Programmes for Students: Accelerating Learning in Literacy

and Mathematics

Theory of Action

(Abridged version for literacy Feb 2015)Please note that the numbering system in this document relates to the 2014 entire ‘Theory of Action’,

so this abridged version is not in numerical order.

1. Introduction

1.1 Programmes for Students – What is it?

School inquiry and knowledge building programme that accelerates progress for target group of students, and sustains cycles of inquiry for breadth and coherence (refocus) Short & intensive inquiry to supplement classroom programme.

Two expected outcomes:• Acceleration for a target group of students• School curriculum and achievement programme (includes plan)

The 2014 design for the Programmes for Students (PfS) is described as a Theory of Action 1. It has four inter-related components.

1. The theory of action for programmes that accelerate progress for students. These are the long-term outcomes.

2. The BES quality schooling dimensions as described in the Quality Improvement Plan for the Initiating Supplementary Supports Framework. These describe the guiding principles for all supplementary support for students, teachers, leaders and schools and ensure improvement focus is coherent with other foci.

3. The intervention logic describes how accelerating progress for students within a school context is due to particular instructional and leadership practices. The focus of Programmes for Students (PfS) is to improve both the instructional practices and the school organizational practices.

4. The conditions of implementation. These ensure the outcomes are met in the range of school contexts involved in the programme.

The theory of action builds on the 2010 – 2011 pilot studies, the intervention logic of the 2012 programmes, the evaluations of the impact and success of these programmes, and conversations with national and regional MoE personnel, providers and schools about the impact, suggested improvements and successes. System level improvement theories based on student outcomes were used in the sense making process. They included: Whole system improvement and capability building e.g. Iterative Best Evidence Synthesis/ He

Kete Raukura (BES)2 programme messages, the 8 principles of system-wide improvement3, acceleration of whole systems as described in the 2010 McKinsey report4.

1 Fullan, M., (2009) describes a theory of action as a ‘way of understanding the world that identifies insights and ideas for effectively improving it.’2 See http://www.educationcounts.govt.nz/topics/BES3 System-wide change in education. Education Policy Series (forthcoming). International Academy of Education, International institute of Educational Planning, UNESCO.4 Mourshed, M., Chijioke, C., & Barber, M. (2010). How the world’s most improved school systems keep getting better. Available from http://ssomckinsey.darbyfilms.com/reports/EducationBook_A4%20SINGLES_DEC%202.pdf

2

Sense making across a range of contexts e.g. pedagogy of travel (Stein)5, tight but loose (Thompson and Wiliam)6, designing for sustainability from the beginning (Wiliam and Leahy)7, learning design (Cobb and Jackson)8, chain of influence (Timperley and Parr)9.

The PfS Theory of Action places the Intervention Logic at the core of the design and describes how it is linked to the school and education system’s drive to improve outcomes for all students in a way that aligns with the public policy principles of equity, effectiveness, efficiency, coherency and transparency. The key finding from the 2012 draft report of the evaluation of the PfS term 3 and 4 2011 schools was that the group mean score showed that the overall samples of students in mathematics, reading and writing improved their achievement to an extent that could be considered accelerated. A second outcome was improved agency - teachers because they now knew their students, and students because they were experiencing success. Agency is the 6 th

principle that underpins the MoE design and implementation of supplementary supports so any change in the PfS design needs to ensure that agency is enhanced and not lost.

1.2 Terms used in the document

AccelerationAcceleration is described as the learner’s progress showing; a noticeably faster, upward movement than might otherwise have been expected by the trend of their own past learning; and is faster than classmates progressing at expected rates in order to catch them up. This rate of progress brings the learner achievement level to that consistent with, or beyond, a set of benchmarks or standards (NZ Curriculum Mathematics, Reading and Writing Standards).

Supplementary programmes for studentsThese programmes supplement the core classroom programme. They enable students to access the curriculum and have success similar to their peers by accelerating student progress in learning the knowledge, skills and strategies important to the school and classroom curricula. Learning programmes are sometimes called Tiers - Tier 1 effective classroom is the foundation for all learning, Tier 2 short and intensive school based intervention inside and/or outside of the classroom for some learners, and Tier 3 long-term specialist interventions necessary for a very small number of students.10 Tier 2 and Tier 3 are the supplementary programmes.

Adaptive teaching

5 Stein, M. K., Hubbard, L., & Toure, J. (2008, March). Travel of district-wide approaches to instructional improvement: How can districts learn from one another? Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association, New York.

6Thompson, M., & Wiliam, D. (2007, April). Tight but loose: A conceptual framework for scaling up school reforms. A paper presented at the Annual American Educational Research Association, Chicago.

7Wiliam, D., and Leahy, S. (2008) From teachers to schools: scaling up professional development for formative assessment. Downloaded from http://www.dylanwiliam.net/

8 Cobb, P., & Jackson, K. (2011). Towards an empirically grounded theory of action for improving the quality of mathematics teaching at scale. Mathematics Teacher Education and Development, 13(1), 6-33.9 Timperley, H., & Parr, J. M. (2009). The chain of influence from policy to practice in the New Zealand Literacy Strategy. Research Papers in Education, 24, 135–154.10 See Curriculum Updates 2 & 17 http://nzcurriculum.tki.org.nz/Ministry-curriculum-guides/NZC-Updates, and Smith, P., and Philips, G. (2002). Hope for the Hardest-to-Teach. NZ Principal March 2002 pp28-30.

3

Adaptive teaching is teaching that deliberately responds to moment-by-moment and day-by-day interactions with students in ways that enhance the learning experience for the students.

