ANNUAL IMPLEMENTATION REVIEW (AIR) For Colorado …...Oct 07, 2009 · For each school, the CRF...

Heiney_November_10/7/2009

ANNUAL IMPLEMENTATION REVIEW (AIR) For Colorado Reading First Schools

November Submission

Heiney_November_10/7/2009

ANNUAL IMPLEMENTATION REVIEW (AIR) Purpose Based upon the commitments agreed to by teachers, schools and LEAs during the grant process, this document was created to:

• Enable Regional Consultants to assess their schools’ progress and to inform continual improvement

• Identify LEAs and/or schools that need intervention or increased supports from CDE Refinement Regional Consultants will work with each school, using the AIR and student data, to identify areas of strength and weakness. Areas of Focus and Accountability

I. LEA (District/BOCES/Consortium) Leadership ............................................................................. 3 II. Principal Leadership ..................................................................................................................... 6 III. Coordination and Communication (Building Leadership Team) ................................................. 10 IV. Assessment ................................................................................................................................ 13 V. Instruction ................................................................................................................................... 16 VI. Research-Based Reading Programs .......................................................................................... 18 VII. Coaching ..................................................................................................................................... 20 VIII. Professional Development .......................................................................................................... 24

Rating Scale

1 = No evidence of implementation 2 = Minimal evidence of implementation and/or just beginning to implement 3 = Partial/some evidence of implementation and/or inconsistent implementation 4 = Evidence of consistent implementation 5 = Fully implemented in an exemplary manner and/or sustained

Directions During the Year: During the school year, your Regional Consultant will revisit the AIR with you in November 2009 and February 2010, focusing on a subset of items. The AIR will be used to identify where your school is currently on a given standard and what actions can be taken to move to a higher level of fidelity. End of Year: For each school, the CRF Regional Consultant will independently complete a copy of the final AIR document. By May 14, 2010, the Regional Consultant will complete the form and send it to CRF as listed on the cover page.

The CRF Staff will review your form and any additional comments made by your Regional Consultant. The committee will look for patterns within the scoring. At this time, the target score for each school will be “4” or “5” for each indicator.

Questions: Contact Jacob Heiney, Senior Consultant at [email protected]

mailto:[email protected]�

3

Rating Scale

1 = No evidence of implementation 2 = Minimal evidence of implementation and/or just beginning to implement 3 = Partial/some evidence of implementation and/or inconsistent implementation 4 = Evidence of consistent implementation 5 = Fully implemented in an exemplary manner and/or sustained

I. LEA (District/BOCES/Consortium) Leadership

Item Number 1 2 3 4 5

2. The LEA provides support to CRF school(s) in using data to monitor student progress and accelerate performance.

Times monitored: 2 (November, February)

LEA is not involved in the aggregation, analysis, or use of CRF data to monitor student progress and accelerate performance.

LEA assists with the aggregation of CRF data but not in their analysis or use to monitor student progress and accelerate performance.

LEA assists with the aggregation, analysis, and use of CRF data to monitor student progress.

LEA analyzes disaggregated school CRF data and uses these data to monitor student progress and accelerate performance, determine project effectiveness, and identify needed changes.

LEA analyzes disaggregated state, district, and school CRF data and uses these data to monitor project effectiveness and establish district priorities for funding and professional development in Reading First schools.

Rating: Evidence (Note any follow up needed):

4. The LEA employs a CRF literacy coach for each participating school to work with and support no more than 30 teachers (including K-3, Special Education, ELL and Title I).

Times monitored: 1 (November)

The LEA does not employ a CRF literacy coach for each participating school.

The LEA employs a CRF literacy coach for each participating school, but the teacher-coach ratio does not meet CRF guidelines.

The LEA employs a CRF literacy coach for each participating school to work with and support no more than 30 teachers.


6. The LEA works with CRF Building Leadership Team(s) to

The LEA is not involved in the

The LEA is informed of and signs off on the

The LEA works with the principal and the

The LEA works directly with the BLT to coordinate additional formal professional

4


Item Number 1 2 3 4 5 coordinate additional formal professional development (at least 20 hours per year) for the principal(s), coach(es), and K-3 staff.


development of the PD plan.

formal PD plan. coach to develop the formal PD plan and signs off on the plan.

development for the principal(s), coach(es), and K-3 staff.


7. The LEA ensures that all CRF activities are consistent with scientifically based reading research. Times monitored: 2 (November, February)

The LEA does not ensure that all CRF activities are consistent with scientifically based reading research.

LEA ensures that school(s) have adopted a core reading program, but not that school(s) have written procedures for selection of additional SBRR materials and related PD activities. LEA does not work with the principal to monitor instruction for alignment with core program and SBRR best practices.

LEA ensures that school(s) have adopted a core reading program and have written procedures for selection of additional SBRR materials, but not for related PD activities. LEA does not work with the principal to monitor instruction for alignment with core program and SBRR best practices.

