Kings County Office of Education Kings County Office of ... Documents/309 Kings County... · Kings...

Kings County Office of Education Kings County Office of Education Consortium #309 General Education (MS/SS)

Induction Program Biennial Report for Fall 2013 Orange Cohort

309Kings County Office of Education BR2013

Commission on Teacher Credentialing

Biennial Report 2013 (For Institutions in the Orange, Green and Indigo Cohort Due Summer/Fall

2013) Academic Years 2011-2012 and 2012-13

Institution Kings County Office of Education

Date report is submitted October 15, 2013

Program documented in this report

General Education (MS/SS Induction program)

Name of Program Kings County Office of Education

Please identify all delivery options through which this

program is offered (Traditional, Intern, Other)

Traditional

Credential awarded MS/SS Clear Credential Is this program offered at more than one site? No If yes, list all sites at which the program is offered

N/A

Program Contact Abigail Sipes

Title Education/Learning Coordinator

Phone # (559) 589-7070

E-Mail [email protected] If the preparer of this report is different than the Program Contact, please note contact information for that person below: Name N/A

Title N/A

Phone # N/A

E-mail N/A

Kings County Office of Education Kings County Office of Education Consortium #309 General Education (MS/SS) Induction Program

Biennial Report for Fall 2013 Orange Cohort

309Kings County Office of Education BR2013 of 42

Section A, Part I: Contextual InformationLocal Educational Agency CD Code: 16-10165-0000000

Number of Schools Type of BTSA Induction Program

Support Provider Model(s) Used

Formative Assessment System

K-12 Elementary 21 Single District Classroom-based X FACT X Elementary Middle 5 Consortium X Full-time Released NTC FAS High School High 7 Multi-District Part-time Released Locally Designed COE X Other 10 Other Retired X See Attachment A:

Consortium and multi-district programs attach Participating Districts Form

Other Relevant Contextual Information The County Superintendent of Schools serves as the Lead Educational Agency (LEA) for the BTSA Induction program, serving 12 school districts, the county educational programs, two charter schools, and three private schools located within County boundaries. The schools served range in location as close as 10 minutes away to an hour away. The consortium spreads throughout the County, representing a broad cross section of the socio-economic, ethnic, and cultural populations. The participating districts are both rural and urban; they range in size from 302 to 3,892 and represent the cultural diversity of the region. The program serves Participating teachers who have completed traditional preparation programs, worked as interns, worked within a private school setting, hold out of state teaching credentials, or have earned dual credentials.

11-12 12-13 11-12 12-13

Number of candidates (public/charter schools) 63 60 Total Number of candidates assigned to Program Improvement settings

Year 1 22 18 Number of candidates (private schools) 0 1 Number of active Support Providers 43 45 Year 2 28 30 Candidate : Support Provider ratio 1.5:1 1:1 Total Number of Support Providers assigned to a

school in Program Improvement 31 38

Total number of candidates recommended for Clear MS or SS Credential

27 29 Number of Verification of Unavailability of a Commission-Approved Induction Program (CL-855) notices issued to eligible candidates

0 0

Number of candidates recommended for Clear MS or SS Credential via Early Completion Option

5 6

Other Relevant Participant Information

Participating teachers serve within a wide variety of contexts including sites located on a Naval base, Native Indian Reservation and with a state prison. Teachers serve in a wide variety of programs from Distinguished Schools to those in Program Improvement. Teachers work with student populations that include English learners, Gifted students, and Special Populations. Multiple schools served within the consortium have consistent access to technology with 1:1 technology platform while others have minimal access. The demographics reflect those of the region.




Program Changes Significant changes made since the last Biennial Report, Program Assessment, or Site Visit

Standard(s) Explanation of Change Approximate Implementation Date

CS 1, 3, 9 PS 1, 2, 5

The electronic portfolio system, TaskStream, has been fully implemented. August 2010-on-going

CS 1, 3 PS 2

The program has a fully implemented database, Filemaker Pro, to track and organize all participant data electronically.

August 2010-on-going

CS 1, 3, 4, PS 1

Change in leadership: • New Coordinator

The addition of one full time Consultant

June 2011-current

CS 1, 3 PS 1

Increase of support staff: Addition of one full-time and one part-time clerical support staff

July 2012-current

CS 1, 2 PS 1, 2

Communication and collaboration with stakeholder groups: Revised structure of all meetings for the purpose of fostering active participation and programmatic decision-making

July 2011- on-going

CS 1, 2, 7 PS 1, 2

Align with district goals and initiatives: • Met with district Superintendents annually to gain understanding of goals and focus to customize

support • Included district and site-specific evidence in the Mid-Year Chat and Exit Interview rubrics • Secured panel participation from all districts for Exit Interviews • BTSA leadership participated in district Alternative Governance Boards to gain firsthand knowledge of

district and site goals and areas for program to strengthen support Designed a Context Collaboration day for all site administrators, Support Providers and Participating Teachers to strengthen the design of job-embedded professional development, build a comprehensive system of support, and develop professionally through collaboration

July 2011-on-going

CS 1, 4, 9 PS 1, 3, 4

SP training: • Revised training program to increase learning in the following areas to concentrate on process over

product: o Understanding of the FACT Conceptual Framework, BTSA theory, Inquiry process,

plan/teach/reflect/apply, job-embedded professional development concept, Common and Program Standards, CSTP, formative assessment system, reflective conversations, analysis of student work, technology as a learning tool, support for student populations, differentiation, equity, analysis of student work, Common Core State Standards and pedagogical shifts, 21st century learning and skills

Provided Cognitive Coaching training





Program Changes Significant changes made since the last Biennial Report, Program Assessment, or Site Visit

Standard(s) Explanation of Change Approximate Implementation Date

CS 1, 2, 9 PS 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6

Formative assessment system: • Implemented Mid-Year Chats

o Developed rubrics through a collaborative stakeholder effort o Calibration of scores by assessors

• Enriched Exit Interviews o Developed rubrics through a collaborative stakeholder effort o Individualized rubrics based on district and site initiatives and goals o Interview panels expanded to include representation from County Superintendent, Assistant

Superintendent of Educational Services, Regional Director, Cluster 3, County Curriculum and Instruction Consultants, Coaches, and Coordinators, County Education Specials, Regional Technology Lead, Cluster 3 program leaders, Advisory Committee, program professional development providers, district Superintendents, site administrators, district curriculum specials, Portfolio Readers, and support providers

o Calibration of scores by assessors • Instructional Rounds

Changed design of PT/SP network meetings to increase collaboration around Continuum of Teaching Practice and reflection


CS 1, 2, 3, 9 PS 1, 3, 4

Addition of Portfolio Readers: • Design of Portfolio Reader process including:

o Selection process o Performance Feedback

• To build leadership within, deepen the capacity of, and broaden input of candidate competence, Portfolio Readers have been an added component to the program.

