Loading in 2 Seconds...
Loading in 2 Seconds...
Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server.
New Hampshire — The New Ways We Are Thinking about Learning NH Innovation Lab Network Partnership for Next Generation Learning October 27, 2011
Will Address: • Quick Primer ~ Next Generation Learning (NxGL) • What We Have Been Doing In the Innovation World • Focus ~ “College and Career Readiness”
Next Generation Learning Partnership A personalized system of education that prepares each child for life, work and citizenship in the 21st century. • Design Principles for a Transformed System of Education • Personalized Learning • World-class Knowledge and Skills • Student Agency • Performance-based Learning • Anytime, Anywhere Learning • Comprehensive Systems of Support
CCSSO Innovation Lab Network Kentucky Maine New Hampshire New York Ohio West Virginia Wisconsin
NxGL Programmatic Areas Student-centered, world class learning: Where a district and school focuses on creating a learning system that is entirely student centered, based on world-class standards and driven by student choice and direction. Anytime, Everywhere Learning:ELOs provide personalized learning experiences and supports that go beyond the traditional school schedule and transcend place. Online learning systems help facilitate anytime, everywhere learning and expand the curriculum. Virtual learning:Performance Assessment:Moving to a learner-centric system requires understanding of best practices for the education of students.
Recent Gatherings: • NH ~ Learning Studio Session, July 14, 2011 • I3 Grant Summer Institute: Inquiry based Learning Leading To Complex Performance Assessment; 4 States, 9 NH H.S.s • NE Secondary School Consortium: • 5 States: NH, VT, ME, RI, CT • NE Policy Framework • League of Innovative Schools ~ 5 NH H.S.s ~ Convening October 14, 2011 • Stupski Foundation Innovation Lab Network (LLN) LaunchOctober 20-21, 2011 • 5 Schools/5 States: MST-NH, ME, NY, OH, KY • Students “Driving and Owning Their Learning” • Focus: Performance and Student Voice and Agency • CCSSO Innovation Lab Network (ILN)September 20-21, 2011: • 7 States ~ NH, ME, NY, KY, WI, WV, OH • College And Career Readiness
We Need A New Goal-Line For Public Education in the U.S. A Conceptual Playing Field of Preparation for College, Career and Life REAL GOAL LINE INTERNATIONAL GOAL LINE CURRENT GOAL LINE
“What gets measured, gets done.” Where do the ways we assess student progress today fall inside this learning field? KNOW-HOW KNOW Debating Internships Jr. Achievement Yearbook Scouting Science Fair Sports Term Paper Creating Complex Authentic Evaluating Analyzing Simulated Authentic Applying Understanding Remembering Non-Authentic GENERATIVE KNOW-HOW The ability to understand and integrate Resources Technology Information Systems Interpersonal To meet personal, civic, and workplace objectives
Defining and Measuring College and Career Readiness David T Conley, PhD Educational Policy Improvement Center University of Oregon
College and Career Ready Definition Conley, 2007, 2010 The level of preparation a student needs in order to enroll and succeed — without remediation—in a credit-bearing course at a postsecondary institution that offers a baccalaureate degree or transfer to a baccalaureate program, or in a high-quality certificate program that enables students to enter a career pathway with potential future advancement. Succeedis defined as completing the entry-level courses or core certificate courses at a level of understanding and proficiency that makes it possible for the student to consider taking the next course in the sequence or the next level of course in the subject area or of completing the certificate.
Different Types of Readiness Work ready = Meets basic expectations regarding workplace behavior and demeanor Job ready = Possesses specific training necessary to begin an entry-level position Career ready = Possesses key content knowledge and key learning skills and techniques sufficient to begin studies in a career pathway College ready = Is prepared in the four keys to college and career readiness necessary to succeed in entry-level general education courses
Four Keys To College And Career Readiness Key Cognitive Strategies Key Learning Skills & Techniques Key Transition Knowledge & Skills Key Content Knowledge • Key terms and terminology • Factual information • Linking ideas • Organizing concepts • Common Core State Standards (in English/ literacy and mathematics only) • Standards for Success in Science, Social Sciences, Second Languages, the Arts • Admissions requirements • College types and missions • Career pathways • Affording college • College culture • Relations with professors • Social/identity issues in transitioning • Time management • Study skills • Goal setting • Self-awareness • Persistence • Collaborative learning • Student ownership of learning • Technology proficiency • Retention of factual information © 2011 David T Conley
Brian Gray’s Depiction: • “I took the college or career readiness chart and the “depth of knowledge “ and made it one. This chart can be used to create formatives and summatives. • Both charts are helpful but when combined make it into a process that can be used to create and track as well as start re-teach by continuing the cycle again between summative interpretation and formative formulation if the student had trouble demonstrating proficiency and working your way back around.”
