25

The unexamined life is not worth living. ~ Socrates

STANDARD' INDICATOR' STRATEGY'

Instructional'Leadership'

'

'

'

! !

Management'&'Operations'

'

'

'

! !

Family'&'Community'Engagement'

'

'

'

! !

Professional'Culture'

'

'

'

! !

26

KNOWLEDGE & SKILLS OF EVALUATORS

KNOWLEDGE SKILLS

KNOWLEDGE & SKILLS OF EVALUATEE

KNOWLEDGE SKILLS

27

REFLECTION: Scale: 4 = I really understand this 3 = I somewhat understand this 2 = I am a bit confused 1 = I am lost

I understand the need for the new evaluation system

I understand the major components of the new evaluation system

I understand the teacher rubric

I understand the school-based administrator rubric

I can be a resource to my colleagues who are just learning about the new evaluation system and the teacher rubric

I want more information about?

28

SMART Goals explained Adapted from: The Power of SMART Goals, Using Goals to Improve Student Learning, Jan O’Neil and Anne Conzemius; Solution Tree, 2006 Strategic (Specific and Strategic) Why strategic? We ask schools to focus on just the “vital few” with their SMART goals. The vital few are the high leverage areas where the largest gaps between vision and current reality exist, and therefore the greatest gains will be seen. The Pareto Principle, first developed by Vilfredo Pareto at the turn of the century to describe the distribution of wealth (20% of the people owned 80% of the wealth), was adapted by Dr. Joseph Juran in the 1980’s using Quality Movement to describe the phenomenon of improvements occurring across the board when only a few problems are focused on. Juran was the first to write about the importance of focusing on the “vital few” to take care of the “essential many.” Douglas Reeves’ 90-90-90 research is an example of the Pareto Principle in action. In studying schools with 90% or more poverty, 90% or more minorities, and 90% or more higher student achievement, he discovered that many of these schools were focusing on writing across the curriculum (Reeves 2000). As a result of their unrelenting attention to this critical thinking skill, students improved in other disciplines as well. We also encourage schools and teams of teachers to think strategically by aligning their goals as a system. If the district’s long-term goal is to ensure that all students are reading on grade level by the end of 3rd grade, and reading is a great area of need for a school, then the building improvement goal should focus on reading, as should collaborative classroom goals. With this type of alignment, resources and attention will be especially driven toward improvement of reading, and student learning in reading will dramatically improve- and improvement will be seen across all subjects. Specific Why specific? Specificity provides the concrete, tangible evidence of improvement that teams need to stay motivated. In being specific about goals, teams have clearer communication and more constructive conflict because they can focus on how to pursue the goals or how to change (Katzenbach & Smith 1993). We encourage schools and teacher teams to focus on specific targets for improvement. They do this through the skills

29

and learning targets on which they focus by targeting specific groups of students. Some students may just need additional test taking strategies. Others may need more intensive instruction and time, while still others may have mastered the material and are ready to move on. By targeting students and skills, teachers become very focused in their approaches, and students benefit greatly from this more individualized approach. Measurable Measurability of a goal is critical, as we tend to focus our efforts on what gets measured. The tree diagram graphic organizer encourages schools and teachers to think in terms of multiple measures of each goal. School goals should focus primarily on summative measures, while classroom goals should be both summative and formative in their focus. The school community will want to review their measures one or more times a year to see if they are on track. Teachers will want more frequent, on-going reviews of how students are performing on classroom-based measures both to assess learning and provide feedback, and also to evaluate what was learned at the end of a lesson, unit, quarter, semester, or year. Schools use data to adjust resources, programs, schedules, staffing and so on, while teachers use data to improve their practice, provide feedback to students on their learning, adjust instruction and to summatively record student mastery. “Learning goals give meaning to and act as a healthy check on the traditionally untethered tendency for public institutions to be satisfied with processes, regardless of outcomes.” - Mike Schmoker (1999, pg. 30) Action Oriented Goals need to be attainable, and also, as Gorn Carstedt, the former head of IKEA Europe says, “People need goals worthy of their commitment.” In other words, goals that motivate us to strive higher are those that are almost but not quite within our reach, that we need to stretch to achieve. Once achieved, our sense of satisfaction is far greater than if we had aimed low and got there. Attainability is very much correlated with how large the gap is that we want to close and how much focus, energy, time, and resources we are prepared to put into attaining the goal. These questions can best be addressed through data conversations in which teachers engage in collective inquiry and dialogue about how far they plan to go together.

30

Results Oriented (Rigorous & Realistic) Results-oriented goals are motivating. We learn more through results-oriented goals because we have concrete benchmarks against which to measure our efforts. Process goals such as implementing a new program or delivering a workshop, are simply not as motivating. We can check process goals off our list and move on. The key question remains: “So what?” What improved? Did student learning improve as a result of what we did? Did teacher learning improve, which in turn improved student learning? When we ground goals in results, we build in immediate feedback that supports our sense of efficacy. When we achieve these goals, we feel proud of our accomplishments and want to do more, strive further. When we do not achieve the results we want, we can go back to the drawing board and ask why. Was it in the implementation? The design? The evaluation? Were other factors involved? Should we try again, perhaps with a new plan? Time Bound (Timed & Tracked) Finally, setting a time-bound goal, one that has a specific time frame is critical. If you were to set a goal for yourself, running a mile in 8 minutes, but never set a time fame within which to achieve this goal, you could keep putting it off, not applying yourself to the task, and never reach your goal. On the other hand, if you were to say you would run that 8-minute mile by the end of the summer, you would be motivated to get in shape, and you would hold yourself accountable to measuring your times. If you did not meet your goal within the time frame, then you would have an opportunity to learn why you did not and make adjustments. Setting a goal that is time-bound builds internal accountability and commitment.