LEA ensures that school(s)have adopted a core reading program and have written procedures for selection of additional SBRR materials and for related PD activities. LEA does not work with the principal to monitor instruction for alignment with core program and SBRR best practices.

LEA ensures that school(s) have written procedures for selection of SBRR materials, assessments, and professional development activities. LEA works with the principal to monitor instruction for alignment with core program and SBRR best practices.


8. The LEA ensures that both district and building leadership for CRF have the qualifications and have the time necessary to accomplish CRF commitments.


The LEA does not ensure that both district and building leadership for CRF have the qualifications and the time necessary to accomplish CRF commitments.

The LEA ensures that district and building leadership meet the qualifications but not the time to carry out the duties.

The LEA works with district and building leadership to ensure that they possess the qualifications and have the time necessary to accomplish CRF commitments.

The LEA supports district and building leadership with additional PD and resources to ensure that they have the qualifications, expertise, and time necessary to accomplish CRF commitments.

5


Item Number 1 2 3 4 5 Rating: Evidence (Note any follow up needed):

9. The LEA supports school-level CRF activities with adequate resources (e.g., personnel, materials).


The LEA does not support school-level CRF activities with adequate resources.

The LEA does support school-level CRF activities with adequate resources for materials, but not personnel.

The LEA supports school-level CRF activities with adequate resources, such as personnel and materials.

The LEA works closely with the CRF schools and provides additional resources as needed based on analysis of student data.


10. The LEA ensures that funds are leveraged effectively with other available funds (state and federal) and that accountability for cost-effective management of grant dollars is provided.


The LEA does not leverage CRF funds with other available funds and does not monitor use of CRF funds in the schools.

The LEA does not leverage CRF funds with other available funds but does monitor use of CRF funds to ensure that expenditures are consistent with the LEA CRF application.

The LEA leverages CRF funds with other available state and federal funds and monitors use of CRF funds to ensure that expenditures are consistent with the LEA CRF application.

The LEA works closely with the principal and BLT to leverage all available funds (federal, state, district) to maximize the use of resources and ensure cost-effective management of grant dollars.


6

II. Principal Leadership


13. The principal chairs and provides direction to a CRF Building Leadership Team including the coach and K-3 teacher leaders, as well as specialist representatives (e.g., SPED, ELL, Title I)


The principal does not attend or chair the BLT and does not consistently attend BLT meetings. BLT member attendance is erratic. There are neither written agendas nor minutes for the meetings.

The principal attends the meeting and requires the attendance of BLT members. If there is an agenda, it is not closely followed. Minutes are taken but do not indicate decisions made nor do they guide future work.

The principal attends and chairs regularly-scheduled BLT meetings and all members regularly attend. The meeting agenda is followed, with a focus on CRF logistical issues. Minutes are taken and guide the work of grade level teams.

The principal attends and chairs regularly-scheduled BLT meetings and all members regularly attend. The principal sets protocols for meetings and co-plans the agendas with the coach. The meeting agenda is followed, with a focus on data analysis and problem solving to address needs. Minutes are taken and guide the work of grade level teams.

The principal attends and chairs regularly-scheduled BLT meetings, but leadership is shared with BLT members. The principal sets protocols for meetings and co-plans the agendas with the BLT. Meetings focus on the identification of needs based on data analysis and problem solving to meet those needs. Meetings are productive, the agenda is followed, and minutes guide the work of grade level teams.


14. The principal ensures that monthly grade level team meetings are scheduled to analyze assessment data, plan interventions, and adjust instruction.


There is no regular schedule for grade level team meetings.

The principal ensures that monthly meetings are scheduled and that minutes are taken, but the emphasis on data analysis, planning interventions, and adjusting instruction is minimal.

The principal ensures that monthly meetings are scheduled, agendas are developed, minutes are taken, and data are analyzed. Plans for intervention and adjustment of instruction are made for some students.

The principal ensures that monthly meetings are scheduled, agendas are developed, minutes are taken, and data are analyzed. Plans are made for interventions and adjustment of instruction, and the principal monitors implementation of the

The principal schedules and attends grade level team meetings to more adequately utilize data and adjust instruction. The principal monitors implementation of instructional plans, and data on student growth document the effectiveness of these

7


Item Number 1 2 3 4 5 plans. plans.


17. The principal leads the staff in analyzing assessment data to design and monitor instruction.


Principal is not involved in data analysis or instructional planning.

Teachers or grade level teams take lead in analyzing assessment data to design and monitor instruction with little involvement of principal.

Principal and coach analyze assessment data with K-3 leaders to design and monitor instruction but do not include all staff in the process.

Principal leads staff to analyze data results. Staff is provided with the training, time, and resources necessary to analyze assessment data and design and monitor instruction. The principal monitors changes in instruction.


18. The principal provides a master schedule that protects a minimum of 90 minutes for systematic and explicit reading instruction.


There is no master schedule in place.

A master schedule is in place, but all teachers do not adhere to the 90+ minute* schedule. The 90+-minute block may include activities other than reading (e.g., writing, spelling).

