high!reliability!schools! northeasteducaonservicecooperave! · marzano high reliability school...

February 9, 2015

Dr. Phil Warrick, Associate Vice President Marzano Research

High Reliability Schools Northeast Educa6on Service Coopera6ve

1

TwiDer: @pbwarrick

2

Characteris6cs of High Reliability Organiza6ons: •  Con6nually in pursuit of error free performance •  Implement structures and systems to monitor and iden6fy errors in their opera6on

•  Take immediate ac6on to prevent errors from becoming system wide failures

•  Recognize and plan for the interdependence of everything they do to work toward a common, ul6mate goal

Marzano High Reliability School Levels

5.  A Competency-Based System Ensuring Student Mastery of Content

4. Standards-Referenced Reporting of Student Progress

3. A Guaranteed and Viable Curriculum

2. Effective Teaching In Every Classroom

1. A Safe and Collaborative Culture

Marzano Research Laboratory has developed the HRS model to provide schools with a long-‐term planning framework for conPnuous school improvement.

The HRS model is intended to serve as a guide for school leaders as they engage in short and long term school improvement planning. The model is focused clearly on school improvement through research-‐based pracPces. Levels 1, 2, and 3 are foundaPonal and must be worked on conPnually in all schools. Levels 4 and 5 are opPonal for schools but do provide even higher levels of schooling reliability.

Marzano Research Laboratory 2015 ω marzanoresearch.com

3

Leading and Lagging Indicators In order to know what to work on and to measure their success at each level, school leaders need ways to assess their school’s current status, gauge their progress through each level, and confirm successful achievement of each level. Leading and lagging indicators are useful to these ends. Leading indicators are important condiPons that are known to be associated with school improvement. Leading Indicators provide direcPon for school leaders in strategic planning for conPnuous, long-‐term improvement with specific short-‐term focuses. Lagging indicators are the data and/or arPfacts of pracPce that leaders should use to conPnually monitor leading indicators in their schools.

Crea6ng condi6ons for others to be successful is one of the highest du6es of leadership.

Begin with level 1

5. Competency-Based Education

4. Standards-Referenced Reporting of Student Progress

3. A Guaranteed and Viable Curriculum

2. Effective Teaching In Every Classroom

1. Safe and Collaborative Culture


4

1.1 The faculty and staff perceive the school environment as safe and orderly. 1.2 Students, parents, and the community perceive the school environment as safe

and orderly. 1.3 Teachers have formal roles in the decision-‐making process regarding school

iniPaPves. 1.4 Teacher teams and collaboraPve groups regularly interact to address common

issues regarding curriculum, assessment, instrucPon, and the achievement of all students.

1.5 Teachers and staff have formal ways to provide input regarding the opPmal funcPoning of the school.

1.6 Students, parents, and the community have formal ways to provide input regarding the opPmal funcPoning of the school.

1.7 The success of the whole school, as well as individuals within the school, is appropriately acknowledged.

1.8 The fiscal, operaPonal, and technological resources of the school are managed in a way that directly supports teachers.

Level I Leading Indicators

Sample Lagging Indicators for Leading Indicator 1.1

Monthly incident reports showing the number of Pmes students were removed from classes for causing a disrupPon. Surveys of faculty and staff indicate that the school is safe and orderly.

What are Quick Data?

•  Continuous monitoring using easily collected data

•  School FOD Walks


5

Quick Conversations •  Responses are coded •  Notes capture anecdotal data

Easy-to-Collect Quantitative Data Examples:

Level 1 Level 2 Level 3 Level 4 Level 5 • Rule violations

• Detentions

• Tardies

• Attendance data

• Expulsions

• Bullying incidents

• Truancies

• Teacher scores on observation protocols

• Instructional rounds data

• Walk-through data

• Teacher PD requests

• Curriculum alignment documents

• Student IEPs and ILPs

• Formative assessment data

• Student and class progress tracking sheets

• Summative assessment data

• Student self-assessment reports

• Scheduling documents

• Reports of college credits earned

• Student mastery reports

• Student growth reports

Quick Observations


6

Leading Indicators 1.1 and 1.2

The faculty and staff perceive the school environment as safe and orderly.

Students, parents, and the community perceive the school environment as safe and orderly.