31

SMART Goal Summary Strategic & Specific: 1. 2. 3. Measurable: 1. 2. 3. Attainable (Action Oriented): 1. 2. 3. Results Oriented: 1. 2. 3. Timed & Tracked: 1. 2. 3.

32

Grade Level SMART Goal

Within the next two years, increase by 50% the number of 4th grade students scoring at proficient or advanced levels in reading and math as measured by the MCAS assessmeent. (Currently, only one third of students score at those levels.)

• Specific and Strategic. It deals with students in grades 4 and with reading and math skills, both of which are strategic priorities in the district.

• Measurable. The district knows how many students have scored at the desired

levels in the past, and therefore can easily compute whether that figure increases by 50%

• Action Oriented & Attainable. It is neither so conservative to be uninspiring nor

so high that people will think it is impossible to achieve.

• Rigorous, Realistic & Results-focused. It describes the outcome (higher reading and math score), not a process or activity that might contribute to that goal, such as implementing a reading program.

• Time-bound & Tracked. It gives a time frame to achieve the goal: within the

next two years.

Individual SMART Goal

By January 2014, 85% of students in grade 5 will score 3 or better on the mid year writing assessment as measured by the district rubric (over the last 3 years the average number of students reaching a 3 or better was 75%).

Specific and Strategic

Measurable

Action Oriented

Rigorous, Realistic & Results Oriented

Time Bound & Tracked

33

Grade Level SMART Goal

Within the next two years, increase by 50% the number of 10th grade students scoring at proficient or advanced levels in reading and math as measured by the MCAS assessmeent. (Currently, only one third of students score at those levels.)

• Specific and Strategic. It deals with students in grades 10 and with reading and math skills, both of which are strategic priorities in the district.

• Measurable. The district knows how many students have scored at the desired

levels in the past, and therefore can easily compute whether that figure increases by 50%

• Action Oriented & Attainable. It is neither so conservative to be uninspiring nor

so high that people will think it is impossible to achieve.

• Rigorous, Realistic & Results-focused. It describes the outcome (higher reading and math score), not a process or activity that might contribute to that goal, such as implementing a reading program.

• Time-bound & Tracked. It gives a time frame to achieve the goal: within the

next two years.

Individual SMART Goal

By January 2014, 85% of students in Algebra 1 will score 85% or better on the mid term exam (over the last 3 years the average number of students reaching 85% or better was 75%).

Specific and Strategic

Measurable

Action Oriented & Attainable

Rigorous, Realistic & Results Oriented

Time Bound & Tracked

34

SMART Goals Examples SMART goals are focused on impact with students. They are Specific, Measurable, Attainable, Results-oriented, and Time bound. Sometimes getting to results-oriented goals requires the intermediate step of a process goal. Process-oriented goals are focused on work the teacher accomplishes. Some examples below: Process Goals SMART Goals

Agree on a targeted number of reading strategies to teach consistently across 3rd grade. e.g. finding main idea, making inferences, summarizing. Identify common graphic organizers to teach for comprehension skills.

Achieve a 20% increase in the number of students demonstrating advanced performance in 3rd grade reading comprehension by end of the term.

Develop and administer common writing assessments each term and use common rubrics to score student work.

80 % of 4th grade students will score proficient or advanced on state writing test by the end of 3 years.

Create homework clubs for 5th and 6th grade students who chronically miss assignments.

90% of middle school students will complete 90% of homework assignments by midyear.

Turn the process goals below into SMART Goals. If the teacher accomplishes the goal on the left, what will happen for the students? Process Goals SMART Goals

Develop core list of science vocabulary and effective teaching strategies to be used at each grade level.

Develop a common graphic organizer and rubric for open-response questions in math.

Incorporate more non-fiction reading and writing into the curriculum in all subjects.

Create consistent standards for writing using common rubrics and anchor papers.

35

How SMART are these Goals?

S.M.A.R.T. Goals S - Specific & Strategic(What do you want to measure?) M - Measurable (How are you going to measure it?) A – Action Oriented (What actions will you take to accomplish the goal?) R - Results-oriented, rigorous (What will your goal look like when you've reached it? Are you aiming high?) T - Time-Bound and Tracked (When should you reach your goal?) Goal

How SMART? Scale 1-5 5 = very SMART

Notes

1) By May 2013, 100% of PreK-12 grade teachers will have priority benchmarks identified and aligned for mathematics for each grade level as documented by the district's online benchmark tool.

2) Teachers will increase their work in developing formative assessments.

3) All 3 - 5 grade teachers will participate in a book study on the "Five Keys to Quality Assessment."

4) By December 2012, all K-8 teachers and administrators will have a proficient understanding of Stiggin's research on the "Five Keys to Quality Assessment" as evidenced by the online pre- and post-survey results.

36

Goal

How SMART? 5 = very SMART

Notes

5) Students will improve their writing skills in 5th grade English

6) By June 2013, 90% of 5th grade students will score 3 or better on the conventions rubric as evidenced by the XX Public Schools Writing Assessment

7) By June 2013 all 4th graders will improve 1 point in writing on open response questions as measured by the district rubric. Weekly assignments and monthly review will track student progress.

