Saturday, September 21, 2013
Principle 1: Equity Leadership
The PRIME Equity Principle aims to ensure high expectations and access to meaningful learning for every student. “A growing body of research makes it clear poverty and ethnicity are not the primary causal variables related to student achievement; leadership, teaching and adult actions matter …. the professional practices of teachers and the decisions leaders make can be more important than demographic variables.” (PRIME, p.10)
As you read through the three Equity Indicators, think of a time when you have worked with an individual or team of teachers to examine the effectiveness of an instructional approach or a curricular program. Which of the Equity Indicators turned out to be a key component to success of the collaboration – or its lack was a barrier?
Briefly set the context, describe your actions, and post how one of the Stage 2 or 3 Equity Indicator strategies might have come in handy.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Marilyn Curtis and Jen Robitaille worked collaboratively on this response
ReplyDeleteEquity Indicator 1:
In a middle school (grades 6-8) setting of 300 students, teachers worked together to improve math instruction for all students during a time called "Academic Literacy", now what might be known as RTI. Teachers from each grade level worked together to analyze data and develop data ladders using NWEA RIT scores for math content. The students were then broken into groups based on the data ladder as to their specific needs and goals. The teachers looked at their individual teaching and math strengths to determine the group and needs they would address. Smaller groups were created with the neediest learners and learners who were being taught enrichment concepts were based in larger groups. All students were working to learn concepts at their instructional level - pushing all students to become better as mathematical thinkers. We encouraged and aided teachers in using the DesCartes learning targets from the NWEA to guide instruction for students on all levels of the data ladder. This gave all learners and teachers common language and data to use in learning and instruction.
Teachers met regularly to discuss and analyze student progress through progress monitoring which provided the opportunity to move amongst the flexible groupings based on student needs. As teacher leaders, we helped facilitate the school-wide use of this model of providing intervention and enrichment teaching for all students.
Nearly all students had success moving up the data ladder. This was evident in the classroom math work as well as their yearly growth on standardized testing. This was effective in the middle school model and as teachers moved throughout the district to different grade level assignments, pieces of this model were continued in the other school buildings and shared through professional development (locally and regionally). As a celebration for students and teachers, public displays of grade level improvement were displayed in the cafeteria for all to see, including parents and administrators. Each grade level also did individual celebrations within their classrooms.
We feel strongly that Equity Indicator 1 was addressed through this model. "Every teacher addresses gaps in mathematics achievement expectations for all student populations."
This is impressive! Did you have "buy in" from all teachers involved? Were teachers provided with time to meet regularly to discuss and analyze student progress? I love that there was opportunity for movement in your flexible groupings. Is this model still being used in your "Academic Literacy" time? How were these groupings received by students?
DeleteThe new STEM program at Wells Elementary evolved out of a question: "How can we begin to give every student and teacher at WES equal access to a meaningful, rigorous, and relevant STEM learning experience?" The current program was developed by admin and curriculum leaders out of this, and though it is still highly imperfect in many ways, attempts to address Equity Indicator 2 - "Every teacher provides each student access to relevant and meaningful (STEM) experiences." We are mostly at Stage 1 as leaders here- we are gaining knowledge in STEM instruction and modeling practices such as questioning, inquiring, and allowing the students to follow their curiosity while keeping the NGSS in mind. Instructional Team Leaders are currently reaching out to classroom teachers as we strive for Stage 2- "Engage teachers in the development and implementation of lessons that reflect the importance of relevant, meaningful (STEM)"
ReplyDeletePersonal Thoughts - We are spending a lot of time in Stage 1 as STEM leaders - gaining knowledge, reading, trying out new instructional ideas, more reading, talking, while dipping our toes into Stage 2 collaboration. Lots of inequities politically to overcome as ELA/Math/Common Core take up SO much of teacher energy.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteEquity Indicator 3: Every teacher works interdependently in a collaborative learning community to erase inequities in student learning. Page 20: "A level 3 leader identifies organizational and district barriers that prevent adult action toward erasing inequity..." The PLC at our school is beginning to move forward after many years of "but that's the way we've always done it." I think that our agreement to participate in reviewing the third draft of NGSS was a real eye-opener to several of the PLC members. Since last January, the 6-8 STE group has nearly completed a book study of "Ready, Set, Science," and is moving to map a 6-8 progression of Practices, beginning with claims based on evidence that will articulate just what is expected of students at each level. We have obtained PD time by becoming proactive about our agenda and how it integrates with Common Core ELA and/or Math and by recent success of collaborations among staff and students that have brought a long-wished for student garden into being, as well as Project Learning Tree training and PLC follow-up K-8 via a blog. Common formative assessments are given but little time has been devoted to discussion with colleagues. This is a direction in which we need to go in order to allow staff to become comfortable enough to agree to common summative assessments, which are rare as well. As it is, so much still depends upon the individual in his or her own classroom that we are just reaching the cusp of entering level 2 and collaboration as a group.
