2009 04-11 presentation for ron on instruction - draft 8

Foundation Support Aligned With the CPS Focus on Instruction

The Chicago Community Trust April 11, 2009Education Program

1

History of funding in ChicagoDecentralization

1988 to 1995Accountability 1995 to 2001

Instructional Improvement2001 to 2009

Supports primarily for decentralization reform, including PD for local school councils

Supports primarily for professional development aligned with the Annenberg Project (external to the district)

Supports primarily to intermediary agencies to support school development (after school programming, professional development workshops for teachers)

Trust begins to align its supports to the priorities of the district

2

Trust funding in Education and to CPS

$44,655,358

$7,661,370

$12,714,000

0 10,000,000 20,000,000 30,000,000 40,000,000 50,000,000 60,000,000

2001 to 2006

2007

2008 to present

CPSOther

Trust Supports

CPS total to date: $65,030,728

$17,551,715

$9,420,950

$55,655,828

3

Strategic priorities approved for 2008 - 2013

Core priorities1. Develop high performing elementary schools in all neighborhoods

by strengthening instruction in the core curricular areas; literacy, math/science, arts, language development and social studies

2. Strengthen and develop instructional leadership3. Sustain and strengthen instructional innovation networks

Expansion priorities4. Support improvements in teaching and learning beyond Chicago

public elementary schools5. Support improvements in teaching and learning beyond Chicago

Public Schools

Trust Supports

4

SupportStructures

TeacherCapacity

Subject by subject definitions of what to teach, how to teach it and how to measure it

Examples: Chicago Reading Initiative, Chicago Math and Science Initiative, Social Science Framework for Learning, Arts Education Guide, and Bilingual Education and World Language Plan

Deep knowledge about subjectSkill in teaching the subject

Examples: Graduate coursework for teachers across all subject matters, development of teacher teams and protocols for team work, and coaches in the disciplines

Principals knowledgeable about instructionTeacher leaders in the disciplinesStrong teacher collaboration at and across grade levels around teaching and learningQuality assessments used to drive instruction

Examples: Training of teacher leaders, development of principals in subject areas, and training in use of assessments

Building a world class education system

Trust Supports

CurricularFrameworks

5

Current CPS projects funded by the TrustCurricular area Project 2008-09 2009-10Literacy Chicago Literacy Initiative Partnership (CLIP): $1,750,600 $1,500,000

Rochelle Lee Middle Grades Literacy (Boundless Readers) 240,000 250,000National-Louis University reading endorsements cohort (NLU) 84,000Transitional Adolescent Literacy Project (McDougal Family Foundation) 50,000 noneLanguage Through Science Program (Leap Learning Systems) 200,000

Math/Science Cluster 4 Middle Grades Project 1,650,000 1,600,000Early Education Science Project (E2SP) (Field Museum) 600,000DePaul/Area 6 Math/Science Partnership (DePaul) 345,000

Arts Arts Education Framework Development 225,000Arts Education Collaborative of Chicago Funders (The Chicago Community Foundation) 100,000

Language Development Bilingual Education and World Language 460,000Social Science Social Science Framework Development 25,000 150,000Multi-disciplinary Value-Added Project 200,000 none

Multi-disciplinary Projects 350,000High School Teacher Content Teams Capacity Building 575,000

$6,154,600 $4,200,000

Trust Supports

6

Increasing number of CPS elementary teachers with content endorsements

0500

100015002000250030003500400045005000

Reading Language Arts Math Science

2007-082006-07

Impact

Source: Chicago Public Schools, Office of Research, Evaluation and Accountability

In the Cluster 4 Middle Grades Project, 150 teachers have enrolled in over 358 middle grades math/science and algebra university courses

7

Multiple organizations partner with CPS to build teachers’ knowledge Chicago State University (CSU) Physics and

Chemistry Van Program DePaul University Illinois Institute of Technology Loyola University National-Louis University Northeastern Illinois University Northwestern University’s BioQ Collaborative Roosevelt University Saint Xavier University University of Chicago University of Illinois at Chicago (both) University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign

(evaluation)

BOLD = Current Partners in Cluster 4 Middle Grades Project and Literacy partnership

