January 22, 2015
resources
http://bit.ly/jan15execldr
Setting the Stage for IGNITE
 What is keeping you awake at
night?
 What issues/concerns would
you like to discuss with your
colleagues?
2 MINUTES
Top 3 Topics from your Table
 Share your list with your table
team—not a conversation, just
the list
 Come to consensus around your
table’s top 3-4 topics and post at
http://padlet.com/dschon/Jan20
15
Legislative panel
Legislative Panel
 Sen. Herman Quirmbach
 Sen. Amy Sinclair
 Rep. Kevin Koester
 Rep. Sharon Steckman
 Rep. Patti Ruff
DE Update
Brad Buck,
Director
Assessment Update
Dave Tilly,
Deputy Director
S
Background
S Legislatively Commissioned about 15 months ago
Diverse Membership
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Ruth Allison, Administrative Consultant,
Iowa Vocational Rehabilitation Services,
Des Moines
Catherine Blando, College Supervisor
Faculty, Iowa Wesleyan College, Cedar
Rapids
Shelly Bosovich, Executive Director, Des
Moines Public Schools, Des Moines
Kathy Brenny, Consultant, Prairie Lakes
Area Education Agency, Storm Lake
Martha Bruckner, Superintendent, Council
Bluffs Community School District,
Council Bluffs
Joe DeHart, Executive Director,
Institutional Effectiveness, DMACC,
Ankeny
Lowell Ernst, Director of K-12
Instruction, Pella Community School
District, Pella
Diana Gonzalez, Chief Academic Officer,
Board of Regents, Urbandale
Harry Heiligenthal, Leadership
Development Director, Iowa Association
of School Boards, Des Moines
Tina Hoffman, Regional Administrator,
Grant Wood Area Education Agency,
Cedar Rapids
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Mark Lane, Director of Human Resources,
Urbandale Community School District, Urbandale
Jo Ellen Latham, Director of Curriculum and
Instruction, Southeast Polk Community School
District, Pleasant Hill
Jane Lindaman, Superintendent, Waterloo
Community School District, Waterloo
Jon McKenzie, Director of Assessment and
Comprehensive Improvement, Area Education
Agency 267, Cedar Falls
Angela Olson, Associate Principal, Xavier High
School, Cedar Rapids
Elliott Smith, Executive Director, Iowa Business
Council, Des Moines
David Tilly, Deputy Director, Iowa Department of
Education, Des Moines
Denise Wall, Teacher, IKM-Manning Middle
School, Manning
Tammy Wawro, President, Iowa State Education
Association, Des Moines
Melanie Wirtz, Teacher, Peet Junior High School,
Cedar Falls
Karen Woltman, Parent, Swisher
Frequent Meetings
S Early Decisions
S Science assessment not considered
S Worked by consensus as possible
S Created review criteria and scoring rubrics
S Two Rounds of data collection and scoring
Criteria and Weightings
RFI and Submissions
S Sent out an RFI. Received responses from:
S ACT: ACT Aspire, ACT Engage, ACT Plus Writing, and ACT WorkKeys
S CollegiateZone Enterprises, L.P.: DNA (Discover, Nurture, Achieve)
System
S CTB/McGraw Hill (CTB): customized solutions
S Data Recognition Corp (DRC): DRC INSIGHT online assessment system
S The Iowa Testing Programs (ITP): Next Generation Iowa Assessments
S Northwest Evaluation Association
S Pearson: custom Iowa based assessment, ACT Aspire, Smarter Balanced
Assessments
S Turning Technologies, LLC: Triton Data Collection System,
ResponseCard NXT (clicker)
Round 1
S Round 1: Apply legislative criteria using scoring rubrics.
S Each assessment reviewed and scored by task force members
S Scores calculated for each submission.
S Results summarized
S 3 assessments met minimum criteria
S
ACT Aspire/ACT
S
Next Generation Iowa Assessments
S
Smarter Balanced Assessments
Round 2
S Task Force Votes to exit ACT submission from further
Consideration
S Additional data collected on two finalists
S Additional technical review
S Written Questions based on first round review
S In-person interview with developers
S Interviews with users (teachers, administrators, students)
Recommendations
Recommendations
Recommendations
Recommendations
TLC Update
Ryan Wise,
Deputy Director
Teacher Leadership &
Compensation System
Implementation
Update
January, 2015
Teacher Leadership & Compensation System
Division VII of HF 215 created the Teacher Leadership and Compensation System,
as well as the Teacher Leadership Supplement (TLS) categorical funding stream.