*120+ minute block for 4 day a week schools

A master schedule is in place, and all teachers adhere to the 90+ minute* schedule.


A master schedule is in place, and all teachers adhere to the 90+ minute* schedule. There are no interruptions (such as messages from office, intercom calls).



19. The principal observes reading instruction for all K-3 students to ensure research-based instruction is sustained.

Principal is not in classrooms or he/she “stops in,” but the time spent is not sufficient to ensure that research-based

Principal observes reading instruction but is not sure what constitutes “research-based instruction” so provides no meaningful

Principal observes reading instruction using appropriate CRF observation protocol; understands what constitutes “research-

Principal observes reading instruction using appropriate CRF observation protocol and effectively communicates results

Principal observes reading instruction using appropriate CRF observation protocol, effectively communicates results

8


Item Number 1 2 3 4 5 Times monitored: 2 (November, February)

instruction is sustained.

feedback to teachers. based instruction;” and if he/she has a question, consults with CRF coach.

with teachers to ensure research-based instruction is sustained.

with teachers, and reports patterns and trends to the BLT to inform PD.


20. The principal conducts a walk-through (2x per teacher/per month) during reading instruction using a research-based reading observation checklist.


The principal does not conduct monthly walk-throughs during reading instruction using a research-based reading observation checklist

The principal conducts at least one walk-through per teacher/per month during reading instruction using a research-based reading observation checklist.

The principal conducts at least two walk-throughs per teacher/per month during reading instruction using a research-based reading observation checklist but does not have documentation for each teacher.

The principal conducts a walk-through (2x per teacher/per month) during reading instruction using a research-based reading observation checklist and maintains documentation for each teacher.




22. The principal provides constructive feedback to teachers based on observations (and walk-throughs beginning Year 2) and identifies teachers in need of additional assistance.

There is no evidence of feedback or assistance provided to teachers.

There is some documentation of principal feedback, but it is limited. Feedback is not focused on effective reading instruction and is not

Principal documents all feedback given to teachers. Feedback is focused on effective reading instruction but is not based on analysis of student

Principal documents all feedback given to teachers. Feedback is focused on effective reading instruction and is based on both observation and

Principal documents all feedback given to teachers. Feedback is focused on effective reading instruction and is based on both observation and

9




based on student data analysis. Teachers in need of additional assistance are not identified.

data. Teachers in need of additional assistance are identified, but plans are not developed for these teachers.

analysis of student data. Teachers in need of additional assistance are identified and plans are developed.

analysis of student data. Teachers in need of additional assistance are identified and plans are developed and monitored by the principal.


23. The principal establishes a job description that clearly describes the role of the coach and reflects the expectation that 75% of the coach’s time will be spent on in-class coaching and informal professional development.


The principal has not established a job description for the coach.

The principal establishes a coach job description, but it is vaguely written and includes both administrative and coaching responsibilities.

The principal establishes a coach job description that clearly describes the role of the coach but does not clearly reflect the expectation that 75% of the coach’s time will be spent on in-class coaching and informal professional development.

The principal establishes a job description that clearly describes the role of the coach and reflects the expectation that 75% of the coach’s time will be spent on in-class coaching and informal professional development. Coach job description is reviewed annually with staff.

The principal establishes a job description that clearly describes the role of the coach, reflects the expectation that 75% of the coach’s time will be spent on in-class coaching and informal professional development, and monitors the work of the coach to ensure that this expectation is met. Coach job description is reviewed annually with staff.


10



24. The principal ensures identified teachers receive the assistance/intervention they need in instructional practice.


The principal does not have a process for identifying teachers needing intervention, so no additional support is provided.

When the coach or a grade level team brings the needs of a teacher to the attention of the principal, additional support is provided.

The principal monitors classroom instruction and directs the coach to provide additional assistance to improve instructional practice.

The principal identifies teachers in need of additional support through classroom observation and walk-throughs and works closely with the coach to ensure that additional support is provided.

The principal identifies teachers in need of additional support, works closely with the coach to ensure that additional support is provided. The principal monitors the effectiveness of that support through observation and analysis of student data.


11

III. Coordination and Communication (CRF Building Leadership Team)


26. CRF Building Leadership Team meetings occur at least once per month.


CRF Building Leadership Team meetings are not scheduled and do not occur on a monthly basis.

CRF Building Leadership Team meetings are scheduled on a monthly basis but are often cancelled because of scheduling conflicts.

CRF Building Leadership Team meetings occur once per month but there is not always a prepared agenda and neither minutes nor attendance are regularly taken.

CRF Building Leadership Team meetings occur once per month. There is a prepared agenda and minutes and attendance are regularly taken.

The CRF Building Leadership Team meets at least once per month and more often when necessary. Minutes and attendance are regularly taken.


27. CRF Building Leadership Team prioritizes reading goals and maintains staff’s focus on the goals of the school’s Reading First plan.


CRF BLT does not prioritize the school’s Reading First goals and does not discuss them regularly at BLT meetings.

CRF BLT reviews and prioritizes the school’s CRF goals but does not discuss them regularly at BLT meetings.

