TaskTome: Task Management Software for Those Who Want Simple

As an administrator, I am always looking for solutions to managing the many tasks that come with being a school principal. During the course of the day, one or two dozen tasks can often come across my desk, and trying to find a way to keep track of all of these is problematic. Of course there are the usual Web 2.0 tools like Google Calendar, Remember the Milk, and Ta-Da Lists. All of the online tools have their positives and negatives, but I am always game for trying new software.

I honestly do not recall when and where I first heard of taskTome, but I do remember reading about it in some open source review. It looked promising so I downloaded a copy from http://tasktome.shanemca.com/. After installing it, I found it really does work as advertised. It basically has five main features:

1. Planner: You can use this feature to keep track of events. It allows you to enter an event, just like many calendar programs, but there is no alarm or reminder feature. The calendar has a very simple interface.

taskTome Calendar Interface

2. Tasks Manager: The Tasks interface for taskTome is also simple. It gives the user the ability to create tasks by clicking a single button. These tasks can then be given due dates, placed in a category, and assigned a priority. Again, though, there is no reminder alarm system with the software.

taskTome Tasks List Interface

3. Diary Entry: One feature that I found interesting with taskTome was the ability to enter Diary entries. During my tenure as an administrator, I keep a running administrative log that contains notes regarding administrative actions taken and the incidents and situations faced every day while on the job. This feature is a handy one to have for someone who is keeping a daily log of activities for documentation purposes. The only feature I wish was included was a timestamp button so that I could easily enter the time.

taskTome Diary Interface

4. Notes Entry: TaskTome also gives users a place to enter notes. This is basically a simple notepad like interface where users can enter information and insert dates and objects into them. Useful for keeping additional notes tied to tasks or events.

taskTome Notes Interface

5. Financial Tracking: TaskTome’s financial tracking feature was personally the least useful feature for me. Perhaps that is because so much of the schools expenses are tracked in other ways. Still, it looks simple enough and might prove useful to some.

taskTome Financial Interface

TaskTome is a very simple Task tracking program. For the user who really does not need a lot of extra bells and whistles, this program fits the bill. It has the ability export its event list, task list, diary entries, and notes, and will also export these same documents into PDF files. The program is also small enough to install and operate from a flash drive. It truly is a simple task management program.

Four Concerns with NCLB 2.0 the Obama Administration’s Blueprint for the Reauthorization of ESEA

During the last week, the web has been abuzz with talk about the Blueprint for NCLB 2.0 the Obama administration’s reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act. Most of the talk is mixed. Perhaps this mostly due to the largely vague phrases and broad generalizations found throughout most of the document. Still, my repeated read-throughs of the document have basically made me concerned about four themes found in its language.

1. The tying of tests to teacher and principal performance. I have no problem with accountability, and honestly I have no problem with testing, but testing is an imperfect business. Anyone who has taken a graduate level testing and assessment class knows that there many things that can go wrong with testing data, and many of those things are beyond the control of teachers and administrators. Making sure students get sleep the night before. Ensuring that students have breakfast that morning. Ensuring that students have regular attendance in the days leading up to the test. The list is endless. There are just too many factors that can influence a child’s score on a test given in a single moment in time. Now, if someone could develop a test and testing procedures that can control all these variables and the unknown ones, then let’s talk about using tests to measure teacher and principal effectiveness. The equation in the blueprint has basically be redefined. Under the Bush administration, High Test Scores=Student Achievement and Effective Schools. Under the Obama administration, High Test Scores=Effective Teachers and principals.