• This group attends trainings in the fall and spring specific to program and candidate strengths and areas of growth, district needs, and current educational trends.

• Portfolio Readers also meet twice yearly to review personal and group performance as indicated by mid-year and year-end surveys.

This group helps program identify continued

September 2011-on-going

Focus Inquiry Questions:

• How will revising the formative assessment training deepen the abilities of the support provider to foster reflection in the participating teacher?




Section A, Part II: Candidate Assessment/Performance and Program Effectiveness Information

Key Assessment Tools Include 4-6 key assessments

Description of Tool and Administration Protocol • Identify the number of participants, % of respondents, and range of

response options (e.g., 1 to 5 scale, 1 = low) • Include descriptive statistics (e.g., mean, range, percentage,

standard deviation) • Describe who is surveyed or assessed and how/when data are

collected, analyzed, and reported

Purpose What information does the assessment provide to the

program? What is assessed?

Program Effectiveness/Candidate Competence?

Standards Addressed

PS/CS

State Survey (1 of 5)

• Annual survey • Administered in March • Collected by May • Analyzed by July • Reported to stakeholders in July -August • Designed by state agencies • Administered online • Likert Scale (1-4) • Reported in percentages, mean, standard deviation • 2011/12 Participating Teachers: 22% respondents • 2012/13 Participating Teachers: 98% respondents • 2011/12 Support Providers: 49% respondents • 2012/13 Support Providers: 91% respondents

• Provides comparison of local program to state programs

• Provides data set for triangulation • Collect data for legislator • Candidate growth over time • Program Effectiveness • Candidate Competence

PS 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 CS 1, 2, 4, 5, 6, 8, 9

Mid-Year Survey (2 of 5)

• Annual survey • Administered in December • Collected in December • Analyzed in December • Reported to stakeholders in January-February • Designed locally • Administered online • Likert Scale (1-5) • Reported in percentages • 2011/12 Participating Teachers: 75% respondents • 2012/13 Participating Teachers: 98% respondents • 2011/12 Support Providers: N/A% respondents • 2012/13 Support Providers: 59% respondents

• Program Effectiveness • Identify areas for ongoing support and

for professional learning for both Participating Teachers and Support Providers

• Determine effectiveness of Participating Teacher and Support Provider match

PS 1, 3, 4 CS 1, 2, 4, 7




Exit Survey (3 of 5)

• Annual survey • Administered in April • Collected in April • Analyzed in May • Reported to stakeholders in June-September • Designed locally • Administered online • Likert Scale (1-5) • Reported in percentages • 2011/12 Participating Teachers: N/A% respondents • 2012/13 Participating Teachers: 98% respondents • 2011/12 Support Providers: N/A% respondents • 2012/13 Support Providers: 79% respondents

• Program Effectiveness • Identify areas for future support and

professional learning for both Participating Teachers and Support Providers

• Determine effectiveness of Participating Teacher and Support Provider match

PS 1, 3, 4 CS 1, 2, 4, 7

Mid-year Chats (4 of 5)

• Conducted in December • Data collected in December • Reported to stakeholders in December-February • Designed locally • Administered using collaborative groups of Participating

Teachers with Support Providers working in teams of 2-3 as facilitators and scorers. Support Providers calibrate scoring with teams to provide a final evaluation to the Participating Teacher and his/her Support Provider including areas of strength and areas for considered growth. Throughout the Mid-year Chat Interviews, Portfolio Readers and other Advisory members collect overall, program information to assess program strengths and continued areas for growth and triangulate with portfolio reviews and other interviews.

• Developmental scale from Exploring to Integrating that is tied to a numeric score (Exploring being a score of 1 and Integrating being a score of 4) based on a rubric.

• Reported in % • 2011/12 Participating Teachers: N/A% participants • 2012/13 Participating Teachers: 100% participants • 2011/12 Support Providers: N/A% participants • 2012/13 Support Providers: 100% participants

• Program Effectiveness • Identifying areas of program strength

and areas for growth • Engage the Support Providers more

deeply in the process for the purpose of developing their understanding of the formative assessment system

• Provide a forum for collaboration, reflection, sharing practices, and learning

• Triangulate information with portfolio reviews

• Candidate Competence • Assessing Participating Teachers’

demonstration and application of pedagogy, technology, English learners, and special populations

PS 2, 4, 5, 6 CS 4, 9




Exit Interviews (5 of 5)

• Conducted in April-May • Data collected in April- May • Reported to stakeholders in May-September • Designed locally • Administered through Participating Teachers share

evidence of their demonstration and application of their content standards

• Developmental scale from Exploring to Integrating that is tied to a numeric score (Exploring being a score of 1 and Integrating being a score of 4) based on a rubric.

• 2011/12 Participating Teachers: 100% participants • 2012/13 Participating Teachers: 100% participants • 2011/12 Support Providers: N/A% participants • 2012/13 Support Providers: N/A% participants

• Program Effectiveness • Identifying areas of program strength

and areas for growth • Engage the Advisory Committee and

consortium members more deeply in the process for the purpose of developing their understanding of the formative assessment system and support the growth of participating teachers

• Engage the Support Providers more deeply in the process for the purpose of developing their understanding of the formative assessment system

• Provide a forum for collaboration, reflection, sharing practices, and learning

• Triangulate information with portfolio reviews

• Candidate Competence • Assessing Participating Teachers’

demonstration and application of pedagogy, technology, English learners, and special populations

PS 1, 2, 4, 5, 6 CS 1, 2, 4, 9




Section A, Part II: Candidate Assessment/Performance and Program Effectiveness InformationKey Assessment Tool Presentation and Discussion of Data

Present data using charts, graphs or tables as appropriate. Accompany with limited narrative text, as needed, to illuminate the data and findings. Include a minimum of 2 years of most recent data.

