Connell & Broom, 2004
The Toughest Nut To Crack
First Things First’s (FTF) Approach to
Improving Teaching and Learning
James P. Connell and Julie Broom
Institute for Research and Reform in Education
August 2004
Connell & Broom, 2004
Table of Contents
History of FTF’s Approach to Improving Teaching and Learning……………….…1
What Does Good Teaching and Learning Look Like? ........………………………..4
Measuring What Matters About Teaching and Learning……..………………….....6
Finding the Time to Improve Teaching and Learning…………………………….....7
Professional Development Activities to Improve Engagement, Alignment and
Rigor (EAR) in All Classrooms…………………..…………………………………….9
Active Engagement Strategies………………………….……………………..9
Effective Use of Common Planning Time and Early Release/
Late Start for Instructional Improvement Activities……………………..….10
Alignment and Rigor Through Common Assessments and
Evaluations of Student Work……………………...………………………….12
Lessons Learned on Designing and Implementing Professional
Development Activities around Engagement, Alignment and Rigor….….13
Emerging FTF Approaches to Improving Teaching and Learning………...……..15
Enriching Curricular and Instructional Supports for Struggling
Readers and Math Learners…………………………………………...…….15
Developing System Leadership to Support Improvement
of Teaching and Learning………………………………………….…………16
Conclusion.. …………………….………...……………………………….…….…….17
Final Thoughts.………………….………...…………………………………….…….19
References…...………………….………...…………………………………….…….21
Connell & Broom, 2004
The Toughest Nut To Crack
First Things First’s (FTF) Approach to Improving Teaching and Learning
Two previous reports have described FTF’s approach to transforming high
schools and middle schools. These reports described structures and processes
that can and have fostered more long-standing, respectful and mutually
accountable relationships among students and adults at school (Connell, 2002)
and among students, their families and school staff (Klem, et al., 2003). With
the implementation of small learning communities and a family advocate system,
FTF schools create a platform upon which their core work – teaching and
learning – can be strengthened through an integrated but diverse set of activities
involving all teachers, building and district administrators and students – as well
as outside technical assistance providers from IRRE and its national partners. In
this report we briefly review the history of FTF’s evolving approach to helping
schools improve teaching and learning. We then lay out the specific sets of
instructional supports we now offer – including their genesis, rationale, and
current status. Finally; we discuss challenges we and our school and district
partners now face. Also included with the report is an Overview of First Things
First Instructional Improvement Materials – with its own table of contents – which
has the current versions of IRRE’s instructional improvement materials and a
“readers’ guide” to these materials organized around key questions addressed in
this report.
History of FTF’s Approach to Improving Teaching and Learning
In our previous report, “Getting Off the Dime to Meaningful Reform of Secondary
Schools” (Connell, 2002), we discussed how over the past seven years FTF has
1
Connell & Broom, 2004
articulated a set of required implementation standards for each of its three reform
strategies. As can be seen in Table 1 (excerpted from this earlier report),
“instructional improvement” was the last of the three FTF strategies to have such
standards articulated. The reasons for this lag lie both in FTF’s own history and
the history of the field.
Table 1: The Evolution Of FTF Requirements: 1997–Present
Planning
Are FTF
Years of FTF
Critical
Schools
Features
Are Implementation Strategies and Standards Required?
Required?
SLCs
Family Advocate
System
Generation 1
1
Instructional
Improvement
Strategy
Standard
Strategy
Standard
Strategy
Standard
YES
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
YES
YES
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
YES
YES
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
YES
YES
NO
YES
YES
YES
NO
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
(1997–98)
Generation 2
(1998–99)
Generation 3
(1999–00)
Generation 4
(2000–01)
Generation 5+
(2001– )
1
The family advocate system was not an “official” implementation strategy of FTF until 2000 when
it began being implemented in some KCK schools and all of the national expansion sites; as of
2004 it will be implemented in all KCK schools as well.
2
Connell & Broom, 2004
In our first FTF site, Kansas City, Kansas, we phased in implementation of FTF’s
seven critical features in three cohorts of schools over three years beginning in
1998. In the first cohort of schools, curriculum and instructional change and
professional development was kept in-house, with IRRE providing technical
assistance primarily around the creation of small learning communities. Part of
IRRE’s support for creating these new structures was to help schools develop
ways to provide additional instructional time with lower student adult ratios in
literacy and math. These efforts resulted in a number of innovative but
challenging approaches – to reallocating time and personnel so students at all
levels spend more time learning literacy and math skills; to do so in smaller
groups; and to have teaching meet the students at their current skill levels and
advance them toward higher levels as quickly as possible.
In Fall 1998, the new superintendent made it clear that literacy and secondarily
math were to continue to be K-12 emphases. However, the overarching
approach to instructional improvement in these areas and across the board
remained inchoate until a small workgroup was appointed by the new
superintendent. This workgroup was charged to clarify the district’s vision and
strategies for “teaching and learning” beyond the critical features included in the
FTF framework. The group was made up of recognized instructional leaders
within the district – including school improvement facilitators and teachers – and
was facilitated by an IRRE instructional consultant who was already working with
the district.
This work group produced a document that was then used by a larger, more
diverse group of district staff – district and building administrators, teachers and
union leadership – to craft a policy statement on what the district would hold as
its expectations for implementing FTF’s instructionally related critical features –
high, clear and fair academic standards, enriched opportunities to learn, perform
and be recognized for all students. Embedded in this document were ideas
about how to “equip, empower and expect all staff to improve instruction” – an
3
Connell & Broom, 2004
approach to professional development that has since evolved into the strategies
described in the later sections of this report.
The primary focus on literacy and math has remained steady over the
subsequent years of implementation in KCK and, since then, in other FTF sites
as well. However, the ideas in this original document have evolved – in the early
years through trial and error and, when opportunities presented themselves,
through more systematic examination of what was working and what wasn’t.
The results of this evolution in KCK and in our other FTF sites comprise the
remainder of this report. Where possible and where useful, we share the levers
that created shifts in our direction and refinement of our approaches. Even now,
the challenge of having every classroom, every day characterized by high quality
teaching and learning is daunting – less so in some ways than in the past, but
more so in some ways as the hardest of the challenges have come into clearer
focus. These “hardest of the hard” challenges and our current take on
overcoming them are discussed later in this report.
What Does Good Teaching and Learning Look Like?
As with our work on creating well-functioning small learning communities and an
effective family advocate system, we started with the critical features of FTF and
tried to get increasingly clear about what it takes to get these critical features
implemented. Over the past five years, we have taken on the task of figuring out
how to implement high, clear and fair academic standards, to enrich students’
opportunities to learn, perform and be recognized and to equip, empower and
expect all staff to improve instruction. As with small learning communities and
the family advocate system, these strategies are a work in progress.
4
Connell & Broom, 2004
This quest to move from critical features to implementation of strategies has
been informed by diverse, and at times, conflicting sources. They include: the
literatures from cognitive science, learning theory and motivation research on
what makes a difference in student learning, our own and others’ experience
working with urban educators to try and change classroom and system practice,
and the political realities of accountability and survivability in public education.
Based on our study and experience, three overarching instructional goals
emerged: engagement, alignment and rigor.
Engagement – defined as students being actively involved – emotionally,
behaviorally and cognitively – in their academic work;
Alignment – defined as students being asked to and doing work that reflects
academic standards deemed to be important by their district and state and
having opportunities to master the methods used on their state’s high stakes
assessments; and
Rigor, which reflects the common sense notion that students will only achieve at
high levels if that level of work is expected and inspected for all students.
These goals anchor our efforts to provide effective instructional improvement
strategies to our district and school partners – strategies that can touch every
classroom every day. Success in achieving each and all of these three goals has
been sorely lacking in the vast majority of classrooms, schools and districts now
serving economically disadvantaged and minority communities. The urgency of
this work – like the work of personalizing students’ and their families’ experience
with school – has driven FTF and its partners to rapidly clarify:
•
What classrooms look like when these goals are being reached;
5
Connell & Broom, 2004
•
What expectations and supports are needed for each teacher and all
teachers to strengthen in some cases, and transform in others their
current practice to achieve these goals;
•
What organizational changes and system leadership capacities are
needed to deliver these expectations and supports to all teachers; and
•
What resources must IRRE bring to the table to enrich and strengthen
existing capacities in the districts, schools and states in which we work?
We begin with the question of how you know good instruction when you see it.
Measuring What Matters About Teaching and Learning 2
Over the past two years, IRRE has and its district and school partners have
developed ways to measure the quality of teaching and learning.3 Our intent is
that these measures and the technology-based tools for analysis and reporting of
data from these measures will provide timely, credible and interpretable
information on engagement, alignment and rigor – information that can and will
be used on a daily basis by district and building instructional coaches,
supervisors and teachers themselves. We also intend to learn how to build our
partners’ capacity to sustain the use of these measures in their ongoing supports
for the improvement of teaching and learning.
2
Two major independent evaluations of FTF are now being completed. As part of each
evaluation, various indicators of the quality of teaching and learning are being used to track this
aspect of FTF implementation (Youth Development Strategies Inc., forthcoming; and MDRC,
forthcoming). In both cases, students are being asked to report their classroom experiences
around issues related to FTF’s three teaching and learning goals – especially engagement and
rigor. In the former case, systematic classroom observations were collected as well. Most of
these instrument were originally designed at least five yeas ago and, while slightly revised,
remain essentially the same. The current work to develop assessments of the quality of teaching
and learning for use by districts and schools builds on this work but departs from it in many
important ways as described in the body of this report.
3
These measures are part of a larger IRRE effort called Measuring What Matters through which a
small number of key indicators of FTF implementation are systematically and systemically
assessed by district and building staff using instruments developed by IRRE and producing
immediate reports of implementation progress at multiple levels.
6
Connell & Broom, 2004
As we discuss in the following sections, we have not waited for these measures
to be fully developed to move ahead with designing and implementing
professional development activities for improving engagement, alignment and
rigor (affectionately referred to as “EAR”) in FTF schools. After a brief
discussion of where the time comes from to work with teachers and
administrators on instructional improvement, we will summarize our progress to
date on designing and implementing these professional development activities.
Finding the Time to Improve Teaching and Learning
Expecting and supporting all staff to learn, practice, discuss and evaluate new
ways of teaching and learning requires a great deal of time. FTF’s work with
district leadership and the SLC structure creates four basic time frames for these
instructional improvement activities to take place:
Common Planning Time: The goal is for each SLC to have at least three hours of
common planning time a week with 75% of that time being spent on instructional
improvement. This is the time during which members of the SLC can do
classroom visits within and across disciplines, dialogue about what they saw, and
consider implementing in their own classrooms effective practices they observed.
The time is also used to look at student work, asking their peers to evaluate the
rigor of a particular assignment; to look at student output that resulted from that
assignment and suggest ways to improve it. Common planning time allows
teachers to share strategies that were successful in producing student
engagement by all students in high level work, as well as getting ideas for how to
retool those strategies that haven’t been as successful. Finally, it is the forum for
looking at student data; since SLC members share the same students, together
they set targets and create action plans to meet those targets.
7
Connell & Broom, 2004
Early Dismissals/Late Starts: Early dismissals and late starts provide additional
time for professional development. The teachers in the same content
areas/departments and those responsible for the same courses of study (Algebra
I, Vocal Music, English III) use this time to work on alignment and rigor of their
curriculum and assessments; calibrate their evaluations of student work; and
assess data and develop or share strategies that have helped students achieve
at high levels within their particular academic area. This time can also be used
for SLCs to work with their affiliates4, sharing data, discussing issues emerging in
family advocate groups and creating action plans for individual student and SLC
success.
