Iowa ASCD Banner

Iowa ASCD

Volume 16, Number 3                            The Source


February 5, 2016   

Register Now for ASCD Curriculum Leadership Academy - April 21-22 - Featuring Rick Wormeli

Iowa ASCD is proud to present the 14th Annual Curriculum Leadership Academy, "Students as Partners:  A Focus on Learning."  Whether you are a curriculum director, a principal, a superintendent, a teacher, or a teacher leader with curriculum responsibilities, this Academy is designed for you!! Join us on April 21 as we feature Dr. Rick Wormeli, expert on Differentiated Instruction. On April 22, Dr. Scott McLeod will present information on Personalized Learning, and school districts from across the state of Iowa will share their experiences on differentiated instruction and personalized learning.

Conference Location:  Iowa Events Center, 730 Third Street, Des Moines, IA

Cost: 
  • $250 now for Iowa ASCD members ($295 after April 15)
  • $295 now for non-members ($335 after April 15)  Nonmembers receive complimentary one-year membership in Iowa ASCD.
  • Cost includes continental breakfast and lunch each day.
Register NOW!  Contact Bridget Arrasmith with name(s) of registrant(s), mailing address, e-mail address(es), phone number as well as check or purchase order.  She may be reached at the following address:
  • Iowa ASCD, Drake University, School of Education, Room 123, 3206 University Avenue, Des Moines, IA  50311  
  • Phone: 515.271.1872
  • FAX: 515.271.2233
  • E-mail: [email protected]
 
You may register online as well with a credit card at the following URL on the Iowa ASCD website: 
 https://iowaascd.org/index.php/events/event-registration/ 
 

 
Lodging Opportunities:  (Be sure to ask for Iowa ASCD rate and reserve by March 21)
  • Marriott Downtown ($125), 700 Grand Avenue, Des Moines, IA (800-228-9290 or 515-245-5500)
  • Quality Inn and Suites ($109), 929 3rd Street, Des Moines, IA (515-282-5251)

Thursday, April 21     Registration 7:30 - 8:30 with conference from 8:30 A.M. - 3:30 P.M.)
 
  • Featuring Dr. Rick Wormeli, Differentiated Instruction: Myth-Busting, Principles, and Practicalities
Differentiated instruction is a nice idea, but do we really believe what isn't always equal, and is it okay to do different things with different students? Being sensitive to students' readiness levels and learning differences while holding them accountable for the same standards can be a challenge. What works? Join us for a provocative and entertaining address from an international presenter that examines differentiating instruction for diverse learners while maintaining a semblance of teacher sanity in today's classroom realities. Topics include: differentiated lesson design, tiering, scaffolding, personal learning, responding to advanced students, practical cognitive science principles, descriptive feedback, correcting misconceptions of differentiation, and more. Candid yet validating, the presentation busts differentiated instruction myths and gets to our core beliefs as educators. Don't miss this chance to finally understand differentiated instruction!
  
Friday, April 22 - Breakout Sessions and Afternoon Keynote  (8:30 A.M. - 2:30 P.M.)
 
    School Districts of all sizes from across the state who are focusing on personalized learning or differentiated instruction:

    • Personalized Learning: Putting the Unique Pieces Together for All Students (Dr. Theron J. Schutte & Jennifer Like - Bettendorf)
    • Keeping the Main Thing the Main Thing: AIW Targets High Quality Student Learning (Hope Bossard - Gilbert)
    • Blending Instruction to Meet Our Students' Needs (Gregory O'Connell - Cedar Rapids)
    • Why Sam and Shay Deserve This: The Why, What, and How of Personalized Learning (Joshua Griffith - Des Moines, Jason Ellingson - Collins-Maxwell)
    • Student-Driven Learning in a Primary Classroom (Leka DeGroot - Spirit Lake)
    • Iowa BIG: Driving Learning through Passion, Community, and Authentic Projects (Dr. Trace Pickering - Iowa BIG)
    • Tips on Creating a Balanced Assessment System that Supports Student Learning (Tricia Kurtt - Norwalk)
    • Leveraging Your Business Community for Innovative Classroom Experiences (Russ Goerend - Waukee)
    • Our Kids: Prairie's Path to a COMMITed, Student-
    • Focused School Culture (Erik Anderson - College Community)
    • Using Technology to Individualize Formative Assessment (Christine Mangrich & Brian Unruh - Cedar Falls)
    • Differentiating Instruction during Summer School (Sandy Klaus - Starmont)
    • Systematizing Reading Instruction with the Cognitive Model (Laura Medberry - College Community)
    • Classroom Partnerships, a Journey Connecting Content and Careers (Shelly Vanyo - Boone)
    • Personalized Learning Made Easy (Julie Graber - Prairie Lakes AEA)
    • The Heart of Personalized Learning (Alison Zmuda, Education Consultant - Virginia Beach, VA & Pernille Ripp, Teacher and Creator of the Global Read Aloud Project - Oregon, WI) - A Virtual Breakout Session
  •  

  • Keynote in the Afternoon by Dr. Scott McLeod, Personalized Learning: Exemplars and Pitfalls
We now have over 500 "deeper learning" schools across the United States. This session will feature numerous examples  of personalized learning in practice. Bring your thinking caps as we discuss both exemplars and pitfalls.
Four Iowa Schools Honored for Breaking Education Barriers

Four Iowa schools were recently honored by the State Board of Education, as well as Gov. Branstad and Lt. Gov. Reynolds, for their work to raise achievement among groups of students who traditionally face challenges in the classroom.

The Breaking Barriers to Teaching and Learning Award was created by the State Board of Education. Each year, the award recognizes successful efforts to eliminate achievement gaps.

