1 / 56

2009-10 Edition DRAFT

Academic Program Survey. 2009-10 Edition DRAFT. Welcome. Thank you for joining us Please identify yourself in the chat area now Introductions will follow. Housekeeping. Communication Webinar is in presentation mode. Audio is primarily over the Internet. (Quick Audio Check Poll)

chaney
Télécharger la présentation

2009-10 Edition DRAFT

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Academic Program Survey 2009-10 EditionDRAFT

  2. Welcome • Thank you for joining us • Please identify yourself in the chat area now • Introductions will follow

  3. Housekeeping Communication • Webinar is in presentation mode. • Audio is primarily over the Internet. (Quick Audio Check Poll) • Questions are welcomed; submit them online in the text-chat area in the “chat” area (lower-left). These will be collected and addressed via a FAQ. • Conference Call only webinar participants - please send questions to Lisa McClung - lmcclung@cde.ca.gov or Chad Portney cportney@cde.ca.gov

  4. Housekeeping Tech Support During the Event • text-chat jduffie or email jduffie@wested.org • Call Thomas Williamson CDE 916-319-0853 • The event is being recorded and will be available afterwards on the ESEA webpage at: http://www.cacompcenter.org/esea-requirements

  5. Introductions California Department of Education Laura Wagner Wagner Adele Ohs CA Comprehensive Assistance Center Patti Crotti Chris King

  6. Purpose • The Academic Program Survey (APS) is designed to help a school: • Analyze the extent to which it is providing a coherent instructional program to improve student achievement. • Identify needed resources and structure for instructional improvement.

  7. APS Design • The APS measures presence of Essential Program Components (EPC) to support student attainment of reading language arts (RLA) and mathematics standards. • Each EPC is a constituent part or element of a coherent instructional program at the school level.

  8. APS Design (Cont.) • Three grade-span specific surveys measure the relative presence of the nine EPCs. • A rubric for the middle school APS assesses implementation based on artifactual evidence. • Organized around the nine EPCs.

  9. Historical Context • Academic Program Surveys were developed in 2003-04 as required tools in schools participating in school reform programs and state-monitoring. • The efficacy of EPCs and APS were assessed in 2008 by an independent evaluation conducted by Hatchuel Tabernik and Associates (HTA).

  10. HTA Findings • Implementation of the EPCs is associated with improved student achievement in state-monitored schools. • Factor analysis of EPCs documents that the nine EPCs work together as a unified construct. • http://www.htaconsulting.com/

  11. HTA Recommendations • Augment explicit attention to English learners (EL), students with disabilities (SWDs), and other high priority students. • Strengthen professional development and accountability for: • Content experts and coaches • District administrators

  12. User Recommendations for APS Revisions • Agree with HTA recommendations. • Update the State Board of Education adoptions. • Re-order the EPCs to reflect implementation priorities and clusters. • Edit to ensure internal coherence and consistency of language across grade-span tools and rubric.

  13. 2009 Budget Implications ABX4 2 (Chapter 2, Statutes of 2009-10 Fourth Extraordinary Session): • Imposes moratorium on new frameworks and adoptions. • Allows local educational agencies (LEAs) budgetary flexibility on numerous funding sources.

  14. Overview of APS Revision Work January 30, 2009 Steering committee of district, county, and state employees defines parameters for revision April 3: APS Subcommittee discusses initial responses for modifications/additions Each sub-group takes input and refines modifications/additions EPCs 1, 2, 8 EPCs 3, 4, 9 EPCs 5, 6, 7 April 20: Committee reviews/refines small group initial modifications/additions Each sub-group reviews feedback from Committee and proposes recommendations EPCs 1, 2, 8 EPCs 5, 6, 7 EPCs 3, 4, 9 Send to Tool User Group May 5 and Aug 11: Review, discuss, and refine recommendations Send to Tool User Group

  15. 2009-10 APS Revisions • Affirms foundational nature of APS and link to other self-assessment tools. • Includes 2007 mathematics and 2008 reading-language arts (RLA) adoptions, while recognizing legislative flexibility for use of new adoptions and flexible use of professional development resources. • Explicitly cites ELs, SWDs, and other high priority students within EPC descriptors.

