learning for all plan

Learning for All Plan

Community Consolidated School District 181 6010 S. Elm Street, Burr Ridge, IL 60527 • 630.861.4900 • fax: 630.887.1079 • www.d181.org • Twitter: @CCSD181

Community Consolidated School District 181 • 6010 S. Elm Street, Burr Ridge, IL 60527 630.861.4900 • fax: 630.887.1079 • www.d181.org • Twitter: @CCSD181

1

Table of Contents

● High Level Summary ................................................................................................................ 2

● Background ............................................................................................................................. 3

● Terms ....................................................................................................................................... 6

● Components

○ Introduction to the Components ............................................................................... 10

○ Structural Supports .................................................................................................... 11

○ Integrated Services .................................................................................................... 18

○ Parent and Community Support ................................................................................ 20

○ Standards-Based Curriculum ..................................................................................... 21

○ Effective Assessments ............................................................................................... 22

○ High Quality Instruction ............................................................................................ 24

● Grade Level Overview by Subject

○ Math (Presentation Pt. II)

○ English Language Arts (Presentation Pt. III)

○ Science (Presentation Pt. III)

○ Social Studies (Presentation Pt. III)

○ Other: Art, Music, Physical Education, Foreign Languages, etc. (Presentation Pt. III)

● Resources (Presentation Pt. III)

● Year-by-Year Goals (Presentation Pts. II and III)

● Reflections and Future Considerations (Presentation Pts. I, II, and III) .................................. 28

● Sources (Presentation Pts. I, II, and III) ................................................................................... 30

Presentation of the Document

The presentation of this document is occurring in three parts.

● Part I takes place January 26 and includes the high level summary, background, terms, and the six

components. It will also include the first group of sources and initial reflections / future

considerations.

● Part II is slated for February 9 and will focus on math. We will provide an overview of what the

Learning for All Plan includes in regard to math, our current status in regard to math programming

decisions, and an overview of future plans with any stated year-by-year goals in math.

● Part III is slated for February 23 and will focus on all other content areas, including ELA, Science,

and Social Studies. We will provide an overview of what the Learning for All Plan includes in regard

to these subjects, our current status in regard to related programming decisions, and an overview

of future plans with any stated year-by-year goals. We will additionally touch on resources impacted

by the Learning for All Plan as a whole (i.e. budget, staffing) and share any concluding reflections /

future considerations.


2

High Level Summary

The Community Consolidated School District 181 Learning for All Plan is a research-based, multi-year effort

to continuously improve and enhance the learning in our district to better prepare students for college and

career success in the 21st century. We will achieve our goals by elevating our standards-based curriculum,

assessment framework, and high quality instructional practices, while also integrating pupil services,

strengthening our structural supports, and fostering community support.


3

Background

Gifted education in Community Consolidated School District 181 has been a topic of discussion for

decades. Board of Education members, staff, parents and the community have continually debated the

design of services and curriculum that truly meets students’ advanced learning needs.

Multiple outside evaluations of the District’s educational program have been conducted to address these

long-standing issues, including the Telliwriter Evaluation (1977), the Gifted Education Self Study (1991), the

Institute for Educational Research Study (1992), the Callahan / University of Virginia Study (1996), the

Coleman / University of Virginia Study (1999), the Morreale / Illinois Association for Gifted Children Study

(2001), and the VanTassel-Baska / College of William & Mary Study (2004). The shifts in philosophy and

methodology around the best way to provide advanced learning services have been dramatic in that time,

ranging from pull-out groups to traveling teachers delivering enrichment services, from students traveling

for services to ability testing used to create a tracking system.

In the fall of 2011, the Board of Education held renewed discussion regarding the needs of the District’s

gifted education students and the identification process and services the students were receiving. To

effectively review and address those concerns, the District contracted with the University of Virginia to

conduct a program review, which was led by Dr. Tonya Moon, a gifted education professor and principal

investigator for the National Research Center on the Gifted and Talented. Upon conclusion of the review,

the following recommendations were made:

● Develop a philosophy statement and an operational definition of giftedness that would drive

curriculum decision making and student programming.

● Eliminate/Revise the ACE program to provide students with access to high quality enriched and

accelerated options five days per week, rather than the existing part-time solution for a full-time

student need. (Presentation Pt. III will address ACE.)

● Align student programming with best instructional practices in gifted and general education.

● Redeploy the role of gifted specialists to become school-wide instructional coaches focused on

building general education teachers’ capacity to meet the needs of advanced learners.

● Revise professional development opportunities to include more time, as well as classroom

coaching.

● Implement a balanced literacy model across all grades levels.

● Investigate the feasibility of accelerating the entire District one grade level in the area of math.

● Develop a District-wide conceptual-level curriculum utilizing the Understanding by Design

Framework (Wiggins and McTighe).

● Allow students greater access to advanced level courses.

Following the University of Virginia report, the District developed a Philosophy of Teaching and Learning

and a definition of gifted students, both approved by the Board in May 2012. Additionally, the Board of

Education called for a District task force to be established for the purpose of developing an inclusive

implementation plan incorporating these findings, to be presented between December 2012 and January

2013. The Board also provided the following guidelines to the task force: include that the gifted label is not


4

needed to provide gifted education, increase the rigor for all students, and increase differentiation in the

classroom. Because of the conflicting opinions of the community, the Board of Education directed

administration to not include community members on the task force.

In October 2012, a team of staff in a variety of positions (general education teachers, social worker, pupil

services, principal, differentiation specialists, etc.) volunteered to participate on this task force. Initial

meetings began with the members reviewing and understanding Dr. Moon’s program evaluation, reading

additional research, and listening to scholarly presentations by nationally recognized faculty knowledgeable

in these subjects and implementation. These presentations were provided at no cost to the District. The

task force also conducted meetings with internal groups, including the District’s Professional Development

Committee, Math Committee, and Literacy Committee. The task force also reviewed Board meeting notes

and decisions. Administrative calls were also placed to Dr. Moon regarding action plan development.

In December 2012, the Advanced Learning Task Force presented a preliminary status report on their

research and process. Following this presentation, all District personnel were presented this information at

after-school meetings. On January 28, 2013, the task force presented a multi-year implementation plan to

the Board of Education. The Advanced Learning Plan was unanimously approved by the Board of

Education on February 25, 2013.

In order to best meet the needs of advanced learners and all D181 students, the task force recommended

the following practices be implemented gradually over time:

● Accelerate all students with increased rigor in the New Illinois Learning Standards Incorporating the

Common Core;

● Increase differentiated instruction in the classroom;

● Develop collaborative data‐based teams to focus on instruction for all students;

● Utilize flexible groupings within grade level teams;

● Provide advanced mathematics opportunities for all students K‐5;

● Implement a balanced literacy approach, with increased emphasis on the instructional levels of

students; and

● Restructure professional development to include job-embedded coaching and mentoring on an

ongoing basis, in addition to establishing a District‐level multi‐year professional development plan.

With the plan approved and the first year of implementation underway (2013-14), Dr. Moon returned to the

District in February 2014 to complete a progress check of the action plan, per her original contract. Gifted

education professor Dr. Reva Friedman of the University of Kansas was on hand to support Dr. Moon and

also share her impressions. Their visit included observations in approximately 70 core classes, representing

all grade levels and District schools. The visit focused on reviewing documents and data, visiting

classrooms, and engaging in discussions with staff to observe if there is alignment to the District’s

Philosophy of Teaching and Learning that had been adopted following her previous visit. Dr. Moon

commended the improvements that had been made and the “substantial changes” that had been initiated,

and also acknowledged areas needing further improvement, including professional development,

assessment, and communication. The complete report from both evaluations and related documents are


5

available on the District website (www.d181.org > Learning > Learning for All > Program Evaluation).

