Purpose
The purpose of this entry plan is a blueprint for change in the Collaborative and Coaching Leaning (CCL) program in the district. As the appointed representative of the superintendent in this field, this plan serves to mark the relationship between the superintendent and the BOE in relation to the CCL program. The plan serves mainly to instigate change during the first year of its operation, while also providing the guidelines on the follow up steps to be implemented in the second and the third years.
Essential goals of the program
1. Designing a coaching program where a teacher is able to work with a literary coach
2. Establishing new instructional programs that would implement the reading program
3. Plans for professional assessment of student learning after each period of implementation
The goals of the program are formulated after consultation with stakeholders including the teachers, the BOE, schools administrations, parents, and students. After each view is examined, reading specialist selects and modifies the pertinent issues affect ting the efficient implementation of the CCL program in the district.
Implementation procedure
Step 1: Meeting stakeholders to the program for familiarization purposes and laying a good working relationship with all the stakeholders involved in the program. This activity shall seek to inform and receive feedback from the stakeholders on their expected participation. The timeline for this activity shall be one week after the commencement of the program, subject to communication by the BOE on the appropriate day for the commencement (Gallacher et al., 1959).
Step 2: Reviewing the existing CCL program and identifying the areas raised as contentious by the various stakeholders and recommendations by the reading specialist team assigned to its review. The existing plan will be used as the foundation upon which the new entry plan shall be built. This phase of the program will be within the first month, after commissioning by the BOE.
Step 3: Identify the sample schools and teachers who will participate in pioneers CCL program. This process is important in ascertaining the effectiveness of the proposed changes to the existing program before rolling out to the rest of the schools in the district. During this phase, the BOE and the stakeholders, in particular teachers, will deliberate on the most plausible model for selecting the participant schools and teachers. The timeline for this program shall be within the first two months upon commencement of the program.
Step 4: Evaluation and training of the current literary coaches to ascertain that they meet the requisite competence levels demanded of improved student performance levels in the district. This process is of paramount importance to the success of the program. The competence of the coaching personnel relates to improved teacher competence, and the chain effect expected to pass on to the students (Gallacher et al., 1959). The timeline for this program shall be within four months after commencement of the program.
Step 5: Sourcing, allocation and optimization of resources. The program shall be dependent upon the participation of the identified sponsors for its success. The BOE shall be the main sponsor, and subsequently, patron to the program. After evaluation in the preceding step, the district shall be in need of additional literacy coaches, while also requiring resources for the training of the existing coaches. The BOE, after conviction on the necessity of this measure, shall be requested to provide the necessary funding and infrastructure in actualization of this program. The timeline for this program shall be within the first six months after the commencement of the CCL program.
Step 6: Training and evaluation of teacher competency in imparting the required levels of quality education on their students. This part of the program shall mark the most important stage in its implementation. The re-training of the teachers seeks to improve and upgrade on the measures recommended by the existing CCL program (Diana et al., 2013). The program shall run after the sixth month, lasting for three months. However, upon evaluation in the subsequent phases, the BOE is at liberty to propose additional measures aimed at improving the program.
Follow up in the second and third years of the program
After outlining the steps of the entry plan, it is important to lay down standards of evaluation the course of implementation of deliberations made during the planning stage. An efficient follow up should paint a clear picture of areas that are not adequately addressed or factors that are hampering the implementation procedure. As such, a follow acts are a similar manner as an informer to the various stakeholders about the overall implementation plan.
Follow up should thus touch on the central organs of education system, that is students, teachers and parents. As stated in one of the goals of the entry plan, the plan intends to fuel achievements among students (Diana et al., 2013). This means that the academic performance in the follow up phase acts as a vital source of information as to whether the implementation process is efficient and subsequently whether the plans laid down in the plan have an effect on performance. Therefore, for the first, second and third years, the follow-up phase will seek to establish whether there is an overall improvement in academic performance. Improved performance may mean that deliberations in the plan and its implementation are effective.
On the other hand, the levels of satisfaction among teachers act as a vital source of follow-up information. It was intended that the plan fosters increased motivation levels for teachers and as such follow up plan will seek to establish whether the new plans increase teacher’s motivation or not. Similarly, increased motivation may be a sign that the plan is effective.
Parents want the best education for their children and as such, parent satisfaction becomes an adequate standard for establishing the effectiveness of the plan. An improved student performance and improved satisfaction levels among teachers and parents may be a sign that the entry plan is effective .On the other hand, the opposite of this means that there are weaknesses within the entry plan and its implementation. A follow-up plan will not only show whether the plan is effective but also acts as a major source of change or modifications to the plan.
References:
Diana, J., Shelley , B. W., & Strickland, D. S. (2013). The Administration and Supervision of Reading Programs (Fifth ed.). UK: Teacher College Press.
Gallacher, D., May, M. M., McDonald, A. S., Smith, D. E., & Spache, G. D. (1959). College Reading Programs. Journal of Developmental Reading, 2(4), 35-46.