8) By June 2013, 75% of economically challenged students will score at low risk in oral reading fluency as evidenced by the N DIBELS Assessment

9) By the end of the first semester, the number of students tardy to school will decrease by 10% as measured by XX Data Tracker.

10) By June 2013, the average total score for 4th graders on the MCAS long composition will increase to 14 or better.

11) By the end of the school year, office referrals will decrease by 25% from the 2011-2012 totals.

37

How SMART are these Goals?

S.M.A.R.T. Goals S - Specific & Strategic(What do you want to measure?) M - Measurable (How are you going to measure it?) A – Action Oriented (What actions will you take to accomplish the goal?) R - Results-oriented, rigorous (What will your goal look like when you've reached it? Are you aiming high?) T - Time-Bound and Tracked (When should you reach your goal?) Goal

How SMART? Scale 1-5 5 = very SMART

Notes

1) By May 2013, 100% of PreK-12 grade teachers will have priority benchmarks identified and aligned for mathematics for each grade level as documented by the district's online benchmark tool.

2) Teachers will increase their work in developing formative assessments.

3) All 9 - 12 grade teachers will participate in a book study on the "Five Keys to Quality Assessment."

4) By December 2012, all 9 - 12 teachers and administrators will have a proficient understanding of Stiggin's research on the "Five Keys to Quality Assessment" as evidenced by the online pre- and post-survey results.

38

Goal

How SMART? 5 = very SMART

Notes

5) Students will improve their writing skills in 10th grade English

6) By June 2013, 90% of 9th grade students will score 3 or better on the conventions rubric as evidenced by the XX Public Schools Writing Assessment

7) By June 2013 all 10th graders will improve 1 point in writing on open response questions as measured by the district rubric. Weekly assignments and monthly review will track student progress.

8) By the end of the first semester, the number of students tardy to school will decrease by 10% as measured by XX Data Tracker.

9) By June 2013, the average total score for 10th graders on the MCAS long composition will increase to 14 or better.

10) By the end of the school year, office referrals will decrease by 25% from the 2011-2012 totals.

11) By the end of the first semester 90% of all geometry students will hand in their homework every day.

39

An Initial Attempt with SMART Goals

Dave Castelline, Teachers21 Context: Sally is in her fifteenth year as a third grade teacher. She is very invested in her work and her students. Sally has recently completed an excellent methods course sponsored by her district and she has also attended an inspiring conference about Professional Learning Communities. Sally has been thinking of several of the big ideas and concepts from both of these professional development experiences and is ready to make some changes in her teaching. In early September she and the entire teaching staff received training in the new evaluation system and in how to write SMART goals. The training produced a lot to think about and process. As September comes to an end, Sally has a scheduled meeting with her principal to discuss her goals for the year. She is excited and a bit apprehensive about venturing into SMART goal land for the first time, but also knows that this could be helpful for her and for her students. Sally has been wrestling with Richard Dufour’s 4 big questions:

1. What do you want kids to know? 2. How will you know if they know it? 3. What will you do with the kids who don’t learn what they are suppose to? 4. What will you do with the kids that already know what they are suppose to

know? Sally feels pretty good about question number one? She uses the “backward design” model to plan lessons that have a clear learning target. She makes this explicitly clear to all of her students at the beginning of each lesson and posts the goal for the lesson on the board. But question number 2 is where Sally feels some uncertainty. How does she know if the kids really have learned the goal for the lesson? Through daily observation and the first unit test she has a pretty good hunch that 5 or 6 students are shaky in their grasp on many math concepts. Before she even thinks about questions 3 and 4, she needs to get some clearer understanding of what kids actually know on a day-to-day basis. The Move: During the methods course, the idea of an “exit ticket” was presented. The concept of utilizing the last five minutes of a class to have students complete a quick 2 question assessment that is focused on the learning targets for the lesson is of interest to Sally. This would give her the day-to-day data that she needs to determine what kids know. Remembering that the new evaluation system requires her to write a professional practice goal, and a goal related to student performance, Sally decides to use the “exit ticket” idea for both.

40

The Smart Goals: Professional Practice Goal: Use “exit tickets” to assess student learning of daily lesson targets for the fractions unit, provide immediate intervention for students who don’t achieve learning targets and reassess student learning. Specific & Strategic Use a 2 question “exit ticket” at the end of each lesson for the

fraction unit to assess students’ understanding of the learning goals for the day

Measurable Student data will be recorded in grade book

Action Oriented Actions are defined and specific

Rigorous, Realistic and Results Focused

Currently there is no recordable measure used to assess students’ understanding of daily learning targets. This will be an increase in data collection of 100%. Currently there is no intervention so this will be a 100% increase.

Timed & Tracked Two-week unit on fractions, 10 data sessions.

Student Learning Goal: Data from “exit ticket” will be used to target specific students for immediate intervention to ensure that 85% of students will score 85% or better on the end of unit test. Specific & Strategic Data from daily lessons will be recorded for all students who do

not score 100% on “exit ticket.”

Measurable Specific data for each student not passing “exit ticket” recorded in grade book. Following intervention, student data will be recorded on a second “exit ticket.”.

Action Oriented By providing daily intervention for students who haven’t learned lesson goals students will keep pace with the curriculum. Clear actions are defined.

