Iowa ASCD Banner
Iowa ASCD
Volume 13, Number 10                      The Source
May 17, 2013
High Reliability School - Is Yours One?

Dr. Robert Marzano recently published a white paper, Bob Marzano"Becoming a High Reliability School:   The Next Step in School Reform."   He advocates that this summary provides "clear guidance from the research regarding how to improve the effectiveness of U.S. schools.  Stated differently, I believe that a careful reading of the research literature provides a compelling picture of what to do to help U.S. schools move to the next level of effectiveness in terms of enhancing students' achievement."

Marzano recognizes the importance and value of John Hattie's work summarized in Visibile Learning (2009, 2012) and advocates that 92% (46 of 50) of the top fifty factors can be influenced by school and the teachers within those schools.  Marzano goes on to advocate "that a necessary condition to move schools to the next level of effectiveness is to adapt a high reliability perspective."

The concept of a high reliability organization (HRO) comes out of the business world.  G. Thomas Bellamy, Lindy Crawford, Laura Marshall, and Gail Coulter (2005) explain, "the literature on HROs describes how organizations operate when accidents or failures are simply too significant to be tolerated, where failures make headlines" (p. 385). Karl Weick, Kathleen Sutcliffe, and David Obstfeld (1999) further describe HROs as organizations that "take a variety of extraordinary steps in pursuit of error free performance" (p. 84).

Marzano, based on his research from 1968 - 2013, proposes that schools become high reliability organizations (HRO) by operating on a hierarchical path that includes the following:

Marzano's HRO
Marzano explains, "Level 1 can be considered foundational to all other levels. If students and faculty do not have a safe and
orderly environment in which to work, little if any substantive work can be accomplished. Level 2 addresses the single most commonly cited characteristic of effective schools: high quality instruction in every classroom. High quality instruction is a prerequisite for level 3, which addresses a curriculum that is both guaranteed and viable. Levels 1 through 3 are common fare among current efforts to make schools more effective. Level 4 moves into a more rarified atmosphere because it involves reporting individual students' progress on specific standards. At any point in time, the leader of a level 4 school can identify individual students' strengths and weaknesses relative to specific topics in each subject area. Level 5 schools exist in the most rarified atmosphere of all - one in which students move to the next level of content as soon as they demonstrate competence in the previous level. Matriculation, then, is not based on the amount of time a student spends in a given course but rather on his or her demonstrated mastery
of content.

To move through these five levels, Marzano reminds us that we must have clear guidance and shares those in terms of leading and lagging indicators.  Many would liken these to formative and summative indicators of success.  Leading indicators  "prioritize key areas that are particularly helpful in assessing progress toward goals. While educators do need to monitor lagging indicators, they also need leading indicators to help them see the direction their efforts are going in and to take corrective action as soon as possible." (pp. 2-3)

Read on to learn more about each of the 5 levels and the leading and lagging indicators. 
Level 1 of a High Reliability School:  A Safe and Orderly Environment That Supports Cooperation and Collaboration

As Marzano explains in Chapter 1 of "Becoming a High Reliability School: �  The Next Step in School Reform,"  Level 1 - a safe and orderly environment that supports cooperation and collaboration - addresses those factors that are considered foundational to any substantive change within a school. "Quite obviously," he maintains, "if a school is not safe or orderly, all other activities suffer. If those within the school do not cooperate or collaborate, little progress can be made in enhancing a school's effectiveness."

Level 1 has eight leading indicators:
  • Leading Indicator 1.1: The faculty and staff perceive the school environment as safe and orderly.
  • Leading Indicator 1.2: Students, parents, and the community perceive the school environment as safe and orderly.
  • Leading Indicator 1.3: Teachers have formal roles in the decision-making process regarding school initiatives.
  • Leading Indicator 1.4: Teacher teams and collaborative groups regularly interact to address common issues regarding curriculum, assessment, instruction, and the achievement of all students.
  • Leading Indicator 1.5: Teachers and staff have formal ways to provide input regarding the optimal functioning of the school.
  • Leading Indicator 1.6: Students, parents, and the community have formal ways to provide input regarding the optimal functioning of the school.
  • Leading Indicator 1.7: The success of the whole school, as well as individuals within the school, is appropriately acknowledged.
  • Leading Indicator 1.8: The fiscal, operational, and technological resources of the school are managed in a way that directly supports teachers.

