raising achievement: perspectives of the former current ... · 1/29/2010 4 the eightthe...

1/29/2010

1

Raising Achievement: Raising Achievement: Perspectives of the Former Perspectives of the Former andand Current Superintendents: Current Superintendents: Bristol, CTBristol, CT

Mary Gadd, Teacher, Bristol Eastern High School, Bristol, CT

Michael Wasta, Former Bristol Superintendent; Consultant, West Hartford, CT

Philip Streifer, Superintendent, Bristol Public Schools, Bristol, CT

Bristol, CTBristol, CT

9000 Students16 SchoolsFringe UrbanSpending $10,896

37% Poverty25% Minority40% Mobility (Elem Avg)

Graduation Rate: 96%p g $ ,◦ DRG: $12,064◦ State: $12,151Percent for SPED: 19.2%Percent SPED Stud: 12.7%

◦ State: 92.6%

Drop-Out: 3.3%◦ State: 6.2%

CMT 2009 Percent At or Above CMT 2009 Percent At or Above PROFICIENTPROFICIENTBristol vs. StateBristol vs. State

Mathematics Reading Writing Science

Bristol State Bristol State Bristol State Bristol State

Grade 3 81.0 82.8 71.8 71.1 83.2 83.2 NA NA

Grade 4 89.2 84.6 81.9 74.4 86.7 85.0 NA NA

Grade 5 82.7 85.9 79.3 77.7 82.2 86.5 79.4 82.9

Grade 6 88.5 86.8 80.0 80.3 80.5 83.1 NA NA

Grade 7 91.4 85.7 89.6 83.4 80.4 80.9 NA NA

Grade 8 89.9 84.5 85.4 80.5 80.8 83.7 78.9 76.6

BlueBlue = Meets or exceeds State 2009 average BOLD Exceeded Bristol 2008 average

Light BlueLight Blue = 3 or fewer percentage points below State 2009 average

1/29/2010

2

CMT 2009 Percent At or Above CMT 2009 Percent At or Above GOALGOALBristol vs. StateBristol vs. State

Mathematics Reading Writing Science


Grade 3 64.7 63.0 55.3 54.6 61.7 62.6 NA NA

Grade 4 71.7 63.8 67.0 60.7 64.3 64.2 NA NA

Grade 5 65.1 69.0 65.6 66.0 60.0 66.6 50.9 58.3

Grade 6 65.8 69.0 67.2 69.0 54.2* 62.2 NA NA

Grade 7 72.0 66.3 80.4 74.9 60.4 62.9 NA NA

Grade 8 62.2 64.7 75.0 68.5 61.2 66.5 60.2 60.9

GreenGreen = Meets or exceeds State 2009 average BOLD Met or exceeded Bristol 2008 average

Light GreenLight Green = 3 or fewer percentage points below State 2009 average

CAPT (10CAPT (10thth Grade) 2009 Bristol vs. StateGrade) 2009 Bristol vs. StateMathematics Science

% Proficient % Goal Range % Proficient % Goal Range


Total Grp 90 78 57 48 88 78 51 43

Male 91 80 59 51 88 78 48 45

Female 90 77 56 45 87 79 53 41

African American 78 46 33 13 79 48 29 11

Hispanic 78 54 41 17 80 50 28 14

BlueBlue/GreenGreen = Exceeds State 2009 Average BOLD Met or Exceeded Bristol 2008 AverageLight GreenLight Green = 3 or fewer percentage points below State 2009 average

Hispanic 78 54 41 17 80 50 28 14

White 93 89 62 61 90 90 56 55

Econ Disadv 84 52 40 17 77 51 32 14

Full Price 93 87 63 59 91 88 57 53

Special Ed. 53 43 13 15 41 41 9 11

Not Special Ed. 94 82 61 51 94 83 56 47

Not ELL 91 80 58 49 88 80 51 44

CAPT (10CAPT (10thth Grade) 2009 Bristol vs. StateGrade) 2009 Bristol vs. StateReading Writing



