Pre-Conference Presentation A Major Grant Empowers PDS Initiative

1
Pre-Conference Presentation A Major Grant
Empowers PDS Initiative
Thursday, March 29, 2007 130pm - 430pm

• PRESENTERS
• Georgia State University
• Dr. Gwen Benson, Dr. Dee Taylor, Dr. Bill
  Curlette, Dr. Susan Ogletree, Dr. Susan
  McClendon, Dr. Brian Williams,
• Dr. Joseph Feinberg, and Patsy Terry
• Atlanta Public Schools
• Qualyn McIntyre
• Partnership Schools
• Will Bradley and Vivian Randolph/Woodland MS,
  Carolyn Hall and Karen Ross/ Kimberly ES,
• Andrew Foster/Meadowcreek HS

2
Opening Remarks Dr. Gwen Benson and Dr. Dee
Taylor
3
Transitioning into Professional Development
Schools An Urban University and Urban School
Systems ModelPDS2 Professional Development
School Partnerships Deliver Success
GRANT 5.8 million/ 5 years/ US Dept. of
Education RECIPIENTS GSUs College of Arts and
Sciences and College of
Education GOAL To partner with our urban
school systems Atlanta City Schools, and
Fulton, Gwinnett, and DeKalb Counties to Create
Professional Development Schools (PDS).

4
Expected Outcomes

• Increased production and retention of new
  teachers (especially underrepresented groups)
• Increased student achievement
• Professional renewal for all PDS participants

5
Transitioning into Professional Development
Schools An Urban University and Urban School
Systems ModelPDS2 Professional Development
School Partnerships Deliver Success
PDS Model Sample
6
PDS Organizational Chart
7
GSU Dean of the College of Education
Donna Lowry Interview with Dean Colarusso
8
PDS Promises How to Stand and Deliver
9
(No Transcript)
10
University Faculty asked

• How do we access schools for
• possible research?

11
Research Department asked

• How to ensure effective evaluation and not
  over-assess

12
School Administrators asked

• How will PDS translate into increased student
  achievement?
• How will PDS be a presence in my school without
  being invasive to school routine?

13
School Faculty asked

• How will PDS support my professional development
  and funding of my university classes?
• Will I be compensated for my work?

14
Inquiry Projects

• Inquiry Project Overview
• Inquiry Projects help to facilitate the ongoing
  professional learning and to incorporate the
  recommendations of Nation Council for
  Accreditation of Teacher Education (NCATE) to
  engage in continuous learning and self study
  (NCATE, 2001) the university implemented Inquiry
  Projects in 2000.
• The Inquiry Project involves schools forming
  study groups to explore topics of interest or
  concern. The process normally involves a
  selection of the topic through either a review of
  the school Southern Association of Colleges and
  Schools (SACS) report or a survey of the faculty
  followed by a literature review to further
  explore the topic.
• Surveys of the faculty, parents, or students may
  also be conducted to gain additional insight.
  Faculty members from the university serve as
  members of the inquiry teams or as resources as
  needed during the inquiry process. Schools are
  encouraged to implement finding of the inquiry
  projects within their school and to share their
  findings with the other schools in the PDS
  network.

15
Inquiry Projects Input From University and
School-Based Coordinators

• Elementary Level
• Inquiry study could provide teacher empowerment,
  shared responsibility, equal voice, and a moral
  booster
• Problem solving with the goals of personal,
  professional, and community growth
• Use of natural resources such as staff,
  community, and university
• Facilitate the school as a learning community in
  the following ways
• Staff feels connected/vested
• Professionalism
• Improve student achievement
• Systematic approach to solving/addressing
  problems
• Middle School Level
• Grassroots on issues that are important
• Learning environment for teachers and students
• Implement change at the school level
• Issues are addressed and maybe solved
• Direct effect on instruction
• Collaboration among teachers (and administration)
• Create a sense of community
• Individual Reflection
• High School Level

16
The State asked

• How will PDS ensure the training and retention of
  teachers dedicated to urban education?

17
The Federal Funders asked

• How will you show the funds are rendering results?

18
GSU Graduates/First Year Teachers asked

• Am I prepared for teaching?

1st Year teacher, Katie, of Nesbit ES
19
The PDS Design Team asked

• How do we keep the many stakeholders onboard and
  motivated while turning that PDS passion into PDS
  action?

