Missouri Model Districts Framework · By definition, a blueprint is a detailed plan of action. This...

Missouri Model Districts FrameworkBlueprint for district and building leadership

Missouri Department of Elementary and Secondary Education (DESE)May 2017 (Version 1.0)ii

AcknowledgmentsMany people across Missouri contributed to the development and evolution of this blueprint and the overall Missouri Model District framework. Special recognition goes to the following partners:

• The Commissioner, Deputy Commissioner, and Assistant Commissioners at the Missouri Department of Elementary and Secondary Education for their vision and leadership

• DESE Division of Learning Services to work collaboratively to create alignment across Offices and to support districts in their efforts to implement effective educational systems

• All of the partners involved in the Missouri Collaborative Work project who tirelessly have led the development and delivery of professional development over the past five years

• The University of Missouri-Kansas City, Institute for Human Development Education Program staff for leadership and ongoing support for the design and development of the Collaborative Work and the Missouri Model Districts

• The participating Missouri Model Districts for their willingness to collaborate, share, and inform the future of education for Missouri students

Suggested citation: Missouri Model Districts Blueprint (2017). Missouri Department of Elementary and

Secondary Education: University of Missouri-Kansas City, Institute for Human Development.

The Department of Elementary and Secondary Education does not

discriminate on the basis of race, color, religion, gender, national origin,

age, or disability in its programs and activities. Inquiries related to

Department programs and to the location of services, activities, and facilities that are accessible by persons

with disabilities may be directed to the Jefferson State Office Building, Office of the General Counsel,

Coordinator – Civil Rights Compliance (Title VI/Title IX/504/ADA/Age Act), 6th Floor, 205 Jefferson Street, P.O.

Box 480, Jefferson City, MO 65102-0480; telephone number 573-526-4757 or TTY 800-735-2966; fax number

573-522-4883; email [email protected].

The contents of this presentation were developed under a grant from the US Department of Education to the

Missouri Department of Elementary and Secondary Education (#H323A120018). However, these contents

do not necessarily represent the policy of the US Department of Education, and you should not assume

endorsement by the Federal Government.

The UMKC-IHD is an applied research and training center for human services and has

been in existence for over 40 years. UMKC-IHD and its approximately 50 faculty and staff

work with a variety of university, community, state and national constituents to build

the capacity of systems, organizations, programs, families, and individuals through applied research, training,

community services and supports, and information dissemination.

Missouri Department of Elementary and Secondary Education (DESE)May 2017 (Version 1.0) iii

Stacey Preis has served as the Deputy Commissioner for the Division of Learning Services since January 2015. Prior to this position, Dr. Pries served as Assistant Commissioner for the Office of Early and Extended Learning. Dr. Preis began her career as a high school English and journalism teacher in Jefferson City Public Schools and worked in various capacities for University of Missouri-Columbia. Before joining the Department Dr. Preis worked as Executive Director of the Joint Committee on Education for the Missouri General Assembly.

Margie Vandeven was appointed Missouri’s sixth Commissioner of Education in December 2014. Throughout her tenure with the Department, Dr. Vandeven has served as a supervisor of the Missouri School Improvement Program, Director of School Improvement and Accreditation, Director of Accountability and Accreditation, Assistant Commissioner for the Office of Quality Schools, and as Deputy Commissioner of Learning Services.

We live in an age of increasing knowledge about what works in education—effective educational practices, effective professional development for educational professionals, and rapidly changing technology for instruction and educator learning. The Department of Elementary and Secondary Education (DESE) is committed to building systems that focus on educational practices that really matter and offering Missouri districts the supports needed to implement the work in the most efficient manner possible. The time is right for Missouri schools to lead the charge in building educational systems that work for ALL students and educators. With your help, we can refine this blueprint to guide all districts in Missouri in accomplishing this mission.

As we move toward the next iteration of the Missouri School Improvement Program (MSIP6), Missouri districts and schools have the perfect opportunity to focus on those educational practices that have been shown to be effective and critical to the success of ALL educators and students. You have agreed to partner with us in implementing the Missouri Model Districts framework of identified effective educational practices. Through this effort, we are attempting to remove the complexity of work related to school improvement by focusing on a few proven effective practices, providing common tools and resources, and enhancing the supports provided through the statewide system. By partnering with us to develop and refine this blueprint, you can help provide all districts in the state with a process to implement these effective educational practices and achieve exceptional outcomes for all Missouri students.

Missouri Department of Elementary and Secondary Education (DESE)May 2017 (Version 1.0)iv

Missouri Department of Elementary and Secondary Education (DESE)May 2017 (Version 1.0) v

Contents

Setting the StagePreface

Introduction1

5

Framework for Effective Instruction

Foundations

Effective Teaching and Learning Practices

Leadership

School-Based Implementation Coaching

Context for Improving Instruction

Practices

7

9

13

20

23

Systems

Implementation Stages

Implementation Drivers

Context for Improving Systems

25

27

30

Data Informed ProcessData 35

Support

Resources and Tools

Appendix

39

43

63

Missouri Department of Elementary and Secondary Education (DESE)May 2017 (Version 1.0)vi

Missouri Department of Elementary and Secondary Education (DESE)May 2017 (Version 1.0) 1

PrefaceMissouri Model Districts (MMD) is an opportunity offered to selected districts in an effort to advance and sustain effective educational practices and influence the design of MSIP 6. Using a district-level approach, the project will integrate effective academic and behavioral practices into a framework for achieving exceptional student outcomes. MMD will launch with the MMD Summit in May 2017 and formally begin with the 2017 - 2018 school year. A three-year commitment to MMD is expected. Over the three years of the project, the Missouri Department of Elementary and Secondary Education (DESE) will use the work of the MMD to develop processes, resources, and expectations that support statewide effective education for ALL Missouri students.

OutcomesThe Missouri Department of Elementary and Secondary Education (DESE) aims to achieve and facilitate the development of a system of support at district and building levels to achieve exceptional outcomes for all students. This partnership between DESE and participating districts will work toward the following outcomes:

• Refinement of an integrated academic and social/behavioral framework into a cohesive MMD system of support that can be implemented statewide in any district, regardless of demographics.

• Shape the design of MSIP 6 (Missouri School Improvement Program) options.

• Collection of data pointing to the non-negotiables (what works) and areas of flexibility when implementing in various contexts.

• Implementation of effective educational practices (data-based decision making, , common formative assessment, and effective teaching/learning practices), resulting in exceptional outcomes for all students, especially students showing risk factors, including students with disabilities.

Missouri Department of Elementary and Secondary Education (DESE)May 2017 (Version 1.0)2

Description of ParticipationParticipating districts/buildings will collaborate with DESE to do the following:

• Engage in a more in-depth implementation and evaluation of an integrated academic and behavioral practices framework leading to improved instruction and student learning.

• Provide insights for shaping the future of the statewide model and MSIP 6.

• Build internal capacity and expertise to support ongoing district/school-based coaching.

• Share lessons learned and insights with other districts/buildings.• Engage in a data-driven process.

Key ActivitiesThe following key activities describe the role of participating districts and buildings.

• Participate in site visits from DESE and coaching support team (CST) as a district/building leadership team.

• Participate in data collection, which may include videotaping (consistent with district policy), interviews with educators, and surveys.

• Engage in regional and state meetings for professional development.

• Provide ongoing feedback and recommendations for improving the framework and process.

• Engage consistently with a state CST. • Engage in district and building level professional development, as

determined in collaboration with the CST.

Support for Active Engagement and Implementation with FidelityIn order to support the involvement of districts, DESE will provide for the following.

• Coordination of training and coaching for the districts/buildings• Development of school-based implementation coaching at the

district and building levels.• Resources and supports to allow the districts and buildings to

participate.


• On-site technical assistance and observation visits.• Cross-district collaboration and sharing.

Missouri Model Districts, and participating buildings, will receive ongoing support from a designated CST holding expertise in effective teaching/learning practices (general and special education), behavioral practices (Schoolwide Positive Behavioral Supports (SW-PBS)), leadership, data, technology, and education systems change. Additionally, districts/buildings will have access to DESE endorsed training and professional development materials. The CST will primarily work with the district leadership team. CST may also work with building leadership teams; however, district leaders are expected to be involved in supporting the building leadership teams.



Introduction to the BlueprintBy definition, a blueprint is a detailed plan of action. This blueprint describes an approach and processes for implementing effective educational practices in Missouri districts and schools. Invited Missouri Model Districts, in partnership with DESE, should use this blueprint as a guide for developing educational systems to achieve exceptional outcomes for their students.

This blueprint is a dynamic document in that processes described may change in response to lessons learned in the initial stages of implementation.

Why have a Blueprint?Effective educational practices are worthy of sustaining and scaling-up. This blueprint is the road map for leading districts through all stages of the processes, from initial implementation through sustaining and scaling-up. Through the multi-year partnership between DESE and Missouri Model Districts, this blueprint will undergo refinement. The goal is to create a final blueprint which will become the working document for sustaining and scaling-up effective educational practices statewide.

Overview of ContentsThe contents begin with a description of the key functions of evidence-based educational practices and systems at district and building levels. This is followed by a description of the statewide support available to assist districts with effective and efficient implementation of these practices. The blueprint concludes with supplemental resources, links, and other references.

Intended Audience: District and Building Leadership TeamsThe intended users of this blueprint include district and building leadership teams within Missouri Model Districts. Additionally, other users include professional development and support providers representing the Statewide System of Support (SSOS).

Successful scaling-up of evidence-based practices and effective innovations requires keeping the entire system in mind. ─(SISEP) State Implementation & Scaling-up of Evidence-based Practices


Using the BlueprintThis blueprint is a “guide” rather than a “cookbook.” The contexts of Missouri districts, and the school buildings within districts, are highly variable and diverse. This blueprint balances the requirement of implementing evidence-based educational practices with a guided process for determining ways of supporting implementation within each unique district context.

District leaders and coaching support teams should familiarize themselves with the entirety of the blueprint in order to (a) gain a shared understanding of the integrated pieces, (b) conduct self-assessment of current practices and resulting outcomes, and (c) formulate an action plan.


Framework for Effective Educational SystemsThis framework for improving educational systems is based on the work of many researchers; however, two seminal pieces of research are most evident in this framework. The first is the research conducted by Dr. John Hattie. In 2008, Dr. Hattie published Visible Learning, the result of over 800 meta-analyses relating to student achievement.1 The second is the work of Moving Your Numbers, a study conducted under the guidance of Martha Thurlow, Director of the National Center on Educational Outcomes (NCEO) and supported by the Office of Special Education Programs (OSEP).2 The results of the Moving Your Numbers research identified six practices common to effective district-level school improvement:

1. Use data well2. Focus your goals3. Select and implement shared instructional practices (individually

and as teacher teams)4. Implement deeply5. Monitor and provide feedback and support6. Inquire and learn (at the district, school, and teacher team level)

Informed by Visible Learning, the MMD framework includes selected teaching/learning practices shown to have a high impact on student achievement. As a foundation to selected teaching and learning practices, are three education practices, which were informed by the Moving Your Numbers research. These foundations/practices establish the teaching environment for collaborative, data-driven, instructional decision-making. In order to ensure the implementation with fidelity and sustainability of effective education practices, this framework addresses critical components of leadership and internal coaching support.


Key ComponentsThe key components of this framework are:

• Three foundational educational practices essential for collaborative and data-informed instruction and decision making;

• Three selected effective teaching/learning practices, identified from a pool of evidence-based practices shown to improve student achievement;

• Implementation coaching for supporting schoolwide and districtwide implementation with fidelity; and

• Leadership for supporting each element toward and through a vision of sustainability and scaling-up effective educational practices.

Figure 1. Missouri Model Districts Components

Leadership

Data-baseddecision making

Assessmentcapable learners

Feedback


The three foundation pieces of the framework are collaborative teams, data-based decision making, and common formative assessment.

Collaborative TeamsWhen educators effectively implement group processes and intentionally collaborate about the most effective practices within curriculum, instruction, assessment, and climate, the result is quality teaching. Quality teaching is further enhanced when educators have the processes built into their system, which allows for dialogue, discussion, and planning for all students.

Essential functions of collaborative teams• Educators collaboratively develop common purposes and goals

for improved student outcomes that embrace continuous school improvement.

• Educators effectively implement group processes in collaborative team meetings.

• Educators intentionally use collaborative skills in collaborative team meetings.

Foundations

Reflection QuestionsHow often and how well does your team discuss

(1) data and how to monitor student progress? (2) instructional practices that are connected to student learning? (3) data to identify students needing re-teaching? (4) alignment of instructional practices to academic standards?

What group processes does your team use (i.e. agendas, minutes, norms, and roles)?

What collaborative behaviors does your team use (i.e. pausing, paraphrasing, posing questions, putting ideas on the table, providing data, paying attention to self and others, and presuming positive intentions)?

Collaboration is based on cooperativeness, learning from errors, seeking feedback about progress and enjoying venturing into the ‘pit of not knowing’ together with expert help that provides safety nets and, ultimately, ways out of the pit. ─J. Hattie (2015)

See practice profile, p. 46-47


Data-Based Decision Making (DBDM) School and district leadership teams should use a consistent DBDM process to identify and address student, school, and district improvement needs. Similarly, small groups of teachers should use a consistent DBDM process to identify students’ academic and social/behavioral needs and select practices that address those needs.

Essential functions of data-based decision making• Educators collect, chart, and disaggregate student learning data.

• Educators analyze results to identify priority learning needs.

• Educators establish SMART goals based on data-identified student learning needs.

• Educators use data to select a common instructional practice/strategy to implement with fidelity. Educators explain results indicators for process (cause) and product (effect).

• Educators design and practice ongoing monitoring of results (monitor, reflect, adjust, repeat).

Common Formative Assessment Formative assessment provides ongoing information that can guide and improve teaching and learning during a learning cycle such as a lesson, unit, or course. It may include collaboratively developed assessment instruments as well as formative assessment strategies that are embedded in instruction, rather than administered as separate events. Educators use common formative assessments within a district or building to ensure that student and teacher performance is consistent across grade levels and departments. Common formative assessment is a systematic and cyclical process designed to provide timely teacher/student feedback on curricula and student learning to improve both instructional practices and academic achievement. Common formative assessment is not

Assessment results provide useful, accurate information so that appropriate changes can be made to raise the quality of teaching and learning (improvement). -www.moedu-sail.org/measure-and-assess/

Reflection QuestionsWhen collecting, charting, and analyzing student learning data, does your team use common formative assessments and common scoring? Does your team make student learning data available to all team members?

How does your team use results to identify and prioritize teaching/learning needs?



another instrument or event nor should it be included in grading—but rather it is a collection of practices to improve teaching and accelerate learning.3

Essential functions of common formative assessment• Educators develop clear and meaningful learning targets to guide

instruction and student learning.

• Educators establish clear and measurable student success criteria in a rubric, scoring guide, or checklist.

• Educators construct and/or use quality assessment instruments of sound design and that measure the learning targets.

• Educators use assessment data to improve student learning.

Putting the Foundations into PlaceThe foundation is established when educator teams hold collaborative solution-driven dialogues using data to describe teaching/learning practices and learner outcomes. A collaborative approach to data analysis can help all educators understand the connection between data, instructional decisions, academic, and social/behavioral outcomes for students. In order to have data available for decision making, districts and school buildings must develop and implement efficient data collection systems to ensure accurate and complete data describing both teaching practices and learner outcomes.

My role, as teacher, is to evaluate the effect I have on my students. ─Hattie (2012)

Reflection QuestionsWhat are ways in which you make sure the learning goals in your classroom are clear and meaningful?

Are your success criteria clearly aligned to learning goals? How do you make sure that your success criteria clearly relate to what students say and do?

How do you ensure that the assessments you use are high quality and provide opportunities to clearly show where students are in relation to mastery of the learning goal?


NOTE: Educators use many forms of measurement and assessment to determine what students are learning and how

instruction or other learning environment functions should be changed in order to improve learning. Other forms

include summative and diagnostic assessments. For the initial launch of MMD, this blueprint and accompanying

professional development materials focus on common formative assessment. Refer to the resources in this blueprint

for additional guidance on these other types of assessment.


