Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
The 8-Step Process for Continuous Improvement
of Instruction
MSD of Warren Township
Dr. Peggy Hinckley, Superintendent
Dena Cushenberry, Deputy Superintendent
November 15, 2011
CELL Conference
The Warren Story
• 3 years of declining test scores
• Fall, 2001 – Lowest scores among township schools in the metro area
• Less than half of Warren students passing ISTEP
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
3rd
Gr
6th
Gr
8th
Gr
10th
Gr
1999
2000
2001
The Warren Story
Questions
• What is the problem?
• What works in other schools?
• What can we do right now?
• What is our long-term solution?
Our goal is clear……………………
EVERY CHILD
MASTERS
EVERY STANDARD
The Warren Story
Brazosport, Texas – 1993
8-Step Process for Continuous Improvement
System change
Data-driven, results-oriented
Proven effective across all levels
Birth of the 8-Step Process
Plan-Do-Check-Act
Effective Schools Total Quality Management
We no longer fix
the blame, we
fix the system
by using the
Eight Steps!
1. Data Disaggregation Use student test scores to identify instructional groups.
Identify weak and strong objective areas.
2. Instructional Timeline A timeline that encompasses all academic standards and is a pacing guide for
instruction based on the needs of the student group and the weight of the
objective.
3. Instructional Focus Using the timeline, deliver instructional lessons that target specific
needs of students.
4. Assessment After the instructional focus has been taught, administer an assessment to
identify mastery and nonmastery students.
8. Monitor Continuous monitoring and evaluation of the process and progress of
students.
7. Maintenance Provide ongoing maintenance and reteaching.
6. Enrichment Provide enrichment
opportunities for mastery students.
5. Tutorials Provide tutorial time to reteach
nonmastered target areas.
1. Data Disaggregation Use student test scores to identify instructional groups.
Identify weak and strong objective areas.
All available test data is disaggregated by gender, race, ethnicity, poverty level, and special needs to identify gaps in achievement and specific areas of the academic standards to be addressed.
Data comes from the use of standardized tests (like ISTEP+) and other summative assessments.
“Data Walls” are established for staff to study and refer to frequently.
Instruction is designed around the Indiana Academic Standards and what the data prescribes.
Data Disaggregation
Data, Data, and
More Data!
• How do we keep track of what we’re finding out
about our students?
• How do we use what we’ve learned to help
students?
• How do we keep this information visible and
real?
• How do we use data to drive teaching
decisions?
Create a Data Wall
Why a Data Wall?
• Visual Representation of Student Progress
• Every child is represented – data has a
face • An interactive display of data • A way to show change over time
• Non-threatening form of accountability
A district-wide, common timeline for pacing the instruction, review, assessment and maintenance of individual indicators (subskills) of the Indiana Academic Standards and Common Core Standards for reading/language arts, math and science. The highest priority standards are highlighted for emphasis.
2. Instructional Timeline A timeline that encompasses all academic standards and is a pacing guide for
instruction based on the needs of the student group and the weight of the
objective.
4th
Nine
Weeks Number Sense/Algebra
Computation/Problem
Solving
Geometry/
Measurement
Data
Analysis/Probability
A
5.3.1 Use a variable to
represent an unknown number.
5.3.2 Write simple algebraic
expressions in one or two
variables and evaluate them by
substitution.
5.7.4 Express solutions
clearly and logically by
using the appropriate
mathematical terms and
notations. Support
solutions with evidence in
both verbal and symbolic
work.
5.5.5 Understand and use the
smaller and larger units for
measuring weight (ounce, gram,
and ton) and their relationship to
pounds and kilograms.
5.5.6 Compare temperatures in
Celsius and Fahrenheit, knowing
that the freezing point of water is
0 degrees Celsius and 32 degrees
Fahrenheit and that the boiling
point is 100 degrees Celsius and
212 degrees Fahrenheit.
REVIEW AND MAINTENANCE (OPTIONAL PLANNING GUIDE)
3 WEEK 3C 5.7.3 5.5.2, 5.5.3, 5.5.4
9 WEEK 3A 5.7.7 5.4.1, 5.4.2, 5.4.3, 5.4.4
18 WEEK 2A 5.2.1, 5.2.6, 5.7.5, 5.7.6
Indicators which are addressed and assessed
Indicators which are addressed (not necessarily assessed)
MATH INSTRUCTIONAL CALENDAR
GRADE FIVE
MSD of Warren Township
Indianapolis, IN
Warren promotes the delivery of effective lessons built on scientifically based research and best practices.