Initiatives and activities common to this level include plans for emergency procedures, clear and specific rules and procedures, use of social media, coordination with law enforcement agencies, collaborative time (e.g., professional learning communities, data teams), recognition of school success, and detailed budgets.

 

Marzano advocates that the professional learning communities are the leading vehicle for facilitating the achievement of the leading indicators of this level. He also reminds us that initiatives and activities must be designed and executed for parents and the community; collaborative teams can be instrumental in both the design and execution of these plans.

 

Lagging indicators articulate the high criteria that must be achieved to demonstrate high reliability.  These include the following:    

  • Lagging Indicator 1.1: Few, if any, incidents occur in which students' safety is compromised.
  • Lagging Indicator 1.2: Few, if any, incidents occur in which rules and procedures are not followed.
  • Lagging Indicator 1.3: Surveys of faculty and staff indicate high agreement that the school is safe and orderly.
  • Lagging Indicator 1.4: Surveys of students, parents, and the community indicate high agreement that the school is safe and orderly.
  • Lagging Indicator 1.5: Surveys of faculty and staff indicate high agreement that they have input regarding the optimal functioning of the school.
  • Lagging Indicator 1.6: Surveys of students, parents, and the community indicate high agreement that they have input regarding the optimal functioning of the school.
  • Lagging Indicator 1.7: Evidence is available regarding specific decisions that were made with input from faculty and staff.
  • Lagging Indicator 1.8: Evidence is available regarding specific decisions that were made with input from students, parents, and the community.
  • Lagging Indicator 1.9: Evidence is available for specific projects that were developed through collaborative efforts of teacher teams.
  • Lagging Indicator 1.10: Materials and resources for specific classes and courses meet the state or district specifications for those classes and courses.
  • Lagging Indicator 1.11: Time available for specific classes and courses meets the state or district specifications for those classes and courses. 
  • Lagging Indicator 1.12: Evidence is available that adequate proportions of the school budget are focused on issues that directly support teaching and learning.
  • Lagging Indicator 1.13: Evidence is available that specific accomplishments of the school and/or individuals within the school have been formally acknowledged.
  • Lagging Indicator 1.14: Incidents indicating teacher dissatisfaction with the school (for example, teacher requests for transfers to other schools) are very low or nonexistent.   
Clear criterion scores should be established for each lagging indicator.

Iowa ASCD's Editorial Comment:  This level aligns well with Fullan's right drivers of capacity building and group quality, shared in Choosing the Wrong Drivers for Whole System Reform.  
Level 2 of a High Reliability School:  An Instructional Framework that Develops and Maintains Effective Instruction in Every Classroom 

This level addresses the quality of teaching in the classrooms. "When a school reaches high reliability status for level 2, it can guarantee that quality teaching occurs in every classroom.  Operationally, this means that variability in teacher quality within a school is quite low - every teacher uses effective instructional strategies. Indeed, one of the hallmarks of school systems around the world that produce the greatest gains in student learning is that they monitor and minimize the variability of instruction in their classrooms (Barber & Mourshed, 2007)."  The six leading indicators for Level 2 are the following:
  • Leading Indicator 2.1: The school leader communicates a clear vision as to how instruction should be addressed in the school.
  • Leading Indicator 2.2: Support is provided to teachers to continually enhance their pedagogical skills through reflection and professional growth plans.
  • Leading Indicator 2.3: Predominant instructional practices throughout the school are known and monitored.
  • Leading Indicator 2.4: Teachers are provided with clear, ongoing evaluations of their pedagogical strengths and weaknesses that are based on multiple sources of data and are consistent with student achievement data.
  • Leading Indicator 2.5: Teachers are provided with job-embedded professional development that is directly related to their instructional growth goals.
  • Leading Indicator 2.6: Teachers have opportunities to observe and discuss effective teaching.