Figure 2. Foundations

2. Data-based decision making


Effective Teaching/Learning PracticesJohn Hattie’s 2008 book, Visible Learning, was based on more than 800 meta-analyses of 50,000 research articles, about 150,000 effect sizes, and about 240 million students.1 In his research, Hattie uses a “Barometer of Influence” as a graphic illustration showing the influence of the practice on learning (see Figure 3).1,4-5

The values above the arch indicate effect size, which is a value determined through statistical analysis to show the relative impact of a practice or intervention. Any effect above zero means achievement is raised by the practice. For example, if the effect size of practice is below zero and shown in the red zone of the barometer, then the practice has actually detracted from learning. The average effect (one year growth in one year time) size is 0.40. For any teaching/learning practice to be considered worthwhile, it needs to show an improvement in student learning of at least an average gain. The following three practices influence learning at a greater than average rate.

Assessment Capable Learners“Assessment capable” does not focus on how well students perform on tests. Rather, it means that students are able to gauge their own learning. It means that students understand if they have met a learning target and in what areas they need extra help. According to Hattie (2012), it is important for students to know where they are going, how they are going to get there, and where to go next.4

Teaching students to become and grow as assessment capable learners is shown through research to be a high impact practice.

Figure 3. Barometer of Influence

ZONE OF DESIRED EFFECTS

REVERSE

0

.15

.30 .40 .50

.60

.70

.80

.90

1.0


Students who are assessment capable learners feel accountable for their own progress and become motivated, effective, self-regulating learners. What do assessment capable learners do? Across all aspects of their learning, they:

• Understand what they are supposed to learn,• Monitor their own progress,• Set goals, and• Reflect on their learning.

Essential functions of teaching students to become and grow as assess-ment capable learners.

• Educators teach students to determine, “Where am I Going?”• Educators teach students to determine, “Where am I Now?”• Educators teach students to determine, “How do I Close the

Gap?”

…when students self-assess regularly and track and share their progress, their confidence in themselves as learners and their motivation to do well grows along with their rising achievement. ─Stiggins & Chappuis (2008)

Figure 4. Assessment Capable Learners Effect Size = 1.33


REVERSE

0

.15

.30 .40 .50

.60

.70

.80

.90

1.0

Reflection QuestionsWhen coaching students to develop learning goals, do you use rubrics or scoring guides and sample work?

Do you provide ongoing feedback to students?

Do you provide opportunity for students to self-reflect and document their learning?



FeedbackIntegral to developing Assessment Capable Learners is the practice of Feedback. When educators teach students to determine, “Where am I Now?” they do so through effective feedback. Feedback is defined as “information provided by an agent (e.g. teacher, peer, book, parent, self, experience) regarding aspects of one’s performance or understanding.”6 The main purpose of feedback is to improve students’ understanding of “Where am I now?” in relation to a learning target and goal. Notice how the practice of providing effective feedback fits within the practice of teaching assessment capable learners.

Feedback can occur in many forms; however, not all forms are effective. Research shows learning improves when feedback (a) addresses a specific learning task, (b) incorporates strategies for improving performance on tasks, and (c) is available in multiple modalities. Praise, punishment, and extrinsic rewards are the least effective forms of feedback.6

As shown in the barometer (see Figure 5), feedback, when provided in one of the effective forms, influences learning at a greater than average rate.

Essential functions of effective feedback • Educator provides descriptive feedback that clearly links to

learning goal and success criteria to all students multiple times throughout the learning process.

• Educator provides feedback about strengths and offers information to guide improvement to all students multiple times throughout the learning process.

Figure 5. Feedback Effect Size = 0.73


REVERSE

0

.15

.30 .40 .50

.60

.70

.80

.90

1.0

7 Keys of Effective Feedback

1. Goal–referenced2. Tangible and

transparent 3. Actionable4. User friendly5. Timely6. Ongoing7. Consistent─Wiggins, G. (2012)


• Educator paces instruction to allow for frequent, descriptive feedback to all students and allow time for students to act on the feedback received.

• Educator asks students to assess their own progress and justify their assessments multiple times throughout the learning process.

• Educator instructs students to set personal goals based on feedback and self-assessment.

Less teaching + more feedback = better learning. ─Wiggins (2012)

Reflection QuestionsWhen providing student feedback, do you provide descriptive feedback to all students?

Does your feedback recognize strengths?

Do you instruct students to set personal goals based on feedback and self-assessment?

Do you pace instruction to allow students to act on feedback received?

Metacognition

Metacognition occurs when a student is conscious of his/her thinking and level of cognition while in the process of learning.7 Metacognitive learners develop mental maps or pictures as a way of connecting ideas and concepts. They pose internal questions to guide their inquiry. They consciously review their learning steps/tasks and self-evaluate their own outcomes.8 Along with feedback, metacognitive practices align with developing assessment capable learners. When determining current level of learning and ways of closing the learning gap, educators should (a) model metacognitive practices by talking about thinking and learning in general and specifically talking about one’s own thinking and learning and (b) provide opportunities for students to assess current thinking and learning.

When teachers actively guide the development of metacognitive learning, they do so in tandem with providing feedback. For example, a teacher may notice inconsistencies in a class’s ability to solve a type of mathematical equation and need to reteach the concept. While re-teaching, the teacher models metacognitive processes when demonstrating the computation by verbally detailing and analyzing

See ACL practice profile Essential Function #2 p. 52-53


each step. By doing this, the teacher has shared a window of insight into the teacher’s thinking process as well as given the students words and sequences to use during independent practice. As the teacher continues the lesson by providing students individual and group feedback, the teacher prompts the students to “talk through” the steps, giving reasons for why each step is in the proper sequence or is logical.

Similar to feedback and assessment capable learners, metacognitive practice has a positive influence on learning (see Figure 6).

Essential functions of metacognition • Educator models metacognitive practices by talking about his/her

thinking and learning and thinking and learning in general.

• Educator provides opportunity for students to think about the best way to approach or accomplish the learning target and connect to prior experiences.

• Educator provides opportunity for students to monitor progress in relation to learning target and success criteria.

• Educator provides opportunity to determine if learning target was met and reflect on what went well, what did not go well, and what to do differently next time.

Teaching students how to learn is as important as teaching them content, because acquiring both the right learning strategies and background knowledge is important—if not essential—for promoting lifelong learning. ─Dunlosky (2013)

Figure 6. Metacognition Effect Size = 0.53


REVERSE

0

.15

.30 .40 .50

.60

.70

.80

.90

1.0


Reflection QuestionsDo you talk about your thinking and learning when providing or demonstrating a skill?

Do you provide opportunities for students to share their thinking and problem-solving?

Do you provide opportunities for students to assess their learning and share ways of improving their learning?

Integrated Effective Teaching and Learning Practices

As shown in the description of assessment capable learners, feedback, and metacognition, they are not isolated practices. Rather these practices should be integrated into daily instructional practices. As shown in Figure 7, both feedback and metacognition fit within the overall structure for implementing assessment capable learners. For specific guidance on how to implement the practices, see the tools and resources section of this blueprint.

When we have made the learning clear to students, focused instruction on the intended learning, offered practice opportunities targeted to learning needs, offered feedback on students’ learning strengths and needs, and taught them how to self-assess and set goals, we are inches away from students taking initiative to determine what they need practice with and to create their own personalized learning path. ─McTighe & O’Connor (2016)

See practice profile, p. 54

NOTE: Resources and tools for implementing additional teaching and learning practices, as well SW-PBS, are available

through the Missouri Statewide System of Support (SSOS) and will be gradually available online. For this launch of MMD,

the scope of practices to be implemented has been focused on selected high impact practices. Over the three-years,

additional practices may be added to the MMD framework.


Figure 7. Integrating Effective Teaching/Learning Practices

2. Feedback

1. Assessment Capable Learners

Teach students to determine, “Where am I going?”Teach students to determine, “Where am I now?”Teach students to determine, “How do I close the

gap?”


LeadershipResearch shows a clear link between strong school leadership and student learning. Effective educational leaders know how to build and strengthen a network of organizational support that includes the professional capacity of teachers and staff, the professional community in which they learn and work, family and community engagement, and effective, efficient management and operations of the school. Effective educational leaders are driven by the school’s mission, vision, and core values. They are called to act ethically and with professional integrity. They promote equity and cultural responsiveness. Finally, effective educational leaders believe their school can always be better.

District-level and school building-level leadership have important guiding and supporting roles in MMD. District leaders are responsible for determining and addressing needs for professional learning of building-level leaders and educators across the district. Through collaborative assessment of current reality and strategic planning for addressing needs, district leaders support the development, scaling-up, and sustainability of the MMD framework foundations and teaching/learning practices.

Essential functions of effective educational leadership• A collaborative culture and climate is visible through the

students, teachers, and administrators.

• Leadership supports and ensures teaching and learning practices engage all students in meaningful learning.

• Leaders develop educator capacity to use formative assessment through a supportive data climate that facilitates the use of formative data.

• Leaders initiate evidence-based decisions and processes that focus on outcomes.

In all realms of their work, educational leaders must focus on how they are promoting the learning, achievement, development, and well-being of each student. Students learn when educational leaders foster safe, caring and supportive school learning communities and promote rigorous curricula, instructional and assessment systems. ─National Policy Board for Educational Administration (2015)


School-Based Implementation CoachingSchool-based implementation is critical to supporting the development of new teaching practices. Too often, educators receive exposure or training to a new practice and are asked to then translate it into everyday routines. However, a classroom of students is very different than the typical training environment (e.g. a room with other educators). When faced with realities of everyday teaching, finding time or patience for practicing a new skill is not a priority or sometimes even possible. A coach can help sort through the barriers to implementation, provide feedback to guide implementation, and model examples of effective implementation.

Research over the past two decades shows the impact of coaching. Training supports building knowledge, skill rehearsal, and often group dialogue for processing new information and opportunities for application. However, it is through coaching that the transfer of new skills to classroom practice occurs (see Table 1).9 Recent research supports earlier findings and offers new understanding into job-embedded, site-based, peer-coaching models as effective means for transferring new learning into classrooms. Five points of learning and applying new skills have been defined:10

1. when learning for the first time,

2. when learning more,

3. when remembering or applying,

4. when things go wrong, and

5. when things change.

We give schools strategies & systems for improving practice & outcomes, but implementation is not accurate, consistent, or durable, & desired outcomes aren’t realized. School personnel & teams need more than exposure, practice, & enthusiasm. ─Sugai, OSEP Center on PBIS (2011)

Reflection QuestionsAs an educational leader, how do you provide a collaborative culture among teachers and students?

How do you use data to determine effective practices to implement school/districtwide?

How do you support and guide the use of common formative assessments?

In what ways have you developed leadership team capacity for data-driven decision making?



During these final two moments of need, coaching can have a substantial impact on the desired outcome.

Essential functions of school-based implementation coaching• Developing and maintaining coaching relationships.

• Facilitating the improvement process.

• Communicating in a timely and responsive manner.

• Engaging in solution-driven dialogue.

Reflection QuestionsIs peer-to-peer coaching occurring in your school/district?

If so, do peer coaches follow an established protocol or observation and feedback?

Is coaching feedback descriptive, relevant to the context, strengths-based, and respectful?


Table 1. Why is Coaching Important?

Professional Development Approach

Results

Theory & Discussion

0% transfer new skill into practice

I don’t know how to use these skills in my classroom.

Demonstration in training

30% demonstrate skills in training, BUT 0% transfer new skills into practice

I can demonstrate my new skills and am starting to understand how to use these in my daily teaching.

Practice & feedback in training

5% transfer new skills into daily practice

I can demonstrate my new skills in training, BUT I still do not know how to use this in my classroom.

Coaching90-95 transfer new skills into daily practice

I can use my new skills in my daily teaching.

Joyce & Showers, 2002


Context for Improving InstructionEducators who are successful in improving teaching and learning focus first on student learning then on teaching to achieve learning. In a 2013 interview, John Hattie lists eight qualities of effective educators. Pairing these mindsets with effective teaching/ learning practices creates ideal learning environments for all students—especially diverse learners.

#1. Their fundamental task is to evaluate the effect of their teaching on student learning and achievement.

How do I know my teaching approach is working?Do I share a common conception of progress with other teachers?

#2. As a change agent for improved teaching and learning, they are responsible for student successes and failures.

All students can be challenged.It’s practices and strategies, never about styles.It is important to encourage help-seeking behaviors.

#3. Teachers must be “adaptive learning experts” able to teach in multiple ways and model different ways of learning.

In what ways do students learn differently? How can I best support the differences?

#4. Like students, teachers need to know where they are going, how they will get there, and where they will go next.

Who and what did I teach well and who not so well?Where are the gaps and strengths, what was achieved and what has still to be achieved?

Belief in Teacher-As-

Change-Agent

Belief in Meaningful Assessment


#8. When parents understand the language of learning, they are better equipped to help their children.

How can I support parents to help their children attend and engage in learning? Do parents understand learning rationale and success criteria?

#7. Teachers need to have a positive interpersonal relationship with each student, and students need to feel the classroom environment is trustworthy, fair, and empathetic.

How can I create a high level of trust in the classroom? Do my students feel safe to readily indicate that they do not understand?

#5. All students benefit from dialogue, rather than monologue. Students need the opportunity to ask questions and clear up these misconceptions.

Do I truly listen to my students’ questions, ideas, struggles, strategies of learning, successes, interaction with peers, outputs, and views about teaching?

#6. Teachers plan how to engage students in the challenge of learning and go beyond just breaking a challenge into manageable bits.

Do I engage students in the challenge of learning? Can students see the purposes of the challenges that are so critical to learning success?

Belief in Reciprocal Dialogue

Belief in Challenging Curriculum

Belief in Teacher-As-Leader in Partnerships


Systems ApproachThe work of the National Implementation Research Network11 has identified considerations for and qualities of effective systems change. The first considerations are the stages of implementation and the drivers of successful implementation. Implementation teams guide and support the implementation process. Lastly, the teams work to align and support the components of the educational system as it matures across the stages of implementation.12

Implementation StagesSix stages of implementation are identified as critical to successful implementation and resulting sustainability.

Exploration & AdoptionMissouri Model Districts will begin by reviewing current strengths and needs regarding effective educational practices in the MMD framework.

Program InstallationThe second stage is to establish an environment supportive of implementation.

Guiding QuestionsWhat do we currently have in place that is effectively supporting student learning? ..that is supporting effective instruction? How do we know our practices are effective?

What do educators need in order to improve instruction?

What do our systems of professional development (coaching and training) look like? Is this addressing educator needs? How do we know?

Guiding QuestionsAt the district level, what do we need to put into place to support building-level implementation of the MMD practices? What resources, guidance, policies, support, etc. are needed for consistency across the district? Are there unique pockets of needs within the district?

How can we best address the needs for information and establish ownership for implementation?

As the evidence-based movement has gained momentum, four significant issues have emerged in the educational context. 1. Which practices do we select to scale up and sustain? 2. How do we implement new education practices so they actually produce the intended benefits for students? 3. How do we scale up effective practices so they are available to all students? 4. How do we align system structures and function to fully support scale-up efforts as part of “education as usual” over the longer term? ─Fixsen, Blase, Duda, & Naoom (2010)


Initial ImplementationThe current status of practices and procedures has been analyzed and the stage has been set for initial implementation. During initial implementation, professional development is provided and educators begin implementing the MMD components. During this stage, it is important to monitor these early steps for fidelity and needs for support that emerge.

Full OperationDuring initial implementation, districts engage in a thoughtful process of what is working and what is not working as they begin implementation. Full operation is the next stage of taking implementation to scale. At a district level, full operation is implementation of the MMD framework in all schools.

InnovationInnovation is the stage at which the model has been fully implemented and sufficient data has been gathered. Data is analyzed and interpreted. Based on interpretations of the data, innovative modifications, additions, and subtractions are made to the model. Fixsen et al. (2005) stresses the importance of refraining from innovation until ample time has been permitted for full operation. Decisions regarding changes to the model must be informed by data

Guiding QuestionsAre initial implementation steps proceeding as expected? What needs for resources or support are emerging?

Which aspects of the MMD show promise for being effective and which need to be revisited?

What are the district-level considerations to address prior to full operation?

Guiding QuestionsIs fidelity of implementation being met? If not, what resources and supports are needed to improve implementation with fidelity?

Which aspects of the MMD have been proven to be effective and which require revision?


and intentionally planned; otherwise, the integrity of the model is jeopardized.

