Collaborative Planning

Guidebook
The experts
are among
us
August 2012

Table of Contents

Introduction

FRAMEWORK FOR COLLABORATIVE PLANNING
2012-2013 Schedule for Collaborative Planning 1
The Main Ideas 2
Overview of the Collaborative Planning Process 9
First Things First: Demystifying Data Analysis 10
Three Big Ideas and Four Crucial Questions 14
Creating SMART Goals 15

TEAMWORK TOOL KIT
Annual Improvement Goals Form 16
Analyzing the PASS or HSAP School Demographic Report 17
Guidelines for Interpreting MAP Reports 20
Guiding Questions for Analysis of MAP Growth 23
SCDE Testing Information 26
State Writing & Final Rubric Grades 3-10 27
HSAP Extended Response Scoring Rubric 28
Team Roles 29
Brainstorming Guidelines 31
Feedback / Rewards, Recognition & Celebration 32
Collaborative Planning Lesson Study Protocol 33
The Tuning Protocol 36
The Consultancy Protocol 38
Effective 30-Minute Meeting Protocol 40
Connections Protocol 41
Team Learning Log Form 42
Collaborative Planning Learning Log 42
Special Request Form 44
Suggested Resources 45

COLLABORATION IN ACTION
Tab 1
Framework for Collaborative Planning
tab goes here.

Introduction
The purpose of this guide

This revision is a work-in-progress that represents continuing progress in
using a powerful concept and process for improvement of student learning at
all levels. The concepts are based largely on the work of Michael Schmoker,
cited throughout the guide. His work has been elaborated and extended by
numerous well-respected educators.

The process advocated in this guide has been used effectively in many
schools. Experience in Lexington County School District One and elsewhere
has shown that the process is most effective when it centers on the use of
collaborative assessments, which provide valuable data to inform instructional
planning. This guide is a compilation of resources for collaborative planning at
the school level. Because different schools will bring varying levels of
expertise and experience to the planning process, this guide is not intended
to be necessarily prescriptive. Read it quickly to get a sense of the overall
process and then work through it in stages.

Guidebook Overview

I. Framework for Collaborative Planning
Section I of the Guide provides background information to assist you in
understanding the planning process and timelines as well as providing for
you the concepts of collaborative planning based on research to improve
instruction. A clear understanding of this mindset will provide a framework
for efficient and meaningful meetings and ultimately effective results.

II. Teamwork Tool Kit
No meaningful product or results can be achieved without the proper
tools. In this section you will find the tools that will assist you in planning
together, as well as a description of the various roles and components of
the collaborative planning process. Protocols for meeting activities and
forms for recording goals and progress are included.

Teacher teams will develop other useful tools as they work together. You
are invited to share the tools that you develop with colleagues and
recommend them as resources to be included in future guides.

III. Collaboration in Action
This is YOUR section. Maintain your team goals, lesson plans, and
assessments, and notes in this section. Other information housed here
might include test data on your specific students, copies of minutes from
previous meetings and rubrics.

When teachers regularly and collaboratively review assessment data for the purpose
of improving practice to reach measurable achievement goals, something magical
happens.
-Michael Schmoker, The Results Fieldbook


Collaborati ve Planning Schedule


1


2012-2013

September 5, 2012
October 3, 2012
November 7, 2012
December 5, 2012
February 6, 2013
March 6, 2013
May 1, 2013


Early Release:
Elementary schools 11:40 a.m.
Middle and High schools 12:40
2
The Main Ideas

NOTE: A new list of resources that have been used effectively
by various groups in Lexington County School Distric One has
been added as the last section of this guidebook.

The section below is a collection of key points from several
publications by Mike Schmoker, a widely recognized authority
on collaborative planning. The quotations were selected because
they focus on what actually happens in the collaborative
planning process.


Results, p. 55


When the three concepts of teamwork, goal setting, and data use
interact, they address a misunderstanding prevalent in schools. The
misunderstanding is that we can improve without applying certain basic
principles: People accomplish more together than in isolation; regular,
collective dialogue about agreed-upon focus sustains commitment and
feeds purpose; effort thrives on concrete evidence of progress; and
teachers learn best from other teachers. We must ensure that these three
concepts operate to produce results.


Results Now, p. 25


You have to give educators credit; for all the superficial comforts of being
left alone, they will admit that constructive collaboration would lead to
greatly improved instruction.
By elevating privacy and isolation in the name of professionalism, we have
allowed teaching to acquire an outsized aura of mystique and complexity,
a sense that effective teaching is primarily personal and beyond scrutiny.
It has become increasingly difficult to ask practitioners to conform to even
the most well-established elements of good instruction: being clear
and explicit about what is to be learned and assessed; using
assessments to evaluate a lessons effectiveness and making
constructive adjustments on the basis of results; conducting a check
for understanding at certain points in a lesson; having kids read for
higher-order purposes and write regularl y; and clearl y explicating
and carefull y teaching the criteria by which student work will be
scored or evaluated.
3





Results, p. 114


The Experts Are Among Us
One of the reasons that such teamwork and lesson study are so effective
is that they tap into teachers existing capabilities and potential, which are
more apt to flourish in teams than under external trainers...
Dennis Sparks, who deeply understands effective staff development, put it
starkly for me once: he said that any faculty could begin improving
performance, tomorrow morning, if they never attended another workshop
in their lives. They would improve, inexorably, simply by deciding on
what they wanted students to learn and then working together to
prepare, test, and refine lessons and strategiescontinuously, toward
better results.
Teamwork


Results Now, p. 108


We have to be very clear about what true teamwork entails: a regular
schedule of formal meetings where teachers focus on the details of their
lessons and adjust them on the basis of assessment results. The use of
common assessments is essential here. Without these, teams cant
discern or enjoy the impact of their efforts on an ongoing basis. Enjoying
and celebrating these short-term results is the very key to progress, to
achieving momentum toward improvement (Collins, 2001a)


Results Now, p. 106-107


But what are true learning communities, and why are they more
effective than traditional staff development? We cant afford, as Rick
DuFour points out, to corrupt or co-opt the fundamental concepts of
collaborative learning communities (2004). What are those fundamental
concepts?
First, professional learning communities require that teachers establish a
common, concise set of curricular standards and teach to them on a
roughly common schedule. Teams need to consult their state assessment
guides and other documents to help them make wise decisions about
what to teach (and what not to teach).
Then they must meet regularly. I suggest that teams meet at least twice a
month, for a minimum of 45 minutes, to help one another teach to these
4
selected standards (I have seen great things come of 30-minute
meetings). This time must be very focused: most of it must be spent
talking in concrete, precise terms about instruction with a concentration
on thoughtful, explicit examination of practices and their consequences
the results achieved with specific lessons and collaborative analysis of the
results of our efforts, what can we do to improve students learning?
(2002, p.21). To perform this work, teachers must make frequent use of
common assessments. These assessmentsare pivotal. With common
assessments and results, teachers can conduct what Eaker calls active
research where a culture of experimentation prevails. (2002, p.21).


Results Now, p. 115-116


Teachers know a lot about good practice. But school systems, ever-
seduced by the next new thing, dont provide them with focused,
collaborative opportunities that remind and reinforce the implementation of
the most basic and powerful practices.
Is it accurate to assume the following?
The majority of teachers know that students need to do lots of
purposeful reading and writing.
The script of a lesson or unit must include a clear explanation of the
specific standard.
Modeling and step-by-step demonstration of new skills is essential.
Short practice opportunities combined with a check for
understanding ensure that more kids learn and fewer are left
behind.
Teachers know that a good lesson includes an assessment that aligns
with the standards just taught. Most teachers have learned a few
strategies for keeping kids attentive.Most have learnedthat we should
frequently provide exemplars of good work and that we need to be very
clear about our grading and evaluative criteria if we want them to succeed.
Classroom studies continue to reveal that these basic, powerful practices
are still all too rare.


Results Now, p. 111-112


In my workshops, I like to do a pared-down version of lesson study. I
take teachers through an entire team meetingfrom identifying a low-
scoring standard, to roughing out an appropriate assessment, to building a
lesson designed to help as many students as possible succeed on the
assessment. We do all thissomewhat crudelyin less than 20 minutes.
5
Once completed, we take a break, and then we posit that the lesson didnt
work as well as wed like. So we make a revision or two.
The results can be surprising: teachers see that in even so short a time,
they can collectively craft fairly coherent, effective standards-based
lessons and assessments.Lights go on: they realize that learning to
make such focused, constructive effort virtually requires teamwork, that
the members not only contribute a richer pool of ideas buthugely
importantsocial commitment and energy, as essential elements of
success (Fullan, 1991.p 84).


