These materials were produced with Title I, Part A funds and are in the public domain.

1. These materials were produced with Title I, Part A funds and are in the public domain.

2. The MI Excel Statewide Field Teamat Calhoun Intermediate School District proudly recognizes our partners in this work: Eastern UP Intermediate School District Gogebic Ontonagon Intermediate School District Muskegon Area Intermediate School District We are grateful for their willingness to share their expertise with us and the entire state. Thank you!

3. Visions for High-Quality Instruction: Driving the Work of Instructional Infrastructure Tanisha Brooks, MI Excel Statewide Field Team

4. Dramatic Improvement in Student, Teacher, and Leader Performance in a short amount of Time. The Blueprint: Systemic Reconfiguration

5. Session Description District visions for high-quality subject-specific instruction are key to the development of the Instructional Infrastructure district system. This session will provide participants with an opportunity to explore processes to create and/or revise their visions, connect visions to the entire system and planning for how to take these visions to scale.

6. Session Outcomes Participants will: • Deepen understanding for the purpose of visions for high-quality, subject-specific instruction; • Connect visions to the Instructional Infrastructure district system; • Explore processes to create and/or revise vision; • Plan for taking vision to scale.

7. For Discussion Elbow Partner: What does it mean to Disrupt the Status Quo? What belief systems might need to be changed to disrupt the educational landscape for our students?

8. Instructional Infrastructure Outcome 1 - Deepen understanding for the purpose of visions for high-quality subject-specific instruction

9. Instructional InfrastructurePurpose This system is concerned with implementing and supporting a vision of high-quality, ambitious subject-specific instruction to impact student/teacher performance in districts where systemic reconfiguration purposefully disrupts current practice to create a new structure of coherent and aligned district and building systems to ensure success for all students.

12. Vision Instructional Infrastructure

13. Instructional InfrastructureVision of High-Quality Subject-Specific Instruction How might you define VISION? An aspirational description of what an organization would like to achieve or accomplish in the mid-term or long-term future. It is intended to serve as a clear guide for choosing current and future courses of action. (BusinessDictionary.com, 2016)

14. Instructional Infrastructure - Floor 1

15. Instructional InfrastructureEvidence of Practice • The District Communicates its vision for subject area teaching and learning, social and emotional learning, its instructional frameworks, and its proficiency expectations for student learning and performance. • The district describes and communicates explicit high-quality, subject-specific instructional practices that are aligned with the district’s specific student-learning targets.

16. Instructional InfrastructureEvidence of Practice • The District communicates its vision for subject-area teaching and learning, social and emotional learning, its instructional frameworks, and its proficiency expectations for student learning and performance. • The district describes and communicates explicit high-quality, subject-specific instructional practices that are aligned with the district’s specific student-learning targets.

17. Instructional InfrastructureVision of High-Quality Subject-Specific Instruction Connections to Research: • Content Knowledge (M. Buchmann) • Pedagogical Knowledge (Lee Shulman) • Visions for Student Outcomes (Michigan Academic Standards) • Visions Inform Curriculum and Learning Progressions (National Research Council)

18. Instructional InfrastructureVision of High-Quality Subject-Specific Instruction Research and Context Provide Rationale • Role of content-specific pedagogy (pedagogical content knowledge, or PCK) in instruction • Context of subject-specific courses and assessments (and how curriculum informs instruction) • Learning progressions in content areas

19. Instructional InfrastructureVision of High-Quality Subject-Specific Instruction • Looking “inside teacher’s minds” around instructional decisions Content Knowledge Pedagogical Knowledge

20. Instructional InfrastructureVision of High-Quality Subject-Specific Instruction • Looking “inside teacher’s minds” around instructional decisions Content Knowledge Pedagogical Knowledge Pedagogical Content Knowledge (PCK) • Recognition that some content knowledge requires specific approaches to support student learning • Knowledge to assess and address student misconceptions around content knowledge

21. Instructional InfrastructureVision of High-Quality Subject-Specific Instruction • Contextual Need for Subject-Specific Instruction • Curriculum design (Lobby Level Instructional Infrastructure) is informed by Standards and Visions for Student Outcomes • High-Quality Instruction is based upon utilization of curriculum (that is likely aligned to content standards) CURRICULUM DESIGN

22. Instructional InfrastructureVision of High-Quality Subject-Specific Instruction • Role of Learning Progressions in Curriculum Development and Instruction

