frameworks for leadership: mental models for process management
Post on 02-Jan-2016
27 Views
Preview:
DESCRIPTION
TRANSCRIPT
Frameworks for leadership: Mental models for process management
Instructional Leadership Training (ILT)November 27, 2012
Desired outcomes
Understand some of the basic components of the new accountability system for 2013 and beyond
Generate feedback on a draft CBA analysis protocol for calibrating the work of PLCs
Learn how to generate some key administrator data views in Aware, Forethought and Workshop
Recognize the importance of monitoring processes when PLCs plan for learning
Death by single cell accountability
GroupReadi
ngMath
Writing
Science
Social Studie
s
All students 95 88 92 89 96
African America
n90 80 88 82 91
Hispanic 92 85 89 86 93
White 96 91 93 90 98
Econ Disadv 89 83 87 68 91
Index-based accountability
Index 1Student Achievement
Index 2Student Progress
Index 3Closing Performance
Gaps
Index 4Postsecondary
Readiness
Score0-100
Score0-100
Score0-100
Score0-100
Rating?
Index 1 – Student Achievement Begins 2013 Performance standards
STAAR 3-8 and EOC: Final Level II (Satisfactory) TAKS: Met Standard (2013 only)
Assessments STAAR, STAAR-M (w/cap), STAAR-Alt (w/cap), STAAR-L
(TBD) TAKS, TAKS-M (grade 11)
Administrations Grades 5 & 8: First 2 administrations EOC: Primary admin, spring and previous summer and
fall EOC (MS): No double-testing
Index 1 – Student Achievement Subjects
Reading, Math, Writing, Science, Social Studies
Student groups All students only
Accountability subset STAAR 3-8: Fall snapshot EOC
▪ Fall snapshot for spring and previous fall▪ Previous year snapshot for previous summer
Summer 2012
Fall2012
Spring 2013
Subset based on Oct 2012 snapshot
Subset based on Oct 2011 snapshot
Index 1 – Student Achievement Methodology
Results summed across tests, subjects, grade levels
Number of tests at Final Level II (STAAR) and Met Standard (TAKS)
Number of tests taken
Index 2 – Student Progress Begins 2014 Growth standards: TBD Transition table model to determine growth
Level IUnsatisfactory
Level IISatisfactory
Level IIIAdvanced
Level ILow
Level IHigh
Level IILow
Level IIMid
Level IIHigh
Level IIILow
Level IIIHigh
2013 2014 2013 2014
20132014
20132014
Index 2 – Student Progress Subjects
Reading, Math, Writing (EOC only) Science, Social Studies (TBD for EOC only)
Accountability subset Same as for Index 1
Student groups All students ELLs, Special Education All seven race/ethnicity groups
Minimum group size: 20
Index 2 – Student Progress Methodology
Results summed across tests and grade levels Analyzed by subject and by student group
Number in student group who met growth standard for subject
Number in student group tested in subject
Index 2 – Student Progress
Index 3 – Closing Performance Gaps
Limited in 2013, final form in 2014 Assessments and subjects
Same as Index 1 (all tests, all subjects, w/cap) Accountability subset
Same as Index 1 Minimum group size: 20 Student groups
Economically disadvantaged Two lowest-performing race/ethnicity groups from
previous year Alternate method used if only 1 or 2 subgroups
Index 3 – Closing Performance Gaps
Performance standard Level II Final (2013 and beyond) Level III (2014 and beyond)
Methodology Summed across tests and grade levels Results analyzed by subject and student group Results are weighted
▪ One point for each percentage point of students in the group meeting the Level II standard
▪ Two points for each percentage point of students in the group meeting the Level III standard
Index 3 – Closing Performance Gaps
Index 3 – Closing Performance Gaps
Index 4 – Postsecondary Readiness
1. STAAR Percent Met Level III Standard Begins 2014 Assessments and subjects
Same as Index 1 (all tests, all subjects) Accountability subset
Same as Index 1 Minimum group size: 20 Student groups evaluated
All students and seven race/ethnicity subgroups
Index 4 – Postsecondary Readiness
1. STAAR Percent Met Level III Standard Methodology
Results summed by grade level, tests and subjects Analyzed by student subgroup
Index 4 – Postsecondary Readiness
2. Grade 9-12 Graduation Rate Begins 2013 Standard
State-defined graduation rate as per statute Four- and five-year rates used
Student groups All students, ELLs, special education, seven
race/ethnicity Minimum group size: 20
Index 4 – Postsecondary Readiness
2. Grade 9-12 Graduation Rate Methodology (four-year and five-year)
Number of Graduates in cohort
Graduates + Continuers + GED Recipients + Dropouts
Index 4 – Postsecondary Readiness
3. Recommended/Advanced High School Program
Begins 2013 Student groups
All students, seven race/ethnicity groups Minimum group size: 20 Methodology
Number graduates with RHSP or AHSP
Total number of graduates
Index 4 – Postsecondary Readiness
Index Construction Graduation score (high school only)
Four- or five-year graduation rate, whichever is best
RHSP/AHSP graduates STAAR score
Percent met Level III (2014 and beyond) For high schools the graduation score and
STAAR scores are averaged to determine overall index score
Index 4 – Postsecondary Readiness
Index 4 – Postsecondary Readiness
Index-based accountability
Index 1Student Achievement
Index 2Student Progress
Index 3Closing Performance
Gaps
Index 4Postsecondary
Readiness
45
42
48
56
Rating?