Rigorous, Realistic & Results Focused

On the first unit test 70% of students scored 85% or better. A goal of 85% of students achieving 85% or better on the end of unit test represents an increase of 15%.

Timed and Tracked Progress is measured daily and final judgment of success at end of unit

41

Sally has spent time thinking of how to record the data so that is clear, manageable and sustainable. Before she gets started she wants to share her thinking with Mary, the SPED teacher working with 3 students in Sally’s room. Sally and Mary have a very collegial working relationship and Sally is interested and eager to share her thinking with Mary. During the discussion it is evident that Mary is invested in working with Sally on these goals. As the discussion progresses Sally plans to provide the intervention for students on Monday, Wednesday and Fridays when math is immediately followed by snack. Sally anticipates gathering the students who need more help at the kidney table in her room for a “working snack.” Realizing that this will only work for 3 days, Mary offers to come into the room at the very start of the day on Wednesday to reteach Tuesday’s concept and again on Friday to reteach the concept from Thursday. Both Sally and Mary decide to give a second “exit ticket” after the intervention to make sure that students have mastered the lesson goals. With the plans in place both teachers are excited to try the plan. Determining Data: Sally and Mary have a pretty good idea of the 5 – 6 students who will need the intervention but they are also curious to see if there are other students who are not as competent they may appear. They both hope that the data collection isn’t onerous or too time consuming. Sally decides to list the number of questions missed in the first “exit ticket” followed by a / and then the number missed on the second “exit ticket” following the intervention. So a record of 2/0 would mean that a student missed both question on the first try but missed 0 after the intervention. Sally is pleased with the simplicity of the recording system and hopes it is helpful. The table below shows what transpired over the 2-week fractions unit. Day 1 Day 2 Day 3 Day 4 Day 5 Day 6 Day 7 Day 8 Day 9 Day 10

Sue * 2/0 2/0 2/0 2/1 1/0 2/1 1/0 2/0 1/0 2/0

Jim * 2/0 1/0 2/0 2/1 2/0 1/0 1/0 1/0 2/1 1/0

Max 1/0 2/0 1/0 2/0 2/0 2/1 1/0 1/0 1/0 2/0

Jen * 1/0 2/0 1/0 2/0 1/0 2/1 0 1/0 0 1/0

Sam 2/0 2/0 1/0 1/0 2/0 2/1 1/0 1/0 1/0 0

Mat 0 0 0 0 1/0 1/0 0 0 0 0

Dan 0 0 0 2/0 0 2/0 0 0 1/0 0

Students marked with the * represent students receiving special education services for math. What Story Do the Numbers Tell? Sally and Mary are very pleased with the results from the intervention. They enjoyed the collaboration, sharing of instruction, sharing data and the dialogue about student learning that this experience created. Sally felt that the data collection and analysis was manageable and informative. It seems clear that these

42

students just needed more time and a more focused reteaching session to keep up with the goals from the daily lesson. Upon a closer look at the data Sally and Mary notice that the goal for day 6 seemed to be particularly hard to grasp, even after the intervention. This makes sense given that it was the first lesson where students needed to subtract fractions with uncommon denominators. Sally and Mary decided to spend a few minutes in an extra review session with these students on this concept before the unit test. The results from the unit test are listed below. Student Name

Unit test #1

Unit test #2

Sue 70 83

Jim 73 88

Max 77 89

Jen 74 85

Sam 76 88

Mat 82 90

Dan 84 91

Reflection: The results from the unit test were very satisfying. Sally and Mary are excited to show the principal these results and to have a more substantive discussion about the entire process. Maybe there is something to this SMART goal idea. After all the kids did learn what they were suppose to learn and the results are here to prove it. Sally thinks back to Dufour’s 4 questions. She feels good about questions 1, 2 and 3 but now wonders about question number 4. What do you do with the kids who already know the material? As she mulls this over an idea comes to mind. She decides to make a mini version of the unit test and give at the very beginning of the unit as a pre-assessment. This will give her information about where the class is in relation to learning of the goals before she starts instruction. It may show her, which students already know some concepts and she can then group them together and give them extension material, or more difficult problems that focus on the daily concept. The data from the pretest will also reveal which concepts students are unfamiliar with so that she can plan to use her instructional time more effectively and efficiently. Sally begins to realize that the data, and the patterns revealed, are not the end point, but the starting point of thinking what she might try next, and how she can document these new moves and student achievement. With the upcoming geometry unit, Sally and Mary agree to keep this new system going and see if the results in student learning are similar. This is rather fun, she thinks once you see how it works.

43

Charlie and DESE Educator Evaluation (Rob Traver, Teachers21, 2/12)

Context. During a high school English department meeting, the teachers discuss a school wide announcement in which the principal has invited anyone to work with her on a trial run of the new Educator Evaluation system. To date, there has been one workshop on how to write and use SMART goals but clearly there’s more to the DESE initiative than this. The whole thing is really big and not entirely understood. Everyone agrees that “building a ship at sea,” with some adding that there are many sharks in the water, is the most apt metaphor. So, let’s wait and see pretty much concludes the English department response. But Charlie, a career change teacher who took an English degree in college, then worked as a real-estate lawyer for several years only to find he hated it, decides to have a go.