• Goals:
•
•
•
•
attract and retain effective teachers
promote collaboration
reward professional growth and effective teaching
improve student achievement by strengthening instruction
• Planning Grants: $3.5 million available in 2013
• Phased-in Entry: $50 million available per year for the 2014-15,
2015-16, and 2016-17 school years
Iowa Department of Education
Year 1 Participating Districts
In year one, the Commission approved applications from 39 districts, representing 1/3 of Iowa’s
students.
Iowa Department of Education
All Participating Districts
In December 2014, the Commission approved applications from 76 districts for implementation
in year two and 50 additional districts in year three.
Iowa Department of Education
Application and Selection Statistics
The average TLC application score increased by more than six points from year one
to year two. In addition, the gap in the average score between the largest and smallest
school districts closed by four points. The Department of Education is committed to
ensuring all districts, regardless of size, are able to adapt a teacher leadership model
to their local context.
Average Score by District Size
100
90
82
86
80
Avg. Application Score
82
78
77
75
72
70
74
67
66
600-999
300-599
74
66
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
9,000+
2,500-8,999
1,000-2,499
<300
Student Enrollment
Avg Score Year 1
Avg Score Year 2
Iowa Department of Education
Application and Selection Statistics
The average TLC application score increased significantly in almost every region of the
state. In addition, the variance in the average score between AEAs shrunk dramatically.
The Department of Education worked closely with the AEA system to ensure that all
districts, regardless of their location, were supported in the planning process.
Average Score by AEA
80
Avg. Score
75
70
65
60
55
Keystone
Prairie Lakes
267
Mississippi Bend
Grant Wood
Heartland
Northwest
Green Hills
Great Prairie
Area Education Agency
Avg Score Year 1
Avg Score Year 2
Iowa Department of Education
What We’re Hearing - Strengths
TLC implementation is off to a strong start. Stakeholders in all roles have expressed
enthusiasm and have highlighted tangible results in the first few months of implementation.
These early positive results are common across all districts, regardless of size or geography.
“TLC lets our teachers be
the leaders they are.”
“This is the first time in my
career I’ve been involved
in creating professional
development.”
Superintendent, Colo-Nesco
Teacher Leader, Cedar Rapids
“TLC has strengthened
collaboration and has led to
the better use of data to
drive instruction… We’re
already seeing big gains in
student achievement.”
Principal, Sioux City
“TLC has exponentially
increased the
development of teachers…
and has accelerated their
work in delivering better
instruction.”
Asst. Supt., Southeast Polk
“A teacher’s day is full, so
to be able to ask for
support from a coach has
been an awesome
experience.”
Teacher, Benton CSD
“I’ve noticed a really good
vibe since we’ve
implemented TLC. It has
reenergized the staff.”
Board Member, Colo-Nesco
Iowa Department of Education
What We’re Hearing – Challenges
While implementation is proceeding smoothly, districts have also shared challenges in
implementing their TLC plans.
• The fast pace of change can be difficult for schools.
• School districts have found that clearly defining each leadership role is critical,
but this can be difficult to do when the roles are new to the system.
• TLC changes the role of the principal, and in many cases this can spark difficult
conversations.
• Implementing TLC can shrink the pool of available substitute teachers. For
example, the Sioux City School District hired 27 teachers this year who were
formerly substitutes.
• Rural school districts may face additional challenges, including filling all of their
leadership roles from within and managing the logistical challenges of teacher
leaders serving schools in multiple communities.
Iowa Department of Education
Information and Support
The Teacher Leadership and Compensation page on the Iowa Department of
Education’s website provides information and support to school districts, particularly
during the planning stages of TLC development.
Iowa Department of Education
Information and Support
The Agora Community on the AEA PD Online website will serve as the one-stopshop and collaboration hub as districts implement their local TLC plans.
