1. PREPARING FOR THE REVIEW: COMMUNICATING WHAT HELP WE WILL NEED IN THE DIVISION AND SCHOOL TO ALIGN NEW STANDARDS? Academic Review Training 2013

2. What should the division and school expect in the process? ◦ Division leads the review. ◦ Not a gotcha process. ◦ No scores from rubrics in the final review. ◦ Expectation that schools take the essential actions seriously and are held accountable for the actions agreed upon.

3. Problem-Prioritized Solution Approach ◦ The greatest impact to improve student achievement will be at the school and teacher level. ◦ Working backwards to get to the problems as the work at the division may in some cases be very time consuming. Student Teacher School Division

4. In the End.. Clear Solutions Must be in Place for Each School and the Division FirstSecondThird

5. Work of the Contractors ◦ Divisions will continue to receive assistance and follow-up from an OSI contractor to implement prioritized essential actions throughout the year as needed. ◦ Schools accredited with warning more than one year will receive an OSI contractor to work with principal and school improvement team to implement actions in the school improvement plan. These actions should impact necessary instructional changes that impact students. School Division Division OSI Contractor School Teacher School OSI Contractor

6. Purpose of the Pre-Academic Review Form: How does the division team decide what the mismatches are between the expectations of the state standards and the curriculum being delivered to students; and what tools do the division and school select?

7. The Pre-Academic Review Form ◦ Purpose of this document is to help OSI and the contractor understand what your division team would like the review to focus on. ◦ Keep in mind that the review is problem-solution driven. ◦ What do you know right now? ◦ What do you want to know? ◦ Do not use the tools to help you in this process. Use what you learned in the training, and use data.

8. The Schools School NameAreas of Warning Year of Warning High SchoolMathematics2 nd Middle School Science and Mathematics 3 rd Elementary SchoolReading/Writing1 st

9. What should the make-up of our team look like? You don’t need many people. You need the right people.

10. The Team NameTitle Joan(Division Lead) Assistant Superintendent JackPrincipal JillPrincipal JasonHigh School Mathematics Lead Teacher JudyMiddle School Reading Specialist JakeAssessment Coordinator JimDivision Curriculum Specialist

11. Division Needs Assessment for the Academic Review Division At the high school, the curricula framework for mathematics includes resources to use to plan instruction outside of the textbook. In some cases, the framework does not state explicitly what resources must be used by the teacher to plan and teach the new standards. Although only one middle school in the division is accredited with warning in mathematics, the other three middle schools in the division had very low pass rates but made the benchmark on the three year average in mathematics. A review of 15 lesson plans in three of five reporting categories for mathematics shows that teachers followed the curriculum guide provided by the division. The curriculum guide includes explicit instructions on how to teach the new standards and explicitly states what resources must be used in addition to the textbook. At the elementary level, the basal reading program was matched to the curriculum guide to show that the basal program met the standards; however, not all standards are covered by the basal and the curriculum framework does not indicate what non-fiction materials to use.

12. School Needs Assessment for the Academic Review School At the high school, a sample of unit tests in Algebra I, II, and Geometry show that 6 out of 24 teacher’s Geometry unit tests were not aligned to the new standards. In Algebra I, 4 out of 16 unit tests were not aligned to the new standards. In Algebra II, only 1 unit test of 6 was not aligned. Pass rates were higher in Algebra II and lower in Algebra I and Geometry. At the middle school, in 5 of 5 observations and lesson plans reviewed, the reviewer did not provide specific constructive actions or feedback related to mathematics or science instruction. One lesson plan stated that the teacher would use Cuisenaire rods; however, the classroom observation completed by the principal over a 90 minute period did not mention the use of Cuisenaire rods. This same problem repeated in all 5 of the 5 observations/lesson plans reviewed. At the elementary school, a review of the lesson plans for reading/writing indicated that all teachers at grade 3 and 4 used only the basal reading program. Non-fiction materials were introduced and used only as part of the library instruction. In fifth grade, not only was the basal used, but additional resources were provided in non-fiction reading. The pass rates at the 5 th grade in reading were higher than 3 rd or 4 th ; however, the writing pass rates were low.