CRF BLT reviews and prioritizes the school’s CRF goals and discusses them regularly at BLT meetings.

CRF BLT reviews goals monthly , makes revisions based on the current Action Plan and maintains staff focus on both the goals and the plan,

.


28. CRF Building Leadership Team evaluates the impact of Reading First activities on student achievement and makes necessary adjustments.


CRF Building Leadership Team does not evaluate the impact of Reading First activities on student achievement and does not make necessary adjustments.

The BLT is in the process of looking at data to evaluate the impact of CRF activities on student achievement so that necessary adjustments can be made.

The BLT looks at data to evaluate the impact of CRF activities on student achievement. However, adjustments in project activities are not consistently related to student reading achievement.

The BLT has a process in place to look at data, evaluate the impact of CRF activities on student reading achievement, and make necessary adjustments to accelerate student growth in reading.

The BLT effectively uses data to evaluate the impact of SBRR materials, assessment, and PD activities on student reading achievement and to make necessary adjustments in a timely manner.. Student data documents the effectiveness of the

12


Item Number 1 2 3 4 5 evaluation.


29. CRF Building Leadership Team provides support and direction for grade level teams.


CRF Building Leadership Team does not provide support and direction for grade level teams.

CRF Building Leadership Team discusses grade level and school-wide issues and concerns. However, a weak communication system results in grade levels working in isolation.

CRF Building Leadership Team discusses grade level and school-wide issues and concerns, but does not provide clear direction to grade level teams, and grade level intervention plans are not coordinated.

BLT is responsive to grade level concerns and provides direction for instructional planning within grade levels. A communication system is effectively implemented.

BLT is responsive to grade level concerns and provides direction for instructional planning both within and across grade levels. A communication system is effectively implemented.


30. CRF Building Leadership Team coordinates the informal professional development and coaching necessary to successfully implement instruction, assessment and research-based reading programs.


CRF Building Leadership Team does not coordinate informal professional development and coaching.

BLT discusses and plans informal PD but does not address coaching issues. PD activities are not linked to instructional needs identified through analysis of student data.

BLT discusses and plans informal PD and coaching but does not link them to instructional needs identified through analysis of student data or coordinate them to maximize instructional effectiveness.

BLT discusses and plans informal PD and coaching and links them to instructional needs identified through analysis of student data.

BLT discusses and plans informal PD and coaching, links them to instructional needs identified through analysis of student data, and coordinates them to maximize instructional effectiveness.


13



31. CRF Building Leadership Team creates and coordinates a comprehensive intervention plan for students who are not meeting grade level expectations.


CRF BLT has not discussed or created a comprehensive intervention plan for students who are not meeting grade level expectations.

CRF BLT has discussed what a comprehensive intervention plan might be, but has not yet coordinated time, materials, or instruction .

CRF BLT discusses grade level intervention plans, but these plans are not written, nor are they coordinated to maximize the use of time, materials, and instruction .

CRF BLT has written a comprehensive K-3 intervention plan for students who are not meeting grade level expectations that coordinates the use of time, materials, and instruction.

CRF BLT has written a comprehensive K-3 intervention plan for students who are not meeting grade level expectations that coordinates and provides for adjustments in the use of time, materials, and instruction based on analysis of data.


32. CRF Building Leadership Team ensures that teachers meet performance expectations over the duration of the grant by referring to the CRF Teacher Expectations for Performance Document.


CRF Building Leadership Team does not ensure that teachers meet performance expectations over the duration of the grant.

CRF Building Leadership Team reviews performance expectations with teachers at the beginning of the year but takes no action in supporting teachers to meet them.

CRF Building Leadership Team reviews performance expectations with teachers at the beginning of the year and seeks direction from teachers regarding the support (such as training, coaching, school visits) they will need to meet them.

CRF Building Leadership Team reviews performance expectations with teachers twice a year and develops supports (such as training, coaching, school visits) to help teachers to meet them.

CRF Building Leadership Team reviews performance expectations with teachers quarterly and, based on student achievement data, develops supports (such as PD, mentoring and coaching) to help teachers to meet them.


14

IV. Assessment


34. An assessment plan is in place and system maintained for documenting student performance and monitoring progress.


Neither an assessment plan nor a system for documenting student performance and monitoring progress is in place.

An assessment plan has been written, but no system for documenting student performance and monitoring progress is in place.

An assessment plan is in place. A system is maintained for documenting student performance, but there is none in place for monitoring progress.

An assessment plan is in place, and a system is maintained for documenting student performance and monitoring progress.


35. Assessments selected for use in K-3 classrooms have established technical adequacy (reliability and validity).


Assessments selected for use in K-3 classrooms do not have established technical adequacy (reliability and validity).

BEAR and CSAP are used in K-3 classroom, but teachers use progress-monitoring assessments that do not have the established technical adequacy of DIBELS.

DIBELS, BEAR, and CSAP are used in K-3 classrooms as well as other assessments that do not have established technical adequacy.

