2. History of funding in Chicago
Decentralization
1988 to 1995
Supports primarily for
decentralization
reform, including PD
for local school
councils
Accountability
1995 to 2001
Supports primarily for
professional
development aligned
with the Annenberg
Project (external to the
district)
Instructional
Improvement
2001 to 2009
Supports primarily to
intermediary agencies
to support school
development (after
school programming,
professional
development
workshops for
teachers)
Trust begins to align
its supports to the
priorities of the district
1
3. Trust Supports
Trust funding in Education and to CPS
2008 to present
$12,714,000
$17,551,715
CPS
2007 $7,661,370 $9,420,950
2001 to 2006
$44,655,358
0
CPS total to date: $65,030,728
Other
$55,655,828
10,000,000 20,000,000 30,000,000 40,000,000 50,000,000 60,000,000
2
4. Trust Supports
Strategic priorities approved for 2008 - 2013
Core priorities
1.
2.
3.
Develop high performing elementary schools in all neighborhoods
by strengthening instruction in the core curricular areas; literacy,
math/science, arts, language development and social studies
Strengthen and develop instructional leadership
Sustain and strengthen instructional innovation networks
Expansion priorities
4.
5.
Support improvements in teaching and learning beyond Chicago
public elementary schools
Support improvements in teaching and learning beyond Chicago
Public Schools
3
5. Trust Supports
Building a world class education system
Curricular
Frameworks
Teacher
Capacity
Subject by subject
definitions of what to
teach, how to teach it
and how to measure it
Deep knowledge about
subject
Skill in teaching the
subject
Examples: Chicago
Reading Initiative,
Chicago Math and
Science Initiative, Social
Science Framework for
Learning, Arts Education
Guide, and Bilingual
Education and World
Language Plan
Examples: Graduate
coursework for teachers
across all subject
matters, development of
teacher teams and
protocols for team work,
and coaches in the
disciplines
Support
Structures
Principals knowledgeable
about instruction
Teacher leaders in the
disciplines
Strong teacher collaboration
at and across grade levels
around teaching and learning
Quality assessments used to
drive instruction
Examples: Training of
teacher leaders, development
of principals in subject areas,
and training in use of
assessments
4
6. Trust Supports
Current CPS projects funded by the Trust
Curricular area
Project
Literacy
Chicago Literacy Initiative Partnership (CLIP):
Rochelle Lee Middle Grades Literacy (Boundless Readers)
2008-09
2009-10
$1,750,600
$1,500,000
240,000
250,000
National-Louis University reading endorsements cohort (NLU)
84,000
Transitional Adolescent Literacy Project (McDougal Family Foundation)
50,000
Language Through Science Program (Leap Learning Systems)
Math/Science
Cluster 4 Middle Grades Project
200,000
1,650,000
Early Education Science Project (E2SP) (Field Museum)
1,600,000
600,000
DePaul/Area 6 Math/Science Partnership (DePaul)
Arts
none
345,000
Arts Education Framework Development
225,000
Arts Education Collaborative of Chicago Funders (The Chicago Community Foundation)
Language Development
Bilingual Education and World Language
Social Science
Social Science Framework Development
Multi-disciplinary
100,000
460,000
25,000
150,000
Value-Added Project
200,000
none
Multi-disciplinary Projects
350,000
High School Teacher Content Teams Capacity Building
575,000
$6,154,600
$4,200,000
5
7. Impact
Increasing number of CPS elementary
teachers with content endorsements
5000
4500
4000
3500
3000
2007-08
2006-07
2500
2000
1500
1000
500
0
Reading
Language Arts
Math
Science
In the Cluster 4 Middle Grades Project, 150 teachers have enrolled in over 358 middle grades math/science and
algebra university courses
Source: Chicago Public Schools, Office of Research, Evaluation and Accountability
6
8. External Supports
Multiple organizations partner with CPS
to build teachers’ knowledge
Chicago State University (CSU) Physics and
Chemistry Van Program
DePaul University
Illinois Institute of Technology
Loyola University
National-Louis University
Northeastern Illinois University
Northwestern University’s BioQ Collaborative
Roosevelt University
Saint Xavier University
University of Chicago
University of Illinois at Chicago (both)
University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
(evaluation)
Adler Planetarium and Astronomy Museum
Brookfield Zoo
Chicago Children’s Museum
Lincoln Park Zoo
Museum of Contemporary Art
Museum of Science and Industry
Oriental Institute
Peggy Notebaert Nature Museum/Chicago
Academy of Sciences
Shedd Aquarium
The Field Museum
BOLD = Current Partners in Cluster 4 Middle Grades
Project and Literacy partnership
7
9. External Supports
Multiple funders support CPS in strengthening
teachers’ knowledge in core curriculum areas
Current
Arts
Arts
Bilingual Education and World Language
Literacy
The Brinson Foundation
Osa Foundation
Math/science
Albert Pick, Jr. Fund
CME Trust
Terra Foundation for American Art
The Boeing Company
The Brinson Foundation