Instruction to individuals, small groups or the whole class is driven by the Instructional Calendar and what the data prescribes.
3. Instructional Focus Using the timeline, deliver instructional lessons that target
specific needs of students.
Lesson Plan
MSD of Warren Township
Teaching an Effective Lesson
Anticipatory Set
State the Objective
Teach the Lesson using Best Practices and High Yield Strategies
Check for Understanding Guided Practice
Assign Independent Practice Lesson Closure Schedule Maintenance
Anticipatory Set
• Emphasize to the students the learning task, its importance, and the learning (prior knowledge) that led to this objective.
State the Objective
• Know where you are going!
• By stating the objective, and its relevance, you are expecting the students to go along with you.
Teach the Lesson • This includes main concepts and skills,
emphasizing clear expectation and includes active
student participation.
Strategies to Use
Variety of examples Diagrams
Wait time Modeling
Graphic Organizers Q & A w/ Discussion
Proximity Build on prior knowledge
Check for Understanding
• Observe and interpret student reaction
• Frequent formative assessments
• IMMEDIATE feedback
• Adjust instruction and RETEACH if necessary
Guided Practice
• Allows student to answer questions, demonstrate skills, or solve problems
• Check for understanding
• Adjust instruction as needed and reteach as necessary
Independent Practice
• Allows students to solidify and demonstrate skills and knowledge on their own.
• Teachers check for understanding, give immediate feedback and reteach as needed.
Lesson Closure
• Recite or retell the prior learning and the objective
• Share what was learned and what is next
Maintenance
• Schedule maintenance to review and re-teach the concepts and skills learned.
• Reviews occur after:
1 hour, 1 day, 1 week, 3 weeks,
9 weeks, and 18 weeks
Teachers need enough data to determine where each student is at any given point and what to do next.
4. Assessment After the instructional focus has been taught, administer an
assessment to identify mastery and nonmastery
students.
1. Teachers assess students at the end of each 3 week calendar block after they have taught the standard indicators.
The Assessment Process
2. Teachers compile and analyze the data from the assessments.
3. Teachers enter the data on the learning log.
4. Teachers at each grade level meet with the principal or department chair at the end of the 3-week block.
a. Share learning logs, data and observations to determine which instructional practices were successful and which were not.
b. Collaborate with each other concerning difficult learners and topics and best practices.
c. Answer the question, “What will I do differently to improve student achievement in the future?”
d. “What will I do next with the students who have not yet mastered the skill?”
5. Teachers plan for Tutorials and Enrichment, steps 5 & 6 in the 8-Step Process.
Teachers use the data to determine what to do next with students who have not mastered the skill and with students who have demonstrated initial mastery.
6. Enrichment Provide enrichment
opportunities for mastery
students.
5. Tutorials Provide tutorial time to
reteach nonmastered target
areas.
Steps 5 & 6 at High School
1. Each day third period is extended by 30 minutes.
2. Students who need remediation in Algebra I or English 10 move to 14 “reteach” instructors. We focus on students who have not yet passed the ECA on the first try
3. Children with special needs or language issues may remain with their teacher to focus on special goals.
4. All other students remain in third period to participate in ACT Prep. activities
1. At PreK-6, teachers group and regroup students utilizing “centers” in the classroom in order to work with individuals or small groups that need more intense assistance in mastering reading/language arts and math skills.
The Tutorial/Correctives and Enrichment
Process
2. Utilizing the 30-minute daily Success Period at K-8, teachers group and regroup students across the grade level in order to work with individuals and small groups that need more intense interventions.
3. Where possible, Extended Day, an after-school tutorial and small group session, is available for students needing even more assistance in mastering skills.
5. For students who have shown initial mastery, the Success Period is used to enhance knowledge of the standards taught, provide intellectually challenging activities and promote higher-order thinking skills.
4. Where possible, teachers recommend students for Summer School and Intersession remediation who have not mastered the academic standards during the regular school interventions.
7. Maintenance Provide ongoing maintenance and reteaching.
Teachers help students maintain skills learned through periodic and cyclical review of standard indicators taught. This often occurs during class starters such as bell work, “Daily Oral Language” and “Daily Oral Math.” Software is used to support on-going skill maintenance.
