SY 2014‐15 Oversight Panel Report for Los Angeles Unified School District Last Updated 6/15/2015 Oversight Panel Report – Los Angeles Unified School District Principle 1 E1. LEA provides a system of Common Core State Standards­ based professional learning opportunities E2. LEA provides a system of continuous professional learning… E4. LEA is fully implementing a CCSS­ aligned instructional plan. E3. LEA is implementing CCSS­ aligned assessments E5. LEA’s CCSS­ aligned instructional plan addresses the specific learning needs of [key subgroups]. Principle 2 E1. LEA has engaged stakeholders around School Quality Improvement System implementation E2. LEA has collected and reported data required for the SQII and its development E.3 LEA has implemented School Quality Improvement System Requirements Principle 3 Teachers LEA meaningfully engages stakeholders in the development, pilot and implementation of EES. EES uses viable EES cycle methods to incorporates differentiate among multiple data 4 levels of sources, collected effectiveness … with sufficient frequency, to determine effectiveness. EES is aligned with CORE Common Evaluation Guidelines for Teachers and Leaders. EES includes meaningful feedback cycles connected to professional growth. EES informs cycles of instructional collaboration, coaching and/or professional learning. EES incorporates one of the two SQIS options for measuring impact on student learning. EES incorporates approved measures of student growth in non­tested subjects… LEA utilizes EES to inform recruitment, promotion, tenure, transfer, lay off and dismissal decisions. Leaders LEA meaningfully engages stakeholders in the development, pilot and implementation of EES. EES uses viable EES cycle methods to incorporates differentiate among multiple data 4 levels of sources, collected effectiveness … with sufficient frequency, to determine effectiveness. EES is aligned with CORE Common Evaluation Guidelines for Teachers and Leaders. EES includes meaningful feedback cycles connected to professional growth. EES informs cycles of instructional collaboration, coaching and/or professional learning. EES incorporates one of the two SQIS options for measuring impact on student learning. EES incorporates approved measures of student growth in non­tested subjects… LEA utilizes EES to inform recruitment, promotion, tenure, transfer, lay off and dismissal decisions. Key
Expectation Met Expectation not met, enter development cycle* *In expectations identified for development, the district will create and implement a development plan designed toward meeting the expectation. A mid­year peer review of these items will occur in time to be reported to Oversight Panel in January 2016. If the district is not on track to meet the expectation, the Oversight Panel will have the option to recommend the District for removal or not to USED . 1 Principle 1 – Sample Self­Review Narrative Elements and Peer Review Rationale Expectation Self Peer 1 Peer 2 Select Information from Self and Peer Reviews E1. LEA provides a system of Common Core State Standards­ based professional learning 5 4 4 Self: LAUSD has followed a multi­year system of CC aligned professional­learning opportunities for all teachers and leaders. Many of these opportunities are job embedded and allow for differentiation based on identified needs. Our multi­year plan has built on a common understanding of the standards, math practices and pedagogical shifts. Our teaching and learning framework and Teacher Growth and Development Cycle allow staff to measure the impact of professional learning on instructional delivery. Peer: ● As reflected in the clarifying questions below, it is not clear that the system provides coherent Common Core Standards­based professional learning opportunities that could be measured throughout the district. ● Structurally, the school sites are banking days for professional development. However, do the schools have the capacity to actually implement? ● Using the Kirkpatrick Evaluation Model, but that is recently implemented. ● Multi‑year: Began with K, 1, 6, & 9, and then expanded scope in following years to include increasing grade levels and special populations. ● Instructional rounds used to gather data to identify needs and differentiate. 4 4 4 Self: We provided a multi­year system of ongoing professional development addressing Common Core aligned assessments including formative, instrument, and some of them assessments. Teams worked to ensure that we address all aspects of item types and claims in our assessments and performance tasks. Peer: ● The level of planning and continuity is clear from the evidence provided and demonstrates a nice mix of direction from the central office with choice at the site level. It looks like a good start has been made on introducing the new Science standards. The work on the integration between ELA, HSS and Science sounds promising. ● LEA has a multi­year system of professional learning based on CCSS­aligned assessments. ● LEA has an aligned professional learning that addresses CCSS­aligned assessment for Non­Tested Grades. 4 4 4 Self: Our ability to monitor systematic implementation has been hampered by our inability to collect data at a district level and to disaggregate at an ESC/director and school levels due to complications in implementation of MiSiS (My Integrated Student Information System) district wide. The district created assessments include the variety of formats found in the SBAC assessments, including selected response, constructed response, extended constructed response, and performance tasks. opportunities E2. LEA provides a system of continuous professional learning based on implementing CCSS and Non­Tested Grades and Subjects aligned assessments E3. LEA is implementing CCSS­ aligned assessments 2 Peer: ● LAUSD has clearly created a robust and comprehensive set of assessments and support materials to support instruction across grades and content areas. These assessment tools appear to be designed in the spirit of SBAC and CCSS in both content and format. ● Assessments have been developed for primary content areas that include accommodations for various learners. The performance assessments are linked to instructional units and supported with professional development. E4. LEA is fully implementing a 5 4 4 Self: We have addressed all the required components for meeting the learning needs for low achieving, high achieving, English Learners, and students with disabilities. Our instructional plans across all content areas include scope and sequence for instructional planning, pedagogical shifts and assessments aligned to the CCSS, instructional units that include CCSS aligned materials and resources. Peer: ● The district has put in place the structures to make certain that teachers have access to curricular units and professional development aligned to the CCSS. They have also identified an observation protocol aligned to this curriculum. ● Multiple stakeholders participate in development of curricular plans. ● “Units of instructions have been created” and are available to schools via PD and on website ● Alignment of Teaching framework to CCSS implementation to assess and progress monitor CCSS‑aligned instructional practice 5 5 4 Self: We meet the benchmark of 5 in multiple ways. Not only does the overall plan mention all subgroups but it also includes significant groups that are not identified in the CORE waiver such as Standard English Learners and Long­Term English Learners, that are significant subgroups for LAUSD. Peer: ● This LEA’s Concrete evidence of collaborative effort are evident based on the descriptive articulation of district’s engagement effort for key stakeholders to reflect on the practice and support structure through piloting and revision processes [P1.E5.A1]. Intentional focus on engaging representatives from pertaining departments, teachers and site administrators to plan and deliver PD illustrates coherent collaboration [P1.E5.A2] . ● “Creation of lesson and other resources to align and support the CA ELA‑ELD Framework and the District’s implementation of the CA ELD Standards (CELDS) in SY 2015‑16 will reflect application of Universal Design of Learning principles to broaden access and promote student engagement.” ● multiple and strong examples of cross‑departmental collaboration to ensure that the needs of student subgroups are met the needs of subgroups are addressed as a part of the core work, not an after thought CCSS­ aligned instructional plan. E5. LEA’s CCSS­ aligned instructional plan addresses the specific learning needs of low achieving students, high achieving students, students with disabilities and English language learners. 3 Principle 2 – Sample Self­Review Narrative Elements and Peer Review Rationale Expectation Self Peer 1 Peer 2 Select Information from Self and Peer Reviews E1. LEA has engaged stakeholders 5 around School Quality Improvement System implementation 5 5 Self: Relevant stakeholders were meaningfully engaged in the implementation of the School Quality Improvement System (SQIS). LAUSD’s plan and strategy for stakeholder engagement for Principle 2 was three­fold. First, we felt it necessary to use several means of communication to periodically inform and update school­based and community stakeholders about the SQII and school supports and interventions. Second, a broad group of stakeholders were engaged to provide input into the development of the SQII. Feedback from these efforts was collected to influence decision­making at the CORE level. Lastly, targeted stakeholder engagement related to school supports and interventions occurred during Waiver­related events, one­on­one technical assistance, planning meetings, and following planning cycles. The purpose of these efforts was to improve the quality of our work and tailor tools and services to meet the needs of our designated schools. Peer: LAUSD’s narrative and evidence provide explicit articulation of the types of engagement as well as the purposes for engagement, especially for the various audiences. The “nested” approach of having broad public­facing tools/info, to having more targeted focus groups with Title I and Focus/Priority schools is useful for consistency of information across levels/areas. Peer: LAUSD intentionally expanded its internal capacity to gather feedback on the CORE SQII metrics by training a group of about 20 facilitators using common presentation materials and tools for collection of feedback. E2. LEA has collected and reported data required for the SQII and its development 4 5 Peer: Although not part of the rubric, LAUSD has also contributed to the CORE School Quality Improvement Index by conducting an internal analysis of English learners and reclassification rates, as well as an analysis of middle school performance of high school graduates. Both studies used LAUSD’s large student dataset to provide useful analysis as the English learner reclassification metric was being developed, and as CORE looked at establishing a high school readiness profile. 4 4 E.3 LEA has implemented School Quality Improvement System Requirements 4 4 4.5 Self: We either have or are on track to implement all of the LEA­level requirements and all but one school level requirement – the report back to the SSC. Peer: ● LAUSD has provided ample evidence to illuminate that it has implemented the majority of the requirements outlined for school intervention and support. From outlining specifically how they are differentiating the implementation and monitoring of the seven turnaround principles to defining the role of the Instructional Director and how the central office provided guidance and technical assistance for him/ her to lead this work, it is clear that LAUSD has covered its bases as it relates to the various required elements and that they have gone above and beyond to build the systems to support the work. ● LAUSD has provided an impressive amount of documentation describing the infrastructure assembled for the school support work. However, there was only one artifact included showing work done during the cycles, the Co­Teaching Templates. ● Narrative provided by LAUSD, with respect to what worked, areas of improvement, next steps, reflects on the infrastructure of the program, and briefly on the impact of the work. As this rubric doesn’t require that impact level be scrutinized, the work meets the cut point. 5 Principle 3 Teacher– Sample Self­Review Narrative Elements and Peer Review Rationale (P3 Reports were submitted December 2014) Expectation Self Peer 1 Peer 2 Select Information from Self and Peer Reviews LEA meaningfully engages stakeholders in the development, pilot and implementation of EES. 5 5 5 Self: Participant feedback has been vitally important to informing necessary adjustments to the Teacher Growth and Development Cycle (TGDC), from broad policy changes such as delaying full implementation from SY2012­13 to SY2013­14 in order to use SY2012­13 for administrator training and practice, to streamlining tools such as the Lesson Design template, to making it “easier to get the green check mark” on our online evaluation platform. ●
●
●
For the 2014­15 school year, we plan to solicit feedback from TGDC participants (teachers and administrators) through an end­of­year survey and focus groups in order to make further improvements to the process in collaboration with USC evaluators. We are also developing a learning module around the TGDC and TLF with our Parent and Community Services Branch to be disseminated this Winter to local Education Service Centers and school­site Parent Centers. We will continue to engage our labor partners around specific negotiating items as well as general information sharing. EES uses viable methods to differentiate among 4 levels of effectiveness clearly defined and supported with required training and annual calibration for inter­rater reliability. 5 5 5 Self: Although our current evaluation process includes four levels of professional practice, the final ratings remain at two levels of practice. We continue to work with our labor partners to come to agreement on 3­4 performance levels for the summative evaluation, and this item is being discussed in negotiations for the 2014­15 school year. This remains a challenge for us while we are engaged in a PERB hearing and await the final disposition. Peer: Evaluation process has 4 levels of effectiveness. Final rating only has 2 levels; in negotiations to revise to 3. EES cycle incorporates multiple data sources, collected with sufficient frequency, to determine effectiveness. 4 4 4 Self: The TGDC includes multiple classroom observations, a student growth measure (called the Data­Based Objective) and a third measure that assesses a teacher’s performance on professional responsibilities based on three levels of performance. Teachers engaged in the Teacher Growth and Development Cycle participate in a minimum of two formal observations and two informal (unannounced, unscored) observations, by their supervisor or Teaching and Learning Observer (protocols included). Additionally, teachers are expected to complete a self­assessment and engage in individual growth planning to establish professional practice goals and student learning outcomes (the Data­based Objective). Each formal observation is supported by a pre­ and post­ observation coaching/feedback conference. Evaluators are encouraged to engage in multiple informal coaching conferences on a regular basis with all teachers. 6 EES is aligned with CORE Common Evaluation Guidelines for Teachers and Leaders. 5 5 5 Self: The LAUSD Teaching and Learning Framework is fully aligned with CORE Common Evaluation Guidelines for Teachers and Leaders. Our Framework is based off the Danielson Framework for Teaching, and is organized by Standards, Components, and Elements. Peer: Rubric is fully aligned. EES includes meaningful feedback cycles connected to professional growth. 5 5 5 Self: The Teacher Growth and Development Cycle consists of at least two formal observation cycles and two informal observations (protocols included). A formal observation cycle includes a pre­ and post observation conference. The Cycle also includes an Initial Planning Conference, and a Final Evaluation Conference. All conferences are opportunities to connect meaningful feedback using evidence from the teacher’s performance to opportunities for professional growth and adjust recommendations based on new evidence observed in each conference. Administrators are encouraged to increase the number of informal observations for all teachers and engage in regular coaching conferences. Peer: Data platform is embedded in Teacher Growth and Development Cycle (TGDC) platform. Evaluation cycle driven by teachers’ professional goals. EES informs cycles of instructional collaboration, coaching and/or professional learning. 5 5 5 Peer: MyPLN support available to all educators. Peer Assistance and Review (PAR) and Beginning Teacher Growth and Development Initiative (BTGDI) aligned to Teaching and Learning Framework. EES incorporates one of the two SQIS options for measuring impact on student learning. 3 3 3 Self: As detailed in the teacher’s contract (evidence included), the applicable record of student progress and achievement comprised of individual SBAC, school­level AGT and various non­ SBAC­based multi­measure data sources are to be considered an important but clearly limited part of the overall performance evaluation process. LAUSD will continue to collaborate with other CORE waiver districts to develop and use a SQIS growth measure that can be included in the evaluation in the future. EES incorporates approved measures of student growth in non­tested subjects and grades for measuring impact on student learning. 3 3 3 Peer: Data­based Objective (DBO) template to support all teachers in setting measurable student learning targets based on authentic assessments. LEA utilizes EES to inform recruitment, promotion, tenure, transfer, lay off and dismissal decisions. 4 3 4 Peer: TGDC data informs recruitment, promotion and tenure. 7 Principle 3 Leader– Sample Self­Review Narrative Elements and Peer Review Rationale Expectation Self Peer 1 Peer 2 Select Information from Self and Peer Reviews LEA meaningfully engages stakeholders in the development, pilot and implementation of EES. 4 3 4 Self: At LAUSD we are committed to continuous improvement; therefore, we solicit educators for input with every change to the School Leader Growth and Development Cycle (SLGDC). This commitment has been evident since the beginning of this work in 2009 when we engaged educators, labor representatives, and parents around a Teacher Effectiveness Task Force. This has included annual surveys and focus groups to participating administrators and ongoing meetings with Associated Administrators of Los Angeles, the administrators union. Furthermore, we have engaged researchers at the University of Southern California to conduct an independent program evaluation of our work, which includes surveys and case study interviews Peer: Multiple engagements­­ surveys, focus groups, outside evaluators; led to change in pilot implementation. EES uses viable methods to differentiate among 4 levels of effectiveness clearly defined and supported with required training and annual calibration for inter­rater reliability. 5 5 5 Self: The LAUSD School Leadership Framework (rubric) has four levels of effectiveness listed as Ineffective=1, Developing=2, Effective=3, Highly Effective=4 (evidence included). These levels are aligned with behavioral indicators that define leadership performance at each level. While the current evaluation system in place uses two performance levels in the final evaluation rating, LAUSD has signed a new contract with the administrators union, AALA, establishing performance­based compensation using 4 levels of performance in the final rating, with the expectation that the 4 performance levels will be formally negotiated in time for use in SY2015­16 (evidence included). Peer: 4 ratings, required training, calibration sessions, Instructional Director Videos. EES cycle incorporates multiple data sources, collected with sufficient frequency, to determine effectiveness. 4 4 4 Self: The School Leadership Growth and Development Cycle (SLGDC) includes at least 2 formal observations and 2 informal observations within the school year. Similar to the process described in the teacher self­assessment, principals also create goals for making progress on student learning outcomes, capturing this in a Data­Based Objective. Principals are evaluated every other year unless the principal manager deems it necessary to modify the evaluation cycle. (Evidence included) 8 Peer: Incorporates 2 formal and 2 informal observations; Other outcomes include principal goals on student learning outcomes; other measures in development (Teacher Survey). EES is aligned with CORE Common Evaluation Guidelines for Teachers and Leaders. 