January 22, 2015

resources

Setting the Stage for IGNITE  What is keeping you awake at night?  What issues/concerns would you like to discuss with your colleagues? 2 MINUTES

Top 3 Topics from your Table  Share your list with your table team—not a conversation, just the list  Come to consensus around your table’s top 3-4 topics and post at

Legislative panel

Legislative Panel  Sen. Herman Quirmbach  Sen. Amy Sinclair  Rep. Kevin Koester  Rep. Sharon Steckman  Rep. Patti Ruff

DE Update Brad Buck, Director

Assessment Update Dave Tilly, Deputy Director



Background  Legislatively Commissioned about 15 months ago

Diverse Membership Ruth Allison, Administrative Consultant, Iowa Vocational Rehabilitation Services, Des Moines Catherine Blando, College Supervisor Faculty, Iowa Wesleyan College, Cedar Rapids Shelly Bosovich, Executive Director, Des Moines Public Schools, Des Moines Kathy Brenny, Consultant, Prairie Lakes Area Education Agency, Storm Lake Martha Bruckner, Superintendent, Council Bluffs Community School District, Council Bluffs Joe DeHart, Executive Director, Institutional Effectiveness, DMACC, Ankeny Lowell Ernst, Director of K-12 Instruction, Pella Community School District, Pella Diana Gonzalez, Chief Academic Officer, Board of Regents, Urbandale Harry Heiligenthal, Leadership Development Director, Iowa Association of School Boards, Des Moines Tina Hoffman, Regional Administrator, Grant Wood Area Education Agency, Cedar Rapids Mark Lane, Director of Human Resources, Urbandale Community School District, Urbandale Jo Ellen Latham, Director of Curriculum and Instruction, Southeast Polk Community School District, Pleasant Hill Jane Lindaman, Superintendent, Waterloo Community School District, Waterloo Jon McKenzie, Director of Assessment and Comprehensive Improvement, Area Education Agency 267, Cedar Falls Angela Olson, Associate Principal, Xavier High School, Cedar Rapids Elliott Smith, Executive Director, Iowa Business Council, Des Moines David Tilly, Deputy Director, Iowa Department of Education, Des Moines Denise Wall, Teacher, IKM-Manning Middle School, Manning Tammy Wawro, President, Iowa State Education Association, Des Moines Melanie Wirtz, Teacher, Peet Junior High School, Cedar Falls Karen Woltman, Parent, Swisher

Frequent Meetings  Early Decisions  Science assessment not considered  Worked by consensus as possible  Created review criteria and scoring rubrics  Two Rounds of data collection and scoring

Criteria and Weightings

RFI and Submissions  Sent out an RFI. Received responses from:  ACT: ACT Aspire, ACT Engage, ACT Plus Writing, and ACT WorkKeys  CollegiateZone Enterprises, L.P.: DNA (Discover, Nurture, Achieve) System  CTB/McGraw Hill (CTB): customized solutions  Data Recognition Corp (DRC): DRC INSIGHT online assessment system  The Iowa Testing Programs (ITP): Next Generation Iowa Assessments  Northwest Evaluation Association  Pearson: custom Iowa based assessment, ACT Aspire, Smarter Balanced Assessments  Turning Technologies, LLC: Triton Data Collection System, ResponseCard NXT (clicker)

Round 1  Round 1: Apply legislative criteria using scoring rubrics.  Each assessment reviewed and scored by task force members  Scores calculated for each submission.  Results summarized  3 assessments met minimum criteria  ACT Aspire/ACT  Next Generation Iowa Assessments  Smarter Balanced Assessments

Round 2  Task Force Votes to exit ACT submission from further Consideration  Additional data collected on two finalists  Additional technical review  Written Questions based on first round review  In-person interview with developers  Interviews with users (teachers, administrators, students)

Recommendations

TLC Update Ryan Wise, Deputy Director

Teacher Leadership & Compensation System Implementation Update January, 2015

Teacher Leadership & Compensation System Division VII of HF 215 created the Teacher Leadership and Compensation System, as well as the Teacher Leadership Supplement (TLS) categorical funding stream. Goals: attract and retain effective teachers promote collaboration reward professional growth and effective teaching improve student achievement by strengthening instruction Planning Grants: $3.5 million available in 2013 Phased-in Entry: $50 million available per year for the , , and school years Iowa Department of Education

Year 1 Participating Districts Iowa Department of Education In year one, the Commission approved applications from 39 districts, representing 1/3 of Iowa’s students.

