Meeting the Spirit of AYP Through School Reform: Accountability Is Outcomes Based, But Input and Process Driven
Figures 2-6
|
Figure 2: Generative Questions to Guide Change Efforts |
Figure 2
| Leadership and Coherence Systems |
Yes |
Sort Of |
No |
Don't Know |
| 1. Have leaders undertaken a comprehensive evaluation of the Curriculum Department, Coherence, and Alignment Sub-System and presented data to key stakeholder groups? |
2 |
1 |
0 |
|
| 2. Have leaders undertaken a comprehensive evaluation of the Pedagogical Improvement and Coherence Sub-System and presented data to key stakeholder groups? |
2 |
1 |
0 |
|
| 3. Have leaders undertaken a comprehensive evaluation of the Data Collection, Analysis, and Management Sub-System and presented data to key stakeholder groups? |
2 |
1 |
0 |
|
| 4. Have leaders undertaken a comprehensive evaluation of the Organizational Systems, including Personnel, Resources, and Structures Sub-System and presented data to key stakeholder groups? |
2 |
1 |
0 |
|
| 5. Has an action plan (generated from the comprehensive sub-system assessment) that outlines the immediate needs, goals, benchmarks, timelines, and evaluation tools been developed and distributed to key stakeholders (teachers, administrators, board of education, parents)? |
2 |
1 |
0 |
|
| 6. Have leaders presented/used data to inform progress in the change process? |
2 |
1 |
0 |
|
| 7. Have leaders presented/used data in summative ways to evaluate key outcomes of the change process? |
2 |
1 |
0 |
|
| 8. Have leaders identified core professional dispositions that they want to foster (e.g. disciplined inquiry, collaborative problem solving, distributed leadership, multiple entry points for professional development)? |
2 |
1 |
0 |
|
| 9. Have leaders presented/used data to stakeholders to demonstrate the need for educational change to occur in a particular system? |
2 |
1 |
0 |
|
| 10. Have leaders presented/used data to frequently monitor performance and communicate progress to stakeholder groups? |
2 |
1 |
0 |
|
| 11. Do stakeholders feel that leadership is distributed across members of the professional community and that all stakeholders are invested in the change process? |
2 |
1 |
0 |
|
|
|
|
Figure 3: Generative Questions to Guide Change Efforts |
Figure 3
| Curriculum Development, Alignment and Cohesion System |
Yes |
Sort Of |
No |
Don't Know |
| 1. Is our curriculum aligned with Michigan Core Curriculum Standards and the Grade Level Content Expectations? |
2 |
1 |
0 |
|
| 2. Do we have a clear and comprehensive curriculum for each major content area? |
2 |
1 |
0 |
|
| 3. Does our curriculum identify core expectations so that we can monitor student achievement in fundamental learning? |
2 |
1 |
0 |
|
| 4. Does our curriculum identify advanced expectations so that we can minotor the highest levels at which our students are achieving? |
2 |
1 |
0 |
|
| 5. Do we effectively communicate student achievement of core expectations as they move from grade-to-grade at the end of the year? From building to building? |
2 |
1 |
0 |
|
| 6. Do we have curriculum teams for the major content areas? |
2 |
1 |
0 |
|
| 7. Do we have alternative curricula for students who are not making it in the standard curriculum? |
2 |
1 |
0 |
|
| 8. Do we have a clear, timely, and accurrate system for identifying students who might need alternative curricula? |
2 |
1 |
0 |
|
| 9. Is our district’s curriculum aligned between general and special education in ways that allow us to articulate clearly about cirricular needs for students with special needs as they move between general and special education? |
2 |
1 |
0 |
|
| 10. Does our curriculum provide general education faculty with supports/scaffolds to differentiate instruction to meet students who are at-risk for academic and/or behavioral difficulty (e.g., teach in a child’s instructional zone; adapt and modify instruction) to allow access and success in the general education curriculum? |
2 |
1 |
0 |
|
|
|
|
Figure 4: Generative Questions to Guide Change Efforts |
Figure 4
| Teaching Improvement and Coherence Systems |
Yes |
Sort Of |
No |
Don't Know |
| 1. Do faculty have a significant voice in determining what types of professional development are made available to them (versus imposed upon them)? |
2 |
1 |
0 |
|
| 2. Does a significant portion of the professional development stem from a careful analysis of the existing curriculum and student data? |
2 |
1 |
0 |
|
| 3. Is the professional development system constructed to allow for sustained learning over time, rather than a single inservice/workshop (i.e., there are opportunities for continued work in this area; classroom observations; peer coaching)? |
2 |
1 |
0 |
|
| 4. Are there multiple types of professional development made availabile to faculty and other stakeholders (e.g., teacher study groups, action research, mentor/mentee programs, curriculum team leader)? |
2 |
1 |
0 |
|
| 5. Is outside expertise used effectively to advance the learning capacity of stakeholders in the building (e.g., consultants)? |
2 |
1 |
0 |
|
| 6. Are data collected and used to demonstrate that teaching improvement results in student achievment? |
2 |
1 |
0 |
|
| 7. Are sufficient monetary and physical resources (e.g., curricular materials; and annual materials budget) provided faculty to support their teaching? |
2 |
1 |
0 |
|
| 8. Does the teaching improvement system use and apprenticeship approach to changing teaching performances that moves from theory to specific feedback on actual practices in the form of video analysis, peer observation, peer coaching, sharing practices with others? |
2 |
1 |
0 |
|