5 5 5 Peer: Clear ‘cross walk’ between School Leader Growth and Development Cycle (SLGDC) and CORE Common Effectiveness Guidelines (CEGs) – great work! EES includes meaningful feedback cycles connected to professional growth. 5 5 5 Self: Woven into the School Leader Growth and Development Cycle is an initial planning conference to develop goals for the year, a coaching conference following each formal observation (2), a mid­year conference to review progress toward goal attainment and current performance based on the focus elements of the School Leadership Conference with a formative rating, and one final end­of­year conference. The mid­year conference is an opportunity to collaboratively adjust goals and or strategically plan for collecting evidence of practice for the remainder of the cycle. The final end­of­year conference is an opportunity to reflect on growth and development, identify future focus areas for development and determine the summative evaluation rating. There are a minimum of five opportunities for feedback throughout the evaluation cycle, with the expectation that feedback is adjusted in each conference based on observation evidence and other data. (Evidence included) Peer : 5 or more opportunities for feedback; Instructional Directors analyze data to inform professional learning for themselves. EES informs cycles of instructional collaboration, coaching and/or professional learning. 5 5 5 Self: Each Instructional Director oversees a “network” of principals to manage, and the Instructional Director works individually with these principals as well as facilitating monthly network professional development (meeting material included as evidence). Data from the School Leader Growth and Development Cycle are used to inform the coaching and professional learning experiences for the network and individual school leaders. EES incorporates one of the two SQIS options for measuring impact on student learning. 5 5 5 Peer: Agreement with AALA for one goal to be around student growth and final rating will reference student outcome goal. Principals make goal using data and reflect on goal 3x a year. Exploring multiple forms of student data for principals to write goals. EES incorporates approved measures of student growth in non­tested subjects and grades for measuring impact on student learning. 3 3 3 Peer: Commitment is clear in regard to working with CORE SLO guidelines for 2015. 9 LEA utilizes EES to inform recruitment, promotion, tenure, transfer, lay off and dismissal decisions. 4 4 4 Self: The use of principal evaluation records to inform personnel decisions has been part of LAUSD policies and procedures for many years. Strong evaluation records are a major factor of any recruitment into the principal ranks and eligibility for the principalship and other instructional leadership positions. Unsatisfactory performance by a principal can lead to a transfer to another school or demotion to the individual’s previously held position. Layoffs are still subject to state seniority regulations and tenure with the District is typically established in the teacher position, not as an administrator. Peer: Appreciate that TGDC observer certification is key factor for eligibility of aspiring administrators. Also embedding language of SLF into personnel decision. Applaud the use of MyTeam and HCDW. 10 Final Self‐ and Peer Review Report 2014‐15: PRINCIPLE 1 EXPECTATION 1 (Oversight Panel) District LAUSD Principle 1 Expectation 1—LEA provides a system of Common Core Standards‐based professional learning opportunities Item Response/Information Narrative: (brief) a Professional Development Plan summary of actions taken to address the topic Beginning in SY 2011‐2012, the LAUSD has followed a four‐part strategic plan aligning professional learning opportunities for all teachers and leaders that is job‐embedded and allows for differentiation based on identified needs. The objectives of this plan have been to: convey a clear and specific message about the implementation of the CCSS and SBAC in the District prepare administrators, teachers, and other critical stakeholders for implementation support administrators, teachers, and other critical stakeholders in their implementation deepen the level of understanding and implementation for administrators, teachers, and other critical stakeholders To this end, the District is currently in the fourth year of a multi‐year strategic plan around CCSS‐aligned professional learning opportunities beginning with awareness, moving through transition, and now full implementation. Based on the CDE’s recommended implementation plan for the CCSS, the District’s plans have been developed in collaboration and with input from the Office of Curriculum, Instruction, and School Support (OCISS), the 5 Local Educational Service Center (ESC) leadership teams, school site administrators, and teacher advisory groups. [P1.E1.A1] ●
●
●
●
Professional development (PD) implementation has followed a multi‐pronged approach, including: ●
●
●
online modules with support materials, videos, and resources face‐to‐face sessions lead by OCISS, ESC, principals, and teacher leaders blended learning opportunities (a mixture of online and face‐to‐face sessions) 11 In SY 2012‐13, Grades K, 1, 6, and 9 were initially targeted for intensive PD in the CCSS and the pending SBAC process. In addition, all schools were required to view 4 self‐contained awareness modules available for download from the LAUSD CCSS website. Content for all grade levels originally focused on English Language Arts (ELA) and mathematics. The following year (2013‐14), Grades 2, 3, 4, 5, 7, 8, and 10 were targeted for intensive PD in the focus content areas. Additionally, PD began for other core content teachers, specifically in the area of Arts, Science, and History/Social Science (HSS) focusing on the integration of the 6‐12 ELA literacy standards into their courses. Evidence of this planning was provided for the peer review in 2014. Both the District and peer review placed the District’s efforts at a “4” thereby exceeding the benchmark expectation of “3” for the 2014 review. The following topics were introduced each year and continued to be built upon each subsequent year. (For more detailed information, please see [P1.E1.A4] ESC similarities.) [P1.E1.A2] Yr 2
0
1
1
‐
2
0
1
2 2
0
1
2
‐
2
0
1
3 Grade Levels All grades Subjects Delivery Modes Informational Modules (optional) Modules, Principal Meetings, Staff Meetings K,1, 6,9 ELA, Math Close reading, Math Practice #3, CCSS Pedagogical Shifts All grades CCSS Introduction for All: Informational Modules (required) Volunteer Teachers Being Teaching and Learning Framework for Feedback Summer Institute, Central trainings and organizational meetings, ESC trainings, Banked‐Time Tuesdays, Grade level meetings, “Fellows” in subject areas, Reading and Math Coaches, Instructional Specialists 12 Evaluated (pilot) on Classroom Observations* Teacher Growth and Development Cycle* 2
0
1
3
‐
2
0
1
4 2, 3, 4, 5, 7, 8 10 Intensive PD in focus areas Arts, Science and HSS ELA Literacy Content across all academic areas All grades Teaching and Learning Framework for Feedback on Classroom Observations* Teachers Being Evaluated Teacher Growth and Development Cycle* Volunteer Principals Being Evaluated Principal Growth and Development Cycle (pilot) Summer Institute, Central trainings and organizational meetings, ESC trainings, Banked‐Time Tuesdays, Grade level meetings, School Leadership Team, Trainer of Trainer Model, “Fellows” in subject areas and ELD, 130 Content Experts in CCSS (65 ELA + 65 Math), Instructional Coaches, Instructional Specialists 13 All grades Awareness of ELD standards Textbook Adoption, Math 2
0
1
4
‐
2
0
1
5 Teaching and Learning Framework for Feedback on Classroom Observations* Development of units of study/integrated units Teachers Being Evaluated Teacher Growth and Development Cycle* Volunteer Principals Being Evaluated Principal Growth and Development Cycle (pilot) Summer Institute, Central trainings and organizational meetings, ESC trainings, Banked‐Time Tuesdays, Grade level meetings, School Leadership Team, Trainer of Trainer Model, “Fellows” in subject areas and ELD, 130 Content Experts in CCSS (65 ELA + 65 Math), Instructional Coaches, Instructional Specialists *Measures the impact of professional learning on instructional delivery 14 Example of on‐going PD for Elementary ELA. Other subjects can be found under [P1.E1.A5] . Professional Development Opportunities Administrative leadership at the central level is fostered through summer institutes, the Superintendent’s organization meetings such as the Elementary Principals’ Organization, and technology such as webinars and websites. Additionally, there is specialized training for principals and teachers for specific programs such as LTELs and school needs such as Investment Schools or SIG. Special Education also has a Special Education Leadership Academy for new leaders and the District offers an Aspiring Administrators program. 15 In order to meet the needs of a district the size of LAUSD, we have employed a process of selecting, training, and supporting cadres of content leaders through a “fellowship” process. Teachers and Principals are both recommended by supervising administrators as well as self‐nominated to apply. Fellowships are available in ELA, mathematics, HSS, and science. Additionally, we have differentiated fellowships for teachers of English Language Development (ELD), Mastery of Academic Language Development (MELD) for Standard‐English Language, and special education. The purpose of the fellowships is to build capacity. Through this process we have an active cadre of over 500 content leaders who are able to present PD at a local school, ESC, or District‐wide level. The Fellowship consists of 24 hours of concentrated learning in the target content area as well as training in effective facilitation skills. Training for Content Fellows has included face‐to‐face, online/webinars, hybrid, and self‐study sessions. The District has provided CCSS content experts at a ratio of 2 experts (language arts and mathematics) per instructional director. MMED has also supported English language learners through Access to Core coaches. Special education provides program specialists and least restrictive environment specialists. The ESCs further deepen professional growth by differentiating based on the needs of their schools. For example, ESC South provides a 2‐3 minute recap of professional development. ISIC offers “pocket” PD, a form of blended learning, and has created applications for PD. Almost all directors use a form of instructional rounds to help schools determine professional development needs and utilize an instructional leadership team approach to building capacity at the school site. Additionally, the District continues to support electronic learning through online communities, differentiation through blended learning and content webinars. During the 2014‐2015 school year, the central districts focused on the pedagogical shifts in informational text and text‐based evidence, academic language and concept development and math practices in math. This work was supported by featuring national leaders such as Carol Jago (ELA), Jeffrey Zweirs (academic language, ELL) and Timothy Kanold (Math). The District also adopted common core‐designed mathematics materials. Professional development was provided both on the shifts in standards and math practices as well as using the adopted materials as a resource. The Instructional Technology Initiative (ITI) provides 1:1 job‐embedded professional development as the 1:1 technology initiative rolls out. Special education is implementing a five‐year strategic plan to ensure quality education for all students with disabilities and to reduce referrals to special education. MMED began a three‐year rollout of the ELD standards. 16 OCISS continues to provide Summer Institutes for teacher‐leaders. These 3‐day PDs were designed collaboratively with ESC leaders, fellows, and central office personnel to build capacity. Schools were requested to send a leadership team (including Special Education teachers) for the targeted grade levels to receive PD on the CCSS. The District adopted a model of implementation around a cycle of inquiry; Plan, Delivery, Reflect and Revise . This requires the construction or deconstruction of lessons or PD modules, the delivery of those lessons or modules at the school sites, a return opportunity to reflect on the teaching process and the content to make refinements or revisions as appropriate. These leadership teams were taken through this learning process and were asked to take it back to their respective schools. This process was then facilitated by the teacher‐leaders to their respective schools with grade level colleagues throughout the school year. Throughout the year, follow up sessions were provided to the school leadership teams for continued deepening of CCSS knowledge and process support. To date, over 5,000 teacher‐leaders have been trained to support their school sites with over 833 school sites in attendance with upwards of 34 teachers per school site. School sites develop their own professional development plan. By contract, schools bank time for an early dismissal on Tuesdays to allow for professional development time for teachers. Elementary schools have 27 early‐release days and secondary schools have 13 days. Half of these days are for content determined by the District and half of the days are for content determined by the school. A number of schools have also purchased instructional coaches and instructional specialists to provide job‐embedded professional development. Evaluation Process Evaluation of PD has been through a combination of paper and electronic surveys. The District is implementing the Kirkpatrick Four Level Training Evaluation Model. This model evaluates the PD experience, the learning, the behavior change, and the results. We are in the early stages of implementing this process. The results of these surveys have been used to adjust/amend/improve subsequent offerings. The District is addressing the impact of professional learning on instructional delivery through Instructional Rounds, the Teaching and Learning Framework, classroom observations, the educator growth/development cycle, and the Aspen Guide to CCSS Implementation. [P1.E1.A3a‐c] 17 Evidence: examples ●
●
●
●
●
●
●
to substantiate aspects of the summary provided in the narrative Self‐Rating and Rationale: What is your self‐rating score, and what is the rationale? FINAL Peer Review Score and Rationale (Reviewer #1) LAUSD.P1.E1.A1.AllContentAreaResponse LAUSD.P1.E1.A2.2015ProfessionalDevelopment LAUSD.P1.E1.A3a.AspenGuide LAUSD.P1.E1.A3b.AspenScreenShot LAUSD.P1.E1.A3c.AspenScreenShot LAUSD.P1.E1.A4.ESCSimilarities LAUSD.P1.E1.A5.PDPlans Self‐Rating: 5 Rationale: LAUSD has followed a multi‐year system of CC aligned professional‐learning opportunities for all teachers and leaders. Many of these opportunities are job embedded and allow for differentiation based on identified needs. Our multi‐year plan has built on a common understanding of the standards, math practices and pedagogical shifts. Our teaching and earning framework and Teacher Growth and Development Cycle allow staff to measure the impact of professional learning on instructional delivery. Additionally many schools use instructional rounds to measure the impact of professional learning on both teacher practice and student engagement/performance. Theses tools provide feedback to both individual teachers and to the school to help determine professional growth needs. The Aspen Institute worked with LAUSD to pilot a Common Core Self Reflective Inventory tool that allows schools and teachers to self‐assess all aspects of implementation of CC. This year the data was only available to the school/individual who took the survey. Next year the tool will be available district wide in addition we will be able to disaggregate data by district, ESC, director, and school. Preliminary Score: 4 Rationale for Preliminary Score: As reflected in the clarifying questions below, it is not clear that the system provides coherent Common Core Standards‐based professional learning opportunities that could be measured throughout the district. The data that was collected on site implementation was not provided to all sites therefore it is incomplete and we don’t have evidence of what the implementation looked like across the district. 18 FINAL Peer Review Score and Rationale (Reviewer #2) Preliminary SCORE: 4 Rationale for Preliminary Score: ●
●
●
●
Structurally, the school sites are banking days for professional development. However, do the schools have the capacity to actually implement? Using the Kirkpatrick Evaluation Model, but that is recently implemented. Multi‐year: Began with K, 1, 6, & 9, and then expanded scope in following years to include increasing grade levels and special populations. Instructional rounds used to gather data to identify needs and differentiate. 19 Final Self‐ and Peer Review Report 2014‐15: PRINCIPLE 1 EXPECTATION 2 (Oversight Panel) District Principle LAUSD 1 Expectation 2—LEA provides a system of continuous professional learning based on implementing CCSS and Non‐tested grades and subjects aligned assessments Item Response/Information Narrative: (brief) a Professional Development summary of actions taken to address the topic LAUSD has implemented a multi‐year system of ongoing professional learning addressing CCSS‐aligned assessments to teachers and administrators appropriate to grade level(s) and subjects taught. This balanced assessment system includes Early Literacy indicators, performance tasks, interim assessments, summative unit assessments and project‐based learning, formative and diagnostic assessments. Developers strategically aligned assessments to include all item‐types present on the SBAC. When the SBAC interim assessments became available in late January, some schools chose to administer those interim assessments in lieu of the District‐developed interim assessments. [P1.E2.A1] Embedded within the Strategic 4‐year plan was an SBAC assessment module with required viewing from all schools. This module was designed to build background knowledge around the assessments, understand the instructional implications, and provide opportunities for schools to evaluate in alignment of their instruction and the assessment expectations. Schools were requested to view that module in Spring 2013. Within subsequent CCSS PD for administrators and teachers, connections to the impending SBAC implementation and question types have been included in various PD modules. (See Summary of PD and Assessments) The Deputy Superintendent of Instruction provided targeted PD on assessment tasks to the District leadership team. This PD module was delivered to principals through their Instructional Directors so principals could then share it with their teachers. 20 The Office of Data and Accountability provided several regional informational PD sessions for school site administrators, testing coordinators, and ESC staff in the months leading up to SBAC field‐testing. A phone helpline, website and a teacher toolkit were established to support schools in implementation. A joint effort by the Communications Office, the Office of Curriculum, Instruction, and School Support (OCISS), Division of Assessment (DA), and Informational Technology Department (ITD) conducted weekly check‐in sessions to monitor the process and trouble‐shoot issues as they arose. In preparation for the full implementation of the CCSS, the District administered an online Grade 6 Middle School Mathematics Placement Assessment. The results of this assessment will be used to determine the appropriate placement and interventions for students as they enter Grade 7 in SY 2014‐15. The District also administered an online Algebra I Summative assessment in the Spring 2014 semester for Middle School students enrolled in Algebra I. The results will be used to determine appropriate placement and interventions for students in SY 2014‐15. The purpose for this assessment is to support placement decisions for students as we transition to full implementation of the CCSS. In preparation for the SBAC, OCISS developed interim assessments in English Language Arts and Math. Additionally, performance tasks were developed in these and other subject areas. (For further details on the assessments, see Expectations 3 and Summary of PD and Assessments). Professional development for these assessments was embedded into the content area PD as well as specific training on the assessments that was posted on the website for school and/or grade level/department use. [P1.E2.A2 & A3] Using data to inform instruction: There are multiple ways that data is used to inform instruction. Our district‐wide process of Plan, Deliver, Reflect, and Refine (PDR 2 ) is designed to utilize formative and summative assessments as part of the process to support student learning and adjust instruction based on student assessment results and progress. For example, we have placement tests and summative assessments that inform student course placement and high school credit. These same tests can be used to provide intervention and scaffolding for individual students and groups of students within a multi‐tiered system of supports (MTSS). [P1.E2.A4] An exemplar of formative assessment and the use of data to drive instruction is the Early Literacy Project. Originally 6 schools funded by a Target grant, the project has added 20 schools that volunteered to participate. The Director of Early Literacy and 2 experts work with these schools to analyze data, provide targeted instruction and progress monitor student achievement. 