All Participating Districts Iowa Department of Education In December 2014, the Commission approved applications from 76 districts for implementation in year two and 50 additional districts in year three.

Application and Selection Statistics Iowa Department of Education The average TLC application score increased by more than six points from year one to year two. In addition, the gap in the average score between the largest and smallest school districts closed by four points. The Department of Education is committed to ensuring all districts, regardless of size, are able to adapt a teacher leadership model to their local context.

Application and Selection Statistics Iowa Department of Education The average TLC application score increased significantly in almost every region of the state. In addition, the variance in the average score between AEAs shrunk dramatically. The Department of Education worked closely with the AEA system to ensure that all districts, regardless of their location, were supported in the planning process.

What We’re Hearing - Strengths Iowa Department of Education TLC implementation is off to a strong start. Stakeholders in all roles have expressed enthusiasm and have highlighted tangible results in the first few months of implementation. These early positive results are common across all districts, regardless of size or geography. “TLC lets our teachers be the leaders they are.” Superintendent, Colo-Nesco “This is the first time in my career I’ve been involved in creating professional development.” “A teacher’s day is full, so to be able to ask for support from a coach has been an awesome experience.” “I’ve noticed a really good vibe since we’ve implemented TLC. It has reenergized the staff.” “TLC has strengthened collaboration and has led to the better use of data to drive instruction… We’re already seeing big gains in student achievement.” “TLC has exponentially increased the development of teachers… and has accelerated their work in delivering better instruction.” Teacher Leader, Cedar Rapids Teacher, Benton CSD Board Member, Colo-Nesco Principal, Sioux CityAsst. Supt., Southeast Polk

What We’re Hearing – Challenges The fast pace of change can be difficult for schools. School districts have found that clearly defining each leadership role is critical, but this can be difficult to do when the roles are new to the system. TLC changes the role of the principal, and in many cases this can spark difficult conversations. Implementing TLC can shrink the pool of available substitute teachers. For example, the Sioux City School District hired 27 teachers this year who were formerly substitutes. Rural school districts may face additional challenges, including filling all of their leadership roles from within and managing the logistical challenges of teacher leaders serving schools in multiple communities. Iowa Department of Education While implementation is proceeding smoothly, districts have also shared challenges in implementing their TLC plans.

Information and Support Iowa Department of Education The Teacher Leadership and Compensation page on the Iowa Department of Education’s website provides information and support to school districts, particularly during the planning stages of TLC development.Teacher Leadership and Compensation page

Information and Support Iowa Department of Education The Agora Community on the AEA PD Online website will serve as the one-stop- shop and collaboration hub as districts implement their local TLC plans.Agora Community

IOWA Department of Education Targeting Support Engaging in Professional Learning Planning to Implement Welcoming to TLC Determine Specific Needs Ongoing Learning Teacher Leader Development Phase 2 Aligned with TLC Framework Phase 1 Vision and Goals Change Process Regional Meetings Answer Questions Plan for Support TLC – Layered Approach for Support January July 16 April 15 Continuous Regional Trainings SAI, ISEA, DE Iowa Department of Education TLC Support Team

IOWA Department of Education Creating a System of Support Phase 1 Phase 2 Phase 3 Identify/revisit the needs of the system (students, teachers, teacher leaders, administrators, community stakeholders) Establish and communicate a vision for teacher leadership in the greater context of school improvement (ground the work in a strategic plan, the IPDM, MTSS, or some other improvement model) Determine/revisit the goals for a system of teacher leadership and identify indicators of success (attend to impact and effect) Understand and engage in learning about the change process Create structures and schedules conducive to collaboration and professional learning Monitor and evaluate impact and effect Engage in training o Coaching (teacher leaders of teachers, principals of teacher leaders, superintendents of principals) o Content Knowledge and Pedagogy o Adult learning o Systems thinking Cultivate collaboration Monitor progress via analysis of indicators

Creating a System of Support Iowa Department of Education The Department of Education is working with stakeholders across Iowa to identify, coordinate and provide opportunities for teacher leaders and school leaders to build the knowledge and skills they need to be successful in these new leadership roles. Adult Learning Collaborative Culture CommunicationContent, Pedagogy & Assessment Systems Thinking DataOrganizational Leadership Focus Areas Design and delivery of professional learning. Facilitation of group processes and development of necessary structures for professional learning environments to be effective. Cultivation of skills associated with effective dialogue with colleagues. Implementat ion of research and best practice in content (Iowa Core), instruction and assessment. Integration and alignment of district and statewide educational improveme nt efforts. Facilitation of data analysis and data- informed decision making. Facilitation and enactment of a vision for school improvement with teacher leadership as a point of leverage.