(Participating Teacher) IMPACT – Collection and Analysis of Evidence

Participating Teacher BSTA Survey - 2011-2012

Pro

gram

M

ean

Pro

gram

St

anda

rd

Stat

e

Mea

n

Stat

e St

anda

rd

Not

icea

bly

Abo

ve

Not

icea

bly

Bel

ow

D. Impact of BTSA Induction on Teacher Practice 12. How much impact did the following BTSA INDUCTION FORMATIVE ASSESSMENT COMPONENTS have on your classroom practice?

12a. Collection and analysis of evidence of my teaching practice

K - 5 6 - 8

9 - 12

No impact-1, Some impact-2, Moderate impact-3, Strong impact-4 Did not participate in this activity

3.14

3.003.333.14

0

0.77

0.820.580.90

0.0%

3.28

25

.82

0.2%

X

X





Pro

gram

M

ean

Pro

gram

St

anda

rd

Stat

e

Mea

n

Stat

e St

anda

rd

Not

icea

bly

Abo

ve

Not

icea

bly

Bel

ow

C. Impact of BTSA Induction on Teacher Practice 11. How much impact did your overall BTSA INDUCTION experience have on your classroom practice from the following program components? (Consider your work with your Support Provider, your formative assessment inquiry experiences, and professional development over the course of this year.) 11b. Collecting and analyzing evidence of my teaching practice and comparing my teaching practice against criteria (e.g. “Continuum of Teaching Practice”) No impact-1, Some impact-2, Moderate impact-3, Strong impact-4 Did not participate in this activity

3.24

3

0.83

0.2%

3.17

36

0.87

0.3%

X

X

(Participating Teacher) IMPACT – Teaching Practice and Criteria


Pro

gram

M

ean

Pro

gram

St

anda

rd

Stat

e

Mea

n

Stat

e St

anda

rd

Not

icea

bly

Abo

ve

Not

icea

bly

Bel

ow

D. Impact of BTSA Induction on Teacher Practice 12. How much impact did the following BTSA INDUCTION FORMATIVE ASSESSMENT COMPONENTS have on your classroom practice?

12e. Examination of my teaching practice against criteria (e.g. “Continuum of Teaching Practice”) No impact-1, Some impact-2, Moderate impact-3, Strong impact-4 Did not participate in this activity

3.07

1

1.00

7.1%

2.96

1,582

0.90

12.2%

X

X





Pro

gram

M

ean

Pro

gram

St

anda

rd

Stat

e

Mea

n

Stat

e St

anda

rd

Not

icea

bly

Abo

ve

Not

icea

bly

Bel

ow

C. Impact of BTSA Induction on Teacher Practice 11. How much impact did your overall BTSA INDUCTION experience have on your classroom practice from the following program components? (Consider your work with your Support Provider, your formative assessment inquiry experiences, and professional development over the course of this year.) 11b. Collecting and analyzing evidence of my teaching practice and comparing my teaching practice against criteria (e.g. “Continuum of Teaching Practice”) No impact-1, Some impact-2, Moderate impact-3, Strong impact-4 Did not participate in this activity

3.24

3

0.83

0.2%

3.17

36

0.87

0.3%

X

X

(Participating Teacher) IMPACT – Analyzing Student Work


Pro

gram

M

ean

Pro

gram

St

anda

rd

Stat

e

Mea

n

Stat

e St

anda

rd

Not

icea

bly

Abo

ve

Not

icea

bly

Bel

ow

D. Impact of BTSA Induction on Teacher Practice 13. How did the following examples of SUPPORT FROM YOUR BTSA INDCUTION SUPPORT PROVIDER impact your classroom practice?

13h. Analyzing student work No impact-1, Some impact-2, Moderate impact-3, Strong impact-4 Did not experience this type of support

3.36

2

1.01

14.3%

3.14

2,772

0.90

21.4%

X

X





Pro

gram

M

ean

Pro

gram

St

anda

rd

Stat

e

Mea

n

Stat

e St

anda

rd

Not

icea

bly

Abo

ve

Not

icea

bly

Bel

ow

C. Impact of BTSA Induction on Teacher Practice 11. How much impact did your overall BTSA INDUCTION experience have on your classroom practice from the following program components? (Consider your work with your Support Provider, your formative assessment inquiry experiences, and professional development over the course of this year.) 11k. Support in assessing student needs and differentiating instruction (including analysis of student work) from my Support Provider and/or professional development opportunities. No impact-1, Some impact-2, Moderate impact-3, Strong impact-4 Did not experience this type of support

3.35

5

0.79

0.3%

3.30

87

0.82

0.6%

X

X

(Support Provider) PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT

Support Provider BSTA Survey - 2011-2012

Pro

gram

To

tal

Pro

gram

P

erce

nt

Stat

e

Tota

l

Stat

e P

erce

nt

Not

icea

bly

Abo

ve

Not

icea

bly

Bel

ow

B. Professional Development for Support Providers 20. Describe your professional development training experiences related to your roles as a Support Provider, in the following areas.

20i. Using coaching techniques to facilitate reflective conversations on the Participating Teacher(s) practice

Received initially only Received initially and ongoing

Have not received

0200

0%100%

0%

8474,762

103

14.7% 82.7% 1.8%

X

X

X




Support Provider BSTA Survey - 2012-13

Pro

gram

To

tal

Pro

gram

P

erce

nt

Stat

e

Tota

l

Stat

e P

erce

nt

Not

icea

bly

Abo

ve

Not

icea

bly

Bel

ow

B. Professional Development for Support Providers 17. Describe the professional development training experiences you have received from your BTSA program to enhance your Support Provider knowledge and skills in the following areas:

17i. Using coaching techniques to facilitate reflective conversations on the Participating Teacher(s) practice

Received initially only Received initially and ongoing

Have not received

2400

4.8%95.2%

0%

9665,580

110

14.4% 83.3% 1.6%

X

X

X

AREAS OF STRENGTH AREAS FOR GROWTH State Survey: Participating Teacher Support Provider

Participants identified the formative assessment system and processes within it as positively impacting teaching and learning practices. Local participant means were above those of state. Support providers also recognize the ability to coach as a skill set required for an effective provider. Additionally, support providers attributed ongoing program training and development as beneficial to their professional practices and role within the program.