CME Trust
COMED
Osa Foundation
Social Science
The Brinson Foundation
Circle of Service Foundation
McDougal Family Foundation
Terra Foundation for American Art
McDougal Family Foundation
The Chicago Community Trust
Math/science
The Chicago Community Trust
Literacy
Peter Ascoli
The Boeing Company
Colonel Stanley R. McNeil Foundation
Kassie Davis
The Field Foundation of Illinois
JP Morgan Chase Foundation
Lloyd A. Fry Foundation
Louis R. Lurie Foundation
McDougal Family Foundation
Dr. Bernard and Sarah Mirkin
The Elizabeth Morse Charitable Foundation
Polk Bros. Foundation
The Chicago Community Trust
The Prince Charitable Trust
The Siragusa Foundation
Woods Fund of Chicago
Bilingual Education and World Language
Potential Additions
McDougal Family Foundation
The Chicago Community Trust
Social Science
CME Trust
JP Morgan Chase Foundation
The Chicago Community Trust
8
11. Agenda
Chicago Education Reform History
Principles Of Instruction and Instructional Leadership At Scale
Teaching And Learning In Practice: Lessons From CPS
Leading In Practice: Lessons From CPS
Immediate Recommendations for 2009-10
10
12. Recall Our Early February Conversations
An Introduction To Teaching, Learning, and Leading
Student outcome data for CPS
shows slow but steady progress on
most key indicators
Instructional excellence strategy
focuses on providing tools and
supports to teachers and schools
to drive improvements.
Connecting curriculum design,
implementation and leadership
remains a challenge.
11
13. Review: The Phases Of Chicago School Reform
Decentralization
Accountability
Instructional Improvement
1988-95
1995-01
2001-09
Governance
Local School Councils
Mayoral Control (Vallas)
Mayoral Control (Duncan)
School to District
Relationship
Near total autonomy from
central office
Take back local control;
prescribe minimum
standards (i.e.,
probation, social
promotion)
Continued focus on accountability;
Mandates are accompanied by set of
supports; accountability extends
beyond minimum standards
(scorecards, improvement weighted
over absolute performance, formative
assessments); charters and new
schools
Implied Theory of
Action
Central office is the
problem; local control will
empower and bring about
improvement
Schools must meet
minimum standards;
those who don’t will be
subject to
consequences and
those who do will be left
alone
Improvement is a shared responsibility
(the school is the unit of change…
central and area offices support the
schools);
clear expectations and transparency
must be accompanied by support
structures
12
14. 3-8 Reading By Quartile: Phases of Chicago School Reform
50
low
first
quartile
40
30
second
quartile
20
third
quartile
10
fourth
quartile
high
decentralization
accountability
2008
2007
2006
2005
2004
2003
2002
2001
2000
1999
1998
1997
1996
1995
1994
1993
1992
1991
0
1990
Percent Of Students
60
instructional improvement
Percent of schools with 50% or more of students at or above 50th percentile
1990
1995
2001
2005*
2008**
8%
12%
21% or 24%
31%
72%
*Different norms (ITBS88 to ITBS01)
**Different test (from ISAT to SAT 10)
13
15. History Lessons
By themselves, decentralization and autonomy do not lead to improved results.
Given autonomy, very few schools excelled and few made substantive
improvements in student learning
By itself, accountability (tests, incentives) can produce a boost in performance;
but the boost flattens over time
(This boost in performance occurs primarily for low performing students.)
The only route to sustained improvement is to improve the core technology of
the profession: teaching
Improving teaching by recruiting and evaluating is necessary but not sufficient
14
16. Trust Supports
Building a world class education system
Curricular
Frameworks
Teacher
Capacity
Subject by subject
definitions of what to
teach, how to teach it
and how to measure it
Deep knowledge about
subject
Skill in teaching the
subject
Examples: Chicago
Reading Initiative,
Chicago Math and
Science Initiative, Social
Science Framework for
Learning, Arts Education
Guide, and Bilingual
Education and World
Language Plan
Examples: Graduate
coursework for teachers
across all subject
matters, development of
teacher teams and
protocols for team work,
and coaches in the
disciplines
Support
Structures
Principals knowledgeable
about instruction
Teacher leaders in the
disciplines
Strong teacher collaboration
at and across grade levels
around teaching and learning
Quality assessments used to
drive instruction
Examples: Training of
teacher leaders, development
of principals in subject areas,
and training in use of
assessments
15
17. Agenda
Chicago Education Reform History
Principles Of Instruction and Instructional Leadership At Scale
Teaching And Learning In Practice: Lessons From CPS
Leading In Practice: Lessons From CPS
Immediate Recommendations for 2009-10
16
18. The Instructional Core
Principle #1: Increases in student
learning occur only as a
consequence of improvements in
the level of content, teachers’
knowledge and skill, and student
engagement.