--

The work of Dr. Moon and the task force ultimately highlighted the need for stronger core instruction in the

general education classroom. Dr. Moon’s January 2012 report notes, “While not explicitly stated, an

assumption undergirding the D181 gifted programs is that the programs and their services are necessary

because the general education program services are insufficient for the educational needs of the gifted

students in the district.” Dr. Moon further notes, “In a district that has as many high performing students as

documented on the ISATs and other achievement measures, it is clear that the overall level of challenge in

the district must be addressed for all learners.” Therefore, the issues exceeded simply identification.

What started as a deeper look at the needs of the District’s gifted education students thus became

something more, a collection of practices and a vision that would not take away or reduce opportunities for

gifted students, but work to provide them across all environments at all times to those students and

everyone else. The Advanced Learning Plan was renamed Learning for All Plan to more accurately reflect its

contents: a means to improve curriculum, assessment, instruction and services for all students, every day.

As noted in the District 181 Philosophy of Teaching and Learning: “All students must learn to persist in the

face of challenge by engaging with meaningful tasks that set high, yet achievable expectations.”

The Learning for All Plan is a strategy to continue moving the District forward as research-based practices

that are best for all students are gradually implemented. Change is a process that occurs over time, and the

Learning for All Plan has many changes within it. It is a vision to be grown into and to work toward. It must

be strategic, thoughtful, well communicated, and monitored to ensure ongoing progress.


6

Terms

● Ability Grouping

● Acceleration

● Assessments (Formative)

● Assessments (Summative)

● Coaching

● Common Assessments

● Compacting

● Curriculum

● Data-based decision making

● Developmentally Appropriate

● Differentiation

● Engagement (Home-School)

● Engagement (Student)

● Flexible grouping

● Instruction (High Quality Instruction)

● Least Restrictive Environment (LRE)

● Pre-Assessment

● Professional Development

● Resources

● Rigor

● Response to Intervention (RtI) / Multi-Tiered System of Supports (MTSS)

● Scaffolding

● Tiered lessons

● Tracking

The following definitions are provided through a combination of cited sources and the work of District 181

staff members. This section is intended to provide clarity in advance of the later use of these terms in this

document. It is important to note that while the District has made progress in the 1.5 years since beginning

the implementation of the Learning for All Plan, these terms may not necessarily represent the current and

systemic practices across the District or the current understanding of how they are used. Rather, these are

the practices we are working toward and/or moving away from as a District.

● Ability Grouping: The practice of grouping or sorting students based on their academic or

instructional level with others whose learning needs are similar to theirs. Permanent ability grouping

is a sorting of students in a static, ongoing way over the course of a school year or multiple school

years.

● Acceleration: Typically involves progress through an educational program at faster rates or ages

younger than is conventional. Acceleration can apply to an entire grade level, a group of students,

or individual students who are considered outliers amongst their peers.


7

● Assessments (Formative): A means to gather feedback and help the teacher target ongoing

instruction. A process used by teachers and students during instruction that provides immediate

feedback to adjust ongoing teaching and learning to improve students’ achievement of intended

instructional outcomes; a process used to guide, mentor, direct, and encourage student growth.

● Assessments (Summative): A means to measure the level of success or learning that was obtained at

the end of a unit, quarter, semester, or year. Used largely to assess the outcomes of instruction and

many come in the form of mid-terms, chapter tests, unit tests, final exams, projects, papers, and

District and state assessments.

● Coaching: A confidential, non-evaluative process through which two or more professional

colleagues work together to reflect upon and analyze teaching practices and their consequences,

expand, refine and build new skills, share ideas and resources, teach one another, solve problems,

or collaboratively plan.

● Common Assessment: Any assessment given by multiple teachers with the intention of

collaboratively examining the results for: shared learning; instructional planning for individual or

groups of students; curriculum, instruction, and/or assessment modifications; and goal attainment.

● Compacting: A tool for differentiation. An instructional technique that is specifically designed to

make appropriate curricular adjustments for students in any curricular area and at any grade level.

Essentially, the procedure involves: defining the goals and outcomes of a particular unit or segment

of instruction; determining and documenting which students have already mastered most or all of a

specified set of learning outcomes; and providing replacement strategies for material already

mastered through the use of instructional options that enable a more challenging and productive

use of the student's time.

● Curriculum: The lessons and academic content taught in a school or in a specific course or program.

Curriculum typically refers to the knowledge and skills students are expected to learn, which

includes the learning standards or learning objectives they are expected to meet; the units and

lessons that teachers teach; the assignments and projects given to students; the books, materials,

videos, presentations, and readings used in a course; and the tests, assessments, and other

methods used to evaluate student learning. An individual teacher’s curriculum, for example, would

be the specific learning standards, lessons, assignments, and materials used to organize and teach

a particular course.

● Data-based Decision Making: A process for reaching more effective and efficient decisions which:

continuously utilizes collection of multiple accurate data sources; reviews and identifies issues;

develops and refines hypotheses; discusses and selects solutions; develops and implements action

plans; and evaluates and revises action plans.

● Developmentally Appropriate: Involves teachers meeting children where they are (by stage of

development), both as individuals and as part of a group.

● Differentiation: A supporting instructional approach that embraces the needs of academically

diverse populations of students. Involves creating multiple paths to learning for diverse students. A

teacher’s proactive response to learner needs shaped by mindset and guided by general principles

of differentiation. Teachers can differentiate through content, process, product and

affect/environment according to the student’s readiness, interests and learning profile through a

variety of instructional strategies.


8

● Engagement (Home-School Engagement): Sustained school involvement that is multifaceted in

nature and encompasses behavioral engagement (e.g., attendance, active participation, being on

task), emotional engagement (e.g., positive or negative reactions to members of school community,

sense of “belonging”), and cognitive engagement (e.g., thoughtfulness, psychological investment

in learning).

● Engagement (Student Engagement): The degree of attention, curiosity, interest, optimism, and

passion that students show when they are learning or being taught, which extends to the level of

motivation they have to learn and progress in their education.

● Flexible Grouping: A hallmark of an effective differentiated classroom which accommodates

students who are strong in some areas and weaker in others. The teacher who uses flexible

grouping understands that some students may begin a new task slowly and then launch ahead at

remarkable speed, while others will learn but more slowly. Flexible groupings enable teachers to

move students fluidly through lessons. The range of flexible groupings include (but may not be

limited to):

○ Whole class or half class

○ Teams

○ Small groups led by students

○ Partners and triads

○ Individual study

○ One-on-one mentoring with an adult

○ Temporary pull-out groups to teach specific mini-lessons

○ Anchor activities to which students return after working in small groups

○ Learning centers or learning stations through which students rotate in small groups or

individually

The groups are formed and dissolved as needs change to allow for maximum flexibility. Flexible

grouping stresses the importance of proactive instructional planning to ensure that students

regularly and frequently have the opportunity to work with a wide variety of peers (varied in

readiness needs, interests, approaches to learning tasks, etc.) including at times randomly grouped

peers and peer groupings created by both teacher and student choice.