2011-2012 survey results were meager with only a 22% completion rate by participating teachers and 49% by support providers. In 2012-2013, survey completion significantly increased to 98% and 91% participation by candidates and support providers respectively. The program must maintain systems to ensure significant participation for ongoing program assessment and evaluation purposes.




ASSESSMENT TOOL SUMMARY OF DATA

Include descriptive statistics (e.g. mean, range, percentage, standard deviation)

Local Mid-Year Survey • Participating Teachers

• 2011-12 • 2012-13

Through collaboration with my SP about FACT, I have developed deeper reflective practices around my instructional practices and choices.

Participating Teachers 2011-12 & 2012-13

“Through collaboration with my SP about FACT, I have developed deeper reflective practices around my instructional practices and choices.”

1 2 3 4

2011-12 2% 11% 58% 29% 2012-13 0% 5% 35% 60%

Level of Satisfaction - 2011-12: 87% 2012-13: 95%

Strongly Agree – 4; Agree – 3; Somewhat Agree – 2; Disagree – 1

AREAS OF STRENGTH AREAS FOR GROWTH BTSA Local Mid-Year Survey

• As a program, the focus on deepening support provider capacity to foster reflective thinking within participating teachers is transferring to their collaboration in a way that is recognized and valued.

• Through support provider trainings, there will be a continued emphasis on developing cognitive coaching skills to build improve the candidate’s ability to reflect on evidence around teaching and learning practices.

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

1 2 3 4

2011-12

2012-13






BTSA Local Mid-Year Survey • Participating Teachers

• 2011-12 • 2012-13

The FACT process has helped me to grow and develop as a practitioner.


“The FACT process has helped me to grow and develop as a practitioner.”

1 2 3 4

2011-12 6% 15% 53% 26% 2012-13 2% 12% 52% 35%




• Over the last three years, support provider training has centered around the explicit use of the Formative Assessment for California Teachers (FACT) Conceptual Framework, more specifically, the process of reflection. Through revising the FACT training to develop deeper understanding, the participating teachers are reporting an increase in value of the program as well as directly linking it to increased professional growth.

• The program must continue to explicitly connect what candidates are doing in the field to the induction experience to fulfill the intent of the design as job-embedded professional development.

• The program must continue to work with all stakeholder groups for on-going program improvement that will provide the most valuable experiences and support aligned to specific sites and current educational trends.

0%10%20%30%40%50%60%

1 2 3 4

2011-12

2012-13







• 2011-12 • 2012-13

The FACT curriculum promotes and develops professional norms of inquiry, collaboration, data driven dialog and reflection to improve student learning.


“The FACT curriculum promotes and develops professional norms of inquiry, collaboration, data driven

dialogue and reflection to improve student learning.”

1 2 3 4

2011-12 0% 6% 67% 27% 2012-13 0% 3% 40% 57%




• Currently, the majority of participating teachers in the program value the inquiry-based formative assessment system and attribute professional growth and student learning to its continuous improvement cycle.

• 40% of participating teachers “agree” that the formative assessment system supports their professional growth. Although this is an increase from the prior year, the program may benefit from a continued effort to explicitly connect the candidate’s work in the field with induction.

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

1 2 3 4

2011-12

2012-13







• 2011-12 • 2012-13

I reflect upon and apply the CSTPs and my content knowledge for subject matter instruction beyond (to a greater degree, in more depth, more often) what I demonstrated during my teacher preparation years.


“I reflect upon and apply the CSTPs and my content knowledge for subject matter instruction beyond (to a greater degree, in more depth, more often) what I demonstrated during my teacher preparation years.”

1 2 3 4

2011-12 0% 4% 60% 36% 2012-13 0% 5% 33% 62%




• Participating teachers self-report growth and improvement in their ability to reflect upon and apply the California Standards for the Teaching Profession (CSTPs) and the specific pedagogical skills beyond what was demonstrated for the preliminary credential.

• The revised and deepened FACT training for support providers is benefitting the practice of the participating teachers. The emphasis on the plan-teach-reflect-apply model with the use of evidence is developing critical thinking skills and professional habits of mind within the participating teachers.

• Incorporating the analysis of student work, analysis and planning according to student performance levels, the use of multiple measures, lesson planning, incorporating the strategic use of differentiated content, instruction, and product will further develop the participating teachers’ abilities to serve a full range of learners, create a healthy and safe learning environment, and use data to inform decision making.

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

1 2 3 4

2011-12

2012-13






BTSA Local Mid-Year Survey • Support Providers

• 2011-12 • 2012-13

Cognitive Coaching training has deepened my skills as a coach and capacity as a support provider.

Support Providers 2011-12 & 2012-13

“What professional development and training have been the most beneficial for you as a Support Provider?”

56% Cognitive Coaching 18% Instructional Rounds 15% Reflective Conversations 9% FACT Components 6% Mid-Year Chats/Year-End & Exit Interviews

Kagan Strategies English Learners (Nofziger)

“Cognitive Coaching training has deepened my skills as a coach and capacity as a support provider.” - Narrative


02468

101214161820





• Support providers clearly ascribe cognitive coaching training or a framework that supports reflective thinking to an increase in their ability to support participating teachers’ ability to be self-directed problem solvers, critical thinkers, and reflective practitioners.

• Linking this data to the above feedback from participating teachers indicates a relationship between developing the skills and knowledge of the support providers to development of the participating teachers.

• Above reporting was formatted as open-ended so that support providers would record independent thinking. This resulted in 89% of support providers identifying reflective practices as beneficial to their skills and knowledge and personal, professional growth.

• Continue to select, prepare, and assign support providers who demonstrate the willingness to continue growing professionally and within the role of support provider.

• Expand FACT training to include different support stances including, coaching, consulting, and collaborating so that support providers may differentiate support according to circumstance, a participating teacher’s mindset, level of ability, skills, and knowledge.






BTSA Local Year-End Survey • Participating Teachers

• 2011-12 • 2012-13

Through collaboration with my support provider about the formative assessment system, I have developed deeper reflective practices around my instructional practices and choices.


“Through collaboration with my support provider about the formative assessment system, I have developed deeper reflective practices around my instructional practices and choices.”