  16. 2009-10 APS Revisions (Cont.) • Clarifies use of instructional time. • Revises definitions of materials-based professional development for principals and teachers to reflect budget flexibility. • Defines terms consistently with appropriate Framework, e.g., intensive intervention, strategic learners, universal access, etc. • Re-orders the nine EPCs into four clusters.

  17. New EPC Order 17

  18. 2009-10 APS Revisions (Cont.) • Strengthens emphasis on data use and use of ancillary materials to target instructional needs. • Includes greater consistency in language used across grade span forms. • Uses more explicit language and examples in the Criteria and Clarifications section. • Places citations at the end of the document. • Revised rating for Fully, Substantially…

  19. RevisedAPS Rating Scale

  20. Who Should Use the APS? • Districts with under-performing schools. • All under-performing schools in local educational agencies (LEAs) in program improvement. • External providers working with under-performing schools and districts.

  21. Structure of Presentation • This presentation focuses initially on the elementary level of Academic Program Survey (APS) and then highlights any secondary variations.

  22. EPC 1: SBE Adopted core RLA instructional materials All students are provided the most current R/LA/English Language Development (ELD) materials, including interventions. Where not fiscally feasible, LEA is fully implementing the 2002/2005 SBE adoptions with fidelity. Universal access and the use of ancillary materials with and beyond the basic core program are more clearly delineated. 22

  23. EPC 1: Additional resources for English Learners (EL) EL students are provided the most recent SBE-adopted basic core instructional materials and materials in ELD as included in the 2008 R/LA/ELD adoption (Programs 2 and 3). LEAs selecting a 2008 Program I adoption or continuing to use the 2002/2005 SBE adopted materials, earlier SBE-approved supplemental materials (AB1802), or other district-adopted supplementary materials provide ELD instruction to English Learners at their level of assessed need. 23

  24. EPC 1: RLA Intervention As defined in the 2007 RLA Framework, intervention is based upon the degree of student learning difficulties. RLA intervention definitions remain the same for strategic and intensive students but are more explicitly described in the APS. 24

  25. EPC 1: SBE Adopted core math instructional materials All students are provided the most current math basic core materials. Where not fiscally feasible, LEA is required to fully implement 2001 SBE adoptions with fidelity. Universal access and the use of ancillary materials with and beyond the basic core program are more clearly delineated. 25

  26. EPC 1: Math Intervention Grades 4-7 students identified as in need of intensive intervention are provided with appropriate grade-level core program and intervention materials. Grades 4-7 intervention materials were not designed to be used as a replacement-to-core curriculum. Intensive mathematics students are to be in grade-level mathematics, and the intervention program materials are used when additional intervention support is needed. 26

  27. EPC 1: Math Intervention (Cont.) • Grade 8 students identified as not yet ready for algebra are provided with an Algebra Readiness program and materials to build pre-algebraic skills and concepts. • Students enrolled in Algebra Readiness are not concurrently enrolled in Algebra I.

  28. EPC 1 At the Secondary Level 28 • EPC 1 is consistent across all the grade levels with a few variations: • (1.1 and 1.3) High schools advancing in Program Improvement are to use the articulated high school materials from 7th/8th grade publisher’s texts found on the SBE-adopted core program and intensive reading intervention lists. • (1.2) For secondary schools, ELD is to be provided to all English Learners, but the more advanced EL’s may receive ELD services in an designated grade-level academic core classroom with ELD instruction and support. • (1.5) Starting at Grade 8, Algebra Readiness is an intensive intervention for Algebra I.

