2014 COMMISSIONER’S CONFERENCE ON EDUCATIONAL LEADERSHIP

June 25, 2014

I Love You, GiGi

http://www.nhstoryoftransformation.com/

The Story of Transformation

Communication ~ Collaboration ~ Coherence

Sharing Our Story

Setting Our Context

Updates on the Work and Defining Our Priorities

Caring!

Leveraging the “S Curve” to Drive Innovation

NOW

NEXT

FUTURE

INNOVATEthe System We Need

IMPROVEthe System We Have

(Incremental = Diminishing

Returns)

(Cross the Chasm =

Difficult, But Promising)

By doing “both, and” simultaneously, we must engineer ways to jump from one curve to the next.

Crisis

Stable

Good

Great

LearnExperiment (Existing)

Prototype (New)

Transform School

Transform District

© 2Revolutions

Charting Organizational Progress

InnovationCulture

Time

Entry Emerging Adapting Sustaining

Organizations(States, Districts,

Schools)

Organizations can begin to chart and track their own progress against the key

factors that build innovation culture

(EX: STATE) Entry Emerging Adapting Sustaining

Leadership• No vision• Lone innovators

• Emerging vision• Few examples to

point to/rally around

• Clear vision• Explicit

permission & encouragement

• Champion existing

• Pushing ahead

Communication• No story• No/mixed

definitions

• Emerging story• Developing

shared definitions

• Consistent story & definitions

• Regular comm

• Shared understanding

• Ongoing comm

Policy Context • preventive• Permissive• Passive

• Enabling• Explicit, detailed

• Proactive• Anticipating

barriers

Support Structure • Little/no• Awareness of

need• advocacy

• Core infrastructure in place

• Adding new

• Maintain existing• Anticipate future

needs

Managing & Measuring Change

• No plan• No metrics

• Developing plan & metrics

• Explicit CM strategy

• Shared metrics

• Adapt existing & pioneer new

Entry Emerging Adapting SustainingFactor

Rubric to Track Organizational Progress

New Hampshire

The New Hampshire Context

8

State Conditions that Support the Culture of

Innovation and the Future of Learning

Infrastructure

Leadership

Development

PublicPolicy

Communication &

Public Will

Educator &

Community Capacity

Resources

Continued Focus on the Instructional Core

The Instructional Core

There are only three ways to improve student learning at scale:

You can raise the level of the content that students are taught. You can increase the skill and knowledge that teachers bring to the teaching of that content. And you can increase the level of students’ active learning of the content.

The Instructional Core

That’s it. Everything else is instrumental. That is, everything that’s not in the instructional core can only affect student learning and performance by, in some way, influencing what goes on inside the core.

Schools don’t improve through political and managerial incantation; they improve through the complex and demanding work of teaching and learning.

Instructional Core and NH Reforms

All of our reforms are organized around the

instructional core; they are interdependent and

interrelated.

WHERE WE’VE BEEN&

WHERE WE ARE GOING

Standards & Measures of Student Achievement

Steadfast support of the CCSS (or higher standards that focus on instruction) and multiple measures of student achievement, including Smarter Balanced.

Focused on improving instruction to support student’s competencies and confidence

Designing communication tools with teacher voices (early fall and throughout the year)

NGA Grant Partnerships with state and national organizations CIA regional/state networking and support

Protecting student data

What tools do you need to be successful?

Networked Strategy Year 2 in the New Hampshire Network has seen many

changes.

Over 50 new learning networks have emerged.

The virtual platform has been updated and made more user-friendly.

Outreach and connections have expanded:

SY 13-14    SY 12-13Professional Learning Networks=60

  Professional Learning Networks=7

Users=4,102   Users=2,280Average Visit Duration=11:04

  Average Visit Duration=8:38

Network Events=250   Network Events=82

Integrated Approach to Support Schools

Educator Effectiveness

NH Model for Educator Support and Evaluation Systems Face to Face (Model, SLO’s student outcomes) Technology (Network, Modules, Learning Paths) Additional Resources

NH Model for Principal Support and Evaluation Systems Outreach Face to face (model, building regional groups) Technology (Network, Title I Priority and Focus School (closed

network) upcoming summer session “Having Difficult Conversations”)

Additional Resources (Update forthcoming on the ISLLC standards)

US ED peer review for the state models begins on July 1.

Principal Leadership Pipeline

Bob Manseau: Principal leadership support liaison

Regional principal networks

Building institutes and partnerships that will lead to deeper impact

Support in building a shared professional learning and networking day at this conference

Alternate Assessment Transition

Engagement Process Over 25 directors, teachers and partners Presentations by both consortiums Survey asking for input

Dynamic Learning Maps

(ALPs for Science)

More to come: Timeline for transition Profession learning supports US ED decision on accountability determinations

SBAC Field-Test Study

Qualitative and Naturalistic methodology

Solicited/Unsolicited feedback Comments send directly to us Survey

Focus groups

Field-Test Early Feedback

“The staff liked that it addressed higher-level thinking skills”

“The performance tasks were interesting and integrated a range of skills”

“Open-ended questions allow student to show what they know.