20
PDS Research Dr. Bill Curlette and Dr. Susan
Ogletree
21
Evaluation Approaches Measurement
Research Linked
Data Lessons Learned from Evaluation
First Year of Implementation
22
Overview of Evaluation Presentation

• 1. Evaluation Approaches and Research Design
  Including Output and Outcome Measures
• First Year Implementation Data Summary
• Formative Evaluation (Process) Recommendations

23
Evaluation Approaches and Design Evaluation
Approaches

• Context, Input, Process, Product (CIPP) Model
  (Stufflebeam) Four Evaluations
• Logic Model (Wholey, Patton) Flowchart with
  Rational (Often Best Practices)
• Utilization Focused (Patton) Higher
  Utilization if involve Stakeholders

24
Logic Model
Note Arrows Represent Major Relationships
25
Context Demographics of Participating School
Systems
School District Total Enrollment Students on Free/ Reduced Lunch African American Latino White
Atlanta Public Schools 50,536  71 87 4 8
DeKalb Co. Schools 97,282  61 77 7 10
Fulton Co. Schools 74,041 33 39 9 42
Gwinnett Co. Schools 134,761 34 23 18 37
Governors Office of Student Achievement (2005).
State of Georgia Annual Report Card on K-12
Public Schools. Online Link (APS
Presented) http//reportcard2005.gaosa.org/k12/dem
ographics.aspX?ID761ALLTestKeyEnRTestTypedem
ographics
26
Input Overview of Intervention

• SCHOOL LEVEL INTERVENTION
• -- Grant support
• -- 12 to 15 University Faculty Coordinators
• -- School Interns
• Arts Sciences faculty involved
• Scholarships (40 per year for students in three
  Univ.)
• Needs Evaluation
• Summer Retreats - PDS goals and school strategic
  plan
• -- Educational Support for K-12 Teachers
  Pathways
• --Teacher Support Specialist Training
• Courses for K-12 teachers
• Resources Books materials from the PDS2 Grant
• Evaluation Coordinators in each School System

27
Quasi-Experimental Design

• Entries in the cells are outcome measurements
  such as CRCT, Constructed Response and Student
  Surveys
• Schools are matched on free and reduced lunch,
  ethnicity, and previous academic achievement

Baseline Year 2005
School Systems 12 PDS Schools E M H 12 Comparison Schools E M H
Atlanta
DeKalb
Fulton
Gwinnett
28
Baseline Equality of PDS and CS on CRCT for ELA

• PDS and CS Graph Plotting Proportions of Students
  in a School in Basic Category by School on CRCT
  2004-05 Reading and English/Language Arts

29
Process and Product Evaluation Measurement
Instruments

• 41 Item Student Survey in grades 4, 8, 11
• 133 Item Paper and Pencil Teacher Survey for
  teachers in grades 4, 8, 11
• Internet Survey for all Teachers (approx. 15
  background items and 95 items on PDS Fidelity of
  Implementation Survey)
• Georgia CRCT and HSGT Statewide Achievement Tests
  (multiple choice only)
• Constructed Response Exercises for Student
  Achievement (open ended responses) in grades 4,
  8, 11
• Principal, Teacher, and Student Interviews

30
Example of Constructed Response Exercise

• Madison pulled her winter jacket tightly around
  her. She tried to make herself feel warm by
  thinking about the cozy fireplace back at her
  house. Just then, Madison noticed her mothers
  friend, Mrs. Russell, pull up in her car. Mrs.
  Russell looked at her soaking wet, cold neighbor
  and said, My goodness, Madison, you look like
  you really need a ride home! Madison happily
  got in and thanked Mrs. Russell. Then Madison
  began to tell Mrs. Russell how she had ended up
  in that soggy situation.
• Had Madison expected that type of weather?
• How do you know?
• Write a paragraph to explain what you think
  happens next.

31
Linked Data Example

• Relationships of CRCT to Student Survey Items
  (Home Internet Access and Hours of Homework/Week)
• Linked Georgia Department of Education
  Achievement Data to Student Survey Data From PDS2
  Grant
• Research Coordinators in Schools have access to
  student records and provide New ID

32
CRCT Science Means by Home Internet Access and
Hours of Homework/Week Example of Linking
33
Teacher Composite Survey Item 41(Feedback
Provided to Each School)

• Overview Professional Development Needs
• ESOL inclusion
• Training on IEP
• Motivation techniques for special needs children
• Cooperative learning strategies
• Leadership skills and team building
• Classroom management techniques
• Integrating technology in the classroom
• Language training (e.g., Spanish Vietnamese)
• Time management and organizational skills
• Differentiated instruction

34
2. First Year Implementation Data Summary
Professional Development Schools and Comparison
Schools
35
Teacher Retention
New Teacher Retention in Same Schools for Atlanta Public Schools New Teacher Retention in Same Schools for Atlanta Public Schools New Teacher Retention in Same Schools for Atlanta Public Schools
Schools New Teachers in 2003-2004 cohort returning in 2004-05 (2 yr retained) New Teachers in 2003-2004 cohort returning in 2005-06 (3 yr retained)
PDS 14/16 or 87.5 7/16 or 43.8
CS 12/17 or 70.5 7/17 or 41.1
36
Essentially no difference between PDS and CS
schools at baseline and no difference after year
1 (except for homework hours)
Student and Teacher Data from Survey of Teachers
and Students in Grades 4, 8, and 11 in both PDS
and CS
37
Students Self-Reported Efficacy for English
Math
Group Statistics