1 2 3 4

2011-12 N/A N/A N/A N/A 2012-13 0% 3% 27% 70%

Level of Satisfaction - 2011-12: N/A% 2012-13: 97%


AREAS OF STRENGTH AREAS FOR GROWTH BTSA Local Year-End Survey

97% of participating teachers agree to strongly agree that collaboration with support providers helps them establish reflective habits of mind.

Data was not collected in 2011-2012. The program must ensure consistent data is collected so that trends may be better identified.

0

10

20

30

40

50

1 2 3 4

2011-12

2012-13







• 2011-12 • 2012-13

The FACT curriculum promotes and develops professional norms of inquiry, collaboration, data driven dialogue, and reflection to improve student learning.


“The FACT curriculum promotes and develops professional norms of inquiry, collaboration, data driven dialogue, and reflection to improve student learning.”

1 2 3 4

2011-12 N/A N/A N/A N/A 2012-13 0% 2% 36% 62%




98% of participating teachers attribute engagement of the formative assessment system to student learning.

The program may continue to collaborating with its partners to ensure authentic and meaningful field experiences reflective of 21st century demands.

05

10152025303540

1 2 3 4

2011-12

2012-13







• 2011-12 • 2012-13

The FACT curriculum processes are designed to improve my teaching practice.


“The FACT curriculum processes are designed to improve my teaching practice.”

1 2 3 4

2011-12 N/A N/A N/A N/A 2012-13 0% 2% 38% 60%




The revised FACT training has increased the support provider skills and knowledge about the conceptual framework and is translating positively in their support of the participating teachers. 98% of candidates recognize and either agree or strongly agree that the processes used within the system support professional growth. Of the 98%, 60% strongly agree.


05

10152025303540

1 2 3 4

2011-12

2012-13







• 2011-12 • 2012-13

I reflect upon and apply my CSTP's and content knowledge for subject matter instruction to a greater degree/more in depth and more often than what I demonstrated during my preparation years.


“I reflect upon and apply my CSTP's and content knowledge for subject matter instruction to a greater degree/more in depth and more often than what I demonstrated during my preparation years.”

1 2 3 4

2011-12 N/A N/A N/A N/A 2012-13 0% 2% 23% 75%




98% of participants understand the purposeful redundancy in the design of pre-service and induction programs. The emphasis placed on the processes used within the FACT Conceptual Framework in the revised support provider training has resulted in a building greater awareness of professional practices within candidates.


0

10

20

30

40

50

1 2 3 4

2011-12

2012-13






BTSA Local Exit Interview • Participating Teachers

• 2011-12 Integrating: Analyzes and integrates information from a wide range of sources to expand skills of collaboration and reflection as a habit of practice and to impact teacher effectiveness and student learning. Applying: Collaborates and reflects regularly with colleagues to improve teaching practice and student success. Exploring: Seeks collaboration with colleagues, resource personnel, and families to reflect on ways to improve teaching practice and student success. Emerging: Works collaboratively with assigned colleagues to reflect on and improve teaching practice and student success.

Participating Teachers 2011-12

Aggregated scores for the program and per year of participation

Of demonstration and application of CSTPs, academic content standards, program standards

Year 1 Year 2 Total Integrating 28% 42% 35%Applying 47% 52% 49%Exploring 25% 6% 16%Emerging 0% 0% 0%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

Integrating Applying Exploring Emerging

Year 1

Year 2

Total




AREAS OF STRENGTH AREAS FOR GROWTH BTSA Local Exit Interview

• The Exit Interview format uses panelists from regional leadership and consortium Advisory Committee members, and county, district and site leadership and specialists, portfolio readers, and support providers. This diverse group provides of collective picture of individual and overall program effectiveness and candidate competence.

• Exit Interviews are the product of the induction program collaborating with administrators to establish professional educational community and ensures structures that support the activities of induction align with site/district goals, initiatives, and practices.

• Exit Interviews provide an opportunity for county, site/district leadership to build knowledge of the formative assessment system, support and contribute to the growth and development of participating teachers, and actively participate in the program.

• As a program 84% of candidates are identified as applying to integrating Program Standards 5 & 6, CSTPs, and the use of reflective thinking to inform teaching and learning practices.

• As identified by panelists, 16% of program participating teachers are “exploring” ways to improve teaching and learning practices and student success. Of this, 25% of first year candidates are at this level. The program will benefit from analysis of the disaggregated data per standard to better individualize support per participating teacher as well as program-wide areas for improvement.

• Program-wide and individual data is shared with all stakeholders, and specifically with support providers to help inform their support of the participating teacher. To enrich the formative use of this data, the program may incorporate a follow-up activity/conversation around the results at the beginning of the next year for Year 2 participating teachers similar to the practice of Year 1 candidates linking Teacher Performance Assessment to the first year(s) of teaching.






BTSA Local Mid-Year Chat • Participating Teachers



Aggregated scores for the program and per year of participation

Of demonstration and application of CSTPs, academic content standards, program standards


0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%


Year 1

Year 2

Total




AREAS OF STRENGTH AREAS FOR GROWTH BTSA Local Mid-Year Chat

• 91% of program participants received a score of Exceeds (Integrating) or Met (Applying) toward demonstration and application of the CSTPs, academic content standards, and program standards.

• This high success rate was triangulated and aligned with portfolio reviews.

• 12% of Year 2 participating teachers received a score of “Exploring” which was 8% higher than those Year 1 participants scoring at the same level.

• Ensure proper calibration of scoring and discussion of different (if any) expectations between Year 1 and Year 2 candidates.

• Continue to triangulate information to gain a full picture of candidate competence through use of multiple measures.






BTSA Local Exit Interview • Participating Teachers



Aggregated scores for the program and per year of participation Of demonstration and application of CSTPs, academic content standards, program standards


0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%


Year 1

Year 2

Total




AREAS OF STRENGTH AREAS FOR GROWTH BTSA Local Exit Interview

• There is continued collaboration, support, and participation of consortium stakeholders groups.

• Program candidates overall identified level of proficiency in teaching and learning practices increased from 84% to 98% or a total of 14% from 2011/2012 to 2012/2013.

• The program will benefit from ensuring all panelists participate in articulation practice prior to scoring during interviews. This will help program leadership safeguard against potential discrepancies of scoring.