DIBELS, BEAR, and CSAP are used consistently in K-3 classrooms.

DIBELS, BEAR, CSAP, and diagnostic assessments with established technical adequacy are used consistently to identify the needs and progress of K-3 students.


36. All users receive training and follow-up on assessment administration, scoring and data interpretation.


All users are not trained on the assessments being used, and no plan is in place for providing this training.

All users are not trained, but a plan is in place for provision of training. ) Use of data to improve instruction is limited.

All users are trained in assessment administration. Teachers know how to interpret student data but do not consistently use this information to improve instruction.

All users have been trained and follow-up support has been provided. PD has included data interpretation with hands-on training. Grade-level meetings focus on data interpretation to improve instruction.

All users have been trained and follow-up support has been provided. PD has included data interpretation with hands-on training. BLT and grade-level meetings focus on data interpretation to improve instruction.

15

IV. Assessment

Item Number 1 2 3 4 5 Rating: Evidence (Note any follow up needed):

37. A screening assessment is administered to identify students’ level of performance and determine instructional needs.


The DIBELS screening assessment is not administered to all students to identify levels of performance and determine instructional needs.

The DIBELS screening assessment is administered to all students to identify levels of performance. However, teachers do not use student data reports to determine instructional needs.

The DIBELS screening assessment is administered to identify levels of performance, and reports are generated and distributed to allow teachers to determine instructional needs. Teacher use of student data reports to determine instructional needs is inconsistent.

The DIBELS screening assessment is administered to identify levels of performance, and reports are generated and distributed to allow teachers to determine instructional needs. Teachers use student data reports to determine instructional needs.


38. A progress monitoring system is in place for formative assessment throughout the year for all students, more frequent monitoring of students in need of intensive intervention, and regular discussion of progress toward benchmarks at grade level meetings.


A progress monitoring system is not in place. More frequent monitoring of students in need of intensive instruction does not occur.

A progress monitoring system is in place, but more frequent monitoring of students in need of intensive instruction does not consistently occur..

Teachers work alone to analyze data and do not consistently discuss student progress at grade level meetings.

A progress monitoring system is in place. Students in need of intensive intervention are assessed three to four times a month, but progress monitoring of Strategic and Benchmark students is inconsistent. Teachers analyze data together but do not consistently discuss student progress at grade level meetings.

A progress monitoring system is in place. Students in need of intensive intervention are assessed three to four times a month, strategic students two to three times a month, benchmark students once a month Grade level meetings include discussions of student progress and instructional adjustments are made.

A progress monitoring system is in place. , Students in need of intensive intervention are assessed three to four times a month, strategic students two to three times a month, benchmark students once a month. . Grade level meetings are focused on data analysis and discussions of student progress and instructional programs are adjusted based on

16

IV. Assessment

Item Number 1 2 3 4 5 data.


41. Teachers use data from assessments to design and differentiate instruction for all students.


Teachers do not use data from assessments to design and implement differentiated instruction.

Teachers review assessment data but do not use them for instructional planning or differentiation of instruction.

Teachers review assessment data and use them for instructional planning, but instruction is differentiated for only the most intensive students.

Teachers review assessment data and use them for instructional planning. Instruction is differentiated for strategic and intensive students.

Teachers use data from multiple sources (assessments, observation, oral reading) to design, monitor, and adjust instruction to meet the needs of all students, including those at intensive, strategic, benchmark and above benchmark.


V. Instruction


42. Teachers rethink current practices and modify those that are ineffective based on examination of student data and research-based practices.


Student data and classroom observations indicate that teachers do not rethink current practices or modify ineffective practices based on student data and research-based practices.

Rethinking of current practices is reflected in teacher use of the core reading program, but classroom observations indicate widespread use of ineffective practices (e.g., sustained independent silent reading, round-robin

Rethinking of current practices is evidenced by teacher use of the core, effective instructional techniques, and research-based supplemental and intervention programs. Instruction is modified and students are

Rethinking of current practices is evidenced by teacher use of the core, effective instructional techniques, and research-based supplemental and intervention programs. Teachers examine student data regularly and modify instructional practices, grouping, and intensity of instruction to accelerate progress in reading. Data show significant student growth.

17

V. Instruction

Item Number 1 2 3 4 5 reading) and limited use of progress-monitoring data.

regrouped when they fail to make progress. Data show limited student growth.


43. Teachers demonstrate appropriate, systematic and explicit teaching of the five essential components within daily instruction.


Teachers do not demonstrate appropriate, systematic and explicit teaching of the five essential components within daily instruction.

Teachers demonstrate systematic teaching of the five essential components based on the core program, but teaching is not explicit and may be inappropriate for the students.

Teachers demonstrate systematic and explicit teaching of the five essential components based on the core program and provide appropriate instruction for Benchmark students,.

All teachers demonstrate appropriate, systematic and explicit teaching of the five essential components for Benchmark and Strategic students. Effective instructional techniques are utilized.

All teachers demonstrate appropriate, systematic and explicit teaching of the five essential components for all students, Benchmark, Strategic, and Intensive. Effective instructional techniques are consistently utilized.