Self-Assessment and Goal Proposal Charlie and Anne, Charlie’s principal and supervisor, begin by reviewing the steps in the DESE Educator Evaluator Process. They realize that many conditions should be in place if they are to follow the DESE Model completely, but this is a trial run. So, after a review of the five parts of the process, they decide to settle on the first three—1) Self-Assessment, 2) Analysis, Goal Setting and Plan Development, and 3) Implementation of the Plan. In addition, they limit their scope to the educator (rather than the evaluator) side of things, start with one professional practice goal (the model requires a review of all 33 elements within the four standards), and forego the student-learning goal, since the school is not ready for the comprehensive review of student-learning that requires data-analysis, goal setting, and implementation in this area. No, one element within one professional practice standard, well defined by a good SMART goal and implementation, seems just the right size to get things going. Charlie and Anne turn to the first step in the Evaluator Process—Self-Assessment. This step is formalized in the DESE “Self Assessment Form: Part 2, Assessment of Practice Against Performance Standards with Rubrics.” It says that the educator should inventory his/her practice in relation to a district teacher performance rubric. Charlie and Anne’s district doesn’t have its own performance rubric, and it is very likely that it will eventually adopt the rubric and standards that appear in the DESE model. So, Charlie and Anne take a look at the DESE chart, Teacher Rubric At-A-Glance. Anne leaves it to Charlie to determine which professional practice element he’d like to tackle, and they agree to meet again in a couple of days. Charlie reads the chart of Performance Standards and rubrics carefully. But it does not take him long to settle on one of the elements. It’s called “Student Engagement” and appears as number 2, within Indicator A, within Standard II. This element attracts Charlie’s attention because he has already been mulling some ideas about how to involve more students in class discussions on poetry.

The time for the scheduled meeting with the principal comes quickly and Charlie soon finds himself explaining to Anne why he has chosen student engagement and how he plans to tackle it. Citing the rubric, Charlie says that he “uses instructional practices that motivate and engage some students but leave others uninvolved and/or passive participants.” This, he readily agrees, is a “needs improvement” level of proficiency. In particular he is concerned about his 3 classes of 10th graders, each with about 22 students. These are kids, for the most part, for whom reading, and fiction in particular, is not a priority. Anne asks him to elaborate a bit.

Usually, says Charlie, I present the poems by reading them to the class, pointing out some features, and asking students to respond. Depending on the poem, I will get five or six, sometimes a few more comments. These tend to be desultory or superficial, though once I nearly fell out of my seat when one of the boys, after hearing Stopping by Woods on a Snowy Evening, said that he too, once, was standing alone on a cold, snowy night and wondered whether living was worth it. But I couldn’t get him to say more; he was probably already way beyond his comfort zone.

44

Anne agrees that tenth graders can be pretty reticent to jump into discussions about poetry, though it’s true there are moments of precocious insight. She says she could probably go on talking about it but this is Charlie’s experience, not hers, and so she asks Charlie what he makes of it. Charlie responds with the thought that students don’t offer comments because of two things—first, it is hard to make sense of a poem when reading and comprehension aren’t easy, and, two, it’s very risky to say something when you don’t think you know what you’re talking about. The trick, then, offers Anne, is to get the students to try a thought with much less risk. Exactly, says Charlie, and here’s my idea of how to do that.

Before you say anymore, interjects Anne, you need to put this in writing on the DESE Self-Assessment Form. From the way I read it, it doesn’t need to be long. What you’ve said so far seems to me to be more than adequate.

Charlie takes a couple of minutes to put his words into writing, and then both he and Anne sign the form.

Goal Setting and Plan Development Charlie explains to Anne his idea that more students might participate if they could write their thoughts first rather than saying them out-loud right away. So, he has decided to distribute index cards to students and have them write something about the poem after he reads it. Charlie tells Anne that he will offer several prompts to get the students going, such as “The first thing that came to mind when I heard the poem is….” “I heard this word in the poem and I like it, don’t know what it means, thought it weird, thought it beautiful….” ”This poem reminds me of another poem we heard because….” and so on. Once all the students have written something, Charlie says, he will ask a student to read his/her card, or pass it to a fellow student to read, or give it to him to read. Depending on the comment, Charlie says he can follow-up, ask another student to respond, laugh, glare over his glasses, or do whatever he thinks appropriate. Of course, some students will undoubtedly write “Couldn’t think of anything,” or record nothing at all. But it will be a start. At the end, Charlie says he’ll ask the students to sign the cards and then collect them.

Anne agrees that this is a doable, measurable, and appropriate move to make. In fact, she is quite impressed at its simplicity yet potential effectiveness. She asks Charlie whether he has had a chance to set this up as a SMART Goal, since the DESE Goal Setting Form requires professional practice goals (and student learning ones, too) to be written in SMART Goal form. As a matter of fact I have, says Charlie. Take a look. What do you think?

OVERALL GOAL: INCREASE STUDENT ENGAGEMENT WITH LITERATURE. Use student in-class comments as one means to increase engagement (Standard II, Indicator A, Element 2).

Specific and Strategic

There will be a significant increase in the number of kids who respond in class to poetry as a result of the “write first—talk second” move.

Measurable Students who respond can be counted.

Attainable This goal is possible in the time and amount indicated (see below).

Rigorous, Realistic &

Results Focused

Currently 5-6 kids respond each class and this will increase to 10-12 kids per class, a 100% improvement.

Timed & Tracked

Participation should improve and remain within 2-3 lessons, certainly by the end of the 10-lesson unit.