Marzano has several resources that support this area:  Teacher Evaluation That Makes a Difference (Marzano & Toth, 2013);  Coaching Classroom Instruction (Marzano & Simms, 2013a); Becoming a Reflective Teacher (Marzano, 2012a); Effective Supervision: Supporting the Art and Science of Teaching (Marzano et al., 2011); and The Highly Engaged Classroom (Marzano & Pickering, 2011).   

 

Dr. Marzano believes that the critical commitment essential to success at this level is an evaluation system whose primary purpose is teacher development.  The full article addresses characteristics of the quality evaluation system.

 

The lagging indicators for this level include the following:

  • Lagging Indicator 2.1: A document describing the school's instructional model is available.
  • Lagging Indicator 2.2: Survey data indicate that teachers are well aware of the school's instructional model and their status within that model.
  • Lagging Indicator 2.3: Evidence exists that the school leader has a demonstrated record of hiring and retaining effective teachers.
  • Lagging Indicator 2.4: Evidence is available that teacher growth in pedagogical skill is consistent and meets or exceeds acceptable levels.
  • Lagging Indicator 2.5: Evidence is available that teacher growth in pedagogical skill is related to the professional development opportunities provided by the school.
  • Lagging Indicator 2.6: Evidence is available that the average level of teacher pedagogical skill meets or exceeds acceptable levels.
  • Lagging Indicator 2.7: Evidence is available that any teacher who is below acceptable levels of pedagogical skill and/or growth is adhering to a detailed growth plan.   
  • Lagging Indicator 2.8: The distribution of teachers' pedagogical statuses is consistent with measures of student growth within the school.
  • Lagging Indicator 2.9: Survey data indicate high levels of agreement that the school in general and the evaluation system in particular are designed to help teachers improve their pedagogical skills.   
  • Lagging Indicator 2.10: Evidence exists that teachers who have demonstrated little or no desire to develop or maintain high levels of pedagogical skill are counseled out of the profession or terminated in extreme cases.
Iowa ASCD's Editorial Comment:  This level aligns well with Fullan's right drivers of group quality and pedagogy as well as the fourth driver of system-wide focus, shared in "Choosing the Wrong Drivers for Whole System Reform."   " Learning Is the Work" would be another great resource for this area. 
Level 3 of a High Reliability School:  Guaranteed and Viable Curriculum Focused on Enhanced Learning  


Iowa Core has provided us the foundation for Level 3, which addresses the extent to which a school's curriculum provides opportunities for all students to learn challenging content that is aligned with national and state standards. Level 3 has
six leading indicators:
  • Leading Indicator 3.1: The school curriculum and accompanying assessments adhere to state and district standards.
  • Leading Indicator 3.2: The school curriculum is focused enough that it can be adequately addressed in the time available to teachers.
  • Leading Indicator 3.3: All students have the opportunity to learn the critical content of the curriculum.   
  • Leading Indicator 3.4:  Clear and measurable goals are established and focused on critical needs regarding improving overall student achievement at the school level.
  • Leading Indicator 3.5: Data are analyzed, interpreted, and used to regularly monitor progress toward school achievement goals.
  • Leading Indicator 3.6: Appropriate school- and classroom-level programs and practices are in place to help students meet individual achievement goals when data indicate interventions are needed. 

The bedrock for level 3 high reliability status is a guaranteed and viable curriculum, which was addressed in What Works in Schools (Marzano, 2003b).  In addition to the "what" must be learned, this level addresses "under what conditions" and "with what supports" to assure meaningful learning for each and every student.   Response to Intervention (RtI), #3 on Hattie's impacting factors, meta-cognitive strategies, and vocabulary strategies/programs are just 3 impacting avenues to achieve higher reliability status.

