New Hampshire — New Hampshire — The New Ways We Are The New Ways We Are

Thinking about LearningThinking about Learning

NH Innovation Lab NetworkNH Innovation Lab NetworkPartnership for Next Generation LearningPartnership for Next Generation Learning

October 27, 2011October 27, 2011

Will Address:Will Address:

• Quick Primer ~ Next Generation Learning (NxGL)• What We Have Been Doing In the Innovation World• Focus ~ “College and Career Readiness”

Next Generation Next Generation Learning PartnershipLearning Partnership

A personalized system of education that prepares each child for life, work and citizenship in the 21st century.

Design Principles for a Design Principles for a Transformed System of Transformed System of Education Education •Personalized Learning•World-class Knowledge and Skills•Student Agency•Performance-based Learning•Anytime, Anywhere Learning•Comprehensive Systems of Support

CCSSO Innovation Lab CCSSO Innovation Lab NetworkNetwork

KentuckyMaine

New HampshireNew York

OhioWest Virginia

Wisconsin

NxGL Programmatic AreasNxGL Programmatic Areas• Student-centered, world class learning: Where a district

and school focuses on creating a learning system that is entirely student centered, based on world-class standards and driven by student choice and direction.

• Anytime, Everywhere Learning: ELOs provide personalized learning experiences and supports that go beyond the traditional school schedule and transcend place. Online learning systems help facilitate anytime, everywhere learning and expand the curriculum.

• Virtual learning: Performance Assessment: Moving to a learner-centric system requires understanding of best practices for the education of students.

Recent Gatherings:Recent Gatherings:• NH ~ Learning Studio Session, July 14, 2011• I3 Grant Summer Institute: Inquiry based Learning Leading To

Complex Performance Assessment; 4 States, 9 NH H.S.s• NE Secondary School Consortium:

– 5 States: NH, VT, ME, RI, CT– NE Policy Framework – League of Innovative Schools ~ 5 NH H.S.s ~ Convening October 14, 2011

• Stupski Foundation Innovation Lab Network (LLN) Launch October 20-21, 2011– 5 Schools/5 States: MST-NH, ME, NY, OH, KY– Students “Driving and Owning Their Learning”– Focus: Performance and Student Voice and Agency

• CCSSO Innovation Lab Network (ILN)September 20-21, 2011:– 7 States ~ NH, ME, NY, KY, WI, WV, OH– College And Career Readiness

We Need A New Goal-Line We Need A New Goal-Line For Public Education in the For Public Education in the

U.S.U.S.A Conceptual Playing Field of Preparation for College, Career and Life

CU

RR

ENT

GO

AL

LIN

E

INTE

RN

ATI

ON

AL

GO

AL

LIN

E

REA

L G

OA

L LI

NE

““What gets measured, gets What gets measured, gets done.”done.”

Where do the ways we assess student progress today fall inside this learning field?KNO

W

KNOW-

HOWCreating

Evaluating

Analyzing

Applying

Understanding

Remembering

GENERATIVE KNOW-HOWThe ability to understand and integrateResources Technology Information Systems InterpersonalTo meet personal, civic, and workplace objectives

Complex Authentic

Non-Authentic

SimulatedAuthentic

DebatingDebatingInternshipsInternships

Jr. AchievementJr. AchievementYearbookYearbook

ScoutingScouting Science FairScience Fair

SportsSports Term PaperTerm Paper

Defining and Measuring Defining and Measuring College and Career College and Career

ReadinessReadiness

David T Conley, PhDEducational Policy Improvement Center

University of Oregon

11

• The level of preparation a student needs in order to enroll and succeed — without remediation—in a credit-bearing course at a postsecondary institution that offers a baccalaureate degree or transfer to a baccalaureate program, or in a high-quality certificate program that enables students to enter a career pathway with potential future advancement.

• Succeed is defined as completing the entry-level courses or core certificate courses at a level of understanding and proficiency that makes it possible for the student to consider taking the next course in the sequence or the next level of course in the subject area or of completing the certificate.

