UA Institute: SQR Resources

School Quality Review Resources

School Data Reports

Here are our school's data reports

UAI HS Self Reflection

From a number of different perspectives (Learning Cultures Principals, middle school leadership, and UAI HS Cabinet and Coaches), we have completed our initial self-evaluation for the high school. Below is a summary of the findings. To see more specific details, scroll down to see the evidence listed in blue.

1.1 - Rigorous, engaging, and coherent curricula aligned to CCLS - Proficient
1.2 - Research based, effective instruction that yields high quality student work - Proficient
2.2 - Curricula-aligned assessment practices that inform instruction - Proficient
3.4 - A culture of learning that communicates and supports high expectations - Proficient
4.2 - Teacher teams engaged in collaborative practice using the inquiry approach to improve classroom practice - Well Developed

Next Steps

Trend #1: The quality of student questioning is inconsistent and often low level.
Teach into the breach. Last year Colleen & Martine explicitly taught into the different kinds of breaches kids could make in Unison, and in other formats (e.g. the Conference, Work Time, the lesson, etc.). In short, using the Unison breach categories helped students understand how to make higher quality breaches, which led to elevated levels of discussion and thinking. Additionally, the team collectively taught into Webb's Depth of Knowledge chart, which gave the kids some concrete verbs and descriptions to help them develop more complex and rigorous questions, leading to higher order thinking skills. Teaching kids to question is the equivalent of teaching them to fish. (Give a person a fish, they feast for a night...Teach a person to fish, the feast for life). When we focus on teaching explicit content, we are in essence, giving the kids the fish. Teaching them to question is teaching them. Click on the pictures to see more. When Deputy Chancellor Phil Weinberg visited their classroom last year, the girls were engaged in extremely impressive discussion and questioning during the mini-lesson. He was incredibly impressed by their level of discourse that day.

Trend #2: Differentiation is not readily observable when all students are working on the same task during work time (which is a common observation across grades and subjects). Additionally, when everyone is working on the same thing, it is not readily apparent how data is being used to drive instruction. Launch Workout Plans. One question that arose consistently through all of the observers was why all students were working on the same task (across grades and subjects). While working on the same task is not necessarily the problem, it does highlight a lack of differentiation and calls into question what data is being used to drive curriculum. To address this, we have put the pedal to the metal on launching Workout plans. Workout plans need to be launched by Monday and should include the following: (1) Teaching into the Fixed vs. Growth Mindset, (2) Using Data (at minimum - Benchmark Data, 1st MP grades, and DRP) to situate progress (any other course specific data is welcome!), and (3) Logistics of how workout plans are happening in your classroom (where to find them, what standards they address (like this document that Marianna uses).

Trend #3: Students are able to consistently identify when they had their last unison reading group and conference, indicating a consistency in practice across grades and classrooms. In talking to students, this is one of the things that is very consistent across classrooms (at least from the student's perspectives- which is awesome!). Please keep adhering to the formats, and keep your fidelity high for these weeks to come. It's totally working!!

Trend #4: Students are consistent in reference to Unit Arcs as a common tool across grades and subjects to track progress and responsibilities to CCLS and NYS Standards. Another strong practice is our consistency across grades and subjects with respect to our Unit Arcs. I need to ask for your most recent arcs so that I have current ones to share with the reviewer when she comes. Please make sure that you upload your current arcs by Monday, December 1st into THIS FOLDER so that I have them on hand.

There are 10 quality review indicators, but only five of them will be used in the formal report for the 2014-2015 Quality Reviews. Those 5 indicators and our self evaluation and examples of evidenece to support this assessment, and their "Well-Developed" look-fors are:

Instructional Core

Indicator 1.1: Rigorous, engaging, and coherent curricula aligned to CCLS

UAI HS Cabinet Evaluation - Proficient

(A) Curricula aligns to CCLS and/or content standards and instructional shifts.

Curriculum Arcs are consistent within subjects and across grades
Curriculum Arcs are aligned to CCSS and/or NYS Standards for subjects
Subject Teams meet weekly to discuss: benchmark assessments, classroom resources, curriculum arcs, and common evaluation tools (e.g. rubrics).

(B) Rigorous habits and higher order skills for all.

Inconsistent levels of task demand across grades and classrooms.
Consistent practice of scheduled conferences and unison reading across classrooms, but quality of conferences and UR groups is still inconsistent
Consistent expectations for formats exist across classroom (social emotional learning via the social norms and other format expectations and rubric indicators)

(C) Planning and revising to ensure access to curricula and cognitive engagement for all students.