 

Lagging indicators shared by Marzano include the following: 

  • Lagging Indicator 3.1: Curriculum documents are in place that correlate the written curriculum to state and district standards (for example, the CCSS/Iowa Core, if applicable).
  • Lagging Indicator 3.2: Curriculum documents are in place correlating the written curriculum to the skills important to 21st century learning (for example, college and career readiness [CCR] skills and mathematical practice skills from the CCSS).
  • Lagging Indicator 3.3: Information is available correlating what is taught in classrooms (that is, the taught curriculum) and the written curriculum.
  • Lagging Indicator 3.4: Information is available examining the extent to which assessments accurately measure the written and taught curricula.
  • Lagging Indicator 3.5: A written list of essential elements is in place.
  • Lagging Indicator 3.6: A written list of essential vocabulary is in place for all levels (that is, tiers 1, 2, and 3).
  • Lagging Indicator 3.7: A curriculum audit document is in place delineating how much time it would take to adequately address the essential elements.
  • Lagging Indicator 3.8: All students have a prescribed program of study that documents access to courses.
  • Lagging Indicator 3.9: Written goals are available specifying the percentage of students who will score at a proficient or higher level on state assessments or benchmark assessments.
  • Lagging Indicator 3.10: Written goals are available specifying the elimination of differences in achievement for students at different socioeconomic levels.
  • Lagging Indicator 3.11: Written goals are available specifying the elimination of differences in achievement for students of differing ethnicities.
  • Lagging Indicator 3.12: Written goals are available specifying the elimination of the achievement gap for all students.
  • Lagging Indicator 3.13: Written goals are available specifying the elimination of differences in achievement for English language learners.
  • Lagging Indicator 3.14: Written goals are available specifying the elimination of differences in achievement for students with disabilities.
  • Lagging Indicator 3.15: Written timelines are available containing specific benchmarks for each goal, including the individual(s) responsible for the goal.
  • Lagging Indicator 3.16: Reports, graphs, and charts are available for overall student achievement.
  • Lagging Indicator 3.17: Evidence is available showing that reports, graphs, and charts are regularly updated to track growth in student achievement.  
  • Lagging Indicator 3.18: Evidence is available that students who need instructional support outside of the regular classroom have had access to and taken advantage of such support. 

Iowa ASCD's Editorial Comment:   Michael Fullan's " Learning Is the Work" would be another great resource for this area as are all the presentations and supports from the Iowa ASCD Curriculum Leadership Academy 2013.  

Level 4 of a High Reliability School:  Standards-Referenced Reporting of Student Progress  

Level 4 addresses the extent to which a school's reporting system clearly identifies specific topics for each subject area at each grade level and each student's current status on each reporting topic, surpassing the traditional letter grade.  

 

Level 4 contains the following two leading indicators: 

  • Leading Indicator 4.1: Clear and measurable goals are established and focused on critical needs regarding improving achievement of individual students within the school.
  • Leading Indicator 4.2: Data are analyzed, interpreted, and used to regularly monitor progress toward achievement goals for individual students.     

At this level, we would see the following with consistency and quality:

  • Students keep data notebooks
  • Student-led conferences focus on individual student goals
  • Parent-teacher conferences focus on individual student goals
  •  Individual student achievement is examined from the perspective of value-added results
Resources offered most recently by Marzano to support work in this level include Using Common Core Standards to Enhance Classroom Instruction and Assessment (Marzano et al., 2013);
Leaders of Learning: How District, School, and Classroom Leaders Improve Student Achievement (DuFour & Marzano, 2011); Formative Assessment and Standards-Based Grading (Marzano, 2010a); Designing and Teaching Learning Goals and Objectives (Marzano, 2009); Designing and Assessing Educational Objectives: Applying the New Taxonomy (Marzano& Kendall, 2008).
 