Student agencyAssess to learn principles are the basis of student agency. This is when students have been supported to participate in the decisions about what is important to learn, how to learn, how to know how they are going and how they are going.

1.3 Key design aspects

The changes to the design are to ensure there is fidelity from policy to practice in the implementation; to link the design closely to school self review and curriculum processes and to involve more than one cycle to support transfer and sustainability from day one; and, to link to the purpose of the suite of supplementary supports for schools to improve school capability and improve outcomes for diverse (all) students. The key aspects are: The school inquiry into supplementary programmes occurs over 1 – 3 years with the school

improving their coherence across the school curriculum and supplementary programmes over the years.

Schools with effective classroom pedagogy in many classes and effective leadership are invited to participate. These schools will have areas of underachievement (particularly in the target areas) and are willing to focus on Tier 2 support to supplement their classroom teaching (Tier 1 support). Effective classroom pedagogy occurs in classrooms where the teacher has evidence of accelerating the progress of priority group students. Evidence would be from classroom observations and student achievement data. Effective leadership occurs when student achievement data is disaggregated, responses are well resourced and monitored for impact and there is acceleration of progress for a high proportion of at risk students. Evidence would be from school documentation.

The Self Review Tool for Schools: Focus on student achieving below curriculum expectations in literacy years 1 – 8 is used to guide the school wide development of a curriculum and achievement map.

School mentors have expertise in the focus areas for acceleration and are employed through the PLD providers.

A leadership team has the responsibility to drive the programmes and sits across both the mathematics and literacy programmes.

A Theory of Action for Programmes that Accelerate Progress for Students underpins the programmes.

2. Theory of Action for Programmes that Accelerate Progress for Students

The Theory of Action for Programmes that Accelerate Progress for students11 is embedded within system improvement. These programmes supplement effective classroom teaching and accelerate progress for students.

Supplementary programs can neither substitute no compensate for poor-quality classroom (reading) instruction. Supplementary instruction is a secondary response to learning

11 Often described as interventions in NZ literature (see Borderfields Consulting, 2008, A National System of Literacy Interventions) or supplementary in overseas research (see Cobb and Jackson 2011). Acceleration is used here to focus on the outcome not the process.

4

difficulties. Although supplementary instruction has demonstrated merit, its impact is insufficient unless it is planned and delivered in ways that makes clear connections to the child’s daily experiences and needs during (reading) instruction in the classroom. (Snow et al, 1998, p327)12

Therefore, supplementary programmes for students are placed right at the heart of effectiveness. The BES Quality Schooling Dimensions13 guide the vision of effective practice as it describes a coherent set of dimensions across leadership, professional learning and development, and teaching that lead to improved outcomes for diverse (all) students.

2.1 Improvements needed

The MoE has developed a goal for the sector of 85% of students at or above the reading, writing and mathematics National Standards by 2017. The system improvements needed include the way supplementary supports for students are coherent with the practices of “what makes a bigger difference”.

PfS primary focus is on accelerating the progress of students who are achieving below and well below the standards.

The MoE contracted a review into literacy interventions in 2008 and found that there were a number of issues associated with disparate services in the sector. The review14 found there was: An absence of common expectations for student outcomes at every level in the system; A culture of dependency on “second wave” interventions; Uncertainty about how to respond to the numbers of students that were not making progress; A lack of capability at the classroom level to assess and provide intensive explicit literacy

instruction; A confusing clutter of mismatched, sometimes counter-productive interventions.

This theory of action is a response to this review and to the school contexts since 2012.

12 Snow, C.E., Griffin, P., and Burns, M.D., eds. (1998) Preventing Reading Difficulties in Young Children. Washington DC: National Academies Press.13 BES website http://www.educationcounts.govt.nz/topics/BES14 See p. 31-31 Borderfields Consulting (2008), A national system of Literacy interventions: A conceptual framework, report to Ministry of Education.

5

2.2 Levers for change

The BES model for systemic improvement that leverages evidence and expertise to make a bigger difference for valued outcomes for diverse (all) student (Alton-Lee, 2012)15 provides a map for improvement that will lead to this vision. The model has four components that are the levers for change: effective pedagogy for valued outcomes for diverse (all) learners, activation of educationally powerful connections, leadership of conditions for continuous improvement, and productive inquiry and knowledge building for professional and policy learning.

From the BES programme and from the work of other researchers focused on system improvement (e.g. Cobb & Jackson, 2011; Fullan, 200916; McKinsey Report, 2010) a number of guiding principles have been identified for the development and use of supplementary programmes that supplement effective classroom teaching.

2.2.1 Effective pedagogy for valued outcomes The aim of any supplementary programme for students is to support students to access the

school curriculum and reach the valued educational goals i.e. it is a matter of equity. The assessment used to inform decisions about who needs access to, how successful the

teaching and learning is, and the ongoing monitoring of student progress aligns with the school curriculum and the educational goals.

The curriculum of these programmes is coherent with the school curriculum and is based on high impact pedagogies17 – i.e. the ‘what’ and ‘how’ focus is not on low-level skills.

Curriculum resources and tools are ‘smart’. Learning occurs within socio-cultural contexts. As groups of students, Māori, Pasifika, students with special education needs and students from

low socio-economic backgrounds are under-represented in the student population reaching the valued student outcomes, the curriculum of accelerated teaching and learning needs to be cognisant of and responsive to their strengths, needs and aspirations. For example a significant number of students have diverse language backgrounds.