Total Grp 89 82 53 48 87 87 53 55

Male 87 77 43 41 84 83 42 48

Female 91 86 63 54 90 90 64 62


Hispanic 86 61 41 21 86 71 44 26

BlueBlue/GreenGreen = Exceeds State 2009 Average BOLD Met or Exceeded Bristol 2008 AverageLight Light BlueBlue//Light GreenLight Green = 3 or fewer percentage points below State 2009 average

Hispanic 86 61 41 21 86 71 44 26

White 91 90 55 58 88 93 56 66

Econ Disadv 80 60 37 19 76 69 35 25

Full Price 92 89 58 57 91 92 59 65

Special Ed. 54 49 13 14 36 50 8 14

Not Special Ed. 92 85 56 50 94 91 59 60

Not ELL 89 83 53 49 87 88 53 57

1/29/2010

3

emen

t

Professional

Ten Years of Reform and Improvement

Process Development to Focus on Instructional Core

Impr

ove Development/

Curriculum/Accountability

Systems

History…2000History…2000--20072007Dr. Michael Wasta First Phase of Reform

Looking for DirectionLooking for Direction

Status of the system1997

The search for a “theory of action”

Realization that we had to change everything!

1/29/2010

4

The EightThe Eight--Stage Process of Stage Process of Creating Major ChangeCreating Major Change

Establishing a sense of urgencyCreating a powerful guiding coalitionDeveloping a vision and strategyCommunicating the change visionEmpowering broad based actionEmpowering broad-based actionGenerating short-term winsConsolidating gains and producing more changeAnchoring new approaches in the culture

Kotter, J.P.(1996). Leading Change. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press.

First Step: A Sense of UrgencyFirst Step: A Sense of Urgency

• Transparency (“Honest Bad News”)• Data• Data• Stakeholder involvement (Task

Force)

Second Step: Powerful Guiding Second Step: Powerful Guiding CoalitionCoalition

District Data TeamSenior Leadership TeamSenior Leadership Team

1/29/2010

5

Third Step: Vision and StrategyThird Step: Vision and Strategy

Tier I Student Outcome Indicators◦Dramatically raise expectationsTier II Adult Action Indicators◦ Better teachers◦ Better teachers◦ Better curriculum◦ From isolation to collaboration

(data teams)◦ Better data

Fourth Step: CommunicationFourth Step: Communication

Internal Communication◦ Staff meetings◦Newsletter◦Oops memos◦Oops memos◦Union meetingsExternal Communication◦ BOE ◦ Community meetings – PTO’S,

Chamber of Commerce

Fifth Step: Empowering BroadFifth Step: Empowering Broad--Based Based ActionAction

District Data TeamSchool Data TeamsSchool Data TeamsInstructional Data Teams

1/29/2010

6

Sixth Step: ShortSixth Step: Short--Term WinsTerm Wins

Big mistakeSmall changes Schools Grades Small changes – Schools, Grades,

Seventh Step: Consolidating and Seventh Step: Consolidating and Moving ForwardMoving Forward

MonitoringEvaluatingEvaluatingUsing data to make changesTransferring ownership

Eighth Step: Anchoring in the Eighth Step: Anchoring in the CultureCulture

This is just the way we do business◦ Contracts◦ Contracts◦ Policies◦ Induction

1/29/2010

7

Lessons Learned from Early YearsLessons Learned from Early Years

1. Develop a broad consensus.2. Study the change research.3. Monitor implementation.4. Go deep, not broad.5 Plan ahead – way ahead5. Plan ahead – way ahead.6. Admit mistakes.7. You must do the work. 8. Follow through.9. Celebrate successes.10. Stay the course.11. Discipline.

A Formal Study of Traditional Data A Formal Study of Traditional Data TeamsTeams

Mary Gadd

Teacher Conceptualization of Collaboration: A Discourse Analysis Study -- Findings

Contextualizing the Study

This discussion will focus on the findingsof the study that speak to how teachersuse teaming their experience with teaminguse teaming, their experience with teamingand its efficacy from the perspective ofpractitioners.