• I am certain I can master the skills taught in
  this class. (English, Math)
• Scale 1 (Strongly Disagree) 4 (Strongly Agree)
• No practical difference between the PDS and
  Comparison Schools

Subject Group N Mean SD SE
English Year 1 Comparison PDS Schools 801 621 3.26 3.22 .675 .649 .024 0.26
English Year 2 Comparison PDS Schools 777 1201 3.27 3.27 .637 .658 .023 .019
Math Year 1 Comparison PDS Schools 763 599 3.23 3.20 .736 .728 .027 .030
Math Year2 Comparison PDS Schools 739 1122 3.25 3.19 .735 .710 .027 .021
38
Table 9 Teacher Self Efficacy for Year 1
Compared to Baseline Year(Measured on a 6 point
scale with higher scores indicating more
efficacy. No statistically significance
difference between means.)
Baseline Baseline Baseline End of Year 1 End of Year 1 End of Year 1
Subscale N Mean SD N Mean SD Difference
PE PDS PE CS 94 66 4.67 4.61 .656 .721 93 64 4.60 4.66 .596 .716 -.09 .05
TE PDS TE CS 93 66 3.84 3.78 .951 1.05 93 64 3.97 3.88 .824 .948 .13 .10
Teacher Efficacy Scale has two sub scales
Teacher Efficacy scale (TE) and Personal Efficacy
scale (PE). Teacher Efficacy Scale essentially
showed no practical difference between the PDSs
and CSs.
39
Academic Behavior Related to Homework During
Year 1

• Homework hours/week by group
• Beginning of Year 2, there was no statistically
  significant association. Last year (baseline),
  there was a statistically significant
  association. Last year, more students in the
  6-10 hour category of comparison schools reported
  higher numbers of hours spent on homework. Note
  that 83 of the students across both the PDS and
  CS spent 2 hours or less per week doing homework
  during year 1.

Homework Hours per Week During Year 1
lt1 hour 1-2 hours 3-5 hours 6-10 hours Total
Comparison Schools Count Expected Count 240 240.1 385 394.7 104 97.6 35 33.1 767 767.0
PDS Schools Count Expected Count 370 369.9 618 608.3 144 150.4 49 50.9 1182 1182.0
Total Count Expected Count 610 610.0 1003 1003.0 248 248.0 84 84.0 1949 1949.0
40
Overview of Constructed Response Exercises

• Alternate way to measure student achievement
  other than multiple choice tests 4 items given
  in 4, 8, 11 grades
• Two raters who were certified teachers judged
  each item (interjudge agreement over 95)
• A few high school year 2 items had some revisions
  (but same items for both PDS and CS groups)
• No statistically significant differences
  results slightly favor PDS especially in science

41
Constructed ResponseExercises
English / Language Arts English / Language Arts English / Language Arts
Mean SD Difference
Year 1 PDS 2.32 1.22
Year 2 PDS 2.54 1.37 0.22
Year 1 CS 2.32 1.29
Year 2 CS 2.43 1.38 0.11
42
Constructed ResponseExercises
Mathematics Mathematics
Mean SD Difference
Year 1 PDS 1.78 1.16
Year 2 PDS 2.38 1.49 0.60
Year 1 CS 1.92 1.21
Year 2 CS 2.51 1.43 0.59
43
Constructed ResponseExercises
Science
Mean SD Difference
Year 1 PDS 1.83 0.968
Year 2 PDS 2.04 1.12 0.21
Year 1 CS 1.79 1.08
Year 2 CS 1.88 1.16 0.09
44
Student Achievement Using Georgia CRCT in Science
and Mathematics in PDS and Comparison Schools
forFirst Year of Implementation Across Systems
45
Methodology

• Quasi-experimental design used with Matching on
  achievement and demographic variables
• Data set included 26,529 students
• Mathematics and science scaled scores were
  dependent variables on CRCT HSGT
• Change in Statewide Curriculum from Quality Core
  Curriculum (QCC) to Georgia Performance Standards
  (GPS) during study. ELA scores not comparable
  from baseline to year 1.
• Year, treatment, and ethnicity were independent
  variables

46
Evaluation Questions

• 1. How does the PDS2 model affect mean student
  achievement in mathematics and science as
  measured by the CRCT and HSGT?
• 2. Are there significant differences in mean
  achievement test scores between PDS2 feeder
  pattern schools and control schools?

