GV BOCES School Improvement

Biographical Sketch:

John SanGiovanni is a nationally recognized leader in mathematics education. John works as the Coordinator of Mathematics in Howard County, Maryland leading mathematics curriculum design, professional learning, assessment, and digital learning. He also works to develop new mathematics leaders at McDaniel College in Maryland. John is the author of more than two dozen books about teaching and learning mathematics and consults nationally for curriculum development and professional learning. He is active in professional organizations, recently serving on the Board of Directors for the National Council of Teachers of Mathematics and currently on the Board of Directors for the National Council of Supervisors of Mathematics.

Session #1: Passed Date

Session #2: Passed Date

Session #3: Passed Date

Session #4: Passed Date

Session #5: Strategies for Multiplication and Division •

**DATE CHANGE: New Date is December 19, 2023 (Frontline will show the old date).

There are five significant strategies for multiplication and division of whole numbers laying the foundation for later number types. This session is a deep dive into those strategies highlighting what they are and how they work while providing classroom-ready resources to help you teach them.

Location: Online

Intended Audience: K-8 General Education, Special Education & Intervention Teachers, Instructional Coaches, and Administrators

Registration

Session #6: Passed Date

Session #7: Assessing Fluency • December 5, 8:30 AM – 9:45 AM

To assess fluency well, we must assess all three parts of it. This final workshop closes the loop on fluency by focusing on how and when to assess, what to look for, and where to go next. It is perfect for any grade-level math teacher. Classroom-ready resources will be shared.

Location: Online

Intended Audience: K-8 General Education, Special Education & Intervention Teachers, Instructional Coaches, and Administrators

Registration

Title: Designing Rubrics to Support Grading & Performance-Based Learning

Description:

Rubrics are coherent sets of criteria for students’ work that include descriptions of levels of performance quality on the criteria. As such, they are an excellent means for connecting formative assessment and summative assessment (grading). The same criteria and performance quality that students aim for in a formative manner as they learn can become the basis for the student’s grades if students and teachers have a shared understanding of the criteria and performance descriptions.

Objectives and Outcomes:

• Build expertise around creating or selecting effective criteria and performance-level descriptions for rubrics

• Distinguishing rubrics from checklists and rating scales

• Using rubrics with students to link learning and formative assessment/Performance Based Learning

Related Resources: How to Create and Use Rubrics for Formative Assessment and Grading – Brookhart

Date: February 28, 2024

Time: 8:30AM -11:30AM

Location: Online

Intended Audience: K-8 General Education, Special Education & Intervention Teachers, Instructional Coaches, and Administrators

Registration

Embedded in the School Improvement (SI) newsletter you will find important updates, information, and resources from the New York State Education Department (NYSED) & your regional Joint Management Team BOCES (Monroe 1 BOCES, Monroe 2 BOCES, Genesee Valley BOCES & Wayne-Finger Lakes BOCES). Below are direct links that assist with staying current regarding news and changes at the state level.

• NYSED Homepage
• Recent News Webpage

On November 13, 2023, The Blue Ribbon Commission provided the Board of Regents (BOR) with a robust list of recommendations to examine and consider when rethinking New York State’s graduation requirements. These recommendations are the result of a indepth stakeholder input process and through a review of pertaintent research/literature. The purpose of these initiatives was to create equity for all students, and ensure students in NYS gain the knowledge and skills necessary to succeed in future endeavors. The Commission members developed, and ultimately advanced, fifty-nine preliminary recommendations aligned within four priority areas. Next, Commission members voted electronically on the preliminary recommendations by assigning a rating of “high priority,” “medium priority,” “low priority,” or “do not support” evaluation. Thirty-seven preliminary recommendations were identified, by at least seventy-five percent (75%) of members, as a “high” or “medium” priority for them. Those thirty-seven recommendations were then combined into the following twelve (12) recommendations:

1. Replace the three diploma types with one diploma, with the option to add seals and endorsements.

2. Include civic responsibility (ethics); cultural competence; financial literacy education; fine and performing arts; science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) credit(s); and writing, including writing skills for real-world scenarios in diploma credit requirements.

3. Ensure access to career and technical education (CTE), including internships and work based-learning opportunities for all students across New York State.

