Examples from the Level 4 Schools in 2010-2011 Schools with early rapid achievement gains In contrast, schools showing little or no gains… … Ensured that coaches provided teachers with ongoing, differentiated coaching Provided teachers with professional development opportunities, that was informed by classroom observations, student assessments, and teacher however: Professional development was not specific to teachers’ need. instructional goals, or based upon teachers’ observed Job-embedded professional development, such as instructional coaching, teaching practice observations and informal classroom visits modeling of instruction in the classroom, and peer-review (e.g., instructional conducted by instructional leaders. rounds), was directly linked to teacher and classroom-specific observations and teachers’ instructional goals. Instructional leaders and coaches grounded their ongoing support and assistance to teachers’ classroom-specific practices based on teacher-specific goals, observations, and student assessments. Typically had access to data and meeting structures that could be Used weekly and sometimes daily common planning time and other teaming used to analyze data, however: structures for ongoing teacher collaboration focused on attending to students’ Data was not collected frequently enough to inform the academic and social-emotional needs through ongoing analysis of data and the revision or refinement of group, small group, and provision of instructional strategies in direct response to these needs. individual instruction on a weekly or daily basis. Formal common planning time was used to assess student’s instructional Common planning time was not used for the specific grounded in assessments and teacher experience. and socio-emotional needs, identification of individual student needs based on relevant Common planning time and other teaming opportunities (e.g., whole and applicable student data. school meetings, data meetings) were used to plan for specific student Revisions and refinement of whole-class instruction and small needs and instructional responses at the whole group, small group, and group and individual interventions was not made through a individual level. careful and deliberate analysis of individual student need via a Data used during teaming included standard formative and summative careful examination of student work and multiple assessments, such as DIBELS, but also included a variety of computer- or assessments. web-based assessments and classroom assessments. These assessments were given analyzed frequently, as often as weekly, for the explicit purpose and of immediately informing instruction (whole class, small group, and individual.)
Examples from the Level 4 Schools in 2010-2011 Schools with early rapid achievement gains … In contrast, schools showing little or no gains… Ensured that coaches provided teachers with ongoing, differentiated coaching that was informed by classroom observations, student assessments, and teacher need. Job-embedded professional development, such as instructional coaching, modeling of instruction in the classroom, and peer-review (e.g., instructional rounds), was directly linked to teacher and classroom-specific observations and teachers’ instructional goals. Instructional leaders and coaches grounded their ongoing support and assistance to teachers’ classroom-specific practices based on teacher-specific goals, observations, and student assessments. Provided teachers with professional development opportunities, however: Professional development was not specific to teachers’ instructional goals, or based upon teachers’ observed teaching practice observations and informal classroom visits conducted by instructional leaders. Used weekly and sometimes daily common planning time and other teaming structures for ongoing teacher collaboration focused on attending to students’ academic and social-emotional needs through ongoing analysis of data and the provision of instructional strategies in direct response to these needs. Formal common planning time was used to assess student’s instructional and socio-emotional needs, grounded in assessments and teacher experience. Common planning time and other teaming opportunities (e.g., whole school meetings, data meetings) were used to plan for specific student needs and instructional responses at the whole group, small group, and individual level. Data used during teaming included standard formative and summative assessments, such as DIBELS, but also included a variety of computer- or web-based assessments and classroom assessments. These assessments were given and analyzed frequently, as often as weekly, for the explicit purpose of immediately informing instruction (whole class, small group, and individual.) Typically had access to data and meeting structures that could be used to analyze data, however: Data was not collected frequently enough to inform the revision or refinement of group, small group, and individual instruction on a weekly or daily basis. Common planning time was not used for the specific identification of individual student needs based on relevant and applicable student data. Revisions and refinement of whole-class instruction and small group and individual interventions was not made through a careful and deliberate analysis of individual student need via a careful examination of student work and multiple assessments.
emerging-practices-2012.docx