T h e I m p l e m e n t a t i o n C h a l l e n g e :T h e I m p l e m e n t a t i o n C h a l l e n g e :

Connecting CCSS to Improved Teaching & Learning

Tim Tatsui, Ed.D.

timothy.tatsui@pearson.com

Recent Publications & Studies

Ermeling. B.A. (2012, in press). Translating Meetings into Settings for Change. Journal of Staff Development.

Gallimore, R. & Ermeling, B.A. (2010, April 14th). Five keys to effective teacher learning teams. Education Week, 29, 2010.

Gallimore, R., Ermeling, B.A., Saunders, W.M., & Goldenberg, C. (2009). Moving the learning of teaching closer to practice. Elementary School Journal, 109(5), 537-553.

Saunders, W.M., Goldenberg, C.N. , & Gallimore, R. (2009) Increasing achievement by focusing grade level teams on improving classroomlearning: A Prospective, Quasi-experimental Study of Title 1 Schools. American Educational Research Journal, 46(4), 1006-1033.

���� Recognized by Learning Forward (NSDC) for 2010 Best Research Award� Recognized by National Commission on Teaching & Ame rica’s Future

Improved Student Achievement

INPUTS OUTPUTS

• Standards & Assessments

• Policies & Guidelines

• Federal Funds

• Materials & Curricula

?

Classroom Practice

Accountability Pressures

Problem: The “Inspection” Method Prevails

(Ermeling, 2005, Used by Permission)

(Stigler, Education Week, 2010)

Improved Student Achievement

INPUTS OUTPUTS

Supporting the Ongoing Study of Teaching & Learning

Alternative: Translating “Inputs” into Improved Student Achievement

Classroom Practice

Teach

Analyze

Plan

(Ermeling, 2005, Used by Permission)

• Standards & Assessments

• Policies & Guidelines

• Federal Funds

• Materials & Curricula

2004-CurrentLearning Teams Scaling: Secondary Research and Development and Elementary Replication Studies

1997-2003Scale Up ProjectLos Angeles Unified School District (LD1 & 2 schools)

1989-1996Single School Case Study: Freeman Elementary School Project

1970’s and 1980’s Kamehameha Early Education Project (KEEP)

Phases

Learning Teams: Evolution of the Research

Tharp, R. and Gallimore, R. (1989) Rousing Minds to Life: Teaching, Learning, and Schooling in Social Context . Cambridge: Cambridge Univ. Press.

1970’s and 1980’sKamehamehaEarly Education Project (KEEP)

Books, Journal Articles, PublicationsPhases

Learning Teams: Evolution of the Research

LT Central Premise: For schools to be productive places of learning for students, they must also be product ive places of learning for teachers and administrators.

Goldenberg, C. (2004). Successful school change: Creating settings to improve teaching and learning. New York: Teachers College Press

1989-1996Single School Case Study: Freeman Elementary School Project

Learning Teams: Evolution of the Research

Saunders, W., O'Brien, G., Marcelletti, D., Hasenstab, K., Saldivar, T., & Goldenberg, C. (2001). Getting the most out of school-based professional development in culturally diverse schools. In P. Schmidt & P. Mosenthal, (Eds.), Reconceptualizing literacy in the new age of pluralism and multiculturalism. Greenwich, CN: Information Age Publishing.

Saunders, W. & Goldenberg, C. (2005). The contribution of settings to school improvement and school change: A case study. In C. O'Donnell & L. Yamauchi (Eds.). Culture and context in human behavior change: Theory, research, and applications (pps. 127-150). New York: Peter Lang.

McDougall, D. Saunders, W. and Goldenberg, C. (2007). Inside theblack box of school reform: Explaining the how and why of change at Getting Results schools. Journal of Disability, Development, and Education, 54, Number 1.

Saunders, W.M., Goldenberg, C.N. , & Gallimore, R. (2009) Increasing achievement by focusing grade level teams on improving classroom learning: A Prospective, Quasi-experimental Study of Title 1 Schools. American Educational Research Journal, 46, 4, 1006-1033.

1997-2003Scale Up ProjectLos Angeles Unified School District (LD1 & 2 schools)

Learning Teams: Evolution of the Research

30

35

40

45

50

Baseline Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5

Mea

n N

CE

LT schools Comparison Schools District

Scale-Up Study Results

Stanford 9

Over this five year period, LT schools demonstrated statistically significant gains on state assessments:

- 41% above and beyond the rate of gains in comparison schools for the overall student population

- 54% above and beyond the comparison schools for the Latino population

Scale-Up Study Results

Saunders, W., O'Brien, G., Marcelletti, D., Hasenstab, K., Saldivar, T., & Goldenberg, C. (2001). Getting the most out of school-based professional development in culturally diverse schools. In P. Schmidt & P. Mosenthal, (Eds.), Reconceptualizingliteracy in the new age of pluralism and multiculturalism. Greenwich, CN: Information Age Publishing.

Saunders, W. & Goldenberg, C. (2005). The contribution of settings to school improvement and school change: A case study. In C. O'Donnell & L. Yamauchi (Eds.). Culture and context in human behavior change: Theory, research, and applications (pps. 127-150). New York: Peter Lang.

McDougall, D. Saunders, W. and Goldenberg, C. (2007). Inside the black box of school reform: Explaining the how and why of change at Getting Results schools. Journal of Disability, Development, and Education, 54, Number 1.