Section A, Part III: Analysis and Discussion of Candidate and Program DataSection A, Part IV: Use of Assessment Results to Improve Candidate and Program Performance

Areas of Strength

After analyzing our data from multiple sources, the following areas have been identified as areas of strength within the program: • Overall Program Effectiveness:

o The unit and its partners have collaboratively designed a clear and shared understanding of candidate competence. o There is authentic and meaningful collaboration between the program and site/district leadership and program participants. o 100% representation from all consortium districts for Exit Interviews o Contact made with 100% of consortium district representatives to communicate program data and gain understanding of annul district focus areas

so program might align with individual needs o Support providers and participating teachers report a clear understanding of the purpose and outcomes of the formative assessment system o Participating teachers report a clear understanding of induction requirements responsibilities o There is an inclusive formative assessment system where all representatives of each stakeholder group participates and contributes to program

effectiveness and supporting candidate competence • Overall Participating Teachers, Candidate Competence:

o 98% of participating teachers received a rating of Exceeding (Integrating) or Meeting (Applying) on Exit Interview results o 91% of participating teachers received a rating of Exceeding (Integrating) or Meeting (Applying) on Mid-year Chats results o Candidates report an increase in reflective practice that result in effectively supporting students in meeting the state-adopted academic standards

and Commission-adopted competency requirements, as specified by the program standards. o Candidates find value in the program’s inquiry-based formative assessment system characterized by the plan, teach, reflect, and apply cycle, toward

improving teaching practices grounded in the California Standards for the Teaching Profession. o Trends emerged from multiple measures indicate that participating teachers understand the formative assessment system, have grown as

practitioners through its structures, and improved in the ability to self-reflect on evidence of practice. • Overall Support Providers Effectiveness:

o The unit and its partners have articulated a research-based vision of support provider effectiveness that is supported through adequate resources. o Qualified support providers are selected, prepared, and assigned based on well-defined criteria consistent with the provider’s responsibilities in the

program. o Initial and ongoing support provider training is explicitly linked to the FACT Conceptual Framework and designed to develop the knowledge and

skills of an effective mentor/coach o The revised support provider FACT training may be linked to the participating teacher’s ability to reflect more deeply upon teaching and learning

practices and understanding the intent of induction as job-embedded professional development. o Support providers report a positive impact on their own professional growth through the revised FACT training and an increased confidence in the

ability to foster reflective thinking within participating teachers due to the addition of cognitive coaching





Data Source Area(s) for Growth Plan of Action Action plan items should be specific. Program will report on the status of these actions

or modifications in the next biennial report.

Applicable Standard(s)

Site Administrator Statewide Survey

2/27 and 9/27 site administrators completed and submitted the Statewide survey during 2011-2012, 2012-2013 respectively making this data too insignificant to use Two years of data reveal that BTSA Induction program leaders need to make an effort to include site administrators in the statewide survey process for the purpose of gathering feedback

• Meet individually with all district superintendents and school site principals to increase communication and awareness of the program, as well as gather information related to district-specific professional development needs

• Invite site administrators to participate in Exit Interviews • Invite site administrators to participate in a portion of

Context Collaboration Day (orientation) with participating teachers and support providers

• Share support provider data with site administrators to increase awareness and involvement in the selection of qualified support providers

• Invite site administrators to complete the statewide survey at a planned principal’s meeting

CS 1 PS 2

Data Source Area(s) for Growth Plan of Action Action plan items should be specific. Program will report on the status of these actions

or modifications in the next biennial report.

Applicable Standard(s)

State Survey Continue to solidify the unit’s assessment and evaluation system for ongoing and consistent participation from all stakeholders to inform program improvement decisions

• Make personal contact with each site administrator to ensure participation in the State Survey in order to solicit feedback

• Program leadership continues to distribute key program assessments to stakeholder groups

• Continue to provide immediate feedback of program assessment for stakeholder evaluation and program decision making

• Continue to explicitly link program data to program improvement so that stakeholder groups will be aware of their impact on the program and develop a sense of ownership

CS 2 PS 2





State Survey Mid-year Survey Exit Survey Mid-year Chats Exit Interviews

Continue to provide opportunities for authentic, job-embedded professional development that engage all stakeholder groups in participating in the program

• Use program data and stakeholder group feedback to inform the design of the program

• Explicitly link induction experiences to field experience and current educational trends (flipped classroom, instructional rounds, etc.)

• Continue Context Collaboration (orientation) as a day of support provider and participating teacher collaboration and instructional rounds as a structure for observations, collective inquiry, and reflection

CS 1, 7, 9 PS 1, 2, 4

Mid-year Survey Exit Survey Mid-year Chats Exit Interviews

Continue to expand support provider mentoring knowledge and skills to better identify participating teacher’s mindset and differentiate support accordingly

• Provide and discuss professional literature about mentoring and different approaches such as coaching, consulting, and collaborating

• Provide state-of-mind training as a component of cognitive coaching to develop support providers ability to identify areas of strength and growth with a participating teacher

• Provide time to model, debrief, and practice coaching skills • Dedicate time for support providers to reflect and plan on

their own mentoring practices at meetings and through the monthly log

CS 4 PS 3

Mid-Year Surveys Exit Surveys Mid-Year Chats Exit Interviews

Ensure participating teachers are using evidence to reflect upon professional practices around teaching and learning

• Provide support provider training on the effective use of the Continuum of Teaching and Learning

• Model the effective use of the Continuum of Teaching and Learning and the use of evidence at initial meetings and throughout the two year process

• Guide use of the Continuum of Teaching and Learning using evidence during small-group, site inquiry meetings

• Incorporate reflection upon the Continuum of Teaching and Learning and the use of evidence as a center piece for Mid-Year and Exit Interviews

CS 2, 4, 7, 9 PS 2, 3, 4




Section B: Institutional Summary and Plan of ActionGiven the information provided in Section A for each program, identify trends observed in the data across programs, areas of strength and areas for improvement.