45

Once again Anne is impressed. True she provided a full-day workshop on the topic for her staff, but still there is always something of a surprise when the professional development as implemented looks like the professional development as planned (to paraphrase an old curriculum concern). She is especially pleased to see how Charlie has quantified the move, based on simple counting, with a baseline of 5-6 comments per class, through a system for counting comments, to a measurable goal of 100% increase. Clever fellow, this Charlie, glad he didn’t stay in real estate, she thinks.

Looks like a great start to me, says Anne. Further down the road you’ll need to expand on your exploration of student engagement, but for now it’s a perfect size to try out the SMART goal model and teaching practice. When does the poetry unit begin, next week? I’m really looking forward to learning what happens. And, oh yes, expect me to drop by during the unit; the DESE model requires me to make some observations (gather evidence). I’ll let you know when.

Before we finish, though, we’ve got to complete two more forms. First, you need to fill in the Professional Practice SMART Goal that appears in the “Goal Setting Form.” Then, you’ll need to complete the Professional Practice Goal--Planned Activities that appears in the “Educator Plan Form.” Charlie takes but a few minutes with the first since he has already written his SMART Goal in DESE format. The second doesn’t take long either because his professional practice idea is a short term intervention requiring no more resources than index cards, distributed during class and collected at the end, counted and recorded. As soon as he finishes, Charlie and Anne sign the forms. Both can see this moving along quite well.

Implementation of the Plan Charlie knows that he will be able to see whether his new approach is working without having to resort to counting replies and recording them. But, he understands that he and Anne are testing the model and that each step must be formally observed. So, it is necessary to keep good records so that there is documented evidence of what happens. The outcomes will be recorded in the Educator Summary of Evidence Form.

At the most basic level, Charlie knows that all he has to do is write down the number of comments that he hears from kids at the end of each of the poetry lessons. He can put this number in a chart that records the class and the number. His planner will work fine. At the end of the day he will have 3 scores to review, each representing the number of comments from each of his 10th grade poetry classes. At the end of the second day, he will have another 3 numbers, and so on until the end of the unit, when there’ll be 30 numbers. He also thinks that it will be helpful to keep all the index cards since what the students write, in terms of the content of the remarks, may be useful later.

After two weeks of poetry, here’s what the chart looks like:

Charlie attaches this chart to his Educator Summary of Evidence Form. He also compiles the index cards, recording on each the class period and day of lesson, and a remark, such as “a bad day for Megan,” “Mark was into this poem,” or “first time for this level of insight.” He also notes on the form that Anne stopped by his Period 2 class for a look at Lesson 5.

Formative Assessment and Evaluation Charlie is very pleased with his chart. It clearly shows that in all his classes the number of comments from students increased. And what is more, in most cases they increased far beyond

46

what he had hoped. Clearly this “write first--talk second” intervention makes a difference, a real big difference. “Ha!” thinks Charlie, “I met and exceeded my goal. Too bad this isn’t for real; I could get a bonus.”

But Charlie goes beyond the initial, clear-cut outcomes to examine the data more closely. There are other patterns that he had noticed in a qualitative way but now appear quantitatively. For example, Lesson 7 dealt with a contemporary poem about teens and their issues with parents. Of course that would elicit lots of commentary, but the numbers jump right out at you. And there are other trends, such as the overall total increase in student comments as the unit proceeds. If student in-class comments are any indication of engagement, he thinks, and if engagement is any indication of learning, then here is “proof” that the kids are starting to get it. And, of course, there is in the data something he always knew: his 3rd period class is weaker than the other two. The data help, though, in giving some indication as to just how much weaker.

At this point, Charlie’s professional curiosity kicks in. He wonders what else he might do to get the kids involved, and whether these other moves might be as effective. He wonders what he might do to get the 3rd period class more in line with the others; what he might do to get a traditional poem to elicit the same level of response as the poem about the teens and parents; what he might do to get a perfect score (a comment from every student in the class), and on and on. He writes all this down in the “Summary of Evidence” box that appears on the Educator Collection of Evidence Form.

At this point, Charlie is ready to meet again with Anne. They already both know that the initiative went well and that its findings serve to clarify the process of DESE educator evaluation, particularly in the use of SMART goals and in bringing the teacher to a place where s/he can start a new round of self-assessment, goal setting and implementation of modifications to professional practice. In addition to Charlie’s report of the results of his intervention, Anne adds her comments about what she saw the day she visited the class. All of this she puts in her Evaluator Record of Evidence Form.

At this point, if the process were for real, Anne would turn her attention to the Formative Assessment/Evaluation Reports and review her conclusions with Charlie. But since they are just practicing, Anne and Charlie talk for a while about what he might, in fact, do next. The data chart, as they can see, has some interesting prompts and Charlie shares the observations he has already made. But it’s the content of the index cards that attracts most their attention. How might these be scored, they wonder, so that a baseline of the quality of student reply can be added to the already established baseline of quantity of student reply? Charlie is quick to propose a metric. Anne likes the idea. Another SMART goal starts to take shape. The bell rings. Charlie and Anne have other responsibilities. But they leave quite pleased. Theirs is a productive duo. They’ve found that thinking about teaching and learning in this way is really a lot of fun, once you see how to do it.

47

Standard II: Teaching All Students. The teacher promotes the learning and growth of all students through instructional practices that establish high expectations, create a safe and effective classroom environment, and demonstrate cultural proficiency.