● Instruction (High Quality Instruction): Purposeful instruction provided through the culture,

conditions and competencies of the environment. Deeply rooted in the instructional core where the

relationship of the teacher, student and content are at the center of the efforts to improve

performance through engagement, rigor, relevancy and results. The expectation of quality

instruction is to raise the level of content that students are taught, increase the skill and knowledge

that teachers bring to teaching that content, and increase the level of active learning of the content

by the student.

● LRE (Least Restrictive Environment): Per IDEA, LRE requires that, to the maximum extent

appropriate, students with disabilities aged 3 through 21, in public or private institutions or other

care facilities, are educated with children who are not disabled. In general, to the maximum extent

appropriate, children with disabilities, including children in public or private institutions or other

care facilities, are educated with children who are not disabled, and special classes, separate

schooling, or other removal of children with disabilities from the regular educational environment


9

occurs only when the nature or severity of the disability of a child is such that education in regular

classes with the use of supplementary aids and services cannot be achieved satisfactorily.

● Pre-Assessment: A flexible process for extending a teacher’s understanding of student learning

needs. Pre-assessment of student readiness has two functions: (1) Provide the teacher with clarity

regarding students’ prior or prerequisite knowledge related to content that the upcoming learning

segment is going to build upon. (2) Provide information for the teacher regarding students’ levels of

mastery of the unit’s new content.

● Professional Development: A set of coherent learning experiences that is systemic, purposeful, and

structured over a sustained period of time with the goal of improving teacher practice and student

outcomes.

● Resources: The materials or tools used by teachers to deliver instruction in the classroom, not the

curriculum itself. Resources can also be used refer to finances, staffing, and other assets of the

District.

● Rigorous: An environment in which each student is expected to learn at high levels, and each

student is supported so he or she can learn at high levels. Challenging, with increasing depth and

complexity.

● RTI (Response to Intervention)/ MTSS (Multi-Tiered System of Supports): An assessment and

intervention process for systemically monitoring student progress and making decisions about the

need for instructional modifications or increasingly intensified services using progress monitoring

data. Also known as a multi-tiered system of supports (MTSS), it is an approach for redesigning and

establishing teaching and learning environments that are effective, efficient, relevant, and durable

for all students, families, and educators. RtI/MTSS involves an education process that matches

instructional and intervention strategies and supports to student needs in an informed, ongoing

approach for planning, implementing, and evaluating the effectiveness of instruction, curricular

supports, and interventions; involves benchmarking, target review meetings, and individual

problem solving meetings.

● Scaffolding: The provision of sufficient support to promote learning when concepts and skills are

being first introduced to students. These supports are gradually removed as students develop

autonomous learning strategies, thus promoting their own cognitive, affective and psychomotor

learning skills and knowledge.

● Tiered Lessons: Allow teachers to present a given concept to students at multiple levels of

complexity or through multiple learning styles.

● Tracking: The process whereby, and the practice in which, students are divided into categories so

that they can be assigned into groups to various kinds of classes; Any effort to organize a system

that results in students who seem to be alike in ability being taught together, separated from

others.


10

An Introduction to the Six Components

The six components outlined in the following pages of this document are the six pieces of the Learning for

All graphic seen on the cover page: Structural Supports, Integrated Services, Parent and Community

Support, Standards-Based Curriculum, Effective Assessments, and High Quality Instruction. In considering

the many aspects of the Learning for All Plan, each can be assigned a place within one of these overarching

concepts. For example, differentiation, which was referenced repeatedly in the Advanced Learning Task

Force research and the gifted evaluation reports, is part of high quality instruction.

The six components are not specific to certain content areas, nor do they apply only to certain grade levels.

Many of the effective practices of high quality instruction in math can be applied in English Language Arts,

for example. The work to create more fully integrated services in a first grade classroom should also be

done for seventh grade social studies classes.

The components themselves could be considered timeless. It is hard to imagine a time when curriculum,

assessment and instruction would not be at the center of a school district’s educational model. School

districts will always want to have the proper supports in place for their staff, will always need to deliver

appropriate services in a way that is best for students, and always aim to build community support. It is the

depth beneath these components, though, that is ever-evolving. Educators must continue to be agile and

responsive to changing students, changing staff, and changing knowledge. If we know more today than

yesterday, we will know more tomorrow than today. It is therefore critical that we follow a continuous

improvement cycle that is based on data, research, professional collaboration, and open communication

with stakeholders to be successful in meeting students’ needs. That is why, too, Learning for All is a vision,

process, and strategy to improve student learning. This work pulls together the best of our collective

educational knowledge and incorporates federal and state directives, while keeping the door open for our

own continued growth.


11

Component 1 of 6: Structural Supports

The term "structural supports" refers to what District 181 staff need in order to effectively implement the

practices identified in the Learning for All Plan.

● Department of Learning

○ One of the key structural supports of the Learning for All Plan is the District 181

administration, specifically the Department of Learning, which is responsible for oversight of

all curriculum, assessment, instruction, and student services across the District. Prior to the

2012-13 school year, the administrative organizational structure was changed to reflect an

integrated model for the department, combining the areas of “special education” and

“general education” into one Department of Learning. This helped to signify to staff the

importance of all employees at every level of the organization collaborating for all students,

thus more accurately reflecting the District’s evolving practices. However, individual

responsibilities were still assigned to specific administrators. In 2014-15, the Department of

Learning shifted from two Assistant Superintendents of Learning to one, with two Directors

of Learning and one Director of Technology, all collaborating to meet students’ diverse

learning needs in partnership with the Superintendent, fellow administrators, and staff

throughout the District.

● District Leadership Team

○ The District Leadership Team (DLT) was established in the 2013-14 school year to provide

leadership and direction to the schools, support staff needs throughout the first year of the

Learning for All Plan’s implementation, identify ways to better meet the needs of all

students, and address challenges across the District. The DLT structure also created a

means to build staff capacity among a large group of colleagues representing all D181

schools and their Building Leadership Teams.

○ The DLT included one "team" from each of the District's nine schools and one "team" of

District Office administrators, for a total of 78 DLT members. Each school team included

staff members consistently representing the following positions: Principals, Differentiation

Specialists, Reading Specialists, Interventionists, MRC Directors, the Balanced Literacy

Coach, classroom teachers (elementary and middle), specials teachers (P.E., Music, Art,

World Language), Special Education / Resource teachers, and Instructional Assistants

(elementary and middle).

○ The DLT met seven times in the 2013-14 school year. Session topics were presented in two

semester-long studies. The first semester's focus was on the continuous improvement cycle.

The main outcome from this semester was to learn that the continuous improvement

process and how to use data to drive instruction. The teams learned strategies for exploring

data at a deeper level and ways to collaborate to achieve the desired student outcomes.

The second semester's focus was on coaching. The main outcome from this semester was to

learn that all staff can be coaches and that collaborating can be both formal and informal.

The team learned strategies to collaborate and support one another. Outside facilitators


12

and District administrators led each session; school leaders took turns facilitating the session

warm-up and wrap-up conversations.

○ The intention of DLT was to continue meeting in 2014-15 with slightly smaller teams. Even

with slightly smaller teams, the size of DLT is such that each meeting requires a significant

number of substitute teachers in each school, creates a challenge for participating, and

results in students having reduced time with their classroom teacher. Therefore, the

administration is currently revising the structure of the DLT for the future, and the 2014-15

opportunities to meet have been reduced from what was planned.