47
Evaluation Questions 1 2

• Expected no increase in academic achievement in
  PDS2 schools.
• There was no significant difference between
  baseline and Year 1 PDS2 schools or between PDS2
  schools and comparison schools data in academic
  achievement in content or by racial/ethnic group.
  There was some variation among schools.

48
Evaluation Question 3

• From the baseline year to the end of the first
  year, how many PDS2 and comparison schools have
  changed their Adequate Yearly Progress status and
  in what direction?
• Expected there to be more PDS2 schools meeting
  AYP.
• While there were shifts in the schools that made
  or did not make AYP, there was no overall change.
  Two schools, one PDS and one comparison, were
  going into their 6th year of failure. There was
  variation was among schools.

49
Evaluation Question 4

• Is there a mean difference between ethnic groups
  on the scaled scores of the CRCT and HSGT for
  mathematics and science?
• Expected a narrowing of the achievement gap.
• Academic gaps were identified between
  ethnicities. However, in this data set there was
  no statistically significant closure of the gaps.

50
Evaluation Question 5

• From the baseline year CRCT and HSGT to the end
  of the first year within a given ethnic group, is
  there a mean difference in scaled scores on the
  CRCT and HSGT for mathematics or science?
• Expected there to be an increase in the mean
  difference for ethnic groups in scaled scores.
• While no significant mean differences were
  found, there was a slight increase in all of the
  ethnic groups means.

51
Evaluation Question 6

• From the baseline year CRCT and HSGT to the end
  of the first year within a given ethnic group, is
  there a correlation between the proportion
  passing change on the CRCT and HSGT for
  mathematics or science and Hedgess g effect
  size?
• A small positive correlation was expected.
• There was no correlation between the scale score
  changes and proportion changes based on the cut
  score for passing. Was lack of correlation due to
  randomness or actually no relationships? In
  either case, reporting both change score measures
  is needed.

52
Policy Implications

• GA DOE only reports pass rate based on
  predetermined cut scores (Reporting method
  encourages teachers to teach to the bubble).
• NCLB This Research Suggests Dual Reporting of
  Both Year to Year Differences in Pass Rates and
  Year to Year Differences in Mean Scaled Scores
  is Needed

53
Discussion of CRCT Results

• Difficult to obtain difference in achievement
  test scores over systems - reform rarely occurs
  in a short period of time (Southern Regional
  Education Board, 2006)
• Give consideration to the level of development of
  the PDS Takes many years to fully implement PDS
  programs

54
3. Formative Evaluation (Process)
Recommendations

• 1. Revise the Implementation from School - wide
  to both School-wide and more focused through
  Teacher-Intern - Professor (TIP) Groups
• 2. Employ PDS Differential Implementation
  Fidelity Inventory (PDS DIF-I)
• 3. Use both pass rates on achievement tests
  (meeting AYP) and scaled scores
• 4. Continue refining the partnership in the areas
  of evaluation and research

55
Process (Formative Evaluation) Result after
first year is to suggest Teacher-Intern-Professor
(TIP) Groups

• Several Cooperating Teachers with student
  teaching Interns meet with university professor
  twice each month Agrees with recommendation
  of External Evaluator
• Extending Internship to one year under
  consideration
• Mini-Grants for TIP Group Project (e.g., Action
  Research)
• TIP Group aligns with NCATE PDS Standards
• Mixed methods research study is being planned

56
PDS Differential Implementation Fidelity
Inventory (PDS DIF-I)

• How much differential implementation constitutes
  fidelity of implementation?
• 95 Items for Teachers responded to with Yes,
  No, or Unsure.
• During the last year
• 1. I worked with university faculty who were
  interested in my research questions.
• 2. I provided feedback to a university about
  curriculum and teacher education.

57
Conclusions for System-Wide Formative Evaluation
Moving Ahead

• Teacher-Intern-Faculty Level of PDS
  Implementation due to result across Four School
  Systems Essentially No Change in Student
  Achievement although Some Schools Increased and
  Some Decreased during the first year of
  implementation.
• Interest in PDS Grant Program Increased (e.g. 38
  increased in students taking Constructed Response
  Exercises, additional schools became PDS schools).

58
Conclusions for System-Wide Formative Evaluation
Moving Ahead

• PDS Differential Implementation of
  Fidelity-Inventory created and will be used to
  better describe PDS Interventions
• Recommend not only proportion passing but
  reporting of mean scaled scores on Internet
• Partnership activities are increasing

59
Kimberly Elementary Ms. Carolyn Hall, Ms. Karen
Ross, and Dr. Brian Williams
60
L. O. Kimberly Elementary School

• An urban elementary school with a population of
  406 students in grades pre-kindergarten through
  fifth grade.
• 87 free and/or reduced lunch
• 99 of our students are African-American
• 36 mobility rate

61
L. O. Kimberly Elementary School

• L.O. Kimberly has achieved distinction as a
  Distinguished Title I School by achieving
  Adequate Yearly Progress for the fourth
  consecutive year.

