Children First Intensive

1. Children First Intensive • A Celebration!Connecting Inquiry with the Quality Review • Inquiry Team/AP Meeting for ESO Network 19 • May 27, 2009, IEEE America’s Choice Offices • Facilitators: • Deena Abu-Lughod, SAF; Karen Ames, Achievement Coach • Network Leader: Vera Barone • Randy Soderman, SSM; Sonya Brown, LIM: Linda Tom, BSM; Ross Frankel, Attendance

2. Agenda • 8:30-8:50 Where we are now • 8:50-9:50 Embedding Inquiry in the Quality Review • 9:50-10:30 Inquiry Team Presentations: x42 and x30 to Whole Group • 10:30-10:45 Break • 10:45-12:00 Round Tables:(1) 44,71,29; (2) 140,147,161; (3) 31,125,224 • 12:00-12:45 Lunch • 12:45 – 2:00 Round Tables: (1)50,61,241; (2) 103,146,189; (3)43,93,212 • 2:15 -2:30 ARIS Parent Link • 2:30-2:45 Inspiring Expansion, Overcoming Barriers • 2:45-3:15 Revisiting Hopes and Fears and Going forward • 3:15-3:30 Evaluation

3. Welcome! • Five new schools have joined Empowerment Network 19! • M130, K73, K155, K184, K284

4. Learning Intentions • Understand how Inquiry work connects with the new Quality Review indicators • Understand how Inquiry work was conducted within our schools • Understand the implications of the new ARIS parent link • Evaluate our own growth

5. Taking Responsibility Research has found that faculty in successful schools always question existing instructional practice and do not blame lack of student achievement on external causes.…The “source of the problem” in ordinary schools is always someone else: the students, the parents/caretakers, the school board, and so on. “ ” — Carl Glickman, 2002, pp. 4, 6

6. Where we are in the Inquiry Process Phase I: Identify Students and Targets Phase III: Move the System Phase II: Move the Students 6

7. Phase III: Analyzing systems Analyze systems that produced conditions of learning Evaluate and revise based on interim progress measures Design and implement change strategy

8. Inquiry meets Action Research • Inquiry Teams: Inductive Method (Phases I and II) Move the Students • Observe small group of struggling students, identify their learning challenges, research possible instructional change strategies to meet their needs, implement the change strategy selected based on research and promise for their students, and evaluate impact. Repeat as necessary. • Action Research: Deductive Method (Phase III) Move the System • Identify a problem/question (large or small), identify a general principle, law or theory, ask whether it applies to the particular situation, implement a change strategy based on research pertaining to that principle, law or theory, and evaluate impact. Repeat as necessary.

9. From the target population to the system • The theory of action for the target population was: • If we do X (eg, teach the learning target –Y-- they missed, teach Y differently, teach Y better, change who teaches Y), the target population students will learn Y. Knowing Y, these students will close the gap in their learning this year and move into the sphere of success. This is how you moved the students. • The theory of action for the system is: • If we do Z (eg, change our system for determining what is taught, how it is taught, how well it is taught and who is teaching), we will reduce in the future, the number of students who are outside the sphere of success. This is how you move the system.

10. Essential Questions How can we scale up the work of inquiry teams? How can we further build leadership?

11. Lessons from 333 Leadership Story • What are the qualities of a leader? • Inspirational: “How would you like to make 3 million dollars in 3 days?” • Positive: “We won’t spend time on why we can’t” • Action-oriented: “There must be something we can do.” • Resourceful: Tapped on all his contacts; capitalized on each one’s strengths. • Persevering: “We aren’t going to leave until we figure this out.” • Empathetic: He passed through Barrie, saw the damage, considered the implications of not taking action and took action. • Motivational: Gave praise to team members. No idea was too outlandish. • Goal-Oriented: Took action with a clear goal. • Humble: Didn’t matter who got the credit. He gave credit to the team.