4. Move to a model that organizes credit requirements— including content area credit requirements— into larger categories (e.g., mathematics and science courses could be included in the “STEM” category).

5. Reduce and/or modify diploma assessment requirements to allow more assessment options.

6. Create state-developed rubric(s) for any performance-based assessments allowed as an option to satisfy the diploma assessment requirements.

7. Create more specific, tailored graduation requirements to address the unique circumstances of certain groups of students (e.g., non-compulsory age students, newcomer students, refugee students).

8. Provide exemptions from diploma assessment requirements for students with significant cognitive disabilities and major life events and extenuating circumstances (e.g., medical conditions, death of a family member, trauma prior to sitting for a required exam).

9. Pursue regulatory changes to allow the discretion to confer high school degrees posthumously.

10. Require all New York State teacher preparation programs to provide instruction in culturally responsive-sustaining education (CRSE) practices and pedagogy.

11. Require that professional development plans include culturally responsive-sustaining education practices and pedagogy.

12. Review and revise the New York State learning standards.

The School Improvement (SI) newsletter strives to continue providing professional learning for school administrators, teachers, and staff that fit your district's needs. This section of the newsletter will provide readers with timely and relevant learning aligned with evidence-based practices. If you would like more professional learning on topics outlined in the newsletter, please contact the SI department. Our contact information is located at the bottom of the newsletter. Enjoy!

For students to learn and understand content and skills, they need to go beyond the information that was provided by their instructors, and create new knowledge and arrive at further understanding (Wiggins & McTighe, 2005). Developing the ability to transfer one’s learning is key to a good education, and using performance-based learning and assessment (PBLA) is a vehicle in which educators can use to drive that transfer. Transfer of learning is evidence for educators that students have mastery and competence with the skills and knowledge that was taught.

The History of PBLA:

PBLA has recently made a “comeback” in educational literature and curricula. In the 1990s, PBLA became a valid substitute to conventional multiple-choice tests. In the years that followed, legislative requirements shifted the emphasis to standardized testing, which caused a decline in nontraditional testing methods (Darling-Hammond & Adamson, 2013). As of late, many school districts and universities are pursuing more equitable measures of student learning, and PBLA has become once again a viable option.

Establishing Common Language: What is the “P” in PBLA?

Problem-based, project-based, product-based, performance-based… Oh my! So, what is the “P” in PBLA? In all, it is merely a semantics issue not worth worrying about, and absolute clarity depends on how an instructor frames/designs the learning sequences and experiences for their students. In truth, all variations of the “p” strive to incorporate deep understanding of learning through transfer. Moving forward, simply correlate the “p” with “student transfer” (Wiggins & McTighe, 2005).

For those that enjoy the semantic plunge, you may find assistance in comparing the old math advantage: “every square is a rectangle (because it is a quadrilateral with all four right angles). However, not every rectangle is a square, to be a square its sides must have the same length.” Analogous within this comparison, “problem-based” learning could be considered an inherent part of “project-based” learning, but perhaps not so readily the other way around. Please review the chart below to help you understand the similarities and differences between project-based and problem-based learning.

What is Driving PBLA:

How we evaluate student learning is important. More and more business and education leaders have begun to identify the importance in how we evaluate student learning and how that evaluation is a direct application to their post-secondary endeavors. For example, The Partnership for 21st Century Skills has suggested that in an age of innovation—in which the workplace will require “new ways to get work done, solve problems, or create new knowledge” (p. 34) —the assessment of students will need to be largely performance based, so that students can show how well they are able to apply content knowledge to critical thinking, problem solving, and analytical tasks throughout their education (Fadel, Honey, & Pasnik, 2007). In essence, the evolving landscape of both business and education underscores the increasing significance of evaluating student learning, particularly through performance-based assessments that illuminate students' abilities to apply knowledge to real-world challenges, aligning with the demands of a rapidly changing and innovative future.

The Research Supporting PBLA:

High-quality performance-based tasks have been shown effective in promoting and measuring complex thinking and problem-solving skills (Marion & Buckley, 2016). Cognitive psychologists studying how individuals learn have come to the following understanding:

Mere acquisition of knowledge and skills does not make people into competent thinkers or problem solvers. To know something is not just to passively receive information, but to interpret it and incorporate it; meaningful learning is reflective, constructive, and self-regulated (Wittrock, 1991, Bransford and Vye, 1989, Marzano et al., 1988, Davis et al., 1990).