Inquiry sheets and pretest data are used to structure work time activities in many classrooms
Benchmark testing and DRPs are used on a schoolwide level to track student progress on macro levels towards content mastery and reading level development.
CBMs and fluency assessments are used to track student progress on micro, content specific topics and skills in addition to tracking background abilities.
Wide variety of resources for students at multiple levels to engage diverse learners.

Quality Review "Look-Fors"

(A) Curricula aligns to CCLS and/or content standards and instructional shifts.

School leaders and teachers can articulate how they ensure curricula are aligned to the CCLS and other content area standards; they can also articulate a chosen strategy for integrating the instructional shifts. These strategies have resulted in coherence across grades and subjects. Coherence is defined as a fluid connection and coordination between topics student study in each subject within a grade and as they advance through the grades.
The school has clearly defined criteria for what it means to exit a grade level and to attain the enduring understandings and key skills that ensure success in college and career.
School leaders and teachers integrate the instructional shifts by making purposeful connections between the shifts and the topics in each subject - both within a grade and as students advance through the grades - so as to promote college and career readiness.
School leaders and teachers can articulate how curricula, across and within grade levels are aligned to the CCLS and scaffold student success to promote college and career readiness for all students.

(B) Rigorous habits and higher order skills for all.

Rigorous habits and higher order skills - such as those that require students to create their own meaning, integrate skills into processes, and use what they have learned to solve real world problems - are identified, defined, and embedded within curricula and academic tasks coherently across grades and subjects.
Curricula and academic tasks require students, including English Language Learners and students with disabilities, to think accurately and with clarity, identify and consider multiple meanings and interpretations, take and support positions, resist impulsivity and engage in disciplined inquiry and thought, use and adapt what they know, deal with ambiguity, and demonstrate their thinking in new learning situations.
Habits, as follows, are explicitly embedded in classroom instruction and academic tasks: persisting, managing impulsivity, listening with understanding and empathy, thinking flexibly, metacognition, questioning and problem posing, applying past knowledge to new situations, thinking and communicating with clarity and precision, creating, imagining, and innovating, taking responsible risks, thinking interdependently, and remaining open to continuous learning.
Curricula and tasks, across grades and subjects, challenge all students, including English Language Learners and students with disabilities, to think critically; instruction provides scaffolds to ensure students can demonstrate their thinking through the work products they are asked to create.

(C) Planning and revising to ensure access to curricula and cognitive engagement for all students.

Teachers across grades and subjects use student work and data to plan and refine curricula and academic tasks in order to cognitively engage all students, including lowest and highest achieving students.
School leaders and teachers provide a data-based rationale that identifies areas of growth or achievement gaps for all students, including ELLs and students with disabilities and other subgroups, and explain how curricula and academic tasks are planned and refined accordingly so that all students access curricula and tasks and are cognitively engaged at a level consistent with the academic expectations for that grade level or beyond.
Curricula and academic tasks are designed to engage students, advance them through the content and asses their understanding as evidenced by their work products.

Indicator 1.2: Research based, effective instruction that yields high quality student work

(A) Shared beliefs informed by Danielson framework and aligned to pedagogy and curricula

Across a preponderance of classrooms, teacher practices consistently reflect and support school wide beliefs about how students learn best; teachers and administrators can articulate how those beliefs are informed by the Danielson Framework for Teaching, aligned to curricula, and shaped by teacher team and faculty input.
Instruction, outcomes, strategies, and learning activities are derived from standards-based curricula and reflect school leadership's espoused beliefs about optimal student learning situations; beliefs are influenced by the priorities of the Danielson Framework for Teaching and CCLS instructional shifts.

(B) Teaching strategies provide multiple entry points that engage all learners

Instructional student groups are organized thoughtfully and are varied as appropriate; they build on student strengths and incorporate student choices as appropriate to maximize learning. Plans for lessons or units are well-structured with appropriate pacing and time allocations.
Lessons and teaching documents represent deep content knowledge, understanding of diverse students' linguistic differences and other needs, and available resources (including technology) resulting in a series of learning activities that engage students in high level cognitive activity. The lesson and unit structure is clear and allows for different pathways to understanding according to diverse student needs.
Teachers can explain how particular teaching strategies and instructional tasks address the needs of individual students and sub-groups (ELLs and students with disabilities, lowest third, and highest performers) by articulating how the task is designed and/or identifying examples of ways student learning is supported or extended.
Teaching practices leverage strategies such as inquiry, project-based and collaborative learning, questioning, and discussions that promote high levels of thinking. Strategic use of scaffolding techniques (e.g. modeling, needs-based grouping, activating prior knowledge, effective use of graphic organizers, visuals, imagery, and technology, building academic vocabulary - all of which may be in the student's native language or in English) provides multiple entry points to lessons and tasks for all learners including ELLs and students with disabilities.
Across classrooms, teachers strategically use scaffolds, questioning, opportunities for choice, and other teaching practices to create a variety of ways for students to access the content, learning project, or task, and be supported in learning or extend it to different possible endpoints so that all students show mastery of the learning objectives and corresponding standards.
Teachers across classrooms provide students with challenging learning tasks that require them to use critical thinking, analysis, and problem solving; tasks encourage inquiry, collaboration, and ownership among students.
Teachers use a variety or series of questions or prompts to challenge students cognitively, advance high level thinking and discourse, and promote metacognition. These high quality questions encourage students to make connections among concepts or events previously believed to be unrelated and arrive at new understandings of complex material. Students formulate many questions, initiate topics, and make unsolicited contributions. Students themselves ensure that all voices are heard in discussion.

