8/1/13
Arlington Independent School District
A Public Report on the Curriculum Management Audit Texas Association of School Administrators
Dr. Kevin Singer
June 27, 2013
A Word of Apprecia9on from the Arlington Independent School District Audit Team •  Thank you for your hospitality, many courtesies and candor •  Our requests for documents were received with a posi:ve and helpful manner •  We exited with many posi:ve images of the Arlington independent School District 1
8/1/13
The Content of this Presenta9on •  The audit team •  Audit standards and data •  The audit lens and conceptual model •  General comments about the Arlington Independent School District and broad brush themes/explana:ons •  Alignment and the current situa:on in Arlington •  Overview of audit findings and recommenda:ons •  Summary Learning Opportuni9es 2
8/1/13
Recommended Procedure for the Curriculum Audit •  The School District “receives” the audit, it does not “accept” the audit •  Upon the receipt of the audit, the District requests guidance from the Superintendent about the audit’s recommenda:ons •  Then the District decides what it will do The Curriculum Audit Team •  Dr. Kevin Singer •  Dr. Jean Kemp •  Dr. BeMy Bates •  Dr. Kelli Murray •  Dr. Maya Edwards •  Dr. Eve ProffiM •  Mr. Brian Ellis •  Mr. John Rouse •  Dr. Penny Gray •  Ms. Sue Shidaker •  Dr. Daya Hill •  Dr. Zollie Stevenson •  Dr. Janet Hindman •  Dr. Bill Streshly •  Dr. Olive McArdle-­‐Kulas •  Ms. Christy Tidwell 3
8/1/13
Audit Standards 1) CONTROL 2) DIRECTION 3) CONNECTIVITY and EQUITY 4) FEEDBACK 5) PRODUCTIVITY Data Sources of the Audit •  Documents (Policies, plans, curriculum guides, linkage documents, assessment reports, organiza:onal performance, etc.) •  Interviews (District Officials, Administrators, Teachers, Parents, Patrons, etc.) •  School Site Visita:ons (All schools were visited during the audit site visit) 4
8/1/13
The Curriculum Audit •  Is a highly structured, intensive examina:on of selected func:ons in a school system •  The school system is the unit of analysis •  Curriculum is neither designed nor delivered in a vacuum, but in a human organiza:on called a school system The Audit Team’s Lens The influence of local control of schools AUDIT
TEAM
LENS
•  District policy
•  Local goals
•  Audit standards
Arlington
Independent
School
District
5
8/1/13
A School System Is Audited... A school system is audited against its own goals and objec:ves because it is a separate legal and unique opera:onal en:ty The Conceptual Core The Core of the Audit is Quality Control Written Curriculum
Taught
Curriculum
Tested
Curriculum
6
8/1/13
The Conceptual Core The Core of the Audit is Quality Control Written Curriculum
Quality
Control
Taught
Curriculum
Tested
Curriculum
Three elements of Quality Control •  (1) a wriGen curriculum that can be translated into the work of teachers in classrooms, •  (2) a taught curriculum shaped by the wriMen curriculum, and •  (3) a tested curriculum consis:ng of the assessment tools of pupil learning which are linked to both the taught and wriMen curricula. 7
8/1/13
What Makes a Difference •  The essence of quality control is the capability of the school system to bring into congruence the wriMen, taught, and tested curricula •  Because by bringing them into congruence the system teaches more of what it tests •  30 years of research say children do beMer when taught what is tested than not •  No amount of exemplary instruc:on is a subs:tute for teaching the “right stuff.” Tightly Held Loosely Held!
(System-based)!
(School-based)!
