Collaborative Planning
Guidebook
“The experts
are among
us…”
2014-2015
Table of Contents
Introduction
FRAMEWORK FOR COLLABORATIVE PLANNING
2014-2015 Collaborative Planning Schedule
1
The Main Ideas
2
Overview of the Collaborative Planning Process
9
First Things First: Demystifying Data Analysis
10
Three Big Ideas and Four Crucial Questions
14
Creating SMART Goals
15
TEAMWORK TOOL KIT
Annual Team Goals Form
16
ESEA Waiver Challenges 2014-2015
17
Analyzing 2013-2014 MAP Scores
22
Guiding Questions for Analysis of Spring MAP Scores
25
SCDE Testing Information
28
The 4Cs in Lexington One
29
Team Roles
36
Brainstorming Guidelines
37
Recognition Feedback
38
Collaborative Planning Lesson Study Protocol
39
The Tuning Protocol
42
The Consultancy Protocol
44
Effective 30-Minute Meeting Protocol
46
Connections Protocol
47
Team Learning Log Form
48
Collaborative Planning Learning Log
49
Special Request Form
50
Suggested Resources
51
COLLABORATION IN ACTION
Tab 1
Framework for Collaborative Planning
tab goes here.
Introduction
The purpose of this guide
This revision is a work-in-progress that represents continuing progress in
using a powerful concept and process for improvement of student learning at
all levels. The concepts are based largely on the work of Michael Schmoker,
cited throughout the guide. His work has been elaborated and extended by
numerous well-respected educators.
The process advocated in this guide has been used effectively in many
schools. Experience in Lexington County School District One and elsewhere
has shown that the process is most effective when it centers on the use of
collaborative assessments, which provide valuable data to inform instructional
planning. This guide is a compilation of resources for collaborative planning at
the school level. Because different schools will bring varying levels of
expertise and experience to the planning process, this guide is not intended
to be necessarily prescriptive. Read it quickly to get a sense of the overall
process and then work through it in stages.
Guidebook Overview
I.
Framework for Collaborative Planning
Section I of the Guide provides background information to assist you in
understanding the planning process and timelines as well as providing for
you the concepts of collaborative planning based on research to improve
instruction. A clear understanding of this mindset will provide a framework
for efficient and meaningful meetings and ultimately effective results.
II.
Teamwork Tool Kit
No meaningful product or results can be achieved without the proper
tools. In this section you will find the tools that will assist you in planning
together, as well as a description of the various roles and components of
the collaborative planning process. Protocols for meeting activities and
forms for recording goals and progress are included.
Teacher teams will develop other useful tools as they work together. You
are invited to share the tools that you develop with colleagues and
recommend them as resources to be included in future guides.
III.
Collaboration in Action
This is YOUR section. Maintain your team goals, lesson plans, and
assessments, and notes in this section. Other information housed here
might include test data on your specific students, copies of minutes from
previous meetings and rubrics.
When teachers regularly and collaboratively review assessment data for the purpose
of improving practice to reach measurable achievement goals, something magical
happens.
-Michael Schmoker, The Results Fieldbook
Collaborative Planning Schedule
2014-2015
September 10, 2014
October 1, 2014
November 12, 2014
December 3, 2014
January 28, 2015
March 4, 2015
April 29, 2015
Early Release:
Elementary schools – 11:40 a.m.
Middle and High schools – 12:40
1
The Main Ideas
NOTE: A new list of resources that have been used effectively
by various groups in Lexington County School Distric One has
been added as the last section of this guidebook.
The section below is a collection of key points from several
publications by Mike Schmoker, a widely recognized authority
on collaborative planning. The quotations were selected because
they focus on what actually happens in the collaborative
planning process.
Results, p. 55
“When the three concepts of teamwork, goal setting, and data use
interact, they address a misunderstanding prevalent in schools. The
misunderstanding is that we can improve without applying certain basic
principles: People accomplish more together than in isolation; regular,
collective dialogue about agreed-upon focus sustains commitment and
feeds purpose; effort thrives on concrete evidence of progress; and
teachers learn best from other teachers. We must ensure that these three
concepts operate to produce results.”
Results Now, p. 25
“You have to give educators credit; for all the superficial comforts of being
left alone, they will admit that constructive collaboration would lead to
greatly improved instruction….
By elevating privacy and isolation in the name of professionalism, we have
allowed teaching to acquire an outsized aura of mystique and complexity,
a sense that effective teaching is primarily personal and beyond scrutiny.
It has become increasingly difficult to ask practitioners to conform to even
the most well-established elements of good instruction: being clear
and explicit about what is to be learned and assessed; using
assessments to evaluate a lesson’s effectiveness and making
constructive adjustments on the basis of results; conducting a check
for understanding at certain points in a lesson; having kids read for
higher-order purposes and write regularly; and clearly explicating
and carefully teaching the criteria by which student work will be
scored or evaluated.“
2
Results, p. 114
“The Experts Are Among Us
One of the reasons that such teamwork and lesson study are so effective
is that they tap into teachers’ existing capabilities and potential, which are
more apt to flourish in teams than under external trainers.…..
Dennis Sparks, who deeply understands effective staff development, put it
starkly for me once: he said that any faculty could begin improving
performance, tomorrow morning, if they never attended another workshop
in their lives. They would improve, inexorably, simply by deciding on
what they wanted students to learn and then working together to
prepare, test, and refine lessons and strategies—continuously, toward
better results.”
Teamwork
Results Now, p. 108
“We have to be very clear about what true teamwork entails: a regular
schedule of formal meetings where teachers focus on the details of their
lessons and adjust them on the basis of assessment results. The use of
common assessments is essential here. Without these, teams can’t
discern or enjoy the impact of their efforts on an ongoing basis. Enjoying
and celebrating these short-term results is the very key to progress, to
achieving ‘momentum’ toward improvement (Collins, 2001a)”
Results Now, p. 106-107
“But what are true ‘learning communities,’ and why are they more
effective than traditional staff development? …We can’t afford, as Rick
DuFour points out, to corrupt or co-opt the ‘fundamental concepts’ of
collaborative learning communities (2004). What are those fundamental
concepts?
First, professional learning communities require that teachers establish a
common, concise set of curricular standards and teach to them on a
roughly common schedule. Teams need to consult their state assessment
guides and other documents to help them make wise decisions about
what to teach (and what not to teach).
Then they must meet regularly. I suggest that teams meet at least twice a
month, for a minimum of 45 minutes, to help one another teach to these
3
selected standards (I have seen great things come of 30-minute
meetings). This time must be very focused: most of it must be spent
talking in ‘concrete, precise terms’ about instruction with a concentration
on ‘thoughtful, explicit examination of practices and their consequences’—
the results achieved with specific lessons and collaborative analysis of the
results of our efforts, what can we do to improve students’ learning?’
(2002, p.21). To perform this work, teachers must make frequent use of
common assessments. These assessments…are pivotal. With common
assessments and results, teachers can conduct what Eaker calls ‘active
research’ where ‘a culture of experimentation prevails.’ (2002, p.21).
Results Now, p. 115-116
“Teachers know a lot about good practice. But school systems, everseduced by the next new thing, don’t provide them with focused,
collaborative opportunities that remind and reinforce the implementation of
the most basic and powerful practices.
Is it accurate to assume the following?
•
The majority of teachers know that students need to do lots of
purposeful reading and writing.
•
The script of a lesson or unit must include a clear explanation of the
specific standard.
•
Modeling and step-by-step demonstration of new skills is essential.
Short practice opportunities combined with a “check for
understanding” ensure that more kids learn and fewer are left
behind.
Teachers know that a good lesson includes an assessment that aligns
with the standards just taught. Most teachers have learned a few
strategies for keeping kids attentive….Most have learned…that we should
frequently provide exemplars of good work and that we need to be very
clear about our grading and evaluative criteria if we want them to succeed.
Classroom studies continue to reveal that these basic, powerful practices
are still all too rare.”
Results Now, p. 111-112
“In my workshops, I like to do a pared-down version of lesson study. I take
teachers through an entire team meeting—from identifying a low-scoring
standard, to roughing out an appropriate assessment, to building a lesson
designed to help as many students as possible succeed on the
assessment. We do all this—somewhat crudely—in less than 20 minutes.
4
Once completed, we take a break, and then we posit that the lesson didn’t
work as well as we’d like. So we make a revision or two.
”The results can be surprising: teachers see that in even so short a time,
they can collectively craft fairly coherent, effective standards-based
lessons and assessments….Lights go on: they realize that learning to
make such focused, constructive effort virtually requires teamwork, that
the members not only contribute a richer pool of ideas but—hugely
important—social commitment and energy, as essential elements of
success (Fullan, 1991.p 84).”
Results, p. 17
“Another problem is lack of follow up, the failure to begin each meeting
with a concise discussion of what worked—and didn’t. Too many
meetings begin with no reference to commitments made at the last
meeting. A teacher….was tired, he said, of filling chart paper with ideas
and this is the end of it—no follow-up on if or how well the ideas had even
been implemented or if they had in fact helped students learn.
Careful, methodical follow-up…has not been education’s strong suit. But if
we want results, a scientific, systematic examination of effort and effects is
essential—and one of the most satisfying professional experiences we
can have.”
Goal Setting
Demystifying Data Analysis,
“If we take pains to keep the goals simple and to avoid setting too many of
them, they focus the attention and energies of everyone involved (Chang,
Labovitz, & Rosansky, 1992; Drucker, 1992; Joyce, Wolf, & Calhoun,
1993). Such goals are quite different from the multiple, vague, ambiguous
goal statements that populate many school improvement plans.”
