january 22, 2015. resources
TRANSCRIPT
January 22, 2015
Setting the Stage for IGNITE
What is keeping you awake at night?
What issues/concerns would you like to discuss with your colleagues?
2 MINUTES
Top 3 Topics from your Table
Share your list with your table team—not a conversation, just the list
Come to consensus around your table’s top 3-4 topics and post at http://padlet.com/dschon/Jan2015
Legislative Panel
Sen. Herman Quirmbach
Sen. Amy Sinclair
Rep. Kevin Koester
Rep. Sharon Steckman
Rep. Patti Ruff
S
Background
Legislatively Commissioned about 15 months ago
Diverse Membership• Ruth Allison, Administrative
Consultant, Iowa Vocational Rehabilitation Services, Des Moines
• Catherine Blando, College Supervisor Faculty, Iowa Wesleyan College, Cedar Rapids
• Shelly Bosovich, Executive Director, Des Moines Public Schools, Des Moines
• Kathy Brenny, Consultant, Prairie Lakes Area Education Agency, Storm Lake
• Martha Bruckner, Superintendent, Council Bluffs Community School District, Council Bluffs
• Joe DeHart, Executive Director, Institutional Effectiveness, DMACC, Ankeny
• Lowell Ernst, Director of K-12 Instruction, Pella Community School District, Pella
• Diana Gonzalez, Chief Academic Officer, Board of Regents, Urbandale
• Harry Heiligenthal, Leadership Development Director, Iowa Association of School Boards, Des Moines
• Tina Hoffman, Regional Administrator, Grant Wood Area Education Agency, Cedar Rapids
• Mark Lane, Director of Human Resources, Urbandale Community School District, Urbandale
• Jo Ellen Latham, Director of Curriculum and Instruction, Southeast Polk Community School District, Pleasant Hill
• Jane Lindaman, Superintendent, Waterloo Community School District, Waterloo
• Jon McKenzie, Director of Assessment and Comprehensive Improvement, Area Education Agency 267, Cedar Falls
• Angela Olson, Associate Principal, Xavier High School, Cedar Rapids
• Elliott Smith, Executive Director, Iowa Business Council, Des Moines
• David Tilly, Deputy Director, Iowa Department of Education, Des Moines
• Denise Wall, Teacher, IKM-Manning Middle School, Manning
• Tammy Wawro, President, Iowa State Education Association, Des Moines
• Melanie Wirtz, Teacher, Peet Junior High School, Cedar Falls
• Karen Woltman, Parent, Swisher
Frequent Meetings
Early Decisions Science assessment not considered Worked by consensus as possible Created review criteria and scoring rubrics Two Rounds of data collection and scoring
Criteria and Weightings
RFI and Submissions
Sent out an RFI. Received responses from: ACT: ACT Aspire, ACT Engage, ACT Plus Writing, and ACT WorkKeys CollegiateZone Enterprises, L.P.: DNA (Discover, Nurture, Achieve)
System CTB/McGraw Hill (CTB): customized solutions Data Recognition Corp (DRC): DRC INSIGHT online assessment system The Iowa Testing Programs (ITP): Next Generation Iowa Assessments Northwest Evaluation Association Pearson: custom Iowa based assessment, ACT Aspire, Smarter Balanced
Assessments Turning Technologies, LLC: Triton Data Collection System, ResponseCard
NXT (clicker)
Round 1
Round 1: Apply legislative criteria using scoring rubrics. Each assessment reviewed and scored by task force
members Scores calculated for each submission. Results summarized 3 assessments met minimum criteria
ACT Aspire/ACT Next Generation Iowa Assessments Smarter Balanced Assessments
Round 2
Task Force Votes to exit ACT submission from further Consideration
Additional data collected on two finalists Additional technical review Written Questions based on first round review In-person interview with developers Interviews with users (teachers, administrators,
students)
Recommendations
Recommendations
Recommendations
Recommendations
Teacher Leadership & Compensation System
Implementation Update
January, 2015
Teacher Leadership & Compensation SystemDivision VII of HF 215 created the Teacher Leadership and Compensation System, as well as the Teacher Leadership Supplement (TLS) categorical funding stream.
