Valerie E. Sawinski Edward Bleeker JHS 185Q 147-26 25th Drive, Flushing, NY 11354

Identify how we can develop an environment that supports data analysis and its use to inform and differentiate instruction.

More specifically, we will support faculty in their efforts to: o Access and analyze standardized and authentic data o Align learning objectives with the data o Form multiple, flexible groupings to provide for individualized and differentiated instruction o Develop authentic assessments to document individual student growth. o Focus was on the use of ELA standardized and authentic data to differentiate instruction.

Process: Address the following impediments: a. Accessing standardized assessment data b. Conducting data analysis and checking for its alignment with the standards and the desired learning outcomes c. Maintaining classroom management protocols d. Using authentic assessment data to structure flexible groupings e. Ensuring that all teachers have extensive knowledge of the Standards, specific content skills, learning outcomes, and performance indicators

By taking the following steps: a. Graphic organizer, Differentiated - Instructional Framework, and The Strategies for Differentiating Instruction (Appendices A, B, C) were developed collaboratively with the assistant principals and coaches and shared with the faculty at professional development and coaching sessions. b. Used data contained in the Quality Reviews and the Progress Report to identify the targeted areas on the professional development survey completed by the faculty. (Appendix D) c. Inquiry Team members provided One-to-one tutorials to analyze standardized test data with their colleagues and extrapolate its implications for instruction. This procedure developed a collaborative spirit among the faculty and validated the expertise of the IT members. d. Teachers were placed in small seminar groups of one or two teachers, led by the ELA assistant principal, the literacy coach, or the AUSSIE coach. During these discussions the standardized formative and summative data was analyzed and aligned with the learning outcomes indicated in the lesson plan. This data formed the basis of the flexible student groups and the desired differentiated

38 learning outcomes. The lesson plan was modified to reflect the individualized instructional outcomes. e. The modified lesson plan was used by the teacher with the coach or administrator as a co-teacher to facilitate the implementation of the flexible instructional groups. This significantly reduced classroom management issues and enabled the teacher to successfully differentiate instruction. f. Debriefing and identifying the next instructional steps. g. The Cahn Challenge advisor, Professor R. Monson, visited the school and shared his findings with me, the literacy coach, and the ELA assistant principal. He indicated that after the teachers assessed the students’ performance, they had limited instructional strategies in their toolkit to re-teach the topic and provide differentiated instruction. Therefore, the Challenge Project was expanded to include the ELA teachers’ development of a curriculum guide per grade level aligning specific content, strategies, performance indicators and outcomes. (Appendix E)

Lessons Learned  Additional resources were not necessary to support the implementation of the Challenge Project, rather the instructional expertise of the ELA assistant principal, the literacy coach, and the AUSSIE coach were utilized.  The newly formed Inquiry Team members were instrumental in developing a collegial environment among the faculty by demonstrating how to access the data and use it in differentiating instruction. Weekly planning meetings and reflection meetings of the Inquiry Team maintained this dialogue.  By selecting a cohort of students to be closely monitored by the IT members during classroom inter-visitations, the IT members were able to initiate a dialogue and maintain communication about the individual students and remain in close contact with their colleagues.  The Challenge documented that teachers prefer authentic data, which is a more timely assessment of student progress than summative standardized data.

 The Challenge is a work in progress and will take two more years to successfully implement for the following reasons:

 The one-to-one tutorials, while successful in expanding the instructional practice for the number of instructional periods that were co-taught, offered insufficient support to have a significant impact on the teachers’ independent use of data to inform instruction. During this experience the teachers demonstrated a willingness to use the data to form flexible groupings; however, the concern that they articulated is about maintaining classroom management when instructing multiple groups of students. Therefore, to imbed the analysis of data into the pedagogical practice of the school, multiple tutorial and lesson planning 39 sessions should be provided until the teachers develop a comfort level with data analysis and are able to see evidence of how differentiation of instruction has a positive effect on student performance. The classroom management protocols should be consistently imbedded into all instructional periods with differentiation of instruction implemented in incremental stages, first with two flexible groups per class and gradually increasing to multiple groups.

 The curriculum map created by the ELA teachers with the specific concepts, the performance indicators, and the authentic assessments indicated, all of which are aligned with the Standards, is considered by the teachers to be a more authentic way of using data to inform instruction. Creating this curriculum map expanded the teachers’ pedagogical toolkit and competencies, developed collaboration among members of the department, and ownership of the data which assesses student progress. This collaborative endeavor had a positive impact on the ELA department and the teachers’ use of data to inform instruction. However, the next step is to use this authentic data to form multiple flexible groups.