Amidst these insights, cognitive psychologists have illuminated the perspective that mere acquisition of knowledge and skills falls short of transforming individuals into competent thinkers or problem solvers. In juxtaposition…

An exclusive reliance on multiple-choice tests that primarily measure basic skills and discrete knowledge—but neglect complex thinking and problem-solving—is not consistent with what practitioners in the field know about the kinds of assessments that promote student learning (Herman, 1992, p. 15).

In light of the research highlighting the efficacy of high-quality performance-based tasks for fostering complex thinking and problem-solving skills (Marion & Buckley, 2016), it becomes evident that a shift from a mere acquisition of knowledge to a more reflective, constructive, and self-regulated approach is crucial for meaningful learning (Wittrock, 1991). As Herman (1992) emphasizes, the exclusive reliance on multiple-choice tests falls short of capturing the essence of assessments that truly promote student learning, neglecting the crucial dimension of complex thinking and problem-solving abilities.

Pedagogical Paradigm Shift: The Transformative Potential of PBLA

In conclusion, Performance-Based Learning and Assessment (PBLA) emerges as a potent “vehicle” for cultivating deep understanding and facilitating knowledge transfer among students. The historical trajectory of PBLA showcases its resilience and resurgence as an alternative to conventional-testing methods. The new driving forces behind PBLA underscore the evolving demands of both the business and education landscapes, emphasizing the importance of evaluating student learning through performance-based assessments. Supported by research, PBLA has been shown to effectively promote complex thinking and problem-solving skills, challenging the limitations of traditional assessments.

As the educational paradigm continues to shift, embracing PBLA becomes integral to preparing students for the dynamic challenges of a rapidly changing and innovative future. The semantic nuances surrounding the "P" in PBLA dissolve when viewed through the lens of promoting student transfer and meaningful learning, which directly apply within this contemporary shift. In essence, PBLA not only serves as a current pedagogical approach but also signifies a fundamental shift toward fostering competencies crucial for success in the 21st century.

RESOURCE LINKS:

• PLAN Pilot Frequently Used Terms

• Project-Based Learning vs. Problem-Based Learning vs. X-BLBy John Larmer

• Taking Teaching to (Performance) Task: Linking Pedagogical and Assessment Practices

WANT TO LEARN MORE?

• Link SIT Book Study

• Link SIT PBLA Series

School Improvement (SI) takes great pride in the work we do at the state level, regionally, and when working directly with component districts. This section of the newsletter offers insight into the work SI does and provides recognition to local districts that strive for continuous school improvement. Partnerships and collaboration are the keys to everyone's success!

On November 8, 2023, Ricky Robertson joined Genesee Valley BOCES, as a featured speaker to present on “Building a Community of Care.” Robertson is a renowned educator, author, and consultant focused on adverse childhood experiences, trauma, restorative practices, culturally-responsive teaching, and LGBTQ+ student advocacy. He has supported students and staff across multiple settings including traditional and alternative schools in rural, urban, and suburban school communities.

Robertson first emphasized the need to develop and sustain effective integrated systems of support in districts and buildings. He identified four areas that support culturally-responsive teaching and leading; these include educator resilience, behavior as a form of communication, trauma-informed, social-emotional learning, and restorative practices. Building a community of care begins with educator resilience. When educators’ emotional needs are met, they can effectively support students in the remaining areas. Based on participants’ feedback at the beginning of the presentation, Robertson focused a majority of the day’s content and discussion around educator resilience.

Educator resilience is the lever that results in the effectiveness of all others. Robertson shared data related to teacher burnout and compassion fatigue. The majority of public school teachers expressed feeling frustrated, overwhelmed, and stressed (Yale Center for Emotional Intelligence and New Teacher Center Study, 2018). This data is concerning for a number of reasons: stress can disrupt concentration, decrease mental flexibility and creativity, and have a negative impact on resilience. Additionally, teachers’ emotions influence teacher-student relationships (Robertson, 2018).