15 Alton-Lee, A., (2012). The use of evidence to improve education and seve the public good. Paper prepared for the Ministry of Education and the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Vancouver, Canada (April 2012).16 Fullan, M. (2009) Have theory, will travel: A theory of action for system change. In Hargreaves, A., & Fullan, M. (2008).17 The “What works clearninghouse” states that there is strong evidence that the following works for short intensive interventions in maths. Instruction during the intervention should be explicit and systematic. This includes providing models of proficient problem solving, verbal- ization of thought processes, guided practice, corrective feedback, and frequent cumulative review. Interventions should include instruction on solving word problems that is based on common underlying structures. (page 27) Assisting Students Struggling with Mathematics: Response to Intervention (RtI) for Elementary and Middle Schools http://ies.ed.gov/ncee/wwc/practiceguide.aspx?sid=2 See Appendix 2 for further comment on pedagogy and curriculum.

6

2.2.2 Activation of educationally powerful connections The success of a supplementary programme for students is determined by the quality of the

educational interactions between and amongst student - student; student - teacher; teacher - parent/whānau/family; student - parent/whānau/family; teacher-teacher; teacher-school leaders/visiting leaders.

Generally people need to learn how to engage in deep constructive talk that focuses on improving learning (for example see Alton-Lee et al, 201218 for student talk, Timperley, 201119 for teacher talk).

2.2.3 Leadership of conditions for continuous improvement The supplementary programme for students is designed for success. This means leadership

needs to monitor for improvement and undertake leadership tasks so that the programme is:o Underpinned by effective classroom teachingo Coherent with and embedded within school curriculum, i.e. designed as part of a

school’s curriculum and achievement map that covers 3 - 5 year as per the school review cycle

o Embedded within school self review, monitoring and assessment practices - including contracted reporting

o Resourced by effective teachers who are professionally supported to provide high impact pedagogies for accelerated progress, i.e. there is efficiency and urgency in the practice

o Transparent to ensure there is reciprocal learning for teachers and students across a range of setting supplementary and classroom.

2.2.4 Productive inquiry and knowledge building Systems that support school self review, monitoring and assessment are underpinned by the

concept of improvement rather than ‘to prove’. An ethic of care underpins the notion of collective responsibility and individual accountability to

ensure that there are no unintended consequences of these programmes. Smart tools are used for monitoring progress so that the effort can be placed on the response

rather than the gathering and analysing of information.

2.3 A school curriculum and achievement planAt a school level the principles of these four levers for improvement can be articulated within a school curriculum and achievement plan.

At the moment, schools develop a curriculum plan that starts as a school-wide plan about their delivery of their local curriculum. This plan is the framework for coherent instruction. More detail is added at syndicate level, and day-by-day detail is added at the classroom level. The classroom plan is underpinned by ‘teaching as inquiry’ as teachers respond to student strengths and needs adapting the classroom curriculum. Many schools have developed a graduate profile to describe the valued outcome for all students.

18 BES Exemplar 1 - Ngā Kete Raukura - He Tauira 1 Developing Communities of Mathematical Inquiry http://www.educationcounts.govt.nz/topics/BES/bes-exemplars19 Timperley, H.S. (2011) Realizing the Power of Professional Learning. London: Open University Press.

7

At the same time schools monitor the progress of students using a range of formal and informal assessments that provide teachers with information about what students can do independently, with support, or not at all. Norm referenced assessment tools and the National Standards also provide schools with signposts that they can use to check whether students are achieving as well as their peers and whether they have the particular mathematics, literacy and language knowledge and skills expected for their year group. The school assessment plan generally describes the administration tasks rather than the response to the findings.

If schools put their curriculum and assessment plans together they would then have the beginnings of a school curriculum and achievement plan that describes what is worthwhile learning, what is achievement and how they will respond if students are not achieving. The programme would describe the following:

The expected improvements over time from one year to the next as described by particular achievement signposts, e.g. the school wide plan would include the National Standards signposts and Overall Teacher Judgment information and the classroom plan would include signposts found in such documents as the Literacy Learning Progressions.

What would trigger a need to instigate a supplementary programme, e.g. end of year data, mid year data, classroom observation, for each year group and particular groups of students.

The actual response needed to accelerate progress. This could be described by thinking about the layers of support - Tier 1 (effective classroom), Tier 2 (short and intensive school based intervention inside and/or outside of the classroom), Tier 3 (long term specialist intervention).

Monitoring within and beyond the supplementary support. When and how students move from one type of support to the next, e.g. a description of

what happens for the students whose progress does not accelerate after an initial Tier 2 support.

Timely reviews20 of the school curriculum and achievement plan would initiate discussions about the impact of classroom curriculum and supplementary curricula, and which students has access to what support so that there is ongoing improvement in the provision of all curricula.

Support to accelerate progress can be preventative or remedial21 therefore schools should plan for both. Examples of planned preventative supplementary support at a school level include a 6 months to one-year-at-school programme for some students because of the known early literacy and language experiences of particular students, or the focus on years two to four writing because of the known ongoing low achievement in writing at years 6 to 8. At the school level planned remedial explicit and intensive expert teacher support would be available at particular assessment points-in-time as it may be expected that the need is greater than the classroom teacher can meet (examples of this support are Reading Recovery, RT:Lits, MST). The school can also plan for the specialist support needed for students who have not responded to the explicit and intensive teaching. At the class level an effective teacher could plan for remedial supplementary support by co-constructing independent group work and/or the way other adults support the rest of the class so that the

20 Through the school’s strategic, regular and emerging self-review processes such as on-going monitoring and reporting of curriculum in class and in acceleration programmes, and of student progress and achievement.21 Borderfields (2008) describe two types of interventions. Preventative provide a foundation ot avoid a later possible issue and remedial addresses identified knowledge and skills weaknesses.