(C) High levels of student thinking and participation that culminate in meaningful work products.

Teachers across classrooms provide students with challenging learning tasks that require them to use critical thinking, analysis, and problem solving; tasks encourage inquiry, collaboration, and ownership among students.
Teachers use a variety or series of questions or prompts to challenge students cognitively, advance high level thinking and discourse, and promote metacognition. These high quality questions encourage students to make connections among concepts or events previously believed to be unrelated and arrive at new understandings of complex material. Students formulate many questions, initiate topics, and make unsolicited contributions. Students themselves ensure that all voices are heard in discussion.
Students across classrooms produce work and engage in discussions that reflect critical thinking, creativity, innovation, and problem solving, as well as student ownership of the learning process.
Ample student-to-student dialogue, using academic vocabulary and evidence-based accountable talk is built into the lesson. Students can articulate what they are working towards, why it is important, and how they help determine the direction of lessons.

Indicator 2.2: Curricula-aligned assessment practices that inform instruction

(A) Curricula-aligned assessment practices and grading policies that provide actionable feedback

Teachers and administrators articulate coherent reasons for assessment choices; assessments are aligned to CCLS and/or content standards in the curriculum. These choices deliver a range of data, some daily, some monthly, and some quarterly, to sustain collaborative inquiry and continuously improve instruction.
Teachers collaborate on designing and/or modifying common grade-wide, curriculum aligned assessments, rubrics, and grading policies that are customized to address data-defined student and sub-group needs. these tools are used by teachers and administrators to track progress towards goals across grades and subject areas and make instructional decisions.
A variety of feedback to students, from both teachers and peers, is accurate specific, and timely- advancing learning.

(B) Common assessment analysis that drive curricular and instructional adjustments

Teachers collaborate on designing and/or modifying common grade-wide, curriculum aligned assessments, rubrics, and grading policies that are customized to address data-defined student and sub-group needs. these tools are used by teachers and administrators to track progress towards goals across grades and subject areas and make instructional decisions.
Teachers in teams determine important topics to assess with common formative assessments. Teachers effectively "unpack" the standards and analyze the instructional shifts for those topics to pinpoint concepts and skills students need to know and be able to do. The validity and reliability of school level assessments are ensured through the consistent, collaborative structures for norming and interpretation of evidence used to evaluate student performance.
Teacher teams agree on learning goals and benchmark performances for units, tasks, and courses prior to designing or using formative assessments to measure student mastery of goals.
Teachers and teams effectively analyze data to glean information about students' progress and learning needs relative to the learning goals.
Teachers accurately identify specific instructional responses to the data, which might include re-teaching content, changing instructional approaches to meet the needs of all students, and/or developing more challenging tasks/units. Adjustments to lessons/tasks are effective and teachers can explicitly cite the impact of their instructional responses/adjustments.
Assessment criteria are written clearly, students are aware of and able to articulate them, and there is evidence that students have helped establish the assessment criteria according to teacher-specified learning objectives.

(C) Checks for understanding and student self-assessment that lead to effective lesson adjustments.

A variety of feedback to students, from both teachers and peers, is accurate specific, and timely- advancing learning.
Teachers accurately identify specific instructional responses to the data, which might include re-teaching content, changing instructional approaches to meet the needs of all students, and/or developing more challenging tasks/units. Adjustments to lessons/tasks are effective and teachers can explicitly cite the impact of their instructional responses/adjustments.
Assessment criteria are written clearly, students are aware of and able to articulate them, and there is evidence that students have helped establish the assessment criteria according to teacher-specified learning objectives.
All learning outcomes have a method for assessment; assessment types match learning expectations and are authentic with real-world applications as appropriate. Plans indicate student choice in assessments, student participation in the design of assessments of their own work, and modified assessments for some students as needed.
Students are actively involved in collecting information from assessments and provide input.
Teacher monitoring of student understanding during lessons is visibly active and continuos: the teacher is constantly "taking the pulse" of the class and makes frequent use of strategies (double entry journals, parking lots, cold call, exit slips, etc.) to elicit information about individual student understanding and trends.
Students consistently self/peer-assess against the assessment criteria (rubrics) and monitor their own understanding and progress either by taking initiative or as a result of tasks set by the teacher. Students are aware of their next learning steps.

