New Year's Committment

In 2013, I am committing to completely redesign how my District offers professional development.  With all of the changes occurring in education, several things are clear:

1. The need for extensive professional development over a wide variety of topics exists.

2. Simply adding a professional development (day, hour, session, etc.) to teacher contracts will be insufficient to meet the learning challenge.

3. Traditional whole group 'sit and get' meetings destroy autonomous learning and must be dramatically scaled back.

4. Learning ownership must be transfered from the district/building level to the individual teacher level, thereby driving engagement and responsibility.

The re-design will be based in part on game-theory and tied to a set of District created teacher competencies, as well the teacher self evaluation and goal setting process in the new Ohio Teacher Evaluation System.

If it works out my additional commitment is to share the entire system/process with others.

What is your big professional goal for the new year?

Using Your Email Signature As A Professional Development Tool

With the numerous initiatives that are swirling around education, initiative fatigue is a worry of mine.  The catch-22 is the amount of new information that needs to be in-serviced on, versus the capacity of teachers to absorb additional change.

As I have been thinking about how to capture the attention of the teachers I work with, I began to think about how I use my email signature line.  In the past I've had a quote, but I find myself ignoring these quotes more frequently as they have become common place.

In order to capture teachers' attention, I decided to move in a different direction with my email signature line.  It started off with the top three lines (see below), as a way to promote my professional digital presence in a unique way.

I then added the last line, which is a rotating article that ties into the change initiatives I am currently leading in my District.

Finally, I added the twitter section in the middle.  I firmly believe that wide spread adoption of personal learning networks is a key component in re-inforcing and encoding the shifts that are currently underway in the field.  We can't 'professional development' our way out of the change hole we find ourselves in.  Individual teachers have to be empowered to take ownership for their own professional learning and development.  As the time to teach this change is scarce, I'm using my email signature to promote and teach this as well.

The key, to me, is the unexpected place where the learning opportunity appears.  The uniqueness is what I hope will make it enticing for teachers to spend the extra few minutes to click through and be led to the information I have for them.

The second key is to vary they content of the email signature frequently.  If it becomes static, it will be ignored, just like the quotes I've been turning my head to lately.

Re-thinking Classroom Procedures to Promote Close Reading

With all of the attention paid to close reading and text dependent questioning in the Common Core, I have had a heightened awareness when I visit classrooms to look for practices that promote these shifts.

However, sometimes the best learning comes from seeing the antithesis of the shift that is desired in practice.

As I was sitting in the back of the classroom recently, the teacher proceeded to hand out a well crafted assignment document, one which detailed all of the particulars of an end of semester assignment.

The teacher then spent the next twenty minutes providing an oral summary of the document, as thirty teenagers stared back in various stages of disengagement.

All of the work that went into crafting the assignment sheet......wasted.

Any responsibility on the part of the students to read and comprehend a detailed, multi-step set of instructions.....evaporated.

What I saw was a classic display of the old paradigm of teacher as gatekeeper and rationer of educational experiences.

If, as an education profession, we are serious about a deep infusion of literacy in our classrooms, then we need look no further than the time honored tradition of the teacher orally telling students what to do for a place to start making change.

An easy way to promote close reading is to start with a complete makeover about how we expect students to get information on assignments they are supposed to undertake.

If you go through the trouble of creating a document that explains the task, make your students responsible for accessing the task information from the document.  Simply talking about the assignment and having the assignment sheet as a fallback is a waste of everybody's time.

Will this be uncomfortable at first?   Sure.

Will you have to practice re-directs that force students to return to the text for evidence about the assignment?  Absolutely.

Will your students become more independent, self-directed learners over time?  Without a doubt.

HB 555 - Part II

On Friday afternoon (11/30), BASA issued an email (below) calling for Ohio educators to contact their State Senator regarding changes to the educational accountability system.

The updated Ohio Legislative Service Commission report on HB 555, which contains all of the changes as voted on and approved by the House, as well as the the BASA rebuttal talking points can be found here.

The most significant change is the increase in the percentage of students required to score proficient in order to meet an indicator from 75% to 80%.  This change, coupled with the increase in rigor (via increased cut scores and eventually test construct) could have a huge impact on school districts.