" ENDS " MEANS " MISSION " INSTRUCTION " STANDARDS " STRATEGIES " GOALS AND PRIORITIES " GROUPINGS " STUDENT OBJECTIVES " STAFFING " STUDENT ASSESSMENTS " PROCESSES " RESOURCES/TEXTBOOKS ©2007 CMSi
16
8
8/1/13
100-­‐ 80 Rule •  Teach 100 percent of the adopted curriculum •  The adopted curriculum represents no more than 80 percent of the instruc:onal days What will you clean? You have 60 minutes to clean ___ Sweeping the Floors ___ Washing Windows your house. ___ Vacuuming ___ Cleaning the Toilets Based on your ___ Washing the Walls ___ Polishing Woodwork experience, allocate these ___ Making the Beds ___ Polishing Woodwork minutes to the ___ Dus:ng ___ Washing Dishes following tasks: 60 Total Minutes 9
8/1/13
Did we select the same items and assign the same 9mes? ___ Sweeping the Floors ___ Vacuuming ___ Washing the Walls ___ Making the Beds ___ Dus:ng ___ Washing Windows ___ Cleaning the Toilets ___ Polishing Woodwork ___ Cleaning the Kitchen ___ Washing Dishes As a General Observa9on The Arlington Independent School District is a school system that desires and appreciates the support of its community, wants to improve academic rigor, and works to improve educa:onal opportuni:es for its popula:on. The audit provides a special and cri:cal “window” of opportunity to improve performance and produc:vity. 10
8/1/13
Knowing the Difference Between Learning and Achievement New learning
programs will
not improve
achievement
unless they
include
content via
deep alignment
that is tested
The learning that is
measured
LEARNING
A ShiS in Cultures is Required •  From a culture which one could call “tradi:onal” or “conven:onal” (no pejora:ve terminology is intended) •  To a data driven culture. There are specific requirements in one that are not produc:ve in the other 11
8/1/13
How Tradi9onal Educa9onal Culture Translates the “do beGer” Command “do beMer” becomes “do more” Means “MORE”
•  initiatives
•  programs
•  methods
•  curriculum
Curriculum depth
is the same or less
Curriculum scope
is expanded
Traditional Culture: becoming more effective means
working harder and doing “more”
On-­‐the-­‐other-­‐hand, if the culture is data driven •  More diversifica:on (scope) is ineffec:ve and non-­‐responsive •  Working harder won’t produce the results desired •  Because “less” and “deeper” is the correct response within alignment (test/curriculum matches and focus on priority content/context) 12
8/1/13
The Requirements of a Data Driven Culture Need a Different Set of Responses That Are Counter Intui9ve to Many Educators •  Adding “more” to an already crowded plate is counter-­‐
produc:ve •  Diversifica:on (as an interpreta:on of “more”) occurs only within an alignment of test and curriculum •  An example, outside program vs. inside program responses (Dimensions of learning, Gardner’s 7 intelligences, etc.) Most Standardized Test Improvements •  Can occur without any radical changes in instruc:onal methods. •  They are normed on “conven:onal” methods and approaches •  They are largely a measure of “the curriculum of the home” •  To overcome SES variables requires alignment (test/
curriculum match) 13
8/1/13
Interpre9ng Norm Referenced Standardized Test Results •  For nearly 30 years the research on norm-­‐referenced standardized tests shows that these 4 variables explain nearly all of the sta:s:cal significance of test results: –
–
–
–
the educa:on of the parents parental income number of parents in the home community type (dominant SES level) •  For each $10,000 in income, SAT scores are 30 points higher About Changing the Culture It is becoming increasingly apparent that accountability means being responsible for “results.” That means becoming sensi:ve to and using “data” (usually in the form of disaggregated test data) in different ways than before. 14
8/1/13
What Does It Mean to be Data Driven? •  Goals and objec:ves must be stated in terms that are measurable •  Goals/objec:ves are congruent (matched) with the assessment selected •  Data produced by ac:vi:es, designed to aMain the objec:ves, are disaggregated and reconnected to the ac:vi:es (cont.) Data Driven Decision Making (cont.) •  Ac:vi:es are changed (re-­‐designed, re-­‐sequenced, re-­‐focused, re-­‐scheduled, modified) based on the data received and re-­‐connected •  It is in the nature of the changes that determine how successful the system will be in aMaining the goals/
objec:ves 15
8/1/13
What It Means for Instruc9on •  Based on Data Derived from Congruent •
•
•
•
Assessment... The content of what is taught is changed Content is rescheduled and re-­‐sequenced within the curriculum Content is taught differently if necessary Content is re-­‐taught differently The Nature of Data Reconnec9on The concept behind data reconnec:on is to create maximum parallelism between what and how the assessment interacts with students (the tested curriculum) and what is present and experienced in classrooms (the taught curriculum) (E.L. Thorndike, 1917) 16
8/1/13
Improving Assessment Results … is an applica:on of transfer theory which today is simply called: ALIGNMENT Two Levels of Alignment Topological alignment Some:mes called surface alignment, it means matching topic and sequence from test to teaching Deep alignment Means matching test context with classroom context and deriva:ve methods to establish the match 17
8/1/13
Tunnel Ac9vity Scale!