Iowa Department of Education
Targeting Support
Determine Specific Needs
• Ongoing Learning
• Teacher Leader Development
Continuous
Engaging in
Professional Learning
Phase 2
• Aligned with TLC Framework
July 16
Planning to Implement
Phase 1
• Vision and Goals
• Change Process
April 15
Welcoming to TLC
Regional Meetings
• Answer Questions
• Plan for Support
TLC – Layered
Approach
for Support
January
IOWA Department of Education
Creating a System of Support
Phase 1
•Identify/revisit the needs of the system (students,
teachers, teacher leaders, administrators, community
stakeholders)
Phase 2
•Engage in training
o Coaching (teacher
leaders of teachers,
•Establish and communicate a vision for teacher
principals of teacher
leadership in the greater context of school
leaders,
improvement (ground the work in a strategic plan, the
superintendents of
IPDM, MTSS, or some other improvement model)
principals)
•Determine/revisit the goals for a system of teacher
o Content Knowledge
leadership and identify indicators of success (attend
and Pedagogy
to impact and effect)
•Understand and engage in learning about the change
process
•Create structures and schedules conducive to
collaboration and professional learning
Phase 3
•Monitor and
evaluate impact
and effect
o Adult learning
o Systems thinking
•Cultivate collaboration
•Monitor progress via
analysis of indicators
IOWA Department of Education
Creating a System of Support
The Department of Education is working with stakeholders across Iowa to identify,
coordinate and provide opportunities for teacher leaders and school leaders to build
the knowledge and skills they need to be successful in these new leadership roles.
Focus
Areas
Adult
Learning
Collaborative
Culture
Communication
Content,
Pedagogy &
Assessment
Systems
Thinking
Data
Organizational
Leadership
Design and
delivery of
professional
learning.
Facilitation of
group
processes and
development
of necessary
structures for
professional
learning
environments
to be effective.
Cultivation of
skills
associated
with effective
dialogue with
colleagues.
Implementat
ion of
research and
best practice
in content
(Iowa Core),
instruction
and
assessment.
Integration
and
alignment
of district
and
statewide
educational
improveme
nt efforts.
Facilitation
of data
analysis
and datainformed
decision
making.
Facilitation
and
enactment of
a vision for
school
improvement
with teacher
leadership as a
point of
leverage.
Iowa Department of Education
TLC Evaluation
The central focus of the Department’s evaluation plan is on ensuring the TLC system
achieves the goals of attracting and retaining effective teachers, promoting collaboration,
rewarding professional growth and effective teaching, and improving student achievement by
strengthening instruction. Our approach to evaluation includes four key components.
• Leadership
Roles
• Salary Data
• Progress
toward locallydetermined
goals
• Fidelity of
implementation
• Trends
Iowa
BEDS
Plan
Changes
Tracker
End of
Year
Report
External
Support
• Collaboration
• Instructional
improvement
• Achievement
Iowa Department of Education
Questions and Discussion
Iowa Department of Education
Setting the Stage - IGNITE
 Access our voting tool at the
Resources Link:
http://bit.ly/jan15execldr
 Vote for the topic you most want
to discuss tomorrow by clicking
on Vote and entering your initials.