8

teacher can provide, in a timely and efficient way, an explicit and intensive programme for the students who need extra support.

A Tier 2 response of a 15 week intensive teaching and learning programme may be appropriate for particular students. The programme would include close monitoring, intensive planning and evaluation, and the provision of many rich and intellectually rigorous opportunities for learning provided by the teacher. Each student would experience being part of a learning community, developing learning strategies and personal self-evaluation skills22 along with the particular knowledge and skills that had been identified to ensure they can engage with all aspects of the school curriculum appropriate for their peer group.

Overall a school would have a school curriculum and a number of supplementary curricula to accelerate student progress. These supplementary programmes would be triggered by particular achievement results at either the classroom or school level. Each supplementary curriculum would need to have a Plan B for the students who need further supplementary support, i.e. the plan can’t be to keep giving more of the same. This is the school’s curriculum and achievement map. Each student at risk of underachieving would have a number of supports over the time they are at a school that would be contributing to their ongoing progress and success. This is shown in Figure 1: A model of a curriculum and achievement plan.

Figure 1: A model of a curriculum and achievement programme

22 PISA 2009 found that there was a strong relationship between students who did not have these strategies and under-achievement.

9

The school curriculum and achievement programme describes the process of what is worth learning, progress and achievement in relation to the curriculum and the curriculum sign posts and supplementary supports when students are not making expected progress.

The school curriculum and achievement plan describes the breadth and depth as well as the annual improvements/progress that is expected for all students

An assessment tool gives frequent information about a particular aspect of the curriculum A standard sits across the breadth of the school curriculum and acts as signposts of the

expected and real health of the system at particular times. A supplementary support programme identifies

when an intervention takes place e.g. students below expectation as shown above, what it would be – based on evidence of impact, monitoring during and after plan b for the students who do not accelerate learning, e.g. the students with “flat’’

progress

Creating the Curriculum and Achievement Plan is a responsibility of the Supplementary Inquiry Team. One approach to developing a CaAP is shown in the Appendix at the end of this document.

3.5 Intervention logic for schools

The intervention logic is based on a school’s capability to notice strength and need, design learning programmes to accelerate learning where needed, to monitor impact of this learning for students in both the short and long term, and refocus and adapt practices as a response to the monitoring. Because of the short nature of the supplementary component of the programme, schools in 2010 – 12 did not have much opportunity to evaluate current practices before designing something new, or to refocus and undertake a second cycle of implementation in response to any monitoring. One of the key aspects of the 2013 design is to extend before and beyond the short and intensive supplementary programme for the selected students to promote the concepts of evaluation and refocus within a school’s self review process. The intervention logic draws on all four levers for improvement – effective pedagogy, activation of educationally powerful connections, leadership of conditions for continuous improvement, and productive inquiry and knowledge building. The redesigned intervention logic is shown in Figure 3.

10

Figure 3: Intervention Logic

11

2.4 Supplementary programme alerts There appears to be a lot of research about the impact of particular supplementary programmes but very little research about how they supplement the classroom learning and ensure all students can access the curriculum and have success. Table 1: Supplementary programme alerts, summarises the key aspects as described in sections 2.1 – 2.3 for schools and providers to use as a quick check to ensure the supplementary programmes really do accelerate progress and supplement the curriculum within effective classroom teaching.

Table 1: Supplementary programme alertsWhat it is… What it isn’t…

Identifying students who need support to accelerate progress

Through the use of curriculum based tools to identify the initial need.This could be supported through the use of specialist assessment tools to identify most suitable response.

Through the use of very specific non-curriculum assessment tools e.g. BURT or very low level knowledge and skills assessment tools.

Developing a curriculum that accelerates progress and supplements effective teaching

Explicit and intensive teaching and learning programmes based on the school curriculum that involves all 4 levers for change – effective pedagogy, utilization of powerful connections, instructional leadership, inquiry and knowledge building.

A replacement for effective classroom teaching and the socio-cultural aspects of learning.A separate entity from the school/classroom curriculum.

Monitoring impact

Focus on improving.Using smart tools to monitor impact of programme in both the short and long term to make adjustments for the student/s and to the programme/s.Monitoring includes monitoring for unintended consequences on students within or outside of the programme.

Focus on ‘proving’ that the programme made a difference.Lack of overlap between what is assessed during and after the programme and what is assessed in the classroom.

Developing student agency

Students know they will be supported to achieve.For future success they also know that they are expected to develop high-level learning strategies and self-directing strategies during the intervention.

Low level learning with a focus on knowledge.

Socio-cultural learning environment

Students able to negotiate their learning and understandings with peers along with explicit teaching with the teacher.

Only individualised programmes or personalized learning

Cohesive use of adaptive expert teachers and specialists

Through the use of deliberate professional conversations about curriculum and achievement and the roles each play to support learning

Working in silos

Responsive to need

Timely each teacher is able to respond and develop a

supplementary programme within the classroom environment

school has system response for particular points of concern (both remedial and preventative) based on school achievement data

Reliant on expert teachers and specialists outside of the classroom

The Theory of Action for Programmes that Accelerate Progress for Students is the foundation and ambition for schools that participate in PfS.