13. Teacher Needs Assessment for the Academic Review Teacher Teacher data at the high school showed that the 3 out of 4 teachers had pass rates of less than 50% in Geometry. One teacher in Geometry had a pass rate of 70%. Algebra I pass rates were similar; one teacher out of 5 had a pass rate of 70%. In Algebra II, pass rates were slightly less than 70% for 2 out of 2 teachers. At the middle school, a comparison of 10 lesson plans for science from the year prior to implementation of new standards showed absolutely no changes in 2 out of the 3 science teachers and for the third teacher, only 5 lesson plans showed changes. The same comparison from year to year was completed in mathematics. Although there were changes in all 10 lesson plans, only 1 out of 5 teachers demonstrated a pass rate above 50%. Reviewing the scaled scores by reporting category in 7 th grade mathematics and 8 th grade science demonstrated that less than 2% of students scored between 30-50 in 3 reporting categories in mathematics and 2 of the reporting categories in science. At the elementary school, pass rates for the group of students by teachers taught in grades 3 and 4, scale scores in the non-fiction reporting category demonstrated that only 3% of the students scored 30-50. For the teacher group in 5 th grade, this percentage was 25%. Division benchmarks show a false positive correlation with SOL pass rates.

14. Needs Assessment: Previous Academic Review Findings Previous Academic Review Findings At the high school, essential actions in the previous year focused on lesson planning and formative assessments. The mathematics teachers were provided extensive staff development in the past year on new standards, new content, and new assessments. At the middle school, the essential actions indicated that professional development was needed in the core content areas of science and mathematics. Lesson planning was also an area of concern. Regular and focused observations were noted as an area of concern as well. Although observations were regular, observations did not focus on key instructional improvements and constructive feedback needed to impact instruction.

15. Knowing what you know now….decide… ◦ What tools will help the team find meaningful solutions to the problem? ◦ What tools will help the team determine if the solutions already selected are good essential actions? ◦ The tools will not be used to beat you up. ◦ The score on the tools will not become part of the final report; the score will drive and facilitate the discussion.

16. Determine what tools will be used as part of the review for each school: (Not all tools are listed below) CheckName of Tool What concern does the review using this tool address? (See the tool’s implementation indicators provided) Division: Leadership Basic Components Evaluation Tool X Division: Curriculum Guide alignment and Basic Component Evaluation Tool The reading curriculum map at the elementary may not be aligned to all new standards. X Division: Assessment Alignment and Basic Component Evaluation Tool Benchmark Assessments for Reading provide a false positive. Division: Data Analysis Basic Component Evaluation Tool XDivision: Professional Development Basic Component Evaluation Tool Intensive professional development was provided at the high school, but scores were still low and did not improve.

17. Determine what tools will be used as part of the review for each school: (Not all tools are listed below) CheckName of Tool What concern does the review using this tool address? (See the tool’s implementation indicators provided) X School: Leadership Basic Component Evaluation Tool Middle school principal has had some difficulty completing the observations. XSchool: Lesson Plan Evaluation ToolLesson plans at the elementary school are not aligned. X School: Lesson Observation Evaluation Tool Middle school teachers are not receiving constructive feedback. X School: Assessment Alignment and Basic Components Evaluation Tool Unit tests at the high school are not aligned. School: Data Analysis Basic Components Evaluation Tool

18. OSI will determine what might be added or deleted….. ◦ The team does not have the appropriate content staff at the middle school, they included a reading specialist only. The areas of warning are mathematics and science. ◦ High school curricula at the division needs to be reviewed to address the concern that teachers do not know what additional resources must be used in mathematics. ◦ No mention of data analysis was provided. Data analysis practices at the teacher planning level need to be evaluated by the academic review team.