Group 1!
Group 2!
Group 3!
Group4!
Group 5!
©2006 CMSi
Did we Accomplish the Task? Why? Why Not?!
©2006 CMSi
18
8/1/13
Alignment •  Seldom occurs by chance •  It takes: •  Understanding of the Purpose – it’s not about control of the adult •  Desire to Accomplish – we’re not independent contractors •  Willingness to Communicate •  Knowledge of the Subject ©2006 CMSi
Breaking the Cycle of Socio-Economic
Determinism with Curriculum Alignment!
Socio-economic Level!
Socio-!
Economic!
Test Scores!
Effective!
Schools!
Curricular!
Alignment!
Test!
Scores!
Curriculum!
Management!
19
8/1/13
NAEP RESULTS What Is Deep Alignment? Quality Control No alignment
Surface alignment
Deep alignment
Teaching
Teaching
Teaching
Test
Test
Test
• no match
• topic/content match
• sequence match
• test question analysis
• vocabulary, processes, concepts
• applications and format match
• student in-class practice
20
8/1/13
The Problem of Exit Tests
and Curricular Articulation
Percent of"
Total Curriculum"
Tested By Level"
"
100%"
"
69%"
"
0%"
State Exit Test
High School
Curriculum
Junior High School
Curriculum
Elementary School
Curriculum
Curriculum"
Contributed by Level"
"
"
31%"
"
15%"
"
6th Grade: 54%"
4th Grade: 39%"
©2007 CMSi
41
Improving Scores or “Doing BeGer” Results in: •  The prac:ce of “deep alignment” •  Matching test content/context with classroom content/context •  Re-­‐designing classroom contexts and ac:vi:es to improve performance. That usually means “prac:ce” it. That’s called “learning”. 21
8/1/13
Case Study: ASer One Year of Deep Alignment “Curriculum alignment, when used in a large metropolitan school district, had a significant posi:ve effect on the student achievement of ALL third graders (n=4,000) in mathema:cs. This is evident by the overall significant NCE mean score gains of ALL matched third graders, who performed above one year’s gain on the Iowa Test of Basic Skills” Felicia Moss Mitchell, 1998 More Importantly... “There is no sta:s:cally significant difference in the effects of curriculum alignment ater one year of treatment when analyzed by socioeconomic level, race, gender, or school size.” (Mitchell, 1999) [note: these are tradi>onal predictors of achievement on un-­‐aligned tests, i.e., unaligned to local curriculum from the test] 22
8/1/13
The Final Audit Lens: Local Control The Hallmark of American Educa:on is the Concept of Local Control Developing a Cohesive Policy: Focus is the Key The Board’s Policy Func:on Is Crucial to Improving System Performance and Produc:vity 23
8/1/13
The Board’s Role •  To develop effec:ve policies, to direct and lead by policy in concert as a corporate body •  To monitor the implementa:on of policies •  To evaluate the effec:veness of the implementa:on of policies •  To be held accountable by the public for the overall performance of the school district What Policy Does •  Sets boundaries/parameters •  S:pulates priori:es •  Defines terms, establishes meanings •  Sets forth procedures and processes •  Establishes accountability 24
8/1/13
Policy Establishes Rela9onships and Processes •  Policy “pre-­‐structures” the way things are supposed to work •  Policy should keep the board in a proac:ve rather than a reac:ve posture •  Without policy the board’s role is reduced to: (1) naysaying or approving (the cap:ve emperor posi:on); (2) nitpicking on the back end of decisions Both the Board and Superintendent Are Engaged In Meta-­‐Management Co-­‐partners THE BOARD
SUPERINTENDENT
POLICY
OPERATIONS
The line between policy and operations is rarely clean cut and
may not be present; but nearly all of the work is metamanagement
25
8/1/13
Metamanagement: The Management of Managers •  Represents the defini:on of work to be done •  The establishment of overall goals and priori:es •  The plan for the work to be done, its subdivision and proper assignment •  The scheduling (:meline) for the work to be completed •  The evalua:on and re-­‐sequencing of the work •  Arranging for budgetary support for the work The Superintendent’s Execu9ve Func9on •  The Superintendent’s Role is to Execute Board Policy by Engaging in the Transla:on of Policy Into Plans and Processes which will become Opera:onal at the Building and Classroom levels: •  The Superintendent is the Person Who Actually Manages and Operates the System 26
8/1/13
Audit Terminology •  Design
•  Delivery •  Architect •  Builder •  Adequate •  Effec:ve •  Inadequate
•  Ineffec:ve Major Audit Findings by Standard A Brief Overview of the Major Findings of the Arlington Independent School District Curriculum Management Audit 27
8/1/13
Curriculum Audit Standard Areas •  Control: Governance and Leadership •  Direc:on: Curriculum and Learning •  Equity, Equality and Connec:vity •  Feedback and Assessment •  Produc:vity and Resource Use STANDARD ONE:
Governance and Leadership
CONTROL: I.