For students Acceleration of

progress Knowledge and skills

to engage with classroom curriculum

Self-directing learning strategies

Agency

For supplementary

inquiry team Improved evaluative

capabilities Improved pedagogies Improved

educationally powerful relationships

For teachers Improved pedagogy

and practice Agency

Outcomes

Curriculum & AchievementWhat works in our school, for whom and why?What does the research say works faster for whom and why?

OrganisationHow best do we resource this for:

Powerful connections with family/whānau

Classroom teaching

Supplementary inquiry team

Evaluation

Selection of students

Based on school and national targets

Particular focus on equity – Māori, Pasifika, SEN, and students from lower socio-economic backgrounds

Iterative programme

design Based on what

works Includes

monitoring and evaluation processes

Supplementary Inquiry Design

Teaching as inquiry

Highly effective and culturally responsive teaching based on what works

Develops educationally powerful relationships with parents/whānau

Inquiry and knowledge

building cycles Monitors, reviews

and adjusts practices, and develops educationally powerful connections with community

Implementation of supplementary

programme

For the supplementary

inquiry team What do we

embed and what do we improve?

Which teachers should try an acceleration programme next?

For students What do we need

to do differently for the students who didn’t accelerate progress?

What do classroom teachers need to do differently to support those who have accelerated?

Refocus

School leadership self review – monitoring long term impact, improving school curriculum and achievement map, transferring to new contexts, communicating with parents/whānau, BoT, community/iwi/hapū, MoE

12

A key factor of a theory of action is the description of the line of sight to student outcomes. Professional learning and development programmes that have impacted on valued student outcomes within the New Zealand context23 have paid attention to the whole of schooling including policy decisions, project and school leadership, school structures, teacher beliefs and their combined impact on changing the core of teaching interactions and improving the outcomes for diverse (all) students.

There are a number of organizational factors that these programmes share: A leadership team to describe the goals and articulate the theory to reach the goals, focus on

learning and improvement, engage in constructive learning conversations, create educationally powerful connections, use smart tools, and, allocate resource.

Expertise at all levels A chain of influence that supports all layers of the system to describe and use the theory of

action within their own context Inquiry and knowledge building processes that include ways to track the theory-in-use Sense-making of policy and practice in all contexts of the system Research and evaluation that focuses on accountability for student outcomes and the

development of new knowledge.

Programmes for Students (PfS): Accelerating Learning in Literacy and Mathematics is specifically designed for schools with effective classroom practices and strong school leadership to undertake a guided set of inquiries that start with the students and the acceleration of their learning, i.e. it is not a primarily a professional learning and development programme, although many teachers stated they learnt a lot about effective pedagogy because of the programme. It sits within the wider MoE suite of supplementary support for schools and contributes to the system goal of improved capability at all levels, therefore the conditions of implementation need to be very similar to PLD.

3 Instructional and leadership focus: The intervention logic

The intervention logic for PfS sits within two inter-related contexts – both are systems in themselves. The first is the school context of a local curriculum delivered in such a way to improve outcomes for diverse (all) students using the particular resources available to it, and the second is

23 For example those described in the BES - Te Kotahitanga, Literacy Professional Development Project, Numeracy Professional Development.

13

the wider education system with a national curriculum, national goals and a coherent range of supplementary resources to support schools, leaders and teachers to meet the national goals. The key changes to the 2012 design focus on PfS being coherent with these two contexts.

3.1 Overview of the programme

3

3.1

3.1.1 DescriptionPfS sits within the suite of support24 MoE have for schools to improve outcomes for diverse (all) students. It focuses on using the expertise within the school to initially evaluate the effectiveness of current practices that support accelerated maths or literacy learning and then to closely monitor the impact of a 15 week intervention for a small group of students.

To meet the outcomes described below schools will be supported to improve classroom and school systems and build capability25 through inquiry and knowledge building processes.

3.1.2 Designed to build on the strengths of schools with Effective classroom teaching and effective leadership Literacy/maths as key target area for 2014

3.1.3 OutcomesPfS: Accelerating Learning in Literacy and Mathematics has 2 expected outcomes for schools Acceleration for small groups of students (an inquiry into possible interventions) A school curriculum and achievement programme

These will be improved through processes of critical inquiry and knowledge building.

Schools inquiry should be focussed on doing something differently, but pedagogically sound in response to the PfS inquiry focus.

A further outcome for the Mathematics Support Teacher (MST) is to support classroom teachers in implementing successful strategies for intervention

students enabling effective transitions. The MST is effective in accelerating the learning of students who are well below the standard.

24 http://nzcurriculum.tki.org.nz/System-of-support-incl.-PLD25 The BES model for systemic improvement that leverages evidence and expertise to make a bigger difference for valued outcomes for diverse (all) students will be used.

14

3.1.4 Phases of the programmeThere are two programmes within PfS - Accelerating Learning in Maths (ALiM) and Accelerating Learning in Literacy (ALL).

Accelerating Learning in Literacy Accelerated Learning in Mathematics

Year 1Initial PhaseALiM 1ALL 1

ALiM/ALL: Year 1 inquiry "What is acceleration and how do we achieve it?"This is the first year of inquiry and focuses on short and intensive programmes for 4 – 8 students over a 15 week period and whole-school practices.

‘Inquiry’ includes:School level Establishing a supplementary inquiry team in the school (building expertise) School inquiry using Self Review Tool Support PfS teacher

Teacher level What is acceleration? Assessment practices (what works) Inquire into teaching practice

Year 2 and Year 3 Deepening/Embedding PhaseAliM 2ALL 2 & 3

ALL/ALiM Year 2 & 3 for improvement "How do we develop effective intervention practices that sustain student acceleration and ensure intervention coherence at a school-wide level?