SustainabilityThe ultimate goal is a sustainable model of services and supports that provides a valid, reliable, and evidence-based approach to responding to the education needs of all of Missouri’s students. However, while this is the last stage of implementation, the work is not complete. Districts must continue to implement effective practices and make data-driven decisions, all while being ever mindful of the changing dynamics of student enrollment and needs.

Implementation DriversThe National Implementation Research Network identified nine infrastructure components essential for adopting and fully implementing an evidence-based practice. Referred to as “drivers” these components address competencies important for implementation, organizational capacity to support the development of new practices, and leadership for systems change. For more information about the implementation drivers and their function in the implementation process, see National Implementation Research Network.

Competency DriversCompetency drivers ensure that education staff have the knowledge, skills, and abilities to implement new practices, as well as the feedback essential for improving practice.

Selection: Matching staff knowledge, skills, and abilities to expected performance is essential for launching and maintaining implementation of new practices

Guiding QuestionsIn what ways can the MMD framework and approach be improved?

What are the implications for the integrity of the MMD framework if revisions are made?

What are the considerations for sustainability of the MMD? Are there district-level factors to address in order to set the stage for sustaining the MMD framework?


Training & Coaching: Teachers, administrators, and other education staff need support for learning how to apply new practices in daily settings. Through coaching, teachers, administrators, and other education staff receive job-embedded guidance, observation, and feedback.

Fidelity/Performance Assessment: The practices included in the MMD framework are evidence-based. This means they have been through rigorous study to determine an impact on student achievement. Because the goal is results, like those shown through the research, it is important to monitor fidelity of implementation.

Organization DriversOrganization drivers form the supports and structures keeping implementation processes on track, evaluating drift in implementation through data, and determining adjustments to implementation as needed.

Decision-support data systems: For data-informed decisions, multiple types and sources of data are important. Data must be reliable and accessible. The collection and review of data should be built into daily education routines and processes.

Guiding QuestionsWhat do people need to know about MMD? How are they going to learn it? What are the effort, materials, format, time, and sequence required?

Guiding QuestionsIs MMD implemented with fidelity? Which components are occurring with fidelity and which are not?

Guiding QuestionsWhat do we need to make data-based decisions about MMD overall? About components of MMD?

Guiding QuestionsWho are the people involved in MMD at all levels? Do these people have the needed experience, expertise, and time?


Administration & Systems: Education administrators and their teams hold these responsibilities.

• Identify and address challenges

• Form clear communication protocols and feedback loops

• Develop and adjust policies and procedures

• Reduce system barriers to implementing the program as intended

Leadership: Effective leadership is able to employ both technical and adaptive strategies, use data effectively, and form collaborative processes for addressing ongoing implementation hurdles.

Together, the drivers are evident and integrated in effective implementation. They are co-occurring, complementary, and compensatory. Strengths in one driver can potentially minimize the effects of a weaker driver. For more information about implementation stages and drivers, see the Implementation Research Network’s Active Implementation Hub (http://implementation.fpg.unc.edu/). This website includes online modules for each component of implementation.

Guiding QuestionsWhat systems level of support is needed to keep MMD in motion? To move MMD forward?

To what extent are we aligning our MMD work to other requirements and expectations?

Guiding QuestionsDo educator leaders employ effective strategies for supporting ongoing implementation?

What support do they need to improve use of data and collaborative processes?


Context for Improving SystemsSustaining and scaling-up effective practices requires cooperation between policy and practice. Policy enables implementation of practices and in return practice should inform development of policies. Implementation science research refers to this practice and policy feedback loop as the “PEP/PIP Cycle.” At the core of this feedback loop, is the plan-do-study-act (PDSA) cycle (see Figure 8). The PDSA cycle emphasizes the importance of ‘study’ and ‘act’ in this loop. Too often, implementation is characterized as plan-do only without data-informed feedback and revision. Through a PDSA cycle, problems and solutions can be identified and barriers to effective implementation reduced. The PDSA cycles consists of four phases:

• Plan: Data-driven identification of barriers and challenges followed by developing a plan for implementation and monitoring outcomes.

• Do: Carry out the plan as specified to address the challenges.• Study: Use data identified during the planning phase to assess

and track progress.• Act: Make changes to the next iteration of the plan to improve

implementation.

Policymakers set guidelines, rules, or expectations that affect implementation of practices. Through the PDSA cycle, the implementation steps are planned, enacted, analyzed, and scaled-up. The section on data-informed processes in this blueprint shows how data is integral to the PDSA cycle. At the stage of analyzing data, policymakers must consider the impact of systems and policies on results and discuss necessary revisions to the implementation process.

Figure 8. Practice Policy Feedback Cycle13

Form Supports Function

Policy

Practice

Structure

Procedure

Policy Plan

Practice

Do

Feed

back

Study -Act

Policy Enabled PracticesPrac

tice

Info

rmed

Pol

icy

Expe

rt Im

plem

enta

tion

Supp

ort


Implementation TeamsImplementation teams provide needed support and structure for ensuring implementation with fidelity occurs. In the Missouri Model Districts framework are two levels of implementation teams: district-level and building-level. Each have roles in guiding and supporting implementation. It is important for districts and buildings to refrain from establishing additional leadership teams for guiding the MMD implementation. Rather, districts and buildings should reflect on their current team structures and integrate team responsibilities tot he greatest extent possible.

Core competencies of implementation team members, at both the district and building level, include the following.

• Knowledge and understanding of the MMD framework and practices

• Knowledge of expected MMD implementation processes

• Applied experience in using data for improving practices and systems

District Leadership TeamThe district leadership team is comprised of district-level administrators, districtwide coaches, curriculum and assessment leaders, professional development coordinators, and other instructional and administrative leaders. This team supports implementation in the following ways.

• Using data to inform district-level policy and evaluate district-level systems.

• Providing support for assuring the implementation drivers are addressed within each building.

• Providing adaptive and technical solutions essential for sustaining and scaling-up the MMD framework across the district.

• Monitoring implementation progress and addressing challenges at the district-level, which affect building-level implementation.

• Collaborating with building-leadership teams to gain insight into the effectiveness of implementation and challenges shared across the district.


School Building Leadership TeamThe building leadership team is comprised of building-level administrators, teacher-leaders, instructional coaches, and other persons integral to the overall building-level system. This team supports implementation in the following ways.

• Using data to inform building-level policy and evaluate building-level systems.

• Addressing the implementation drivers in the building context.

• Providing adaptive and technical solutions essential for sustaining and scaling-up the MMD framework within the building.

• Monitoring implementation progress and addressing challenges at the building-level.

• Collaborate with district-leadership teams to share insight into the effectiveness of implementation and challenges occurring in the building.

AlignmentEducators are faced with recurring challenges of implementing, sustaining, and evaluating multiple practices, systems, and policies simultaneously. Being purposeful about developing a process for aligning, monitoring alignment, and sustaining alignment is an important function of district-level and building-level leadership. In a recent Technical Guide for Alignment,14 the National Technical Assistance Center on Schoolwide Positive Behavior Supports outlines steps for aligning practices and initiatives. Drawing from this technical guide, the steps below outline a process for reviewing current initiatives and aligning the MMD framework with current practices and systems be shown to be effective for improving student achievement.

1. Assess current initiatives

a. Define the valued outcome to be achieved

b. Develop an inventory of related systems, initiatives, and practices currently implemented across the district.

Effective leaders understand that alignment is not something to check off a to-do list. Alignment is a dynamic, ongoing process that requires continual monitoring and realigning as conditions and needs change. ─Straw, Davis, Scullard, Kukkonen, & Franklin (2013)


c. Identify the practices and initiatives to be aligned and determine common features.

d. Identify the system features supporting the initiative or practice.

e. Design a plan for aligned implementation, including collection of data, evaluation, and professional development.

2. Adopt formal alignment process

f. Design protocols for considering the adoption of new practices within alignment to current, effective practices.

g. Enable a team to monitor the effectiveness of alignment and lead the consideration of new practices as needs arise.



Data-Informed ProcessData elements at all stages and levels of implementation can inform sustainability of effective educational practices and influence the design of MSIP 6. The data elements include self-assessment, observation, implementation survey, student achievement, and other qualitative data such as artifacts, process documents, protocols, etc.

Figure 10 shows the MMD data cycle. In this cycle, districts will examine data from school buildings as part of determining a districtwide level of implementation as well as action planning for improved implementation, leading to student achievement. Also, as part of this cycle, DESE will review data across districts to refine the MMD approach and inform the design of MSIP 6.

Practice ProfilesImplementation with fidelity requires clearly described implementation criteria. The Practice Profile framework has recently been developed by the National Implementation Research Network (NIRN) as a way of outlining implementation criteria using a rubric structure with clearly defined practice-level characteristics15. The Practice Profile template show four levels of implementation and is anchored by the essential functions. The implementation levels are exemplary, proficient, close to proficient, and far from proficient. The Practice Profiles for the components of MMD are included in the Resources and Tools section of this blueprint.

How to Use the Practice ProfileThe Practice Profile has multiple uses. Because it provides the educator with concrete examples of implementation, it is a key component of training and coaching on the specific practice. It can also be used for self-monitoring implementation because it serves as a reminder as to the implementation criteria. It can also be used for providing feedback after observation of the practice. Building-level and district leaders can incorporate the use of Practice Profiles into educator evaluation processes. In addition, the Practice Profiles can be used when peer coaching.

Self-Assessment Practice ProfileThe Self-assessment Practice Profile is an online tool for team-based analysis of Practice Profiles (http://sapp.missouripd.org/instructions). The instructions for using the tool can be found on the webpage.

See practice profiles, p. 46-59


Through this tool, individual educators as well as teams of educators begin by indicating their level of implementation as they complete a questionnaire aligned to each item on the Practice Profiles. Educators can choose to complete all of the Practice Profiles or select only a few practices. After completing the questionnaire, a dashboard of results is shown and reports can be downloaded. Through the reports, an administrator has a collective view of the Practice Profiles across a team, grade level, or other administrator-determined group of educators.

Implementation SurveyMissouri Model Districts will use the Collaborative Work Implementation Survey (CWIS). The CWIS is a 24-item instrument designed using a five-point Likert scale (see Figure 9 listing the survey items). For three of the scales, the Likert values correspond to frequency, while for the other two, the values correspond to agreement. The survey is intended to measure the degree of implementation of desired processes and practices within active model districts/buildings in the MMD project. The scales were designed based upon (a) theoretical knowledge about the most vital information passed from trainers to educators, and (b) practical knowledge of the content of the learning packages delivered through professional coaching by project staff in local school buildings.

Analysis of Implementation ProcessesThe CST will work with district leadership/ implementation teams to collect data documenting implementation progress. Data will address implementation of systems change and alignment, professional development received by educators, implementation of practices at district, building, team, and classroom levels, and growth in student achievement.

EvaluationAn evaluation of the MMD components and processes will be ongoing over the next three years.


SUPPORT & GUIDANCE

INSTRUCTION DESIGN STUDENT LEARNING & FEEDBACK

LEADERSHIP EDUCATOR LEARNING

COLLABORATION TEAMS USE DATA

COLLABORATIVE, DATA-DRIVEN CULTURE

FOCUS ON STUDENT LEARNING

Figure 9. Implementation Survey Items


Figure 10. Data Cycle

Data

Missouri Model Districts ComponentsCoaching support in following areas

OutcomesIncrease educator knowledge

Student achievement

Program Review


SupportThe MMD framework uses the professional development approach and materials developed through the Missouri Collaborative Work (CW). The professional development content and processes are aligned with the research on student and adult learning. Research shows that conventional forms of professional development (i.e., one-shot workshops and conferences) do not provide the support needed to modify teaching practices.16 Effective professional development needs to be authentic and ongoing.17 Furthermore, professional development should address adult learning methods to ensure effectiveness through levels of instruction18 (i.e., introduce, illustrate, practice, evaluate, reflect, and master). A ‘learning package’ is a focused approach to professional development content that (a) addresses adult learning principles, (b) upholds specific characteristics of high quality professional development, and (c) focuses on implementation at the classroom level.Table 2. Learning Package ComponentsComponent Purpose Example of content

Preparation Provide opportunity for learners to engage in the content prior to the formal training.

Learning objectives Expectations for the training Preparatory reading Reflection exercise

Opening & introductions

Provide an overview of the day, including reviewing learner objectives, outcomes, and essential questions.

Session at-a-glance Introductions Essential questions Norms Pre-assessment

Why the topic is important

Review the basics and relevance to student learning.

Implications for student learning Ways implementation aligns with MO Learning Standards

Overview of the topic

Provide learner with core concepts, terms, and vision for implementation.

Core concepts Glossary of terms Implementation example


Coaching Support Teams

CSTs provide ongoing contact and support to the Missouri Model Districts. Professionals comprising a CST will hold identified expertise in areas of leadership and school culture, academics, social/behavioral, special education, data, technology, assessment,

Component Purpose Example of content

Unpacking the topic

Explore the core components and implementation steps.

Detailed description of the core components Rationale for components Detailed implementation steps

Topic in practice

Provide opportunity for learners to discuss what application in the classroom looks like.

Detailed description of what implementation looks like Group discussion on what implementation looks like in a variety of contexts Measuring fidelity Using data to inform practice

Topic in action

Explore ways for the learners to incorporate the new knowledge and skills into their teaching.

Reflection on what implementation would look like in their classrooms Discuss and problem-solve potential challenges to implementation and fidelity drift

Assessment & reflection

Provide opportunity for the learners to reflect on their learning and potential implementation challenges.

Post-assessment learner knowledge Reflect on personal teaching context and implementation

Closing & follow-up

Provide opportunity for learner to outline their implementation steps and plans for follow-up coaching.

Template for outlining implementation steps in personal teaching contexts and follow-up coaching Additional resources for further learning


communication, accountability/MSIP, and systems change. CSTs work closely with district leadership teams to support and increase school district capacity in implementation and sustainability of evidence-based educational practices. Through consultation with the CST, training needs may be identified and, if desired, a Regional Professional Development Center (RPDC) called upon to support those training needs.

The professional partnership between the CST and Missouri Model Districts will involve the following:

• Supporting district leadership through the MMD Blueprint for a cohesive, integrated district plan of professional development to deepen implementation of evidence-based educational practices.

• Assisting with identifying ways of embedding evidence-based educational practices within district need and context.

• Creating, identifying, and sharing effective practices among Model Districts.

Missouri Model Districts are assigned to a cadre of districts sharing similar demographics. In the 2017-2018 year, there are six cadres of districts and each cadre is assigned a CST. Providing leadership to each CST is a Lead Facilitator. Missouri Model Districts can expect their primary communication regarding implementation processes and support to be with the CST facilitator. Other members of the CST will be included as specific needs related to their expertise arise.

Regional Professional Development CentersThe nine Regional Professional Development Centers (RPDCs) continue to be a resource for addressing training needs. As the CST and the District identify needs for training, the CST facilitator will reach out to a RPDC consultant holding the needed expertise to provide training.

Missouri Department of Elementary and Secondary EducationThe Missouri Department of Elementary and Secondary Education (DESE) aims to facilitate the development and implementation of a statewide system of effective evidence-based educational practices to support districts and buildings to achieve exceptional outcomes for all students. To accomplish this task, DESE is partnering with


selected districts known as Missouri Model Districts (MMD). Through this partnership between DESE statewide system of support and the selected districts, DESE will provide various supports to the MMDs for active engagement and implementation of the MMD process with fidelity.

To support the involvement of the MMDs, DESE will provide the following:

• A system for coordination of training and coaching for the districts/buildings within a job-embedded environment.

• A system for development of school-based implementation coaching, at the district and building levels.

• Resources and supports to allow the districts/buildings to participate.

• On-site technical assistance and observation visits.

• Opportunities for cross-district collaboration and sharing.


Tools

The MMDs will be assisting DESE in building, testing and refining a comprehensive, integrated data and professional learning platform. That system is described below.

DESE Data PlatformA robust, DESE-wide data system is currently under development. When mature, this system will tie DESE’s data collection systems such as Core Data, Consultant Log, teacher/leader evaluation, system reviews and tiered monitoring with access for all district staff to online curricula materials, career/technical education supports, common formative assessments, educator evaluation tools, self-assessment tools, PD focusing on leadership, effective teaching and learning, etc.

In the future, the plan is to have a “One Stop Shop” which houses all DESE resources in a single location. This “One Stop Shop” should help to provide consistency in data collection and analysis by eliminating the existence of numerous systems with varying expectations acting independently of one another.