© 2007 CMSi
The school system is able to demonstrate its control of resources, programs, and personnel. 56
28
8/1/13
Standard 1: The School District Demonstrates Its Control of Resources, Programs, and Personnel Finding 1.1: Board policies and administra:ve regula:ons do not provide adequate quality guidance needed for effec:ve management of curriculum and related district func:ons, consistency in organiza:onal opera:ons, or system quality control. See Recommenda:on 1 Standard 1: The School District Demonstrates Its Control of Resources, Programs, and Personnel Finding 1.2: Evidence of planning is found in the AISD but the district lacks a systemic, cohesive planning process. Planning efforts across divisions, departments, and schools are not :ghtly connected or monitored for results. The district and school improvement plans are inadequate to promote change. See Recommenda:on 2 29
8/1/13
Standard 1: The School District Demonstrates Its Control of Resources, Programs, and Personnel Finding 1.3: The design of the table of organiza:on is inconsistent with most principles of sound organiza:onal management and has far too many posi:ons repor:ng directly to the superintendent. Job descrip:ons meet audit criteria for being rated strong. •  See Recommenda:on 8 Standard 1: The School District Demonstrates Its Control of Resources, Programs, and Personnel Finding 1.4: The staff appraisal and supervision instrument is rated consistently across all school levels. Ninety-­‐nine percent of all ra:ngs are rated as “exceeds expecta:ons” or “proficient”, while one percent of the ra:ngs are “below expecta:ons” and no ra:ngs were “unsa:sfactory>.” The instrument is not being used to regular differen:ate quality teaching from unsa:sfactory teaching. •  See Recommenda:on 8 30
8/1/13
STANDARD TWO:
Curriculum and Learning
DIRECTION: II.  The school system has established clear and valid objec:ves for students. © 2007 CMSi
61
Standard 2: The school district has established clear and valid objec9ves for students. Finding 2.1: The district lacks a comprehensive curriculum management plan to establish processes, procedures and :melines for curriculum review, development, and implementa:on. See Recommenda:on 3 31
8/1/13
Standard 2: The school district has established
clear and valid objectives for students.
Finding 2.2: The scope of the wriMen curriculum is adequate in grades PreK-­‐6, but inadequate in Grades 7-­‐12 to provide direc:on for teachers in planning classroom instruc:on. See Recommenda:on 4 Standard 2: The school district has established clear and valid objec9ves for students.
Finding 2.3: WriMen curriculum guides lack the minimum quality necessary to support effec:ve classroom instruc:on. See Recommenda:on 4 32
8/1/13
Standard 2: The school district has established clear and valid objec9ves for students.
Finding 2.4: Curriculum design of resources to support effec:ve delivery of the district curriculum is inadequate to support student learning and success on state, local, and na:onal tests. See Recommenda:on 4 Standard 2: The school district has established clear and valid objec9ves for students.
Finding 2.4: Curriculum design of resources to support effec:ve delivery of the district curriculum is inadequate to support student learning and success on state, local, and na:onal tests. See Recommenda:on 4 33
8/1/13
Standard 2: The school district has established clear and valid objec9ves for students.
Finding 2.4: Curriculum design of resources to support effec:ve delivery of the district curriculum is inadequate to support student learning and success on state, local, and na:onal tests. See Recommenda:on 4 STANDARD THREE: Equality, Equity, and
Connectivity
CONNECTIVITY AND EQUITY: III.  The school system demonstrates internal connec:vity, ra:onal equality, and equity in its program development and implementa:on. © 2007 CMSi
68
34
8/1/13
Standard 3: The school district demonstrates internal connec9vity and ra9onal equity in its program development and implementa9on.