Summary of Findings: The Kings County Office of Education Beginning Teacher Support and Assessment Induction program systematically uses formal and informal sets of data to carefully design its program. Upon an accreditation re-visit in 2011/2012 from the Commission on Teacher Credentialing there has been a concerted effort to create and articulate a research-based vision to provide direction for program design, candidate performance, support provider selection and training, program evaluation for ongoing improvement, and collaboration between the induction program and site/district partners. The program has concentrated on revising support provider training to build the knowledge and skills necessary to foster reflective thinking within candidates, a clear understanding of the formative assessment system, candidate growth over time in demonstration and application of state-adopted standards, California Standards for the Teaching Profession, and Program Standards. Systems have been put in place to ensure ongoing collaboration with all induction partners (Regional Director, Cluster Members, IHE partners, county leadership, professional development providers, Portfolio Readers, Site/District leaders and specialists, and program participants) including:

• annual district visits to share data and gather information about the district/site’s focus, • regular and well-attended Advisory meetings that provide opportunity for input and participation in the program • participation in Mid-year Chats, Exit Interviews, Individual Induction Plan Discussions, Context Collaboration Day, and Instructional Rounds observations • Mid-year and End-of-Year program reflection upon current data for support providers and participating teacher to inform program design and areas for

support The data gathered for the General Education Clear Credential Program shows clear trends and patters in an increase of overall program effectiveness, candidate competence, and support provider effectiveness. The ongoing collaboration of the Advisory Committee to articulate and carry out a strong vision around Common and Program Standards has laid the foundation for a strengthened program. The analysis of data from various sources indicates that participating teachers have a clear understanding of the formative assessment system and link its structures to improvements in teaching and learning practices. Candidates also reported growth in reflective practices. These findings were confirmed through Mid-year Chats and Exit Interviews as support providers and consortium members assessed candidate competence that resulted in program-wide scores of Exceed (Integrating) or Met (Applying) at 91% and 98% respectively. Additionally, the revised FACT training can be directly linked to the increase in candidate competence. Support providers skills and knowledge of mentoring, the California Standards for the Teaching Profession and the Formative Assessment System Conceptual Framework were developed. This resulted in a stronger understanding of their roles as mentors in supporting growth over time as well as development of professional habits of mind within participating teachers. As the program continues to solidify effective practices, areas of growth will be to continue developing meaningful opportunities for consortium members to engage in the program and increase ownership of it. As a starting point, in September of 2013/2014, a Context Collaboration Day was implemented where program leaders facilitated site administrators, support providers, and participating teachers in conversations about program design, discuss local context and its impact on teaching and learning, each site’s focus and goals for the year while making explicit connections to the induction process as job-embedded professional development. There was 100% representation from site administrators, support providers, and participating teachers. However, there is still work to do in relation to site administrator participation in the State Survey. The limited participation in the 2011/2012 State Survey, makes it is clear that program leaders must make a better effort to reach out and communicate its importance in program evaluation.




Support provides expressed that the revised training has positively impacted their professional growth. To maintain this trend, the program will continue to provide cognitive coaching as a foundational mentoring skill while enriching mentoring practices through discussion of professional publications about coaching, mentoring, and collaborating, exploring the possibility of integrating co-teaching into the program, modeling and debriefing coaching strategies, and requiring support providers to regularly reflect on their practice as a mentor through monthly logs. Participating teacher self-report a stronger ability to reflect on professional practices and a clear understanding of the formative assessment system. To augment this positive trend, the program will begin to ensure that evidence is central to candidate reflections through the use of the Continuum of Teaching and Learning. The effective use of this self-assessment tool will be modeled during initial and on-going meetings, and support provider trainings. Program leadership will also guide practice of the effective use during Inquiry Collaboration site visitations. All findings included in Kings County Office of Education’s Biennial Report are based on data obtained through a variety of data sources. The program has synthesized information from each stakeholder group. The program has implemented an assessment and evaluation system for ongoing program improvement and unit evaluation and improvement. Data is collected is comprehensive and related to candidate qualifications, proficiencies, and competence, as well as program effectiveness. Reflection on the data confirms promising trends in increased stakeholder knowledge of the formative assessment system, collaboration and participation, an increase in support provider effectiveness, and candidate competence. Specific areas for improvement include, increasing site administrators participation in the State Survey, solidifying assessment and evaluation systems, meaningful opportunities for stakeholder participation in the program, expanding support provider training to develop mentoring knowledge and skills and deliberately reflecting on their mentoring practice, and ensuring the effective use of the Continuum of Teaching and Learning including evidence-based reflection. Through the analysis and reflection of program data, the program is able to inform its design and offer the most relevant, field-based experiences in order for candidates to develop and demonstrate the knowledge and skills necessary to educate and support all students effectively in meeting state-adopted standards and the demands of 21st century. Description of Unit Evaluation System See Attachment B: Unit Assessment System




REFLECTIONDocumentation of Unit Evaluation System

Identify key actions taken over the last two years based on the previous program sponsor’s Biennial Report Action Plan. Action Taken Applicable

CS or PS The electronic portfolio system, TaskStream, has been fully implemented. CS 1, 3, 9

PS 1, 2, 5 Sinclair Research Group was hired to assist with data collection and interpretation through 2012. These services are no longer rendered to the program due to budget considerations.

CS 2, 3

The program has limited the supply of additional resources such as books for program participants due to budget considerations. Professional development opportunities and observation days are still offered to support providers and participating teachers.

CS 3 PS 3, 4

All support providers receive two full days of training on the Formative Assessment System Conceptual framework, including cognitive coaching trainings. Previously, support provider meetings took place monthly. Support provider feedback indicated this time together was of little value. In response, support provider meetings have been redesigned to include participating teachers to increase collaboration, Context Collaboration Day and Mid-year Chats. Through Context Collaboration day, administrators, support providers, and participating teachers increase program knowledge and skills while collaborating. Induction program leaders facilitate conversations for site administrators, support providers and participating teachers around Context of Teaching and Learning. This day acts as an orientation for participating teachers and training for site administrators. Additionally, Induction leadership and Portfolio Readers will travel to each site with to customize and scaffold Inquiry into Teaching and Learning training to fortify support throughout the inquiry process. Inquiry Collaboration meeting design will include:

• evaluation of significant evidence of teaching practice and student performance • development of the Individual Induction Plan (IIP) • lesson planning and building aligned assessments • analysis of student work • effective use of the Continuum of Teaching and Learning and self-assessment collaboration with colleagues and

support provider

CS 1, 7, 9 PS 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7

Advisory Committee meetings now have representation from each district. Program leadership has designated contact with each site administrator during Context Collaboration. Program leadership visits each district during May-August to communicate program data, and align program and district/site goals and initiatives with induction. Mid-year Chat and Exit Interview rubrics and Portfolio Reader trainings are customized per district/site. 100% of sites and districts are represented at Context Collaboration Day, instructional rounds process, and Exit Interviews.

