CFI: Quality Review Institute

Division of Accountability and Achievement ResourcesDivision of School Support

August-September 2009

Network Leaders’ Guide

2

Agenda

Introductions: Goals of the new Quality Review and Alignment with goals of the Department of education (15 mins)

Exploring the Goals of the Quality Review (45 mins)

What is New in 2009-10? (15 mins)

Questions/Supports Principals will Need (15 mins) (Optional: moderations to better understand the rubric--60 mins)

3

Children First Reforms: Phase III VisionFour Year Achievement Targets:

> K-8: Close the gap with the state in ELA and Math > 9-12: Increase graduation rate to 75%

Leadership, Empowerment, Accountability: Continue to focus on the development of great school leaders, who are empowered to make key decisions for their schools, while also being held accountable for improvements in student achievement.

Expand this focus to our teaching corps by: (1) Succession planning – including identifying and training future school leaders from within current teacher ranks; and (2) Empowering teachers and increasing their discretion – while holding them accountable for student achievement.

4

The Revised Quality Review Increases level of rigor in

evaluating school quality

Promotes organizational and instructional coherence

Increases focus on teacher teams engaged in collaborative inquiry practice

Clarifies language and relevance to practice and research

Reduces inadvertent paperwork burden

Improves inter-rater reliability

QS2

Monitor and

revise

Instructional coherence Gather and

analyze data

Plan and set goals

Align capacity building

QS1

QS3

QS4

QS5

5

Exploring the Quality Review Rubric

Goals: > Identify differences in Quality Review Rubric across

Proficient and Well-Developed practice> Acclimate to what’s new in rubric

Break into small groups, with each group charting one of the Quality Statements

• Document the differences between Proficient and Well-Developed for your Quality Statement

• Explain • Brainstorm evidence of how you would know/see/hear

the differences between P and WD

6

Share Out

Each group should identify five key concepts (not whole sentences--pick a word or a phrase) that are essential to the Quality Statement

For your Quality Statement, give at least one example of what a reviewer would see if they walked into a well-developed school. Be very specific: what would they hear people saying, what documents might they see, what would the student work reveal, etc.

7

Quality Review: New! for 2009-10

Focus on Instructional Coherence

Revised Rubric

Enhanced SSEF

Modified School Visit Schedule

Abbreviated Report Format

Modified Classroom Visit Form

QR School Selection Criteria

The Academic Quality Team: Promising Practices Library

8

QR 2009-10 Revised Rubric

Quality Statements re-ordered to prioritize instructional practices

More descriptive as opposed to proscriptive (removed quantified indicators)

Greater emphasis on instructional coherence and teacher team collaborative inquiry across the rubric

Explanations, examples and a glossary

9

The School Self Evaluation Form (SSEF)

•Evaluate the effectiveness of the school’s processes for ensuring logical and powerful connections between school-wide, grade/departmental and classroom joint decision-making

•More supportive to school-based teams in thinking through connectedness of school goals and quality review rubric

•5-page suggested limit for narrative

Dear Principal: The School Self Evaluation Form (SSEF) is designed to focus on how your school systematically organizes around improving student achievement and teacher practice, with specific regard to the five quality statements described in the Quality Review rubric. It serves as an essential artifact of evidence for the reviewer, offering insights into how you and your school community approach the on-going study and development of organizational and instructional coherence. The SSEF also allows you to capture some of the successes in your work as well as surface some of the challenges you collectively face. The SSEF can also provide a unique opportunity for professional development with staff, and open up lines of inquiry and support with Network Team members. Please e-mail the completed SSEF to qualityreview@schools.nyc.gov on or before the due date provided in the attached letter. Guidance on completing the form:

Use evaluative, rather than only descriptive, language; focus the response on how these practices impact student outcomes and teacher practice;

Include specific references to where evidence of the self-evaluation can be found; When possible, use bullets points to list multiple evaluative points; Limit the response to 4-5 pages (excluding this cover page); Refer to the Quality Statement indicators (e.g., 1.4) when organizing the response for each section.

A highly effective SSEF will: Draw on a wide evidence base and take the views of staff, students and parents into account; Be honest, reflective and analytical, explaining the basis for actions and the resulting outcomes; Be evaluative, using selective examples to support the summary and link cause and effect clearly; Explain succinctly how the school has tackled the areas for improvement what impact these actions

have had on teaching, learning and student progress; Provide a real picture of your school that allows the reviewer to see evidence and artifacts of the

work you have been doing in creating an effective and coherent educational experience for your students and faculty.

Name of Principal:

Name/Number of school:

School address:

School telephone number:

Principal’s direct phone number:

Principal’s e-mail:

School Self Evaluation Form Quality Review

2009-10

10

QR 2009-10 School Visit Structure

Required Components•Meetings

» Meet with principal» Meet with teacher teams (2) New!» Meet with students: large group » Meet with students: work group» Meet with parents New!

•Observations» Class visits» Site Tour

•Other» Principal Debrief (end of Day 1)» Feedback Presentation (end of the review)» Case Study New!