College and Career Ready College and Career Ready DefinitionDefinition

Conley, 2007, 2010

12

Different Types of Different Types of ReadinessReadiness• Work ready = Meets basic expectations regarding

workplace behavior and demeanor

• Job ready = Possesses specific training necessary to begin an entry-level position

• Career ready = Possesses key content knowledge and key learning skills and techniques sufficient to begin studies in a career pathway

• College ready = Is prepared in the four keys to college and career readiness necessary to succeed in entry-level general education courses

13

Four Keys To College And Four Keys To College And Career ReadinessCareer Readiness

+ Key terms and terminology

+ Factual information

+ Linking ideas

+ Organizing concepts

+ Common Core State Standards (in English/ literacy and mathematics only)

+ Standards for Success in Science, Social Sciences, Second Languages, the Arts

+ Time management

+ Study skills

+ Goal setting

+ Self-awareness

+ Persistence

+ Collaborative learning

+ Student ownership of learning

+ Technology proficiency

+ Retention of factual information

+ Admissions requirements

+ College types and missions

+ Career pathways

+ Affording college

+ College culture

+ Relations with professors

+ Social/identity issues in transitioning

© 2011 David T Conley

Brian Gray’s Depiction:•“I took the college or career readiness chart and the “depth of knowledge “ and made it one. This chart can be used to create formatives and summatives. •Both charts are helpful but when combined make it into a process that can be used to create and track as well as start re-teach by continuing the cycle again between summative interpretation and formative formulation if the student had trouble demonstrating proficiency and working your way back around.”

Eight Components of Eight Components of College and Career College and Career

Readiness Counseling:Readiness Counseling:• Aspirations ~ The student has college awareness and the confidence to aspire to college, as well as the resilience

to overcome challenges along the way.

• Academic Planning for College and/or Career ~ The student has engaged in planning, preparation, participation and performance in a rigorous academic program that connects to their college and career aspirations and goals.

• Enrichment and Extracurricular Engagement ~ The student has sought exposure to a wide range of extracurricular and enrichment opportunities that build leadership, nurture talents and interests, and increase engagement with school.

• College and Career Exploration and Selection Processes ~ The student has sought early and ongoing exposure to experiences and information necessary to make informed decisions when selecting a college or career that connects to academic preparation and future aspirations.

• College and Career Assessments ~ The student has participated in college and career assessments that assist with self-reflection on aptitude, interests, aspirations, and goals.

• College Affordability Planning ~ The student is aware of where and how to access or has already accessed comprehensive information about college costs, options for paying for college, and the financial aid and scholarship processes and eligibility requirements, so they are able to plan for and afford a college education.

• College and Career Admission Processes ~ The student has an understanding of the college and career application and admission processes so they can find the postsecondary options that are the best fit with their aspirations and interests.

• Transition from High School Graduation to College Enrollment ~ The student can connect to and/or has

connected to school and community resources to help them overcome barriers and ensure the successful transition from high school to college.

NH Assessment SchemaNH Assessment Schema

Knowledge:Knowledge:•NECAP ~ ELA, Math, (2010-1013)•SBAC ~ ELA, Math, (2013-on-going)•NECAP ~ Science (for now)•NAEP•PISA

Know-How:Know-How:•Project-based Learning (Portfolio and Anchor Skill Assessments—some in place, some to be developed)•Complex Performance Assessments (Student co-created, with common scoring rubrics and social moderation – linked to national network of performance networks)

The Next State Assessment The Next State Assessment ~~

Is It Time For A Is It Time For A New Accountability System?New Accountability System?

• “What we do not see yet is a new model of research and development that could serve as the institutional infrastructure for the creation of this knowledge profession.

• In the world we envision, researchers, practitioners, and commercial partners will enter into a new and vibrant partnership where each contributes its distinctive expertise.

• How might such networks of diverse expertise be structured to spur innovation aimed at improvement? Fundamentally, there must be a shared commitment to disciplined inquiry about improvement. Four questions should inform all inquiries:

– How do we understand the problem(s) we seek to solve and the system(s) in which they are embedded? Productive solutions entail consideration of how an intervention integrates adaptively in some larger social system.

– What specifically are we trying to accomplish? This involves identifying specific measurable targets that unite efforts of diverse participants in the R&D community.

– What changes might we introduce, and what is the rationale for each? We are aiming toward a science of improvement. Like scientific communities generally, this requires theorizing together about the logic of proposed solutions.

– How will we know if the changes we introduce are actually an improvement? Any proposed solution is in essence a set of hypotheses that must be tested against evidence.”

