Presentation on theme: "Trends from the Quality Review Across CFN 204 from Changes/Updates for"— Presentation transcript:
1Trends from the Quality Review Across CFN 204 from 2011-12 Changes/Updates for 2012-13 Children First Network 204Summer InstituteMary Barton,SATIFCharles Drannbauer,Achievement CoachJuly 26, 2012August 2, 2012
2Trends fromTo help capture the state of our network schools that were reviewed in through either a formal Quality Review or an Alternate Quality Review (Peer Quality Review or Developing Quality Review), an analysis was done of where our schools fell in relation to the rubric fromDone to surface gaps with schools and to provide more targeted and necessary services in
3Trends from16 of the 29 current network schools had a form of the QR conducted in (Approximately 55% of our schools)13 schools had formal QRs.2 schools had Peer QRs.1 school had a DQR.We are looking at data to assist us in planning for network supports to schools.
4Trends fromOf the 13 formal QRs, schools fell in these categories:1 school received Well Developed9 schools received Proficient3 schools received Developing0 schools received Underdeveloped
5Quality Review Item Analysis 126.96.36.199.188.8.131.52.184.108.40.206.220.127.116.11.18.104.22.168.4Developing15.4%30.8%0.0%7.7%23.1%38.5%Proficient69.2%53.8%92.3%46.2%61.5%76.9%Well Developed
6Trends fromIn looking at indicators around the instructional core (1.1, 1.2, 2.2) the results are as follows:1.1 Curriculum2 schools received WD9 schools received P2 schools received DNo schools received UD
7Trends from 2011-12 1.2 Pedagogy 0 schools received WD 9 schools received P4 schools received D0 schools received U
8Trends from 2011-12 2.2 Assessment 1 schools received WD 9 schools received P3 schools received D0 schools received U
9Trends from69.2% of schools that received P in 1.1., 1.2 and 2.2 received an overall score of ProficientThe lowest rated indicators for network schools were 3.2 and 5.4.The highest rated indicators for network schools was 1.4 at 61.5% Well Developed and 2.3 at 92.3% Proficient.
10Changes for 2012-13 I. Instructional Core across Classrooms The Quality Review rubric has been condensed, from 20 indicators across five Quality Statements, to 10 indicators within three Quality Categories. The three categories and 10 indicators for are:I. Instructional Core across ClassroomsCurriculum (1.1)Pedagogy (1.2)Assessment (2.2)
11Changes for 2012-13 II. School Culture Positive learning environment (1.4)High expectations (3.4)III. Structures for ImprovementLeveraging resources (1.3)Teacher support and supervision (4.1)Goals and action plans (3.1)Teacher teams and leadership development (4.2)Monitoring and revising systems (5.1)
12Connection of Student, Teacher, Content The framework for the QR rubric aligns with this diagram.The instructional core is the relationship between the student, teacher and content (i.e. academic tasks). For the instructional core to improve, or maintain a high standard across classrooms within a school, the school’s culture and structures must facilitate efforts at increasing and sustaining quality.At this point, participants should review the updated rubric they received this morning. (10 minutes to review)
13Citywide Instructional Expectations and the QR The Quality Review rubric and process will be aligned to the instructional expectations. Schools will need to show evidence that:Teachers receive actionable, high-quality feedback and professional development connected to instructional improvement efforts, school goals, and the revision of Common Core-aligned units of study;All students experience rigorous, Common Core-aligned units of study, and requisite supports and extensions, including those particular to students with disabilities and English language learners;
14Citywide Instructional Expectations and the QR At least during these units, lessons aligned to the selected Common Core literacy standards show evidence of planning with a focus on text-dependent writing, questioning, and discussion;At least during these units, lessons aligned to the selected Common Core math standards show evidence of planning with a focus on integrating conceptual understanding and application opportunities for all students, along with working on procedural fluency;
15Citywide Instructional Expectations and the QR Principals articulate a clear rationale for their strategic choices, e.g. selecting Danielson competencies to support teacher practice, identifying which teachers will implement Common Core-aligned instruction, and determining how many units each teacher will implement;The school uses resources (human, budget, time), data, and systems to monitor and improve organizational and instructional quality in light of the instructional expectations and school, staff, and student needs.