Results, p. 17


Another problem is lack of follow up, the failure to begin each meeting
with a concise discussion of what workedand didnt. Too many
meetings begin with no reference to commitments made at the last
meeting. A teacher.was tired, he said, of filling chart paper with ideas
and this is the end of itno follow-up on if or how well the ideas had even
been implemented or if they had in fact helped students learn.
Careful, methodical follow-uphas not been educations strong suit. But
if we want results, a scientific, systematic examination of effort and effects
is essentialand one of the most satisfying professional experiences we
can have.

Goal Setting


Demystifying Data Analysis,


If we take pains to keep the goals simple and to avoid setting too many of
them, they focus the attention and energies of everyone involved (Chang,
Labovitz, & Rosansky, 1992; Drucker, 1992; J oyce, Wolf, & Calhoun,
1993). Such goals are quite different from the multiple, vague, ambiguous
goal statements that populate many school improvement plans.


Results Now , p. 122


"The case for generating a steady stream of short-term wins is not new
and is pure common sense. If anything, it is mystifying that schools have
yet to institute structures that allow people to see that their hard work is
paying offthis week or monthnot next year or five years from
now.Gary Hamel exhorts us to Win small, win early, win often (as cited
in Fullan, 2001, p.33). For Bob Eaker, our goals themselves should be
designed to produce short-term wins (2002, p. 17). And now J im Collins
6
tells us to scrap the big plans in favor of producing a steady stream of
successes, which in turn will create the magic of momentum toward
enduring organizational success (in Schmoker, 2004. p. 427).


Results, p. 41


Allow teachers, by school or team, as much autonomy as possible in
selecting the kind of data they think will be most helpful. The data must
accurately reflect teacher and student performance and be properly
aligned with state, district, and school goals and standards. Establish
clear criteria that promote a relevant, substantive focus.


Results, p. 31



Criteria for Effective Goals

Measurable
Annual: reflecting an increase over the previous year of the
percentage of students achieving masteryusually in a subject
area
Focused, with occasional exceptions, on student achievement
Linked to a year-end assessment or other standards-based means
of determining if students have reached an established level of
performanceusually within a subject area
Written in simple, direct language that can be understood by almost
any audience

Data Use


Demystifying Data Analysis,


First things first: Which data, well analyzed, can help us improve teaching
and learning? We should always start by considering the needs of
teachers, whose use of data has the most direct impact on student
performance. Data can give them the answer to two important
questions:
How many students are succeeding in the subjects I teach?
Within those subjects, what are the areas of strength or
weakness?
7
The answers to these two questions set the stage for targeted,
collaborative efforts that can pay immediate dividends in achievement
gains.






Demystifying Data Analysis,


Turning Weakness into Strength
After the teacher team has set a goal, it can turn to the next important
question: Within the identified subject or course, where do we need to
direct our collective attention and expertise? In other words, where do the
greatest number of students struggle or fail within the larger
domains? For example, in English and language arts, students may have
scored low in writing essays or in comprehending the main ideas in
paragraphs. In mathematics, they may be weak in measurement or in
number sense.
Every state or standardized assessment provides data on areas of
strength and weakness, at least in certain core subjects. Data from district
or school assessments, even grade books, can meaningfully supplement
the large-scale assessments. After team members identify strengths and
weaknesses, they can begin the real work of instructional
improvement: the collaborative effort to share, produce, test, and
refine lessons and strategies targeted to areas of low performance,
where more effective instruction can make the greatest difference for
students.

Results, p. 80


The primary value of rubrics is their capacity to provide clear, useful
feedback that can be analyzed to identify areas of strength and weakness
at any time, at any level, for any number of audiencesfrom students to
whole communities.


Results, p. 43


To be sure, teachers do have data, such as Individual Education Plans
(IEPs), grades, grade-point averages, and test scores. Though such
individual data are useful, they are seldom converted into the kind of
group data that is necessary for more formal and collective reflection and
8
analysis. Even such easily gathered, conventional data are seldom
collectively analyzed to help teams or schools find better ways to address
collective problems. They could be.
Teachers tend to evaluate students individually and reflect on how to
improve class performance less frequently. We would expect, writes
Lortie (1975) to find heavy emphasis on results attained with classes, as
opposed to results with individual students.Lortie found that educators
do not seek to identify and address patterns of success and failure, which
can have broad and continuous benefits for greater numbers of children.
Not focusing on patterns is unfortunate, because the real power of data
emerges when they enable us to see--and addresspatterns of
instructional program strengths and weaknesses, thus multipl ying
the number of individual students we can help.

Resources

Schmoker, M. (1999). Results: The key to continuous school
improvement. Alexandria, VA: Association of Supervision and
Curriculum Development.

Schmoker, M. (2001). The results fieldbook: Practical strategies from
dramatically improved schools. Alexandria, VA: Association of
Supervision and Curriculum Development.
Schmoker, M. (2003). Demystifying data analysis. Educational
Leadership, 60(5), 22-25.

Schmoker, M. (2006). Results now: How we can achieve unprecedented
improvements in teaching and learning. Alexandria, VA:
Association of Supervision and Curriculum Development.

Overview of the Collaborati ve Planning Process

Extracted from a presentation by Mike Schmoker in Columbia, SC, 2006.
9
Schmoker encourages teachers to have a clear understanding of the end-of-
year goal. End-of-course assessments are particularly important in upper
grades, but may be useful in elementary grades also.

I. Many authorities, including Mike Schmoker and Rick Dufour and
Rebecca DuFour recommend that teams create end-of-course or end-
of-semester assessments for every course taught.
These assessments must align with only the most essential, enduring
standards on state assessments. For courses not assessed by the state
accountability system,teams should/could create end-of-course
assessments based on a careful review of standards and the selection
ofonce againonly the most essential standards to be taught in each
course. These assessments should:
be completed by the end of first quarter in at all possible; work
can be completed during team meetings
include a clear and sufficient emphasis on higher-order proficiencies;
analysis, evaluation, and synthesis, which has to include writing and
real-world problem-solving (English/language arts should focus almost
exclusively on higher-order proficiencies and assessments.)
Finally divide essential standards into quarterly blocks & create quarterly
assessments; quarterly results should be reviewed by teams & leaders to
gauge progress & identify need for support/improvement.
II. At the beginning of the school year/after end-of-course assessments
are created, have ALL STAFF analyze state and end-of-course
assessment data to complete a form like ..Annual Improvement
Goals to
1. set a limited number of measurable, end-of-course/subject-area
goals (not more than two)
2. listfor each course goalspecific, lowest performing areas to
improve on this year
Establish dates and times for team meetings; these are sacrosanct. Then be
sure that every teacher brings the following Teamwork Tool Kit to every
meeting:
Team norms/protocols/brainstorming guidelinesessential to time-
efficient, productive meetings
Annual Improvement Goal form (with goals and areas of weakness
based on data analysis)
Interpretive guide(s) /sample assessments/scored writing samples
provided by the state
Rubrics, anchor papers, samples of student work wherever
appropriate
Team Learning Logs
Regularly collect and review Team Learning Logs at both building and
district level.

At every school and district meeting, regularly share, celebrate, and reward
measurable successes recorded on Team Learning Logs; be sure to
disseminate successes to all who teach the same skills or grade levels.
http://pdonline.ascd.org/pd_online/contemp_s_lead/el200302_schmoker.html
10



February 2003 | Volume 60 | Number 5
Using Data to Improve Student Achievement Pages 22-24
First Things First: Demystifying
Data Analysis
To improve student achievement results, use data to focus on
a few simple, specific goals.
Mike Schmoker
I recently sat with a district administrator eager to understand her
district's achievement results. Pages of data and statistical breakdowns
covered the table. Looking somewhat helpless, she threw up her hands
and asked me, "What do I do with all this?"
Many educators could empathize with this administrator. The experts' tendency to complicate
the use and analysis of student achievement data often ensures that few educators avail
themselves of data's simple, transparent power. The effective use of data depends on simplicity
and economy.
First things first: Which data, well analyzed, can help us improve teaching and learning? We
should always start by considering the needs of teachers, whose use of data has the most direct
impact on student performance. Data can give them the answer to two important questions:
How many students are succeeding in the subjects I teach?
Within those subjects, what are the areas of strength or weakness?
The answers to these two questions set the stage for targeted, collaborative efforts that can pay
immediate dividends in achievement gains.
Focusing Efforts
Answering the first question enables grade-level or subject-area teams of practitioners to
establish high-leverage annual improvement goalsfor example, moving the percentage of
students passing a math or writing assessment from a baseline of 67 percent in 2003 to 72
percent in 2004. Abundant research and school evidence suggest that setting such goals may
be the most significant act in the entire school improvement process, greatly increasing the
odds of success (Little, 1987; McGonagill, 1992; Rosenholtz, 1991; Schmoker, 1999, 2001).
If we take pains to keep the goals simple and to avoid setting too many of them, they focus the
attention and energies of everyone involved (Chang, Labovitz, & Rosansky, 1992; Drucker,
1992; Joyce, Wolf, & Calhoun, 1993). Such goals are quite different from the multiple, vague,
ambiguous goal statements that populate many school improvement plans.
Turning Weakness into Strength
After the teacher team has set a goal, it can turn to the next important question: Within the
identified subject or course, where do we need to direct our collective attention and expertise?