Schooling as a Knowledge ProfessionBy Jal D. Mehta, Louis M. Gomez, and Anthony S. Bryk

Des

crip

tion

Role

sAc

coun

tabi

lity

Capa

city

• System dictates: ends and means; measures compliance

• System promotes: institutional stability

• Basis of motivation: fear of punishment

• System dictates: only the ends; measures performance

• System promotes: individual performance

• Basis of motivation: possibility of carrot and fear of punishment

• System dictates: only the ends; measures for improvement

• System promotes: collective culture of improvement

• Basis of motivation: collective professional responsibility

• Students: inputs• Teachers & principals: factory-line

workers• District & state: dictate ends and

means, distribute resources, train on methods

• Students: outcomes• Teachers & principals: utility-

maximizing entrepreneurs • District & state: dictate ends, mete

out rewards and punishments

• Students: active learners who are instructional resources for peers; own learning; outgrow system

• Teachers & principals: professionals• District & state: dictate ends, create

conditions

• Model: inspection• Assessments: determine compliance• Track: inputs and outputs

• Model: standards-based performance management

• Assessments: determine extent to which ends are met

• Track: achievement outcomes

• Model: vertical accountability via transparency of results and practice, lateral accountability among peers

• Assessments: inform continuous improvement of learning

• Track: process, achievement and mediating outcomes, system measures

• Train all workers on a standardized set of methods

• Remove low performers

• Limited, targeted capacity-building for individuals (human capital)

• Remove or push out low performers

• Build capacity of the entire profession• Leverage relationships (social capital)

to boost capacity of individuals (human capital)

Command & Control Standards & Incentives Learning & Improvement

Next-Generation Learning at Scale: An Analysis of Supply and Demand

18 March 2011

The Parthenon GroupBoston . London . Mumbai . San Francisco

Knowing the StudentKnowing the StudentAssessment Market Assessment Market

DefinitionsDefinitionsTraditional AssessmentTraditional Assessment

• Summative – High stakes test to measure student progress

• Formative – Low stakes test to inform instruction

Next Gen AssessmentNext Gen Assessment

• Interactive, engaging assessments that identify student learning levels and inform content and delivery choices

• Tests are adaptable and determine student learning levels

• Assessments indicate which lessons and units individual or groups of students need to practice

• Assessments indicate what type of instruction (video, group, one-on-one, etc.) students learn best with

• Features include interactivity and real-time classroom response measurement

Identifying GapsIdentifying Gaps Informing Modality Decisions

Informing Modality Decisions

Informing Content Decisions

Informing Content Decisions Interactive and EngagingInteractive and Engaging

Interviews Have Interviews Have DemonstratedDemonstrated

a Relatively High Level of Consensus on the a Relatively High Level of Consensus on the Vision for Next Generation Learning…Vision for Next Generation Learning…

Technology enables instruction, but is not a goal in

and of itself

Technology enables instruction, but is not a goal in

and of itself

Personalization underlies the goal of Next Generation

Learning

Personalization underlies the goal of Next Generation

Learning

The orientation of the learning experience is student-centered

environment

The orientation of the learning experience is student-centered

environment

“Personalized learning is necessarily faster, accelerated learning, and ideal for students who have fallen behind.”

“NGL minimizes classroom disruption by engaging students.”

“NGL learning more closely resembles the real world, and prepares students for real-

world challenges.”

“Technology is an enabler of better instruction; it helps make NGL easier. It is a tool, but not the end goal.”

“I can imagine an NGL classroom with nothing but pencils and paper. It would be time-consuming, but you could do it.”

“Smart Boards actually make NGL implementation more difficult. Technology should not be the focus of the classroom.”

“NGL technology makes it easier to personalize instruction according to modality, student interest, and skill need.”

“The best traditional teachers are spending hours before and after school trying to personalize instruction. NGL does this quicker and faster than any human.”

This consensus is from a group of the field’s leading thinkers who are focused on these issues; many interviewees agreed there is less

consensus more broadly in the field

This consensus is from a group of the field’s leading thinkers who are focused on these issues; many interviewees agreed there is less

consensus more broadly in the field

Vision Vision of the Personalized Next Generation Learning Experienceof the Personalized Next Generation Learning Experience

Student engagement and co-design; academic experiences that reflect research

on learning and child and youth development

System management(District and state management and portfolio optimization; student-centered use of

people, money, time, and technology; research & development and knowledge management supporting change management efforts)

Kno

win

g th

e St

uden

t

(reg

ular

dia

gnos

is th

roug

h le

arni

ng

map

s/al

gorit

hms

and

plat

form

s fo

r

data

cap

ture

)

Modular C

onten

t

(Content is “unbundled”

and can be delivered via

multiple m

odalities)

Variety of Delivery Methods

Enabling Federal and State Policy - Aligned capital markets

Personalized student-centered learning

experience toward world-

class standards

Existing Delivery Models Existing Delivery Models Can Be Roughly Categorized by Two Key Design Decisions: Can Be Roughly Categorized by Two Key Design Decisions:

