frameworks for leadership: mental models for process management

Frameworks for leadership: Mental models for process management

Instructional Leadership Training (ILT)November 27, 2012

Desired outcomes

Understand some of the basic components of the new accountability system for 2013 and beyond

Generate feedback on a draft CBA analysis protocol for calibrating the work of PLCs

Learn how to generate some key administrator data views in Aware, Forethought and Workshop

Recognize the importance of monitoring processes when PLCs plan for learning

Death by single cell accountability

GroupReadi

ngMath

Writing

Science

Social Studie

s

All students 95 88 92 89 96

African America

n90 80 88 82 91

Hispanic 92 85 89 86 93

White 96 91 93 90 98

Econ Disadv 89 83 87 68 91

Index-based accountability

Index 1Student Achievement

Index 2Student Progress

Index 3Closing Performance

Gaps

Index 4Postsecondary

Readiness

Score0-100

Score0-100

Score0-100

Score0-100

Rating?

Index 1 – Student Achievement Begins 2013 Performance standards

STAAR 3-8 and EOC: Final Level II (Satisfactory) TAKS: Met Standard (2013 only)

Assessments STAAR, STAAR-M (w/cap), STAAR-Alt (w/cap), STAAR-L

(TBD) TAKS, TAKS-M (grade 11)

Administrations Grades 5 & 8: First 2 administrations EOC: Primary admin, spring and previous summer and

fall EOC (MS): No double-testing

Index 1 – Student Achievement Subjects

Reading, Math, Writing, Science, Social Studies

Student groups All students only

Accountability subset STAAR 3-8: Fall snapshot EOC

▪ Fall snapshot for spring and previous fall▪ Previous year snapshot for previous summer

Summer 2012

Fall2012

Spring 2013

Subset based on Oct 2012 snapshot

Subset based on Oct 2011 snapshot

Index 1 – Student Achievement Methodology

Results summed across tests, subjects, grade levels

Number of tests at Final Level II (STAAR) and Met Standard (TAKS)

Number of tests taken

Index 2 – Student Progress Begins 2014 Growth standards: TBD Transition table model to determine growth

Level IUnsatisfactory

Level IISatisfactory

Level IIIAdvanced

Level ILow

Level IHigh

Level IILow

Level IIMid

Level IIHigh

Level IIILow

Level IIIHigh

2013 2014 2013 2014

20132014

20132014

Index 2 – Student Progress Subjects

Reading, Math, Writing (EOC only) Science, Social Studies (TBD for EOC only)

Accountability subset Same as for Index 1

Student groups All students ELLs, Special Education All seven race/ethnicity groups

Minimum group size: 20

Index 2 – Student Progress Methodology

Results summed across tests and grade levels Analyzed by subject and by student group

Number in student group who met growth standard for subject

Number in student group tested in subject

Index 2 – Student Progress

Index 3 – Closing Performance Gaps

Limited in 2013, final form in 2014 Assessments and subjects

Same as Index 1 (all tests, all subjects, w/cap) Accountability subset

Same as Index 1 Minimum group size: 20 Student groups

Economically disadvantaged Two lowest-performing race/ethnicity groups from

previous year Alternate method used if only 1 or 2 subgroups


Performance standard Level II Final (2013 and beyond) Level III (2014 and beyond)

Methodology Summed across tests and grade levels Results analyzed by subject and student group Results are weighted

▪ One point for each percentage point of students in the group meeting the Level II standard

▪ Two points for each percentage point of students in the group meeting the Level III standard

Index 4 – Postsecondary Readiness

1. STAAR Percent Met Level III Standard Begins 2014 Assessments and subjects

Same as Index 1 (all tests, all subjects) Accountability subset

Same as Index 1 Minimum group size: 20 Student groups evaluated

All students and seven race/ethnicity subgroups


1. STAAR Percent Met Level III Standard Methodology

Results summed by grade level, tests and subjects Analyzed by student subgroup


2. Grade 9-12 Graduation Rate Begins 2013 Standard

State-defined graduation rate as per statute Four- and five-year rates used

Student groups All students, ELLs, special education, seven

race/ethnicity Minimum group size: 20


2. Grade 9-12 Graduation Rate Methodology (four-year and five-year)

Number of Graduates in cohort

Graduates + Continuers + GED Recipients + Dropouts


3. Recommended/Advanced High School Program

Begins 2013 Student groups

All students, seven race/ethnicity groups Minimum group size: 20 Methodology

Number graduates with RHSP or AHSP

Total number of graduates


Index Construction Graduation score (high school only)

Four- or five-year graduation rate, whichever is best

RHSP/AHSP graduates STAAR score

Percent met Level III (2014 and beyond) For high schools the graduation score and

STAAR scores are averaged to determine overall index score


Index 1Student Achievement

Index 2Student Progress

Index 3Closing Performance

Gaps

Index 4Postsecondary

Readiness

45

42

48

56

Rating?