This year's award-winners were recognized for having the highest proficiency rates statewide in math and reading among a specific subgroup of students, such as students whose first language is not English and students from low-income backgrounds. State assessment results from the last three years were examined to confirm a positive trend for each school.

This year's winners are:
  • Washington High School, Cedar Rapids Community School District
    Washington High School is honored for its work with African American students. A full 74 percent of the African American students there are proficient in math and reading, compared to a statewide average of 54 percent.
  • Riverdale Heights Elementary School, Pleasant Valley Community School District
    Riverdale Heights Elementary is recognized for the second year in a row for its work with Latino students. The school's Latino students are, on average, 93 percent proficient in reading and math. That compares to a statewide average of 66 percent.
  • Denison Elementary School, Denison Community School District
    Denison Elementary School is honored for its work with students whose first language is not English, or English Language Learners. Among the elementary school's ELL students, 77 percent were proficient in reading and math, compared to 50 percent statewide.
  • West Union Elementary School, North Fayette Valley Community School District
    West Union Elementary School is recognized for its work with students who come from low-income families. Fifty-two percent of the school's student population qualifies for free and reduced-price lunches. Of those children, 93 percent are proficient in reading and math. The statewide average is 68 percent.
Interviews with school principals revealed a common thread among the honored schools: the use of evidence-based practices, a staff-wide commitment, high expectations and substantial teacher collaboration.

Reducing the achievement gap is one of the State Board of Education's top priorities. "We commend these schools for their work to demonstrate that students can succeed regardless of their backgrounds," said State Board of Education President Charlie Edwards. "We have work to do as a state to close achievement gaps and improve for the sake of all students, and Iowa has the right roadmap in place to get us there. It includes a comprehensive teacher leadership system, new standards and aligned assessments, an early literacy initiative, and a coordinated effort to connect students with high-demand, rewarding careers."

Attacking Initiative Fatigue Head On - Especially for Curriculum Leads by Matt Townsley

ASCD Emerging Leader and Iowa ASCD member Matt Townsley shares the following with us:
 
It is hard to believe we're in the second half of the school year. In the midst of checking weather forecasts to determine the potential impact of upcoming winter storms, curriculum leads are starting to think about planning for the upcoming academic year. What initiatives will continue next year? What expectations will the department of education or AEA have on the local school district? How will all of these needs and wants fit into the school's professional learning calendar?
 
"The Law of Initiative Fatigue states that when the number of initiatives increases while time, resources, and emotional energy are constant, then each new initiative - no matter how well conceived or well intentioned - will receive fewer minutes, dollars, and ounces of emotional energy than its predecessors." (Reeves, 2010, p. 27)
 
As an exercise, write down the list of initiatives and programs started in your local school building or district during the past five years. Next, write down a list of initiatives and programs discontinued during the past five years due to careful evaluation.� Which list was longer?
 
Odds are the tally of new initiatives and programs is at least double the length when compared to the discontinued list.
 
"...Teachers who had 80 or more hours of professional development in inquiry-based science during the previous year were significantly more likely to use this type of science instruction than teachers who had experienced fewer hours...The three studies of professional development lasting 14 or fewer hours showed no effects on student learning, whereas other studies of programs offering more than 14 hours of sustained teacher learning opportunities showed significant positive effects. The largest effects were found for programs offering between 30 and 100 hours spread out over 6-12 months."
 
The number of initiatives continues to grow and as the aforementioned research synthesis describes, more effective professional learning requires a commitment over multiple days. Where will schools find the time? Why does it seem like schools are always starting something new?
 
Given... school systems have more on their plate than ever before, and effective professional learning requires a long-term commitment, and the Law of Initiative Fatigue suggests time, resources, and emotional energy are constant...what are some next possible steps for curriculum leads?
 
Rather than thinking only about the new initiatives to start for the upcoming semester or school year, I encourage school leaders to consider an initiative audi based upon the Iowa Professional Development Model and Reeves (2006). Here are the steps, followed by a more detailed description of each one.
 
  • Establish a professional development leadership team.
  • Curate an initiative inventory.
  • Conduct an initiative audit.
  • Commit to monitoring no more than six initiatives, at least annually.
 
Step 1: Establish a professional development leadership team.
The Iowa Professional Development Model Technical Guide describes several purposes of this leadership team:
  • To help organize and support various professional development functions
  • To engage in participative decision making - a democratic decision making process for keeping teachers involved and informed.
  • To help principals sustain a focus on instruction and keep professional development functions going.
  • To distribute leadership and responsibility up and down the organization.
This team should involve teachers and administrators. When leadership teams already exit, I have found it helpful to create a visual describing how various teams or committees across the district should interact and be related to each other.
 
Sample visual illustrating teacher and administrator involvement on leadership teams.

 
Our "district leadership team" serves as our primary professional development leadership team. This team is comprised of at least two teachers from each building as well as building and district administrators. The primary purpose of meeting four to six times per year for is to plan and monitor our district-wide professional learning activities. For the past several years, we've annually re-evaluated a multiple year outline of where we see ourselves going to keep our eyes and minds simultaneously focused on short and long-term outcomes. As the central office administrator overseeing this team, I often come to the meetings with professional learning outcomes and/or a skeleton written in pencil. I've found it is more efficient for teachers we're pulling out of their classrooms to critique my plans than start from scratch during the meeting. The team is asked to evaluate and revise my initial plan against our collective vision and the practical needs of their classroom colleagues. Sometimes, the team rubber stamps my ideas, however we've also started over a time or two after throwing out my first draft entirely. I believe our teachers on this committee feel empowered as a result of this process. Our final plans are created and vetted by multiple brains and that's a good thing.
 
Hold on..."but we already have leadership teams in our school!!" Now is the time to ask a few questions:
  • How often do these teams meet and for what purpose?
  • What influence do these teams have on the planning and monitoring or professional learning activities?
  • Has this team ever conducted an initiative inventory and audit?
Step 2: Curate an initiative inventory
 
This step in the framework is important to get right.
 