Lagging indicators are listed below and require concrete evidence rather than any perceptual data: 

  •  Lagging Indicator 4.1: Written goals are available for each student in terms of their performance on state assessments, benchmark assessments, or common assessments.
  • Lagging Indicator 4.2: Documents articulating the learning progression for each essential element are available for each subject area.
  • Lagging Indicator 4.3: Written goals are available for each student in terms of their knowledge gain regarding essential elements.
  • Lagging Indicator 4.4: Reports, charts, and graphs are available for individual students depicting their status and growth on their learning goals.
  • Lagging Indicator 4.5: Report cards display student status and growth on essential elements and individual learning goals.
Level 5 of a High Reliability School:  Competency-Based System that Ensures Students' Mastery of the Content 

Level 5 directly addresses the extent to which a school has replaced a system that matriculates students based on time for one that matriculates students based on their demonstrated competence.

 

Level 5 has three leading indicators: 

  • Leading Indicator 5.1: Students move on to the next level of the curriculum for any subject area only after they have demonstrated competence at the previous level.
  • Leading Indicator 5.2: The school schedule is designed to accommodate students moving at a pace appropriate to their background and needs.
  • Leading Indicator 5.3: Students who have demonstrated competence levels greater than those articulated in the system are afforded immediate opportunities to begin work on advanced content and/or career paths of interest.

The following are the lagging indicators for competency-based systems, which are challenged by credits and grade spans.

  • Lagging Indicator 5.1: A written master plan is available articulating the criterion scores necessary to demonstrate competence for each essential element at each level for each subject area.
  • Lagging Indicator 5.2: Reports are available that indicate each student's current status for each essential element at each level for each subject area.
  • Lagging Indicator 5.3: A written master plan is available articulating the alternate pathways a student might take to learn and demonstrate competence in each essential element at each level for each subject area.
  • Lagging Indicator 5.4: A written master plan is available articulating how students can pursue advanced content, work on college credit, and pursue careers of interest.
  • Lagging Indicator 5.5: Reports are available depicting how long students are taking to move through the curriculum for each subject area at each level. 

As we move forward in any and all of the level, Marzano reminds us that it is important to lead from the perspectives indicators. 

Register Now for the Competency-Based Education Conference:  Define!  Design!  Deliver!
 
Competency-Based Education - June 26-27, 2013 
save the date
Mark your calendars now for a great two days in June - June 26-27 - featuring an Iowa ASCD conference on Com
petency- Based Education:  Define!  Design! Deliver!

Competency-Based Education (CBE) impacts systems of learning as well as classrooms for learning.  Every educator in Iowa wants life-long learners.  Come learn how students can learn and demonstrate competencies which will endure throughout time. CBE provides a strong framework for teachers and administrators to understand the Iowa Core and ensure students are college-, career- and citizenship-ready.

Purpose:

  • To expand the knowledge base of educators and others interested in competency-based education 
  • To build the capacity of educators and others to transform the current system of education in Iowa to a system focused on personalized learning for each and every student

Featured Speakers:

  

Join us for learning and conversations with national leaders like Rose Colby, author of Off the Clock and a national consultant on competency-based education; Kathleen McClaskey and Barb Bray, consultants on personalized learning; Michael Soguero, Director of Professional Development at Eagle Rock School and Professional Development Center in Colorado; and Tom Vander Ark, author of Getting Smart: How Digital Learning Is Changing the World and founder of GettingSmart.com.

 

And there will be several Iowans joining the conversation and sharing their expertise:  Dr. Jason Glass, Director of the Iowa Department of Education; CBE Task Force members Jeff Herzberg of Prairie Lakes AEA and Bridget Wagoner of Waverly-Shell Rock Community School District; and Representatives Tyler Olson, Renee Schulte (pending), and Cindy Winkler.

 

And Andrea Stewart, teacher in the Muscatine Community School district, will be one of several sharing how it is delivered in the classroom.   

 

Sessions will include among others:

  • Define:  What is a competency?
  • Design:  How do we design and assess competencies?
  • Deliver:  What does it look like in my classroom?  

Mark your calendars now!   June 26 an 27!  Register for the Conference on the Iowa ASCD web site.  The fee is $250 for Iowa ASCD members and $295 for non-members. You may also  . . .  

