View
212
Download
0
Category
Preview:
Citation preview
High Reliability Schools: The Journey of One School District
Presented by:
Jenni Baker-Principal, Sawmill Woods Elementary
Cirsten Lewis- Principal, Whiteland Elementary
Trina Lake- Principal, Break-O-Day Elementary
Tim Rinehold- Principal, Clark-Pleasant Middle School
Shelley Gies-Curriculum and Instruction
Cameron Rains- Director of Curriculum and Instruction
Clark-Pleasant Community School Corporation
Goals for the Discussion
O Share overview of our work (steps/timeline)
O Share how critical commitments were addressed
in each level
O Discuss the flexibility within the
model/examples
O Address the second order change associated
with level 4 implementation.
Vision for Our Schools
Give me your tired, your poor, your huddled masses yearning to breathe free, the wretched refuse of
your teeming shore. Send these, the homeless,
tempest-tossed to me, I lift my lamp beside the golden
door!
Clark-Pleasant Community School Corporation
O 8 Schools
O 6200 Students
O About 50% Free/Reduced Lunch
O About 350 teachers
Timeline of HRS work in DistrictO 2011- PLC Journey Began
O Jan. 2013- Work Refined-Guaranteed and Viable Curriculum
O Feb.-Mar. 2013- Conversations about HRS Model
O End of Mar. 2013- Commitment from Stakeholders
O Mar. 2013- Scale Development Began
O May 2013- HRS Level 1 Surveys Administered
O June 2013-Present- Level 1 work, setting lagging indicators
O Sept. 2013- HRS Level 2 Survey Administered
O Jan. 2014- HRS Site visits and level 1 certification
O Apr. 2014- HRS Level 3 Surveys Administered
O Jan. 2015- HRS Site visits and level 2 certification for some schools
O May 2015- HRS Level 4 Surveys Administered (elementary only)
O Present- Level 1-4 Work Continues
CommitmentCompliance
O Discussions regarding the model
O A clear and compelling case regarding the “why"
O Book Studies
O Pilots
O Guiding Coalitions-shared leadership
O Permission to make mistakes and adjust
Level 1 Efforts (Safe and Collaborative Culture)
O PBIS (Positive Behavior Intervention and Support)
O Student Discipline Data
O PLC (Professional Learning Community) Journey- Non-Negotiable
O Staff Perception Surveys
O Interactive Video Conference with Marzano Research Staff
O Set Lagging Indicators
O Site visit/certification
O Quick Checks
Leading Indicators- Reminder
O Prioritize key areas that are particularly helpful in assessing progress toward goals
O Reflect key investments and are known to be associated with improvement
O Can be perceptions and actions
O Necessary for high reliability status
O Inform leaders about what issues should be addressed
A Handbook for High Reliability Schools; The Next Step in School Reform (2014)
Leading Indicators for Level 1-ReminderSafe and Collaborative Culture
1.1 The faculty and staff perceive the school environment as safe and orderly.
1.2 Students, parents, and the community perceive the school environment as safe and
orderly.
1.3 Teachers have formal roles in the decision-making process regarding school
initiatives.
1.4 Teacher teams and collaborative groups regularly interact to address common issues
regarding curriculum, assessment, instruction, and the achievement of all students.
1.5 Teachers and staff have formal ways to provide input regarding the optimal
functioning of the school.
1.6 Students, parents, and the community have formal ways to provide input regarding
the optimal functioning of the school.
1.7 The success of the whole school, as well as individuals within the school, is
appropriately acknowledged.
1.8 The fiscal, operational, and technological resources of the school are managed in a
way that directly supports teachers.
