Created by NWRESD Created by NWRESD Data Quality Project Data Quality Project CCSS Stewardship Committee EQuIP Network 2013 Common Core Stewardship Committee Purpose: To assure that lessons & units are aligned to Common Core State Standards and focused on depth of instruction using common criteria to determine quality. Objectives: Review lessons/units using the Quality Review Rubric Provide rating, suggestions and comments for lesson developer Common Core Stewardship Committee Professional Development Plan-Oregon Content Knowledge Instruction Assessment Understand the coherence of the CCSS standards and how the concepts and skills progress, build, and connect with one another Design units and lessons that support every student in meeting the math & ELA content and practice standards Create and use formative assessments to examine student learning and monitor progress in order to meet individual needs of students and to challenge students exceeding benchmark Understand the student learning requirements and be able to describe the expectations in terms of student actions-what does it look like when a student demonstrates the knowledge and skills stated in the standards? Implement evidence-based instructional strategies that scaffold learning to ensure students meet the rigor of the CCSS, and differentiate instruction to support the growth of each student Design tasks and experiences at the appropriate level of rigor that will enable students to demonstrate proficiency through a variety of responses Common Core Stewardship Committee Professional Development Plan Content Knowledge Instruction Assessment Develop an understanding of the major shifts between Oregon Standards and the CCSS (Building leaders) Provide dedicated and consistent teaming time to design units, select research-based instructional strategies, and assess learning (Building leaders) Use assessment data to determine instructional gaps and to conduct program evaluation at the building & district level Provide professional development to ensure staff acquires the knowledge and skills needed to design and implement assessments to monitor student progress and inform instruction Conduct professional development to help teachers develop the knowledge and skills needed to design instruction and assessments that meet the rigor of the CCSS (District) Create, monitor and support focused opportunities for teachers to collaborate across grade levels to discuss student learning progress (Building leaders) (District) Ensure that district instructional materials are coherent, consistent, comprehensive and support shifts in CCSS (District) (Building & District) EQuIP Network History of the Development of the Quality Review Rubric Four Dimensions of the Quality Review Rubric I. Alignment to the Depth II. Key Shifts in the CCSS III. Instructional and Supports IV. Assessment Quality Review Rubric MATHEMATICS Quality Review Steps for Individuals or Groups Step 1-Review Materials Step 2-Apply criteria in Dimension I: Alignment Note- Dimension I is non-negotiable. In order for the review to continue, a rating of 2 or 3 is required. Step 3-Apply criteria in Dimensions II-IV Step 4-Apply overall Rating and Summary Comments Step 5-Compare Overall Ratings & Determine Next Steps Quality Review Process for Individuals and Groups Step I Review Materials Step 5 Compare Overall Ratings and Determine Next Steps Step 4 Apply an Overall Rating and Provide Summary Comments Step 2 Apply Criteria in Dimension I Step 3 Apply Criteria in Dimensions II-IV Quality Review Principles & Agreements 1. Common Core: Before beginning a review, all members of a review team are familiar with the Common Core Standards. 2. Inquiry: Review processes emphasize inquiry rather than advocacy and are organized in steps around a set of guiding questions. 3. Respect & Commitment: Each member of a review team is respected as a valued colleague and contributor who makes a commitment to the EQuIP process. 4. Criteria & Evidence: All observations, judgments, discussions, and recommendations are criterion- and evidence-based. 5. Constructive: Lessons/units to be reviewed are seen as “works in progress.” Reviewers are respectful of contributors’ work and make constructive observations and suggestions based on evidence from the work. 6. Individual to Collective: Each member of a review team independently records his/her observations prior to discussion. Discussions focus on understanding all reviewers’ interpretations of the criteria and the evidence they have found. 