• Goals: • attract and retain effective teachers• promote collaboration• reward professional growth and effective teaching • improve student achievement by strengthening instruction
• Planning Grants: $3.5 million available in 2013
• Phased-in Entry: $50 million available per year for the 2014-15, 2015-16, and 2016-17 school years
Iowa Department of Education
Year 1 Participating Districts
Iowa Department of Education
In year one, the Commission approved applications from 39 districts, representing 1/3 of Iowa’s students.
All Participating Districts
Iowa Department of Education
In December 2014, the Commission approved applications from 76 districts for implementation in year two and 50 additional districts in year three.
Application and Selection Statistics
Iowa Department of Education
The average TLC application score increased by more than six points from year one to year two. In addition, the gap in the average score between the largest and smallest school districts closed by four points. The Department of Education is committed to ensuring all districts, regardless of size, are able to adapt a teacher leadership model to their local context.
9,000+ 2,500-8,999 1,000-2,499 600-999 300-599 <3000
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
8277
7267 66 66
8682
7875 74 74
Average Score by District Size
Avg Score Year 1 Avg Score Year 2
Student Enrollment
Avg.
App
licati
on S
core
Application and Selection Statistics
Iowa Department of Education
The average TLC application score increased significantly in almost every region of the state. In addition, the variance in the average score between AEAs shrunk dramatically. The Department of Education worked closely with the AEA system to ensure that all districts, regardless of their location, were supported in the planning process.
Keystone Prairie Lakes 267 Mississippi Bend
Grant Wood Heartland Northwest Green Hills Great Prairie55
60
65
70
75
80
85
Average Score by AEA
Avg Score Year 1 Avg Score Year 2
Area Education Agency
Avg.
Sco
re
What We’re Hearing - Strengths
Iowa Department of Education
TLC implementation is off to a strong start. Stakeholders in all roles have expressed enthusiasm and have highlighted tangible results in the first few months of implementation. These early positive results are common across all districts, regardless of size or geography.
“TLC lets our teachers be the leaders they are.”
Superintendent, Colo-Nesco
“This is the first time in my career I’ve been involved in creating professional
development.”
“A teacher’s day is full, so to be able to ask for
support from a coach has been an awesome
experience.”
“I’ve noticed a really good vibe since we’ve
implemented TLC. It has reenergized the staff.”
“TLC has strengthened collaboration and has led to
the better use of data to drive instruction… We’re
already seeing big gains in student achievement.”
“TLC has exponentially increased the development
of teachers… and has accelerated their work in
delivering better instruction.”
Teacher Leader, Cedar Rapids Teacher, Benton CSD
Board Member, Colo-NescoPrincipal, Sioux City Asst. Supt., Southeast Polk
What We’re Hearing – Challenges
• The fast pace of change can be difficult for schools.
• School districts have found that clearly defining each leadership role is critical, but this can be difficult to do when the roles are new to the system.
• TLC changes the role of the principal, and in many cases this can spark difficult conversations.
• Implementing TLC can shrink the pool of available substitute teachers. For example, the Sioux City School District hired 27 teachers this year who were formerly substitutes.
• Rural school districts may face additional challenges, including filling all of their leadership roles from within and managing the logistical challenges of teacher leaders serving schools in multiple communities.
Iowa Department of Education
While implementation is proceeding smoothly, districts have also shared challenges in implementing their TLC plans.
Information and Support
Iowa Department of Education
The Teacher Leadership and Compensation page on the Iowa Department of Education’s website provides information and support to school districts, particularly during the planning stages of TLC development.