● Building Leadership Teams

○ A Building Leadership Team (BLT) has existed in one form or another in each District 181

school for many years. However, the purpose of each BLT, their meeting frequency, and

their member composition has greatly varied. The Advanced Learning Task Force

recognized that it would be essential to create a consistent BLT design across the District,

though it would be equally important to allow freedom and flexibility in their work to

maintain the unique culture and address the unique needs of each school.

○ The Department of Learning provided the following guidelines to principals in forming their

Building Leadership Teams for 2014-15:

■ Purpose - focus on School Improvement Plans; discuss progress and make

adjustments as needed

■ Meeting frequency - held approximately once per month

■ Member composition - as determined by the principal

○ Future considerations include: strengthening the flow of communications between BLTs and

the District; improving the continuity and consistency of agendas and discussion topics; and

continuing to focus on the identification and implementation of specific instructional

strategies and objectives that are aligned with the Learning for All Plan and District goals.

● Grade Level Teams

○ Teachers collaborate to align their instruction and practices to one another.

○ The Department of Learning provided the following guidelines to principals in structuring

their grade level team time for 2014-15:

■ Purpose - focus on student need, instructional planning, and using the Five Guiding

Questions to facilitate discussion around student data during collaboration time

● What should every student know, understand, and be able to do?

(Curriculum)

● How will we show every student is learning? (Assessment)

● How does each student learn best? (Learning Styles)

● How will we differentiate instruction for all students? (Differentiation)

● What will we do if a student is not making growth? (Intervention)

■ Meeting frequency - held approximately once per week

■ Member composition - grade level plus other available staff

● Danielson Framework


13

○ High quality instruction is one of the six major components of the Learning for All Plan.

Among the key structural supports, then, is the Danielson framework used for teacher

evaluation. It is a research-based set of components of instruction, aligned to the INTASC

(Interstate Teacher Assessment and Support Consortium) standards, and grounded in a

constructivist view of learning and teaching. Many districts in Illinois use this evaluation

model. The Human Resources Department worked in conjunction with the teachers’

association and administration to develop the D181 Teacher Evaluation Plan, which is

grounded in the Danielson Framework.

■ Domain 1: Planning and preparation

● 1a Demonstrating knowledge of content and pedagogy

● 1b Demonstrating knowledge of students

● 1c Setting instructional outcomes

● 1d Demonstrating knowledge of resources

● 1e Designing coherent instruction

● 1f Designing student assessments

■ Domain 2: Classroom Environment

● 2a Creating an Environment of Respect and Rapport

● 2b Establishing a Culture for Learning

● 2c Managing Classroom Procedures

● 2d Managing Student Behavior

● 2e Organizing Physical Space

■ Domain 3: Instruction

● 3a Communicating with Students

● 3b Using Questioning and Discussion Techniques

● 3c Engaging Students in Learning

● 3d Using Assessment in Instruction

● 3e Demonstrating Flexibility and Responsiveness

■ Domain 4: Professional Responsibilities

● 4a Reflecting on Teaching

● 4b Maintaining Accurate Records

● 4c Communicating with Families

● 4d Participating in the Professional Community

● 4e Growing and Developing Professionally

● 4f Showing Professionalism

● Collaboration Time / Professional Development Structure

“The highest quality teacher-to-teacher professional relationship is collaboration. Collaboration

takes place when members of a learning community work together as equals (irrespective of

positions of authority) toward a common goal.”

“High performing schools award greater influence than lower performing schools to teacher teams;

a growing body of evidence suggests that when teachers collaborate to pose and answer questions


14

informed by data from their own students, their knowledge grows and their practice changes.

Collaborative inquiry is among the most promising strategies for teaching and learning.”

It is critical that colleagues come together to share ideas, problem solve, review student data, and

plan for opportunities to co-teach and integrate services. Colleagues also need to come together

for training, with targeted professional development (PD). Providing these opportunities helps to

create continuity across the District, particularly with regard to high quality instructional practices. It

also supports the building of staff relationships and professional networking.

Both staff and administrators agree that finding time for collaboration is a challenge, and the Board

of Education has recognized this challenge, as well. Several solutions have been implemented in

the last two years to begin addressing this issue:

○ Many teacher schedules have been reconfigured to create common plan time, allowing

teachers to meet when their students are in art, music, and physical education, for example.

○ Teachers receive 15 hours of professional development throughout the school year, per the

teachers’ association contract. For 2014-15, a large portion of this time was front-loaded so

that teachers could be more prepared for the upcoming school year.

○ Weekly staff meetings have been set for Mondays at all buildings so after-school

professional development, collaboration time, and committee meetings could be held

Tuesdays, Wednesdays, and Thursdays.

○ Once a month, two Monday faculty meetings are combined into one to provide a series of

two-hour blocks during the year for collaboration time with District-wide grade level /

department teams. These meetings can be horizontal (with colleagues in the same grade

level) and/or vertical (with colleagues in the grade level above or below).

○ The District recently considered the implementation of late start to provide an ongoing

opportunity for professional development and collaboration on select mornings, but the

concept was not initially supported by the community.

While the implemented changes have been positive steps forward, the need for additional time is

still clear.

--

The Department of Learning is working toward a PD timeline that lays out in detail the full year of

staff learning, provided to staff prior to the start of school. A helpful step forward in 2014-15 was

providing an overview of the year’s PD themes. Topics that have been identified for future

professional development sessions include differentiation strategies, instructional methods, use of

assessment data, advanced learner characteristics, and depth of knowledge.

To help guide discussion around student data during collaboration time, Five Guiding Questions

were written and shared with all staff. They are based on the research of Professional Learning

Communities (PLCs).


15

○ What should every student know, understand, and be able to do? (Curriculum)

○ How will we show every student is learning? (Assessment)

○ How does each student learn best? (Learning Styles)

○ How will we differentiate instruction for all students? (Differentiation)

○ What will we do if a student is not making growth? (Intervention)

Coaching, and specifically job‐embedded coaching, is a type of professional development that was

focused on by the Advanced Learning Task Force because it is a proven, highly effective method

for PD, and it can be scheduled in a way that minimizes the need for substitute coverage. It typically

follows an “I-we-you” model of first observing, then trying together, then doing together, with

conversation between the teacher and coach throughout the process.

“Coaching provides a vehicle by which to achieve goals, improve strategies, and make a difference

for students and colleagues. With coaching, teachers discover...how to reflect on their teaching in

ways that add value to their methods and an enhanced level of professionalism...They get

opportunities for receiving direct feedback on how they interact with their students. They increase

their ability to design lesson plans that focus on specific strategies they want to implement to reach

all their students.”

The addition of instructional coaches is also a strategy highlighted within the Learning for All Plan

and was a specific recommendation from Dr. Moon. The District had one balanced literacy coach in

2012-13, and increased to two balanced literacy coaches in 2013-14. For the 2014-15 school year,

one additional coach was hired and the coaching model shifted to instructional coaches, showing

the support their role can provide in not just one content area, but for learning in general. If budget

allows, a future consideration is to have one coach per school, with substantial professional

development provided.

“While instructional coaching can be content specific, its focus more often falls to the delivery of

learning - communication, leadership skills, well-planned lessons.”

An additional change related to professional development is connected to the curricula renewal

cycle, which did not exist before 2013-14. The process always included professional development,

but in the past, it was typically included toward the end of the work in preparation for the adoption

of materials. The process has been revised to include professional development all along,

beginning in the first phase.