There are also significant changes to the gifted accountability measurements as well as the inclusion of Honors Diploma attainment as an accountability measure.

While there are many indicators that are within the control of districts to influence, there are parts of the accountability system that will be difficult for districts to affect.  For example, National standardized test participation rate and average score could be troublesome.  How can a district be held accountable for the number of students who elect, of their own volition, to take a standardized test on the weekend?  Another example is Advanced Placement (AP) participation rate and test scores.  The mere fact that there is a wide variance in the types of AP offerings around the State should be enough to take this off the table as a graded metric.  Look a little deeper, and there is more trouble to be found with the inverse relationship between increased access and test performance.  By exposing more students to AP, a District is creating exposure in the form of a potential negative test score outcome.  Exposure and increased access should be the goal, but districts will be forced to make tough decisions if a numbers balancing game ends up occurring in order to meet the metric.

Please take an hour of your time, browse the links, and share your thoughts with your State Senator.

A sample letter (that can be customized) can be found here.

BASA MEMBER ALERT

To:          School board members, superintendents, treasurers and other school business officials

From:     Michelle Francis, OSBA — (614) 540-4000

               Tom Ash, BASA — (614) 846-4080

               Barbara Shaner, OASBO — (614) 325-9562

Date:      Nov. 30, 2012

Re:        Immediate Senate Contacts Needed on Report Card Changes!

Yesterday, the Ohio House passed House Bill (HB) 555, the school district report card reform bill. While there are a number of provisions in the legislation that we support, there are several issues that still concern us. We need your help in contacting senators now!

Lawmakers are telling us they are not hearing from school district representatives. So even if you have already made a contact about HB 555, it is crucial that you contact your Senate member immediately. The General Assembly is making changes to school district report cards that will affect you in the current school year.

HB 555 goes to the Senate Education Committee next week for consideration and is expected to move quickly. The full Senate could vote on the bill as early as Dec. 11.

Please use the following talking points when you contact legislators. These are changes we are seeking in the Senate. A rationale for each change can be found in our “Senate Amendment Request List,” which is available below.

1. The transition should not start during the current school year — changing the rules in the middle of the game is unacceptable!

2. Do not use letter grades for certain components on the dashboard that school districts cannot control!

• Advanced Placement participation rate and test scores

• Dual Enrollment Program participation rate

• National standardized test for college admission — participation rate and average score

• Kindergarten through third grade literacy rate

3. Do not dilute the value of the dashboard with a composite score. We oppose a composite score, both during the transition period and in the future.

4. Raising the student “cut score” on state tests through the anticipated PARCC assessments, while at the same time raising the “standard” for the passage rate for districts from 75% to 80% in HB 555 could impact districts dramatically. The simultaneous convergence of these factors (more rigorous curriculum, new and more challenging assessments and higher cut scores) has the potential to devastate students and districts unnecessarily. The movement of the 75% standard to 80% should be removed from the bill. We support raising the “cut score” but not the “standard” benchmark passage rate.

5. We need a “safe harbor” for school districts! Districts currently rated “continuous improvement” and above should not be subject to identification for purposes of EdChoice vouchers and charter school expansion as a result of the major changes anticipated with this bill for at least three years as HB 555 is implemented.

Important Links:

Click here for the rationale for the talking points: Senate Amendment Request List<http://ealerts.osba-ohio.org/files/file/HB555SenateRequests.pdf>.

Click here for legislator contact information: General Assembly Website<http://www.ohiosenate.gov/senate2012/index>.

Click here for the current version of HB 555: HB 555 As Passed by the House<http://ealerts.osba-ohio.org/files/file/129_HB_555_PH_Y.pdf>.

Click here for a summary of HB 555: LSC Summary<http://ealerts.osba-ohio.org/files/file/h0555-rh-129%281%29.pdf>.

We hope you will make contacts with senators before the Senate takes up HB 555. Please let us know if you have questions about the bill.