February 2003
http://pdonline.ascd.org/pd_online/contemp_s_lead/el200302_schmoker.html
11
In other words, where do the greatest number of students struggle or fail within the larger
domains? For example, in English and language arts, students may have scored low in writing
essays or in comprehending the main ideas in paragraphs. In mathematics, they may be weak
in measurement or in number sense.
Every state or standardized assessment provides data on areas of strength and weakness, at
least in certain core subjects. Data from district or school assessments, even gradebooks, can
meaningfully supplement the large-scale assessments. After team members identify strengths
and weaknesses, they can begin the real work of instructional improvement: the collaborative
effort to share, produce, test, and refine lessons and strategies targeted to areas of low
performance, where more effective instruction can make the greatest difference for students.
So What's the Problem?
Despite the importance of the two questions previously cited, practitioners can rarely answer
them. For years, during which dataand goals have been education by-words, I have asked
hundreds of teachers whether they know their goals for that academic year and which of the
subjects they teach have the lowest scores. The vast majority of teachers don't know. Even
fewer can answer the question: What are the low-scoring areas within a subject or course you
teach?
Nor could I. As a middle and high school English teacher, I hadn't the foggiest notion about
these datafrom state assessments or from my own records. This is the equivalent of a
mechanic not knowing which part of the car needs repair.
Why don't most schools provide teachers with data reports that address these two central
questions? Perhaps the straightforward improvement scheme described here seems too simple
to us, addicted as we are to elaborate, complex programs and plans (Schmoker, 2002; Stigler &
Hiebert, 1999).
Over-Analysis and Overload
The most important school improvement processes do not require sophisticated data analysis or
special expertise. Teachers themselves can easily learn to conduct the analyses that will have
the most significant impact on teaching and achievement.
The extended, district-level analyses and correlational studies some districts conduct can be
fascinating stuff; they can even reveal opportunities for improvement. But they can also divert
us from the primary purpose of analyzing data: improving instruction to achieve greater student
success. Over-analysis can contribute to overloadthe propensity to create long, detailed,
"comprehensive" improvement plans and documents that few read or remember. Because we
gather so much data and because they reveal so many opportunities for improvement, we set
too many goals and launch too many initiatives, overtaxing our teachers and our systems
(Fullan, 1996; Fullan & Stiegelbauer, 1991).
Formative Assessment Data and Short-Term Results
A simple template for a focused improvement plan with annual goals for improving students'
state assessment scores would go a long way toward solving the overload problem (Schmoker,
2001), and would enable teams of professional educators to establish their own improvement
priorities, simply and quickly, for the students they teach and for those in similar grades,
courses, or subject areas.
Using the goals that they have established, teachers can meet regularly to improve their
lessons and assess their progress using another important source: formative assessment data.
http://pdonline.ascd.org/pd_online/contemp_s_lead/el200302_schmoker.html
12
Gathered every few weeks or at each grading period, formative data enable the team to gauge
levels of success and to adjust their instructional efforts accordingly. Formative, collectively
administered assessments allow teams to capture and celebrate short-term results, which are
essential to success in any sphere (Collins, 2001; Kouzes & Posner, 1995; Schaffer, 1988).
Even conventional classroom assessment data work for us here, but with a twist. We don't just
record these data to assign grades each period; we now look at how many students succeeded
on that quiz, that interpretive paragraph, or that applied math assessment, and we ask
ourselves why. Teacher teams can now "assess to learn"to improve their instruction (Stiggins,
2002).
A legion of researchers from education and industry have demonstrated that instructional
improvement depends on just such simple, data-driven formatsteams identifying and
addressing areas of difficulty and then developing, critiquing, testing, and upgrading efforts in
light of ongoing results (Collins, 2001; Darling-Hammond, 1997; DuFour, 2002; Fullan, 2000;
Reeves, 2000; Schaffer, 1988; Senge, 1990; Wiggins, 1994). It all starts with the simplest kind
of data analysiswith the foundation we have when all teachers know their goals and the
specific areas where students most need help.
What About Other Data?
In right measure, other useful data can aid improvement. For instance, data on achievement
differences among socio-economic groups, on students reading below grade level, and on
teacher, student, and parent perceptions can all guide improvement.
But data analysis shouldn't result in overload and fragmentation; it shouldn't prevent teams of
teachers from setting and knowing their own goals and from staying focused on key areas for
improvement. Instead of overloading teachers, let's give them the data they need to conduct
powerful, focused analyses and to generate a sustained stream of results for students.
References
Chang, Y. S., Labovitz, G., & Rosansky, V. (1992). Making quality work: A leadership guide for
the results-driven manager. Essex Junction, VT: Omneo.
Collins, J. (2001, October). Good to great. Fast Company, 51, 90104.
Darling-Hammond, L. (1997). The right to learn: A blueprint for creating schools that work. New
York: Jossey-Bass.
Drucker, P. (1992). Managing for the future: The 1990s and beyond. New York: Truman Talley
Books.
DuFour, R. (2002). The learning-centered principal. Educational Leadership, 59(8), 1215.
Fullan, M. (1996). Turning systemic thinking on its head. Phi Delta Kappan, 77(6), 420423.
Fullan, M. (2000). The three stories of education reform. Phi Delta Kappan, 81(8), 581584.
Fullan, M., & Stiegelbauer, S. (1991). The new meaning of educational change. New York:
Teachers College Press.
Joyce, B., Wolf, J., & Calhoun, E. (1993). The self-renewing school. Alexandria, VA: ASCD.
Kouzes, J., & Posner, B. (1995). The leadership challenge. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Little, J. W. (1987). Teachers as colleagues. In V. Richardson-Koehler (Ed.), Educator's
handbook. White Plains, NY: Longman.
McGonagill, G. (1992). Overcoming barriers to educational restructuring: A call for "system
http://pdonline.ascd.org/pd_online/contemp_s_lead/el200302_schmoker.html
13
literacy." ERIC, ED 357512.
Reeves, D. (2000). Accountability in action. Denver, CO: Advanced Learning Press.
Rosenholtz, S. J. (1991). Teacher's workplace: The social organization of schools. New York:
Teachers College Press.
Schaffer, R. H. (1988). The breakthrough strategy: Using short-term successes to build the
high-performing organization. New York: Harper Business.
Schmoker, M. (1999). Results: The key to continuous school improvement (2nd ed). Alexandria,
VA: ASCD.
Schmoker, M. (2001). The results fieldbook: Practical strategies from dramatically improved
schools. Alexandria, VA: ASCD.
Schmoker, M. (2002). Up and away. Journal of Staff Development, 23(2), 1013.
Senge, P. (1990). The fifth discipline: The art and practice of the learning organization. New
York: Doubleday.
Stiggins, R. (2002). Assessment crisis: The absence of assessment FOR learning. Phi Delta
Kappan, 83(10), 758765.
Stigler, J. W., & Hiebert, J. (1999). The teaching gap: Best ideas from the world's teachers for
improving education in the classroom. New York: Free Press.
Wiggins, G. (1994). None of the above. The Executive Educator, 16(7), 1418.

Mike Schmoker is an educational speaker and consultant; @futureone.com. His most recent book is The
RESULTS Fieldbook: Practical Strategies from Dramatically Improved Schools (ASCD, 2001).