1/29/2010

8

Relevant Research Questions

This study examined teacher conceptualization of collaboration and its useHow do teachers conceptualize ow o teac e s co ceptua e collaboration?Does “teacher talk” on teams translate into the implementation of those team discussions and decisions in classroom instruction?

Research Question One and Relevant Themes: Teacher Research Question One and Relevant Themes: Teacher Conceptualization of Collaboration or TeamingConceptualization of Collaboration or Teaming

◦ Teachers understand that collaboration mitigates isolation◦ Teachers understand that collaboration

leads to improved lessons and improved ea s to p ove esso s a p ove instruction◦ Teachers explain that data collection is

not the purpose of true teaming; developing lessons and informing each other’s instruction is the purpose

Research Question Two and Relevant Themes: Teacher Use of Collaboration or Teaming

Teachers successfully use teaming in the following ways: Discussion of students of concern Creation of common assessments (formative and summative)

Teachers currently use ‘traditional approaches’ to data teams:◦ Teachers collect and analyze data ◦ Teachers report findings of those data ◦ Teachers coordinate and plan the use of

instructional materials, lessons and assignments.

1/29/2010

9

Concerns About the ‘Traditional Approach’ to Teaming◦ Data collection is not seen as that

important; teachers want to spend time on the discussion and implementation of instructional strategiesg◦ Some teachers state that their work

should be focused on ‘the how’ of instruction rather than on ‘the what’◦ Teachers experience the tension

between assessment and instruction

What Complicates Traditional Teaming?What Complicates Traditional Teaming?

According to data, teaming is not having as great an impact on practice because:Time is spent on data and assessment development and analysis rather than instructional practiceU l l d lUnclear roles and goals:◦ Multiple tasks complicate the work of teams

Standardized test preparation (designing instruction and assessments and analyzing assessments)Delivering the curriculum (any additional innovations in place through the regular course of curriculum development and refinement)

What Teams DidWhat Teams Did

Addressed/limited isolationDeveloped common standards within disciplinesCo-created assignments and assessmentsCo created assignments and assessmentsDiscussed students and shared the progress of those students of concernIdentified areas of need to be addressed by professional development: differentiated instruction and the instruction of higher order thinking skills

1/29/2010

10

What Teams Hope to Do

Observe the instruction of peersMake changes to curriculum and instruction based on dataLimit new initiatives and focus team work Limit new initiatives and focus team work on:◦ Lesson development◦ Solving problems of practice

Next Phase of Reform Next Phase of Reform -- Dr. Phil StreiferDr. Phil Streifer

emen

t

Professional

Process Development to Focus on Instructional Core

Impr

ove Development/

Curriculum/Accountability

Systems

Actions of the District to Improve Student Achievement: Building Capacity

Redesign Professional

Develop Capacity of Administrators

Coherence & Professional Development

teacher

stud

ent

content

Extracted from the Public Education Leadership Project at

Harvard University

TCS

Professional Development w/UCONN around Theories of Adult Learning

of Administrators for Instructional Leadership – How Do We Define Excellent Instruction?

1/29/2010

11

•High leverage instructional strategies: John Hattie•Reframe professional development

•District, school and classroom growth targets

Inquiry

teacher

stud

ent

content

TCS

What Works Best? John Hattie What Works Best? John Hattie (Visible Learning)(Visible Learning)

Virtually all interventions workThe question is: What works best? ◦ High LeverageZone of Desired Effects◦ Effects beyond what would be obtained normallyTeacher EffectsSchool EffectsStudent EffectsCurricula Effects

What Works Best? What Works Best? Teacher Effects Teacher Effects (Ranked Order)(Ranked Order)

(1) Provide Formative Evaluation Micro Teaching Comprehensive Interventions for SPED students

Professional DevelopmentProblem solving teachingNot labeling studentsTeaching strategies (Marzano)

for SPED studentsTeacher ClarityReciprocal TeachingFeedbackTeacher-Student RelationshipsSpaced vs. mass practiceMeta-cognitive strategiesSelf-verbalizing/self-questioning

Cooperative vs. individualistic learningStudy SkillsDirect InstructionMastery learningWorked examplesConcept mapping…….