62
L. O. Kimberly Elementary School

• At L. O. Kimberly Elementary School the students,
  parents, and staff are committed to ensuring that
  each child reach 100 proficiency in
  Reading/Language Arts and Math on the CRCT by
  school year 2013-2014.

63
L. O. Kimberly Elementary School

• Our Atlanta Public School targets include
• Increasing the percent of students scoring in
  the upper quartile (75-100) on the CRCT.
• Reducing the percent of students scoring in the
  lower quartile (0- 25) on the CRCT.

64
L. O. Kimberly Elementary SchoolPDS Goals
2006-2007

• Tutoring Program
• Homework Help-Reading/Math
• Professional Development
• Collaborative Lesson Planning (Science and Math)
• Parental Involvement
• Math/ Science Workshops

65
L. O. Kimberly Elementary School Fourth Grade
Research Project 2006

• In 2006, The survey indicated that the teachers
  wanted the following professional development to
  enhance student achievement.

• Pedagogical - focused on differentiation,
  critical thinking, concept-based unit planning,
  and teaching diverse learners
• Personal Growth - focused on time management and
  organization
• Integrating Technology - focused on integrating
  technology in the classroom
• Institutional Issues - adequate time to study
  standards during planning and teacher issued
  laptops

66
L. O. Kimberly Elementary School Fourth Grade
Research Project 2007

• In 2007, The survey indicated that the teachers
  wanted the following professional development to
  enhance student achievement.

• Pedagogical - focused on writing effective lesson
  plans, and organizational strategies
• Content - training on teaching all content areas
  in the allotted time during the day
• Institutional Issues - more planning time without
  interruptions, flexibility with lesson planning
  and teaching methods teacher issued laptops

67
L. O. Kimberly Elementary SchoolMathematics
Science Preparation

• Collaborative Lesson Planning
• Grade level teams meet to collaboratively plan
  math and science lessons together. The teachers
  then observe the delivering of the lesson.
  Teachers then meet again to discuss the lesson.
• Science Professional Development
• Grade level teams meet to discuss and learn about
  best practices in science teaching.

68
L. O. Kimberly Elementary SchoolMathematics
Science Preparation

• Science Co-Teaching
• Teachers work with the PDS liaison to teach
  engaging science lessons to students.
• Distribution of Science Resources
• Science resources (e.g. microscopes, simple
  machines, rocks) were moved from a central
  location and distributed to teachers throughout
  the school.

69
L. O. Kimberly Elementary SchoolMathematics
Endorsement

• Presently, we have ten teachers enrolled in the
  Math Endorsement course that GSU teaches at our
  school.
• Eight teachers from other APS school also
  participate in the course.
• All of the Math Endorsement participants will
  participate in a PRISM study to evaluate the
  impact of the endorsement on math instruction.

70
L. O. Kimberly Elementary SchoolParent
Initiatives

• Muffins for Mom
• Donuts for Dad
• Science Fair Parent Workshop
• Father-Daughter Dance
• Parent Math Science Workshops

71
L. O. Kimberly Elementary SchoolTutoring Program

• Stinger Academy
• Great Leaps Fluency Program
• GSU Student interns

72
Woodland Middle Mr. William Bradley, Ms. Vivian
Randolph, and Dr. Susan McClendon
73
Woodland Middle School A Title I and
Professional Development School
Home of the Wolverines Where Teaching and
Learning Come First William W. Bradley,
Principal2816 Briarwood Boulevard East Point,
Georgia 30344 404-346-6420
Nestled in a residential neighborhood, only a few
minutes from Kimberly Elementary, is Woodland
Middle School where there is a definite focus on
teaching and learning. Woodland is the only
school in Georgia where all faculty and support
staff are members of professional learning and
cross-career learning communities. Just three
years ago, Woodland was the only school in the
Fulton County School District in
Needs-Improvement Year Four. With its urban
population, high poverty and mobility rates and
low test scores, Woodland was on the brink of
restructuring by the state. Today, Woodland is
progressing as one of the better urban middle
schools in the state and is on the verge of
distinction.
74
About the Fulton County School System Where
Students Come First

• Founded in 1871, the Fulton County School System
  is one of the oldest and largest school districts
  in Georgia. With a focus on student achievement
  and a commitment to continual improvement, Fulton
  has earned a reputation as a premier school
  system. This long history of excellence is
  evidenced by the many state and national honors
  bestowed on Fulton's schools, staff and students.
• The system serves the area of Fulton County
  outside the city limits of Atlanta. In addition
  to unincorporated areas, Fulton County Schools
  serve the cities of Alpharetta, College Park,
  East Point, Fairburn, Hapeville, Mountain Park,
  Palmetto, Roswell, Sandy Springs and Union City.
• As the fourth largest school system in Georgia,
  Fulton has more than 11,000 full-time employees,
  including more than 6,100 teachers and other
  certified personnel, who work in 90 schools and
  15 administrative and support buildings. During
  the 2006-07 school year, more than 82,600
  students will attend classes in 53 elementary
  schools, 18 middle schools, 12 high schools, two
  open campus high schools, and five charter
  schools. Two elementary schools operate on
  year-round calendars.