District Professional Development Days: Faculty spend these days learning
about new instructional strategies for strengthening engagement, alignment and
rigor and updating and enriching existing strategies. Typically, these sessions
include: national instructional experts using simulations and demonstrations,
faculty study and dialogue; and staff creating implementation plans and reviewing
ongoing support activities to put these new strategies into practice. Schools in
later stages of implementation use assessments of the quality of teaching and
learning (see below) to determine their specific needs for these full-day capacity
building sessions.
Summer Training Institutes: With the introduction of the new FTF Literacy and
Math curricula (being field tested in 2004-05 and available to all FTF sites in
2005-06), IRRE staff will be training system leaders and teachers in the use of
these curricula and instructional strategies to address the needs of struggling
readers and math learners.
4
SLC affiliates are teachers whose courses are taught “outside” the SLC in what is called the
planning lane but whose family advocate groups are from a particular SLC and who participate in
SLC-based professional development activities with that same SLC.
8
Connell & Broom, 2004
Professional Development Activities to Improve Engagement, Alignment and
Rigor (EAR) in All Classrooms
Active Engagement Strategies.
Active engagement of students was the first of the three instructional goals for
which specific professional development strategies were crafted and
implemented. Our rationale for putting engagement first was as follows:
•
We wanted teachers with low expectations for their students to have a
chance to see what their students could do when given the opportunity to
be engaged in their learning.
•
We wanted to move quickly and with all teachers to change something
important but relatively straightforward about the way teaching and
learning occurs in the typical secondary school classroom.
•
We wanted to build capacity of existing and emerging leaders to expect
and support some easily discernable but still significant changes in
teaching and learning.
•
We wanted to import proven technical assistance strategies and personnel
to support instructional change in our first area of focus rather than have
to develop IRRE’s own the expertise to provide these supports.
What resulted was a strategic partnership with Kagan Cooperative Learning, Inc.
and the launching of extensive training and coaching activities around active
engagement strategies in all of our sites.
We have learned important lessons – some quite painful, some very encouraging
– about how working with teachers around this instructional goal can be more
effective and compelling. These lessons (and those from our other professional
development strategies) are summarized at the end of this section.
9
Connell & Broom, 2004
Effective Use of Common Planning Time and Early Release/Late Start for
Instructional Improvement Activities.
As mentioned earlier, IRRE’s goal is for teachers to spend 75% of their common
planning time (during the school day and during late start/early release) on
instructional improvement activities. We found that the teachers within an SLC
were not sure how to move away from “SLC business” toward these instructional
conversations; and, within these conversations, how to push and support one
another to improve teaching and learning. Two years ago, it was determined that
specific training was needed on how to have the more difficult conversations
around teaching and learning and that carefully organized tools would further
assist in successful implementation.
Peer Observation and Dialogue.
This professional development activity is designed to be a learning tool, not an
evaluation tool. With support from instructional coaches and supervisors,
members of an SLC determine the focus for their classroom visit around one or
more of the three instructional goals – engagement, alignment or rigor. They
spend a designated amount of time observing a peer and return to have a
dialogue around new learning from the observation. Peer observations help the
faculty improve instruction, move the SLCs to becoming learning communities,
and build habits of reflective practice. It is the dialogue following the
observations that underscore the need to learn more about instruction and
learning; help the staff diagnose areas of success and areas of need for
improvement; yield data about teacher practice and student learning and help
teachers develop a shared language about instruction and learning. This form of
peer observation and dialogue can make every classroom a learning
environment both for students and adults – those teaching and those visiting –
For example, instructional leaders identify and recognize outstanding classroom
practices from across different SLCs that members of other SLCs can observe,
discuss and add to their repertoire.
10
Connell & Broom, 2004
We believe the usefulness of the Peer Observation and Dialogue activity comes
in part from its clearly defined focus on engagement, alignment and rigor and
from how the process is structured. It provides the guidelines that all
participants understand and agree to before the classroom visit and dialogue
takes place. Using the organized structure encourages focused observations,
economy of time, active listening, and respectful, collegial dialogue, often on
topics that the teachers are not in the habit of discussing.
Tuning Protocol Using Student Work. Like the peer observations and dialogue,
this activity encourages professional dialogue within SLCs (and content areas).
The tuning protocol is a structured process in which teachers collaboratively
examine, assess and evaluate a set of student work. A presenting teacher
brings the work with a focus for the examination of the work, looking to surface
resources, ideas, and strategies that make the individual efforts to improve
instruction around engagement, alignment and rigor even more productive. The
group shares best practices and push one another in their thinking around
teaching and learning. The final step in this structure is for each member to
share an idea or strategy they intend to implement before the group meets again.
We introduced these tools first to district and school administrative teams to build
their knowledge base and help them set the levels of expectation for their use.
IRRE staff work with each district to determine how the protocols would be
presented and supported within each SLC and content areas during early
implementation. The protocols are then presented and demonstrated to the full
faculty, making sure everyone hears the rationale and expectations at the same
time. Repetitive presentation and guided practice by teacher leaders create the
trust and comfort level for successful independent implementation in their SLCs
and content areas.
11
Connell & Broom, 2004
Alignment and Rigor through Common Assessments and Evaluations of Student
Work.
IRRE’s and our research partner’s staff reported severe deficits in alignment and
rigor in many schools in early implementation of FTF. Using Defour’s work as a
starting point (DeFour, 1998), IRRE instructional staff developed a set of
professional development activities to accelerate progress toward these two
critical instructional goals.
The “work products” of these activities include:
•
The course content and essential outcomes students would achieve in
that course of study aligned with relevant state and district standards;
•
A course syllabus incorporating the sequence and timing of content
presentation to meet the student outcomes to be shared with students and
families;
•
Common intermediate and summative assessments of student learning;
•
Shared thresholds for proficiency reflecting, at minimum, state grade level
and high stakes assessment performance standards;
•
Common grading protocols for student work based on these thresholds;
and
•
Effective practices gleaned from reviews of multiple instructors’ student
performance data; and
•
These effective practices incorporated into all content area teachers’
repertoires.
A series of professional development sessions prepare course leaders within
each content area to work with their colleagues in completing these products. In
addition, professional development activities during early dismissal/late start and
professional development days provide expectations and supports for teachers
within these courses of study. They learn to use data from the common
assessments to create a) action plans for the next set of essential outcomes; b)
12
Connell & Broom, 2004
plans for re-teaching for mastery the content just assessed; and c) to identify and
examine teachers’ specific strategies whose students are scoring at the highest
levels on these assessments.
These three sets of regular professional development activities – Peer
Observation and Dialogue, Tuning Protocol Using Student Work and Alignment
and Rigor Through Common Assessments and Evaluations of Student Work –
along with the introduction of new instructional strategies and content enrichment
to strengthen engagement, alignment and rigor for all students comprise the
IRRE “menu” for the use of common planning time, early dismissal/late start and
professional development days to improve teaching and learning.
Lessons Learned on Designing and Implementing Professional Development
Activities around Engagement, Alignment and Rigor.
Be clear about expectations and supports available. Critical to the consistent,
persistent and effective implementation of these activities has been our work with
system leaders at the district and building level:
•
To prepare a plan for when these activities would occur each week of the
academic semester and year;
•
For how long; and
•
With what supports from instructional coaches and supervisors and
outside TA providers.
With clear expectations for what activities are occurring, when, and in which
SLCs and content areas, instructional supervisors and coaches and outside
technical assistance providers can allocate their time to monitor and support
these activities. Using the Measuring What Matters tools for assessing the
quality of these activities themselves and the effectiveness of ongoing coaching
13
Connell & Broom, 2004
and supports, interventions and additional training and supports can be planned
and implemented.
Embed new pedagogy in relevant content, and instructional coaching in real time
teaching. When the cooperative learning structures were first introduced and for
at least a year after that, we followed the lead of the Kagan experts and used
large groups as the primary means of bringing the structures to the teachers and
classrooms. As part of those visits, the trainer would go into classrooms of
teachers trying to use the structures, observe and give feedback. On some
occasions, the trainer would take the class and show how a structure could be
used to deepen students’ understanding of the content. These visits proved very
popular and, we believe, have been responsible for increased use of active
engagement structures noted by our evaluators in their reports. We encourage
system leaders to work with teachers to build the structures into their lesson
planning. All curricula being developed by IRRE have the structures embedded
in their respective content.
We know that students work and learn best when they understand how and what
they are learning applies to their everyday lives. Teachers are also more likely to
internalize and apply new instructional strategies when a) these strategies are
embedded in their content areas and b) when they can see and practice those
strategies in “real time” teaching.
Inspect what is expected. Using objective and transparent assessments of
effective practices is critical. The introduction of the Engagment, Alignment and
Rigor (EAR) protocol discussed earlier and the broader Measuring What Matters
project responds to this need. These assessments include measures and
agreed upon “quality thresholds” for:
•
Engagement, alignment and rigor in classroom instruction;
14
Connell & Broom, 2004
•
Appropriate implementation of Kagan active engagement strategies and
other pedagogical strategies that increase the likelihood these goals will
be achieved;
•
Whether course syllabi, curricula, common assessments and grading
procedures are getting developed and are aligned with relevant standards
and curriculum and are sufficiently rigorous;
•
Effective use of common planning time, early dismissal/late start and
professional development days;
•
The quality of real-time coaching and other instructional training activities;
and
•
System leaders following through with their responsibilities in support of
instructional improvement.
Create effective system leadership support. Instructional coaches, supervisors
and content area leaders as well as outside technical assistance providers have
to use data on effective practices to support improvement in teaching not just
reiterate the need for it. “Coaching of coaches” to use data effectively is
essential. IRRE’s final report for this project lays out IRRE’s approach to system
leadership development around improving instruction, strengthening small
learning communities and ensuring effective family advocacy.
Emerging FTF Approaches to Improving Teaching and Learning
Enriching Curricular and Instructional Supports for Struggling Readers and Math
Learners.
For the first five years of FTF’s evolution, IRRE expected and intended that
effective small learning communities, differentiated instruction within
heterogeneous classes and additional instructional time in reading and math
would suffice to meet the needs of all students – including those who were
15
Connell & Broom, 2004
multiple grade levels behind in core subject areas. Several FTF schools did
create Opportunity Centers for overage students, giving them a chance to
accelerate credit acquisition and receive more individualized attention.
Otherwise, FTF did not provide different types or degrees of supports for
struggling readers and math learners and their instructors.
However, as IRRE had the opportunity to work with and learn more about other
national technical assistance providers, particularly Talent Development High
Schools; and bring in our own consultants with significant expertise in literacy –
most notably Kelly Young of Pebble Creek Labs – it became clear to us that we
needed to provide curricular materials and an expanded array of instructional
strategies explicitly designed to reengage and accelerate the progress of
struggling readers and math learners.
We are now creating two new curricula and accompanying professional
development and coaching supports called FTF Literacy and FTF Math. FTF
Literacy has been piloted in Kansas City, Kansas and Sacramento, California for
the past three years; it will be field tested in Kansas City, Kansas and Houston,
Texas and available to all FTF sites in Fall 2005. FTF Math will be piloted and
field tested in Kansas City and Houston and available to FTF sites in Spring
2006.
Developing System Leadership to Support Improvement of Teaching and
Learning
As alluded to earlier, in parallel with our development of ways to assess change
in the quality of teaching and learning, we have been working with our district and
school partners – initially in Kansas City, Kansas – to explicate the roles of
leaders at every level in supporting this change. In our previous report, we
16
Connell & Broom, 2004
introduced the concept of “system leadership” – specifically as it pertained to
“getting off the dime” toward initial implementation of FTF.
In our next report, a central focus will be the role of system leaders – at the
district and building levels in the implementation and sustaining of FTF’s
strategies. Two questions will be addressed: what roles do these leaders play in
sustaining and strengthening implementation of FTF; and what outside supports
are needed to transform “typical” leaders in schools and districts implementing
FTF into system leaders willing and able to do what it takes to get FTF
implemented and make sure it sticks once they’re gone.