2. The fact that in all four turnaround plans for failing schools, the principal gets the ax. In a Twitter exchange last week with someone, they specifically pointed out that in the business world, the CEO or even a manager gets the ax if the business does not show a profit, so what is wrong with a principal getting the ax when a school fails to meet expectations? There is actually nothing wrong with it, if schools were like businesses, but they are not. CEO’s enjoy a great deal more autonomy than school principals and they have greater control over the factors that control the organization’s performance. CEOs have a great deal to say about budgets. They have a great deal to say about hiring and firing. They even have more control over the planning process. The degree of freedom CEOs have permits them to control many aspects of their company. A school principal does not enjoy that same level of control. She does not have great control over the budget. Very often, she is told what amounts of money is available, and even told where and how that money can be spent. As far as hiring, principals can have decisions in hiring, but these decisions are subject to all manner of restrictions and in some cases directives coming from all levels of the educational system. And firing, well even in a non-union state like mine, there are processes that must be followed, and specific reasons for firing are defined by state law, so firing is no simple matter, and is certainly not left up to the principal entirely. The principal does not even control the planning process for his own school. In North Carolina, state policy and state law guide the planning process so that school improvement plans are created and presented in a prescribed way, even if that way is not entirely conducive to effective planning. Sometimes the state requirements on the format the plan has to take, makes the plan itself utterly useless at the school level. So, to hold the principal absolutely accountable for a school he does not fully have control over, seems to be unfair. Who would want to take responsibility for a school then be told every time he tries to make a decision that he can’t do that? Principals just do not enjoy the same operational freedom that CEOs have, so to pretend that they control the school is ludicrous.

3. There’s a lot of talk in the blueprint about encouraging “new generations of tests” but no actual language to make sure states follow through with designing these tests. Those of us who have been educators for awhile know that if it “ain’t written down” then it “ain’t gonna happen.” The language of the blueprint and the language from Secretary Duncan talks big about having tests that more accurately measure what students need to be able to do if they are “college and career ready.” In reality, if there are not specific guidelines, what would prevent states from just taking their current testing programs and continue them? Many states see nothing wrong with their testing, and might just choose to make their testing programs fit the new federal guidelines, especially if it is going to be costly to design those new tests. The reality of state testing programs is that they have financial restrictions too, and if it costs too much to change them, they won’t, especially if they have lots of money already invested in their current testing programs. I honestly don’t have a great deal of faith in the idea that states are going to change their testing too much.

4. The idea that states can arrive at a definition of effective teacher, highly effective teacher, effective principal, and highly effective principal. Buried in the blueprint is this idea of having states define each of these levels of performance. It does say teachers, principals, and other stakeholders should be involved in creating these definitions, but what is going to prevent these definitions from becoming too narrowly defined on things like increased test scores and low drop-out rates? A too-narrow definition will result in principals whose focus is on those specific things, often at the expense of other things. Besides, when you ask someone to tell you why they thought a particular teacher or principal was good, they often struggle to find an answer. If states can arrive at definitions of these that are fair and acceptable without being too narrow, then my concern is not quite as strong.

I am sure as the ESEA reauthorization process continues, and as I continue to read through the blueprint I will find more areas of concern. Based on my readings so far, the four concerns above are my main ones for now. At this point in time, I am not sure that NCLB 2.0 is the radical transformation that Secretary Duncan says it is. Much of what it says seems to me to be faithful to the core of NCLB 1.0.

Administrative Ideas for Using Skype

I honestly cannot take full credit for this idea because when I came on board in my current position as principal of a redesign high school, most of the teachers were already using Skype to communicate during the school day. They suggested that I install it too. I knew about Skype, but until this point in time, had no reason to use the software. Sounds kinds of funny, but to Skype, you have to have someone to Skype with.

I installed Skype on my school laptop and my personal laptop, and to be honest, the experiment has been great. We are finding all kinds of uses for Skype in carrying out our daily tasks. Here are just a few ways we are using it:

1. Making announcements: Our school does not have an Intercom system, so making school-wide announcements is problematic. Instead, should any of us need to make announcements during the course of the day, we Skype them. To make sure we are all connected, the first thing we do in the morning is log into Skype so that we have that immediate connection. If someone needs to see a student, we send out a message over Skype, and whichever teacher has that student, responds and sends him or her to the requested location.
2. On-going discussions: Obviously, my teachers are teaching, so I do not always expect immediate responses to discussion items sent out over Skype, but if there is a pressing issue, I can send it out, and when teachers get a free moment, they respond. On one particular occasion, I posted a dilemma on Skype, and the conversation took off and lasted all day, with teachers responding to the issue when the opportunity arose. We can by using Skype have important discussions about any aspect of our school when the need arises.
3. Teachers Meetings: Sometimes there are occasions, especially during the summer, it is a bit problematic for the teaching staff to come to the school. In those cases, we will use Skype to discuss issues that arise when coming to the school is problematic.
4. Interviews: Next week, I will be conducting my first interview for a staff position using Skype. This prevents me from asking a potential job candidate from having to travel to our school for an initial interview.