A group of administrators lists the initiatives started during the past five years.
 
Ask a group of teachers (on the PD leadership team or a focus group) to list the initiatives started during the past five years.
 
Compare lists for the purpose of agreeing on a common initiative inventory.
 
The first two components of this step can be completed synchronously or asynchronously; however I believe it is important individual teachers and administrators create their lists separately, so that an honest assessment takes place. In my experience, administrators tend to create shorter lists than teachers. Particularly in schools with frequent or recent staff and/or administrator turnover, this step can be an interesting conversation, because it can help teachers and administrators clarify what they both agree are expectations at the moment. That is, until the next step of the process!
 
Step 3: Conduct an initiative audit
 
Now that the professional development leadership team has an agreed upon list of the initiatives started during the past five years, it is time to narrow the list to a more manageable list of six or fewer priorities (Reeves). At this point in the process, the team may need some additional information about each initiative such as how it should be presented to the staff and how it should be monitored over time. This may significantly differ from previous practice due to limited resource constraints!
 
For each initiative listed on the inventory...
  • List the number of hours of teacher professional learning time allocated for theory, demonstration, practice and collaboration (Iowa Professional Development Model).
  • Identify monitoring/implementation data (teacher perceptions from surveys, walkthroughs, teacher artifacts, etc.).
  • Create a hypothetical year-long goal (i.e., "100% of teachers will create a project-based unit this year").
  • Identify monitoring criteria, a.k.a. evidence of successful goal completion.
  • Consider the number of hours needed to implement the goal.
The final part of this step is for teachers and administrators to create a prioritized list of initiatives based on 4 & 5. It is important to point out administrators should have the final authority to utilize the prioritized lists to narrow down a final tally of no more than six (6) initiatives. This final "plan on page" must have the stamp of approval from the appropriate personnel who delegate limited financial and time resources throughout the building or district.
 
Sample list of district priorities:

 
Step 4: Commit to monitoring no more than six initiatives, at least annually
 
One of the best ways I can think of to promote transparency and build trust in a school is via publicly monitoring (and following through with) a small number of building or district priorities. Some initiatives may take multiple years. What does the administration expect of its staff during the year? Communicate it! Check up on it! Celebrate it!
 
Sample initiative monitoring form:

 
Conclusions
 
The purpose of this initiative audit is to help curriculum leads consider one way to clearly communicate and support their most important priorities. Rather than adding to the plates of our teachers on an annual basis, this audit considers the most pressing priorities through the lens of multiple stakeholders. Here's to making 2016-17 the year schools across Iowa attack "Initiative Fatigue" head on!
Emerging Leaders - Apply or Nominate Now!

ASCD is looking for its newest class of emerging leaders and needs your help. Do you know of a colleague who is a natural leader in their school or district?  Would they benefit from getting more involved with ASCD? Invite him or her to apply for the ASCD Emerging Leaders Class of 2016!
 
Emerging leaders are educators who
  • Have been in the profession approximately 5-15 years;
  • Demonstrate a passion for teaching, learning, and leadership;
  • Have not previously been involved with ASCD in a leadership capacity;
  • Collectively exhibit a broad range of diversity in position, location, cultural background, and perspective;
  • Hold promise as leaders; and
  • Are committed to ASCD's beliefs and to pursuing leadership opportunities.
  
The 2016 Emerging Leader online applicationsclose April 1. Learn more at www.ascd.org/emergingleaders.
 
If you would like ASCD to invite your colleague to apply for the program, please send the name and e-mail address to [email protected].


Iowa Science Standards

Frequently Asked Questions

What are the Iowa Science Standards?

Iowa recently adopted new science standards that set expectations for what all students in kindergarten through 12th grade should know and be able to do. Iowa's science standards identify science and engineering practices, crosscutting concepts, and content that all K-12 students should master in order to prepare for success in college and 21st century careers. The standards will be phased in beginning with the 2016-17 school year.

Why do state science standards need to be updated?

It has been more than 17 years since the National Research Council and the American Association for the Advancement of Science produced their reports from which most state science standards, including Iowa's, are based. Since then, there have been major advances in science and our understanding of how students learn science.

What process did Iowa follow to adopt the standards?

Iowa's new science standards were adopted by the State Board of Education in August 2015 following a recommendation from an Iowa review team that incorporated scientific expertise and broad public input into a transparent process. Specifically, the review team recommended using the Next Generation Science Standards as the basis for Iowa's science standards. The science standards review was prompted by Governor Branstad's Executive Order 83, which called for an ongoing review of Iowa's academic standards, including public comment.

How were the standards developed?

The science standards were developed through a collaborative state-led process. Twenty-six states, including Iowa, volunteered to work with the 41 members of the writing team to lead the development of the standards. The science supervisors from these state education agencies worked with the writers to provide feedback from their state broad-based committees. These state committees consisted of representatives from the K-12 education, education policy, scientific, postsecondary education, and informal science communities. In addition, a critical stakeholder team, comprised of hundreds of members representing K-12 educators, administrators, higher education faculty, scientists, engineers, business leaders, policymakers, and key organizations, provided confidential feedback at critical points in the development process.
 
The draft standards also received comments from more than 10,000 individuals during two public review periods. These comments came from teachers, school, and school district discussion groups, scientific societies, parents, and students. The writers used this feedback to make substantial revisions to each draft. The final standards were released in April 2013 and are available for all states to consider adopting and adapting.

Why is science education important, now more than ever?

High-quality science education standards allow educators to teach effectively, moving their practice toward how students learn best - in a hands-on, collaborative, and integrated environment rooted in inquiry and discovery. Iowa's new science standards require thinking and reasoning rather than rote memorization.
 