Index-based accountability
Other accountability issues Unification of state and federal systems may
not be approved ELL progress measures still undecided Three-year averaging required by statute Two possible campus and district ratings in
2013 Met Standard Improvement Required
One higher-level distinction available in 2014 for districts based on postsecondary readiness Tier 1 & Tier 2 akin to Exemplary and Recognized
Other accountability issues Campus distinctions
Postsecondary readiness (1st or 2nd tier) Top 25% - Closing the Gap and Student Progress Academic Achievement (Reading, Math, Science,
Soc St) 21st Century Workforce Development Fine Arts, Physical Education Second Language Acquisition
Timeline March 2013 – Commissioner final decisions May 2013 – Accountability Manual released
Questions?
Draft CBA Analysis ProtocolSetting context Gathering feedback
Managing processes
Core Values
Measurement, Analysis & Knowledge Management
Leadership
Student & Stakeholder
Focus
Strategic Planning
Human Resource
Focus Process Management
Strategic
Performance Results
Operational
Goals and measurabl
e objectives
Customer requirement
s
Strategic actions
Leading indicators
Why do effective leaders monitor and manage instructional processes? Processes are the system component
over which we have the most control It is the most effective (and only?)
way to leverage improvement in delivery
It provides agility to respond to internal and external changes in the system
The L stands for Learning
No single person knows how to do all of this perfectly
We are on a collaborative learning journey
Context surrounding CBAs
Primary purpose: Provide data to C&I staff to assess the curriculum
Secondary purpose: Provide PLCs with data on rigorous, aligned items to help calibrate design of assessments and instruction
Not intended to be a comprehensive assessment of student mastery of the TEKS in previous 9 weeks of instruction
Context surrounding CBAs
Assessment for Learning Model
Lesson 1
Planning and deliveringan instructional unit
Formative
assessment (FA)
Regroup Reteach
Lesson 2Lesson
3Lesson 4
FA FA
PLC
PLC
PLC
Curriculum
Common assessment
Reteach
Content, Context, Cognition
SEs
Redesign
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OtKr23ZGV-s
Assessment for Learning model Model
An example for imitation or emulation A description or analogy used to help visualize
something that cannot be directly observed “Essentially, all models are wrong, but
some are useful.” - George Box Help teachers visualize how parts of a process
fit together into a cohesive whole Help leaders identify key places to monitor
processes and identify opportunities for learning
The AFL Model and the 4 PLC questions
Lesson 1
Planning and deliveringan instructional unit
Formative
assessment (FA)
Regroup Reteach
Lesson 2Lesson
3Lesson 4
FA FA
PLC
PLC
PLC
Curriculum
Common assessment
Reteach
Content, Context, Cognition
SEs
Redesign Q1
Q2
Q3
Q4
Q3
Q2
The AFL Model and eduphoria!
Lesson 1
Planning and deliveringan instructional unit
Formative
assessment (FA)
Regroup Reteach
Lesson 2Lesson
3Lesson 4
FA FA
PLC
PLC
PLC
Curriculum
Common assessment
Reteach
Content, Context, Cognition
SEs
Redesign
forethought
aware
forethought
aware
aware
forethought
The AFL Model and managing processes
Lesson 1
Planning and deliveringan instructional unit
Formative
assessment (FA)
Regroup Reteach
Lesson 2Lesson
3Lesson 4
FA FA
PLC
PLC
PLC
Curriculum
Common assessment
Reteach
Content, Context, Cognition
SEs
Redesign
AFL Model and the CBA Analysis Protocol
Instruction
Unit 1
Common assessme
ntFA
CA
FA
CA CA
Regroup, Reteach, Redesign
Unit 2 Unit 3 Unit 4
PLC
District
CBA
PLC
CBA Analysis ProtocolCalibrate alignment between classroom instruction, common assessments and district CBAs C&I
Draft CBA Analysis Protocol
It’s about alignment, learning and improving processes
It’s not about compliance
Taught
Written
Tested
Standards
Draft CBA Analysis Protocol
Designed to lead PLCs through a thought process Identify items where students had difficulty Compare how SEs were addressed in items with
how they were addressed in the taught and tested curriculum
Compare performance on the SEs with performance on the state test last year
Determine if and how these SEs will be re-addressed in current year
Determine how instruction and assessment will be modified the next time these areas are taught
(+) (∆)(–)
Consider as a group the draft protocol in light of the context just discussed
Determine if there are components that should be added to the protocol. Provide a rationale for why they should be included.
Identify components that could be improved through change, what those changes should be, and your rationale
Identify components that should be deleted and your rationale
Questions?
David F. Holland – Accountability, Research and Program Evaluationdavid.holland@birdvilleschools.net817-547-5801
top related