7. Understanding & Agreement: The goal of the process is to compare and eventually calibrate our judgments so that we move toward agreement about CCSS Quality. Step I-Review Materials • Record the grade and title of the lesson/unit on the recording form: scan to see what the lesson/unit contains and how it is organized • Read key materials related to instruction, assessment and teacher guidance • Study and measure the text(s) that serve as a centerpiece for the lesson/unit analyzing text complexity, quality, scope, and relationship to instruction Step 2-QRR • Identify the grade level CCSS that the lesson/unit targets • Closely examine the materials through the “lens” of each criterion • Individually check each criterion for which clear and substantial evidence is found Step2-Apply Criteria • Identify and record input on specific improvements that might be made to meet criteria of strengthen alignment • Optional* Enter your rating 0-3 for Dimension I alignment Note: Dimension I is non-negotiable and a rating of 2 or 3 is required for the review to continue. If the review is discontinued, consider giving general feedback to developers/teachers regarding next steps Dimension I: Alignment to Depth of CCSS Check criteria for which clear evidence is found Make observations and suggestions in relation to criteria and evidence Determine a dimension rating based on checked criteria and observations Determine Alignment rating and continuation of review Compare Observations, Feedback, and Ratings • What is the pattern within our team in terms of the criteria we have checked? • Do our observations and feedback reference the criteria and evidence (or lack of evidence) in the instructional materials? • Does our feedback include suggested improvement(s)? Step 3-Continue Application of Criteria Apply criterion in Dimensions II-IV II. Key Shifts in the CCSS III. Instructional Supports IV. Assessment Closely examine the criterion through the “lens” of each criterion Record comments on criteria met, improvements needed and then rate 0-3 In depth with high expectations New conceptsPrevious understanding Demonstrate understanding Application Conceptual Understanding Procedural Skill & Fluency Dimension II: Key Shifts in the CCSS Check criteria for which clear evidence is found Make observations suggestions in relation to criteria and evidence Determine a dimension rating based on checked criteria and observations Researchbased •Clear & sufficient guidance •Academic language •Engaging •Instructional expectations •Scaffolding •Interventions for all learners Dimension III: Instructional Supports Check criteria for which clear evidence is found Make observations and suggestions in relation to criteria and evidence Determine a dimension rating based on checked criteria and observations Assessments: Pre-post Formative Summative Self-assessments Dimension IV: Assessment Check criteria for which clear evidence is found Make observations and suggestions in relation to criteria and evidence Determine a dimension rating based on checked criteria and observations Step 4-Overall Rating • Review ratings for Dimensions I-IV adding/clarifying comments as needed • Write summary comments for your overall rating on your recording sheet • Total dimension ratings and record overall ratings E=Exemplar E/I=Exemplar if improved R=Revision needed N=Not ready to review Step 5-Summary Note: 1.Evidence cited to arrive at final rating 2.Summary comments 3.Similarities & differences among raters Step 5-Next Steps Then: • Recommend next steps for the lesson/unit • Provide recommendations for improvement and/or ratings to developers/teachers Overall Rating: What does the creator of the lesson/unit need to know to improve the design? Which number on the rating scale best describes the current analysis of the lesson/unit? How is this rubric being used in Oregon? Teacher lesson and unit review Teacher lesson and unit development Data team and professional learning community collaboration District instructional materials review and selection State instructional materials review and adoption process 30 Extensions: Using the Quality Review Rubric • Curriculum materials selection process criteria • PLC/Data team data collection • Guide for lesson/unit development • Review of newly created materials • Review of existing materials • Screening materials to post on websites • Quality control/quality assurance of vendordeveloped materials • Training educators Special Thanks: Oregon Data Project Educators Evaluating Quality Instructional Products (EQuIP) Network, facilitated by Achieve Oregon Department of Education (ODE) ELA and Literacy Criteria Development Committee ODE Educational Improvement and Innovation Steering Committee Clackamas Education Service District Northwest Regional Education Service District Salem-Keizer School District Student Achievement Partners Oregon CCSS Stewardship Committee Tri-state Collaborative - Massachusetts, Rhode Island, and New York Departments of Education