1. Created by NWRESD Data Quality Project CCSS Stewardship Committee 2013 Created by NWRESD Data Quality Project EQuip Network Common Core Stewardship Committee

2. Purpose: To assure that lessons & units are aligned to Common Core State Standards and focused on depth of instruction using common criteria to determine quality. Objectives: Review lessons/units using the Quality Review Rubric Provide rating, suggestions and comments for lesson developer

3. Common Core Stewardship Committee Professional Development Plan-Oregon Content KnowledgeInstructionAssessment Understand the coherence of the CCSS standards and how the concepts and skills progress, build, and connect with one another Design units and lessons that support every student in meeting the math & ELA content and practice standards Create and use formative assessments to examine student learning and monitor progress in order to meet individual needs of students and to challenge students exceeding benchmark Understand the student learning requirements and be able to describe the expectations in terms of student actions-what does it look like when a student demonstrates the knowledge and skills stated in the standards? Implement evidence-based instructional strategies that scaffold learning to ensure students meet the rigor of the CCSS, and differentiate instruction to support the growth of each student Design tasks and experiences at the appropriate level of rigor that will enable students to demonstrate proficiency through a variety of responses

4. Common Core Stewardship Committee Professional Development Plan Content KnowledgeInstructionAssessment Develop an understanding of the major shifts between Oregon Standards and the CCSS (Building leaders) Provide dedicated and consistent teaming time to design units, select research- based instructional strategies, and assess learning (Building leaders) Use assessment data to determine instructional gaps and to conduct program evaluation at the building & district level (Building & District) Create, monitor and support focused opportunities for teachers to collaborate across grade levels to discuss student learning progress (Building leaders) Provide professional development to ensure staff acquires the knowledge and skills needed to design and implement assessments to monitor student progress and inform instruction (District) Conduct professional development to help teachers develop the knowledge and skills needed to design instruction and assessments that meet the rigor of the CCSS (District) Ensure that district instructional materials are coherent, consistent, comprehensive and support shifts in CCSS (District)

5. Equip Network History of the Development of the Quality Review Rubric

6. ENGLISH LANGUAGE ARTS Quality Review Rubric

7. Four Dimensions of the Quality Review Rubric I. Alignment to the Depth II. Key Shifts in the CCSS III. Instructional and Supports IV. Assessment

10. Quality Review Steps for Individuals or Groups Step 1-Review Materials Step 2-Apply criteria in Dimension I: Alignment Note- Dimension I is non-negotiable. In order for the review to continue, a rating of 2 or 3 is required. Step 3-Apply criteria in Dimensions II-IV Step 4-Apply overall Rating and Summary Comments Step 5-Compare Overall Ratings & Determine Next Steps

11. Quality Review Process for Individuals and Groups Step I Review Materials Step 2 Apply Criteria in Dimension I Step 3 Apply Criteria in Dimensions II-IV Step 4 Apply an Overall Rating and Provide Summary Comments Step 5 Compare Overall Ratings and Determine Next Steps

12. 1.Common Core:Before beginning a review, all members of a review team are familiar with the Common Core Standards. 2.Inquiry: Review processes emphasize inquiry rather than advocacy and are organized in steps around a set of guiding questions. 3.Respect & Commitment: Each member of a review team is respected as a valued colleague and contributor who makes a commitment to the EQuIP process. 4.Criteria & Evidence:All observations, judgments, discussions, and recommendations are criterion- and evidence-based. 5.Constructive: Lessons/units to be reviewed are seen as “works in progress.” Reviewers are respectful of contributors’ work and make constructive observations and suggestions based on evidence from the work. 6.Individual to Collective: Each member of a review team independently records his/her observations prior to discussion. Discussions focus on understanding all reviewers’ interpretations of the criteria and the evidence they have found. 7.Understanding & Agreement: The goal of the process is to compare and eventually calibrate our judgments so that we move toward agreement about CCSS Quality. Quality Review Principles & Agreements

13. Targets standards Text complexity Integration Vocabulary Text structures Levels of meaning Qualitative characteristics

14. Step 1 - Review Materials Record the grade and title of the lesson/unit on the recording form: scan to see what the lesson/unit contains and how it is organized Read key materials related to instruction, assessment and teacher guidance Study and measure the text(s) that serve as a centerpiece for the lesson/unit analyzing text complexity, quality, scope, and relationship to instruction

15. Identify the grade level CCSS that the lesson/unit targets Closely examine the materials through the “lens” of each criterion Individually check each criterion for which clear and substantial evidence is found Step 2 - Apply Criteria