PBS Thoughts For The Mid-Year Blues

Over Thanksgiving break I experienced a PBS a-ha moment while standing in my kitchen.  My daughter had just deposited a half finished bowl of cereal (bathed in a sea of milk) on the counter.  While I wanted to huff and puff about waste, poor choices, irresponsibility, etc., I was instead drawn to thinking about several conversations I have had with principals recently regarding poor climates in their buildings.  Specifically, teachers' intolerance for relatively minor behavior infractions and the 'throw the students' out mentality that seemed to be gripping segments of their staff.  I then started thinking about how a true change in behavior for my daughter (and the kids in these teachers' rooms) can only be realized if I (and they) intentionally teach about the expected behaviors they desire to see (a core PBS tenant).  While all of this was going through my head, I grabbed my phone and filmed a quick PBS video using the cereal bowl story as the narrative prop.  Below is the remixed video, which you are free to use if you find it helpful in any way.

PBS Cereal Bowl Video

It is easy to love our students on the first day of school.  A true mark of a professional is the extent to which this love for our students is maintained and demonstrated throughout the year (even if it feels like it is waining on the inside).

UPDATE 11/28

In a serendipitous move, a counselor at my high school (@rosEcounselor) sent me the link to PBISworld yesterday.  It is a fantastic resource for positive behavior support strategies that cover a wide range of behaviors.  If you find yourself frustrated with a student, click on the behavior and then pick one or two strategies to commit to using for several weeks.  An important note is to make a firm commitment on the front end to persisting with the strategies.  Using a strategy once or twice and then moving on to something else when it doesn't take right away is a recipe for frustration.  Persistence and perseverance should be the words to live by when using PBS strategies.

HB 555 - LRC and Accountability Changes

So here is an idea around a crowd-sourced response to the Ohio General Assembly re-write of the school accountability system.

I've drafted my response and change recommendations to HB 555 here.

Feel free to re-mix, mash-up, copy, add to, etc. this work.  The important point is to make sure your voice is heard on this bill that will have wide ranging implications.

The Legislative Service Commission Summary on HB 555 can be found here.

Find out who your State representative is here.

Below is the BASA legislative alert that summarizes their concerns.  While I don't agree with every point they make, it does serve as a frame of reference from which to approach thinking about recommendations you would like to make.

This bill is fast-tracked, so the time to have your voice heard is now.

To:         School board members, superintendents, treasurers, and other school business officials

From:    Damon Asbury, OSBA — (614) 540-4000

             Tom Ash, BASA — (614) 846-4080              Barbara Shaner, OASBO — (614) 325-9562

Date:     Nov. 15, 2012

Re:       Update on New Report Card Legislation

Earlier this week, the House Education Committee accepted a substitute version of House Bill (HB) 555, legislation that will make changes to Ohio’s academic accountability system. HB 555 is on the fast track and considered a priority for the lame-duck session. Amendments are due tomorrow and the bill could be voted out of committee on Nov. 28 with a full House floor vote on Nov. 29.

There are some positive changes to Ohio’s report card system contained in the bill. However, there are several provisions in HB 555 that are troublesome, and we need your help in making sure legislators are aware of the negative effects these will have on districts.

Please contact your legislator immediately on the following issues related to HB 555:

What we support:

• A report card that includes a “dashboard” approach that provides information on various elements — including items for public information purposes.

• Changing from an adequate yearly progress (AYP) measure to an annual measurable objective (AMO) that will measure the reduction of performance gaps within subgroups as opposed to meeting or not meeting annual performance targets.

• A plan to transition to a new system that allows time for districts to understand the changes and also to work with their communities to educate them on what is expected going forward.

What we want changed in HB 555:

• While the bill allow s for a transition period, attempting to allow for the implementation of the Common Core Standards, the transition doesn’t apply to the current school year! We believe changes to the report card system should not begin until the next school year (2013-2014).

• The bill postpones the implementation of a “composite” or “overall” score for the dashboard, but only for two years. We oppose the use of a composite score! An overall or composite grade should be removed from the bill for the following reasons:

-    A composite score would undermine the transparency of the various report card/dashboard components.

-    Each component of the “dashboard” may have different significance among districts and communities.  It would be impossible to determine an appropriate “weight” for each component in a composite score calculation that satisfies the needs and preferences in every community across the state.

-    With no “average” report card score, districts are more likely to successfully address areas where performance is lower.