Robertson clarified that teacher burnout is a systemic outcome and not a personal failure. He shared the ProQOL Scale (2021), a tool that measures compassion-satisfaction, compassion-fatigue, burnout, and secondary trauma. Reducing burnout includes setting boundaries, negotiating a workable relationship, and the understanding that doing so will come at a cost. When fostering educator resilience, it is important to raise awareness of the impact of chronic stress, compassion-fatigue, psychological safety, and burnout. Systems must provide tools for both individual and collective assessment(s), encourage individual self care, and implement school-wide/district-wide community care. Data needs to be collected to monitor the impact of such systems.

The resilience an educator demonstrates is paramount to successful implementation of other practices. Robertson discussed the interconnectedness of this concept to trauma-informed social-emotional learning, whereas behavior is a form of communication which can assist the implementation of restorative practices. In this case, trauma is defined as an event or a series of events that invoke a toxic stress response in the body; it is not just “bad things” that happen. Specifically, students can experience adverse childhood experiences in three realms: household, community, and the environment. It is beneficial to increase students’ access to protective factors and teach ways to manage stress in healthy ways. Robertson shared trauma-informed teaching resources from AdLit (2023), a multimedia project that supports readers and writers in middle and high school. Podcasts and videos provide guidance for educators on various topics related to trauma such as prevalence and impact of trauma and tools to understand student behavior. Robertson continued to emphasize the critical role of educator self-care and maintaining school-wide systems of support.

Building on this, it is important to note that relationships are considered a “protective factor” and are connected to student motivation (Robertson, 2023). However, the expectation is not that teachers serve as therapists. Every student at school should have a connection with an adult who can identify that student’s name and need. Robertson suggested schools conduct a relationship inventory every fall. He shared a graphic organizer for using the Establish-Maintain-Restore Relationship Inventory developed by Dr. Clay Cook (2018).

Additionally, collective-teacher efficacy is essential to supporting students. This belief, that each student is everyone’s student and that educators can improve student outcomes, has an effect size of 1.6 (Hattie, 2018); a significant influence on education, according to the metrics of meta analysis. Harnessing and implementing collective efficacy consists of continual improvement informed by evidence of impact (Robertson, 2018). When supporting students, it is important to focus on being proactive, responsive, and consistent. Robertson recommended asking two questions to another adult when discussing a student, “What is your relationship like with this student?” and “What can I do to support you?”. These questions will facilitate a restorative approach to the relationship.

Robertson’s presentation elaborated on the continuum of care found in the K-12 education system. Elementary schools typically provide many types of social-emotional support to students. The types of, and frequency of these supports, generally decreases in middle and high school, when students especially need them, due to their cognitive development. Robertson recommended districts map out their continuum of care for Tier 1, Tier 2, and Tier 3 on chart paper to visualize the social-emotional supports available in each building. Educators should reflect on each tier and identify what supports have been successful, unsuccessful, and/or need to be evaluated more closely. Furthermore, educators can form teams to engage in peer feedback within the school building. For example, Robertson showed a video representing such a team, who observed each others’ classrooms to provide quantitative and qualitative feedback using a common tool.

The first step in building a community of care is to focus on educator resilience. Robertson’s presentation provided anecdotal and data-driven evidence to demonstrate the significance of doing so. Adults demonstrating strong social-emotional learning skills are in a better position to support ALL students, especially those experiencing trauma and other adverse childhood experiences.

In the pursuit of educational improvement, the role of effective assessment practices cannot be overstated. Recently, at Mount Morris Elementary, a transformative initiative facilitated by School Improvement unfolded, focusing on the implementation of assessment blueprints to elevate the quality of classroom assessments. This back-to-basics approach (Schmoker, 2018) not only enhances assessment clarity, reliability, and sampling, but also empowers teachers with a profound sense of ownership and understanding of their assessments and practice.

Understanding Assessment Blueprints

An assessment blueprint serves as a strategic roadmap that outlines the structure and purpose of an assessment. It delineates the content to be covered, the type of questions or tasks, and the desired Depth of Knowledge (DOK) (Webb, 1997; Francis, 2021). Essentially, it is a comprehensive guide that ensures assessments align seamlessly with curriculum goals and learning objectives/standards.