23. Instructional InfrastructureVision of High-Quality Subject-Specific Instruction Purpose of District Providing Instructional Frameworks • Provide clarity and specificity about how to bring the Visions of HQI to life in the classroom in order to realize teacher and student actions • Provide a common language and set of expectations about teacher and student actions • Support teachers in structuring instructional time • Help to bridge the gap between our curricular framework and lesson plans

24. Sample Instructional Framework Retrieved from Houston County Board of Education: https://ohioleadership.org/up_doc/HO4_DeKalbFrameworkPacket.pdf

25. Sample Instructional Framework Retrieved from Houston County Board of Education: https://ohioleadership.org/up_doc/HO4_DeKalbFrameworkPacket.pdf

26. Instructional Framework

27. Instructional FrameworkImagine…...

28. Instructional InfrastructureVision of High-Quality Subject-Specific Instruction Installation Assessment Suite of Tools and Evidence of Practice Begin with the end in mind . . . When Floor 1 is fully installed, what might you see, hear, and feel within the district?

29. Instructional Infrastructure Outcome 2: Connect visions to the Instructional Infrastructure district system

30. Curriculum and Assessment Instructional Infrastructure

31. Instructional Infrastructure - Floor 2

32. Instructional InfrastructureVision of High-Quality Subject-Specific Instruction • The district provides curricular frameworks that specify the academic targets (the sequence, pace, and units of instruction for all subjects and grades) as well as the non-academic targets (social, emotional, health, and nutritional learning). • The district ensures that each building has curricular materials that are directly aligned to the vision for high-quality subject-specific instruction. • The district developsassessments that align to the curricular visions and frameworks that can inform instructional improvement. • The district provides assessments for the ongoing identification of students who may struggle and who may need differentiated academic support. • The district provides curricular resources that are specific for differentiated academic support for each student. • The district provides an effective system to identify and deliver academic support on a continuum of intensity that is matched to individual student need.

33. Instructional Improvement Network Instructional Infrastructure

34. Instructional InfrastructureVision of High-Quality Subject-Specific Instruction • The district has a process for collecting student need data and teacher performance data to inform instructional support. • The district provides differentiated professional learning for teachers that is aligned to the vision for high quality instruction, supports teachers understanding of curricular frameworks, curricular materials, and assessments. • The district ensures that teachers have protected time to collaborate around the use of the district instructional vision, curricular frameworks, curricular materials, and assessments. • The district ensures that teachers have protected time to collaborate around improving student performance. • The district provides coaches or content/pedagogy specialists to support teacher learning and collaboration for the purpose of improving instruction. • The district provides differentiated professional learning for all instructional leaders that is aligned to the vision for high quality instruction, supports teachers understanding of curricular frameworks, curricular materials, and assessments. • The district provides differentiated professional learning for all instructional leaders to develop their instructional leadership practices and routines.

35. Systems at Scale: Instructional Infrastructure Mechanical Level: Visions of High-Quality Instruction • visions for subject area teaching and learning for academic and social/emotional learning • instructional frameworks • proficiency expectations for student learning and performance • high-quality subject-specific instructional practices Lobby Level: Curriculum and Assessment • curricular frameworks • aligned curricular materials • aligned assessments • differentiated curricular resources • individualized academic support Tenant Level: Instructional Improvement Network • data: student need/teacher performance • differentiated professional learning • protected time for teacher collaboration • coaches or content/pedagogy specialists

36. Which of the following are currently at scale in your district? • Visions • frameworks • expectations • practices • materials • assessments • resources • support • data • professional learning • collaboration • coaches How can the Instructional Infrastructure be installed at scale? Who would need to be involved? What barriers might you face?

37. Instructional Infrastructure Outcome #3 - Explore processes to create and/or revise vision Outcome #4 - Plan for taking vision to scale.

38. 01. Example HQI Visioning Protocol • 02. Example-Coldwater-Facilitators-Guide • 02b. Example-Coldwater-Unpacking- Document-for-Reading • 02c. Example-Coldwater-Vision- Feedback-Form-A • 03. Example-MPS-HQ-Vision-Agenda Planner • 04. NFS-Harmony Futures Protocol Vision-Creation Protocol Dive Jigsaw (divvy up) and review the sample vision-creation/revision protocols As a table group, discuss What do you like about each process?   How might one of these processes (or combination thereof) support your district in vision creation or revision, ownership of the vision, and rolling out and building shared understanding of the vision? What’s next for you and your district?

39. Reflection Make eye contact with someone from across the room. • Share something that you want to be mindful of when installing and building shared understanding of your district’s vision for HQI. • What belief systems might need to be changed to disrupt the educational landscape for our students? • Share something that you’re most excited about when the HQI visions are at-scale in your district.

