1.32k likes | 1.45k Views
Getting Serious about School Reform:. Three Critical Commitments Districts and Schools Should Make. 40 Years. Same Problems. The problem isn’t at the classroom teacher level. The problem is at the systems level. Tentative Findings Reading. Tentative Findings Reading.
E N D
Getting Serious about School Reform: Three Critical Commitments Districts and Schools Should Make
40 Years Same Problems
The problem isn’t at the classroom teacher level. The problem is at the systems level.
Districts and schools must find ways to ensure effective practices occur in every classroom, but still provide flexibility to the classroom teacher.
For decades we have operated from the belief that this is impossible in U.S. education.
Weick (1976,1982)Tightly Coupled Organizations… • Clearly defined unit of accountability • Clearly defined criterion for success • Clear understanding of what produces success • Entire system mobilizes when criterion for success is not met.
Weick’s Conclusions Districts and schools are not tightly coupled regarding individual student achievement as the unit of analysis for success.
Weick’s Conclusions Districts and schools are not tightly coupled regarding the criterion of student achievement, BUT THEY ARE TIGHTLY COUPLED REGARDING THE BUS SCHEDULE AND PAYROLL.
Based on the notion that schools are inherently loosely-coupled we began operating from a “hands offs” pespective at the classroom level.
Everybody is equal.The classroom teacher is an autonomous, independent contractor.
Within a loosely coupled district or school, there will be individual points of light but no possibility of a strong, unified focus that can eradicate the 40 year old problems inherent in the system.
Bellamy and Colleagues (2005)Highly Reliable Organizations (HROs)
Bellamy and Colleagues (2005)Highly Reliable Organizations (HROs)… • Clearly defined unit of accountability • Clearly defined criterion for success • Clear understanding of what produces success • Entire system mobilizes when criterion for success is not met.
Bellamy’s Conclusions Districts and schools are not tightly coupled (HROs) regarding individual student achievement as the unit of analysis for success.
Bellamy’s Conclusions Districts and schools are not tightly coupled regarding the criterion of student achievement, BUT THEY CAN BE IF THEY ARE WILLING TO COMMIT TO SPECIFIC ACTIONS THAT ARE DISTRICTWIDE (OR SCHOOLWIDE).
Three Critical Interventions (COMMITMENTS) • A system of individual student feedback on learning goals at the classroom, school, and district levels (standards-based grading using formative assessments) • Ensuring effective teaching in every classroom • Building background knowledge for all students
All three can be approached at the school level but are more powerful at the district level.
Three Critical Interventions(COMMITMENTS) • A system of individual student feedback on learning goals at the classroom, school, and district levels (standards-based grading using formative assessments) • Ensuring effective teaching in every classroom • Building background knowledge for all students
Phase I: Track student progress using a formatively-based system.
Feedback from classroom assessments should provide students with a clear picture of their progress on learning goals and how they might improve. Bangert-Drowns, Kulik, Kulik, & Morgan,1991
Feedback from classroom assessments should provide students with a clear picture of their progress on learning goals and how they might improve. Fuchs & Fuchs 1988
A. Items 1–10 Ten items that require recall of important but simpler content that was explicitly taught Total for section = B. Items 11–14 Four items that ask for application of complex content that was explicitly taught AND in situations similar to what was taught. Total for section = C. Item 15–16 Two items that asks for application in novel situations that go beyond what was explicitly taught Total for section = Total /100
A. Items 1–10 Ten items that require recall of important but simpler content that was explicitly taught /40 Total for section= B. Items 11–14 Four items that ask for application of complex content that was explicitly taught AND in situations similar to what was taught. /40 Total for section= C. Item 15–16 Two items that asks for application in novel situations that go beyond what was explicitly taught /20 Total for section= Total /100
A. Items 1–10 Ten items that require recall of important but simpler content that was explicitly taught Total for section = /40 + All correct B. Items 11–14 Four items that ask for application of complex content that was explicitly taught AND in situations similar to what was taught. /40 Total for section = Two correct + C. Item 15–16 Two items that asks for application in novel situations that go beyond what was explicitly taught Total for section = /20 None correct Total /100
A. Items 1–10 Ten items that require recall of important but simpler content that was explicitly taught Total for section = 40/40 All correct + B. Items 11–14 Four items that ask for application of complex content that was explicitly taught AND in situations similar to what was taught. Total for section = 20/40 Two correct + C. Item 15–16 Two items that asks for application in novel situations that go beyond what was explicitly taught Total for section = 0/20 None correct Total /100 60
A. Items 1–10 (SCORE 2.0) Ten items that require recall of important but simpler content that was explicitly taught ALL CORRECT B. Items 11–14 (SCORE 3.0) Four items that ask for application of complex content that was explicitly taught AND in situations similar to what was taught. 2 OF 4 CORRECT C. Item 15–16 (SCORE 4.0) Two items that asks for application in novel situations that go beyond what was explicitly taught NONE CORRECT RUBRIC SCORE= 2.5
This represents a shift from an emphasis on isolated classroom activities for which points are assigned to an emphasis on student progression toward specific learning goals.
This approach is to be used as another measurement tool in a system of inherently imprecise measurement tools.
Cizek (2007) State test for a large Midwestern state: rel = .87 Subscales:Estimation and mental computation, geometry, measurement, number and number relations, patterns, algebra, problem solving Subscale reliabilities = .33 to .57
Cizek (2007) State test for a large Midwestern state: rel = .87 Subscales:Estimation and mental computation, geometry, measurement, number and number relations, patterns, algebra, problem solving Subscale reliabilities = .33 to .57 Reliability of differences scores = .015