Undoubtedly, many others have found many more uses for Skype than those I have listed here. But it has amazed me how quickly this interactive tool has seamlessly blended into our daily routine. Using technology is all about the possibilities, and the possibilities are endless.

Further Examination of NCLB 2.0 the Obama Administration’s Blueprint for ESEA Reauthorization

Yesterday, I examined priority one in the Obama Administration’s recently released blueprint for the reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act. After examining priority one specifically, it is apparent that the Obama administration is going to continue the testing mania of NCLB 1.0, with some new areas of emphasis. Those areas are:

• tying student test scores to teacher and principal evaluations.
• ensuring every student graduates college and career ready.
• increased flexibility but most likely more federal government oversight.

The blueprint outlines five educational priorities that guide the Obama administration’s education policy. The second priority is Great Teachers and Leaders in Every School. Under this priority, the Obama administration has decided to focus on three components: 1) Effective teachers and principals, 2) Placing the best teachers and principals where they are needed most, and 3) Strengthening teacher and leader preparation and recruitment.

In addressing effective teachers and principals, the blueprint uses language like “elevating the teaching profession” by “recognizing, encouraging, and rewarding excellence.” Teacher and principal evaluations are called for that “identify effective and highly effective teachers and principals on the basis of student growth and other factors.” These evaluations are to be used to identify staff development needs for teachers and principals and help improve student learning.There is also a statement that there will be a “new program” to address the recruitment, placement, rewarding, retaining, and promoting effective teachers and principals. Still another statement says that this program will be used to “enhance the profession of teaching.” The Obama administration’s talk about elevating the teaching profession is hard to argue with, but apparently his idea of doing that involves three things: 1)tying teacher and principal evaluations to test scores, 2) revamped teacher and principal evaluations that identify “effective” and “highly effective” teachers and principals, and 3) some unnamed program that will focus on recruitment, placement, retention, rewarding and promoting teachers and principals.

Personally the language of the blueprint should cause teachers and principals concern for several reasons. First of all, the Obama administration and Secretary Arne Duncan just can’t let go of the idea of tying teacher and principal evaluations to student test performance. This is a concern for me personally for two reasons. To begin with, right now there are no existing state tests or national tests that I would bet my career on. My own state, North Carolina has the strangest and quirkiest testing system in the country. It takes a mathematician to figure how the state figures growth from year to year because they do not even use the same subject test to determine growth. For example, to determine growth in on the US History test, they actually use non-history tests and some kind of magical statistical formula to determine growth. Who would want to bank their career on that kind of mathematical wizardry? Another reason to be concerned is that teachers and principals must regularly deal with a number of variables beyond their control. I agree with the Obama administration’s language when they point out the importance of having an effective teacher in the classroom and an effective principal in the school. But the Obama administration’s plan dumps the entire responsibility for student achievement into the laps of teachers and principals. What about all the other factors that are important too, like whether the child gets a good night sleep, whether he has adequate health care, whether she has loving, caring parents, and whether she has clothing to wear? The Obama administration fails address how this evaluation system is also going to take into consideration these social factors.

The other component that concerns me as an administrator is this word “placement” in this phantom new program. Does this mean that teachers and administrators can look forward to being shuffled to and fro during their careers? The hidden meaning here is that if you are an effective or highly effective administrator or teacher you are going to find yourself in schools of highest need. You’ll will get the call that you are being sent across town to a school that has trouble keeping teachers and principals for a reason. They are unpleasant places to work due to lack of resources and lack of support.

I plan to continue to sift through the language of the Obama administration’s blueprint for NCLB 2.0 in the coming days. The bottom line is, it seems to me that on the one hand, the Obama administration sounds supportive of teachers and administrators and the idea of educator professionalism. But, on the other hand, when you start looking more closely at NCLB 2.0 you have to start worrying that its continued focus on high-stakes testing is only going to intensify the sour culture created by the Bush administration’s NCLB 1.0.