● Physical Environment / Learning Commons

○ The Advanced Learning Task Force recognized that the physical learning environment in the

school can affect student learning. In considering the needs of District 181 schools, the task

force suggested the Media Resource Centers (MRCs, or libraries) would be a key area

needing a physical renovation because the MRC is often at the heart of a school and is a

space all students utilize. With flexible furniture and collaboration-friendly space, students


16

and staff would be able to more effectively engage in project-based learning, ranging from

group work using tablets to video recording. Furniture purchases and minor renovations are

being phased in over three years (three schools each year), with a committee weighing in on

the furniture selection and order of schools to receive upgrades. Hinsdale Middle School,

Monroe School, and Elm School received the first allocation for improvements in their MRCs

in 2014-15.

○ The discussion of a re-imagined MRC was inspired by study of the Learning Commons

concept, which has four characteristics:

■ A collaborative physical and virtual environment that invites and ignites participatory

learning

■ A responsive dynamic that is invested in school-wide improvement through an

evidence-based process of design, modify, rethink, redesign, and rework

■ Professionals who can successfully lead out front, lead from the middle, or push

from behind, are great candidates to head a learning commons

■ Participatory learning through attention to excellent instructional design, using best

resources and technologies, and building personal expertise and collaborative

knowledge

Task force members identified these characteristics as a target to reach when considering

how changes in facilities and practices can help bring alignment to the rigor called for in the

new learning standards and in a networked world where both teachers and students are in

command of knowledge building.

“The learning commons serves a unique purpose in the school, as a bridge between

educational philosophy being practiced and the real world. As such, the learning commons

serves school curriculum, but also is known as a place for experimenting, playing, making,

doing, thinking, collaborating and growing.”

○ We are currently creating a multi-year Facilities Master Plan that will identify building needs,

anticipate related expenses, and outline a schedule of upcoming maintenance work, among

other components. To develop this plan, data is being gathered from multiple sources: a

facilities assessment, an educational adequacy analysis, a life safety survey, staff surveys,

and anecdotal feedback. The educational adequacy analysis is particularly relevant to the

Learning for All Plan because this effort, being led by the District’s architects and involving

community members and staff, will help determine if building spaces and designs meet the

needs of current and future educational programs.

● Enhanced Instructional Technology

○ In the same time frame that the Advanced Learning Task Force was doing their work and

the Learning for All Plan was being developed, the @d181 Committee was meeting. Their

work focused around the innovative use of technology in teaching and learning. While the

task force recognized the role enhanced instructional technology would play in the


17

Common Core and in a globally competitive workforce, the @d181 Committee was able to

more fully develop research and understanding in this area. Their research found that 1:1

classrooms can help build confidence, empower passion, increase communication, enable

collaboration, extend the school day, maximize instructional time, and realize the Common

Core. They identified a clear connection to Learning for All in meeting Common Core

expectations (research and media, text complexity, etc.) and how technology can be a tool

for effective differentiation, for example.

○ As part of the revised curricula renewal cycle, the administration is looking to build staff

capacity in technology integration in teaching and learning in each content area. As

committee members meet, they will have training and discussion around this important

aspect of instruction and resources. This has already begun with the Science Committee.

○ The Learning for All Plan did not identify goals or a vision specific to technology, and the

work did not address platform, devices, etc. The recently presented Digital Learning

Initiative is a process for creating those goals, setting that vision, etc. This work could be an

ideal complement to the Learning for All Plan, as it will likely touch on each of the six

components, particularly high quality instruction. As a partnership between the District and

the District 181 Foundation, the effort would also serve to strengthen community support.


18

Component 2 of 6: Integrated Services

Integrated services refers to taking the needs of diverse learners and the services they need and delivering

those services in natural environments, not in isolation. Whether a child needs greater opportunities for

advanced learning, special education, English language learning support, reading assistance, or any

number of other supports, the Learning for All Plan calls for those services to be provided in an integrated

and collaborative way. This means that students are not put in “silos” and are not “labeled.” Rather, the

staff recognizes the individual needs of each student and works together to support those needs in natural

environments to the greatest extent possible. However, it is important to note that there are times when

pull-out instruction may be appropriate. This type of shift in particular should be done gradually and with

care to ensure student and staff needs are met.

In regard to students with special education needs, decisions should be based on providing the Least

Restrictive Environment (LRE), as previously defined by federal legislation called the Individuals with

Disabilities Education Act (IDEA). To the maximum extent appropriate, children with disabilities should be

educated with children who are not disabled. Further, special classes or other removal of children with

disabilities from the regular educational environment should occur only when the nature or severity of the

disability of a child is such that education in regular classes with the use of supplementary aids and services

cannot be achieved satisfactorily.

To provide high quality integrated services, the Learning for All Plan calls for an “all hands on deck”

philosophy, meaning that all teachers work together for all students. The goal is not to add staff, but to

consider how staff roles need to shift to better provide proactive services and support student needs. For

example, the District’s gifted education teachers became differentiation specialists. They provide support

to teachers to develop stronger lessons while also providing direct services to students. This type of shift

also puts greater emphasis on coaching, co-teaching, and collaboration, as colleagues must review student

data and make educational decisions together.

“If the primary goal of schools is to raise student achievement within integrated environments and in so

doing eliminate discrepancies in achievement between students, then the roles of all educational

personnel, from central office to building principals to the cook’s helper, must evolve to meet the changing

needs of all students. Moving from providing programs for a few students to proactive services for all

students requires educators who can work flexibly in a variety of settings with students who have diverse

needs… To facilitate this personnel shift among educators, students and educators must be reassigned in

ways that align with the most effective practices in high-achieving, integrated schools.”

An additional aspect of integrated services is students’ social emotional learning (SEL) needs. While not a

major research focus during the development of the Learning for All Plan, task force members recognized

that SEL instruction is an important part of a District 181 education. Further, students are socially and

emotionally impacted by their school experience and the decisions of their teachers and school leaders.

The most effective practices identified in the Learning for All Plan not only support students academically,

but also aim to support the whole child.


19

The vision for the District’s work in Social Emotional Learning for Academic Success (SELAS) is to be a

school district where children learn to: be self-aware and able to manage their emotions and behaviors;

have understanding and empathy for others and develop positive relationships; and make responsible

decisions; and to be a school district where adults and children have positive relationships that foster the

greatest learning and rewarding experiences for all, during both formal instruction of SEL and informal

teachable moments.


20

Component 3 of 6: Parent and Community Support

“Meaningful family engagement is based on the premise that parents, educators, and community members

share responsibility for the academic, physical, social, emotional, and behavioral development of youth.

Family engagement is fostered through a deliberate process that is embraced throughout the school. It

empowers adults to jointly support student growth, addresses any barriers to learning, and ensures college

and career readiness. Foremost, effective family engagement systems, policies and practices are mindful of

diverse school-communities that are rich in language, culture, and school experiences. They are responsive

to student and family needs.”

District 181 staff recognize the importance of a strong home-school connection, with families actively

involved, stakeholders engaged, and the District in return serving as a positive partner for the community.

Fostering open and ongoing communication is critical. By working collaboratively with Board of Education

members, Parent-Teacher Organization leaders, District 181 Foundation members, and District committee

members, for example, the District is facilitating two-way dialogue, building trust and understanding,

strengthening relationships, and furthering the continuous improvement process.

