More than a Passion

            At a young age I realized my passion for teaching. Imaginary play with dolls and barbies centered around school time, my toys never had a day off from school. I mimicked my teachers when instructing my dolls, and when blessed with a younger brother he became my new student. Throughout adolescents I felt as though the passion to teacher was hereditary, considering I came from a long line of educators. I was thrilled when I received my first teaching job and poured my heart and soul into educating my students. I took pride in watching my students succeed. However, after about three years of teaching it became evident I was not doing enough. What about those students that were not succeeding? I became engrossed in training activities and learning opportunities focused on meeting the needs of underperforming students. While my passion was education, my purpose was supporting struggling students.

 

Problems and Difficulties in Education

            Throughout my quest to support struggling students, research revealed specific groups that were struggling. School data across the United States revealed economically disadvantaged students’ scores are often worse than their peers (Farkas, 2001). Economically disadvantaged students performed at an inferior rate on standardized tests when compared to students not economically disadvantaged. These findings were alarming due to the fact that standardized tests are a major, sometimes sole,  measure of one’s ability.

      Lack of resources and supports were amongst some of the reasons economically disadvantaged students performed lower on standardized tests when compared to peers. In particular, it was found that schools with a high economically disadvantaged population had less access to technology then schools with low poverty numbers. Subpar and insufficient technological resources hinder the academic growth of economically disadvantaged students and does not fully prepare students for a society that is inundated with technology (Taylor, 2005). Opportunities to provide instruction in a multi faucet manner was also hindered for teachers instructing students in schools with a high economically disadvantaged population.

      The COVID-19 pandemic illuminate disparities in technology and prompted the necessity of schools to acquire technology to continue instruction while schools were closed. Many districts with high economically disadvantaged populations scrambled to obtain laptops for students and hotspots for households that did not have wi-fi. Funds were allotted from the state for school districts to purchase these resources or apply for reimbursement. This was a first glimpse towards a move in equitable technology for all students.           

       

​

​

 

     

 

       

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

      The lack of teachers as a resource in schools with high economically disadvantaged populations was also a concern. Just as the ability of students is often measured by standardized tests scores, the same measurement of success often is the same for teachers. Through my learning I found this measurement at times deterred highly qualified teachers from working in schools with a large economically disadvantaged population. Aruguete and Auwarter (2008) conducted a study that found teachers related students with a low social economic status as having a less promising future than students for higher income homes. Thus, to effectuate change with a goal of supporting struggling students who were largely economically disadvantaged, I had to support the teachers instructing those students.  

​

Accomplishing COVA

        After my fourth year as a teacher I applied and was hired as an instructional specialist. One of my responsibilities as an instructional specialist was to ensure that teachers were designing rigorous, engaging lessons for their students. But, my purpose was to make sure all students were able to learn and grow academically. I begin to attend advanced training sessions on differentiating instruction. Through all sessions it became clear students had to have a choice in their learning to promote ownership. Therefore, I presented a series of differentiated instruction professional development trainings to teachers at my campus. As part of the training teachers were provided with interest inventories and learning profile surveys to administer to students as the first step in differentiating instruction. In addition, teachers reviewed report cards, district assessments, state assessments, and checkpoints to determine the readiness level of students. This process provided teachers with critical information to address and meet the needs of each student in their class.

       During training we analyzed data, learning profiles, and interest surveys.  Plans were created for students based on identified areas of need.  I worked with teachers to tier lesson plans so that they were able to effectively facilitate lessons. The tiering of lesson plans also included extension activities for students to select from to measure understanding of concepts. Students also had the opportunity, for certain topics, to display understanding in a manner they selected. Through implementation of tiered lessons students became more actively engaged in the assignments they found meaningful. Increased engagement was clearly due to students having a choice in their learning, which fostered ownership. Furthermore, students voicing the manner in how they would present their understanding of concepts resulted in authentic learning opportunities.  

        As a result of implementing differentiated techniques, which I now realize was COVA, there was a noticeable increase in student engagement and achievement. Checkpoint scores increased, as well as a greater percentage of students passed district level exams. Moreover, students were better able to solve processing skill problems in both math and science. The increase was especially noticeable in our ESL and economically disadvantaged student populations. This success was largely attributed to the use of learning profiles and interest surveys to facilitate relevant lessons for the students. I continued to assist teachers with differentiated instruction techniques, and experienced even greater academic gains over the next few years.  

