Kansas Educational Leadership Institute. April 11, 2-13. From KSDE: on KEEP. Of the districts in KS who have submitted information regarding which evaluation system they’re using: 1/3 KEEP 1/3 Other purchased ( Marzano , McREL …) 1/3 Locally created
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.
Kansas Educational Leadership Institute April 11, 2-13
From KSDE: on KEEP Of the districts in KS who have submitted information regarding which evaluation system they’re using: 1/3 KEEP 1/3 Other purchased (Marzano, McREL…) 1/3 Locally created Comparing various models submitted, they have some similar characteristics (we wonder who stole what from whom?) • KEEP – broad spectrum of districts we’re trying to support, so needed to establish some parameters within KEEP to address this. Right now KEEP has 5 statewide databases, building the thing from the ground up, it’s in year 2 of the pilot. KSDE website has a KS map with districts using KEEP highlighted.
KEEP (from KSDE) • 1. Multiple measures • 2. Inter-rater reliability • 3. Evaluation goal selection • 4. Evaluating the building leader
Multiple measures What will this look like, how will you know they are reliable? • Consider state assessments as expected • Include assessment measures currently in use in your district • Shared credit/responsibility for student growth • Sample measures from KSDE from the field: academic measures state assessments, academic measures that are not state assessments, and other student knowledge and skills measures. The key thing is that we measure what students do not what teachers do. • Co-constructing evaluations between building leaders and teachers in the pre-observation teacher eval meeting – need to select multiple measures and make some decisions including information on experience of teacher, the students’ background or considerations, etc.
KEEP, continued • 2. Inter-rater reliability – should be some PD around this • 3. Evaluation goal selection: District, building, individual goals It is recommended that each educator selects two goals per eval cycle A district or building level goal and a personal goal agreed upon by the evaluator and the evaluatee • 4. Evaluating the building leader - What does that look like, multiple measures selected? - Timeline for evaluation? By statute, new building leaders also fall under 1 cycle or 2 cycle evalmodel just like a new teacher • 5. KEEP repository • KSDE will be providing tech support. Are your evaluators using your rubrics so you get some reliability?
Comment from the room “We’re still ‘in the clouds’ with a lot of this. What’s the time frame for 5Rs and AMOs?” • 5rs just completed field test. Don’t think we’re ready to launch in fall 2013. Can see a field test in spring of 2014, which puts implementation in fall of 2014. • How is accreditation being determined during this process? All districts are accredited for next year. Board didn’t discuss the “q.” (Quality of QPA) • Accreditation webpage coming
Survey by KSDE staff of people in the room (we responded via text): 1. KSDE staff suggested that “Results” should be 20% of 5Rs so it’s an even split. Agree, or want a different percentage? 32% of the room agreed, 36% said 30% • Comment – all areas impact results • Concern that the results piece is a student’s performance on one test. • KSDE hope that accreditation will be much more than assessment scores • Comment about SpEd – anything to be taken into account if you have a high population of SpEd?
KSDE survey, continued 2. Which “R” will be the greatest challenge for your district? Majority of room said responsive cultureand rigor 3. How important is it to have levels of accreditation? Majority of room said important (70%) and minority said not important
KSDE survey, continued 4. What should accreditation be based on? API score (24% other responses) # of areas modeling % of points possible (72% majority) Factors other than the 5 R’s • (Questions 5 and 6 were free response and responses were not easily viewable)
Leaders share how districts are preparing • Members of three districts shared about ways they have transitioned to CCSS. • We heard from staff of USD 202 – Turner USD 498 Valley Heights USD 340 Jefferson West Obvious powerhouse: Turner (Dr. Michelle Sedler, sup’t)
USD 202 - Turner • About 5 years ago didn’t have a written curriculum • BOE resolution - Didn’t care about test scores this year, even though that was very difficult for teachers, but they needed leaders supporting that. Did allow teachers 10 days of instruction toward test. • Sup’t emphasized to principals that focus is on CC. • Strategic plan: Communication & Community; Curriculum & Instruction; HR; Support Services; Technology. • Sup’tthinks that every staff member could tell you that there is a strategic plan and where to find. Updates on the plan provided quarterly to staff.
