Supporting Ambitious Instruction Integrating Standards-Based Instruction with Educator Effectiveness Strategies 2014 Alaska School Leadership Institute May 28, 2014 Anchorage, Alaska Facilitated By Al Bertani, Senior Design Consultant; Lexie Domaradzki, RAPPS Consultant; Sue Johnson, RAPPS Consultant; Shelby Skaanes, RAPPS Consultant

Welcome to ASLI

Professional Learning Collaboration with AK EED Principal Preparation Funded by the U.S. DOE School Leadership Program Professional Learning Induction Coaching Collaboration with AK EED Principal Preparation Kelly Tonsmeire, Director Kathy Blanc, Program Manager

PROJECT PARTNERS Alaska Staff Development Network University of Alaska Anchorage - Educational Leadership Program Alaska Administrator Coaching Project Alaska Department of Education and Early Development (EED) Alaska Comprehensive Center Funded by a School Leadership Program Grant from the U.S. Department of Education

RAPPS DISTRICTS SERVED 17 rural school districts 141 schools All districts are high poverty 30 schools are at NCLB levels 2, 3 or 4 49 schools are in corrective action/res

DESIGN TEAM Al Bertani (Educator Effectiveness) RAPPS Senior Design Consultant Shelby Skaanes (ELA Standards) RAPPS Consultant Lexie Domaradzki (Mathematics Standards) Sue Johnson (Mathematics Standards) Kris Smith (Program Evaluator) DESIGN TEAM Design Process Review of Evaluation Summary from ASLI 2013 Consultation with District Leadership Reps. RAPPS Management Team Input Design Team Planning Meetings for Coordination

DESIGN Program Design (Pages 2 – 3) Home Groups (Pages 4 – 5) Break-Out Groups (Page 6) Pairings, Small, and Mixed Groups Critical Friends Conversations District Team Time – Daily ASLI 2014 Evaluation (Pages 8–10) DESIGN

ATTENDEES What I learned… Please Raise Your Hand If You Are a Returning Attendee to the Alaska School Leadership Institute ATTENDEES Please Stand-Up If You Are a New Attendee to the Alaska School Leadership Institute What I learned… Excited to start. That I’m not alone in my transition to rural Alaska. I also got fired-up about the job in which I’m setting sail to tackle.

SESSION NORMS The LEARNING belongs to you, and it rests largely with you. Enter into the discussions ENTHUSIASTICALLY!!! Give FREELY of your experience, but don’t dominate the discussion. 4. CONFINE your discussions to the task assigned. Say what you THINK… be honest! Only ONE PERSON should talk at a time… avoid private conversations while someone else is talking… Listen ATTENTIVELY to the presentations and discussions. Be PROMPT and REGULAR in attendance. Follow the HAND SIGNAL from the session leader – Finish the sentence you are speaking not the paragraph you are thinking. Place your cell phone on SILENT or VIBRATE to limit distractions.

What We Believe About Learning Consider this: We Learn About... 10% of what we READ 20% of what we HEAR 30% of what we SEE 50% of what we both SEE & HEAR 70% of what we DISCUSS with others 80% of what we EXPERIENCE personally 95% of what we TEACH to someone else Adapted from Eldon Ekwall, 1974

Meta Theme Defining Rigor in a Standards-Based Context Lexie Domaradzki RAPPS Consultant Meta Theme

ASLI 2014 Plenary Session Rigor

What does Rigor mean? Rigor is more than what you teach and what standards you cover; it's how you teach and how students show you they understand. (Blackburn, 2008).

What is Rigor? True rigor is creating an environment in which each student is expected to learn at high levels, each student is supported so he or she can learn at high levels, and each student demonstrates learning at high levels (Blackburn, 2008).

Create an environment that is conducive to growth. Rigor is about achieving at a higher level, but that doesn't happen immediately. Focus on progress, on the small steps that gradually show student growth. https://www.teachingchannel.org/videos/teacher-practice-growth-reflection

Connections to the Alaska ELA and Math Standards Emphasize expectations for higher-order skills . Teach less, learn more. Increase emphasis on project work and tasks requiring research, analysis, application, self-assessment, and production. Expand assessment to include the use of performance tasks on tests and in the classroom. Focus the curriculum on standards that are fewer, higher, and deeper to allow more time to apply ideas in depth.

Example/Non-Example Teach Less with More Depth Teach More with Less Depth

Depth of Knowledge (DOK) Used to align standards, instructional practice and assessments. The model developed by Norman Webb from the University of Wisconsin, provides a reliable set of procedures and criteria for conducting alignment analysis studies, which combine qualitative expert judgments and quantified coding and analysis of standards and assessments. The product of the analysis is a set of statistics for each standard and grade on the degree of intersection, or alignment, between the content embedded in state content standards and the content in state assessments. The Webb model has been used in alignment studies with more than 10 states, partly through SCASS collaborative projects managed by CCSSO. The model has been used for language arts, mathematics, science, and social studies. Following the training process, four to six reviewers, including teachers and content specialists, individually identify the content standard objectives that match each assessment item. They first determine the 'depth of knowledge' required by each objective or benchmark of the content standards being analyzed, and code each using one of four levels of knowledge: (a) recall, (b) skill/concept, (c) strategic thinking, (d) extended thinking. Operational definitions and labels vary somewhat by subject. Second, reviewers determine the objective or benchmark represented by each item or task on the state assessment being reviewed, and they rate the level of knowledge necessary for a student to successfully complete the item or task. Norman L. Webb is a senior research scientist with the Wisconsin Center for Education Research and the National Institute for Science Education. Webb is a mathematics educator and evaluator who leads the Institute's work on strategies for evaluating reform and rethinking how we evaluate mathematics and science education, while focusing on the NSF's Mathematics and Science Partnerships. His own research has focused on assessment of students' knowledge of mathematics and the alignment of standards and assessments. Webb also directs evaluations of curriculum and professional development projects.

