Fall, 2011 Get ready, Get set………..It’s Here

PROGRAM REVIEW Wide Lens View Senate Bill 1-March 2009 Arts & Humanities, Writing, and Practical Living Career Studies. School Wide Across all Content areas

Program Review??? …a systematic method of analyzing components of an instructional program, including instructional practices, aligned to enacted curriculum, student work samples, formative and summative assessments, professional development and support services, and administrative monitoring KRS (1) (i)

Purpose Improve the quality of teaching and learning for all students in the program. Allow equal access for all students to the skills that will assist them in becoming productive citizens. Allowing students demonstration of understanding beyond a paper-pencil test Ensure school wide natural integration of the program skills across all content, beyond the program areas.

Where are we now…. What has happened since 2009 SB1 and what will happen this school year with Program Review?

Program Review 16 technical assistance sessions provided across the state by KDE. KVEC Regional Group formed and in process of developing tools. State-wide work underway includes Rubric refinement and feedback Implementation Timeline Implementation for accountability Survey (Would it make more sense to pilot PR in all schools in 2011/2012 and include in accountability in 2012/2013)

Program Review Update Program Reviews will be included in the accountability system through field testing and public reporting of results. Full accountability for Program Reviews will begin in the school year. Schools will implement Program Reviews in the upcoming school year to get a baseline measure of where they stand.

Currently proposed Under current proposal, schools would receive up to 100 points for each of the three Program Reviews. Each score would be multiplied by 33.3 percent. Program Reviews in world language and elementary primary programs will be implemented in coming Schools will likely will have four Program Reviews, as elementary schools likely will not have world language Program Reviews and middle and high schools will not have primary Program Reviews.

Program Review All Program Reviews will be weighted equally. In the regulation that proposes an overall accountability score for schools and districts, direction was given to increase the percentage that program reviews would count from 20% to 30% in a 100-point overall score. This indicates the board’s viewpoint that these content areas are critical to effective teaching and learning. These decisions are pending final approval at the August 3-4 KBE meeting.

Timelines for Deployment of Program Reviews Phase 1 ( _ Pilot Phase 2 ( ) Voluntary Implementation 48 Schools piloted. Feedback collected. Revisions made to tools and process School/districts were encouraged to use Program Reviews. Additional data were collected. Revisions made to tools and process. Phase 3 ( ) Field Test Phase 4 ( ) Implementation Mandatory implementation in all schools. Professional development provided by KDE and partner organizations. Feedback collected. Rubrics revised to validate. Results publicly reported for accountability Statewide implementation Full accountability in spring 2013.

Habit 2 Begin With the End in Mind

Which Way Ought we to go from here?

KEY CONCEPTS ON-GOING Year-round Reflective Identification of strengths (shared with other programs in the building) Identification of weakness and areas of growth.

All Students (Every Content-Every Day) Program Reviews are not designed to single out certain students and their abilities, but are inclusive for ALL students.

Program Review Standards Curriculum & Instruction Formative & Summative Assessments Professional Development & Support Services Administrative/Leadership Support & Monitoring

Arts & Humanities Four Sub-Domains:  Music  Art  Theatre (Drama)  Dance

Highlights for Arts & Humanities Students’ arts assessment is based on clearly- defined standards that identify the skills and knowledge expected of students in each art form and for each arts course Creating, performing and responding attainment levels are clearly communicated to the student, evidenced in classrooms, and observable in student work

Highlights for Arts & Humanities A rigorous arts curriculum provides access to a common academic core for all students as defined by state and national standards in the arts Teachers examine and discuss student work and use this information to inform their practices

Practical Living and Career Studies Four Sub-Domains:  Health  Physical Education  Consumerism  Career Studies

Highlights for PL/CS Opportunity to showcase innovative programming utilizing technology, project-based instruction and promoting student leadership and achievements. Emphasis on collaboration with community/business partners, parents and other academic teachers is a key component Emphasis on school leadership to support high quality instructional PL/CS programs

Highlights for PL/CS Importance of program related professional development is a key component of the professional development plan Provides an opportunity to integrate non-traditional types of assessments (e.g. technology driven projects, electronic portfolios and performance/skill based test)

Health and Physical Education Health and Physical Education includes content specific information as related to the national standards.

Consumerism Example Sub-Domain specifics: Financial Literacy Consumer Decision Care of the Environment

Career Studies Career Studies In career studies a broader perspective was taken due to the content specific needs of a variety of careers.

What about Writing? When writing standards are applied to the program review, they do not just apply to Language Arts classes; they apply to all content areas. Promotes a whole school vision for developing students’ writing and communication skills to compete in the 21 st century world Moves expectations beyond simply writing on paper to communicating for a variety of purposes and audiences using a variety of technological modes

Highlights for Writing Emphasizes an assessment process which informs instruction and allows students to take ownership of their learning Sets the stage for whole school and on-going support through empowering teachers and administrators as instructional leaders, coaches, and collaborators

Internal Program Review: School Level Internal Program Reviews for Writing, Arts & Humanities, and Practical Living/Career Studies should be conducted three times per year (beginning, mid-, and end of year). Conducting a program review at the beginning of the school year ensures that school programs are fully prepared for quality implementation. Conducting a program review mid-year ensures that programs are being implemented as planned and that any rising programmatic issues are being addressed. Conducting a program review at the end of the school year provides an annual check-up for each program, and allows schools to reflect on the impact of programmatic decisions and implementation strategies made throughout the year.

