Summer Institute Mary Barton, SATIF Charles Drannbauer, Achievement Coach July 26, 2012 August 2, 2012 Children First Network 204.

Summer Institute

Mary Barton, SATIF

Charles Drannbauer, Achievement Coach

July 26, 2012August 2, 2012

Children First Network 204

Trends from 2011-12To help capture the state of our network

schools that were reviewed in 2011-12 through either a formal Quality Review or an Alternate Quality Review (Peer Quality Review or Developing Quality Review), an analysis was done of where our schools fell in relation to the rubric from 2011-12.

Trends from 2011-1216 of the 29 current network schools had a

form of the QR conducted in 2011-12. (Approximately 55% of our schools)

13 schools had formal QRs.2 schools had Peer QRs.1 school had a DQR.

Trends from 2011-12

Of the 13 formal QRs, schools fell in these categories:

1 school received Well Developed9 schools received Proficient3 schools received Developing0 schools received Underdeveloped

Quality Review Item Analysis

1.1 1.2 1.3 1.4 2.1 2.2 2.3 2.4 3.1 3.2 3.3 3.4 4.1 4.2 4.3 4.4 5.1 5.2 5.3 5.4

Developing 15.4% 30.8% 0.0% 7.7% 7.7% 23.1% 7.7% 15.4% 7.7% 38.5% 30.8% 7.7% 0.0% 7.7% 23.1% 7.7% 23.1% 15.4% 23.1% 38.5%

Proficient 69.2% 69.2% 53.8% 30.8% 53.8% 69.2% 92.3% 46.2% 69.2% 53.8% 61.5% 61.5% 76.9% 76.9% 61.5% 61.5% 69.2% 76.9% 61.5% 53.8%

Well Developed

15.4% 0.0% 46.2% 61.5% 38.5% 7.7% 0.0% 38.5% 23.1% 7.7% 7.7% 30.8% 23.1% 15.4% 15.4% 30.8% 7.7% 7.7% 15.4% 7.7%

Trends from 2011-12In looking at indicators around the

instructional core (1.1, 1.2, 2.2) the results are as follows:

1.1 Curriculum

2 schools received WD9 schools received P2 schools received DNo schools received UD

Trends from 2011-121.2 Pedagogy

0 schools received WD9 schools received P4 schools received D0 schools received U

Trends from 2011-122.2 Assessment

1 schools received WD9 schools received P3 schools received D0 schools received U

Trends from 2011-1269.2% of schools that received P in 1.1., 1.2

and 2.2 received an overall score of Proficient

The lowest rated indicators for network schools were 3.2 and 5.4.

The highest rated indicators for network schools was 1.4 at 61.5% Well Developed and 2.3 at 92.3% Proficient.

Changes for 2012-13The 2012-13 Quality Review rubric has been

condensed, from 20 indicators across five Quality Statements, to 10 indicators within three Quality Categories. The three categories and 10 indicators for 2012-13 are:

I. Instructional Core across Classrooms

Curriculum (1.1) Pedagogy (1.2) Assessment (2.2)

Changes for 2012-13II. School CulturePositive learning environment (1.4) High expectations (3.4)

III. Structures for ImprovementLeveraging resources (1.3) Teacher support and supervision (4.1) Goals and action plans (3.1) Teacher teams and leadership development (4.2) Monitoring and revising systems (5.1)

Connection of Student, Teacher, Content

The 2012-13 framework for the QR rubric aligns with this diagram.

The instructional core is the relationship between the student, teacher and content (i.e. academic tasks). For the instructional core to improve, or maintain a high standard across classrooms within a school, the school’s culture and structures must facilitate efforts at increasing and sustaining quality.

Citywide Instructional Expectations and the QRThe Quality Review rubric and process will be

aligned to the 2012-13 instructional expectations. Schools will need to show evidence that: Teachers receive actionable, high-quality feedback

and professional development connected to instructional improvement efforts, school goals, and the revision of Common Core-aligned units of study;

All students experience rigorous, Common Core-aligned units of study, and requisite supports and extensions, including those particular to students with disabilities and English language learners;

Citywide Instructional Expectations and the QRAt least during these units, lessons aligned to

the selected Common Core literacy standards show evidence of planning with a focus on text-dependent writing, questioning, and discussion;

At least during these units, lessons aligned to the selected Common Core math standards show evidence of planning with a focus on integrating conceptual understanding and application opportunities for all students, along with working on procedural fluency;

Citywide Instructional Expectations and the QR

Principals articulate a clear rationale for their strategic choices, e.g. selecting Danielson competencies to support teacher practice, identifying which teachers will implement Common Core-aligned instruction, and determining how many units each teacher will implement;

The school uses resources (human, budget, time), data, and systems to monitor and improve organizational and instructional quality in light of the instructional expectations and school, staff, and student needs.

