Overview of SCEE’s Initiatives to Increase Teacher and Leader Effectiveness SCEE Topical Meeting InTASC’s Standards as Driver of Effective Teaching: Transforming Systems San Diego, CA December 8-9, 2011

Education Workforce Team Janice Poda  Strategic Initiative Director for Education Workforce and Director of State Consortium on Educator Effectiveness (SCEE) Kathleen Paliokas  Director, Interstate Teacher Assessment and Support Consortium (InTASC) William Bentgen  Program Assistant, Education Workforce Allie Masterson  Program Assistant, Education Workforce

Education Workforce Team Jon Quam  Director, National Teacher of the Year Program Andy Drewlinger  Program Assistant

Education Workforce Team Full-time Consultants Mary-Dean Barringer  Educator in Residence, Eastern Region + Michigan Holly Boffy  Educator in Residence, Central and Deep South Region Terry Janicki  Educator in Residence, Western Region

Education Workforce Team Part-time Consultants  Mary Canole  Peter McWalters  Irv Richardson  West Wind Education Policy  Circe Stumbo  Deb Hansen  Valerie Nyberg

CCSSO’s Conceptual Framework

College and Career Ready Students who are college- and career-ready is the larger goal.  Common Core State Standards are a tool for getting us there  They define performance standards for today’s students – the WHAT  HOW we get to readiness is through effective instruction  Teaching standards define what effective instruction looks like  Leadership standards define what school leaders do to support instruction  The goal of professional development is to improve instruction

Common Core State Standards: ADOPTION  Initiated, organized, and led by two national organizations of state-level leaders  National Governors’ Association (NGA)  Council of Chief State School Officers (CCSSO)  46 States and DC have fully adopted  MN has adopted ELA only  States that have not adopted: AK, NE, TX, VA  State participation is voluntary

Common Core State Standards: CONTENT  Core standards, ONLY in English and mathematics  Truly different than current state standards “Fewer, Clearer, Higher” Progressions across grades English: Literature and Informational text Math: Basic Numerical Literacy before Applications  CCSS built on College and Career Readiness (CCR)  HS graduation standards set at CCR level  Backwards design, from grade 12 to kindergarten

A New Vision of Teaching Developmental Continuum A Focus on 21st Century Knowledge and Skills Personalized Learning for Diverse Learners Increased Emphasis on Assessment Literacy A Collaborative Professional Culture New Leadership Roles for Teachers and Administrators

The Learner and Learning Standard #1: Learner Development Standard #2: Learning Differences Standard #3: Learning Environments Content Standard #4: Content Knowledge Standard #5: Application of Content Groupings of Standards

Instructional Practice Standard #6: Assessment Standard #7: Planning for Instruction Standard #8: Instructional Strategies Professional Responsibility Standard #9: Professional Learning and Ethical Practice Standard #10: Leadership and Collaboration

ThemeKnowledgeDispositionPerformance *Collaboration 3(g), 3(h), 3(i), 5(p), 10(f), 1(k), 3(k), 3(l), 3(nm), 1(c), 3(a), 3(b), 3(d), 5(f), 6(b), 10(h) 5(v), 6(m), 7(l), 8(s), 9(l), 7(a), 8(b), 8(c), 9(a-c), 9(e), 10(a), 10(k), 10(l) 10(b), 10(c), 10(d) *Communication 3(i), 3(j), 5(o), 6(j), 8(o)3(o), 3(n), 6(o), 8(u)3(b), 3(e), 5(e), 5(f), 6(c), 8(h), 8(i), 8(j), 10(e) *Creativity/innovation 5(k), 5(q), 8(l), 8(o)3(m), 5(v)5(d), 5(g), 5(h), 6(g), 8(k), 9(f) *Critical thinking, problem solving 4(h), 5(j), 5(n), 6(k), 8(l), 8(n) 4(n), 5(s), 8(r)4(b), 4(c), 5(a), 5(b), 5(d), 5(g), 5(h), 6(d), 8(f), 8(g), 8(k), 9(b) Cultural competence 1(g), 2(i), 2(l), 2(m), 3(i), 4(k), 5(r), 7(f), 8(m) 3(n), 4(m), 5(v), 5(w), 7(f), 8(t), 2(f), 3(e), 5(h), 9(c) Key Cross-Cutting Themes in Updated InTASC Standards

InTASC Teaching Standards Linked to Common Core Students Standards InTASC Teaching Standards Standard 5: CCSS Mathematics

Areas of Focus

Policy Implications  Preparation  Program approval/accreditation as leverage  Clinical practice  Licensing/Certification  Tiered licensure to reflect developmental continuum  Renewal requirements based on performance v. credits  Ongoing Professional Learning  Teacher and Leader Evaluation – “effectiveness”

State Consortium on Educator Effectiveness (SCEE)  Created in fall 2010  Purpose is to help states  Transition from a policy environment of highly qualified to highly effective  Develop coherent standards-based educator effectiveness SYSTEMS (Preparation, Licensure, Professional Development, Evaluation)

SCEE Summit and Topical Meetings  2nd SCEE National Summit on Educator Effectiveness will be held May 2-4 in Seattle, Washington  TBD: Topical meeting on teacher and leader preparation

Preparation of Teachers and Leaders  General consensus is that teachers and leaders are not being prepared for today’s learning environments  Don’t have the depth of knowledge of content or pedagogy to take students to higher levels of learning Common Core State Standards Assessment literacy  Aren’t being prepared as facilitators of learning– still sage on the stage approach

Preparation of Teachers and Leaders  Using state levers to improve educator preparation:  Recommendations for licensure/certification What assessments are being used to make determination for licensure/certification? Are they aligned with the state’s expectations?  Program approval v. national accreditation National accreditation is voluntary Program approval can be redesigned to set expectations for candidates who are recommended for licensure/certification

Professional Learning  Professional learning communities  Embedded in the teacher’s work day  Focused on teacher’s current work  Follow up in the classroom  Observe master teacher teaching/facilitating instruction  Team teach with a master teacher  Have master teacher observe teaching and give feedback  Individual professional learning available 24/7  Online resources  Self-assessments

Evaluation and Support Evaluation is a major focus in most states  Many states are selecting/adapting models currently available  TAP  Marzano  Danielson  Doug Reeves  Val-Ed  Smorgasbord (allow districts to choose based on state criteria)

Evaluation and Support  Sources of evidence  Classroom observations  Portfolios  Surveys  Student assessment and performance data

Student Achievement Issues Related to Teacher and Leader Evaluation  Methodology to determine growth/absolute achievement  Technical issues  Fairness  Reliability (consistency)  Validity (confidence)  Comparability (tested v. non-tested grades and subjects)

Pearson Foundation and CCSSO Partnership  CCSSO has sponsored the National Teacher of the Year Program since 1952  Former Teachers of the Year want to have input into policy and decisions made  Some former teachers of the year will work with the Pearson Foundation and CCSSO to develop video clips that will illustrate the InTASC standards

Pearson Foundation and CCSSO Partnership  Will involve former Teachers of the Year in international education via  Study of the education system in other countries  Participation in the International Summit on Excellence in the Teaching Profession  Regional meetings or electronic means of sharing lessons learned from international success stories

For More Information Please go to: ms/Implementing_the_Common_ Core_Standards_(ICCS).htmlwww.ccsso.org/Resources/Progra ms/Implementing_the_Common_ Core_Standards_(ICCS).html

Contact Information Janice Poda Kathleen Paliokas