“ a world class system of schools ” instructional rounds in-brief and out-brief eastside...

“A World Class System of Schools”

INSTRUCTIONAL ROUNDSIN-BRIEF AND OUT-BRIEF

Eastside Elementary SchoolNovember 28, 2012

Adapted from the bookINSTRUCTIONAL ROUNDS IN EDUCATION: A

Network Approach to Improving Teaching and LearningBy

Elizabeth A. City, Richard F. Elmore, Sarah E. Fiarman, and Lee Teitel


INSTRUCTIONAL LEADERSHIP

Instructional leaders are obligated to:• Promote and participate in teacher learning• Plan, coordinate, and evaluate teaching• Plan, coordinate and evaluate curriculum• Align resource selection and allocate to priority

teaching goals• Establish goals and expectations • Ensure orderly and supportive environment

(Hattie, 2009)


HIGH-QUALITY INSTRUCTION AT SCALE

High-quality instruction at scale involves the systemic improvement efforts to the instructional core within individual classrooms and across all schools, which can be applied to all levels of practice that are needed to systematically improve instruction and increase learning for all students. In short, high quality instruction at scale moves the teaching and learning from a single classroom to the school, and from a single school to the district; and from the individual to the collective.


HIGH-QUALITY INSTRUCTION AT SCALE

To build individual and collective capacity to: • Ensure that all students have access to high-quality

instruction no matter which classroom they are in. • Understand what kind of teaching and learning is happening

in each classroom, at each school across the district.• Build a shared language and understanding of high-quality

teaching and learning in order to move exceptional practices from a single classroom to the school, and from a single school to the district, from a individual to the collective.


The basic premise of Instructional Rounds is that people learn best about the meaning of

high quality instruction by observing teachers, students, and the work students are asked to do, followed by meaningful conversation and

analysis.


THE BIG IDEA!The idea behind Instructional Rounds is that everyone involved is working on their practice, everyone is obliged to be knowledgeable about the common task of instructional improvement, and everyone’s practice should be subject to scrutiny, critique, and improvement.

• Instructional Rounds inform and are informed by improvement strategies.• Instructional Rounds start with a problem of practice, one that often emerges

from some improvement strategy, and end with ideas for making our improvement strategies more effective.

• Instructional Rounds are, then, a vehicle for improving our strategies and making us much more reflective about our work.


INSTRUCTIONAL ROUNDS(GOALS)

• Improve participants’ skills as instructional leaders. • Broaden participants’ understanding of their own and other school

systems. • Improve student learning. • Strengthen and deepen existing improvement strategies. • Build and reinforce a culture of improvement. • Provide clarity and focus for existing professional development. • Develop a common vocabulary for teaching and learning among

leaders. • Build pathways into multiple leadership roles.


THEORIES OF ACTION:SINGLE-LOOP LEARNING


THEORIES OF ACTION: DOUBLE-LOOP LEARNING

“A World Class System of Schools”THEORIES OF PRACTICE:

REFLECTIVE PRACTICE

• The Instructional Rounds process, and any other process using theories of practice, challenges us to engage in double-loop learning because it is a much more highly-refined method of reflecting on our work (reflective practice).

• In Instructional Rounds, we will try to make our theories of action about instructional leadership explicit, concretely relating our assumptions and strategies about our work as leaders to the work of teachers and students in the classroom.

“A World Class System of Schools”QUALITY INSTRUCTION DEFINED

“Task Predicts Performance” What predicts performance is what students are

actually doing...the instructional task is the actual work that students are asked to do during the process of instruction-not what teachers think they are asking

students to do or what the official curriculum says that the students are asked to do...”

-Dr. Richard Elmore-

“A World Class System of Schools”INSTRUCTIONAL CORE

TASK PREDICTS PERFORMANCE

• The best way to get a glimpse of the instructional core is to look at what the students are doing, not necessarily what the teacher is doing.

• Feedback and guidance for the teacher should focus on the tasks students complete, with attention to how the three dimensions of the instructional core must be addressed.