A Handbook for High Reliability Schools; The Next Step in School Reform (2014)
SurveysO Used to measure initial perceptions of leading indicators
(short vs. long form)
O Examples: Survey for one Level 1 leading indicator
A Handbook for High Reliability Schools; The Next Step in School Reform (2014)
Level 1 Survey Results (LI= Leading Indicator)
School LI 1.1 LI 1.2 LI 1.3 LI 1.4 LI 1.5 LI 1.6 LI 1.7 LI 1.8
BES 4.26 4.09 4.00 4.27 3.65 2.97 3.89 3.95
CES 4.62 4.51 4.28 4.63 4.11 3.97 4.22 4.39
PCES 4.55 4.44 3.84 4.20 3.70 3.77 3.65 3.92
SWES 4.44 4.26 3.73 4.42 3.72 3.54 3.70 3.76
WES 4.33 4.25 3.86 4.28 3.33 3.71 3.98 3.90
CPI 4.41 4.22 3.84 4.24 3.67 3.45 3.90 4.10
CPMS 4.43 4.18 3.42 4.03 3.51 3.59 3.69 4.04
WCHS 4.25 4.11 3.65 4.03 3.57 3.81 4.36 3.71
District
Total
4.40 4.25 3.80 4.23 3.65 3.66 4.00 3.95
Teachers, students, parents,
and the community have
formal ways to provide input
regarding the optimal
functioning of the school.
What are Lagging Indicators?-Reminder
O Provide concrete evidence that a school has achieved a specific level of performance
O Quantified by a criterion score
Note: Where leading indicators show what a school should work on to achieve high reliability status, lagging indicators are the evidence a school gives to validate its achievement of an HRS level.
A Handbook for High Reliability Schools; The Next Step in School Reform (2014)
Level 1 Lagging IndicatorBreak-O-Day Elementary School
O We will have 10 or fewer student discipline
referrals per month in the afternoon
O August- 6 referrals
O September- 10 referrals
O October- 9 referrals
O November- 7 referrals
O December- 10 referrals
Lagging Indicator Criterion ScoreClark Elementary School
O Every nine weeks we will survey the staff
O We will limit the survey to one or two pertinent questions in order to provide a formal way of obtaining input from the staff.
O Our criterion score will be obtaining a mean of 4 or above.
O If we fall below that criterion, we will investigate the reason as a team and decide what we need to do to fix the problem.
Quick Data
O Monitor specific indicators within levels
O Tracking behavioral referrals
O Parent, student, and staff mini surveys
O Quick conversations
O Quick observations
Level 2 Efforts (Effective Teaching in Every Classroom)
O Certified Staff Perception Survey
O Language of Instruction and Growth Goals
(Non-Negotiable)
O Opportunities to see great teaching
Separation of Evaluation Instrument (Measurement) vs. Language of
Instruction (Development)
O Two purposes of evaluation systems:
measurement and development
O Separation made sense for us (no one “right” way)
O Benefits of separating the two
Level 2 Survey Results School LI 2.1 LI 2.2 LI 2.3 LI 2.4 LI 2.5 LI 2.6
BES 3.84 3.73 3.97 3.77 3.62 3.02
CES 4.22 4.03 4.06 3.90 3.72 3.33
PCES 3.62 3.96 3.81 3.82 3.48 2.84
SWES 3.96 4.12 4.07 4.00 3.74 2.95
WES 3.21 3.63 3.37 3.45 3.20 3.00
CPI 3.27 3.61 3.41 3.65 3.49 2.96
CPMS 3.57 3.58 3.42 3.56 3.30 2.74
WCHS 3.56 3.87 3.75 3.93 3.23 3.02
District
Total3.62 3.81 3.71 3.78 3.43 2.98
Teachers have
opportunities to
observe and
discuss effective
teaching.