“The test was more engaging than NECAP – students liked taking it.”

Field-Test Early Feedback

“Not all of our students are proficient in technology to be successful on the test”

“Not all students have keyboarding skills to be successful on the test”

“Reading passages are very long, requiring students to have reading stamina”

“Reading proficiency from defined from NECAP may no longer be proficiency on Smarter Balanced.”

Next decision points…

SBAC 12-week Testing Window How should it be structured…or not? Discussion through the Accountability Task Force Regional representation is necessary

Non-adaptive (paper/pencil) version Technology Readiness Tool Minimum Standards

What can we do to help you as we move forward?

Column1 Actual Ideal

Indicators Few Many

Weights Imbalanced Balanced

Targets/Indicators Threshold Threshold & Growth

Judgments Data- -driven Data Informed

Stakes High Low- - Medium

Educator Focus Extremes Full Range

Timing After it is needed Just in Time

Culture High Threat High Trust

School Approval

Introducing a new model

Focused on support and understanding

Pilots

Full Implementation

Accountability 3.0

Recap—Model

Call with Deb Delisle, USED, June 16, 2014

National Partners--CCSSO, ACHIEVE, Alliance for Excellent Education, Hewlett, NMEF, College Board

Next Steps: July 10-11 CCSSO Meeting July Meeting at USED

Demonstration Projects

Formal Waiver Re-application—likely January, 2015

Design Sketch for Responsibility Model (College Board):

Student Learning Accountability: CCRK 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12

LeadingMeasures(Growth)

STEP, DRA, etc.[Optional--Local][disaggregated]

GraduationProfile

SBAC College Readiness Suite (SAT) [State/Local] [State/Local]

And/or

Design Sketch for Responsibility Model (PACE):

Student Learning Accountability: CCRK 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12

LeadingMeasures(Growth)

Performance Assessment STEP, DRA etc.[Local][disaggregated]

GraduationProfile

Validation of Complex Performance Assessments (SBAC) [State] [State] [State]

And/ororor

National Discussion: “51st State Model” (Minimum Requirements):

Learning Accountability: CCRK 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12

LeadingMeasures(Growth)

DRA, etc.STEP, etc.[Local][disaggregated]

GraduationProfile

Common Assessments (validation of local assessments) [State] [State] [State]

School Quality Review—Expert Reviewers + Peer EducatorsMultiple Measures: Participation: School Climate DataState/Local Attendance Student/Parent/Teacher Surveys Assessment Data

Educator Professional Accountability:State—Licensure/AccreditationDistrict—Tenure/Selection/Retention

Reciprocal Resource Accountability Federal, State, District, School, Teacher, Student

Federal/State Role:Parameters, Instrument Development, Research Best Practices, Network Support

Supports for Districts and Schools

Minimum Standards: Next Steps…

Ed 306.04 (a)(13), (14), (16), (25),(26); (j), (k-3). Policy Development.Ed 306.14 (b-1), Basic Instructional Standards.Ed 306.141 (a-1,3,5, & 6), Basic Instructional Standards.

 I. Introduction:

 The 2014 School Approval Standards address the change that must take place from a traditional classroom-only educational system, to a transformed educational system that includes competency-based learning environments and multiple pathways to graduation, resulting in students that are truly college and career ready.

 This technical advisory for the Minimum Standards for School Approval, to take effect on July 1, 2014, is issued in order to provide support to school boards, districts, schools, educators, and communities as they work to build learning communities that engage learners and support depth of knowledge.

 The department comments below address the changes in the 2014 Minimum Standards for School Approval relative to local school board policies for competencies and performance assessment.

31

Subject: Minimum Standards for School Approval-Local school board policies with respect to changes related to competency education

School Approval Standards:Ed 306.04 (a)(13),(14),(16),(25),(26), (j), (k)(3). Ed 306.14(b)(1).Ed 306.141(a)(1,2,5, & 6).

STEAM Focus: Governor’s Task Force Established by Executive Order by Governor Hassan

Chair—Chancellor Ross Gittell, members—Brian Blake, Paul Leather

Charged to address STEM K-12—Math, Science, Technology/Engineering Standards

Instructional practices

Creative ways to engage students/educators/business/community

Time Line—Report due second week in November

NH DOE Liaison Support

Evolution of Support Leadership engagement as requested by

superintendents Liaison support regionally, as requested,

for all networks Continued support of Title I Priority and

Focus Schools Quarterly meeting design Content specific support

NH DOE Liaison Support

Content focus Principal Leadership – Bob Manseau

Competencies and Performance-based Assessments – Sandy Kent/Rose Colby

Instructional Support (achievement gaps, innovations) – Jane Bergeron Beaulieu

Early Childhood Education (literacy focus; P-3 district support; collaboration for K2 schools) – Jean Briggs Badger

Superintendent Regional Meetings~ Point of Contacts

North Country: Commissioner Barry

Southeast: Deputy Commissioner Leather

Lakes: Judy Fillion

South Central: Heather Gage

Southwest: Karen Soule

THANK YOU

GENERAL DISCUSSION