Instructional Performance Management System: Streamlining Instructional Management for Success Free

A remarkable feature in the Cambridge IPMS software that is not readily available in other software management systems is the capacity to manage the progress of a given student from an identified grade through graduation. This signature component illuminates the underlying philosophy of a student-centered system. Starting in middle school or even in kindergarten, counselors, administrators, and teachers can manage the progress of a student through the selection and completion of the courses each student has selected for graduation. This primary database system receives all of the results of achievement tests, benchmarks, and course grades, and compiles them in a student’s individual planner. The counselor can then carefully follow each student’s progress without managing folders of paperwork tucked into several file cabinets.

The significant feature of this program allows counselors and administrators to follow the progress of at-risk students who are failing or who are at risk of failing courses. The speed and accessibility of the software enable counselors and administrators to manage a student’s file by not only tracking progress, but also by creating an individual growth plan that is driven by goals created in conjunction with the teacher, the student, and his or her parents. The narrative section of the student’s file features the incremental notations by the counselor that track progress toward goals and any other important information that would benefit teachers and administrators as they work with the student. Even though the design of this program was intended to assist with the at-risk student, the features of the program benefit all students.

Included in this program is also a data sort capacity that allows the manipulation of test data to determine student achievement by teacher, by student, by course, and by any other data point that is loaded into the program. Principals are able to quickly compare the results of teachers’ impact on given students by identifying the variable comparisons and analyzing the results. The effect of these data is immeasurable when each teacher views the impact of their instruction and each department determines the alignment of their scope and sequence.

The lesson planner provides an organizing shell into which the teacher creates the lessons to be taught for each class for the entire year. Four components comprise the planner: (a) standards selection, (b) objective selection or development, (c) activities, and (d) modifications. A calendar management system allows the teacher to immediately access a lesson anywhere in the sequence of the course or make any appropriate changes in the course sequence or content as necessary. Each school district has the option to customize the planner, but most require very similar components.

The first component of the planner requires the selection of state standards used to align lessons. The IPMS allows the teacher to select applicable standards and “drag and drop” the standard (objective) into the correct section of the planner. The teacher is now able to track the numbers of times a standard has been addressed during instruction as well as assist in continuing alignment throughout the planning process.

Within the next component, an objective can be written further delineating the intent of the standard(s) by breaking down the cognition and content requirements of the state standards. If the teacher chooses or is required by the district or principal, he or she can select prewritten objectives from a district-approved or campus-developed scope and sequence that can be “dragged and dropped” into the objective section.

In the modifications section of the planner, teachers provide specific modifications for students that receive special education and/or English as a second language instruction. This also serves as a valuable tracking tool for the teacher to reference in the students’ individual education plan (IEP).

The planner, in many ways, provides very traditional lesson design components; however, the online capabilities of the IPMS enables the teacher to electronically file all plans, readily access them, duplicate plans for self or other teachers, and archive courses for future usage. An additional feature allows the principal to have “back side” view of each teacher’s lessons while providing immediate access to lessons for clinical supervision observations, alignment checks, approval processes, or any other procedures that a principal or dean of instruction deems necessary. All a principal need do is identify a particular day to observe, find the lesson, print it, and then go to the classroom for observation. The “back side” capability allows the principal to also view how a teacher develops a unit or series of lessons that address particular standards. Consequently, the principal has a better idea of the teacher’s planning skills in relation to the cognition and knowledge expectations stated in the standards. The planner and its features enable principals to quickly assess difficulties in the early days of instructional delivery and initiate interventions before there are significant problems.

The major objection to the IPMS is the immediate visibility and accountability of the lesson planning process. Notoriously, teachers detest planning lessons for review by one administrator. The tradition of planning in schools is usually day-by-day-and sometimes by the moment. Requiring electronic planning that can be administratively or peer reviewed adds a degree of unaccustomed accountability not usually welcomed by faculty. Under the traditional system, lesson plans submitted are not always those the teachers use to guide instruction, but are those used to meet administrative requirements. This process is difficult for both the principal and the teacher because the goal is not quality lesson planning but one of “keeping the principal happy” by turning in lesson plans regardless of the quality.