The definition of what it means to be "literate" in science continues to grow and now includes the use of technology, critical thinking, and analytical skills. As citizens, we are increasingly asked to make informed decisions on issues ranging from health care to energy policy that affect ourselves, our families, and our communities. Having a deep understanding of scientific concepts and processes and the ability to understand and apply this knowledge is essential.
 
A strong science education equips students with skills that are necessary for college and all careers - within and beyond STEM (science, technology, engineering, and mathematics) fields. Students need the right foundation to tackle long-term and difficult issues that face our generation and future generations.

How do Iowa's new science standards address equity?

The standards were built upon a vision for quality science education for ALL students, not just a select few. Our nation's science teachers are finding that when educators raise expectations and give students the right tools and learning environment, students are capable of remarkable science literacy and achievement.

How will teaching and learning change?

The new science standards have the potential to revolutionize science education. Not only do they incorporate the most current research and findings in science, they also include the most up-to-date research on how students learn.
 
Classroom instruction based on the standards allows students to engage in science learning not as a memorization of loosely connected facts, but as a holistic understanding of integrated and interrelated concepts. This is one of the biggest shifts compared to previous sets of science standards.
 
Iowa's science standards connect scientific principles to real-world situations, allowing for more engaging and relevant instruction that fosters a stronger understanding of complicated topics.

Implementation Plan:  The science standards implementation plan is available on http://www.iowacore.gov , as well as the Department's website at the following link:
Don't hesitate to contact the Iowa Department of Education science consultant, Kris Kilibarda, at [email protected]



Check It Out!  Did You Know? 

Check out the following:
  • Iowans needed to help prevent child hunger in the summer!  In an effort to head off hunger, the Iowa Department of Education is seeking sponsors for a federally funded program that provides nutritious breakfast, lunch, and dinner or snacks to children in low-income areas during the summer months.
     
  • Coming soon: A guide for early literacy intervention! Iowa teachers and schools soon will have a new guide to use in their work to help struggling readers get back on track.  The guide, portions of which were presented to participants attending the School Improvement Symposium in Des Moines, focuses on students in kindergarten through sixth grade whose needs go beyond universal instruction -- a general classroom approach -- and have specific challenges that could impede their progress toward literacy goals. The guide is designed to enable building-level teams "to effectively organize and implement literacy interventions while monitoring their effectiveness," said symposium presenter Greg Feldmann, who is a consultant at the Iowa Department of Education.
     
  • Free On-Line School Improvement Survey available to all districts.  ASCD, the global leader in developing and delivering innovative programs, products, and services that empower educators to support the success of each learner, has unveiled the free, online ASCD School Improvement Tool, which is based on a whole child approach to education.

    Designed for use in schools and school systems around the world, and ideal for schools developing and refining strategic plans, the online tool offers educators a comprehensive needs assessment as they embark on the new school year. Additionally, it connects administrators and teacher leaders with targeted professional development resources-books, online courses, and action tools-that can help them make the most significant schoolwide improvements and ensure all learners are healthy, safe, engaged, supported, and challenged.

    Found online at http://sitool.ascd.org, this tool launches a 15-minute survey that evaluates a school's strengths and weaknesses in areas of
    • School climate and culture,
    • Curriculum and instruction,
    • Leadership,
    • Family and community engagement,
    • Professional development and staff capacity,
    • Assessment, and
    • Ability to provide and sustain a whole child approach to education across all aspects of the school experience.
  • The Iowa Department of Education released on December 16 the Iowa School Report Card, a new web-based system to evaluate and rate each public school based on performance on a required set of measures, such as student attendance and graduation rates.
  • Iowa has expanded the quality and range of work-based learning experiences for students in kindergarten through 12th grade because of a stronger connection between business and education made possible through a state network established by the Legislature, a new Iowa Department of Education report shows.
  • Presidential Awards for Excellence in Mathematics and Science Teaching (PAEMST):    The nominations for 2016 focus on K-6 teachers. The 2016 Awards will honor mathematics and science (including computer science) teachers working in grades K-6. Nominations close on April 1, 2016.  Go here to nominate a K-6 teacher of math and/or science, including computer science for 2016 recognition.
  • Consider an Iowa ASCD institutional membership for your building, district, or AEA.  The fee is $25 per person when you enroll at least 20 people at one time.  Great benefits!  Contact Lou Howell for more information.
  • Are you a student in a graduate program?  If so, you may get a membership for three years for $45.  Contact Lou Howell for more information.
  • Are you a student in a pre-service program?  If so, you may get a one-year membership for $15.  Contact Lou Howell for more information.
Closing the Attitude Gap - How to Fire Up Your Students to Strive for Success by Baruti K. Kafele

 
Iowa ASCD member, Sandy Merritt, provides this review of Closing the Attitude Gap - How to Fire Up Your Students to Strive for Success by Baruti K. Kafele.

Unmotivated students and poor attitude are common frustrations with educators. Kafele, in this book, shares his thoughts on the subject based on experiences he has had as a teacher, principal, and consultant working with at risk students, in particular African American and Latino. He believes that all students have the capacity to learn. The question is "Do they have the will?" He states that students' attitudes must be the first priority for teachers. Students have to want to learn and getting that kind of excitement is what this book is about.

The author describes himself as a practitioner, someone who has worked in urban schools for 21 years. As a secondary principal, he helped transform 4 buildings from very low performing schools to high achieving ones, one of them being labeled three times as one of the best performing schools in the country. His first book, Motivating Black Males to Achieve in School and in Life, gained him lots of attention from schools and led to writing this book about all at-risk students.