Finding 3.1: Dispari:es, inequi:es, and inconsistencies exist among schools in a variety of func:ons, programs, services, and enrollment paMerns and are impeding the district’s pursuit of quality educa:on for all students. See Recommenda:on 7 Standard 3: The school district demonstrates internal connec9vity and ra9onal equity in its program development and implementa9on. Finding 3.2: Monitoring of curriculum delivery is undefined, inconsistent, and inadequate; it does not promote the effec:ve integra:on of the wriMen curriculum or instruc:onal strategies and prac:ces that address varying student needs. See Recommenda:on 6 35
8/1/13
Standard 3: The school district demonstrates internal connec9vity and ra9onal equity in its program development and implementa9on. Finding 3.3 District data suggest that professional development is inadequate to improve or enhance skills in quality curriculum design and wri:ng, effec:ve curriculum delivery, and instruc:onal prac:ces. Monitoring and evalua:on of these aspects of the educa:onal program are lacking in quan:ty, quality, and systemic coordina:on. See Recommenda:on 9 •  Standard 3: The school district demonstrates internal connec9vity and ra9onal equity in its program development and implementa9on. Finding 3.4: The instruc:onal strategies and classroom ac:vi:es that auditors observed during school visits, lacked congruence with district expecta:ons and commonly accepted effec:ve prac:ces known to impact student learning and obtain higher achievement goals. See Recommenda:on 9 36
8/1/13
Standard 3: The school district demonstrates internal connec9vity and ra9onal equity in its program development and implementa9on. Teacher Ac:vity Student Ac:vity Large Group Large Group Small Group Small Group Individual Individual Monitoring Other STANDARD FOUR:
Student and Program Assessment
FEEDBACK: IV.  The school system uses the results from system-­‐
designed and/or adopted assessment to adjust, improve, or terminate ineffec:ve prac:ces or programs. © 2007 CMSi
74
37
8/1/13
Standard 4: The school district uses the results from system-­‐designed and/or –
adopted assessments to adjust, improve, or terminate ineffec9ve prac9ces or programs. Finding 4.1: The district lacks a comprehensive student assessment and program evalua:on system plan to guide decision making for improvement of student achievement. See Recommenda:on 5 Standard 4: The school district uses the results from system-­‐designed and/or –
adopted assessments to adjust, improve, or terminate ineffec9ve prac9ces or programs. Finding 4.2: The scope of the student assessment program is inadequate to provide sufficient data for instruc:onal decision making in all areas of the curriculum and at all grade levels. See Recommenda:on 5 38
8/1/13
Standard 4: The school district uses the results from system-­‐designed and/or –
adopted assessments to adjust, improve, or terminate ineffec:ve prac:ces or programs. Finding 4.3: While district staff have priori:zed the examina:on of student data and have been using some forma:ve and summa:ve data to make instruc:onal decisions, the quality and use of forma:ve diagnos:c data are inadequate to inform instruc:on and improve student achievement. See Recommenda:on 5 Standard 4: The school district uses the results from system-­‐designed and/or –
adopted assessments to adjust, improve, or terminate ineffec9ve prac9ces or programs. Finding 4.4: Achievement results from state, na:onal and interna:onal assessments reflect limited improvement in academic performance over recent years and also reflects an achievement gap among racial and socioeconomic subgroups. See Recommenda:on 5 39
8/1/13
TAKS Reading Assessments 100 95 2007 90 2008 85 2009 80 2010 75 2011 70 Grade 3 Grade 4 Grade 5 Grade 6 Grade 7 TAKS Reading Assessments 95 2007 90 2008 2009 85 2010 80 2011 2012 75 Grade 8 Grade 9 Grade 10 Grade 11 40
8/1/13
TAKS Math Assessments 84 82 80 78 76 74 72 70 68 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 Grade 3 Grade 4 Grade 5 Grade 6 Grade 7 TAKS Math Assessments 100 80 2007 2008 60 2009 40 2010 20 2011 2012 0 Grade 8 Grade 9 Grade 10 Grade 11 41
8/1/13
TAKS Science Assessments 100 80 2007 2008 60 2009 40 2010 20 2011 2012 0 Grade 5 Grade 8 Grade 10 Grade 11 TAKS Soc. St. Assessments 100 98 96 94 92 90 88 86 84 82 80 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 Grade 8 Grade 10 Grade 11 42
8/1/13
SAT 1040 1030 1020 1010 1000 990 980 970 960 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 Standard 4: The school district uses the results from systemdesigned and/or –adopted assessments to adjust, improve, or
terminate ineffective practices or programs.
