Talking Points Related to Appendix 7:

1. Talking Points Related to Appendix 7: School Level Reflection and Responses to System-Wide Implications of Findings from Audits of the Written, Taught and Tested Curriculum in ELA and Mathematics

2. Overview • Districts are subject to the same NCLB Accountability System as individual schools • For purposes of Accountability, the district is considered “one big school”. • All subgroups are aggregated up into the District. • If a district does not make Adequate Yearly Progress for two consecutive years, it is designated as a District in Need of Improvement (DINI). • If a district continues not to make Adequate Yearly Progress it is designated as a District in Corrective Action.

3. Background • A District in Corrective Action must participate in “an audit of the written, taught and tested curriculum” commissioned by the New York City Department of Education and the New York State Education Department. • Twenty six out of thirty two NYC school districts have the designation: District in Need of Improvement (DINI). • Seventeen Districts in Corrective Action and over two hundred schools have participated in the curriculum audit. • The district audits were conducted by Learning Points Associates, an outside consulting firm. • The audits, while they were conducted by district, indicated seven key findings that are applicable to the entire NYC Department of Education. • As a result, all schools need to complete Appendix 7 in their Comprehensive Educational Plan (CEP). • These findings identify barriers to student success and are expected to facilitate important conversations among the Central, SSO and school levels.

4. Key Finding 1: Curriculum • There is limited evidence to indicate that the current ELA and Mathematics curricula in use are fully aligned to standards. • The findings in ELA alignment included: • Gaps in written curriculum – no alignment with state standards in the range of topics covered and depth of understanding required • Curriculum maps – mapping addresses only content topics, not skills to be mastered, strategies to be utilized, and student outcomes to be attained • Taught curriculum – a disparity between what is taught and the depth to which it needs to be taught • ELA materials –curriculum materials are not adequate to meet the needs of English Language Learners, Students with Disabilities and struggling readers • English Language Learners – great deal of variation in the curriculum and instruction that ELL students receive across grades and schools. • The findings in Mathematics alignment included: • Content Strands - mathematics instructional materials are aligned with the NYS content strands except in certain areas in middle school level • Process Strands - very weak alignment to the NYS process strands • Lack of depth – in what is being taught as compared to what is required by the state standards.

5. Key Finding 2: Instruction • Direct instruction and individual seatwork are the predominant instructional strategies used by teachers; limited use of best practices and differentiated instruction. • Technology use is limited.

6. Key Finding 3: Teacher Experience and Stability • Teacher turnover is high; schools accommodate a relatively high percentage of new and transfer teachers each year.

7. Key Finding 4: Professional Development – English Language Learners • opportunities regarding curriculum, instruction and progress monitoring for ELLs. • School based policies for ELLs were not effectively communicated to teachers.

8. Key Finding 5: Data Use and Monitoring – ELL Instruction • Very little specific monitoring of the academic progress and English language development of ELLs. • Testing data are not provided to all teachers instructing ELLs and not provided in a timely manner.

9. Key Finding 6: Professional Development – Special Education • School personnel have insufficient understanding of or capacity to implement the range and types of instructional approaches to improve student achievement. • General education teachers are unfamiliar with the content of IEPs of their students and are unfamiliar with accommodations and modifications to support these students.

10. Key Finding 7: Individualized Education programs (IEPs for Students with Disabilities) • IEPs do not consistently specify accommodations and modifications for the classroom environment. • Lack of alignment between the goals, objectives and modified promotion criteria. • IEPs do not regularly include behavioral plans.

11. Response to the following questions for Key Findings – Appendix 7 • Question 1A, 1B, 2A, 2B, 3.1, 4.1, 5.1. 6.1, 7.1 • Define the process that the school has or will engage in to reflect upon the findings that are relevant to the school. • For example, we will establish a committee in the spring to. . . Or, the instructional cabinet, the School Leadership Team, the instructional coaches, AUSSIE, Teachers College will . . . Or, during common planning time we will. ... • Schools are not expected to have completed the process prior to submission of the CEP but they must be able to articulate the process.

12. Response to the following questions for Key Findings – Appendix 7 • Questions : • 1A.2, 1B.2, 2A.2, 2B.2, 3.2, 4.2, 5.2. 6.2, 7.2 • Is the finding Applicable or Not applicable to the school? Schools may add Not Yet Determined.

13. Response to the following questions for Key Findings – Appendix 7 • Question 1A.3, 1B.3, 2A.3, 2B.3, 3.3, 4.3, 5.3. 6.3, 7.3 • What evidence supports or dispels the relevance of this finding? Schools may answer by stating that they have not yet completed the process.

14. Response to the following questions for Key Findings – Appendix 7 • Questions: • 1A.4, 1B.4, 2A.4, 2B.4, 3.4, 4.4, 5.4. 6.4, 7.4 • How will your school address the relevant issues? • Schools may answer by stating that they have not yet completed the process.

15. Questions for schools to ask while reflecting on the findings: • Did we deliver the content? • Did our pedagogy enable students to get the content? • Did we teach? Did we re-teach? • What do we mean by standards-based?

16. General Information • Appendix 7 will be reviewed by the School/District Improvement Liaison. • (All appendices will be reviewed by the School/District Improvement Liaison). • New York State content and process standards are available at: • www.nysed.emsc.

17. Contact Information • Sarah Kleinhandler- School/District Improvement Liaison • Contact • 212.356.3809 • 917.513.5648 • skleinh@schools.nyc.gov