• Some items on the proposed dashboard are beyond the control of the school district, or some districts may not have the resources to excel in those areas. Beginning with the 2013-2014 school year, the following items should be “reported” — but not “graded” — for that school year or any year thereafter. These items should be for information-only purposes. The information may be valuable for the district, parents, and even state policymakers. Districts should not be penalized through a letter grade for the following components:

-    Annual measurable objectives (replaces AYP).

-    National standardized test fo r college admission participation rate and average score.

-    Advanced Placement participation rate and test scores.

-    Dual-enrollment program participation rate.

-    Kindergarten through third-grade literacy rate.

• Eliminate the “percentage of students determined “not to be ‘college ready’” category” completely from the dashboard. Current available data on students requiring remediation in college (often quoted as 41% statewide) does not accurately portray the situation and should not be used against school districts. In the event that data inclusive of all students going on to an institution of higher learning (public and private, in-state and out-of-state) becomes available, this issue can be revisited.

2012 Ohio State Education Conference Roundup

Just got back from the Ohio Education Conference (formally known as the State RttT Conference).  I spent most of the time live tweeting sessions (search #ohedconf for the whole transcript, or follow me @scarletandgray for session specific tweets).  Lots of stuff to process so here we go.

Conference Summary Links

Storify summary of conference events

ODE Wordpress session summaries

Principals Toolkit on the ODE Homepage

ODE social media flyer

Common Core deployment tools

College and Career Readiness - H.S. to College Alignment

The high number of students who have to take remedial courses upon entering college continues to dominate the news cycle as well as policy discussions.  Establishing effective and specific metrics, along with associated underlying performance descriptions, will be important in informing the work at the high school level.  In Ohio, there is draft policy language (that must be finalized by December 31), that sets the ceiling for acceptable CCR scores throughout the State for the public universities.  Moving forward, every public university will accept the same scores as evidence of readiness for entry level, credit bearing courses.  While obtaining these scores does not necessarily guarantee admission to a particular university, it does create a shared understanding throughout the state as to what the performance targets are that signify readiness for entry level courses without remediation at 2 and 4 year institutions of higher learning.  An additional component of this policy is the exemption of students from having to take placement tests in order to determine readiness if they meet the necessary cut scores on the identified assessments.  However, students wishing to be exempted from higher level university coursework could still be expected to take placement tests.

By December 31, CCR benchmark scores will be established for the ACT, SAT, Accuplacer, and Compass.  At the conference yesterday, the following ACT cut scores were shared as the minimum necessary to be considered college and career ready.

Draft CCR ACT cut scores

English 18

Reading 21 

Math 22

On the high school end, PARCC just released their CCR performance descriptors that will signify college and career readiness.  The consortium has chosen to use a five point scale, with the attainment of a 4 indicating a 75% likelihood of obtaining a C or better in an entry level ELA or mathematics class.  

The full document can be found here.  

The press release, with a surface level summary, can be found here.

Straight Talk Session with the ODE Brass

When I saw this session on the schedule I put a big circle around it and made a beeline for the front of the room after the opening keynote.  I'll give credit to ODE, they're trying to make the best of the legislative rock and a hard place they find themselves between.  The movement of ODE towards customer service and being seen as a resource is evident (my opinion).  The willingness of Michael Sawyers and Jim Herrholtz to run a session as a pure Q and A with no powerpoint was refreshing.  This type of transparent access serves to build trust and a sense of shared ownership with district level personnel in the transformative work taking place in education around the state.

1. The New Tests

This isn't really new anymore, but for those who haven't heard:

Algebra I, Geometry, Algebra II (or an integrated pathway of Int. I, II, and III)

English I, II, III

U.S. History and Government

Physical Science and Biology

3 - 8 PARCC ELA and Math

5, 8 End of Year Science*

4, 6 End of Year Social Studies*+

*Not grade banded as in the past (good news)

+Pending legislative action

Kind of new stuff:

10th graders in 14-15 (and maybe next year) will have to take a nationally normed test that demonstrates college and career readiness, as defined in legislation to replace the OGT.  ODE is preparing an RFP for vendors to compete to offer this test.  Early money goes to either the PSAT or the ACT Plan.  In a conversation with a senior ODE staffer after the H.S./College alignment session, it was indicated that ODE will pay for the administration of the test with the vendor they select, but that districts could potentially choose an alternate test as long as it is on an ODE approved list.  This matters because Districts that have already begun CCR alignment work (most likely with ACT or SAT products) will not want to switch to the other vendor if a working system is already in place.