Let’s look at the PR Process 1. Initial program review= setting up processes for gathering data and completing baseline assessment and reporting. Revisiting existing evidence 2. Examining new evidence 3. Revisiting rubric results to adjust assessments, update reports, and provide new recommendations for program improvement where necessary.

Who should be involved in Internal Reviews??? Who are your Stakeholders? How can you involve these stakeholders in your PR Process? At you tables discuss this important element of PR Review. How can you make it happen at your school.

External Program Review: District External Program Reviews are the responsibility of individual school districts. As schools complete periodic review processes, they will compile evidence, complete rubrics, and reports into sets of information that will be provided to their districts for review and feedback. In addition, district leaders should complete a process for visiting schools to ensure that the evidence, reports, and recommendations provided by schools provide an accurate and complete representation of program status and improvement efforts.

State Review The Kentucky Department of Education will use the Program Review reports, including their rubrics and supporting evidence for a verification process.

Step 1: Creating Review Committees Review committees for each program area should be determined, as sub-committees of the SBDM Council, including the following stakeholders: Teacher representatives who work in the discipline Teacher representatives from across content area School leaders

The team may also include Parent representatives Student representative (when possible) Other relevant community stakeholders Classified school staff (FRYSC coordinators, custodians, secretaries) School media specialists and other certified staff

Step 2: Identifying Evidence Evidence is identified to support the school’s analysis. Evidence identification tasks should be assigned based on the respective roles and responsibilities of each stakeholder.

Identifying the Evidence The program review allows schools to think “outside the box” when determining evidence to document their progress. It is left up to each individual school to determine what the evidence will look like. The evidence will provide schools an opportunity to showcase the “good works” they are doing.

Identifying the Evidence Team Evidence must support team decisions Evidence will come from multiple sources: 1) naturally occurring throughout the course of regular classroom work 2) easily attainable (i.e. data) Professional Judgment It is not intended that schools collect boxes of materials used as evidence. (The current thinking is that schools would not submit actual evidence to either the state or district.)

Step 3: Convene for Rubric Assessment Process After reviewing evidence, the PR Committee should convene to complete program review rubrics. Process: Review and discuss demonstrators and associated characteristics Have copies of rubrics for each committee member, and complete each row of characteristics under demonstrator in the rubric with consensus on the performance level. After the rubric is complete, compose a rationale that details the evidence that supports and justifies the level of performance determined by the team.

Step 4: Identify Next Steps Engage the review committee in discussion of characteristics that are noted as “Needs Improvement” Draw on the ideas/suggestions of the review committee to determine next steps for ongoing program improvement (moving from “needs improvement” to “proficient.”) Examine characteristics that are noted as “Proficient”. Ask, “How can we move these to “Distinguished.” Complete the recommendations for Program Improvement section of each demonstrator.

Step 5: Share the Internal Program Review Report After all program review processes are complete, the entire review set should be prepared for distribution and discussion. Review set: o Program Review Coversheet o Program Review Report and Recommendations o Detailed list of identified evidence artifacts, by demonstrator

Share with Stakeholders SBDM Councils District Leadership Personnel (including Superintendent & School Board Members) Parents Faculty Community ETC.

Ongoing Internal Program Review Program Review processes should be completed at least three times per year, with ongoing data identification throughout the year. After the initial program review is completed, schools should subsequently follow the process outlined in the program review guide for both mid-year and at the end of the year reviews. During these review the committee revisit the program status.

Planning for Improvement Areas of strength and of need should be easily identified Guiding questions may help focus planning for improvement, such as: 1) What areas of strength did the team notice that should be further enhanced? 2) What areas of need were identified? 3) How will the school plan to enhance areas of strength and address areas of need?

District Annual External Review District leaders conduct the annual external review Method is a local decision (a process is outlined in the guide but districts may design their own process) The process is completed after the school’s internal program review at the end of each year.

Recognition of Growth Schools’ progress toward meeting their improvement goals-should happen on a local level. Districts can encourage continued progress by recognizing their growth.

Using the Program Review Rubric Break into groups (The three areas of Program Review) Refer to Section 3 of the guide. Do a quick read. With your group read and discuss the process for completing and analyzing rubric (mid second page) Practice: Complete the process for one descriptor of the rubric. Discuss the reporting process at your table.

Program reviews are overarching. They are not class or content specific, but, instead a COMPLETE SCHOOL-WIDE program. Program reviews are an on-going process. Designed as a reflective tool that will allow schools to see where their program is at the current time and where they can go. On-Going Growth Model The method by which schools get to the goal, however, can be different from school to school.

Program Review Process Not ThisBut This