TLC Evaluation Iowa Department of Education The central focus of the Department’s evaluation plan is on ensuring the TLC system achieves the goals of attracting and retaining effective teachers, promoting collaboration, rewarding professional growth and effective teaching, and improving student achievement by strengthening instruction. Our approach to evaluation includes four key components. Collaboratio n Instructional improvemen t Achievemen t Progress toward locally-determined goals Fidelity of implementati on Trends Leadership Roles Salary Data Iowa BEDS Plan Changes Tracker External Support End of Year Report

Iowa Department of Education Questions and Discussion

Setting the Stage - IGNITE  Access our voting tool at the Resources Link:  Vote for the topic you most want to discuss tomorrow by clicking on Vote and entering your initials.

January 23, 2015

resources

Attendance Center Rankings Amy Williamson Jay Pennington

Attendance Center Ranking System Iowa Department of Education

Attendance Center Ranking Charge Process Timeline Deliverables

Charge Legislative Requirement Shall develop criteria and process to evaluate each attendance center Posted on website Required criteria and optional criteria Overall school performance rank

Process DE work team Recommendations Healthy Indicators C4K group

Required Measures Student Proficiency Academic Growth Attendance Rates Parent Involvement Employee Turnover Community Activities and Involvement Closing Gaps Score Graduation Rates College Readiness

Optional Measures Post-graduation data Suspension and expulsion rates Level of student engagement Parent satisfaction Parent engagement Staff working conditions

Recommendations Must combine accountability and improvement to be successful Transparency and simplicity should be targets Technical assistance and support are needed to drive improvement Collaboration is needed Consensus approach

Timeline & Next Steps DE Work Team – June 2014 Recommendations – July 2014 Healthy Indicators C4K group – Fall 2014 Limited Public Reporting - Proficiency, Growth & Gap – January 2015 ACR system pilot – Winter & Spring 2015 ACR system to schools – September 2015 ACR system to public – October 2015

Report Preview

Proficiency and Growth Correlations MeasureCorrelation Proficiency and Low SES Growth and Proficiency0.168 Growth and Low SES-.015 Growth and % White.042 Proficiency and % White.363

Healthy Indicators & ACR Purposes How they fit together How to think about them

Healthy Indicators Task Group Task: Develop, operationalize, and implement a set of objective, measureable indicators of the health of the education system in Iowa at the preschool, building, district, AEA and state levels.

Healthy Indicators  Data to inform decision-making on which districts, AEAs, and programs require desk audits versus on-site visits and what supports they need to successfully engage in continuous improvement  Will use some information from Attendance Center Rankings (ACR) legislation  Possible data sources:  Proficiency*  Academic growth*  Attendance  Parent involvement  Community activities and involvement  Closing gaps score*  Employee turnover  Graduation rate  College-readiness rate  Suspension/expulsion rates  Student engagement  Employee working conditions  Post-graduation data  Parent satisfaction  Parent engagement  Use of valid and reliable assessment tools  Percent of students proficient with universal instruction  Percent of students proficient with targeted and intensive interventions  Operation of a high-functioning leadership team  Financial information

Collaborative Inquiry Questions CONSENSUS A. Is there initial and ongoing administrator consensus to develop and implement MTSS? B. Is there initial and ongoing staff consensus to develop and implement MTSS?

Collaborative Inquiry Questions CONSENSUS, INFRASTRUCTURE AND IMPLEMENTATION C. Is there a leadership team willing to accept responsibility for development, implementation, and sustainability of MTSS? D. Do we have an established and ongoing collaborative inquiry process for implementation of MTSS? Universal Tier 1. Is the Universal Tier sufficient? 2. If the Universal Tier is not sufficient, what are the needs that must be addressed? 3. How will Universal Tier needs be addressed? 4. How will the implementation of the Universal Tier actions be monitored over time? 5. Have Universal Tier actions been effective? Targeted/Intensive Tiers 6. Which students need support in addition to the Universal Tier? 7. Which of the Targeted and/or Intensive Tier resources are needed to meet the needs of identified students? 8. How will the Targeted and/or Intensive Tier options be implemented? 9. How will the implementation of the Targeted and Intensive Tiers be monitored over time? 10. How will the effectiveness of the Targeted and Intensive Tiers be evaluated?