Adler Planetarium and Astronomy Museum Brookfield Zoo Chicago Children’s Museum Lincoln Park Zoo Museum of Contemporary Art Museum of Science and Industry Oriental Institute Peggy Notebaert Nature Museum/Chicago

Academy of Sciences Shedd Aquarium The Field Museum

External Supports

8

Multiple funders support CPS in strengthening teachers’ knowledge in core curriculum areas

Current Arts

Peter Ascoli The Boeing Company Colonel Stanley R. McNeil Foundation Kassie Davis The Field Foundation of Illinois JP Morgan Chase Foundation Lloyd A. Fry Foundation Louis R. Lurie Foundation McDougal Family Foundation Dr. Bernard and Sarah Mirkin The Elizabeth Morse Charitable Foundation Polk Bros. Foundation The Chicago Community Trust The Prince Charitable Trust The Siragusa Foundation Woods Fund of Chicago

Bilingual Education and World Language The Chicago Community Trust

Literacy McDougal Family Foundation The Chicago Community Trust

Math/science McDougal Family Foundation The Chicago Community Trust

Social Science CME Trust JP Morgan Chase Foundation The Chicago Community Trust

Potential Additions Arts

Albert Pick, Jr. Fund CME Trust Terra Foundation for American Art

Bilingual Education and World Language Literacy

The Brinson Foundation Osa Foundation

Math/science The Boeing Company The Brinson Foundation CME Trust COMED Osa Foundation

Social Science The Brinson Foundation Circle of Service Foundation McDougal Family Foundation Terra Foundation for American Art

External Supports

Teaching, Learning, Leading

April 11, 2009

10

Agenda

Chicago Education Reform History

Principles Of Instruction and Instructional Leadership At Scale

Teaching And Learning In Practice: Lessons From CPS

Leading In Practice: Lessons From CPS

Immediate Recommendations for 2009-10

11

Recall Our Early February ConversationsAn Introduction To Teaching, Learning, and Leading

Student outcome data for CPS shows slow but steady progress on most key indicators

Instructional excellence strategy focuses on providing tools and supports to teachers and schools to drive improvements.

Connecting curriculum design, implementation and leadership remains a challenge.

12

Review: The Phases Of Chicago School Reform

Decentralization1988-95

Accountability1995-01

Instructional Improvement2001-09

Governance Local School Councils Mayoral Control (Vallas) Mayoral Control (Duncan)

School to District Relationship

Near total autonomy from central office

Take back local control; prescribe minimum standards (i.e.,probation, social promotion)

Continued focus on accountability; Mandates are accompanied by set of supports; accountability extends beyond minimum standards (scorecards, improvement weighted over absolute performance, formative assessments); charters and new schools

Implied Theory of Action

Central office is the problem; local control will empower and bring about improvement

Schools must meet minimum standards; those who don’t will be subject to consequences and those who do will be left alone

Improvement is a shared responsibility (the school is the unit of change… central and area offices support the schools); clear expectations and transparency must be accompanied by support structures

13

0

10

20

30

40

50

6019

9019

9119

9219

9319

9419

9519

9619

9719

9819

9920

0020

0120

0220

0320

0420

0520

0620

0720

08

Perc

ent O

f Stu

dent

s

first quartile

second quartile

third quartile

fourth quartile

decentralization accountability instructional improvement

*Different norms (ITBS88 to ITBS01) **Different test (from ISAT to SAT 10)

3-8 Reading By Quartile: Phases of Chicago School Reform

Percent of schools with 50% or more of students at or above 50th percentile

1990 1995 2001 2005* 2008**

8% 12% 21% or 24% 31% 72%

low

high

14

History Lessons

By themselves, decentralization and autonomy do not lead to improved results. Given autonomy, very few schools excelled and few made substantive improvements in student learning

By itself, accountability (tests, incentives) can produce a boost in performance; but the boost flattens over time

(This boost in performance occurs primarily for low performing students.)