Conclusion
Traditionally, teachers who need supports to improve their instruction least find
and get the most and those who need the most supports get too little too late and
get them in a coercive context. The rich get richer approach has produced
pockets of instructional innovation by highly motivated instructional staff but little
system-wide impacts. The last ditch efforts, at best, convince poorly performing
and resistant teachers to find other work, or possibly achieve minimal compliance
and pedagogical damage control if they stay. IRRE and its district and school
partners are beginning to move beyond these all too familiar and minimally
effective approaches. How?
First, we try to get the “don’t have the time” excuse off the table for all teachers.
Each of the almost 200 SLCs now in FTF secondary schools has common
planning time available for professional development every day – not that all or
even most of this time is used for instructional improvement – but at least it’s
there. Many of these schools, districts and teachers’ associations have
implemented early dismissal/late start as another way of providing time for
17
Connell & Broom, 2004
professional development activities in addition to dedicating all available
professional development days to this work.
Second, we’re working on professional development activities that are:
•
Highly structured and straightforward – we try to make sure typical
teachers and administrators quickly get the training and ongoing supports
they need to implement these activities well and at scale versus relying on
master facilitators and instructional experts who are in short supply, and
typically not local;
•
Engaging – IRRE’s professional activities use active engagement
strategies that support and expect all (not just already motivated) teachers
to participate and contribute; and they use actual and current student and
teacher work as the “content” bringing immediate relevance and timeliness
to the discussions;
•
Credible – our activities have been used by typical teachers in urban
secondary schools where there have been dramatic improvements in
teaching and learning including increases in student achievement; and
•
Rigorous – all activities have built-in accountability and follow up
mechanisms, peer to peer expectations, and measurable outcomes in the
form of observed and self-reported improvements in classroom practices
(see descriptions of EAR measurement tools above).
The activities are explicitly designed to capitalize on the SLC common planning
time and early dismissal/late start opportunities. As discussed earlier, in many
FTF sites, during common planning time SLC faculty engage in Peer Observation
and Dialogue within and across disciplinary areas; and, during late start/early
release, all content area teachers can meet across SLCs and participate in
Engagement and Alignment Through Common Assessments and Evaluations of
Student Work.
18
Connell & Broom, 2004
Finally, the system leadership development activities that FTF are now providing
to district and building administrators, instructional coaches and teacher leaders
are defining these roles more clearly. Individuals in these roles work shoulder to
shoulder with each other and outside advisors from IRRE to remove all barriers
to full scale and fully effective instructional improvement. Some of these barriers
include:
•
Defensiveness by district leaders who perceive the need for these new
professional development activities signals too alarming a critique of their
past practices;
•
Contractual and informal commitments to ineffective practices such as
“building-driven” professional development with no coherence or
accountability;
•
Loyalty to vendors and consultants with long histories in the district but
short lists of accomplishments;
•
Resistance to reallocate existing resources, which means stopping
demonstrably ineffective or inefficient activities, in order to support the
these new, more evidence-based approaches; and
•
Entrenchment of existing leaders versus flexibility to get emerging leaders
in place quickly who can get the job done and to move aside existing
leaders who can’t.
How FTF supports and expects these system leaders to remove these and other
barriers and provide effective ongoing supports to teachers to improve instruction
will be one focus of our next and final report.
Final Thoughts
We are pleased but not satisfied with where we are in our continuing quest to see
the critical features of FTF focused on teaching and learning fully implemented in
all our partner schools and districts. Our seven year journey has us using new
19
Connell & Broom, 2004
tools, processes and activities to achieve this goal. The journey also has
transformed our relationships with our partner schools and districts around this
critical area of reform. We were passive partners in our early years in Kansas
City, Kansas. We became fully engaged partners with KCK and our sites over
the course of the last four years. We are now initiating and guiding partners in
our ongoing relationships with FTF sites beyond KCK. We remain open to and
eager for new learning about how to crack this “toughest nut” of educational
reform and we expect our role as technical assistance providers will continue to
evolve.
Like our work with small learning communities and family advocacy, FTF’s
progress in this area is due primarily to three things: having colleagues in districts
and schools who trust us enough to try new things and learn together; research
colleagues who tell us what they see; and outside investors – public and private
– who support us to launch these new ideas, capitalize on past mistakes, and
stay with the work long enough to see what works and what doesn’t. We are
grateful to all of these learning partners.
20
Connell & Broom, 2004
References
Connell, James P. (2002). Getting Off The Dime: First Steps Toward
Implementing First Things First. Report prepared for the US Department of
Education. Philadelphia: Institute for Research and Reform in Education.
DeFour, R. (1998). Professional Learning Communities at Work: Best Practices
for Enhancing Student Achievement. Bloomington, IN: National Educational
Service, 1998.
Klem, A.M., Levin, L., Bloom, S., & Connell, J.P. (2003). First Things First’s
Family Advocate System: Building Relationships to Support Student Success.
Report prepared for the US Department of Education. Philadelphia: Institute for
Research and Reform in Education.
Connell & Broom, 2004
OVERVIEW OF FIRST THINGS FIRST
INSTRUCTIONAL IMPROVEMENT MATERIALS
Connell & Broom, 2004
OVERVIEW OF FIRST THINGS FIRST
INSTRUCTIONAL IMPROVEMENT MATERIALS
TOPIC
PAGE
How Does FTF Define High Quality Teaching And Learning?
• Engagement, Alignment, and Rigor………………………………………………..……….1
How Does FTF Measure Engagement, Alignment, And Rigor During Classroom Visits?
• Data collection tools…………………………………………………………………………. 2
• Data collection process …………………………………………………………………..… 4
What Types Of Quantitative Reports Of Engagement, Alignment, And Rigor Are Available?
• EAR Reports……………………………………………………………………………….… 5
What Professional Development Activities Occur During Common Planning Time And Early
Release/Late Start In FTF Schools?
• Peer observation and dialogue………………………………………………………….….10
• Looking at student work to improve instruction……………………………………….…. 14
• Alignment and rigor through common assessments/evaluation of student work……..17
How Do FTF Schools Assess The Quality Of Their Professional Development Activities?
• Peer observation and dialogue……………………………………………………………. 19
• Looking at student work to improve instruction………………………………………….. 21
• Alignment and rigor through common assessments/evaluation of student work……. 23
What Does A “Month In The Life Of An FTF School” Look Like In Terms Of Professional
Development Activities? ........................................................................................................ 26
How Does FTF Support Struggling Readers And Math Learners And Their Instructors?
• FTF Literacy Curriculum (Available 2005-6)………………………………………………27
• FTF Math Curriculum (Available 2005-6)………………………………………………… 31
How Does FTF Report Student Outcomes?
• Individual student profile…………………………………………………………………… 34
• Attendance……………………………………………………………………………………35
• Progress toward graduation……………………………………………………………..… 37
• Test scores………………………………………………………………………………..… 40
• Post-secondary education……………………………………………………………….... 42
i
Connell & Broom, 2004
FTF DEFINITIONS OF
ENGAGEMENT, ALIGNMENT, AND RIGOR
IN THE CLASSROOM
Engagement
Students are actively processing information (listening, watching, reading, thinking,
making) or communicating information (speaking, performing, writing) in ways that
indicate they are focused on the task and interested in it.
Alignment
What is being taught and what students are being asked to do are aligned with the
standards and curriculum; are “on time” and on target with the scope and sequence of the
course of study; and provide students opportunities to experience high stakes assessment
methodologies among other assessment approaches.
Rigor
Learning materials and instructional strategies being used challenge and encourage
all students to produce work or respond at or above grade level. All students are required
to demonstrate mastery at these levels and have the opportunity for re-teaching to do so.
1
Connell & Broom, 2004
CLASSROOM VISIT PROTOCOL (ASSESSMENT AND REFLECTIVE QUESTIONS)
SCHOOL NAME _____________________________
__________________’s _________________ class was visited by _________________ on
(teacher)
(subject)
(Name(s) of observers.)
_______________ at ________ for ______ minutes.
(date)
(time)
# of students present in the class: ______
(#)
# of observers during this visit: ________
DESCRIPTION OF VISIT
1.
NOTES
Instructional goals assessed
_____ engagement
_____ alignment
Select one or more.
_____ rigor
2.
Learning materials used
_____ text read aloud
_____ video clips
_____ mini-lecture
This field is customizable for each grade
level/course of study.
_____ other ___________________
_____ other ___________________
3.
Learning activities used
_____ individual work sheets
_____ think-pair-share
_____ silent reading
This field is customizable for each grade
level/course of study.
_____ other ___________________
_____ other ___________________
ENGAGEMENT
COACHING PROMPTS
1.
_____ (#) of students were focused on the work
requested.
How were learning materials selected to engage
students – behaviorally, emotionally and
cognitively -- in their learning?
2.
_____ (#) of students were actively engaged in the
work requested.
How were the learning activities used to engage
students in their learning?
3.
Of the _____ students visited individually:
a.
_______were focused on the work
requested and
Enter numbers of students in blanks.
b. _______ were active engaged in this work.
2
Connell & Broom, 2004
ALIGNMENT
7.
8.
9.
COACHING PROMPTS
The learning materials:
a.
___ did ___ did not reflect content
standards guiding this class.
b.
___ were ___ were not aligned with the
designated curriculum to teach those
standards.
c.
___ were ___ were not aligned with the
pacing guide of this course or grade level
curriculum.
The learning activities:
a.
___ did ___ did not reflect content
standards guiding this class.
b.
___ were ___ were not aligned with
the designated curriculum to teach
those standards.
c.
___ were ___ were not aligned with
the scope and sequence of the
course according to the course
syllabus.
The student work expected ___was ___ was not
aligned with the types of work products expected
in state grade level performance standards.
10. Student work ___ did ___ did not provide
exposure to and practice on high stakes
assessment methodologies.
RIGOR
11. The learning materials ___ did ___ did not
present content at an appropriate difficulty level.
12. The student work expected ___ did ___ did not
allow students to demonstrate proficient or
higher levels of learning according to state grade
level performance standards.
How were the learning materials selected to align:
•
With content standards?
•
With designated curriculum?
•
With the pacing guide of this course or
grade level curriculum?
How were the learning activities selected to align:
•
With content standards?
•
With designated curriculum?
•
With the pacing guide of this course or
grade level curriculum?
How was the student work assigned selected to
align with the types of work products expected in
state grade level performance standards?
How were the ongoing or summative assessments
selected to provide students with exposure to and
practice on high stakes assessments?
COACHING PROMPTS
How were the learning materials selected to present
content at the appropriate level of difficulty for all
learners?
How were the learning activities selected to elicit and
support proficient or higher levels of learning
according to state grade level performance
standards all learners?
13. Evaluations/grading of student work ___ did ___
did not reflect state grade level performance
standards.
How are evaluations/grading of student work
(written, oral and made) designed to reflect state
level performance standards?
14. ____(#) students were required to demonstrate
whether or not they had mastered content being
taught.
How are learning activities and ongoing
assessments designed to make sure all students get
a chance to demonstrate mastery?
15. ____(#) students demonstrated threshold levels
of mastery before new content was introduced.
How are assessments and evaluations of student
work designed to make sure all students have
achieved mastery before moving on to new content?
3
Connell & Broom, 2004
EAR DATA GATHERING PROCESS
The EAR classroom visit protocol (see pp. 3-4) provides a common lens for looking at
classroom instruction. The protocol can be used to help instructional staff come to
agreement about what good instruction looks like, better understand their strengths and
challenges, and track their progress in improving their practice over time.
Because on-going dialogue and post-observation debriefing around EAR allows instructional
staff and leadership to calibrate and refine their understanding of what high quality teaching
and learning looks like, the protocol also allows for multiple visitors to simultaneously observe
a classroom. Under these circumstances, each visitor independently records their own
judgments, the group holds a discussion with their colleagues regarding what was observed,
and then each individual indicates their revised judgments on the protocol.
