participating in an online course, thus improving their teaching and student learning performance. The disruption in each school is a result in the lack of choice that teachers have in whether to participate in the school's learning community. The selected teachers and assistant principals of each school have to enroll in an online course, follow the prescriptive procedures of a learning community for duration of 8 weeks. Unfortunately, the real benefits and development of positive, professional relationships and the potential for student success in the classroom will be less important as a result of the manner of implementation that the State Department and LEA have mandated to each school. The LEA is acting as Covey notes in the crisis mode and not allocating the necessary time to the process in order for maximum gains of success (Clawson, 2006). The full success of learning communities in the LEA requires teachers the opportunity to chose and allows time for effective implementation to meet the needs at each school.

Clawson (2006) states, "Stan Davis in Future Perfect, claims that leaders think in the future perfect tense"; they know what and how they want to accomplish their goal (p. 122). The leader in this school clearly defines the goal of making adequate yearly growth in reading and math as the most important vision for the school. This goal is realistic and clearly understood by all school employees. However, the confusion expressed by many teachers is the use of six different tutorial services in tested subjects areas. Teachers are confused as to which student qualifies to go to which tutoring service on what day. The following is a sample of a normal week's schedule.

Tutorial Subject Qualification Day

Sylvan Reading Level I or II score M W

Academic Plus Reading Level I or II score M W

Mission Possible Reading (week 1) All M W

Mission Possible Math (week 2) All M W

Mission Possible Technology All TH

4-H Reading / Math Level I or II score M-F

Saturday Academy Reading / Math All 2-Sat/month

Read 180 Reading EC / Level II score M-F

The various services are all beneficial, but no service is capable of helping students reach their maximum potential. Students may elect to attend Mission Possible one week and 4-H the next week. Allowing student to jump from one service to another is too chaotic. The purpose for student choice was to increase attendance. However, what is also being noticed is that students are opting to not attend at all due to lack of commitment. Parents are not even sure what their children are really doing after school. It is imperative that the school offer tutoring services at flexible times, but it is necessary to enforce attendance guidelines and involve parents in their child's tutoring plan. More impact can be made with quality tutoring services, instead of quantity.

Clawson, J. G. (2006). Level three leadership: Getting below the surface (3rd ed.).Upper

Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.

How can relationships improve in the educational setting?

To begin, this question brings to memory a side bar 'joke' that was once shared in a teacher and school administration meeting.

The principal receives a memo that the students at the school are not meeting the NCLB mandates. The principal meets with the teacher and states, "What is your problem? Your students are not passing the test and how are you the teacher going to change your student's scores?" The teacher replies, "I have done everything humanly possible. It is the kids of today and not my teaching." Hence, the teacher has a parent conference with the mother the failing student and explains the student's academic and behavior problems. The mother states, "It's not my fault. I have done what I know to do and I have the same problems at home. It is because of the child's father." The father is then summoned to a conference with the teacher and the same information is shared with the father. The father exclaims, "What are you talking about? The problems are because of that mother and besides I don't have real proof that the kid is even mine." Therefore, what does this mean in the educational, organizational culture if no one is going to step up to the plate and make something positive happen for the child?

In a school organizational culture, it is imperative that the leader brings in a focus that this so called 'joke' that truly has real meaning be handled in a way that has a positive impact on the child's life.

Today, it takes all stakeholders to be accountable for not just the one student, but also the entire village of children. Bradford and Cohen's principles of influence through the Exchange Theory provide excellent guidance in strengthening the school culture. Relationship building between all stakeholders using ongoing reciprocally rewards is the most important means to build positive interaction (Clawson, 2006). As noted in the joke, the blaming and 'passing the buck' attitude will not build the relationship with all the necessary stakeholders in a child's life. It is important that every lineage in a student's school life have a bonding-overlapping connection starting with the top, the school administration all the way to the child. Too many times parents will not be supportive if there has been a negative experience with the administration team and school faculty. In the Cohen and Bradford model, Clawson notes, "Diagnose your relationship with the others person to see if the moral foundation of trust and respect are in place" (p. 219). This is critical for the administration to have a trust and respect climate with all stakeholders. Once their is a positive relationship, then stakeholders feel more comfortable to address their needs to the administration and then the administration will know better how to provide the needed resources (Clawson, 2006). As the relationship piece builds between the school stakeholders, then the vision of the school can truly be achieved because everyone is sharing the same mission for each student's academic, psychological, and physical well-being. In conclusion, a leader can quote the mission of the school, share the plans for academic gains, assign committees to varying task, and direct the day-to-day school operations. However, in my 23 years of education, if the school leader does not develop the 'open door' policy and build mutual, caring, true relationships, the school stakeholders do not become a cohesive school family and achieve the vision of success.

Clawson, J. G. (2006). Level three leadership: Getting below the surface (3rd ed.).Upper

Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.

How does your educational organization handle personnel conflict?

Unfortunately, personnel conflict is apparent in every work organization. In most schools, approximately 10% of the employees areinvolved in conflicting situations. As a new principal for the first year, the water is truly being tested at my school. The three areas ofconcern revolve around efficiency, instructional practices, and school/team support. Efficiency and or being punctual from arriving to work on time to turning in required information. Standard procedures follow include byare not limited to verbal request, written request, verbal warnings, andfinally written warnings. Instructional practice at this school demonstrates a high need for staff development in various student instructional strategies to serve multiple learning styles in a classroom. Many teachers are too comfortable with the lecture and worksheet ritual. Ongoing classroom walkthrough visitations from key central office personnel, school administrators, and others monitor and collect data of teacher and student practices in the classroom. In addition, teachers are evaluated each year.The big effort in reducing conflict for this staff is the acceptance tochange. Change in leadership, change in how students learn, thus how students must be taught are struggling conflicts that have a negative impact on school/team support. It is imperative that teachers feel empowered as the leader in their classroom and are motivated to make apositive difference instead of feeling like there is no use to trying anymore. Presently, to help reduce the day-to-day student/ classroom disruptions, teachers are being trained in positive behavior support.This is a proven method of identifying and providing interventions to maximize student learning by decreasing disruptive behavior. As the instructional leader, it is imperative to lead with the vision ofhigh expectations for students, teachers, staff, parents, and community. Even though personnel conflicts will occur, there must be a clear understanding by all leaders that the results of these conflicts will not present failure for as an option.