Brian Wood, Director of Assessment & Accountability

Lora Roman, Instructional Coach

Beaumont Unified School District

PROFESSIONAL COLLABORATION FOR CALIFORNIA CCSS:

Who are we?

Who are we… The Beaumont Unified School District, located

in Riverside County at the convergence of the Interstate 10 and Highway 60 freeways, serves approximately 8,800 TK-12 students

Six TK-5 Elementary Schools Two 6-8 Middle Schools One Traditional High School & One Alternative High

School Large Adult Ed Program

Our district has experienced tremendous growth over the last 11 years due to new home construction.

Student Group Percent of Enrollment

Hispanic 49%

African American 6%

Asian, Pacific Islander, Filipino 6%

White 35%

English Learners 13%

Redesignated Fully English Proficient

9%

Students receiving FRPM 61%

Students with Disabilities 10%

Major Subgroups

  2012 Base API (Spring 2013)

2012 Statewide Rank

2012 Similar Schools Rank PI Status

Beaumont Unified 813 N/A N/A Not in PI

 Anna Hause Elementary 874 8 10 Year 1

 Brookside Elementary 880 8 9 Not in PI

 Palm Elementary 787 4 3 Year 3

 Sundance Elementary 867 8 9 Not in PI

 Three Rings Ranch Elementary 848 7 9 Not in PI

 Tournament Hills Elementary 861 8 5 Year 1

 Mountain View Middle 856 8 8 Year 3

 San Gorgonio Middle 823 6 7 Year 4

 Beaumont Senior High 763 6 4 Not T1

 Glen View High (ASAM School) 527 N/A N/A Not T1

Beaumont Unified is one of two Riverside County unified districts NOT in Program Improvement

District Goals District Goal One:

ALL students in our district five years or longer will achieve Proficient or Advanced in core subjects as measured by CST.

 District Goal Two: ALL English learners will be reclassified within five years as measured by the district reclassification criteria.

Funding Focused on District goals 1 & 2 despite

fiscal challenges Use of Federal Categorical Funds including

Title I, II, and III to fund instructional coaches and release time for teachers

Alignment of LEA plan and School Site Plans to dedicate funding

Collaboration with stakeholders, especially the teachers’ association, to maintain initiative

Instructional Leadership Council (ILC) What is it?

Instructional Leadership Council (ILC) Who is involved?

Instructional Leadership Council (ILC) How is it structured?

Instructional Leadership Council (ILC) When does it take place?

Activities Supporting Standards Ownership Leadership

Effective Instructional Practices

The Standards

Time to Design

School Leadership that Works, Marzano Learning by Doing, Dufour Managing Transitions, Bridges

Professional Learning

PLCs are the vehicle, or umbrella, for leaders to disseminate the information by presenting,

coaching, facilitating, and consulting.

Effective Instruction Direct Instruction/Inquiry/Habits of Mind Differentiation / Scaffolding Classroom Interventions/RTI2

Student Engagement Integration of Technology Academic Behavioral Strategies

Common Core State Standards Curriculum/Instructional Materials Pacing Guides Standards for Mathematical Practice Unpacking Standards Data Analysis • Formative • Benchmark • Summative

Communicatio

n

All Stakeholders Accountability

technology

communication

creativity

critical thinking

collaboration

life and career skills

RIGORRELEVANCE

RELATIONSHIP

media

information

Standards and Assessments

Curriculum and Instruction

Professional Learning

Learning Environments

21st Century Classroom

Student Centered vs. Teacher Centered

ActiveLearning

Passive Learning

adapted from Ntl Institute for Applied Behavioral Science (n.d.)

