1. Survey of Enacted Curriculum An Essential Tool for School Improvement CCSSO SEC State Collaborative Meeting San Diego, CA February 2008 Constance J Dorr, Ph.D. cd@fostoriaschools.org

2. Fostoria City Schools 1928 ADM 7.9%African American 8.9%Hispanic 18.2% Multiracial 64.5%White 61.5% Econ Disadvantaged 3.8% LEP 14.4%SWD 0.6%Migrant

3. Fostoria City Schools Enrollment Trends –Regional –District Budgetary Impacts –Buildings –Staffing patterns

4. Accountability Academic Content Standards Achievement/Graduation Tests AYP for All Student Groups Highly Qualified Teachers Principals as Instructional Leaders

5. Instruction Assessment Curriculum

6. –Ohio’s Academic Content Standards, Benchmarks, Grade Level Indicators –Teacher Teams –Content Experts –Existing Curriculum

7. Fostoria Performance Indictors –Grade level indicators and benchmarks ‘wrapped’ together into meaningful student performances –What students should know and be able to do –Developed by district K-12 vertical and horizontal teacher teams with consultation from content experts

8. Instruction –Written Curriculum Maps/Course Organizers Unit Plans Lesson Plans –Observed Collaborative Observation Walk-Through Evaluations –Discussed Grade level collaboration Departmental collaboration

9. Assessment Assessment Student Achievement Data 1. Ohio Diagnostic Results (K-3) 2. Ohio Achievement Test Results (Grades 3-8) 3. OGT Results (Grade 10) 4. OAT/OGT Item Analysis 5. AYP Accountability Workbook 4. Terra Nova Results—Value Added Data 5. Other Diagnostic Assessments (e.g., DIBELS, Rigby, Fountas and Pinnell, Waterford, AR) 6. Classroom Assessments (PI Mastery)

10. District Rating Increases –Continuous Improvement  –Academic Watch  –Academic Emergency

11. Survey of Enacted Curriculum Ohio Department of Education Regional Assessment Update Meeting Fall 2005 Announcement regarding SEC –Examine alignment of curriculum and instruction –No cost to districts

12. SEC Role of District Curriculum Director A tool to ‘test’ alignment between our intended, enacted and assessed core curriculum SEC 101 SEC 201 & 301—Principal Administrative team training Faculty training

13. Time for Teachers Release time provided for teachers (‘floating’ subs) Teachers worked together in small groups, using curriculum maps, lesson plans, textbooks, and discussion Completion of the survey by at least 3 teachers Confidentiality was emphasized

14. Use of SEC Data ELA, math and science SEC aggregated data was examined and discussed as a part of grade and department meetings prior to the opening of school in August 2006 The examination of the data highlighted the importance of instruction—content and cognitive demand levels Teachers worked together to identify content that was ‘taught and tested’, ‘tested but not taught’ and ‘taught but not tested’

15. Teacher Responses Initially survey seems lengthy Terminology may be confusing Perceived value of SEC tool increases during subsequent years Relevance for school improvement initiatives

16. SEC Data Stimulated important dialogue among faculty and administrators regarding instructional topics, use of instructional time and cognitive demand levels required of students Alignment with OAT and OGT results Alignment between topics ‘covered’ at cognitive demand levels with content and cognitive demand levels of statewide test items (item analysis)

17. Adequate Yearly Progress Sufficient numbers of students earn scores in the Advanced and Accelerated ranges yielding a Performance Index = CI Rating Not all student groups meet AYP targets District moves into Improvement status

18. Comprehensive District Data Analysis Corrective Action—2006-2007 –AYP targets not met by student groups SEC becomes vital part of comprehensive district data analysis process –Student OAT and OGT results –SEC instructional data –Perceptual data—underlying beliefs and values

19. Data Walls

20. CCIP Development Comprehensive Continuous Improvement Plan—District and School Improvement Plans Goals (4) Strategies (3) Action Steps

21. Goal 1—Increase Reading Strategy: Increase the depth of reading content knowledge and skills and the cognitive demand levels in the teaching and learning of reading and core content, which is aligned with Achievement and Graduation Test content and cognitive demand levels

22. Goal 1—Increase Reading Strategy: All district personnel are accountable and take responsibility for achievement of all students, including district leadership and teachers through a district accountability system, which is aligned vertically and horizontally—all teachers are Highly Qualified (HQT) Action Step: Teachers and administrators examine and apply district, school, and student LRC, accountability workbook, common assessment, value-added, and survey of enacted curriculum data to inform instruction.

23. Next Steps for SEC SEC was completed again in spring 2007 Teachers were able to compare two years of own data confidentially Social studies teachers were able to participate in pilot survey during the summer of 2007

24. SEC –More dialogue regarding terminology –Confidentiality very important –‘But I covered that’ –How and where should I place instructional emphasis? –What should I expect from my students? –Have I moved closer ‘to the mark’ this year?

25. SEC Resources –PD provided by Carolyn Karatzas –Administrative Team and Curriculum Leaders –½ day department meetings –½ day grade level meetings –Identification of ‘big bucket’ content/cognitive demand areas –Assessment data patterns –Item analysis –Ohio SUCCESS Website

26. Application of SEC –Teachers used SEC benchmark, indicator and assessment tile charts to identify most important content and cognitive demand levels –Highlighted important content within PIs to clarify where emphasis should be placed and examined benchmarks to determine if appropriately aligned to cognitive demand levels –PI modifications

27. SEC A powerful tool that helps us to focus on what is most important—teaching and learning relevant content at appropriate cognitive demand levels.