21 Based on the CDE‐recommended timeline, 2014‐2015 was an awareness year for NGSS. In the Office of Curriculum, Instruction, and School Support, the K‐12 Science team has developed an implementation plan with ESC Science Specialists’ input. The plan includes building teacher capacity through targeted professional development. In the past three years, 100 elementary school teachers and 280 secondary school teachers have completed the science fellowship. The main focus is engaging students in “Three‐Dimensional Learning” that combines scientific and engineering practices, core ideas, and crosscutting concepts. Science Fellows have developed and examined NGSS aligned lessons for language objectives to develop differentiated instruction for the English Learners. In addition to the Science Fellows, OCISS K‐12 Science has offered other PD opportunities for teachers to raise awareness and prepare the transition to the Next Generation Science Standards (NGSS). Summer Institutes were available to all LAUSD teachers to introduce them to the NGSS shifts: Elementary school teachers learned about the application of CCSS and Engineering through UCLA Center X partnership, and 600 middle and high school science teachers participated in the NGSS awareness trainings. Leadership development involved professional learning opportunities for the Science specialists from the 5 ESCs held during the bi‐monthly meetings, attending conferences, and networking with the experts and writers of NGSS and the Framework. Elementary science master team engaged in a National Research Council (NRC) pilot of a virtual professional development program, NGSX, which provides content and pedagogy aligned to both NGSS and Common Core. In addition, CCSS is in its implementation phase and is aligned to the NGSS. Teams of fourth and fifth grade teachers collaborated on writing and piloting a History/Social Science integrated unit that provided students with an opportunity to apply their Common Core ELA standards to these content areas with an emphasis on informational text. The units are currently in district‐wide use and a third grade integrated unit is in development. All of the PD for secondary science teachers has included the CCSS component of reading Complex Texts and Close Reading that were developed in collaboration with Secondary ELA and History/Social Science. A small group of Science Fellows also developed and revised the secondary Interim Assessments aligned to the CCSS. The science leadership team has engaged with community resources to develop programs and curricula that address the real‐world problem of extended drought in California. These events and materials reflected the Common Core shifts. 22 Evidence: examples to substantiate aspects of the summary provided in the narrative Self‐Rating and Rationale: What is your self‐rating score, and what is the rationale? ●
●
●
●
LAUSD.P1.E2.A1.AllContentAreaResponse LAUSD.P1.E2.A2.MEM‐5788Secondary LAUSD.P1.E2.A3.MEM‐6015.1Elementary LAUSD.P1.E2.A4.PDRRcycle Self‐Rating: 4 Rationale: We provided a multi‐year system of ongoing professional development addressing Common Core aligned assessments including formative, instrument, and some of them assessments. Teams worked to ensure that we address all aspects of item types and claims in our assessments and performance tasks. Because 2014‐2015 was an awareness year, we do not yet have an assessment aligned to the next generation science standards. Furthermore, because our assessment plan was layered over the years, we are using this opportunity to revisit and systematically design an assessment plan to be implemented in the 2015‐2016 school year. Furthermore, we will be able to more effectively utilize the data once we have district wide access to the data. For the district developed assessments and performance tasks all data was collected manually this year making it difficult to collect and aggregate any data except individual student data. Some teachers used spreadsheets. For the math assessments, ESC‐east created a Google answer sheet to support the analysis of results and inform teacher practice, however these practices were not system wide. For computerized assessments such as DIBELS, TRC, middle school placement assessment and algebra summative assessment we were able to collect and disaggregate data in multiple formats. For schools with intervention programs that included computerized components such as ALEKS, Read 180, or Language! we were also able to disaggregate and use data to inform instruction. 23 FINAL Peer Review Score and Rationale (Reviewer #1) Score: 4 Rationale: The level of planning and continuity is clear from the evidence provided and demonstrates a nice mix of direction from the central office with choice at the site level. It looks like a good start has been made on introducing the new Science standards. The work on the integration between ELA, HSS and Science sounds promising. Score : 4 FINAL Peer Review Score and Rationale: Rationale ● LEA has a multi‐year system of professional learning based on CCSS‐aligned assessments. (Reviewer #2) ● LEA has has an aligned professional learning that addresses CCSS‐aligned assessment for Non‐Tested Grades. For example, the Early Literacy Project. ● Many types of CCSS‐aligned assessments used. ● Mandatory viewing of SBAC module for all schools ● Clean roll out of PD. The Deputy Superintendent of Instruction trained the district leadership team. The same module was then shared by the district leadership team with the principals, then the principals used the same module with the teachers. ● Various supports within the district to help troubleshoot issues of SBAC implementation. For example, the help line. ● Strong evidence to suggest that the District is providing a multi‐year system of PD to build capacity about CCSS‐aligned assessment practices ‐‐ with items and formats typical of what’s found on the SBAC. ● Impressive engagement of identified teachers and leaders, particularly central office leadership and Teacher Fellows ● Use of range of assessments, with a range of assessment purposes ● Strong inclusion of disciplines beyond math and ela, and non‐tested grade‐levels ● Little evidence that the professional learning that will be necessary to utilize new forms of assessment data (e.g. qualitative analysis of student work) is keeping up with the PD provided to help teachers understand standards and the substance of the SBAC, for example. 24 Final Self‐ and Peer Review Report 2014‐15: PRINCIPLE 1 EXPECTATION 3 (Oversight Panel) District Principle LAUSD 1 Expectation 3—LEA is implementing CCSS‐aligned assessments Item Response/Information Narrative: (brief) a During the SY 2014‐15, the District continued its refinement of its CCSS aligned performance assessments created for Grades K‐11. [P1.E3.A1] OCISS content teams, in collaboration with teachers, Educational Service Center (ESC) content leaders, Special Education (SpEd), Multilingual/Multicultural Education Department (MMED), Gifted and Talented Education (GATE), and English Language Development (ELD) specialists, reviewed, improved, and in some cases, redesigned CCSS aligned performance assessment tasks for both the Fall and the Spring semesters. The following content and grade levels were targeted: summary of actions taken to address the topic Mathematics assessments were designed for Grades K through 8, Algebra I, Algebra II, and Geometry ELA assessments were designed for Grades K through 11 History/Social Sciences assessments were designed for Grades 6, 7, 8, 10, and 11 Science assessment were designed for Grades 6, 7, 8, High School Biology, and High School Chemistry [P1.E3.A2a‐c] Many of the assessments are attached to instructional modules that include teacher PD. These assessments are housed on the District CCSS website under the Assessments link. Schools have also been provided access to the co‐created CORE Performance Tasks as an additional support to the transition to the CCSS and the implementation of the instructional shifts. The noted grade levels and content areas are expected to provide all students with the SBAC aligned performance assessments (PA), including low achieving students, high achieving students, students with disabilities, and English Learners. Development of District PAs was done through a joint collaboration with OCISS and ESC content leaders, SpEd and EL specialists, and teachers. ●
●
●
●
25 The District has also initiated a fully online, CCSS aligned high‐stakes assessment for Grade 6 to determine mathematics placement, as well as a CCSS aligned Algebra I assessment. The District, working with the ESC content, MMED, and SpEd departments, developed a bulletin to address accommodations to ensure that the needs of the following student groups are being met during all SBAC aligned assessment: ● Low Achieving Students ● Students with Disabilities ● English Learners These assessments are designed to align to the recommendations from SBAC. [P1.E3.A3] An example of our work with Secondary ELA involving close to 60 teachers who participated in a workshop in which they looked at sample student work from grades 6 ‐10. This link is to a photo album that holds pictures of a consensogram that the teachers did in identifying student writing challenges that they saw after reviewing the student work: https://www.dropbox.com/sc/qzixzreh963r41c/AAB4xsFVbjpsHT3UEA5VH2HKa . Agenda and student work samples are seen in the evidence piece. [P1.E3.A4a‐c] Evidence: examples ●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
to substantiate aspects of the summary provided in the narrative LAUSD.P1.E3.A1.AllContentAreaResponse LAUSD.P1.E3.A2a.ScreenShotELAassessment LAUSD.P1.E3.A2b.ScreenShotHSSassessment LAUSD.P1.E3.A2c.ScreenShotMATHassessment LAUSD.P1.E3.A3.REF‐6249 LAUSD.P1.E3.A4a.Agenda LAUSD.P1.E3.A4b.6 th GradeSample LAUSD.P1.E3.A4c.10 th GradeSample 26 Self‐Rating and Rationale: What is your self‐rating score, and what is the rationale? Self‐Rating: 4 Rationale: Our ability to monitor systematic implementation has been hampered by our inability to collect data at a district level and to disaggregate at an ESC/director and school levels due to complications in implementation of MiSiS (My Integrate Student Information System) district wide. The district created assessments include the variety of formats found in the SBAC assessments, including selected response, constructed response, extended constructed response, and performance tasks. FINAL Peer Review Score and Rationale (Reviewer #1) Score: 4 Rationale: LAUSD has clearly created a robust and comprehensive set of assessments and support materials to support instruction across grades and content areas. These assessment tools appear to be designed in the spirit of SBAC and CCSS in both content and format. While it is mentioned that “the noted grade levels and content areas are expected to provide all students with the SBAC aligned performance assessments (PA)”, Iit continues to be unclear how much these tools are in use across schools and how the data is being collected and/or used FINAL Peer Review Score and Rationale (Reviewer #2) Score: 4 Rationale: Assessments have been developed for primary content areas that include accommodations for various learners. The performance assessments are linked to instructional units and supported with professional development. The implementation appears to be only a select number of schools (not identified) producing inconsistent data for a system‐wide assessment of learning. ● “Refinement of its CCSS aligned performance assessments created for Grades K‐11” across multiple departments ● linked to instructional modules ● If there is not a system to “gather and analyze data district wide,” that suggests a partial implementation rather than comprehensive. 27 Final Self‐ and Peer Review Report 2014‐15: PRINCIPLE 1 EXPECTATION 4 (Oversight Panel) District LAUSD Principle 1 Expectation 4—LEA is fully implementing a CCSS‐aligned instructional plan Item Response/Information Narrative: (brief) a The District has brought together Educational Service Center (ESC) content, Special Education Division (SpED), Multi‐Lingual Multi‐Cultural Education Department (MMED), and Gifted and Talented Education (GATE) leadership, instructional fellows, and teachers to participate in the development and refinement of curricular maps for History/Social Science, English Language Arts, Mathematics, and the Arts. [P1.E4.A1] With the advent of NGSS, the Science department will also be developing new curricular maps to align to the standards. The maps are designed to identify expected student achievement and assessments and to backwards map the standards to help students succeed in those expectations and assessments. The maps identify instructional blocks, assessment timelines, standards, and provide schools with recommendations for instructional tools, instructional practices, accommodation strategies for language acquisition, and other supports addresses the specific learning needs of low achieving students, high achieving students, students with disabilities, and English Learners. These maps are CCSS content aligned and highlight needed pedagogical shifts in order to improve student‐learning outcomes. [P1.E4.A2a‐b] summary of actions taken to address the topic Units of instructions have been created using the Basal Alignment Project, the Anthology Alignment Project, the Read Aloud Project, the Literacy Design Collaborative, the Mathematics Design Collaborative, and the SHEG‐Thinking Like a Historian Project. These modules are available to schools to support their implementation of CCSS. Additionally, integrated units for HSS, Science, and ELA has been designed and piloted with select Grade 5 and 4 teacher‐leaders. The unit includes a final performance assignment task aligned to the CCSS. These units are currently being offered through PD provided by the designing/pilot teachers with an additional unit under development for Grade 3 this year. All materials are accessible via the District CCSS website. 28 Over the past 5 years, grade‐level teacher‐leadership teams have been trained, both Centrally and by the local ESCs, in a process of Plan, Deliver, Reflect, and Revise as it relates to the creation and implementation of CCSS aligned lessons and the expected pedagogical shifts in instruction. This process is learned by the teacher‐leaders in focused PD sessions throughout the school year and then carried back to the school site to be utilized with grade‐level colleagues. With the SY 2013‐14 allocation of CCSS money from the state, LAUSD utilized funds to bolster the support of transition and implementation at the ESC level. CCSS Directors and content area Experts for ELA and mathematics were hired to focus on the specific needs of each local ESC. Five Directors and 126 Experts were hired. Additionally, elementary and secondary HSS and Science specialists were hired to support each of the ESC’s in their work. This work is continuing in the 2014‐15 school year. Each ESC has developed their own implementation plan tailored to the specific needs of their area teachers. The 5 ESCs have been providing focused PD over the last 18 months on the individual plans they have developed for implementation, expectations, resources, templates, and materials. These plans have included the provision of professional development on: ●
●
●
●
●
●
●
Developing units of instruction Understanding the structure of mathematical discourse Understanding the purpose and components of the shifts and habits of mind addressed in the CCSS and how these translate to classroom practice. Understanding the purpose and components of rich math tasks, and how these tasks provide integration of computational fluency, content knowledge, and application Common Core Writing: A focus on genres, Opinion/Argumentative and Informational/Explanatory Text Complexity and CCSS – Making connections to Close Reading Understanding the purpose and characteristics of text‐dependent questions (TDQs) and plan for and create a series of scaffolded TDQs about various aspects of text across the content areas. Questions will be used to lead students in close readings. This is a small sampling of the support being provided to schools. ESCs are utilizing the District’s Teaching and Learning Framework, specifically the Teacher Growth and Development Cycle (TGDC) to assist in supervision and evaluation of instruction. The rubrics tie seamlessly into the implementation expectations of the CCSS. The District has identified 9 focus areas in the current TGDC Framework that align with the CCSS shifts. These focus areas are used to monitor the implementation of the CCSS through the teacher lens. [P1.E4.A3] 29 Evidence: examples to substantiate aspects of the summary provided in the narrative Self‐Rating and Rationale: What is your self‐rating score, and what is the rationale? FINAL Peer Review Score and Rationale (Reviewer #1) ●
●
●
●