Results Now , p. 122
"The case for generating a steady stream of short-term ‘wins’ is not new
and is pure common sense. If anything, it is mystifying that schools have
yet to institute structures that allow people to see that their hard work is
paying off—this week or month—not next year or five years from
now….Gary Hamel exhorts us to ‘Win small, win early, win often’ (as cited
in Fullan, 2001, p.33). For Bob Eaker, our goals themselves should be
‘designed to produce short-term wins” (2002, p. 17). And now Jim Collins
5
tells us to scrap the big plans in favor of producing a ‘steady stream of
successes,’ which in turn will create ‘the magic of momentum’ toward
enduring organizational success (in Schmoker, 2004. p. 427).
Results, p. 41
“Allow teachers, by school or team, as much autonomy as possible in
selecting the kind of data they think will be most helpful. The data must
accurately reflect teacher and student performance and be properly
aligned with state, district, and school goals and standards. Establish clear
criteria that promote a relevant, substantive focus.”
Results, p. 31
Criteria for Effective Goals
•
•
•
•
•
Measurable
Annual: reflecting an increase over the previous year of the
percentage of students achieving mastery—usually in a subject
area
Focused, with occasional exceptions, on student achievement
Linked to a year-end assessment or other standards-based means
of determining if students have reached an established level of
performance—usually within a subject area
Written in simple, direct language that can be understood by almost
any audience
Data Use
Demystifying Data Analysis,
“First things first: Which data, well analyzed, can help us improve teaching
and learning? We should always start by considering the needs of
teachers, whose use of data has the most direct impact on student
performance. Data can give them the answer to two important
questions:
•
How many students are succeeding in the subjects I teach?
•
Within those subjects, what are the areas of strength or
weakness?
6
The answers to these two questions set the stage for targeted,
collaborative efforts that can pay immediate dividends in achievement
gains.
Demystifying Data Analysis,
“Turning Weakness into Strength
After the teacher team has set a goal, it can turn to the next important
question: Within the identified subject or course, where do we need to
direct our collective attention and expertise? In other words, where do the
greatest number of students struggle or fail within the larger
domains? For example, in English and language arts, students may have
scored low in writing essays or in comprehending the main ideas in
paragraphs. In mathematics, they may be weak in measurement or in
number sense.
Every state or standardized assessment provides data on areas of
strength and weakness, at least in certain core subjects. Data from district
or school assessments, even grade books, can meaningfully supplement
the large-scale assessments. After team members identify strengths and
weaknesses, they can begin the real work of instructional
improvement: the collaborative effort to share, produce, test, and
refine lessons and strategies targeted to areas of low performance,
where more effective instruction can make the greatest difference for
students.”
Results, p. 80
“The primary value of rubrics is their capacity to provide clear, useful
feedback that can be analyzed to identify areas of strength and weakness
at any time, at any level, for any number of audiences—from students to
whole communities.”
Results, p. 43
“To be sure, teachers do have data, such as Individual Education Plans
(IEPs), grades, grade-point averages, and test scores. Though such
individual data are useful, they are seldom converted into the kind of
group data that is necessary for more formal and collective reflection and
7
analysis. Even such easily gathered, conventional data are seldom
collectively analyzed to help teams or schools find better ways to address
collective problems. They could be.
Teachers tend to evaluate students individually and reflect on how to
improve class performance less frequently. ‘We would expect,’ writes
Lortie (1975) ‘to find heavy emphasis on results attained with classes,’ as
opposed to results with individual students….Lortie found that educators
do not seek to identify and address patterns of success and failure, which
can have broad and continuous benefits for greater numbers of children.
Not focusing on patterns is unfortunate, because the real power of data
emerges when they enable us to see--and address—patterns of
instructional program strengths and weaknesses, thus multiplying
the number of individual students we can help. ”
Resources
Schmoker, M. (1999). Results: The key to continuous school
improvement. Alexandria, VA: Association of Supervision and
Curriculum Development.
Schmoker, M. (2001). The results fieldbook: Practical strategies from
dramatically improved schools. Alexandria, VA: Association of
Supervision and Curriculum Development.
Schmoker, M. (2003). Demystifying data analysis. Educational
Leadership, 60(5), 22-25.
Schmoker, M. (2006). Results now: How we can achieve unprecedented
improvements in teaching and learning. Alexandria, VA:
Association of Supervision and Curriculum Development.
8
Overview of the Collaborative Planning Process
Schmoker encourages teachers to have a clear understanding of the end-ofyear goal. End-of-course assessments are particularly important in upper
grades, but may be useful in elementary grades also.
I. Many authorities, including Mike Schmoker and Rick Dufour and
Rebecca DuFour recommend that teams “create end-of-course or endof-semester assessments for every course taught.”
These “assessments must align with only the most essential, enduring
standards on state assessments. For courses not assessed by the state
accountability system,…teams should/could create end-of-course
assessments based on a careful review of standards and the selection
of—once again—only the most essential standards to be taught in each
course. These assessments should:
• be completed by the end of first quarter in at all possible; work
can be completed during team meetings
• include a clear and sufficient emphasis on higher-order proficiencies;
analysis, evaluation, and synthesis, which has to include writing and
real-world problem-solving (English/language arts should focus almost
exclusively on higher-order proficiencies and assessments.)
Finally divide essential standards into quarterly blocks & create quarterly
assessments; quarterly results should be reviewed by teams & leaders to
gauge progress & identify need for support/improvement.”
II. “At the beginning of the school year/after end-of-course assessments
are created, have ALL STAFF analyze state and end-of-course
assessment data to complete a form like” …..’Annual Improvement
Goals’ to
1. set a limited number of measurable, end-of-course/subject-area
goals (not more than two…)
2. list—for each course goal—specific, lowest performing areas to
improve on this year
Establish dates and times for team meetings; these are sacrosanct. Then be
sure that every teacher brings the following Teamwork Tool Kit to every
meeting:
• Team norms/protocols/brainstorming guidelines—essential to timeefficient, productive meetings
• “Annual Improvement Goal” form (…with goals and areas of weakness
based on data analysis)
• Interpretive guide(s) /sample assessments/scored writing samples
provided by the state
• Rubrics, anchor papers, samples of student work wherever
appropriate
• Team Learning Logs …
Regularly collect and review Team Learning Logs at both building and
district level.
At every school and district meeting, regularly share, celebrate, and reward
measurable successes recorded on Team Learning Logs; be sure to
disseminate successes to all who teach the same skills or grade levels.
Extracted from a presentation by Mike Schmoker in Columbia, SC, 2006.
9
February 2003 | Volume 60 | Number 5
Using Data to Improve Student Achievement
Pages 22-24
First Things First: Demystifying
Data Analysis
To improve student achievement results, use data to focus on
a few simple, specific goals.
Mike Schmoker
I recently sat with a district administrator eager to understand her
district's achievement results. Pages of data and statistical breakdowns
covered the table. Looking somewhat helpless, she threw up her hands
and asked me, "What do I do with all this?"
February 2003
Many educators could empathize with this administrator. The experts' tendency to complicate
the use and analysis of student achievement data often ensures that few educators avail
themselves of data's simple, transparent power. The effective use of data depends on simplicity
and economy.
First things first: Which data, well analyzed, can help us improve teaching and learning? We
should always start by considering the needs of teachers, whose use of data has the most direct
impact on student performance. Data can give them the answer to two important questions:
•
How many students are succeeding in the subjects I teach?
•
Within those subjects, what are the areas of strength or weakness?
The answers to these two questions set the stage for targeted, collaborative efforts that can pay
immediate dividends in achievement gains.
Focusing Efforts
Answering the first question enables grade-level or subject-area teams of practitioners to
establish high-leverage annual improvement goals—for example, moving the percentage of
students passing a math or writing assessment from a baseline of 67 percent in 2003 to 72
percent in 2004. Abundant research and school evidence suggest that setting such goals may
be the most significant act in the entire school improvement process, greatly increasing the
odds of success (Little, 1987; McGonagill, 1992; Rosenholtz, 1991; Schmoker, 1999, 2001).
If we take pains to keep the goals simple and to avoid setting too many of them, they focus the
attention and energies of everyone involved (Chang, Labovitz, & Rosansky, 1992; Drucker,
1992; Joyce, Wolf, & Calhoun, 1993). Such goals are quite different from the multiple, vague,
ambiguous goal statements that populate many school improvement plans.
Turning Weakness into Strength
After the teacher team has set a goal, it can turn to the next important question: Within the
identified subject or course, where do we need to direct our collective attention and expertise?
http://pdonline.ascd.org/pd_online/contemp_s_lead/el200302_schmoker.html
10
In other words, where do the greatest number of students struggle or fail within the larger
domains? For example, in English and language arts, students may have scored low in writing
essays or in comprehending the main ideas in paragraphs. In mathematics, they may be weak
in measurement or in number sense.
Every state or standardized assessment provides data on areas of strength and weakness, at
least in certain core subjects. Data from district or school assessments, even gradebooks, can
meaningfully supplement the large-scale assessments. After team members identify strengths
and weaknesses, they can begin the real work of instructional improvement: the collaborative
effort to share, produce, test, and refine lessons and strategies targeted to areas of low
performance, where more effective instruction can make the greatest difference for students.
So What's the Problem?
Despite the importance of the two questions previously cited, practitioners can rarely answer
them. For years, during which dataand goals have been education by-words, I have asked
hundreds of teachers whether they know their goals for that academic year and which of the
subjects they teach have the lowest scores. The vast majority of teachers don't know. Even
fewer can answer the question: What are the low-scoring areas within a subject or course you
teach?
Nor could I. As a middle and high school English teacher, I hadn't the foggiest notion about
these data—from state assessments or from my own records. This is the equivalent of a
mechanic not knowing which part of the car needs repair.
