Presentation is loading. Please wait.

Presentation is loading. Please wait.

Instructional Leadership Training (ILT) November 27, 2012.

Similar presentations


Presentation on theme: "Instructional Leadership Training (ILT) November 27, 2012."— Presentation transcript:

1 Instructional Leadership Training (ILT) November 27, 2012

2  Understand some of the basic components of the new accountability system for 2013 and beyond  Generate feedback on a draft CBA analysis protocol for calibrating the work of PLCs  Learn how to generate some key administrator data views in Aware, Forethought and Workshop  Recognize the importance of monitoring processes when PLCs plan for learning

3 GroupReadingMathWritingScience Social Studies All students African American Hispanic White Econ Disadv

4 Index 1 Student Achievement Index 2 Student Progress Index 3 Closing Performance Gaps Index 4 Postsecondary Readiness Score0-100 Score0-100 Score0-100 Score0-100 Rating ?

5  Begins 2013  Performance standards  STAAR 3-8 and EOC: Final Level II (Satisfactory)  TAKS: Met Standard (2013 only)  Assessments  STAAR, STAAR-M (w/cap), STAAR-Alt (w/cap), STAAR-L (TBD)  TAKS, TAKS-M (grade 11)  Administrations  Grades 5 & 8: First 2 administrations  EOC: Primary admin, spring and previous summer and fall  EOC (MS): No double-testing

6  Subjects  Reading, Math, Writing, Science, Social Studies  Student groups  All students only  Accountability subset  STAAR 3-8: Fall snapshot  EOC ▪ Fall snapshot for spring and previous fall ▪ Previous year snapshot for previous summer Summer 2012 Fall 2012 Spring 2013 Subset based on Oct 2012 snapshot Subset based on Oct 2011 snapshot

7  Methodology  Results summed across tests, subjects, grade levels Number of tests at Final Level II (STAAR) and Met Standard (TAKS) Number of tests taken

8  Begins 2014  Growth standards: TBD  Transition table model to determine growth Level I Unsatisfactory Level II Satisfactory Level III Advanced Level I Low High Level II Low Level II Mid Level II High Level III Low Level III High

9  Subjects  Reading, Math, Writing (EOC only)  Science, Social Studies (TBD for EOC only)  Accountability subset  Same as for Index 1  Student groups  All students  ELLs, Special Education  All seven race/ethnicity groups  Minimum group size: 20

10  Methodology  Results summed across tests and grade levels  Analyzed by subject and by student group Number in student group who met growth standard for subject Number in student group tested in subject

11

12  Limited in 2013, final form in 2014  Assessments and subjects  Same as Index 1 (all tests, all subjects, w/cap)  Accountability subset  Same as Index 1  Minimum group size: 20  Student groups  Economically disadvantaged  Two lowest-performing race/ethnicity groups from previous year  Alternate method used if only 1 or 2 subgroups

13  Performance standard  Level II Final (2013 and beyond)  Level III (2014 and beyond)  Methodology  Summed across tests and grade levels  Results analyzed by subject and student group  Results are weighted ▪ One point for each percentage point of students in the group meeting the Level II standard ▪ Two points for each percentage point of students in the group meeting the Level III standard

14

15

16 1. STAAR Percent Met Level III Standard  Begins 2014  Assessments and subjects  Same as Index 1 (all tests, all subjects)  Accountability subset  Same as Index 1  Minimum group size: 20  Student groups evaluated  All students and seven race/ethnicity subgroups

17 1. STAAR Percent Met Level III Standard  Methodology  Results summed by grade level, tests and subjects  Analyzed by student subgroup

18 2. Grade 9-12 Graduation Rate  Begins 2013  Standard  State-defined graduation rate as per statute  Four- and five-year rates used  Student groups  All students, ELLs, special education, seven race/ethnicity  Minimum group size: 20

19 2. Grade 9-12 Graduation Rate  Methodology (four-year and five-year) Number of Graduates in cohort Graduates + Continuers + GED Recipients + Dropouts

20 3. Recommended/Advanced High School Program  Begins 2013  Student groups  All students, seven race/ethnicity groups  Minimum group size: 20  Methodology Number graduates with RHSP or AHSP Total number of graduates

21 Index Construction  Graduation score (high school only)  Four- or five-year graduation rate, whichever is best  RHSP/AHSP graduates  STAAR score  Percent met Level III (2014 and beyond)  For high schools the graduation score and STAAR scores are averaged to determine overall index score

22

23

24 Index 1 Student Achievement Index 2 Student Progress Index 3 Closing Performance Gaps Index 4 Postsecondary Readiness Rating ?