Figure 1

The Blueprint Advantage: Clarity, Reliability, and Sampling

Implementing assessment blueprints at Mount Morris Elementary proved instrumental in achieving several crucial objectives. Firstly, it enhanced clarity by providing teachers with a clear overview of what to assess and how to align assessments with instructional objectives. This clarity contributes to the second benefit – improved reliability. With a standardized blueprint, educators ensure consistency in assessing students, promoting fair evaluation practices.

Furthermore, the blueprint process addressed the critical issue of sampling. By strategically planning the content and skills to be assessed, educators can create assessments that accurately represent students' overall understanding of the curriculum.

Challenges and Transformations: A Lesson in Blueprint Realignment

Before the implementation of this blueprint initiative, educators at Mount Morris Elementary had existing test blueprints. However, these blueprints primarily consisted of a list of each question and its corresponding standard, often attempting to connect or describe the level of rigor using Bloom's Taxonomy. Through the blueprint audit process, transformative insights emerged:

• Outdated Standards: Some standards were found to be outdated Common-Core Standards, necessitating a cross-walk to Next-Generation standards for relevance.

• Inaccurate Alignment: Some standards were inaccurately tied to questions, indicating a misalignment where the question did not engage the standard effectively.

• Reliability Challenges: Certain questions were linked but constructed in a way that did not provide reliability. These questions required revision to ensure consistent and dependable assessment outcomes.

• Limitations of Bloom's Taxonomy: The use of Bloom's Taxonomy to describe the level of rigor proved somewhat unreliable. Bloom's, focusing on verbs or skills, sometimes failed to accurately measure the rigor of questions, neglecting the nuanced content or knowledge being assessed.

Figure 2

The Blueprint Audit Process: A Brief Sequence

To harness the power of assessment blueprints, Mount Morris Elementary employed a systematic audit process across grade-level meetings. Although each meeting is “organic” in nature and meets educators where they are, the general attempts the following sequence:

1. Define Learning Objectives/Standards: Clearly articulate the learning objectives and standards to be assessed.

2. Blueprint Creation: Develop an assessment blueprint that aligns with the defined objectives, specifying question types and depth of knowledge.

3. Audit Existing Assessments: Compare current assessments against the blueprint to identify alignment gaps or areas for improvement.

4. Revise and Refine: Modify assessments based on the audit findings, ensuring alignment with the blueprint and learning objectives.

5. Reflect and Iterate: Continuously assess and refine the blueprint and assessments based on teacher feedback and student performance.

Empowering Educators Through Purposeful ‘Washback’

The implementation of assessment blueprints fostered a sense of ownership and understanding among educators at Mount Morris Elementary. The term "washback" aptly describes this positive feedback loop where teachers gain insights into how their assessments align with the written, taught, and assessed curriculum. This, in turn, propels continuous improvement, creating a more cohesive and effective educational experience for both teachers and students.

Figure 3

In conclusion, the use of assessment blueprints at Mount Morris Elementary exemplifies the transformative impact such practices can have on classroom assessments. As educators, let us wholeheartedly adopt this approach, with the School Improvement Team ready to support this transformative process at alternative sites across disciplines, fostering a learning environment where assessments not only measure but also enrich the educational journey.

December

• Second Round of Cohorts!

• Assessing Fluency (Featured Speaker)

• Leveraging Cognitive Science and Classroom Experience: Powerful Teaching in the Classroom

January

• The Science Within Writing; Using Cognitive Models to Implement High-Leverage Writing Practices

• Online Book Study: Designing Authentic Performance Tasks and Projects: Tools for Meaningful Learning & Assessment

• Rooting Ourselves in Performance-Based Learning & Assessment

• The Essential Elements of Project-Based Learning

• Online Book Study: Designing Authentic Performance Tasks and Projects: Tools for Meaningful Learning & Assessment

• Agricultural Education Cohort

• Designing PBLA, Proof-of-Understanding Tasks through Rigor Analysis

Don’t forget that you can follow the School Improvement Team (SIT) on Twitter. The team is often posting information about upcoming professional learning opportunities, educational resources, and strategies for the classroom. You can stay in tune with what is happening at Genesee Valley BOCES and the SIT by following #gvbocessit.

Please direct all requests for service to the Director of School Improvement, Stephanie Burns at 585.344.7923.

Website: http://www.gvboces.org/services.cfm?subpage=208119
Location: 80 Munson Street, Le Roy, NY, USA
Phone: 585.344.7923