Copyright 2003 by Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development


Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development (ASCD)
1703 N. Beauregard Street, Alexandria, VA 22311 USA 1-800-933-2723 1-703-578-9600
ASCD, All Rights Reserved Statement

3 Big Ideas and 4 Crucial Questions

14

Big Idea #1: Ensuring That Students Learn

Big Idea #2: A Culture of Collaboration

Big Idea #3: A Focus on Results


DuFour, Richard. (2005) What is a professional learning community? In
Barth, Roland et al. On common ground: The power of
professional learning communities. (pp. 31-43). Bloomington,
Indiana: Solution Tree.


Four Primary Questions

a. What do we want our students to learn?
i. Core curriculum emphasis
ii. Effecti ve collaboration

b. How do we know if they have learned?
i. Common Assessments
ii. Effecti ve collaboration

c. What do we do if they have not learned?
i. Systematic interventions
ii. Effecti ve collaboration

d. What are we doing to extend learning for
those students who have learned?
i. Systematic interventions for ALL levels
ii. Effecti ve collaboration
15





Creating SMART Goals


Letter
Major
Term
Minor Terms
S Specific Significant
[1]
, Stretching, Simple
M Measurable Meaningful
[1]
, Motivational
[1]
, Manageable
A Attainable
[2]

Appropriate, Achievable, Agreed
[3][4]
, Assignable
[5]
, Actionable,
Action-oriented
[1]
, Ambitious
[6]

R Relevant
Realistic
[5]
, Results/Results-focused/Results-oriented
[2]
,
Resourced
[7]
, Rewarding
[1]

T Time-bound
Time framed, Timed, Time-based, Timeboxed, Timely
[2][4]
,
Timebound, Time-Specific, Timetabled, Trackable, Tangible



Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SMART_criteria


TAB 2
Teamwork Tool Kit tab goes here.

Annual I mpr ovement Goal s For 20__-20__

16
School:_________Team:________


GOAL 1: The percentage of our teams students who will be at or above
standard in
___________________________ will increase from:
_________________ at the end of 20___ (previous years
percentage/mean score) to
_________________% at the end of 20___as assessed by the
________________________ (State/District or School Assessment)

SPECIFIC, low-scoring skills/standard areas to improve (e.g.
Measurement, Compare & order fractions and decimals, Organization)

___________________________________________________________

___________________________________________________________

___________________________________________________________

___________________________________________________________

GOAL 2: The percentage of our teams students who will be at or above
standard in
____________________________ will increase from:
____________________% at the end of 20___ (precious years
percentage/mean score) to
__________________ % at the end of 20___ (the following years
percentage/mean score) as assessed by the
____________________ (State/District or School Assessment)

SPECIFIC skill areas to address/improve

___________________________________________________________

___________________________________________________________

___________________________________________________________

___________________________________________________________
17
Analyzing the PASS or HSAP School Demographic Report
(Based on work by LMS Leadership team)

Elementary and middle school AYP objectives for 2011-2012 are 79.4% for
English language arts and 79.0% for mathematics.
Note that the Not Met criterion for PASS was set at the same percent as
the Below Basic for PACT. That is the only score point at which scores from
the two testing programs are comparable.
High school AYP objectives for 2011-2012 increase to 90.3% for English
language arts and 90.0% for mathematics.

Run PASS school demographic reports or HSAP school demographic
reports in TestView.

Find the number of students tested for your subject and grade level. This
is listed as ALL STUDENTS.

Out of these students, what percent of male students scored Below Basic
(HSAP Level 1) or Not Met (PASS)?
How many actual students is this? (Take the percent, enter it as a decimal
and multiply by the actual number of students.)


How many African American students were tested on your grade level and
subject area?
What percent of these scored Not Met? (HSAP Level 1)
How many actual students is this?

How many students tested on your grade level and subject were identified
as having an IEP (This means ANY IEP)?
Out of these students, what percent scored Not Met? (HSAP Level 1)
How many actual students is this?

18

In order to meet AYP under current regulations in 2010-2011, a school
must have at least 79.4 % Met and Exemplary in ELA for PASS or at least
71.3% HSAP Level 3 and above for English language arts in the following
categories:
What are our percentages at
3 and 4 for HSAP or Met or Exemplary for PASS.
ALL STUDENTS _________%
WHITE _________%
AFRICAN AMERICAN _________%
ANY IEP _________%
TOTAL FREE/REDUCED MEALS _________%
(Note: Add other groups, as needed.)









Under the current regulations in order to meet AYP in 2010-2011, a school
must have at least or 79.0% for Math Met and Exemplary for PASS (or at
least 70.0% at HSAP Level 3 and above for mathematics) in the following
categories:

What are our percentages at
Proficient and Advanced in Math?
ALL STUDENTS _________%
WHITE _________%
AFRICAN AMERICAN _________%
ANY IEP _________%
TOTAL FREE/REDUCED MEALS _________%
(Note: Add other groups, as needed.)

Note that graduation rate will be evaluated in these categories, also.
19

Looking at these numbers, the subcategories seem to produce a small
number of actual students that are not making adequate progress in their
schooling.

List the factors that are not in our control, in relation to student
achievement. (Note: Although we acknowledge these issues, we must still
accept responsibility for helping all students achieve.)



List factors that are in our control, in relation to student achievement.




A lot of what we do in our classroom works for the majority of our students.
That is evident in our test scores for the general population. They look
great! However looking at more specific areas in the data, we find that
what we do for all students does not work for some students. Why do we
keep expecting these students to learn in a manner that has proven to be
ineffective for them? Is it productive to insist on teaching students in a
manner that we know has not been successful? What can we do differently
so that these few students do not fall through the cracks?


20
Guidelines for Interpreting MAP Reports


Virtual Comparison Group Reports by Class (available only after fall-to-spring
data are matched and computed for the academic year). These reports provide
the most accurate comparison of our students academic growth to the growth of
similar students in other schools that use MAP tests. Students who have fall and
spring test scores are matched by percent of students in the school who qualify
for free/reduced lunch, urban/rural classification, grade level, beginning RIT
score (within 1 point), and fall test dates (within 7 days). They are a powerful
indicator of the effectiveness of our instructional programs. Note: Administrators
have access to pivot table reports that can be disaggregated in a variety of ways.

1. The first page provides background information on the report.
2. The second page shows a plot of how growth for our students compared
with growth for the Virtual Comparison Group and where their
performance is with respect to Proficient and Advanced Cutpoints with the
Hybrid Success Target (which puts them on track to make a 3 on HSAP).
The Hybrid Success Target is the higher of two targets: either the median
virtual comparison group performance or the level of performance needed
to make adequate progress toward a score or 3 on HSAP at 10
th
grade.
3. The third page is a normalized score (Z-score) distribution for the class.
Students identified with Xs in the center section performed relatively close
to expectation based on the carefully matched data of the Virtual
Comparison Group reports. Green vertical bars indicate substantially high
growth. Red vertical bars indicate substantially low growth. It is not
uncommon to have one or two students in class of typical size who
show substantially low growth; often these will be recognized as
atypical performance attributable to a specific cause or as instances
where students who have not put forth serious effort on the test. If a
25% percent of the class shows substantially low growth, there is
reason to question the appropriateness of the instructional program
for those students. If there are any clusters of exceptionally high or
exceptionally low growth, then there may be a need to examine how
instruction is being differentiated.
4. Details are in the table on the fourth page.
5. The fifth page may be the most valuable for teachers because it provides
interpretations and suggestions and with student names when growth is
substantially above or below what would generally be expected.

Teacher Reports (available on line 24-48 hours after testing)

Use the following as some guiding questions for analysis:

1. Are the class mean and median about the same? If not, look for scores
that are outliers.
21

2. What is the standard deviation? (Standard deviations between 11-17
indicate a need for variety of grouping strategies. Standard deviations
larger than 17 indicate great diversity where differentiated instructional
strategies are especially necessary.)

3. What is the range of national percentiles (%ile Range) in the class?

4. In reading, what is the range of Lexile scores in the class? How does this
range compare to the Lexile level of available instructional materials?

5. Are there areas of strength and/or weakness, specifically Goal
Performance subscores that differ from the class average by 3 or more
points? (If scores indicate more than one area of need, concentrate on
the area that will be most likely to affect the students understanding of the
subject area.)

Class by RIT Reports (available on line)

1. How many 10-point RIT ranges are represented in the class distribution?

2. When you click on the subject area and display the distributions of Goal
Performance areas, what possibilities do you see for forming instructional
groups to address specific needs?