January 23, 2015
resources
http://bit.ly/jan15execldr
Attendance Center Rankings
Amy Williamson
Jay Pennington
Attendance Center
Ranking System
Iowa Department of Education
Attendance Center
Ranking
• Charge
• Process
• Timeline
• Deliverables
Charge
• Legislative Requirement
• Shall develop criteria and process to evaluate each
attendance center
• Posted on website
• Required criteria and optional criteria
• Overall school performance rank
Process
• DE work team
• Recommendations
• Healthy Indicators C4K group
Required Measures
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Student Proficiency
Academic Growth
Attendance Rates
Parent Involvement
Employee Turnover
Community Activities and Involvement
Closing Gaps Score
Graduation Rates
College Readiness
Optional Measures
•
•
•
•
•
•
Post-graduation data
Suspension and expulsion rates
Level of student engagement
Parent satisfaction
Parent engagement
Staff working conditions
Recommendations
• Must combine accountability and improvement to be
successful
• Transparency and simplicity should be targets
• Technical assistance and support are needed to drive
improvement
• Collaboration is needed
• Consensus approach
Timeline & Next Steps
•
•
•
•
DE Work Team – June 2014
Recommendations – July 2014
Healthy Indicators C4K group – Fall 2014
Limited Public Reporting - Proficiency, Growth &
Gap – January 2015
• ACR system pilot – Winter & Spring 2015
• ACR system to schools – September 2015
• ACR system to public – October 2015
Report Preview
Report Preview
Proficiency and Growth
Correlations
Measure
Correlation
Proficiency and Low SES
-0.654
Growth and Proficiency
0.168
Growth and Low SES
-.015
Growth and % White
.042
Proficiency and % White
.363
Healthy Indicators & ACR
• Purposes
• How they fit together
• How to think about them
Healthy Indicators Task Group
• Task: Develop, operationalize, and implement a set of
objective, measureable indicators of the health of the
education system in Iowa at the preschool, building,
district, AEA and state levels.
Healthy Indicators
 Data to inform decision-making on which districts, AEAs, and programs
require desk audits versus on-site visits and what supports they need to
successfully engage in continuous improvement
 Will use some information from Attendance Center Rankings (ACR)
legislation
 Possible data sources:












Proficiency*
Academic growth*
Attendance
Parent involvement
Community activities and involvement
Closing gaps score*
Employee turnover
Graduation rate
College-readiness rate
Suspension/expulsion rates
Student engagement
Employee working conditions








Post-graduation data
Parent satisfaction
Parent engagement
Use of valid and reliable assessment
tools
Percent of students proficient with
universal instruction
Percent of students proficient with
targeted and intensive interventions
Operation of a high-functioning
leadership team
Financial information
Collaborative Inquiry Questions
CONSENSUS
A. Is there initial and ongoing administrator consensus to develop and implement MTSS?
B. Is there initial and ongoing staff consensus to develop and implement MTSS?
Collaborative Inquiry Questions
CONSENSUS, INFRASTRUCTURE AND IMPLEMENTATION
C. Is there a leadership team willing to accept responsibility for development, implementation,
and sustainability of MTSS?
D. Do we have an established and ongoing collaborative inquiry process for implementation of
MTSS?
Universal
Tier
1. Is the Universal Tier sufficient?
2. If the Universal Tier is not sufficient, what are the needs that must be addressed?
3. How will Universal Tier needs be addressed?
4. How will the implementation of the Universal Tier actions be monitored over time?
5. Have Universal Tier actions been effective?
Targeted/Intensive
Tiers
6. Which students need support in addition to the Universal Tier?
7. Which of the Targeted and/or Intensive Tier resources are needed to meet the needs of
identified students?
8. How will the Targeted and/or Intensive Tier options be implemented?
9. How will the implementation of the Targeted and Intensive Tiers be monitored over
time?
10. How will the effectiveness of the Targeted and Intensive Tiers be evaluated?
Collaborative Inquiry Questions
CONSENSUS, INFRASTRUCTURE, IMPLEMENTATION, AND
SUSTAINABILITY
E. Do you have an established structure to provide on-going professional learning and
coaching to support all staff members?
F. How do you ensure evaluation of MTSS implementation and impact on achievement?
G. What structures does the leadership team have in place to support sustainability of MTSS
over time?
A Single Continuous Improvement Process
Collaborative Inquiry Questions
Assessment
Universal
Instruction
Infrastructure
Healthy
Indicators
Leadership
Intervention
Healthy Indicators
District A
Assessment
1.
2.
3.
4.
95%
75%
Yes
No
1. Use of valid/reliable universal screening assessments for
all students (% screened)
2. Use of valid/reliable progress monitoring assessments for
all students who require progress monitoring (% assessed)
3. Comprehensive, balanced assessment system in place
(assessment calendar)
4. Use of data-based decision-making (data analysis via data
teams, data days)
Universal Instruction
1.
2.
3.