1/29/2010

12

1/29/2010

13

Reason

InquireReflect

Teacher: Pedagogical

Content ExpertContent Expert

Content: 21st

Century Competencies

Student: Engaged in Purposeful Learning

Student

Content

Teacher

Review of Results… Review of Results… Now Including Gains AnalysesNow Including Gains Analyses

That Took 10 YearsThat Took 10 Years……That Took 10 YearsThat Took 10 Years

CAPT 2009 Bristol vs. StateCAPT 2009 Bristol vs. StateMathematics Science



Total Grp 90 78 57 48 88 78 51 43

Male 91 80 59 51 88 78 48 45

Female 90 77 56 45 87 79 53 41


Hispanic 78 54 41 17 80 50 28 14

BlueBlue/GreenGreen = Exceeds State 2009 Average BOLD Met or Exceeded Bristol 2008 AverageLight GreenLight Green = 3 or fewer percentage points below State 2009 average

Hispanic 78 54 41 17 80 50 28 14

White 93 89 62 61 90 90 56 55

Econ Disadv 84 52 40 17 77 51 32 14

Full Price 93 87 63 59 91 88 57 53

Special Ed. 53 43 13 15 41 41 9 11

Not Special Ed. 94 82 61 51 94 83 56 47

Not ELL 91 80 58 49 88 80 51 44

1/29/2010

14

CAPT 2009 Bristol vs. StateCAPT 2009 Bristol vs. StateReading Writing



Total Grp 89 82 53 48 87 87 53 55

Male 87 77 43 41 84 83 42 48

Female 91 86 63 54 90 90 64 62


Hispanic 86 61 41 21 86 71 44 26

BlueBlue/GreenGreen = Exceeds State 2009 Average BOLD Met or Exceeded Bristol 2008 AverageLight Light BlueBlue//Light GreenLight Green = 3 or fewer percentage points below State 2009 average

Hispanic 86 61 41 21 86 71 44 26

White 91 90 55 58 88 93 56 66

Econ Disadv 80 60 37 19 76 69 35 25

Full Price 92 89 58 57 91 92 59 65

Special Ed. 54 49 13 14 36 50 8 14

Not Special Ed. 92 85 56 50 94 91 59 60

Not ELL 89 83 53 49 87 88 53 57

Gains Analysis: Gains Analysis: Matched CohortsMatched Cohorts

Gains Analysis

Grade 3 2008 to Grade 4

Math Expected Gain

Reading LARGE Gain Beyond Expectedto Grade 4 2009

(566 Students)

Reading LARGE Gain Beyond Expected

Writing Expected Gain


2009(552 Students)

Math Expected Gain

Reading Expected Gain


Gains Analysis: Gains Analysis: Matched ThreeMatched Three--Year CohortsYear Cohorts

Gains Analysis

Grade 3 2006 Math Expected Gain

R di MODERATE G i B d E t dto Grade 6 2009

(511 Students)

Reading MODERATE Gain Beyond Expected



2009(550 Students)

Math Expected Gain



1/29/2010

15

Gains Analysis: Gains Analysis: Matched CohortsMatched Cohorts

Gains Analysis

Grade 5 2006 t G d 8

Math Expected Gain

Reading MODERATE Gain Beyond Expectedto Grade 8 2009

(483 Students)

Reading MODERATE Gain Beyond Expected



2009*(467 Students)

Math Expected Gain


Writing LARGE Gain Beyond Expected

*Different Tests: CMT and CAPT

Gains Analysis Subgroup HighlightsGains Analysis Subgroup HighlightsGrade 3 2008 to Grade 4 2009