40. Instructional InfrastructureReferences Ball, D. L., & McDiarmid, G. W. (1990). The subject matter preparation of teachers. In W. R. Houston, M. Haberman, & J. Sikula (Eds.). Handbook of research on teacher education (pp. 437-449). New York: Macmillan. Barnes, C., Camburn, E., Kim, J., & Rowan, B. (2004, April).School leadership and instructional improvement in CSR schools. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, San Diego, CA. Buchmann, M. (1982). The flight away from content in teacher education and teaching. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 14, 1. Camburn, E., Rowan, B., & Taylor, J. (2003).Distributed leadership in schools: The case of elementary schools adopting comprehensive school reform models. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 25(4), 347-343. Cobb, P., & Jackson, K. (2011). Towards an empirically grounded theory of action for improving the quality of mathematics teaching at scale. Mathematics Teacher Education and Development, 13(1), 6-33.

41. Instructional InfrastructureReferences Cobb, P., Jackson, K., Smith, T., Sorum, M., & Henrick, E. (2013). Design research with educational systems: Investigating and supporting improvements in the quality of mathematics teaching and learning at scale. In B. J. Fishman, W. R. Penuel, A.-R. Allen & B. H. Cheng (Eds.), Design based implementation research: Theories, methods, and exemplars. National Society for the Study of Education Yearbook (Vol. 112, Issue 2, pp. 320-349). New York: Teachers College. Cobb, P., & Smith, T. (2008). The challenge of scale: Designing schools and districts as learning organizations for instructional improvement in mathematics. In K. Krainer, & T. Wood (Eds.), International handbook of mathematics teacher education: Vol. 3. Participants in mathematics teacher education: Individuals, teams, communities and networks (pp. 231-254). Rotterdam, The Netherlands: Sense. Coburn, C.E. & Russell, J.L. (2008). District policy and teachers’ social networks. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 30(3), 203-235.

42. Instructional InfrastructureReferences Eunice Kolitsoe Moru & Makomosela Qhobela (2013) Secondary School Teachers’ Pedagogical Content Knowledge of Some Common Student Errors and Misconceptions in Sets, African Journal of Research in Mathematics, Science and Technology Education, 17:3, 220-230 Gibbons, L. K. & Cobb, P. A. (under review). Identifying potentially productive coaching activities.  Submitted to Journal of Teacher Education. Horn, I.S., & Little, J.W. (2010). Attending to problems of practice: Routines and resources for professional learning in teachers’ workplace interactions. American Educational Research Journal, 47(1), 181-217. https://www.michigan.gov/mde/0,4615,7-140-28753_64839_65510---,00.html Magnusson, S., Krajcik, J., & Borko, H. (1999). Nature, sources, and development of pedagogical content knowledge for science teaching. In Examining pedagogical content knowledge (pp. 95-132). Springer, Dordrecht.

43. Instructional InfrastructureReferences National Research Council (2006) Systems for state science assessment. The National Academies Press, Washington, DC Parise, L.M. & Spillane, J.P. (2010). Teacher learning and instructional change: How formal and on-the-job learning opportunities predict change in elementary school teachers’ practice, The Elementary School Journal, 110(3), 323-346. Penuel, W., Riel, M., Krause, A., & Frank, K. (2009). Analyzing teachers’ professional interactions in a school as social capital: A social network approach. Teachers College Record, 111(1), 124-163. Schmidt, W. H., Wang, H. C., & McKnight, C. C. (2005). Curriculum coherence: An examination of U.S. mathematics and science content standards from an international perspective. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 37(5), 525–559.

44. Instructional InfrastructureReferences Shulman, L. S. (1986). Those who understand: Knowledge growth in teaching. Educational Researcher, 15,4-14. Shulman, L. S. (1987). Knowledge and teaching: Foundations of the new reform. Harvard Educational Review, 57, 1-22. Spillane, J.P., Hopkins, M. (2013). Organizing for instruction in education systems and school organizations: how the subject matters. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 45(6), 721-747. Wilson, S. M., Shulman, L. S., & Richert, A. E. (1987). '150 different ways' of knowing: Representation of knowledge in teaching. In J. Calderhead (Ed.). Exploring teachers' thinking (pp. 104-124). London: Cassell.

45. Follow the MI Excel Statewide Field Team on Social Media Twitter - @Blueprint_SWFT Facebook - MI Excel Blueprint Professional Learning Instagram - @blueprint_swft

46. These materials were produced with Title I, Part A funds and are in the public domain.