Children First Intensive

Children First Intensive • Identifying Clear Goals, School Improvement and Study Groups • Inquiry Team Meeting for ESO Network 14 • February 5, 2009 Eastwood Manor • Deena Abu-Lughod, SAF; Network Leader: Bob Cohen • Brandon Alvarez, Joann Benoit, Deirdre Burke, Freddie Capshaw, Alan Godlewicz, Dr. Pamela McCarthy

Agenda (Actual) • 8:50-10:15 Goal Setting – Sharing our Thinking • Affinity Protocol (not conducted) • 10:15-10:45 Sponsor Presentation: Arnie Zeitlin, Sussman Sales • 10:45-11:00 Break • 11:00-11:10 Checking our Goals from CFI Interface • 11:10-11:20 CBO: Mosholu Montefiore Center, Robert Altman • 11:25-12:20 Study Groups • 12:20-12:30 Questions, Comments and Evaluation • 12:30 -1:30 Lunch (Principal’s tables: G&O Process)

Opening Reflection Question: What is difficult about goal setting? • Coming up with realistic and attainable goals in midst of changing framework. • Specificity and connection between short term and long term goals. What can you do in the short term to reach the long term goal? • Designing the assessment tools to measure the short term goals. • Concept of ‘when do you have a goal’? Does it grow up through the years? Do you finish learning ‘inference’? • Describing the outcome in clear terms. You must be able to describe it in concrete terms. How do you know beforehand what your outcome will be? Difficulty is to see the building before you build it. • It’s about backward design; envisioning the outcome. • Building capacity in all staff members to articulate goals in all content areas, not just ela and math. Should be part of all our work. • Must be self-reflective and able to acknowledge what’s not working. Need to improve on what IS working and fix what is NOT working. • What data sources are most reliable for beginning to set goals? Creating questions/assessments that really measure what you need to measure. Are our tools aligned to our needs? • How do you get the kids to look at their performance and set their own goals and revisit their goals? The coach can have the goal, but if the runner doesn’t, it’s not going to happen.

Learning Intentions • Understand how Inquiry helps build leadership capacity. • How to use a collaborative process to formulate specific and measurable goals based on data. • Consider how Inquiry work, assessment, the Learning Environment Survey, the Progress Report and the Quality Review relate to the Comprehensive Educational Plan and the Principals’ Goals and Objectives. • How to use a protocol to surface different perspectives on a problem and generate a common understanding. • Deepen content knowledge in a specific area of interest.

Aligning the Accountability Tools for Goal-Setting • Progress Report • Quality Review • Learning Environment Survey • Principals Goals and Objectives (PPR) • Comprehensive Educational Plan (CEP)

Examine the data for the sample school • Data include the Progress Report, Disaggregated ELA data, the Learning Environment Survey, and the bullets from the school’s last two Quality Reviews. • Identify the greatest area of need for this school and draft a SMART goal (or measurable objective) related to that need. • Note that in the Inquiry process, the SMART goal is the June goal. However, in the CEP and the PPR, the goals are general statements followed by SMART “measurable objectives”.

What was the area of need? What would be a meaningful goal? • Goals related to student outcomes: • Student progress in ELA, especially in Gr 6 & 8, esp. Level 1+2 students. Increase of 5% in students making 1 year progress. • ELA progress is area of need, esp. in Gr 4 and 8. 5% increase in percent of Gr 4 and 8 students making 1 year progress. • ELA: big goal is improve ELA curriculum. Improve the % of students at proficiency by June 2009 from 37.2% to 42.9%. • ELA progress – issue with gen ed 1 year progress (do well with SE and ELL progress). See 65% of the gen ed population making 1 year progress by June 2009. But where’s the math? • By the next ELA exam, 62.5% of all students will make 1 year progress (a 10 percentage point increase). • By June, the % of gen ed making 1 yr progress from 45% to 50%. • Goals related to climate and environment: • A communication issue in MS especially. Do pre- and post-survey of attitudes and esp. on instruction. To increase student achievement, we’d focus on Science and Social Studies. They’ve done a good job in ELA and Mathematics. The QR summary says teachers are well supported by a network of specialists, esp. in literacy and math, good assessment system in literacy and Math. • Environment is the issue. If you don’t have that in place, you can’t get anywhere. Goal: 10% increase in reported level of engagement in one marking period in a survey. • QR-school doesn’t provide support for SOME teachers to bring up their level; # of 3+4 are low. Increase the % proficient by 20 points (from 37% to 57%) by …. Instruction. • Communication is an issue (QR well developed contradicts survey). Increase progress and performance through PD and support programs. See 7% reduction in levels 1 and 2 in ELA. • But if you don’t start with a smile on your face, you won’t get anywhere. This is why the environment is so important. The data does direct you in an academic direction, but the survey tells you how people feel and this is a precondition. • When goal setting, look at the whole picture. Look at the environment, look at your teachers, the motivation. • This school has its act together for math; every class has its kit; good coaches and leadership. • To target the needs of struggling groups, we need to differentiate. When we target particular groups, we sometimes ignore the higher performing students. Differentiation is a way to meet all needs and needs of specific subgroups. This is the way that we can get the equity.