MAINTENANCE MODEL
REVIEW and RETEACHING of what is learned
Mastery of skills, facts and concepts takes time. Some students can learn a new idea in one lesson. Most of us, however, need the lesson repeated several times for mastery to set in. Model teaching includes regular review of skills and concepts previously taught. Review and maintenance of what has been learned begins immediately after a new idea has been introduced.
Model Review Timeline:
Immediate rehearsal of new facts in the short term.
Repetition or testing of the facts a few minutes later.
Review of the facts an hour later.
A short recap of them after a night’s rest.
Short review a week later.
Short review 3 weeks later.
Review and check for understanding 9 weeks later.
Review and check for understanding 18 weeks later.
The instructional process is continually monitored by teachers, principals, parents and central-office administrators. Accountability for students mastering standards is shared by all.
8. Monitor
Continuous monitoring and evaluation of the process
and progress of students.
Examples of the Monitoring Process
Learning Logs of the 3-week assessments
Grade-Level Team Meetings
Data Wall
Classroom Walk-Through
Test Talks
Standards-Based Report Cards
Central Office Administrator Classroom Visits
Test Review Meetings with Building Staff
“Closing the Achievement Gap” Reports to the Board of Ed
Monitor
and
Adjust
Warren by the Numbers
2001 2007 2011
Enrollment
10,931
12,511
11,209
Free and
Reduced
37%
62%
68.9%
Language Arts Scores
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
3rd Grade 4th Grade 5th Grade
2009
2010
2011
Math Scores
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
3rd Grade 4h Grade 5th Grade
2009
2010
2011
Language Arts & Math Scores
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
3rd Grade 4th Grade 5th Grade
2009
2010
2011
Language Arts Scores
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
6th Grade 7th Grade 8th Grade
2009
2010
2011
Math Scores
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
6th Grade 7th Grade 8th Grade
2009
2010
2011
Language Arts & Math Scores
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
6th Grade 7th Grade 8th Grade
2009
2010
2011
English 10 ECA Scores
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
2009 Test administered in
Grade 11
2010 2011
Algebra I ECA Scores
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
2009 2010 2011
Biology ECA Scores
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
2009 2010 2011
ISTEP scores for 8-Step Process schools (Cohort 1) - Trained: November 2-20, 2009
School Number School Name 2009 Percent of Students
Passing ELA 2011 Percent of Students
Passing ELA 2009 Percent of Students
Passing Math 2011 Percent of Students
Passing Math 2009 Percent of Students Passing
both ELA and Math 2011 Percent of Students Passing
both ELA and Math
New Castle Community School Corporation
2832 Eastwood Elementary School 58.38% 60.59% 57.30% 65.48% 48.11% 51.20%
2849 James Whitcomb Riley Elementary School 83.42% 89.00% 90.67% 93.30% 81.35% 87.08%
2861 Westwood Elementary School 82.04% 79.79% 79.64% 90.16% 71.26% 76.17%
2847 Parker Elementary School 67.48% 80.16% 67.48% 78.31% 59.71% 72.36%