| 9. Are new teachers to the building/district provided with high quality professional training in the core curriculum used in the district? |
2 |
1 |
0 |
|
| 10. Are data reported on outcome measures linked with changes in teaching improvement and communicated to individual teachers and other key stakeholders (evaluatively, not punitively)? |
2 |
1 |
0 |
|
|
|
|
Figure 5: Generative Questions to Guide Change Efforts |
Figure 5
| Data Collection, Analysis and Management Systems |
Yes |
Sort Of |
No |
Don't Know |
| 1. Does the building routinely collect data in multiple ways: curriculum-based measures (e.g., unit tests, weekly tests, rubrics), State assessments (MEAP), formal measures (e.g., Stanford Achievement Test), and informal measures? |
2 |
1 |
0 |
|
| 2. Does the building have pre/post measures to show growth in the key content areas? |
2 |
1 |
0 |
|
| 3. Is the data collection/analysis system constructed in ways that make it useful to teachers in designing instruction? |
2 |
1 |
0 |
|
| 4. Are data used to inform key decisions regarding the adoption of new curricula and instruction, and the nature of professional development? |
2 |
1 |
0 |
|
| 5. Are data used at multiple levels to communicate: (1) individual teacher/class, (2) grade level, (3) building, (4) district results? |
2 |
1 |
0 |
|
| 6. Is data collected on more than just academic progress, including school factors such as attendance, detentions, suspentions, etc.? |
2 |
1 |
0 |
|
| 7. Is there a comprehensive system of early identification to target students at-risk for academic and/or social difficulties (elementary only)? |
2 |
1 |
0 |
|
| 8. Are there clearly identified teaming structures to analyze data and make decisions (e.g., Student Team; Intervention Assistance Team)? |
2 |
1 |
0 |
|
| 9. Does the data collection/management system provide the kinds of information that: (1) guides general educators in designing accommondations for students and (2) allows teachers to track student learning at the unit or curriculum strand level? |
2 |
1 |
0 |
|
10. Do all stakeholders understand the longitudinal data that is collected in the building and its relationship to the overall vision of the school?
|
2 |
1 |
0 |
|
|
|
|
Figure 6: Generative Questions to Guide Change Efforts |
Figure 6
| Organizational Systems: Personnel, Resources, and Structures |
Yes |
Sort Of |
No |
Don't Know |
| 1. Does the organizational system have built-in time and space for collaborating with others around key issues of curriculum, instruction, and assessment (e.g., grade level teams, alternative schedule for students, shared planning, district inservice)? |
2 |
1 |
0 |
|
| 2. Does the organizational system offer many opportunities for faculty and other stakeholders (e.g., parents, paraprofessionals, aides) to participate in multiple roles (e.g., mentor, coach, cooperating teacher, curriculum team leader, action researcher, support team leader? |
2 |
1 |
0 |
|
| 3. Is the organizational systmem designed to offer students extended opportunities to learn (e.g., summer schools, homework clubs, home/school literacy program, computer-assisted instruction, enrichment clubs)? |
2 |
1 |
0 |
|
| 4. Does the organizational system include structures in our building/district/classroom that are effective in including key stakeholders (parents, paraprofessionals, aides, students) as valued participants in the success of the school? |
2 |
1 |
0 |
|
| 5. Is the organizational system, as currently implemented, effective in creating a strong “kid culture” — students value the school and what it offers; there are roles and niches for students to be valued participants; there is an esprit de corp and sense of pride among students? |
2 |
1 |
0 |
|
| 6. Does the organizational system ensure that teachers have the resources, training, and support to make a difference through their work? |
2 |
1 |
0 |
|
| 7. Does the organizational system provide adult stakeholders with mechanisms for giving feedback to leaders in a timely manner—and this feedback is heard, incorporated, and acted upon in a positive manner? |
2 |
1 |
0 |
|
| 8. Do each of the structures in the organizational system (e.g., school improvement team, curriculum teams, data management teams) have effective leaders that emphasize and reinforce the core cultural values of disciplined inquiry, equity, dignity, collaboration, capacity building, continuous improvement, and problem-solving? |
2 |
1 |
0 |
|
| 9. Does the organizational system scrutinize any proposed change to determine how it will impact each of the five sub-systems, including data collection and management, teaching improvement? |
2 |
1 |
0 |
|
10. Does the organizational system communicate to participants that they are in a school culture that emphasizes the value of each individual member and the importance of continous improvement?
|
2 |
1 |
0 |
|
|
|
TOP of Page |
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
Personnel
November 2006 |
|
Transition
September 2008
June 2008
October 2007
March 2006
September 2005
|
|
|
|
FOCUS Home Page
Subscription Information
State Board of Education
Kathleen N. Straus, President
John C. Austin, Vice President
Carolyn L. Curtin, Secretary
Marianne Yared McGuire, Treasurer
Nancy Danhof, NASBE Delegate
Elizabeth W. Bauer
Reginald M. Turner
Casandra E. Ulbrich
Ex-Officio
Jennifer M. Granholm, Governor
Michael P. Flanagan, Superintendent of Public Instruction
Direct
all editorial inquiries to:
Annette Gorden
Communications Specialist
CEN
Eaton ISD
1790 East Packard Highway
Charlotte, MI 48813
(800) 593-9146 ext. 18
(517) 321-6101 ext. 18
agorden@eaton.k12.mi.us
Accessibility and Compliance Information
|
|
|
Copyright© 2003-2005 Center for Educational Networking 