Why just one goal? • Forces you to prioritize. • ELA progress is most important due to high stakes Progress Report. • In looking at scores by category, we looked at relationship to peer horizon, so ELA was much more important than math. • We are all trying to move our percentages up. Sometimes our numbers are conservative when we set goals. Remember that all schools are also trying to improve. (Yes, but Progress Report compares you to the set range, so all schools can improve and meet the targets. The targets are not ‘normed’.)

Criteria for goals/measurable objectives • The June goal and the Measurable Objectives should indicate: • the starting point, • the desired endpoint, • and the instrument with which that change will be measured. • For CEP goals and measurable objectives, student improvement can be measured by State tests; • For Target Population goals, other assessment instruments should be used. • In PPRs, either State tests or other assessment instruments can be used.

Making the Network Goals Transparent • In December, the network team examined these same documents related to your school and formulated goals to guide its work with you. • Examine the document with the network goals, and jot down its goals in the top left section of your Dashboard sheet. • If you remember them, jot down your CEP goals and PPR goals in the designated slots. • To what extent do the Network goals align with yours? Should they be aligned, and if so, how could we achieve that?

June Goals – Checking our Work • The June goal for the target population should meet four criteria: • Indicate the students’ starting point • Indicate the students’ desired end point • Indicate the instrument with which that growth will be measured • The instrument cannot be a State test • In the yellow handout, check the June Goal assigned to your table against the criteria and rewrite it, if necessary, so it meets the criteria. Consider the sample goals as models. • The “master folder” (red) for your school has a printout of the information entered in the CFI Interface. If the June goal does not meet the criteria, rewrite it and re-enter the goal on the Interface. If your goal DOES meet the criteria, consider the reflection questions.

Sample Goal • June Goal • By January 2009, our target population will be performing at or above grade level (Tier 3) as demonstrated by their performance on the ELA Acuity Predictive Examination • Comments:Tier 3 in Acuity is not the same as Level 3; Acuity Predictives are not parallel assessments, and should therefore not be used to measure growth. Solution: This school could create customized Acuity tests focusing on the 3 learning targets they may have selected; use DRA or F&P levels to measure growth, or use Performance Series.

Sample Goal • (B) On the 2009 NYS Math Test, our target students will increase their Proficiency Rating by one level. In the fall, we will be able to examine the Footprint to see if performance on the Algebra based questions improved. • Issue: The NYS test is given in March, not June, so it cannot measure June growth. • Solution: The school could create 2 parallel Acuity assessments, give one as a baseline and give the other in June. Students should improve by a meaningful amount. If the test included Algebra indicators from grades 3, 4 and 5, then students should master all of the grade 3 and 4 indicators and make good progress on the grade 5 indicators. The school could create 2 parallel assessments using questions selected from old state tests and administer in the same fashion as the Acuity.

Sample Goal C • (C) Students will be at grade level by the end of second grade • Issue: We do not know students’ starting point or what assessment will be used to measure “grade level”. • Solution: Consider using ECLAS 2, F&P levels or DRA. For example, students entered grade 2 reading on Levels C-F. By June, students will be reading on levels J-M

Probing Alternate Perspectives • An important element in the process of school improvement is the engagement of the entire school community in surfacing and reconciling different perspectives. • Several of our schools are working with Cambridge Education consultants on this process, using the “SWOT” form, where each constituent surfaces the school’s Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities and Threats and then prioritizes related actions. • Other protocols can help explore problems and issues that matter to build a common understanding.

