instructional leadership training (ilt) november 27, 2012
TRANSCRIPT
![Page 1: Instructional Leadership Training (ILT) November 27, 2012](https://reader036.vdocument.in/reader036/viewer/2022081520/56649c9a5503460f9495744c/html5/thumbnails/1.jpg)
Frameworks for leadership: Mental models for process management
Instructional Leadership Training (ILT)November 27, 2012
![Page 2: Instructional Leadership Training (ILT) November 27, 2012](https://reader036.vdocument.in/reader036/viewer/2022081520/56649c9a5503460f9495744c/html5/thumbnails/2.jpg)
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
![Page 3: Instructional Leadership Training (ILT) November 27, 2012](https://reader036.vdocument.in/reader036/viewer/2022081520/56649c9a5503460f9495744c/html5/thumbnails/3.jpg)
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
![Page 4: Instructional Leadership Training (ILT) November 27, 2012](https://reader036.vdocument.in/reader036/viewer/2022081520/56649c9a5503460f9495744c/html5/thumbnails/4.jpg)
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?
![Page 5: Instructional Leadership Training (ILT) November 27, 2012](https://reader036.vdocument.in/reader036/viewer/2022081520/56649c9a5503460f9495744c/html5/thumbnails/5.jpg)
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
![Page 6: Instructional Leadership Training (ILT) November 27, 2012](https://reader036.vdocument.in/reader036/viewer/2022081520/56649c9a5503460f9495744c/html5/thumbnails/6.jpg)
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
![Page 7: Instructional Leadership Training (ILT) November 27, 2012](https://reader036.vdocument.in/reader036/viewer/2022081520/56649c9a5503460f9495744c/html5/thumbnails/7.jpg)
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
![Page 8: Instructional Leadership Training (ILT) November 27, 2012](https://reader036.vdocument.in/reader036/viewer/2022081520/56649c9a5503460f9495744c/html5/thumbnails/8.jpg)
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
![Page 9: Instructional Leadership Training (ILT) November 27, 2012](https://reader036.vdocument.in/reader036/viewer/2022081520/56649c9a5503460f9495744c/html5/thumbnails/9.jpg)
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
![Page 10: Instructional Leadership Training (ILT) November 27, 2012](https://reader036.vdocument.in/reader036/viewer/2022081520/56649c9a5503460f9495744c/html5/thumbnails/10.jpg)
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
![Page 11: Instructional Leadership Training (ILT) November 27, 2012](https://reader036.vdocument.in/reader036/viewer/2022081520/56649c9a5503460f9495744c/html5/thumbnails/11.jpg)
Index 2 – Student Progress
![Page 12: Instructional Leadership Training (ILT) November 27, 2012](https://reader036.vdocument.in/reader036/viewer/2022081520/56649c9a5503460f9495744c/html5/thumbnails/12.jpg)
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
![Page 13: Instructional Leadership Training (ILT) November 27, 2012](https://reader036.vdocument.in/reader036/viewer/2022081520/56649c9a5503460f9495744c/html5/thumbnails/13.jpg)
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
![Page 14: Instructional Leadership Training (ILT) November 27, 2012](https://reader036.vdocument.in/reader036/viewer/2022081520/56649c9a5503460f9495744c/html5/thumbnails/14.jpg)
Index 3 – Closing Performance Gaps
![Page 15: Instructional Leadership Training (ILT) November 27, 2012](https://reader036.vdocument.in/reader036/viewer/2022081520/56649c9a5503460f9495744c/html5/thumbnails/15.jpg)
Index 3 – Closing Performance Gaps
![Page 16: Instructional Leadership Training (ILT) November 27, 2012](https://reader036.vdocument.in/reader036/viewer/2022081520/56649c9a5503460f9495744c/html5/thumbnails/16.jpg)
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
![Page 17: Instructional Leadership Training (ILT) November 27, 2012](https://reader036.vdocument.in/reader036/viewer/2022081520/56649c9a5503460f9495744c/html5/thumbnails/17.jpg)
Index 4 – Postsecondary Readiness
1. STAAR Percent Met Level III Standard Methodology
Results summed by grade level, tests and subjects Analyzed by student subgroup
![Page 18: Instructional Leadership Training (ILT) November 27, 2012](https://reader036.vdocument.in/reader036/viewer/2022081520/56649c9a5503460f9495744c/html5/thumbnails/18.jpg)
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
![Page 19: Instructional Leadership Training (ILT) November 27, 2012](https://reader036.vdocument.in/reader036/viewer/2022081520/56649c9a5503460f9495744c/html5/thumbnails/19.jpg)
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
![Page 20: Instructional Leadership Training (ILT) November 27, 2012](https://reader036.vdocument.in/reader036/viewer/2022081520/56649c9a5503460f9495744c/html5/thumbnails/20.jpg)
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
![Page 21: Instructional Leadership Training (ILT) November 27, 2012](https://reader036.vdocument.in/reader036/viewer/2022081520/56649c9a5503460f9495744c/html5/thumbnails/21.jpg)
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
![Page 22: Instructional Leadership Training (ILT) November 27, 2012](https://reader036.vdocument.in/reader036/viewer/2022081520/56649c9a5503460f9495744c/html5/thumbnails/22.jpg)
Index 4 – Postsecondary Readiness
![Page 23: Instructional Leadership Training (ILT) November 27, 2012](https://reader036.vdocument.in/reader036/viewer/2022081520/56649c9a5503460f9495744c/html5/thumbnails/23.jpg)
Index 4 – Postsecondary Readiness
![Page 24: Instructional Leadership Training (ILT) November 27, 2012](https://reader036.vdocument.in/reader036/viewer/2022081520/56649c9a5503460f9495744c/html5/thumbnails/24.jpg)
Index-based accountability
Index 1Student Achievement
Index 2Student Progress
Index 3Closing Performance
Gaps
Index 4Postsecondary
Readiness
45
42
48
56
Rating?