He believes that teachers need to reflect daily on their practices and strategies to determine what is working and what is not. His first questions - What do my students see in my classroom? What do they hear, feel, experience? Do I provide a learning environment that fosters a positive attitude toward learning? - set the tone of the book. There continues to be reflective questions at the beginning of each chapter. He describes the attitude gap as "the gap between those students who have the will to strive for academic excellence and those who do not." The key words "will to strive" are what students need to succeed. "Will" is their attitude and the teachers' challenge is to unleash it and allow students to soar!

Students who are at risk often live in neighborhoods that can inhibit motivation and learning. You need to understand what that looks like and feels like without feeling sorry for them. When Kafele asks teachers what they think the main reason is for under-performing students and schools, the answer is always poverty. Poverty is indeed a variable but it can't be an excuse for failure and underachievement. You have no control over poverty so there is no point in dwelling on it. Focus your attention on what you can control, the climate and culture of the classroom and school. You must create a learning environment in which students can exhibit their strengths and put aside the need to act out because they believe that is what is expected of them. The author believes that educators have the power, influence, and authority to affect the school's climate and culture.

Kafele discusses a framework of five strands that deals with improving student attitude:

Do I believe in them? Your attitude toward students is critical. You cannot effectively teach and inspire students if you do not believe in them, every one of them, regardless of the baggage they bring. You must regularly demonstrate belief in your students and convince them of it. These are students who don't think people believe in them. You must see your students as being destined for excellence because of the belief you have in them and help them to believe in themselves.

Teachers must have a passion for teaching, wanting success for their students and willing to do whatever it takes to get that success and not willing to settle for anything less. They must also be passionate about teaching children first, and subjects second. They must be passionate to learn as much as they can and implement that learning in the classroom. 
 
Do I know them? The relationship between you and your students is important. To teach and inspire students, you have to know them and allow them to know you. That means knowing the total child, his/her time outside of school, who he/she is in the neighborhood and in the family. These all affect the student's ability to learn in the classroom. Many at-risk students don't learn auditorily and need student-centered classrooms where they can learn in the way that fits them best.


All students should set goals and most important for students at risk. These students don't dare dream; they are so focused on day-to-day survival. They don't know what is out there for them, what they could do. Teachers must provide an awareness of the career paths available to them, help them see the connection between school and their future in the work world.
   
"Too many children lack vision for themselves. They do not see beyond today; they do not dream big. Too many of them see so much death and destruction around them that it becomes almost impossible for them to envision life as an adult. This is where you come in: You must dare your students to envision themselves 10, 20, 30 years from now, achieving their dreams."
 
Teachers must be role models for their students. The author states, "The idea that you as a teacher are the number-one determinant of your students' success or failure generates a lot of conversation in my workshops. Teachers say to me, 'Wait a minute, Principal Kafele: You expect me to believe that, of all the variables in my students' lives, I'm the single one that will determine whether or not my kids succeed?' My answer is an emphatic, unequivocal 'Yes.'"
 
In many cases at-risk students come from economically disadvantaged homes and the teachers who work with them come from middle class homes and bring their middle class perspectives and assumptions to the classroom. A problem occurs when they impose those assumptions on students. It is critical that you get to know your students and their needs, that you find out what kinds of lives your students lead, what challenges they have to endure. The author suggests visiting students' homes to get to know their parents and neighborhoods. The author emphasizes that despite the students' home life, the expectation must be to be at school every day and to do their best. 
 
Do I care about them? You cannot effectively teach and inspire students if you do not care about them. You must have care, concern, and compassion for your students and they must know that to be true. Students work harder for teachers they know care about them and their progress. They must know that you will never give up on them. Students form opinions of how much teachers like them based on how they are treated in the classroom. They hear lots of criticism from multiple sources. Counter that criticism with words of appreciation for their work so that they begin to feel better about themselves. Shouting at students runs the risk of alienation and distrust. It is not what you say, it is what they perceive from how you say it.

Some of these students are angry and come from negative environments. The classroom should be a place to escape those realities and focus on learning so that they can then escape their environments.  

  
The author states "There's a fine line between empathy and sympathy. I made a decision early on in my teaching mission that I could not and would not feel sorry for my students. I knew that my sympathy was not going to help my students maximize their potential; my empathy, however, was essential. My students needed me to understand, identify with, and relate to them, not to feel sorry for them. They needed me to know about their plight, but also to push them hard so that they may successfully overcome it. They also needed me to listen to them, because they needed to be heard."   
 
 Do I provide my students with an environment of excellence? The classroom environment sets the stage for learning. It must reach out to students and invite them in to learn. It should be a student-centered classroom where learning occurs, where students look forward to learning in a safe environment and are challenged.       
 
 When the author had a classroom, he designated different areas of the classroom walls for different "students of the week" - subject area, homework, attendance, and student work. There were also goal setting charts, posters of colleges, motivational quotes, the classroom mission and vision statements, information about various careers and jobs, criteria for academic and behavioral expectations, and historical images of the students' backgrounds.

The building and classroom mission and vision statements should be posted. The mission should be one that says to the students that they will be successful in school and prepared for the future. The vision must be one that sees students soaring and succeeding. When both the school and the teacher have a mission and vision that expects excellence, students understand the commitment and expectation despite whatever challenges they have to endure at home.

"Your name is on that classroom door.... That is your classroom. You are the one who determines outcomes in that classroom. You are the one who creates scholars in that classroom-who creates hope, who lets dreams flourish, who keeps negative influences from entering the room. You remind your students constantly that where they are now doesn't necessarily determine where they will wind up later."

Regarding homework, the author suggests ensuring that students and parents understand the high expectations you have and that homework completion is part of that expectation. Homework and behavior expectations should be posted and reviewed. They should be stated as expectations rather than rules because expectations speak to the standards in the classroom rather than what they can and can't do, as rules do. 
 