When instructional difficulties emerge, principals frequently look at lesson plans to determine possible evidence of the problem; however, it is difficult to determine the source in lesson plans unless there is some continuity and alignment integrated into the plans. Principals become troubled when the instruction does not match the objective; teachers are distressed because the lesson plans are a perfunctory duty; and, the entire process fails to impact student achievement in any significant way. Under these circumstances, the lesson planning process is not “win-win,” and contributes little to the success of students.

In the paper copy system, time becomes a driving force because administrators simply cannot handle the volume of lesson plans nor easily track any required changes. When conferences are required to determine students’ progress, locating instructional delivery problems in the paper system creates a formidable obstacle. Moving lesson planning requirements to an electronic system accomplishes several things: (a) standardized planning expectations, (b) increased attention to cognition and knowledge requirements stated in standards and developed in daily lessons, (c) required clarification of learning expectations for both teachers and students, (d) mandatory creation of relevant activities that develop the intended cognition and knowledge, and (d) minimized hard copy management.

Important to planning are the host of resources available to teachers that assist in creating interesting plans that engage students. In the IPMS resource file, teachers have immediate access to online resource files of material and instructional assistance that would consume large shelving units in regular classrooms. Online availability allows the teacher to conduct searches quickly locating materials that can be added to the lesson plan. Such a process managed manually would take much more time and would be available in hard copy only. Obviously, materials are just the beginning of the possible resources that can be uploaded into the resource file of the IPMS.

Other resources that can be available to teachers might be all district curriculum documents, district and/or building scope and sequences, state and national standards, materials that accompany a textbook adoption, teacher-developed materials, URL listings that match content or state standards, and much more. The resource file literally can be conceived as a series of large file cabinets containing all of the valuable resources that teachers use to plan lessons. Each content area will have the same resource file that contains all of the above at least, and probably more.

Even though viewed as a wonderful tool, teachers must think differently as they search and use various resources. Traditionally, these materials were stored in file cabinets, storage attics, and in countless other locations. Remembering their locations and how to access them was always a challenge. The IPMS resource file assists in reducing the trauma associated with tracking important instructional materials and tightly organizes the wealth of material important to teachers. It is difficult to imagine that many black line masters, activities, DVDs, and other resources can be stored in software and accessed in lightening speed. Given the opportunity, teachers are excited to sit at the computer and find everything they need for planning through a few key strokes. Teachers also realize that culling aging materials is quickly done as well.

Entry of key resources is done by central office personnel or can be loaded by the software company; however, most software companies can create entry access at the school site so that resources important to each school can be added to the resource file.

Critical to English’s (2001) concept of the written, taught, and tested curriculum is teachers’ ability to assess what they have taught. The software provides teachers immediate access to an assessment package containing a test item bank from which tests can be created that are aligned with local and state standards, and/or teacher assistance in writing additional items, using a wizard. Once the test is written, the assessment can be delivered online for student completion or printed to score with a scantron answer sheet. If the teacher chooses and has access to online test administration, answers can be scored within seconds and the data disaggregated instantaneously by any set of variables desired. The primary philosophy on which this software is designed assumes that this entire set of assessment tools is used to assist the teacher in improving his or her instructional delivery. This is not a set of tools designed to determine how a student has failed, but how instruction can be improved.

This assessment feature also has a number of reports that provide a variety of ways to analyze data through any of the following variables: (a) socioeconomic status, (b) gender, (c) grade, (d) teacher, (e) objective, (f) answer detractor, and many others. These rich analyses provide different views of how well the students achieved and how well teachers taught (Hoyle, English, & Steffy, 1998). In the past, these data have been provided by the central office through software management programs that were not readily available to teachers or very user friendly. The IPMS provides immediate, teacher-friendly data management that is invaluable for improved instruction.