44. Teachers use their knowledge of how children learn to read to accelerate performance of struggling readers.


Teachers do not exhibit knowledge of how children learn to read.

Teachers have received training in how children learn to read but cannot articulate their knowledge or transfer that information to their instruction to accelerate the performance of struggling readers.

Teachers can articulate and apply their knowledge of how children learn to read. They differentiate materials, time, and/or intensity, but analysis of data indicates that adjustments in instructional strategies are not consistently sufficient to accelerate the performance of

Teachers can articulate and apply their knowledge of how children learn to read. Materials, time, and/or intensity are differentiated, and analysis of data indicates that adjustments in instructional strategies are accelerating the performance of

All Teachers apply their knowledge of how children learn to read. Students are grouped appropriately to maximize the amount of teacher contact time and student cognitive engagement. Instruction is well-paced and differentiated to accelerate the performance of all

18

V. Instruction

Item Number 1 2 3 4 5 struggling readers. struggling readers. readers, including

those who are at or above benchmark.


46. Teachers differentiate levels of student support to meet the full range of student needs.


Teachers do not differentiate levels of student support to meet the full range of student needs.

Teachers use whole and small group instruction, but groups are fixed rather than flexible and strategies are not differentiated to meet the full range of student needs.

Teachers use whole group and flexible small group instruction. Time, intensity, and materials are differentiated, but instructional strategies are not modified to meet the full range of student needs.

Teachers use both whole and flexible small group instruction and provide instruction that is differentiated in, strategies, materials, time, and intensity. The teacher plans for and teaches to the full range of student needs.

All teachers use both whole and flexible small group instruction and match, strategies, materials, time, and intensity to identified student needs to ensure that the learning of all students is accelerated. Students participate in learning activities that are based upon their identified needs.


47. Teachers use feedback forms from the CRF coach to refine instructional practice.


Teachers do not use feedback forms from the CRF coach and discussions with them indicate that they are resistant to the coaching process.

Discussions with teachers indicate that they appear open and receptive to coaching, but classroom observations of teacher instructional practices suggest limited use of coach feedback to refine instructional practice.

Discussions with and classroom observations of teacher instruction indicate that teachers use feedback forms from the CRF coach to refine instructional practices. However, analysis of data indicates that this feedback is not positively impacting

Discussions with and classroom observation of teachers indicate that teachers use feedback forms from the CRF coach to refine instructional practice. Analysis of data indicate that this feedback is having a positive impact on student achievement.

19

V. Instruction

Item Number 1 2 3 4 5 student achievement.


20

VI. Research Based-Reading Program


49. Teachers use the core reading program as the primary material for reading instruction for a minimum of 90 minutes. This is done in and across grade levels without layering other programs.


Less than 90 minutes is allocated to reading. Teachers use materials other than the core as the primary tool for reading instruction.

At least 90 minutes is allocated to reading, but teachers use materials other than the core as the primary tool for reading instruction.

At least 90 minutes is allocated to reading. Teachers use the core as the primary tool for reading instruction. Other materials are used as a supplement but are not coordinated with the scope and sequence or aligned with the core program to prevent layering.

At least 90 minutes is allocated to reading, and teachers use the core as the primary tool for reading instruction. Other materials used as a supplement are coordinated with the scope and sequence and aligned with the core program to prevent layering.


50. Teachers select and implement supplemental and intervention materials necessary to meet identified student needs.


There is no evidence that teachers have selected or have implemented supplemental or intensive intervention materials.

Teachers have selected and are implementing supplemental materials, but not intensive interventions. Data analysis indicates that the instruction in these materials is not meeting identified student needs.

Teachers have selected and are implementing supplemental and intensive intervention materials. Use of the materials may not be appropriate, however, and data analysis indicates that the instruction in these materials is not meeting identified student needs.

Teachers have selected and are implementing supplemental and intensive intervention materials appropriately. Analysis of data indicates that the instruction in these programs is meeting identified student needs.


21



51. An appropriate and consistent allotment of time is designated for use of the full research-based reading program (use of core, supplemental, and intervention materials).


A 90+ minute* block has been designated for reading but may include other activities (e.g., writing, spelling.) No time beyond the 90+* minutes is allocated for use of supplemental or intervention programs.

*120 minutes for 4 day a week schools

A 90+ minute block* has been designated for the research-based reading program. No time beyond the 90 minutes is allocated for extra instruction for strategic or Intensive students.


A 90+ minute block* has been designated as the minimum for instructional time for the research-based reading program.,

Strategic and Intensive students are provided with an additional 30 minutes of daily instruction.


A 90+ minute block* has been designated as the minimum for instructional time for the research-based reading program. Additional time for.

Strategic students are provided with an additional 30 minutes and Intensive students are provided with an additional 60 minutes of daily instruction.


A 90+ minute* block has been designated as the minimum for instructional time for the research-based reading program. Additional time is allocated for differentiated instruction for all students, Benchmark students receive enrichment; strategic students are provided with an additional 30 minutes and Intensive students are provided with an additional 60 minutes of daily instruction.