LAUSD.P1.E4.A1.AllContentAreasResponse LAUSD.P1.E4.A2a.ScreenShotCurricularMapMATH LAUSD.P1.E4.A2b.WebAddressAllContentCurricularMaps LAUSD.P1.E4.A3.ScreenShotsEducatorDevelopmentWebpage Self‐Rating: 5 Rationale: We have addressed all the required components for meeting the learning needs for low achieving, high achieving, English Learners, and students with disabilities. Our instructional plans across all content areas include scope and sequence for instructional planning, pedagogical shifts and assessments aligned to the CCSS, instructional units that include CCSS aligned materials and resources. Many of the instruction units are being designed as integrated curricular units. We have gone beyond the CORE waiver expectation of content literacy in secondary by focusing on integration in the elementary grades (3 rd ‐5 th grade Integrated End‐of‐Year units [Science, HSS, ELA]) Score : 4 Rationale : The district has put in place the structures to make certain that teachers have access to curricular units and professional development aligned to the CCSS. They have also identified an observation protocol aligned to this curriculum. Yet, what is not spoken to is the frequency and breadth of use of these curricula and protocols. What is also not listed in the narrative, or shown in the evidence, is how these actions are linked to student impact. Score : 4 FINAL Peer Review Score and Rationale : ● Multiple stakeholders participate in development of curricular plans. Rationale ● “Units of instructions have been created” and are available to schools via PD and on website (Reviewer #2) ● “Trainer of trainer” model with grade‐level teacher teams who return to sites ● A variety of curricular units made accessible to teachers ● Professional learning for teacher leaders on content AND a process of reflective practice to engage their colleagues at the site level. ● Differentiation by ESC ● Alignment of Teaching framework to CCSS implementation to assess and progress monitor CCSS‐aligned instructional practice 30 Final Self‐ and Peer Review Report 2014‐15: PRINCIPLE 1 EXPECTATION 5 (Oversight Panel) District LAUSD Principle 1 Expectation 5—LEA’s CCSS‐aligned instructional plan addresses the specific learning needs of low achieving students, high achieving students, students with disabilities, and English Learners Item Response/Information Narrative: (brief) a Low achieving students, high achieving students, students with disabilities, and English Learners are supported through a collaborative inter‐departmental creation of classroom support materials. [P1.E5.A1] Throughout SY 2013‐14 and 2014‐15, the Division of Special Education (SpEd), in conjunction with the Office of Curriculum, Instruction and School Support (OCISS), has developed and implemented targeted professional development and resources to support the CORE Waiver Focus Schools identified with students with disabilities as the lowest performing subgroup. These workshops have focused on high‐leverage practices for implementing the Common Core instructional shifts with students with disabilities, either in mixed‐ability classrooms or in self‐contained special education classrooms. Teachers received various print and digital resources, including sample units of study in ELA and math that embed both Universal Design for Learning (UDL) principles and instructional practices to differentiate CCSS content, processes, and products/assessments. This work, which has been piloted for use with these 64 Focus Schools, will be expanded District‐wide to all schools during the 2015‐2016 school year. [P1.E5.A2] summary of actions taken to address the topic In SY 2014‐15, the Division of Special Education partnered with the Multilingual and Multicultural Education Department (MMED) to present a two‐part workshop to a group of teacher leaders in the area of instruction for Long Term English Learners with Disabilities (LTEL SWDs). The participants, the first cohort of LTEL Fellows, were introduced to Universal Design for Learning (UDL) as a framework for differentiating content, processes, and products within the ELA/ELD curriculum ‐‐ the “what”, the “why”, and the “how” of learning. Specific strategies were modeled for participants, showing how to differentiate English Language Development (ELD) lessons by providing multiple means of representation of materials and texts, options for providing multiple ways that students can approach learning activities and express their learning, and multiple means for recruiting and maintaining interest in learning activities and supporting students with monitoring their own progress and making progress toward goals. Participants also engaged in activities modeling different methods of co‐teaching. 31 Creation of lesson and other resources to align and support the CA ELA‐ELD Framework and the District’s implementation of the CA ELD Standards (CELDS) in SY 2015‐16 will reflect application of Universal Design of Learning principles to broaden access and promote student engagement. Since SY 2009‐10, schools with high populations of ELD students have receive support from Access to Core/Title III instructional coaches. Coaches assigned to these schools are specifically trained in supporting teachers in the effective instruction of and specific accommodations for language learners. With the new CCSS ELA/ELD framework for California, our Central Office of Multilingual and Multicultural Education Department (MMED) are working in concert with OCISS instructional teams on a three‐prong approach of awareness, transition, and implementation. For SY 2014‐15, awareness and early implementation is the focus for all instructional personnel. All PD incorporates the use of effective accommodations in planning and delivery of CCSS‐aligned instruction. Since the beginning of CCSS aligned PD, representatives, both teachers and administrators from SpEd, OCISS, MMED, and GATE have been involved in the planning and delivery of PD. Beginning in SY 2013‐14 a targeted group of Content Fellows was convened specifically to address the needs of SpEd teachers in the area of elementary mathematics and Algebra. This Fellowship cohort is jointly lead by a math content area specialist and special education specialist, focusing on maintaining high educational expectations/outcomes through the use of appropriate and effective accommodations and planning. As noted in the second paragraph, cohorts of fellows continue to be brought together for learning and implementation of that learning. Embedded in CCSS‐aligned PD are opportunities for teachers to participate in discussions around supports for targeted student needs, including SpEd, ELD, and low achieving students. Teacher teams are guided through instructional activities as well brainstorm/share best‐practices and ideas in support of this work. The development of PD is a collaborative process, which engages various cross‐District and cross‐Departmental teams of content experts, administrators, teacher‐leaders/content fellows, as well as out‐of‐District experts. Specialists in the area of Special Education (SpEd), Gifted and Talented Education (GATE), and English Language Development (ELD) are also involved in the planning and presentation of all PD. The development and on‐going refinement of curricular maps includes easily accessible strategies to integrate Students with Disabilities, high achieving and low achieving students, and specific strategies of integrated ELD. Development has been in conjunction with OCISS, MMED, SpEd, GATE, and ESC offices. [P1.E5.A3] 32 The ESCs also provide targeted professional development specifically designed to address the needs to support low achieving students, high achieving students, students with disabilities, and English Learners including such topic as: ●
●
Co‐teaching and Universal Design Learning designed to promote the learning needs of the diverse student population and students with special needs Writing in Mainstream English Language Development (MELD) Academic Language and Vocabulary Development Focused training on making Common Core State Standards accessible to students with special needs and the needs of accelerated learners Target differentiated instructional strategies related to CCSS for all subgroups to meet specific learning needs of at‐risk students ONE conference focused on co‐teaching and support for general and special education teachers 2+1 Professional Development ●
●
●
LAUSD.P1.E5.A1.AllContentAreasResponse LAUSD.P1.E5.A2.SpEdPD LAUSD.P1.E5.A3.Gr3‐5IntegratedCurricMap ●
●
●
●
●
Evidence: examples to substantiate aspects of the summary provided in the narrative Self‐Rating and Rationale: What is your self‐rating score, and what is the rationale? Self‐Rating: 5 Rationale: We meet the benchmark of 5 in multiple ways. Not only does the overall plan mention all subgroups but it also includes significant groups that are not identified in the CORE waiver such as Standard English Learners and Long‐Term English Learners, that are significant subgroups for LAUSD. Additionally we are facilitating the work down to the curricular map level by embedding strategies for sub groups (see evidence for curricular maps). Our work has lead to further discussion on how to further collaborate and deliver PD across departments. Some groups have fully embedded PD such as the ESC‐ISIC. They routinely co‐design and co‐present in all subject areas. Multiple options for differentiation for all identified sub‐groups, both CORE and LAUSD identified, are provided to ensure access to the CCSS through strategies, resources, supports, and scaffolding. 33 FINAL Peer Review Score and Rationale (Reviewer #1) Score : 5 Rationale : This LEA’s Concrete evidence of collaborative effort are evident based on the descriptive articulation of district’s engagement effort for key stakeholders to reflect on the practice and support structure through piloting and revision processes [P1.E5.A1]. Intentional focus on engaging representatives from pertaining departments, teachers and site administrators to plan and deliver PD illustrates coherent collaboration [P1.E5.A2] . In addition, this LEA provides various resource modules, including web‐based videos, curricular templates and strategies, comprehensive explanations of the Core Content materials, which is readily available for any one of interest. Score : 4 FINAL Peer Review Score and Rationale : ● “Representatives, both teachers and administrators from SpEd, OCISS, MMED, and GATE have been involved in Rationale the planning and delivery of PD.” (Reviewer #2) ● “Creation of lesson and other resources to align and support the CA ELA‐ELD Framework and the District’s implementation of the CA ELD Standards (CELDS) in SY 2015‐16 will reflect application of Universal Design of Learning principles to broaden access and promote student engagement.” ● multiple and strong examples of cross‐departmental collaboration to ensure that the needs of student subgroups are met the needs of subgroups are addressed as a part of the core work, not an after thought ● all identified groups, and additional ones, are addressed ● It is difficult to assess to what extent the needs of all subgroups is thoroughly addressed. 34 Final Self‐ and Peer Review Report 2014‐15: PRINCIPLE 2 EXPECTATION 1 (Oversight Panel) District Principle LAUSD 2 Expectation 1‐LEA has engaged stakeholders around School Quality improvement System implementation Item Response/Information Narrative: (brief) a summary of actions taken to address the topic Relevant stakeholders were meaningfully engaged in the implementation of the School Quality Improvement System (SQIS). LAUSD’s plan and strategy for stakeholder engagement for Principle 2 was three‐fold. First, we felt it necessary to use several means of communication to periodically inform and update school‐based and community stakeholders about the SQII and school supports and interventions. Second, a broad group of stakeholders were engaged to provide input into the development of the SQII. Feedback from these efforts was collected to influence decision‐making at the CORE level. Lastly, targeted stakeholder engagement related to school supports and interventions occurred during Waiver‐related events, one‐on‐one technical assistance, planning meetings, and following planning cycles. The purpose of these efforts was to improve the quality of our work and tailor tools and services to meet the needs of our designated schools. Information and Updates Several channels of communication were utilized on a regular basis to provide information and updates on the Waiver, including the SQII and school supports and interventions. ●
All stakeholders (e.g. District staff, parents and community members etc.) had access to key information on the CORE Waiver through the CORE Corner webpage [see LAUSD.P2.E1.A6.screenshotwebpage] , a permanent feature on the Superintendent’s homepage ●
All LAUSD administrators, Board members, and select District staff received notifications every two weeks about various aspects of implementation via an electronic newsletter called the LAUSDBrief , in a section called the CORE Corner column. [see LAUSD.P2.E1.A2.SampleLAUSDBrief] 35 ●
Regional Community Briefings were held in each Educational Service Center (ESC) on a quarterly basis to both inform attendants about school supports and interventions and provide opportunities for feedback. Two of the four meetings were held in the evening and two were held during the day. Evening meetings included simultaneous English/Spanish interpretation and materials were provided in both English and Spanish. [see LAUSD.P2.E1.A3.FallBriefing] ●
Quarterly Title I Focus Group meetings were held with representation from bargaining units, parents, private schools and District staff to provide informational updates and feedback opportunities on the SQII and school supports and interventions. Interpretation and translation services are provided for parents whose dominant language is not English. All materials from the Focus Group are posted on the Federal and State Education Programs webpage for public access to the information. [see LAUSD.P2.E1.A4.SampleTIFocusGroup] Broad Input into the Development of the SQII: In order to assist in informing stakeholders and collect input on the development of the SQII prior to CORE Board approval, LAUSD brought in a wider circle of staff to build internal capacity and assist in the outreach. Title I coordinators, regional data coordinators, and parent and community engagement staff (approximately 20 staff members altogether) were trained using a common presentation material [see LAUSD.P2.E2.A1fallSQIIstakeholderengagment] and informational & feedback collection tools [see LAUSD.P2.E2 . A7.sqiifacilitationtools]. Stakeholders had approximately 30 opportunities to learn about the metrics in‐depth, participate in discussion and submit feedback. In addition to in‐person engagement, opportunities for input into the metrics were provided by way of an online survey, available on the CORE Corner webpage, and through LAUSDBrief. Summaries of this feedback were collected, reviewed and submitted to the CORE before the Board decision on SQII metrics was finalized on December 2 nd . LAUSD Staff advocated at the CORE level to make changes to the SQII based on the feedback. [see LAUSD.P2.E1.A1.fallSQIIstakeholderengagement] Over CORE’s allotted 6‐week engagement period, these efforts resulted in approximately 30 discussions about the SQII, with more than 750 stakeholders attending in‐person sessions and offering feedback. Engagement efforts were evidently meaningful, as they resulted in recognition and adjustments made by the CORE Board based on stakeholder concerns. For example, stakeholders commented on reservations concerning the 5‐year EL Reclassification measure and High School Readiness measure and both were amended by the Board on December 2 nd . 36 Targeted Input about School Supports and Interventions: Going into this school we determined that the diverse needs of each school designation necessitated a more targeted approach to stakeholder engagement. The purpose of these efforts was to improve the quality of program implementation and to tailor support to meet the needs of schools and facilitators. The resulting engagement came in the form of frequent, formal and informal check‐ins with facilitators and through technical assistance with school teams. Communities of Practice (CoP) and School Pairing surveys and interviews were also considered in improving programs and services provided to schools. Stakeholders in these efforts included both school and District staff. Some examples of engagement and resulting adaptation of practice include: ● School leaders from the 18 non‐SIG Priority schools in LAUSD participated this year in an intensive learning cohort in partnership with the Leadership Practice Improvement (LPI) Program. This program satisfies Turnaround Principle 1 and includes goal‐setting and team‐building through a web‐based platform to increase leadership capacity. Engagement results from the first cycle of LAUSD school leaders were captured in a survey and will be used to improve tools and communication for upcoming Instructional Leadership Team support programming. [see LAUSD.P2.E1.A5.LPIsurveyresults] ● LAUSD brought in instructional experts in supporting English Learners and Students with Disabilities, after CoP facilitators requested that they receive more‐targeted instruction on how to meet the needs of underachieving students. Differentiated supports for each school site include planning meetings and on‐site visits with instructional experts. Additionally, LAUSD plans to issue both a CoP and Pairing survey at the close of the year to inform organization and practice for 2015‐16. While CORE initially planned a pairing survey, LAUSD requested that a CoP survey also be developed since those school teams are engaged in the work. 37 Evidence: examples to substantiate aspects of the summary provided in the narrative [LAUSD.P1.E2.A1.fallSQIIstakeholderengagement] – Lists 30 stakeholder engagement efforts captured in October and November of 2014 [LAUSD.P1.E2.A2.SampleLAUSDBrief]— a sample communication [LAUSD.P1.E2.A3.FallBriefing]— sample agenda and presentation to community [LAUSD.P2.E1.A4.SampleTIFocusGroup]— sample Title I Focus Group presentation [LAUSD.P2.E1.A5.LPIsurveyresults]— results from Leadership Practice Improvement (LPI) Program, responding to the Turnaround Principle 1 expectation for Priority Schools [LAUSD.P2.E1.A6.screenshotwebpage]— screenshot of the CORECorner, on the Superintendent’s webpage [LAUSD.P2.E2 . A7.sqiifacilitationtools]— description of the SQII metrics and 2 versions of facilitator feedback capturing tools (English/Spanish) Self‐Rating and Rationale: What is your self‐rating score, and what is the rationale? Self‐Rating: 5 Rationale: LAUSD meaningfully consulted relevant stakeholders on both aspects of Principle 2. Stakeholders engaged included but was not limited to school site staff, parents, district staff, and community members. Information and updates were regularly distributed to LAUSD staff. Multiple Title I Focus Group and Community Meetings were regularly scheduled. SQII feedback was gathered and used from all stakeholders and when appropriate, information was translated and interpretation was provided (i.e. easy‐to‐access). Feedback was used to influence CORE decision‐making. Targeted input from district stakeholders was solicited and immediately used to improve the quality of service provided to schools. FINAL Peer Review Score and Rationale (Reviewer #1) Final Score: 5 Rationale: LAUSD’s narrative and evidence provide explicit articulation of the types of engagement as well as the purposes for engagement, especially for the various audiences. In addition, in using the train‐the‐trainer model to facilitate SQIS conversations, it allows for greater understanding/relevance for those “trainers” (presumably District leaders that are involved in other areas of LAUSD work?) to create and strengthen areas of connection with their respective roles. The “nested” approach of having broad public‐facing tools/info, to having more targeted focus groups with Title I and Focus/Priority schools is useful for consistency of information across levels/areas. LAUSD’s self review also includes explicit mention of the language and timing accommodations to have maximum opportunity for broad and diverse stakeholder engagement. 38 A preliminary score of 5 reflects LAUSD’s self review documents did evidence the cutpoint description: Conducted regular, meaningful stakeholder engagement on the School Quality Improvement Index and School Support Interventions to administrators, teachers, other staff, parents, and the local community in multiple easy­to­access fashions. FINAL Peer Review Score and Rationale (Reviewer #2) Preliminary Score: 5 Rationale for Preliminary Score: LAUSD has made communications about CORE implementation and engagement sessions a regular part of the district’s work. It has conducted regular stakeholder engagements on both the School Quality Improvement Index and School Support Interventions. Participants at engagement events also had opportunities to provide feedback to LAUSD and in some cases to CORE. Engagements have taken place with district staff, parents, and community, and quarterly Community Briefings have taken place in each Educational Service Center. In addition, online avenues for input were provided for those who were unable to attend an in‐person engagement, and surveys and interviews were also conducted for schools participating in School Pairings or Communities of Practice. LAUSD has also developed regular online communications, including a CORE Corner column in its biweekly electronic newsletter called the LAUSDBrief. Highlights of this year’s engagement have been the frequency and regularity of communications and multiple opportunities and ways to engage. LAUSD intentionally expanded its internal capacity to gather feedback on the CORE SQII metrics by training a group of about 20 facilitators using common presentation materials and tools for collection of feedback. 39 Final Self‐ and Peer Review Report 2014‐15: PRINCIPLE 2 EXPECTATION 2 (Oversight Panel) District LAUSD Principle Expectation 2 2‐LEA has collected and reported data required for the SQII and its development. Item Response/Information Narrative: (brief) a summary of actions taken to address the topic LAUSD’s Office of Data and Accountability (ODA) extracted all the required test score, demographic, enrollment, special education, English learner, attendance, marks and location data requested by CORE‐Gardner [See LAUSD.P2.E2.A1.DUAComplianceLetter] . Data were pulled from the district’s various source systems, including: CALPADS, CASEMIS, and the district’s longitudinal student data warehouse. An initial set of data was submitted in May 2014. In August, we submitted updated 2013‐14 CALPADS enrollment and demographic data to reflect any changes that occurred after the first submission. All data required for the SQII and its development were submitted to CORE‐Gardner. On March 16th, 2015, LAUSD School Experience Surveys for students, parents and staff were distributed to all LAUSD schools and those independent charter schools who opted in for survey participation. Surveys included all CORE culture and climate items for parents, students and staff, and Social and Emotional Learning items for students [See sample surveys: LAUSD.P2.E2.A2.SurveyFormSamples] . The due date for schools to return completed surveys is April 13, 2015. At this time our vendor will process and score student and parent paper surveys and deliver completed data by May 22, 2015. LAUSD will process scanned data to extract CORE items and deliver completed data files to the Gardener Center by May 29, 2015. In addition to submitting data to CORE‐Gardner and administering surveys as part of the socio‐emotional learning/culture climate measures, the District conducted its own internal analyses to help guide the metrics being developed for the Index. This included: (a) an analysis of English learners and reclassification rates, which led the CORE board to agree to a less complicated formula for measuring reclassification; and (b) an analysis describing the middle school performance of high school graduates, which led the CORE board to agree upon a set of metrics that would more accurately reflect the high school readiness of 8 th graders matriculating to 9 th grade. [See Sample: LAUSD.P2.E2.A3.HSReadinessModel]. 