Rigor and Relevance Framework™

High High RigorRigor and and Relevance Relevance Framework ™Framework ™

(Application Model) (Application Model)

1 2 3 4 5

4

5

6

3

2

1

Evaluation

Synthesis

Analysis

Application

Comprehensi

on

Knowledge &

AwarenessKnowledge

in onediscipline

Apply in one

discipline

Apply Across

disciplines

Apply toreal-world predictabl

e situations

Apply toreal-world

unpredictable

situations

A: Acquisition

Count, define, describe, draw, find, identify, label, list, match, name, quote, recall, recite, sequence, tell, write, conclude, discuss, explain, generalize, illustrate, tell, review

C: Assimilation

Analyze, appraise, characterize, classify, compare, contrast, choose, construct, deduce, diagram, distinguish, examine, organize, outline, relate, research, rewrite, separate

D: Adaptation

Assess, argue, debate, design, develop, differentiate, discriminate, integrate, invent, judge, justify, make, perform, plan, predict, prioritize, produce, propose, prove, rank, rate, select

B: Application

Conclude, demonstrate, discuss, explain, generalize, interpret, paraphrase, predict, report, restate, summarize, tell, apply, change, compute, dramatize, interview, prepare, produce, role-play, select, show, transfer, use

Webb’s Depth of Knowledge (DOK)

Fixed vs. Growth Mindset

Promote learners’ beliefs about their own intelligence (growth mindset vs. fixed mindset).

adapted from Briars (2011) Intensified Algebra

“Crosswalk” Analysis Learning Progression Application of Writing Standards Alignment with Current Adopted

Curriculum Performance Tasks Instructional Enhancements

Concept by Subject Activity

Activity to Highlight CCSS Literacy and SMP

Promotes Discussion

Enlightens Participants

Students understand and use stated assumptions, definitions, and previously established results in constructing arguments. They make conjectures and build a logical progression of statements to explore the truth of their conjectures. They are able to analyze situations by breaking them into cases, and can recognize and use counterexamples. They justify their conclusions, communicate them to others, and respond to the arguments of others. They reason inductively about data, making plausible arguments that take into account the context from which the data arose. Students are also able to compare the effectiveness of two plausible arguments, distinguish correct logic or reasoning from that which is flawed, and—if there is a flaw in an argument—explain what it is. Elementary students can construct arguments using concrete referents such as objects, drawings, diagrams, and actions. Such arguments can make sense and be correct, even though they are not generalized or made formal until later grades. Later, students learn to determine domains to which an argument applies. Students at all grades can listen or read the arguments of others, decide whether they make sense, and ask useful questions to clarify or improve the arguments.

Part 1 – (10 Minutes) Facilitator: Please read each bulleted item (on the yellow sheet provided) one

at a time, and pause to allow group members to identify the subject where the concept most often is instructed.

Recorder: Write the subject your group identified next to the bullet. Time Keeper: Make sure the bullet reading and discussion for each bullet

takes no more than one minute.

Part 2 – (3 Minutes) Facilitator: After all nine of the bullets have been read and discussed as

described in Part 1, your school will identify two bullets and answer the two guiding questions with the entire group.

Recorder: You will write answers / jot ideas in response to the two guiding questions on the reverse of the yellow sheet.

Part 3 – (2 Minutes) Spokesperson: You will share out with the group.

Students understand and use stated assumptions, definitions, and previously established results in constructing arguments. They make conjectures and build a logical progression of statements to explore the truth of their conjectures. They are able to analyze situations by breaking them into cases, and can recognize and use counterexamples. They justify their conclusions, communicate them to others, and respond to the arguments of others. They reason inductively about data, making plausible arguments that take into account the context from which the data arose. Students are also able to compare the effectiveness of two plausible arguments, distinguish correct logic or reasoning from that which is flawed, and—if there is a flaw in an argument—explain what it is. Elementary students can construct arguments using concrete referents such as objects, drawings, diagrams, and actions. Such arguments can make sense and be correct, even though they are not generalized or made formal until later grades. Later, students learn to determine domains to which an argument applies. Students at all grades can listen or read the arguments of others, decide whether they make sense, and ask useful questions to clarify or improve the arguments.