75
Abbreviated ProfileFulton County Schools

• The 10 Key Performance Indicators below are the
  districts standardized metrics for evaluating
  and comparing schools, grade levels, NCLB
  Subgroups, and more.
• Student Attendance and Enrollment Totals
• Total enrollment 82, 936
• Average daily attendance (year-to-date) 96.1
• Students chronically absent(percentage)
  5.3
• Students chronically tardy (percentage) 5.1
  
• Limited English Proficient (percent of
  enrollment) 6.0
• Special education programs (percent of
  enrollment) 12.0
• Student Academic Performance
• CRCT Mathematics Summative Results 06 (
  proficient grades 1-8) 87.0
• CRCT Literacy Summative Results 06 ( proficient
  grades 1-8) 91.0
• CRCT Social Studies Summative Results 06 (
  proficient grades 3-8) 91.0
• CRCT Science Summative Results 06 ( proficient
  grades 3-8) 81.0

76
Target Comparison Schools Demographic Data
Attendance Enrollment
Mobility, ED, F/R Lunch
77
Comparison Of Summative CRCT Assessment Data
Target Grade Level Performances 06
78
4 Year Comparison of Summative CRCT Assessment
Data Mathematics
79
4 Year Comparison of CRCT Summative Assessment
Data L/A Reading
80
Academic Indicator Writing Pre-Test Results
81
Academic Indicator Writing Results
82
Professional Learning Collaborative Model
83
The Surveys

• WWIS What Works in Schools (ASCD, Bob Marzano)
• SAI Standards Assessment Inventory
• PDS Constructed Response Ratings Teacher
  Needs Survey
• FCS Staff Satisfaction Parent Perception
  Surveys

84
The surveys said to implement curriculum
standards more effectively we needed

• extended planning collaboration time
• time with mentors
• time to observe colleagues
• training to develop better formative and
  summative assessments linked to Georgia
  Performance Standards (GPS) in the CRCT format
• professional development related to GPS

85
We responded to curriculum needs by . . .

• Revising and increasing planning schedule
• Assigning mentors to all new teachers
• Hiring instructional coaches in mathematics
  literacy
• Moving to a higher stage of implementation of our
  Professional Learning Community (PLC)
• Creating eight Cross-Career Learning Communities
  ( CCLC)
• Implementing a balanced assessment program

• Applicable PDS Standards
• Learning Community
• Collaboration
• Accountability
• Resources
• Diversity Equity

86
Weekly Planning Schedule

• The planning block is 90 minutes for all
• teachers.
• Monday Team Planning
• Tuesday Subject Area Collaborative/Personal
  Planning
• Wednesday Parent Communication
• Thursday Grade Level Planning
• Friday Professional Development

87
What is in the works. . . for curriculum

• Deeper understanding of new curriculum (GPS)
• Use of state portal, Georgia Standards.Org
• Increase use of Student Assessment Management
  System (SAMS) data to drive instruction

• Applicable PDS Standards
• Learning Community
• Collaboration
• Accountability
• Resources
• Diversity Equity

88
Surveys also revealed . . . our professional
development needs

• courses in reading, mathematics, and writing
• strategies for meeting the learning needs of a
  diverse student population
• opportunities for certification in additional
  areas
• strategies for implementing technology in the
  classroom
• opportunities to practice hands-onclassroom
  strategies prior to implementation

89
We responded to professional development needs
by..

• Reading ESOL Endorsements
• Pathways
• Urban Masters Program
• Local Professional Development
• Focus on Mathematics- Teachers, Student, Parents

• Applicable PDS Standards
• Learning Community
• Collaboration
• Accountability
• Resources
• Diversity Equity

90
What is in the works for professional development

• Development of deeper more effective teacher
  toolboxes
• Teaching observation and collaboration rounds
• Teacher Writing Assessment
• Summer Institute
• Ending with the beginning in mind

• Applicable PDS Standards
• Learning Community
• Collaboration
• Accountability
• Resources
• Diversity Equity

91
(No Transcript)
92
(No Transcript)
93
(No Transcript)
94
Break-Out Session 1

• Discussion Stations
• Higher Education Faculty
• Evaluations and Research
• Grant Details
• PDS Elementary
• PDS Middle