The assessment tools also allow development of benchmark tests to determine student progress toward standards achievement. The software provides various levels of access for teachers, administrators, and/or district personnel in order to increase the ease and facilitation of assessing. Teachers, for example, are provided a test bank from which they can select items that are aligned with the state standards and the district scope and sequence. The alignment increases the ease with which a teacher can make appropriate item selections and be assured that the assessment is relevant. In practice, the teacher should have taught all of the objectives relevant to the unit or module, allowing a determination as to the success of the strategies and instruction included in his or her lesson plans. All teachers have access to create and use classroom level assessments, coupled with the choice to share a complete test or selected items with other professionals.

Teachers are also afforded the opportunity to create their own assessment questions through the test item wizard available in the software. The wizard simply assists the teacher in the writing of the item stem and in the development of the detractors and the correct answer. Of course, the wizard does not assess the content of the stem or answers; it only guides the teacher in the development of each item in the format of the test. The wizard guides the usage of charts, pictures, and even video clips for any or all of the items. Once the items are created, the teacher may file the test for later usage or revision.

Building-level administrators may have another level of access that enables the development of a campus-specific test designed to assess specific subjects. Teachers may not have access to these tests until they are given; however, the results of the test can be downloaded to each teacher and the results disaggregated by numerous variables. Since the design and administration of the test are or can be, if facilities allow, all completed online, the speed with which a teacher can receive his or her results is almost immediate. Also available is the ability for central level administrators to create and maintain a district-level benchmark or assessment that can be administered periodically throughout the year to determine district-wide progress.

As wonderful as the IPMS may sound, implementation in schools and districts has been slow. There are a number of reasons as to why software of this kind has had a slow start. One would believe that schools would be quick to select such software and use it to improve instruction. The following provides a brief look at the problems associated with viewing IPMS as a system and beginning implementation.

An obvious problem for schools and districts is the availability of the appropriate hardware. Most schools have a computer in each teacher’s room, but few schools have computers available for student use where software-generated assessments could be administered online. Cambridge has solved this problem for schools by providing an interface with scantron scanners that will upload the results of any administration. Again, after the upload, all data are immediately available for disaggregation in any way the teacher or administrator chooses.

Understanding the systemic nature of the IPMS has been an interesting challenge for software builders and progressive administrators. The system, as mentioned before, provides a seamless integration of a number of tools that assist educators in improving student achievement. However, Cambridge, (R. White, personal communication, February 20, 2005) has met resistance based on a lack of understanding regarding the systemic nature of the IPMS. They have met with central administrators who quickly find the assessment tools very attractive because of the capacity to benchmark student progress and record district-wide results. Cambridge has also found building administrators attracted to the same assessment tools for similar reasons. However, neither central nor campus-level administrators see the total benefit of the integrated features. Cambridge found principals a little wary of requiring teachers to create their lesson plans online for several reasons (M. Jones, personal communication, March 14, 2005). First and foremost, principals have experienced such difficulty in monitoring the requirement for teachers to turn in lesson plans that they find themselves simply receiving the plans and asking the clerks to file them often without ever looking at the product. Secondly, principals have experienced disasters in using early lesson planning software products that were either so cumbersome that teachers could not use them or they required so many details that teachers spent an inordinate amount of time completing the plans. As a result, principals have become a little hesitant to risk using another lesson planning product.

Principals quickly saw the benefit of using the assessment tools because it would speed the return of data to the teachers and prevent them from spending time creating paper assessments for administration. Interestingly, principals could not see the benefit of loading either a district scope and sequence or a building-developed sequence of state standards. Cambridge found that principals could verbalize the relationship of a scope and sequence to testing, but did not indicate that the sequence had much use for teachers. It was not ascertained if the principals simply did not understand the relationship of the scope and sequence to testing or if they were not willing to ask teachers to use the sequence over the traditional sequence of content offered in various textbooks.