Why don't most schools provide teachers with data reports that address these two central
questions? Perhaps the straightforward improvement scheme described here seems too simple
to us, addicted as we are to elaborate, complex programs and plans (Schmoker, 2002; Stigler &
Hiebert, 1999).
Over-Analysis and Overload
The most important school improvement processes do not require sophisticated data analysis or
special expertise. Teachers themselves can easily learn to conduct the analyses that will have
the most significant impact on teaching and achievement.
The extended, district-level analyses and correlational studies some districts conduct can be
fascinating stuff; they can even reveal opportunities for improvement. But they can also divert
us from the primary purpose of analyzing data: improving instruction to achieve greater student
success. Over-analysis can contribute to overload—the propensity to create long, detailed,
"comprehensive" improvement plans and documents that few read or remember. Because we
gather so much data and because they reveal so many opportunities for improvement, we set
too many goals and launch too many initiatives, overtaxing our teachers and our systems
(Fullan, 1996; Fullan & Stiegelbauer, 1991).
Formative Assessment Data and Short-Term Results
A simple template for a focused improvement plan with annual goals for improving students'
state assessment scores would go a long way toward solving the overload problem (Schmoker,
2001), and would enable teams of professional educators to establish their own improvement
priorities, simply and quickly, for the students they teach and for those in similar grades,
courses, or subject areas.
Using the goals that they have established, teachers can meet regularly to improve their
lessons and assess their progress using another important source: formative assessment data.
http://pdonline.ascd.org/pd_online/contemp_s_lead/el200302_schmoker.html
11
Gathered every few weeks or at each grading period, formative data enable the team to gauge
levels of success and to adjust their instructional efforts accordingly. Formative, collectively
administered assessments allow teams to capture and celebrate short-term results, which are
essential to success in any sphere (Collins, 2001; Kouzes & Posner, 1995; Schaffer, 1988).
Even conventional classroom assessment data work for us here, but with a twist. We don't just
record these data to assign grades each period; we now look at how many students succeeded
on that quiz, that interpretive paragraph, or that applied math assessment, and we ask
ourselves why. Teacher teams can now "assess to learn"—to improve their instruction (Stiggins,
2002).
A legion of researchers from education and industry have demonstrated that instructional
improvement depends on just such simple, data-driven formats—teams identifying and
addressing areas of difficulty and then developing, critiquing, testing, and upgrading efforts in
light of ongoing results (Collins, 2001; Darling-Hammond, 1997; DuFour, 2002; Fullan, 2000;
Reeves, 2000; Schaffer, 1988; Senge, 1990; Wiggins, 1994). It all starts with the simplest kind
of data analysis—with the foundation we have when all teachers know their goals and the
specific areas where students most need help.
What About Other Data?
In right measure, other useful data can aid improvement. For instance, data on achievement
differences among socio-economic groups, on students reading below grade level, and on
teacher, student, and parent perceptions can all guide improvement.
But data analysis shouldn't result in overload and fragmentation; it shouldn't prevent teams of
teachers from setting and knowing their own goals and from staying focused on key areas for
improvement. Instead of overloading teachers, let's give them the data they need to conduct
powerful, focused analyses and to generate a sustained stream of results for students.
References
Chang, Y. S., Labovitz, G., & Rosansky, V. (1992). Making quality work: A leadership guide for
the results-driven manager. Essex Junction, VT: Omneo.
Collins, J. (2001, October). Good to great. Fast Company, 51, 90–104.
Darling-Hammond, L. (1997). The right to learn: A blueprint for creating schools that work. New
York: Jossey-Bass.
Drucker, P. (1992). Managing for the future: The 1990s and beyond. New York: Truman Talley
Books.
DuFour, R. (2002). The learning-centered principal. Educational Leadership, 59(8), 12–15.
Fullan, M. (1996). Turning systemic thinking on its head. Phi Delta Kappan, 77(6), 420–423.
Fullan, M. (2000). The three stories of education reform. Phi Delta Kappan, 81(8), 581–584.
Fullan, M., & Stiegelbauer, S. (1991). The new meaning of educational change. New York:
Teachers College Press.
Joyce, B., Wolf, J., & Calhoun, E. (1993). The self-renewing school. Alexandria, VA: ASCD.
Kouzes, J., & Posner, B. (1995). The leadership challenge. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Little, J. W. (1987). Teachers as colleagues. In V. Richardson-Koehler (Ed.), Educator's
handbook. White Plains, NY: Longman.
McGonagill, G. (1992). Overcoming barriers to educational restructuring: A call for "system
http://pdonline.ascd.org/pd_online/contemp_s_lead/el200302_schmoker.html
12
literacy." ERIC, ED 357–512.
Reeves, D. (2000). Accountability in action. Denver, CO: Advanced Learning Press.
Rosenholtz, S. J. (1991). Teacher's workplace: The social organization of schools. New York:
Teachers College Press.
Schaffer, R. H. (1988). The breakthrough strategy: Using short-term successes to build the
high-performing organization. New York: Harper Business.
Schmoker, M. (1999). Results: The key to continuous school improvement (2nd ed). Alexandria,
VA: ASCD.
Schmoker, M. (2001). The results fieldbook: Practical strategies from dramatically improved
schools. Alexandria, VA: ASCD.
Schmoker, M. (2002). Up and away. Journal of Staff Development, 23(2), 10–13.
Senge, P. (1990). The fifth discipline: The art and practice of the learning organization. New
York: Doubleday.
Stiggins, R. (2002). Assessment crisis: The absence of assessment FOR learning. Phi Delta
Kappan, 83(10), 758–765.
Stigler, J. W., & Hiebert, J. (1999). The teaching gap: Best ideas from the world's teachers for
improving education in the classroom. New York: Free Press.
Wiggins, G. (1994). None of the above. The Executive Educator, 16(7), 14–18.
Mike Schmoker is an educational speaker and consultant; [email protected]. His most recent book is The
RESULTS Fieldbook: Practical Strategies from Dramatically Improved Schools (ASCD, 2001).
Copyright © 2003 by Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development
Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development (ASCD)
1703 N. Beauregard Street, Alexandria, VA 22311 USA • 1-800-933-2723 • 1-703-578-9600
Copyright © ASCD, All Rights Reserved • Privacy Statement
http://pdonline.ascd.org/pd_online/contemp_s_lead/el200302_schmoker.html
13
3 Big Ideas and 4 Crucial Questions
Big Idea #1: Ensuring That Students Learn
Big Idea #2: A Culture of Collaboration
Big Idea #3: A Focus on Results
DuFour, Richard. (2005) What is a professional learning community? In
Barth, Roland et al. On common ground: The power of
professional learning communities. (pp. 31-43). Bloomington,
Indiana: Solution Tree.
Four Primary Questions
a. What do we want our students to learn?
i. Core curriculum emphasis
ii. Effective collaboration
b. How do we know if they have learned?
i. Common Assessments
ii. Effective collaboration
c. What do we do if they have not learned?
i. Systematic interventions
ii. Effective collaboration
d. What are we doing to extend learning for
those students who have learned?
i. Systematic interventions for ALL levels
ii. Effective collaboration
14
Creating SMART Goals
Letter
Major
Term
Minor Terms
Significant[1], Stretching, Simple
S
Specific
M
Measurable Meaningful[1], Motivational[1], Manageable
A
Attainable
Appropriate, Achievable, Agreed[3][4], Assignable [5], Actionable,
Action-oriented[1], Ambitious[6] (Aspirational, used by SCDE 2014)
R
Relevant
Realistic[5], Results/Results-focused/Results-oriented[2],
Resourced[7], Rewarding[1]
T
Time-bound
Time framed, Timed, Time-based, Timeboxed, Timely[2][4],
Timebound, Time-Specific, Timetabled, Trackable, Tangible
[2]
Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SMART_criteria
15
TAB 2
Teamwork Tool Kit tab goes here
An nual Improvement Goals For 20__-20__
School:_________Team:________
GOAL 1: The percentage of our team’s students who will be at or above
standard in
___________________________ will increase from:
_________________ at the end of 20___ (previous year’s
percentage/mean score) to
_________________% at the end of 20___as assessed by the
________________________ (State/District or School Assessment)
SPECIFIC, low-scoring skills/standard areas to improve (e.g.”
Measurement”, “Compare & order fractions and decimals”, “Organization”)
___________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________
GOAL 2: The percentage of our team’s students who will be at or above
standard in
____________________________ will increase from:
____________________% at the end of 20___ (precious year’s
percentage/mean score) to
__________________ % at the end of 20___ (the following year’s
percentage/mean score) as assessed by the
____________________ (State/District or School Assessment)
SPECIFIC skill areas to address/improve
___________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________
NOTE: SCDE will provide training on establish student learning objectives
(SLO) for teacher evaluation during the 2014-15 academic year.
16
ESEA Waiver Analysis for 2013-14 and Challenges for 2014-15
Important changes to the methodology for the ESEA Waiver Reports that
are expected to be released in November 2014 will make the criteria more
difficult to meet. The South Carolina Department of Education (SCDE)
summary of highlights for the changes to the ESEA accountability system is
included at the end of this document. To meet all ESEA criteria for 201415, a school must meet an annual measurable objective (AMO) for all
students and for each of the evaluated subgroups. Subgroups to be
evaluated are gender, race/ethnicity, disability status, limited English
proficiency (LEP) status, and socioeconomic status (as measured by
eligibility for the free and reduced-price meal program). Note that
graduation rate will also be evaluated in these categories.
Elimination of SEM Adjustment in ELA and Mathematics
For 2012 and 2013 ESEA Waiver reports, the standard error of
measurement (SEM) was added to the average scale scores in ELA and
mathematics before making a comparison to the AMOs. Scores will no
longer be adjusted in this way. Average scale score comparisons will now
be calculated without adding the SEM. This is a significant change in the
methodology, resulting in roughly a 12-to-20 point difference for SCPASS
and a roughly 7-point difference for HSAP.