Indicator II-A. Instruction: Uses instructional practices that reflect high expectations regarding content and quality of effort and work; engage all students; and are personalized to accommodate diverse learning styles, needs, interests, and levels of readiness.

II-A. Elements

Unsatisfactory Needs

Improvement Proficient Exemplary

II-A-1. Quality of Effort and Work

Establishes no or low expectations around quality of work and effort and/or offers few supports for students to produce quality work or effort.

May states high expectations for quality and effort, but provides few exemplars and rubrics, limited guided practice, and/or few other supports to help students know what is expected of them; may establish inappropriately low expectations for quality and effort.

Consistently defines high expectations for the quality of student work and the perseverance and effort required to produce it; often provides exemplars, rubrics, and guided practice.

Consistently defines high expectations for quality work and effort and effectively supports students to set high expectations for each other to persevere and produce high-quality work. Is able to model this element.

II-A-2. Student Engagement

Uses instructional practices that leave most students uninvolved and/or passive participants.

Uses instructional practices that motivate and engage some students but leave others uninvolved and/or passive participants.

Consistently uses instructional practices that are likely to motivate and engage most students during the lesson.

Consistently uses instructional practices that typically motivate and engage most students both during the lesson and during independent work and home work. Is able to model this element.

II-A-3. Meeting Diverse Needs

Uses limited and/or inappropriate practices to accommodate differences.

May use some appropriate practices to accommodate differences, but fails to address an adequate range of differences.

Uses appropriate practices, including tiered instruction and scaffolds, to accommodate differences in learning styles, needs, interests, and levels of readiness, including those of students with disabilities and English learners.

Uses a varied repertoire of practices to create structured opportunities for each student to meet or exceed state standards/local curriculum and behavioral expectations. Is able to model this element.

48

Indicator II-B. Learning Environment: Creates and maintains a safe and collaborative learning environment that motivates students to take academic risks, challenge themselves, and claim ownership of their learning.

II-B. Elements

Unsatisfactory Needs

Improvement Proficient Exemplary

II-B-1. Safe Learning Environment

Maintains a physical environment that is unsafe or does not support student learning. Uses inappropriate or ineffective rituals, routines, and/or responses to reinforce positive behavior or respond to behaviors that interfere with students’ learning.

May create and maintain a safe physical environment but inconsistently maintains rituals, routines, and responses needed to prevent and/or stop behaviors that interfere with all students’ learning.

Uses rituals, routines, and appropriate responses that create and maintain a safe physical and intellectual environment where students take academic risks and most behaviors that interfere with learning are prevented.

Uses rituals, routines, and proactive responses that create and maintain a safe physical and intellectual environment where students take academic risks and play an active role—individually and collectively—in preventing behaviors that interfere with learning. Is able to model this element.

II-B-2. Collaborative Learning Environment

Makes little effort to teach interpersonal, group, and communication skills or facilitate student work in groups, or such attempts are ineffective.

Teaches some interpersonal, group, and communication skills and provides some opportunities for students to work in groups.

Develops students’ interpersonal, group, and communication skills and provides opportunities for students to learn in groups with diverse peers.

Teaches and reinforces interpersonal, group, and communication skills so that students seek out their peers as resources. Is able to model this practice.

II-B-3. Student Motivation

Directs all learning experiences, providing few, if any, opportunities for students to take academic risks or challenge themselves to learn.

Creates some learning experiences that guide students to identify needs, ask for support, and challenge themselves to take academic risks.

Consistently creates learning experiences that guide students to identify their strengths, interests, and needs; ask for support when appropriate; take academic risks; and challenge themselves to learn.

Consistently supports students to identify strengths, interests, and needs; ask for support; take risks; challenge themselves; set learning goals; and monitor their own progress. Models these skills for colleagues.

49

Professional Practice - SMART Goal Planning Form Name: __________________________________ Date: _______________ _____ Individual goal _____ Team goal Specific and Strategic

What area of teaching? What subject? What indicator or element from rubric?

Measurable

What is the baseline? What information will you use to measure progress?

Action Oriented

What will you do? What will you do? How will I act? What support will I request?

Rigorous, Realistic, Results Oriented

What results do you expect? How will this be measured?

Timed & Tracked

When will you start? When will you end? How will you monitor progress as you go?

Goal:

50

Student Learning Goal - SMART Goal Planning Form Name: __________________________________ Date: __________ _____ Individual goal _____ Team goal Self-Assessment: What student data did you examine? Specific and Strategic

Who will this goal focus on? What subject or area of learning will this goal focus on?

Measurable

What is the baseline? What information will you use to measure progress?

Action Oriented

What will you do? What will you do? How will I act? What support will I request?

Rigorous, Realistic, Results Oriented

What results do you expect? How will this be measured?

Timed & Tracked

When will you start? When will you end? How will you monitor progress as you go?

