The Bulletin
Division of School & District Effectiveness
October 2015
"Transforming leadership--Advancing schools"
Purposes
The SDE Bulletin: to provide regular, timely information to increase the shared understanding of our team of School & District Effectiveness professionals
Our Shared SDE Purpose: to increase collective leadership capacity to understand what effective schools and districts know and do, and to support the leaders to own their improvement processes
Previous Editions of The Bulletin
August 2014- https://www.smore.com/700mx
September 2014- https://www.smore.com/huyyh
October 2014- https://www.smore.com/std20
November 2014- https://www.smore.com/09uva
December 2014/January 2015- https://www.smore.com/09uva
February- https://www.smore.com/hrzfv
March 2015- https://www.smore.com/6wsrq
April 2015- https://www.smore.com/9vbmj
May 2015- https://www.smore.com/gwjuk
June 2015- https://www.smore.com/4suf4
July 2015- https://www.smore.com/kk5zr
August 2015- https://www.smore.com/uek4p
September 2015- https://www.smore.com/puabs
This Month
Some exciting changes in School & District Effectiveness!
Paula Herrema- Lead SES for Metro East Region
Amy Alderman- Lead SES for Northwest Region
Shawn Keim- School Effectiveness Specialist, Metro East Region
Pat Blenke- School Effectiveness Specialist, Metro West Region
Melvina Crawl- SIG Program Specialist, Atlanta Office
We are fortunate to have each of these folks assume the positions above. And a special thank you to those who "held the fort" while awaiting these appointments. Amazing teamwork!!!
Susan White shared a very interesting video on Design Integration, or Design Thinking. It has a few uses of crass language, but the messages are great for us to consider for our primary team and for the entire School & District Effectiveness Team. Thanks, Susan, for sharing! https://vimeo.com/18466290
Thanks also to you all. We are right on schedule. You may be feeling like you are behind. But don't forget that we just got the US ED go-ahead in the summer with the Waiver and the identification of schools, you are finishing up the MOAs, the new Division re-alignment followed the schedule laid out in February, you are starting to move into schools and districts with the work...it's right on schedule. And remember, we will not have the MOA process next year, so we can continue the work with schools and districts throughout this coming summer. Great work, everyone!
From Areas/Regions
Phillip Luck, North; Sam Taylor, Metro; Patty Rooks, South
The work with the districts and schools has begun…
September has been an extremely exciting and busy month for the Area Administrative and Region Teams. The district MOA meetings are all but completed, the Region Teams are in the process of conducting diagnostic school visits leading to the completion of the school profiles, and each of the Regions are providing Indistar training for both the districts and schools. In October, with trend data and school diagnostics and profiles in hand, Region Support Plans aligned to the identified needs of districts and schools will be realized. DESs and Region Teams will provide support to districts and schools in unpacking the standards, assessing their level of implementation and the development of their plans for improvement.
Further, in order to provide feedback related to the progress being made by our schools and districts in regard to their school improvement efforts, DESs will support districts (LEAs) in the process of monitoring their Priority and SIG schools, and Lead SESs will conduct SEA monitoring of Priority and SIG schools as indicated by the schedule below.
We truly appreciate everyone’s hard work. We are off to a great start and looking forward to a great year!
Patty, Sam and Phillip
From the Atlanta Support Office
Professional Learning Support
Christy Jones & Andrea Cruz
September SDE PL
Thanks to everyone who participated in September SDE PL at the Decatur Courtyard Marriott. It was a great opportunity to hear updates about our division alignment, discuss ILA topics and receive feedback, continue our Data Literacy and MOA/Waiver sessions, and have a dynamic leadership presentation about the Multiplier Effect. That was just Day One! On Day Two, we met in our Area/Region Teams to address the needs of our schools/districts.
October ILA
Please mark your calendars and plan to attend our Instructional Leadership Academy. It will be held at The Classic Center in Athens on October 28th and 29th. Registration information is available on our PL webpage under Events and Conferences. The required participants are principals and the principal’s supervisor from our Focus and Priority schools/districts. It is highly recommended that the principals from our Opportunity schools attend as well. Our tentative session topics will include: Multiplier Effect presentation, QCIS (Indistar), District and School Performance Standards, CCRPI, School Improvement Plan, District Strategic Plan, and SDE Resources.
Professional Learning Tidbit
As we continue to work with our schools/districts, I wanted to share a blog that I came across recently addressing Professional Learning. In essence, the blog talks about four main reasons as to why some leaders create barriers that don’t allow for effective professional learning opportunities to occur within their schools/districts. I have listed them below.
Some leaders’ have antiquated “mental models” regarding learning and change that impede progress.