65%
36%
-
1. Percent proficient with universal instruction
2. Growth
3. Closing gaps
Interventions
77%
Percent proficient with targeted and/or intensive
instruction, using evidence-based interventions, achieving
growth
Leadership
55%
Leadership team in place, consensus present
Infrastructure
99%
Funds are allocated, technology adequate
Assessment
Universal
Instruction
Infrastructure
Proficiency
Growth
Closing Gaps
Healthy
Indicators
Leadership
Intervention
Streamlined Reporting
HI Data
Evaluation
Universal
Instructio
n
Percent proficient in the core
Identification of Barriers
Evidence-based
Solution
Question D2 Guide
Implement class-wide intervention
Streamlined Reporting
District A
Title IA
Requirement
Status
IDEA B
Requirement
Status
§ 1112(c)
Assurances
Compliant
§ 611(a)
State activities
Compliant
§ 1112(d)
Consultation
Compliant
§ 612(a)(11)
General Supervision
Compliant
§ 1114(a)(1)
May not consolidate
funds
Compliant
§ 613(a)(1)
LEA Eligibility
Noncompliant
§ 1115(b)(1)
Eligible population
Noncompliant
§ 613(a)(3)
Personnel
development
Compliant
§ 1116(b)(1)(B)
Deadline for
identification
Compliant
§ 613(f)
Early intervening
services
Noncompliant
Designations: DINA 3, IDEA Part B Needs Assistance Year 2, Attendance Center Ranking: 2 Schools
Acceptable, 1 Priority
Streamlined Reporting
District
Compliance and
Designations
District A
HI
Tiered Support
Support Provided
78%, DINA 4,
3 ACR Priority Schools
Compliance: Intensive
Assessment: Intensive
Universal Instruction: Intensive
Targeted and Intensive Instruction:
Targeted
Leadership: Targeted
Infrastructure: Targeted
Compliance: Level 2 Desk Audit
Assessment: Focused visit
Universal Instruction: Focused
visit
Targeted and Intensive
Instruction: Remote interview
Leadership: Remote interview
Infrastructure: Remote interview
District B
98%, DINA 2
Compliance: Universal
Assessment: Targeted
Universal Instruction: Intensive
Targeted and Intensive Instruction:
Universal
Leadership: Universal
Infrastructure: Universal
Compliance: Desk Audit
Assessment: Remote interview
Universal Instruction: Focused
visit
Targeted and Intensive
Instruction: NA
Leadership: NA
Infrastructure: NA
District C
100%, 2 ACR
Commendable Schools
Compliance: Universal
Assessment: Universal
Universal Instruction: Universal
Targeted and Intensive Instruction:
Universal
Leadership: Universal
Infrastructure: Targeted
Compliance: Desk Audit
Assessment: NA
Universal Instruction: Focused
visit to share successful practices
Targeted and Intensive
Instruction: NA
Leadership: NA
Infrastructure: NA
Questions?
ACR Prioritization Survey
Access
prioritization
survey via the
Resources Link
Six Thinking Hats
From the work of Edward deBono
S
Purpose
S To process and discuss the ACR report
utilizing parallel thinking via the six hats
What is parallel thinking?
At any moment
everyone is looking in the same direction.
The six hats widen our lens:
S Six colors of hats for six types of thinking
S Each hat identifies a type of thinking
S Hats are directions of thinking
S Hats help a group use parallel thinking
S You can “put on” and “take off” a hat
Six colors…
S White: neutral, objective
S Red: emotional, passionate
S Black: serious, somber
S Yellow: sunny, positive
S Green: growth, fertility
S Blue: cool, sky above
…and six hats
S White: objective facts & figures; data & information
S Red: emotions, feelings, & intuitions
S Black: cautious, careful, & critical judgment
S Yellow: hope, positive & beneficial
S Green: creativity, ideas & lateral thinking
S Blue: process control & organization of thinking (thinking
about thinking)
Wearing the hats
S Direction, not description
S Set out to think in a certain direction
S “Let’s have some black hat thinking…”
S Not categories of people
S Not: “He’s a black hat thinker.”
S Everyone can and should use all the hats
S Not right v. wrong
S Thinking through the issues from multiple points of view.