Goal:

51

SMART Goal Planning Form Name: Date:

Professional Practice: Student Learning:

Individual: Team:

SMART Goal: Actions To Be Taken

Time Frame

Material/Resources Needed

52

A Grade Level Team SMART Goal

Dave Castelline – Teachers21

Context: Jen, John and Jill are all second grade teachers at West School. They have been working together for 3 years and have had a fairly solid professional Learning Community (PLC) together for the last 2 years. All teachers are dedicated and committed to their work and they spend much of their weekly PLC time focused on instructional materials and teaching. All three teachers attended a district-sponsored workshop on SMART goals and they are aware that their goals this year will need to be written in SMART goal format. Jen also attended a two-day workshop on Response To Intervention (RTI) and she has been thinking of how these two professional ideas can be linked together to improve student learning. During the month of September all three teachers have been administering the DRA as required by the district. After considerable thought, Jen decides to ask her grade level colleagues if they would be interested in participating in a team goal using an RTI model to improve student performance in reading. The Move: At the third grade PLC meeting Jen broaches the subject of setting a team SMART goal. She explains the rationale and concept to her colleagues who become interested. After much discussion they agree to share the results of the fall DRA assessment, and as a group of three, take responsibility for the leaning of the entire group of students. Jen is excited to work closely with her teammates and to use the strengths of the group to improve the learning of all second graders. In early October each teacher brings his/her DRA results to the PLC meeting. They realize that 15 of the 66 second graders have fallen below the benchmark of level 16 on the fall DRA. This represents 23% of students preforming below grade level expectations. As a group they create the following SMART goal. The Smart Goal: Create a grade level RTI program to provide additional reading instruction so that 85% of the students (or 13 of the 15) currently falling below the benchmark on the fall DRA assessment will perform at or above the winter benchmark of level 20 as measured by the February administration of the DRA. Specific & Strategic This goal focuses on a specific group of students currently

performing below grade level benchmarks in reading Measurable The DRA is a system wide assessment with a high degree of

reliability Attainable This is an ambitious target but within reason Rigorous, Realistic and Results Focused

The ongoing progress monitoring will give teachers more information on student gains and results can be easily measured in mid February through the winter DRA

Time Bound & Tracked Progressed is measure in incremental steps along the way and by a summative DRA assessment at mid February

53

The Plan: The teachers are excited about the SMART goal but also realize that simply doing business as usual will unlikely help these students achieve the targeted level. They also realize that they will need additional teachers to give the struggling students the type of small group instruction that they need. Considering the resources available, they invite the Sue, the SPED teacher, and Lucy, the Literacy Specialist to join their PLC planning sessions. With this expanded group they plan a grade level RTI program to give all students more time with precisely matched reading instruction. The teachers synchronize their schedules to add 3 extra 30 minute reading periods a week. By coordinating schedules they will be able to share students amongst the 3 classrooms and group students with similar needs. After a careful review of the data from the DRA and discussion about the 15 students performing below benchmark the teachers agree to focus the extra instructional periods on specific phonics elements. Sue and Lucy are enthusiastic participants and offer to teach one of the smaller groups of students performing below benchmark during these 3 additional reading periods. The breakdown is as follows. Sue the SPED teacher = 4 students performing below benchmark Lucy the Literacy Specialist = 5 students performing below benchmark Jen = 8 students performing below benchmark John = 28 students performing at benchmark Jill = 23 students preforming above benchmark Because John has a student teacher he volunteers to teach the largest group of students so he and his student teacher can differentiate the instruction more carefully. All members of the PLC are excited about this SMART goal and RTI structure. They agree to invite Patty, the principal, to their next meeting and ask for additional space to accommodate the number of groups. Determining Data: The three teachers teaching students preforming below the benchmark will create biweekly assessments to determine if students have learned the desired phonemic elements. This data will be shared on an ongoing basis and adjustments made based on data and the collective wisdom of the group. As a result of the high degree of cohesiveness and collegiality amongst the teachers they have been able to organize the RTI program and start on Monday, October 22. They decide to teach cycles of 2 weeks followed by a progress monitoring assessment. This will provide students with 8 cycles, or 48 extra reading sessions for a total of 24 extra hours of targeted, precisely matched reading instruction before administering the DRA in mid February. The Results: Throughout the 16 weeks of instruction student progress was carefully monitored and tracked. Based on the bi-weekly assessments, teachers were able to move students in and out of groups depending on their acquisition of specific skills and concepts. The results of the winter DRA are listed below.

54

DRA level 22 (above benchmark)

DRA level 20 (at benchmark)

DRA level 18 (slightly below benchmark)

DRA level 16 (below benchmark – no movement)

Bill Dan Irene Sam Joe Emma Pat Joan Jessie Janelle Andrea Diandre Jaime Juan Lily The teachers are pleased with the results from the winter DRA assessment. With 11 of the 15 targeted students (73%) achieving at or above the benchmark it is clear that the RTI program has had significant benefits for these students. Although the percentage of students falls below the desired target of 85%, the teachers are encouraged by the significant gains made by these 11 students and also by the fact that 2 students are getting very close to the grade level benchmark. They are also concerned that 2 students have not moved from the fall assessment despite the intensive extra instruction. They agree that it is time to refer these students to the Child Study Team and request a more thorough and comprehensive evaluation. The team agrees that using SMART goals and RTI has had a very positive impact on student learning. They have also felt a stronger sense of collegiality and shared responsibility for the learning of all children, which has been an added benefit. The expansion of the grade level team to include Sue and Lucy has added expertise and experience, increased sharing of resources and been a great support to students. The team agrees to keep the RTI program in tact for the remainder of the year hoping that more students will reach the end of the year benchmark. Patty has been very supportive and is intrigued by their model. She encourages the second grade team to share their plan and results at an upcoming faculty meeting. The team is encouraged by the results and by Patty’s support. They have always worked hard, but now they are working smarter and more efficiently. There appears to be great power and production in the collective energy of the team and focused attention on student learning. This team SMART goal has been better than they hoped!