Standard for Mathematical Practice 3: Construct Viable Arguments and Critique the Reasoning of Others

Mathematically proficient students understand and use stated

assumptions, definitions, and previously established results in constructing arguments. They make conjectures and build a logical progression of statements to explore the truth of their conjectures. They are able to analyze situations by breaking them into cases, and can recognize and use counterexamples. They justify their conclusions, communicate them to others, and respond to the arguments of others. They reason inductively about data, making plausible arguments that take into account the context from which the data arose. Mathematically proficient students are also able to compare the effectiveness of two plausible arguments, distinguish correct logic or reasoning from that which is flawed, and—if there is a flaw in an argument—explain what it is. Elementary students can construct arguments using concrete referents such as objects, drawings, diagrams, and actions. Such arguments can make sense and be correct, even though they are not generalized or made formal until later grades. Later, students learn to determine domains to which an argument applies. Students at all grades can listen or read the arguments of others, decide whether they make sense, and ask useful questions to clarify or improve the arguments.

Standard for Mathematical Practice 3: Construct Viable Arguments and Critique the Reasoning of Others

Mathematically proficient students understand and use stated

assumptions, definitions, and previously established results in constructing arguments. They make conjectures and build a logical progression of statements to explore the truth of their conjectures. They are able to analyze situations by breaking them into cases, and can recognize and use counterexamples. They justify their conclusions, communicate them to others, and respond to the arguments of others. They reason inductively about data, making plausible arguments that take into account the context from which the data arose. Mathematically proficient students are also able to compare the effectiveness of two plausible arguments, distinguish correct logic or reasoning from that which is flawed, and—if there is a flaw in an argument—explain what it is. Elementary students can construct arguments using concrete referents such as objects, drawings, diagrams, and actions. Such arguments can make sense and be correct, even though they are not generalized or made formal until later grades. Later, students learn to determine domains to which an argument applies. Students at all grades can listen or read the arguments of others, decide whether they make sense, and ask useful questions to clarify or improve the arguments.

Planning for Dissemination

•What we set out to do for

CCSS

•Completed

•Successes

•Barriers

•Addressing the barriers

TK-5 CCSS Implementation Middle School Math CCSS Implementation Instructional Rounds in Education

Monitor Implementation Addressing the 21st Century Classroom

Wireless Infrastructure Promethean Board Chrome Books Bring Your Own Device (BYOD) Google Environment Learning Management System Illuminate (Data Management System)

Expanding the Capacity for Leadership District to Facilitate Professional Learning

Opportunities Full Implementation 2014-2015 College and Career Readiness

We are all unique and at different places in implementation, but at our core… we all have the common goal of educating

the future.

Briars, J. L. & Briars, D. (2011). Algebra Intensification: Research-Based Interventions. (pdf 3.7 mb)

Bridges, W. (1991). Managing Transitions: Making the most of change. Reading, Mass: Addison Wesley.

Calvin & Hobbes retrieved from http://ramanju.blogspot.com/2009/10/mindsets-nature-vs-nurture.htmll. June 6, 2013

City, E. A., Elmore, R.F., et al. (2010). Instructional Rounds in Education. Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard Education Press

Commoncore.org. Link for CCSS Resources

DuFour, R., DuFour, R., et al. (2006). Learning By Doing. Bloomington, IN: Solution Tree Press.

Dwek, C. (2006) Mindset. New York City, New York: Random House.

Hess, K. (2009). Cognitive Rigor Matrix: Permission to reproduce is given when authorship is fully cited. (Khess@nciea.org) From Webb’s Depth of Knowledge Levels

Learning Pyramid Graphic. Adapted from NTL Institute for Applied Behavioral Sciences. Retrieved from http://www2.sunysuffolk.edu/joshiv/handouts/PDF/Learning+pyramid.pdf June 6, 2013

Marzano, R.J., Waters, T. & McNulty, B.A. (2005). School Leadership that Works. Alexandria, VA: ASCD.

Rigor and Relevance Framework (International Center for Leadership in Education), retrieved from http://www.leadered.com/pdf/R&Rframework.pdf on June 6, 2013

Riverside County Office of Education http://www.rcoe.k12.ca.us/

21st Century Classroom. Retrieved from http://theconnectedclassroom.wikispaces.com/Classroom. June 6, 2013