16Citywide Instructional Expectations and the QR As in past years, reviewers will take the time of year into consideration, as implementation of the instructional expectations will look different in fall, winter, and spring.
17Weighted IndicatorsWeighted indicators from will remain weighted inThe taxonomy of the previous years’ rubrics, such as “indicator 3.4”, will remain for ease of reference, despite the changes which eliminate indicators 3.2 and 3.3.
18Notable Rubric Revisions Instructional Core across Classrooms1.1 CurriculumShift in language from CCLS “tasks” to “units of study” and inclusion of the Citywide Instructional Expectations (CIE) instructional shifts.
19Notable Rubric Revisions 1.2 PedagogyRemoval of term differentiation and inclusion of language that shifts to evidence of meeting students needs through work products that demonstrate high level thinking; inclusion of language “informed by a common teaching framework,” “appropriately challenging tasks” and “ownership” to connect more clearly to Danielson.
20Notable Rubric Revisions 2.2 AssessmentRevision of language to clarify common assessment use and revision of footnote regarding the term “common” to ensure that rubric language allows for a school’s approach to assessment practices.
21Notable Rubric Revisions School Culture1.4—Revision of language to draw more explicit connections among the school’s approach to culture building, discipline and safety; inclusion of language connected to academic and personal behaviors to align more closely with college and career readiness benchmarks3.4—Inclusion of language “culture for learning” to connect more clearly to Danielson; inclusion of the communication of high expectations connected to a path for college and career readiness to align with the CIE
22Notable Rubric Revisions Structures for Improvement3.1, 4.1, 4.2—Revision of language to weave more explicit practices connected to design and facilitation of professional development into these indicators4.1—Revision of language to highlight implicit use of teaching framework; inclusion of footnote to clarify the term “effective feedback”5.1—Revision of language to address monitoring and revision of practices connected to the three quality categories that live within the conceptual framework; the instructional core, school structures and school culture
23Changes to scoring Summary of changes Weighted indicators are worth 12 points at the highest end and inform 60% of the overall score.Non-weighted indicators are worth 8 points at the highest end and inform 40% of overal score.Cut scores have been lowered slightly (2 points in each case) to align with logical scoring scenario outcomes at the lowest and highest end of each category.
24Scoring ValuesSchools still receive a category of Well Developed, Proficient, Developing or Underdeveloped, based on a numerical score out of 100 potential points.Five weighted indicators are still intact but do not carry double the weight.
25Scoring Values Rating Category W Ind. N-W Ind. Well Developed 12 points 8 pointsProficient points 6 pointsDeveloping points pointsUnderdeveloped points points
26Cut ScoresWell Developed Proficient Developing Underdeveloped Slight change—lowered threshold for Proficient and Developing based on different scoring scenarios
27Reports Bullet distribution Well Developed—5 Strengths and 1 Area for ImprovementProficient—4 Strengths and 2 Areas for ImprovementDeveloping—3 Strengths and 3 Areas for ImprovementUnderdeveloped—3 Strengths and 3 Areas for ImprovementBullet sets will continue to have one overarching bullet per indicator and one to two supporting evidence sub bullets, referencing at least two of the three sub-indicators for the given indicator.
28Questions?Please feel free to contact Mary Barton, SATIF, with any questions or concerns around any items presented today.Supports available—Analysis of reports and next stepsPreparation/strategy for formal or alternate reviewsCoaching for principals around preparation of SSEF and meeting with reviewer on day 1 as well as any pre-conferencesReflection on evidence and impact of systems/initiativesWalkthroughs/meetings with principal/school leads