40 Finally, we performed quality assurance on the data that were used to establish the 2014‐15 school designations, which helped correctly identify schools for differentiated recognition, accountability and support. Evidence: examples to substantiate aspects of the summary provided in the narrative The following list of documents is evidence of data submitted, surveys administered, and the HS readiness analysis that were described in 1a. above: LAUSD.P2.E2.A1.DUAComplianceLetter LAUSD.P2.E2.A2.SurveyFormSamples LAUSD.P2.E2.A3.HSReadinessModel Self‐Rating and Self‐Rating: 4 Rationale: What Rationale: We collected and reported data by the various deadlines. is your self‐rating score, and what is the rationale? FINAL Peer Review Score and Rationale (Reviewer #1) Final Score: 4 Rationale for Score: The narrative and letter from Gardner Center confirms that LAUSD has collected and reported data in a timely fashion. The field test of surveys has been distributed and a timeline is in place for completing the collection and transferring data to the data partners. FINAL Peer Review Score and Rationale (Reviewer #2) Preliminary Score: 5 Rationale for Preliminary Score : LAUSD collected and reported all required data requested by CORE to The Gardner Center (CORE data partner) in a timely manner (generally ahead of schedule) and in desired forms, albeit by snail mail due to the need to set up a secure file transfer protocol. Survey data for culture and climate as well as social and emotional learning appear to be on‐track for completion and delivery to The Gardner Center a month before the deadline. 41 Although not part of the rubric, LAUSD has also contributed to the CORE School Quality Improvement Index by conducting an internal analysis of English learners and reclassification rates, as well as an analysis of middle school performance of high school graduates. Both studies used LAUSD’s large student dataset to provide useful analysis as the English learner reclassification metric was being developed, and as CORE looked at establishing a high school readiness profile. 42 Final Self & Peer Review Report 2014‐15: PRINCIPLE 2 EXPECTATION 3 (Oversight Panel) District Principle LAUSD 2 Expectation 3‐ LEA has implemented School Quality Improvement System Requirements Item Response/Information Narrative: (brief) a summary of actions taken to address the topic CONTEXT The Los Angeles Unified School District (LAUSD), the second largest school district in the nation, serves approximately 640,000 students in grades kindergarten through 12 th grade at more than 900 schools and magnet centers and 207 charter schools. T he boundaries of the district spread over 720 square miles and include the mega‐city of Los Angeles as well as all or parts of 31 smaller municipalities plus several unincorporated sections of Southern California. In enrollment breakdown by ethnic group, 73.4% of the student population is Latino, 10% is African‐American, 8.8% is White American, 3.9% is Asian‐American and 2.2% is Filipino. Native Americans and Pacific Islanders together are less than 1%. In total, 93 languages are spoken in LAUSD schools. Of the more than 900 schools in LAUSD, 185 schools are designated under the CORE Waiver. Please see below for the number of schools by designation. SQII Designation Priority Priority and Reward Focus Support Reward Collaborative Partner Total # of Schools 26 2 76 22 40 19 185 43 DISTRICT ORGANIZATION TO SUPPORT IMPLEMENTATION OF INTERVENTIONS LAUSD is divided into four (4) geographic Educational Service Centers (ESC) and one (1) non‐geographic center, ISIC, which serves schools needing intensive support or implementing an innovative school model. It is through these centers that schools receive all of their instructional and operational services. CORE Waiver designated schools are spread across all five of the service centers, with the majority supported by the ISIC. See below for the distribution of schools across service centers. Service Priorit
Focu Suppor
Rewar
Center y s t d North ‐ 19 3 8 South 3 15 6 6 East 1 16 2 13 West 1 7 1 11 ISIC 23* 19 10 2 Total 28 76 22 40 *Two schools are also designated as Reward High‐Progress Collaborative Partner 5 4 5 1 4 19 Total 35 34 37 21 60 185 Similar to last year, the Principle II, Expectation III work is supported at the central office level as well as at ESC level. Key central office departments instrumental in the implementation of the school intervention work include the following: CORE Waiver Compliance & Human Capital Initiatives, Federal and State Education Programs, the Special Education Division (SPED), the Multilingual and Multicultural Education Department (MMED), Beyond the Bell and the Professional Learning and Leadership Development Department. At a high level, these departments/divisions provided technical support to ESCs and schools, coordinated partnerships with external organizations, facilitated and led PD for teachers and principals, etc. Information on the specific work of these departments relative to the requirements of the waiver is below. At the ESC level, the school intervention work (Communities of Practice and School Pairing) was facilitated by Instructional Directors who oversee networks of schools and ESC Content Coordinators. These facilitators most often served as the liaisons between central office departments and the schools. Additionally, they were on‐the‐ground helping to ensure the consistent, systemic and high‐level implementation of the school‐level waiver requirements. 44 PRIORITY SCHOOL INTERVENTIONS Notification of Status. In September, all Priority schools (new and continuing) received a letter alerting them of their 2014‐15 CORE Waiver status; informing them of requirements under the waiver relative their school designation and the persons responsible for supporting that requirement; and informing them of their Reward school partner. Please see the document entitled LAUSD.P2.E3.A1.PrioritySIGLetter for a copy of one of the letters sent to Priority schools. In addition, the information was posted in the August 1 st edition of the LAUSD Brief, an online, bi‐weekly communication that is sent to all district staff, including principals, teachers, central office staff, etc. The information was released again in mid‐September after the waiver was approved. School Pairing Implementation. As mentioned above, LAUSD has a total of 28 Priority schools participating in the School Pairing Program. The Instructional Directors for these schools serve as the facilitators for the work to ensure coherence with district, ESC and school goals. The majority of the School Pairing facilitators participated in the CORE‐sponsored training for facilitators. Additionally, central office staff worked with facilitators individually, as requested, to provide further guidance and support following the training. Please see below for more information. ● CORE‐sponsored School Pairing conference . All paired schools in conjunction with their Reward/Collaborative School partner participated in the CORE‐sponsored School Pairing Kickoff Conference. At the conference, school pairs worked with their school pairing facilitators to develop plans that outlined their work together. These plans, which were submitted to a team at the central office for review and approval, include detailed information on their shared activities (e.g., school visits, co‐planning, professional development, etc.), the timeline for implementation and the cost associated with their work together. Pairing. All LAUSD Priority schools were paired in either a 1:1 relationship with an internal or external Reward school or a 2:1 relationship with another Priority school and a Reward school. Each school pair or triad has been working with a facilitator to help support their pairing relationship. In all cases, facilitators are the Instructional Director of the Priority school. While the role of the facilitator is based on the need of the pair, his/her primary function is to ensure that the schools advance their work together. At a minimum, facilitators have helped to build community across the paired schools to ensure they actively engage in the school pairing work; help the pairs select focus areas aligned to the 7 Turnaround Principles; support promising practices, structures and systems aimed at increasing student learning and improving teacher practice; and facilitate/arrange professional learning opportunities for schools. Facilitators have also been on hand to assist with the development and implementation of work plans, manage the funds allocated to the schools to support the work and document promising practices and collect feedback, etc. Currently, paired schools are in various stages of implementing their action plans. Please see the document entitled LAUSD.P2.E3.A2.School Pairings 2014‐15 which outlines all LAUSD Priority schools and their Reward/Collaborative School partner and the document entitled LAUSD.P2.E3.A3.Jordan_Santee_SchoolPairingPlan for a copy of a sample school pairing action plan. Similar to last year, the central office staff has been monitoring pairing work and providing technical assistance, as needed. To monitor the work, central office staff as well as CORE staff members have participated in or observed school visits, professional development, meetings, etc. Technical assistance has come by way of consulting with Instructional Directors and school teams to plan and clarify the work of the schools as well as ensure the work meets compliance guidelines. 45 Non‐SIG schools. Of the 28 LAUSD Priority schools, 17 are non‐SIG schools. Please see below for more implementation on LAUSD’s approach to supporting these schools. ● Completion of Needs Assessment by non‐SIG Priority schools. LAUSD had one Year 1 non‐SIG Priority school during the 2014‐15 school year – Barack Obama Global Preparatory Academy. This school developed a 2‐Year Single Plan for Student Achievement (SPSA) during the 2013‐14 school year similar to other non‐Priority schools across LAUSD. During the 2014‐15 school year, the team at Barack Obama Global Preparatory Academy is receiving assistance from its Instructional Director as well as the Federal and State Education Programs office to complete a needs assessment and update its 2013‐14 SPSA so that it now reflects their plan to turnaround their school over the next three years. This plan is currently under construction and will be finalized prior to the end of the school year. ● Implementation of Turnaround Plans (Year 2 non‐SIG Priority). All LAUSD Year 2 non‐SIG Priority schools completed 3‐Year SPSAs last year that reflected their plans to turnaround their schools between 2014 and 2017. These plans included their action steps and goals for this time period as well as their spending plan for the 2014‐15 school year. School communities are currently reviewing and updating their SPSAs to determine if any adjustments are needed as well as planning their budgets for the 2015‐16 school year. Other examples LAUSD is supporting and monitoring the implementation of the 7 Turnaround Principles at Priority schools include: − The central office designed a two‐part protocol to review the “Turnaround Leadership” capacity of all sitting Priority school principals. This process was also used to select new principals at Priority schools. All principals at Year 1 Priority schools – SIG and non‐SIG – have participated in this process. The principal of the Year 2 non‐SIG Priority school will also participate in this process in the spring. Please see the document entitled LAUSD.P2.E3.A4.Capacity Review information on the Turnaround Leadership review process . (Turnaround Principle #1). −
CORE Waiver funding was set aside to support three different extended learning opportunities for students at CORE Waiver –identified schools: 2014‐15 CORE Waiver Intervention Program, Online Credit Recovery Pilot Program and the Extended Learning Opportunities – Summer School Program. Please see the following attachments for an overview of these programs, which were offered to Priority, Focus and Support schools: LAUSD.P2.E3.A5.ExtendedLearning. Please note that documents referenced in the attachment are available upon request. (Turnaround Principle #3) − LAUSD contracted with New Leaders to support schools with the development of the Instructional Leadership Teams (ILTs) using their Leadership Practice Improvement Program (LPI). LPI asks principals and ILTs to learn and develop practice together in their schools. The program creates an environment that encourages accountability for outcomes and uses the school building as the primary learning and skill building area. This design embeds lessons into the day‐to‐day life of the school. Through a highly responsive, web‐based program design, participants are encouraged to look for impact quickly, motivating participants to put the learning into practice. See the attachment LAUSD.P2.E3.A6.LPI for more details. −
LAUSD developed an online Seven Turnaround Principles Reflection form that non‐SIG Priority schools have been asked to complete to reflect on and document their implementation of the bullet points associated with each principle. This online reflection will go out to schools in May and will be due in June prior to the close of the school 46 year. Central Office and ESC staff will use the information in this document to guide their support of schools in the 2015‐16 school year. Please see the document entitled LAUSD.P2.E3.A7.7TurnaroundPrinciplesReflection ‐ DRAFT for a copy of the template. SIG Schools. For the 2014‐15 school year, LAUSD has 11 Priority schools funded by SIG; 10 of them are in SIG cohort 2, and 1 is in SIG cohort 3. The waiver charges these schools with continuing to implement their SIG plans as well as pairing with a higher performing Reward/Collaborative Partner school. The School Improvement Grant Unit supports these schools to reach their academic performance targets as outlined in their Single Plan for Student Achievement (SPSA) and SIG application. The School Improvement Grant Unit has 3 areas of focus: technical assistance, school turnaround and monitoring and evaluation. As such, their responsibilities encompass research, budgeting, school review, leadership grants, performance review, teacher and principal evaluation and bargaining unit negotiations. FOCUS and SUPPORT SCHOOL INTERVENTIONS Notification of Status. In September, all Focus and Other Support schools (new, continuing and exiting) received a letter alerting them of their 2014‐15 CORE Waiver status; informing them of requirements under the waiver relative their school designation and the persons responsible for supporting that requirement. Please reference the sample evidence for Priority school notification, as a similar template was used. In addition, the information was posted in the August 1 st edition of the LAUSD Brief, an online, bi‐weekly communication that is sent to all district staff, including principals, teachers, central office staff, etc. The information was released again in mid‐September after the waiver was approved. Communities of Practice (CoP) Implementation. As mentioned above, LAUSD has a total of 98 Focus and Support schools participating in the Communities of Practice Program. The Instructional Directors and Content Coordinators serve as facilitators for the CoPs to ensure that coherence across and integration with existing work. All CoP facilitators as well as many of the CoP support personnel from SPED and MMED participated in the initial CORE‐sponsored training for facilitators. Additionally, central office staff worked with ESCs individually, as requested, to provide further guidance and support following the training. Please see below for more information on LAUSD’s implementation of the various CoP requirements. ● CORE‐sponsored CoP Kickoff Conference and Facilitator Support . All Focus and Support schools sent a team to the CORE‐sponsored CoP Kickoff Conference. At the conference, school teams were clustered by CoP and guided through the exploration of data, the selection of a Problem of Practice (PoP) that was connected to the reason they were identified as a Focus or Support school and the development of the plan for their first PLAN‐DO‐STUDY‐ACT (PDSA) cycle by their CoP facilitator. These plans, which were submitted to a team at the central office for review and approval, include detailed information on their PDSA cycle. ● Communities of Practice. ESCs continue to lead the facilitation of CoPs for CORE Waiver Focus and Support schools. In one instance, three Instructional Directors from across ESCs joined forces to co‐lead and co‐facilitate a CoP. Regardless of the problem of practice, all schools were guided to and selected a problem of practice rooted and grounded in data; focused on the instructional core (e.g., the interactions of the teacher, student and content) and connected to the overall improvement strategy of the school. The PoP must also be directly observable, actionable (improved in real time) and high‐leverage (make a significant difference for student learning). Please see LAUSD.P2.E3.A8a.CoPPlanSample for documents 47 related to a PDSA Cycle for a group of our schools. The document shows the ESC‐level plan, as well as a sample of the work at a school site. To support ESCs with the facilitation of CoPs, central office staff members have worked together to provide additional layers of support for the CoP facilitators. Please see below for details on the multi‐layered support plan. − Special Education Division. Sixty‐four schools were identified as Focus schools because Students With Disabilities was either the lowest performing subgroup in the school or because a significant gap existed between this group and the highest performing subgroup. The Division of Special Education reorganized their support personnel in order to provide targeted support to the the CoP based on the need of the facilitator and the CoP participants. CoP facilitators, in consultation with SPED personnel chose from one of the following support options. Please see LAUSD.P2.E3.A8.CoPSPED for the survey facilitators and SPED personnel used to decide on one of the options above. The Division of Special Education is also providing professional development, instructional materials and other professional resources to teachers and special education assistants at Focus Schools to support the work toward closing the achievement gap and complement the work in the CoPs. The professional development workshops will focus and have focused on high‐leverage strategies in reading, writing, language arts and mathematics. The workshops are specifically designed to assist schools in addressing achievement gaps for students with disabilities and are highly recommended for special education teachers, general education teachers serving students with disabilities, and special education assistants at each Focus School to strengthen existing teaching and learning approaches in mixed‐ability classrooms. Each workshop connects curriculum, instruction, and assessment to best practices for students with disabilities and students at risk of being referred for special education services. Please see the attachment entitled LAUSD.P2.E3.A9.SpEDWorkshops for a list of workshops offered by the Division of Special Education. 48 −
−
−