The author also suggests that students must have goals and a plan for achieving them. Charts should display where the student is, the goal, and the plan for achieving that goal. Students should have a written plan describing what they need to do at school and at home to reach their goal. The teacher should review progress toward the goal at regular intervals. Teachers must find time to celebrate successes with students on a regular basis. Students begin to believe in themselves and their potential when they hear that they are doing well and meeting expectations. 
 
Do I realize who my students are? Every student has a unique story that defines who they are and where they came from that must be heard. Each student belongs to a race or ethnic group that plays a big part in who he is. You can't effectively teach and inspire students if you don't know who they are historically and culturally. You must learn, and in some cases, teach students about their culture and the positive role models they have. This knowledge will help them strive for higher things in life.   "When you control a man's thinking you do not have to worry about his actions. You do not have to tell him not to stand here or go yonder. He will find his "proper place" and will stay in it. You do not need to send him to the back door. He will go without being told. In fact, if there is no back door, he will cut one for his special benefit. His education makes it necessary" - Carter G. Woodson's The Mis-Education of the Negro.   
 
"So many of the underprivileged minority students I've come across have given up hope because they felt they could never meet the challenges they were confronted with, resolving instead to living a lifestyle centered on day-to-day survival. Many of these students have shared with me...to be smart is to be uncool and thereby unacceptable. Students who stand out and exhibit their brilliance can end up ridiculed, harassed, isolated, and even physically harmed. Compounding the matter for children of color is the fact that so many go home to fatherless households, which often leads to anger issues. It is no wonder, then, that so many brilliant and highly capable students give up, lose hope, or short-change themselves before reaching their senior year in high school.

"I have literally spoken to thousands of children at the elementary, middle, and high school levels.... Although we as educators cannot necessarily change students' immediate circumstances outside of school, we can definitely change their attitudes toward themselves, their education, and the prospects for their futures-and if this book can affect just one student's life by reaching a teacher or school leader, then I can say that my writing was not in vain." This quote speaks of the passion the author has for helping close the attitude gap with our at risk students.
 
***************************************** 


All Iowa ASCD members have access to this book and 29 others 24/7 in 2015 and 2016.  If you have forgotten your password to these resources, please contact Lou Howell at [email protected].

A webinar has also been recorded to help you better use the resources.  It is located on the front page of the Iowa ASCD website.  You may review or download this recorded webinar now!

 
Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA) - Key Provisions

Standards:
  • Requires assurance that states adopt challenging academic content standards in reading, math, and science with three levels of achievement that are aligned with entrance requirements for credit- bearing coursework in the states' higher education system as well as the state's career and technical education standards.
  • Prohibits the Secretary of Education from having any authority over a state's academic standards.
  • Allows states to develop alternate academic achievement standards for students with the most significant cognitive disabilities using a documented and validated standards-setting process.
Assessments:
  • Requires state testing in reading and math annually in grades 3-8 and once in high school.
    • Allows states to use a single annual summative assessment or multiple statewide interim assessments throughout the year that result in one summative score.
    • Allows districts to use other tests for high schools with state permission.
    • Allows states to develop and administer computer-adaptive assessments.
    • Allows states to limit the aggregate amount of time spent on  assessments for each grade.
    • Prohibits the Secretary of Education from specifying any aspect of assessments.
    • Requires districts to publicly post information on all required assessments, including the amount of time students spend taking the assessments.
  • Requires state testing in science annually in grade spans 3-5, 6-8, and 10-12.
  • Allows states to develop assessments in other subjects.
  • Requires states to provide reasonable accommodations for students with disabilities.
    • Allows states to administer alternate tests for students with the most significant cognitive disabilities; however, these alternate tests may be used by no more than 1% of the total number of students being assessed.
  • Maintains requirement that assessments be administered to at least 95% of all students. Allows states to establish their own laws governing "opt-outs" and requires parents to be notified regarding their children's participation rights in assessments. Consequences for schools that miss this threshold are determined by states and districts.
  • Shifts accountability for English language learners into Title I; allows schools to phase in the use of English language learners' test results for accountability purposes.
  • Requires states and districts receiving Title I-A funds to annually administer National Assessment of Educational Progress tests in grades 4 and 8 in reading and math.

Accountability: 
  • Eliminates AYP and the 100% proficiency requirement.
  • Prohibits the Secretary from prescribing any aspect of the accountability system, including indicators, weighting, and differentiation methodology.
  • Requires state-developed accountability systems that
    • Include performance goals for each subgroup,
    • Annually measure student performance based on state assessments,
    • For high schools: annually measure graduation rates,
    • For elementary and middle schools: annually measure student growth (or another valid and reliable statewide academic indicator),
    • Include one other indicator of school quality or student success that allows for meaning- ful differentiation, such as student or educator engagement, or school climate and safety,
    • For all English language learners: measure English language proficiency annually in grades 3-8 and once in high school,
    • Annually identify and differentiate schools based on all indicators, and
    • Differentiate schools in which any subgroup is consistently underperforming.
  • Allows states to decide how much weight to give tests in their accountability systems and determine what consequences, if any, should attach to poor performance. Requires states to give more weight to academic factors than other factors.
  • Establishes student subgroups for accountability and data disaggregation, including students who are economically disadvantaged, have limited English language proficiency, have disabilities, and belong to major racial and ethnic groups as determined by the state.  In addition, homeless status (if statistically significant), students with parents in the military, and students in foster care.
  • Requires publicly available annual state report card that includes
    • A description of the state accountability system, including all indicators and the weights assigned by the state,
    • Schools identified as in need of support and improvement,Student performance disaggregated by subgroup,
    • NAEP results,
    • Student participation rates in assessments,
    • Student performance on other academic indicators,
    • Graduation rates,
    • Performance of English language learners,
    • Data collected pursuant to the Civil Rights Data Collection survey,
    • Teacher qualifications, including those with emergency or provisional status,
    • Per-pupil expenditures of federal, state, and local funds,
    • Number and percentages of students taking alternate assessments, and
    • Postsecondary enrollment.
 School Improvement:  
  • Requires states, once every three years, to identify a category of schools for comprehensive support and improvement, including at least the lowest-performing 5% of Title I schools, high schools with a graduation rate of 67% or less, and schools where one or more subgroups of students are underperforming. 
  • Allows districts to provide students in underperforming schools with the opportunity to transfer to another public school in the district, if permitted by the state. 
  • Requires districts to develop evidence-based strategies for school improvement-in partnership with parents and school staff-that include all accountability indicators; requires districts to identify resource inequities. 
  • Eliminates the School Improvement Grant program but requires states to reserve 7% of Title I-A funds for school improvement activities, unless doing so results in a district receiving less Title I-A funding than in the previous year. 
  • Requires states to implement more rigorous actions for schools identified as being in need of improvement if the schools don't meet the state's improvement criteria within four years. 
  • Prohibits the Secretary from prescribing any specific school supports or improvement strategies.
 