Eight Components of College and Career Readiness Counseling: • Aspirations ~ The student has college awareness and the confidence to aspire to college, as well as the resilience to overcome challenges along the way. • Academic Planning for College and/or Career ~ The student has engaged in planning, preparation, participation and performance in a rigorous academic program that connects to their college and career aspirations and goals. • Enrichment and Extracurricular Engagement ~ The student has sought exposure to a wide range of extracurricular and enrichment opportunities that build leadership, nurture talents and interests, and increase engagement with school. • College and Career Exploration and Selection Processes ~ The student has sought early and ongoing exposure to experiences and information necessary to make informed decisions when selecting a college or career that connects to academic preparation and future aspirations. • College and Career Assessments ~ The student has participated in college and career assessments that assist with self-reflection on aptitude, interests, aspirations, and goals. • College Affordability Planning ~ The student is aware of where and how to access or has already accessed comprehensive information about college costs, options for paying for college, and the financial aid and scholarship processes and eligibility requirements, so they are able to plan for and afford a college education. • College and Career Admission Processes ~ The student has an understanding of the college and career application and admission processes so they can find the postsecondary options that are the best fit with their aspirations and interests. • Transition from High School Graduation to College Enrollment ~ The student can connect to and/or has connected to school and community resources to help them overcome barriers and ensure the successful transition from high school to college.
NH Assessment Schema Knowledge: • NECAP ~ ELA, Math, (2010-1013) • SBAC ~ ELA, Math, (2013-on-going) • NECAP ~ Science (for now) • NAEP • PISA Know-How: • Project-based Learning (Portfolio and Anchor Skill Assessments—some in place, some to be developed) • Complex Performance Assessments (Student co-created, with common scoring rubrics and social moderation – linked to national network of performance networks)
Is It Time For A New Accountability System? • “What we do not see yet is a new model of research and development that could serve as the institutional infrastructure for the creation of this knowledge profession. • In the world we envision, researchers, practitioners, and commercial partners will enter into a new and vibrant partnership where each contributes its distinctive expertise. • How might such networks of diverse expertise be structured to spur innovation aimed at improvement? Fundamentally, there must be a shared commitment to disciplined inquiry about improvement. Four questions should inform all inquiries: • How do we understand the problem(s) we seek to solve and the system(s) in which they are embedded? Productive solutions entail consideration of how an intervention integrates adaptively in some larger social system. • What specifically are we trying to accomplish? This involves identifying specific measurable targets that unite efforts of diverse participants in the R&D community. • What changes might we introduce, and what is the rationale for each? We are aiming toward a science of improvement. Like scientific communities generally, this requires theorizing together about the logic of proposed solutions. • How will we know if the changes we introduce are actually an improvement? Any proposed solution is in essence a set of hypotheses that must be tested against evidence.” Schooling as a Knowledge Profession By Jal D. Mehta, Louis M. Gomez, and Anthony S. Bryk
Command & Control Standards & Incentives Learning & Improvement • System dictates: only the ends; measures performance • System promotes: individual performance • Basis of motivation: possibility of carrot and fear of punishment • System dictates: only the ends; measures for improvement • System promotes: collective culture of improvement • Basis of motivation: collective professional responsibility • System dictates: ends and means; measures compliance • System promotes: institutional stability • Basis of motivation: fear of punishment Description • Students: inputs • Teachers & principals: factory-line workers • District & state: dictate ends and means, distribute resources, train on methods • Students: outcomes • Teachers & principals: utility-maximizing entrepreneurs • District & state: dictate ends, mete out rewards and punishments • Students: active learners who are instructional resources for peers; own learning; outgrow system • Teachers & principals: professionals • District & state: dictate ends, create conditions Roles • Model: inspection • Assessments: determine compliance • Track: inputs and outputs • Model: standards-based performance management • Assessments: determine extent to which ends are met • Track: achievement outcomes • Model: vertical accountability via transparency of results and practice, lateral accountability among peers • Assessments: inform continuous improvement of learning • Track: process, achievement and mediating outcomes, system measures Accountability • Train all workers on a standardized set of methods • Remove low performers • Limited, targeted capacity-building for individuals (human capital) • Remove or push out low performers • Build capacity of the entire profession • Leverage relationships (social capital) to boost capacity of individuals (human capital) Capacity
