Leadership Project

The interview with both the SWD and parent allowed me to see a need that exists to ensure both parties are aware of the accommodations on the Individualized Education Program (IEP). According to Skinner and Lindstrom (2003), “Students should understand the nature of their learning problems. Specifically, they should be aware of their academic strengths and weaknesses, accommodations that allow them to circumvent their learning problems, and other strategies”. It was apparent during the interview that both the parent and student benefited from knowing the “extended time on exams/assignments” which is an accommodation listed on the IEP since the student mentioned his English teacher gave him a reading assignment but did not extend the turn-in time for anyone with a disability. It was also mentioned in the IEP (for the 10th grader) that the math teacher should “read math word problems aloud during the test and during class” which is something that had not been occurring. The interviews provide additional data on the equity gap since the IEP lists accommodations which an educator must implement. Not providing those supports makes the class difficult causing SWD to need more help in academics to become college/career ready as indicated on the interview/school survey. A common theme brought to light with faculty online surveys was professional development (PD) and resources needed to provide accommodations to SWD. Accommodations not provided results in academic classes being difficult for SWD; thus, impacting college/career readiness along with CAASPP scores in ELA and math. The Single Plan Student Achievement qualitative data coincides with faculty surveys where faculty has denoted needing PD assistance to effectively support SWD with differentiation along with needing time to plan, which can help with ensuring accommodations are implemented with fidelity.

The college counselor interview provided another insight on the equity gap which mentions SWD not being able to advocate for their support services. The RSP teacher also corroborated this fact by mentioning students with disabilities might be afraid to ask for accommodations. According to Agoratus (2016), “Families can help their children self-advocate and begin transition activities early using the IEP process…” (p. 23). If families are not aware of accommodations needed to succeed in the school environment or if schools don't prepare students to advocate for disability services, then they might experience setbacks in postsecondary institutions or careers. This research is backed by another qualitative data measure (online survey - Gen. Ed Teacher) where it is mentioned “support is a factor in how successful a student can be (i.e. - speak up for their accommodations and have the confidence to tell counselors they want the AP/Honors classes)”.

The Special Education teacher mentioned SWD might also be an English Learner which requires them to obtain additional English support classes and thus hindering them from taking a rigorous college-prep. program. SWD might be placed in an academic skills class, as recommended by the IEP team, which limits the number of Honors or AP classes the student can enroll in. The lack of enrollment in a rigorous academic program could also be a reason for the equity gap since college/career readiness is defined by the CA Dept. of Education as completing rigorous coursework. It is important for parents and educators who participate in IEP meetings and transition planning to consider general education course placement for all SWD aspiring to attend postsecondary schools (Lombardi et al., 2013). The online survey and special education teacher interview show a correlation to the A-G School data since SWD may not have the opportunity to enroll in these courses or opt-out of taking A-G classes by applying for a waiver resulting in not being A-G eligible and lacking skills needed to positively impact their score on CAASPP which contributes to lack of college/career readiness.

The interview with the general education teacher along with the faculty survey provided insight that ongoing professional development is needed at the school to assist with the implementation of the IEP accommodations and prepare educators for working with students w/ disabilities. According to Lombardi et al. (2013), “...it is important for general education teachers to be adequately equipped to teach a wide range of learners so that students with disabilities are effectively taught content to better prepare them for college and careers beyond high school”. The interview provided valuable information in terms of school practices needed so that PHS can effectively build the capacity of faculty teaching SWD thereby personalizing instruction as listed in the school’s vision and mission statement. The school administrator has acknowledged in his interview a lack of evidence-based instruction and coordinated effort to support SWD. The lack of support provided to teachers is not aligned with the school’s mission of “building the capacity of staff to serve all students” and could be another reason why SWD are not college/career ready since their needs in academics are not being met.

The pattern found in the qualitative data related to the state indicator is accommodations not provided to SWD. The student/parent interview both revealed they did not know the accommodations. The online survey provided to faculty indicated accommodations not being provided as well. Lastly, the interview with the General Ed. teacher provided testimony that professional development meetings are not building the capacity of faculty to “serve all students”. Professional training was an ongoing pattern cited with several faculty members along with support/resources to implement accommodations such as training to effectively teach in a co-teacher classroom. The aforementioned qualitative data relate to the quantitative data in that accommodations, if any, are not meeting the needs of SWD and thus contribute to the equity gap of A-G college/readiness. In addition, the patterns also relate to the state indicator quantitative data on CSD College/Career which not only shows the equity gap but reaffirms accommodations must be provided so students have equitable access to learning and assessments which impact a student's learning, academic grades, and proficiency.

Our school’s vision is to, “provide a personalized educational experience that supports each student to achieve college and/or career readiness upon graduation.” Unfortunately, our school doesn’t have a plan to personalize the learning experience for SWD and that is evident by the testimony of faculty and the administrator where they mentioned accommodations are not provided and a lack of evidence-based instruction exists. An implication of personalizing the learning experience is having the student waive out of upper-level math including Algebra II and beyond which directly impacts college/career readiness. My administrator mentioned in the survey, “lack of a cohesive plan that all teachers commit to.” It seems that our school is in need of a plan that directly aligns with the vision to address the equity gap.

Lastly, the equity gap is related to the school’s mission since the mission of PHS is to build the capacity of faculty and staff to serve all students. Our school has not provided support for the co-teacher classroom nor provided resources to faculty and staff to personalize the learning of SWD. The qualitative data indicates: accommodations are not provided, not enough resources and training for teachers to handle and assist students to overcome hurdles, and professional development is not consistent and targeted to help SWD. Therefore, a recommendation, as suggested by the research to assist SWD to become college/career ready is for professional development efforts to focus on evidence-based practices (Ruppar, Neeper, & Dalsen 2016; Taub, McCord, & Ryndak, 2017).