12. Inquiry Capacity Continuum • Leadership Development at the Integrating level • Engages teachers in decision making • Teachers and administrators use learning from inquiry work to inform curriculum design and professional development • Encourages teachers in self-guided inquiry to develop strategies and approaches for struggling students • Expects teachers to work with colleagues to discuss classroom challenges and steps they will take to address them • Has developed a culture where teachers and staff voluntarily visit each others’ classrooms and give constructive feedback on teaching strategies and approaches

13. Connecting to the Quality Review • Statement 4.2 Encourage teachers to take part in Inquiry Teams and other structured professional collaborations (informed by the examination of student work, assessment outcomes and their own peer observations) and share in the instructional leadership of the school with the goal of improved student learning. • Does the following describe an underdeveloped, proficient or well developed school? • School leaders encourage teacher participation in the inquiry process through inquiry teams and/or other collaborative groups to examine student work and assessment outcomes and improve student learning.

14. Criteria for 4.2, 2nd Bullet • What distinguishes the Well Developed school from the Proficient and the Underdeveloped? • Underdeveloped: • School leaders encourage teachers to participate in decisions that impact their work. • Proficient • School leaders provide structures that encourage teachers to participate in key decisions that impact their work. • Well Developed • Distributive leadershipstructures are embedded and ensure that teachers are partof key decisions that impact their work.

15. Statement 4.2, 3rd Bullet • Underdeveloped • School leaders have created a system that allows for ELA and math teachers to participate in collaborative teams where teachers discuss their practice, look at student work and data, share resources, set up inter-visitations and engage in collaborative inquiry. • Proficient • Same, but insert “and at least one additional core subject” after “math”. • Well Developed • Same as proficient, but instead of “at least one additional” include all core subjectteachers and support providers.

16. Quality Review Carousel

17. Presentations • X30 • X42

18. Morning Round Tables • Table 1: 44, 71, 29 • Table 2: 140, 147, 161 • Table 3: 93, 125, 224

19. Afternoon Round Tables • Table 1: 50, 61, 241 • Table 2: 103, 146, 189 • Table 3: 31, 43, 212

20. Acuity Predictive Correlations • In June, most schools will administer the Acuity Predictive assessments. • You’re probably wondering: How useful will this be? How reliable are these assessments in predicting the outcomes on the NYS test? • The answer: Probably very useful! The correlation of the Grade 8 ELA Proficiency Rates with the Fall Acuity Predictive was .759. • An additional resource will become available in ARIS as well: The student-level Item Response from the State test.

21. Grade 8 Scatterplot: Fall Acuity by Jan. ELA Most students who scored 75+ on Acuity, scored at or above proficiency on the ELA. 60-75% = pushable/slippable

22. Next steps with NYS data • Student Item Response data is expected to be posted in ARIS. • Deconstruct the “distinguishing questions” from the State tests to puzzle out which skills separate the 2s from the 3s and the 3s from the 4s. Use the State Benchmarks to identify the “distinguishing questions”. • Look for patterns of strength and weakness for the students ENTERING each classroom so the teacher can work strategically. • Analyze the focus of your curriculum map in relation to the “power standards” identified for that grade, the grade below and the grade above (see the Item Map and Trend Chart). • Conduct “Cause-and-Effect” and “Verifying Causes” protocols with your teams using your disaggregated data.

23. Benchmarks and “Distinguishing Questions”

24. 2 Gr 8 Examples of Distinguishing Questions • This passage is told by • Brady • Steve • A fire fighter • An outside narrator • This question distinguished 3s from 2s. • 93% of students who scored 3s answered correctly • 35% of students who scored 2s answered correctly • That’s nearly a 60 point spread, compared to the average 42 point difference between 3s and 2s.

25. What distinguishes a Level 4? • Read this sentence from the passage. • Not far from them fire was licking at underbrush and old logs before rearing up into the trees. • With this sentence, the author creates a feeling of • A anticipation • B disappointment • C surprise • D urgency 92% of students who scored 4s answered correctly 50% of students who scored 3s answered correctly There was a difference of nearly 40 points, compared to the average difference 23 points.