“A World Class System of Schools”THE INSTRUCTIONAL CORE…

• The “Instructional Core” is the interaction between the:– Level of content– Teachers’ content area and pedagogical

knowledge and skill– Student engagement

• Only improvements in the instructional core will actually make a large difference in learning.

• Improving one element of the core must lead to improvement in the other two.


INSTRUCTIONAL CORE

• It is the relationship between the teacher, the student, and the content – not the qualities of any one of them by themselves – that determines the nature of instructional practice, and each corner of the instructional core has its own particular role and resources to bring to the instructional process.

• Simply stated, the instructional task is the actual work that students are asked to do in the process of instruction – not what teachers think they are asking students to do, or what the official curriculum says that the students are asked to do, but what they are actually asked to do.


INSTRUCTIONAL COREThe instructional core is composed of the teacher and the student in the

presence of content.

TEACHER

STUDENT

CONTENT/TASK

“A World Class System of Schools”7 PRINCIPLES OF THE INSTRUCTIONAL CORE

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

SECOND PRINCIPLE: If you change any single element of the instructional core, you have to change the other two to affect student learning.

THIRD PRINCIPLE: If you can’t see it in the core, it’s not there.

FOURTH PRINCIPLE: The task predicts performance.

FIFTH PRINCIPLE: The real accountability system is in the tasks that students are asked to do.

SIXTH PRINCIPLE: We learn to do the work by doing the work, not by telling other people to do the work, not by having done the work at some time in the past, and not by hiring experts who can act as proxies for our knowledge about how to do the work.

SEVENTH PRINCIPLE: Description before analysis, analysis before prediction, prediction before evaluation.

“A World Class System of Schools”THREE INSTRUCTIONAL

OBSERVATION PARADIGMS

INSTRUCTIONAL CORE

Instructional Rounds

Classroom Instructional Observations

Instructional Quality Teams

“A World Class System of Schools”COMPARISON OF INSTRUCTIONAL

OBSERVATION PARADIGMS• Theory of Practice/Problem of Practice/Instructional Initiatives• Focus Questions• Descriptive

Instructional Rounds

• Observing and Monitoring the implementation of one concrete, actionable classroom management technique school-wide

• Observing and Monitoring the implementation of one concrete, actionable instructional technique school-wide

• Descriptive and Evaluative in Nature

Instructional Quality Teams

• All Areas of Instruction• “Checklist”• Descriptive and Evaluative in Nature

Classroom Instructional Observations


WHAT INSTRUCTIONAL ROUNDS LOOK LIKE

Problem of

PracticeNext Level

of Work

Observation of

Practice

Observation Debrief

“A World Class System of Schools”SCHOOL BACKGROUND

(1 OF 3)

Eastside Elementary School is a school-wide Title 1 school. According to the 2011 Student Accountability Report, Eastside Elementary serves 839 learners. 47% percent of our learners are limited English speaking, while more than 84% of our learners are eligible for free and reduced lunch. The average education level of our parents is a high school diploma with many not having completed their high school education and some very well educated. The district population is very small compared to others. The total district enrollment is just over 3,500 learners and is growing at a steady and consistent pace. The district office personnel include one superintendent, and three assistant superintendents - one business, one human resource, and one curriculum and instruction. Each office includes adequate personnel to carry out the duties and responsibilities assigned to each.

Forty percent of our kindergarten learners enter school speaking little or no English. Many of the parents of these learners were born outside of the United States and lack a high school education. Parents look to school as the key to their children’s future and therefore, they are getting more involved in assisting their children in the day to day assignments. Forty-seven percent of our learners are English Language Learners (ELL), with 99% of those learners speaking Spanish as a primary language. The racial and ethnic make-up of the learner body include 67% Hispanic, 14% Caucasian, 14% African-American, and 5% other.

Eastside Elementary serves English Language Learners (ELL), Title 1 school-wide, and Special Education learners. The school staffing includes one principal, One Dean of Instruction, 33 regular education teachers, one resource specialist with instructional aide, two mild/moderate Special Day teachers with one instructional aide in each class, one moerate/severe teacher with four instructional aides, one half-time school psychologist, and one half-time speech and language pathologist with an aide.