16. Identify and record input on specific improvements that might be made to meet criteria of strengthen alignment Optional* Enter your rating 0-3 for Dimension I alignment Note: Note: Dimension I is non-negotiable and a rating of 2 or 3 is required for the review to continue. If the review is discontinued, consider giving general feedback to developers/teachers regarding next steps Step 2 - Apply Criteria

17. Check criteria for which clear evidence is found Make observations and suggestions in relation to criteria and evidence. Determine a dimension rating based on checked criteria and observations. Determine Alignment rating and continuation of review Note: For Integrated Intervention Team purposes, you may decide to continue the review in cases of weak alignment. Dimension I: Alignment to Depth of CCSS

18. Compare Observations, Feedback, and Ratings What is the pattern within our team in terms of the criteria we have checked? Do our observations and feedback reference the criteria and evidence (or lack of evidence) in the instructional materials? Does our feedback include suggested improvement(s)?

19. Dimension II: Key Shifts in CCSS

20. The lesson/unit addresses the key shifts in the CCSS:  Reading Text Closely: Makes reading text(s) closely, examining textual evidence, and discerning deep meaning a central focus of instruction.  Text-Based Evidence: Facilitates rich and rigorous evidence-based discussions and writing about common texts through a sequence of specific, thought-provoking, and text-dependent questions (including, when applicable, questions about illustrations, charts, diagrams, audio/video, and media).  Writing from Sources: Routinely expects that students draw evidence from texts to produce clear and coherent writing that informs, explains, or makes an argument in various written forms (notes, summaries, short responses, or formal essays).  Academic Vocabulary: Focuses on building students’ academic vocabulary in context throughout instruction. Dimension II: Key Shifts in the CCSS

21. Units of Study

22. Apply criterion in Dimensions II-IV II. Key Shifts in the CCSS III. Instructional Supports IV. Assessment Closely examine the criterion through the “lens” of each criterion Record comments on criteria met, improvements needed and then rate 0-3 Step 3 - Continue Application of Criteria

23. Research - based Engagement Instructional expectations Engage with text Productive Struggle Appropriate Supports Extensions

24. Check criteria for which clear evidence is found Make observations suggestions in relation to criteria and evidence Determine a dimension rating based on checked criteria and observations Dimension II: Key Shifts in the CCSS

25. Check criteria for which clear evidence is found Make observations and suggestions in relation to criteria and evidence Determine a dimension rating based on checked criteria and observations Dimension III: Instructional Supports

26. Assessments:Pre-postFormativeSummativeSelf-assessments Observable evidence of learning Proficiency Aligned rubrics & scoring guides

27. Check criteria for which clear evidence is found Make observations and suggestions in relation to criteria and evidence Determine a dimension rating based on checked criteria and observations Dimension IV: Assessment

28. Review ratings for Dimensions I-IV adding/clarifying comments as needed Write summary comments for your overall rating on your recording sheet Total dimension ratings and record overall ratings E E=Exemplar E/I E/I=Exemplar if improved R R=Revision needed N N=Not ready to review Step 4 - Overall Rating

29. Note: 1.Evidence cited to arrive at final rating 2.Summary comments 3.Similarities & differences among raters Step 5 - Summary

30. Then: Recommend next steps for the lesson/unit Provide recommendations for improvement and/or ratings to developers/teachers Step 5 - Next Steps

31. Overall Rating: What does the creator of the lesson/unit need to know to improve the design? Which number on the rating scale best describes the current analysis of the lesson/unit?

32. 32 How is this rubric being used in Oregon? Teacher lesson and unit review Teacher lesson and unit development Data team and professional learning community collaboration District instructional materials review and selection State instructional materials review and adoption process

33. Extensions: Using the Quality Review Rubric Curriculum materials selection process criteria PLC/Data team data collection Guide for lesson/unit development Review of newly created materials Review of existing materials Screening materials to post on websites Quality control/quality assurance of vendor- developed materials Training educators

34. Educators Evaluating Quality Instructional Products (EQuIP) Network, facilitated by Achieve Oregon Department of Education (ODE) ELA and Literacy Criteria Development Committee ODE Educational Improvement and Innovation Steering Committee Clackamas Education Service District Northwest Regional Education Service District Salem-Keizer School District Student Achievement Partners Oregon CCSS Stewardship Committee Tri-state Collaborative - Massachusetts, Rhode Island, and New York Departments of Education Special Thanks: Oregon Data Project

35. “Children are made readers on the laps of their parents.” Emilie Buchwald