95
Meadowcreek High School Mr. Andrew Foster and
Dr. Joe Feinberg
96
Meadowcreek High School

• Profile
• 2,150 Students
• Diverse Student Population 29 African
  American 47 Latino/Hispanic 6.8 White 14.4
  Asian 2.2 Other
• 74 Free/reduced Lunch

97
Meadowcreek High School

• Collaboration Goals
• Teacher Mentoring/Induction
• GSU Intern Mentoring/Induction
• Staff Development/Continuing Education

98
Meadowcreek High School

• PDS Goals
• New teacher orientation
• NCATE/PDS Standards I, II, III, IV, V
• Mentoring relationships
• NCATE/PDS Standards III and V
• Support teams
• NCATE/PDS Standards II, III and V
• Workshops and training for beginning teachers
• NCATE/PDS Standards I, II, III, IV, V
• Workshops and training for mentors
  NCATE/PDSStandards I, II, III, IV, V

99
McCoSS Meadowcreek Catalysis of Students
SuccessA Georgia State University PDS Program

• Rationale
• Research Teacher retention/turnover (Graziano,
  2005)
• Professional development (Wood, 2002)
• Purpose
• To provide a systematic structure of support for
  beginning teachers/pre-service teacher
• First Year Teachers/Pre-Service
• Teachers New to Meadowcreek
• To increase retention

100
McCoSS Meadowcreek Catalysis of Students
SuccessA Georgia State University PDS Program

• Program Overview
• New Teacher/PDS Orientation
• Mentorship Program
• The N.E.S.T. (New Educators Support Team)
• Mentoring
• Reflection
• Release time
• Collaborative learning community

101
McCoSS Meadowcreek Catalysis of Students
SuccessA Georgia State University PDS Program

• Workshops and Training for beginning teachers
• Staff Development
• Professional Learning
• After school and Saturday Sessions
• Support Teams
• Evaluation
• Formal
• Walk-thru
• Peer evaluations

102
McCoSS Meadowcreek Catalysis of Students
SuccessA Georgia State University PDS Program

• Roles and Responsibilities
• Support Structure
• Mentor
• 2. New/Beginning Teacher
• 3. Principal
• 4. Mentor Coordinator
• 5. Steering Committee

103
McCoSS Meadowcreek Catalysis of Students
SuccessA Georgia State University PDS Program

• Components of Meadowcreeks Induction Program
• Orientation Program with Introductions and
  Presentations of the following
• MHS community (maps and demographics)
• Key personnel
• Policies and procedures
• School and district improvement goals
• PDS Goals and Objectives
• Induction Program
• Mentor program structure and expectations
• Overview of expectations, evaluation and
  procedures, classroom management

104
McCoSS Meadowcreek Catalysis of Students
SuccessA Georgia State University PDS Program

• Regularly scheduled meetings
• Curriculum and Lesson Planning
• Classroom Management
• Observations

105
Atlanta Public SchoolsQuayln McIntyre
106
Commitment to Retention

• Comprehensive Induction
• University/District/Site Support
• Continual Professional Learning
• University Partnerships

107
Induction Professional Learning Teacher
Retention

• Induction
• Teacher Mentors (Teacher Support Specialist
  Endorsement)
• Retired Teacher Mentors
• Cross Career Learning Communities (CCLC)
• Professional Learning and Development
• Content Specific Endorsements
• CCLC
• Professional Learning Units (PLU)

108
Professional Support PathwaysMs. Patsy Terry
109
Professional Pathway 1 Endorsement
Opportunities

• ESOL (P-12)
• Teacher Support Specialist
• Mathematics (P-5)
• Reading (P-12)
• Science (P-5)
• Endorsement program participants will receive
  PLUs (Professional Learning Units) only.
• ONE endorsement per district
• Courses can be taught in school districts/
• PDS clusters cohorts must have 12-15 students
  minimum

110
Professional Pathway 1 Endorsement
Opportunities

• Current Endorsements
• ESOL Endorsement at Dunwoody Springs ES (Fulton)
• Reading Endorsement at Woodland MS (Fulton)
• ESOL Endorsement at Cross Keys HS (DeKalb)
• Math Endorsement at Kimberly ES (APS)