Eastside Elementary is dedicated to the principle of teaching all learners grade level work every day.


(2 OF 3)

Recent Reform Efforts to Improve Instruction• All teachers have schedules posted daily for students and teacher use. Lesson plans are to be completed

weekly. Standards are to be posted for each lesson taught.• EES has been introduced to levels of engagement in a staff meeting. Each level was reviewed and

discussed A primary focus for our teachers is the correct use and implementation of checking for understanding strategies. Whiteboards have been provided to every classroom so that all students have access to this resource.

• EES recently purchased iPads for student use. We are training our teachers (basic training) in December, and implement classroom usage beginning in January. This technology will provide students will access to technology more frequently which will enhance student engagement.

• All teachers have a projector and a document camera in the classroom for educational use. Technology training is in process in both iPads and the document cameras.

• EES has data team leads (one from each grade level) that was trained in March of last year. The team met in August and determined that Depth of Knowledge was a focus targeted by the group. The trained group has been utilizing these strategies in the classroom to prepare and internalize the strategies prior to sharing them with the staff. The team will be meeting in December to prepare for the roll our of the training of the staff. This training will assist teachers in moving students from the noncompliant levels of engagement to the compliant levels and ultimately to authentic engagement.


(3 OF 3)

Recent Professional Development We met a few weeks ago during the school day to review data from last year’s CST’s and discuss the curriculum we currently have and how Common Core Standards will affect this. The staff has been in-serviced on the levels of engagement during staff meetings. Additionally, checking for understanding was discussed. Plans from future trainings on Depth of Knowledge levels is planned for January.

“A World Class System of Schools”PROBLEM OF PRACTICE

According to Phil Schlechty, Working on the Work, 2002 “The key to school success is to be found in identifying or creating engaging schoolwork for students.” Currently, students are not demonstrating authentic engagement at scale, which limits their learning of new content and application of learned content. This lack of authentic engagement makes it difficult for students to make connections between the lesson taught and the task they are supposed to perform during independent practice. Schlecty (2002) identifies five categories or types of student engagement and suggests that a student can move between these levels within a class period depending on the tasks:

– Authentic Engagement• assigned task, activity, or work is associated with a result that has a clear meaning and immediate value to student

– Ritual Engagement• assigned work has little or no inherent meaning or immediate value to student, but student associates it with extrinsic

results that are of value– Passive Compliance

• student is willing to expend whatever effort is necessary to avoid negative consequences, even though student sees little meaning or value in the task

– Retreatism• student is disengaged from the task and expends little or no energy attempting to comply with demands of the

task/teacher, but doesn’t disrupt others or try to substitute other activities for assigned task– Rebellion

• student refuses to do task, disrupts others, and/or tries to substitute other activities in lieu of assigned task Schlecty (2002) also identifies eight qualities of student work which, if implemented, would move students between the various levels of engagement up to authentic engagement.: Product focus, Clear product standards, Protection from adverse consequences for initial failures, Affirmation, Affiliation, Choice, Novelty and variety, Authenticity

“A World Class System of Schools”THEORY OF PRACTICE

• If students are provided with rigorous and relevant instruction, then students will become more motivated to participate in the classroom activities, become authentically engaged in the classroom work, and perform at higher levels.

• If students are not authentically engaged in the learning, then learning is less likely to occur.

• If teachers are provided with professional development activities focused on providing rigorous and relevant instructional activities, then students will become more motivated to participate in the classroom activities, become authentically engaged in the classroom work, and perform at higher levels.


PATHOLOGICAL CLASSROOMAuthentic Engagement

Ritual En-gagement

Passive Compliance

Retreatism

Rebellion


WELL-MANAGED CLASSROOMAuthentic Engagement

Ritual En-gagement

Passive Compliance

Retreatism


HIGHLY ENGAGING CLASSROOM

Authentic Engagement

Ritual En-gagement

Passive Compliance Retreatism

“A World Class System of Schools”OBSERVATION OF PRACTICE(FORMAT)

• What are teachers saying and/or doing?• What are students saying and/or doing?• What is the task?