Depth of Knowledge (DOK) Webb’s Four Depth of Knowledge Levels are: Level 1—Recall and Reproduction Level 2—Skills & Concepts Level 3—Strategic Thinking Level 4—Extended Thinking   DOK Level 1 only requires students to recall information, demonstrate a rote response, or use a formula that requires them to follow a set procedure or perform a clearly defined set of steps. DOK 2 requires some mental processing beyond recalling or producing a response. For example, it may require the student to compare data which requires students to identify characteristics of the object and then group or order the objects. It may also ask students to organize, estimate, make observations, collect and display data, or compare data. In terms of assessment, level 2 items may address more than one Eligible Content Item. In addition, Level 2 items imply the student uses more than one cognitive process. DOK Level 3 requires students to use more demanding and abstract cognitive reasoning, such as planning and using evidence. The assessment items associated with Level 3 may have more than one possible answer. In addition, they require students to justify their response. This justification of a student’s response adds to the complexity of the task, assuming that the explanation provided is not a simple explanation. These skills need to be practiced regularly within a classroom culture that values and respects diverse approaches and opinions. DOK Level 4 requires very high cognitive demands of students. In addition, the task is highly complex. Within the task students are required to connect the ideas of their content or make connections among the different content areas. Students may be asked to select an approach that best solves a situation. DOK Level 4 assessment items typically require an extended period of time and are not captured by “on-demand” assessment instruments; however, a task requiring extended time does not necessarily warrant a DOK Level 4. If the task is lengthy, and it does not require students to apply a significant level of conceptual understanding and higher order thinking, then it is not a DOK Level 4 task. Copyright ©2010 Commonwealth of Pennsylvania 23

The DOK is NOT determined by the verb, but the context in which the verb is used and the depth of thinking required. DOK 3- Describe a model that you might use to represent the relationships that exist within the rock cycle. (requires deep understanding of rock cycle and a determination of how best to represent it) DOK 2- Describe the difference between metamorphic and igneous rocks. (requires cognitive processing to determine the differences in the two rock types) DOK 1- Describe three characteristics of metamorphic rocks. (simple recall) Be aware that Depth of Knowledge levels are not exclusively determined by verbs. Notice the example here of which the verb remains the same, although the examples consist of DOK Levels 1-3. It is equally, if not more important, to focus on the context of the task and what the task is asking. You do not want to solely focus on the verb as the determinant of the Level of DOK the task is addressing. Handout 24

How does DOK relate to me as a leader? Classroom observations Lesson Design Materials implementation PLC’s Professional Development Informal Feedback Interaction with students

THE CONSULTANCY PROTOCOL Step 1 Description of Challenge, Problem, Dilemma (3 minutes) Step 2 Clarifying Questions (2 minutes) Step 3 Discuss and Recommend (10 minutes) Step 4 Presenter Reflection (5 minutes) The Facilitator’s Book of Questions; Allen and Blythe; Teachers College Press; 2004

THE CONSULTANCY PROTOCOL Step 1 Description of Challenge (3 minutes) Overview of Challenge Frames a Question for the Group to Consider Presents Evidence as Appropriate Step 2 Clarifying Questions (2 minutes) Group Asks Questions for Clarification Purposes Questions that Have Brief, Factual Answers Presenter Responds with Brief, Factual Answers The Facilitator’s Book of Questions; Allen and Blythe; Teachers College Press; 2004

THE CONSULTANCY PROTOCOL Step 3 Discuss and Recommend (10 minutes) Group Members Talk to One Another about the Challenge Described Potential Questions What did we hear? What didn’t we hear that we think might be relevant? What assumptions seem to be operating? What questions does the challenge raise for us? What do we think about the challenge? What might we do or try if faced with a similar challenge? What would we recommend? Group Members Make Suggestions serving as Critical Friends Presenter Doesn’t Speak – Only Listens and Takes Notes The Facilitator’s Book of Questions; Allen and Blythe; Teachers College Press; 2004

THE CONSULTANCY PROTOCOL Step 4 Presenter Reflection (5 minutes) Challenge Presenter Reflects on What He/She Heard Challenge Presenter Shares What He/She Is Now Thinking Challenge Presenter Highlights Specific Ideas/Comments that Resonated The Facilitator’s Book of Questions; Allen and Blythe; Teachers College Press; 2004

THE CONSULTANCY PROTOCOL Step 1 Description of Challenge (3 minutes) Step 2 Clarifying Questions (2 minutes) Step 3 Discuss and Recommend (10 minutes) Step 4 Presenter Reflection (5 minutes) The Facilitator’s Book of Questions; Allen and Blythe; Teachers College Press; 2004

7:00-8:00 a.m. Morning Breakfast and Collegial Conversation Aleutian Room 8:00-9:00 a.m. Opening Plenary Sessions Aleutian Room > Content Focus and Overview > Critical Friends Conversations 9:00-10:30 a.m. Break-Out Groups A, B, and C 10:30-10:45 a.m. Break Time 10:45-12:00 p.m. Break-Out Groups A, B, and C 12:00-1:00 p.m. Lunch 1:00 – 3:00 p.m. Break-Out Groups A, B, and C 3:00-4:00 p.m. District Team Planning Time Aleutian Room SAMPLE SCHEDULE

CONTENT Break-Out Group A – Dillingham Room Al Bertani – Educator Effectiveness Break-Out Group B – Katmai Room Lexie Domaradzki and Sue Johnson – Math Standards Break-Out Group C – King Salmon Room Shelby Skaanes – ELA Standards CONTENT

Maximize your day…