What you would do differently based upon what you have learned in implementing the plan as you designed it?

A challenge that I faced during the “do” portion of the PDSA cycle of my project was being able to engage in dialogue on a web forum on school practices to support the needs of SWD. Our team, which consisted of an assistant principal in charge of special education, a special education teacher, a resource specialist teacher, and two math teachers, developed 5 practices to support the needs of SWD at our school in addition to a student's IEP. Our goal was to create a common school practice to support the needs of SWD. When showcasing the work of my team on our school’s discussion platform, Schoology, we were confronted with “Where is this document coming from? Who developed it and what is its purpose?” and “I see you had some representatives from Special Education present, but this was not brought to the Special Education Department as a whole.”

In light of these comments, I provided feedback to the discussion group on the purpose of the project by stating “The purpose of the form (practices to support SWD) is to provide additional supports for SWD (not to eliminate or replace accommodations on the IEP) but to create a common set of practices we can utilize at Poly (our school) to help students with disabilities (in addition to the IEP and along the lines of "at Poly we provide..."). After my comment, no response was received from additional teachers.

What might you do differently in implementing your project based upon what you have learned in attempting or beginning to implement the plan as you designed it?

In implementing my project, what I would do differently is meet with additional school stakeholders on campus to ensure their voices are heard and valued during the planning and implementation of the project. I would coordinate meetings with the Special Education department and the Culture Committee while developing the project so they are aware of the work we are doing to help SWD. To further support SWD, it is important that all school stakeholders share the same vision and can have input or be part of the plan to create change on our school campus. Schools can include complex systems within them that can influence policy and programs; therefore, to produce a stronger outcome would be to invite additional stakeholders on campus to the leadership meetings as well as present our findings to groups who have a vested or similar interest in the work we are doing. I am glad we were confronted with discussion on our school's communication platform, Schoology, as to "where is this project coming from" because it allowed the leadership team to: 1) create discussion and illuminate the inequity for SWD and 2) determine our next steps to address change since we have identified school stakeholders that can help support the goals of our project.

How did you bring your identity as a leader to the planning and implementation of your leadership project?

My identity was brought into the project by being inclusive, reflective, and action-oriented. I made sure to value all voices during our meetings and I did this by following our group norms of "stepping up and stepping back" to ensure other people have a chance to speak. Reflective meant that in the implementation of our project I was constantly thinking of the needs of our students and hoping this endeavor could help address the inequity for college/career readiness. Reflective also meant thinking about the effectiveness of our meetings and creating a process of how they can be improved. For example, I provided trust in my group by sharing with them the agenda and minutes in advance and allowing them to provide feedback, edits, and revisions to the agenda. In doing so, my aim was to work with my team and value their contributions to the project. Planning the leadership project with a socio-cultural framework provided me with the assurance that I was leading with my group versus just leading. My identity of being inclusive ensured that the well-being of my team was acknowledged. This was done by having inclusive check-ins and/or icebreakers at the start of our meeting which also helped to ground the direction of our meetings. Lastly, action-oriented meant that my team took on responsibilities and was part of the leadership project to help arrive at a solution to our problem facing SWD. My identity ensured all voices and ideas were heard and through consensus, collaboration, and co-facilitation of meetings we were able to implement and analyze our results of the leadership project.

Final Thoughts

The experiences that I utilized as a social justice leader would be my immersion in UCLA Principal Leadership Institute to help me understand how to lead while ensuring all voices are part of that decision and collaboration process. Professor Garcia and Lozano provided the structure needed to help with norm-building when facilitating a group. Professor Flores provided the tool needed to be a reflective leader where at the end of our meetings my team's needs were addressed through a closure protocol. Professor Ferguson provided and modeled care and well-being in our meetings and showed me how to be inclusive in meetings by inviting the group to co-construct the agenda as well as set goals for the meeting.

A socio-cultural theory approach to leading schools has helped me become an educational leader that is inclusive and values the experience and diversity of all school personnel. A socio-cultural approach to leading a school entails apprenticeship and learning through meaning-making; thus, I hope to continue my leadership growth by being involved with the decision-making bodies at our school to: 1) learn more about the systems and structures at our school that deepen or address the inequity to SWD 2) be part of the solution to help address the inequities.

Thinking Forward

I would like to figure out how to lead a bigger group while ensuring the group has time to collaborate, discuss, and plan a cycle of inquiry without one person dominating the meeting. Leading with my school stakeholders will help ensure the work for social justice, access and equity and anti-racism is a collaborative effort. Learning and being aware of time-management and facilitation protocols is also key which can help ensure our team is on-task as we address issues on the agenda. According to LeBlanc and Nosik (2019), “The agenda usually includes a

summary of the purpose of the meeting, each task associated with the meeting goal, and a time estimate for completion of each task.” In my leadership group meeting, my reason for not including a time on the agenda is I did not want our team to be pressured to stop a conversation especially if we were making progress on a particular agenda item. However, utilizing a time frame on the agenda will help keep our team focus on stated outcomes. In ensuring I am leading with equity and access, my future plan would include students and parents in our meetings or determine ways to ensure their input is provided during the planning or implementation of our meetings. Ensuring all school stakeholders have an equitable presence in school decisions is important since those decisions can either deepen marginalization or help decrease the inequities in schools.