Turner USD 202 Mission “Every Turner student will be challenged academically and prepared socially to be a leader within a global society.”
Turner USD 202 Vision Through a partnership with students, staff, parents, and community, we will demonstrate excellence by effectively implementing practices and policies that continuously promote state of the art schools, utilizing highly qualified professionals.
Turner USD 202 Beliefs Turner students come firstUnderstand & appreciate diversityRigorous, comprehensive aligned curriculumNurture a safe & caring environmentEmbrace changeRequire high expectations for all
Who we are…. PK - 5th Grades Turner Elementary Junction Elementary Midland Trail Elementary Oak Grove Elementary 6th Grade Turner Sixth Grade Academy 7th – 8th Grades Turner Middle School 9th – 12th Grades Turner High School Endeavor Alternative High School
Strategic Plan • Communication and Community • Curriculum and Instruction • Human Resources • Support Services • Technology
Establish Clear Expectations • Lead according to our Strategic Plan • Expect the CCSS Bullseye curriculum to be implemented and monitored • Acknowledge deadlines and be sensitive to meeting times • Diligently complete your walk throughs • Effectively communicate with all stakeholders • Reinforce technology integration • Share successes • High quality customer service • Inspiration begins with US • Positive relationships
System Supports • Core Curriculum and Resources • Classroom Walk Throughs • Differentiated Instruction • Technology Rich Classrooms • SMARTboards • iPads • Senteo Student Response System • ELMO document cameras • Secondary and Elementary Technology Coaches
Bullseye Curriculum Bullseye curriculum model, coded by cognitive level. Students progress documented quarterly, and these documents are all over the place in team meetings (PLC’s). In addition to this, have a map (which are unit-based) that codes all the standards. The bullseye is a solid document. The maps are very fluid and living. There is an expectation that teachers are within about a week of the map.
Letter to Staff - December • With the Kansas State Department of Education approving the implementation of the Kansas Common Core Curriculum (CCSS), the time has come to let go of the previous Kansas Standards. • We will officially measure our student/program growth in math and language arts through the MAP and ACT assessments until the new Kansas assessments are established. • “our focus should only be on the new Turner Bullseye documents and curriculum maps”. • Please know your work with Turner students is greatly appreciated!
Mission/Vision + Strategic Plan + Clear Expectations + Motivation = STUDENT ACHIEVEMENT Turner USD 202
“BYOC,” building your own curriculum – about 10 hands across room went up when he asked if anyone else is using BYOC Small district, so meeting together is possible and important. Vertical teaming and vertical alignment is important to this process. Know each other’s curriculum Leaders need to know what CC looks like and how instruction can improve related to CC Working within this understanding (confirmed by room): 2013-14 CC (CETE) 2014-15 CC assessment (CETE CC used for formative; 1st establishing AMOs) 2015-16 use previous results to compare AMOs With that, the AMOs will have to be re-established with new test In 2016 truly comparing how you’re doing for first time Some info from Valley Heights…
Turner: thinking about going away from Map, USDE will not accept as one of the accountability tests (in regard to NCLP waiver) b/c it’s too adaptive. We actually like it a lot, but want to avoid giving too many tests. Curriculum documents are typically always on our website, currently unavailable so in next couple of days will try to get those uploaded. Helping teachers dig in to CC: very detailed. Take rep’s from each building and met in year 1 monthly by grade level and also vertically. As maps got more complete, this year those grade level teams are meeting Used construct from the teachers. What of these concepts make up this standard they broke each one down and re-built. Good discussions about how it was different from what they’ve been doing. And why are we talking about these cognitive levels . Very intense meetings. The grade level reps communicate that back. More from turner…
KSDE survey on enacted curriculum Took standards from all over country and broke them down into this construct they created and we looked hard at their analysis. Compared to KS. Compared to CC standards. Trying to show what percent of your instructional time should be spent on a concept – looked hard at this and that’s how they color coded. SEC Survey of enacted curriculum content analysis of standards Stole a lot of material from Kentucky – great CC site and North Carolina(?) https://secure.wceruw.org/seconline/MSP/Content/ELA/ELACntRpt/WSELACntRptMenu.asp Still More from Turner