School Culture

Indicator 3.4: A culture of learning that communicates and supports high expectations

(A) Communication of high expectations to staff, inclusive of training a system of accountability

School leaders create elevated level of expectations for all staff, which is evidenced throughout the community through verbal and written structures (e.g. new teacher orientations, ongoing work-shops, staff handbook, school website) that emulate a culture where accountability is reciprocal between all constituents.
The school has clearly defined standards for professional development (including professional development plans that incorporate staff input) and classroom practices elements of Danielson Framework for Teaching to ensure that learning for all stakeholders consistently reflects high expectations.
School leaders and other staff members work as a team in study groups, planning sessions, and other professional development modes, establishing a culture of professionalism that results in a high level of success in teaching and learning across the school.

(B) Communication of and support for families understanding of high expectations for college and career readiness

Staff members implement effective strategies for communicating high expectations (e.g. tasks encouraging inquiry, collaboration, and ownership) that are clearly connected to college and career readiness so that all students are challenged to meet or exceed those expectations.
The school orchestrates ongoing events and creates multiple opportunities to partner with and engage families in learning, fostering their participation in a culture of high expectations connected to college and career readiness, and offering them feedback on their children's progress towards meeting those expectations.
The school provides ongoing, clear lines of verbal and written communication (e.g. online progress reports, parent/teacher conferences, parent informational sessions and workshops, student led conferences) with families to deepen their understanding of college and career readiness expectations for their children and empower them to help support their children in meeting of exceeding those expectations.

(C) Staff communicate and support high expectations to students.

Teachers and other staff have a set of clear, systematic structures (e.g. advisory, guidance, college counseling) for articulating high expectations and sharing information with students, leading to student progress towards mastery of CCLS and college and career expectations.
Staff members have institute a culture for learning that provides all students, especially those in high-need subgroups, with focused, effective feedback including clear next steps that determine student accountability for learning goals and expectations to prepare them for their next grade while ensuring their ownership of the learning process.

Systems for Improvement

Indicator 4.2: Teacher teams engaged in collaborative practice using the inquiry approach to improve classroom practice.

(A) Teacher teams engage in collaborative inquiry that supports goals and strengthens teacher capacity

The vast majority of teachers collaborate in professional teams where they develop and implement school wide instructional practices, embedding the CCLS and instructional shifts to continuously promote improved achievement for all learners.
Teacher teams clearly articulate how they implement structured professional collaboration using protocols (e.g. Looking at Student Work, Tuning, Notices and Wonderings) and other structures to strengthen teacher capacity as they create, revise, and/or adopt curricula to ensure effective integration of the CCLS and instructional shifts into instruction across grades and content areas.
School leaders and teachers have built a culture of professional collaboration (e.g. team-initiated inter-visitations, lesson study) in which they share insights relative to the coherence of teacher pedagogy, thus fostering improvement of outcomes for all learners.

(B) Student work/data analysis within teams improves curricula, teaching, and learning

Teacher teams clearly articulate how they implement structured professional collaboration using protocols (e.g. Looking at Student Work, Tuning, Notices and Wonderings) and other structures to strengthen teacher capacity as they create, revise, and/or adopt curricula to ensure effective integration of the CCLS and instructional shifts into instruction across grades and content areas.
School leaders and teachers have built a culture of professional collaboration (e.g. team-initiated inter-visitations, lesson study) in which they share insights relative to the coherence of teacher pedagogy, thus fostering improvement of outcomes for all learners.
Teacher teams effectively implement systems to monitor a variety of student data and classroom practices that inform instruction leading to the achievement of goals for individual as well as groups of students.
Teacher teams provide a data-based rationale and analysis of student work that inform their decisions to adjust teacher practice and create strategic goals for groups of students.

School leaders and teachers offer specific and clear examples of teacher leadership that illustrate how teachers and teacher leaders play a vital role in school level decision-making.
Administrators and teacher leaders (e.g. team leaders, coaches, mentors, cabinet members, instructional leaders, department chairs) are able to identify distributed leadership structures that are deeply-rooted in the school's day to day operations and articulate how they serve as a conduit for teacher input in strategic decisions that affect student achievement.

UA Institute

Monday, November 10, 2014

SQR Resources