The EAR observation protocol will be pre-loaded on a PDA-device (a handheld PocketPC)
along with the course schedule and locations of classes for every teacher in each SLC.
The programmed PDA is available to all trained instructional supervisors, coaches and
content area leaders at the building and district level.
There is also a notebook available to go along with the PDA that contains:
• hard copies of the protocol,
• areas for hand-written notes for later entry, and
• refreshers on kinds of information to be gathered, how to do it and how to “upload” the
information.
The visitor uses the PDA and its’ stylus by pointing and tapping on the device to enter the
information. After the first visit, she can move on to observe several additional classes,
bringing up the appropriate teacher, class, etc. using the PDA menu.
With all the visits for day completed, she returns to her office, places the PDA in its cradle,
pushes the SYNC button, and the data is automatically uploaded to a central, web-based
database for the Measuring What Matters application. This data base and access to it will be
secured according to each district’s and buildings requirements.
The visitor can then ask for reports of her visits for that day or cumulatively over a given time
period as shown in the sample reports presented in pp. 6-10.
4
Connell & Broom, 2004
Hope High School*
Business SLC
Report of Classroom Visits
9/10/04 to 12/19/04
Teacher
Subject
Area
ENGAGEMENT
#
visits4
Meets
Threshold5
ALIGNMENT
#
visits
Meets
Threshold
RIGOR
#
visits
Meets
Threshold
ALL
EAR3
Smith
Lang Arts
2
1
2
Lerner
Lang Arts
2
2
2
Hernandez
Lang Arts
2
2
2
Larson
Math
2
2
1
Andrews
Math
1
2
2
Kelley
Math
1
1
1
Jackson
Soc Stud
1
1
1
Samuels
Soc Stud
1
1
2
»
Cortez
Soc Stud
2
1
2
»
Dalrymple
Science
1
1
1
Sorenson
Science
2
2
2
Savitch
Science
2
1
1
Levi
Business
1
1
1
Health
2
2
2
Arts
2
2
1
Sampson
Travis
Percentage of
Classrooms
67%
67%
NO
EAR
»
»
»
53%
27%
7%
*SAMPLE – all names and data are fictitious
3
All EAR and No EAR indicate that all or none of instructional goals met threshold level
Number of visits where valid information on at least one of three teaching and learning goals was collected
5
See criteria for meeting thresholds in Attachment 1.
4
5
Connell & Broom, 2004
Hope High School*
Language Arts Department
Report of Classroom Visits
9/10/04 to 12/19/04
Teacher
Course
ENGAGEMENT
#
visits7
Meets
Threshold8
ALIGNMENT
#
visits
Meets
Threshold
RIGOR
#
visits
Meets
Threshold
ALL
EAR6
Smith
Eng I
2
2
2
Lerner
Eng I
2
2
2
Larson
Eng I
1
2
2
»
Hernandez
Eng I
1
1
2
»
Andrews
Eng I
3
2
2
Larson
Literacy
2
2
1
Andrews
Literacy
1
2
2
Kelley
Literacy
1
2
2
Cortez
Literacy
2
2
1
Jackson
Eng II
1
1
1
Smith
Eng II
2
2
Samuels
Eng II
2
1
2
Cortez
Eng III
2
1
1
Jackson
Eng III
1
1
2
Califoni
AP
English
1
2
2
Percentage of
Classrooms
53%
80%
NO
EAR
»
60%
20%
0%
*SAMPLE – all names and data are fictitious
6
All EAR and No EAR indicate that all or none of instructional goals met threshold level
Number of visits where valid information on at least one of three teaching and learning goals was collected
6
Criteria for meeting thresholds are available upon request.
7
6
Connell & Broom, 2004
Hope High School
Percent of Classrooms in SLCs that Demonstrate
Engagement and Alignment and Rigor
9/10/04 to 12/10/04
70%
ALL: Engaged, Aligned
AND Rigorous
60%
NONE: NEITHER
Engaged, Aligned NOR
Rigorous
Percent
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
)
H
ea
lth
Sc
i
in
g
en
ce
s
(N
=1
5
(N
=1
4)
A
rt
s
(N
=1
3
fo
rm
Pe
r
G
ov
e
no
l
rn
m
en
t
og
y
)
(N
=1
1)
)
(N
=1
3
Te
ch
ua
lA
rt
s
Vi
s
B
us
in
e
ss
(N
=1
2
)
0%
Small Learning Community
Notes: Median number of visits/w alkthroughs per class in Business (2), Visual Arts (2), Technology (3), Government (2),
Performing Arts (2), and Health Sciences (2.5).
Observers: Jackson, Mason, Garcia, Mackey, Clay.
*SAMPLE – all names and data are fictitious
7
Connell & Broom, 2004
Hope High School
Percent of Classes within each Department that Demonstrate
Engagement, Alignment and Rigor
9/10/04 to 12/15/04
60%
All EAR
50%
No EAR
Percent
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
Reading
(N=10)
Math (N=9)
Social
Studies
(N=11)
Science
(N=13)
Electives
(N=8)
Departments
Notes: Median number of visits/walkthroughs per class in Reading (2), Math (2), Social Studies (3), Science (2), and Electives
(1.5).
Observers: Jackson, Mason, Garcia, Mackey, Clay.
*SAMPLE – all names and data are fictitious
8
Connell & Broom, 2004
Hope High School
Percent of Classrooms in SLCs that Demonstrate
Engagement OR Alignment OR Rigor
9/10/04 to 12/10/04
80%
Engagement
70%
Alignment
Percent
60%
Rigor
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
(N
=1
G
ov
1)
er
nm
en
t(
Pe
N=
rfo
13
rm
)
in
g
Ar
ts
He
(N
al
=1
th
4)
Sc
ie
nc
es
(N
=1
5)
ol
o
gy
(N
=1
3)
Te
ch
n
al
Ar
ts
Vi
su
Bu
s
in
es
s
(N
=1
2)
0%
Small Learning Community
Notes: Median number of visits/w alkthroughs per class in Business (2), Visual Arts (2), Technology (3), Government (2),
Performing Arts (2), and Health Sciences (2.5).
Observers: Jackson, Mason, Garcia, Mackey, Clay.
*SAMPLE – all names and data are fictitious
9
Connell & Broom, 2004
Peer Observation Protocol
for SLC Members
1. Each member of the SLC will spend at least 20 minutes every other week observing their peers.
• The four core subjects will observe teachers in their like content.
• All others who have limited numbers in your content areas will first observe those that teach
like content and then use professional judgment in determining who they would benefit from
observing.
• New teachers (first year) will not be observed for the first 6 weeks they are at the school. They
will be expected to observe their peers.
2. Each observer is to be a learner.
• The observations are for learning purposes only.
• Positive feedback or no feedback only.
• No information comes back to administrators for assessment purposes.
3. The observer is it to focus on the following things:
• Engagement
• Alignment
• Rigor
4. All members of the SLC are to meet at their regular schedule time and place to go out and
observe at the same time.
• Members go out to observe and spend 20 minutes in their colleague’s room.
• Complete the observation forms.
• They return to the SLC at the designated time.
• Take 5 min. to complete the reflections form. This prepares you for the discussion.
• The facilitator initiates a cross-curricular discussion based on the observations just completed
focusing on what has been learned and how this can be implemented into their own practice.
5. Each member of the SLC will keep their own reflection sheets and share any creative ideas
observed in their content at departmental meeting.
• These forms are to confidential and be used to communicate success both in the SLC and in
Departments
6. Assistant Principals will participate will the SLC as a member of the community.
• The Administrators will be part of the discussions not leading them.
7. If an SLC determines that their community would benefit from support or professional
development based on a discussion following observations, your SLC Coordinator will turn in
these requests to the SIF.
8. Informal follow up with the teachers observed.
• After observing a peer, touch base and let them know what you appreciated about their craft.
10
Connell & Broom, 2004
PEER OBSERVATION FORM
Teacher Observation
Name: ___________________ Subject Area: _________________ Date: _______
Time Observed: ___________ Number of students ________
Lesson Topic: ________________________________________
Focus:
• A question is formulated by the group to guide their
classroom visit
Student Engagement – What strategies is the teacher using to actively engage students:
• Positive Interdependence:
Is my gain your gain?
• Individual Accountability
Is public performance required?
• Equal Participation
How equal is the participation?
• Simultaneous Interaction
What percent are overtly active at once? ______%
Alignment - What was evident in this teacher’s practice that demonstrated the objectives
being taught were aligned with the curriculum?
Rigor – What strategies is the teacher using to develop higher order thinking?
Knowledge
Comprehension
Application
Analysis
Synthesis
Evaluation
What is the teacher doing to support the students in reaching grade level or higher
content objectives?
How is the teacher making sure that all students demonstrate mastery and do so before
moving on to new content?
If this teacher demonstrated an innovative or creative way to teach a particular objective,
take notes here and on the back to share with your department.
11
Connell & Broom, 2004
PEER OBSERVATION
ENGAGEMENT/ALIGNMENT/RIGOR
(Separate Forms Available)
A. REFLECTION
1)
How would you describe the level of student engagement/alignment/rigor you saw in the class you
observed?
2)
What kinds of activities/materials promote student engagement/alignment/rigor as evidenced by what you
saw in the classroom?
3)
What strategies/interventions did you see used to engage students who were reluctant to participate/to
make sure all students demonstrated mastery?
4)
What did you learn today from the observation and how will it inform your teaching practice?
5)
What support do you think you need to improve your skills in using engagement strategies/aligning
instruction/challenging students to do rigorous work?
12
Connell & Broom, 2004
THE TUNING PROTOCOL
STUDYING STUDENT WORK TO IMPROVE PRACTICE
Developed by Joseph McDonald and David All
I. Introduction
10 min.
• Facilitator briefly introduces protocol goals, guidelines, and schedule.
• Participants briefly check in (prepare to focus)
II. Teacher Presentation
20 min.
• Teacher-presenter describes the context for the student work (assignment, scoring rubric, etc.)
• Teacher-presenter poses her focusing question for feedback.
• Participants are silent.
III. Clarifying Questions
5 min. max
• Participants ask clarifying questions.
• Facilitator judges which questions more properly belong in warm/cold feedback (i.e., questions
that involve more than a very brief, factual answer).
IV. Examination of Student Work Samples
15 min.
• Samples of student work might be original or photocopied pieces of written work and/or video
clips of presentations.
V. Pause to Reflect on Warm and Cool Feedback
2-3 min. max
• Participants may take a couple of minutes to reflect silently on what they would like to contribute
to the feedback session.
VI. Warm and Cool Feedback
15 min.
• Participants share first the warm feedback and then the cool feedback while the teacherpresenter is silent.
• Facilitator may remind participants of teacher-presenter’s focusing question (step II).
VII. Reflection
10 min.
• Teacher-presenter speaks to those comments/questions he or she chooses to.
• Facilitator may intervene to focus, clarify, etc.
• Participants are silent.
VIII. Debrief
• Facilitator leads an open discussion of the tuning experience the group has shared: What was
effective? What concerns did the process raise?
13
Connell & Broom, 2004
PRINCIPLES OF GIVING FEEDBACK
DURING TUNING PROTOCOL ACTIVITY
Giving constructive feedback is an indispensable tool in collaboration, teamwork, and
other group efforts. When it is done properly, feedback is a very specific kind of communication:
it focuses on sharing with another person the impact their behavior has had on you, and it has
as its purpose helping that person improve his/her effectiveness.