Information and Support
Iowa Department of Education
The Agora Community on the AEA PD Online website will serve as the one-stop-shop and collaboration hub as districts implement their local TLC plans.
IOWA Department of Education
Targeting Support
Engaging in Professional Learning
Planning to Implement
Welcoming to TLC
Determine Specific Needs• Ongoing Learning• Teacher Leader Development
Phase 2 • Aligned with TLC Framework
Phase 1• Vision and Goals• Change Process
Regional Meetings• Answer Questions• Plan for Support
TLC – LayeredApproachfor Support
January
July 16
April 15
ContinuousRegional Trainings
SAI, IS
EA, DE
Iow
a D
epar
tmen
t of E
duca
tion
TLC
Sup
port
Tea
m
IOWA Department of Education
Creating a System of Support
Phase 1
Phase 2
Phase 3
•Identify/revisit the needs of the system (students, teachers, teacher leaders, administrators, community stakeholders)
•Establish and communicate a vision for teacher leadership in the greater context of school improvement (ground the work in a strategic plan, the IPDM, MTSS, or some other improvement model)
•Determine/revisit the goals for a system of teacher leadership and identify indicators of success (attend to impact and effect)
•Understand and engage in learning about the change process
•Create structures and schedules conducive to collaboration and professional learning
•Monitor and evaluate impact and effect
•Engage in trainingoCoaching (teacher
leaders of teachers, principals of teacher leaders, superintendents of principals)
oContent Knowledge and Pedagogy
oAdult learning
oSystems thinking
•Cultivate collaboration
•Monitor progress via analysis of indicators
Creating a System of Support
Iowa Department of Education
The Department of Education is working with stakeholders across Iowa to identify, coordinate and provide opportunities for teacher leaders and school leaders to build the knowledge and skills they need to be successful in these new leadership roles. Adult
LearningCollaborative
CultureCommunicati
onContent,
Pedagogy &Assessment
Systems Thinking
Data Organizational Leadership
Focus Areas
Design and delivery of professional learning.
Facilitation of group processes and development of necessary structures for professional learning environments to be effective.
Cultivation of skills associated with effective dialogue with colleagues.
Implementation of research and best practice in content (Iowa Core), instruction and assessment.
Integration and alignment of district and statewide educational improvement efforts.
Facilitation of data analysis and data- informed decision making.
Facilitation and enactment of a vision for school improvement with teacher leadership as a point of leverage.
TLC Evaluation
Iowa Department of Education
The central focus of the Department’s evaluation plan is on ensuring the TLC system achieves the goals of attracting and retaining effective teachers, promoting collaboration, rewarding professional growth and effective teaching, and improving student achievement by strengthening instruction. Our approach to evaluation includes four key components.
• Collaboration• Instructional
improvement• Achievement
• Progress toward locally-determined goals
• Fidelity of implementation
• Trends
• Leadership Roles
• Salary Data
Iowa BEDS
Plan Changes Tracker
External Support
End of Year
Report
Iowa Department of Education
Questions and Discussion
Setting the Stage - IGNITE
Access our voting tool at the Resources Link: http://bit.ly/jan15execldr
Vote for the topic you most want to discuss tomorrow by clicking on Vote and entering your initials.