The integrated availability of the resource file to teachers was somewhat more attractive to building-level administrators than were the scope and sequence documents. A careful review of the administrators’ comments revealed that they, like so many of their teacher counterparts, plan by activity rather than by objective. Principals found it helpful to provide teachers access to as many resources to create lessons as possible, but did not necessarily see the immediate connection between the scope and sequence files to the lesson resources. This certainly is not an indictment of principals or teachers, but it does point to the serious lack of understanding regarding scope and sequence, teaching, and lesson planning (English, 2001).

The evident benefits of the IPMS are numerous and, as the software is used and expanded, more benefits will emerge to make it an invaluable set of tools. It is clear that there is a learning curve associated with this set of tools, but the benefits will clearly outweigh the struggle.

Most accountability measures are initiated by central administration and monitored by that same group. This is often intimidating to teachers because there is not a clear understanding as to how the data will be used or what will happen to teachers as a result. Implementing the system in-school brings the tools to the teacher, allowing each of them to analyze student data privately and design interventions quickly. Waiting for the district-level benchmark results decreases intervention strategies by several days, if not weeks. Having immediate analysis capacity increases intervention opportunities and subsequent learning. Teachers and principals do not fear accountability as long as they understand the rules and have an opportunity to make necessary changes. Having an in-school system at the fingertips of teachers has been a help in shifting instructional mentality from teacher-led to student-led because the entire process is focused on what the student will be able to do and what the teacher can do to improve the probability of student learning.

For states such as Texas, the accountability process has been in effect for approximately 25 years. Before the development of software designed to manage data, developing, distributing, grading, and analyzing benchmark results was tedious and time-consuming (K. Kasper, personal communication, November 12, 2000). Teachers were required to hand-grade the test, enter results in grids, and disaggregate the data by hand if further analysis was to be conducted. The IPMS will immediately disaggregate the data in any manner chosen by the teacher and report the results in a variety of reports that enable effective decision-making.

Lesson plans are difficult for teachers, due to their lack of understanding of the purpose of planning and/or how to write effective plans. Well-designed plans enable a principal to follow a carefully-constructed instructional design describing both the cognition and knowledge intended for the students. Most lesson plans are sparse representations of the intended activities, joined together in a somewhat fragmented weekly frame.

Teachers often create benchmark tests by cutting and pasting test items from booklets prepared by various vendors. With the IPMS, teachers no longer have to create paper copy tests since they now have the choice of creating the online tests for students to answer directly online or print the test for students to answer on a scantron answer sheet.

However, Kasper (personal communication, November 12, 2000) related that the resistance to the accountability of analyzing their students’ results was high, but the confrontation with the assessment results changed how teachers viewed their instruction. No longer could they blame “other” things or the students because the assessment results were immediately evident. Kasper (personal communication, November 12, 2000) described her new responsibility of facilitating teachers’ analysis of their own work and supporting them as they journeyed from teacher-centered instruction to student-centered instruction was foundational to improved student achievement.

Gaining acceptance has been the most formidable challenge to date; however, there are several things that are prepared for development and design. First among those is the software to support authentic assessment that is totally integrated into the current features of the IPMS. Cambridge is aware that purchasing a program and “patching” it into the current IPMS software can be doomed for difficulty and possible failure. Cambridge is committed to developing the software within the same architecture and appropriately integrating the authentic assessment components. Providing real-time professional development is another component ready for implementation that will support the instructional strategies identified by instructional administrators to assist teachers in the improvement of instructional delivery. Again, maintaining that feature within the architecture is extremely important. Last is the development of quality administrative coaching tools to assist principals and teachers in the journey to improve instruction using the IPMS tools and organizational development techniques. Many of techniques cannot be added to the IPMS, but they are critical to improved student achievement.