Annual Measurable Objectives (AMO)
The graduation rate AMO for 2013 was 74.1% and the AMO for 2014 is
75.1%. The graduation rate target for 2014-15 and beyond will be set
annually based on analysis of the change in high school graduation rates
over time. In order to count as a subgroup for graduation rate, the
subgroup must consist of at least 10 students.
The AMO for each of the other categories will be evaluated in comparison
to the average score for the relevant state assessment, shown in the table
below. SC-ALT scores have been aligned to PASS, HSAP and EOCEP,
and those scores are included in the calculations.
Estimating Performance
To estimate performance for any group, use the school’s electronic score
spreadsheet to filter for that category and then average the scores. To
locate students whose performance may detract from the school’s
calculations, list the students in each subgroup whose scores are less than
the AMO for the current year.
17
Mean Student Scores on State Standards Assessments and End-Of-Course
Examinations
ELA
2011-12
2012-13
2013-14
2014-15
2015-16
2016-17
2017-18
2011-12
2012-13
2013-14
2014-15
2015-16
2016-17
2017-18
Math
Elementary
Middle
High
Elementary
Middle
High
630
635
640
645
650
655
660
624
628
632
636
640
644
648
Science
223
226
229
232
235
238
241
630
635
640
645
650
655
660
624
628
632
636
640
644
648
Social Studies
220
223
226
230
233
236
241
Elementary
Middle
High
Elementary
Middle
High
630
635
640
645
650
655
660
624
628
632
636
640
644
648
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
630
635
640
645
650
655
660
624
628
632
636
640
644
648
71
73
75
77
79
81
82
Primary School AMOs follow the Elementary school guidelines.
Elementary school AMOs are an annual increase of 5 points based on PASS.
Middle school AMOs are an annual increase of 4 points based on PASS.
High school AMOs for ELA and math are an annual increase of 3-to-4 points based on
HSAP.
High school AMO for science (biology) is an annual increase of 1 point and the AMO for
social studies (US History) is an annual increase of 1-to-2 points; both, AMOs are based
on End-Of-Course Examination Program (EOCEP) results from previous year.
List the factors that are not in our control, in relation to student
achievement. (Note: Although we acknowledge these issues, we must still
accept responsibility for helping all students achieve.)
List factors that are in our control, in relation to student achievement.
18
A lot of what we do in our classroom works for the majority of our students.
That has been evident in our test scores for the general population;
However, certain subgroups, such as African American students, students
with disabilities, and students on subsidized meal plans, have consistently
performed below average for the district. Teachers need to make a special
effort to provide support and assistance to students in those subgroups
whose performance is below par.
Consider this question: What can we do differently to help these students
be successful? Look for new strategies that will engage these students,
correct misconceptions, and improve their skills.
How can your school employ some of the 25 strategies from the Center for
Excellence to Prepare Teachers of Students of Poverty to improve
performance?
(http://www.fmucenterofexcellence.org/images/stories/ppts/resources/044pawloski-25-strategies.swf)
19
Highlights of the ESEA Federal Accountability Methodology 2014
SCDE Office of Research and Data Analysis June 18, 2014
The following criteria have been approved by the USED to be applied to the
South Carolina ESEA Federal Accountability Methodology for 2014:
• No SEMS
• No minimum Nsize limit for the ALL STUDENTS category; Subgroups
still have minimum Nsize of 30 (except gradrate subgroups, which
have a minimum Nsize of 10)
• No prior year minimum Nsize limit for subgroups
• Gradrate NOT LAGGED (use current year data)
• End of Course NOT LAGGED (use current year data)
• Elementary and Middle Schools -- include PASS aligned SC-ALT
scores
• High Schools -- include HSAP and EOCEP aligned SC-ALT scores
• Elementary and Middle Schools have revised weights (ELA and Math
= .40 each, instead of .35; Percent Tested have a weight of .05
each.)
• LEP now includes categories 6 and 7 for performance and
participation.
2014 AMOs:
• High School: HSAP ELA=229; Math=226; Science EOC=78; History
EOC=75; Gradrate=75.1%; Percent Tested=95%
• Middle School: PASS=632; Percent Tested=95%
• Elementary School: PASS=640; Percent Tested=95%
• Proximity to the AMO:
• Set a minimum scale score for applying partial credit to “Met” (for
example: calculate the percentage between 600-640)
• PASS=600; HSAP=200; EOC=70; Gradrate=66.7%
• Set a MINIMUM POINT SCORE for partial credit to 0.6 and the
maximum to 0.9
• Improvement in subgroup performance from previous year:
o If a subgroup does not qualify for a Proximity to the AMO partial
credit, then calculate an Improvement partial credit. [Note: Do
not add Proximity partial credit and Improvement partial credit. ]
ONLY apply improvement if a subgroup did not have partial
credit (Example: their mean was below 600 in PASS)
20
o Set the MAXIMUM improvement score to 0.5 — this is so that a
school that never had any means above 600 cannot get an
A/B/C even if they improved in every cell.
For additional details you may refer to Dr. Nancy Busbee’s PowerPoint
Presentation here:
http://ed.sc.gov/data/embargoed/simulations/esea_az4nm8gjh32czyx/2013/
documents/ESEA_Grades_Simulation_Meeting_January_2014.pptx
21
Guidelines for Interpreting 2013-14 MAP Reports
Virtual Comparison Group Reports by Class (available only after fall-to-spring
data are matched and computed for the academic year). These reports provide
the most accurate comparison of our students’ academic growth to the growth of
similar students in other schools that use MAP tests. Students who have fall and
spring test scores are matched by percent of students in the school who qualify
for free/reduced lunch, urban/rural classification, grade level, beginning RIT
score (within 1 point), and fall test dates (within 7 days). They are a powerful
indicator of the effectiveness of our instructional programs. Note: Administrators
have access to pivot table reports that can be disaggregated in a variety of ways.
1. The first page provides background information on the report.
2. The second page shows a plot of how growth for our students compared
with growth for the Virtual Comparison Group and where their
performance is with respect to SCPASS Met and Exemplary Cutpoints
with the Hybrid Success Target (which puts them on track to make a 3 on
HSAP). The Hybrid Success Target is the higher of two targets: either the
median virtual comparison group performance or the level of performance
needed to make adequate progress toward a score or 3 on HSAP at 10th
grade.
3. The third page is a normalized score (Z-score) distribution for the class.
Students identified with Xs in the center section performed relatively close
to expectation based on the carefully matched data of the Virtual
Comparison Group reports. Green vertical bars indicate substantially high
growth. Red vertical bars indicate substantially low growth. It is not
uncommon to have one or two students in class of typical size who
show substantially low growth; often these will be recognized as
atypical performance attributable to a specific cause or as instances
where students who have not put forth serious effort on the test. If a
25% percent of the class shows substantially low growth, there is
reason to question the appropriateness of the instructional program
for those students. If there are any clusters of exceptionally high or
exceptionally low growth, then there may be a need to examine how
instruction is being differentiated.
4. Details are in the table on the fourth page.
5. The fifth page may be the most valuable for teachers because it provides
interpretations and suggestions and with student names when growth is
substantially above or below what would generally be expected.
Teacher Reports (available on line 24-48 hours after testing)
Use the following as some guiding questions for analysis:
22
1. Are the class mean and median about the same? If not, look for scores
that are “outliers.”
2. What is the standard deviation? (Standard deviations between 11-17
indicate a need for variety of grouping strategies. Standard deviations
larger than 17 indicate great diversity where differentiated instructional
strategies are especially necessary.)
3. What is the range of national percentiles (%ile Range) in the class?
4. In reading, what is the range of Lexile scores in the class? How does this
range compare to the Lexile level of available instructional materials?
5. Are there areas of strength and/or weakness, specifically Goal
Performance subscores that differ from the class average by 3 or more
points? (If scores indicate more than one area of need, concentrate on
the area that will be most likely to affect the students understanding of the
subject area.)
Class by RIT Reports (available on line)
1. How many 10-point RIT ranges are represented in the class distribution?
2. When you click on the subject area and display the distributions of Goal
Performance areas, what possibilities do you see for forming instructional
groups to address specific needs?
3. Based on DesCartes objectives, what additional assessments are needed
to determine specific instructional needs for your students within given RIT
ranges?
Spring Achievement Status & Growth (ASG) Reports (must be ordered after
district window closes)
1. What percent of students met or exceeded their growth targets? (The
district’s minimum expectation is average performance has increased from
50% for this statistic to 53% to maintain alignment with increases in
national performance data. Teams may want to set higher goals.)
2. What is the overall percent of targets met? (The district’s minimum
expectation is average performance, which is generally 100% for this
statistic. Teams may want to set higher goals.)
23
3. Which students made gains that exceeded their targets? (Congratulate
them!)
4. Which students have scores that are more than one Growth Standard
Error below their target scores? (Were they focused on the assessment?
What might motivate them to take greater interest in the subject?)
NOTE: The percents in ASG Reports will differ from the percents in the Virtual
Comparison Group Reports because the achievement targets for Virtual
Comparison Group Reports are more closely matched to the characteristics of
the students in our classes.
Dynamic Reports
Projections from MAP to PASS are available online. The projection is based on a
50% probability of scoring MET on PASS. To guarantee that a student would
score at the MET level, a student’s score would need to be considerably
higher than the minimum cut score.
24
Guiding Questions for Analysis MAP Growth
Getting Readyx
For this exercise you will need four items:
1. The School Overview Report from Dynamic Reports for Fall-Spring (See instructions
below).
2. The School Overview Report from Dynamic Reports for Spring-Spring (See instructions
below).