![Page 25: Instructional Leadership Training (ILT) November 27, 2012](https://reader036.vdocument.in/reader036/viewer/2022081520/56649c9a5503460f9495744c/html5/thumbnails/25.jpg)
Index-based accountability
![Page 26: Instructional Leadership Training (ILT) November 27, 2012](https://reader036.vdocument.in/reader036/viewer/2022081520/56649c9a5503460f9495744c/html5/thumbnails/26.jpg)
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
![Page 27: Instructional Leadership Training (ILT) November 27, 2012](https://reader036.vdocument.in/reader036/viewer/2022081520/56649c9a5503460f9495744c/html5/thumbnails/27.jpg)
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
![Page 28: Instructional Leadership Training (ILT) November 27, 2012](https://reader036.vdocument.in/reader036/viewer/2022081520/56649c9a5503460f9495744c/html5/thumbnails/28.jpg)
Questions?
![Page 29: Instructional Leadership Training (ILT) November 27, 2012](https://reader036.vdocument.in/reader036/viewer/2022081520/56649c9a5503460f9495744c/html5/thumbnails/29.jpg)
Draft CBA Analysis ProtocolSetting context Gathering feedback
![Page 30: Instructional Leadership Training (ILT) November 27, 2012](https://reader036.vdocument.in/reader036/viewer/2022081520/56649c9a5503460f9495744c/html5/thumbnails/30.jpg)
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
![Page 31: Instructional Leadership Training (ILT) November 27, 2012](https://reader036.vdocument.in/reader036/viewer/2022081520/56649c9a5503460f9495744c/html5/thumbnails/31.jpg)
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
![Page 32: Instructional Leadership Training (ILT) November 27, 2012](https://reader036.vdocument.in/reader036/viewer/2022081520/56649c9a5503460f9495744c/html5/thumbnails/32.jpg)
The L stands for Learning
No single person knows how to do all of this perfectly
We are on a collaborative learning journey
![Page 33: Instructional Leadership Training (ILT) November 27, 2012](https://reader036.vdocument.in/reader036/viewer/2022081520/56649c9a5503460f9495744c/html5/thumbnails/33.jpg)
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
![Page 34: Instructional Leadership Training (ILT) November 27, 2012](https://reader036.vdocument.in/reader036/viewer/2022081520/56649c9a5503460f9495744c/html5/thumbnails/34.jpg)
Context surrounding CBAs
![Page 35: Instructional Leadership Training (ILT) November 27, 2012](https://reader036.vdocument.in/reader036/viewer/2022081520/56649c9a5503460f9495744c/html5/thumbnails/35.jpg)
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
![Page 36: Instructional Leadership Training (ILT) November 27, 2012](https://reader036.vdocument.in/reader036/viewer/2022081520/56649c9a5503460f9495744c/html5/thumbnails/36.jpg)
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
![Page 37: Instructional Leadership Training (ILT) November 27, 2012](https://reader036.vdocument.in/reader036/viewer/2022081520/56649c9a5503460f9495744c/html5/thumbnails/37.jpg)
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
![Page 38: Instructional Leadership Training (ILT) November 27, 2012](https://reader036.vdocument.in/reader036/viewer/2022081520/56649c9a5503460f9495744c/html5/thumbnails/38.jpg)
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
![Page 39: Instructional Leadership Training (ILT) November 27, 2012](https://reader036.vdocument.in/reader036/viewer/2022081520/56649c9a5503460f9495744c/html5/thumbnails/39.jpg)
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
![Page 40: Instructional Leadership Training (ILT) November 27, 2012](https://reader036.vdocument.in/reader036/viewer/2022081520/56649c9a5503460f9495744c/html5/thumbnails/40.jpg)
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
![Page 41: Instructional Leadership Training (ILT) November 27, 2012](https://reader036.vdocument.in/reader036/viewer/2022081520/56649c9a5503460f9495744c/html5/thumbnails/41.jpg)
Draft CBA Analysis Protocol
It’s about alignment, learning and improving processes
It’s not about compliance
Taught
Written
Tested
Standards
![Page 42: Instructional Leadership Training (ILT) November 27, 2012](https://reader036.vdocument.in/reader036/viewer/2022081520/56649c9a5503460f9495744c/html5/thumbnails/42.jpg)
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
![Page 43: Instructional Leadership Training (ILT) November 27, 2012](https://reader036.vdocument.in/reader036/viewer/2022081520/56649c9a5503460f9495744c/html5/thumbnails/43.jpg)
(+) (∆)(–)
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