Level 2 Lagging Indicators
O 100% of certified staff will set growth goals
based upon our language of instruction
O 100% of teachers will be involved in seeing
good teaching (instructional rounds, video taped
lessons, etc…) that coincide with their
professional growth goal needs
2014-2015 Growth Goal Area Self-Rating Average Scores
School Beginning Score Ending Score Growth
BES .89 2.9 2.01
CES 1.7 2.85 1.15
PCES 1.45 2.85 1.4
SWES 1.75 3.1 1.35
WES 1.69 3.17 1.48
CPI 1.5 3.0 1.5
CPMS 1.67 2.56 0.89
WCHS 1.84 2.97 1.13
District
Total1.61 2.89 1.28
Level 2 Action Steps
O Identifying a Language of Instruction
O Self-Ratings
O Choosing goal area(s)
O Coaching
O Setting up opportunities to see great teaching
(and specifically, goal area strategies in use)
O Periodic self-rating check-ins (where are you
now?)
Level 3 Efforts (Guaranteed and Viable Curriculum)
O Priority Standards (Non-negotiable)
O Comprehensive Vocabulary Program (Non-
Negotiable)
O Direct Instruction in Meta-cognitive Skills
O Extended Learning Time
O Certified Staff Perception Survey
Level 3 Survey Results School LI 3.1 LI 3.2 LI 3.3 LI 3.4 LI 3.5 LI 3.6
BES 4.11 3.76 3.59 3.65 4.16 3.37
CES 4.50 4.26 3.82 4.11 4.34 3.66
PCES 4.44 4.18 3.77 3.96 4.42 3.98
SWES 4.30 4.00 3.72 4.19 4.44 3.77
WES 4.43 4.09 3.93 3.77 4.12 3.74
CPI 4.39 4.32 3.73 3.79 4.25 3.56
CPMS 4.46 4.08 3.74 3.77 4.20 3.40
WCHS 4.26 4.03 3.96 3.80 3.96 3.82
District
Total
4.36 4.11 3.86 3.86 4.20 3.67
Appropriate school and
classroom-room level
programs and practices are
in place to help students
meet individual
achievement goals when
data indicate interventions
are needed.
Level 3 Action Steps
O Teacher Teams Identify Priority Standards,
Meta-cognitive Skills, and Essential Vocabulary
O Time + Targeted Instruction = Learning
O Track Data- which strategies worked, which
didn’t, what might be done differently next
time?
O Extended Learning Time- ensuring all students
learn the priority standards
Level 4 Efforts (Standards-Referenced Reporting)
O Proficiency Scale Development (Non-
negotiable)
O Standards Referenced (Growth Based)
Report Card (Non-negotiable)
O Assessment Development
O Tracking Student Learning
O Level 4 Perception Survey
Grade 3 Scale Example
Elementary Report Card
Level 5 (Competency-Based Education)
O Conversations continue
O Survey in the future?
O Acceleration vs. Enrichment
O Future plans
Second Order Change
According to Muhammad (2009), 3 Things required
to successfully navigate big change:
O 1) A clear and compelling reason why change is
necessary
O 2) A plan that is “doable”
O 3) Appropriate Support
Change Continued
According to Marzano, Waters, & McNulty (2005), 2nd order change is associated with a decrease in positive perceptions for the following responsibilities of the principal:
O Culture
O Communication
O Order
O Input
“I'm increasingly persuaded that
schools that go slow and a little at
a time end up doing so little that
they succeed in only upsetting
everything without accruing the
benefits of change” (Theodore
Sizer, 1989).
One Size Doesn’t Fit All
OChange isn’t linear
OHow to deal with schools that are in
different places and progressing at
different rates
CPCSC Alignment
Building Level Action Plans
District-wide Action Plan
Other Keys to Success for Us
O Guiding Coalition in Each School
O Principal PLC Team
O Quick Action to Address Staff Concerns
O Flexibility Within the Model
Questions/Comments
Contact Information
Jenni Baker: jbaker@cpcsc.k12.in.us
Cirsten Lewis: clewis@cpcsc.k12.in.us
Trina Lake: tlake@cpcsc.k12.in.us
Tim Rinehold: trinehold@cpcsc.k12.in.us
Shelley Gies: sgies@cpcsc.k12.in.us
Cameron Rains: crains@cpcsc.k12.in.us
Phone: 317-535-3111
Recommended