Instructions for accessing School Overview Reports
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
Open a web browser and navigate to https://reports.nwea.org.
Log in to the NWEA reports site.
From the links on the left hand side of the page, select “Dynamic Reports.”
Click the button labeled “Dynamic Reports.”
The default screen will be your “School Overview” for FallXX-SpringYY (Where XX
and YY are school years).
6. To access this same report for SpringXX-SpringYY, click the “Run this report for a
different term” link on the top right side of the report.
General Notes
These guiding questions are designed as an initial analysis piece for school administrators
and instructional leaders. This analysis will show you a broad picture of how your school is
performing at both the school and grade level. You will also examine some student level data.
However, this exercise is merely a starting point. Once you have completed this exercise, it is
important that you extend your inquiry to the classroom and student level in order to best
improve instruction. Virtual comparison group (VCG) reports will be coming out after Spring
testing. These reports will help you to further analyze growth in your school relative to similar
students from around the nation.
NOTE: This guide may be revised further after accountability assessments for 2014-2015 have
been selected.
25
Guiding Questions for Analysis
1. Using the School Overview Reports, carefully consider and answer the following
questions for each subject area.
a. The 2009 NWEA School Growth Study indicated that average percent meeting
target for schools around the nation had risen, as teachers have learned to focus
their teaching on standards. The spring-to-spring percents meeting target varied
by subject and grade level, from 49% in fifth-grade mathematics to 56% in
second- and fourth- grade reading. Overall the data indicated that the average
percent meeting published spring-to-spring targets was about 53%. Fall-to-spring
results were several percent higher. Since average performance for schools all
over the nation has improved, our expectations are that we our instructional
success rate would be at least up to the national average, or 53%.
i. In Lexington One, we can celebrate the fact that our instruction has
improved to the point that almost 60% of students meet or exceed
published target growth for fall -to-spring virtual comparison group
(VCG) scores.
ii. How does your school percent meeting published target growth compare
with the district’s VCG results?
b. Consider the Student Growth Summary reports for your school that administrators
order online via the www.nwea.org Web site. Those are calculated with targets
that are similar, but not always identical to the ASG targets. As long as we have a
MAP contract, administrators can order both fall-to-spring and spring-to-spring
reports, as well as all reports for previous years. What was the difference between
the percent of students in your school meeting growth targets in the fall-to-spring
report and the spring-to-spring report? (Remember that spring scores are a better
measure of student growth for grades when they are available because they are
not affected by summer loss or differing levels of motivation in the fall.) If your
fall percents are more than 5 percentage points lower than your spring percents,
talk about what might be happening to cause such a difference?
2. Using the School Overview reports from NWEA’s Dynamic Reports, carefully consider
and answer the following questions for each subject area.
a. Take a look at your yellow, orange and red boxes. These are the students, based
on MAP, who are in need of intervention. Students in the red and orange boxes
are not meeting their growth targets. Students in the yellow box need to do more
than meet their growth targets to progress to the Met level on PASS. Click on the
boxes to drill down and see individual students. Based on the growth index (the
distance in RIT points from the student’s growth target), how far are these
students from meeting the target? What is their proficiency probability? Do any
patterns exist within these groups of students ( grade level, subject area, teacher)?
What are your plans for identifying and addressing the needs of these students?
Could there be implications for professional development plans?
b. Do any patterns exist for the students in your green box? What are your plans for
ensuring that these students continue to grow and achieve at high levels?
c. The expectation of 53% meeting target is a minimum expectation. If your school
had grade levels and subject areas that did not meet the minimum expectation,
consider these questions carefully:
26
i. What do you as the school administrative team know about instruction in
those grade levels and subject areas from your classroom observations this
year?
ii. What have the teachers shared from their collaborative planning, common
assessments, and data analysis?
iii. What have you learned from conferencing with those teachers?
iv. What is your plan for supporting and supervising teachers in those grade
levels and subject areas next year?
27
Testing Information for 2014-2015
New Laws for 2014-2015
The General Assembly passed several laws that will affect testing for 2014-15.
Links to the text of the laws are printed below:
ACT 155 –Deletes Exit Exam requirement to graduate high school
Plus tests for Grades 3 & 8
http://www.scstatehouse.gov/billsearch.php?billnumbers=3919&session=120&su
mmary=B
ACT 200 -Statewide education standards and assessments
http://www.scstatehouse.gov/billsearch.php?billnumbers=3893&session=120&su
mmary=B
ACT 284 -Read to Succeed (Includes Readiness Assessment)
http://www.scstatehouse.gov/billsearch.php?billnumbers=516&session=120&sum
mary=B
Information about Assessments
Assessments that will be used for 2014-15 are expected to be selected by the
end of September, and possibly earlier.
In the past, the South Carolina Department of Education has provided Web
resources that include information about the kinds and proportions of questions
on its accountability tests. Links to information about the 2014-15 are expected to
be posted on this page of the SCDE web site:
http://ed.sc.gov/agency/ac/Assessment/
Types of items
Despite widespread misconceptions, it is possible to create multiple-choice
items, some tests that assess higher order thinking skills. New assessments may
include various types of selected–response items that assess higher-order
thinking, as well as constructed-response or extended response items.
NOTE: This page will be updated as more information becomes available.
28
The 4 Cs in Lexington One
Critical Thinking Rubric
Critical thinking is an essential 21st Century skill. Lexington County School District One has developed a rubric for evaluating critical thinking
products of critical thinking at the high school level. It may be used with middle school students and adapted for use with students in the early
grades. For the convenience of teachers who may want different options for using this rubric with students, the Critical Thinking Rubric is
presented in both analytic and holistic formats on the following pages.
Communication Rubrics
For the present, the most critical shift in instructional emphasis in English language arts is requiring students to use evidence from relevant texts
to support conclusions in argumentative writing. Developing proficiency in argumentative writing must have a high priority as we increase the
rigor of curriculum.
Collaboration Rubric
Employers want to hire people who can work well with others on a team. The Lexington One rubric for collaboration is presented on the
following pages.
Creativity
Creativity is a mental process involving the generation of new ideas, new concepts, or new associations among existing ideas and concepts.
Creative thinking is said to involve both originality and appropriateness, and often the requirement of high-quality thinking or problem solving is
added to the definition. Although there are a number of standardized tests that purport to evaluate creativity, there is no one generally agreed
upon standards. In addition, creative thought is most useful when applied to a specific content domain. Lexington County School District One
encourages the development of creativity and supports the idea of giving feedback that recognizes and fosters creativity. So far, the district has
not adopted a rubric to evaluate creativity.
29
Lexington One Products of Critical Thinking Rubric for High Schools 4.17.2013
Definition
Critical thinking is comprehensive exploration of issues, ideas, artifacts, and events before accepting or forming an opinion or conclusion.
Evaluators are encouraged to require students to resubmit any work sample or collection of work that does not meet at least proficient level performance, which is a 3.
Explanation of Issue/Problem
Comments:
Evidence
(includes selecting and using
information to explore an issue or
problem, as well as considering the
influence of multiple perspectives
and alternative ideas)
4
3
Summarizes issue/problem clearly.
States issue/problem clearly.
Thoroughly identifies components.
Identifies some key components.
2
1
Merely restates the prompt.
Inaccurately identifies issue or
problem.
Identifies opposing claims.
Analyzes evidence from diverse,
well-chosen multiple sources.
Examines evidence from multiple
sources.
Utilizes limited evidence.
Utilizes evidence that is simplistic,
inappropriate or irrelevant.
Recognizes bias, cause-effect
relationships, context, and multiple
perspectives in evaluating the
positions of others.
Reflects limited consideration of bias,
cause-effect relationships, context,
and multiple perspectives in
evaluating positions of others.
Fails to recognize bias, cause/effect
relationships, context, and/or
multiple perspectives.
Fails to consider bias, cause/effect
relationships, context, and/or
multiple perspectives.
Thoroughly and insightfully evaluates
evidence for accuracy, relevance and
completeness.
Adequately evaluates evidence for
accuracy, relevance and
completeness.
Simplistically summarizes the
positions of others.
Justifies position/conclusion
logically with thorough analysis of
evidence.
Justifies position/conclusion
logically with some relevant
evidence.
Partially or superficially justifies
position/conclusion with little
evidence.
Fails to present own position or
adopts a single idea without
justification.
Qualifies judgments and thoroughly
integrates alternative evidence,
perspectives and contexts.
Presents judgments with some
integration of multiple perspectives
and ideas.
Presents absolute judgments with
minimal recognition of alternative
ideas, perspectives or contexts.
Over-simplifies judgments,
consequences and implications.
Provides conclusion, consequences
and implications with clear
connections to evidence,
assumptions, and contexts.
Provides conclusion, consequences
and implications with some
connections to evidence,
assumptions and contexts.
Provides conclusion, consequences,
and implications that are loosely
related to evidence.
Organizes evidence well.
Organizes evidence adequately.
Organizes evidence poorly.
Fails to organize evidence.
Presents ideas clearly and skillfully.
Presents ideas adequately.
Presents ideas ineffectively.
Presents confused or illogical ideas.
Makes few errors in conventions or
technical skills.
May reflect some errors in
conventions or technical skills.
Makes frequent errors in
conventions or technical skills that
sometimes obscure meaning.
Makes frequent, severe errors in
conventions or technical skills that
often obscure meaning.
Accepts positions of others as fact
without analysis or interpretation.
Comments:
Student's position/Conclusions
and Solutions
Comments:
Organization &Presentation
(includes editing skills and
accepted conventions in writing,
recordings, video, or other media)
Comments:
Omits or provides inappropriate or
illogical conclusion.