19. Other Notes ◦ Days for the Academic Review vary from 3 days to 12 days depending on the size of the division, number of schools accredited with warning and the capacity of the division to do the work. ◦ The contractor will work with you to determine how many hours will be needed for the review, subsequent technical assistance and follow-up. ◦ If you think the tools could be better tailored to meet you needs…….. OSI is not going to be held accountable if the school is accredited with warning next year, the division and school will be held accountable. ◦ We need at least two or three possible days. Tentative weeks would be best… the week of November 11, the week of December 5. This way, OSI will look at the division data and determine how many days. ◦ For divisions with multiple schools, we may have to figure out a team schedule.

20. Next – The Academic Review ◦ Identifying the low hanging fruit. ◦ Essential actions from the date of the review through April and then essential actions from May through September. ◦ Keep it simple. ◦ Keep the main thing, the main thing.

21. This is keeping the main thing, the main thing….. Can we change the wording on a tool to make it more compatible with our division’s resources? What if we already have some essential actions; should we include them in the review? What if we only want to use three of the tools as we think this will help clarify what needs to be done and maintain our focus?

22. ACADEMIC REVIEW: GOAL IS TO IDENTIFY SPECIFIC SUPPORT THAT CAN BE PROVIDED TO HELP THE SCHOOL IMPROVE STUDENT ACHIEVEMENT

23. Purpose of this Session ◦ What does the division need to have ready for the day(s) of the review? ◦ How long will this take? ◦ What will happen? ◦ How does the lead contractor facilitate the division team’s discussion of the data reviewed? ◦ What does the report look like? ◦ Who writes the essential actions? ◦ Who reviews the essential actions? ◦ What is the follow-up and technical assistance about? ◦ Who provides the follow-up? ◦ What if the division and school don’t want follow-up? ◦ How do the division and school include essential actions in the school improvement plan? ◦ How do the division and school monitor essential actions in the school improvement plan?

24. What does the division need to have ready for the day(s) of the review? ◦ On November 15-18, the OSI contractor will contact you regarding what the review will look like. ◦ You will determine as a team (OSI contractor is part of the team) what the division will need to have ready the day of the review. ◦ This will depend on the tools you have decided to use. Artifacts that will be examined are based on those tools. ◦ If you are reviewing lesson plans, the team will decide how many and from what teachers, what schools, etc. If observations, likewise, etc.

25. How long will this take? ◦ This depends on the number of schools and the number of tools that will be used as part of the review.

26. Example: Division A ◦ Two elementary schools - first time warned ◦ One middle school - warned two years ◦ Two high schools - first time warned ◦ No focus, no priority schools

27. OSI Hours and Contractors Assigned to Division A ◦ 75 hours paid by OSI ◦ Two contractors – Jim and Bob Jim is the Lead Contractor

28. What days and How Many Hours and Who? November 13-14November -15-16Team Two Elementary and Middle Schools Bob, Division Team A Secondary SchoolsJim, Division Team A November 13-14Team ATeam B Two Elementary and Middle Schools Bob, Division Team B Secondary SchoolsJim, Division Team A

29. Equates to: Bob x 8 hours x 2 = 16 or 32 hours Jim x 8 hours x 2 = 16 The assigned hours were 75. 75 subtract 32 = 43 Follow-up in May =4 hours 43-4=39 hours 39 hours left for follow-up at the schools by Jim and Bob. Jim decides with division staff team lead how those hours will be used and by whom.

30. Division B ◦ One Focus School - 2 nd year ◦ One Priority School - 2 nd year

31. OSI Hours and Contractors Assigned to Division A ◦ 24 hours paid by OSI ◦ One contractor for the review- Jim ◦ In addition, Jim has been assigned 36 hours for the focus school as part of a separate contract using division set- aside. ◦ Bob has been assigned 36 hours for the priority school as part of a separate contract using division set-aside and grant funding. ◦ This is in “addition to” funding and can be used for the follow-up.