.



52. Teachers implement flexible large and small groupings of students aligned with appropriate core, supplemental, and intervention materials.


Teachers use whole group instruction and do not differentiate materials to meet student needs. Not all teachers use the core program.

Teachers use whole group instruction and do not differentiate materials to meet student needs. The core program is the only instructional tool in use.

Teachers implement both large and small group instruction, but groups tend to be fixed rather than flexible. The core program and supplemental materials are the primary

Teachers implement differentiated flexible large and small group instruction based upon analysis of progress-monitoring data, use the core and appropriate supplemental and intensive intervention materials/programs, and use effective instructional strategies.

22


Item Number 1 2 3 4 5 instructional tools.


23

VII. Coaching


53. The CRF coach maintains contracts with teachers and principal to clarify goals, shared responsibilities, and expectations.


The CRF coach does not develop contracts with any teachers or the principal.

The CRF coach develops contracts with some teachers and principal, but the contracts do not clarify goals, shared responsibilities, and expectations.

The CRF coach develops contracts with all teachers and principal, but the contracts do not clarify goals, shared responsibilities, and expectations.

The CRF coach develops and maintains contracts with all teachers and principal to clarify goals, shared responsibilities, and expectations.


54. The CRF coach demonstrates knowledge of CRF expectations, reading research base, and effective coaching practices.


Observations of the coach working with teachers and facilitating meetings indicate that the CRF coach does not demonstrate knowledge of CRF expectations, reading research base, or effective coaching practices.

Observations of the coach working with teachers and facilitating meetings indicate that the CRF coach’s knowledge of CRF expectations, reading research base, and effective coaching practices is comparable to that of the teachers with whom he/she works.

Observations of the coach working with teachers and facilitating meetings indicate that the CRF coach can demonstrate knowledge of CRF expectations and effective coaching practices. However, knowledge of reading research base and effective teaching practices is comparable to that of the teachers with whom he/she works.

Observations of the coach working with teachers and facilitating meetings indicate that the CRF coach can demonstrate knowledge of CRF expectations, reading research base, and effective coaching practices and uses this knowledge to broaden the teachers’ repertoire of effective strategies.


55. 75% of the CRF coach’s time is spent in in-class coaching which includes a

The coach job description includes both coaching and

The coach job description specifies that 75% of the CRF

The coach maintains a daily record of work that indicates that 75%



24

VII. Coaching

Item Number 1 2 3 4 5 minimum of one in-class coaching session (I Teach, We Teach, or You Teach) for each teacher each month and informal professional development which leads to in-class coaching opportunities.


administrative responsibilities. The coach does not maintain an updated schedule and record of daily work that allows analysis of the time spent coaching each day.

coach’s time is to be spent in in-class coaching. The coach does not maintain an updated schedule and record of daily work that allows analysis of the time spent coaching each day.

of the CRF coach’s time is spent in in-class coaching. However, the coach does not maintain records that indicate he/she provides one in-class monthly coaching session to all K-3 teachers.

of the coach’s time is spent in in-class coaching which includes a minimum of one in-class coaching session for each teacher of K-3 reading each month. Records indicate that the coach provides informal professional development which leads to in-class coaching opportunities

of the coach’s time is spent in in-class coaching which includes a minimum of one in-class coaching session for each teacher of K-3 reading each month as well as additional support to identified teachers,. Records indicate that the coach provides formal and informal professional development which leads to in-class coaching opportunities.


56. The CRF coach structures in-class coaching to include a teaching event preceded by a planning conversation and followed by reflective conversation.


The CRF coach does not provide in-class coaching on a regular basis and does not hold planning or reflective conversations with teachers.

The CRF coach provides in-class coaching to most teachers, but does not structure in-class coaching to include a teaching event preceded by a planning conversation and followed by reflective conversation.

The CRF coach provides in-class coaching to every teacher on a regular basis, followed by a reflective conversation, but does not precede all observations with a planning conversation.

The CRF coach provides in-class coaching to every teacher on a regular basis, preceded by a planning conversation and followed by a reflective conversation. Records of observations document these conversations.


25

VII. Coaching


57. The CRF coach supports teachers in meeting CRF performance expectations for instruction, assessment, and research-based reading programs.


Discussions with staff and observation of the CRF coach indicate that he/she does not support teachers in meeting CRF performance expectations for instruction, assessment, and research-based reading programs.

Discussions with staff and observation of the CRF coach indicate that he/she has little understanding of CRF performance expectations for instruction, assessment, and research-based reading programs, so support for teachers is minimal.

Discussions with staff and observation of the CRF coach indicate that he/she can articulate the CRF performance expectations for instruction, assessment, and research-based reading programs. However, records of work with teachers indicate that the coach does not address these expectations with teachers.

Discussions with staff and observation of the CRF coach indicate that he/she understands the CRF performance expectations for instruction, assessment, and research-based reading programs. Records of work with teachers indicate that the coach supports teachers in meeting them.