Lexington One Products of Critical Thinking Holistic Rubric
Definition
Critical thinking is the comprehensive exploration of issues, ideas, artifacts, and events before accepting or forming an opinion
or conclusion. Evaluators are encouraged to require students to resubmit any work sample or collection of work that does not
meet at least proficient level performance, which is a 3.
4 Does most or many of the following:
•
Summarizes issue/problem clearly.
•
Thoroughly identifies components.
•
Identifies opposing claims.
•
Analyzes evidence from diverse, well-chosen multiple sources.
•
Recognizes bias, cause-effect relationships, context, and multiple perspectives in evaluating the positions of others.
•
Thoroughly and insightfully evaluates evidence for accuracy, relevance and completeness.
•
Justifies position/conclusion logically with thorough analysis of evidence.
•
Qualifies judgments and thoroughly integrates alternative evidence, perspectives and contexts.
•
Provides conclusion, consequences and implications with clear connections to evidence, assumptions, and contexts.
•
Organizes evidence well.
•
Presents ideas clearly and skillfully.
•
Makes few errors in conventions or technical skills.
3 Does most or many of the following:
•
States issue/problem clearly.
•
Identifies some key components with limited recognition of opposing claims.
•
Examines evidence from multiple sources.
•
Reflects limited consideration of bias, cause-effect relationships, context, and multiple perspectives in evaluating
positions of others.
•
Adequately evaluates evidence for accuracy, relevance and completeness.
•
Justifies position/conclusion logically with some relevant evidence.
•
Presents judgments with some integration of multiple perspectives and ideas.
•
Provides conclusion, consequences and implications with some connections to evidence, assumptions and contexts.
•
Organizes evidence adequately.
•
Presents ideas adequately.
•
May reflect some errors in conventions or technical skills.
2 Does most or many of the following:
•
Merely restates the prompt.
•
Utilizes limited evidence.
•
Fails to recognize bias, cause/effect relationships, context, and/or multiple perspectives.
•
Simplistically summarizes the positions of others.
•
Partially or superficially justifies position/conclusion with little evidence.
•
Presents absolute judgments with minimal recognition of alternative ideas, perspectives or contexts.
•
Provides conclusion, consequences, and implications that are loosely related to evidence.
•
Organizes evidence poorly.
•
Presents ideas ineffectively.
•
Makes frequent errors in conventions or technical skills that sometimes obscure meaning.
1 Does most or many of the following:
•
Inaccurately identifies issue or problem.
•
Utilizes evidence that is simplistic, inappropriate or irrelevant.
•
Fails to consider bias, cause/effect relationships, context, and/or multiple perspectives.
•
Accepts positions of others as fact without analysis or interpretation.
•
Fails to present own position or adopts a single idea without justification.
•
Over-simplifies judgments, consequences and implications.
•
Omits or provides inappropriate or illogical conclusion.
•
Fails to organize evidence.
•
Presents confused or illogical ideas.
•
Makes frequent, severe errors in conventions or technical skills that often obscure meaning.
31
Collaboration Rubric
Lexington County School District One
Performance Area
Leadership/Initiative
Cooperation
Flexibility
Responsibility/Productivity
Responsiveness/Attitude
1 Does Not Meet
2 Approaching
3 Meets
4 Exceeds
I frequently
misunderstand the
scope and
importance of the
group’s work.
I rarely show
I rarely follow
agreed-upon norms
for respectful
discussions and
decision-making.
I rarely carry out
I may not show
willingness to listen
to the ideas and
opinions expressed
by group members.
I show lack of
understanding
I show lack of and
I demonstrate
limited
understanding of the
scope and
importance of the
group’s work
I sometimes follow
agreed-upon norms
for respectful
discussions and
decision-making.
I sometimes carry
I show limited
understanding and
appreciation of the
various ideas and
opinions of group
members.
I demonstrate a
clear understanding
of the scope and
importance of the
group’s work.
I consistently show
I consistently follow
agreed-upon norms
for respectful
discussions and
decision-making.
I consistently
I show clear
understanding and
appreciation of the
various ideas,
opinions, and skills
of group members.
I provide leadership
to the group by
checking on
progress and
providing direction.
I show
I consistently work
to address
challenges within
the group through
discussion.
I fulfill my roles and
I consistently show
a willingness to
change my ideas or
opinions based on
the information
exchanged.
I show willingness to
accept
responsibilities.
I sometimes help
others in need.
I periodically, but
not consistently
I sometimes offer
appropriate
feedback to team
members.
I am not comfortable
receiving feedback
from team
I accept
responsibilities with
a positive attitude.
I assist others as
needed.
I value opinions and
skills of all group
I consistently
provide constructive
feedback.
I accept and am
beginning to show
appreciation for
constructive
I show excitement
about the task at
hand.
I inspire and
motivate the group.
I consistently
produce high
I consistently
deliver constructive
feedback in a
manner that is
usually wellreceived by the
recipients
willingness to
accept
responsibilities.
I rarely help others
in need.
I miss deadlines or
I refrain from
offering feedback or
offer inappropriate
feedback.
I respond to
constructive
feedback with a
Teachers, especially in primary grades, may choose to address only certain parts of this rubric for
specific assignments, create picture versions, and/or modify the language.
Self-Regulation / Reflection Form
Student Name:
Date:
Class/Course:
How well did I collaborate?
How much support did I need?
When did I show strong collaboration skills?
What improvements could I make in collaboration skills next time?
Glossary
•
•
•
•
•
•
absolute - not depending on or qualified by anything else
assumption - something that is believed to be true without proof
bias - an unfair preference for or dislike of something
component - a part of something, usually of something bigger
comprehensive - including everything, so as to be complete
context - the circumstances or events that form the environment within which
something exists or takes place
•
•
•
conventions – rules of grammar and usage
diverse - very different or distinct from one another
evidence - something that gives a sign or proof of the existence or truth of
something, or that helps somebody to come to a particular conclusion - a
decision made or an opinion formed after considering the relevant facts or
evidence
•
implication - something that is implied or involved as a natural consequence of
something else
integrate - to be joined or made part of a larger whole
irrelevant - not applicable
justify - to serve as an acceptable reason or excuse for something
logical - based on facts, clear rational thought, and sensible reasoning
perspective - a particular evaluation of a situation or facts, especially from one
person's point of view
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
prompt – a statement describing a task
qualify - to modify or limit something in meaning, scope, or strength
relevant - having some sensible or logical connection with something else such
as a matter being discussed or investigated
•
simplistic - tending to oversimplify, especially by avoiding or ignoring
complexities
34
Facilitator
A facilitator skillfully helps a group of people understand their common
objectives and plan to achieve them without personally taking any side of
the argument. The facilitator assists the group in achieving a consensus
on any disagreements that preexist or emerge in the meeting to create
strong basis for future action.
The role of a facilitator
Some of the things facilitators do to assist a meeting:
•
Helping participants show up prepared to contribute
•
Codifying the purpose, scope, and deliverables of the meeting or
workshop
•
Keeping the group on track to achieve its goals in the time
allotted
•
Either providing the group or helping the group decide what
ground rules it should follow and reminding them of these when
they are not followed
•
Reminding the group of the objectives or deliverables of the
meeting or session
•
Setting up a safe environment where members feel comfortable
contributing ideas
Guiding the group through processes designed to help them
listen to each other and create solutions together
•
•
•
Asking open-ended questions that stimulate thinking
Ensuring the group doesn't settle for the first thing that they can
agree on because they find it painful to go on disagreeing with
each other
•
Offering opportunities for less forceful members to come forward
with contributions
Ensuring that actions agreed upon by the group are assigned to
individuals
•
35
Team Roles
Timekeeper
A timekeeper is someone who skillfully keeps the meeting on a schedule.
Effective, time-efficient meetings are fast paced and productive. The
timekeeper moves the group through the different parts of the meeting.
The chief challenge is to keep members on track with clear concise
statements lasting no more that 20 seconds during the brain storming
section. Below is a suggested guideline of each part of the meeting.
Recorder
The recorder writes all ideas where participants can see, possibly on a flip
chart, chalkboard, smart board, or white board. If using a flipchart, post
(rather than flip back) each page as it is completed. The recorder may
question participants for clarity of submission. Actions agreed upon by the
group (the assessment and lesson plan) are recorded for all to see and
are assigned to individuals. The recorder also completes the Team
Learning Log or sees that it is completed by another team member.
36
Brainstorming Guidelines
The purpose of brainstorming is to produce as many good ideas as
possible in a fast-paced, positive setting. This step in a focused
improvement meeting includes the following:
•
Assign a recorder to ensure that the group keeps accurate notes of
each idea or strategy.
• State the purpose or desired result of the team meeting, preferably in
writing.
• Write each idea on a flip chart, chalkboard, or white board. If using a
flipchart, post rather than flip back, each page as it is completed.
• Offer each person in the group in consecutive order the opportunity to
contribute one idea or strategy.
• Give team members the option to “pass” when it is their turn to
contribute.
• Keep each person’s remarks as succinct as possible by limiting
comments to 20 seconds or less.
• Do not permit speakers to advocate for their own ideas, criticize the
ideas of others, or discuss the merits of ideas at this time.
• Expect to “piggyback” or build on each other’s ideas to generate the
best strategies.
• NOTE: Brainstorming should be followed by other activities to
combine similar ideas, evaluate proposed ideas, narrow options, and/or
possibly come to consensus.
Schmoker The Results Field Book pg. 136
37
Warm and Cool Feedback
There are two types of feedback in this process. The first one is “Warm”
feedback. This feedback is termed warm because it is supportive in nature.
Warm feedback may include comments about how the work presented seems to
meet the desired goals and generally consists of supportive statements.
The second one is “Cool” feedback. Cool feedback is more critical. It may consist
of concise essential questions that are both supportive and challenging. (i.e.