Saunders, W.M., Goldenberg, C.N. , & Gallimore, R. (2009) Increasing achievement by focusing grade level teams on improving classroom learning: A Prospective, Quasi-experimental Study of Title 1 Schools. American Educational Research Journal, 46, 4, 1006-1033.

1997-2003Scale Up ProjectLos Angeles UnifiedSchool District (LD1 & 2 schools)

Learning Teams: Evolution of the Research

Inside the Black Box of School Change:A Qualitative External Evaluation

Compared to Non-LT schools, Learning Teams schools had:

� Wider Distribution of Leadership

� More Effective Team Meetings

� Sharper Focus on Academic Goals & Outcomes

� Stronger Collective Commitment

� Higher Expectations

� Attributing Outcomes to Teaching

Graff-Ermeling, G. (2007). Building Coherence: The role of an externally supported, site-based leadership team, in sustaining settings for instructional improvement. Santa Monica: LessonLab Research Institute.

Ermeling, B. (2010). Tracing the effects of teacher inquiry on classroom practice. Teaching and Teacher Education, 26 (3), 377-388.

Gallimore, R., Ermeling, B.A., Saunders, W.M., & Goldenberg, C. (2009). Moving the learning of teaching closer to practice: Teacher Education Implications of School-based Inquiry Teams. Elementary School Journal, 109, 5, 537-553.

2004-CurrentLT (learning teams) Scaling: Secondary Research and Development and Elementary Replication Studies

Learning Teams: Evolution of the Research

Fully Elaborated ModelFully Elaborated Model

Study of Teaching &

Learning

Study of Study of Teaching & Teaching &

LearningLearning

Teams (Workgroups)

Training & Assistance

Tested Protocols

Distributed Leadership

Learning Teams ApproachLearning Teams Approach

++ Ongoing Dedicated SupportOngoing Dedicated Support

2 Decades of Research & Results Published in Scientific Journals

LT Advisor

Advisor Network

Step 1Identify and

clarify a student need

to work on together

Step 2Formulate a

clear objective for each common

student need

Step 3Identify and

adopt an instructional approach to

address each need

Step 7Reassess:

repeat cycle or move on to

another area of need

Step 5Deliver the

lessons in the classroom:

make consistent and genuine efforts

Step 4Plan and

prepare to deliver lessons

in the classroom

Step 6Analyze

student work to evaluate

whether instruction met

the need

If necessary, formulate a new objective and/or adapt the instructional

focus for each iteration.

Addressing Common Student Needs (The 7 Steps)

Ex 3

Tested Protocols

Student Outcomes

Learning Teams AdvisorsPrincipal Planning Meeting

Facilitator Meeting

(aka: ILT)

Classrooms

Teacher WorkgroupsPlan

Analyze

Teach

Stable SettingsTraining & Assistance

(Goldenberg, 2004; Ermeling, 2012)

Contextual inputs (e.g. standards, curriculum, etc.)

It is not how long a team works on a problem that determines if they see a cause-effect connection, but whether they persist until it is solved.

Once they see tangible student gains, teachers are less likely to assume, “I planned and taught the lesson, but they didn’t get it,” and more likely to adopt the more-productive assumption that “you haven’t taught until they’ve learned.”

(Gallimore, Ermeling, Saunders, Goldenberg, 2009)

Perseverance until there is progress Perseverance until there is progress on key indicatorson key indicators

Oahu LT Reflections: Mid-Year Implementation

The LT process has made me more focused on what to teach, why (based on S results) and really looking at how.

Teachers have different ideas about the same thing so having the discussion about these “concepts” or “vocabulary” has clarified the instruction that goes along with it.

When planning, we need to look at how we teach as well as what we teach. Looking at the curriculum, but also reflecting metacognitively about the way we teach.

Learning Teams helps us to look at successful student work and then identify what is responsible for that success in our instruction so that we can duplicate it.

For myself, I have started to reflect on how I can plan my instruction more purposefully and help to make students aware of their learning process.

It has helped me to take the time to focus, analyze, evaluate and collaborate with my grade level peer on our objectives for students. Having the collaboration time and discussions allowed us to grow as learners. It makes me understand the true value/power of collaborative discussions and strategic planning.

It makes me more reflective about my teaching and I am more cognizant of the way I teach and what to look for in my S as evidence of learning.

Collaboration and articulation is now systematic. The LT process keeps us focused on 1 particular need. It also allows us to look at our instructional practices, which is uncomfortable for us. But we do so in a non-threatening, collaborative process.

This being our first year in LT, it has helped my colleagues & myself be more reflective of our teaching. It has also lead to more purposeful discussions about instruction and student needs/strengths. Discussion among some LT groups have gotten to a deep level of understanding.

Learning Teams has been very valuable because it sets aside time to meet as a grade level and as an ILT to collaborate. I feel for the first time we’re all focused on the same goal and we know what’s happening in each of the grade levels.

LT Settings and Assistance Links

Monthly LT

District

Planning

Meetings

(2 hours)

Learning Teams Advisors

Monthly Site-

Based Admin

Planning

Meetings

(1-2 hours)

Monthly Site-

Based

Facilitator

Meetings

(aka: ILT)

(90-120

minutes)

Site-based

Teacher

Workgroup

Meetings

[3-4 a

month]

(50-90

minutes)

Classrooms

Monthly

Regional

School

Admin

Meetings

(2-3 hours)

Results:

Student

Outcomes