CONTENT
Principle #2: If you change one
element of the instructional core,
you have to change the other two.
Principle #3: If you can’t see it in
the core, it’s not there.
Principle #4: Task predicts
performance.
Principle #5: The real accountability
system is in the tasks that students
are asked to do.
TEACHER
STUDENT
Principle #6: We learn to do the
work by doing the work.
Principle #7: Description before
analysis, analysis before prediction,
prediction before evaluation.
17
20. School improvement is a human investment activity.
Asking people to do things they don’t know how to do. . .
Both individually and collectively
Investments in knowledge and skill drive improvement
Accountability provides the stimulus for individual and collective learning
As schools improve, the nature of the work changes. . .
From autonomous practice in isolated classrooms to team work across classrooms
Different levels of pressure and support at different stages of development
19
21. Proposed Next Steps (1 of 3)
1. Position instruction as central work of CPS; define five other strategic priorities
(performance management, portfolio management, human capital, safety and security,
central office) by their relationship to instructional improvement.
2. Ongoing advice and support from Harvard and CCT to CPS on re-organization of
infrastructure for supporting teaching and learning.
3. Continue to participate in national education-related reform instructional leadership
networks (e.g. Harvard’s PELP, Aspen’s UMLN and ULLN).
20
22. Agenda
Chicago Education Reform History
Principles Of Instruction and Instructional Leadership At Scale
Teaching And Learning In Practice: Lessons From CPS
Leading In Practice: Lessons From CPS
Immediate Recommendations for 2009-10
21
23. Elementary Mathematics Curriculum Implementation
Chicago Math & Science Initiative
• Extensive support materials provided to
implementing teacher classrooms (student
books, manipulatives, calculators, pacing
guides, etc.).
Effectiveness
400
Significant gains associated with core
instructional materials use
313
300
269
288
177
200
100
269
60
0
ISAT Scale Score
• Adoption of core instructional materials
(Everyday Mathematics and Math
Trailblazers at K-5; Connected
Mathematics and MathThematics at 6-8).
Reach
Schools
Implementation
+6.0
+6.2
+4.0
+4.0
+2.0
0 Years
Central office support from the Office of Mathematics and Science (IDA). In FY09, overall spend
was $7M with 45 FTE. Local schools contributed materials costs and PD stipends.
Everyday
Mathematics
1 Year
2 Years
Math Trailblazers
3 Years
Significant ISAT performance increases with
PD attendance.
• Some opt-in, some mandated adoptions;
based on funding year and funding source.
Budget FY09
+6.7
+4.9
None
ISAT Scale Score
• Quarterly benchmark assessment aligned
to instructional materials (pilot began in
2004-05, with ETC starting in 2006-7).
+7.2
+8.0
+0.0
• Workshop professional development on
implementation (54 hours/teacher, split
between summer and academic year), led
by materials authors at local universities.
• In-school coaching aligned to materials.
+9.0 +9.1
+10.0
+3.5
+4.0
+1.8
+2.0
+0.4
+1.5
+0.1 +0.2
+0.0
-+0.2
-2.0
-2.0
-4.0
-3.3
3rd Grade
Low
5th Grade
Moderate
8th Grade
High
Lessons Learned
I.
II.
III.
IV.
V.
Instructional program coherence matters.
Fidelity of implementation matters and can be managed.
Subject matter differences are considerable and need to be considered when executing at the district, school, and classroom level.
We can take external supports and move them to the central office; next big challenge is to move supports to schools.
Leadership development needs to be connected very closely with teacher development and curriculum implementation.
Source:
CMSI analysis, REA analysis, U of C CEMSE analysis; PRARIE group evaluation, NSF report
22
24. High School Algebra In The Middle Grades
8th Grade Algebra
Reach
• University partnership to develop
CPS-specific teacher
credentialing exam and
coursework.
More Students Are Taking 8th Grade Algebra,
More Students Passing
Schools Offering 8th Grade
Algebra
Schools
• High-stakes end-of-course exam.
• Centrally managed curriculum
supports and tools, based on HS
IDS model.