111
Professional Support Pathway 2 Pathway Scholars
- Masters, Specialist, or Ph.D.

• Persons Eligible for Pathways II funding support
  include the following PDS educators (teachers or
  administrators) who are NEW applicants who gain
  acceptance in graduate programs PDS educators
  who are currently enrolled in GSU graduate
  programs and those who wish to use funding
  support toward courses of study.
• Student must be accepted into a specific program
  of study before applying for Pathway Scholars
  funding. Fulfill all entrance requirements.
• See GSU on-line college catalogue for available
  programs at www.gsu.edu
• Pathway II Scholars are selected by the principal
  of the PDS school. Once selected, scholars apply
  online for the Pathway II funding support and
  complete GRA application procedures.
• GRA scholars are matched with GSU faculty with
  similar research interests.
• Amount of funding per person 2,000
• Commitment during summer semester 20 hours per
  week (i.e., GRA research-related time commitment)
  as a GRA _at_ 2.5 appointments
• Tuition waived for up to three courses (in
  addition to the required GRA course)
• Must pay students fees, and show proof of health
  insurance
• Number of slots per the 4 PDS districts 15
  distributed to 4 districts - (3) per APS, DCSS,
  GCSS (6) for FCSS (any unused school slots can
  be used by other PDS principals within the
  district)

112
Professional Support Pathway 3Alternative Prep.
Programs

• Target audience Career Changers, Teachers
  seeking High Quality Certification
• Available Certifications
• Masters Special Education Certification (EPSE)
• TEEMS (MSIT)
• Urban Alternative Prep Program (ECE)
• Must be accepted into the appropriate GSU program
  (entry level only), and meet all entrance
  requirements.
• Scholarships for these programs are limited and,
  therefore, not guaranteed. Scholarships are
  service repayable.
• Courses taught in PDS school districts/PDS
  cluster schools and/or on GSU campus.
• Applications available during summer semester

113
Professional Support Pathway Chart
Professional Pathway 1 Endorsement Opportunities Professional Support Pathway 2 Masters, Specialist, or Ph.D. Pathway Scholars Professional Support Pathway 3Alternative Prep. Programs
ESOL (P-12) Teacher Support Specialist Mathematics (P-5) Reading (P-12) Science (P-5) Endorsement program participants will receive PLUs (Professional Learning Units) only. ONE endorsement per district Courses can be taught in school districts/ PDS clusters cohorts must have 12-15 students minimum Contact Person Dr. Dee Taylor dtaylor29_at_gsu.edu Persons Eligible for Pathways II funding support include the following PDS educators (teachers or administrators) who are NEW applicants who gain acceptance in graduate programs PDS educators who are currently enrolled in GSU graduate programs and those who wish to use funding support toward courses of study. Student must be accepted into a specific program of study before applying for Pathway Scholars funding. Fulfill all entrance requirements. See GSU on-line college catalogue for available programs at www.gsu.edu Pathway II Scholars are selected by the principal of the PDS school. Once selected, scholars apply online for the Pathway II funding support and complete GRA application procedures. GRA scholars are matched with GSU faculty with similar research interests. Amount of funding per person 2,000 Commitment during summer semester 20 hours per week (i.e., GRA research-related time commitment) as a GRA _at_ 2.5 appointments Tuition waived for up to three courses (in addition to the required GRA course) Must pay students fees, and show proof of health insurance Number of slots per the 4 PDS districts 15 distributed to 4 districts - (3) per APS, DCSS, GCSS (6) for FCSS (any unused school slots can be used by other PDS principals within the district) Contact Person Patsy Terry pterry_at_gsu.edu Target audience Career Changers, Teachers seeking High Quality Certification Available Certifications Masters Special Education Certification (EPSE) TEEMS (MSIT) Urban Alternative Prep Program (ECE) Must be accepted into the appropriate GSU program (entry level only), and meet all entrance requirements. Scholarships for these programs are limited and, therefore, not guaranteed. Scholarships are service repayable. Courses taught in PDS school districts/PDS cluster schools and/or on GSU campus. Applications available during summer semester Contact Person Tracye Moore tmoore_at_gsu.edu
114
Break-Out Session 2

• Discussion Stations
• PDS High School
• Induction
• Evaluation and Research
• Budget
• P-12 School-Based Partners
• Grant Details

115
Conclusion Discussion Session
116
Thank You for Your Participation!

• Contact Information
• Dr. Gwen Benson gbenson_at_gsu.edu
• Dr. Dee Taylor dtaylor29_at_gsu.edu
• Dr. Bill Curlette wcurlette_at_gsu.edu
• Dr. Susan Ogletree sogletree1_at_gsu.edu
• Dr. Susan McClendon scrim2_at_gsu.edu
• Brian Williams bawilli_at_gsu.edu
• Dr. Joseph Feinberg mstjrf_at_langate.gsu.edu
• Patsy Terry pterry_at_gsu.edu
• Qualyn McIntyre - qmcintyre_at_atlanta.k12.ga.us
• Will Bradley bradley_at_fultonschools.org
• Vivian Randolph randolph_at_fultonschools.org
• Carolyn Hall chall_at_atlanta.k12.ga.us
• Karen Ross kyross_at_atlanta.k12.ga.us
• Andrew Foster andrew_foster_at_gwinnett.k12.ga.us