25

26  Unification of state and federal systems may not be approved  ELL progress measures still undecided  Three-year averaging required by statute  Two possible campus and district ratings in 2013  Met Standard  Improvement Required  One higher-level distinction available in 2014 for districts based on postsecondary readiness  Tier 1 & Tier 2 akin to Exemplary and Recognized

27  Campus distinctions  Postsecondary readiness (1 st or 2 nd tier)  Top 25% - Closing the Gap and Student Progress  Academic Achievement (Reading, Math, Science, Soc St)  21 st Century Workforce Development  Fine Arts, Physical Education  Second Language Acquisition  Timeline  March 2013 – Commissioner final decisions  May 2013 – Accountability Manual released

28

29 Setting context Gathering feedback

30 Core Values Measurement, Analysis & Knowledge Management Leadership Student & Stakeholder Focus Strategic Planning Human Resource Focus Process Management Strategic Performance ResultsOperational Goals and measurable objectives Customer requirements Strategic actions Leading indicators

31  Processes are the system component over which we have the most control  It is the most effective (and only?) way to leverage improvement in delivery  It provides agility to respond to internal and external changes in the system

32  No single person knows how to do all of this perfectly  We are on a collaborative learning journey

33  Primary purpose: Provide data to C&I staff to assess the curriculum  Secondary purpose: Provide PLCs with data on rigorous, aligned items to help calibrate design of assessments and instruction  Not intended to be a comprehensive assessment of student mastery of the TEKS in previous 9 weeks of instruction

34

35 Lesson 1 Planning and delivering an instructional unit Formative assessment (FA) Regroup Reteach Lesson 2 Lesson 3 Lesson 4 FA PLC PLC PLC Curriculum Common assessment Reteach Content, Context, Cognition SEs Redesign

36  Model  An example for imitation or emulation  A description or analogy used to help visualize something that cannot be directly observed  “Essentially, all models are wrong, but some are useful.” - George Box  Help teachers visualize how parts of a process fit together into a cohesive whole  Help leaders identify key places to monitor processes and identify opportunities for learning

37 Lesson 1 Planning and delivering an instructional unit Formative assessment (FA) Regroup Reteach Lesson 2 Lesson 3 Lesson 4 FA PLC PLC PLC Curriculum Common assessment Reteach Content, Context, Cognition SEs Redesign

38 Lesson 1 Planning and delivering an instructional unit Formative assessment (FA) Regroup Reteach Lesson 2 Lesson 3 Lesson 4 FA PLC PLC PLC Curriculum Common assessment Reteach Content, Context, Cognition SEs Redesign forethought aware forethought aware forethought

39 Lesson 1 Planning and delivering an instructional unit Formative assessment (FA) Regroup Reteach Lesson 2 Lesson 3 Lesson 4 FA PLC PLC PLC Curriculum Common assessment Reteach Content, Context, Cognition SEs Redesign

40 Instruction Unit 1 Common assessment FA CA FA CA Regroup, Reteach, Redesign Unit 2Unit 3Unit 4 PLC District CBA PLC CBA Analysis Protocol Calibrate alignment between classroom instruction, common assessments and district CBAs C&I

41  It’s about alignment, learning and improving processes  It’s not about compliance Taught Written Tested Standards

42  Designed to lead PLCs through a thought process  Identify items where students had difficulty  Compare how SEs were addressed in items with how they were addressed in the taught and tested curriculum  Compare performance on the SEs with performance on the state test last year  Determine if and how these SEs will be re-addressed in current year  Determine how instruction and assessment will be modified the next time these areas are taught

43  Consider as a group the draft protocol in light of the context just discussed  Determine if there are components that should be added to the protocol. Provide a rationale for why they should be included.  Identify components that could be improved through change, what those changes should be, and your rationale  Identify components that should be deleted and your rationale

44 David F. Holland – Accountability, Research and Program Evaluation


Download ppt "Instructional Leadership Training (ILT) November 27, 2012."

Similar presentations


Ads by Google