Multilingual and Multicultural Education Department (MMED). LAUSD has 11 Focus schools whose lowest performing subgroup is either English Learners or African‐American students. In addition to participating in the CoP Program, these schools also receive targeted support from MMED staff that specializes in addressing the low achievement of one of the aforementioned subgroups. Support has come in the way of co‐developing long‐term plans of action to address the underperformance of the subgroup, facilitating professional development, classroom observations, targeted support of teachers, etc. Integration of School Site Council (Focus schools only). Although we communicated to our CoP facilitators and participating schools the need and requirement to regularly update their SSCs, this is not a practice that happened consistently across all of our schools nor did we devise a way to monitor this action. AMO Target Form. We originally included this form in our SPSA and consulted with CORE staff as to whether or not our schools needed to complete this form. We were advised that schools did not need to complete this form and therefore did not require our schools to complete it. At this stage in the process, all of our schools are on track to complete three (3) PDSA cycles. Please see the document entitled LAUSD.P2.E3.A10.2014‐15 CoP Schools and Facilitators , which outlines how schools are organized into CoPs. New Focus and/or Support Schools. Of the 76 Focus schools identified for the 2014‐15 school year, nine (9) of them are new. There were no new Support schools identified. ● Completion of Needs Assessment and 2‐Year Plan. As mentioned above, nine (9) Focus Schools were identified for the first time during the 2014‐15 school year. These schools went through a comprehensive Needs Assessment process during the 2013‐14 school year and developed a 2‐Year Single Plan for Student Achievement (SPSA) at that time. During the 2014‐15 school year, the schools received technical assistance from their ESC Title I Coordinators to update their plans to ensure they addressed the reasons for which they were identified as a Focus school. ● Implementation of Turnaround Plans (Year 2 Focus and Support)). All LAUSD Year 2 Focus and Support schools completed 2‐Year SPSAs last year that reflected their plans to turnaround their schools between 2014 and 2016. These plans included their action steps and goals for this time period as well as their spending plan for the 2014‐15 school year. School communities are currently reviewing and updating their SPSAs to determine if any adjustments are needed as well as planning their budgets for the 2015‐16 school year. Sharing Best Practices. To facilitate the collection of data relative to the impact of the work in schools as a result of their participation in a CoP, LAUSD has worked in conjunction with CORE staff to develop a survey for persons participating in CoPs. The survey is slated for release in May. We have also started to interview CoP participants to gather feedback on the impact of the work that way as well. Additionally, the Division of Special Education has been tracking the impact of their workshops via reflection forms. The data gathered from these reflection forms is used to tailor support to schools and plan future workshops, with interviews to follow thereafter. 49 REWARD and COLLABORATIVE PARTNER SCHOOL INTERVENTIONS Notification of Status. In September, all Reward and Collaborative Partner schools (new, continuing and exiting) received a letter alerting them of their 2014‐15 CORE Waiver status; informing them of requirements under the waiver relative their school designation and the persons responsible for supporting that requirement. Please reference the sample evidence for Priority school notification, as a similar template was used. Recognition. Reward and Collaborative Partner schools were invited to the October 14 th , 2014 Board meeting to be recognized by the Board and Superintendent; however, due to an emergency, the Board cancelled that part of the agenda. They did, however, attend a private reception with former Chief of Intensive Support and Intervention, Donna Muncey, and Chief Deputy Superintendent, Michelle King. At this reception, school representatives were recognized for their accomplishments and received a banner to display on the outside of their schools. Attendees also learned that they would receive a $25,000 reward for each year they were a Reward or Collaborative Partner school to spend how they saw fit, but in accordance with Title I guidelines. Please see the attachment entitled LAUSD.P2.E3.A11.RewardInvitation for the invitation Reward schools received to the Board Meeting and reception. Evidence: examples to substantiate aspects of the summary provided in the narrative Please see above for evidence. Self‐Rating and Rationale: What is your self‐rating score, and what is the rationale? Self‐Rating: 4 Rationale: We either have or are on track to implement all of the LEA‐level requirements and all but one school level requirement – the report back to the SSC. 50 FINAL Peer Review Score and Rationale (Reviewer #1) Final Score: 4 Rationale for Score: ● LAUSD has provided ample evidence to illuminate that it has implemented the majority of the requirements outlined for school intervention and support. ● From outlining specifically how they are differentiating the implementation and monitoring of the seven turnaround principles to defining the role of the Instructional Director and how the central office provided guidance and technical assistance for him/ her to lead this work, it is clear that LAUSD has covered its bases as it relates to the various required elements and that they have gone above and beyond to build the systems to support the work. ● LAUSD has provided an impressive amount of documentation describing the infrastructure assembled for the school support work. However, there was only one artifact included showing work done during the cycles, the CoTeaching Templates. ● Narrative provided by LAUSD, with respect to what worked, areas of improvement, next steps, reflects on the infrastructure of the program, and briefly on the impact of the work. As this rubric doesn’t require that impact level be scrutinized, the work meets the cut point. FINAL Peer Review Score and Rationale (Reviewer #2) Preliminary Score: 4.5 Rationale for Preliminary Score: LAUSD has implemented nearly all School Quality Improvement System requirements, including interventions for all Priority Schools, Focus Schools, and other support schools, as well as required activities for Reward and other collaborative partner schools. Significant work has taken place this year to strengthen implementation of the CoP program, including identification of a lead facilitator for each CoP and dedicated support from the Special Education Division or the Multilingual and Multicultural Education Department for Focus Schools whose lowest performing subgroup was Students with Disabilities, English Learners, or African American students. The one main area of improvement for CoP work is at the school site level, including the need to establish a systematic way of tracking whether CoP schools are sharing the impact of their work and integrating with the School Site Council. 51 52 Final Self‐ and Peer Review Report (P3 REPORTS WERE SUBMITTED DECEMBER 2014) District Principle Expectation Los Angeles Unified 3 Teacher Evaluation: 1‐9 Item Response/Information 1. LEA meaningf
ully engages stakehold
ers in the developm
ent, pilot and implemen
tation of EES. At LAUSD we are committed to continuous improvement; therefore, we solicit educators for input with every change to the Teacher Growth and Development Cycle (TGDC). This commitment has been evident since the beginning of this work in 2009 when we engaged educators, labor representatives, and parents around a Teacher Effectiveness Task Force and selecting the Teaching and Learning Framework (TLF) as a guiding document. This has included annual surveys and focus groups to participating teachers and administrators, informal feedback shared with our Teaching and Learning Coordinators in the field and brought to bear within our project teams, and ongoing meetings with the United Teachers Los Angeles. Furthermore, we have engaged researchers at the University of Southern California to conduct an independent program evaluation of our work, which includes surveys and case study interviews. Participant feedback has been vitally important to informing necessary adjustments to the TGDC, from broad policy changes such as delaying full implementation from SY2012‐13 to SY2013‐14 in order to use SY2012‐13 for administrator training and practice, to streamlining tools such as the Lesson Design template, to making it “easier to get the green check mark” on our online evaluation platform. Last school year, we solicited survey feedback from teachers and principals on the TGDC as well as the Stakeholder Feedback Survey pilot. We conducted four focus groups on the TGDC for teachers and four for administrators in February 2014, in addition to holding four focus groups specifically on the online evaluation platform in June 2014. See Exhibit 14, page 22 of the IIP Year End Feedback Report included as evidence for examples of how LAUSD has incorporated educator feedback into the further development of the TGDC. 53 For the 2014‐15 school year, we plan to solicit feedback from TGDC participants (teachers and administrators) through an end‐of‐year survey and focus groups in order to make further improvements to the process in collaboration with USC evaluators. In addition, USC will continue to conduct educator interviews as part of their case study/program evaluation work. We are also developing a learning module around the TGDC and TLF with our Parent and Community Services Branch to be disseminated this Winter to local Education Service Centers and school‐site Parent Centers. We have scheduled a community briefing with local legislative staff and community organizations in January 2015 to deliver a briefing about the TGDC. We will continue to engage our labor partners around specific negotiating items as well as general information sharing. 1b. Evidence: examples to substantiat
e aspects of the summary provided in the narrative Sample Feedback Survey Reports, Sample focus group flyer, Draft Parent Module on the TLF and TGDC 1c. Self‐Rating and Rationale: What is your self‐rating score, and what is the rationale? Self‐Rating: 5 Rationale: See narrative above. 54 3a. FINAL Peer Review Score and Rationale (Reviewer #1) Score : 5 Rationale : Multiple sessions held with multiple stakeholders over multiple years 3c. FINAL Peer Review Score and Rationale (Reviewer #2) Score : 5 Rationale : Multiple sessions held with multiple stakeholders over multiple years 55 Item Response/Information 2. EES uses viable methods to differentia
te among 4 levels of effectiven
ess clearly defined and supported with required training and annual calibration for inter‐rater reliability. Ineffective, Developing, Effective, Highly Effective are the four levels within the LAUSD Teaching and Learning Framework rubrics, and administrators rate classroom practice based on those four levels (Framework included). Although our current evaluation process includes four levels of professional practice, the final ratings remain at two levels of practice. We continue to work with our labor partners to come to agreement on 3‐4 performance levels for the summative evaluation, and this item is being discussed in negotiations for the 2014‐15 school year. This remains a challenge for us while we are engaged in a PERB hearing and await the final disposition. All observers of teacher practice undergo a 5‐day training and complete a video calibration event (full training materials can be made available upon request). Observers must attain a preliminary certification status before they may observe a teacher with the Teacher Growth and Development Cycle as an evaluator of record. Observers are rated on evidence collection measures including Objectivity, Alignment (to the Framework), and Representativeness (evidence rubric included). Their element‐level ratings of the teacher from the video event are compared against master scores for Accuracy. During Summer 2014, LAUSD offered optional observer refresher trainings and a re‐calibration event for all administrators who had previously completed the initial 5‐day training (evidence included). The District plans to establish mandatory annual calibration events by June 2015. 56 1b. Evidence: examples to substantiat
e aspects of the summary provided in the narrative Teaching and Learning Framework, Observer Evidence Collection Rubric, Flyer for Summer 2014 calibration events 1c. Self‐Rating and Rationale: What is your self‐rating score, and what is the rationale? Self‐Rating: 5 Rationale: See narrative above. 3a. FINAL Peer Review Score and Rationale (Reviewer #1) Score : 5 Rationale : Extensive training and calibration related to the 4 level framework. 57 3c. FINAL Peer Review Score and Rationale (Reviewer #2) Score : 5 Rationale : Extensive training and calibration related to the 4 level framework. 58 Item 3. EES cycle incorporates multiple data sources, collected with sufficient frequency, to determine effectiveness. 1b. Evidence: examples to substantiate aspects of the summary provided in the narrative Response/Information The TGDC includes multiple classroom observations, a student growth measure (called the Data‐Based Objective) and a third measure that assesses a teacher’s performance on professional responsibilities based on three levels of performance. Teachers engaged in the Teacher Growth and Development Cycle participate in a minimum of two formal observations and two informal (unannounced, unscored) observations, by their supervisor or Teaching and Learning Observer (protocols included). Additionally, teachers are expected to complete a self‐assessment and engage in individual growth planning to establish professional practice goals and student learning outcomes (the Data‐based Objective). Each formal observation is supported by a pre‐ and post‐ observation coaching/feedback conference. Evaluators are encouraged to engage in multiple informal coaching conferences on a regular basis with all teachers. In addition to the current TGDC measures, LAUSD is engaged in a district‐wide pilot of Stakeholder Feedback (student surveys) and Contributions to School Community this school year (2014‐15). (Letter regarding surveys and protocol for Contributions to School Community are included) Some groups of teachers are evaluated annually; otherwise the standard expectation is every other year, with options to defer teachers up to five years granted they meet certain criteria. (Evidence included) ●
Probationary teachers ‐ annually ●
BSE teachers – annually ●
Tenured teachers whose evaluations for the past 4 years met Standard Performance expectations – administrators have the option to defer teachers up to five years at most. TGDC Observation Protocol, Stakeholder Feedback survey letter, Contributions to School Community protocol, Human Resources Evaluation Bulletin pp 5, 7, and 14‐15 59 1c. Self‐Rating and Rationale: What is your self‐rating score, and what is the rationale? Self‐Rating: 4 Rationale: See narrative above. 3a. FINAL Peer Review Score and Rationale (Reviewer #1) Score : 4 Rationale : Teacher growth and development cycle includes multiple observations and student outcome data. 3c. FINAL Peer Review Score and Rationale (Reviewer #2) Score : 4 Rationale : Teacher growth and development cycle includes multiple observations and student outcome data. 60 Item 4. EES is aligned with CORE Common Evaluation Guidelines for Teachers and Leaders. Response/Information The LAUSD Teaching and Learning Framework is fully aligned with CORE Common Evaluation Guidelines for Teachers and Leaders. Our Framework is based off the Danielson Framework for Teaching, and is organized by Standards, Components, and Elements. A tutorial can be found online here: http://achieve.lausd.net/Page/6893 Evidence: LAUSD Teaching and Learning Framework Priority: Instruction Instruction 1: Communicating with Students Component 3A: Communicating with Students Element 3a1: Communicating the Purpose of the Lesson Element 3a2: Directions and Procedures Element 3a3: Delivery of Content Element 3a4: Use of Academic Language Instruction 2: Engaging Students in Learning Component 3C: Structures to Engage Students in Learning Element 3c1: Standards‐Based Projects, Activities, and Assignments Element 3c2: Purposeful and Productive Instructional Groups Element 3c3: Selection and Use of Available Instructional Materials, Technology, and Resources Element 3c4: Structure and Pacing Instruction 3: Using Multiple Instructional Strategies to Scaffold Learning Element 1a1: Knowledge of Students’ Skills, Knowledge, and Language Proficiency Element 3b2: Discussion Techniques and Student Participation Element 3e1: Responds and Adjusts to Student Needs Priority: Classroom Environment Classroom Environment 1: Creating an Environment That is Physically, Emotionally, and Intellectually Safe for ALL Children Component 2a: Creating an Environment of Respect and Rapport Element 2a1: Teacher Interaction with Students Element 2a2: Student Interactions with One Another Element 2a3: Classroom Climate 61 Classroom Environment 2: Promoting and Maintaining Positive Relationships Component 2a: Creating an Environment of Respect and Rapport Element 2a1: Teacher Interaction with Students Element 2a2: Student Interactions with One Another Element 2a3: Classroom Climate Component 2d: Managing Student Behavior Element 2d1: Expectations for Behavior Element 2d2: Monitoring and Responding to Student Behavior Classroom Environment.3: Promoting Social Development and Group Responsibility Element 2a2: Student Interactions with One Another Element 2b3: Student Ownership of their Work Classroom Environment.4: Establishing High Expectations for Engagement and Professionalism in a Rigorous Learning Environment for Students Element 2b2: Expectations for Learning and Achievement Priority: Prep and Planning Preparation and Planning.1: Planning Ongoing Assessments (formative, summative, etc.) Component 1e: Designing Student Assessment Element 1e1: Aligns with Instructional Outcomes Element 1e2: Planning Assessment Criteria Element 1e3: Design of Formative Assessments Element 1e4: Analysis and Use of Assessment Data for Planning Preparation and Planning.2: Designing Coherent Instruction Component 1d: Designing Coherent Instruction Element 1d1: Standards‐Based Learning Activities Element 1d2: Instructional Materials, Technology, and Resources Element 1d3: Purposeful Instructional Groups Element 1d4: Lesson and Unit Structure Preparation and Planning 3: Setting Instructional Outcomes Component 1c: Establishing Instructional Outcomes Element 1c1: Value, Sequence, Alignment, and Clarity Element 1c2: Suitability for Diverse Learners 62 Preparation and Planning 4: Demonstrating Knowledge of Students Component 1b: Demonstrating Knowledge of Students Element 1b1: Awareness of Students’ Skills, Knowledge, and Language Proficiency Element 1b2: Knowledge of How Children, Adolescents, and Adults Learn Element 1b3: Knowledge of Students’ Special Needs Element 1b4: Knowledge of Students’ Interests and Cultural Heritage Preparation and Planning 5: Demonstrating Knowledge of Resources Component 1a: Demonstrating Knowledge of Content and Pedagogy Element 1a1: Knowledge of Content and the Structure of the Discipline Element 1a2: Knowledge of Content‐Related Pedagogy Element 1d2: Instructional Materials, Technology, and Resources Priority: Professionalism Professionalism.1: Communicating and Engaging with Families to Support Learning Component 4b: Communicating with Families Element 4b1: Information About the Instructional Program Element 4b2: Information About Individual Students Element 4b3: Engagement of Families in the Instructional Program Professionalism.2: Collaborating In a Professional Community to Support Student and Teacher Learning Component 5b: Participating in a Professional Community Element 5b1: Relationships with Colleagues Element 5b2: Promotes a Culture of Professional Inquiry and Collaboration Professionalism.3: Pursuing Professional Growth Component 5a: Reflecting on Practice Element 5a1: Accurate Reflection Element 5a2: Use of Reflection to Inform Future Instruction Element 5a3: Selection of Professional Development Based on Reflection and Data Element 5a4: Implementation of New Learning from Professional Development Professionalism.4: Demonstrating and Managing Professionalism Component 4c: Demonstrating Professionalism Element 4c1: Ethical Conduct and Compliance with School, District, State, and Federal Regulations Element 4c2: Advocacy/Intervention for Students Element 4c3: Decision‐Making 63 1b. Evidence: examples to substantia
te aspects of the summary provided in the narrative 1c. Self‐Rating and Rationale: What is your self‐rating score, and what is the rationale? 3a. FINAL Peer Review Score and Rationale (Reviewer #1) Embedded above. Self‐Rating: 5 Rationale: See narrative above. Score : 5 Rationale : Framework based on Charlotte Danielson. CORE Guidelines are based on Danielson and CSTPs. 64 3c. FINAL Peer Review Score and Rationale (Reviewer #2) Score : 5 Rationale : Framework based on Charlotte Danielson. CORE Guidelines are based on Danielson and CSTPs. 65 Item Response/Information 5. EES includes meaningf
ul feedback cycles connecte
d to professio