Learning Format and PacingLearning Format and Pacing

More Prescriptive Pacing

Learn

ing

Form

at

Student-directed Group Learning

IndividualizedLearning

More Personalized and Proficiency-Based

Prescriptive Group Learning

Prescriptive Individualized Learning

Student-directed Individualized Learning

Students take a prescribed set of classes online, with minimal or even no

interaction with other students

Pacing is influenced by student progress but follows a more prescribed

path

Students are assigned to flexible groups based on skill need

Grouping allows less personalized pacing

Learning experience is entirely personalized and individual

Students choose their own learning path and activities, often heavily online

or through internships and other experiential learning possibilities

Students are collectively provided with challenges and problems to solve, but create their own paths to a solution

Pacing

GroupLearning

Readiness to Support Readiness to Support Next-Gen Learning and New Professional Roles Varies Next-Gen Learning and New Professional Roles Varies

Significantly by VerticalSignificantly by Vertical

Pure Research

R&D Product Dev.

Venture Scale Widespread Adoption

Market Maturity

Stage of Development

Mark

et

Pen

etr

ati

on

Student Management System: In 93% of schools

Learning Management Systems: In 70% of schools, though not integrated with student management systems of data analysis; active M&A leading to consolidation of vendors in this space

Assessment: Individual elements of next gen assessment are selectively implemented; overall use has significant room to grow as formative assessment is folded into content platforms

Content: Current personalized, accelerated content products have demonstrated success and are offered on some level by both large and small vendors; district-wide adoptions are limited; subjects such as math and reading offer greater availability

Data Analysis: Few pure players in this nascent space; some beginning to develop prescriptive functionality but need tighter integration with other platform components

Student Management System

Data Analysis

Assessment

Content

Learning Management System

A Series A Series of Demand Side System Functions and Supports Are of Demand Side System Functions and Supports Are

Required for Next Generation LearningRequired for Next Generation Learning

• Federal, state and district policies

“Allowed to do it”“Allowed to do it” “Want to do it”“Want to do it” “Can do it”“Can do it”

• District and school level leadership

• District and school level management

• (1) Seat time policies

• (2) Standards, assessment and curriculum policies and practice

• (3) Human capital, including sufficient flexibility in work rules

• (4) Financial planning, including sufficient resources

• (5) Shared vision, mobilization, and bold leadership

• (6) Research & development, demonstrating effectiveness

• (7) High quality next generation components, including content, assessment and technology

• (8) Integration of components, including content, assessment and technology

• (9) Change management to implement

• (10) Professional development

• (3, cont.) Human capital, including high caliber and flexible adults in the classroom

• (4, cont.) Financial planning, including creative resource use

• (6, cont.) Research & development, including continuous improvement

• Ten basic functions and system supports are necessary to implement personalized, accelerated next generation learning at scale

Level

Elements

Vendors Face Challenges Vendors Face Challenges From Unsophisticated Customers and a From Unsophisticated Customers and a

Difficult Funding Environment…Difficult Funding Environment…

• “There is a significant gap between the solutions schools know about, and the solutions that are available. District leaders always seem very surprised at the functionality offered by digital curriculum”

• “States are simply not aware of what is out there”

Vendors report customers lack

knowledge of NGL product capabilities

Vendors report customers lack

knowledge of NGL product capabilities

• “Teachers are very heavily burdened right now. The administration buys technology, throws it into the classroom, and expects all the new products and solutions to be used effectively. Technology should be making life easier for teachers”

• “Many of these NGL solutions need to work in concert with one another to be effective; we often are selling into districts that purchased SmartBoards but have no content to offer over that medium”

• “Infrastructure can be an obstacle. If a school district has developed an infrastructure for one tech product, they are often hesitant to purchase another, even if the products could work together effectively”

School leaders focus on technology often lacks strategy or coherence

School leaders focus on technology often lacks strategy or coherence

• “The recession has led to a paralysis in the market; districts either lack resources, or are hesitant to spend funds on solutions they view as new or risky”

• “Schools and districts have a lack of risk capital, and often, they view new methods of assessment or instruction as risky purchases”

Recession has led to a tightening of already

scarce dollars

Recession has led to a tightening of already

scarce dollars

What is Needed What is Needed to Make Each Element NGL to Make Each Element NGL Ready?Ready?