Collaborative Inquiry Questions CONSENSUS, INFRASTRUCTURE, IMPLEMENTATION, AND SUSTAINABILITY E. Do you have an established structure to provide on-going professional learning and coaching to support all staff members? F. How do you ensure evaluation of MTSS implementation and impact on achievement? G. What structures does the leadership team have in place to support sustainability of MTSS over time?

Assessment Intervention Leadership Universal Instruction Infrastructure Healthy Indicators Collaborative Inquiry Questions A Single Continuous Improvement Process

Healthy Indicators District A Assessment1.95% 2.75% 3.Yes 4.No 1. Use of valid/reliable universal screening assessments for all students (% screened) 2. Use of valid/reliable progress monitoring assessments for all students who require progress monitoring (% assessed) 3. Comprehensive, balanced assessment system in place (assessment calendar) 4. Use of data-based decision-making (data analysis via data teams, data days) Universal Instruction1.65% 2.36% Percent proficient with universal instruction 2. Growth 3. Closing gaps Interventions77%Percent proficient with targeted and/or intensive instruction, using evidence-based interventions, achieving growth Leadership55%Leadership team in place, consensus present Infrastructure99%Funds are allocated, technology adequate

Assessment Intervention Leadership Universal Instruction Infrastructure Healthy Indicators Proficiency Growth Closing Gaps

Universal Instructio n HI Data Identification of Barriers Evidence-based Solution Evaluation Percent proficient in the core Question D2 Guide Implement class-wide intervention Streamlined Reporting

District A Title IARequirementStatusIDEA BRequirementStatus § 1112(c) Assurances Compliant § 611(a) State activities Compliant § 1112(d) Consultation Compliant § 612(a)(11) General Supervision Compliant § 1114(a)(1) May not consolidate funds Compliant § 613(a)(1) LEA Eligibility Noncompliant § 1115(b)(1) Eligible population Noncompliant § 613(a)(3) Personnel development Compliant § 1116(b)(1)(B) Deadline for identification Compliant § 613(f) Early intervening services Noncompliant Designations: DINA 3, IDEA Part B Needs Assistance Year 2, Attendance Center Ranking: 2 Schools Acceptable, 1 Priority

Streamlined Reporting DistrictCompliance and Designations HITiered SupportSupport Provided District A78%, DINA 4, 3 ACR Priority Schools Compliance: Intensive Assessment: Intensive Universal Instruction: Intensive Targeted and Intensive Instruction: Targeted Leadership: Targeted Infrastructure: Targeted Compliance: Level 2 Desk Audit Assessment: Focused visit Universal Instruction: Focused visit Targeted and Intensive Instruction: Remote interview Leadership: Remote interview Infrastructure: Remote interview District B98%, DINA 2Compliance: Universal Assessment: Targeted Universal Instruction: Intensive Targeted and Intensive Instruction: Universal Leadership: Universal Infrastructure: Universal Compliance: Desk Audit Assessment: Remote interview Universal Instruction: Focused visit Targeted and Intensive Instruction: NA Leadership: NA Infrastructure: NA District C100%, 2 ACR Commendable Schools Compliance: Universal Assessment: Universal Universal Instruction: Universal Targeted and Intensive Instruction: Universal Leadership: Universal Infrastructure: Targeted Compliance: Desk Audit Assessment: NA Universal Instruction: Focused visit to share successful practices Targeted and Intensive Instruction: NA Leadership: NA Infrastructure: NA

Questions?

ACR Prioritization Survey Access prioritization survey via the Resources Link

 Six Thinking Hats From the work of Edward deBono

Purpose  To process and discuss the ACR report utilizing parallel thinking via the six hats

What is parallel thinking? At any moment everyone is looking in the same direction.

The six hats widen our lens:  Six colors of hats for six types of thinking  Each hat identifies a type of thinking  Hats are directions of thinking  Hats help a group use parallel thinking  You can “put on” and “take off” a hat

Six colors…  White: neutral, objective  Red: emotional, passionate  Black: serious, somber  Yellow: sunny, positive  Green: growth, fertility  Blue: cool, sky above

…and six hats  White: objective facts & figures; data & information  Red: emotions, feelings, & intuitions  Black: cautious, careful, & critical judgment  Yellow: hope, positive & beneficial  Green: creativity, ideas & lateral thinking  Blue: process control & organization of thinking (thinking about thinking)

Wearing the hats  Direction, not description  Set out to think in a certain direction  “Let’s have some black hat thinking…”  Not categories of people  Not: “He’s a black hat thinker.”  Everyone can and should use all the hats  Not right v. wrong  Thinking through the issues from multiple points of view.  Surfacing potential gaps  Use in whole or in part

