All Districts Principle 1 Peer-Review Session
April 21, 2015
Sheraton, LAX
11:05 am – 1:45 pm
Session Outcomes
1.
2.
3.
4.
Agree upon Principle 1 Operating Norms
Discuss and Reach Consensus upon Peer-Review Scores for Principle 1
Finalize District Peer-Review Scores for Principle 1
Discuss/ Generate Peer-Review Final Comments
Agenda
11:05-11:20
I. Review Operating Norms
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
Use the rubric to guide self-review, peer feedback and scoring to avoid bias
Provide concise context and/or annotation for each piece of evidence
Seek clarification when needed. “Check it out when in doubt.”
Choose high-quality evidence that best illustrates points of the narrative
Provide feedback that supports LEA improvement and considers impact on
students
Ensure that the appropriate people are properly prepared and included in the
self- and peer-review process
II. Are there additional norms needed for the face-to-face Peer-Review
discussions/process/protocol?
11:25-1:30
Peer-Review Score Finalization Process and Protocol (Below)
Process
Protocol
Discussion Prompts
Final Comments
12:15-12:45
(embedded)
Working Lunch
(Triads break at self-determined logical time within process/protocol)
1:30-1:40
Reflection/Next Steps
Reflect on Self- and Peer-Review Process (questionnaire to be distributed)
Review Principle 1 Self- and Peer-Review Rubric
Process, Protocol, Prompts and Comments
Process (Develop a Session Time Use Plan)
Each triad will plan your time together using the following steps.
1. Retrieve agenda and slides for session here:
Confluence link to be added …
2. Each triad has approximately 2 hours and 40 minutes (including time to for a working lunch) to
finalize scores for all LEAs
3. The Score Finalization Protocol (below) calls for spending no more than 25 minutes per
expectation under review.
4. Decide the order of district review. Which LEA will go first, second, third?
5. Set timing goals based on the Peer-Review scores. Time prioritization should be given to
score discrepancies. Focus on discrepancies related to the rubric expectation cut-points.
6. Triads may consider allowing time for discussion of agreed upon problems of practice or
consultation with one another on development planning. Scoring reconciliation, however,
should be the first priority.
7. Select group roles
a. Timekeeper
b. Recorder (Use this link for discussion notes:
Protocol (Up to 25 min. per expectation in question)
This protocol is a stricter process to support Principle 1 district triads as you discuss clarifying question,
produce further evidence and reach consensus on final peer review scores for each other.
1. Retrieve scoring sheets and reviews from confluence:
http://collaborate.caedpartners.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=13402119
2. District under review lists all expectations to be discussed. Each expectation should be
allocated approximately 25 minutes for discussion.
3. For each expectation discussed, the follow the steps listed below:
a. Reviewer Rationale (4 min.) See prompts below.
i. Reviewer 1 states rationale for score (2 min.)
ii. Reviewer 2 states rationale for score (2 min.)
b. Submitting district responds (6 min.)
c. Triad discusses responses and arrives at final score (up to 15 min.)
d. Reviewers revise score sheets for that expectation as needed.
e. If consensus cannot be reached at the end of 25 minutes, please move to discussion
topics or planning time as determined by group.
Discussion Prompts
The following prompts may be used to facilitate discussion and reaching consensus.
Prompts for Stating Reviewer Rationale:



What aspect of the narrative led you to your conclusions?
Was there particular evidence or lack of evidence that influenced your decision?
Point to comments or clarifying questions if relevant.
Prompts for Responding to Rationale:



Was there a misinterpretation of the rubric or the narrative that can be easily resolved? If so,
explain.
Have you provided additional evidence if requested in the preliminary review? If so, identify
the additional evidence and review (please make sure it is also uploaded).
Do you have clarifying questions for your reviewers or for CORE staff?
Triad Consensus:


Have discrepancies been adequately addressed?
o If yes, move to final scoring
o If no, what steps does the group recommend? (e.g. more discussion time, site visit,
additional evidence, CORE staff review)
Are both reviewers in agreement on final scores?
o If yes, record final scores
o If no, can both scores stand or is a cut-point involved?1
o If a cut-point is involved, what are the recommended next steps? (e.g. more
discussion time, site visit, additional evidence, CORE staff review)
Final Comments
To the extent feasible, final peer-review comments will be derived and recorded by the reviewers on
the reviewed district’s review documents during the process/protocol.
Retrieve scoring sheets from confluence:
http://collaborate.caedpartners.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=13402119
1
Both reviewers do not need to have the same score if both agree that the domain has or has not reached the cutpoint. Only discrepancies related to cut-point must be reconciled because they require a specific action (i.e. a
development plan).