Presentation on theme: "Summer Institute Mary Barton, SATIF Charles Drannbauer, Achievement Coach July 26, 2012 August 2, 2012 Children First Network 204."— Presentation transcript:
Summer Institute Mary Barton, SATIF Charles Drannbauer, Achievement Coach July 26, 2012 August 2, 2012 Children First Network 204
Trends from To 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 from
Trends from 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.
Trends from Of the 13 formal QRs, schools fell in these categories: 1 school received Well Developed 9 schools received Proficient 3 schools received Developing 0 schools received Underdeveloped
Quality Review Item Analysis Developing15.4%30.8%0.0%7.7% 23.1%7.7%15.4%7.7%38.5%30.8%7.7%0.0%7.7%23.1%7.7%23.1%15.4%23.1%38.5% Proficient69.2% 53.8%30.8%53.8%69.2%92.3%46.2%69.2%53.8%61.5% 76.9% 61.5% 69.2%76.9%61.5%53.8% Well Developed 15.4%0.0%46.2%61.5%38.5%7.7%0.0%38.5%23.1%7.7% 30.8%23.1%15.4% 30.8%7.7% 15.4%7.7%
Trends from In looking at indicators around the instructional core (1.1, 1.2, 2.2) the results are as follows: 1.1 Curriculum 2 schools received WD 9 schools received P 2 schools received D No schools received UD
Trends from Pedagogy 0 schools received WD 9 schools received P 4 schools received D 0 schools received U
Trends from Assessment 1 schools received WD 9 schools received P 3 schools received D 0 schools received U
Trends from % of schools that received P in 1.1., 1.2 and 2.2 received an overall score of Proficient The 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.
Changes for 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 Classrooms Curriculum (1.1) Pedagogy (1.2) Assessment (2.2)
Changes for II. School Culture Positive learning environment (1.4) High expectations (3.4) III. Structures for Improvement Leveraging 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)
Connection 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 schools culture and structures must facilitate efforts at increasing and sustaining quality.
Citywide 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;
Citywide 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;
Citywide 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.
Citywide 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.
Weighted Indicators Weighted indicators from will remain weighted in The 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.
Notable Rubric Revisions Instructional Core across Classrooms 1.1 Curriculum Shift in language from CCLS tasks to units of study and inclusion of the Citywide Instructional Expectations (CIE) instructional shifts.
Notable Rubric Revisions 1.2 Pedagogy Removal 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.
Notable Rubric Revisions 2.2 Assessment Revision of language to clarify common assessment use and revision of footnote regarding the term common to ensure that rubric language allows for a schools approach to assessment practices.
Notable Rubric Revisions School Culture 1.4Revision of language to draw more explicit connections among the schools 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 benchmarks 3.4Inclusion 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
Notable Rubric Revisions Structures for Improvement 3.1, 4.1, 4.2Revision of language to weave more explicit practices connected to design and facilitation of professional development into these indicators 4.1Revision of language to highlight implicit use of teaching framework; inclusion of footnote to clarify the term effective feedback 5.1Revision 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
Changes 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.
Scoring Values Schools 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.
Cut Scores Well Developed Proficient Developing Underdeveloped Slight changelowered threshold for Proficient and Developing based on different scoring scenarios
Reports Bullet distribution Well Developed5 Strengths and 1 Area for Improvement Proficient4 Strengths and 2 Areas for Improvement Developing3 Strengths and 3 Areas for Improvement Underdeveloped3 Strengths and 3 Areas for Improvement Bullet 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.
Questions? 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 steps Preparation/strategy for formal or alternate reviews Coaching for principals around preparation of SSEF and meeting with reviewer on day 1 as well as any pre-conferences Reflection on evidence and impact of systems/initiatives Walkthroughs/meetings with principal/school leads