Here's the new stuff:

It has not been determined if these will be considered end of course or end of year tests yet, nor has the testing window been determined.  There is still considerable debate as to what 'computer enhanced' questions mean, as well as what the performance assessments will look like.  Early indications are that the performance assessments are shaping up like the old short answer/extended response questions (this is a concern).  ODE indicates that they are pushing back on this, as it doesn't fit with how PARCC initially sold this section of the test.

Current 9th grade students will be the last to be subject to the OGT and the old accountability system.

Current 8th grade students appear to be destined to a blend of the OGT (since they will be starting H.S. in 13-14, while the OGT still exists) as well as the PARCC exams when they are juniors (NOTE: This is reading between the lines.....ODE has not released a testing transition blueprint -we can expect one later in November 2012, which will include blueprints for the new 4/6 SS and 5/8 Science tests).

Current 7th graders will be the first group taking all of the new PARCC and State Assessments.

2. The New Accountability System

The first question is how high stakes are the new tests?  In other words, how many will you have to pass in order to graduate?

ODE appears to be moving away from the test as an add on requirement towards a testing paradigm that drives credits.  The thinking is that 20 - 30% of your final grade in a class will be derived by your performance on the end of year/end of course exam (ODE will set this level at some point in the future).  This moves away from the minimum proficiency mindset and rewards higher levels of performance.  Failure to do well puts passing the course at risk, thus jeopardizing the earning of the credit necessary to graduate.

A determination of how this would all be translated onto the LRC, as well as the meaning of the different CCR PARCC levels in terms of accountability for Districts, has yet to be figured out.

At first glance, this does place more value on student performance in a given course, and it decreases the disconnect between classwork and the hodgepodge of skills and content that made up the OGT.

The second question is how will the local report card evolve?  Lost in the concern over the testing transition is the fact that Ohio's NCLB waiver is conditional and will expire in June 2013.  In order for an extension to be granted, a new accountability system (this is where the A-F ratings and increased rigor in gap closing as a replacement for AYP measures comes into play) must be enacted by the legislature and signed by the Governor.  This work was supposed to take place this fall, but was sidelined by the attendance scandal.

Essentially what we should prepare for are a rolling wave of report card transitions, with different iterations in 2013 and 2014 before a final new LRC goes online in 2015.  For 2013 the LRC will measure the old metrics in new ways (A-F potentially, new gap closing measures, potential reduced V.A. weight, etc.).  The 2014 report card could add the new nationally normed college readiness test which by statute is supposed to replace the OGT (bet on the ACT Plan or PSAT, with the potential for Districts to choose).  Finally, 2015 will take the new tests and combine them with the then 'old' definitions of District performance.  As cut scores are being developed in 14-15 and revised into 15-16, the report card data will still be fluid.  Finally, how value added will be calculated and applied as a measure, both on the report card and for teacher ratings is anyones guess.  I'm assuming the V.A. system will have to be reset in 14-15 to account for vast difference between the old and new measures.

3rd Grade Reading Guarantee

There was lots of discussion about the mechanics of the law and the unintended consequences that are already being foreseen.  The biggest issue is with the requirement that students who are deemed to be not on track be placed with a classroom teacher that:

1. Has a reading endorsement or

2. Passes an ODE approved reading assessment (not currently identified) or

3. Is considered highly effective (based on previous evaluations, but not formally defined yet).

Michael Sawyers indicated that there is a push for legislative change during the lame duck session to waive #1 and #2 above for those students who are not on track based on the Diagnostic in K-3.

The other hot topic of conversation was the portion of the law stating retained 3rd graders should be given on grade level instruction in areas where they have demonstrated proficiency, and that mid-year promotion is required should retained third graders demonstrate proficiency either on the fall 3rd grade OAA or on the alternate test of reading approved by ODE (still undefined as well).  How this gets handled from a staffing and logistics level is a huge concern for districts.