Virtual Professional Development PlatformThe Virtual Learning Platform is an online portal that will provide DESE endorsed, evidence-based training. This training will be available to teachers and school administrators through DESE's Web Application Portal and include space for user collaboration, pre/post assessment, handouts, worksheets, bookmarking of courses in progress, and other materials required for training. Users authorized through DESE’s Web Application single sign-on system will have access to collaborative learning cohorts, bookmarking of learning packages in process, and printing of a certificate of completion at the end of each course. The system can be accessed at any time and may be used as a reference for users once the course(s) are complete.

DESE Data Platform

Virtual Professional Development Platform

Practice Profiles

Online Data Tools

43

43

46

60

This section presents four types of tools for guiding professional development, implementation, and use of data.


For public users not logging into the system through DESE's Web Application single sign-on system, only the learning materials will be available. These users will not have access to the enhanced features of collaboration, bookmarking courses in process, and certificate of completion.

The materials in the Virtual Platform are organized to provide maximum flexibility of access for all users, from totally self-directed to highly directed and structured. While the type of user may vary, all users have access to all course materials at any time. The Virtual Platform may be used in a variety of ways. It may be used by individual or groups of learners. A group of learners may or may not be guided by a leader/facilitator. A district/building may decide to learn and implement the content without outside support or organize learning cohorts using an internal facilitator (team leader). For schools desiring more support, RPDC staff is available to provide initial training and/or follow-up coaching and technical assistance activities through contracted services.

Figure 11. Dashboard



Colla

bora

tive

Team

s (CT

)Pr

actic

e Pr

ofile

Esse

ntial

Fun

ction

Exem

plar

y Im

plem

enta

tion

Profi

cien

t

Clos

e to

Pro

ficie

nt

(Ski

ll is

em

ergi

ng,

but n

ot y

et to

pr

ofici

ency

. Coa

chin

g is

reco

mm

ende

d.)

Far f

rom

Pro

ficie

nt

(Fol

low

-up

prof

essi

onal

de

velo

pmen

t an

d co

achi

ng a

re

criti

cal.)

1Ed

ucat

ors

colla

bora

tivel

y de

velo

p co

mm

on p

urpo

ses a

nd

goal

s for

impr

oved

st

uden

t out

com

es th

at

embr

ace

conti

nuou

s sc

hool

impr

ovem

ent.

Team

s add

ress

3/4

of t

he fo

llow

ing

at

leas

t tw

ice

mon

thly

, as e

vide

nced

by

agen

das a

nd m

inut

es:

1. d

iscus

sing

data

and

mon

itorin

g st

uden

t pr

ogre

ss2.

iden

tifyi

ng in

stru

ction

al p

racti

ces t

hat

resu

lt in

stud

ent l

earn

ing

3. id

entif

ying

stud

ents

nee

ding

re-

teac

hing

4. al

igni

ng in

stru

ction

al p

racti

ces t

o ac

adem

ic st

anda

rds

Team

s add

ress

3/4

of t

he fo

llow

ing

at

leas

t mon

thly

, as e

vide

nced

by

agen

das

and

min

utes

:1.

disc

ussin

g da

ta a

nd m

onito

ring

stud

ent p

rogr

ess

2. id

entif

ying

inst

ructi

onal

pra

ctice

s tha

t re

sult

in st

uden

t lea

rnin

g3.

iden

tifyi

ng st

uden

ts n

eedi

ng re

-te

achi

ng4.

alig

ning

inst

ructi

onal

pra

ctice

s to

acad

emic

stan

dard

s

Mon

thly

age

ndas

and

m

inut

es sh

ow 2

- 4

item

s are

add

ress

ed

Mon

thly

age

nda

and

min

utes

show

fe

wer

than

2 o

f the

ite

ms a

re a

ddre

ssed

2Ed

ucat

ors e

ffecti

vely

im

plem

ent g

roup

pr

oces

ses i

n co

llabo

rativ

e m

eetin

gs.

Team

s mee

t wee

kly

usin

g ag

enda

and

m

inut

es in

col

labo

rativ

e m

eetin

gs.

Team

s mee

t at l

east

mon

thly

util

izing

ag

enda

s and

min

utes

in c

olla

bora

tive

mee

tings

.

Mee

tings

occ

ur

regu

larly

with

no

set

sche

dule

Mee

ting

times

ar

e irr

egul

ar,

infr

eque

nt, a

nd/o

r oft

en c

ance

led

Team

s use

age

ndas

whi

ch in

clud

e 8/

9 of

th

e fo

llow

ing:

• te

am/g

roup

nam

e•

date

/tim

e/lo

catio

n•

outc

omes

(inc

lude

s req

uire

d m

ater

ials)

• pa

st it

ems t

o re

view

• ne

w it

ems

• ce

lebr

ation

s•

norm

s•

role

s•

next

mee

ting

date

Team

s use

age

ndas

whi

ch in

clud

e 7/

9 of

th

e fo

llow

ing:

• te

am/g

roup

nam

e•

date

/tim

e/lo

catio

n•

outc

omes

(inc

lude

s req

uire

d m

ater

ials)

• pa

st it

ems t

o re

view

• ne

w it

ems

• ce

lebr

ation

s•

norm

s•

role

s•

next

mee

ting

date

Agen

das i

nclu

de 4

-6

of th

e re

com

men

ded

item

s

Agen

das i

nclu

de

few

er th

an 4

re

com

men

ded

item

s or a

re n

ot

deve

lope

d

Prac

tice

Profi

les

For e

ach

com

pone

nt o

f the

MM

D fr

amew

ork

is a

Prac

tice

Profi

le.


2(c

ontin

ued)

Educ

ator

s effe

ctive

ly

impl

emen

t gro

up

proc

esse

s in

colla

bora

tive

mee

tings

.

Team

s use

min

utes

and

com

mun

icati

on

that

incl

ude

8/9

of th

e re

com

men

ded

item

s:

• pu

rpos

e fo

r the

mee

ting

• w

here

and

whe

n he

ld•

list o

f the

atte

ndee

s •

task

s ach

ieve

d du

ring

the

mee

ting

• de

cisio

ns m

ade

at th

e m

eetin

g•

list o

f acti

ons a

gree

d up

on in

clud

ing

who

it w

as a

ssig

ned

to a

nd th

e co

mpl

etion

dat

e•

cent

ral p

lace

with

eas

y ac

cess

all

parti

cipa

nts t

o pr

ovid

e up

date

s and

co

mm

ents

• ag

enda

s tha

t use

con

siste

nt te

mpl

ate

for e

asy

refe

renc

e •

agen

das d

istrib

uted

to a

ll st

akeh

olde

rs

Team

s use

min

utes

and

com

mun

icati

on

that

incl

ude

7/9

of th

e re

com

men

ded

item

s:

• pu

rpos

e fo

r the

mee

ting

• w

here

and

whe

n he

ld•

list o

f the

atte

ndee

s •

task

s ach

ieve

d du

ring

the

mee

ting

• de

cisio

ns m

ade

at th

e m

eetin

g•

list o

f acti

ons a

gree

d up

on in

clud

ing

who

it w

as a

ssig

ned

to a

nd th

e co

mpl

etion

dat

e•

cent

ral p

lace

with

eas

y ac

cess

all

parti

cipa

nts t

o pr

ovid

e up

date

s and

co

mm

ents

• ag

enda

s tha

t use

con

siste

nt te

mpl

ate

for e

asy

refe

renc

e •

agen

das d

istrib

uted

to a

ll st

akeh

olde

rs

Min

utes

incl

ude

4-6

reco

mm

ende

d ite

ms

Min

utes

incl

ude

few

er th

an 4

re

com

men

ded

item

s or a

re n

ot

deve

lope

d

3Ed

ucat

ors i

nten

tiona

lly

use

colla

bora

tive

skill

s in

col

labo

rativ

e te

am

mee

tings

.

Durin

g te

am m

eetin

gs, p

robl

em-s

olvi

ng

and

shar

ing

invo

lves

at l

east

6/7

of t

he

follo

win

g co

llabo

rativ

e be

havi

ors:

• pa

usin

g•

para

phra

sing

• po

sing

ques

tions

• pu

tting

idea

s on

the

tabl

e•

prov

idin

g da

ta•

payi

ng a

ttenti

on to

self

and

othe

rs•

pres

umin

g po

sitive

inte

ntion

s

Durin

g te

am m

eetin

gs, p

robl

em-

solv

ing

and

shar

ing

invo

lves

at l

east

5/7

re

com

men

ded

colla

bora

tive

beha

vior

s.

Durin

g te

am

mee

tings

, pro

blem

-so

lvin

g an

d sh

arin

g in

volv

es fe

wer

than

5/

7 re

com

men

ded

colla

bora

tive

beha

vior

s

The

colla

bora

tive

beha

vior

s do

not

occu

r dur

ing

team

m

eetin

gs


Data

-bas

ed D

ecis

ion

Mak

ing

(DBD

M)

Prac

tice

Profi

le

Esse

ntial

Fu

nctio

nEx

empl

ary

Impl

emen

tatio

nPr

ofici

ent

Clos

e to

Pro

ficie

nt

(Ski

ll is

em

ergi

ng, b

ut n

ot y

et

to p

rofic

ienc

y. C

oach

ing

is

reco

mm

ende

d.)

Far f

rom

Pro

ficie

nt

(Fol

low

-up

prof

essi

onal

dev

elop

men

t an

d co

achi

ng a

re c

ritica

l.)

1Ed

ucat

ors

colle

ct,

char

t, an

d di

sagg

rega

te

stud

ent

lear

ning

da

ta.

• ≥9

0% o

f tea

cher

s adm

inist

er c

omm

on

form

ative

ass

essm

ent a

nd u

se c

omm

on

scor

ing

met

hod

to e

valu

ate

stud

ent

profi

cien

cy.

• ≥9

0% o

f tea

cher

s sha

re c

hart

ed c

lass

dat

a w

ith th

e da

ta te

am p

rior t

o m

eetin

g.•

Resu

lts a

re d

isagg

rega

ted

into

4

profi

cien

cy g

roup

s acc

ordi

ng to

spec

ific

scho

ol n

eeds

(e.g

., sp

ecifi

c su

bgro

ups)

.•

Resu

lts a

re a

vaila

ble

elec

tron

ical

ly to

all

team

mem

bers

and

adm

inist

ratio

n at

all

times

.

• ≥8

0% o

f tea

cher

s adm

inist

er c

omm

on

form

ative

ass

essm

ent a

nd u

se c

omm

on

met

hod

to e

valu

ate

stud

ent p

rofic

ienc

y.

• ≥8

0% o

f tea

cher

s sha

re c

hart

ed c

lass

da

ta w

ith th

e da

ta te

am p

rior t

o m

eetin

g.•

Resu

lts a

re d

isagg

rega

ted

into

4

profi

cien

cy g

roup

s acc

ordi

ng to

spec

ific

scho

ol n

eeds

(e.g

., sp

ecifi

c su

bgro

ups)

.•

Resu

lts a

re a

vaila

ble

to a

ll te

am

mem

bers

at a

ll tim

es.

• ≥7

0% o

f tea

cher

s adm

inist

er

com

mon

form

ative

ass

essm

ent a

nd

use

com

mon

scor

ing

met

hod

to

eval

uate

stud

ent p

rofic

ienc

y.

• ≥7

0% o

f tea

cher

s sha

re c

hart

ed c

lass

da

ta w

ith th

e da

ta te

am p

rior t

o m

eetin

g.•

Resu

lts a

re d

isagg

rega

ted

into

few

er

than

3 p

rofic

ienc

y gr

oups

.•

Resu

lts a

re a

vaila

ble

only

to te

am

mem

bers

pre

sent

for t

he m

eetin

g.

• <7

0% o

f tea

cher

s adm

inist

er

com

mon

form

ative

ass

essm

ent a

nd

use

com

mon

scor

ing

met

hod

to

eval

uate

stud

ent p

rofic

ienc

y.

• <7

0% o

f tea

cher

s sha

re c

hart

ed c

lass

da

ta w

ith th

e da

ta te

am p

rior t

o m

eetin

g.•

Resu

lts a

re n

ot d

isagg

rega

ted.

• Re

sults

are

ava

ilabl

e on

ly to

team

da

ta re

cord

er.

2Ed

ucat

ors

anal

yze

resu

lts to

id

entif

y pr

iorit

y le

arni

ng

need

s.

• Te

am li

sts s

tren

gths

, misc

once

ption

s, a

nd

infe

renc

es fo

r 4 p

rofic

ienc

y gr

oups

.•

Stre

ngth

s and

misc

once

ption

s are

di

rect

ly re

late

d to

the

com

mon

form

ative

as

sess

men

t and

all

esse

ntial

stan

dard

s.•

Lear

ning

nee

ds a

re p

rioriti

zed.

• Pr

ioriti

zed

need

s are

cat

egor

ized

acco

rdin

g to

a h

iera

rchy

of p

rere

quisi

te

skill

s.

• Te

am li

sts s

tren

gths

, misc

once

ption

s,

and

infe

renc

es fo

r 4 p

rofic

ienc

y gr

oups

.•

Stre

ngth

s and

misc

once

ption

s are

di

rect

ly re

late

d to

the

com

mon

fo

rmati

ve a

sses

smen

t and

targ

eted

st

anda

rd(s

).•

Lear

ning

nee

ds a

re p

rioriti

zed.

• Pr

ioriti

zed

need

s are

cat

egor

ized.

• Te

am li

sts s

tren

gths

, misc

once

ption

s,

and

infe

renc

es fo

r 3 p

rofic

ienc

y gr

oups

.•

Stre

ngth

s and

misc

once

ption

s are

di

rect

ly re

late

d to

the

com

mon

fo

rmati

ve a

sses

smen

t and

targ

eted

st

anda

rd(s

).•

Lear

ning

nee

ds a

re p

rioriti

zed.

• Pr

ioriti

zed

need

s are

not

cate

goriz

ed.

• Te

am li

sts s

tren

gths

, m

iscon

cepti

ons,

and

infe

renc

es b

ut

does

not

list

by

profi

cien

cy g

roup

s.•

Any

stre

ngth

s and

misc

once

ption

s lis

ted

are

not d

irect

ly re

late

d to

the

com

mon

form

ative

ass

essm

ent a

nd

targ

eted

stan

dard

(s).

• Le

arni

ng n

eeds

are

not

prio

ritize

d.•

Prio

ritize

d ne

eds a

re n

ot

cate

goriz

ed.

3Ed

ucat

ors

esta

blish

SM

ART

goal

s bas

ed

on d

ata-

iden

tified

st

uden

t le

arni

ng

need

s.

Team

mee

ts th

e 5

crite

ria o

f SM

ART

goal

s an

d 7/

8 ad

ditio

nal g

oal c

riter

ia.

Team

mee

ts th

e 5

crite

ria o

f SM

ART

goal

s an

d 4/

8 ad

ditio

nal g

oal c

riter

ia.

Team

mee

ts th

e 5

crite

ria o

f SM

ART

goal

s and

few

er th

an 4

of t

he

addi

tiona

l goa

l crit

eria

.

Team

mee

ts fe

wer

than

5 c

riter

ia o

f SM

ART

goal

s.

SMAR

T Go

al C

riter

ia:

1. A

re sp

ecifi

c to

targ

eted

subj

ect a

rea,

gra

de le

vel,

and

stud

ent p

opul

ation

2.

