Secondary Communication Arts Program Evaluation

1. Secondary Communication Arts Program Evaluation June 2011

2. Overview • Context • Program Evaluation Process • Key Findings in Achievement Data • Key Findings in Survey Data • Recommendations

3. History Previous Program Evaluation • Program Evaluation – 2001 • Curriculum Framework – 2006 See Appendices L, and N – P in the Program Evaluation binder for more information

4. Teaching Context: 2006 - 2011 Wikipedia YouTube Facebook Gaming & Cell Phone Apps • NCLB • Growth Model • Pay/Achievement • (Under discussion) 4 years of Required English 2010 GLES Change 2008 Common Core State Standards 2010 End Of Course Exams - 2009 Prop R : MS Lit Coaches FLP - 2007 New Teacher Evaluation Model - 2011 Common Assessments 2008 New Mission and Vision in Parkway - 2010 UbD - 2009 OCG On-going Double CA (MS) 2010 Social Justice 2009, 2010 8 Period Day (MS) 2010 Guaranteed Curriculum On-going Data & PARS On-going

5. Context: Teacher Experience Appendix L

6. Program Evaluation Process • Fall 2010 – Secondary Communication Arts Leaders and Teachers Developed Survey Questions • December 2010 - Board of Education Planning Session • Winter 2011 – Secondary Communication Arts Leaders and Teachers Analyzed Achievement Data • Spring 2011 – Leaders Analyzed Survey Data and Made Recommendations

7. MS Program Components

8. HS Program Components

9. Research Question “To what extent do the secondary communication arts curriculum and programs ensure achievement of the Parkway mission?”

10. 6-8 Grades 2006-2010 pp. 9 – 23

11. MAP Cohort Data 3 Year Gains Grade 6 + 2.1% 4 Year Gains Grade 7 +11.1% 5 Year Gains Grade 8 +12.7% Class of 2016: 6th Graders in 2009 – 2010 Class of 2015: 7th Graders in 2009 - 2010 Class of 2014: 8th Graders in 2009 – 2010

12. Key Finding: Achievement Gap

13. Key Finding: EXPLORE Results 78% 79% 60% 62% 59% 58% 40% 43%

14. Key Finding: English 2 - EOC • In 2009 – 2010 Parkway scored: • above the state and the regional average • 18th out of 465 districts within the state • 6th out of 24 districts within the region. 84.6% 82.2% (pp. 24 – 37)

15. Key Finding: HS Achievement Gap

16. Key Finding: PLAN Results 83% 82% 71% 72% 70% 61% 54% 48%

17. Key Finding: ACT Results 88% 86% 69% 66%

18. Key Finding: ACT Results 72% 71% 53% 52%

19. Key Findings: Survey Strengths Mission and Vision The curriculum helps students… + Understand that their ability and understanding can always improve (Teachers, Students) + Understand the standards required for success (MS Students) + Capable learners (HS Parents) + Understand the views and values of others (MS/HS Parents) (pp. 38 – 83)

20. Key Findings: Survey Concerns Mission and Vision The curriculum does not (yet) help students to: • Act out of strong sense of personal, civic and social responsibility (Teachers) • Respond to the challenges of an ever changing world (Teachers) • Pursue a personal direction based on an understanding of students’ talents and interests (Teachers) • Understand why they are learning what they are learning (Parents) • Reflect, self-assess and set rigorous goals (Parents)

21. Key Findings: Survey Data Desired Results +Use the UbD Planning Model (MS/HS Teachers) + Post the EQs (MS) • (HS) Review Units on the OCG Assessment Evidence + Rely on formative assessments to check understanding (MS/HS Teachers) - Rely on standardized test scores to help me plan (MS/HS Teachers)

22. Key Findings: Survey Data Instruction + Encourage students to engage in critical thinking (MS/HS Teachers) - Ask students to link their learning to I Cans/EQs (HS)