The Learning for All Plan calls for the monitoring of parent satisfaction with the plan’s initiatives. Using

quantitative and qualitative data, staff can assess not only satisfaction, but also parent understanding

around the plan’s many aspects. It is important the District provide opportunities to share that information.

To that end, the 2013-14 administration worked collaboratively with the Family Resource Network, D181

Foundation, and SELAS Consultant to develop the first Family Education Series, a year-long effort to

communicate the fundamental components of the District’s initiatives. A set of parent/community

presentations were developed and included topics such as Common Core ELA, Common Core Math,

Inquiry-Based Science, and the Parent’s Role in the RtI Process. The District also partnered with Hinsdale

Township High School District 86 in developing the Community Speaker Series, which brought in speakers

on the topics of strength-based parenting, technology, and resiliency.

In 2014-15, the Family Education Series has continued but with a focus on parenting skills, such as

homework support, children’s money smarts, the impact of growing up in an affluent community, and

creating positive learning environments. The District 86 Community Speaker Series collaboration also

continued for the second year and covers the topics of stress and anxiety, children’s social arenas, and

motivation / mindsets. All events in both series are offered at no charge and are open to all members of the

community.

Recent parent survey data showed that website content and written material (i.e. brochures) were of most

interest to parents in regard to how they want to learn more about academic-centered topics. District

administrators have been gradually building these pieces. Also noteworthy in regard to survey data is the

results of the Illinois 5Essentials Survey. District 181 has administered the survey for the last three school

years (2012-13, 2013-14, 2014-15). Schools use the parent, teacher, and (if applicable) student data in their

School Improvement Planning work.


21

Component 4 of 6: Standards-Based Curriculum

“Educational standards are the learning goals for what students should know and be able to do at each

grade level. Educational standards help teachers ensure their students have the skills and knowledge they

need to be successful, while also helping parents understand what is expected of their children.”

The terms "standards" and "curriculum" are often used interchangeably, but they have different meanings.

Standards define what students should know and be able to do at the end of each grade level; they are

determined at the State level. A curriculum describes what students need to learn to meet those standards;

curriculum is created locally, by each school district. A change in the standards is like a change in an

archer’s target. It requires a new plan (curriculum), new tools (curriculum resources), new measurements

(assessments), and new strategies (instructional methods).

Below is a breakdown of the current Illinois standards:

● Math: Common Core State Standards (CCSS) (Adopted 2010; Effective 2013-14)

● English Language Arts / Literacy: Common Core State Standards (CCSS) (Adopted 2010; Effective

2013-14)

● Science: Next Generation Science Standards (NGSS) (Adopted 2014; Effective 2016-17)

● Fine Arts, Foreign Languages, Physical Development & Health, Social Studies: New standards have

not yet been released to replace the Illinois Learning Standards in these subjects (Adopted 1997)

When the math and ELA standards changed in 2010, educators quickly saw the changes from the standards

that had been adopted 13 years earlier. The CCSS are considerably more rigorous, calling for greater

depth and complexity in curriculum, assessment, and instruction. They were written to be “fewer, clearer,

higher” and aligned with the skills needed in college and careers. The NGSS are similarly written - to be

robust, forward-looking, rigorous, and aligned with expectations for college and careers.

-

Because a standards-based curriculum is at the foundation of teaching and learning, it is a cornerstone of

the Learning for All Plan. The Advanced Learning Task Force recognized the weight of this change and the

increased rigor of the Common Core standards, particularly in discussion with the Math and ELA

Committee members.

Like all districts in Illinois, we are in a major standards transition because some content areas have new

standards (Math, ELA, Science) while others do not (Social Studies, Fine Arts, etc.). Our curricula renewal

cycle is significantly impacted by these shifts, therefore our current resources need updating in many

subjects. As new resources are considered for each content area, the timing is a further challenge because

publishers need to fully incorporate the standards within their materials, or otherwise provide supplements.

We are in the midst of reviewing our curricula renewal cycle and are considering slowing the pace despite

the immediate need.


22

Component 5 of 6: Effective Assessments

The Plan-Do-Study-Act (PDSA) framework and the continuous improvement cycle are models to drive

ongoing growth and thoughtful planning. By following a process that unfolds one piece at a time, that uses

data to drive decision making and goal setting, the District creates opportunities to reflect on the work and

carefully consider changes to be made. Assessment, therefore, is a major cornerstone of continuous

improvement and the Learning for All Plan because it is a process of gathering information and interpreting

evidence to make educational decisions about student learning focused on the KUD’s - what students

should know, understand, and be able to do.

Assessment data is used in addressing the needs of individual students, classes, grade levels, schools, and

the District as a whole. Assessment data is used at the state and national level, as well. Whether crafting the

goals within a School Improvement Plan or comparing the results of Illinois schools to states across the

country, it is imperative that data be used for improvement and to help students achieve their potential.

We have created a research-based Assessment Framework that is annually reviewed and revised. It includes

District-specific information related to summative measures, universal common assessments and schedules,

an assessment plan, and an assessment glossary. A next step related to assessment is the creation of a

standards-based report card.

“Classroom assessment is the process of collecting, synthesizing, and interpreting information in a

classroom for the purpose of aiding a teacher’s decision making. Teachers use assessment to do the

following: diagnose student problems, make judgments about student academic performance, form

student work groups, develop instructional plans, and effectively lead and manage a classroom (Airasian,

1997).”

Common assessments can be used for pre-assessment, formative, or summative purposes. “Common

assessments provide teachers with an opportunity to ‘begin with the end in mind’ (Covey 2004). It allows

groups of teachers to talk about the standards, how the standards might be assessed, where students are

performing currently, and what learning needs to take place for students to demonstrate proficiency.”

● “Pre-assessment is a flexible process for extending a teacher’s understanding of student learning

needs rather than a fixed prescription or algorithm. Pre-assessment of student readiness has two

functions. One is to provide the teacher with clarity regarding students’ prior or prerequisite

knowledge related to content that the upcoming learning segment is going to build upon. The

second role is to provide information for the teacher regarding students’ levels of mastery of the

unit’s new content.”

● “Formative assessment is a process used by teachers and students during instruction that provides

feedback to adjust ongoing teaching and learning to improve students’ achievement of intended

instructional outcomes. It is a process used to guide, mentor, direct, and encourage student

growth.”


23

● “Summative assessment is intended to measure and evaluate student outcomes.” Summative

assessments are more formal and “official” than pre- and ongoing assessments. They are used

largely to assess the outcomes of instruction and many come in the form of mid-terms, chapter

tests, unit tests, final exams, projects, and papers (Airasian 1997).”


24

Component 6 of 6: High Quality Instruction

“The expectation of quality instruction is to raise the level of content that students are taught, increase the

skill and knowledge that teachers bring to teaching that content, and increase the level of active learning of

the content by the student.”

In the High Quality Instruction component, we outline two areas - the elements that support and require

high quality instruction, and the practices that help to achieve high quality instruction.

Supporting and Requiring High Quality Instruction

The Illinois professional education standards establish the:

● framework for the improvement of teaching and learning;

● foundation for the design of educator preparation programs at colleges and universities;

● criteria for the approval of preparation programs at colleges and universities;

● basis for state licensure tests;

● guidelines for the induction of novice teachers; and

● foundation for ongoing professional development.