Discussions with staff and observation of the CRF coach indicate that the coach is viewed as a literacy leader in the school and teachers go to him/her for resources, assistance, and support in meeting CRF performance expectations for instruction, assessment, and research-based reading programs.


58. The CRF coach creates and maintains a schedule for coaching teachers.


No coaching schedule is in place.

The coach has a schedule, but it contains responsibilities other than coaching teachers.

The coach has a daily schedule, but it is not maintained and updated as the schedules of teachers and students change.

The CRF coach creates, maintains, and updates a schedule for coaching teachers.


59. The CRF coach documents the assistance he/she is providing.

Times monitored: 2 (November,

The CRF coach does not document the assistance he/she is providing.

The CRF coach provides sketchy and incomplete documentation of the assistance he/she is providing.

The CRF coach provides documentation of contacts with teachers, but does not specify the nature (classroom observation, coaching,

The CRF coach provides full documentation of the assistance he/she is providing to each teacher, including date, nature of assistance, and necessary follow-up.

26

VII. Coaching

Item Number 1 2 3 4 5 February) modeling, providing

resources) of the contact.


60. The CRF coach supports grade level teams in analyzing student data and making decisions about research-based materials, grouping, and differentiation of instruction. (Informal professional development)


The CRF coach is not involved with grade level teams in analyzing student data and making decisions about research-based materials, grouping, and differentiation of instruction.

The CRF coach provides print-outs of student data to grade level teams but does not assist them in making decisions about research-based materials, grouping, and differentiation of instruction.

The CRF coach provides summaries of student data to grade level teams and answers questions about the data but does not assist teachers in making decisions about research-based materials, grouping, and differentiation of instruction.

The CRF coach works collaboratively with grade level teams and assists them in analyzing multiple sources of student data and making decisions about research-based materials, grouping, and differentiation of instruction.

The CRF coach works collaboratively with grade level teams and uses meetings as opportunities to collaborate with and teach teachers how to analyze and use multiple data sources to make decisions about research-based materials, grouping, and differentiation of instruction.


61. The CRF coach assists teachers in addressing the changes needed within their own classrooms and the school to make sure K-3 students are reading at grade level.


The CRF coach provides experiences that are inconsistent with the changes needed within classrooms and the school to make sure K-3 students are reading at grade level.

The CRF coach provides experiences that address CRF expectations but are not sufficiently substantive to address the changes needed within classrooms and the school to make sure K-3 students are reading at grade level.

The CRF coach provides teachers with surface-level learning rather than developing a deep understanding of the changes needed within their own classrooms and the school to make sure K-3 students are reading at grade level.

The CRF coach provides experiences that address the content knowledge (the “what” ) and underlying concepts (the “why”) that teachers need to ensure that K-3 students are reading at grade level.


27

VIII. Professional Development


62. Principal, coach, K-3 classroom teachers, reading specialists (e.g., special education, ELL, Title I), and district leadership participate in all required state level professional development (Online Courses).


Principal, coach, K-3 classroom teachers, reading specialists, and district leadership do not participate in all required state level professional development (Online Courses).

Some, but not all of the school staff, participate in all required state level professional development (Online Courses).District leadership does not participate.

School staff participates in all required state level professional development (Online Courses).District leadership does not participate.

Principal, coach, K-3 classroom teachers, reading specialists and district leadership participate in all required state level professional development (Online Courses).

Principal, coach, K-3 classroom teachers, reading specialists and district leadership participate in all required state level professional development (Online Courses). Classroom observations indicate that learnings have been applied and are embedded in practice.


64. Ongoing professional development (formal and informal) targets the identified needs of staff and students.

Times monitored: 1 (February)

No plan for ongoing professional development is in place.

A plan for ongoing professional development is in place but does not target needs of staff and students identified through analysis of data.

A plan for ongoing professional development is in place, but is based on staff needs without consideration of student needs identified through analysis of data.

A plan for ongoing professional development is in place and is based on student and staff needs identified through analysis of data. The plan includes application of learning in classroom practice, as evidenced by observations. The plan is regularly reviewed and revised as necessary based on updated staff and student data.


28

VIII. Professional Development


65. Teachers work together in regular grade level meetings to plan and adjust instruction (informal professional development).


Teachers do not meet as grade level teams.

Teachers meet as grade level teams but do not work together to plan and adjust instruction.

Teachers meet as grade level teams. Attendance records indicate that most teachers attend these meetings. Minutes indicate that meetings address planning and adjustment of instruction as one of any issues.

Teachers meet as grade level teams. Agendas are prepared and meeting minutes and attendance records are maintained. Minutes reflect that meetings are focused on planning and adjustment of instruction.


ANNUAL IMPLEMENTATION REVIEW (AIR) For Colorado …...Oct 07, 2009 · For each school, the CRF...

Documents

Transcript of ANNUAL IMPLEMENTATION REVIEW (AIR) For Colorado …...Oct 07, 2009 · For each school, the CRF...