January 23, 2015
resources
http://bit.ly/jan15execldr
Attendance Center Rankings
Amy Williamson
Jay Pennington
Attendance CenterRanking System
Iowa Department of Education
Attendance Center Ranking
•Charge•Process•Timeline•Deliverables
Charge• Legislative Requirement• Shall develop criteria and process to evaluate each
attendance center• Posted on website• Required criteria and optional criteria• Overall school performance rank
Process• DE work team• Recommendations• Healthy Indicators C4K group
Required Measures • Student Proficiency• Academic Growth• Attendance Rates• Parent Involvement• Employee Turnover• Community Activities and Involvement• Closing Gaps Score • Graduation Rates• College Readiness
Optional Measures • Post-graduation data• Suspension and expulsion rates• Level of student engagement• Parent satisfaction• Parent engagement• Staff working conditions
Recommendations• Must combine accountability and improvement to be
successful• Transparency and simplicity should be targets• Technical assistance and support are needed to drive
improvement• Collaboration is needed• Consensus approach
Timeline & Next Steps• DE Work Team – June 2014• Recommendations – July 2014• Healthy Indicators C4K group – Fall 2014• Limited Public Reporting - Proficiency, Growth &
Gap – January 2015• ACR system pilot – Winter & Spring 2015• ACR system to schools – September 2015• ACR system to public – October 2015
Report Preview
Report Preview
Proficiency and Growth Correlations
Measure Correlation
Proficiency and Low SES -0.654
Growth and Proficiency 0.168
Growth and Low SES -.015
Growth and % White .042
Proficiency and % White .363
Healthy Indicators & ACR• Purposes• How they fit together• How to think about them
Healthy Indicators Task Group
• Task: Develop, operationalize, and implement a set of objective, measureable indicators of the health of the education system in Iowa at the preschool, building, district, AEA and state levels.
Healthy Indicators Data to inform decision-making on which districts, AEAs, and programs
require desk audits versus on-site visits and what supports they need to successfully engage in continuous improvement
Will use some information from Attendance Center Rankings (ACR) legislation
Possible data sources: Proficiency* Academic growth* Attendance Parent involvement Community activities and involvement Closing gaps score* Employee turnover Graduation rate College-readiness rate Suspension/expulsion rates Student engagement Employee working conditions
Post-graduation data Parent satisfaction Parent engagement Use of valid and reliable assessment
tools Percent of students proficient with
universal instruction Percent of students proficient with
targeted and intensive interventions Operation of a high-functioning
leadership team Financial information
Collaborative Inquiry Questions
CONSENSUS
A. Is there initial and ongoing administrator consensus to develop and implement MTSS?
B. Is there initial and ongoing staff consensus to develop and implement MTSS?
Collaborative Inquiry Questions
CONSENSUS, INFRASTRUCTURE AND IMPLEMENTATION
C. Is there a leadership team willing to accept responsibility for development, implementation, and sustainability of MTSS?
D. Do we have an established and ongoing collaborative inquiry process for implementation of MTSS?
Universal Tier
1. Is the Universal Tier sufficient?
2. If the Universal Tier is not sufficient, what are the needs that must be addressed?
3. How will Universal Tier needs be addressed?
4. How will the implementation of the Universal Tier actions be monitored over time?
5. Have Universal Tier actions been effective?
Targeted/
Intensive Tiers
6. Which students need support in addition to the Universal Tier?
7. Which of the Targeted and/or Intensive Tier resources are needed to meet the needs of identified students?
8. How will the Targeted and/or Intensive Tier options be implemented?
9. How will the implementation of the Targeted and Intensive Tiers be monitored over time?
10. How will the effectiveness of the Targeted and Intensive Tiers be evaluated?
Collaborative Inquiry Questions
CONSENSUS, INFRASTRUCTURE, IMPLEMENTATION, AND SUSTAINABILITY
E. Do you have an established structure to provide on-going professional learning and coaching to support all staff members?