2865 Wilbur Wright Elementary School 63.69% 71.24% 65.92% 81.05% 54.19% 64.05%
2853 Sunnyside Elementary School 87.67% 82.00% 79.45% 88.74% 76.03% 77.33%
District Average for Cohort 1 schools 73.78% 77.13% 73.41% 82.84% 65.11% 71.37%
3.35% increase 9.43% increase 6.26% increase
South Bend Community School Corporation
7533 Coquillard Primary Center 43.80% 62.61% 33.58% 66.96% 27.01% 55.65%
7577 Marquette Montessori Academy 43.75% 61.62% 37.50% 47.47% 28.57% 44.90%
7561 Lincoln Primary Center 42.35% 58.88% 38.78% 57.48% 29.08% 47.66%
7593 Muessel Primary Center 47.24% 50.58% 38.04% 45.40% 29.45% 34.30%
7585 Monroe Primary Center 50.00% 59.15% 34.09% 59.86% 30.30% 48.59%
7597 Navarre Intermediate Center 33.97% 41.89% 41.11% 51.56% 25.24% 33.94%
7588 Wilson Primary Center 53.76% 67.76% 43.93% 66.12% 37.57% 52.46%
7573 Madison Primary Center 43.09% 60.14% 31.91% 50.00% 24.47% 39.86%
7613 Perley Fine Arts Academy 50.89% 67.89% 54.46% 76.36% 44.64% 63.30%
7545 Harrison Primary Center 35.40% 57.38% 46.72% 61.63% 27.37% 45.49%
District Average for Cohort 1 schools 44.43% 58.79% 40.01% 58.28% 30.37% 46.62%
14.36% increase 18.27% increase 16.25% increase
Muncie Community Schools
1485 Longfellow Elementary School 41.86% 71.81% 38.37% 73.83% 29.65% 61.38%
1509 Sutton Elementary School 64.00% 63.35% 65.78% 72.07% 53.33% 56.11%
1517 West View Elementary School 67.63% 78.87% 63.58% 80.28% 55.49% 70.71%
1496 North View Elementary School 73.72% 82.10% 59.62% 80.25% 55.77% 72.84%
1482 South View Elementary School 59.27% 72.14% 55.64% 77.86% 46.18% 63.95%
1423 Storer Elementary School 78.13% 83.62% 81.77% 81.90% 74.48% 72.81%
1470 Grissom Elementary School 53.99% 65.78% 56.34% 68.89% 42.72% 56.05%
1494 Mitchell Elementary School 79.44% 78.95% 69.16% 80.00% 61.68% 68.14%
District Average for Cohort 1 schools 64.76% 74.58% 61.28% 76.89% 52.41% 65.25%
9.82% increase 15.61% increase 12.84% increase
Lafayette School Corporation
8104 Thomas Miller Elementary School 65.05% 90.48% 68.28% 92.94% 55.91% 85.19%
25.43% increase 24.66% increase 29.28% increase
School ID School Name 2010 ELA 2011 ELA ELA Change 2010 Math 2011 Math Math Change 2010 ELA &
Math 2011 ELA &
Math ELA & Math Change 2010 Tested 2011 Tested
Alexandria Com School Corp
5065 Alexandria-Monroe Intermediate 78.7% 82.9% 4.2% 79.4% 81.9% 2.5% 70.1% 75.3% 5.2% 423 444
Batesville Community Sch Corp
7218 Batesville Primary School 90.9% 91.7% 0.8% 86.1% 94.1% 8.1% 84.2% 88.0% 3.7% 165 133
Blackford County Schools
0485 Montpelier School 68.5% 81.1% 12.7% 70.0% 83.0% 13.0% 58.5% 71.7% 13.2% 260 159
Clay Community Schools
0941 East Side Elementary School 65.9% 64.7% -1.1% 73.6% 75.5% 1.9% 59.7% 58.3% -1.4% 129 139
East Noble School Corp
6465 Rome City Elementary School 76.5% 61.1% -15.4% 73.5% 75.1% 1.6% 65.9% 57.8% -8.0% 170 185
6477 North Side Elementary School 75.0% 77.7% 2.7% 72.4% 83.6% 11.2% 65.8% 75.0% 9.2% 220 224
6478 South Side Elementary School 79.5% 80.1% 0.6% 82.3% 81.6% -0.7% 71.2% 69.9% -1.3% 229 226
Elkhart Community Schools
1763 Pierre Moran Middle School 52.2% 56.5% 4.2% 68.4% 65.8% -2.7% 48.0% 50.0% 2.0% 580 547
Gary Community School Corp
4029 Lew Wallace (Sci, Tech, Eng, Math) 25.5% 30.4% 4.9% 28.1% 28.1% 0.1% 16.0% 18.9% 2.8% 345 299