Teacher and Leader Effectiveness:  
  • Eliminates highly qualified teacher requirements.
  • Requires state plans to provide assurance that all teachers and paraprofessionals working in programs supported by Title I-A funds meet state certification and licensure requirements.
  • Maintains the equitable distribution requirement but replaces "unqualified" with "ineffective.
  • Updates the definition of professional development to ensure personalized, ongoing, job-embedded activities that are
    • Available to all school staff, including paraprofessionals,
    • Part of broader school improvement plans,
    • Collaborative and data driven,
    • Developed with educator input, and
    • Regularly evaluated.
  • Creates new teacher, principal, and school leader academies to help meet the need for effective educators in high-need schools.
  • Creates new teacher residency programs to enhance clinical training opportunities for teachers.
  • Expands access to professional development under Title II to include teachers of all subjects, not just core subjects as under NCLB, as well as school leaders, administrators, and other school staff.
  • Replaces the requirement that professional development programs and activities be scientifically based with a requirement that they be evidence based.
  • Changes the Title II formula to 20% based on school-age population and 80% based on school-age population living in poverty, phased in over four years.
  • Maintains teacher quality Partnership Grants and revises the Teacher Incentive Fund to include school leaders.
  • Allows the use of Title II funds to reform certification systems; improve alternate routes to certification; and improve recruitment and retention of teachers, principals, and school leaders, among other activities.
  • Does not require teacher evaluation systems, but if Title II funds are used to create or change school district evaluation systems, they must be based "in part" on student achievement and must be based on multiple measures.
  • Precludes the Secretary from prescribing any aspect of educator evaluation systems or measures of effectiveness.
     
Well-Rounded Education:   
  • Eliminates 50 individual programs, including those that support physical education, STEM programs, and school counseling.
  • Creates a new block grant that provides funding to states by formula and then districts by formula and must fund at least one academic activity (see description of well-rounded education below), one nonacademic activity (see description of safe and healthy students below), and at least one activity expanding the use of technology.  Additional activities may be funded based on a district's need assessment.
  • Creates a new early childhood education program aimed at increasing access to child care.
  • Maintains 21st Century Community Learning Centers to support after-school activities.
  • Requires state plans to show how they are improving conditions for learning, including reducing bullying and harassment and addressing adverse behavioral interventions that compromise student healthy and safety.
  • Eliminates the definition of core academic subjects.
  • Requires districts to allocate 20% of Title IV funds to programs that support a well-rounded education, which could include  counseling, music and arts, accelerated learning, foreign languages, history, and environmental education, among other activities.
  • Requires districts to allocate 20% of Title IV funds to programs that support safe and healthy students, which could include school-based mental health services, nutrition and physical education, bullying and harassment prevention, and school personnel crisis management training, among other activities.
  • Allows districts to allocate the remaining 60% of Title IV funds based on assessed needs.
Federal Education Funding:
  • Allows 100% transferability between Title II (educator supports) and Title IV and from Titles II and IV into Title I.
  • Authorizes (but does not appropriate) funding at gradually higher levels for four years.
  • Authorizes the institute of Education Sciences to study a Title I formula change that would reallocate funds based more heavily on poverty than population.
  • Creates a pilot program for 50 districts that may aggregate their state and local funds with their federal dollars and design their own allocation to better target funds to the neediest schools.
  • Requires districts to show maintenance of effort; that is, districts may not reduce funding to schools by more than 10% from the previous year.  This is the same as NCLB, except there is no penalty for a district that fails to meets its maintenance of effort requirement if it met the requirement for the five previous years.
  • Allows districts to use federal funds for non-schoolwide programs if they can demonstrate that the method used to allocate funds ensures the school receives all the state and local funds it would have received absent Title I-A funds.

     
Every Students Succeeds Act (ESSA) Implementation Timeline

(*Dates are estimates)

December 10, 2015: President Obama signed
ESSA bill into law. 

December 22, 2015: The U.S. Department of Education (USED) published its first request for public advice and recommendations regarding implementation of Title I of ESSA.
Federal departments and agencies develop regulations to help clarify or implement significant legislation passed by Congress. Regulations help to define and explain the processes and requirements of enacted laws, particularly where federal funding or punitive actions are involved.

January 11, 2016: First public meeting on regulations: U.S. Department of Education, Barnard Auditorium, 400 Maryland Ave. SW, Washington, DC. USED is soliciting public input on what issues  and provisions within Title I it should or should not address through regulations. The hearing was open to the public, although space was limited, and it was livestreamed as well.

January 19, 2016: Second public meeting on regulations: University of California, Los Angeles (UCLA), Carnesale Commons, Palisades Room,
251 Charles E. Young Drive West, Los Angeles, CA.