Are

mea

sura

ble

and

how

mea

sure

men

t will

occ

ur is

spec

ified

3. A

re a

ttain

able

dem

onst

ratio

n of

per

cent

age

gain

s or i

ncre

ases

in te

rms o

f exp

ecte

d ch

ange

4. A

re re

sults

orie

nted

, and

mus

t be

som

ethi

ng le

arne

rs c

an d

o an

d th

at is

rele

vant

5. A

re ti

me-

boun

d w

ith a

set ti

mef

ram

e es

tabl

ished

Addi

tiona

l Goa

l Crit

eria

: •

are

base

d on

cor

rect

ly c

alcu

late

d da

ta p

erce

ntag

es

• re

flect

> 8

0% o

f stu

dent

s in

the

cate

gorie

s of p

rofic

ient

, clo

se, a

nd fa

r fro

m p

rofic

ient

are

pro

ficie

nt b

y po

st-a

sses

smen

t•

are

iden

tified

sepa

rate

ly fo

r stu

dent

gro

wth

in th

e in

terv

entio

n ca

tego

ry, o

n a

case

-by-

case

bas

is•

are

deriv

ed fr

om sp

ecifi

c te

am in

fere

nces

• in

clud

e ba

selin

e (p

re-a

sses

smen

t) m

id-a

sses

smen

t and

out

com

e (p

ost-a

sses

smen

t) fo

r all

esse

ntial

stan

dard

s•

indi

cate

clo

sure

of a

chie

vem

ent g

aps f

or ta

rget

ed st

uden

t gro

ups

• ar

e fe

w a

nd p

rioriti

zed

• in

clud

e sc

hedu

led

time

set f

or fo

rmal

ana

lysis

of r

esul

ts


4Ed

ucat

ors

use

data

to

sele

ct a

co

mm

on

inst

ructi

onal

pr

actic

e/st

rate

gy to

im

plem

ent

with

fide

lity.

• Se

lect

ed in

stru

ction

al p

racti

ces a

re D

ESE

appr

oved

.•

Sele

cted

inst

ructi

onal

pra

ctice

s/st

rate

gies

: �

targ

et p

rioriti

zed

need

s and

are

ev

iden

ce-b

ased

�ha

ve a

n eff

ect s

ize >

.60

impa

ct o

n st

uden

t gro

wth

�ar

e lin

ked

to p

rioriti

zed

need

s for

eac

h pr

ofici

ency

gro

up �

incl

ude

lear

ning

env

ironm

ent,

time,

fr

eque

ncy,

and

dura

tion

to b

e us

ed

• Se

lect

ed in

stru

ction

al p

racti

ces a

re

DESE

app

rove

d.•

Sele

cted

inst

ructi

onal

pra

ctice

s/st

rate

gies

: �

targ

et p

rioriti

zed

need

s and

are

ev

iden

ce-b

ased

�

have

an

effec

t size

of >

.40

impa

ct o

n st

uden

t gro

wth

�ar

e lin

ked

to p

rioriti

zed

need

s for

ea

ch p

rofic

ienc

y gr

oup

Sele

cted

inst

ructi

onal

pra

ctice

s/st

rate

gies

: •

targ

et p

rioriti

zed

need

s•

are

desc

ribed

in d

etai

l to

allo

w fo

r re

plic

ation

• ar

e lin

ked

to p

rioriti

zed

need

s for

ea

ch p

rofic

ienc

y gr

oup

Sele

cted

inst

ructi

onal

pra

ctice

s/st

rate

gies

targ

et p

rioriti

zed

need

s.

5Ed

ucat

ors

expl

ain

resu

lts

indi

cato

rs

for p

roce

ss

(cau

se) a

nd

prod

uct

(effe

ct).

• W

eekl

y or

mor

e fr

eque

ntly

, tea

m

disc

usse

s exp

ecte

d ca

use

data

(tea

cher

be

havi

or) r

elat

ed to

exp

ecte

d st

uden

t re

sults

(effe

ct d

ata)

for e

ach

profi

cien

cy

grou

p, w

ith d

etai

l for

repl

icati

on.

• W

eekl

y or

mor

e fr

eque

ntly

, disc

repa

ncie

s in

stud

ent r

esul

ts a

re e

xam

ined

in re

latio

n to

diff

eren

ce in

impl

emen

tatio

n da

ta.

• M

onth

ly, b

ased

on

data

, im

prov

ed

impl

emen

tatio

n pr

oces

ses a

re

reco

mm

ende

d or

alte

rnati

ve in

stru

ction

al

prac

tice

and/

or st

rate

gy is

cho

sen.

• At

leas

t eve

ry tw

o w

eeks

, tea

m

disc

usse

s exp

ecte

d ca

use

data

(tea

cher

be

havi

or) r

elat

ed to

exp

ecte

d st

uden

t re

sults

(effe

ct d

ata)

for e

ach

profi

cien

cy

grou

p, w

ith d

etai

l for

repl

icati

on.

• At

leas

t eve

ry tw

o w

eeks

, di

scre

panc

ies i

n st

uden

t res

ults

are

ex

amin

ed in

rela

tion

to d

iffer

ence

in

impl

emen

tatio

n da

ta.

• Q

uart

erly

, bas

ed o

n da

ta, i

mpr

oved

im

plem

enta

tion

proc

esse

s are

re

com

men

ded

or a

ltern

ative

in

stru

ction

al p

racti

ce a

nd/o

r str

ateg

y is

chos

en.

• At

leas

t qua

rter

ly, t

eam

disc

usse

s ex

pect

ed c

ause

dat

a (te

ache

r be

havi

or) r

elat

ed to

exp

ecte

d st

uden

t res

ults

(effe

ct d

ata)

for e

ach

profi

cien

cy g

roup

, with

det

ail f

or

repl

icati

on.

• At

leas

t qua

rter

ly, d

iscre

panc

ies

in st

uden

t res

ults

are

exa

min

ed

in re

latio

n to

diff

eren

ce in

im

plem

enta

tion

data

.•

Sem

i-ann

ually

, bas

ed o

n da

ta,

impr

oved

impl

emen

tatio

n pr

oces

ses

are

reco

mm

ende

d or

alte

rnati

ve

inst

ructi

onal

pra

ctice

and

/or s

trat

egy

is ch

osen

.

Team

disc

ussio

n ab

out e

xpec

ted

caus

e da

ta (t

each

er b

ehav

ior)

and

stud

ent

resu

lts (e

ffect

dat

a) o

ccur

s but

doe

s no

t inc

lude

a c

ause

/effe

ct d

iscus

sion,

or

use

s inc

ompl

ete

data

.

6Ed

ucat

ors

desig

n an

d pr

actic

e on

goin

g m

onito

ring

of re

sults

(m

onito

r, re

flect

, ad

just

, re

peat

).

• W

eekl

y or

mor

e fr

eque

ntly

, tea

ms u

se

data

to se

lf-re

flect

and

self-

asse

ss fo

r im

plem

enta

tion

fidel

ity a

nd re

cord

di

scus

sion.

• Aft

er 2

ass

essm

ents

(pre

, mid

, or p

ost)

fo

r the

tim

efra

me

have

bee

n co

mpl

eted

, vi

sual

repr

esen

tatio

n of

gro

wth

is

disp

laye

d.•

Visu

al re

pres

enta

tion

of re

sults

is k

ept

elec

tron

ical

ly.

• Ti

mes

are

sche

dule

d fo

r for

mal

ana

lysis

of

resu

lts.

• Eff

ect s

ize(s

) is/

are

calc

ulat

ed a

nd

reco

rded

.

• Ev

ery

two

wee

ks, t

eam

s use

dat

a to

self-

refle

ct a

nd se

lf-as

sess

for

impl

emen

tatio

n fid

elity

and

reco

rd

disc

ussio

n.•

After

2 a

sses

smen

ts (p

re, m

id, o

r po

st) f

or th

e tim

efra

me

have

bee

n co

mpl

eted

, visu

al re

pres

enta

tion

of

grow

th is

disp

laye

d.•

Visu

al re

pres

enta

tion

of re

sults

is k

ept

elec

tron

ical

ly.

• Ti

mes

are

sche

dule

d fo

r for

mal

ana

lysis

of

resu

lts.

• Q

uart

erly

, tea

ms u

se d

ata

to

self-

refle

ct a

nd se

lf-as

sess

for

impl

emen

tatio

n fid

elity

and

reco

rd

disc

ussio

n.•

After

2 a

sses

smen

ts (p

re, m

id, o

r po

st fo

r the

tim

efra

me

have

bee

n co

mpl

eted

, visu

al re

pres

enta

tion

of

grow

th is

disp

laye

d.•

Visu

al re

pres

enta

tion

of re

sults

is

kept

ele

ctro

nica

lly.

• Ti

mes

are

sche

dule

d fo

r for

mal

an

alys

is of

resu

lts.

• Tw

o tim

es p

er y

ear,

team

s use

da

ta to

self-

refle

ct a

nd se

lf-as

sess

fo

r im

plem

enta

tion

fidel

ity b

ut

disc

ussio

n is

not r

ecor

ded.

• Aft

er 2

ass

essm

ents

(pre

, mid

, or

post

) for

the

timef

ram

e ha

ve b

een

com

plet

ed, v

isual

repr

esen

tatio

n of

gr

owth

is d

ispla

yed.


Com

mon

For

mati

ve A

sses

smen

t (CF

A)Pr

actic

e Pr

ofile

Esse

ntial

Fun

ction

Exem

plar

y Im

plem

enta

tion

Profi

cien

t

Clos

e to

Pro

ficie

nt

(Ski

ll is

em

ergi

ng,

but n

ot y

et to

pr

ofici

ency

. Coa

chin

g is

reco

mm

ende

d.)

Far f

rom

Pro

ficie

nt

(Fol

low

-up

prof

essi

onal

de

velo

pmen

t an

d co

achi

ng a

re

criti

cal.)

1Ed

ucat

ors d

evel

op

clea

r and

mea

ning

ful

lear

ning

targ

ets t

o gu

ide

inst

ructi

on a

nd

stud

ent l

earn

ing.

Mee

t 5/6

crit

eria

:•

Lear

ning

targ

et is

cle

arly

con

nect

ed to

es

senti

al le

arni

ng in

the

dom

ain.

•

Lear

ning

targ

et d

evel

ops d

eep

unde

rsta

ndin

g of

und

erly

ing

conc

epts

an

d/or

acq

uisiti

on o

f ski

lls.

• Le

arni

ng ta

rget

cle

arly

eng

ages

hig

her

orde

r thi

nkin

g pr

oces

ses.

•

Lear

ning

targ

et is

cle

arly

man

agea

ble

and

can

be a

ccom

plish

ed in

the

cour

se

of a

less

on o

r uni

t (m

ay b

e se

vera

l pe

riods

). •

Lear

ning

targ

et is

cle

arly

exp

lain

ed to

st

uden

ts.

• Co

nnec

tions

bet

wee

n cu

rren

t lea

rnin

g ta

rget

and

prio

r lea

rnin

g ar

e cl

early

m

ade.

4/6

crite

ria a

re m

et in

clud

ing:

• Le

arni

ng ta

rget

is c

lear

ly c

onne

cted

to

esse

ntial

lear

ning

in th

e do

mai

n.

3/6

crite

ria a

re m

et

incl

udin

g:•

Lear

ning

targ

et is

cl

early

con

nect

ed to

es

senti

al le

arni

ng in

th

e do

mai

n.

Few

er th

an 3

of t

he

crite

ria a

re m

et.

2Ed

ucat

ors e

stab

lish

clea

r and

mea

sura

ble

stud

ent s

ucce

ss c

riter

ia

in a

rubr

ic, s

corin

g gu

ide,

or c

heck

list.

Mee

t 4/5

crit

eria

:•

Succ

ess c

riter

ia a

re c

lear

ly a

nd

effec

tivel

y al

igne

d to

lear

ning

targ

ets.

•

Succ

ess c

riter

ia c

lear

ly a

nd e

ffecti

vely

re

late

to w

hat s

tude

nts w

ill sa

y, do

, m

ake

or w

rite

to sh

ow e

vide

nce

of

lear

ning

. •

Succ

ess c

riter

ia c

lear

ly a

nd e

ffecti

vely

re

flect

way

s for

stud

ents

to in

dica

te

thei

r cur

rent

stat

us re

lativ

e to

the

lear

ning

targ

ets.

•

Succ

ess c

riter

ia a

re c

omm

unic

ated

in

lang

uage

stud

ent c

an fu

lly u

nder

stan

d.

• Su

cces

s crit

eria

are

freq

uent

ly re

ferr

ed

to d

urin

g th

e le

arni

ng p

roce

ss.

3/5

crite

ria a

re m

et in

clud

ing:

• Su

cces

s crit

eria

are

cle

arly

and

eff

ectiv

ely

alig

ned

to le

arni

ng ta

rget

s.

• Su

cces

s crit

eria

cle

arly

and

effe

ctive

ly

rela

te to

wha

t stu

dent

s will

say,

do,

mak

e or

writ

e to

show

evi

denc

e of

le

arni

ng.

The

follo

win

g cr

iteria

ar

e m

et:

• Su

cces

s crit

eria

ar

e cl

early

and

eff

ectiv

ely

alig

ned

to

lear

ning

targ

ets.

•

Succ

ess c

riter

ia

clea

rly a

nd

effec

tivel

y re

late

to

wha

t stu

dent

s w

ill sa

y, do

, mak

e or

writ

e to

show

ev

iden

ce o

f lea

rnin

g.

Few

er th

an 2

of t

he

crite

ria a

re m

et.


3Ed

ucat

ors c

onst

ruct

an

d/or

use

qua

lity

asse

ssm

ent i

nstr

umen

ts

whi

ch a

re o

f sou

nd

desig

n an

d m

easu

re th

e le

arni

ng ta

rget

s.

Mee

t 4/5

crit

eria

:Fo

rmati

ve a

sses

smen

ts:

• ar

e us

ed to

col

lect

dat

a on

stud

ent

lear

ning

dur

ing

the

lear

ning

pro

cess

.•

are

fully

alig

ned

with

the

lear

ning

ta

rget

and

succ

ess c

riter

ia.

• ar

e cl

early

app

ropr

iate

for t

he p

urpo

se

of g

ener

ating

dat

a in

rela

tion

to th

e su

cces

s crit

eria

. •

are

cons

isten

tly a

nd st

rate

gica

lly

plac

ed d

urin

g th

e co

urse

of t

he

lear

ning

pro

cess

.•

pro

vide

opp

ortu

nitie

s for

stud

ents

to

clea

rly sh

ow w

here

they

are

in re

latio

n to

mas

tery

of t

he le

arni

ng ta

rget

.

3/5

crite

ria a

re m

et in

clud

ing:

• Fo

rmati

ve a

sses

smen

ts a

re u

sed

to c

olle

ct d

ata

on st

uden

t lea

rnin

g du

ring

the

lear

ning

pro

cess

.

2/5

crite

ria a

re m

et

incl

udin

g:•

Form

ative

as

sess

men

ts a

re

used

to c

olle

ct d

ata

on st

uden

t lea

rnin

g du

ring

the

lear

ning

pr

oces

s.

Few

er th

an 2

of t

he

crite

ria a

re m

et.

4Ed

ucat

ors u

se

asse

ssm

ent d

ata

to im

prov

e st

uden

t le

arni

ng.

Mee

t 3/3

of t

he fo

llow

ing

crite

ria:

• Th

e te

ache

rs’ d

ecisi

ons a

bout

nex

t st

eps a

re c

ompl

etel

y ba

sed

on

evid

ence

. •

The

teac

her t

akes

cle

arly

app

ropr

iate

ac

tion

base

d on

evi

denc

e (e

.g.,

to

conti

nue

as p

lann

ed, s

caffo

ld, g

ive

stud

ent f

eedb

ack,

shift

focu

s).

• Th

e te

ache

r fee

dbac

k to

stud

ents

is

clea

rly a

ligne

d w

ith th

e le

arni

ng

targ

et a

nd su

cces

s crit

eria

.

2/3

of th

e cr

iteria

are

met

incl

udin

g:•

The

teac

hers

’ dec

ision

s abo

ut n

ext

step

s are

com

plet

ely

base

d on

ev

iden

ce.

The

follo

win

g cr

iteria

ar

e m

et:

• Th

e te

ache

rs’

deci

sions

abo

ut n

ext

step

s are

com

plet

ely

base

d on

evi

denc

e.

No

crite

ria a

re m

et.


Deve

lopi

ng A

sses

smen

t Cap

able

Lea

rner

sPr

actic

e Pr

ofile

Esse

ntial

Fun

ction

Exem

plar

y Im

plem

enta

tion

Profi

cien

t

Clos

e to

Pro

ficie

nt

(Ski

ll is

em

ergi

ng, b

ut n

ot y

et

to p

rofic

ienc

y. C

oach

ing

is

reco

mm

ende

d.)

Far f

rom

Pro

ficie

nt

(Fol

low

-up

prof

essi

onal

de

velo

pmen

t and

co

achi

ng a

re c

ritica

l.)1

Educ

ator

s te

ach

stud

ents

to

det

erm

ine,

“W

here

am

I Go

ing?