Special Education Reading MODERATE

Hispanic, African American, Economically Disadvantaged Reading LARGE

Grade 3 2007 to Grade 5 2009

All subgroups Math, Reading, Writing Expected

Grade 3 2006 to Grade 6 2009

Economically Disadvantaged Reading MODERATEHispanic, African American,

Special Education Reading LARGE

Gains Analysis Subgroup HighlightsGains Analysis Subgroup HighlightsGrade 4 2006 to Grade 7 2009

Hispanic Math MODERATE

Special Education Reading LARGE

Grade 5 2006 to Grade 8 2009Special Education Math LARGEp

Hispanic, Economically Disadvantaged

Reading MODERATE

Special Education, African American

Reading LARGE

Grade 7 2006 to Grade 10 2009Hispanic, African American Reading MODERATEHispanic, African American,

Economically Disadvantaged Writing MODERATE TO LARGE

1/29/2010

16

Edgewood Elementary: Edgewood Elementary: Rethinking Accountability SystemsRethinking Accountability Systems

Failed on AYP – While all Matched Cohort Groups Gained in Achievement

Gains Analysis: Gains Analysis: DISTRICT Matched CohortsDISTRICT Matched Cohorts

Gains Analysis


Math Expected Gain

Reading LARGE Gainto Grade 4 2009

(566 Students)

Reading LARGE Gain



2009(552 Students)

Math Expected Gain



Gains Analysis: Gains Analysis: EDGEWOOD Matched CohortsEDGEWOOD Matched Cohorts

Gains Analysis


Math Expected Gain

Reading LARGE Gainto Grade 4 2009

(62 Students)

Reading LARGE Gain



2009(49 Students)

Math MODERATE Gain

Reading MODERATE Gain

Writing LARGE Gain

1/29/2010

17

PROFICIENTPROFICIENT Level Cohort Summary, Level Cohort Summary, Comparison to Bristol 2007*Comparison to Bristol 2007*

% At or Above PROFICIENT, 2009 DISTRICT Total EDGEWOOD

Total

Math 90% +2 90% +3

Grade 3 2008*to 4

District = 566 StudentsEDG = 62 Students

Reading 83% +8 83% +15

Writing 88% +1 95% +1

Grade 3 to 5District = 552 Students

EDG = 49 Students

Math 85% -- 88% +6

Reading 82% +7 88% +13

Writing 83% +1 94% +6

GOALGOAL Level Cohort Summary, Level Cohort Summary, Comparison to Bristol 2007*Comparison to Bristol 2007*

% At or Above GOAL, 2009 DISTRICT Total EDGEWOOD Total

Math 73% -1 68% -5

Grade 3 2008*to 4

District = 566 StudentsEDG = 62 Students

Reading 68% +11 62% +9

Writing 65% -5 66% -8

Grade 3 to 5District = 552 Students

EDG = 49 Students

Math 67% -1 76% +3

Reading 69% +14 73% +29

Writing 63% +4 80% +30

Dr. Barry Sheckley: UCONNDr. Barry Sheckley: UCONN

HOW teachers and administrators learn is a key to changing their performanceHOW their work environment is structured influences educators’ professional learning…See two-page overivew from Dr. Sheckley

1/29/2010

18

PERSPECTIVE ON PROFESSIONAL LEARNINGPERSPECTIVE ON PROFESSIONAL LEARNING

• Learning increases, to a point, with developmental challenge

• The learning curve is optimized when individuals receive feedback and have a learning orientation (get beyond ‘tell me how to do

DeRue, D. S., & Wellman, N. (2009). Developing leaders: The role of developmental challenge, learning orientation, and feedback availability. Journal of Applied Psychology, 94(4), 859‐875.

it…’)

• Examples of developmental challenges: Unfamiliar responsibility, creating change, work across boundaries