26. Identifying Power Standards: Item Maps

27. Identifying Power Standards: Trend Charts

28. ARIS Parent Link • By May 13, you should have assigned the APL coordinator (usually the parent coordinator) in Galaxy. • Consider the following: • What is the best way for your school to distribute the passwords? • How will you provide training to parents on the use of the APL? • How will you support parents who do not have Internet access?

29. ELA Landing Page How can I help my child learn? What is my child learning? How is my child doing?

30. ARIS Parent Link Customized Walkthroughs What is the assessment? How does this assessment help you teach my child? How did my child do on this assessment? How can I help my child succeed?

31. ARIS Parent Link Student Profile User-friendly navigation Help button on every page Help for parents

32. Parent Coordinator Role Parent Coordinators are essential to successful APL rollout.They should: • Support parents in their schools with APL by: • Assisting parents in logging in and using APL. • Helping parents find information in APL. • Encouraging parents to use APL to help their children. • Work collaboratively with other school staff to empower parents in the education process. • Understand school protocol for handling parent requests for data updates. APL Administrators manage, distribute, and reset APL passwords for parents. • APL Administrator is a new role principals assign through Galaxy. • Principals are encouraged to make their Parent Coordinators APL Administrators. • Principals can assign more than one APL Administrator. • APL Administrators have access to confidential student level information they must handle securely.

33. Data Conversation and Planning

34. Problem Solving Carousel • What can we do to boost knowledge, enthusiasm and commitment of staff to the inquiry process? • What is the best way to schedule work with the inquiry students? • How can we share what we learn at our meetings with the rest of the school community (not just the Inquiry Team)? • How do we make our work more meaningful to the students and parents?

35. What have we done this year? • September: Reflection; Hopes and Fears; Learning Agenda; Progress Report; connections between Quality Review, Progress Report and Inquiry Process. • October: True Colors communication strategies; SMART goals; assessments for monitoring progress; sphere of success. Tracking Systems using RESI; Using the Progress Report back up data; Using the Progress Report modeler; Using Item Response data to identify grade-level and individual strengths and weaknesses. • November: Action Research text-based discussion; Collaborative data analysis; Accessing research-based strategies through INQUIRE, the scaffolded inquiry site. Triangulating MC, verbal assessment and performance data (3-dot method for multiple data points). • December: CFI Collaborative Inquiry Log; Tuning Protocol (looking at student and teacher work; warm and cool feedback; clarifying and probing questions); Literacy resources and vocabulary development strategies; Resident experts. • January: Using Item Response data and state benchmarks to identify “distinguishing questions” in Math for providing strategic support and monitoring progress; strategy round tables. • February: Low Inference Transcripts; Revised June goals; Sharing of CFI CALs; Elmore school Improvement article; Affinity protocol to create model of school improvement. • April: Inquiry Capacity Rubric/Continuum, 333 Lesson, Lesson Design template, Differentiated Lesson Rubric with video observation, Teacher Observation template merging PTS and the Danielson framework. • May: Cause-and-Effect analysis, Verify Causes Protocol, Data Driven Dialogue Protocol, Aligning and Differentiating goals, Inquiry Team Share Fair

36. Evaluating our own Growth • Examine the “Hopes and Fears” card you completed in September. • With a partner from another school, discuss: Were my fears justified? Were my hopes realized? • Chart at your table: • What helped you in your work? • What barriers remain? • What do you want to learn next?

37. Feedback and debrief; Evaluation • Did we achieve our intentions? • Understand our network’s performance in ELA relative to NYC • Understand how Inquiry work connects with the new Quality Review indicators • Understand how Inquiry work was conducted within our schools • Understand the implications of the new ARIS parent link • Evaluate our own growth • Please complete the Feedback Form now.