  • Mail a check/purchase order with date/name of conference and names of participants to Bridget A. Arrasmith, Drake University School of Education, 3206 University, Des Moines, IA  50311.
  • E-mail a purchase order with name/date of conference and names of participants to Bridget A. Arrasmith at [email protected]
  • FAX purchase order with name/date of conference and names of participants and grade level/role to Bridget A. Arrasmith at 515.271.2233.   

competencybased   

We hope you have been following the tweets on competency-based education from Iowa ASCD.  If not, follow us now on Twitter and review the CBE tweets. Watch for new ones coming out this next week! 

Webinars for Your Learning 
 

Iowa ASCD seeks to keep you informed about webinars for your learning and the learning of those with whom you work.  Check out the following; many of these support the work in your collaborative time and definitely help with implementation of The Core!  

 

  • Never Underestimate Your Teachers with Robyn Jackson
      • Presenter:  Robyn Jackson
      • Provider:  ASCD
      • Date:  May 16, 2013; 2:00 - 3:00 P.M. (CDT)
      • Register Free
  • Title:  Classroom Instruction That Works:  Intentional Lesson Planning 
      • Presenter: Dr. Ceri Dean and one of the authors of the book 
      • Provider:  ASCD
      • Date:  May 21, 2013; 2:00 - 3:00 P.M. (CDT)
      • Register Free
Iowa ASCD - Twitter!

Stay current with learning! Follow Iowa ASCD on Twitter!   

http://twitter.com/#!/IowaASCD  

Iowa ASCD is the source for developing instructional leadership and translating research into daily practice. Serving more than 850 educators - teachers, principals, superintendents, directors of curriculum, technology specialists, college professors, AEA staff - Iowa ASCD strives to develop the collaborative capacity to impact the learning of each and every student in Iowa.

 

Be Sure to Check Out . . .
High Reliability School - R.J. Marzano
Level 1: Safe and Orderly Environment
Level 2: Instruction Framework
Level 3: Guaranteed and Viable Curriculum
Level 4: Standards-Referenced Reporting
Level 5: Competency-Based System
Competency-Based Education Conference - Define! Design! Deliver!
Webinars for Your Learning
Iowa ASCD Twitter!
Iowa ASCD Contacts
Iowa ASCD Opportunities

Quick Links:

 

Iowa ASCD  

 

Iowa ASCD Twitter

 


Iowa ASCD Contacts

 

President

Jason Ellingson 

   

Past-President

Leslie Moore

 

President-Elect

Allan Eckelman 

 

Membership Information

Bridget Arrasmith

 

Secretary

Leslie Moore 

 

Treasurer (Interim) 

Lou Howell 

 

Members-at-Large

Julie Grotewold 

Ottie Maxey 

Becky Martin 

Kevin Vidergar 

 

DE Liaison

 Rita Martens  

 

Higher Education

Jan Beatty-Westerman 

Elaine Smith-Bright 

 

Advocacy and Influence 

Pam Armstrong-Vogel 

Susan Pecinovsky 

 

Curriculum Leadership Academy

Sue Wood  

 

Fall Institute

 Veta Thode 

 

Summer Institutes and Grade-Level Conferences

Kym Stein 

 

Planning Chair 

Cindy Swanson 

 

Technology

Chris Welch  

 

Membership Relations and E-Learning

Amy Wichman 

 

Executive Director

Lou Howell  

  • June 26-27, 2013

    • Competency-Based Education Conference

    • National and State Presenters

    • 8:00 A.M. - 4:00 P.M. each day

    • Iowa Event Center, Des Moines, IA
    • $250 for Iowa ASCD members; $295 for non-members 
    • Focus:  Define!  Design! and Deliver! Competency-Based Education  

  • October 8, 2013
    • Iowa ASCD Fall Institute
    • "Getting to the Core of K-8 Literacy"
    • Presenter:  Dr. Nell Duke, Professor - University of Michigan
    • Location:  Drake University, Olmsted Center 
    • 9:00 A.M. to 3:30 P.M.
    • Learn how to . . .  
      • increase student motivation in literacy
      • help K-8 students meet the Iowa Core literacy standards
      • organize reading and writing around real purposes for kids. 
  • Get The Source the first and third Friday of each month.