Leadership Network for the Ohio Improvement Process
Leadership Network for the Ohio Improvement Process
February 26, 2013
How are you communicating the strong connection between components of the Ohio Improvement Process and OTES/OPES?Further questions:
Are districts feeling that they should keep these things separate for awhile yet? (they feel that OIP is working well and there is much confusion around OTES/OPES)
Current focus on developing a good understanding of the TBT/BLT/DLT using the 5 step process before putting OTES/OPES into the mix / Points to share:
Leaders see connections, not sure how it is making it down to teacher level, making connections at SLO training between FIP, creating assessments, and 5 step process. need to make a plan to make those explicit connections for people
As a district they haven’t been making the deliberate connections yet, there is overlap between DLT and OTES committee members, make the connection between writing SLOs and developing formative assessments in TBTs
DLT members have presented to their staff about OIP and the teachers themselves are making the connections between the 5 step process and OTES
It’s an emerging process, the connection isn’t coming from the designers of the process, it’s been up to districts to make the connections, create sense of urgency
There is so much is caught up in the “what” but people are looking for the “why” but can’t get there because there is so much “stuff” to do
Logical connections might be – personnel across committees, common assessments, monitoring of the process
What is your process to develop SLOs?
Further questions:
How are people providing guidance around setting growth targets?
- Feeling that it’s arbitrary, trainings haven’t clarified
- Teachers would like growth targets aligned to new end of course exams that we don’t have
- AIMSweb allows to set differential targets, used national averages for different groups
- Some of vendor assessments have nationally normed base for targets
- Using formative assessments will hopefully help teachers monitor how children are moving towards meeting the SLO
Early childhood new standards and SLOs? / Points to share:
The process to develop is moving slowly, people attended trainings, ongoing conversations with union about percentages and who needs to develop, struggle to get to it’s about “we” not just “me”, teachers don’t always see the big picture of working collaboratively to develop good common assessments
Developing OTES policy and negotiations at same time, friction between people to have their targets set and those that can set their own, been working on common assessments for a couple years but realizing that may not be best, time is a factor – planning summer work
Been working on common end of course assessment and curriculum maps grades 5-10 because of International Baccalaureate, so they have a foundation, questions about upcoming end of course assessments so do we spend the time to develop pre-assessments for current courses? Where to put energy that won’t end up being a waste of time. MS TBT process has been an asset in moving forward with the team approach
Broad effort to make SLOs not teacher specific but across buildings, limit to the 2 SLOs per teacher that ODE is asking for, places where common and formative assessments are in place will help with development of SLOs
In the waiting process for the district office to tell them what to do
Looking at vendor assessments, have common core pacing guides and bi-weekly assessments “thrown at” teachers
Waiting, new Decision Framework indicated a lack of teacher understanding of formative assessment
Used a waiver day for elementary teachers to meet by grade level and rolled out state SLO training using the first 3 modules. Teachers then developed 1 SLO this year as a practice, used AIMSweb for pre-assessment, teachers doing more than one subject still a question
Rolled out state training module 1 with HS, identified 2 teachers at each building for district SLO review, RTTT must have SLOs uploaded by May 10, looking at departmental SLOs, challenge of getting over just using final exam because it doesn’t meet rigor, going with STARS K-8 reading/math, have lots of questions about SLOs from teachers of subjects like art, music, cosmetology, etc.
In process with many things - 5 step process, RtI, rimps, Common Core, MAPS, etc. Looking at how to roll SLOs into common formative assessment work that has already been done – focusing on it next year
No SLO training yet for teachers, have sent 1 principal
Message from Race to the Top conference, we can’t let perfect be a roadblock, opportunity to be collaborative and cooperative and this is the only way to get the work done
How are you aligning your SLOs with your pre/post assessments, and ongoing formative assessments?
Further questions: / Points to share:
Teachers working in TBTs realizing that assessments are not very well aligned, wishing they had better assessment training before they started developing assessments, time issue – not feel they have enough to develop quality assessments
Describe the discussion you have had in your district about shared attribution and your TBTs.
Further questions: / Points to share:
Haven’t talked about it much yet, natural resistance that my outcomes should be tied to what I produce; however, shared accountability may help with collaboration, huge leap, pressure in a good way to teachers who may not be performing and supporting each other
Talking with union, they feel shared attribution takes the student growth measure out of the loop and puts emphasis on teacher’s score
Shared attribution is a “bad word” not interested in sharing it in their district
Hearing from union presidents that it varies from local to local, Rocky River using as much shared attribution as can, Bay Village doing SLOs
District has been above in Value-Added but initially will probably go to the smallest amount of shared attribution
Not at the top of their list of concerns right now but are hoping they will consider it, special education is a discussion point
How are you supporting principals to be instructional leaders knowledgeable about instructional strategies?
Further questions:
If doing McRelwalkthrough for feedback, howwill teachers know if it’s an evaluation walkthrough? / Points to share:
District very intentional commitment this year, McRel walkthrough principals do 40, central office 30, asst principals 30, immediate feedback email to teachers after walkthrough, calibrate every other week on Fridays with video, memo from superintendent 7% principal day with teachers in classrooms
Informal walkthroughs now, plan on doing McRel next year. McRel is only for feedback not evaluation, cue to teachers - if have iPad it’s McRel
So much on the plate that’s all important - how to figure out what to let go? Challenge of being in building as instructional leader as well as being on district committees that remove from building, 40-60 walkthroughs per week on top of evaluations?
Central office has to follow through on showing that instruction is the most important
McRel walkthroughs – principals do 20 per week but OTES may be a game changer, developed a committee of principals and central office to identify priorities and what can stop doing or be shifted, redefining what it means to be a principal
No formal walkthrough but have structured observation process and need to define the OTES walkthrough, looking at allocation of time and effort of central office
Walkthroughs in every building every day (6 areas for walkthroughs that they developed), rating scale that is letting principals know every two weeks, identified area of difficulty of dealing with the mediocre group of teachers to make them a better teacher, central office role to make them better principals – focusing on effective leadership practices
Using OTES (into online system?) and merged with school improvement walkthrough on Google Docs (Google version give to BLT without teacher names)
Conducted K-8 literacy training and principals required to be there, fishbowls in classroom to model strategies, walkthrough piece called “status check” with consultant and lead teacher that goes to leadership team too , Middle School uses Google Doc walkthrough, not adopted something across district
Doing “building scans” designed own form enter into PD 360 no teacher names, looking at using OTES form
Traditional evaluation walkthrough, at HS the department chairs running the PD for last 3 years and feedback from principals
Doing McRelpairing principals to do walkthroughs together to assist in calibration, 15 per week, data walks central office meet with principals to go over their building data to model, began OPES this year
How are you addressing the purposes and differences between your informal observation walkthroughs in your district improvement plan and OTES walkthroughs?
Further questions: / Points to share:
If using an iPad it’s McRel and not part of evaluation
Major Takeaways:
- Don’t’ expect perfect, it’s a moving target
- All in this together, misery loves company, helpful to learn from others
- Confirmation of the importance of instructional leadership
- Continue to reframe the accountability/expectations as an opportunity by our actions not just words that it’s not a gotcha for teachers
Question still have
- How it all fits?
- What to prioritize?
- Community impact and how to communicate everything that is going on
- SLOs
- Legislators making decisions that aren’t educationally sound and language in legislation keeps changing
- How to provide time and support to make instructional leadership a reality?
- How much is reasonable to expect from principals and how to help them decide what to let go?