32. What days and How Many Hours and Who? November 13-14Number of HoursTeam Both Schools16 hours (2 days x 8 hours)Jim, Division Team

33. Equates to: Jim = 8 hours x 2 days = 16 hours The division was allocated 24 hours for the review 24 subtract 16 = 8 Follow-up in May = 4 hours 8-4=4 hours 4 hours left for follow-up Keep in mind, that both Bob and Jim have 36 hours each to support the schools through another set of funds. The division staff team lead and Jim decide the focus of those 72 +4 hours based on the review and the flexibility waiver.

34. What will happen during the review? ◦ The team including the contractor will use the tools agreed upon to examine artifacts. ◦ The lead contractor will facilitate the division team’s discussion of the data reviewed. ◦ These artifacts will lead to findings. ◦ How does the lead contractor facilitate the division team’s discussion of the data reviewed? ◦ By asking the right questions. ◦ If more data is needed, asking for that data. ◦ The role of the contractor is to keep people focused and support the team in coming to consensus about the essential actions between the time of the review and the May.

35. ◦ What does the report look like? ◦ Who writes the essential actions? ◦ Who reviews the essential actions? ◦ Why two sets of essential actions?

36. The Team writes the report and the essential actions. The Team should review the essential actions before sending to OSI.

37. What is the follow-up and technical assistance about? Who provides the follow-up? What if the division and school don’t want follow-up? (Not an option)

38. Remember the Division A follow-up hours? ◦ Two elementary schools first time warned ◦ One middle school warned two years ◦ Two high schools first time warned ◦ No focus, no priority school ◦ Began with 75. Subtract 32 = 43 ◦ Follow-up in May =4 hours 43-4=39 hours ◦ 39 hours left for follow-up

39. What to do with the remaining hours? ◦ Elementary School 1 has 16 new teachers, while School 2 has 2 new teachers. ◦ The middle and high school need much support as well, the middle school more than the high schools. ◦ It is decided that Jim will send 20 hours with Elementary School 1 supporting lesson plan development. Four hours weekly for five weeks. Then the division will provide support fours weekly through May. ◦ Bob will spend four hours only with the two new teachers in School 2. The principal will meet with the 2 new teachers weekly after this time through May. ◦ Bob will spend the remaining hours 2 hours per week for 9 weeks at the middle school working on classroom instructional strategies and planning with three teachers in mathematics. The principal will provide follow up once 19 hours are completed. ◦ The division will take on the two high schools and will work with the math teachers on unit tests that include the new standards.

40. So 39 hours left for support ◦ 1111111111 ◦ 111111111

41. Remember the Division A follow-up hours? ◦ One focus school ◦ One priority school ◦ 4 hours remaining that OSI is paying? ◦ 36 hours remaining for Jim for focus school out of additional division contract. Jim will meet alternately with school and division team 4 hours per month for nine months ◦ 36 hours remaining for Bob for priority school out of additional division contract. Bob will meet with transformation team at 18 four hour meetings.

42. What to do with the remaining 4 hours? The division would like to use the division leadership tool. The contractor will spend four hours with the division staff facilitating the use of the division leadership tool.

43. So 4 hours left for support ◦ 1111

44. How do the division and school include essential actions in the school improvement plan? How do the division and school monitor essential actions in the school improvement plan?

45. Indistar is a good system for this.

46. Focus on what matters most… lengthy plans are a waste of time. ◦ Unit tests need to contains sufficient items to assess student mastery of state standards’ Curriculum Framework Essential Knowledge and Skills and Big Ideas for the unit or lessons taught. ◦ Action steps? How and when monitored? ◦ Principal and school teams at each grade level should review unit tests prior to the beginning of each unit throughout the remainder of the school year. ◦ All unit tests are submitted prior to the beginning of the unit with a cross walk to the standard and to the blue print. Principal reviews. ◦ Principal submits to director of instruction. DI reviews and sends back to principal. Principal meets with team and changes are made to test and lesson plans. Unit begins. ◦ Differentiated professional development needs to be provided to teachers on how to write a unit test aligned to the new standards. ◦ Action Steps?..... ◦ How and when monitored?.....

47. This is keeping the main thing, the main thing….. Essential actions should be clear, measurable and simple. Period. Questions?