EXAMPLES OF PROFESSIONAL LEARNINGEXAMPLES OF PROFESSIONAL LEARNING• A: Teacher attends initial workshops

on “Reader’s Workshop”• B: Teacher knows the basic method

but may get stuck in how to address challenges…need to get beyond ‘tell me how to do it’

• C: Stuck in ‘tell me how to do it’; not taking responsibility for self learning

DeRue, D. S., & Wellman, N. (2009). Developing leaders: The role of developmental challenge, learning orientation, and feedback availability. Journal of Applied Psychology, 94(4), 859‐875.

and experimentation; not an active learner; not applying at high levels of understanding.; cannot make the shift from examples provided in workshops to their own context

• D: Engaging in inquiry process teachers are examining key principles which underlie reading and experimenting with application to their context

Example of a Teachers’ BeliefsExample of a Teachers’ Beliefs

1/29/2010

19

MIDDLE SCHOOL CONTENT ANALYSIS (PILOT SCHOOL)MIDDLE SCHOOL CONTENT ANALYSIS (PILOT SCHOOL)

Teachers…• Provide choice (d=.71),

build relationships (d=.72), use various strategies (.71), feedback (d=.73), and an emphasis on

t (d 58)

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

Mastery Diff strategies

Choice Relationship Feedback

Individual

Group

Combined

mastery (d=.58)• To build meta-cognitive

skills (d=.69) for self-regulated and independent learners

• In order to enhance achievement (d=.67)

strategies

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

ind. Learners

Engagement Motivation Self concept Self-reg

Individual

Group

Combined

Hattie, J. A. (2009). Visible learning: A synthesis of over 800 meta‐analyses related to achievement. New York: Routledge.

RECOMMENDATIONSRECOMMENDATIONS

1. Assess teachers’ starting “developmental level”

2. Provide a developmental challenge: Unfamiliar responsibility, creating change, work across b d i t tboundaries or contexts

3. Weave challenges into a climate of learning about teaching practices

4. Provide opportunities for on-going feedback (e.g., link to research on effective teaching)

Our Experience So Far…Our Experience So Far…Created a climate of professional learning by shifting responsibility for learning from administrative overview to self learningMoved teachers and administrators towards a

t f hi h l i t ti l ti mastery of high-leverage instructional practices through long-term supported inquiryTeachers report they understand the ‘why’ vs. just going through the motions…We were searching for a model that was sustainable over time and shifted emphasis to the teacher for self-learning

1/29/2010

20

Redesign Accountability System Redesign Accountability System --Drs. Cobb & McCoach: UCONNDrs. Cobb & McCoach: UCONN

GOAL: Develop performance targets based upon school wide past performance and demographics as covariates in a regression modelmodelPREPARATION GAP: How can we close it given our success so far?

490.00

510.00

530.00

550.00

Ref Group

Fr_Lunch

PREPARATION GAP: What Will It Take to Fully Close the Achievement Gap?

Ref Group

410.00

430.00

450.00

470.00

3rd Grade 4th Grade 5th Grade

ELL

Sped

Hispanic

Black

Math CMT vs. Reference Group

520

540

560

Ref School

Sch_1701

Sch_1703

Sch_1705

Sch 1706

Setting Rationale School Performance Targets

Ref School

440

460

480

500

3rd Grade 4th Grade 5th Grade

Sch_1706

Sch_1707

Sch_1711

Sch_1712

Sch_1714

Sch_1717

Math CMT vs. Reference School #1718

1/29/2010

21

Major Goals Going ForwardMajor Goals Going ForwardFocus on Improving Instruction◦ Redesign Professional Development◦ Inquiry Teams Focused on Hattie &

Pedagogical Content Expertise

Program Evaluation w/Gains Analysis Program Evaluation w/Gains Analysis –Determine What Works BestFurther Develop Curriculum to 21st

Century Standards:◦ Integrated Content◦ Problem Solving◦ Information Management

raising achievement: perspectives of the former current ... · 1/29/2010 4 the eightthe...

Documents