Adapted from Improving Work Groups by D. Francis and D. Young
EFFECTIVE AND INEFFECTIVE FEEDBACK BEHAVIORS
Effective
Ineffective
Describes the behavior that led to the
feedback
Uses evaluative, judgmental, or generalized
statements
Comes as soon after the behavior as
appropriate
Delayed, saved-up, and “dumped” in a
destructive way
Goes directly from the sender to the receiver
Passes indirectly through a middle person or
group
Is “owned” by the sender (“I” statements)
Is not owned by the sender(“You are…we
think”)
Includes sender’s feelings, when relevant,
about the behavior (“I feel…when”)
Conceals, denies, and/or distorts personal
reactions and feelings
Is checked for clarity to ensure that the
receiver understands what is being
conveyed
Is not checked with the receiver for clarity
Is solicited or to some extent desired by
receiver
Is imposed on the receiver or not well-timed
Refers to behaviors over which the receiver
has control
Refers to behaviors over which the receiver
has little or no control
Is carried out in an appropriate physical
environment
Is not given in an environment that is
conducive to giving or receiving feedback
The giver makes eye contact with the
receiver
The giver avoids eye contact with the receiver
14
Connell & Broom, 2004
OBSERVATION PROTOCOL OF COMMON PLANNING TIME FOR
INSTRUCTIONAL IMPROVEMENT: TUNING PROTOCOL
(ASSESSMENT AND REFLECTIVE QUESTIONS)
B. School Name
_____________________________
___________________________’s common planning time was visited by _____________ on
(Name of SLC, Content Area, or Course)
(Name of observer)
_______________ at ________ for ______ minutes.
(date)
(time)
(#)
DESCRIPTION OF VISIT
1.
NOTES
Instructional improvement activity assessed
_____ peer observation
_____ tuning protocol
_____ alignment: common assessments
_____ Other (please specify)_____________________
2.
_____ SLC or content area or course members
(#)
were present out of a total of ______ members.
(#)
TUNING PROTOCOL—REVIEW STUDENT WORK
1.
The presenting teacher’s name is _______________
and is a member of _____________ SLC.
2.
The teacher’s preparation and materials (check one):
i.
COACHING PROMPTS
___ limited to 1-2 samples of student work (not full
range) OR does not have specific question to
address, OR learning activity is not well described.
ii. ___ includes a full range of student work, but
presents a broad or vague question for group to
address
iii. ___ includes a full range of student work, a brief
description of the learning activity, describes
expectations for students and presents a specific
question regarding the lesson.
15
Connell & Broom, 2004
3.
Participation:
a. ____ refused to sit with group, added only negative
(# of staff)
comments or did not talk.
b. ____
participated and reported what they observed
but did not engage in dialogue around the
presenting teacher’s question.
c. ____
review student work, participate and engage
in dialogue about student work; thoughtful
feedback, made suggestions on how to adapt
lesson, answered presenting teacher’s
question.
(# of staff)
(# of staff)
4.
Implementation Planning:
a.
Group did ___ did not___ go beyond simple
statements about student work and teacher’s
questions.
b.
Group did___ did not ___ agree to try one or more of
the ideas given by the presenting teacher and report
back
c1. Group members did___ did not ___ say how they
will use what they have learned in the discussion
of student work in their classroom
c2. Group did___ did not ___ all commit to using one
or more ideas they took from the discussion in
their classrooms
5.
Follow-up (check one):
a.
___ no follow-up observed
b.
___ discussion was limited to casual conversation
regarding use of strategies discussed at
previous meetings
c.
___ participants confirmed use of strategies
discussed at last meeting (or lack thereof)
by all team members
d.
___ participants systematically reviewed successes
and challenges that resulted
16
Connell & Broom, 2004
Alignment And Rigor Through Common Assessment And
Evaluation Of Student Work
Goals:
• Identify the general goals for each course taught based on the district curriculum and
state standards.
• Identify the essential student outcomes for each course based on the district curriculum
and state standards.
• Develop formative assessments for student outcomes to use throughout the course.
• Create a syllabus for each course that parents and students can understand that informs
them of what the students must know and be able to do throughout the course (Not a
listing of chapters!).
• Develop common, comprehensive assessments that at least in part correspond to how
the standards are assessed on the high stakes test.
• Identify proficiency levels all students should achieve.
• Use the data collected from the common assessments to improve instruction for all
students.
Part 1.
Identify the general goals for each course taught based on the district curriculum and state
standards.
Identify the essential student outcomes for each course based on the district curriculum and
state standards.
•
•
•
•
As a group, write an overall goal for the course in words that everyone understands.
Determine the essential student outcomes based on the goals, standards, and district
curriculum and create an instructional calendar for the course.
Be sure everyone who teaches this subject is in agreement with the goals and student
outcomes and the approximate long-term plan. These should be the essential student
outcomes for the course telling what the student should know and be able to do for each
objective.
Review overall goal to ensure that it encompasses the essential outcomes.
Part 2.
Develop formative assessments for student outcomes to use throughout the course.
•
•
•
•
Brainstorm what assessment methods could possibly be used for student outcomes and
determine what method best fits the students’ needs for demonstration of knowledge.
Identify the methods used on the high stakes test to ensure at least some of the methods
during the brainstorm mirror how the students will be assessed on high stakes tests.
List a couple of options (on course outline) for assessing outcomes allowing for teacher
individuality. (After administering any assessment, you then decide to move forward or
reteach.)
Determine what level of performance on each assessment will be considered proficient
and create a scoring rubric that reflects the different levels of proficiency.
17
Connell & Broom, 2004
Part 3.
Create a syllabus for each course that parents and students can understand that informs them
of what the students must know and be able to do throughout the course (Not a listing of
chapters!).
•
•
•
•
The syllabus may be written by the team of teachers working together or may be
assigned in sections for individuals to do the initial groundwork.
The syllabus must use wording that all students and parents can understand.
The syllabus should outline the year and what the students need to know and are
expected to do (assessments) as well as the overall goal for the course.
Teachers may then add a personal touch to the syllabus to make it their own.
Part 4.
Develop common, comprehensive assessments that at least in part correspond to how the
standards are assessed on the high stakes test.
Identify proficiency levels all students should achieve.
•
•
•
As a group, come to consensus on the type of assessment to be used and the essential
student outcomes that will be measured at this point (such as a midterm).
Develop a rubric or scoring guide for this common assessment.
Determine the different levels of proficiency and be sure to incorporate them into your
rubric or scoring guide.
18
Connell & Broom, 2004
OBSERVATION PROTOCOL OF COMMON PLANNING TIME FOR INSTRUCTIONAL
IMPROVEMENT: PEER OBSERVATION
(ASSESSMENT AND REFLECTIVE QUESTIONS)
C. School Name
_____________________________
___________________________’s common planning time was visited by _____________ on
(Name of SLC, Content Area, or Course)
(Name of observer)
_______________ at ________ for ______ minutes.
(date)
(time)
(#)
DESCRIPTION OF VISIT
1.
NOTES
Instructional improvement activity assessed
_____ peer observation
_____ tuning protocol
_____ alignment: common assessments
_____ Other (please specify)__________________
2.
_____ SLC or content area or course members
(#)
were present out of a total of ______ members.
(#)
PEER OBSERVATION
3.
a.
b.
c.
4.
Participation:
_____ refused to sit with group, added only
negative comments or did not talk.
COACHING PROMPTS
How did the facilitator encourage and
support full participation by all staff?
(# of staff)
_____ participated and reported what they
observed but did not engage in dialogue
about improvement
(# of staff)
_____ participated and engaged in dialogue about
how observations can improve own and
others’ instruction
(# of staff)
Quality of reports:
a. ____Few ____ Some ____ Most ____ All reports
focus only on basic classroom structures or
discipline; little or no connection to EAR
What strategies did the facilitator use to
elicit high quality reports (e.g., modeling,
requests for elaboration, etc.)
b. ____Few ____ Some ____ Most ____ All reports
provide general impressions of instructional
strategies observed and connections to EAR
c. ____Few ____ Some ____ Most ____ All reports
provide specific teacher actions and how actions
encouraged engagement, ensured rigor, and/or
alignment of lesson
19
Connell & Broom, 2004
5.
Implementation Planning:
a.
Group did ___ did not___ go beyond report outs
b.
Group did___ did not ___ agree to try one or
more instructional strategies and report back
c1. Group members did___ did not ___ say how
they will use what they have learned in their
classroom
c2. Group did___ did not ___ all commit to using
one or more strategies in their classrooms
6.
Follow-up (check one):
a.
___ no follow-up observed
b.
___ discussion was limited to casual
conversation regarding use of strategies
discussed at previous meetings
c.
___ participants confirmed use of strategies
discussed at last meeting (or lack thereof) by all
team members
d.
___ participants systematically reviewed
successes and challenges that resulted
20
Connell & Broom, 2004
USE OF TUNING PROTOCOL
(OBSERVATION PROTOCOL)
D. School Name
_____________________________
___________________________’s common planning time was visited by _____________ on
(Name of SLC, Content Area, or Course)
(Name of observer)
_______________ at ________ for ______ minutes.
(date)
(time)
(#)
DESCRIPTION OF VISIT
NOTES
1. Instructional improvement activity assessed
_____ peer observation
_____ tuning protocol
_____ alignment: common assessments
_____ Other (please specify)_____________________
2. _____ SLC or content area or course members
(#)
were present out of a total of ______ members.
(#)
TUNING PROTOCOL—REVIEW STUDENT WORK
COACHING PROMPTS9
3. The presenting teacher’s name is _______________ and is a member
of _____________ SLC.
4. The teacher’s preparation and materials (check one):
d. ___ describes expectations for students
e. ___full range of student work provided to group
f. ___learning activity well-described
g. ___specific question for group to address,
9
Coaching prompts are still being developed.
21
Connell & Broom, 2004
5.
Participation:
a. ____ refused to sit with group, added only negative
(# of staff)
comments or did not talk.
b. ____
participated and reported what they heard and observed
but did not engage in dialogue around the
presenting teacher’s question.
c. ____
reviewed student work, participated and engaged
in dialogue around the teacher’s presenting question.
(# of staff)
(# of staff)
6.
7.
Quality of Feedback
a.
Group did___ did not ___ adhere to warm and cool feedback
parameters in majority of their comments.
b.
Group did ___ did not___ go beyond simple statements in
majority of their comments to provide “value added”
recognition and suggestions for addressing teachers
presenting question.
Implementation Planning:
a. presenting teacher did___ did not ___ go beyond reiterating
what group had said to specific take away ideas and plans for
implementing them.
b. Group members did___ did not ___ say how they
will use what they have learned in the discussion
of presenting teacher’s student work in their classroom
c. Group did___ did not ___ all commit to using one
or more ideas they took from the discussion in
their classrooms
8.
Follow-up (check one):
a.
___ no follow-up observed
b.
___ discussion was limited to casual conversation regarding
use of strategies discussed at previous meetings
c.
___ participants confirmed use of strategies discussed at last
meeting) by all team members
d.
___ participants systematically reviewed successes and
challenges that resulted
22
Connell & Broom, 2004
ALIGNMENT & RIGOR THROUGH COMMON ASSESSMENTS & EVALUATIONS OF STUDENT WORK
(OBSERVATION PROTOCOL AND QUALITY OF WORK PRODUCT ASSESSMENT)
E. School Name
_____________________________
___________________________’s common planning time was visited by _____________ on
(Name of SLC, Content Area, or Course)
(Name of observer)
_______________ at ________ for ______ minutes.
(date)
(time)
(#)
DESCRIPTION OF VISIT
NOTES
1. Instructional improvement activity assessed
_____ peer observation
_____ tuning protocol
_____ common assessments
_____ Other (please specify)_____________________
2. _____ SLC or content area or course members
(#)
were present out of a total of ______ members.
(#)
COACHING PROMPTS10
3.
The content or course of study is _______________.
4.
The goal(s) for this meeting were (check all that
apply):
Note: Selection of meeting goal limits response
choices presented in subsequent questions.
