Leadership Network for the Ohio Improvement Process
February 26, 2013
How are you communicating the strong connection between components of the Ohio
Improvement Process and OTES/OPES?
Further questions:
Points to share:
Are districts feeling that they should keep
these things separate for awhile yet? (they
feel that OIP is working well and there is much
confusion around OTES/OPES)
Current focus on developing a good
understanding of the TBT/BLT/DLT using the 5
step process before putting OTES/OPES into
the mix
Leaders see connections, not sure how it is
making it down to teacher level, making
connections at SLO training between FIP,
creating assessments, and 5 step process.
need to make a plan to make those explicit
connections for people
As a district they haven’t been making the
deliberate connections yet, there is overlap
between DLT and OTES committee members,
make the connection between writing SLOs
and developing formative assessments in TBTs
DLT members have presented to their staff
about OIP and the teachers themselves are
making the connections between the 5 step
process and OTES
It’s an emerging process, the connection isn’t
coming from the designers of the process, it’s
been up to districts to make the connections,
create sense of urgency
There is so much is caught up in the “what”
but people are looking for the “why” but can’t
get there because there is so much “stuff” to
do
Logical connections might be – personnel
across committees, common assessments,
monitoring of the process
What is your process to develop SLOs?
Further questions:
How are people providing guidance around
setting growth targets?
 Feeling that it’s arbitrary, trainings
haven’t clarified
Points to share:
The process to develop is moving slowly,
people attended trainings, ongoing
conversations with union about percentages
and who needs to develop, struggle to get to