  29. EPC 2: Instructional Time Definitions of recommended instructional time are specific to each grade and subject level, with recommendation that time is given priority and protected from interruptions. Time allocations are consistent with 2006 Mathematics and 2007 RLA Frameworks. ELD time is clearly specified as indicated in the Framework. 29

  30. EPC 2: Instructional Minutes and use of ancillary materials /universal access 30 • School schedule complies with recommended basic core instructional minutes (2.1) • Ancillary materials within the core adoption are used during this time to differentiate instruction for all advanced, benchmark and strategic of learners. • School schedule also complies with the recommended additional instructional time to provide support to strategic learners (2.2) • Ancillary materials within the core adoption are used during this time to differentiate instruction for strategic learners, including strategic English learners and Students with Disabilities.

  31. EPC 2: Instructional Time English Language Development (ELD) 31 (2.3) English Learners receive 30-60 minutes of ELD instruction daily based on student need. This ELD time is in addition to the instructional time required for the basic core program (2.1) and additional strategic support (2.2). EL’s are appropriately placed into ELD by language proficiency level.

  32. EPC 2: Instructional TimeIntensive Interventions 32 For R/LA intensive intervention, the school schedule complies with recommended instructional time to implement the intensive reading intervention program as designed. The intensive reading intervention is considered the core R/LA curriculum for identified intensive intervention students. For mathematics, the school schedule reflects that K-7 students are in a grade-level mathematics course and time is allocated for intensive intervention support as part of extended core instruction.

  33. EPC 2 At the Secondary Level 33 (2.2/2.6) For secondary students, the concept of “high priority” strategic student is introduced. It is the district’s responsibility to determine the criteria and assessments which will be used to define “high priority” strategic students. In both R/LA/ELD and Algebra I, high priority strategic students are to receive a strategic period linked to the grade-level core course. Strategic time for other students can be met as needed in a variety of ways, including differentiated instructional practices within the core curriculum.

  34. EPC 2 At the Secondary Level 34 • (2.3) For secondary schools, ELD is to be provided to all English Learners, but the more advanced EL’s may receive ELD services in an designated grade-level academic core classroom with ELD instruction and support. • (2.7) Starting in 8th grade, the intensive intervention for Algebra I is Algebra Readiness. • Algebra Readiness is for students performing below the 7th grade mathematics standards. • Note: Strategic Algebra Support is for high priority strategic students performing at/above 7th grade mathematics standards.

  35. EPC 3: Lesson Pacing Guide 35 • Formerly EPC 8 (for Elementary and Middle) • Pacing guides define a common sequence of grade-level instruction and calendar for common curriculum embedded/benchmark assessments. • Instructional pacing ensures all students are given the opportunity to and are supported in learning grade-level standards. • Calendar for common assessments ensures that teachers will have common student work to collaboratively analyze and use to inform instructional planning and classroom practices to support struggling learners.

  36. EPC 3: Lesson Pacing Guide 36 • Pacing guide reflects full implementation of the adopted program. • Core pacing guide is the foundation for strategic support. • Additional time is allocated to address specific needs of strategic students.

  37. EPC 3At the Secondary Level 37 • For high school, formerly embedded in EPC 2. • Focuses on 9th/10th grade ELA grade-level courses and Algebra I, Algebra Strategic Support and Algebra Readiness. • For ELA additional language about students receiving at least the minimum course of study as described by the publisher. • This is to ensure that all students have instruction in all ELA standards, i.e., reading comprehension (focus on informational materials).

  38. EPC 4: Administrator Training Program Former EPC 3 becomes EPC 4 and is renamed to reflect changes in the law. Administrator training is anchored in the instructionalmaterials based professional development followed by a structured practicum and provided through a knowledgeable and experienced provider. 38

  39. EPC 4: Administrator Training Program 39 • Recommended training hours for administrators at varying grade levels remain the same as the previous APS: • Elementary – 40 hour training on R/LA core or intensive intervention and 40 hour core mathematics training and 80 hours of practicum. • Middle - 40 hour training: 20 hours on R/LA core or intensive intervention and 20 hours core mathematics, Algebra Readiness, Algebra I training and a 40 hour practicum. • High School- 40 hour training on any combination of the following: R/LA core or intensive intervention, Algebra I, Algebra Readiness and a 40 hour practicum.