S.W.O.T. Tool Used by Cambridge: An analysis of how we can move a school really fast

Affinity Protocol: Diagnosing School Capacity(Activity not conducted due to lack of time) • Individual Write: • On Post Its, identify 5-10 major factors that determine how successful a school will be in improving instruction and student learning. • Indicate on the Post It if this factor is at the Teacher level (T), Grade/Department level (G) or School level (S) • If the factor exists at more than one level, copy it on multiple Post Its.

Affinity Protocol: Group Activity • Sort the individual contributions into categories. • Collectively form a theory about school improvement and represent that theory visually on the chart paper. • Identify what the most important factors are and how they relate to the other factors. • Place at the bottom of your chart those factors that are OUTSIDE of a school’s ability to control. Your theory can only include factors that you have the ability to work on and change.

Affinity Protocol: Present your theory • Assign 3 host reporters from your table. • Everyone except Host 1 goes clockwise around the room to the chart to the right. The host explains the theory to the visitors. • Host 2 replaces Host 1. Visitors travel clockwise to the next chart on the right. Host 2 explains the theory to the visitors. • Host 3 replaced Host 2. Visitors travel clockwise to the next chart on the right. Host 3 explains the theory to the visitors.

What did you learn from this protocol?

Schedules Structures Roles Types of Professional Development, When, Where Protocols, Rubrics Assessments Accountability Systems Beliefs About Student Learning Pedagogical Content Knowledge Norms for Group Work Discourse About Practice Mutual Accountability Distributed Leadership The Work of Improvement: From Technical to Cultural TECHNICAL CULTURAL

Making it happen: Three Stages • Learning the work (the technical core). • Using the work to change the culture. • Let the culture drive the work. • As inquiry team members, you are the ones at the vanguard of this change.

A Word From Our Sponsor • Thank you, Arnie Zeitlin • and the Sussmans!

CBO Presentation • Mosholu Montefiore Center • Robert Altman • 718 882 4000 x216 • www.nyc.gov/dycd • To apply on line-specify Mosholu Montefiore Center

Study Groups • Guidance… • Purpose setting: each member writes down what s/he expects to get out of the study group • Norms setting: each one speaks once before anyone speaks twice? • Roles? Inter-meeting communication? Fixed or rotating facilitator? • Format of study? Pairs present selected material? Members try out a strategy and report back? • Product? (June book study share?)

Study Group Summary • The Skillful Leader: Simmons-Peart, Navarro, Hyer. Purpose: To recognize and confront institutional and individual mediocrity that will change teacher quality and support student achievement. • The Skillful Leader: Maldonado, Penn-Jackson, Clunie, McCarthy • Teacher Development: Cloutier, Davis • ELLs-Learning to Learn in a Second Language: Garrity, Glass, Edouard, Rincon, Scott, Smith-Hackshaw, Ramirez, Dacosta, Gehan, Benoit • Leadership: Benardo, Handwerger, Rizzi, Gradilone, Gleeson, Downing, Nieves, Ramsey-Dexter. • Literacy-Strategies That Work: Hajek, Davis, Koy, Abu-Lughod (Moss). Focus Question: How do we connect this book to our professional lives; to our practices, curriculum and instruction; and to our school communities to improve student outcomes?

Agenda Planning: Options to Consider • Proposal for March: Looking at Instruction DATE: March 26 (Thursday) • Characteristics of good instruction Quality Review Classroom Observation Form and Rubric • Proposal for April 23 (Thursday): Assessment and Progress Monitoring • Formative Assessment strategies and techniques • Measuring improvement: Theory and Practice • Sharing: CFI Collaborative Assessment Tool • Proposal for May 21, (Thursday): ? • Proposal for June 18, (Thursday): Sharing of Inquiry Final Products

Feedback and debrief; Evaluation • Please complete the Feedback Form now. • Did we achieve our intentions? • The Collaborative Goal Setting Process • Understand the trajectory of school improvement • Ways to use protocols to probe alternate perspectives and build common understandings • Launch Study Groups

Children First Intensive