”

Whe

n te

achi

ng st

uden

ts to

dev

elop

lear

ning

go

als,

5/5

crit

eria

occ

ur:

Educ

ator

:•

writ

es d

aily

targ

ets u

sing

stud

ent-f

riend

ly

lang

uage

, usin

g “I

can

___

_,”

or “

I kno

w

____

” st

atem

ents

.•

crea

tes d

aily

opp

ortu

nitie

s for

stud

ents

to

use

or in

tera

ct w

ith le

arni

ng ta

rget

s.•

deve

lops

rubr

ic o

r sco

ring

guid

e fo

r ap

prop

riate

ass

ignm

ents

and

pro

vide

s m

ultip

le o

ppor

tuni

ties f

or st

uden

ts to

us

e/in

tera

ct w

ith th

e ru

bric

/sco

ring

guid

e du

ring

the

lear

ning

.•

anal

yzes

sam

ple

wor

k w

ith th

e st

uden

ts

usin

g st

rong

and

wea

k ex

ampl

es a

nd

aski

ng st

uden

ts to

justi

fy th

eir a

naly

ses (

an

on-g

oing

task

thro

ugho

ut le

arni

ng to

cla

rify

misc

once

ption

s).

• as

ks st

uden

ts to

set d

aily

goa

ls in

rela

tion

to th

e le

arni

ng ta

rget

s.

Whe

n te

achi

ng st

uden

ts to

de

term

ine

lear

ning

goa

ls, 4

/5

crite

ria o

ccur

and

mus

t inc

lude

:Ed

ucat

or:

• w

rites

dai

ly ta

rget

s usin

g st

uden

t-frie

ndly

lang

uage

, usin

g “I

can

___

_,”

or “

I kno

w _

___”

st

atem

ents

.•

crea

tes d

aily

opp

ortu

nitie

s for

st

uden

ts to

use

or i

nter

act w

ith

lear

ning

targ

ets.

• as

ks st

uden

ts to

set d

aily

goa

ls in

rela

tion

to th

e le

arni

ng

targ

ets.

Whe

n te

achi

ng st

uden

ts to

de

term

ine

lear

ning

goa

ls,

3/5

crite

ria o

ccur

and

mus

t in

clud

e:Ed

ucat

or:

• w

rites

dai

ly ta

rget

s usin

g st

uden

t-frie

ndly

lang

uage

, us

ing

“I c

an _

___,

” or

“I

know

___

_” st

atem

ents

.•

crea

tes d

aily

opp

ortu

nitie

s fo

r stu

dent

s to

use

or

inte

ract

with

lear

ning

ta

rget

s.

Whe

n te

achi

ng st

uden

ts

to d

eter

min

e le

arni

ng

goal

s, fe

wer

than

3/5

cr

iteria

occ

ur.


2Ed

ucat

ors

teac

h st

uden

ts

to d

eter

min

e,

“Whe

re a

m I

Now

?”

Whe

n te

achi

ng st

uden

ts to

self-

eval

uate

le

arni

ng p

rogr

ess,

5/5

crit

eria

occ

ur:

Educ

ator

:•

prov

ides

des

crip

tive

task

feed

back

to a

ll st

uden

ts th

roug

hout

thei

r lea

rnin

g th

at

clea

rly li

nks t

o le

arni

ng g

oal a

nd su

cces

s cr

iteria

.•

prov

ides

feed

back

abo

ut st

reng

ths a

nd

offer

s inf

orm

ation

to g

uide

acti

onab

le

impr

ovem

ent t

o al

l stu

dent

s mul

tiple

tim

es

thro

ugho

ut th

e le

arni

ng p

roce

ss.

• pa

ces i

nstr

uctio

n to

allo

w fo

r fre

quen

t, de

scrip

tive

feed

back

to a

ll st

uden

ts a

nd

allo

ws ti

me

for s

tude

nts t

o ac

t on

the

feed

back

rece

ived

.•

asks

stud

ents

to se

lf-re

gula

te b

y as

sess

ing

thei

r ow

n pr

ogre

ss a

nd ju

stify

ing

thei

r as

sess

men

ts m

ultip

le ti

mes

thro

ugho

ut th

e le

arni

ng p

roce

ss.

• in

stru

cts s

tude

nts t

o se

t per

sona

l goa

ls ba

sed

on fe

edba

ck a

nd se

lf-as

sess

men

t.

Whe

n te

achi

ng st

uden

ts to

self-

eval

uate

lear

ning

pro

gres

s, 4

/5

crite

ria o

ccur

.

Whe

n te

achi

ng st

uden

ts

to se

lf-ev

alua

te le

arni

ng

prog

ress

, 3/5

crit

eria

occ

ur.

Whe

n te

achi

ng st

uden

ts

to se

lf-ev

alua

te le

arni

ng

prog

ress

, few

er th

an

3/5

crite

ria o

ccur

.

3Ed

ucat

ors

teac

h st

uden

ts

to d

eter

min

e,

“How

do

I Clo

se

the

Gap?

”

Whe

n te

achi

ng st

uden

ts to

iden

tify

next

st

eps i

n le

arni

ng, 4

/4 c

riter

ia o

ccur

:Ed

ucat

or:

• as

sists

eac

h st

uden

t in

dete

rmin

ing

wha

t m

ight

be

som

e of

the

next

inst

ructi

onal

st

eps f

or th

e in

divi

dual

.•

pace

s ins

truc

tion

to a

llow

for t

he fe

edba

ck

loop

and

focu

sed

stud

ent r

evisi

on.

• pr

ovid

es o

ppor

tuni

ties f

or st

uden

ts to

self-

refle

ct a

nd d

ocum

ent t

heir

lear

ning

.•

prov

ides

opp

ortu

nitie

s for

stud

ents

to

shar

e th

eir l

earn

ing.

Whe

n te

achi

ng st

uden

ts to

id

entif

y ne

xt st

eps i

n le

arni

ng, 3

/4

crite

ria o

ccur

.

Whe

n te

achi

ng st

uden

ts to

id

entif

y ne

xt st

eps i

n le

arni

ng,

2/4

crite

ria o

ccur

.

Whe

n te

achi

ng st

uden

ts

to id

entif

y ne

xt st

eps i

n le

arni

ng, f

ewer

than

2/4

cr

iteria

occ

ur.


Met

acog

nitio

nPr

actic

e Pr

ofile

Esse

ntial

Fun

ction

Exem

plar

y Im

plem

enta

tion

Profi

cien

t

Clos

e to

Pro

ficie

nt

(Ski

ll is

em

ergi

ng, b

ut n

ot y

et

to p

rofic

ienc

y. C

oach

ing

is

reco

mm

ende

d.)

Far f

rom

Pro

ficie

nt

(Fol

low

-up

prof

essi

onal

de

velo

pmen

t and

co

achi

ng a

re c

ritica

l.)1

Deve

lopi

ng

met

acog

nitio

n in

le

arne

rs.

Whe

n de

velo

ping

met

acog

nitio

n in

lear

ners

5/5

crit

eria

occ

ur:

• W

hen

pres

entin

g st

uden

ts w

ith

a ta

sk, t

he te

ache

r pro

mot

es

a m

etac

ogni

tive

envi

ronm

ent

by ta

lkin

g ab

out t

hink

ing

and

lear

ning

in g

ener

al a

nd

spec

ifica

lly ta

lkin

g ab

out o

ne’s

own

thin

king

and

lear

ning

.•

Whe

n pr

esen

ting

stud

ents

w

ith a

task

, the

teac

her m

odel

s m

etac

ogni

tive

prac

tices

bef

ore,

du

ring

and

after

lear

ning

.•

Whe

n pr

esen

ting

stud

ents

with

a

task

, the

teac

her p

rovi

des

oppo

rtun

ity fo

r stu

dent

s to

thin

k ab

out t

he b

est w

ay to

app

roac

h th

e ta

sk o

r acc

ompl

ish th

e le

arni

ng ta

rget

and

con

nect

to

prio

r exp

erie

nces

.•

Whe

n pr

esen

ting

stud

ents

with

a

task

, the

teac

her p

rovi

des

oppo

rtun

ity fo

r stu

dent

s to

mon

itor p

rogr

ess i

n re

latio

n to

lear

ning

targ

et a

nd su

cces

s cr

iteria

.•

Whe

n pr

esen

ting

stud

ents

w

ith a

task

or s

kill,

the

teac

her

prov

ides

stud

ents

opp

ortu

nity

to

dete

rmin

e if

lear

ning

targ

et w

as

met

and

refle

ct o

n w

hat w

ent

wel

l wha

t did

not

go

wel

l and

w

hat t

o do

diff

eren

tly n

ext ti

me.

Whe

n de

velo

ping

met

acog

nitio

n in

le

arne

rs 4

/5 c

riter

ia o

ccur

.W

hen

deve

lopi

ng m

etac

ogni

tion

in

lear

ners

3/5

crit

eria

occ

ur.

Whe

n de

velo

ping

m

etac

ogni

tion

in

lear

ners

2/5

crit

eria

oc

cur.



Beco

min

g an

Inst

ructi

onal

Lea

der i

n Yo

ur B

uild

ing

Prac

tice

Profi

leFo

unda

tions

pre

sent

in th

e im

plem

enta

tion

of e

ach

esse

ntial

func

tion:

Com

mitm

ent t

o th

e su

cces

s of a

ll st

uden

ts a

nd to

impr

ovin

g th

e qu

ality

of i

nstr

uctio

n.

Esse

ntial

Fun

ction

Exem

plar

y Im

plem

enta

tion

Profi

cien

t

Clos

e to

Pro

ficie

nt

(Ski

ll is

em

ergi

ng, b

ut n

ot y

et

to p

rofic

ienc

y. C

oach

ing

is

reco

mm

ende

d.)

Far f

rom

Pro

ficie

nt

(Fol

low

-up

prof

essi

onal

de

velo

pmen

t and

coa

chin

g ar

e cr

itica

l.)1

A co

llabo

rativ

e cu

lture

and

cl

imat

e is

visib

le th

roug

h th

e st

uden

ts,

teac

hers

, and

ad

min

istra

tors

.

The

scho

ol le

ader

ship

pro

vide

s a

supp

ortiv

e en

viro

nmen

t tha

t in

clud

es a

ll of

the

profi

cien

t cr

iteria

, plu

s mee

ts 3

/4 o

f the

fo

llow

ing:

• di

scov

erin

g an

d de

velo

ping

the

capa

city

in st

aff

• cr

eatin

g a

new

par

adig

m/v

ision

fo

r sch

ool c

ultu

re•

prom

oting

incl

usio

n fo

r all

• m

odel

ing

an a

ttitu

de o

f ser

ving

The

scho

ol le

ader

ship

pro

vide

s a

supp

ortiv

e en

viro

nmen

t tha

t in

clud

es 4

/5 c

riter

ia.

• Sa

fe e

nviro

nmen

t for

all

as

evid

ence

d by

feel

ings

of t

rust

, re

spec

t, an

d co

mm

unic

ation

.•

Teac

hers

hel

p ea

ch o

ther

, in

clud

ing

on-g

oing

trai

ning

.•

Teac

hers

supp

ort a

ll st

uden

ts in

ev

ery

clas

sroo

m.

• Th

e sc

hool

is c

ultu

rally

resp

onsiv

e in

a w

ay th

at is

mul

tidim

ensio

nal,

empo

wer

ing

and

tran

sfor

mati

ve.

• A

build

ing

lead

ersh

ip te

am is

es

tabl

ished

and

of h

igh

qual

ity a

s ev

iden

ced

thou

gh m

embe

r rol

es,

team

func

tion

and

norm

s, a

nd

reco

rds o

f mee

tings

.

The

scho

ol le

ader

ship

has

a sc

hool

en

viro

nmen

t tha

t inc

lude

s at l

east

3/

5 pr

ofici

ent c

riter

ia.

The

scho

ol le

ader

ship

ha

s a sc

hool

env

ironm

ent

with

few

er th

an 3

of t

he

profi

cien

t crit

eria

.

2Le

ader

ship

su

ppor

ts

and

ensu

res

that

teac

hing

an

d le

arni

ng

prac

tices

eng

age

all s

tude

nts

in m

eani

ngfu

l le

arni

ng.

Sele

ct a

nd im

plem

ent e

vide

nce-

base

d eff

ectiv

e m

etho

ds th

at:

• ar

e no

t con

tent

rela

ted,

• ar

e tie

d to

teac

her s

tand

ards

,•

are

impl

emen

ted

with

fide

lity,

an

d•

info

rm d

ecisi

ons o

f pro

gres

s th

roug

h re

gula

rly sc

hedu

led

form

ative

ass

essm

ents

sele

cted

by

app

ropr

iate

team

s.

Sele

ct a

nd im

plem

ent e

vide

nce-

base

d eff

ectiv

e m

etho

ds th

at:

• ar

e no

t con

tent

rela

ted,

•

are

tied

to te

ache

r sta

ndar

ds,

• ar

e im

plem

ente

d w

ith fi

delit

y, a

nd

• in

form

dec

ision

s of p

rogr

ess

thro

ugh

asse

ssm

ent m

etho

ds

sele

cted

by

the

inst

ruct

or.

Sele

ct a

nd im

plem

ent e

vide

nce-

base

d eff

ectiv

e m

etho

ds th

at:

• ar

e no

t con

tent

rela

ted,

•

stat

e ar

e im

plem

ente

d w

ith

fidel

ity, a

nd

• in

form

dec

ision

s of p

rogr

ess

thro

ugh

asse

ssm

ent m

etho

ds

sele

cted

by

the

inst

ruct

or.

Sele

ct a

nd im

plem

ent

evid

ence

-bas

ed e

ffecti

ve

met

hods

that

: •

may

or m

ay n

ot b

e co

nten

t rel

ated

, •

are

impl

emen

ted

with

fid

elity

, and

•

info

rm d

ecisi

ons o

f pr

ogre

ss th

roug

h as

sess

men

t met

hods

se

lect

ed b

y th

e in

stru

ctor

.


3Le

ader

s dev

elop

te

ache

r cap

acity

to

use

form

ative

as

sess

men

t th

roug

h su

ppor

tive

data

clim

ates

fa

cilit

ating

the

use

of fo

rmati

ve

data

.

Lead

ers w

ork

with

teac

her t

eam

s to

sele

ct a

nd/o

r cre

ate

rese

arch

-ba

sed

form

ative

ass

essm

ent

met

hods

that

incl

ude:

• cl

early

defi

ned

outc

omes

, •

a pr

oble

m-s

olvi

ng m

odel

, •

stru

ctur

ed a

sses

smen

t crit

eria

, an

d •

sele

cted

and

con

stru

cted

re

spon

ses.

Lead

ers w

ork

with

teac

her’s

on

rese

arch

-bas

ed fo

rmati

ve

asse

ssm

ent m

etho

ds th

at in

clud

e

3/4

crite

ria:

• cl

early

defi

ned

outc

omes

, •

a pr

oble

m-s

olvi

ng m

odel

, •

stru

ctur

ed a

sses

smen

t crit

eria

, an

d •

sele

cted

and

con

stru

cted

re

spon

ses.

Lead

ers d

esig

nate

sele

ct te

ache

rs

to d

evel

op re

sear

ch-b

ased

fo

rmati

ve a

sses

smen

t met

hods

th

at in

clud

e 2/

4 of

the

follo

win

g:•

clea

rly d

efine

d ou

tcom

es,

• a

prob

lem

-sol

ving

mod

el,

• st

ruct

ured

ass

essm

ent c

riter

ia,

and

• se

lect

ed a

nd c

onst

ruct

ed

resp

onse

s.

Lead

ers h

ave

little

un

ders

tand

ing

and

know

ledg

e of

for

mati

ve

asse

ssm

ent m

etho

ds th

at

incl

ude

one

or n

one

of th

e fo

llow

ing:

• cl

early

defi

ned

outc

omes

, •

a pr

oble

m-s

olvi

ng m

odel

, •

stru

ctur

ed a

sses

smen

t cr

iteria

, and

•

sele

cted

and

con

stru

cted

re

spon

ses.

4Le

ader

s ini

tiate

ev

iden

ce-b

ased

de

cisio

ns a

nd

proc

esse

s th

at fo

cus o

n ou

tcom

es.