R&D • Existing R&D institutions tend to be academic and slow• Miniscule investment in R&D compared to other sectors• No common private-public agenda to guide efforts

• New national R&D infrastructure• Clear, shared NGL development and testing agenda• Buyers collaboratives around integrated NGL models

PD • Too often unrelated to immediate classroom needs, undifferentiated by teacher need, off-site, and not integrated into everyday work

• Little data to indicate current PD is effective• Tied to current, not future roles

• Repurposing existing dollars into much more aligned and personalized programs

• Funds are there but may be difficult to redirect; NGL may facilitate through rethinking the school day schedule

• Defining new roles and necessary PD for these

Seat time policy

• Most states have restrictive regulations• Moving away from seat time requires other changes• Policy innovation restricted to waivers

• New policies, not just waivers• Change management frameworks to facilitate holistic

migration away from seat-time based systems

Standards • Some question whether Common Core makes sufficient progress towards 21st century/deeper learning skills

• Many states are still far from implementation

• Confront Common Core implementation barriers• Continue to push development of standards• Alignment to content, assessment and PD

Financial Planning

• Most is compliance-drive, not strategic or linked to instructional strategies

• Few fully student-centered models

• Significant increase in both demand and supply capacity (capacity in either the districts or by vendors); supply should follow demand

• Fundamental redesign of financial models

Change Management

• Significant underinvestment, insufficient supply• No full-system change supports

• Need to build both demand and supply• Some potential opportunity to repurpose PD dollars for

school-level change management

Human Capital

• Need to redefine role of the teacher, and adjust all aspects of human capital value chain accordingly

• R&D to develop the appropriate tools• Seeding organizations which can bring the tools to the

field at scale

Mobilization • No common vision for NGL• No shared policy agenda for which to advocate

• An organization (perhaps modeled after Achieve or the Data Quality Campaign?) to organize and represent the growing momentum behind NGL

Integration • Few players have integrated all needed elements of a complete next gen learning experience

• Continuing innovation by vendors and school leaders; market appears to be beginning to move in this direction

Why isn’t it NGL ready today?Why isn’t it NGL ready today?

Larg

e s

cale

/ d

istr

ibu

tion

, b

ut

low

er

or

mix

ed

qu

ality

Larg

e s

cale

/ d

istr

ibu

tion

, b

ut

low

er

or

mix

ed

qu

ality

Inn

ovati

ve o

r h

igh

qu

ality

, b

ut

wit

hou

t scale

Inn

ovati

ve o

r h

igh

qu

ality

, b

ut

wit

hou

t scale

Sm

all

scale

, lo

wer

or

mix

ed

qu

ali

tyS

mall

scale

, lo

wer

or

mix

ed

qu

ali

ty

What would make it NGL ready?What would make it NGL ready?

The Human Capital Landscape The Human Capital Landscape Includes Six Primary Functions Includes Six Primary Functions

Teacher Preparation

Teacher Preparation

Career Progression

Career Progression

Recruiting and Retention

Recruiting and Retention

Description • Qualitative and quantitative assessment of teacher performance

• Hiring of new teachers

• Retention efforts for early career teachers

• Decision to grant tenure and/or promote teachers

• Development of career ladders with a variety of roles and responsibilities

• Qualitative and quantitative assessment of teacher performance

• Financial rewards systems that may include salary, bonus and benefits

• Hire, train and retain effective school leaders

Key Support Functions

• Development of qualitative rubrics

• Training of evaluators to conduct qualitative reviews

• Implementation of value-added student scoring systems

• Working in partnership with unions for implementation

• Systems to capture data and tie to teacher PD

• Attract strong potential candidates

• Evaluate and select most qualified candidates

• Implementation of mentoring programs and other onboarding to increase retention of highly qualified early career teachers

• Can include alternative certification

• Develop fair and transparent systems to grant tenure

• Engage unions to ensure buy-in to process

• Provide supports and feedback to teachers before tenure decision point

• Consideration of legal implications and requirements of collective bargaining agreements

• Development of qualitative rubrics

• Training of evaluators to conduct qualitative reviews

• Implementation of value-added student scoring systems

• Working in partnership with unions for implementation

• Systems to capture data and tie to teacher PD

• Construct a series of financial rewards that link to the goals of the district and align incentives with teachers

• Understand the financial impact of changes, including both traditional cash compensation and benefits such as retirement plan

• Negotiate with unions

• Attract strong potential candidates

• Evaluate and select most qualified candidates

• Develop principal leadership training programs, including potential year-long apprenticeship models

• Provide ongoing principal evaluation and PD tied to evaluation

CompensationCompensation

Principal Recruitment, Training and Evaluation

Principal Recruitment, Training and Evaluation

Labor relations is a function that runs across these areas with little (if any) system support today

Teacher EvaluationTeacher

Evaluation

Other System Supports Other System Supports (Not Market-Driven)(Not Market-Driven)

Description • Organizations working to promote a national set of standards and a national assessment