____ a. Identify general goal for each course of study
____ b. Identify essential outcomes and calendar
____ c. Create a syllabus
____ d. Develop formative assessments for each student
outcome and unit of study
____ e. Develop common, summative assessments with
proficiency levels and grading criteria
____ f. Use data collected from this process to
improve instruction
10
Coaching prompts are still being developed.
23
Connell & Broom, 2004
5.
6.
Participation:
a.
____ refused to sit with group, added only negative
(#)
comments or did not talk.
b.
____ participated but were mostly off topic
c.
____ participated and remained on task and focused.
(#)
(#)
The activities were aligned to the meeting goals:
(as circled above in Question 2): (check one)
a.
____ for the entire session
b.
____ for most of the session
c.
____ for less than half the session.
7. The work products of this group were (check only
Note: only the questions related to the selected goal(s) will
be presented on the PDA screen.
those that apply to the goal(s) of the meeting):
A. Identify general goal for each course of study.
1.
A summary statement of what student should
know and be able to do at the end of the course
a. ___Done: Needs Revision___ Complete___
b. ___Due: It’s late___ On-time___
B. Identify essential outcomes and calendar
1.
An outline of student outcomes to be mastered by
end of the course.
a. ___Done: Needs Revision___ Complete___
b. ___Due: It’s late___ On-time___
2.
Calendar with expected outcomes and when
assessments of these outcomes take place.
a. ___Done: Needs Revision___ Complete___
b. ___Due: It’s late___ On-time___
C. Create a syllabus.
1.
Course syllabus outlining student outcomes, major
assignments and projects in language parents and
students understand.
a. ___Done: Needs Revision___ Complete___
b. ___Due: It’s late___ On-time___
D. Develop formative assessments for each student
outcome and unit of study.
1.
List of formative assessments for each student
outcome and unit of study.
a. ___Done: Needs Revision___ Complete___
b. ___Due: It’s late___ On-time___
24
Connell & Broom, 2004
E. Develop common, summative assessments
with proficiency levels and grading criteria.
1.
Common assessment over upcoming unit(s) of
study.
a. ___Done: Needs Revision___ Complete___
b. ___Due: It’s late___ On-time___
2.
Proficiency levels for student outcomes measured
on this assessment.
a. ___Done: Needs Revision___ Complete___
b. ___Due: It’s late___ On-time___
3.
Grading rubric and/or scoring guide for assessment.
a. ___Done: Needs Revision___ Complete___
b. ___Due: It’s late___ On-time___
Note: only the questions related to the selected goal will be
presented on the PDA screen.
F. Use data collected from common assessments
to improve instruction.
8.
1.
Collective and shared grading of common
assessments by content area teachers.
a. ___Done: Yes___ No___
b. ___Due: It’s late___ On-time (within a week of
common assessment___
2.
Record sheet of student scores
a. ___Done: Yes___ No___
b. ___Due: It’s late___ On-time (within a week of
common assessment___
3.
Patterns in student responses on assessment
a. ___Done: Yes___ No___
b. ___Due: It’s late___ On-time (within a week of
common assessment___
Implementation Planning:
a.
Group did ___ did not___ go beyond report outs
c.
Group did___ did not ___ agree to try one or more
ideas discussed and report back
c1. Group members did___ did not ___ say how they will
use what they learn from common assessments.
c2. Group did___ did not ___ all commit to implementing
common assessments in their classrooms
9.
Follow-up (check one):
a. ___ no follow-up observed
b. ___ discussion was limited to casual conversation
regarding ideas discussed at last meeting
c. ___ participants confirmed use of ideas discussed at
last meeting (or lack thereof) by all team members
d. ___ participants systematically reviewed successes and
challenges that resulted from implementation of ideas from
last meeting.
25
Connell & Broom, 2004
USE OF SLC AND DEPARTMENTAL MEETINGS FOR INSTRUCTIONAL IMPROVEMENT, FAS AND SLC EFFECTIVENESS
EXAMPLE OF A MONTH AT A GLANCE
This chart reflects the time needed for successful implementation. Instructional improvement activities during these periods should be linked to real time
coaching through shared instructional goals (engagement, alignment and rigor – EAR) and assessments of these goals in classrooms. Real time coaching is
provided by the ICs and by other instructional coaches and supervisors in each building.
Monday
Tuesday
Wednesday
Thursday
Friday
45 Min. Common Planning
Time for SLCs
Peer Observation
90 Min.
Personal
Planning Time
F. Late Start - SLC Meeting
Data driven dialogue and action planning – Individual and SLC data used
to create interventions and instructional action plans – 60 Min
Peer Observation – Dialogue and action planning – 30 Min
Family Advocate discussions and planning* – 45 Min. schedules, 4 year
plans, concerns, successes, interventions
SLC Business – 15 Min.
90 Min.
Personal
Planning Time
90 Min.
Personal
Planning
Time
90 Min.
Personal
Planning Time
G. Late Start – SLC Meeting
Tuning Protocol – Examining student work and craft – 45 Min
Infusing the Theme into core classes – 30 Min. Interdisciplinary planning
– Using curriculum maps to connect learning across content areas
Family Advocate discussions and planning* – 45 Min. family contacts and
conferences, concerns, successes, interventions
SLC Business – 15 Min.
90 Min.
Personal
Planning Time
90 Min.
Personal
Planning
Time
90 Min.
Personal
Planning Time
Late Start – Departmental Meeting
Alignment and Rigor Through Common Assessment – 2 hrs 30 Min.
Creating curriculum maps, lesson design, syllabi, and common
assessments and grading rubrics, using data from assessments for
intervention and further planning.
90 Min.
Personal
Planning Time
90 Min.
Personal
Planning
Time
90 Min.
Personal
Planning Time
Late Start – SLC Meeting
Tuning Protocol – Examining student work and craft – 45 Min
Active Engagement – 45 Min
Family Advocate discussions and planning* – 45 Min. schedules, family
contacts and conferences, concerns, successes, interventions,
SLC Business – 15 Min.
90 Min.
Personal
Planning Time
90 Min.
Personal
Planning
Time
45 Min. Personal Planning
Time
45 Min. Flex Time
Family Contact and
Conferences
45 Min. Personal Planning
Time
45 Min. Common Planning
Time for SLCs
Peer Observation
45 Min. Personal Planning
Time
45 Min. Flex Time Planning
Time for SLCs
Family Contact and
Conferences
45 Min. Personal Planning
Time
*This time DOES NOT INCLUDE meetings 45 – 60 minute meetings per week between family advocates and their students.
26
Connell & Broom, 2004
FTF LITERACY
WHAT IS IT?
FTF Literacy is a unique approach that marries powerful learning strategies, practiced often, and
curriculum that is engaging and accessible for struggling readers. FTF Literacy:
•
Takes place every day for 90 minutes for at least one semester.
•
Targets students who are two to four years below grade level.
•
Uses one-on-one, small group and whole group instruction.
•
Places literacy in the many contexts students can experience reading – reading for
pleasure, reading for information, reading for remembering – in the rest of their lives.
WHAT ARE ITS BENEFITS?
First and foremost, FTF Literacy engages students with reading. Struggling readers gain
skills, experiences and confidence critical to their success. Students learn to focus on meaning
and on making sense of what is read. Instruction helps make visible the invisible processes of
thinking and learning with an emphasis on comprehension and fluency.
FTF Literacy enhances and expands teachers’ instructional repertoire. Teachers learn a
multidimensional approach to working with struggling readers – an approach they can use in all
content areas.
FTF Literacy builds professional community. FTF Literacy teachers form study groups to
discuss their evolving work and examine its impact on their students’ learning. This dialogue
among teachers encourages them to explore and improve teaching in all areas and helps them
develop mutual support.
HOW DOES IT WORK?
FTF Literacy addresses all the elements of successful reading and the specific needs of
each reader. Teachers in FTF Literacy classrooms:
•
Diagnose student needs, using assessments of fluency and comprehension to identify
each student’s current profile of skills.
•
Set targets for each student and for each class.
27
Connell & Broom, 2004
•
Constantly model strategies and have students practice them.
•
Employ evidence-based strategies that are varied and responsive to each student’s
needs. The strategies promote phonemic, semantic, and syntactic processing systems.
•
Help students internalize the strategies with ever increasing independence and
sophistication.
•
Monitor constantly each student’s growth and challenges.
•
Meet as a group to discuss and implement strategies and techniques that help students
grow.
FTF LITERACY
LITERACY SKILLS
TEACHING STRATEGIES
Activating prior knowledge
Interactive Read Alouds
Asking questions
Think Alouds
Predicting
Graphic Organizers
Monitoring and repairing
comprehension throughout
reading process
The Inductive Thinking Model
Cloze Procedure
Summarizing and interpreting
synthesizing information
WHAT IS THE CURRICULUM LIKE?
FTF Literacy uses a thoroughly tested curriculum that offers novelty and many levels of
meaning while it respects the life experiences and interests of adolescents. It controls the
reading difficulty of the text so that students can succeed as they practice their developing skills.
The content is unit based, tied to standards and calling on a variety of content sources within
each unit.
HOW DO TEACHERS LEARN TO WORK WITH FTF LITERACY?
Training and support takes four forms:
•
Teachers attend a four-day summer institute with national FTF Literacy writers and
coaches. Participants:
•
Learn about adolescent literacy issues;
•
Immerse themselves in the use of the strategies;
28
Connell & Broom, 2004
•
Become familiar with early FTF Literacy units;
•
Learn how to use assessment tools to improve implementation;
•
Discuss the nuts and bolts of the FTF Literacy classroom.
•
Teachers also have three to four days of ongoing training from literacy coaches each
year to review upcoming units and continually expand their command of the strategies.
•
FTF Literacy team leaders – one or two in each building -- receive an additional three to
four days of coaching each year so they can help their colleagues strengthen the power
of study groups and the peer learning process.
•
FTF Literacy teachers meet in weekly study groups, facilitated by the team leaders,
where they:
•
Reflect on what’s working and where they are struggling;
•
Monitor how frequently they are using the strategies;
•
Examine student assessments and develop action plans;
•
Review student work;
•
See lesson demonstrations; and
•
Discuss peer observation.
29
Connell & Broom, 2004
RESEARCH SUPPORTIVE OF FTF LITERACY TENANTS AND PRACTICES
Allington, R.L. and Walmsley, S.A. (1995) No quick fix: Rethinking literacy programs in America’s
schools. New York: Teachers College Press.
Anderson, R. Wilson, P.T. and Fielding, L.G. (1998). Growth in reading and how children spend their
time outside of school. Reading Research Quarterly, 23, 285-303.
Clay, M.M. (1991). Becoming Literate: The construction of inner control. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.
Joyce, B.R., and Showers, B. (1991). Transfer of training. Journal of Education, 16, 163-172.
Kamil, M.L, Mosenthal, P.B., Pearson, P.D. and Barr, R. (Eds.). (2000) Handbook of reading research:
Volume III.
National Reading Panel. (2000, April). Report of the National Reading Panel: Teaching children to read.
Washington, DC: US Department of Health and Human Services.
Palincsar, A.S. and Brown, A.L. (1984). Reciprocal teaching of comprehension-fostering and
comprehension-monitoring activities. Cognition and Instruction, 1(2), 117-175.
Pearson, P.D. (1985). Changing the face of reading comprehension instruction. The Reading Teacher,
38(8), 724-738.
Pearson, P.D., and Dole, J.A.. (1987). Explicit comprehension instruction: A review of research and a
new conceptualization of instruction. Elementary School Journal, 88, 151-165.
Pearson, P.D. and Fielding, L. (1991). Expertise in Reading Instruction. Handbook of reading research:
Volume II (pp. 815-860). Longman.
Pikulski, J.J. (1994). Preventing Reading Failure: A review of five effective programs. The Reading
Teacher, 48 (1), 30-30.