11

School Visit Schedule

Sample School Review Schedule Each review is comprised of the following meetings, visitation and other activities. The sample schedules below are indicative of only one way to prepare for the site visit. Prior to the visit, the principal and the reviewer, through phone and email correspondence, will agree on the exact details of the review visit.

Meetings Meet with principal Meet with teacher teams (2) Meet with students: large group Meet with students: work group Meet with parents

Observations Class visits Site Tour Review curriculum

plans Observe end of

school Observe any after

school activities

Other Principal Debrief (end of Day 1) Feedback

Presentation (end of the review) Case Study Additional evidence

gathering Collection of additional

data

Quality Review - Sample Schedule

Day 1 Day 2 Time Activity Time Activity

8:00 - 8.30 Site Tour with Principal 8.00 - 8.30 Follow-up Meeting with Principal

8.30 -10.30 Meeting with Principal 8.30 - 9.00 Meeting with Parents

10.30 – 12:30 Classroom Visits (4)* 9.00 – 10:30 Classroom Visits (3)*

12:30 – 1:00 Flexible Time 10.30 - 11:00 Student Work Meeting*

1:00 – 2:00 Teacher Team Meeting 11.00 – 12:00 Teacher Team Meeting

2:00 – 2:30 Student Group (large) 12:00 – 12:30 Flexible Time

2.30 – 3:00 Principal Debrief 12:30 – 1:00 Final Meeting with Principal

1:00 – 2:00 Reviewer Reflection

2:00 – 3:00 Feedback Forum

Note: In preparation for the site visit, it is expected that the reviewer and principal will schedule opportunities for conversations to occur between classroom teachers and the reviewer prior to the actual classroom visits. The pre-visit teacher-reviewer exchange is to provide context for the classroom visits. It is expected that reviewers will visit classrooms with a lead administrator and debrief for a few minutes following each visit.

*Each reviewer will conduct an internal Case Study of two selected students. The reviewer will: 1) visit the students’ class(es); 2) meet with their teachers during Teacher Team Meetings; and 3) include these students in the Student Work Meeting.

12

Abbreviated Report

Cover page (1 page)

Part 1: The School Context (1 page)

-School Demographics

-Overall Evaluation

Part 2: Overview (2-3 pages)-Strengths-Areas for Improvement

Part 3: Quality Criteria Rubric (2 pages)

13

Classroom Visit

Focus Areas:

•Instruction and Engagement

•Student Work

•Assessment for Learning

14

QR School Selection Criteria

B, C, D, or F on 2008-09 Progress Report

U or UPF on 2008-09 Quality Review

Schools that opened in 2008-09

Schools with new principals (appointed between February 1, 2009 and January 31, 2010)

Schools that require an in-school review from NYSED.

*  Schools without PR grades will not be reviewed unless they meet the other criteria above.

15

School Support: 5 Levers for Coherence and Instructional Improvement

Choose one of the 5 questions below and reflect:- Where is it in the QR rubric?- How does it connect with your school goals and current work? - How does it relate to the support of your network team?

1. Curriculum: What are the academic tasks (content, knowledge, skills) that we ask students to do?

2. Teacher pedagogy: How do teachers support student learning?

3. Assessment/data: How do we know students are learning?

4. Collaborative inquiry: How do adults learn and improve their practice?

5. Structure: How do we use time, space, and other resources to enable student learning?

16

School Support: Next Steps

Select a targeted focus from the rubric that connects with your school goals and can inform and drive inquiry work.

> What can the network do to support your school in this targeted area?

> What has worked in the past?> What more/different support will you need

this year? > How can schools support each other?

17

Closing Reflections

What is one key learning from this experience?

What is one question that reflects the work to come?

18

Optional Exercise

MODERATION STUDY

of

SCHOOL ARTIFACTS

(60min)

19

Exploring Evidence: Moderation for Coherence

As a network, choose one school to supply one of the items below to be reviewed by the group:

- a curriculum map from one subject-A video of a teacher team meeting-A set of school goals/SEFF/CEP-A video of a teacher’s lesson

Individual principals should take time to examine the document/video individually and then each principal should make 1-2 non-evaluative data statements about what they’ve observed.

Reference to Ladder of Inference.

20

Exploring Evidence: The Ladder of Inference

I makeAssumptionsbased on themeanings I

addedI add

Meanings(cultural and

personal)

I select “Data” from what

I observe

Observable“data” and experiences

(as a videotape recorder might capture it)

I drawConclusions

I adoptBeliefs

about the world

I take actions

based on my beliefs

21

Examples of Data Statements Stems:

“The data shows…”

“I read that…”

“The principal said that…”

“I saw that …”

“The CEP summary shows…”

“In the Inquiry Team vignette, the facilitator did…”

22

Discussion and Reflection on Moderation

Which Quality Statement indicators does this evidence relate to?

Individually, using the QR rubric, evaluate where the document or video falls…Well Developed? Proficient? UPF? Underdeveloped?

To support your evaluation, point to very specific language in the rubric.

As a group, share evaluations.

What additional data might you want to collect and study?

What questions might you want to ask school personnel during the different meetings?

How might you use this protocol and/or this work within your leadership team, your teacher teams, your departments, etc?