  40. Tier II Administrative Credential 40 • Administrators may still meet their Tier II credential requirements by taking the SBE approved Module training described/listed in the APS and completing the structured practicums. • Module I – Leadership and Support of Student Instructional Improvement (40 + 40 hours) • Module II Leadership & Management (20 + 20) • Module III – Instructional Technology (20 + 20) • In order to utilize the training for Tier II, the modules must be delivered by an SBE approved Administrator Training Program (ATP) provider;this includes former AB430 approved providers.

  41. EPC 4: Administrator Training Program 41 A new objective (4.3) encourages ongoing professional development for school administrators which includes suggested targeted professional development activities to fully implement all aspects of the EPCs.

  42. EPC 5: Teacher Credentialing and Professional Development Teachers meet federal requirements to be “highly qualified” and equitably distributed across the school and district. District provides teachers with 40 hours of instructional materials-based professional development on the adopted materials in use in their classrooms through a knowledgeable and experienced provider. 42

  43. EPC 5: Teacher Credentialing and Professional Development 43 Training also includes the use of ancillary materials for all learners and strategies to meet the learning needs of ELs, students with disabilities (SWD) and other high priority students. Training is followed by a structured 80 hour practicum which is validated by the district. Suggested practicum activities are alsoincluded.

  44. EPC 6: Instructional Assistance and Ongoing Support for Teachers EPC 6 continues to encourage instructional assistance and support for all R/LA and math teachers and provides examples of ongoing assistance. Guidance is provided for training instructional experts and coaches. Principals are encouraged to structure and monitor the use and impact of coaching services on student achievement. 44

  45. EPC 7: Student Achievement Monitoring System LEA uses an ongoing assessment and monitoring systems that provides timely data on common assessments based on SBE-adopted R/E/LA/ELD and mathematics materials in use in the district. Student achievement results from entry level, diagnostic, curriculum-embedded and more frequent formative, and summative data are used to inform student placement, classroom instruction and teacher collaboration. APS revisions clarify district responsibility for supporting a data management system which supports easy and timely data use at the school. 45

  46. EPC 8: Monthly Teacher Collaboration Facilitated by the Principal LEA facilitates monthly collaboration structured meetings, (preferably two per month) for teachers to analyze, discuss and use results of student assessments to guide student placement, instructional planning, delivery and progress monitoring. APS clarifies the features of data-driven collaboration Development of data team collaboration protocol. Teacher training on the analysis of various types of data and the collaboration protocol. 46

  47. EPC 9:Fiscal Support LEA prioritizes and coordinates use of general and categorical funds to align with full implementation of the EPCs and the Single Plan for Student Achievement (SPSA). School documents use of funds within the SPSA as approved by the School Site Council and local governing board. Revised APS clarifies the importance of aligning resources and priorities in the SPSA with the Local Educational Agency (LEA) plan and full implementation of the EPC’s. 47

  48. Administering the APS 48 There are a variety of ways to administer the APS. When selecting a method, the most important consideration will be which method(s) will best describe implementation in the school’sgrade/course level classrooms. When working with a provider, the district has support in validating the APS results through classroom observations, follow-up focus groups, etc.

  49. Some Ideas For Administering the APS 49 • Grade/course level teachers discuss and agree on each objective’s rating. • Ratings then reviewed by school leadership team • APS results validated by external/site validation classroom visits • Individual teachers completing survey and data aggregated by course/grade level. • Data submitted to Leadership Team for review, discussion, and ratings • Results validated by classroom observation and/or focus groups • Leadership Team completes APS for their school. • Results discussed at grade level and course level meetings to ensure validity of the ratings

  50. Next Steps for Local APS Use Review the 2009-10 edition of the APS with teachers, administrators, and parent representatives. Identify priority order for which schools should conduct an APS review, (e.g., Title I schools advancing in Program Improvement). Administer the APS, analyzing data and deploying resources as evidence documents need. 50

More Related