2014 c ommissioner ’ s c onference on e ducational l eadership june 25, 2014
TRANSCRIPT
2014 COMMISSIONER’S CONFERENCE ON EDUCATIONAL LEADERSHIP
June 25, 2014
I Love You, GiGi
http://www.nhstoryoftransformation.com/
The Story of Transformation
Communication ~ Collaboration ~ Coherence
Sharing Our Story
Setting Our Context
Updates on the Work and Defining Our Priorities
Caring!
Leveraging the “S Curve” to Drive Innovation
NOW
NEXT
FUTURE
INNOVATEthe System We Need
IMPROVEthe System We Have
(Incremental = Diminishing
Returns)
(Cross the Chasm =
Difficult, But Promising)
By doing “both, and” simultaneously, we must engineer ways to jump from one curve to the next.
Crisis
Stable
Good
Great
LearnExperiment (Existing)
Prototype (New)
Transform School
Transform District
© 2Revolutions
Charting Organizational Progress
InnovationCulture
Time
Entry Emerging Adapting Sustaining
Organizations(States, Districts,
Schools)
Organizations can begin to chart and track their own progress against the key
factors that build innovation culture
(EX: STATE) Entry Emerging Adapting Sustaining
Leadership• No vision• Lone innovators
• Emerging vision• Few examples to
point to/rally around
• Clear vision• Explicit
permission & encouragement
• Champion existing
• Pushing ahead
Communication• No story• No/mixed
definitions
• Emerging story• Developing
shared definitions
• Consistent story & definitions
• Regular comm
• Shared understanding
• Ongoing comm
Policy Context • preventive• Permissive• Passive
• Enabling• Explicit, detailed
• Proactive• Anticipating
barriers
Support Structure • Little/no• Awareness of
need• advocacy
• Core infrastructure in place
• Adding new
• Maintain existing• Anticipate future
needs
Managing & Measuring Change
• No plan• No metrics
• Developing plan & metrics
• Explicit CM strategy
• Shared metrics
• Adapt existing & pioneer new
Entry Emerging Adapting SustainingFactor
Rubric to Track Organizational Progress
New Hampshire
The New Hampshire Context
8
State Conditions that Support the Culture of
Innovation and the Future of Learning
Infrastructure
Leadership
Development
PublicPolicy
Communication &
Public Will
Educator &
Community Capacity
Resources
Continued Focus on the Instructional Core
The Instructional Core
There are only three ways to improve student learning at scale:
You can raise the level of the content that students are taught. You can increase the skill and knowledge that teachers bring to the teaching of that content. And you can increase the level of students’ active learning of the content.
The Instructional Core
That’s it. Everything else is instrumental. That is, everything that’s not in the instructional core can only affect student learning and performance by, in some way, influencing what goes on inside the core.
Schools don’t improve through political and managerial incantation; they improve through the complex and demanding work of teaching and learning.
Instructional Core and NH Reforms
All of our reforms are organized around the
instructional core; they are interdependent and
interrelated.
WHERE WE’VE BEEN&
WHERE WE ARE GOING
Standards & Measures of Student Achievement
Steadfast support of the CCSS (or higher standards that focus on instruction) and multiple measures of student achievement, including Smarter Balanced.
Focused on improving instruction to support student’s competencies and confidence
Designing communication tools with teacher voices (early fall and throughout the year)
NGA Grant Partnerships with state and national organizations CIA regional/state networking and support
Protecting student data
What tools do you need to be successful?
Networked Strategy Year 2 in the New Hampshire Network has seen many
changes.
Over 50 new learning networks have emerged.
The virtual platform has been updated and made more user-friendly.
Outreach and connections have expanded:
SY 13-14 SY 12-13Professional Learning Networks=60
Professional Learning Networks=7
Users=4,102 Users=2,280Average Visit Duration=11:04
Average Visit Duration=8:38
Network Events=250 Network Events=82
Integrated Approach to Support Schools
Educator Effectiveness
NH Model for Educator Support and Evaluation Systems Face to Face (Model, SLO’s student outcomes) Technology (Network, Modules, Learning Paths) Additional Resources
NH Model for Principal Support and Evaluation Systems Outreach Face to face (model, building regional groups) Technology (Network, Title I Priority and Focus School (closed
network) upcoming summer session “Having Difficult Conversations”)
Additional Resources (Update forthcoming on the ISLLC standards)
US ED peer review for the state models begins on July 1.
Principal Leadership Pipeline
Bob Manseau: Principal leadership support liaison
Regional principal networks
Building institutes and partnerships that will lead to deeper impact
Support in building a shared professional learning and networking day at this conference
Alternate Assessment Transition
Engagement Process Over 25 directors, teachers and partners Presentations by both consortiums Survey asking for input
Dynamic Learning Maps
(ALPs for Science)
More to come: Timeline for transition Profession learning supports US ED decision on accountability determinations
SBAC Field-Test Study
Qualitative and Naturalistic methodology
Solicited/Unsolicited feedback Comments send directly to us Survey
Focus groups
Field-Test Early Feedback
“The staff liked that it addressed higher-level thinking skills”
“The performance tasks were interesting and integrated a range of skills”
“Open-ended questions allow student to show what they know.