Next-Generation Learning at Scale: An Analysis of Supply and Demand 18 March 2011 The Parthenon Group Boston . London . Mumbai . San Francisco
Knowing the StudentAssessment Market Definitions Traditional Assessment • Summative – High stakes test to measure student progress • Formative – Low stakes test to inform instruction Next Gen Assessment • Interactive, engaging assessments that identify student learning levels and inform content and delivery choices Identifying Gaps Informing Content Decisions Informing Modality Decisions Interactive and Engaging • Assessments indicate which lessons and units individual or groups of students need to practice • Assessments indicate what type of instruction (video, group, one-on-one, etc.) students learn best with • Features include interactivity and real-time classroom response measurement • Tests are adaptable and determine student learning levels
Interviews Have Demonstrateda Relatively High Level of Consensus on the Vision for Next Generation Learning… Personalization underlies the goal of Next Generation Learning Technology enables instruction, but is not a goal in and of itself The orientation of the learning experience is student-centered environment “Technology is an enabler of better instruction; it helps make NGL easier. It is a tool, but not the end goal.” “I can imagine an NGL classroom with nothing but pencils and paper. It would be time-consuming, but you could do it.” “Smart Boards actually make NGL implementation more difficult. Technology should not be the focus of the classroom.” “Personalized learning is necessarily faster, accelerated learning, and ideal for students who have fallen behind.” “NGL minimizes classroom disruption by engaging students.” “NGL learning more closely resembles the real world, and prepares students for real-world challenges.” “NGL technology makes it easier to personalize instruction according to modality, student interest, and skill need.” “The best traditional teachers are spending hours before and after school trying to personalize instruction. NGL does this quicker and faster than any human.” This consensus is from a group of the field’s leading thinkers who are focused on these issues; many interviewees agreed there is less consensus more broadly in the field
Vision of the Personalized Next Generation Learning Experience Enabling Federal and State Policy - Aligned capital markets System management(District and state management and portfolio optimization; student-centered use of people, money, time, and technology; research & development and knowledge management supporting change management efforts) Student engagement and co-design; academic experiences that reflect research on learning and child and youth development Knowing the Student (regular diagnosis through learning maps/algorithms and platforms for data capture) Modular Content(Content is “unbundled” and can be delivered via multiple modalities) Personalized student-centered learning experience toward world-class standards Variety of Delivery Methods
Existing Delivery Models Can Be Roughly Categorized by Two Key Design Decisions: Learning Format and Pacing GroupLearning Prescriptive Group Learning Student-directed Group Learning Students are assigned to flexible groups based on skill need Grouping allows less personalized pacing Students are collectively provided with challenges and problems to solve, but create their own paths to a solution Learning Format Prescriptive Individualized Learning Student-directed Individualized Learning Students take a prescribed set of classes online, with minimal or even no interaction with other students Pacing is influenced by student progress but follows a more prescribed path Learning experience is entirely personalized and individual Students choose their own learning path and activities, often heavily online or through internships and other experiential learning possibilities IndividualizedLearning Pacing More Prescriptive Pacing More Personalized and Proficiency-Based
Readiness to Support Next-Gen Learning and New Professional Roles Varies Significantly by Vertical Market Maturity • Student Management System: In 93% of schools • Learning Management Systems: In 70% of schools, though not integrated with student management systems of data analysis; active M&A leading to consolidation of vendors in this space • Assessment: Individual elements of next gen assessment are selectively implemented; overall use has significant room to grow as formative assessment is folded into content platforms • Content: Current personalized, accelerated content products have demonstrated success and are offered on some level by both large and small vendors; district-wide adoptions are limited; subjects such as math and reading offer greater availability • Data Analysis: Few pure players in this nascent space; some beginning to develop prescriptive functionality but need tighter integration with other platform components Student Management System Learning Management System Assessment Content Market Penetration Data Analysis Pure Research R&D Product Dev. Venture Scale Widespread Adoption Stage of Development