ReplyDeleteSounds like we should chat! Any tips for the Ready, Set, SCIENCE! book study? We're currently reading that text within our district. This looks like great work. Would also be interested in more resources that easily offer elementary school level lessons that tie ELA/Math CCSS to NGSS. Any ideas?
DeleteThanks in advance for your help,
Jean
We chose "Ready, Set, Science" because several of our staff were really flummoxed by the emphasis on Practice and XC Concepts in the NGSS. In reading ahead to develop questions, I found that I regularly came up with too many of them. I assigned "specialists" to each vignette, since the practical examples were what teachers were looking for. This worked well, people were enthusiastic and I shared the leadership. I don't have a set of particular questions to share, sorry. I tended to share my "AHAs" and ask if others felt the same way I did. I tried to find a practical "take-home" because I know I like to have something to put in practice when I come away from a meeting.
DeleteThe Project Learning Tree training is overflowing with requests from those who didn't attend. I just sent a 2nd grade colleague links to two activities: "Poet-try" and "Adopt a Tree." She said her students weren't writing, so she tried taking them outside and guiding them to look around. When they returned, they all wrote a haiku about their experience. She was very pleased, and glad to get the activities. There are many similar CC connections in PLT. You can go to plt.org and find a matrix that relates each activities to CC standards.
We have an after-school program through a grant with LearningWorks. I attended a Science Notebook training last week that comes from Foss (Delta Education). Very nicely done, with a small manual. We used Micheal Klentschky's work some years ago in our own PLC, and this is a simpler introduction. Klentschky's books are no longer available.
From reading your post below, I see I have a lot to learn from you, as well!
Sounds like you are making some progress in your district, Ann. I think it is good that you focused on the practice piece first in building progressions, because for so long we have focused on the core ideas - the practices focus has us looking directly at the students being scientists and engineers and mathematicians in the classroom and what the common threads will be as they move through the schools.
DeleteI use Klentschy as one way to use notebooks with my third and fourth graders but I have condensed and simplified the steps a bit. I think he provides a good structure in the way he starts with focus questions and uses the question to guide everything else - some deep learning there for students and me but I do struggle at this age group with balancing notebook work with the actual inquiry. With practice - lots of practice- the notebook becomes an integral part of the STEM Lab. I am seeing it as a 2 year, scaffolded process for Grades 3-4.
Finally, your quote from an earlier post, (Page 20: "A level 3 leader identifies organizational and district barriers that prevent adult action toward erasing inequity...") connected with me. I find myself not only working with fellow teachers and teacher leaders on integrating STEM into the school, but also challenging my administrators at the school and district level to set clear, explicit goals/actions for STEM education K-12.
Ann,
DeleteI am curious about your common formative assessments in science. I think it would have been easier to have started with common summative assessments so I wonder what your formative assessments look like and how extensive they are.
We've got some exciting stuff happening in RSU 38. Equity Indicator 3 basically summarizes what we're working towards. "Every teacher works interdependently in a collaborative leaning community to erase inequities in student learning." (page 18)
ReplyDeletePresently, we've recognized a need for increased interdependent learning between the high school, middle school, and elementary schools. A small group of educators, representing each of the schools, has been gathering to do a book study on Ready, Set, SCIENCE!, working to support each other in co-teaching and co-planning adventures, and simply being there to ask one another questions and help find answers. We meet about twice a month, and the high school teachers have also been given release time to work in elementary school classrooms once a month. Elementary and middle school teachers have also expressed an interest in visiting the high school environment as well.
This project worked on a very small scale last year, and student averages (in the target classroom) on the state science assessment were higher than both the state and district averages. We did not yet look at the data in terms of student populations. (But we will!)
The leadership indicators listed under Stage 2 would benefit us greatly. The group is not yet working on the second two indicators, "Develop and expand their knowledge base regarding the impact of culturally responsive instruction, " and " Focus on underserved populations, [...] collaboratively monitor the mathematics achievement of every student,..." (19)
Anyone have some good resources for helping us work on being more culturally responsive? How about ideas on how to collaboratively monitoring student progress for all students?