Are There Any Differences Between NCLB 1.0 and NCLB 2.0 Obama’s Blueprint for ESEA Reauthorization?

The Obama administration released on its web site its blueprint for revising the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA). This was just after President Obama addressed education in his weekly Internet address. (Here’s the transcript of that address.) I have completed one complete read-through of that blueprint and think there are four areas of concern for me as a 21st century administrator. These areas are: 1) continued emphasis on testing, 2) emphasis on tying test scores to teacher and principal evaluations, 3) emphasis on getting every child ready for college and career and no provisions to address how every child is going to pay for college, and 4) the many areas that are bound to cause additional red tape and paperwork. The bottom line, NCLB 2.0 seems to continue many of the same provisions in NCLB 1.0, only the names have been changed.

The blueprint re-emphasizes the four areas of the Obama administrations focus in educational reform. Those four areas by themselves are hard to argue with or about. The first area identified by the Obama administration has been improving teacher and principal effectiveness to ensure that every classroom has a great teacher and every school has a great leader. That seems fairly innocuous. Who would argue that we want ineffective teachers and ineffective leaders? The second area identified is providing information to families to help them evaluate and improve their children's schools, and to educators to help them improve their students' learning. Again nothing earth-shattering with this idea. The third area is implementing college and career ready standards and developing improved assessments aligned with those standards. Now this is obvious a continued emphasis on the importance of testing. This sounds no different from NCLB 1.0. The final area is improving student learning and achievement in America's lowest performing schools by providing intensive support and effective interventions. Again, not sure how much this is different from NCLB 1.0. It is also impossible to argue with this focus. There is absolutely nothing earth-shattering or distinctive about any of these. Where Obama administrative education policy starts being distinctive is with its so-called five key priorities.

1. College and Career Ready Students
2. Great Teachers and Leaders in Every School
3. Equity and Opportunity for All Students
4. Raise the Bar and Reward Excellence
5. Promote Innovation and Continuous Improvement

The blueprint then goes on to describe each of the components for each of the five areas.

Under College and Career Ready Students, the components are: raising standards for all students, better assessments, and a complete education. What the first component calls for is that every student should graduate college and career ready and that states should adopt college and career readiness standards. It is made clear that states can adopt common standards or use existing their existing ones. I would note here that obviously the Obama administration is retreating just a bit on requiring common national standards. The better assessments called for by the administration must be aligned with college and career ready standards. There is also language that states that these assessments should “capture higher-order skills” and provide more accurate measures of student growth. These tests should also better inform classroom instruction. The final component under College and Career Ready Students is a complete education. The blueprint calls for students to have a well-rounded education. This is defined in the document as being “from literacy to mathematics, science, technology to history, civics, foreign languages, the arts, financial literacy, and other subjects.”

So what does this first priority suggest to me as an administrator. My first reaction is that the first priority means the following:

• Our focus in the schools is going to be on core courses that prepare students for college.
• Because there is absolutely no mention of Career and Technical Education, I wonder if the Obama administration is pondering tossing these programs on the slag heap.
• States are not obligated to adopt common national standards. The early rhetoric from the Obama administration and Secretary Duncan seemed to be a call for common national standards.
• There will be a continued focus on testing just like NCLB 1.0. The Obama administration seems to have attempted to address some educator concerns about tests that do not measure student growth accurately, and tests that do not seem require but the most elemental thinking.
• Tests should also inform class instruction. This is big for teachers and administrators in North Carolina. Our current tests provide no useable information for the classroom teacher or school administrator.
• The call for a well-rounded education seems to address concerns about how our education system has ignored all but tested areas. The problem is, the Obama administration still does not realize, unless it is tested, it is often not taught.

Now that I have had some time read carefully through some of the Obama’s administration’s blueprint for the reauthorization of ESEA, I can see that there were at least superficial attempts to address some of the educator concerns about NCLB 1.0. Still, I am not convinced there is a great deal of difference between NCLB 2.0 (Obama’s blueprint version) and NCLB 1.0 (the Bush version.) Tomorrow, I will try to post on the priority Great Teacher and Leaders in Every School.