A Series of Demand Side System Functions and Supports Are Required for Next Generation Learning • Federal, state and district policies • Ten basic functions and system supports are necessary to implement personalized, accelerated next generation learning at scale “Allowed to do it” “Want to do it” “Can do it” • District and school level leadership • District and school level management Level Elements • (1) Seat time policies • (2) Standards, assessment and curriculum policies and practice • (3) Human capital, including sufficient flexibility in work rules • (4) Financial planning, including sufficient resources • (5) Shared vision, mobilization, and bold leadership • (6) Research & development, demonstrating effectiveness • (7) High quality next generation components, including content, assessment and technology • (8) Integration of components, including content, assessment and technology • (9) Change management to implement • (10) Professional development • (3, cont.) Human capital, including high caliber and flexible adults in the classroom • (4, cont.) Financial planning, including creative resource use • (6, cont.) Research & development, including continuous improvement
Vendors Face Challenges From Unsophisticated Customers and a Difficult Funding Environment… • “There is a significant gap between the solutions schools know about, and the solutions that are available. District leaders always seem very surprised at the functionality offered by digital curriculum” • “States are simply not aware of what is out there” • “The recession has led to a paralysis in the market; districts either lack resources, or are hesitant to spend funds on solutions they view as new or risky” • “Schools and districts have a lack of risk capital, and often, they view new methods of assessment or instruction as risky purchases” Recession has led to a tightening of already scarce dollars • “Teachers are very heavily burdened right now. The administration buys technology, throws it into the classroom, and expects all the new products and solutions to be used effectively. Technology should be making life easier for teachers” • “Many of these NGL solutions need to work in concert with one another to be effective; we often are selling into districts that purchased SmartBoards but have no content to offer over that medium” • “Infrastructure can be an obstacle. If a school district has developed an infrastructure for one tech product, they are often hesitant to purchase another, even if the products could work together effectively” School leaders focus on technology often lacks strategy or coherence Vendors report customers lack knowledge of NGL product capabilities
What is Needed to Make Each Element NGL Ready? Why isn’t it NGL ready today? What would make it NGL ready? Large scale / distribution, but lower or mixed quality Innovative or high quality, but without scale Small scale, lower or mixed quality
The Human Capital Landscape Includes Six Primary Functions Teacher Preparation Recruiting and Retention Career Progression Teacher Evaluation Compensation Principal Recruitment, Training and Evaluation Labor relations is a function that runs across these areas with little (if any) system support today
Other System Supports (Not Market-Driven) Standards Seat Time Policy Mobilization
Geographic PrioritizationEvaluation Criteria Overview Policy Environment Teacher Pathways Data, Assessment & Technology Funding
Geographic Prioritization: Detailed Approach Criteria Source Detail Subcategory Weight Overall Weight Policy Environment (50%) Teacher Pathway (20%) Data, Assessments, & Technology (20%) Funding (10%)
Geographic PrioritizationState Rankings State Rankings Based on Geographic Scoring NH, #22 Total state score Top states Source: Data Quality Campaign; National Right to Work Committee; National Alliance for Public Charter Schools; Evergreen Education Group; EducationCommission of the States, Thomas B. Fordham Institute, Common Core Standards Initiative. National Council on Teacher Quality, Education Next
Given the Large Number of Gaps, Can Investments Be Sequenced? Goals: • Advocate for NGL and mobilize the field • Create minimum needed conditions for NGL, in at least a select number of locations • Enable and encourage a small but growing number of entrepreneurs • Seek a variety of different versions of NGL models • Begin creating system conditions for growth and scale • Building momentum in the field will be critical to attract attention, resources and entrepreneurs to NGL • Innovation, learning and growth will not be a linear process, but will require a continuous cycle of learning • What timeframe do we expect, and would we tolerate, across phases? Setting the Stage:“Allowed” to do it and“want” to do it Innovate, Test and Grow Scale:“Can” do it at scale Innovate Evaluate and Learn Adjust Grow • Goals: • Large scale adoption of NGL models, including in large districts and CMOs • Reach significant number of most at-need students • Deliver new level of student achievement results Cycle of continuous learning Continue to Build Momentum • Invest in policy and advocacy work in order to build on the momentum that has started in the field • Attract attention, financial resources, and innovative entrepreneurs to NGL work • Encourage district, state and federal policies and investments