S Surfacing potential gaps
S Use in whole or in part
Benefits of Six Thinking Hats
S Provides a common language
S Experience & intelligence of each person (Diversity of thought)
S Use more of our brains
S Helps people work against type, preference
S Removal of ego (reduce confrontation)
S Save time
S Focus (one thing at a time)
S Create, evaluate & implement action plans
The Blue Hat
S Thinking about thinking
S Instructions for thinking
S The organization of thinking
S Control of the other hats
S Discipline and focus
White Hat Thinking
S
Neutral, objective information
S
Facts & figures
S
Review existing information, search for gaps, analyze past trends
S
Questions:
S
S
S
S
S
What information do we have?
What information do we need?
What information is missing?
What questions do we need to ask?
Is it fact or belief? (checked facts v. believed facts)
S
Excludes opinions, hunches, judgments
S
Removes feelings & impressions
Red Hat Thinking
S
Emotions & feelings
S
Hunches, intuitions, impressions, gut instincts
S
Doesn’t have to be logical or consistent
S
No justifications, reasons or basis
S
Consider how other people will react emotionally
Red Hat Questions
S What is your gut reaction to the ACR?
S What is your opinion?
S What do you like or not like?
S What emotions are involved (fear, anger,
hatred, suspicion, enthusiasm, joy)?
Yellow Hat Thinking
S
Positive & speculative
S
Positive thinking, optimism, opportunity
S
Benefits
S
Best-case scenarios
S
Exploration
Yellow Hat Questions
S What ideas, suggestions, or proposals are there for how
to navigate communication of and issues surrounding the
ACR?
S What is the value/benefit in how this ACR system has
been designed?
S What positives do you see?
S What could be done to make this more effective?
S Under what conditions will this work?
S What is your vision for how this can move forward?
Green Hat Thinking
S
New ideas, concepts, perceptions
S
Deliberate creation of new ideas
S
Alternatives and more alternatives
S
New approaches to problems
S
Creative & lateral thinking
Green Hat Questions
S Let’s think “outside the box.”
S What are some fresh ideas or approaches?
S This is the time for any wild or crazy or “far out” idea.
S What are all of our alternatives?
S How can we reshape a certain idea?
S We’ve always done it this way; let’s “green hat” it …
how else can we do it?
Black Hat Thinking
S
Cautious and careful
S
Logical negative – why it won’t work
S
Critical judgment, pessimistic view
S
Separates logical negative from emotional
S
Focus on errors, evidence, conclusions
S
Logical & truthful, but not necessarily fair
Black Hat Questions
S What will happen if we take this action?
S What can go wrong if we proceed with this
idea or implement this suggestion?
S What are the weaknesses that we need to
overcome?
S How does this fit with other work ongoing in
the state and in districts?
Six hats summary
Blue: control & organization of thinking
White: objective facts & figures
Red: emotions & feelings
Yellow: hope, positive & speculative
Green: creativity, ideas & lateral thinking
Black: cautious & careful
Red Hat Questions
S What is your gut reaction to the ACR?
S What is your opinion?
S What do you like or not like?
S What emotions are involved (fear, anger,
hatred, suspicion, enthusiasm, joy)?
Yellow Hat Questions
S What ideas, suggestions, or proposals are there for how
to navigate communication of and issues surrounding the
ACR?
S What is the value/benefit in how this ACR system has
been designed?
S What positives do you see?
S What could be done to make this more effective?
S Under what conditions will this work?
S What is your vision for how this can move forward?
Group Process
S Describe the group’s interactions.
S What themes emerged from the
conversation?
Additional Comments
S What else will be important as we navigate
the ACR?
IGNITE Topics
1.
School Calendar
6. TLC Implementation
2.
Supplemental State
Aid
7. Creating HS education
to meet 21st century
learning
3.
ACR
4.
Students’ mental
health needs
8. Balancing being
proactive w/multitude
of other leadership
responsibilities
5.
Restricted use funds
9. ELI and 5 year olds
10. Restricted funds
IGNITE Conversations
 Brainstorm questions you have
around your prioritized topic.
 Move to the area of the room
where the conversation will occur.
 Person who traveled the farthest
begins the conversation by posing a
question from his/her list.
Wrap up and Adjourn