Lead

ersh

ip te

ams e

stab

lish

syst

ems t

o su

ppor

t fre

quen

t an

d re

gula

rly sc

hedu

led

team

-ba

sed

deci

sion-

mak

ing

that

are

lin

ked

to m

ultip

le le

vels

of d

ata

and

esta

blish

prio

rities

(suc

h as

kn

owle

dge,

tim

e, e

valu

ation

, and

re

sour

ces)

for t

he sc

hool

yea

r.

Lead

ers e

stab

lish

syst

ems t

o su

ppor

t re

gula

r tea

m-b

ased

dec

ision

-mak

ing

that

are

link

ed to

mul

tiple

leve

ls of

dat

a an

d es

tabl

ish 2

or m

ore

prio

rities

(suc

h as

kno

wle

dge,

tim

e,

eval

uatio

n, a

nd re

sour

ces)

for t

he

scho

ol y

ear.

Lead

ers o

vers

ee sy

stem

s of

deci

sion-

mak

ing

that

are

link

ed

to o

ne o

r mor

e le

vels

of d

ata

and

esta

blish

prio

rities

(suc

h as

kn

owle

dge,

tim

e, e

valu

ation

, and

re

sour

ces)

for t

he sc

hool

yea

r.

Ther

e is

no sy

stem

in p

lace

fo

r tea

m-b

ased

dec

ision

-m

akin

g.


Scho

ol-B

ased

Impl

emen

tatio

n Co

achi

ngPr

actic

e Pr

ofile

Fo

unda

tions

pre

sent

in th

e im

plem

enta

tion

of e

ach

esse

ntial

func

tion:

Com

mitm

ent t

o th

e su

cces

s of a

ll st

uden

ts a

nd to

impr

ovin

g th

e qu

ality

of i

nstr

uctio

n.

Esse

ntial

Fun

ction

Exem

plar

y Im

plem

enta

tion

Profi

cien

t

Clos

e to

Pro

ficie

nt

(Ski

ll is

em

ergi

ng, b

ut n

ot y

et

to p

rofic

ienc

y. C

oach

ing

is

reco

mm

ende

d.)

Far f

rom

Pro

ficie

nt

(Fol

low

-up

prof

essi

onal

de

velo

pmen

t and

coa

chin

g ar

e cr

itica

l.)1

Deve

lopi

ng a

nd

mai

ntai

ning

co

achi

ng

rela

tions

hips

.

At th

e be

ginn

ing

of th

e co

achi

ng re

latio

nshi

p, th

e ed

ucat

or-c

oach

: •

desc

ribes

the

coac

hing

pro

cess

and

exp

ecta

tions

for t

he

educ

ator

-coa

ch a

nd c

oach

ed e

duca

tor

• po

ses q

uesti

ons a

nd li

sten

s to

the

coac

hed

educ

ator

des

crib

e cu

rren

t tea

chin

g su

cces

ses a

nd c

halle

nges

•

expl

ains

that

con

fiden

tialit

y w

ill b

e m

aint

aine

d

At th

e be

ginn

ing

of th

e co

achi

ng

rela

tions

hip,

the

educ

ator

-coa

ch

• de

scrib

es th

e co

achi

ng p

roce

ss

and

expe

ctati

ons f

or th

e ed

ucat

or-c

oach

and

coa

ched

ed

ucat

or

• po

ses q

uesti

ons b

ut d

oes n

ot

liste

n to

the

coac

hed

educ

ator

de

scrib

e cu

rren

t tea

chin

g su

cces

ses a

nd c

halle

nges

•

confi

denti

ality

is n

ot a

ddre

ssed

.

Coac

hes d

o no

t tak

e tim

e to

dev

elop

pos

itive

, pr

ofes

siona

l rel

ation

ship

s w

ith th

e bu

ildin

g ed

ucat

ors

as th

ey ta

ke o

n th

e fu

nctio

ns o

f sch

ool b

ased

im

plem

enta

tion

coac

h.

2Fa

cilit

ating

the

impr

ovem

ent

proc

ess.

The

educ

ator

-coa

ch su

ppor

ts th

e co

ache

d-ed

ucat

or to

lear

n an

d im

plem

ent n

ew te

achi

ng/le

arni

ng p

racti

ces b

y:

• ad

dres

sing

coac

hed

educ

ator

feel

ings

of b

eing

ove

rwhe

lmed

w

ith th

e im

plem

enta

tion

proc

ess b

y br

eaki

ng d

own

the

step

s or

met

hods

of i

mpl

emen

tatio

n in

to m

anag

eabl

e un

its•

givi

ng ra

tiona

le fo

r the

impo

rtan

ce o

f im

plem

entin

g th

e te

achi

ng/le

arni

ng p

racti

ce

• att

aini

ng v

erba

l com

mitm

ent f

rom

the

coac

hed

educ

ator

to

enga

ge in

the

coac

hing

rela

tions

hip

and

impr

ove

impl

emen

tatio

n of

teac

hing

/lear

ning

pra

ctice

s

The

educ

ator

coa

ch su

ppor

ts th

e co

ache

d ed

ucat

or a

t a m

oder

ate

to m

inim

al le

vel b

y:•

addr

essin

g co

ache

d ed

ucat

or

feel

ings

of b

eing

ove

rwhe

lmed

w

ith th

e im

plem

enta

tion

proc

ess b

y cr

eatin

g an

aw

aren

ess o

f the

step

s or

met

hods

of i

mpl

emen

tatio

n•

stati

ng th

e im

port

ance

of

impl

emen

ting

the

teac

hing

/le

arni

ng p

racti

ce w

ithou

t pr

ovid

ing

ratio

nale

exp

lain

ing

why

•

assu

min

g th

at th

ere

is a

com

mitm

ent f

rom

the

coac

hed

educ

ator

to e

ngag

e in

the

coac

hing

rela

tions

hip

and

impr

ove

impl

emen

tatio

n of

te

achi

ng/le

arni

ng p

racti

ces

The

educ

ator

-coa

ch

initi

ates

a c

oach

ing

rela

tions

hip

but d

oes n

ot

follo

w-t

hrou

gh.


3Co

mm

unic

ating

in

a ti

mel

y an

d re

spon

sive

man

ner.

The

educ

ator

-coa

ch:

• us

es a

var

iety

of m

etho

ds (e

.g. e

mai

l, ph

one,

in p

erso

n, a

nd

vide

o co

nfer

ence

) for

che

ckin

g in

on

the

stat

us o

f pra

ctice

im

plem

enta

tion

with

the

educ

ator

(s)

• re

ques

ts a

nd is

resp

onsiv

e to

feed

back

from

the

coac

hed

educ

ator

abo

ut th

e co

achi

ng e

xper

ienc

e •

is re

spon

sive

to in

form

ation

nee

ds a

nd q

uesti

ons i

n a

timel

y m

anne

r, ex

plic

itly

and

mut

ually

agr

eed

upon

with

the

coac

hed-

educ

ator

(e.g

. Bot

h pa

rties

dec

ide

that

resp

ondi

ng w

ithin

m

utua

lly d

eter

min

ed n

umbe

r of d

ays i

s mos

t hel

pful

and

fe

asib

le)

The

educ

ator

-coa

ch:

• re

lies o

n on

ly o

ne fo

rm o

f co

mm

unic

ation

for c

heck

ing

in o

n th

e st

atus

of p

racti

ce

impl

emen

tatio

n w

ith th

e ed

ucat

or(s

). •

is in

cons

isten

t and

un

pred

icta

ble

in re

spon

ding

an

d pr

ovid

ing

feed

back

to

coac

hed

educ

ator

s’ in

form

ation

ne

eds a

nd q

uesti

ons

• Pr

ovid

es c

oach

ing

conv

ersa

tions

an

d/or

feed

back

that

are

one

-sid

ed a

nd d

irecti

ve, d

o no

t bui

ld

on th

e st

reng

ths o

f the

coa

ched

ed

ucat

or a

nd a

re n

ot so

lutio

n dr

iven

.

The

educ

ator

-coa

ch

over

look

s the

nee

d fo

r co

nsist

ent a

nd o

ngoi

ng

com

mun

icati

on a

nd/o

r fe

edba

ck w

ith c

oach

ed

educ

ator

s.

4En

gagi

ng in

so

lutio

n-dr

iven

di

alog

ue.

The

educ

ator

-coa

ch:

• fa

cilit

ates

ong

oing

coa

chin

g co

nver

satio

ns th

at b

uild

on

the

stre

ngth

s of t

he c

oach

ed e

duca

tor a

nd is

solu

tion-

driv

en.

• pr

ovid

es fe

edba

ck b

ased

on

dire

ct o

bser

vatio

ns

• po

ses r

eflec

tive

ques

tion

on “

wha

t is w

orki

ng”

and

“w

hat i

s not

w

orki

ng”

• re

view

s dat

a w

ith th

e co

ache

d ed

ucat

or a

nd u

ses d

ata

to d

esig

n ne

xt st

eps a

nd fr

ame

reco

mm

enda

tions

.

The

educ

ator

-coa

ch:

• w

ithou

t reg

ard

for s

tren

gths

, fo

cuse

s too

ofte

n on

the

coac

hed-

educ

ator

’s w

eakn

esse

s or

the

way

s in

whi

ch

impl

emen

tatio

n w

as p

oor o

r in

accu

rate

• pr

ovid

es fe

edba

ck w

ithou

t or

with

min

imal

dire

ct o

bser

vatio

n•

does

not

eng

age

in re

flecti

ve

ques

tioni

ng•

revi

ews d

ata

with

out u

sing

it to

in

form

nex

t ste

ps

The

educ

ator

-coa

ch is

ne

gativ

e an

d/or

doe

s not

ac

tivel

y en

gage

with

the

coac

hed

educ

ator

.


Self-assessment Practice ProfileAccompanying each Practice Profile is an online self-assessment tool.

DASHBOARD

SELF-ASSESSMENT

PRACTICE PROFILE


Common Formative Assessment Data ToolThe online CFA reporting tool is a system for sharing CFA results for feedback from a coach.

INSTRUCTIONS

ENTER NEW DATA

REVIEW DATA



APPENDIX


Glossary of TermsSetting the StageBlueprint: A blueprint is a detailed plan of action. The Missouri Model Districts blueprint describes an approach and processes for implementing effective educational practices in Missouri districts and schools.

CSIP: Comprehensive School Improvement Plan.

Missouri Model Districts (MMD): Missouri Model Districts offers opportunities to selected districts in an effort to advance and sustain effective education practices and influence the design of MSIP 6 using a district-level approach.

MSIP 6: Missouri School Improvement Program.

PracticesAssessment Capable Learners: Referred to in Dr. Hattie’s (2008) research as “student self-report grades,” assessment capable learners are students who know the learning target, can describe their level of learning in relation to the learning target, and describe their next steps.

Closing and Follow-Up: A key learning package component that provides learners opportunities to outline their implementation steps and plan for follow-up coaching.

Collaborative Teams: As a foundational piece of the MMD framework, collaborative teams (a) maintain structures/processes for efficient collaboration and (b) intentionally review data, analyze, and discuss the impact of educational practices on student learning.

Common Formative Assessment: As a foundational piece of the MMD Framework, common formative assessment is systematic and cyclical process designed to provide timely teacher/student feedback on curricula and student learning to improve both instructional practices and academic achievement.

Data-based Decision Making: As a team process, data-based decision making occurs when teams (a) disaggregate data, (b) analyze student performance, (c) set incremental student learning goals, (d) discuss the relationship between instruction and student learning, and (e) identify effective key teaching and learning practices to implement.

Effective Teaching and Learning Practices: Within the MMD framework, selected teaching and learning practices, demonstrated through research, result in improved student learning. In order to maximize outcomes, the practices should be implemented with fidelity across content areas.

Essential Functions: Sometimes called core components, active ingredients, or practice elements, essential functions when used in a practice-profile format, provide a clear description of the features that must be present to say that an innovation is being used to


achieve outcomes. Essential functions guide practitioner decisions and ensure consistency, integrity, and sustainable effort across practitioners.

Effect Size: Quantifying the difference between two groups or the same group over time, on a common scale is effect size.

Feedback: Feedback is defined as information provided by an agent (e.g. teacher, peer, book, parent, self, experience) regarding aspects of one’s performance or understanding.

Foundations: The MMD framework references three educational practices as foundations to the framework: collaborative teams, data-based decision making, and common formative assessment.

Metacognition: Metacognition occurs when a student is conscious of his/her thinking and level of cognition while in the process of learning.

Opening and Introductions: Opening and introductions are a key learning package component in which educator-learners receive an overview of the day, including learner objectives outcomes, and essential questions.

School-Based Implementation Coaching: School based implementation coaching occurs when peer-to- peer coaching, focused on educational practices, is systematically used to support ongoing implementation and problem-solve implementation challenges.

Success Criteria: Success criteria describes student outcomes and expectations.

Training: As a component of professional development, training provides for the introduction of new practices, exploration of applications in real world settings, and experimentation with application scenarios under the guidance of an expert.

Visible Learning: Coined by John Hattie, visible learning is an enhanced role for teachers as they become evaluators of their own teaching. Visible refers to making student learning visible to teachers, ensuring attributes that make a “visible” difference to student learning. Learning refers to how we go about knowing and understanding then doing something about student “learning.”

SystemsAct: The final phase of the Plan-Do-Study-Act (PDSA) cycle in which data is used to determine revisions to the implementation processes and/or to the practice being implemented is act.

Action Plan: A plan created to organize a district and/or school improvement process is an action plan. The plan should include details of scope, sequence, timeline, and designated responsibility. Progress toward accomplishing action plan items should be reviewed and revised on an ongoing basis.


Adoption: The first stage of implementation, which includes taking inventory, looking at the reality, setting priorities, and master planning is adoption.

Alignment: Being purposeful about developing and implementing a process of examining commonalities and efficiencies across educational components (e.g., initiatives, assessment, and curriculum) is alignment.

Coaching: Coaching is an aspect of professional development focused on improving practice in the applied context. Coaching is a learning relationship in which guided reflection, modeling, guided practice, and learning strategies for improvement occur.

Competency Drivers: Competencies of key personnel who have direct and supportive roles are essential for effective implementation. The competency drivers include selection, training, coaching, and fidelity/performance assessment.

District Leadership Team: A district leadership team is comprised of district-level administrators, districtwide coaches, curriculum and assessment leaders, professional development coordinators, and other instruction and administrative leaders.

Do: The second phase of the Plan-Do-Study-Act (PDSA) cycle, when implementation begins.

Facilitative Administration: As one of four organization drivers, educational leadership provide facilitative administration when they collaborate with their teams to identify and address challenges, form clear communication protocols and feedback loops, develop and adjust policies and procedures, and reduce system barriers to implementing the program as intended.

Fidelity: Fidelity is the degree to which a program as implemented corresponds with the program as described.

Fidelity/Performance Assessment: As one of four competency drivers, fidelity and performance assessment is a process or tool used to determine the extent to which a program is implemented as intended and achieving intended student achievement outcomes.

Full Implementation: The fourth stage of implementation involves taking implementation to scale. At a district-level, full implementation occurs when all school buildings in the district are implementing the Missouri Model Districts framework.

Implementation: Implementation is putting into place a specified set of activities, protocols, and structures designed to address a gap or area of need.

Implementation Drivers: Implementation drivers are based on the commonalities among successfully implemented practices and programs found in the literature and derived from current best practices.


Implementation Science: Implementation science is the study of factors that influence the full and effective use of innovations in practice.

Implementation Stages: The implementation process has six developmental stages: adoption, program installation, initial implementation, full operation, innovation, and sustainability.

Implementation Team: Implementation teams actively support implementation of a new program or innovation and provide an internal support structure to move selected programs and innovations through the stages of implementation.

Initial Implementation: During initial implementation, teams begin putting the practice into place and monitoring early steps.

Innovation: Innovation is the fifth stage of implementation, when the model has been fully implemented and sufficient data has been gathered. Once data is analyzed and interpreted, innovative modifications, additions and subtractions are made to the model.

Instructional Leader: Instructional leaders have a student focus and are concerned with the teachers’ and school’s impact on student learning and instructional issues. Instructional leaders conduct classroom observations, ensure professional development enhances student learning, communicate high academic standards, and ensure all school environments are conducive to learning.

Leadership: As one of four organization drivers, effective educational leaders know how to build and strengthen a network of organizational support that includes (a) the professional capacity of teachers and staff, (b) the professional community in which they learn and work, (c) family and community engagement, and (d) effective management and operations of the school/district.