January 21, 2016: USED deadline for the public to submit written advice and recommendations regarding what provisions within Title I need regulatory clarification.

Only those individuals and organizations that submit comments to USED will be considered for participation on the negotiated rulemaking panel. Guidance for submitting comments can be found in the Federal Register notice of December 22, and comments should be submitted through the government's regulations website.

January 2016*: USED identifies and invites individuals to the negotiated rulemaking panel to address Title I standards, assessments, and supplement not supplant regulations.

Negotiated rulemaking is a process by which representatives of federal agencies work together with stakeholders to reach consensus on what may ultimately become a proposed rule. This process can expedite the development of federal regulations and, because it provides for the input of affected parties, can generate more creative and effective regulatory solutions and prevent future litigation.

February 2016*: Negotiated rulemaking panel first meets in Washington, D.C.

March 2016*: USED drafts negotiated rules as well as other proposed regulations on issues not covered in negotiated rulemaking - other Title I provisions and those under other titles that are subject to regulations (professional development, charter schools, etc.) - and submits language to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) and other agencies charged with regulatory review.

April-May 2016*: Administrative reviews conducted by OMB and Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA), USED then approves and drafts final language.

Additional reviews are required by law to provide a second opinion and ensure alignment of proposed regulatory language with the administration's policy priorities. OMB undertakes a cost-benefit analysis to ensure that the benefits of proposed rules outweigh potential costs. OIRA review is triggered for proposed regulations that may impact the economy by $100 million or more, provides a second layer of oversight focusing more on policy implications, and provides another opportunity for stakeholder input.

May 2016*: Regulatory language submitted to Congress for congressional review (as required in ESSA); USED makes adjustments per congressional comments.

May-June 2016*: USED publishes final Notice of Proposed Rulemaking in the Federal Register
, allowing 60 days for public comment.   

July
-August 2016*:  USED begins reviewing all comments and is required by law to respond to the comments. Final language must undergo reviews by USED, OMB, and OIRA.

April-June, 2016: USED begins peer review of state assessment systems as required in ESSA.

Both NCLB and ESSA require peer reviews of state assessments to ensure they meet nationally recognized professional and technical standards. The schedule for reviews has been altered to accommodate changes at USED under ESSA, but USED's peer review of state assessment systems will continue so that each state receives feedback from external experts on the assessments it is currently administering.

July 1, 2016: Effective date for the changes to all formula programs under ESSA (e.g., Title I funding for disadvantaged students and Title II funding for educator supports).

August 1, 2016: NCLB waivers end, and states will not be required to deliver follow-up actions previously required under waivers, unless related to areas covered by both NCLB and ESSA.

October 1, 2016: Effective date for changes to the funding for competitive grant programs in ESSA.

If a competitive grant program is reauthorized or is "substantially similar to a previous program" that is in the middle of a multiyear grant cycle, then the funding of the grant will continue for the length of the grant award, subject to annual appropriations. A program that is no longer authorized in the conference report will get only one more year of funding in FY16 (subject to appropriations) and then it will end, even if there are years left in grants made by the program prior to reauthorization.

October 1, 2016
: Effective date for Impact Aid (currently funded in FY17).

October 2016*: Final regulations are published and go into effect.
Webinars for Learning
 
Iowa ASCD seeks to keep you informed of 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 the implementation of The Core.
twitter
Stay current with learning! Follow Iowa ASCD on Twitter We would like to follow you on Twitter as well. If you are willing to share your "Twitter Handle" with us, please leave your information on this site. 
 
Join the Iowa ASCD Twitter Team:  http://twitter.com/#!/IowaASCD
 

And like us on Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/pages/IOWA-ASCD/149097138496014  

Iowa ASCD is the source for developing instructional leadership and translating research into daily practice. Serving more than 1500 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 . . .
Curriculum Leadership Academy with Rick Wormeli
Breaking Education Barriers - 4 Schools Honored
Attacking Initiative Fatigue - Especially for Curriculum Leads
Emerging Leader Application
Iowa Science Standards - FAQ
Check It Out!
Book Review: Closing the Attitude Gap
ESSA Key Provisions
ESSA Timeline
Webinars for Learning
Iowa ASCD Twitter!
Iowa ASCD Contacts

Quick Links:

 

Iowa ASCD  

 

Iowa ASCD Twitter

 


Iowa ASCD Contacts

 

President

Becky Martin

 

Past-President

Kevin Vidergar 

    

President-Elect

Pam Zeigler   

    

Membership and Conference Information

Bridget Arrasmith

 

Secretary

Leslie Moore 

 

Treasurer  

Jeff Watson  

 

Members-at-Large

  

Diane Campbell 

Ottie Maxey 

Sara Oswald 

 Katy Evenson 

 

DE Liaison

 Rita Martens  

 

Higher Education

Jan Beatty-Westerman 

Randal Peters 

 

Advocacy and Influence 

Susan Pecinovsky 

Elaine Smith-Bright  

 

Curriculum Leadership Academy

Sue Wood  

Pam Zeigler  

 

Fall Academy

 Veta Thode  

 

Fall Institute

Amy Whittington

 

Summer Institutes  

 Kym Stein 

 Becky Martin    

 

Partnership Chair

Jason Ellingson 

 

Technology

Chris Welch  

 

Membership Relations and E-Learning

Amy Wichman 

 

Executive Director

 Lou Howell   

 

Here's What's Happening!
  • February 11, 2016
    • Advocacy Workshop
    • State Capitol
    • Advocating for Learning
  • April 21-22, 2016
    • Curriculum Leadership Academy
    • Iowa Events Center
    • Rick Wormeli
    • Differentiating for Learning
  • Get The Source the first and third Friday of each month.
  • Join us on Twitter @IowaASCD