The Year 2 and 3 focus is on responding to the outcomes of the initial inquiry and embedding the new practices.

In the second and third years of inquiry, schools focus on continuing cycles of inquiry to build knowledge of acceleration and the strategies and learning conditions that support this in their school. This refocus extends the literacy practices across other student groups and to other teachers. A further focus is on developing the school wide coherence of literacy interventions and developing a Curriculum and Achievement Plan (CAAP). In the third year the CAAP will be further developed across other supplementary programmes with a strong focus on critiquing the school’s programmes and monitoring their effectiveness.

Schools are encouraged to select appropriate university papersSchools may decide to undertake only the first inquiry i.e. only year 1 of the programme.

15

3.2 Roles within schools

3.2.1 Supplementary Inquiry Team

It is expected that schools set up a supplementary inquiry team based on the roles described below during their participation on PfS.

The key role of this team is to ensure there are adequate conditions for sustaining and embedding effective practices e.g. one of the roles of this group is to support other classroom teachers to inquire into the effectiveness of aspects of their practice and transfer learnings from the supplementary programmes to the classroom.

It is expected that schools will have the roles outlined below already in place. These roles form the basis of the Inquiry team. The PfS focus for these roles is on the school’s curriculum and achievement plan:

Principal / Senior Manager - instructional leader with responsibility for the school curriculum and achievement plan linked to the annual plan goals.

Lead teacher (maths/literacy) - to ensure the school has a curriculum and achievement plan that clearly identifies the range of interventions for students at risk of underachieving. This includes in-class, out- of class (e.g. Reading Recovery and RTLit) and specialist support. The Maths/Literacy Leader would ensure that the supplementary supports chosen are those that are known to be educationally powerful and cost effective, are well implemented and monitored for impact in both the short term and long term.

Some schools will have these roles:ESOL teacher/SENCO/RTLit/RR teacher – expert teacher supporting the acceleration of learning so students can access the curriculum.

PfS teacher roles:ALiM/ALL teacher/s – inquiring into the effectiveness of short intensive programmes to support student acceleration.

MST – teacher undertaking post-graduate qualifications and supporting the acceleration of learning so all students can access the curriculum. The provision may be within class and outside of the class.

3.2.2 Selection of teachers

Schools previously involved in ALiM or ALL identified leadership, personal pedagogical knowledge and skills as being necessary to achieve successful outcomes of the programme. The following is provided as guidance for school leaders in their selection of teacher/s.Teachers should: -

16

Have strong pedagogical and content knowledge; knowledge of mathematics/literacy at all levels ensuring a deep understanding of progression

be open to learning and confident to try new things notice and observe practice and refine and reflect on own practice be flexible with the ability to employ multiple strategies to work with these students have high expectations of the students have ultimate patience be permanent member of teaching staff have credibility – other staff need to find them credible and they need confidence to deliver to

other staff and work across the school be approachable have the ability to encourage staff, parents, students be organised.Please note that an ALiM teacher needs to be eligible to undertake post-graduate study if they want to progress to MST.

If schools are considering continuing with the 2nd and 3rd years then the decision they make at this point is critical, including successfully completing and passing post graduate papers (MST1). The impact and refocus workshops at the end of the year for schools to explore some of the issues associated with this decision.

3.2.3 Selection of students

Previously each school developed its own selection criteria based on student achievement data and evaluating whether the short and intensive supplementary programme (at least four ½ hour learning opportunities per week over a 10-15 week period) would meet the particular student’s need, i.e. the programme was designed for success. This meant each school had a number of students who were not selected because it was expected they would not benefit from the programme and therefore they would not accelerate progress. Schools need to be challenged to explore the equity issues of their thinking and provide themselves with opportunities to test their thinking.

The phrase ‘group of students’ has been interpreted by some schools to mean a homogenous group with similar strengths and needs. It may help to describe the students as ‘target students’ from the ‘school target’ pool or ‘focus students’ including English Language Learners. The supplementary programme within the class may not mean they need to be grouped together. If the students have an out of class programme they probably would be grouped together. Schools need to be very clear about the intended and unintended educational consequences of their decisions.

PLEASE NOTE: All students selected must have attended school for at least 60 weeks.

3.2.4 University papersMST PapersMST must be eligible for post-graduate study. MSTs will receive $1,000 MoE funding to complete the designated MST post-graduate papers. It is expected that the Board of Trustees should commit to paying the balance as part of building school capability in mathematics. No release time or leave provision is part of this scheme.

17

ALiM/ALL PapersWhile PfS has a primary focus on students, the programme encourages the building of teacher capability.

The Ministry of Education is continuing to implement its tertiary fees subsidy scheme for approved mathematics and literacy papers. Up to 600 teachers each year will be supported to study a literacy or mathematics paper at the graduate or postgraduate level. Half the tuition fee will be paid for by the Ministry of Education and half by the teacher’s school, or teacher. No release time or leave provision is part of this scheme.

The scheme is part of the Ministry of Education’s efforts to further develop teachers’ pedagogical content knowledge and understanding in key areas of learning and teaching. This scheme builds on the work started in Ministry professional development programmes for teachers in literacy and numeracy. It aims to support schools’ efforts to raise the achievement of all their students through increasing the expertise and knowledge of their teachers.