Organization Drivers: Organization drivers represent the group of factors that form the supports and structures essential for (a) keeping implementation processes on track, (b) evaluating drift in implementation through data, and (c) determining adjustments to implementation as needed. The organization drivers are data-support data systems, facilitative administration, systems interventions, and leadership.

PDSA Cycle: The PDSA cycle is a four-phase, data-driven cycle for designing and monitoring specific elements of implementation. The phases are Plan, Do, Study, Act.

Plan: In the first phase of the Plan-Do-Study-Act (PDSA) cycle, teams use a data-informed process for identifying barriers or challenges and specifying the components and method for implementation.

Protocols: Protocols within collaborative teams consist of agreed upon guidelines/norms for conversation and a structure that permits focused conversations to occur. Protocols are used to look at student and adult work, give feedback, solve problems or dilemmas, observe


classrooms or peers, advance problem-solve on a specific issue, and structure a discussion around a text.

Program Installation: Program installation is the second stage of implementation, wherein an environment supportive of implementation is established at the district and school building levels.

Scaling-Up: Scaling-up is the process of reaching larger numbers of students or education settings.

School Building Leadership Team: A school building leadership team is comprised of building-level administrators, teacher-leaders, instructional coaches, and other persons integral to the overall building-level system. This team supports building level-implementation and structures for moving through the implementation stages and assuring the implementation drivers are addressed.

Study: As the third phase in the Plan-Do-Study-Act (PDSA) cycle, teams use assessment and tracking measures identified during the planning phase to study the effects of implementation.

Sustainability: The final stage of implementation is sustainability. The ultimate goal is a sustainable model of services and supports that provides a valid, reliable, and evidence-based approach to responding to the educational needs of all students by developing the capacity to maintain lessons learned from MMD.

Systems Interventions: As one of four organization drivers, systems interventions are the ways of aligning resources, expectations, and system supports to support implementation.

DataArtifacts: Various types of documents, records, notes, and data used when evaluating effectiveness or documenting evidence of implementation are artifacts.

Cause Data: Data measuring variables within the system or implementation process that may affect the desired outcome (e.g., implementation fidelity, type of professional development, or analysis of competing initiatives) is referred to as cause data.

Effect Data: The measurement of the desired outcome (e.g., student learning or behavior) is referred to as effect data in the data-based decision making cycle.

Implementation Survey: Missouri Model Districts will use the Collaborative Work Implementation Survey, a 24-item instrument designed using a five-point Likert scale intended to measure the degree of implementation of desired processes and practices within Missouri school buildings active in the Collaborative Work. The five domains are effective teaching and learning practices, common formative assessments, data-based decision making, leadership, and professional development.


Practice Profile: A practice profile is a framework developed by the National Implementation Research Network (NIRN) as a way of outlining criteria using a rubric structure with clearly defined practice-level characteristics.

Results Indicators: Results indicators facilitate the planning for, sustaining, or revising of strategies/practices, and also allow teachers to monitor progress of implementation and effectiveness of these strategies/practices.

Rubric: A rubric is a criterion-based tool used to communicate expectations of proficiency and to assess a student’s demonstrated level of performance, understanding, or knowledge around the defined criteria.

Self-Assessment Practice Profile: The self-assessment practice profile is an online tool for team-based analysis of Practice Profiles. (http://sapp.missouripd.org/instructions). Through this tool, individual educators as well as teams of educators complete a questionnaire aligned to items on practice profiles. Once complete, Administrators create reports to view implementation of practices across a team, grade level, or other administrator- determined group of educators.

Support Assessment and Reflection: A key learning package component that provides learners with opportunities to reflect on their learning and potential implementation challenges is the stage of assessment and reflection.

Cadre: A cadre is a small group of people specially trained for a particular purpose or profession. In the context of MMD, small groups of participating districts are trained and coached by their coaching support team to increase district capacity across each of the districts in the cadre.

Coaching Support Teams (CST): In the context of MMD, a CST is a team comprised of professionals who hold identified expertise in leadership and school structure, academic, social/behavioral, special education, data, technology, assessment, accountability/MSIP, and systems change. CSTs work closely with district leadership teams to support and increase district capacity in implementation and sustainability of evidence-based educational practices.

Essential Questions: Essential questions are a component of a learning package. These questions provoke deep thought, lively discussion, sustained inquiry, and additional questions leading to new and/or deep insights.

Learning Intentions: Learning intentions, are also known as learning objectives, clearly describe what students should know, understand, and do.


Learning Package: A learning package is a focused approach to professional development content that (a) addresses adult learning principles and (b) upholds specific characteristics of high quality professional development and (c) focuses on implementation at the classroom level.

Look-Fors: Look-fors are indicators in student work that demonstrate changes in proficiency.

Preparation: Preparation is a key learning package component that provides opportunities for learners to engage in content prior to the formal training.

Regional Professional Development Center (RPDC): The nine Regional Professional Development Centers (RPDCs) continue to be a resource for addressing training needs.

Topic in Action: Topic in action is a key learning package component where learners explore ways to incorporate new knowledge and skills into their teaching.

Topic in Practice: Topic in practice is a key learning package component that provides opportunities for learners to discuss what application in the classroom looks like.

Unpacking the Topic: Unpacking the topic is a key learning package component that explores core components and implementation steps.


Resources for Further LearningAssessment Capable LearnersArter, J., & McTighe, J. (2000). Scoring rubrics in the classroom: Using performance criteria for assessing and improving student performance. Corwin Press. Chappuis, J. (2009). Seven strategies of assessment for learning. Allyn & Bacon.

McMillan, J. H., & Hearn, J. (2008). Student self-assessment: The key to stronger student motivation and higher achievement. Educational Horizons, 87(1), 40-49.

Mueller, J. (2016). Authentic assessment toolbox: What is a portfolio? Retrieved from http://jfmueller.faculty.noctrl.edu/toolbox/portfolios.htm.

School-Based Implementation Coaching Aguilar, E. (2013). The art of coaching: Effective strategies for school transformation. John Wiley & Sons.

Aguilar, E. (2016). The art of coaching teams: Building resilient communities that transform schools. John Wiley & Sons.

Blase, Karen, D. Fixsen, Melissa Van Dyke, and Michelle Duda. (2009). Implementation drivers: Best practices for coaching. Chapel Hill, NC: National Implementation Research Network.

Gilbert, L. (2005). What Helps Beginning Teachers? Educational Leadership, 62(8), 36-39.

Hattie, J., & Yates, G. C. (2013). Visible learning and the science of how we learn. Routledge.

Joyce, B., & Showers, B. (1982). The coaching of teaching. Educational Leadership, 40(1), 4-10.

National Implementation Research Network. (2017). Active Implementation Hub: Coaching Module. Retrieved from: http://implementation.fpg.unc.edu/module-2/coaching

Roth, J., & Broad, E. (2008). The speed of trust: The one thing that changes everything. People & Strategy, 31(1), 57-58.

Russo, A. (2004). School-based coaching. Harvard Education Letter, 20(4), 1-4.

Senge, P. M. (2006). The fifth discipline: The art and practice of the learning organization. Crown Pub.

Wiggins, G. (2012). Seven keys to effective feedback. Educational Leadership, 70(1), 10-16.

Common Formative AssessmentAinsworth, L. & Viegut, D. (2006). Common formative assessment: How to connect standards-based instruction and assessment. (pp. 23, 56, 57). Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.


Chappuis, J. (2009). Seven strategies of assessment for learning. Allyn & Bacon.

DuFour, R., DuFour, R., Eaker, R., & Karhanek, G. (2010). Raising the bar and closing the gap: Whatever it takes. Bloomington, IN: Solution Tree Press.

Data-Based Decision MakingBrookhart, S. M. (2013). How to create and use rubrics for formative assessment and grading. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.

Harn, B., Parisi, D., & Stoolmiller, M., (2013). Balancing fidelity with flexibility and fit: What do we really know about fidelity of implementation in schools? Exceptional Children, 79(2), 181-193.

Institute of Education Sciences (2009). Using student data to support instructional decision making. Retrieved from http://ies.ed.gov/ncee/wwc/practiceguide.aspx?sid=12.

FeedbackBrookhart, S. M. (2008). How to give effective feedback to your students. ASCD.

Wiggins, G. (2016). Seven keys to effective feedback. On Formative Assessment: Readings from Educational Leadership (EL Essentials), 24.

William, D. (2016). The secret of effective feedback. Educational Leadership, 73(7), 10-15.

LeadershipBrinson, D., & Steiner, L. (2007). Building collective efficacy: How leaders inspire teachers to achieve. Issue Brief. Center for Comprehensive School Reform and Improvement.

Browne-Ferrigno, T., & Muth, R. (2004). Leadership mentoring in clinical practice: Role socialization, professional development, and capacity building. Educational Administration Quarterly, 40(4), 468-494.

Donohoo, J. (2016). Collective Efficacy: How Educators’ Beliefs Impact Student Learning. Corwin Press.

Fullan, M. (2011). The six secrets of change: What the best leaders do to help their organizations survive and thrive. John Wiley & Sons.

Goddard, R. D., Hoy, W. K., & Hoy, A. W. (2000). Collective teacher efficacy: Its meaning, measure, and impact on student achievement. American Educational Research Journal, 37(2), 479-507.

Hattie, J. (2015). High-Impact Leadership. Educational Leadership, 72(5), 36-40.


Leithwood, K., & Jantzi, D. (2008). Linking leadership to student learning: The contributions of leader efficacy. Educational Administration Quarterly, 44(4), 455-457.

Marzano, R. J., Waters, T., & McNulty, B. A. (2005). School leadership that works: From research to results. ASCD.

Telfer, D.M. (2011). Moving your numbers: Five districts share how they used assessment and accountability to increase performance for students with disabilities as part of districtwide improvement. Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota, National Center on Educational Outcomes. Retrieved from http://www.cehd.umn.edu/NCEO/OnlinePubs/MovingYourNumbers.pdf.

Tschannen-Moran, M. (2014). Trust matters: Leadership for successful schools. John Wiley & Sons.

Wlodkowski, R. J. (2011). Enhancing adult motivation to learn: A comprehensive guide for teaching all adults. John Wiley & Sons.

MetacognitionCosta, A. L. (2008). The thought-filled curriculum. Educational Leadership, 65(5), 20.

Nokes, J. D., & Dole, J. A. (2004). Helping adolescent readers through explicit strategy instruction. Adolescent Literacy Research and Practice, 162-182.

Stoll, L., Fink, D., & Earl, L. M. (2003). It’s about learning (and it’s about time). Psychology Press.

Implementation ScienceNational Implementation Research Network. (2017). Active Implementation Hub Modules: http://implementation.fpg.unc.edu/

Fixsen, D. L., Blase, K. A., Naoom, S. F., Van Dyke, M., & Wallace, F. (2009). Implementation: The missing link between research and practice. NIRN Implementation Brief, 1.



References1. Hattie, J. (2008). Visible learning: A synthesis of over 800 meta-analyses relating to achievement. Routledge.

2. Telfer, D. M. (2011). Moving your numbers: Five districts share how they used assessment and accountability to increase performance for students with disabilities as part of districtwide improvement.

3. Chappuis, J., Chappuis, S., and Stiggins, R. (2009). Formative assessment and assessment for learning. In Pinkus, L. M. (2009). Meaningful Measurement: The Role of Assessments in Improving High School Education in the Twenty-First Century. Alliance for Excellent Education.

4. Hattie, J. (2012). Visible learning for teachers: Maximizing impact on learning. Routledge.

5. Hattie, J., Masters, D., & Birch, K. (2015). Visible learning into action: International case studies of impact. Routledge.

6. Hattie, J., & Timperley, H. (2007). The power of feedback. Review of Educational Research, 77(1), 81-112.

7. Flavell, J. H. (1979). Metacognition and cognitive monitoring: A new area of cognitive–developmental inquiry. American Psychologist, 34(10), 906.

8. Costa, A. L. (2008). The thought-filled curriculum. Educational Leadership, 65(5), 20.

9. Joyce, B. & Showers, B. (1982) The coaching of teaching. Educational Leadership, 40(1), 4-10.

10. Gottfredson, C., & Mosher, B. (2012). Are you meeting all five moments of learning need? Learning Solutions Magazine. Retrieved from: https://www.learningsolutionsmag.com/articles/949/

11. National Implementation Research Network. (2017). NIRN. Retrieved from http://nirn.fpg.unc.edu/.

12. Fixsen, D. L., Naoom, S. F., Blase, K. A., & Friedman, R. M. (2005). Implementation research: A synthesis of the literature. Tampa, FL: University of South Florida, Louis de la Parte Florida Mental Health Institute, The National Implementation Research Network (FMHI Publication #231).

13. Blase, K., & Fixsen, D. (2013). Practice policy feedback cycle. National Implementation Research Network. Retrieved from http://implementation.fpg.unc.edu/module-5/topic-3-practice-policy-feedback-loops.

14. National Technical Assistance Center on Positive Behavior Interventions and Support. (2017). Technical guide for alignment of initiatives, programs, practices in school districts. Eugene, OR. Retrieved from: www.pbis.org.


15. Metz, A. (2016). Practice Profiles: A Process for Capturing Evidence and Operationalizing Innovations. Chapel Hill, NC: National Implementation Research Network, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill.

16. Asayesh, G. (1993). Staff Development for Improving Student Outcomes. Journal of Staff Development, 14(3), 24-27.

17. Boudah, D. J., Blair, E., & Mitchell, V. J. (2003). Implementing and Sustaining Strategies Instruction: Authentic and Effective Professional Development or “Business as Usual?” Exceptionality, 11(1), 3-23.

18. Trivette, C. M., Dunst, C. J., Hamby, D. W., & O’Herin, C. E. (2009). Characteristics and consequences of adult learning methods and strategies. Winterberry Research Syntheses, 2(2), 1-33.

Quotation References

IntroductionFixsen, D., Blase, K., Horner, R., Sims, B., & Sugai, G. (2013). Scaling-up Brief. State Implementation & Scaling-up of Evidence-based Practices, 3.

Collaborative TeamsHattie, J. (2015). What works best in education: The politics of collaborative expertise. Open Ideas: Pearson, London.

Common Formative Assessment Hattie, J. (2012). Visible learning for teachers: Maximizing impact on learning. Routledge.

Data-based Decision MakingMissouri Department of Elementary and Secondary Education (2016). Why measurement and assessment? Moedu-sail: Missouri Educational Systems and Instruction for Learning. Retrieved from https://www.moedu-sail.org/measure-and-assess/.

Assessment Capable Learners Stiggins, R., & Chappuis, J. (2008). Enhancing student learning. District Administration, 44(1), 42-44.

FeedbackWiggins, G. (2012). Seven keys to effective feedback. Feedback for Learning, 70(1).

MetacognitionDunlosky, J. (2013). Strengthening the student toolbox: Study strategies to boost learning. American Educator, 37(3), 12-21.


Integrated effective teaching and learning practicesMcTighe, J. & O’Connor, K. (2016) Seven Practices for Effective Learning. Educational Leadership, 63(3).

LeadershipNational Policy Board for Educational Administration (2015). Professional Standards for Educational Leaders 2015. Reston, VA: Author. Retrieved from http://www.ccsso.org/Documents/2015/ProfessionalStandardsforEducationalLeaders2015forNPBEAFINAL.pdf.

School-Based Implementation CoachingSugai, G. (2011). Sustained Implementation of Schoolwide PBIS for All Students. Presented at PBIS Winter Conference, O’Fallon, Illinois. Powerpoint slides retrieved from: https://www.pbis.org/common/pbisresources/presentations/Sustained_implementation_Jan_18_2011.pptx.

Implementation, Systems, AlignmentFixsen, D. L., Blase, K. A., Duda, M. A., Naoom, S. F., & Van Dyke, M. (2010). Sustainability of evidence-based programs in education. Journal of Evidence-Based Practices, 11(1), 30-46.

Straw, J., Davis, B., Scullard, M., & Kukkonen, S. (2013). The work of leaders: How vision, alignment, and execution will change the way you lead. John Wiley & Sons.

Effective Teaching and Learning for ALL studentsMissouri Model Districts

Date post:	16-Aug-2020
Category:	Documents
Upload:	others
View:	4 times
Download:	0 times