​

​

​

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

My Plan and What I Plan to Accomplish

            I was elated to see student growth when I was an instructional specialist. However, as I saw the growth in most populations, there was minimal to no growth in the special education population. After consulting with special education teachers, I became aware that the support of special education students starts with the Full and Individual Evaluation conducted by special education personnel. Although I was enjoying teaching, learning, and growing in my role as an instructional specialist, I remained focus on my purpose. I enrolled in school to become an educational diagnostician. After I completed the requirements to become an educational diagnostician I received multiple job offers. I was shocked because a few offers were extended without an interview. There was, and continues to be, an overwhelming demand for school assessment personnel.

            Just as society has evolved and technology has advanced, the needs and requirements of school systems have also changed. Specifically, there have been drastic developments in identifying and supporting students with special education services (Peyton et al., 2021). An influx of special education referrals and added job responsibilities has generated the need to hire more educational diagnosticians, while inadvertently fostering a need for school districts to support additional diagnosticians (Fielding, 2004).

            When schools were created the foundation of the educational system was teaching all students in the same manner, without consideration given to the individual needs of each student (Horn & Staker, 2014). However, this method of traditional teaching has proven ineffective with the progression of society needs. The ineffectiveness of traditional teaching also holds true for professional learners. Meaningful instructional approaches to teaching all learning populations must encompass factors that encourage engagement, reflection, and individuality (Townsend & Townsend, 1992).

            The creation of my innovation plan stemmed for the evident need to support educational diagnosticians. Practices I used as an instructional specialist to build teacher capacity which increased student achievement are the same practices I plan to implement throughout the educational diagnostician mentor program. Data will be gathered to determine readiness levels of diagnosticians, inventories and surveys will be utilized to gain insight into learning styles, and activities will be designed to promote ownership and foster authentic learning.

            A blended learning approach was selected for the educational diagnostician program. Collaboration through blended learning improves the communication abilities of employees. Specifically, when educational diagnosticians have the opportunity to collaborate with peers their capability to collaborate with parents, teachers, and key stakeholders improves (Capps, 2013). Furthermore, blended learning allows for response in a timely manner to professional needs, which is essential in supporting skill development and advancement (Bhardwaj et al., 2021). The educational diagnostician mentor program through blended learning will facilitate professional learning, support, and collaboration through participants sharing ideas, giving and receiving feedback, asking questions, and presenting work artifacts. Increases in engagement and knowledge through blended learning can serve as a method to assist in addressing educational needs of organizations and their employees (Diep et al., 2019).  

            The diagnostician mentor program will enable mentees to take ownership of their own learning and development, while focusing on individual areas of needed growth. The advancement of diagnostician knowledge will also ensure all students receive high-quality evaluations in compliance with federal, state, and district guidelines. High-quality evaluations will be used to support learning and progress for students receiving special education services.

​​

References

Aruguete, M. & Auwarter, A. (2008). Effects of Student Gender and Socioeconomic Status on Teacher Perceptions. Journal

 

       of Education Research, 101, 243-246.

​

Bhardwaj, P., Gupta, P. K., Panwar, H., Siddiqui, M. K., Morales-Menendez, R., & Bhaik, A. (2021). Application of deep

 

       learning on student engagement in e-learning environments. Computers & Electrical Engineering, 93, 107-277. 

​

       https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compeleceng.2021.107277

​

Capps, M. (2013). Balancing the needs: School administrator versus educational diagnostician.  DiaLog 42(3), 13-

 

       14. https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ1184166.pdf

​

Diep, A. N., Zhu, C., Cocquyt, C., De Greef, M., Vo, M. H., & Vanwing, T. (2019). Adult learners' needs in online and blended

 

        learning. Australian Journal of Adult Learning, 59(2), 223-253.  

 

       https://search.informit.org/doi/10.3316/ielapa.592385127057281

​

Farkas, (2001). Science Blog: Early struggles in vocabulary development can hamper

 

       economically disadvantaged children. http://www.scienceblog.com/community/older/2001/C/200113981.html

​

Fielding, C. (2004). Low performance on high-stakes test drives special education referrals: A Texas survey. The

 

       Educational Forum 68 (2), 126-132. https://doi.org/10.1080/00131720408984619

​

Horn, M. B., & Staker, H. (2014). Blended: Using disruptive innovation to improve schools. John Wiley &Sons.

​

Taylor, J. A. (2005). Poverty and student achievement. Multicultural Education, 12(4), 53.

​

Townsend, F. C., & Townsend, C. M. (1992). Meeting learning needs through multimedia: A look at the way modern

 

        technology can help classroom teachers meet the varied instructional needs of students.

​

​