The only route to sustained improvement is to improve the core technology of the profession: teaching

Improving teaching by recruiting and evaluating is necessary but not sufficient

15

SupportStructures

TeacherCapacity

Subject by subject definitions of what to teach, how to teach it and how to measure it

Examples: Chicago Reading Initiative, Chicago Math and Science Initiative, Social Science Framework for Learning, Arts Education Guide, and Bilingual Education and World Language Plan

Deep knowledge about subjectSkill in teaching the subject

Examples: Graduate coursework for teachers across all subject matters, development of teacher teams and protocols for team work, and coaches in the disciplines

Principals knowledgeable about instructionTeacher leaders in the disciplinesStrong teacher collaboration at and across grade levels around teaching and learningQuality assessments used to drive instruction

Examples: Training of teacher leaders, development of principals in subject areas, and training in use of assessments

Building a world class education system

Trust Supports

CurricularFrameworks

16

Agenda






17

The Instructional Core

Principle #1: Increases in student learning occur only as a consequence of improvements in the level of content, teachers’ knowledge and skill, and student engagement.

Principle #2: If you change one element of the instructional core, you have to change the other two.

Principle #3: If you can’t see it in the core, it’s not there.

Principle #4: Task predicts performance.

Principle #5: The real accountability system is in the tasks that students are asked to do.

Principle #6: We learn to do the work by doing the work.

Principle #7: Description before analysis, analysis before prediction, prediction before evaluation.

TEACHER STUDENT

CONTENT

18

[A]

[B]

[C]

P/Q

T

SCHOOL IMPROVEMENT

Improvement Processes

19

School improvement is a human investment activity.

Asking people to do things they don’t know how to do. . .

Both individually and collectively

Investments in knowledge and skill drive improvement

Accountability provides the stimulus for individual and collective learning

As schools improve, the nature of the work changes. . .

From autonomous practice in isolated classrooms to team work across classrooms

Different levels of pressure and support at different stages of development

20

Proposed Next Steps (1 of 3)

1. Position instruction as central work of CPS; define five other strategic priorities (performance management, portfolio management, human capital, safety and security, central office) by their relationship to instructional improvement.

2. Ongoing advice and support from Harvard and CCT to CPS on re-organization of infrastructure for supporting teaching and learning.

3. Continue to participate in national education-related reform instructional leadership networks (e.g. Harvard’s PELP, Aspen’s UMLN and ULLN).

21

Agenda






22

Elementary Mathematics Curriculum ImplementationChicago Math & Science Initiative

Implementation Reach Effectiveness• Adoption of core instructional materials

(Everyday Mathematics and Math Trailblazers at K-5; Connected Mathematics and MathThematics at 6-8).

• Extensive support materials provided to implementing teacher classrooms (student books, manipulatives, calculators, pacing guides, etc.).

• Workshop professional development on implementation (54 hours/teacher, split between summer and academic year), led by materials authors at local universities.

• In-school coaching aligned to materials.• Quarterly benchmark assessment aligned

to instructional materials (pilot began in 2004-05, with ETC starting in 2006-7).

• Some opt-in, some mandated adoptions; based on funding year and funding source.

Budget FY09Central office support from the Office of Mathematics and Science (IDA). In FY09, overall spend was $7M with 45 FTE. Local schools contributed materials costs and PD stipends.

Lessons LearnedI. Instructional program coherence matters.II. Fidelity of implementation matters and can be managed.III. Subject matter differences are considerable and need to be considered when executing at the district, school, and classroom level.IV. We can take external supports and move them to the central office; next big challenge is to move supports to schools.V. Leadership development needs to be connected very closely with teacher development and curriculum implementation.

60

177

269 269288

313

0

100

200

300

400

Scho

ols

Source: CMSI analysis, REA analysis, U of C CEMSE analysis; PRARIE group evaluation, NSF report

-2.0

+0.1

-3.3

+0.4 +0.2

-+0.2

+1.8

+3.5

+1.5

-4.0

-2.0

+0.0

+2.0

+4.0

3rd Grade 5th Grade 8th Grade

ISAT

Sca

le S

core

Significant ISAT performance increases with PD attendance.

Low Moderate High

+4.0

+9.0

+6.2

+9.1

+7.2

+4.9

+6.7

+0.0

+2.0

+4.0

+6.0

+8.0

+10.0

None Everyday Mathematics

Math Trailblazers

ISA

T Sc

ale

Scor

e

Significant gains associated with core instructional materials use

0 Years 1 Year 2 Years 3 Years

23

High School Algebra In The Middle Grades8th Grade Algebra

Implementation Reach Effectiveness• University partnership to develop

CPS-specific teacher credentialing exam and coursework.