The Illinois Professional Teaching Standards are:

● Standard 1 - Teaching Diverse Students

● Standard 2 - Content Area and Pedagogical Knowledge

● Standard 3 - Planning for Differentiated Instruction

● Standard 4 - Learning Environment

● Standard 5 - Instructional Delivery

● Standard 6 - Reading, Writing, and Oral Communication

● Standard 7 - Assessment

● Standard 8 - Collaborative Relationships

The Learning for All Plan calls for gradual changes in teaching practices. It is important to consider how

these changes align with the teaching standards noted above, which are core components of the Learning

for All Plan. Similarly, the new learning students for students (CCSS, NGSS, etc.), also require a shift in

teaching practices, as discussed in Component 4. Standards that provide students with more depth, rigor,

and complexity require that a teacher can facilitate that level of learning with students.

Perhaps most important for delivering high quality instruction and implementing the Learning for All Plan

successfully is a shared belief among educators that all students can learn at high levels. The task force

work that started as focused on advanced learning highlighted strategies and practices that are best for all

students, including the practice or mindset of having high expectations. One of the guidelines the Board

provided to the task force was that the “gifted label” is not needed to provide gifted education. This

guideline combined with a strength-based or asset-based mindset is paramount to the Learning for All

Plan.


25

“In her article ‘Deciding to Teach them All,’ Carol Ann Tomlinson (2003) writes about the power of a

teacher embracing the challenge of teaching all students in the class - not some or even most - but all.

Tomlinson suggests when teachers make the decision to teach each individual child, our perceptual

framework undergoes a fundamental shift. We turn from looking at a student’s labels to searching for that

student’s interests and needs. We shift from focusing on the child’s deficits - what he or she cannot do - to

looking at the child’s strengths. We move away from the question ‘How do I remediate this student?’ and

toward ‘What do I do to ensure that this student works at the highest level of thought and production?’”

How High Quality Instruction Can Occur

- Balanced Literacy - In the reports of both Dr. Moon and the task force, one of the recommendations

was implementation of a balanced literacy model across all grades levels and with increased

emphasis on instructional levels. In this approach, the skills and strategies of reading, writing,

language and speaking/listening are taught and practiced across the strands, not in isolation.

Students must be proficient in all strands to be successful. District staff have tied the learning

standards to overarching literacy and conceptual understandings. These overarching

understandings allow students to make connections to their learning across all curricular areas.

- Differentiation - As defined in the Terms section of this document, differentiated instruction involves

creating multiple paths to learning for diverse students. Teachers can differentiate through content,

process, product and affect/environment according to the student’s readiness, interests and

learning profile through a variety of instructional strategies. Successful differentiation is essential to

the success of the Learning for All Plan. With integrated services and renewed emphasis on the core

classroom, teachers are asked to differentiate their instruction on a daily basis. It is important to

note that this again is a vision to be grown into and that teachers aren’t doing this work in isolation.

By using data to make instructional decisions and collaborating with grade level colleagues and

specialists, teachers are building their capacity over time. Differentiation is a focus area for future

professional development.

“When teachers differentiate instruction, they move away from seeing themselves as keepers and

dispensers of knowledge and move toward seeing themselves as organizers of learning

opportunities. While content knowledge remains important, these teachers focus less on knowing

all the answers and focus more on reading their students.”

- Flexible Grouping - This tool of differentiation allows teachers the ability to group students based

upon changing needs. It is a fluid process because students learn at different paces and in different

ways. Teachers understand what is developmentally appropriate for their students. Providing

teachers with the ability to group based on specific lessons is at the heart of their professional

freedom to make educational decisions. Grouping strategies may be planned well in advance, and

there are times when groups are made as a need arises. Depending on the lesson, students may be

grouped by their ability in a specific skill, by their interest, by their learning style, or other a number

of other factors.


26

“Designed appropriately, these opportunities to work with many age-mates are important in

broadening students’ awareness and appreciation of their own strengths and needs and the

strengths and needs of others. Flexible groupings also prevent students from perceiving themselves

and others as ‘bluebirds, buzzards, and sparrows’ while it helps teachers to “audition” their

students in a variety of learning contexts.”

In the excerpt above from “Assessment and Student Success in a Differentiated Classroom” written

by Carol Ann Tomlinson and Dr. Moon, they acknowledge a social emotional learning issue

associated with grouping that is also important to acknowledge. Permanent ability grouping can

impact students’ self-perception in a negative way. Further, it may not be appropriate for every

lesson.

- Response to Intervention / Multi-Tiered Systems of Support (RtI/MTSS) - The RtI process was

initiated through IDEA to address the misidentification of students as having a specific learning

disability. However, since the process involves analyzing progress data to make informed decisions

regarding instructional changes and services, the same process is being used for all learners in

districts across the country. Typically, if a student’s needs are not being met by the core curriculum,

an individual problem solving meeting is held before the issue negatively impacts the student. A

team of staff work together, often with the student’s parent, to define the problem, plan an

intervention if necessary, implement it, and evaluate progress. The Learning for All Plan calls for the

continued use of this type of process, however it needs to be refined and further clarified for

parents. Additional training is also needed for staff who serve as RtI Tutors.

- If an intervention had not proven sufficient to meet the needs of exceptionally advanced

learners following use of the RtI process, Individual Learning Plans (ILPs) were created. The

ILP is a structure to provide advanced learning opportunities for students beyond the core

curriculum. It is both a document and a process used by students to define their goals and

services with the support of District staff. ILPs are a short-term solution to ensure those

students are not “waiting to learn”; they will be phased out as staff build the capacity to

meet the needs of all students within the classroom.

- Literacy Workshop - Students in Grades K-5 are involved in authentic reading, writing, and speaking

and listening projects in readers workshop and writers workshop. They read and respond to self-

selected books, write and publish and other compositions, and they discuss and listen to each

other’s insights. The workshop approach involves three key characteristics: time, choice, and

response.

- Time: Students have extended periods of time and opportunities to read, write, and share.

Instead of being something separate for when students finish schoolwork, reading and

writing become the core of the literacy curriculum.

- Choice: Students have ownership of their learning through self-selection of books they read

and their topics for writing. Instead of reading books selected by the teacher or reading the

same book together as a group or class, students select the books they want to read -

books that are suitable to their interests and reading levels. Although students are selecting


27

their own material (poetry, nonfiction, etc.), teachers set parameters.

- Response: Students respond to books they are reading in reading logs they share and in

conversations with classmates and the teacher. Similarly, in writers workshop, students share

with classmates drafts of books and other pieces they are writing, and they share their

completed and published pieces with genuine audiences.

Acceleration and compacting are two strategies that have been part of the conversations related to the

Learning for All Plan.

● In regard to acceleration, Dr. Moon had advised that the District “Eliminate/Revise the ACE

program to provide students with access to high quality enriched and accelerated options five days

per week, rather than the existing part-time solution for a full-time student need.” She further

recommended that we “investigate the feasibility of accelerating the entire District one grade level

in the area of math.” She made this recommendation as a result of the need to improve our core

instruction that was not yet aligned to the Common Core standards. With full implementation of the

new standards, full grade level acceleration in math is now discouraged until middle school. As

noted in the terms provided in this document, acceleration typically involves progress through an

educational program at faster rates or ages younger than is conventional. These recommendations

are addressed in the content area sections that follow. It is important to remember that acceleration

can apply to not just an entire grade level, but can be done for a group of students or individual

students.

● In short, compacting is a replacement strategy for students who have already mastered material,

who have learned a concept faster than designed. In the 2012-13 school year, for example, third

grade math was compacted to expose more students to fourth grade curriculum.