Obama Education Policy: Change We Could Do Without

According to President Obama’s weekly Internet address his administration’s education policy is an attempt to create an educational system that “Creates a more competitive America and a better future.” It’s hard to argue with words like “what matters is what we do to lift up the next generation.” It is equally hard to argue with phrases like “raising expectations for our students and ourselves,” “rewarding good teaching,” “to recognize and reward excellence,” “improve performance of public schools,” and “give our kids and out country the best chance to succeed in a changing world.” We have been hearing the same thing from politicians for my entire 20 year career in education. So what is really different about the Obama’s administration from the previous administration?

According to his weekly Internet address, “states compete for funding by committing to reform and raising standards.” The idea of competition for federal funding is new. What is really wrong with this idea? As many people have pointed out, a competition means there will be winners and losers. Some states and school systems will have to do without needed funding in a year when states and local governments are having to slash budgets. Those will be the losers in the Obamafest Competition for Education Funds. Who will ultimately lose are students in those schools, systems, and states just because their state’s application is rejected. When a President boasts in the same speech that “unless we step up, there are countless children who will never realize their full talent and potential,” I see a serious disconnect between stated beliefs and practice. How can the President boast and declare that he is concerned about the education of every child, when he is going to use a process that by its very nature is going to declare some children losers, just because their state can’t write an acceptable application?  In his speech regarding those 16 states who were finalists, Education Secretary Arne Duncan reminds us again that  “Race to the Top is a competition. Only the best proposals will win.” A translation of this is, those states with poor proposals will lose, and so will the students in those states. I am puzzled to no end how a Presidential administration could possibly be so callous as to turn our children’s future into a bureaucratic competition.

Task Coach Review: Open Source Program to Help Administrators Manage Tasks

In earlier posts, I examined technology solutions for developing and maintaining a Professional Learning Network. As an administrator, one advantage of technology tools like Twitter and Google Reader is the ability to build and maintain connections to a number of like professionals through the use of technology tools. Another problem that administrators face is how to manage all of the tasks that are a part of the job. The old fashioned, written checklist is certainly a fantastic standby, but there are technological solutions to help with this task management too. Task Coach, an open source software program, provides administrators with a tool that is has some fairly powerful features that make keeping up with tasks much easier. Most of all, because it is open source, it can be downloaded free of charge.

Task Coach is a software program that allows users to keep track of personal tasks and todo lists. Some of its most common features are: 1) It can be installed on a flash drive for maximum portability. You can take your todo list and task lists with you. 2) Tasks can be categorized. 3) You can also create subtasks. 4) Can views tasks as a list or as a tree. 5) Tasks can be sorted by attributes you assign. 6) Can show/hide certain tasks so that you only see what is due on a given day. 7) Can add attachments to task items. 8) Tasks can be created by dragging email from Outlook or Thunderbird onto task viewer. 9) Notes can created and assigned to certain tasks. 10) Tasks can have budgets and a record of time spent. 11) Tasks can be exported in several file formats so that they can be converted to other formats like Excel or Word files.

To set up Task Coach, you can begin by downloading the program from the link below.

http://sourceforge.net/projects/taskcoach/

After you have run the installation, and you have started the program, the program should open with screen below.

Ideas for Using Task Coach

One feature that is highly useful in Task Coach is the ability to assign main tasks and then sub tasks under that main task. So many times there are administrative tasks that are quite complicated. These tasks actually involve a number of multiple sub tasks that must be completed before the task is completed. By using Task Coach’s sub task feature, a complex task can be broken down into manageable parts.

Another useful feature is the ability to color code your tasks. You can choose colors to highlight certain kinds of tasks such as operation tasks, curriculum tasks, or even red-hot tasks that must be completed.

You can export your tasks from Task Coach into a file readable by Outlook. Using this feature, you can sync your tasks in Outlook with Task Coach items.

Use the set priority to establish which tasks are most important.

If you have a task that involves completing a form, attach that form electronically to your task entry. You can also attach it to email.

If the task involves an email, you can copy and paste the text of the email into a note attached to a task.

Task Coach is a free solution to track tasks. It has many features for a small scale program. There is a bit of a learning curve to learn how to use all its features. But for an all-around task management system for school administrators, it is a good program.

This post is a continuation of solutions for administrators. The focus of this post is finding electronic ways to manage all the administrative tasks.