“Where are the gaps?”; “What are the problems here?)” Teachers who have
experience using the Tuning Protocol suggest that softened statements for
“Cool” feedback are more comfortable for teachers who have agreed to take the
risk of presenting their work. For example, “I wonder what would happen if you
tried this,” is more acceptable than, “I think you should have…” or,”Why didn’t
you….?”
Rewards, Recognition, and Celebration
Rewards, recognition, and celebration are important motivators. These three
things are indispensable elements of effective leadership. As we practice
collaborative planning with common formative assessments, we have to
celebrate small achievements. Typically teachers receive little recognition and
praise. When data from common assessments show even small gains, we need
to recognize and celebrate that. Here are a few ideas for rewards, recognition,
and celebration:
Charts posted in a prominent place
Announcements at faculty meetings
Newsletter articles
Thank-you notes
A free meal, (even at the school cafeteria)
Goofy grab bag gifts
Tickets to a movie
Book store gift certificate
Car wash passes purchased at a local car wash
The goal is to have staff members share an enthusiasm and focus that simply
did not exist in the school before, and regularly celebrating small achievements
helps build and maintain momentum.
38
Collaborative Planning Lesson Study Protocol
Preparation
The group leader must establish norms, meeting guidelines, and
protocols. This time is for collaborative planning, and independent work is
not permitted. The smallest allowable group is two people. In the
beginning, the grade level leader or department chair will organize the
planning. After the group norms are established, all of the roles in the
collaborative group can rotate. Planning for a larger group can rotate by
subject area, with all teachers collaborating in lesson and assessment
design, even though they are not currently teaching the subject under
consideration.
Prepare an agenda and decide on team roles (e.g., timekeeper, facilitator,
recorder). Inform appropriate people (such as department chairs, gradelevel leaders, school administrators, district subject level coordinators) of
the schedule. They may need to know what groups will be meeting and
what focus is planned.
Keep to the agenda, and eliminate announcements that are not critical to
the process.
Establish time limits for discussion. Teams can probably complete plans
and draft common assessments for two lessons in a two-hour session. A
time limit of one hour for each lesson will help to keep the process
focused.
Protocol
1. Follow Up: Begin with follow-up from the last collaborative planning
meeting. Engage members in a concise discussion of what worked, what
did not work, and how strategies can be refined. This can be done in 5-10
minutes.
Complete steps 2-4 in approximately 20 minutes. (The process will move
faster with practice.) Groups should be able to complete the process for
one lesson and assessment in about an hour. The goal for a two-hour
session would typically be to design two lessons with accompanying
assessments.
2. Chief Challenges: Identify a standard where your students need to
improve their skills (a relative weakness) that you plan to teach in the next
week or so. This ought to reflect the most urgent instructional concern,
problem, or obstacle to progress.
Teachers should use data that are relevant for their own students ,
including, but not limited to, state-mandated assessments (HSAP, PACT,
39
Collaborative Planning Lesson Study Protocol
EOCEP, revised SCRAPI for 2006-2007), other standardized
assessments (MAP, Explore, Plan, text levels, WorkKeys), teacher-made
assessments, IEPs, and grades. With practice, this can be done in 3-5
minutes.
3. Rough out an assessment for the lesson you plan to teach. Identify
what goes into an assessment of the standard by brainstorming the skills.
From the brainstorm, identify the crucial skills needed to master the
standard. The assessment doesn't have to be polished at this point, but
the design should be specific enough to show exactly what students will
have to do to demonstrate that they have mastered the standard. Be sure
you require students to do more than retrieve factual information. Make
sure they will be required to demonstrate higher-order cognitive
processes, such as application, understanding, analysis, and synthesis.
4. Plan a lesson designed to help as many students as possible succeed
on the assessment. Sketch the sequence and content of the lesson. When
applicable, the design phase may incorporate review of new instructional
materials.
5. Pretend you've taught the lesson and that it didn't work quite as well as
you'd have liked. Refine the assessment and the lesson.
6. Arrange to share copies of the lesson plan and the assessment for all
teachers in the target group to use. Agree on who will produce finished
copies of the assessment and lesson plan for team members and when
the lesson will be taught.
7. Before the next planning session, team members teach the lesson to
their classes and use the common assessment they’ve designed to
determine what students have learned. Teachers summarize results for
their own classes. They look at more than grades. They reflect on
patterns. What concepts/skills did students master? What concepts/skills
were difficult for many students? What needs reteaching or further
development? Where do they need to focus next?
8. At the beginning of the next collaborative planning session (or sooner, if
there is opportunity), teachers compare results and analyses with those of
the other teachers in their group.
Adapted from Results Now, pp. 111-112.
40
Collaborative Planning Lesson Study Protocol
Accountability
Groups will keep brief minutes of who was present/absent and the topics
that were considered. They may either describe or attach lesson plans
and common assessments. A basic format for minutes is included in this
guide.
Administrators are expected to conduct walk-throughs on the collaborative
planning sessions. Expect them to stop by and listen for a few minutes. If
some groups need to see the process modeled and/or to keep the
momentum going, administrators may ask teachers to present the
lessons, the common assessments they've designed, and their analysis of
the results to other groups within the faculty.
41
The Tuning Protocol: A Process for Reflection on Teacher and Student Work
From the Coalition of Essential Schools
Authors: David Allen, Joe McDonald
The "tuning protocol" was developed by David Allen and Joe McDonald at the
Coalition of Essential Schools primarily for use in looking closely at student
exhibitions. Also, it is often used by teachers to look at the effectiveness of lessons.
In the outline below, unless otherwise noted, time allotments indicated are the
suggested minimum for each task.
I. Introduction [10 minutes]. Facilitator briefly introduces protocol goals, norms,
and agenda. Participants briefly introduce themselves.
II. Teacher Presentation [20 minutes]. Presenter describes the context for student
work (its vision, coaching, scoring rubric, etc.) and presents samples of student
work (such as photo- copied pieces of written work or video tapes of an exhibition).
III. Clarifying Questions [15 minutes maximum]. Facilitator judges if questions
more properly belong as warm or cool feedback than as clarifiers.
IV. Pause to reflect on warm and cool feedback [2-3 minutes maximum].
Participants make note of "warm," supportive feedback and 'cool," more distanced
comments
(generally no more than one of each).
V. Warm and Cool Feedback [15 minutes]. Participants among themselves share
responses to the work and its context; teacher-presenter is silent. Facilitator may
lend focus by reminding participants of an area of emphasis supplied by teacherpresenter.
VI. Reflection/ Response [15 minutes]. Teacher-presenter reflects on and
responds to those comments or questions he or she chooses to. Participants are
silent. Facilitator may clarify or lend focus.
VII. Debrief [10 minutes]. Beginning with the teacher-presenter
("How did the protocol experience compare with what you expected?"), the group
discusses any frustrations, misunderstandings, or positive reactions participants
have experienced. More general discussion of the tuning protocol may develop.
Guidelines for Facilitators
1. Be assertive about keeping time. A protocol that doesn't allow for all the
components will do a disservice to the presenter, the work presented, and the
participants' understanding of the process. Don't let one participant monopolize.
42
The Tuning Protocol: A Process for Reflection on Teacher and Student Work
2. Be protective of teacher-presenters. By making their work more public, teachers
are exposing themselves to kinds of critiques they may not be used to.
Inappropriate comments or questions should be recast or withdrawn. Try to
determine just how "tough" your presenter wants the feedback to be.
3. Be provocative of substantive discourse. Many presenters may be used to
blanket praise. Without thoughtful but probing "cool" questions and comments, they
won't benefit from the tuning protocol experience. Presenters often say they'd have
liked more cool feedback.
Norms for Participants
1. Be respectful of teacher-presenters. By making their work more public, teachers
are exposing themselves to kinds of critiques they may not be used to.
Inappropriate comments or questions should be recast or withdrawn.
2. Contribute to substantive discourse. Without thoughtful but probing "cool"
questions and comments, presenters won't benefit from the tuning protocol
experience.
3. Be appreciative of the facilitator's role. particularly in regard to following the
norms and keeping time. A tuning protocol that doesn't allow for all components
(presentation, feedback, response, debrief) to be enacted properly will do a
disservice both to the teacher-presenters and to the participants.
Allen, D. and McDonald, J. (2003). The tuning protocol: A process for reflection on
teacher and student work. Retrieved August 4, 2006 from Coalition of
Essential Schools National Web site:
http://www.essentialschools.org/cs/resources/view/ces_res/54
43
The Consultancy Protocol
The Consultancy Protocol
(Also called the California Protocol or Reflecting with Critical Friends)
Many teachers in California's Coalition member schools routinely use the tuning
protocol to surface issues arising from close examination of student work. But the
state's Restructuring Initiative, which funds some 150 schools attempting wholeschool reforms, has also adapted and expanded the protocol for a new purpose to
examine how such issues relate to the larger school organization and its aims, and
to summarize and assess its progress. Instead of having teachers present student
work, the California Protocol has a school's "analysis team" work through an
important question (possibly using artifacts from their work) in the presence of a
group of reflectors, as follows:
The moderator welcomes participants and reviews the purpose, roles, and
guidelines for the Protocol [5 minutes]
Analysis
1. Analysis Team provides an introduction including an essential question that will
be the focus of the analysis. [5 minutes]
2. Reflectors ask brief questions for clarification, and the Analysis Team responds
with succinct information. [5 minutes]
3. Analysis Team gives its analysis. [25 minutes]
4. Reflectors ask brief questions for clarification, and the Analysis Team responds
with succinct clarifying information about the Analysis. [5 minutes)
Feedback
1. Reflectors form groups of 4 to 6 to provide feedback; one member of each is
chosen to chart warm, cool, and hard feedback. The Reflector Groups summarize
their feedback as concise essential questions (cool and hard feedback) and
supportive statements (warm feedback). Each group posts the chart pages as they
are completed so Analysis Team Members can see them. [15 minutes]
2. The Analysis Team observes and listens in on the feedback process. They may
also wish to caucus informally as the feedback emerges and discuss which points
to pursue in the Reflection time to follow.