Hope you're well!
Jean
I thought our school’s implementation of RTI is a good example of Indicator 1, addressing gaps in mathematic achievement. My observations are very similar to Jen’s in terms of success. The needs of SPED students were being addressed in my school, as well as those who qualified for the Gifted and Talented Program. However, there was a block of students who were slipping through the cracks in Mathematics. Now, through a data driven program using a series of assessments including NWEA scores, students are identified and given Tier 2 assistance (targeted help in the classroom by an ed-tech two days a week) or Tier 3 (pull out for intensive small group work). These students are periodically assessed and progress is monitored. If no improvement is seen over a period of two years for a student, he or she may be referred to a Student Centered Team which evaluates the next step. If progress is made, and maintained, then the student goes down a Tier.
ReplyDeleteI also wanted to add to Henry’s comment that ELA/Math Common Core is presently taking a lot of teacher energy. Our examination of the new Math Common Core expectations is done in a PLT (Professional Learning Team). We meet after school for 14 hours annually and are given two comp days to make up for it. We are examining what we do already, looking at the new standards and trying to identify any gaps. I feel this addresses Indicator 3. Luckily the leadership in our school district is supportive and meets the description on page 3 by the National Staff Development Council.
Ellen (ignore the formal Google address of "Mrs. Walsh")
In MSAD/RSU 54 at the high school level, we recently made some program changes in math and science that are strongly related to Equity Indicator #1: Every teacher addresses gaps in mathematics achievement expectations for all student populations. Within the past 5 years or so, the math department added a daily math component to the every-other-day schedule, so that the most needy students have a full 80 minute math class on day 1 and a 40 minute "daily math" class on day 2 for added support and tutoring with homework. All students at SAHS must meet the standards set in algebra 1, geometry and algebra 2, so this strategy was designed to help lower achieving/ struggling students meet the standard. Across the hall in the science department, there has been a tradition of four "tracks". The top achieving students and members of the top 2 tracks had science class every day- 80 minutes on one day, and 40 minutes on the next day. The bottom 2 tracks had science scheduled every other day for 80 minutes. So, the struggling students actually received less academic time compared to others. This year, we consolidated science into three tracks, instead of four to improve equity. The unfortunate aspect of this change is the fact that all students now have science every other day, and the every day model was discontinued due to scheduling issues. Students are behind grade level in science when they reach the high school as a result, in part, of the huge emphasis on literacy and reading without an interdisciplinary approach at the elementary level. As high school science teachers, we often feel like we need MORE time to help students catch up in science content knowledge. The daily math class concept seems like a good strategy for "Providing specific attention to those students farthest from expected standards of rigor and achievement." I wish we could apply this same strategy to science. We do have a math/ science tutor who helps students in the media center three days a week and an after school program with built in homework help for struggling and disadvantaged students. With our huge socioeconomic struggles in Skowhegan, we seem to require lots of support to keep students "on track". There is a definite shift of philosophy in our school district right now toward providing support and more instructional time for students who have shown gaps in achievement. The challenge is in serving the large numbers of kids who fall into this category.
ReplyDeleteIt was unclear to me whether I was supposed to comment on Joyce's prompt or create my own new blog post. I chose to do what most people did, and post a comment. Is this the right thing to do, Joyce?
ReplyDeleteI feel my school began working on equity indicator 1, “every teacher addresses gaps in mathematics achievement expectations for all student populations” last year. A lot of time was spent determining how this was going to be done through RTI and what exactly RTI and addressing achievement gaps was going to look like at our school. As a result of the work, my school has an RTI coordinator, who works with the Teaching & Learning committee, that is doing a great job helping with identifying students, evaluating the effectiveness of instruction and curriculum programs, along with effective assessments. As a part of the T&L committee I am helping my department map their curriculum using Atlas. I think this will be helpful when comparing the achievement gaps to what is covered in the curriculum. From this, a request for more time to help vertically and horizontally align our goals was made from teachers which our district fortunately supported. This month we are given the opportunity meet with teachers from other schools/grades. I am meeting with other teachers from the high school to discuss what we are covering in STEM in an effort to align our curriculums in a more meaningful and relevant way. I believe this is a step towards equity indicator 2 of “engaging teachers in the development and implementation of lessons that reflect the importance of relevant, meaningful mathematics (STEM)”. I also think that if this goes well, with time it could lead to equity indicator 3.
ReplyDelete