3. Based on DesCartes objectives, what additional assessments are needed
to determine specific instructional needs for your students within given RIT
ranges?

Spring Achievement Status & Growth (ASG) Reports (must be ordered after
district window closes)

1. What percent of students met or exceeded their growth targets? (The
districts minimum expectation is average performance has increased from
50% for this statistic to 53% to maintain alignment with increases in
national performance data. Teams may want to set higher goals.)


2. What is the overall percent of targets met? (The districts minimum
expectation is average performance, which is generally 100% for this
statistic. Teams may want to set higher goals.)


3. Which students made gains that exceeded their targets? (Congratulate
them!)

22

4. Which students have scores that are more than one Growth Standard
Error below their target scores? (Were they focused on the assessment?
What might motivate them to take greater interest in the subject?)

NOTE: The percents in ASG Reports will differ from the percents in the Virtual
Comparison Group Reports because the achievement targets for Virtual
Comparison Group Reports are more closely matched to the characteristics of
the students in our classes.

Dynamic Reports

Projections from MAP to PASS are available online. The projection is based on
a 50% probability of scoring MET on PASS. To guarantee that a student would
score at the MET level, a students score would need to be considerably higher
than the minimum cut score.


23

Guiding Questions for Analysis MAP Growth


Getting Ready

For this exercise you will need four items:
1. The School Overview Report from Dynamic Reports for Fall-Spring (See instructions
below).
2. The School Overview Report from Dynamic Reports for Spring-Spring (See instructions
below).

Instructions for accessing School Overview Reports

1. Open a web browser and navigate to https://reports.nwea.org.
2. Log in to the NWEA reports site.
3. From the links on the left hand side of the page, select Dynamic Reports.
4. Click the button labeled Dynamic Reports.
5. The default screen will be your School Overview for FallXX-SpringYY (Where XX
and YY are school years).
6. To access this same report for SpringXX-SpringYY, click the Run this report for a
different term link on the top right side of the report.

General Notes

These guiding questions are designed as an initial analysis piece for school administrators
and instructional leaders. This analysis will show you a broad picture of how your school is
performing at both the school and grade level. You will also examine some student level data.
However, this exercise is merely a starting point. Once you have completed this exercise, it is
important that you extend your inquiry to the classroom and student level in order to best
improve instruction. Virtual comparison group (VCG) reports will be coming out after Spring
testing. These reports will help you to further analyze growth in your school relative to similar
students from around the nation.



24

Guiding Questions for Analysis

1. Using the School Overview Reports, carefully consider and answer the following
questions for each subject area.
a.
b. The 2009 NWEA School Growth Study indicated that average percent meeting
target for schools around the nation had risen, as teachers have learned to focus
their teaching on standards. The spring-to-spring percents meeting target varied
by subject and grade level, from 49% in fifth-grade mathematics to 56% in
second- and fourth- grade reading. Overall the data indicated that the average
percent meeting published spring-to-spring targets was about 53%. Fall-to-spring
results were several percent higher. Since average performance for schools all
over the nation has improved improving, our expectations are that we our
instructional success rate would be at least up to the national average, or 53%.
i. In Lexington One, we can celebrate the fact that our instruction has
improved to the point that almost 60% of students meet or exceed
published target growth for fall -to-spring virtual comparison group
(VCG) scores.
ii. How does your school percent meeting published target growth compare
with the districts VCG results?
c. Consider the Student Growth Summary reports for your school that administrators
order online via the www.nwea.org Web site. Those are calculated with targets
that are similar, but not always identical to the ASG targets. As long as we have a
MAP contract, administrators can order both fall-to-spring and spring-to-spring
reports, as well as all reports for previous years. What was the difference between
the percent of students in your school meeting growth targets in the fall-to-spring
report and the spring-to-spring report? (Remember that spring scores are a better
measure of student growth for grades when they are available because they are
not affected by summer loss or differing levels of motivation in the fall.) If your
fall percents are more than 5 percentage points lower than your spring percents,
talk about what might be happening to cause such a difference?

2. Using the School Overview reports from NWEAs Dynamic Reports, carefully consider
and answer the following questions for each subject area.
a. Take a look at your yellow, orange and red boxes. These are the students, based
on MAP, who are in need of intervention. Students in the red and orange boxes
are not meeting their growth targets. Students in the yellow box need to do more
than meet their growth targets to progress to the Met level on PASS. Click on the
boxes to drill down and see individual students. Based on the growth index (the
distance in RIT points from the students growth target), how far are these
students from meeting the target? What is their proficiency probability? Do any
patterns exist within these groups of students ( grade level, subject area, teacher)?
What are your plans for identifying and addressing the needs of these students?
Could there be implications for professional development plans?
b. Do any patterns exist for the students in your green box? What are your plans for
ensuring that these students continue to grow and achieve at high levels?
c. The expectation of 53% meeting target is a minimum expectation. If your school
had grade levels and subject areas that did not meet the minimum expectation,
consider these questions carefully:
25

i. What do you as the school administrative team know about instruction in
those grade levels and subject areas from your classroom observations this
year?
ii. What have the teachers shared from their collaborative planning, common
assessments, and data analysis?
iii. What have you learned from conferencing with those teachers?
iv. What is your plan for supporting and supervising teachers in those grade
levels and subject areas next year?
d. Looking ahead to next year, how would projected proficiency for your school
compare to the 2011-2012 AYP requirements for percent meeting proficiency
(79% for math and 79.4% for reading)?






26
Testing Information from the SCDE Office of Assessment

The South Carolina Department of Education provides Web resources that
include information about the kinds and proportions of questions on its
accountability tests.

Despite widespread misconceptions about what can be assessed with multiple-
choice items, the South Carolina tests include many items that assess higher
order thinking skills, and the standards for proficiency are challenging. Links to
these resources are printed below.

HSAP Blueprints:

http://ed.sc.gov/agency/offices/assessment/programs/hsap/blueprints.html


HSAP Rubrics:

http://ed.sc.gov/agency/offices/assessment/programs/hsap/hsaprubrics.html


HSAP Score Report Users Guide: (No 2011 Guide has been posted as of J uly
2011;however, changes would be minimal).

http://ed.sc.gov/agency/ac/Assessment/documents/2010_HSAP_UsersGuide.pdf


EOCEP Curriculum Standards:

http://ed.sc.gov/agency/offices/assessment/programs/endofcourse/standards.html


EOCEP Blueprints:

http://ed.sc.gov/agency/offices/assessment/programs/endofcourse/blueprints.html


PASS

Curriculum standards and test blueprints are located at the subject area links
under the heading, Where can I find more information and item samples for
each PASS test? at the following address:

http://ed.sc.gov/agency/ac/Assessment/PASS.html


Extended Response Scoring Rubric Grades 3 8 Updated 10/23/2008
SCORE 4

3 2 1


CONTENT /
DEVELOPMENT

Presents a clear central idea
about the topic
Fully develops the central idea
with specific, relevant details
Sustains focus on central idea
throughout the writing
Presents a central idea about
the topic
Develops the central idea but
details are general, or the
elaboration may be uneven
Focus may shift slightly, but is
generally sustained
Central idea may be unclear
Details need elaboration to
clarify the central idea
Focus may shift or be lost
causing confusion for the
reader
There is no clear central idea
Details are sparse and/ or
confusing
There is no sense of focus


ORGANIZATION



Has an effective introduction,
body, and conclusion
Provides a smooth
progression of ideas by using
transitional devices
throughout the writing
Has an introduction, body,
and conclusion
Provides a logical progression
of ideas throughout the
writing
Attempts an introduction,
body, and conclusion;
however, one or more of
these components could be
weak or ineffective
Provides a simplistic,
repetitious, or somewhat
random progression of ideas
throughout the writing
Attempts an introduction,
body, and conclusion;
however, one or more of these
components could be absent or
confusing
Presents information in a
random or illogical order
throughout the writing


VOICE




Uses precise and/or vivid
vocabulary appropriate for the
topic
Phrasing is effective, not
predictable or obvious
Varies sentence structure to
promote rhythmic reading
Shows strong awareness of
audience and task; tone is
consistent and appropriate
Uses both general and precise
vocabulary
Phrasing may not be effective,
and may be predictable or
obvious
Some sentence variety results
in reading that is somewhat
rhythmic; may be mechanical
Shows awareness of audience
and task; tone is appropriate
Uses simple vocabulary
Phrasing is repetitive or
confusing
Shows little or no sentence
variety; reading is monotonous
Shows little or no awareness of
audience and task; tone may
be inappropriate