Teachers would like growth targets
aligned to new end of course exams
that we don’t have
AIMSweb allows to set differential
targets, used national averages for
different groups
Some of vendor assessments have
nationally normed base for targets
Using formative assessments will
hopefully help teachers monitor how
children are moving towards meeting
the SLO
What about specialists (fine arts, etc.)?
Early childhood new standards and SLOs?
it’s about “we” not just “me”, teachers don’t
always see the big picture of working
collaboratively to develop good common
assessments
Developing OTES policy and negotiations at
same time, friction between people to have
their targets set and those that can set their
own, been working on common assessments
for a couple years but realizing that may not
be best, time is a factor – planning summer
work
Been working on common end of course
assessment and curriculum maps grades 5-10
because of International Baccalaureate, so
they have a foundation, questions about
upcoming end of course assessments so do we
spend the time to develop pre-assessments
for current courses? Where to put energy that
won’t end up being a waste of time. MS TBT
process has been an asset in moving forward
with the team approach
Broad effort to make SLOs not teacher specific
but across buildings, limit to the 2 SLOs per
teacher that ODE is asking for, places where
common and formative assessments are in
place will help with development of SLOs
In the waiting process for the district office to
tell them what to do
Looking at vendor assessments, have common
core pacing guides and bi-weekly assessments
“thrown at” teachers
Waiting, new Decision Framework indicated a
lack of teacher understanding of formative
assessment
Used a waiver day for elementary teachers to
meet by grade level and rolled out state SLO
training using the first 3 modules. Teachers
then developed 1 SLO this year as a practice,
used AIMSweb for pre-assessment, teachers
doing more than one subject still a question
Rolled out state training module 1 with HS,
identified 2 teachers at each building for
district SLO review, RTTT must have SLOs
uploaded by May 10, looking at departmental
SLOs, challenge of getting over just using final
exam because it doesn’t meet rigor, going
with STARS K-8 reading/math, have lots of
questions about SLOs from teachers of
subjects like art, music, cosmetology, etc.
In process with many things - 5 step process,
RtI, rimps, Common Core, MAPS, etc. Looking
at how to roll SLOs into common formative
assessment work that has already been done –
focusing on it next year
No SLO training yet for teachers, have sent 1
principal
Message from Race to the Top conference, we
can’t let perfect be a roadblock, opportunity
to be collaborative and cooperative and this is
the only way to get the work done
How are you aligning your SLOs with your pre/post assessments, and ongoing formative
assessments?
Further questions:
Points to share:
Teachers working in TBTs realizing that
assessments are not very well aligned, wishing
they had better assessment training before
they started developing assessments, time
issue – not feel they have enough to develop
quality assessments
Describe the discussion you have had in your district about shared attribution and your TBTs.
Further questions:
Points to share:
Haven’t talked about it much yet, natural
resistance that my outcomes should be tied to
what I produce; however, shared
accountability may help with collaboration,
huge leap, pressure in a good way to teachers
who may not be performing and supporting
each other
Talking with union, they feel shared
attribution takes the student growth measure
out of the loop and puts emphasis on
teacher’s score
Shared attribution is a “bad word” not
interested in sharing it in their district
Hearing from union presidents that it varies
from local to local, Rocky River using as much
shared attribution as can, Bay Village doing
SLOs
District has been above in Value-Added but
initially will probably go to the smallest
amount of shared attribution
Not at the top of their list of concerns right
now but are hoping they will consider it,
special education is a discussion point
How are you supporting principals to be instructional leaders knowledgeable about
instructional strategies?
Further questions:
Points to share:
If doing McRel walkthrough for feedback, how District very intentional commitment this year,
will teachers know if it’s an evaluation
McRel walkthrough principals do 40, central
walkthrough?
office 30, asst principals 30, immediate
feedback email to teachers after walkthrough,
calibrate every other week on Fridays with
video, memo from superintendent 7%
principal day with teachers in classrooms
Informal walkthroughs now, plan on doing
McRel next year. McRel is only for feedback
not evaluation, cue to teachers - if have iPad
it’s McRel
So much on the plate that’s all important how to figure out what to let go? Challenge of
being in building as instructional leader as well
as being on district committees that remove
from building, 40-60 walkthroughs per week
on top of evaluations?
Central office has to follow through on
showing that instruction is the most important
McRel walkthroughs – principals do 20 per
week but OTES may be a game changer,
developed a committee of principals and
central office to identify priorities and what
can stop doing or be shifted, redefining what it
means to be a principal
No formal walkthrough but have structured
observation process and need to define the
OTES walkthrough, looking at allocation of
time and effort of central office
Walkthroughs in every building every day (6
areas for walkthroughs that they developed),
rating scale that is letting principals know
every two weeks, identified area of difficulty
of dealing with the mediocre group of
teachers to make them a better teacher,
central office role to make them better
principals – focusing on effective leadership
practices
Using OTES (into online system?) and merged
with school improvement walkthrough on
Google Docs (Google version give to BLT
without teacher names)
Conducted K-8 literacy training and principals
required to be there, fishbowls in classroom to
model strategies, walkthrough piece called
“status check” with consultant and lead
teacher that goes to leadership team too ,
Middle School uses Google Doc walkthrough,
not adopted something across district
Doing “building scans” designed own form
enter into PD 360 no teacher names, looking
at using OTES form
Traditional evaluation walkthrough, at HS the
department chairs running the PD for last 3
years and feedback from principals
Doing McRel pairing principals to do
walkthroughs together to assist in calibration,
15 per week, data walks central office meet
with principals to go over their building data
to model, began OPES this year
How are you addressing the purposes and differences between your informal observation
walkthroughs in your district improvement plan and OTES walkthroughs?
Further questions:
Points to share:
If using an iPad it’s McRel and not part of
evaluation
Major Takeaways:




Don’t’ expect perfect, it’s a moving target
All in this together, misery loves company, helpful to learn from others
Confirmation of the importance of instructional leadership
Continue to reframe the accountability/expectations as an opportunity by our actions
not just words that it’s not a gotcha for teachers
Question still have







How it all fits?
What to prioritize?
Community impact and how to communicate everything that is going on
SLOs
Legislators making decisions that aren’t educationally sound and language in legislation
keeps changing
How to provide time and support to make instructional leadership a reality?
How much is reasonable to expect from principals and how to help them decide what to
let go?