What Are the Minimum Necessary Conditions That Would Be Required in the First Stage? Setting the Stage:“Allowed” to do it and “want” to do it Goals: • Mobilize the field • Create minimum needed conditions for NGL, in at least a select number of locations • Enable and encourage a small but growing number of entrepreneurs • Seek a variety of different NGL models • Begin creating system conditions for growth and scale Build System Level Supports for Early Stages Foster School Level Entrepreneurs and Innovation Actions: Mobilize leaders in the field around a common vision Conduct research and evaluation to validate the concept Begin to seed and build system supports to enable scale No policy barriers (in select locations of innovation) High quality components (content, assessment and technology) Integration of those components Financial resources and support
Potential Investment Strategies to Foster School Level Entrepreneurs and Innovation • These options are not mutually exclusive, but could be pursued through a variety of different combinations Directly encourage local level innovation Invest directly in new learning sites Fund CMOs to build or convert schools/sites Fund replication of early models Fund organizations that work with schools • Fund a series of new sites that experiment with different NGL models • Examples: new entrepreneurs • Engage with interested CMOs to convert existing schools or build new sites with NGL models • Examples: KIPP, Diploma Plus, FLVS, New Tech • Provide the growth capital for existing models to expand to multiple sites and refine their models • Examples: School of One, Quest to Learn, Rocketship • Seed new organization or contribute to existing organization that helps sites implement NGL • Examples: RISC, FLVS, Wireless Generation, AdvancePath Academics Provide the tools and supports entrepreneurs need Fund development of components and/or integrators Create a NGL model “incubator” Provide legal and policy support • Encourage a variety of integrator options by directing funding one or more integrators (vendors, non-profits, or schools) • Examples: school or school network (e.g. KIPP or School of One), vendors (e.g. Agile Minds, Wireless Generation), or dedicated intermediary (e.g. RISC) • Make targeted investments in filling select but critical gaps in needed components (e.g. assessment) • Examples: Wireless Generation, Global Scholar, Mika Partners, Agile Minds, and others • Create an organization that provides leadership training for prospective entrepreneurs, as well as a forum for partnership and connection with others in the field • New organization would be seeded • Provide support to attain changes to seat time, proficiency-based pathways • Create labor negotiation specialists who can actively engage unions at specific sites • Example: Ed Council
Potential Investment Strategies to Build System Level Supports for Early Stages These options are not mutually exclusive, but could be pursued through a variety of different combinations Immediate System Level Needs Mobilize Leaders Remove Policy Barriers Fund R&D • Create a new organization or fund an existing organization to be the voice of Next Generation Learning • Example: Startl (?), may need to seed new organization • Beyond waivers, work with state legislations, policy makers and labor leaders to change seat policy regs and increase flexibility of human capital use • Example: Ed Council, may need to seed new organization, which could be linked to mobilization • Fund research to examine early stage results; build research relationships that are more iterative and inform the work as it unfolds • Develop performance-based assessments to measure success • Example: Learning Point Associates, Battelle for Kids, Chicago Consortium on School Research, others Immediate Planning for Mid to Long Term System Level Needs Human Capital Financial Planning PD Change Management • Begin the critical work of defining the redefined role of the teacher in NGL classrooms • Develop human capital strategies (recruitment, retainment, training, promotion, career ladders) for both teachers and principals • Examples: The New Teacher Project, AFT, seed new organization • Document, analyze and publish “best practice” PD in NGL schools • Seed a new organization, or seek existing PD vendors, to implement “train the trainer” models or direct teacher training • Tie closely to financial planning work • Example: Teachscape, ANet • Build additional capacity in the field with organizations that have change management and education expertise • Work with consumers of services to develop economically sustainable models • Examples: EDI, major consultancies, seed new organization • Document, analyze and publish innovative NGL resource allocation strategies • Invest in capacity to conduct financial analysis for NGL entrepreneurs and district, either by seeding/growing organizations or training and investing in district capacity • Example: ERS
Learning Studio Teams Business Partners NCTAF Staff District Staff Cross-curricular Team (~5 teachers and one or more “scientists”) Learning Challenge 1 Learning Challenge 2 Learning Challenge 3 Learning Challenge 4 S t u d e n t s