CONVENTIONS



Provides evidence of a
consistent and strong
command of grade-level
conventions (grammar,
capitalization, punctuation,
and spelling)

Provides evidence of an
adequate command of grade-
level conventions (grammar,
capitalization, punctuation,
and spelling)

Provides evidence of a limited
command of grade-level
conventions (grammar,
capitalization, punctuation,
and spelling)

Provides little or no evidence of
having a command of grade-
level conventions (grammar,
capitalization, punctuation, and
spelling)

NOTE: This rubric MUST be used in conjunction with specific grade- level skills as outlined in the Composite Matrix for the Conventions of
Grammar, Mechanics of Editing, Revision and Organizational Strategies, and Writing Products (Appendix B of ELA Standards, 2008).
Blank B
Off Topic OT
Insufficient IS
Unreadable UR
Not Original NO

27
HSAP EXTENDED RESPONSE SCORING RUBRIC
28
SCORE CONTENT/DEVELOPMENT ORGANIZATION VOICE CONVENTIONS
4
Presents a clear central idea about the
topic
Fully develops the central idea with
specific, relevant details
Sustains focus on central idea
throughout the writing
Has a clear introduction, body, and
conclusion.
Provides a smooth progression of
ideas throughout the writing.
Minor errors in standard written English
may be present.
3
Presents a central idea about the topic
Develops the central idea but details
are general, or the elaboration may be
uneven
Focus may shift slightly, but is
generally sustained
Has an introduction, body, and
conclusion.
Provides a logical progression of
ideas throughout the writing.
Uses precise and/or vivid
vocabulary appropriate for the
topic
Phrasing is effective, not
predictable or obvious
Varies sentence structure to
promote rhythmic reading
Strongly aware of audience and
task; tone is consistent and
appropriate
Errors in standard written English may be
present; however, these errors do not
interfere with the writers meaning.
2
Central idea may be unclear
Details may be sparse; more
information is needed to clarify the
central idea
Focus may shift or be lost causing
confusion for the reader
Attempts an introduction, body,
and conclusion; however, one or
more of these components could be
weak or ineffective.
Provides a simplistic, repetitious,
or somewhat random progression
of ideas throughout the writing.
Uses both general and precise
vocabulary
Phrasing may not be effective,
and may be predictable or
obvious
Some sentence variety results in
reading that is somewhat
rhythmic; may be mechanical
Aware of audience and task; tone
is appropriate
A pattern of errors in more than one
category (e.g., capitalization, spelling,
punctuation, sentence formation) of
standard written English is present; these
errors interfere somewhat with the writers
meaning.
1
There is no clear central idea
Details are absent or confusing
There is no sense of focus
Attempts an introduction, body,
and conclusion; however, one or
more of these components could be
absent or confusing.
Presents information in a random
or illogical order throughout the
writing.
Uses simple vocabulary
Phrasing repetitive or confusing
There is little sentence variety;
reading is monotonous
There is little awareness of
audience and task; tone may be
inappropriate
Frequent and serious errors in more than
one category (e.g., capitalization, spelling,
punctuation, sentence formation) of
standard written English are present; these
errors severely interfere with the writers
meaning.
B Blank
Off Topic
Insufficient amount of original writing to evaluate
Unreadable or illegible
OT
IS
UR

For the purposes of scoring Conventions, interference is defined as that which would impede meaning for a reader other than an educator or professional reader.
29

Facilitator
A facilitator skillfully helps a group of people understand their common
objectives and plan to achieve them without personally taking any side of
the argument. The facilitator assists the group in achieving a consensus
on any disagreements that preexist or emerge in the meeting to create
strong basis for future action.

The role of a facilitator

Some of the things facilitators do to assist a meeting:
Helping participants show up prepared to contribute
Codifying the purpose, scope, and deliverables of the meeting or
workshop
Keeping the group on track to achieve its goals in the time
allotted
Either providing the group or helping the group decide what
ground rules it should follow and reminding them of these when
they are not followed
Reminding the group of the objectives or deliverables of the
meeting or session
Setting up a safe environment where members feel comfortable
contributing ideas
Guiding the group through processes designed to help them
listen to each other and create solutions together
Asking open-ended questions that stimulate thinking
Ensuring the group doesn't settle for the first thing that they can
agree on because they find it painful to go on disagreeing with
each other
Offering opportunities for less forceful members to come forward
with contributions
Ensuring that actions agreed upon by the group are assigned to
individuals
Team Roles
30
Timekeeper
A timekeeper is someone who skillfully keeps the meeting on a schedule.
Effective, time-efficient meetings are fast paced and productive. The
timekeeper moves the group through the different parts of the meeting.
The chief challenge is to keep members on track with clear concise
statements lasting no more that 20 seconds during the brain storming
section. Below is a suggested guideline of each part of the meeting.


Recorder
The recorder writes all ideas where participants can see, possibly on a flip
chart, chalkboard, smart board, or white board. If using a flipchart, post
(rather than flip back) each page as it is completed. The recorder may
question participants for clarity of submission. Actions agreed upon by the
group (the assessment and lesson plan) are recorded for all to see and
are assigned to individuals. The recorder also completes the Team
Learning Log or sees that it is completed by another team member.

Brainstorming Guidelines

Schmoker The Results Field Book pg. 136 31

The purpose of brainstorming is to produce as many good ideas
as possible in a fast-paced, positive setting. This step in a
focused improvement meeting includes the following:

Assign a recorder to ensure that the group keeps accurate notes of each
idea or strategy.

State the purpose or desired result of the team meeting, preferably in
writing.

Write each idea on a flip chart, chalkboard, or white board. If using a
flipchart, post rather than flip back, each page as it is completed.

Offer each person in the group in consecutive order the opportunity to
contribute one idea or strategy.

Give team members the option to pass when it is their turn to
contribute.

Keep each persons remarks as succinct as possible by limiting
comments to 20 seconds or less.

Do not criticize or discuss of ideas or strategies at this time.

Expect to piggyback or build on each others ideas to generate the
best strategies.
32
Warm and Cool Feedback

There are two types of feedback in this process. The first one is Warm
feedback. This feedback is termed warm because it is supportive in nature.
Warm feedback may include comments about how the work presented seems to
meet the desired goals and generally consists of supportive statements.

The second one is Cool feedback. Cool feedback is more critical. It may
consist of concise essential questions that are both supportive and challenging.
(i.e. Where are the gaps?; What are the problems here?) Teachers who have
experience using the Tuning Protocol suggest that softened statements for
Cool feedback are more comfortable for teachers who have agreed to take the
risk of presenting their work. For example, I wonder what would happen if
you tried this, is more acceptable than, I think you should have or ,Why
didnt you.?


Rewards, Recognition, and Celebration

Rewards, recognition, and celebration are important motivators. These three
things are indispensable elements of effective leadership. As we practice
collaborative planning with common formative assessments, we have to
celebrate small achievements. Typically teachers receive little recognition and
praise. When data from common assessments show even small gains, we need
to recognize and celebrate that. Here are a few ideas for rewards, recognition,
and celebration:

Charts posted in a prominent place
Announcements at faculty meetings
Newsletter articles
Thank-you notes
A free meal, (even at the school cafeteria)
Goofy grab bag gifts
Tickets to a movie
Book store gift certificate
Car wash passes purchased at a local car wash


The goal is to have staff members share an enthusiasm and focus that simply
did not exist in the school before, and regularly celebrating small achievements
helps build and maintain momentum.



Collaborative Planning Lesson Study Protocol

33
Preparation

The group leader must establish norms, meeting guidelines, and
protocols. This time is for collaborative planning, and independent work is
not permitted. The smallest allowable group is two people. In the
beginning, the grade level leader or department chair will organize the
planning. After the group norms are established, all of the roles in the
collaborative group can rotate. Planning for a larger group can rotate by
subject area, with all teachers collaborating in lesson and assessment
design, even though they are not currently teaching the subject under
consideration.

Prepare an agenda and decide on team roles (e.g., timekeeper, facilitator,
recorder). Inform appropriate people (such as department chairs, grade-
level leaders, school administrators, district subject level coordinators) of
the schedule. They may need to know what groups will be meeting and
what focus is planned.

Keep to the agenda, and eliminate announcements that are not critical to
the process.

Establish time limits for discussion. Teams can probably complete plans
and draft common assessments for two lessons in a two-hour session. A
time limit of one hour for each lesson will help to keep the process
focused.