Based on what I heard, I would get a hold of the alternate test to demonstrate reading proficiency, and I would make this the focus for every student who did not score at the minimum cut score (390 for 12-13 and 392 for 13-14) on the spring third grade reading OAA.  Summer school for these students would ONLY focus on reading, with the alternate test administered at the end of the summer session in order to get as many students through as possible to 4th grade.

ODE staffers did make it a point to emphasize that the intent of the law is about providing interventions and support for struggling readers prior to 3rd grade, and not about retention.  As a matter of policy, the intent is pure, but the needle of the conversation has moved towards the portions that are problematic from an implementation perspective.  Michael Sawyers indicated that less than 10 kids per district will be affected by retention (when looked at throughout the State).  However, for urbans, this number could potentially be much higher.  The point should be to implement the K-3 diagnostics with fidelity and remediate with urgency in order to avoid large numbers of students who could potentially be retained.  At the end of the day, we should want every student to be able to read effectively as a matter of life survival.  Looking at the law from the positive perspective as opposed to the negative bent will make the work easier to do.

IIS (Instructional Improvement System)

What was supposed to be the rollout turned into a generic overview of the system, as negotiations got hung up at the last minute between Ohio, Massachusetts, lawyers, and cross state procurement systems.

Every district in Ohio will be required to have an IIS (Instructional Improvement System).  The bottom line is you can go with the State system or adopt your own as long as it meets requirements outlined by the State.  Given the pricing structure the State is promising (no details yet but ODE reps were tripping over themselves to indicate how cheap it was) I would imagine most Districts will fall in line with the State product.  For 13-14 and 14-15 the costs will be picked up by ODE through RttT, and then costs transfer to local Districts.

Of note:

• iLearn Ohio will be integrated into the IIS
• An assessment bank will be included with the IIS (I asked an ODE rep about this directly after the session and was told that the questions will be provided by a third party provider and should come in at around 80,000 items).  The potential for shared work around the creation of common assessments is HUGE here.  This was not talked about in the general rollout session.  If the level of lesson planning and curriculum map sharing throughout the State actually happens in this system, it is not hard to imagine a scenario where Districts could collaborate on creating common assessments aligned to the standards and share the work.  This could allow for a degree of standardization between Districts and an ability to get beyond the subjectivity that plagues locally created formative and progress monitoring assessments currently.
• The IIS appears to be a one stop shop for teachers, and is based on a dashboard model.
• The announcement of the vendor has been pushed to mid to late November, and the initial rollout (along with the iLearn redesign) will be at eTech in February.
• Field testing with pilot districts will take place in 2013, with the rollout scheduled for early 2014.
• If you would like to put your District name in to be considered for the IIS pilot,                   contact Tom Walsh at ODE.

Social Media

If you haven't figured it out yet, ODE is making a MAJOR push in this area (and modeling what we should be doing as districts as well).

Two items I took away from the conference:

1. Identify specific people who take ownership for the publishing of digital content, and clearly define their rolls.
2. Set paramaters as to the types of articles/information that should be shared in each dedicated space.  For example, what types of information should be shared on a building twitter feed? This will make posting decisions easier and streamline the sharing process.

The post: Review: BYOD and Blended Learning Project Timeline from the Edlightenment blog provides more information about social media policy parameters within a BYOD context.

Final Thoughts

It's an exciting time to be in education.  The shift away from minimum competency standards towards college and career readiness for all is a huge change, but one worth working for.  As the pace of change  quickens, bold action is required to make schools relevant destinations for learners in the personalized age we live in.  Figuring out how 21st century thinking and learning tools can be integrated into daily instruction, and how the torrent of data points about students can be used to provide customized student support, will require creative action on the part of all teachers and administrators.  ODE, once seen solely as a regulatory watchdog, has moved towards a blend of oversight as well as supportive resource for all of the changes occurring in education.  Connect with others, stay positive, and remember that above all else, the work we do is about creating a better tomorrow for our students.

Finally, a special thanks to the tech director for my district, who I attended the conference with.  The professional dialoge and deepening of learning that arose from the shared experience mattered.  You can follow him @zjvv77 or misterv.net