Pressley, M. (2000). Comprehension Instruction: What makes sense know, what might make sense
soon. Handbook of Reading Research. Volume III.
Pressley, M., El-Dinary, P.B. (1997). What we know about translating comprehension strategies
instruction research into practice. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 30, 486-488.
Sweet, A.P. (1993) State of the art: Transforming ideas for teaching and learning to read. Washington,
DC:U.S. Department of Education, Office of Research.
30
Connell & Broom, 2004
FTF MATH
WHAT IS IT?
FTF Math helps students make the difficult transition from middle-school to high-school math.
FTF Math:
•
Targets all students who will begin algebra in high school.
•
Uses one-on-one, small group and whole group instruction.
•
Takes place every day for 90 minutes.
•
Can be taught:
o As a carry-over course beginning in 8th grade and finishing in 9th for districts with
clear feeder patterns for students who move together from middle to high school.
o As a stand-alone 8th or 9th grade math course.
WHAT ARE ITS BENEFITS?
First and foremost, FTF Math strengthens students’ mathematical thinking and skills at
problem solving. Students grapple with engaging problems to enhance their conceptual
understanding; develop their computational and procedural fluency; and learn to use their own
reasoning capacities in a mathematical context. This growth alters their perceptions of math
and of themselves as math learners.
FTF Math is also staff development, honing teachers’ skills as astute observers and
investigators of students’ conceptual understanding – skills applicable throughout teachers’
instruction. Teachers gain proven strategies for helping students think, reason and compute in
increasing complex ways. Teachers meet students where they are and help them discover their
own potential as mathematical thinkers and problem solvers.
FTF Math builds professional community. In many cases, FTF Math teachers from middle
and high schools share training and coaching experiences and work together in the carry-over
summer. Teachers within a school form study groups to discuss instructional strategies and
examine the effect of these strategies on student work. This dialogue among teachers
encourages them to explore and improve teaching in all courses and helps them develop ways
to support each other.
31
Connell & Broom, 2004
HOW DOES IT WORK?
FTF Math addresses all the elements of mathematical proficiency and the specific needs of
each student. Teachers:
•
Assess students in the five elements of mathematical proficiency.
•
Set targets for each student and class.
•
Use manipulatives and high interest activities, rather than low-level drills, to engage
students in mathematical thinking and problem solving.
•
Tailor strategies to each student’s needs to enhance students’ flexibility, efficiency and
accuracy.
•
Constantly model strategies and guide students in practicing them.
•
Move students through a continuum of intensity toward proficiency.
ELEMENTS OF MATHEMATICAL PROFICIENCY
Conceptual Understanding
Computational and Procedural Fluency
Strategic Competence (Problem Solving)
Adaptive Reasoning
Positive, Productive Disposition
WHAT IS THE CURRICULUM LIKE?
FTF Math uses a standards-based curriculum that focuses on problem-solving and
application rather than knowledge-based drill. A series of interlocking but flexible units
incorporate learning activities into each unit; the entire curriculum is being thoroughly tested.
Each unit draws on a variety of content sources.
How do teachers learn to work with FTF Math?
Training and support takes five forms:
•
Eighth-grade teachers attend a two-day winter institute with national FTF Math writers
and coaches. Teachers:
o Learn about the barriers to mathematical learning and the opportunities they can
find to help students over those barriers;
32
Connell & Broom, 2004
o Immerse themselves in using varied strategies;
o Become familiar with early FTF Math units;
o Learn how to use assessment tools to improve implementation;
o Discuss the nuts and bolts of the FTF Math classroom; and
o Discuss hands-off, transitions and move-up issues.
•
All teachers attend a four-day, carry-over summer institute: one day of orientation for
new ninth grade teachers, two days of collaborative study for experienced eighth and
ninth grade teachers, and an additional day for new eighth- and ninth-grade teachers.
•
Teachers also have three to four days of ongoing training from national coaches each
year to review upcoming units and continually expand their command of the strategies.
•
FTF Math team leaders – one or two in each building – receive an additional three to four
days of coaching each year so they can help their colleagues strengthen the power of
study groups and the peer learning process.
•
FTF Math teachers meet in weekly study groups, facilitated by the team leaders, where
they:
o Reflect on what’s working and where they are struggling;
o Monitor how frequently they are using the strategies;
o Examine student assessments and develop action plans;
o Review student work;
o See lesson demonstrations; and
o Discuss peer observation.
Training institutes will be tailored for districts that use FTF Math only in eighth or ninth grade.
33
Connell & Broom, 2004
ACADEMIC AND BEHAVIORAL PROFILE
1. Student Name____________________________
Advocate__________________
School/SLC______________________________
Family
ATTENDANCE (Year to date) Current Status: ________ % of total possible days
ARE YOU: Optimal (more than 94%)____, Intermediate (neither optimal nor risk)____, OR Risk (less
than 80%)___?
TARGET: Be present ________% by _____________________ (e.g., 2nd quarter, Year-end).
H. GRADES
I. Cumulative GPA (Year to date): __________
TARGET_____________ by next quarter.
J. ENGLISH:
Current quarterly grade_________
quarter__________
Target for next
MATH:
Current quarterly grade_________
Target for next quarter__________
SCIENCE:
Current quarterly grade_________
Target for next quarter__________
SOCIAL STUDIES: Current quarterly grade_________
Target for next quarter__________
SUSPENSIONS Current Status: # Suspensions __________ to date.
TARGET: 0 Suspensions
K. READING STATE TEST SCORES: Latest reading test score: _______ category
ARE YOU…Optimal (Proficient or Above)______, Intermediate_____, OR Risk (Unsatisfactory)______?
L. TARGET (by next testing): ________category
M. MATH STATE TEST SCORES: Latest math test score: __________ category
ARE YOU…Optimal (Proficient or Above)______, Intermediate (neither opt nor risk)_____, OR Risk
(Unsatisfactory)______?
TARGET (by next testing): ________category
PROGRESS TOWARD GRADUATION (FOR HIGH SCHOOL ONLY)
Current Status:
_____Credits achieved toward graduation
Percentage of expected credits achieved: __________
______Credits expected by this point
TARGET: 100%
34
Connell & Broom, 2004
ATTENDANCE REPORTS
Visual Arts SLC
% Days Attended from January 19 – January 30
School
SLC
School 1
School 1
School 1
School 1
School 1
School 1
School 1
School 1
School 1
School 1
School 1
School 1
School 1
School 1
School 1
School 1
School 1
School 1
School 1
School 1
School 1
School 1
School 1
School 1
School 1
School 1
School 1
School 1
School 1
School 1
School 1
School 1
School 1
School 1
School 1
School 1
School 1
School 1
School 1
School 1
School 1
School 1
School 1
SLC 1
SLC 1
SLC 1
SLC 1
SLC 1
SLC 1
SLC 1
SLC 1
SLC 1
SLC 1
SLC 1
SLC 1
SLC 1
SLC 1
SLC 1
SLC 1
SLC 1
SLC 1
SLC 1
SLC 1
SLC 1
SLC 1
SLC 1
SLC 1
SLC 1
SLC 1
SLC 1
SLC 1
SLC 1
SLC 1
SLC 1
SLC 1
SLC 1
SLC 1
SLC 1
SLC 1
SLC 1
SLC 1
SLC 1
SLC 1
SLC 1
SLC 1
SLC 1
Family Advocate
Student Name
R. Young
R. Young
V. Franklin
D. Gilmore
K. Jones
D. Gilmore
B. Smith
K. Jones
B. Smith
K. Jones
W. Thomas
R. Young
R. Young
D. Gilmore
B. Smith
Terrance Hao
Hector Rodriquez
Rob Stern
Jennifer Flanagan
Jerry Denny
Michael Liew
Lauren Martinez
Tim Evert
Tanikwa Lewis
Evan Lester
Amanda Blackburn
Chong-Hao Tzu
Rickey Frank
Alvin Sim
Terri Lerner
Q. Campbell
T. Hall
W. Thomas
V. Franklin
K. Jones
T. Hall
B. Smith
W. Thomas
B. Smith
T. Hall
B. Smith
V. Franklin
Lao Fu
DeMarcus Scott
Jose Lee
Candace Love
Melissa Muenez
Paul Gebhart
Samuel Jimenez
Thomas Evert
Sarah Stevenson
Jim Tashaul
Michael Smith
Charlotte Freeman
B. Smith
W. Thomas
D. Gilmore
Q. Campbell
B. Smith
V. Franklin
R. Young
T. Hall
W. Thomas
B. Smith
R. Young
R. Young
Jamal Warner
Erin Samset
Quinn Howard
Kate Schumaker
John Jackson
Ariel House
LeMarcus Stern
Jennifer Thomas
Xavier Schultz
Mary Mason
Manuel Gonzalez
Walter Munson
W. Thomas
W. Thomas
Henry Martinez
Ruth Broom
Q. Campbell
T. Hall
Jed Humphrey
Laurie Thomas
% Days Attended To Date
Visual and Performing Arts Average Daily Attendance
99%
99%
98%
96%
95%
95%
94%
94%
93%
92%
92%
92%
92%
91%
90%
89%
89%
89%
86%
86%
85%
82%
82%
82%
82%
81%
81%
79%
79%
79%
78%
77%
77%
77%
76%
75%
73%
72%
70%
67%
61%
59%
58%
83%
*SAMPLE – all names and data are fictitious
35
Connell & Broom, 2004
*SAMPLE – all names and data are fictitious
Hope High School
Average Daily Attendance by SLC
100%
90%
95%
81%
80%
76%
72%
Average Daily Attendance
AYP 90% Threshold