Protocol

1. Follow Up: Begin with follow-up from the last collaborative planning
meeting. Engage members in a concise discussion of what worked, what
did not work, and how strategies can be refined. This can be done in 5-10
minutes.

Complete steps 2-4 in approximately 20 minutes. (The process will move
faster with practice.) Groups should be able to complete the process for
one lesson and assessment in about an hour. The goal for a two-hour
session would typically be to design two lessons with accompanying
assessments.

2. Chief Challenges: Identify a standard where your students need to
improve their skills (a relative weakness) that you plan to teach in the next
week or so. This ought to reflect the most urgent instructional concern,
problem, or obstacle to progress.

Teachers should use data that are relevant for their own students ,
including, but not limited to, state-mandated assessments (HSAP, PACT,
Collaborative Planning Lesson Study Protocol

34
EOCEP, revised SCRAPI for 2006-2007), other standardized
assessments (MAP, Explore, Plan, text levels, WorkKeys), teacher-made
assessments, IEPs, and grades. With practice, this can be done in 3-5
minutes.

3. Rough out an assessment for the lesson you plan to teach. Identify
what goes into an assessment of the standard by brainstorming the skills.

From the brainstorm, identify the crucial skills needed to master the
standard. The assessment doesn't have to be polished at this point, but
the design should be specific enough to show exactly what students will
have to do to demonstrate that they have mastered the standard. Be sure
you require students to do more than retrieve factual information. Make
sure they will be required to demonstrate higher-order cognitive
processes, such as application, understanding, analysis, and synthesis.

4. Plan a lesson designed to help as many students as possible succeed
on the assessment. Sketch the sequence and content of the lesson.
When applicable, the design phase may incorporate review of new
instructional materials.

5. Pretend you've taught the lesson and that it didn't work quite as well as
you'd have liked. Refine the assessment and the lesson.

6. Arrange to share copies of the lesson plan and the assessment for all
teachers in the target group to use. Agree on who will produce finished
copies of the assessment and lesson plan for team members and when
the lesson will be taught.

7. Before the next planning session, team members teach the lesson to
their classes and use the common assessment theyve designed to
determine what students have learned. Teachers summarize results for
their own classes. They look at more than grades. They reflect on
patterns. What concepts/skills did students master? What concepts/skills
were difficult for many students? What needs reteaching or further
development? Where do they need to focus next?

8. At the beginning of the next collaborative planning session (or sooner,
if there is opportunity), teachers compare results and analyses with those
of the other teachers in their group.





Adapted from Results Now, pp. 111-112.
Collaborative Planning Lesson Study Protocol

35

Accountability

Groups will keep brief minutes of who was present/absent and the topics
that were considered. They may either describe or attach lesson plans
and common assessments. A basic format for minutes is included in this
guide.

Administrators are expected to conduct walk-throughs on the collaborative
planning sessions. Expect them to stop by and listen for a few minutes. If
some groups need to see the process modeled and/or to keep the
momentum going, administrators may ask teachers to present the
lessons, the common assessments they've designed, and their analysis of
the results to other groups within the faculty.
The Tuning Protocol: A Process for Reflection on Teacher and Student Work


36
From the Coalition of Essential Schools

Authors: David Allen, Joe McDonald


The "tuning protocol" was developed by David Allen and Joe McDonald at the
Coalition of Essential Schools primarily for use in looking closely at student
exhibitions. Also, it is often used by teachers to look at the effectiveness of lessons.
In the outline below, unless otherwise noted, time allotments indicated are the
suggested minimum for each task.

I. Introduction [10 minutes]. Facilitator briefly introduces protocol goals, norms,
and agenda. Participants briefly introduce themselves.

II. Teacher Presentation [20 minutes]. Presenter describes the context for student
work (its vision, coaching, scoring rubric, etc.) and presents samples of student
work (such as photo- copied pieces of written work or video tapes of an exhibition).

III. Clarifying Questi ons [15 minutes maximum]. Facilitator judges if questions
more properly belong as warm or cool feedback than as clarifiers.

IV. Pause to reflect on warm and cool feedback [2-3 minutes maximum].
Participants make note of "warm," supportive feedback and 'cool," more distanced
comments
(generally no more than one of each).

V. Warm and Cool Feedback [15 minutes]. Participants among themselves share
responses to the work and its context; teacher-presenter is silent. Facilitator may
lend focus by reminding participants of an area of emphasis supplied by teacher-
presenter.

VI. Reflection/ Response [15 minutes]. Teacher-presenter reflects on and
responds to those comments or questions he or she chooses to. Participants are
silent. Facilitator may clarify or lend focus.

VII. Debrief [10 minutes]. Beginning with the teacher-presenter
("How did the protocol experience compare with what you expected?"), the group
discusses any frustrations, misunderstandings, or positive reactions participants
have experienced. More general discussion of the tuning protocol may develop.

Guidelines for Facilitators

1. Be assertive about keeping time. A protocol that doesn't allow for all the
components will do a disservice to the presenter, the work presented, and the
participants' understanding of the process. Don't let one participant monopolize.
The Tuning Protocol: A Process for Reflection on Teacher and Student Work


37
2. Be protective of teacher-presenters. By making their work more public, teachers
are exposing themselves to kinds of critiques they may not be used to.
Inappropriate comments or questions should be recast or withdrawn. Try to
determine just how "tough" your presenter wants the feedback to be.
3. Be provocative of substantive discourse. Many presenters may be used to
blanket praise. Without thoughtful but probing "cool" questions and comments, they
won't benefit from the tuning protocol experience. Presenters often say they'd have
liked more cool feedback.

Norms for Participants

1. Be respectful of teacher-presenters. By making their work more public, teachers
are exposing themselves to kinds of critiques they may not be used to.
Inappropriate comments or questions should be recast or withdrawn.
2. Contribute to substantive discourse. Without thoughtful but probing "cool"
questions and comments, presenters won't benefit from the tuning protocol
experience.
3. Be appreciative of the facilitator's role. particularly in regard to following the
norms and keeping time. A tuning protocol that doesn't allow for all components
(presentation, feedback, response, debrief) to be enacted properly will do a
disservice both to the teacher-presenters and to the participants.

Allen, D. and McDonald, J. (2003). The tuning protocol: A process for reflection on
teacher and student work. Retrieved August 4, 2006 from Coalition of
Essential Schools National Web site:
http://www.essentialschools.org/cs/resources/view/ces_res/54
The Consultancy Protocol

38
The Consultancy Protocol

(Also called the California Protocol or Reflecting with Critical Friends)

Many teachers in California's Coalition member schools routinely use the tuning
protocol to surface issues arising from close examination of student work. But the
state's Restructuring Initiative, which funds some 150 schools attempting whole-
school reforms, has also adapted and expanded the protocol for a new purpose to
examine how such issues relate to the larger school organization and its aims, and
to summarize and assess its progress. Instead of having teachers present student
work, the California Protocol has a school's "analysis team" work through an
important question (possibly using artifacts from their work) in the presence of a
group of reflectors, as follows:

The moderator welcomes participants and reviews the purpose, roles, and
guidelines for the Protocol [5 minutes]

Anal ysis

1. Analysis Team provides an introduction including an essential question that will
be the focus of the analysis. [5 minutes]
2. Reflectors ask brief questions for clarification, and the Analysis Team responds
with succinct information. [5 minutes]
3. Analysis Team gives its analysis. [25 minutes]
4. Reflectors ask brief questions for clarification, and the Analysis Team responds
with succinct clarifying information about the Analysis. [5 minutes)

Feedback

1. Reflectors form groups of 4 to 6 to provide feedback; one member of each is
chosen to chart warm, cool, and hard feedback. The Reflector Groups summarize
their feedback as concise essential questions (cool and hard feedback) and
supportive statements (warm feedback). Each group posts the chart pages as they
are completed so Analysis Team Members can see them. [15 minutes]
2. The Analysis Team observes and listens in on the feedback process. They may
also wish to caucus informally as the feedback emerges and discuss which points
to pursue in the Reflection time to follow.
3. Each Reflector Group shares one or two supportive statements and essential
questions that push further thought. [5 minutes]

Team Reflection and Planning

The Analysis Team engages in reflection, planning, and discussion with one
another (rather than in direct response to the Reflectors). Everyone else in the
room observes silently as members of the Analysis Team reveal how they reflect,
think, plan, and adjust.
The Consultancy Protocol

39

Dialogue

The Analysis Team and the Reflectors engage in an open conversation about the
school's work. [10 minutes]

Debrief and Closure
Moderator facilitates an open discussion and debriefing of the
experience of the Protocol among all participants. [10 minutes]
This resource last updated: January 21, 2003




Retrieved August 4, 2006 from Coalition of Essential Schools National Web site:
http://www.essentialschools.org/cs/resources/view/ces_res/54







Effective 30-Minute Meeting Protocol
Schmoker, Mike Based on The Results Fieldbook 2001 40

What worked: (5-10 Minutes): Each team member explains
how well the identified strategy selected by the team at the
previous meeting worked or how it can be refined?

