Está en la página 1de 6

Running Head: CASE STUDY TWO

Hypothetical Case Study #2: A Data-based Analysis and Decision


Maasehyahu Isra-Ul

CASE STUDY TWO

Case Study #2: A Data-based Analysis and Decision


It is the responsibility of the administrative leadership at Highborne Middle School to
ensure that the academic staff is qualified and well-equipped with effective practices. It is the
administrations professional obligation to ensure that every teacher at HMS is offered
opportunities to improve their practice in order to yield the most beneficial fruit from their
students. As the lead administrator and principal it is a responsibility of this position to support
teachers in their professional growth and to give them every opportunity to progress in their
teaching. However, it is also the duty of the principal to make the difficult decision of
reprimanding and discontinuing the contracts of those teachers who fail to show significant
growth after being placed on intervention plans. The following brief details the administrative
recommendation for the sixth grade exceptional education/social science teacher Ms. Dickenson.
Ms. Dickenson came to HMS three years ago. Upon her arrival she was a zero-experience
teacher with very limited class management and leadership ability. For the first two years Ms.
Dickenson averaged two discipline referrals each school day. At the end of her second year at
HMS she was placed on a systematic intervention plan which was designed to help her improve
her class management and use of effective instructional strategies. Her plan consisted of
shadowing effective teachers, professional development clinics as well as clinical observations
cycles. When given the opportunity to complete a self-evaluation summary at the ending of the
current year, Ms. Dickenson responded:
In the last three years, I have really improved my teaching strategies and classroom
management skills. I have learned to keep my lessons organized and to keep track of where my
materials are. I learned to turn in my lesson plans on time and have begun to provide specific
activities for each type of intelligence. I have attended the professional development sessions

CASE STUDY TWO

about intelligences and social studies. As a result, I believe that I should be awarded tenure and
allowed to choose the level of my assignment from the vacancies that occur such that I can avoid
further personality conflicts with the grade chairman.
Ms. Dickenson states that she believes that her performance merits not only the granting
of tenure but also a choice of assignment for the coming year. The chair of the sixth-grade team,
based upon the outcomes of intervention plan as well as continued observations, has given a
recommendation for termination. It is clear from Ms. Dickensons own words that there has been
an ongoing personality conflict between the grade chair and herself. It should be noted that the
grade chair did not mention this in any of his observation briefs. Regardless of any difficulties in
the relationship between the grade chair and Ms. Dickenson it should be noted that Ms.
Dickensons written summary of her performance does not address many of the key issues which
were the focus of her professional development. She was not placed on an intervention plan to
learn to turn in lesson plans on time or to keep track of where her materials were. This
leaves administration with one set of determining factors in this final recommendation which is
the result of the collected data from her observations. Ms. Dickenson states that she has really
improved her teaching strategies and class room management skills. The data will inform the
reader of this statements veracity.
Upon reviewing the data which was collected during the 56 observations performed by
the sixth-grade chair (2 observations per week for 7 months) and the 7 observations completed
by administration (1 per month) the following has been concluded. The Student growth profile
from the first two years of observations renders an inconclusive view of Ms. Dickensons
improved performance. There were significant differences by subject and the gains were not to
the extent that they showed a mastery of content by Ms. Dickensons students. The time on task

CASE STUDY TWO

report shows that there were regular instances where a majority of students showed as little as
0% on task during lessons. Of the 25 students observed there was one student who was on task
100% of the time. There was a 40-50% average of students being on task during her classes. The
pedagogical interaction results show that Ms. Dickensons classes are teacher centered and are
taught through direct-instruction 70% of the time. She speaks directly to the class group 43% of
the time while only 5 % of her students interact or respond directly to her questions.
The data also shows that Ms. Dickensons line of questioning is consistently at level one
on the Blooms Taxonomy. She addresses student analysis, synthesis and evaluation 0% of the
time in her classes. Her modality stimuli stay within the realm of direct name calling of students
and only 7% of her classes engage in any movement in class. There are no visuals used in class
and student interaction is limited to reading from the text. The auditory reinforcement results
show, along with the proximity results, that Ms. Dickenson does not exercise equity within her
class as it pertains to student redirection and teacher proximity. Her verbal directions are focused
to the center of the classroom and many of the students sitting on her periphery receive little
direct contact with the teacher. Ms. Dickensons overall class program suffers from misuse and
mismanagement of time such as attendance taking ten minutes while the explanation of
homework is 2 and one half minutes. Oral reading takes 20 minutes of the class period while 8
minutes is dedicated to a teacher response to individual students.
The data, sadly, is overwhelmingly in contention with the focus of not only HMS but the
entire school district as given and directed by the superintendent and school board. It is the
recommendation of the principal and administrative staff that Ms. Dickenson not be given tenure
or an extension of contract for the coming year. With great trepidation, the administrative leader
has reached this final decision. It is difficult for any educational leader to recommend the

CASE STUDY TWO

termination of a faculty member and this instance is no different. Yet, it is clear that even with
the support of the administration, grade chair and other teachers Ms. Dickenson has shown a
minimum increase in development and application. The school is not able to expend any more
resources (as there are none) on the development of Ms. Dickensons teaching abilities. Again, it
is regretfully recommended that Ms. Dickenson not be renewed for contract status this coming
year nor receive tenure at the Highborne Middle School.

In service to our students, families and staff I remain,


Maasehyahu Isra-Ul
Maasehyahu Isra-Ul
Principal, HMS

CASE STUDY TWO

References
Glickman C. D., Gordon, S. P. & Ross-Gordon, J. M. (2014). Supervision and instructional
leadership. (9th ed.) Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson education, Inc.