SCEP On-Site Review Utilizing the DTSDE Rubric and Procedures Liz Ten Dyke, Nancy Jones Albany High School Tuesday, March 4, 2014
Objectives • Develop a shared understanding of Tenet 3 • . . . and of criteria for effective and highly effective practice • Draft your building self-assessment • Calibrate collection and interpretation of evidence • Understand development of FEI statements and scoring • Agree on procedures for uniform implementation of review
Ice-breaker--Synectics • Let’s get started! • Choose one of the pictures on your table • Think about your experience with reviews past . . . or your anticipation of this review yet to come. • How is the picture you chose like a building review???
Objective: • Quietly examine the Tenet 3 Rubric and the CCLS Shifts • Study the criteria for “effective” and “highly effective” practice • Underline the words or phrases you consider most important. • On the worksheet—list the potential evidence: what would this look like? Sound like? > Develop a shared understanding of Tenet 3. . . and of criteria for effective and highly effective practice
Potential Evidence 3.2 • Curriculum—on Atlas Rubicon, in binders • PD agendas, notes, meetings with CASDA, CSSR • Work of Lit Coach with AIS—copies of e-mails, agendas notes, resources shared • Common Planning time meetings—agendas, notes, team binders (incl data, curriculum, resources, etc.) • Faculty meetings—agendas, copies of presentations, surveys, questionnaires • Horizontal/vertical team meetings—agendas, notes, work products • PD calendar, minutes, agendas • Evidence of planning • Evidence obtained from classroom visits • Articulation agreements with colleges
Potential Evidence 3.3 • Action research binders • Teaching artifacts—assessments • Examples of student projects or portfolios • Curriculum writing session deliverables—e.g. pacing maps, CFAs, engaging learning experiences written in Rubicon • Observation of anchor charts, content enhancement strategies, unit organizers, etc. visible in classrooms • NWEA scores, other data in minute notes from grade level or team meetings • Common Summative Assessments and evidence of utilization by teams • Evidence of after school extended day programming, tutoring, etc—attendance rosters, program application, program descriptions
Potential Evidence 3.4 • Meeting sign in sheets • Reading teachers/AIS—evidence of communication between specialists and classroom teachers, meeting minutes, notes • Exit tickets from contractual PD • Examples of project-based learning • Curriculum for arts/tech in building • Schedules of library/computer lab use, netbook signout • Evidence of communication between staff in different areas for CTE/PBL • Evidence of content collaboration in after-school programming, e.g. robotics club
Potential Evidence 3.5 • Pre-, post- CFA results • Alignment of assessments with key ideas, performance indicators • Copies of individual student learning goals reflecting NWEA or AIMSweb data • School improvement plans from depts. and committees • Data team info: meeting membership rosters, meeting schedules, meeting minutes/logs/notes • Evidence of instructional decisions driven by interpretation of data: e.g. change/revision to assessment over time • Goal setting for SE students in IEP direct, goal setting from NWEA testing • District data on building pass-fail rates • Sample teacher binders? • RtI committee work and action plans
Objective: • Working on paper or on-line, take 30 mins. and work with your team to draft your building self-assessment. > Draft your building self-assessment
Objective • Study the IPG for K-8 or HS math. How will you see/hear these shifts in classroom instruction? • Observe the video clip. What elements of the IPG do you observe? > Calibrate the collection and interpretation of evidence through study of the Instructional Practice Guides and Tri-State Rubrics
Now Locate Your Tri-State Rubric for Math • Identify alignment between the IPG you just studied and the Tri-State Rubric. • Study the lesson plan. How would you rate it on the Tri-State Rubric?
Objective • Study the IPG you have been provided for ELA and/or the Tri-State Rubric for ELA. How will you see/hear these shifts in documents and/or classroom instruction? > Calibrate the collection and interpretation of evidence through study of the Instructional Practice Guides and Tri-State Rubrics
Practice with the ELA Guide and Rubric • After viewing the video, administrators will discuss the video through the lens of the IPG • Teachers will discuss the lesson through the lens of the Tri-State Rubric
FEI Statements • Findings: • A conclusion reached after the examination of information from your interviews and focus group discussions during the school or district review process. • Evidence: • Proof of the information used to prove or suggest the findings. • The sign or proof of the existence of a particular occurrence or that helps the reviewer come to a particular conclusion. • Impact: • The effect that the reviewer's findings supported by evidence is presently having on the school or district. Note that the impact does not refer to the impact that will occur if the issue is not addressed, but rather the current effect on the school or district community.
Examples for Aligned FEI’s to the SOP’s for Tenet 3 • The time students are spending on low level tasks is deterring from developing critical skills needed to be academically successful. Aligned to 3.3. • … is leading to most teachers not using data to examine student learning or when teachers attempt to use data it leads to misaligned action plans for student learning … which resulted in students not being challenged appropriately. Aligned to 3.5
Scoring and Reporting • Team debriefing session • The ratings for tenet 3 are created by turning the 3 sub-statements ( e.g. 3.2a, 3.2b, 3.2c) into one individual score for the SOP. • The district has developed the Calibration Assurance Team that will review your draft. (Only districts that choose to conduct district-led reviews will need a CAT.) • Review Scoring sheet for examples and process. • The school final report will have one finding aligned to each statement of practice. The finding will either be a strength or an area for improvement. Please note that all reviewers’ findings must be quality assured before a final rating, points and/or narratives are final. School leaders will have an opportunity to respond to the findings and check for factual accuracy prior to the team finalizing any report.
The Devil is in the Details Lesson Plans Review requirement: Elementary: teachers should provide “evidence of planning” for two consecutive days in ELA and math, and one additional day either the week before or the week after (to show continuity of instruction over time). Request copies of planning, not originals. Request that plans be submitted anonymously, or have names redacted. • Contract: “All teachers shall prepare, and have readily available, evidence of planning for daily instruction. Such written evidence of daily planning shall be available, upon reasonable request, to evaluators . . . The particular planning format is at the discretion of the teacher . . . “
Review Procedures—Preparation • Use PP and Memo to inform your staff • Complete the Building Self-Assessment • Compile documents; collect “evidence of planning” from teachers • Reserve space for the review team to work • Schedule classroom visits and plan for observation of a grade level meeting • Ensure that you have sufficient copies of required forms or materials
Review Procedures: Day One • Welcome participants, orient them to the purpose, work and schedule for the day • Admins complete classroom visits and grade level meeting observation • Teachers complete document review and review of “evidence of planning.”
Review Procedures: Day Two • Share and discuss evidence • Develop consensus around ratings • Draft FEI statements • Write report
The Devil is in the Details Report submission Document storage All plans, other documents, forms and/or notes used in the review should be boxed, labeled “SCEP On-Site Review 2013-14” and stored in the principal’s office. These materials must be available for review/ inspection by district, BOCES or state ed representatives, if requested. • All reports must be submitted electronically to Liz no later than one week after the conclusion of the review. • Liz, Nancy Jones and Karen Bechdol will serve as the CAT (Calibration Assurance Team), review all reports prior to submission and communicate with principals if needed.