Finding 4.5: Programs are not formally planned, monitored, or evaluated for effec:veness. Use of data to improve student achievement outcomes is inadequate beyond the analysis step and is ineffec:ve in solving curricular and instruc:onal concerns. See Recommenda:on 5 43
8/1/13
STANDARD FIVE:
Productivity and Resource Use
PRODUCTIVITY: V.  The school system has improved produc:vity, with the same or diminishing resources. © 2007 CMSi
87
Standard 5: The school district has improved productivity.
Finding 5.1: According to the district’s cer:fied public accountant, the AISD is financially stable, and its budget development plan contains elements of a curriculum-­‐
driven budget process; however, decision-­‐making concerning spending priori:es lacks consistent and effec:ve cost-­‐benefit analysis required to improve produc:vity. See Recommenda:on 10 44
8/1/13
Standard 5: The school district has improved productivity.
Finding 5.2: School facili:es are adequately maintained and generally clean. Some classrooms are crowded and instruc:onal ac:vity is hampered due to the use of temporary buildings and by core facili:es which are inadequate to serve the needs of increased numbers of students. See Recommenda:on 2, Sub-­‐Recommenda:on Standard 5: The school district has improved productivity.
Finding 5.3: The district’s technology plan is not adequate to guide the instruc:onal use of technology as a tool for advancing student learning. See Recommenda:on 2, Sub-­‐Recommenda:on 45
8/1/13
Standard 5: The school district has improved productivity.
Finding 5.4: Technology is abundant in the district; but its’ use is inconsistent and does not align with district expecta:ons in all schools. See Recommenda:on 6 Standard 5: The school district has improved productivity.
Finding 5.5: The design for management of produc:vity-­‐enhancing interven:ons to improve student achievement does not meet audit standards of adequacy. Policies lack sufficient guidance, and plans for some interven:ons are not yet readily available. See Recommenda:on 11 46
8/1/13
Audit Recommenda9ons A Brief Overview of the Audit Recommenda:ons for the Arlington Independent School District Recommenda9on 1 Review, revise, adopt and implement board policies mee:ng the characteris:cs of sound curriculum management with special emphasis codifying, in board policy, the current planning func:on of the district. See Finding 1.1 47
8/1/13
Recommenda9on 2 Ini:ate efforts to incorporate planning for all func:ons under the umbrella of the comprehensive planning process to ensure linkage of organiza:onal efforts and to support shared purpose. Review and revise the District plan to meet audit criteria. See Finding 1.2 Sub-­‐Recommenda9on 2 Technology planning: Revise the exis:ng district technology plan to address the quality of criteria for an instruc:onal technology program. See Finding 5.3 48
8/1/13
Sub-­‐Recommenda9on 2 Facili:es planning: Develop a district facility plan to address the components of a comprehensive long-­‐
range facili:es plan and that is aligned with other district planning documents. See Finding 5.2 Recommenda9on 3 Develop, document, and execute a curriculum management process to establish control of the curriculum. The process should include the following aspects of curriculum management: design, delivery, monitoring, student and program evalua:on, and professional development to support curriculum delivery. See Finding 2.1 49
8/1/13
Recommenda9on 4 Develop and implement a system that directs curriculum revision to ensure curriculum documents are of the highest quality, communicate high expecta:ons for all students, deeply align with high stakes assessments, and define the instruc:onal model district leaders expect teachers to follow to aMain the vision expressed in the Strategic Plan 2012-­‐2015. See Findings 2.2, 2.3, and 2.4 Recommenda9on 5 Develop a comprehensive student assessment and program evalua:on system plan that provides for the systemic collec:on, analysis, dissemina:on, and applica:on of student achievement and program evalua:on results to promote improved student achievement. Update Board policies to provide direc:on for forma:ve assessment development and program evalua:on and develop administra:ve procedures that formalize the process for developing high quality forma:ve assessments, conduc:ng program evalua:on and using disaggregated data to improve curriculum design and delivery. See Findings 4.1, 4.2, 4.3, 4.4, and 4.5 50
8/1/13
Recommenda9on 6 Design and implement a process for monitoring the use of technology which is aligned with the school district’s expecta:ons for the integra:on of technology in the classroom to improve student achievement. See Findings 3.2 and 5.4 Recommenda9on 7 Develop and implement both short-­‐term and long-­‐