3. Each Reflector Group shares one or two supportive statements and essential
questions that push further thought. [5 minutes]
Team Reflection and Planning
The Analysis Team engages in reflection, planning, and discussion with one
another (rather than in direct response to the Reflectors). Everyone else in the
room observes silently as members of the Analysis Team reveal how they reflect,
think, plan, and adjust.
44
The Consultancy Protocol
Dialogue
The Analysis Team and the Reflectors engage in an open conversation about the
school's work. [10 minutes]
Debrief and Closure
Moderator facilitates an open discussion and debriefing of the
experience of the Protocol among all participants. [10 minutes]
This resource last updated: January 21, 2003
Retrieved August 4, 2006 from Coalition of Essential Schools National Web site:
http://www.essentialschools.org/cs/resources/view/ces_res/54
45
Effective 30-Minute Meeting Protocol
What worked: (5-10 Minutes): Each team member explains
how well the identified strategy selected by the team at the
previous meeting worked or how it can be refined?
Chief Challenges: (3-5 Minutes): What is the most urgent
instructional concern, problem, or obstacle to progress and to
better results? Identify a common area of opportunity. (i.e.
Increase silent reading time, or an area of under performance
identified by data.)
Proposed solutions: (8-10 Minutes):
Suggest practical
solutions to these identified problems. Brainstorm using the
brainstorming guidelines.
Action Plan: (10 Minutes):
Decide which solutions or
strategies might be best for the team to focus on and implement
between now and the next meeting. Produce copies of the
assessment and plan to all team members. If agreement does
not emerge quickly, rank-order voting can help speed up this
process. At times, Members of the team may plan to share or
develop materials or assessments later. A memo or reminder
may be necessary in the beginning.
Goal-oriented meetings that follow this model permit every
team member to contribute to and learn from the expertise of
the group which results in better instruction and improved
results.
Schmoker, Mike Based on The Results Fieldbook 2001
46
Connections
Connections is a way for people to build a bridge from where they are or have been (mentally,
physically, etc.) to where they are going and what they will be doing. It is a time for individuals to
reflect—within the context of a group—upon a thought, a story, an insight, a question, or a feeling
that they are carrying with them into the session, and then to connect it to the work they are about
to do. Most people engage in Connections at the beginning of a meeting, class, or gathering.
There are a few things to emphasize about Connections for it to go well…
It is about connecting people’s thoughts to the work they are doing or are about to do.
Silence is ok, as is using the time to write or just sit and think. Assure people that they
will spend a specific amount of time in Connections, whether or not anyone speaks
out loud. Some groups—and people within groups—value the quiet, reflective times
above all else.
If an issue the group clearly wants to respond to comes up in Connections, the group
can decide to make time for a discussion about the issue after Connections is over.
The “rules” for Connections are quite simple:
Speak if you want to.
Don’t speak if you don’t want to.
Speak only once until everyone who wants to has had a chance to speak.
Listen and note what people say but do not respond. Connections is not the time to
engage in a discussion.
Facilitating the process is also straightforward. Begin by saying “Connections is open,” and let
people know how long it will last. A few minutes before time is up, let people know that there are a
few minutes remaining, so that anyone who hasn’t yet spoken might speak. With a minute or so to
go, let the group know that you will be drawing Connections to a close and ask again if anyone who
hasn’t spoken would like to speak. Before ending, ask if anyone who has spoken would like to speak
again. Then, end.
Ten minutes is usually enough time for groups of 10 people or fewer, 15 minutes for groups of 11–
20 people and 20 minutes for any groups larger than 20 people. Connections generally shouldn’t last
more than 20 minutes. People can’t sustain it. The one exception is where there is a group that has
been together for a period of time doing intensive work and it is the last or next to last day of their
gathering.
Some people will say that Connections is misnamed, because people don’t connect to (or build on)
what other people have said. However, the process is a connecting one; and powerful connections
can still occur even though they are not necessarily the result of back and forth conversation.
Source: National School Reform Faculty. Reprinted with permission.
Changing Systems to Personalize Learning: Teaching to Each Student
THE EDUCATION ALLIANCE at Brown University
47
Team Learning Log
School______________________
Teacher-Led Collaborative Planning Report Form
Date:
Present:
Absent:
Grade/Dept/Group:
Facilitator:
Recorder:
Timekeeper:
TARGETED STANDARD/AREA OF WEAKNESS (from a state or local assessment)
{e.g.” Add/subtract decimals and fractions” identify author’s bias”}
_______________________________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________________________
COMMON ASSESSMENT: TO EVALUATE INSTRUCTIONAL SOLUTION (briefly
describe what students must know and be able to do)
_______________________________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________________________
INSTRUCTIONAL SOLUTION: BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF LESSON UNIT/STRATEGY
(that addresses the above area of weakness)
_______________________________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________________________
SHORT-TERM RESULTS (1-4 WEEK CYCLE): MEASURABLE IMPACT OF SOLUTION
(This can only be filled out AFTER an assessment has been given, e.g.” 62% of our
students” or “17 of 28 students” mastered the targeted standard)
_______________________________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________________________
ADJUSTMENTS TO INSTRUCTION (IF RESULTS AREN’T SATISFACTORY)
_______________________________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________________________
Source: Schmoker, M. Workshop, Columbia, South Carolina, 2006
48
School ___________________________
Collaborative Planning
Learning Log
(To be completed by each planning group that meets)
Date:
Present:
Absent:
Grade/Dept/Group:
Facilitator:
Recorder:
Identified Instructional Issue:
Discussion:
Targeted Instructional and Assessment Strategies:
Additional Comments:
49
2014-2015 Special Request Form
for
Collaborative Planning Meetings Outside of Base Schools
Send to Gloria Talley, Chief Academic Officer, Instructional Services @ [email protected]
Collaborative Planning Date for Special Request:
Group Requesting to Meet Together:
Facilitator for the Group:
Facilitator’s School:
Facilitator’s Email Address:
Facilitator’s Phone Number:
Names of Teachers to Participate:
Location of Meeting:
Focus of the Meeting:
Approval Granted by:
(Note: After the planning session the facilitator should send each participant a copy of the
Collaborative Planning Log to give their principal. This will serve as documentation of how the
collaborative planning time was spent.)
50
Suggested Resources for 2014-2015
 Inevitable: Mass Customized Learning (Schwahn &
McGarvey, 2012) ISBN 1470059053 or 13-9781470059057
 Teaching Critical Thinking: Using Seminars for 21st
Century Literacy (Roberts & Billings, 2012) ISBN 978-159667-208-6
 On Your Mark: Challenging the Conventions of Grading
and Reporting, (Guskey, 2015) ISBN 978-1-935542-77-3
 21st Century Skills: Rethinking How Students Learn ((Eds.
Bellanca, John and Brandt, Ron) ISBN-10: 1935249908,
ISBN-13: 978-1935249900
 Assessment Strategies for Self-Directed Learning (Costa &
Kallick ISBN 9780761938712)
 Better Learning through Structured Teaching: A Gradual
Release of Responsibility Model (Fisher & Frey ISBN 9781-4166-0635-2)
 Classroom Assessment for Student Learning (Stiggins –
ISBN 0-9655101-5-8)
 Delivering on the Promise: The Education Revolution
(DeLorenzo, Battino, Schreiber, Gaddy-Cario ISBN-10:
1934009423, ISBN-13: 978-1934009420
 Drive (Pink) ISBN-13: 9781594488849; ISBN: 1594488843
 Ahead of the Curve (DuFour, DuFour, et. al), - ISBN 978-1934009-06-2 - Sequel to On Common Ground
 Whatever It Takes (DuFour, DuFour, Eaker, Karhanek –
ISBN 978-1-932127-28-7)
 How to Grade for Learning (O’Connor – ISBN 978-157517-816-5)
 Learning by Doing (DuFour, DuFour, Eaker, Many – ISBN
978-1-932127-93-5)
 Pyramid of Interventions – (Solution Tree - ISBN 9781934009-33-8)
51
 The Collaborative Teacher - (Solution Tree – ISBN 978-1934009-36-9)
 The Collaborative Administrator – (Solution Tree – ISBN
978-193-4009-37-6)
 The Leader in Me (Covey ) ISBN-13: 978-1935249900
 The Power of Protocols: An Educator’s Guide to Better
Practice (McDonald, et al., ISBN 978-0-8077-4769-8)
 Revisiting Professional Learning Communities at Work
(Solution Tree – ISBN 978-1-934009-32-1)
 “Through New Eyes” – Video on Systematic Interventions
 Trust Matters: Leadership for Successful Schools
(Tschannen-Moran – ISBN 0-7879-7434-X)
 The Self-directed Learning Handbook – (Gibbons, ISBN 07879-5955-3)
 “Twenty-four Hours in the Life of a Digital Native” – Video
on 21st century digital learning
(www.teachertube.com/view_video.php)
 Free videos – www.walkthetalk.com
 Resources for Leaders - www.allthingsplc.info
 Every Child, Every Day: A Digital Conversion Model for
Student Achievement by Mark A. Edwards
ISBN-10: 0132927098 | ISBN-13: 978-0132927093
TAB 3
Collaboration in Action tab goes here
Tab 2
Teamwork
Tool Kit
2
Tab 1
Framework for
Teacher-Led
Collaborative
Planning
1
Table of Contents
Teacher Led
Collaboration in
Action
3
TAB 3