23. Key Findings: Concerns Teachers Parents and Students report that … teachers do not communicate enough with parents about what their students are learning in school (2.87 – MS Parents; 2.8 – HS Parents;) & …teachers do not show students enough how and where to publish their work for audiences outside school – (2.97 – MS Students; 2.92 – HS Students)

24. Key Findings: Literacy Coach Program • A correlation was found between increased achievement in Grade 7 and time spent working with the coach. • Supports building leadership – 81.4% • Facilitates adult learning about best literacy practices – 81.4% • 80% = Buildings • Coaching Cycles • Small Group Development, Literacy Team Leadership, Data Dialog • Whole Group Faculty Development • Maintain Literacy Libraries • 20% = District • Unit & Common Assessment Development • Salary credits, Summer Workshops • Liaison between building and district pp. 80 – 83 & Appendix R

25. Key Findings: MS Reading Intervention • Strategies 1 and Strategies 2 • In 2010 1324 students in Grades 5 – 7 scored Basic or Below Basic on the MAP. • 2010 – 2011 267 students in Strategies classes We have more students who could benefit from reading intervention than we currently serve. From 2008 – 2010, using pre/post test measures we have evidence suggesting a relationship between higher MAP scores and taking a reading strategies class. pp. 40 - 41

26. Your Questions • Positive Online Social Presence • Parents: 3.34 (MS) and 3.25 (HS) • Online Safety • Parents: 3.43 (MS) 3.32 (HS) • Homework • Parents: 3.57 (MS) 3.64 (HS) • Grading • Parents: 3.58 (MS) 3.65 (HS) • Students: 3.79 (MS) 3.43 (HS) • Feedback • Parents: 3.53 (HS) • Students: 3:91 (MS) • Teachers: 4.49 (HS)

27. Recommendations • Curriculum • Assessment • Instruction • Stakeholders

28. 21st Century Learning • Students use technology for learning whenever it is available. • Dynamic, full-color, multi-media-rich, hyper-linked learning environments with immediate access& feedback. • Used to controlling the flow of information according to their interests and self-identified needs • Able to communicate with anyone about anything at any time • Attached to devices as “indispensable social and learning accessories” (Understanding the Digital Generation, Jukes, et. al, 2010, p. 21) • Visual, media, creative, collaborative, and solution-oriented literacies BYOT?

29. 21st Century Learning • Parents and students agree or strongly agree that students use technology for learning whenever it is available. • Immersed in dynamic, full-color, multi-media-rich, hyper-linked learning environments with immediate access to information and immediate feedback. • Used to controlling the flow of information according to their interests and self-identified needs • Able to communicate with anyone about anything at any time • Attached to devices as “indispensable social and learning accessories” (Understanding the Digital Generation, Jukes, et. al, 2010, p. 21) • Visual, media, creative, collaborative, and solution-oriented literacies BYOT?

30. Decentralized Communication • Flexible and responsive • BLAB sessions • but… • Inefficient

31. Centralized Communication • Teacher Leaders • Published meeting Agendas • Posted CSIP goals • Hierarchical communication • -- more efficient and consistent

32. Centralized Communication

33. Centralized Communication Link to District Communication Arts CSIP

34. Centralized Communication

35. Hierarchies with Communities

36. Content Area Literacy • Strategic Plan Priorities for 2011 - 2012: • All students will meet or demonstrate growth toward ongoing rigorous transfer goals. • All students will meet Missouri’s required proficiency or growth targets on state exams. • All students will sustain high levels of creativity and expand the capacity for divergent thinking they exhibited in their early childhood years. Content area literacy all day long helps to address ALL of these goals.

37. December 2011 • Curriculum Framework (Appendix V) • Department Mission/Vision/Learning Principles • Curriculum Standards • Outcomes • Assessments • Sample Lessons • On-going Evaluation Plan • Five Year Strategic Plan • Specific Strategies/Actions • Professional Development

38. Moving Forward “We need a different world view to guide us in this new world of continuous change and intimately connected systems that reach around the globe.” -- Leadership expert Margaret Wheatley, author of Turning to One Another

39. Questions and Comments