Some leaders don’t have a sufficiently deep understanding of the attributes of high-quality professional learning nor a carefully crafted “theory of action.”
Some leaders are resigned to the status quo.
Some leaders lack the will and/or skill to engage in the challenging conversations that are almost always required to continuously improve teaching and learning.
Source: https://dennissparks.wordpress.com/2015/05/20/why-doesnt-professional-development-improve-2/
Strategy of the Month
Each month we’ll provide a PL strategy that could be used with adults or students. Our goal is to deepen learning and engage the learner.
Title: Take Off, Touch Down
Description: Learners stand and sit to answer questions as the teacher polls the group.
Directions:
Take Off-Touch Down is better than Raise a Hand. Our brains consume 20% more oxygen when we stand and the blood that pools in our seat and feet is moved up to the brain. Blood contains oxygen.
- Teacher makes a statement.
- Learners to whom the statement applies stand up ("Take Off").
- Those to whom it does NOT apply remain seated.
- Teacher makes the next statement:
Standing learners: If a statement applies, remaining standing; otherwise sit down ("Touch Down").
Seated learners: If statement applies, stand up; otherwise remain seated.
Intended Audience: Students or Adults
Source: Kagan Structures
Operational Support
Cindy Popp, Region Resources; Gary Wenzel, Operations
IT UPDATES WEBINAR, Friday, October 2 from 9:00 AM – 10:00 AM
DOCUMENT REVIEW TEAMS – There is still time to volunteer to work on document revisions. We would like representation from both SDE and RESA staff in all regions. Please send Cindy Popp an email or contact your Lead or Area Program Manager if you are interested in joining a team. (Thanks to those who are already on the teams or who have already volunteered!)
GA School Performance Standards
GA District Performance Standards
Leadership Guide
GA School Assessment on Performance Standards (GSAPS)
GA District Assessment on Performance Standards (GDAPS)
Classroom Observation Form for GDAPS
Content Area Lesson Frameworks and Curriculum Development Process Facilitators' Handbook (SC and CT)
Operations Manual
SDE Field Book
NEW TOOLBOX LINKS ON THE SDE WEBPAGES!
Check out the left side of the School and District Effectiveness webpages for new links to the following items:
Effective Instructional Strategies – System for Effective School Instruction
Templates/Tools for School Improvement Planning
Templates/Tools for District Improvement Planning
What Effect Schools Know and Do (Georgia School Performance Standards)
What Effective Districts Know and Do (Georgia District Performance Standards)
Quality Review Process for Schools (Georgia School Assessment on Performance Standards)
Leadership Guide to Improving School Performance (Curriculum, Assessment, and Instruction)
NEW ALTERNATIVE EDUCATION PROGRAM STANDARDS COMING SOON!
The Alternative Education Program Standards have been revised to be an addendum to the Georgia School Performance Standards. The 11 standards will be posted in the STANDARDS box on the SDE webpages in the near future.
Federal Support
Pat Blenke and Karen Suddeth- SIG/1003(g)
Cohort 3 (July 1, 2013-September 30, 2016)
Bibb County- Matilda Hartley Elementary School; Westside High School
Fulton County- Frank McClarin High School
Gwinnett County- Meadowcreek High School
Quitman County- Quitman County High School
Twiggs County- Twiggs County High School
Wilkinson County- Wilkinson County High School
Cohort 3 schools must encumber all remaining FY15 (Year 2) funds by September 30, 2015, and process all invoices, expending the funds by October 30, 2015.
The Year 3 funds availability period for Cohort 3 schools is July 1, 2015 – September 30, 2016.
Additionally, Cohort 3 schools are expected to order all equipment, supplies, and materials to be purchased with the FY16 (Year 3 funds) by September 30 2016.
Cohort 4 (July 1, 2014-September 30, 2017)
Atlanta Public Schools- Frederick Douglass High School
Bibb County- Southwest Magnet High School and Law Academy
Dougherty County- Dougherty County Comprehensive High School; Monroe Comprehensive High School
Muscogee County- Fox Elementary School; Jordan Vocational High School; William H. Spencer High School
Cohort 4 schools are expected to order all equipment, supplies, and materials to be purchased with the FY16 (Year 2 funds) by September 30, 2016.
LEA Monitoring of SIG Schools
As noted last month, this year LEAs will be responsible for submitting three (3) LEA Monitoring Reports in Indistar for each of their SIG schools. The format and content of the monitoring report has been revised to allow the SIG Coordinator, in collaboration with key leaders at the district level, to assess the level of progress of the LEA/school in implementing the SIG indicators. The electronic LEA Monitoring Report forms can be accessed from the District Dashboard and are to be completed and submitted within Indistar by September 30th, January 30th, and April 30th of each year. Further, in the event that an indicator is either not progressing at an expected rate or not evident, an interim LEA monitoring of those indicators will be required and will be submitted in Indistar as well. District Effectiveness Specialists are to provide support to LEAs in conducting the LEA monitoring of their
SIG schools.