• High-stakes end-of-course exam.• Centrally managed curriculum

supports and tools, based on HS IDS model.

• Tools to help schools identify students for middle grades algebra.

• Major policy revisions to enable course registration, transcripts, course placement and course credits at HS.

• Extensive, ongoing program evaluation.

Expansion coupled with “scale up” funds from FY08 and FY09.

Participation in 8th grade algebra is associated with statistically significant achievement gains on 9th grade EXPLORE, even when controlling for demographics, prior achievement, and teacher characteristics. (REA analysis)

Budget FY09$1.4M from Office of Mathematics and Science (IDA) and HS Teaching + Learning. Local schools pay for materials. Managed centrally by 2 FTE; support via contract to IDS vendors.

Lessons LearnedI. Instructional program coherence matters.VI. High expectations plus adult supports leads to student achievementVII. Universities have an important role to play, particularly in developing teacher content knowledge.VIII.We can develop high-stakes assessments that measure what we intend them to, but it takes time and money.

49

81

139150

020406080

100120140160

2006-07 2007-08 2008-09 2009-10

Scho

ols

Schools Offering 8th Grade Algebra

Source: CMSI analysis, REA analysis

Year Exams Taken Pass Rate

2006-07 1114 29%

2007-08 2055 36%

2008-09 3235

More Students Are Taking 8th Grade Algebra,More Students Passing

4379

103

161

245

050

100150200250300

2004 2005 2006 2007 2008

Teac

hers

The number of CPS teachers with the “CPS algebra credential” is increasing.

24

HS Instructional Development Systems (IDS)One of 6 “High School Transformation” levers

Implementation Reach Effectiveness• Product of year-long research and

design effort, led by Boston Consulting Group.

• One of six components of overall “High School Transformation” strategy.

• Three “course support” elements: (1) aligned series of courses, (2) instructional materials, (3) quarterly assessments.

• Three “teacher support” elements: (4) coaching, (5) workshop PD, (6) teacher leadership development.

• Led by external vendors identified through competitive bid. (Including 4 local universities.)

• Wave 1 (2006-07 start) and Wave 2 (2007-08 start) opt-in.

• Wave 3 (2008-09 start) forced-in.• No expansion (except CEdO turnarounds) planned

for 2009-10.

• Differences between schools trump differences between individual IDSs. (BCG Year 1 analysis)

• Student performance as measured by EXPLORE to PLAN gains is flat. (HST+L analysis)

• Quality of instruction in IDS schools the same as in Ren10 schools. (CCSR)

• Considerably more reluctance in Wave 3 schools. (CCSR)

Budget – FY10 Proposed$36.1M ($6.8M from schools, $3M from Gates) for waves 2 and 3. $3M for wave 1 support in year 4. $0M for grade 12 support. 11.2 FTE central office

Lessons LearnedII. Fidelity of implementation matters and can be managed.V. Leadership development needs to be connected very closely with teacher development and curriculum implementation.IX. High schools are complex institutions that are difficult to change.X. School-level buy-in is difficult and important; dysfunctional schools do not respond rationally to external pressures.

Source: SRI evaluation; CCSR evaluation; BCG analysis; HST+L internal analysis

13 1119 19

013

11 11

0

0

13 13

0

25

50

2006-07 2007-08 2008-09 2009-10Sc

hool

s

IDS Implementation By Grade And Year

Grade 9 Grade 9 & 10 Grade 9 & 10 & 11

25

Lessons Learned and Proposed Next Steps (2 of 3)

Recap: Lessons Learned Proposed Next Steps

I. Instructional program coherence matters.II. Fidelity of implementation matters and can be

managed.III. Subject matter differences are considerable

and need to be considered when executing at the district, school, and classroom level.

IV. We can take external supports and move them to the central office; next big challenge is to move supports to schools.

V. Leadership development needs to be connected very closely with teacher development and curriculum implementation.

VI. High expectations plus adult supports leads to student achievement

VII. Universities have an important role to play, particularly in developing teacher content knowledge.

VIII. We can develop high-stakes assessments that measure what we intend them to, but it takes time and money.

IX. High schools are complex institutions that are difficult to change.

X. School-level buy-in is difficult and important; dysfunctional schools do not respond rationally to external pressures.