The funding support for these papers are available for all teachers so schools may enrol as many teachers as they want whereas the Literacy Leaders papers will focus on leadership and literacy/language learning

The following information is directly from the website: http://www.nzmaths.co.nz/tertiary-fees-funding-support-mathematics-primary-and-

intermediate-teachers http://literacyonline.tki.org.nz/Literacy-Online/Teacher-needs/Professional-

support/Tertiary-fees-funding-support

Language (TESSOL) Scholarships: primary and secondary teachers can apply for scholarships that contribute to the cost of studying for a TESSOL qualification. The Ministry is offering scholarships for tuition fees to help up to 150 teachers a year gain papers towards a TESOL qualification. Trained ESOL (English for speakers of other languages) teachers working in mainstream classrooms or as specialists in primary and secondary schools provide critical intervention for those students who may be struggling to develop literacy in English. Under the scholarship scheme, each teacher is funded for four papers, including course fees and $100 for books per annum, for two years.

http://literacyonline.tki.org.nz/Literacy-Online/Teacher-needs/Professional- readings/Foundation-learning-Literacy

3.2.5 Workshops and In-School SupportPfS: Accelerating Learning in Literacy and Mathematics schools are supported through a series of workshops by facilitators from regionally contracted literacy and mathematics professional learning and development suppliers and mentored throughout the implementation of this supplementary programme. Schools’ involvement in the programme can be for a period of three years. Mentoring support will consist of some individual school meetings and some cluster meetings (where it is possible to cluster) and contact with mentors through other electronic means.

18

The Year One inquiry: "What is acceleration and how do we achieve it?"In the first year of inquiry the focus is on identifying key levers for improved literacy teaching and learning through the development of a short and intensive supplementary support. This is to accelerate the literacy and mathematics learning of identified students and is in addition to an effective classroom teaching programme.

The purpose of the workshop is to ensure schools evaluate current practices and prepare for the short and intensive acceleration inquiry. The Theory of Action for Programmes that Accelerate Progress for Students and the Quality Improvement Plan for the Initiating Supplementary Supports Framework along with the BES quality schooling dimensions should be introduced at this workshop.

Schools will be introduced to the self-review tool and an opportunity to practise using deep constructive talk so that they can undertake the following tasks: Critical inquiry into the effectiveness of the school’s current support for students who are below

or well below expectation. Further engagement with parents/whānau/family about aspirations, language, identity and

culture.

There are also organisational decisions needed that will impact on school resources and budget: Which teacher/s will be involved in the intensive component – time allocated to planning and

reflecting. If the school has a number of students supported by an RTLit they may want to involve them in this programme.

Who is part of the supplementary inquiry team? Organisation of literacy/mathematics in the school. Assessment requirements during the intervention and ongoing monitoring.

The Year Two and Year Three inquiry: “How do we develop effective intervention practices that sustain student acceleration and ensure intervention coherence at a school-wide level?”

In the second and third years of inquiry, schools focus on continuing cycles of inquiry to build knowledge of acceleration and the strategies and learning conditions that support this in their school. This refocus extends the literacy practices across other student groups and to other teachers. A further focus is on developing the school wide coherence of literacy interventions and developing a Curriculum and Achievement Plan (CAAP). In the third year the CAAP will be further developed across other supplementary programmes with a strong focus on critiquing the school’s programmes and monitoring their effectiveness.

19

4.2 Expertise

Mentors

Bullock (2006) ‘An important function of mentoring is to assist protégés in becoming autonomous professionals who reflect and solve problems as experts.’

Parsloe (2000) ‘Mentoring is to support and encourage people to manage their own learning in order that they may maximise their potential, develop their skills, improve their performance.’

The mentors need to carry the theory and ideas into schools and be ready to challenge practices that are not effective, efficient or equitable before they become ‘the way we do it around here.’

In the context of Programmes for Students the capability of a school is assumed as a starting point, so the role of a mentor is different to that of a facilitator of Professional Development. A mentor will support a school’s process of review and the development of their school-wide Curriculum and Achievement Plan. Close attention is also paid to the school inquiry team and the teacher inquiry undertaken to improve student outcomes for a focus group of priority students. A mentor’s role is to work with schools on proven teaching approaches, to make connections to key Ministry of Education documents and to ensure the fidelity of the Theory of Action for Programmes for Students: ALL and ALiM. It can be both informal and formal, but the role encompasses a structured process to support and challenge inquiry teams and teachers through their 15-week intervention initiative. The specific roles and responsibilities undertaken by mentors will vary according to the schools’ Stage and Year of ALL/ALiM implementation.

Smart tools

The following tools should be part of PfS:

1. Self-review tool for schools: Focus on students achieving below curriculum expectation in literacy (years 1 -8)

This needs to be the guiding document for school leadership to use and report against. It needs to be introduced at the evaluation workshop along with the theory of critical talk.

Fom literacy online http://literacyonline.tki.org.nz/Literacy-Online/Impact/Progress-and-achievement/Self-review-tool-for-schools-focus-on-students-achieving-below-curriculum-expectations-in-Literacy-years-1-8/Quick-start-guide

Which rubric(s) should we start with?

‘Based on schools' experiences in the development process and pilot testing of the tool, the best place to start with the inquiry questions and rubrics is the following: Rubric 9: Accelerated progress in literacy for students achieving below curriculum expectations in literacy

20

In other words, start with the biggest and most important question each school faces in this area: How well are we accelerating our students achieving below curriculum expectations in literacy, really? This will give your school a clear picture of how it's doing overall and how urgent and serious any shortfalls might be. It's probably the most important conversation needed to get the inquiry ball rolling.’