2015-2016 Reward Incentive Plan
As the US ED SIG Guidance related to rewards and incentives has not changed for the 2015-16 school year, last year’s requirements will remain in effect. Notification to SIG Coordinators will be forwarded October 1st. This year’s plan is to be submitted for review/approval to their Lead no later than November 13th.
Leading and Lagging Indicators Report
The Leading and Lagging Indicators Report is to be submitted no later than September 30, 2015.
The September 30th submission requirements are as follows:
Cohort 3
Metric 5—Preliminary Data, Year 1 Data, Year 2 Data, Year 3 Data (Projected)
Metrics 13, 17, 18—Preliminary Data, Year 1 Data, Year 2 Data
Cohort 4
Metric 5—Preliminary Data, Year 1 Data, Year 2 Data (Projected)
Metrics 13, 17, 18—Preliminary Data, Year 1 Data
Critical Dates for 1003(g) SIG Schools
September 30th: Deadline for submission of Leading & Lagging Indicator Report
September 30th: Cohort 3 – All Year 2 funds obligated/encumbered
September 30th: Cohort 4 – All Year 1 funds obligated/encumbered
September 30th: Cohorts 3 & 4 - All equipment and materials ordered for the 2015-16 school year
September 30th: Cohorts 3 & 4 - LEA Quarterly Monitoring Report due (completed and submitted in Indistar)
October 20th: Cohorts 3 & 4 – FY15 Monthly drawdown by SIG LEA’s due, for all expenses encumbered to date
October 30th: Cohorts 3 & 4 – FY15 Completion Report due – all expenses liquidated
November 13th: Cohorts 3 & 4 - Deadline for submission of 2015-16 Reward Incentive Plan
From the Literature
Researchers pinpoint factors that influence teachers’ responses to data
by JOELLEN KILLION
Coaches and professional learning communities influence how teachers respond to data and how they use data to change delivery of instruction — that is, reorganizing how students acquire knowledge and skills. The influence emerges from the relationship between vertical and horizontal expertise and coaches’ and professional learning communities’ facilitation of teachers’ change in instructional delivery. The study alsoconcludes that dialogue mediates changes in practice and that supportive school and district contexts increases the possibility for change.
Study description
Coaches and professional learning communities can influence how teachers respond to student learning data. More than two-thirds of the instances in teacher data response
that resulted in changing delivery of instruction involved a coach or professional learning community, compared to 51% of those responses that resulted in no change in delivery of instruction. The overall number of teachers’ responses to data resulting in change in delivery (57) in the schools studied is far less than those instances generating no change in instructional delivery (121).
Researchers draw on the theoretical concepts of vertical and horizontal expertise to explain how coaches and professional learning communities mediate change. Vertical expertise is an individual’s knowledge and skill and typically explains novice versus accomplished practice. For coaches and professional learning community leaders, this type of expertise includes skills such as relationship building, content-specific knowledge and skills, data analysis, and connecting with adult learners. For teachers, to work effectively with coaches and in professional learning communities, it includes relationship, inquiry, collaboration, and data use skills.
Horizontal expertise, on the other hand, is “knowledge that is cocreated through interactions and movements across contexts” (p. 4). This type of expertise emerges when coaches, professional learning community leaders, and teachers step out of their individual roles and perspectives and cross boundaries to generate new or hybrid ideas. When both forms of expertise are strong, responses to data that generate changes in instruction are more likely to occur.
Researchers also note that dialogue focusing on both data and instruction is a stronger mediator of changes in instructional practice than dialogue about data alone. In addition, school and district context conditions are key contributors to teachers’ responses to data that result in change in instructional delivery.
Questions
The exploratory research study focused on two questions:
• How does working with a coach or
professional learning community mediate teachers’ responses to data?
• What factors influence the
activities and effects of coaches and professional learning communities?
Methodology
The research team conducted an exploratory comparative case study of six middle schools in two districts that employed coaching and professional learning communities as their primary or secondary intervention for improvement. Conditions identified in previous research as supportive of data use informed the selection of schools. These conditions included the presence of data coaches, literacy coaches, professional learning communities, multiple forms of accessible data, and data management systems. Each school had failed to meet state accountability targets for more than five years, served a majority (95% or greater) of nonwhite students, and had selected coaching and professional learning communities as their primary or secondary intervention for improvement.