F. How do you ensure evaluation of MTSS implementation and impact on achievement?
G. What structures does the leadership team have in place to support sustainability of MTSS over time?
Assessment
InterventionLeadership
UniversalInstruction
Infrastructure
Healthy Indicators
Collaborative Inquiry Questions
A Single Continuous Improvement Process
Healthy IndicatorsDistrict A
Assessment 1. 95%2. 75%3. Yes4. No
1. Use of valid/reliable universal screening assessments for all students (% screened)2. Use of valid/reliable progress monitoring assessments for all students who require progress monitoring (% assessed)3. Comprehensive, balanced assessment system in place (assessment calendar)4. Use of data-based decision-making (data analysis via data teams, data days)
Universal Instruction 1. 65%2. 36%3. -
1. Percent proficient with universal instruction2. Growth3. Closing gaps
Interventions 77% Percent proficient with targeted and/or intensive instruction, using evidence-based interventions, achieving growth
Leadership 55% Leadership team in place, consensus present
Infrastructure 99% Funds are allocated, technology adequate
Assessment
InterventionLeadership
UniversalInstruction
Infrastructure
Healthy IndicatorsProficiency
GrowthClosing Gaps
UniversalInstruction
HI Data
Identification of Barriers
Evidence-based Solution
Evaluation
Percent proficient in the core
Question D2 Guide
Implement class-wide intervention
Streamlined Reporting
Streamlined ReportingDistrict A
Title IA Requirement Status IDEA B Requirement Status
§ 1112(c) Assurances Compliant § 611(a) State activities Compliant
§ 1112(d) Consultation Compliant § 612(a)(11) General Supervision Compliant
§ 1114(a)(1) May not consolidate funds
Compliant § 613(a)(1) LEA Eligibility Noncompliant
§ 1115(b)(1) Eligible population Noncompliant § 613(a)(3) Personnel development
Compliant
§ 1116(b)(1)(B) Deadline for identification
Compliant § 613(f) Early intervening services
Noncompliant
Designations: DINA 3, IDEA Part B Needs Assistance Year 2, Attendance Center Ranking: 2 Schools Acceptable, 1 Priority
Streamlined ReportingDistrict Compliance and
DesignationsHI Tiered Support Support Provided
District A 78%, DINA 4,3 ACR Priority Schools
Compliance: IntensiveAssessment: IntensiveUniversal Instruction: IntensiveTargeted and Intensive Instruction: TargetedLeadership: TargetedInfrastructure: Targeted
Compliance: Level 2 Desk AuditAssessment: Focused visitUniversal Instruction: Focused visitTargeted and Intensive Instruction: Remote interviewLeadership: Remote interviewInfrastructure: Remote interview
District B 98%, DINA 2 Compliance: UniversalAssessment: TargetedUniversal Instruction: IntensiveTargeted and Intensive Instruction: UniversalLeadership: UniversalInfrastructure: Universal
Compliance: Desk AuditAssessment: Remote interviewUniversal Instruction: Focused visitTargeted and Intensive Instruction: NALeadership: NAInfrastructure: NA
District C 100%, 2 ACR Commendable Schools
Compliance: UniversalAssessment: UniversalUniversal Instruction: UniversalTargeted and Intensive Instruction: UniversalLeadership: UniversalInfrastructure: Targeted
Compliance: Desk AuditAssessment: NAUniversal Instruction: Focused visit to share successful practicesTargeted and Intensive Instruction: NALeadership: NAInfrastructure: NA
Questions?
ACR Prioritization Survey
Access prioritization survey via the Resources Link
S
Six Thinking HatsFrom the work of Edward deBono
Purpose
To process and discuss the ACR report utilizing parallel thinking via the six hats
What is parallel thinking?
At any moment everyone is looking in the same direction.