4033 Theodore Roosevelt Car & Tech Acad 37.1% 32.3% -4.7% 25.4% 20.4% -5.0% 18.6% 13.1% -5.5% 399 337
4104 Jefferson Elementary School 51.3% 48.9% -2.4% 46.2% 55.8% 9.6% 35.3% 36.5% 1.1% 351 311
4105 Bailly Preparatory Academy 43.1% 53.1% 10.0% 38.2% 46.1% 7.9% 30.0% 35.7% 5.7% 281 258
4163 West Side Leadership Academy 27.5% 31.3% 3.8% 21.7% 27.4% 5.7% 12.8% 16.8% 4.0% 408 384
4168 Wm A Wirt/Emerson VPA 78.5% 81.1% 2.5% 61.0% 66.8% 5.9% 54.1% 59.2% 5.1% 205 185
Lake Ridge Schools
3881 Grissom Elementary School 63.2% 75.2% 12.0% 57.6% 83.2% 25.5% 50.0% 68.1% 18.1% 144 113
3885 Longfellow Elementary School 68.3% 68.0% -0.3% 84.1% 76.4% -7.7% 64.6% 59.6% -5.1% 164 178
3889 Hosford Park Elementary 66.9% 70.7% 3.8% 62.6% 69.2% 6.6% 55.4% 59.4% 4.0% 139 133
3893 Lake Ridge Middle School 54.7% 57.0% 2.3% 52.4% 63.1% 10.7% 41.0% 48.3% 7.3% 439 421
Lake Station Community Schools
3973 Alexander Hamilton Elementary Sch 85.1% 77.7% -7.4% 88.8% 81.0% -7.8% 81.6% 70.2% -11.3% 114 121
3975 Virgil I Bailey Elementary School 83.2% 86.0% 2.7% 85.5% 86.0% 0.5% 79.4% 80.2% 0.8% 131 121
3977 Central Elementary School 64.3% 85.0% 20.7% 70.5% 82.0% 11.5% 52.7% 76.0% 23.3% 112 100
3985 Carl J Polk Elementary School 77.3% 80.9% 3.5% 72.2% 80.0% 7.8% 66.0% 73.4% 7.4% 97 94
Marion Community Schools
2350 Justice Thurgood Marshall Intrmd 66.7% 57.4% -9.3% 61.2% 69.7% 8.5% 52.6% 50.3% -2.4% 534 580
2369 Allen Elementary School 62.3% 64.3% 2.0% 57.0% 61.0% 4.0% 48.7% 52.9% 4.2% 228 140
2393 John W Kendall Elem School 81.7% 82.7% 1.1% 84.2% 75.4% -8.8% 77.2% 71.6% -5.7% 202 197
2405 Riverview Elementary School 76.4% 72.2% -4.2% 78.2% 75.8% -2.3% 70.0% 62.9% -7.1% 220 151
2409 Frances Slocum Elem School 50.0% 64.0% 14.0% 51.4% 60.4% 9.0% 39.6% 53.0% 13.4% 140 100
Mooresville Con School Corp
6385 North Madison Elem Sch 81.7% 85.5% 3.9% 82.9% 80.9% -2.1% 74.0% 75.9% 1.9% 415 415
New Castle Community Sch Corp
2829 New Castle Middle School 70.5% 73.8% 3.4% 69.4% 72.8% 3.4% 60.6% 65.6% 5.0% 576 581
Oregon-Davis School Corp
7818 Oregon-Davis Elementary Sch 71.1% 85.4% 14.2% 79.5% 87.2% 7.7% 64.0% 78.7% 14.7% 201 178
Rockville Community School Corp
6645 Rockville Elementary School 73.0% 70.4% -2.6% 79.9% 81.5% 1.6% 66.5% 65.9% -0.6% 248 226
South Bend Community Sch Corp
7313 Hay Primary Center 71.1% 71.6% 0.5% 61.0% 66.7% 5.7% 56.1% 58.2% 2.1% 187 201
7417 Warren Primary Center 61.9% 65.7% 3.8% 61.2% 64.5% 3.3% 49.6% 55.5% 5.8% 139 137
7435 Darden Primary Center 75.0% 79.3% 4.3% 68.5% 71.6% 3.1% 63.0% 66.3% 3.4% 216 208
7441 Swanson Primary Center 69.8% 69.6% -0.2% 68.8% 70.2% 1.4% 61.0% 60.8% -0.2% 172 171
7546 Hamilton Traditional School 93.2% 93.0% -0.2% 81.6% 89.0% 7.4% 79.6% 87.0% 7.4% 103 100
7557 Lafayette Traditional School 61.9% 58.6% -3.3% 45.2% 48.3% 3.0% 45.2% 41.4% -3.9% 42 29
7569 McKinley Primary Center 63.3% 82.2% 18.9% 53.7% 79.2% 25.5% 44.1% 71.5% 27.5% 177 146
7597 Navarre Intermediate Center 44.4% 41.9% -2.5% 54.0% 51.6% -2.4% 36.4% 33.9% -2.5% 586 604
7601 Nuner Primary Center 71.7% 66.3% -5.4% 62.6% 75.3% 12.7% 52.8% 59.7% 6.8% 198 181
7621 Tarkington Traditional Center 88.4% 88.3% 0.0% 72.9% 88.5% 15.7% 70.5% 82.5% 12.0% 129 120
Contact Information
Dr. Peggy Hinckley
Superintendent
Dena Cushenberry
Deputy Superintendent-Elementary and Intermediate