CS 1, 2, 9 PS 1, 2, 4

Kings County Office of Education Kings County Office of Education Consortium #309 General Education (MS/SS) Induction

Program Biennial Report for Fall 2013 Orange Cohort


Kings County Office of Education Beginning Teacher Support and Assessment Induction

program #309 2012-2013 Participating Districts

ATTACHMENT A

Kings County Office of Education Kings County Office of Education Consortium #309 General Education (MS/SS) Induction

Program Biennial Report for Fall 2013 Orange Cohort


Beginning Teacher Support and Assessment FY 2012-2013 Participating Districts/County Offices

Program Number: 309 Lead Sponsor: Kings County Office of Education CDE Code: 16-10165-0000000 Program Director: Abby Sipes Email: [email protected] Phone: 559.589.7070

Note: all affiliated participating districts are noted below regardless of whether or not they currently have new teachers.

CD Code Participating District/County Office

Check this column if this

is a new district partner

Charging Candidates

? Yes or No

Number of candidates not being served, if

any

16-63875-0000000 Armona Union Elementary No N/A 16-63883-0000000 Central Union Elementary No N/A 16-63891-0000000 Corcoran Join Unified No N/A 16-63928-0000000 Hanford Joint Union High No N/A 16-63933-0000000 Island Union Elementary No N/A 16-10165-0000000 Kings County Office of Education No N/A 16-63941-0000000 Kings River-Hardwick Union Elem. No N/A 16-63958-0000000 Kit Carson Union Elementary No N/A 16-63966-0000000 Lakeside Union Elementary No N/A 16-63974-0000000 Lemoore Union Elementary No N/A 16-63982-0000000 Lemoore Union High No N/A 16-73932-0000000 Reef-Sunset Unified No N/A

Charter Schools

16-63990-0000000 Pioneer Union Elementary No N/A 16-63875-0000000 Crossroads Charter Academy No N/A

Private Schools

16-63974-6934053 Kings Christian School Yes N/A 16-63917-6970693 St. Rose-McCarthy Catholic

School Yes N/A

16-63974-6970768 Mary Immaculate Queen Catholic School

Yes N/A

Please provide information below for those no longer affiliated with your program: CDS Code District/School or

County Office Name Additional Information

(i.e. reason why the district is no longer affiliated with your program)N/A N/A N/A

Kings County Office of Education Kings County Office of Education Consortium #309 General Education (MS/SS)

Induction Program Biennial Report for Fall 2013 Orange Cohort


Kings County Office of Education Beginning Teacher Support and Assessment Induction

program #309 Unit Assessment System

ATTACHMENT B




Unit Assessment System

Common Standard Evaluation Focus Evaluation Instrument Interval Data Analyzed by

Data Reported to

1. Educational Leadership

Ensure that candidates recommended for a credential have met all requirements

• Electronic portfolio

• Exit interviews • Exit Interview

Rubric

• Mid-year checks

• End-of-year checks

• Leadership Committee • Support providers • Director/Consultant • Portfolio Readers • Exit Interview Panel • Advisory Committee

• Participating teachers

• Support providers • Leadership

committee • Site administrators • District leadership • Advisory

Committee

2. Assessment and evaluation

Candidate Competence, Unit and Program Effectiveness

• Continuum of Teaching Practice, Self-assessment

• Individual Induction Plans

• Stakeholder Surveys

• Upon enrollment, After observations, After Inquiry into Teaching and Learning

• Mid-year/Exit Interviews

• Throughout formative assessment process

• Program leadership • Advisory Committee • Support providers

• Advisory Committee

• Support providers • Participating

teachers • Site leadership • District leadership






Data Reported to

3. Resources Adequacy of program resources

• Expenditure report

• Analysis of eligible participating teacher numbers and participating teacher projections

• Annually - summer

• Director • Unit Leader, Assistant

Superintendent of Human Resources

• Chief Business Officer

• Unit leadership: Superintendent of Schools, Assistant Superintendent of Education Services

• Program leadership • Advisory

Committee

4. Faculty and Instructional Personnel

Evaluation Retention Performance of personnel and PD presenters

• Candidate surveys

• Completer surveys

• PD provider resume and credentials

• Ongoing • Unit leadership • Advisory Committee • Director • Consultant

• Unit leadership • Director • Consultant • Advisory

Committee

5. Admission Qualifications of candidates and admission criteria

• Enrollment documents

• Annually

• Unit leadership • Director • Consultant

• Unit leadership • Program leadership






Data Reported to

6. Advice and Assistance

Quality of expectations and requirements

• Portfolio Reader reviews

• Monthly logs • Candidate

completion • Mid-year Chats • Exit Interview

• Ongoing

• Nov-Dec • May-June

• Portfolio Reader Team • Program Leadership • Support providers • Participating teachers

• Program leadership • Advisory

Committee • Site leadership • District leadership • Support providers • Participating

teachers

7. Field Experiences Quality of Induction program

• FACT System • Participant

portfolios • Mid-year Chats • Mid-year

Surveys • Exit Interviews • Exit Surveys • Stakeholder

surveys

• Ongoing • Program leadership • Portfolio Leaders • Support providers

• Unit leadership • Program leadership • Advisory

Committee • Site leadership • District leadership • Support providers • Participating

teachers

8. District Employed Supervisors

Not applicable






Data Reported to

9. Assessment of Candidate Competence

Candidate competence and program effectiveness

• Candidate portfolios

• Candidates’ Self-assessments, Continuum of Teaching Practice

• Mid-year Chats • Exit Interviews

• Ongoing Program leadership • Advisory Members • Site leaderships • District leadership • Portfolio Readers • Support providers

• Unit leadership • Program

leadership • Advisory Members • Site leadership • District leadership • Portfolio Readers • Support providers • Participating

teachers

Kings County Office of Education Kings County Office of ... Documents/309 Kings County... · Kings...

Documents

Transcript of Kings County Office of Education Kings County Office of ... Documents/309 Kings County... · Kings...