Other accountability issues Unification of state and federal systems may

not be approved ELL progress measures still undecided Three-year averaging required by statute Two possible campus and district ratings in

2013 Met Standard Improvement Required

One higher-level distinction available in 2014 for districts based on postsecondary readiness Tier 1 & Tier 2 akin to Exemplary and Recognized

Other accountability issues Campus distinctions

Postsecondary readiness (1st or 2nd tier) Top 25% - Closing the Gap and Student Progress Academic Achievement (Reading, Math, Science,

Soc St) 21st Century Workforce Development Fine Arts, Physical Education Second Language Acquisition

Timeline March 2013 – Commissioner final decisions May 2013 – Accountability Manual released

Questions?

Draft CBA Analysis ProtocolSetting context Gathering feedback

Managing processes

Core Values

Measurement, Analysis & Knowledge Management

Leadership

Student & Stakeholder

Focus

Strategic Planning

Human Resource

Focus Process Management

Strategic

Performance Results

Operational

Goals and measurabl

e objectives

Customer requirement

s

Strategic actions

Leading indicators

Why do effective leaders monitor and manage instructional processes? Processes are the system component

over which we have the most control It is the most effective (and only?)

way to leverage improvement in delivery

It provides agility to respond to internal and external changes in the system

The L stands for Learning

No single person knows how to do all of this perfectly

We are on a collaborative learning journey

Context surrounding CBAs

Primary purpose: Provide data to C&I staff to assess the curriculum

Secondary purpose: Provide PLCs with data on rigorous, aligned items to help calibrate design of assessments and instruction

Not intended to be a comprehensive assessment of student mastery of the TEKS in previous 9 weeks of instruction

Context surrounding CBAs

Assessment for Learning Model

Lesson 1

Planning and deliveringan instructional unit

Formative

assessment (FA)

Regroup Reteach

Lesson 2Lesson

3Lesson 4

FA FA

PLC

PLC

PLC

Curriculum

Common assessment

Reteach

Content, Context, Cognition

SEs

Redesign

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OtKr23ZGV-s

Assessment for Learning model Model

An example for imitation or emulation A description or analogy used to help visualize

something that cannot be directly observed “Essentially, all models are wrong, but

some are useful.” - George Box Help teachers visualize how parts of a process

fit together into a cohesive whole Help leaders identify key places to monitor

processes and identify opportunities for learning

The AFL Model and the 4 PLC questions

Lesson 1


Formative

assessment (FA)

Regroup Reteach

Lesson 2Lesson

3Lesson 4

FA FA

PLC

PLC

PLC

Curriculum

Common assessment

Reteach


SEs

Redesign Q1

Q2

Q3

Q4

Q3

Q2

The AFL Model and eduphoria!

Lesson 1


Formative

assessment (FA)

Regroup Reteach

Lesson 2Lesson

3Lesson 4

FA FA

PLC

PLC

PLC

Curriculum

Common assessment

Reteach


SEs

Redesign

forethought

aware

forethought

aware

aware

forethought

The AFL Model and managing processes

Lesson 1


Formative

assessment (FA)

Regroup Reteach

Lesson 2Lesson

3Lesson 4

FA FA

PLC

PLC

PLC

Curriculum

Common assessment

Reteach


SEs

Redesign

AFL Model and the CBA Analysis Protocol

Instruction

Unit 1

Common assessme

ntFA

CA

FA

CA CA

Regroup, Reteach, Redesign

Unit 2 Unit 3 Unit 4

PLC

District

CBA

PLC

CBA Analysis ProtocolCalibrate alignment between classroom instruction, common assessments and district CBAs C&I

Draft CBA Analysis Protocol

It’s about alignment, learning and improving processes

It’s not about compliance

Taught

Written

Tested

Standards

Draft CBA Analysis Protocol

Designed to lead PLCs through a thought process Identify items where students had difficulty Compare how SEs were addressed in items with

how they were addressed in the taught and tested curriculum

Compare performance on the SEs with performance on the state test last year

Determine if and how these SEs will be re-addressed in current year

Determine how instruction and assessment will be modified the next time these areas are taught

(+) (∆)(–)

Consider as a group the draft protocol in light of the context just discussed

Determine if there are components that should be added to the protocol. Provide a rationale for why they should be included.

Identify components that could be improved through change, what those changes should be, and your rationale

Identify components that should be deleted and your rationale

Questions?

David F. Holland – Accountability, Research and Program [email protected]

frameworks for leadership: mental models for process management

Documents