“The test was more engaging than NECAP – students liked taking it.”
Field-Test Early Feedback
“Not all of our students are proficient in technology to be successful on the test”
“Not all students have keyboarding skills to be successful on the test”
“Reading passages are very long, requiring students to have reading stamina”
“Reading proficiency from defined from NECAP may no longer be proficiency on Smarter Balanced.”
Next decision points…
SBAC 12-week Testing Window How should it be structured…or not? Discussion through the Accountability Task Force Regional representation is necessary
Non-adaptive (paper/pencil) version Technology Readiness Tool Minimum Standards
What can we do to help you as we move forward?
Column1 Actual Ideal
Indicators Few Many
Weights Imbalanced Balanced
Targets/Indicators Threshold Threshold & Growth
Judgments Data- -driven Data Informed
Stakes High Low- - Medium
Educator Focus Extremes Full Range
Timing After it is needed Just in Time
Culture High Threat High Trust
School Approval
Introducing a new model
Focused on support and understanding
Pilots
Full Implementation
Accountability 3.0
Recap—Model
Call with Deb Delisle, USED, June 16, 2014
National Partners--CCSSO, ACHIEVE, Alliance for Excellent Education, Hewlett, NMEF, College Board
Next Steps: July 10-11 CCSSO Meeting July Meeting at USED
Demonstration Projects
Formal Waiver Re-application—likely January, 2015
Design Sketch for Responsibility Model (College Board):
Student Learning Accountability: CCRK 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
LeadingMeasures(Growth)
STEP, DRA, etc.[Optional--Local][disaggregated]
GraduationProfile
SBAC College Readiness Suite (SAT) [State/Local] [State/Local]
And/or
Design Sketch for Responsibility Model (PACE):
Student Learning Accountability: CCRK 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
LeadingMeasures(Growth)
Performance Assessment STEP, DRA etc.[Local][disaggregated]
GraduationProfile
Validation of Complex Performance Assessments (SBAC) [State] [State] [State]
And/ororor
National Discussion: “51st State Model” (Minimum Requirements):
Learning Accountability: CCRK 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
LeadingMeasures(Growth)
DRA, etc.STEP, etc.[Local][disaggregated]
GraduationProfile
Common Assessments (validation of local assessments) [State] [State] [State]
School Quality Review—Expert Reviewers + Peer EducatorsMultiple Measures: Participation: School Climate DataState/Local Attendance Student/Parent/Teacher Surveys Assessment Data
Educator Professional Accountability:State—Licensure/AccreditationDistrict—Tenure/Selection/Retention
Reciprocal Resource Accountability Federal, State, District, School, Teacher, Student
Federal/State Role:Parameters, Instrument Development, Research Best Practices, Network Support
Supports for Districts and Schools
Minimum Standards: Next Steps…
Ed 306.04 (a)(13), (14), (16), (25),(26); (j), (k-3). Policy Development.Ed 306.14 (b-1), Basic Instructional Standards.Ed 306.141 (a-1,3,5, & 6), Basic Instructional Standards.
I. Introduction:
The 2014 School Approval Standards address the change that must take place from a traditional classroom-only educational system, to a transformed educational system that includes competency-based learning environments and multiple pathways to graduation, resulting in students that are truly college and career ready.
This technical advisory for the Minimum Standards for School Approval, to take effect on July 1, 2014, is issued in order to provide support to school boards, districts, schools, educators, and communities as they work to build learning communities that engage learners and support depth of knowledge.
The department comments below address the changes in the 2014 Minimum Standards for School Approval relative to local school board policies for competencies and performance assessment.
31
Subject: Minimum Standards for School Approval-Local school board policies with respect to changes related to competency education
School Approval Standards:Ed 306.04 (a)(13),(14),(16),(25),(26), (j), (k)(3). Ed 306.14(b)(1).Ed 306.141(a)(1,2,5, & 6).
STEAM Focus: Governor’s Task Force Established by Executive Order by Governor Hassan
Chair—Chancellor Ross Gittell, members—Brian Blake, Paul Leather
Charged to address STEM K-12—Math, Science, Technology/Engineering Standards
Instructional practices
Creative ways to engage students/educators/business/community
Time Line—Report due second week in November
NH DOE Liaison Support
Evolution of Support Leadership engagement as requested by
superintendents Liaison support regionally, as requested,
for all networks Continued support of Title I Priority and
Focus Schools Quarterly meeting design Content specific support
NH DOE Liaison Support
Content focus Principal Leadership – Bob Manseau
Competencies and Performance-based Assessments – Sandy Kent/Rose Colby
Instructional Support (achievement gaps, innovations) – Jane Bergeron Beaulieu
Early Childhood Education (literacy focus; P-3 district support; collaboration for K2 schools) – Jean Briggs Badger
Superintendent Regional Meetings~ Point of Contacts
North Country: Commissioner Barry
Southeast: Deputy Commissioner Leather
Lakes: Judy Fillion
South Central: Heather Gage
Southwest: Karen Soule
THANK YOU
GENERAL DISCUSSION