“A World Class System of Schools”OBSERVATION OF PRACTICE

(FOCUS QUESTIONS)Focus: Task/Content

– How are students demonstrating their understanding of the content (task)?– How do students know when they have learned the content/skill (learning targets)? – How do students know if what they have produced is of good quality (criteria for

success)?

Focus: Instructional Resources– What resources are teachers accessing to support their instruction?– What resources are students accessing to support their learning?

Focus: Levels of Inquiry– What questions are being asked and who is asking them? – What is the level of the questions being asked or the activity assigned?– What is the level of the responses to each question being asked or the activity assigned?

Focus: Checking for Understanding– How do teachers know what students know during the lesson?– What do students do if they don’t know the answer?

“A World Class System of Schools”INSTRUCTIONAL ROUNDS DEBRIEF PROTOCOL

Independent Observation Reflection (Description) Identify 3-5 exemplars, which are related to the school-wide initiatives, professional development, theory(ies) of practice, and/or problem of practice. Each exemplar must be written as a description, without judgment or evaluation, and must include what the teacher said or did and what the student said or did.

Analysis (Narrative)Identifying patterns and/or anomalies. As a team, group what you see into mutually agreed-upon categories and make connections based on how the categories are related to each other.

Analysis (Prediction)Using the evidence of observation and analysis, make causal arguments about what kind of student learning you would expect to see as a consequence of the instruction you have observed.

Analysis (Next Level of Work)As you reflect on the school’s school-wide reform initiatives, professional development, theory(ies) of practice, and/or problem of practice, consider the advice you would give to the administration and teachers about the next steps.

Analysis (Transfer to Practice)As you reflect on the Observation of Practice related to school-wide reform initiatives, professional development, theory(ies) of practice, and/or problem of practice consider how you will transfer what you have learned to your practice.


THE LADDER OF INFERENCE

• In school leadership, we are conditioned to jump from observation immediately to evaluation.

• The rounds process asks us to break this perpetual habit by using the ladder of inference:– Description before Analysis– Analysis before Prediction– Prediction before Evaluation

“A World Class System of Schools”THE LADDER OF INFERENCE

Descriptive and Concrete

Interpretive and Abstract

• What teachers are saying and doing• What students are saying and doing• What the task is

• Assumptions • Beliefs • Values • Attitudes


EXEMPLARS

Focus: Task/Content• How are students demonstrating their

understanding of the content (task)?• How do students know when they have learned

the content/skill (learning targets)? • How do students know if what they have

produced is of good quality (criteria for success)?


EXEMPLARS• We saw the use of physical gestures to teach vocabulary which led to

observable participation and recall of the definitions. • We saw students using physical responses (thumbs up/fingers/ pencils

down) which lead to students demonstrating understanding or lack thereof.• We saw and heard the teacher acknowledge students meeting the learning

target which should have led to lesson adjustment, but instead led to the continuation of planned lesson.

• We saw teachers present a task or question teacher would then complete the task or answer the questions which did not lead to student responses or teacher acquisition of student knowledge.

• We saw the teacher calling on non-volunteers which led to high levels of student participation.


EXEMPLARS

Focus: Instructional Resources (Teacher and Student)• What resources are teachers accessing to

support their instruction?• What resources are students accessing to

support their learning?


EXEMPLARS• We saw teachers utilizing technology which led to technology being used

only as an instructional delivery tool.• We saw the teachers and students use multiple modalities and vocabulary

picture cards which led to multiple ways to access content.• We saw teachers and students utilizing textbooks as a follow along

activity which led to an increase of student retreatism. • We saw teachers using organizational tools such as circling with crayons,

underlining with highlighters. Thinking Maps, which led to students identifying key items/concepts taught in the lesson.

• We saw teachers using technology which led to a varied modality of instructional delivery.

• We saw teachers using MOBI tablets to illustrate sentences which led to students identifying nouns by circling with a crayon.