Benefits of Six Thinking Hats  Provides a common language  Experience & intelligence of each person (Diversity of thought)  Use more of our brains  Helps people work against type, preference  Removal of ego (reduce confrontation)  Save time  Focus (one thing at a time)  Create, evaluate & implement action plans

The Blue Hat  Thinking about thinking  Instructions for thinking  The organization of thinking  Control of the other hats  Discipline and focus

The Blue Hat Role  Control of thinking & the process  Begin & end session with blue hat  Facilitator, session leader’s role  Choreography  Open, sequence, close  Focus: what should we be thinking about  Asking the right questions  Defining & clarifying the problem  Setting the thinking tasks

Open with the blue hat…  why we are here  what we are thinking about  definition of the situation or problem  alternative definitions  what we want to achieve  where we want to end up  the background to the thinking  a plan for the sequence of hats

…and close with the blue hat  What we have achieved  Outcome  Conclusion  Design  Solution  Next steps

White Hat Thinking  Neutral, objective information  Facts & figures  Review existing information, search for gaps, analyze past trends  Questions:  What information do we have?  What information do we need?  What information is missing?  What questions do we need to ask?  Is it fact or belief? (checked facts v. believed facts)  Excludes opinions, hunches, judgments  Removes feelings & impressions

Red Hat Thinking  Emotions & feelings  Hunches, intuitions, impressions, gut instincts  Doesn’t have to be logical or consistent  No justifications, reasons or basis  Consider how other people will react emotionally

Red Hat Questions  What is your gut reaction to the ACR?  What is your opinion?  What do you like or not like?  What emotions are involved (fear, anger, hatred, suspicion, enthusiasm, joy)?

Yellow Hat Thinking  Positive & speculative  Positive thinking, optimism, opportunity  Benefits  Best-case scenarios  Exploration

Yellow Hat Questions  What ideas, suggestions, or proposals are there for how to navigate communication of and issues surrounding the ACR?  What is the value/benefit in how this ACR system has been designed?  What positives do you see?  What could be done to make this more effective?  Under what conditions will this work?  What is your vision for how this can move forward?

Green Hat Thinking  New ideas, concepts, perceptions  Deliberate creation of new ideas  Alternatives and more alternatives  New approaches to problems  Creative & lateral thinking

Green Hat Questions  Let’s think “outside the box.”  What are some fresh ideas or approaches?  This is the time for any wild or crazy or “far out” idea.  What are all of our alternatives?  How can we reshape a certain idea?  We’ve always done it this way; let’s “green hat” it … how else can we do it?

Black Hat Thinking  Cautious and careful  Logical negative – why it won’t work  Critical judgment, pessimistic view  Separates logical negative from emotional  Focus on errors, evidence, conclusions  Logical & truthful, but not necessarily fair

Black Hat Questions  What will happen if we take this action?  What can go wrong if we proceed with this idea or implement this suggestion?  What are the weaknesses that we need to overcome?  How does this fit with other work ongoing in the state and in districts?

Six hats summary Blue: control & organization of thinking White: objective facts & figures Red: emotions & feelings Yellow: hope, positive & speculative Green: creativity, ideas & lateral thinking Black: cautious & careful

Red Hat Questions  What is your gut reaction to the ACR?  What is your opinion?  What do you like or not like?  What emotions are involved (fear, anger, hatred, suspicion, enthusiasm, joy)?

Yellow Hat Questions  What ideas, suggestions, or proposals are there for how to navigate communication of and issues surrounding the ACR?  What is the value/benefit in how this ACR system has been designed?  What positives do you see?  What could be done to make this more effective?  Under what conditions will this work?  What is your vision for how this can move forward?

Group Process  Describe the group’s interactions.  What themes emerged from the conversation?

Additional Comments  What else will be important as we navigate the ACR?

Asking the right question  We can’t get the right answer if we ask the wrong question  Crucial blue hat skill  One technique: five whys

IGNITE Topics 1.School Calendar 2.Supplemental State Aid 3.ACR 4.Students’ mental health needs 5.Restricted use funds 6.TLC Implementation 7.Creating HS education to meet 21 st century learning 8.Balancing being proactive w/multitude of other leadership responsibilities 9.ELI and 5 year olds 10.Restricted funds

IGNITE Conversations  Brainstorm questions you have around your prioritized topic.  Move to the area of the room where the conversation will occur.  Person who traveled the farthest begins the conversation by posing a question from his/her list.

Wrap up and Adjourn