The six hats widen our lens:
Six colors of hats for six types of thinking Each hat identifies a type of thinking Hats are directions of thinking
Hats help a group use parallel thinking You can “put on” and “take off” a hat
Six colors…
White: neutral, objective
Red: emotional, passionate
Black: serious, somber
Yellow: sunny, positive
Green: growth, fertility
Blue: cool, sky above
…and six hats
White: objective facts & figures; data & information
Red: emotions, feelings, & intuitions
Black: cautious, careful, & critical judgment
Yellow: hope, positive & beneficial
Green: creativity, ideas & lateral thinking
Blue: process control & organization of thinking (thinking about thinking)
Wearing the hats
Direction, not description Set out to think in a certain direction “Let’s have some black hat thinking…”
Not categories of people Not: “He’s a black hat thinker.” Everyone can and should use all the hats
Not right v. wrong Thinking through the issues from multiple points of view. Surfacing potential gaps
Use in whole or in part
Benefits of Six Thinking Hats
Provides a common language
Experience & intelligence of each person (Diversity of thought)
Use more of our brains
Helps people work against type, preference
Removal of ego (reduce confrontation)
Save time
Focus (one thing at a time)
Create, evaluate & implement action plans
The Blue Hat
Thinking about thinking
Instructions for thinking
The organization of thinking
Control of the other hats
Discipline and focus
White Hat Thinking
Neutral, objective information
Facts & figures
Review existing information, search for gaps, analyze past trends
Questions: What information do we have? What information do we need? What information is missing? What questions do we need to ask? Is it fact or belief? (checked facts v. believed facts)
Excludes opinions, hunches, judgments
Removes feelings & impressions
Red Hat Thinking
Emotions & feelings
Hunches, intuitions, impressions, gut instincts
Doesn’t have to be logical or consistent
No justifications, reasons or basis
Consider how other people will react emotionally
Red Hat Questions
What is your gut reaction to the ACR? What is your opinion? What do you like or not like? What emotions are involved (fear, anger,
hatred, suspicion, enthusiasm, joy)?
Yellow Hat Thinking
Positive & speculative
Positive thinking, optimism, opportunity
Benefits
Best-case scenarios
Exploration
Yellow Hat Questions
What ideas, suggestions, or proposals are there for how to navigate communication of and issues surrounding the ACR?
What is the value/benefit in how this ACR system has been designed?
What positives do you see?
What could be done to make this more effective?
Under what conditions will this work?
What is your vision for how this can move forward?
Green Hat Thinking
New ideas, concepts, perceptions
Deliberate creation of new ideas
Alternatives and more alternatives
New approaches to problems
Creative & lateral thinking
Green Hat Questions
Let’s think “outside the box.”
What are some fresh ideas or approaches?
This is the time for any wild or crazy or “far out” idea.
What are all of our alternatives?
How can we reshape a certain idea?
We’ve always done it this way; let’s “green hat” it … how else can we do it?
Black Hat Thinking
Cautious and careful
Logical negative – why it won’t work
Critical judgment, pessimistic view
Separates logical negative from emotional
Focus on errors, evidence, conclusions
Logical & truthful, but not necessarily fair
Black Hat Questions
What will happen if we take this action?
What can go wrong if we proceed with this idea or implement this suggestion?
What are the weaknesses that we need to overcome?
How does this fit with other work ongoing in the state and in districts?
Six hats summary
Blue: control & organization of thinking
White: objective facts & figures
Red: emotions & feelings
Yellow: hope, positive & speculative
Green: creativity, ideas & lateral thinking
Black: cautious & careful
Red Hat Questions
What is your gut reaction to the ACR? What is your opinion? What do you like or not like? What emotions are involved (fear, anger,
hatred, suspicion, enthusiasm, joy)?
Yellow Hat Questions
What ideas, suggestions, or proposals are there for how to navigate communication of and issues surrounding the ACR?
What is the value/benefit in how this ACR system has been designed?
What positives do you see?
What could be done to make this more effective?
Under what conditions will this work?
What is your vision for how this can move forward?
Group Process
Describe the group’s interactions.
What themes emerged from the conversation?
Additional Comments
What else will be important as we navigate the ACR?
IGNITE Topics
1. School Calendar
2. Supplemental State Aid
3. ACR
4. Students’ mental health needs
5. Restricted use funds
6. TLC Implementation
7. Creating HS education to meet 21st century learning
8. Balancing being proactive w/multitude of other leadership responsibilities
9. ELI and 5 year olds
10. Restricted funds
IGNITE Conversations
Brainstorm questions you have around your prioritized topic.
Move to the area of the room where the conversation will occur.
Person who traveled the farthest begins the conversation by posing a question from his/her list.