range strategies that will iden:fy and eliminate dispari:es and inequi:es affec:ng students’ learning success in all schools. See Finding 3.1 51
8/1/13
Recommenda9on 8 Clarify roles, responsibili:es and prac:ces of administra:ve personnel to promote sound and effec:ve organiza:onal management. Provide a smooth transi:on to the new evalua:on system, ensuring that it is used to improve instruc:on rather than adhere to state compliance requirements. See Findings 1.3 and 1.4 Recommenda9on 9 Develop a district professional development plan that incorporates emphasis on growth in curriculum design, wri:ng, and delivery; effec:ve classroom strategies to engage the variety of learners; and skilled data use for instruc:onal and curricular decision-­‐making. Include a process for review of implementa:on and subsequent evalua:on of the quality and effec:veness of both district and site-­‐based professional development. See Findings 3.3 and 3.4 52
8/1/13
Recommenda9on 10 Design and implement a comprehensive, curriculum-­‐driven budget process that links resources to instruc:onal priori:es to enhance student achievement in an era of reduced resources. See Finding 5.1 Recommenda9on 11 Develop and implement a system for selec:ng, planning, implemen:ng, monitoring, and evalua:ng program interven:ons. See Finding 5.5 53
8/1/13
Mathema9cs and Science Review " An addi:onal review beyond the scope of a regular audit " Analyzed district curriculum with state, na:onal and interna:onal standards " Content, context and cogni:ve analyses were conducted for each subject area. Mathema9cs Review " Comparisons were made with the current TEKS, the Revised TEKS / Common Core for Mathema:cs, the Interna:onal Baccalaureate, and the Singapore Na:onal Mathema:cs Curriculum. " This analysis included an objec:ve-­‐by-­‐
objec:ve comparison of the curricula. 54
8/1/13
Mathema9cs Review " AISD was closely aligned with current TEKS " AISD differed slightly from the revised TEKS " AISD and Singapore differed on process skills, number of objec:ves, and some content. " AISD and IB differed on some content (vectors, complex numbers, probability, etc.) Mathema9cs Review " The revised TEKS and the interna:onal standards require higher order thinking skills " The assessments are much more difficult (selec:ng appropriate strategies for mul:ple step problems while jus:fying reasoning) " Context is included in the external curricula. 55
8/1/13
Science Review " Comparisons were made with the Minnesota State Science Standards, the Interna:onal Baccalaureate Programme, and the Singapore Na:onal Science curriculum. " Objec:ves were grouped together for beMer comparison and more extensive cogni:ve and contextual analysis was added. Science Review " AISD has a broader scope with less detail than MN. " Singapore has no objec:ves for scien:fic processes. It stresses inquiry. " The IB curriculum has no separate objec:ves for scien:fic processes. Inquiry is stressed. 56
8/1/13
Science Review " AISD had more standards and benchmarks to cover than in the outside curricula. " Singapore starts tracking students for science ater grade 6. " AISD was less detailed at the secondary level than Singapore or IB. Summary The leadership of the Arlington Independent School District has several opportuni:es in the coming years. The Board and the Superintendent must coopera:vely and boldly address quality control issues facing the community’s public schools. 57
8/1/13
The Stakes Are Too High To Fail These are not :mes in the Arlington Independent School District for the faint of heart. It will take sustained and courageous leadership to keep the system at a high performing level. Future historians will look back at the decisions made now as indica:ve of the commitment, wisdom, and intelligence of the leaders of our :mes. You have the leadership in place to implement these changes. The next steps are yours. Personal Experience Using Audit Principles ACT Na:onal Merit Scholars 50
25
40
24
30
23
20
22
10
21
0
Semi
Finalists
20
Comp
Re
Ma
116
58
8/1/13
Personal Experience Using Audit Principles Sixth Grade: Iowa Test of Basic Skills Third Grade:
Iowa Test of Basic Skills
100
90
80
70
60
50
Re
La
Sp
Ma
Co
Sc
SS
117
Personal Experience Using Audit Principles: KS Assmt. 90
% meeting standard
80
70
60
50
Reading
Math
40
30
20
10
0
2003
2004
2005
2006
118
59
8/1/13
Personal Experience Using Audit Principles: KS Assmt. 45
40
35
30
25
% commended
20
% spec. ed
commended
15
10
5
0
2003
2004
2005
2006
119
Personal Experience Using Audit Principles: ELA 20
Percent Proficient
18
16
14
12
10
8
6
4
2
0
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
120
60