• Organizations focused on changing policy around seat-time and working with states/districts to adopt a system of content mastery

• Organizations working to mobilize the field around a common vision of NGL learning and promote its adoption

Key Segments • State adoption of Common Core• District mobilization• Training for teacher, parents,

and students

• Changes to state statutes to create seat-time waivers for districts

• District/school education on why and how to apply for seat-time waivers

• Defining NGL• Providing connections and

networking among entrepreneurs

• Policy and advocacy• Dissemination of research

Landscape • Very significant recent activity, investment and promising results with CCSSO and NGA generating considerable traction towards state adoption of the Common Core

• Significant implementation challenges remain as states work to educate teachers, parents, and students

• Interest is building in this area, but action and organization is still limited

• Alternative HS models, such as RISC or Diploma Plus work with districts to change policies and provide them with an incentive to change

• No existing organization is focused on mobilization, though traction is gaining in the field around a common definition of NGL

Quotes • “The organizations that enact real change are associations of practitioners, like the NGA, or investors with money.”

• “Virtually no states are thinking about content mastery at all even if it is technically mentioned in state legislation.”

• “It’s not ever clear that people know what this next generation ‘thing’ is – how will they want to try it if they don’t know it’s out there?”

StandardsStandards Seat Time PolicySeat Time Policy MobilizationMobilization

Data, Assessment & Technology

Data, Assessment & Technology FundingFundingPolicy EnvironmentPolicy Environment

Geographic PrioritizationGeographic PrioritizationEvaluation Criteria OverviewEvaluation Criteria Overview

1) Seat time policy. Students can meet coursework requirements through content mastery (i.e. a passing score on an AP test)

2) Common Core Standards adoption. State has adopted Common Core

3) Common Core Standards alignment. State Standards are aligned with Common Core

4) Online learning. Quality and availability of online learning options

5) Union environment. A right-to-work state and other measures of union strength

6) Charter friendly. Evaluation of the state’s charter legislation

1) Certification Reciprocity. State policy on providing certification reciprocity to incoming teachers (can impact distance learning options

2) Alternative certification for teachers. Percentage of teachers that are alternatively certified

3) Cap or ban on out of field teaching. State imposes barriers on out of field teaching

1) Content mastery assessments. Students graduate based on exit exams rather than seat time

2) Statewide longitudinal data system. Number of essential data elements included in state’s longitudinal data system

3) Online assessments. State offers computer-based summative assessments

4) Formative assessment. State provides educators with benchmark assessments or an item bank linked to state standards

5) Computer & Internet Access. Students per high-speed internet computer

1) Per pupil funding. Adjusted for regional cost differences

2) Funding flexibility. The existence of a weighted student funding formula (which offers districts fewer restrictions and increased funding flexibility)

Teacher PathwaysTeacher Pathways

Geographic Prioritization: Geographic Prioritization: Detailed Detailed ApproachApproach

SourceSourceCriteriaCriteria Subcategory Weight

Subcategory Weight

Seat time policy Education Comm. of the States

• Evaluation of state policies regarding seat-time flexibility20% 10%

Common Core Standards adoption

Common Core Standards Initiative

• State has adopted the Common Core Standards 20% 10%

Online learning Evergreen Education Group (EEG)

• EEG availability score based on ratings of existence of programs, policy & funding attributes, and proportion of students in online courses and schools

20% 10%

Union environment Nat’l Right To Work Comm.

• Union funding levels, membership data and if the state is a right-to-work state20% 10%

Common Core Standards alignment

Thomas B. Fordham Institute

• Alignment of state Math and ELA standards to Common Core Standards10% 5%

Charter friendly Nat’l Alliance for Public Charter Schools

• Score on NAPCS’s charter law evaluation (based on quality/accountability, funding equity, facilities support, autonomy, growth and choice)

10% 5%

Certification Reciprocity

Education Week • State has teacher license agreement with other states allowing licensed out-of-state teachers to obtain similar license without significant additional requirements

40% 8%

Alternative Certification Policy

National Council on Teacher Quality

• State has policies in place to create potential obstacles for alternate route teachers

40% 8%

Cap or ban on out-of-field teaching

Education Week • State attempts to limit out-of-field teaching by placing a cap or a ban on the practice

20% 4%

Content mastery assessments

Education Week • Existence of a high school exit exam aligned to 10th grade standards or higher in at least one academic subject

30% 6%

Statewide longitudinal data system

Data Quality Campaign

• Number of the DQC’s 10 Essential Elements included in state longitudinal data system 20% 4%

Internet access Education Week • Students per high-speed Internet-connected computer 20% 4%

Online assessments Education Week • Existence of a computer-based summative assessment 10% 2%

Formative assessment

Education Week • Existence of a state-provided benchmark exam or item bank linked to state standards

10% 2%

Rigor of state assessment

Education Next • Comparison of percent of student achievement on the state assessment v. student achievement on the NAEP

10% 2%

Per pupil funding Education Week • Per pupil funding (adjusted for regional cost differences) 50% 5%

Funding flexibility Education Week • Existence of a weighted school funding formula based on student characteristics (ELL, Low Income, etc.)