Outcomes a. A spirit of collaboration developed within the ELA department as an outgrowth of the curriculum mapping project. The teachers took ownership of creating authentic assessments to measure student progress. This intermediate step expanded their subject competency and their pedagogical practice. b. The impact of the Inquiry Team on student performance and their mission has been demonstrated by their use of data to assess student progress and to inform the tutorial work with the IT cohort of students, which they shared with their colleagues. The support that the IT provided for the teachers during the tutorials validated their role in the school, their use of data analysis to inform instruction, and its impact on student performance. c. The implementation of the Challenge provided the teachers with the skills to access the standardized data, and with support provided by the coaches, to analyze it to differentiate instruction. However, continued progress on implementing the Challenge will be evident in pedagogical practice observed in the classrooms and in lesson plans. d. Timeline for continued implementation:

 Alignment of instructional practices with the current ELA curriculum map.  Evidence of authentic assessments (formative data) indicated in written lesson plans.

40  As per the PD survey needs assessment distributed in September, professional development sessions offered on differentiation of content, process and product, with in class coaching support.  Instructional strategies included in lesson plans that are referenced to student data.  Differentiated instruction (content, process and product) observed in the class with flexible student groups.

Leadership Reflection a. By delegating the authority and encouraging other members of the faculty to take ownership of the Challenge Project, faculty members became reflective, self initiating, and instrumental in developing the incremental steps that addressed the Challenge.

41 Appendix A

42 Appendix B Differentiated Instruction – Instructional Framework According to Tomlinson, teachers can differentiate three aspects of the curriculum: content, process, and products.  Content refers to the concepts, principles, and skills that teachers want students to learn. All students should be given access to the same core content. Struggling learners should be taught the same big ideas as their classmates, not given watered-down content. Teachers should address the same concepts with all students but adjust the degree of complexity. "The same concept can be explained in a way that's comprehensible to a very young child or in a way that challenges a Ph.D. candidate." To illustrate this point, she cites the example of a professor whom she observed teaching Shakespearean sonnets—with great success—to 1st graders. Content also refers to the means teachers use to give students access to skills and knowledge, such as texts, lectures, demonstrations, and field trips. Teachers can vary these vehicles as well. For example, a teacher might direct an advanced learner to complex texts, Web sites, and experts to interview, while providing a student of more modest capacity with reading buddies, videos, demonstrations, and "organizers that distill information and make it more accessible."  Process refers to the activities that help students make sense of, and come to own, the ideas and skills being taught. Teachers can modify these activities, Tomlinson advises, to provide some students with more complexity and others with more scaffolding, depending on their readiness levels. (Examples of scaffolding include step-by-step directions, re- teaching, and additional models.) Like content, process can be varied by student interest and learning preferences as well.  Products refers to culminating projects that allow students to demonstrate and extend what they have learned. Products reveal whether students can apply learning beyond the classroom to solve problems and take action. Different students can create different products, Tomlinson suggests, based on their readiness levels, interests, and learning preferences. For example, some students might work alone on a product, while others might work in groups. Differentiating content, process, and products—requires teachers to be "crystal clear" about what they are trying to teach.

Support will be provided for the implementation of the differentiated instructional strategies by the literacy and the AUSSIE coaches’ modeling of the strategies and co-teaching of the classes with follow-up classroom visits to validate progress that the teacher has made along the implementation continuum, and provide additional coaching support.

43 Appendix C The Literacy Coach and the AUSSIE Coach have introduced the following strategies for differentiating instruction at small group tutorials and PD’s offered during “Lunch N Learn Sessions”, and Period 9 workshops.

Strategies for Differentiating Instruction Some of the many strategies—in addition to flexible grouping and tiered activities—that teachers can use to avoid lockstep instruction:  Stations. Using stations involves setting up different spots in the classroom where students work on various tasks simultaneously. These stations invite flexible grouping because not all students need to go to all stations all the time.  Compacting. This strategy encourages teachers to assess students before beginning a unit of study or development of a skill. Students who do well on the pre-assessment do not continue work on what they already know.  Agendas. These are personalized lists of tasks that a student must complete in a specified time, usually two to three weeks.  Complex Instruction. This strategy uses challenging materials, open- ended tasks, and small instructional groups. Teachers move among the groups as they work, asking students questions and probing their thinking.  Integrated Studies. These independent investigations, generally lasting three to six weeks, revolve around some facet of the curriculum. Students can select their own topics, and they work with guidance and coaching from the teacher.  Entry Points. This strategy from Howard Gardner proposes student exploration of a given topic through as many as five avenues: narrational (presenting a story), logical-quantitative (using numbers or deduction), foundational (examining philosophy and vocabulary), aesthetic (focusing on sensory features), and experiential (hands-on).  Problem-Based Learning. This strategy places students in the active role of solving problems in much the same way adult professionals perform their jobs.  Choice Boards. With this strategy, work assignments are written on cards that are placed in hanging pockets. By asking a student to select a card from a particular row of pockets, the teacher targets work toward student needs yet allows student choice.  4MAT. Teachers who use 4MAT plan instruction for each of four learning preferences over the course of several days on a given topic. Thus, some lessons focus on mastery, some on understanding, some on personal involvement, and some on synthesis. As a result, each learner has a chance to approach the topic through preferred modes and also to strengthen weaker areas.

Adapted from ‘The Differentiated Classroom: Responding to the Needs of All Learners’ Carol Ann Tomlinson (1999, ASCD)

44