28

Reflections / Future Considerations

As noted previously, the Learning for All Plan is collection of effective strategies to be grown into, to

gradually and thoughtfully work toward. We must continuously monitor our progress and when

appropriate, make changes and corrections. A mutual understanding is therefore needed among

stakeholders that true continuous improvement allows for adjustments along the journey. This section of

the document captures adjustments to be made, as well as future considerations and action steps we

recognize as necessary to further elevate this work.

General

● We look forward to having conversations with the Board, staff, and parents related to this document

and an opportunity to bring further clarity to these strategies and practices.

● During the 2014-15 school year, Superintendent Dr. Don White and the Board of Education agreed

to begin a strategic planning process that would carry over into the 2015-16 school year. The

resulting strategic plan will likely have a section dedicated specifically to learning, with many sub-

components. It is imperative that the strategic planning work and the Learning for All Plan

strategies complement one another.

● We recognize that clarity is needed in regard to the timeline for implementing the practices and

changes within the Learning for All Plan. While clear long-term goals in select content areas have

been identified, other aspects of this multi-year plan need to be connected with a timeframe.

● As discussed in this document’s introduction, the Learning for All Plan is dynamic and evolving. We

need to create a clear process for ensuring it is updated, monitored, and easily accessible for

stakeholders.

Structural Supports

● Professional development and collaboration time are essential to the success of the Learning for All

Plan. Many staff need further support in differentiation, depth of knowledge, coaching, RtI tutoring,

and other key areas. The administration and Board of Education need to continue partnering with

our teacher and staff associations in finding this time. Relatedly, the Department of Learning is

working to further strengthen the professional development we provide and bring continued clarity

to the PD plans for each school year.

● If approved, the Digital Learning Initiative process will result in outcomes directly related to the

Learning for All Plan. It will be important to ensure continued alignment between this work and the

plan.

● We are currently revising the structure of the District Leadership Team for 2014-15 and beyond.

● We would like to consider having one instructional coach per school, with substantial professional

development provided to them.

● We need to strengthen the flow of communications between Building Leadership Teams and the

District and improve the continuity and consistency of agendas and discussion topics.


29

Standards-Based Curriculum

● Summer Learning Program courses need to be evaluated for alignment to the Learning for All Plan

and the new learning standards.

● We are taking time to consider the curricula renewal process, specifically the timing of these cycles

due to concern about our capacity to effectively implement a number of changes and initiatives.

Science and social studies are the next content areas slated for renewal.

Effective Assessments

● The concept of “using data” is repeated throughout the Learning for All Plan. It is imperative that

we build on our existing Assessment Framework to clarify the data we use for decision making at

the District level. We also need to identify the data we will use to measure the success of various

aspects within the Learning for All Plan. Relatedly, we recognize that the way we store, access and

report data needs review. A data system must be developed that provides easily accessible data

and that is understood by teachers and administrators in way that can elicit action.

● District 181 student report cards are not based on the new learning standards.

High Quality Instruction

● We need to consider parameters or guidelines for staff related to practices such as flexible

grouping and build appropriate consistency in these areas across the District.

*The list above may be modified following the second and third presentations of the Learning for All Plan

written document. Changes from this listing to future listings will be clearly marked.


30

Sources

● Barkley, Stephen G., and Terri Bianco. Quality Teaching in a Culture of Coaching. Lanham, MD:

Rowman & Littlefield Education, 2010. Print.

● Bolman, Lee G., and Terrence E. Deal. Reframing Organizations: Artistry, Choice, and Leadership.

Jossey-Bass, 2013. Print.

● Capper, Colleen A., and Elise Marie Frattura. Meeting the Needs of Students of All Abilities: How

Leaders Go beyond Inclusion. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin, 2009. Print

● Comprehensive System of Learning Supports, Glossary of Terms. Springfield: Illinois State Board of

Education, 2012. http://www.isbe.net/learningsupports/pdfs/csls-glossary.pdf

● District 181 Philosophy of Teaching and Learning. Community Consolidated School District 181.

2012.

● D181 Provisions for Advanced Learning. Community Consolidated School District 181. 2012.

● Fisher, Douglas, and Nancy Frey. Checking for Understanding: Formative Assessment Techniques

for Your Classroom. 2014. Print.

● Hattie, John. Visible Learning: A Synthesis of over 800 Meta-analyses Relating to Achievement.

London: Routledge, 2009. Print.

● Home-School-Community Partnerships. Illinois State Board of Education, Web.

● IDEA Website. U.S. Department of Education, Web.

● K-12 Educational Assessments and Professional Development Programs. Web.

● Key Shifts in Mathematics. Core Standards, Web.

● Loertscher, David V., and David V. Loertscher. The New Learning Commons: Where Learners Win!:

Reinventing School Libraries and Computer Labs. N.p.: n.p., n.d. Print.

● Marzano, Robert J., Debra Pickering, and Jane E. Pollock. Classroom Instruction That Works:

Research-based Strategies for Increasing Student Achievement. Alexandria, VA: Association for

Supervision and Curriculum Development, 2005. Print.

● Massachusetts Department of Elementary and Secondary Education, Web.

● McNulty, Brian A., and Laura Besser. Leaders Make It Happen!: An Administrator's Guide to Data

Teams. Englewood, CO: Lead Learn, 2011. Print.

● Moon, T., Brighton, C., & Trinter, C. A Report on the Evaluation of the Gifted Programming

Options, University of Virginia. 2012.

● Moon, T. A Follow-Up Report on the 2012 Evaluation Report, University of Virginia. 2014.

● National Association for the Education of Young Children | NAEYC. Web.

● Oakes, Jeannie. Keeping Track: How Schools Structure Inequality. New Haven, CT: Yale UP, 2005.

Print.

● Powell, William, and Ochan Kusuma-Powell. How to Teach Now: Five Keys to Personalized Learning

in the Global Classroom. Alexandria, VA: ASCD, 2011. Print.

● "Preparing America's Students for Success." Home. Core Standards. Web.

● Radencich, Marguerite C., and Lyn J. McKay. Flexible Grouping for Literacy in the Elementary

Grades. Boston: Allyn and Bacon, 1995. Print.


31

● Reis, Sally M., Deborah E. Burns, and Joseph S. Renzulli. Curriculum Compacting: The Complete

Guide to Modifying the Regular Curriculum for High Ability Students. Mansfield Center, CT:

Creative Learning, 1992. Print.

● Sailor, Wayne. Making RTI Work: How Smart Schools Are Reforming Education through Schoolwide

Response-to-intervention. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass, 2009. Print.

● Tomlinson, Carol A. How to Differentiate Instruction in Mixed-ability Classrooms. Alexandria, VA:

Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development, 2001. Print.

● Tomlinson, Carol A., and Tonya R. Moon. Assessment and Student Success in a Differentiated

Classroom. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision & Curriculum Development, 2013. Print.

● "U.S. Education Standards / National Standards." Education World. Web.

● "Understanding Rtl/MTSS." Illinois SPDG. Web.

● Voltz, Deborah L., Michele Jean Sims, and Betty Palmer. Nelson. Connecting Teachers, Students,

and Standards: Strategies for Success in Diverse and Inclusive Classrooms. Alexandria, VA: ASCD,

2010. Print.

● Wisconsin RtI Center, Web.

● Wormeli, Rick. Differentiation: From Planning to Practice, Grades 6-12. Portland, Me.: Stenhouse,

2007. Print

learning for all plan

Documents