Lagging Indicators Quick Data Sources

Lagging Indicators Quick Data Sources


7

• The specific types of decisions on which teachers will have direct input are made clear • Data-‐gathering techniques are in place to collect informaPon from teachers • Notes and reports are in place that describe how teacher input was used when making specific decisions • Electronic tools are uPlized to collect and report teacher opinions regarding specific decisions • Groups of teachers are targeted and uPlized to provide input regarding specific decisions

Lagging Indicator Examples


8

Decisions made by individual teachers or

teacher teams

Decisions where teachers will rou6nely have direct input

Decisions school administra6on will make,

possibly without teacher input


9

Lagging Indicator Examples


10

Sample Lagging Indicator CollaboraPve Team SMART Goal Format

MARZANO Research Laboratory888.849.0851 marzanoresearch.com

Geometry Benchmark Geometry - Cycle 3 Benchmark Met Passing Standard!

ALL AA Hisp White At

Risk CTE EOD LEP Sp Ed

Teacher A 64.6%! 43.4%! 52.8%! 78.7%! 30.7%! 65.4%! 44.4%! 18.8%! 16.1%!

Teacher B 72.2%! 41.8%! 60.0%! 79.8%! 47.2%! 72.1%! 49.1%! 18.2%! 44.4%!

Teacher C 64.7%! 41.4%! 53.3%! 68.1%! 28.0%! 62.3%! 41.2%! 0.0%! 46.2%!

Teacher D 57.4%! 49.0%! 53.3%! 64.7%! 29.7%! 59.1%! 47.7%! 30.8%! 18.4%!

Teacher E 83.0%! 35.3%! 77.0%! 86.6%! 63.2%! 82.4%! 61.8%! 60.0%! 38.9%!


11 Marzano Research Laboratory 2015 ω marzanoresearch.com

Leadership ac6ons This is us

We are working on

this

We are talking about it

This is not us.

Organize staff into meaningful teams •  In the absence of interdependence, one or more common goals, and

mutual accountability, a group cannot be a team. •  The most logical and easiest team structure to establish is the course-‐

specific or grade-‐level team.

Provide teams with 6me to collaborate •  When teachers work together on the right work, even for as liDle as one

hour each week, we can expect gains in student achievement.

Provide suppor6ve structures that help groups become teams •  Teams are more effecPve when they have clarified expectaPons

regarding how they will work together, translated those expectaPons into collecPve commitments, and use the commitments to monitor their working relaPonship on an ongoing basis.

•  Without a common goal that members can achieve only by working together interdependently, a group cannot become a team.

Clarify the work that teams must accomplish •  Administrators and teachers should work together to idenPfy the “right

work” of teams – the work with the greatest potenPal to have a posiPve impact on student learning and the capacity of staff to funcPon as members of high-‐performing teams.

•  It is criPcal that teams uPlize a protocol that helps them focus on the right work.

Monitor the work of teams and provide direc6on and support as needed •  Teams should develop products that flow from the dialogue of a team

engaged in collecPve inquiry on the right work. •  When educators understand the tangible work products that must be

created as a result of their collaboraPon, they develop greater clarity regarding the nature of their work.

Avoid shortcuts in the collabora6ve team process •  It is the process of building shared knowledge and the collabora+ve

dialogue about that shared knowledge that builds the capacity of the staff to funcPon as high-‐performing teams.

•  Leaders enhance the effecPveness of others when they provide clarity regarding what needs to be done and ongoing support to help staff succeed. They do not develop others by doing the work for them.

Celebrate short-‐term wins, and confront those who do not contribute to their teams •  It is difficult to create momentum for the collaboraPve team process and

impossible to sustain the process without recognizing and celebraPng both concerted effort and incremental progress.

•  Leaders who are unwilling to confront staff members who ignore the collaboraPve team process not only undermine that process but also damage their relaPonal trust with the rest of the faculty.

Reciprocal Accountability: The Key to Building CollecPve Capacity Adapted from DuFour and Marzano’s Leaders of Learning, pp. 70-‐87

© Marzano Research Laboratory 2013. Rights Reserved.

13

Leading Indicators 1.5 and 1.6

Teachers and staff have formal ways to provide input regarding the op6mal func6oning of the school.

Teachers? Staff?

Students? Parents?


Students, parents, and the community have formal ways to provide input regarding the op6mal func6oning of the school.

14

Leading Indicator 1.7 The success of the whole school, as well as individuals within the school, is appropriately acknowledged.

Who or what do you celebrate?

How oTen do you celebrate?

How do you celebrate?

Who or what should you celebrate more oTen?


15

HRS Planning Matrix


17

Notes Page


Short form survey of Level I Leading Indicators


high!reliability!schools! northeasteducaonservicecooperave! · marzano high reliability school...

Documents