nal growth. The Teacher Growth and Development Cycle consists of at least two formal observation cycles and two informal observations (protocols included). A formal observation cycle includes a pre‐ and post observation conference. The Cycle also includes an Initial Planning Conference, and a Final Evaluation Conference. All conferences are opportunities to connect meaningful feedback using evidence from the teacher’s performance to opportunities for professional growth and adjust recommendations based on new evidence observed in each conference. Administrators are encouraged to increase the number of informal observations for all teachers and engage in regular coaching conferences. Teachers participating in the TGDC also engaged in self‐driven reflection and growth planning, beginning with a self‐assessment and creation of growth objectives at the outset of the school year. During the teachers’ Mid‐Year Reflection, they are encouraged to consider their performance and feedback from the observations and conferences to date, and revise or update their growth objectives (Initial Planning Sheet included). TGDC data is now beginning to inform professional development for school and district purposes. With data reporting embedded within the TGDC online platform as well as a new employee data warehouse called MyTeam, EES data is now at the fingertips of administrators to help set professional goals for their school site.This data is also informing district‐wide professional growth goals. LAUSD holds monthly Performance Dialogues among its leadership team (evidence included), and at one such meeting, the Superintendent and area Instructional Superintendents engaged in a lively discussion on the implications of teachers’ self reported areas of strength and weakness on the availability of quality PD within the District. 66 1b. Evidence: examples to substantiat
e aspects of the summary provided in the narrative TGDC Observation Protocols, Initial Planning Sheet guide and Instructional Growth Objective sample, Performance Dialogue PowerPoint deck 1c. Self‐Rating and Rationale: What is your self‐rating score, and what is the rationale? Self‐Rating: 5 Rationale: See narrative above. 3a. FINAL Peer Review Score and Rationale (Reviewer #1) Score : 5 Rationale : Data platform is embedded in TGDC platform. Evaluation cycle is driven by teachers’ professional growth goals. 67 3c. FINAL Peer Review Score and Rationale (Reviewer #2) Score : 5 Rationale : Data platform is embedded in TGDC platform. Evaluation cycle is driven by teachers’ professional growth goals. 68 Item 6. EES informs cycles of instructi
onal collabor
ation, coachin
g and/or professi
onal learning
. Response/Information We launched our new online platform for professional learning management, called MyProfessional Learning Network (MyPLN), for all certificated employees in the District this fall (2014). MyPLN includes workshop/course enrollment, online content connected to growth needs identified through the TGDC, and online collaboration spaces for educator communities to share resources and form virtual Professional Learning Communities. During the 2013‐14 school year, the Talent Management Division brought on National Board Certified Teachers to develop online content for MyPLN aligned to the Teaching and Learning Framework and prioritized by areas that teachers and observers identified in previous pilots of the TGDC. Teachers identified as in need of improvement or not meeting performance expectations participate in mandatory support through the District’s Peer Assistance and Review (PAR) program. New teachers are also provided with targeted support through the Beginning Teacher Growth & Development Induction (BTGDI) program, formerly known as BTSA, which uses the New Teacher Center’s Formative Assessment System (FAS) induction process and a Full Release Mentor Model. The curriculum for both of these peer support programs have recently been revised for greater alignment to the LAUSD Teaching and Learning Framework and are also employing resources through MyPLN. 1b. Evidence: examples to substantiate aspects of the summary provided in the narrative Communication about MyPLN, Peer Assistance and Review sample workshop content aligned to the TLF 69 1c. Self‐Rating and Rationale: What is your self‐rating score, and what is the rationale? Self‐Rating: 5 Rationale: See narrative above. 3a. FINAL Peer Review Score and Rationale (Reviewer #1) Score : 5 Rationale : MyPLN support available to all educators. PAR and BTGDI aligned to TL framework 3c. FINAL Peer Review Score and Rationale (Reviewer #2) Score : 5 Rationale : MyPLN support available to all educators. PAR and BTGDI aligned to TL framework 70 Item 7. EES incorpora
tes one of the two SQIS options for measurin
g impact on student learning. Response/Information As detailed in the teacher’s contract (evidence included), the applicable record of student progress and achievement comprised of individual SBAC, school‐level AGT and various non‐ SBAC‐based multi‐measure data sources are to be considered an important but clearly limited part of the overall performance evaluation process. Data sources may include: previously assigned students' SBAC results, currently‐assigned students' previous SBAC results, school SBAC results, periodic assessment data, attendance data, suspension data, English Language Learner data, class grades, A‐G data, advanced placement data, CAHSEE data, API data, Dynamic Indicators of Basic Early Literacy Skills (DIBELS) assessments for K‐3 teachers, School Academic Growth over Time, and data‐based objectives from the Initial Planning Sheet. Currently the TGDC includes a Data‐Based Objective that is teacher‐created and administrator‐approved, using district assessment data or other data available, as mentioned in the previous paragraph (evidence included). The Data‐Based Objective is included as one of multiple measures in the final overall evaluation rating. LAUSD will continue to collaborate with other CORE waiver districts to develop and use a SQIS growth measure that can be included in the evaluation in the future. 1b. Evidence: examples to substantiate aspects of the summary provided in the narrative LAUSD‐UTLA Supplemental Agreement to Article X, Initial Planning Sheet template with DBO 1c. Self‐Rating and Rationale: What is your self‐rating Self‐Rating: 3 Rationale: See narrative above. 71 score, and what is the rationale? 3a. FINAL Peer Review Score and Rationale (Reviewer #1) Score : 3 Rationale : Use of SBAC where available along with Data Based Objectives (DBOs) 3c. FINAL Peer Review Score and Rationale (Reviewer #2) Score : 3 Rationale : Use of SBAC where available along with Data Based Objectives (DBOs) 72 Item Response/Information 8. EES incorporate
s approved measures of student growth in non‐tested subjects and grades for measuring impact on student learning. The Data‐Based Objective (DBO) uses a goal‐setting process to articulate expected student outcomes for an individual teacher, similar in purpose to Student Learning Objectives that are used in other school districts and states (e.g., Austin Independent School District, Denver Public Schools, Ohio Department of Education). The DBO is created at the beginning of the year during the planning phase of the TGDC, when educators identify objectives related to their students’ outcomes, their growth in instructional practice, and their professional growth for the year. Teachers are asked to review their current students’ prior assessment data, write appropriate growth goals, and describe the strategies they will use to meet those goals in order to complete their DBO. Teachers then reflect on progress made on their DBOs during an end‐of‐year reflection process. Administrators review their teachers’ DBOs during the planning process, acknowledge approval during a planning conference, review end‐of‐year progress, and provide comments on them as part of the final evaluation process. For administrators, the process parallels that of teachers except that the data they are to use are at the school level. It is the aim of the LAUSD to bolster the quality and consistency of DBOs and to ensure that evaluators are prepared to assess and provide actionable feedback on them. TGDC includes at least two observations of practice that are rated on a four level performance rubric, a student growth measure (called the Data‐Based Objective) and a third measure that assesses a teacher’s performance on professional responsibilities based on three levels of performance. Per the UTLA‐LAUSD Supplement Agreement to Article X, administrators were also instructed to take into consideration available sources of student data at the teacher and school level as well as teachers’ DBOs in their final evaluation. Principals have received training to consider the evidence collected through these multiple measures in order to determine the evaluated teacher’s final overall rating. 73 1b. Evidence: examples to substantiate aspects of the summary provided in the narrative Results from SY2013‐14 implementation were used to inform improvements to the process for subsequent years. Qualitative analysis was conducted on a sample of 450 DBOs to surface themes and trends in quality. As a result of the qualitative analysis and feedback from TGDC staff, the DBO template was updated for the following school year to improve their quality and to clarify requirements for submission. The updated template requires teachers to describe: ●
the core content that is covered by the objective, ●
their students’ baseline performance data, ●
the type of assessment or student work that will be used to measure student performance, ●
expected student performance outcomes, ●
the instructional strategies that will be used to help students achieve the objective, and ●
the action steps they will take to implement their strategies. LAUSD will continue to work with CORE waiver districts to develop a set of CORE‐wide guidelines that can improve the quality and consistency of our Data‐Based Objectives, which will continue to measure student growth in non‐tested grades and subjects. Initial Planning Sheet guide (Data‐Based Objective) and DBO Sample 1c. Self‐Rating Self‐Rating: 3 and Rationale: Rationale: See narrative above. What is your self‐rating score, and what is the rationale? 74 3a. FINAL Score : 3 Peer Review Score and Rationale : Data‐based Objectives being piloted Rationale (Reviewer #1) 3c. FINAL Peer Score : 3 Review Score and Rationale Rationale : Data‐based Objectives being piloted (Reviewer #2) 75 Item Response/Information 9. LEA utilizes EES to inform recruitment, promotion, tenure, transfer, lay off and dismissal decisions. Recruitment, promotion and tenure decisions are currently informed by the Teaching and Learning Framework and by TGDC data. The Teaching and Learning Framework (TLF) is now included in recruiting materials and shared with local university programs as our expectation for describing and identifying effective teaching. Interview questions now incorporate the Teaching and Learning Framework for selection decisions and the District performs reference checks on potential new hires based on the TLF (evidence included). Evaluation data is used to inform promotion and tenure decisions. Many teacher leadership roles require that the teacher be in good standing in order to be eligible for compensation to take on greater responsibilities. Evaluation information is also considered for promotional decisions to out‐of‐classroom or administrator positions. Additionally, principals are now working with Instructional Directors to carefully review evaluation data before making affirmative tenure decisions. The newly launched MyTeam platform provides administrators with historical data on a teacher’s overall performance based on TGDC. The district encourages the use of this data for transfer decisions. TGDC data may also determine that a teacher does not meet expectations for standard performance, leading to differentiated support and intervention, and possible dismissal. (Evidence included) Lay‐off decisions continue to be subject to the state Education Code, using seniority as the primary factor. In the future, LAUSD plans to further define how personnel decisions can be improved with the more differentiated and nuanced TGDC data to which we now have access. 1b. Evidence: examples to substantiate aspects of the summary provided in the narrative Human Resources teacher selection materials aligned to the Teaching and Learning Framework, Sample MyTeam guide on using TGDC data to inform decision‐making 76 1c. Self‐Rating and Rationale: What is your self‐rating score, and what is the rationale? Self‐Rating: 4 Rationale: See narrative above. 3a. FINAL Peer Review Score and Rationale (Reviewer #1) Score : 3 Rationale : MyTeam platform providing the ability to track performance to inform personnel decisions. 3c. FINAL Peer Review Score and Rationale (Reviewer #2) Score : 4 Rationale : MyTeam platform providing the ability to track performance to inform personnel decisions. 77 District Los Angeles Unified Item Expectation Principal Evaluation: 1‐9 Response/Information At LAUSD we are committed to continuous improvement; therefore, we solicit educators for input with every change to the School Leader Growth and Development Cycle (SLGDC). This commitment has been evident since the beginning of this work in 2009 when we engaged educators, labor representatives, and parents around a Teacher Effectiveness Task Force. This has included annual surveys and focus groups to participating administrators and ongoing meetings with Associated Administrators of Los Angeles, the administrators union. Furthermore, we have engaged researchers at the University of Southern California to conduct an independent program evaluation of our work, which includes surveys and case study interviews. Participant feedback has been vitally important to informing necessary adjustments to the TGDC, from broad policy changes such as delaying full implementation from SY2012‐13 to SY2013‐14 in order to use SY2012‐13 for administrator training and practice, to streamlining tools such as the Lesson Design template, to making it “easier to get the green check mark” on our online evaluation platform. Last school year, our evaluation partner USC solicited survey feedback from principals and Instructional Directors on the SLGDC. We also conducted mid‐year and end‐of‐year focus groups with principals and Instructional Directors participating in the 2013‐14 SLGDC pilot. For the 2014‐15 school year, we will solicit feedback from SLGDC participants (principals and Instructional Directors) through an end‐of‐year survey in collaboration with USC evaluators and conduct focus groups in order to make further improvements to the process. 1. LEA meaningfully engages stakeholders in the development, pilot and implementati
on of EES. 1b. Evidence: examples to substantiate aspects of the summary provided in the narrative Principle 3 Mid‐year SLGDC survey, End‐of‐year USC survey invitation and survey protocol, sample focus group notes 78 1c. Self‐Rating and Rationale: What is your self‐rating score, and what is the rationale? Self‐Rating: 4 Rationale: See narrative above. 3a. FINAL Peer Review Score and Rationale (Reviewer #1) Score : 3 Rationale : Multiple engagements led to change in pilot implementation. 3c. FINAL Peer Review Score and Rationale (Reviewer #2) Score : 4 Rationale : Multiple engagements led to change in pilot implementation. 79 Item Response/Information The LAUSD School Leadership Framework (rubric) has four levels of effectiveness listed as Ineffective=1, Developing=2, Effective=3, Highly Effective=4 (evidence included). These levels are aligned with behavioral indicators that define leadership performance at each level. While the current evaluation system in place uses two performance levels in the final evaluation rating, LAUSD has signed a new contract with the administrators union, AALA, establishing performance‐based compensation using 4 levels of performance in the final rating, with the expectation that the 4 performance levels will be formally negotiated in time for use in SY2015‐16 (evidence included). Principal managers (referred to as Instructional Directors) participate in annual training and calibration around the School Leadership Framework, tools and protocols for implementing the growth and development cycle (evidence included). Each evaluator must be preliminarily certified at a minimum in the areas of evidence collection and rating of practice through the lenses of objectivity, accuracy and representativeness, and receives formative feedback on their coaching skills based on the LAUSD Coaching Competencies Rubric. For example, all Instructional Directors just recently submitted a video of themselves conducting a coaching conversation with one of their principals, which will be reviewed using the Coaching Competencies Rubric (evidence included). Principals participate in annual training on the School Leadership Framework and the components of the growth and development cycle including self‐assessment, growth planning, goal setting and evidence collection. 2. EES uses viable methods to differentiat
e among 4 levels of effectivenes
s clearly defined and supported with required training and annual calibration for inter‐rater reliability. 1b. Evidence: examples to substantiate aspects of the summary provided in the narrative School Leadership Framework, Coaching Competencies Rubric, calibration event results from Summer 2014, AALA MOU for 2014‐17 80 1c. Self‐Rating and Rationale: What is your self‐rating score, and what is the rationale? Self‐Rating: 5 Rationale: See narrative above. 3a. FINAL Peer Review Score and Rationale (Reviewer #1) Score : 5 Rationale : 4 ratings, required training, extensive calibration. 3c. FINAL Peer Review Score and Rationale (Reviewer #2) Score : 5 Rationale : 4 ratings, required training, extensive calibration. 81 Item 3. EES cycle incorporate
s multiple data sources, collected with sufficient frequency, to determine effectivenes
s. 1b. Evidence: examples to substantiate aspects of the summary provided in the narrative Response/Information The School Leadership Growth and Development Cycle (SLGDC) includes at least 2 formal observations and 2 informal observations within the school year. Similar to the process described in the teacher self‐assessment, principals also create goals for making progress on student learning outcomes, capturing this in a Data‐Based Objective. Principals are evaluated every other year unless the principal manager deems it necessary to modify the evaluation cycle. (Evidence included) The SLGDC is in its second year of a pilot phase, with the expectation that LAUSD and the administrators union, AALA, will formalize an agreement to adapt SLGDC for stakes for the following school year in 2015‐16 (evidence included). The current principal evaluation system uses observation and the Data‐Based Objective as the primary components of the evaluation. Additional measures for the SLGDC are in development and will be tested in spring 2015. In addition to observation, we are considering teacher survey data via the annual LAUSD School Experience Survey; a measure of deliberate growth to capture progress on growth goals, and student outcome measures, and additional metrics on the LAUSD Performance Meter that will also be included in the SQIS (A‐G completion, suspension, graduation, EL reclassification, etc.). A project team is presently engaged in research of current practices across the country and will develop a minimum of 2 models to be tested in May/June 2015 and distributed to SLGDC pilot participants for feedback. SLGDC Protocols, AALA MOU on the SLGDC 82 1c. Self‐Rating and Rationale: What is your self‐rating score, and what is the rationale? Self‐Rating: 4 Rationale: See narrative above. 3a. FINAL Peer Review Score and Rationale (Reviewer #1) Score : 4 Rationale : System incorporates 2 formal and 2 informal observations. Other outcomes include teacher survey and learning outcome goals. 3c. FINAL Peer Review Score and Rationale (Reviewer #2) Score : 4 Rationale : System incorporates 2 formal and 2 informal observations. Other outcomes include teacher survey and learning outcome goals. 83 Item 4. EES is aligned with CORE Common Evaluation Guidelines for Teachers and Leaders. Response/Information The School Leadership Framework (SLF) is fully aligned with CORE Common Evaluation Guidelines for School Leaders. The SLF is organized by standards, components, and elements. Evidence: School Leadership Framework Priority: Vision Vision 1: Facilitating the development of shared vision for the achievement of all students based upon data from multiple measures. Component 2B: Develops a shared vision around high expectations for student learning 1. Develops, implements, and revises a shared vision of high expectations Component 2C: Creates a culture of continuous improvement 1.