Researchers, using multiple approaches, collected data in the 2011-12 school year. In each school, they interviewed the coach or professional learning community lead teacher, two to three case study teachers who taught language arts, and school administrators. Researchers interviewed district administrators, held focus groups with approximately 24 non-case study teachers in each school who mostly taught subject other than language arts, and surveyed monthly case study teachers. They visited each school three times during the year to observe district and school meetings.
Analysis
Through a yearlong process of continuous and iterative data analysis, researchers recorded, transcribed, and coded qualitative data for three areas, application of the data cycle, capacity building practices, and contextual conditions at several levels, including individual, school, and district. In addition, researchers applied descriptive analyses to the survey responses and compared them across schools.
Subsequent reanalysis of passages coded as response to data yielded 343 instances that were further narrowed to responses that were associated with reported action taken in response to data and to instruction. This latter analysis yielded 294 instances distributed fairly evenly across the six schools in which teachers responded to data. The 294 instances were further analyzed for change in instructional delivery that was defined as the adoption of a single strategy used once or a long-term change in instructional practice. Of the 294 instances, only a small portion, 57, resulted in actual change in delivery of instruction.
These practices were distinguished from responses teachers made to the data that involved no change in instruction. In the latter responses, teachers retaught the content in the same way, retested students, sent students for assistance out of class, or asked students to reflect on their own data. Researchers then analyzed the instances in which teachers reported using data to change delivery to determine similarities.
Results
Several factors contributed to teachers being able to use data to change instruction. One factor that positively influenced change in instruction was the presence and strength of coaches’ vertical expertise in areas related to working with adults, building trusting relationships, using data, and content knowledge and pedagogy. Another factor is teachers’ horizontal expertise. Researchers conclude that professional learning communities are likely to impede the potential for long- term change when members lack both vertical and horizontal expertise in areas such as collaboration and interpersonal skills and data analysis and focus on sharing discrete strategies rather than using their shared experience to create new understanding and hybrid ideas. Teachers’ responses to data reinforced existing rather altered instructional delivery when professional learning communities were clearinghouses for existing practice.
When a coach or professional learning community leader with vertical expertise engaged with teachers in professional learning communities, their horizontal expertise was enhanced, thus leading to more change in instructional delivery. Using contrasting individual case studies of coaches, teachers, and professional learning communities, researchers demonstrate the differences in how vertical and horizontal expertise are applied.
Researchers also conclude that dialogue mediates teachers’ responses to data. There were no instances of dialogue about data alone associated with change in instruction. In the schools with data coaches, teachers’ responses to data did not lead to change in delivery, but rather other changes, such as reteaching in the same way or retesting students. When dialogue among teachers and coaches included simultaneously a focus on data and an equivalent focus on instruction, change in delivery was more likely. Researchers surmise that dialogue about data disconnected from instruction may fail to offer teachers sufficient guidance for substantive change in instruction.
School and district context factors influenced teachers’ responses to data. In schools, these factors included the principal’s role in establishing and communicating a vision about data use for instructional purposes, allocating of time for teacher collaboration, and protecting the role of coaches from noninstructional tasks. At the district level, factors included a commitment to fund and support coaches, an investment in data management systems, and policies regarding data use. When these factors were present and supportive of teachers’ use of data for instructional decision making, they facilitated rather than constrained the potential for teacher change in instructional delivery as a response to data.
Upcoming Meetings & Events
Instructional Technology Webinar
Friday, Oct 9, 2015, 09:00 AM
undefined
Instructional Leadership Academy
Wednesday, Oct 28, 2015, 09:00 AM
The Classic Center, North Thomas Street, Athens, GA, United States
Your GaDOE SDE Leadership Team
North Area
Area Program Manager- Phillip Luck
Area Program Assessment Specialist- Wendell Christian
Northwest Region:
District Effectiveness Specialist- Terri Gaspierik
Lead School Effectiveness Specialist- Amy Alderman
Northeast Region:
District Effectiveness Specialist- Susan White
Lead School Effectiveness Specialist- Kali Raju
Metro Area
Area Program Manager- Sam Taylor
Area Program Assessment Specialist- Mike O'Neal
Metro West Region:
District Effectiveness Specialist- Diana Forbes
Lead School Effectiveness Specialist- Lyn Wenzel
Metro East Region:
District Effectiveness Specialist- Iris Moran
Lead School Effectiveness Specialist- Paula Herrema
South Area
Area Program Manager- Patty Rooks
Area Program Assessment Specialist- Keith Barnett
Southwest Region:
District Effectiveness Specialist- Deborah McLendon
Lead School Effectiveness Specialist- Steve Olive
Southeast Region:
District Effectiveness Specialist- Darrel May
Lead School Effectiveness Specialist- Paula Cleckler
Atlanta Support Office
Program Manager- Joann Hooper
Director- Will Rumbaugh