Chief Challenges: (3-5 Minutes): What is the most urgent
instructional concern, problem, or obstacle to progress and to
better results? Identify a common area of opportunity. (i.e.
Increase silent reading time, or an area of under performance
identified by data.)

Proposed solutions: (8-10 Minutes): Suggest practical
solutions to these identified problems. Brainstorm using the
brainstorming guidelines.

Action Plan: (10 Minutes): Decide which solutions or
strategies might be best for the team to focus on and implement
between now and the next meeting. Produce copies of the
assessment and plan to all team members. If agreement does
not emerge quickly, rank-order voting can help speed up this
process. At times, Members of the team may plan to share or
develop materials or assessments later. A memo or reminder
may be necessary in the beginning.

Goal-oriented meetings that follow this model permit every
team member to contribute to and learn from the expertise of
the group which results in better instruction and improved
results.

THE EDUCATION ALLIANCE at Brown University
Changing Systems to Personalize Learning: Teaching to Each Student
Connections
Connections is a way for people to build a bridge from where they are or have been (mentally,
physically, etc.) to where they are going and what they will be doing. It is a time for individuals to
reflectwithin the context of a groupupon a thought, a story, an insight, a question, or a feeling
that they are carrying with them into the session, and then to connect it to the work they are about
to do. Most people engage in Connections at the beginning of a meeting, class, or gathering.
There are a few things to emphasize about Connections for it to go well
It is about connecting peoples thoughts to the work they are doing or are about to do.
Silence is ok, as is using the time to write or just sit and think. Assure people that they
will spend a specific amount of time in Connections, whether or not anyone speaks
out loud. Some groupsand people within groupsvalue the quiet, reflective times
above all else.
If an issue the group clearly wants to respond to comes up in Connections, the group
can decide to make time for a discussion about the issue after Connections is over.
The rules for Connections are quite simple:
Speak if you want to.
Dont speak if you dont want to.
Speak only once until everyone who wants to has had a chance to speak.
Listen and note what people say but do not respond. Connections is not the time to
engage in a discussion.
Facilitating the process is also straightforward. Begin by saying Connections is open, and let
people know how long it will last. A few minutes before time is up, let people know that there are a
few minutes remaining, so that anyone who hasnt yet spoken might speak. With a minute or so to
go, let the group know that you will be drawing Connections to a close and ask again if anyone who
hasnt spoken would like to speak. Before ending, ask if anyone who has spoken would like to speak
again. Then, end.
Ten minutes is usually enough time for groups of 10 people or fewer, 15 minutes for groups of 11
20 people and 20 minutes for any groups larger than 20 people. Connections generally shouldnt last
more than 20 minutes. People cant sustain it. The one exception is where there is a group that has
been together for a period of time doing intensive work and it is the last or next to last day of their
gathering.
Some people will say that Connections is misnamed, because people dont connect to (or build on)
what other people have said. However, the process is a connecting one; and powerful connections
can still occur even though they are not necessarily the result of back and forth conversation.
Source: National School Reform Faculty. Reprinted with permission.
41
Team L ear n i n g L o g
Source: Schmoker, M. Workshop, Columbia, South Carolina, 2006 42
School______________________

Teacher-Led Collaborative Planning Report Form

Date:
Grade/Dept/Group:
Facilitator:
Recorder:
Timekeeper:
Present: Absent:

TARGETED STANDARD/AREA OF WEAKNESS (from a state or local assessment)
{e.g. Add/subtract decimals and fractions identify authors bias}
_______________________________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________________________
COMMON ASSESSMENT: TO EVALUATE INSTRUCTIONAL SOLUTION (briefly
describe what students must know and be able to do)
_______________________________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________________________
INSTRUCTIONAL SOLUTION: BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF LESSON UNIT/STRATEGY
(that addresses the above area of weakness)
_______________________________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________________________
SHORT-TERM RESULTS (1-4 WEEK CYCLE): MEASURABLE IMPACT OF SOLUTION
(This can only be filled out AFTER an assessment has been given, e.g. 62% of our
students or 17 of 28 students mastered the targeted standard)
_______________________________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________________________
ADJUSTMENTS TO INSTRUCTION (IF RESULTS ARENT SATISFACTORY)
_______________________________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________________________
43

Date:

Grade/Dept/Group:

Facilitator:

Recorder:
Present: Absent:
School ___________________________

Collaborative Planning
Learning Log
(To be completed by each planning group that meets)














Identified Instructional Issue:






Discussion:






Targeted Instructional and Assessment Strategies:






Additional Comments:





44



2012-2013 Special Request Form
for
Collaborative Planning Meetings Outside of Base Schools
Send to Gloria Talley, Chief Academic Officer, Instructional Services @ gtalley@lexington1.net


Collaborative Planning Date for Special Request:

Group Requesting to Meet Together:




Facilitator for the Group:

Facilitators School:

Facilitators Email Address:

Facilitators Phone Number:

Names of Teachers to Participate:





Location of Meeting:

Focus of the Meeting:











Approval Granted by:


(Note: After the planning session the facilitator should send each participant a copy of the
Collaborative Planning Log to give their principal. This will serve as documentation of how the
collaborative planning time was spent.)
45

Suggested Resources for 2012-2013

21
st
Century Skills: Rethinking How Students Learn ((Eds.
Bellanca, J ohn and Brandt, Ron) ISBN-10: 1935249908,
ISBN-13: 978-1935249900
Ahead of the Curve (DuFour, DuFour, et. al), - ISBN 978-1-
934009-06-2 - Sequel to On Common Ground
Assessment Strategies for Self-Directed Learning (Costa &
Kallick ISBN 9780761938712)
Better Learning through Structured Teaching: A Gradual
Release of Responsibility Model (Fisher & Frey ISBN 978-
1-4166-0635-2)
Classroom Assessment for Student Learning (Stiggins
ISBN 0-9655101-5-8)
Delivering on the Promise: The Education Revolution
(DeLorenzo, Battino, Schreiber, Gaddy-Cario ISBN-10:
1934009423, ISBN-13: 978-1934009420
Drive (Pink) ISBN-13: 9781594488849; ISBN: 1594488843
Five Dysfunctions of a Team(Lencioni ISBN 0-7879-
6075-6)
How to Grade for Learning (OConnor I SBN 978-1-
57517-816-5)
Whatever I t Takes (DuFour, DuFour, Eaker, Karhanek
ISBN 978-1-932127-28-7)
Learning by Doing (DuFour, DuFour, Eaker, Many ISBN
978-1-932127-93-5)
Pyramid of I nterventions (Solution Tree - ISBN 978-
1934009-33-8)
The Collaborative Teacher - (Solution Tree ISBN 978-1-
934009-36-9)
The Collaborative Administrator (Solution Tree ISBN
978-193-4009-37-6)
The Leader in Me (Covey ) ISBN-13: 978-1935249900
46

The Power of Protocols: An Educators Guide to Better
Practice (McDonald, et al., ISBN 978-0-8077-4769-8)
Revisiting Professional Learning Communities at Work
(Solution Tree ISBN 978-1-934009-32-1)
Through New Eyes Video on Systematic Interventions
Trust Matters: Leadership for Successful Schools
(Tschannen-Moran ISBN 0-7879-7434-X)
The Self-directed Learning Handbook (Gibbons, ISBN 0-
7879-5955-3)
Twenty-four Hours in the Life of a Digital Native Video
on 21st century digital learning
(www.teachertube.com/view_video.php)

Free videos www.walkthetalk.com

Resources for Leaders - www.allthingsplc.info

TAB 3
Collaboration in Action tab goes here.

Table of Contents

Teacher Led













Tab 1
Framework for
Teacher-Led
Collaborative
Planning
1


Tab 2
Teamwork
Tool Kit
2


TAB 3
Collaboration in
Action
3