Citywide Instructional Expectations and the QR

As in past years, reviewers will take the time of year into consideration, as implementation of the 2012-13 instructional expectations will look different in fall, winter, and spring.

Weighted IndicatorsWeighted indicators from 2011-12 will

remain weighted in 2012-13.

The taxonomy of the previous years’ rubrics, such as “indicator 3.4”, will remain for ease of reference, despite the changes which eliminate indicators 3.2 and 3.3.

Notable Rubric RevisionsInstructional Core across Classrooms

1.1 Curriculum

Shift in language from CCLS “tasks” to “units of study” and inclusion of the Citywide Instructional Expectations (CIE) instructional shifts.

Notable Rubric Revisions1.2 Pedagogy

Removal of term differentiation and inclusion of language that shifts to evidence of meeting students needs through work products that demonstrate high level thinking; inclusion of language “informed by a common teaching framework,” “appropriately challenging tasks” and “ownership” to connect more clearly to Danielson.

Notable Rubric Revisions2.2 Assessment

Revision of language to clarify common assessment use and revision of footnote regarding the term “common” to ensure that rubric language allows for a school’s approach to assessment practices.

Notable Rubric RevisionsSchool Culture

1.4—Revision of language to draw more explicit connections among the school’s approach to culture building, discipline and safety; inclusion of language connected to academic and personal behaviors to align more closely with college and career readiness benchmarks

3.4—Inclusion of language “culture for learning” to connect more clearly to Danielson; inclusion of the communication of high expectations connected to a path for college and career readiness to align with the CIE

Notable Rubric RevisionsStructures for Improvement

3.1, 4.1, 4.2—Revision of language to weave more explicit practices connected to design and facilitation of professional development into these indicators

4.1—Revision of language to highlight implicit use of teaching framework; inclusion of footnote to clarify the term “effective feedback”

5.1—Revision of language to address monitoring and revision of practices connected to the three quality categories that live within the conceptual framework; the instructional core, school structures and school culture

Changes to scoringSummary of changesWeighted indicators are worth 12 points at the

highest end and inform 60% of the overall score.

Non-weighted indicators are worth 8 points at the highest end and inform 40% of overal score.

Cut scores have been lowered slightly (2 points in each case) to align with logical scoring scenario outcomes at the lowest and highest end of each category.

Scoring Values Schools still receive a category of Well

Developed, Proficient, Developing or Underdeveloped, based on a numerical score out of 100 potential points.

Five weighted indicators are still intact but do not carry double the weight.

Scoring ValuesRating Category W Ind. N-W

Ind.

Well Developed 12 points 8 pointsProficient 9 points 6 pointsDeveloping 6 points 4 pointsUnderdeveloped 3 points 2

points

Cut Scores2012-13 2011-12

Well Developed 92-100 92-100

Proficient 70-91 72-91

Developing 45-69 47-71

Underdeveloped 25-44 25-46

Slight change—lowered threshold for Proficient and Developing based on different scoring scenarios

ReportsBullet distribution

Well Developed—5 Strengths and 1 Area for Improvement

Proficient—4 Strengths and 2 Areas for ImprovementDeveloping—3 Strengths and 3 Areas for ImprovementUnderdeveloped—3 Strengths and 3 Areas for

Improvement

Bullet sets will continue to have one overarching bullet per indicator and one to two supporting evidence sub bullets, referencing at least two of the three sub-indicators for the given indicator.

Questions?Please feel free to contact Mary Barton, SATIF, with

any questions or concerns around any items presented today. Email—[email protected]

Supports available—Analysis of 11-12 reports and next stepsPreparation/strategy for 12-13 formal or alternate

reviewsCoaching for principals around preparation of SSEF

and meeting with reviewer on day 1 as well as any pre-conferences

Reflection on evidence and impact of systems/initiativesWalkthroughs/meetings with principal/school leads

Good luck!Have a wonderful new school year!