4. Avoid the “black box.”

5. For lower tier schools, consider expansion of core curriculum implementation. (Leadership will be essential.)

6. Focus school level performance management on connecting assessment andinstructional materials implementation.

7. Accelerate curriculum definition, design, and implementation work in science, arts, bilingual education and worldlanguage, social science, and CTE.

26

Agenda






27

Move capacity to the school.Fundamentally, we develop capacity at the school level to support instructional change. Externally driven reforms will flatten unless ownership is developed at the school level.

Teams enable adult learning.

Data builds and sustains teamwork.

Structures and routines describe the practice of leadership.

• The changes we want are transformational, not additive.

• These changes require complex new knowledge, skills, and dispositions.

• Deep understanding demands repeated opportunities to learn, practice, reflect, and refine with peers.

• Data is the fuel that starts teams talking and sustains that conversation.

• As much as possible, data should be local (based on local curriculum and teacher actions) and actionable (namely, not only annual data).

• Organizational routines (e.g.weekly department meetings) and the artifacts that result (e.g. agendas, minutes) define the practice of leading schools.

• To improve teacher leadership in practice, focus on improving these structures, routines, and artifacts.

• Performance management routines are a vehicle for teaching these practices.

Stra

tegi

c Vi

sion

How

To

Get

The

re A

t Sca

le

Knowledgeable principals are an essential foundation for the above work.

School Leadership In Context

28

Whose job is it to make principals better?OPPD

LSC

AIOs

OEAS

Talent Management

Recruitment

Placement

Coaching/Mentoring

Evaluation

C&I SupportNew Schools

HS ILC

IDA, HST+L

Induction

29

The AIO Case: Lessons In Leadership Development

Designed LivedFocus on improving instruction

• Strong network of support• Best in class professional

development• Candidates selected for their

instructional expertise

Professional Learning Community

Clear Routines• Walkthrough routine• Principal meeting routine

Enhance learning culture

Diffused focus• Competition and management• Procedural focus for professional

development• Candidates selected for many

reasons with instructional expertise somewhere on the list

Isolation

Routines appropriated for purposes beyond their original intent

Preserved hierarchical culture

30

Proposed Next Steps (3 of 3)

8. Major effort to develop capacity of school leaders, school leadership teams, and “principal managers”. Focus on the instructional core.

9. Frame performance management as a capacity building strategy; we can’t recruit and fire our way to a world class education system.

31

Agenda






32

Recap: Proposed Next Steps

1. Position instruction as central work of CPS; define five other strategic priorities (performance management, portfolio management, human capital, safety and security, central office) by their relationship to instructional improvement.

2. Ongoing advice and support from Harvard and CCT to CPS on re-organization of infrastructure for supporting teaching and learning.

3. Continue to participate in national education-related reform leadership networks (e.g. Harvard’s PELP, Aspen’s UMLN and ULLN).

4. Avoid the “black box.”

5. For lower tier schools, consider expansion of core curriculum implementation. (Leadership is essential.)

6. Focus school level performance management on connecting assessment and instructional materials implementation.

7. Accelerate curriculum definition, design, and implementation work in science, arts, and social science.

8. Major effort to develop capacity of school leaders, school leadership teams, and “principal managers”. Focus on the instructional core.

9. Frame performance management as a capacity building strategy; we can’t recruit and fire our way to a world class education system.

33

Some other deep dives for the near future…

Coaching

Assessment Design and Use

Leadership Development

New Teacher Induction

Curriculum, Standards, Instructional Materials

What else?

34

The Instructional Core

Principle #1: Increases in student learning occur only as a consequence of improvements in the level of content, teachers’ knowledge and skill, and student engagement.

Principle #2: If you change one element of the instructional core, you have to change the other two.

Principle #3: If you can’t see it in the core, it’s not there.

Principle #4: Task predicts performance.

Principle #5: The real accountability system is in the tasks that students are asked to do.

Principle #6: We learn to do the work by doing the work.

Principle #7: Description before analysis, analysis before prediction, prediction before evaluation.

TEACHER STUDENT

CONTENT