50% 5%

DetailDetail Overall WeightOverall Weight

0

20

40

60

80

100

GA

81

OH

72

AZ

70

FL

66

LA

63

WY

61

SC

60

CA

60

CO

59

OK

58

NC

58

NV

55

KS

55

MO

55

WA

55

IN

54

NJ

54

ID

53

WV

52

TN

52

TX

51

NH

51

DC

50

MS

50

UT

49

AL

49

RI

48

VA

48

MA

47

HI

47

AR

46

WI

46

NY

45

MI

45

PA

44

AK

43

MD

42

MN

41

IA

41

DE

41

ME

39

SD

37

ND

36

NM

36

OR

34

KY

34

IL

33

VT

33

NE

33

CT

29

MT

28

Policy Environment

Teacher Pathways

Data, Assessment &Technology

Funding

Geographic PrioritizationGeographic PrioritizationState RankingsState Rankings

Tota

l st

ate

sco

re

State Rankings Based on Geographic Scoring

Top states

Source: Data Quality Campaign; National Right to Work Committee; National Alliance for Public Charter Schools; Evergreen Education Group; EducationCommission of the States, Thomas B. Fordham Institute, Common Core Standards Initiative. National Council on Teacher Quality, Education Next

NH, #22

Given the Large Number of Given the Large Number of Gaps, Gaps,

Can Investments Be Can Investments Be Sequenced?Sequenced?

Goals:• Advocate for NGL and

mobilize the field• Create minimum

needed conditions for NGL, in at least a select number of locations

• Enable and encourage a small but growing number of entrepreneurs

• Seek a variety of different versions of NGL models

• Begin creating system conditions for growth and scale

Setting the Stage:“Allowed” to do it and

“want” to do it

Setting the Stage:“Allowed” to do it and

“want” to do it

Goals:• Large scale adoption

of NGL models, including in large districts and CMOs

• Reach significant number of most at-need students

• Deliver new level of student achievement results

Scale:“Can” do it at scale

Scale:“Can” do it at scale

InnovateInnovateEvaluate

and Learn

Evaluate and

LearnAdjustAdjust GrowGrow

Innovate, Test and GrowInnovate, Test and Grow

• Building momentum in the field will be critical to attract attention, resources and entrepreneurs to NGL

• Innovation, learning and growth will not be a linear process, but will require a continuous cycle of learning

• What timeframe do we expect, and would we tolerate, across phases?

Cycle of continuous learning

Continue to Build MomentumContinue to Build Momentum

• Invest in policy and advocacy work in order to build on the momentum that has started in the field

• Attract attention, financial resources, and innovative entrepreneurs to NGL work

• Encourage district, state and federal policies and investments

What Are the Minimum What Are the Minimum Necessary Conditions That Necessary Conditions That

Would Be Required Would Be Required in the First Stage?in the First Stage?

1. No policy barriers (in select locations of innovation)

2. High quality components (content, assessment and technology)

3. Integration of those components

4. Financial resources and support

Foster School Level Entrepreneurs and Innovation

Foster School Level Entrepreneurs and Innovation

1. Mobilize leaders in the field around a common vision

2. Conduct research and evaluation to validate the concept

3. Begin to seed and build system supports to enable scale

Build System Level Supports for Early Stages

Build System Level Supports for Early Stages

• Mobilize the field• Create minimum needed conditions

for NGL, in at least a select number of locations

Setting the Stage:“Allowed” to do it and “want” to do it

Setting the Stage:“Allowed” to do it and “want” to do it

• Enable and encourage a small but growing number of entrepreneurs

• Seek a variety of different NGL models• Begin creating system conditions for growth

and scale

Goals:

Actions:

Potential Investment Potential Investment Strategies Strategies

to Foster School Level Entrepreneurs and Innovationto Foster School Level Entrepreneurs and Innovation • These options are not mutually exclusive, but could be pursued through a variety

of different combinations

Directly encourage local level innovationDirectly encourage local level innovation

Provide the tools and supports entrepreneurs needProvide the tools and supports entrepreneurs need