87%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
Visual Arts SLC
Business SLC
Health Sciences
SLC
Technology SLC
Law/Government
SLC
36
Connell & Broom, 2004
PROGRESS TOWARD GRADUATION REPORTS
Visual Arts SLC
Progress toward Graduation
School
SLC
School 1
School 1
School 1
School 1
School 1
School 1
School 1
School 1
School 1
School 1
School 1
School 1
School 1
School 1
School 1
School 1
School 1
School 1
School 1
School 1
School 1
School 1
School 1
School 1
School 1
School 1
School 1
School 1
School 1
School 1
School 1
School 1
School 1
School 1
School 1
School 1
School 1
School 1
School 1
School 1
School 1
School 1
School 1
SLC 1
SLC 1
SLC 1
SLC 1
SLC 1
SLC 1
SLC 1
SLC 1
SLC 1
SLC 1
SLC 1
SLC 1
SLC 1
SLC 1
SLC 1
SLC 1
SLC 1
SLC 1
SLC 1
SLC 1
SLC 1
SLC 1
SLC 1
SLC 1
SLC 1
SLC 1
SLC 1
SLC 1
SLC 1
SLC 1
SLC 1
SLC 1
SLC 1
SLC 1
SLC 1
SLC 1
SLC 1
SLC 1
SLC 1
SLC 1
SLC 1
SLC 1
SLC 1
Family
Advocate
B. Smith
B. Smith
B. Smith
B. Smith
B. Smith
B. Smith
B. Smith
B. Smith
B. Smith
B. Smith
B. Smith
Samuel Jimenez
Sarah Stevenson
Juan Rodriguez
Lauren Martinez
Michael Smith
Tanikwa Lewis
Jamal Warner
John Jackson
Robert Bank
Terri Lerner
Mary Mason
D. Gilmore
D. Gilmore
D. Gilmore
D. Gilmore
K. Jones
K. Jones
K. Jones
K. Jones
Jennifer Flanagan
Michael Liew
Alvin Sim
Quinn Howard
Jerry Denny
Tim Evert
Evan Lester
Melissa Muenez
Q. Campbell
Q. Campbell
Q. Campbell
Q. Campbell
Q. Campbell
Jed Humphrey
Kate Schumaker
Jamika Kelly
Lao Fu
Tyrone Ledlow
R. Young
R. Young
R. Young
R. Young
R. Young
R. Young
R. Young
Adena Collins
Hector Rodriquez
Manuel Gonzalez
Rickey Frank
LeMarcus Stern
Chong-Hao Tzu
Walter Munson
T. Hall
T. Hall
T. Hall
T. Hall
T. Hall
DeMarcus Scott
Paul Gebhart
Jim Tashaul
Jennifer Thomas
Laurie Thomas
V. Franklin
V. Franklin
V. Franklin
V. Franklin
V. Franklin
V. Franklin
V. Franklin
Rob Stern
Candace Love
Charlotte Freeman
Ariel House
Daryl Guillen
Billy Orosco
Shameka Golden
Student Name
Credits
Earned
Expected
Credits
Progress Toward
Graduation
23
15
22
18
6
10
15
10
9
4
4
16
23
6
8
20
16
9
8
8
15
14
20
6
15
15
7
21
6
6
18
12
10
8
4
11
23
21
7
13
6
4
7
24
16
24
24
8
16
24
16
16
8
8
16
24
8
16
24
24
16
16
8
16
16
24
8
16
16
8
24
8
8
24
16
16
16
8
24
24
24
8
16
8
8
16
96%
94%
92%
75%
75%
63%
63%
63%
56%
50%
50%
100%
96%
75%
50%
83%
67%
56%
50%
100%
94%
88%
83%
75%
94%
94%
88%
88%
75%
75%
75%
75%
63%
50%
50%
46%
96%
88%
88%
81%
75%
50%
44%
*SAMPLE – all names and data are fictitious
37
Connell & Broom, 2004
High School Graduation Status Report
Melissa
Grade 09
Plan: C
REQUIRED FOR
GRADUATION
Subject Areas
Credit
4/05/04
Page: 1
COURSES COMPLETED
CURRENTLY ENROLLED
Course Title
Credit
Course Title
ENGLISH 1A
0.50
ENGLISH 1B
STILL
REQD
Credit
ENGLISH 1
1.00
ENGLISH 2
1.00
1.00
ENGLISH 3
1.00
1.00
ENGLISH 4
1.00
1.00
MATH 1 – ALGEBRA
1.00
Math 2 – GEOMETRY
1.00
1.00
MATH 3 – ALGEBRA II
1.00
1.00
IPC/CHEM/PHYS/OTHER
2.00
2.00
BIOLOGY
1.00
1.00
SOC STUD-WRLD GEO
1.00
SOC STUD-WRLD HIST
1.00
1.00
SOC STUD-US HIST
1.00
1.00
SOC STUD-GOVT/ECON
1.00
1.00
PHYSICAL EDUC
1.50
1.50
HEALTH
0.50
COMMUN APPLICATION
0.50
OTHER LANGUAGES
2.00
ALGEBRA 1A
WD GEOG STDY 1A
COED HEALTH
0.50
0.50
ALGEBRA 1B
WD GEOG STDY 1B
0.50
COMM APPLICATION
SPANISH 1A
0.50
SPANISH 1B
0.50
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.50
0.00
1.00
1.00
FINE ARTS
1.00
THEATRE ARTS 1A
0.50
THEATER ARTS 1B
ELECTIVES
3.50
BUS SUP SYS A
0.50
BUS SUP SYS B
0.50
24.00
0.50
0.50
TECHNOLOGY APPLIC
TOTALS
0.50
1.00
4.00
0.50
0.00
2.50
3.00
17.00
38
Connell & Broom, 2004
TEST SCORE REPORTS
Visual Arts SLC
Math and Reading State Test Score Category
School
SLC
School 1
School 1
School 1
School 1
School 1
School 1
School 1
School 1
School 1
School 1
School 1
School 1
School 1
School 1
School 1
School 1
School 1
School 1
School 1
School 1
School 1
School 1
School 1
School 1
School 1
School 1
School 1
School 1
School 1
School 1
School 1
School 1
School 1
School 1
School 1
School 1
School 1
School 1
School 1
School 1
School 1
SLC 1
SLC 1
SLC 1
SLC 1
SLC 1
SLC 1
SLC 1
SLC 1
SLC 1
SLC 1
SLC 1
SLC 1
SLC 1
SLC 1
SLC 1
SLC 1
SLC 1
SLC 1
SLC 1
SLC 1
SLC 1
SLC 1
SLC 1
SLC 1
SLC 1
SLC 1
SLC 1
SLC 1
SLC 1
SLC 1
SLC 1
SLC 1
SLC 1
SLC 1
SLC 1
SLC 1
SLC 1
SLC 1
SLC 1
SLC 1
SLC 1
Family
Advocate
Student Name
B. Smith
B. Smith
B. Smith
B. Smith
B. Smith
B. Smith
B. Smith
B. Smith
B. Smith
B. Smith
B. Smith
Lauren Martinez
Tanikwa Lewis
Terri Lerner
Samuel Jimenez
Sarah Stevenson
Michael Smith
Jamal Warner
John Jackson
Mary Mason
Juan Rodriguez
Robert Bank
D. Gilmore
D. Gilmore
D. Gilmore
D. Gilmore
Casey Flanagan
Michael Liew
Alvin Sim
Brigid Goss
K. Jones
K. Jones
K. Jones
K. Jones
Jerry Springer
Tim Evert
Evan Lester
Melissa Muenez
Q. Campbell
Q. Campbell
Q. Campbell
Q. Campbell
Q. Campbell
Jed Humphrey
Julie Schumaker
Jamika Kelly
Lao Fu
Tyrone Ledlow
R. Young
R. Young
R. Young
R. Young
R. Young
R. Young
Adena Collins
Hector Rodriquez
Manuel Gonzalez
LeMarcus Stern
Chong-Hao Tzu
Walter Munson
T. Hall
T. Hall
T. Hall
T. Hall
T. Hall
DeMarcus Scott
Paul Gebhart
Jim Tashaul
Jennifer Thomas
Laurie Thomas
V. Franklin
V. Franklin
V. Franklin
V. Franklin
V. Franklin
V. Franklin
Rob Deer
Candace Love
Charlotte Freeman
Ozzie Guillen
Billy Orosco
Shameka Golden
Math State Test
Category
Proficient
Unsatisfactory
Proficient
Basic
Basic
Unsatisfactory
Unsatisfactory
Basic
Basic
Unsatisfactory
Basic
Basic
Basic
Proficient
Unsatisfactory
Advanced
Advanced
Unsatisfactory
Unsatisfactory
Basic
Proficient
Unsatisfactory
Unsatisfactory
Basic
Proficient
Unsatisfactory
Basic
Basic
Advanced
Proficient
Proficient
Proficient
Unsatisfactory
Advanced
Basic
Basic
Basic
Basic
Advanced
Basic
Unsatisfactory
Reading State Test
Category
Proficient
Unsatisfactory
Proficient
Basic
Unsatisfactory
Basic
Unsatisfactory
Basic
Basic
Unsatisfactory
Basic
Unsatisfactory
Advanced
Proficient
Basic
Advanced
Basic
Basic
Unsatisfactory
Advanced
Advanced
Proficient
Unsatisfactory
Proficient
Proficient
Unsatisfactory
Basic
Basic
Proficient
Basic
Advanced
Advanced
Proficient
Unsatisfactory
Advanced
Basic
Basic
Advanced
Unsatisfactory
Proficient
Proficient
*SAMPLE – all names and data are fictitious
39
Connell & Broom, 2004
Three Year Trends in Reading and Math State
Assessment Scores
Visual Arts SLC
Trends In Reading Assessment Scores
60%
50%
53%
52%
40%
39%
30%
20%
15%
17%
2001 (N=25)
2002 (N=27)
26%
10%
0%
Proficient or Above
2003 (N=28)
Unsatisfactory
*SAMPLE – all names and data are fictitious
Visual Arts SLC
Trends In Math Assessment Scores
70%
60%
61%
50%
54%
48%
20%
25%
40%
30%
20%
10%
16%
0%
2001 (N=25)
2002 (N=27)
Proficient or Above
2003 (N=28)
Unsatisfactory
*SAMPLE – all names and data are fictitious
40
Connell & Broom, 2004
Reading Trends on the State Assessment:
Minority vs Non-Minority Students
70%
60%
50%
63%
55%
49%
% of Readers 40%
Proficient or
30%
Above
20%
10%
0%
33%
N=13
N=14
2002
Non Minority
N=13
N=15
2003
Minority
*SAMPLE – all names and data are fictitious
41
Connell & Broom, 2004
COLLEGE ENROLLMENT REPORTS
Hope High School
Student Enrollment in Post-Secondary Education: 2003 Class
High
School
School 1
School 1
School 1
School 1
School 1
School 1
School 1
School 1
School 1
School 1
School 1
School 1
School 1
School 1
SLC
Yr HS
Grad
SLC 1
SLC 2
SLC 3
SLC 3
SLC 1
SLC 2
SLC 1
SLC 3
SLC 1
SLC 2
SLC 4
SLC 4
SLC 2
SLC 1
2003
2003
2003
2003
2003
2003
2003
2003
2003
2003
2003
2003
2003
2003
Family
Advocate
R. Young
M. Marvine
V. Franklin
D. Malen
K. Jones
D. Gilmore
B. Smith
K. Jones
B. Smith
W. Thomas
R. Young
R. Young
D. Gilmore
R. Young
Student Name
Terrance Hao
Hector Rodriquez
Rob Stern
Jennifer Flanagan
Jerry Denny
Michael Liew
Lauren Martinez
Tim Evert
Tanikwa Lewis
Amanda Blackburn
Chong-Hao Tzu
Rickey Frank
Alvin Sim
Terri Lerner
Hope High School Percent Currently Enrolled
Current
Status
Enrolled
Withdrawn
Withdrawn
Enrolled
Enrolled
Enrolled
Enrolled
Enrolled
Enrolled
Withdrawn
Enrolled
Enrolled
Enrolled
Enrolled
79%
*SAMPLE – all names and data are fictitious
42
Connell & Broom, 2004
Hope High School
Student Enrollment in Post-Secondary Education:
SLC 1 Enrollment by Graduating Class
SLC 1
SLC
Yr HS
Grad
Family
Advocate
R. Young
K. Jones
B. Smith
B. Smith
R. Young
Terrance Hao
Jerry Springer
Lauren Martinez
Tanikwa Lewis
Terri Lerner
Enrolled
Enrolled
Enrolled
Enrolled
Enrolled
100% enrolled
W. Marley
K. Jones
B. Smith
B. Smith
R. Young
Frank Roosevelt
Howard Marshall
Gabrielle Midyett
Rachelle Mochal
Shayla Rennell
Enrolled
Withdrawn
Enrolled
Enrolled
Enrolled
2003
SLC 1
2003
SLC 1
2003
SLC 1
2003
SLC 1
2003
SLC 1
Summary for SLC 1 Class of 2003
SLC 1
SLC 1
SLC 1
SLC 1
SLC 1
2002
2002
2002
2002
2002
Student Name
Summary for SLC 1 Class of 2002
SLC 1
SLC 1
SLC 1
SLC 1
SLC 1
SLC 1
SLC 1
SLC 1
2001
2001
2001
2001
2001
2001
2001
2001
R. Young
K. Jones
B. Smith
B. Smith
R. Young
R. Young
K. Jones
B. Smith
Current Status
80% enrolled
Hector Rodriquez
Michael Liew
Amanda Blackburn
Alvin Sim
Myla Kelster
Shaleni Mawa
Dameella Blackburn
Tameke Azure
Summary for SLC 1 Class of 2001
Withdrawn
Enrolled
Withdrawn
Enrolled
Withdrawn
Enrolled
Withdrawn
Enrolled
50% enrolled
*SAMPLE – all names and data are fictitious
43