2. Curriculum and achievement plan

3. Best Evidence Synthesis Exemplars

BES Exemplar 1 - Ngā Kete Raukura - He Tauira 1 Developing Communities of Mathematical Inquiry;

BES Exemplar 3 - Ngā Kete Raukura - He Tauira 3 Teacher and Student use of Learning Goals

BES Exemplar 4 - Ngā Kete Raukura - He Tauira 4 Reciprocal Teaching

BES Exemplar 5 - Ngā Kete Raukura - He Tauira 5 Learning Logs

Accelerating Learning in Literacy – Reporting Process in 2015

Accelerated Literacy Learning (ALL) Assessments Notes: NEED NSN on individual student data

Junior Reading and/or Writing (Year 2)OTJ End of 2014 End of 2015 All schoolsObservation Survey including Running Recordand e-asttle (if relevant)

Before programme

Before programme

After programme

After programme

All schools

All schoolsReading (Yrs 3)OTJ End of 2014 End of 2015 All schoolsSTAR Before programme After programme All schoolsReading Yrs (4-8)OTJ End of 2014 End of 2015 All schoolsSTAR or PAT or e-asttle Before programme After programme All schoolsWriting Yrs (3-8)OTJ End of 2014 End of 2015 All schoolse-asTTLe writing Before programme After programme All schools

21

Data Collection & reporting

There are two parts to the data collection process.1. Ministry of Education: Schools will complete a brief school report which includes; the

implementation of their ALL initiative, student achievement data, a Curriculum and Achievement Plan (Year 2 and 3 schools) and reflections of their involvement. Schools will be provided with a report framework to use. This information is emailed to accelerating.literacy@minedu.govt.nz

Intake One Schools: Reports due September 30, 2015Intake Two Schools: Reports due November 30, 2015

2. New Zealand Council of Educational Research: NZCER will be collecting Accelerating Learning in Literacy (ALL) data which includes:

Reading (Years 3) using STAR and OTJ's Reading (Years 4-8) using STAR or PAT or e-asttle and OTJ's Writing (Years 3-8) using e-asTTle and OTJ's Junior Reading and/or writing (Year 2) using Observation Survey and OTJ's. Teachers may

also use e-asttle writing if relevant for their students.

NZCER will send out an introductory email to schools to gain confirmation of contact details and year of ALL involvement (ALL Year 1, 2 or 3) via a web form. (One web form is required per intervention, for example if a school is doing both ALL Reading and Mathematics (1st year), one web form needs to be submitted for ALL Reading and one web form submitted for ALiM)

Once NZCER has had a response from schools, using confirmed details, NZCER will send schools a more detailed email explaining how data will be collected. The email received by the school will be specific to the focus areas chosen as there are different processes for each literacy area.

Key references and websites

http://www.educationcounts.govt.nz/topics/BES

http://mzmaths.co.nz

http://nzcurriculum.tki.org.nz/System-of-support-incl.-PLD

http://nzcurriculum.tki.org.nz/System-of-support-incl.-PLD/School-initiated-supports/Programmes-for-students

http://literacyonline.tki.org.nz/Literacy-Online/Impact/Progress-and-achievement/Self-review-tool-for-schools-focus-on-students-achieving-below-curriculum-expectations-in-Literacy-years-1-8

http://nzcurriculum.tki.org.nz/News/Pasifika-Education-Plan-2013-2017

http://www.minedu.govt.nz/theMinistry/PolicyAndStrategy/KaHikitia.aspx/

22

Appendix

School’s already have in place a local (or school) curriculum, derived from the New Zealand Curriculum, and an assessment schedule through which they monitor whether students are on track to access the curriculum and meet expected levels of achievement.

A curriculum and achievement plan adds to a school’s planning to meet the needs of each student. We can view teaching and learning in Literacy and Mathematics learning in terms of three tiers. The first and most fundamental tier is effective classroom teaching, described as Tier 1. For students who require additional support to reach the expected levels of achievement, there is intensive and targeted support described as Tier 2. Tier 3 involves intensive and long term specialist support.

As schools consider assessment and monitoring information, the curriculum and achievement plan supports them in answering the question “How will we respond when students are not achieving?” The plan describes a range of triggers, or red flags, that indicate a learner is not yet on track to meet expected levels. Alongside that, the plan details possible additional supports, or interventions, for those students which will accelerate their progress so that they reach the expected levels of achievement. This is intensive and targeted Tier 2support.

Generally then, learning and achievement in Tier 1 is described by the school’s curriculum and is monitored via and assessment and monitoring schedule. Tier 2 triggers and possible interventions are described in the curriculum and achievement plan for learners who are not on track to meet curriculum expectation, while for Tier 3 students who require long term specialist support the SENCO register details learning pathways and supports.

This suite of documents, then, clearly outlines how a school meets the needs of each learner, thoughtfully matching appropriate support to every learner.

23

New Zealand Curriculum

Local/School Curriculum A school’s plan to assess and monitor

Are our students on

track to access the

curriculum?

Assessment Plan/Schedule

A school’s Frame for coherent

instruction Outline of what is

worthwhile learning Graduate profile

How will we respond when students are not achieving?

Intensive planning, monitoring, ongoing Inquiry and review

Refer to the Curriculum and Achievement plan: What does year to year improvement look like? What triggers intervention? Response - Tier 1

- Tier 2- Tier 3

ResponseWhat will best meet the needs of

the students?

Tier 2 InterventionsPreventative or Remedial?

What now for the students where the intervention was

Successful? Unsuccessful?

Curriculum and Achievement Plan

Kath Jones 2014