Create a NGL model “incubator”Create a NGL model “incubator”

• Create an organization that provides leadership training for prospective entrepreneurs, as well as a forum for partnership and connection with others in the field

• New organization would be seeded

Provide legal and policy supportProvide legal and policy support

• Provide support to attain changes to seat time, proficiency-based pathways

• Create labor negotiation specialists who can actively engage unions at specific sites

• Example: Ed Council

Fund development of components and/or integrators

Fund development of components and/or integrators

• Encourage a variety of integrator options by directing funding one or more integrators (vendors, non-profits, or schools)

• Examples: school or school network (e.g. KIPP or School of One), vendors (e.g. Agile Minds, Wireless Generation), or dedicated intermediary (e.g. RISC)

• Make targeted investments in filling select but critical gaps in needed components (e.g. assessment)

• Examples: Wireless Generation, Global Scholar, Mika Partners, Agile Minds, and others

Invest directly in new learning sites

Invest directly in new learning sites

• Fund a series of new sites that experiment with different NGL models

• Examples: new entrepreneurs

Fund CMOs to build or convert schools/sites

Fund CMOs to build or convert schools/sites

• Engage with interested CMOs to convert existing schools or build new sites with NGL models

• Examples: KIPP, Diploma Plus, FLVS, New Tech

Fund replication of early models

Fund replication of early models

• Provide the growth capital for existing models to expand to multiple sites and refine their models

• Examples: School of One, Quest to Learn, Rocketship

Fund organizations that work with schools

Fund organizations that work with schools

• Seed new organization or contribute to existing organization that helps sites implement NGL

• Examples: RISC, FLVS, Wireless Generation, AdvancePath Academics

These options are not mutually exclusive, but could be pursued through a variety of different combinations

Potential Investment Strategies Potential Investment Strategies

to Build System Level Supports for Early Stages to Build System Level Supports for Early Stages

Immediate System Level NeedsImmediate System Level Needs

Immediate Planning for Mid to Long Term System Level NeedsImmediate Planning for Mid to Long Term System Level Needs

Mobilize LeadersMobilize Leaders

• Create a new organization or fund an existing organization to be the voice of Next Generation Learning

• Example: Startl (?), may need to seed new organization

Remove Policy BarriersRemove Policy Barriers

• Beyond waivers, work with state legislations, policy makers and labor leaders to change seat policy regs and increase flexibility of human capital use

• Example: Ed Council, may need to seed new organization, which could be linked to mobilization

Fund R&DFund R&D

• Fund research to examine early stage results; build research relationships that are more iterative and inform the work as it unfolds

• Develop performance-based assessments to measure success

• Example: Learning Point Associates, Battelle for Kids, Chicago Consortium on School Research, others

PDPD

• Document, analyze and publish “best practice” PD in NGL schools

• Seed a new organization, or seek existing PD vendors, to implement “train the trainer” models or direct teacher training

• Tie closely to financial planning work

• Example: Teachscape, ANet

Financial PlanningFinancial Planning

• Document, analyze and publish innovative NGL resource allocation strategies

• Invest in capacity to conduct financial analysis for NGL entrepreneurs and district, either by seeding/growing organizations or training and investing in district capacity

• Example: ERS

Change ManagementChange Management

• Build additional capacity in the field with organizations that have change management and education expertise

• Work with consumers of services to develop economically sustainable models

• Examples: EDI, major consultancies, seed new organization

Human CapitalHuman Capital

• Begin the critical work of defining the redefined role of the teacher in NGL classrooms

• Develop human capital strategies (recruitment, retainment, training, promotion, career ladders) for both teachers and principals

• Examples: The New Teacher Project, AFT, seed new organization

NxGL Partnership and NH ~ NxGL Partnership and NH ~ Building on What WorksBuilding on What Works

PNxGL Attributes NH Entry PointPersonalized Learning

Personalization ~ Follow The Child

Comprehensive Systems of Learning Supports

Response to Intervention

World Class Knowledge and Skills

Common Core Standards + 21st century skills

Performance Based Learning

Competency Based Learning and Performance Assessment

Anytime, Everywhere Opportunities

Extended Learning Opportunities and Virtual Learning Academy CS

Authentic Student Voice and Agency

ELO Model + My Voice Survey

Learning Studio TeamsLearning Studio Teams

S t u d e n t s

Learning Challenge 1

Cross-curricular Team

(~5 teachers and one or more “scientists”)

Business Partners

District StaffNCTAF Staff

Learning Challenge 2

Learning Challenge 3

Learning Challenge 4