Uses data to determine school‐wide goals 2.
Implements plans to accomplish school‐wide goals 3.
Monitors progress toward school‐wide goals Component 3A: Provides support for teachers to improve instruction 4.
Builds capacity of staff to analyze and utilize student data Vision 2: Communicating a shared vision to stakeholders Component 2B: Develops a shared vision around high expectations for student learning 2.
Communicates shared vision to stakeholders 84 Vision 3: Using the influence of diversity to improve teaching and learning Component 4A: Creates and maintains a culture conducive to educator growth 1.
Creates and maintains a collegial school culture 2.
Establishes positive workplace conditions for all staff Component 4B: Creates and maintains a culture conducive to student growth 1.
Establishes and maintains a positive climate for learning and student behavior 2.
Creates conditions that promote a shared sense of responsibility for students 3.
Creates a culturally responsive and equitable environment 4.
Provides opportunities for social‐emotional learning 5.
Motivates students toward goal attainment and future aspirations 6.
Engages all stakeholders in courageous conversations about bias and its effect on student learning Vision 4: Shaping school programs to align with the vision Component 2A: Leads and manages change 1.
Analyzes data to determine current state of the school 2.
Prioritizes issues and needs 3.
Creates a sense of urgency and shared responsibility 4.
Builds capacity of staff to adapt to and manage change Component 2B: Develops a shared vision around high expectations for student learning 1.
Develops, implements, and revises a shared vision of high expectations 2.
Communicates shared vision to stakeholders Component 2C: Creates a culture of continuous improvement 1.
Uses data to determine school‐wide goals 2.
Implements plans to accomplish school‐wide goals 3.
Monitors progress toward school‐wide goals 85 Priority: Instructional Leadership Instructional Leadership 1: Cultivating a collaborative culture of teaching and learning. Component 3A: Provides support for teachers to improve instruction and build leadership capacity 1.
Implements individual and group coaching and support 2.
Ensures high‐quality professional development 3.
Creates collaboration structures that support ongoing development 4.
Builds capacity of staff to analyze and utilize student data 5.
Creates and maintains distributive leadership opportunities Component 4A: Creates and maintains a culture conducive to educator growth 1.
Creates and maintains a collegial school culture 2.
Establishes positive workplace conditions for staff 3.
Manages respectful conflict resolution in the school community Instructional Leadership 2: Engaging faculty and staff in professional growth and learning Component 3A: Provides support for teachers to improve instruction and build leadership capacity 1.
Implements individual and group coaching and support 2.
Ensures high‐quality professional development 3.
Creates collaboration structures that support ongoing development 4.
Builds capacity of staff to analyze and utilize student data 5.
Creates and maintains distributive leadership opportunities Component 3B: Promotes quality teaching and learning 1.
Monitors school‐wide curriculum in relation to content standards and opportunity to learn 2.
Supports the implementation of effective pedagogical approaches 3.
Leads school‐wide data analysis to inform teaching and learning Component 3C: Assesses the performance of all staff 2. Provides actionable feedback to staff Component 4A: Creates and maintains a culture conducive to educator growth 1. Creates and maintains a collegial school culture 86 Instructional Leadership 3: Selecting and developing teachers to ensure high‐quality instruction Component 6A: Manages people, time and resources 1.
Aligns staffing and budget priorities with areas of need, school goals, and data 2.
Implements a clear selection and hiring process 3.
Designs and implements a strategic staffing plan Component 3C: Assesses the performance of all staff 1.
Conducts formal and informal observations 2.
Provides actionable feedback to staff 3.
Manages the evaluation process Component 3A: Provides support for teachers to improve instruction and build leadership capacity 1.
Implements individual and group coaching and support 2.
Ensures high‐quality professional development Instructional Leadership 4: Demonstrating curriculum expertise Component 1A: Models learning‐centered leadership behaviors 5. Facilitates, models, and evaluates the quality of professional development Component 3B: Promotes quality teaching and learning 1.
Monitors school‐wide curriculum in relation to content standards and opportunity to learn 2.
Supports the implementation of effective pedagogical approaches 3.
Leads school‐wide data analysis to inform teaching and learning 87 Priority: Management Management 1: Planning for effective programming, resource allocations and staffing _
Component 6A: Manages people, time and resources 1.
Aligns staffing and budget priorities with areas of need, school goals, and data 2.
Implements a clear selection and hiring process 3.
Designs and implements a strategic staffing plan 4.
Develops schedules and allocates space for learning 5.
Acquires, allocates and uses technology, materials, and other resources to support learning Management 2: Organizing to support student learning and meet objectives
Component 6A: Manages people, time and resources 1.
Aligns staffing and budget priorities with areas of need, school goals, and data 2.
Implements a clear selection and hiring process 3.
Designs and implements a strategic staffing plan 4.
Develops schedules and allocates space for learning 5.
Acquires, allocates and uses technology, materials, and other resources to support learning Component 6B: Creates and maintains a productive school environment 1.
Ensures a healthy and safe school environment 2.
Develops, implements, and reviews a system for school operations and structures 3.
Communicates with staff, students, and district leadership Management 3: Guiding development of systems and processes to maintain efficiencies, protocols and compliance with regulations Component 6C: Demonstrates legal and policy compliance 1. Ensures that school decisions and policies comply with legal requirements 2. Adheres to relevant district, local, state, and federal policies 88 Management 4: Monitoring progress towards objectives Component 2C: Creates a culture of continuous improvement 1.
Uses data to determine school‐wide goals 2.
Implements plans to accomplish school‐wide goals 3.
Monitors progress toward school‐wide 1b. Evidence: examples to substantiate aspects of the summary provided in the narrative Embedded above. 1c. Self‐Rating and Rationale: What is your self‐rating score, and what is the rationale? Self‐Rating: 5 Rationale: See narrative above. 3a. FINAL Peer Review Score and Rationale (Reviewer #1) Score : 5 Rationale : Clear cross‐walk provided between SLGDC and CORE Effectiveness Guidelines 3c. FINAL Peer Review Score and Rationale (Reviewer #2) Score : 5 Rationale : Clear cross‐walk provided between SLGDC and CORE Effectiveness Guidelines 89 Item 5. EES includes meaningful feedback cycles connected to professional growth. 1b. Evidence: examples to substantiate aspects of the summary provided in the narrative Response/Information Woven into the School Leader Growth and Development Cycle is an initial planning conference to develop goals for the year, a coaching conference following each formal observation (2), a mid‐year conference to review progress toward goal attainment and current performance based on the focus elements of the School Leadership Conference with a formative rating, and one final end‐of‐year conference. The mid‐year conference is an opportunity to collaboratively adjust goals and or strategically plan for collecting evidence of practice for the remainder of the cycle. The final end‐of‐year conference is an opportunity to reflect on growth and development, identify future focus areas for development and determine the summative evaluation rating. There are a minimum of five opportunities for feedback throughout the evaluation cycle, with the expectation that feedback is adjusted in each conference based on observation evidence and other data. (Evidence included) The 60+ Instructional Directors who manage principals meet at a monthly meeting for training, professional development and Professional Learning Community opportunities. This meet is called the Education Service Center Leadership Team (ESCLT) meeting. To plan for these district‐wide meetings, LAUSD analyzes SLGDC data and reviews actual evidence collected from the SLGDC pilot to identify areas that could benefit from further professional development during these ESCLT meetings. Notes from these analysis meetings are included as evidence, as is one of the ESCLT meeting presentation decks that was informed by this analysis ( evidence included ). In addition, the District conducted a professional development survey for ESCLT participants to further inform future PD areas ( meeting deck from 8/22/13 included ). SLGDC Protocols, Meeting notes from SLGDC evidence analysis, ESCLT meeting presentation for 9/27/13, ESCLT meeting presentation for 8/22/13 90 1c. Self‐Rating and Rationale: What is your self‐rating score, and what is the rationale? Self‐Rating: 5 Rationale: See narrative above. 3a. FINAL Peer Review Score and Rationale (Reviewer #1) Score : 5 Rationale : Five or more opportunities for feedback provided 3c. FINAL Peer Review Score and Rationale (Reviewer #2) Score : 5 Rationale : Five or more opportunities for feedback provided 91 Item Response/Information 6. EES informs cycles of instructional collaboratio
n, coaching and/or professional learning. As described previously, Instructional Directors provide individual coaching to principals through conferences embedded in the School Leader Growth and Development Cycle. Due to an organizational restructuring in 2012, Instructional Directors and principals are now better positioned for instructional collaboration, coaching, and/or professional learning (network structure for the ISIC Education Service Center included). Each Instructional Director oversees a “network” of principals to manage, and the Instructional Director works individually with these principals as well as facilitating monthly network professional development (meeting material included as evidence). Data from the School Leader Growth and Development Cycle are used to inform the coaching and professional learning experiences for the network and individual school leaders. We launched our new online platform for professional learning management, called MyProfessional Learning Network (MyPLN), for all certificated employees in the District this fall (2014). MyPLN includes workshop/course enrollment, online content connected to growth needs identified through the SLGDC and TGDC, and online collaboration spaces for educator communities to share resources and form virtual Professional Learning Communities (evidence included). Additionally, principals have access to customized professional learning opportunities throughout the cycle based on growth area and interests. 1.
LAUSD is working with the School Leaders Network to offer communities of practice for principals to problem‐solve in a safe network of peers to improve learning outcomes for their students. These collaborative networks meet monthly to share common challenges and critical problems of practice such as leading instructional shifts to the Common Core, creating rigorous ELD instructional systems, and leveraging TGDC to improve both teaching and learning. ( http://achieve.lausd.net/Page/1260 ) 2.
We provide support for new principals through the New Principal Support (NPS) Program, assisting new principals in navigating the various challenges faced during the first year of the principalship. The program offers seminars, mentor support, and a new principal network of support. ( http://achieve.lausd.net/Page/4677 ) 3.
The Leadership Practice Improvement program was recently launched with the organization New Leaders to improve practices of instructional leadership teams. 92 1b. Evidence: examples to substantiate aspects of the summary provided in the narrative Example of Principal network structure in the ISIC Education Service Center, ISIC Principal network meeting deck, MyPLN announcement and memo 1c. Self‐Rating and Rationale: What is your self‐rating score, and what is the rationale? Self‐Rating: 5 Rationale: See narrative above. 3a. FINAL Peer Review Score and Rationale (Reviewer #1) Score : 5 Rationale : Principals receive coaching, have team meetings and access to networks. 3c. FINAL Peer Review Score and Rationale (Reviewer #2) Score : 5 Rationale : Principals receive coaching, have team meetings and access to networks. 93 Item 7. EES incorporates one of the two SQIS options for measuring impact on student learning. Response/Information In our present agreement with the Associated Administrators of Los Angeles (AALA), student growth data will be used to determine one performance goal related to student learning outcomes during the initial planning/goal setting part of the cycle. The final evaluation will be guided by an analysis of the student growth data referenced in the principal’s performance goals. The final overall rating of performance will specifically reference the level of progress, and performance as it relates to the student outcome goal. The data sources are not specified within the current agreement and District procedures, so in the absence of statewide assessment data, principals are relying on other available assessments within the school district. During 2014‐2015 pilot of the School Leader Growth and Development Cycle, participating principals complete a self‐assessment and a review of student performance data and other sources of data to determine goals and benchmarks for the upcoming year that are aligned the Single Plan for Student Achievement. These goals are reviewed at three points during the evaluation cycle—during Individual growth planning, mid‐year conference and end of year conference (evidence included). In addition to district assessment data within the current evaluation process and the future SLGDC, we are exploring other student outcome metrics for future use in school leader evaluation. Some assessments and data points we are researching include the CAHSEE, Dibels, graduation rates, suspension rates, and EL reclassification, similar to the CORE waiver SQIS. At the end of the SLGDC 2014‐15 pilot, we plan to develop and disseminate sample student outcome data results to participating principals for feedback on the development of this measure. LAUSD will continue to collaborate with other CORE waiver districts to develop and use a SQIS growth measure that can be included in the evaluation in the future. LAUSD will also continue to negotiate on this issue in anticipation of 2015‐16. 94 1b. Evidence: examples to substantiate aspects of the summary provided in the narrative SLGDC protocols, pp 7 and 8 1c. Self‐Rating and Rationale: What is your self‐rating score, and what is the rationale? Self‐Rating: 5 Rationale: See narrative above. 3a. FINAL Peer Review Score and Rationale (Reviewer #1) Score : 5 Rationale : Agreement with AALA for one goal to be around student growth 3c. FINAL Peer Review Score and Rationale (Reviewer #2) Score : 5 Rationale : Agreement with AALA for one goal to be around student growth 95 Item 8. EES incorporates approved measures of student growth in non‐tested subjects and grades for measuring impact on student learning. 1b. Evidence: examples to substantiate aspects of the summary provided in the narrative Response/Information The Data‐Based Objective (DBO) uses a goal‐setting process to articulate expected student outcomes for an individual teacher, similar in purpose to Student Learning Objectives that are used in other school districts and states (e.g., Austin Independent School District, Denver Public Schools, Ohio Department of Education). The DBO is created at the beginning of the year during the planning phase of the TGDC, when educators identify objectives related to their students’ outcomes, their growth in instructional practice, and their professional growth for the year. Teachers are asked to review their current students’ prior assessment data, write appropriate growth goals, and describe the strategies they will use to meet those goals in order to complete their DBO. Teachers then reflect on progress made on their DBOs during an end‐of‐year reflection process. Administrators review their teachers’ DBOs during the planning process, acknowledge approval during a planning conference, review end‐of‐year progress, and provide comments on them as part of the final evaluation process. For administrators, the process parallels that of teachers except that the data they are to use are at the school level (evidence included). LAUSD will continue to work with CORE waiver districts to develop a set of CORE‐wide guidelines that can improve the quality and consistency of our Data‐Based Objectives, which will continue to measure student growth in non‐tested grades and subjects. SLGDC protocols, pp 7 and 8, Sample Principal Data‐Based Objective 96 1c. Self‐Rating and Rationale: What is your self‐rating score, and what is the rationale? Self‐Rating: 3 Rationale: See narrative above. 3a. FINAL Peer Review Score and Rationale (Reviewer #1) Score : 3 Rationale : Commitment to seeking alignment between DBOs and CORE requirements 3c. FINAL Peer Review Score and Rationale (Reviewer #2) Score : 3 Rationale : Commitment to seeking alignment between DBOs and CORE requirements 97 Item Response/Information 9. LEA utilizes EES to inform recruitment, promotion, tenure, transfer, lay off and dismissal decisions. The use of principal evaluation records to inform personnel decisions has been part of LAUSD policies and procedures for many years. Strong evaluation records are a major factor of any recruitment into the principal ranks and eligibility for the principalship and other instructional leadership positions. Unsatisfactory performance by a principal can lead to a transfer to another school or demotion to the individual’s previously held position. Layoffs are still subject to state seniority regulations and tenure with the District is typically established in the teacher position, not as an administrator. 2014‐15 is our second year of piloting the School Leader Growth and Development Cycle, and we plan to phase it in with “stakes” by 2015‐16. This will generate much more nuanced performance data with which to inform personnel decisions. LAUSD plans to revisit the use of SLGDC data to make various personnel decisions at that time. However, we have made several advances already: 1.
With the Human Capital Data Warehouse, called MyTeam, principal evaluations are accessible to principal managers electronically for the first time. 2.
We are also beginning to embed the language of the School Leadership Framework into personnel decisions, e.g., administrator interview questions, hiring criteria, and screening criteria for administrator preparation programs. 3.
The administrators union, AALA, has signed a new contract with the District establishing performance‐based compensation for its members in SY2014‐15, as well as in SY2015‐16, when the compensation would be based off of a four‐level system of evaluation (evidence provided). 4.
TGDC observer certification is a now a key eligibility criteria for aspiring principals as well as Teaching & Learning Coordinators and Teaching & Learning Observers. TGDC Certification status is becoming a desirable qualification in other administrative roles, and aspiring administrators have begun to increase demand for the District’s 5‐day observer training, beyond our sitting principals (evidence provided and posted online here: http://achieve.lausd.net/Page/7142 ). 98 1b. Evidence: examples to substantiate aspects of the summary provided in the narrative AALA MOU 2014‐17, E‐mail regarding observer certification requirement for principals 1c. Self‐Rating and Rationale: What is your self‐rating score, and what is the rationale? Self‐Rating: 4 Rationale: See narrative above. 3a. FINAL Peer Review Score and Rationale (Reviewer #1) Score : 4 Rationale : Good use of observer certification process and MyTeam 3c. FINAL Peer Review Score and Rationale (Reviewer #2) Score : 4 Rationale : Good use of observer certification process and MyTeam 99