EXEMPLARSFocus: Levels of Inquiry• What questions are being asked and who is

asking them? • What is the level of the questions being asked

or the activity assigned?• What is the level of the responses to each

question being asked or the activity assigned?


EXEMPLARS• We heard level one questions which led to one to two word responses which

also led to no follow up questions (i.e., level two or three).• We heard the teacher ask an open ended level three question which led to

student sharing, extended responses, and relevance (ownership)- (tapping into background knowledge).

• We heard teachers ask rhetorical questions which led to no student responses and no informal assessment of understanding.

• We saw teachers using level one worksheets which led to level one student responses.

• We saw teachers using level one questions to assess knowledge of passages read which led to students giving level one answers.

• We did not see/hear any student generated questions at any level which led to teachers generating questions only.


EXEMPLARSFocus: Checking for Understanding• How do teachers know what students know

during the lesson?• What do students do if they don’t know the

answer?


EXEMPLARS• We heard the teacher tell students to put away their handout without review

which led to a lack of checking for understanding.• We saw students using whiteboards to write and show answers which led to

teachers quickly observing whole group participation and responses, but not holding individuals accountable.

• We saw teachers walking the room which led to either ritual engagement or passive compliance from students, but lack of interaction and feedback from teacher.

• We saw students chorally respond to teacher questions which did not lead to reteaching or redirection of instruction.

• During CFU we saw students provide incorrect responses which led to teachers asking follow up questions and addressing incorrect responses.

• We heard the usage of choral response used as a means for CFU which did not allow for teacher to monitor the individual progress of students which in turn did not allow for the differentiation of instruction.

“A World Class System of Schools”ANALYSIS

We observed across multiple settings that level I and level II questions were generated by the teacher, not the students. We wonder if both teachers and students know the difference between the three levels of inquiry. We wonder if the reasons for the lack of scaffolding of the levels of inquiry is insufficient time, training, or how to address the unexpected student responses. We wonder if there was a more purposeful planning to integrate all three levels of inquiry into the Check for Understanding, Guided Practice, and Independent Practice and deliberate effort by teachers to increase the levels of inquiry, would students begin to create their own questions or higher level responses?


We found across multiple settings that teachers consistently asked level one questions with little to no level two or three follow-up. We found that students responded chorally or in short answer form. We also found that teachers did not adjust instruction to address student understanding or lack thereof. We wonder if teachers varied the level of questions and adjusted their instruction based upon student responses, would the level of student understanding increase? What if initial lesson planning included multiple modalities to access content, would the need for instructional adjustment decrease?


We observed across multiple settings the use of technology in the classroom exclusively by the teacher. However, the students were not given the opportunity to use this same technology as a resource to acquire content or to demonstrate mastery of content. We wonder if the exclusive use of the technology by the teacher is a result of insufficient training or insufficient equipment. We also wonder if students were enabled to use technology to demonstrate mastery of content would the level of student engagement increase?

“A World Class System of Schools”NEXT LEVEL OF WORK

As we look at the data and how we grouped the data, we recommend that students need the following in order to deepen the level of their thinking and quality of their learning . . .• Opportunities to communicate their ideas, questions,

and experiences in the classroom• Multiple ways to access content and demonstrate

understanding• Access to technology as a learning tool (resource to

acquire content and demonstrate mastery)

“A World Class System of Schools”NEXT LEVEL OF WORK

As we look at the data and how we grouped the data, we recommend that that teachers and administrators need the following in order to deepen the level of their thinking and quality of their instruction to move students towards increased depth of knowledge . . .• Plan to teach content using multiple modalities• Plan for multiple levels of questioning• Provide opportunities for students to use technology• Adjust instruction based on student need through the use of

formative assessment (CFU)• Professional development in the areas of depth of knowledge

for students and teachers would assist in moving well managed classes along the engagement continuum.


THANK YOU!

Next Instructional Rounds Scheduled for Your School

February 13, 2013

“ a world class system of schools ” instructional rounds in-brief and out-brief eastside...

Documents

instructional core

single school

scalehighquality instruction

improvement strategy

single classroom

highquality teaching

bookinstructional rounds

school systems