• Tools to help schools identify
students for middle grades
algebra.
• Major policy revisions to enable
course registration, transcripts,
course placement and course
credits at HS.
Effectiveness
160
140
120
100
80
60
40
20
0
150
Year
29%
2055
36%
3235
The number of CPS teachers with the “CPS
algebra credential” is increasing.
2006-07 2007-08 2008-09 2009-10
Expansion coupled with “scale up” funds from
FY08 and FY09.
• Extensive, ongoing program
evaluation.
1114
2008-09
49
Pass Rate
2007-08
81
Exams Taken
2006-07
139
300
245
250
Teachers
Implementation
200
161
150
100
79
43
50
0
2004
Budget FY09
$1.4M from Office of Mathematics and Science (IDA) and HS Teaching + Learning.
Local schools pay for materials. Managed centrally by 2 FTE; support via contract to
IDS vendors.
103
2005
2006
2007
2008
Participation in 8th grade algebra is associated with statistically
significant achievement gains on 9th grade EXPLORE, even when
controlling for demographics, prior achievement, and teacher
characteristics. (REA analysis)
Lessons Learned
I. Instructional program coherence matters.
VI. High expectations plus adult supports leads to student achievement
VII. Universities have an important role to play, particularly in developing teacher content knowledge.
VIII.We can develop high-stakes assessments that measure what we intend them to, but it takes time and money.
Source:
CMSI analysis, REA analysis
23
25. HS Instructional Development Systems (IDS)
One of 6 “High School Transformation” levers
Implementation
Reach
• Product of year-long research and
design effort, led by Boston Consulting
Group.
• Three “course support” elements: (1)
aligned series of courses, (2)
instructional materials, (3) quarterly
assessments.
• Three “teacher support” elements: (4)
coaching, (5) workshop PD, (6) teacher
leadership development.
• Led by external vendors identified
through competitive bid. (Including 4
local universities.)
IDS Implementation By Grade And Year
50
Schools
• One of six components of overall “High
School Transformation” strategy.
Effectiveness
13
25
0
13
0
13
11
2006-07
2007-08
13
11
11
19
19
2008-09
2009-10
0
Grade 9
Grade 9 & 10
Grade 9 & 10 & 11
• Wave 1 (2006-07 start) and Wave 2 (2007-08 start)
opt-in.
• Wave 3 (2008-09 start) forced-in.
• No expansion (except CEdO turnarounds) planned
for 2009-10.
• Differences between schools trump differences
between individual IDSs. (BCG Year 1 analysis)
• Student performance as measured by EXPLORE to
PLAN gains is flat. (HST+L analysis)
• Quality of instruction in IDS schools the same as in
Ren10 schools. (CCSR)
• Considerably more reluctance in Wave 3 schools.
(CCSR)
Budget – FY10 Proposed
$36.1M ($6.8M from schools, $3M from Gates) for waves 2 and 3. $3M for wave 1 support in year 4.
$0M for grade 12 support. 11.2 FTE central office
Lessons Learned
II.
V.
IX.
X.
Fidelity of implementation matters and can be managed.
Leadership development needs to be connected very closely with teacher development and curriculum implementation.
High schools are complex institutions that are difficult to change.
School-level buy-in is difficult and important; dysfunctional schools do not respond rationally to external pressures.
Source:
SRI evaluation; CCSR evaluation; BCG analysis; HST+L internal analysis
24
26. Lessons Learned and Proposed Next Steps (2 of 3)
Recap: Lessons Learned
Proposed Next Steps
I.
Instructional program coherence matters.
4. Avoid the “black box.”
II.
Fidelity of implementation matters and can be
managed.
III.
Subject matter differences are considerable
and need to be considered when executing at
the district, school, and classroom level.
IV.
We can take external supports and move them
to the central office; next big challenge is to
move supports to schools.
V.
Leadership development needs to be
connected very closely with teacher
development and curriculum implementation.
VI.
High expectations plus adult supports leads to
student achievement
VII. Universities have an important role to play,
particularly in developing teacher content
knowledge.
VIII. We can develop high-stakes assessments that
measure what we intend them to, but it takes
time and money.
IX.
High schools are complex institutions that are
difficult to change.
X.
School-level buy-in is difficult and important;
dysfunctional schools do not respond rationally
to external pressures.
5. For lower tier schools,
consider expansion of core
curriculum implementation.
(Leadership will be essential.)
6. Focus school level
performance management on
connecting assessment and
instructional materials
implementation.
7. Accelerate curriculum
definition, design, and
implementation work in
science, arts, bilingual
education and world
language, social science, and
CTE.
25
27. Agenda
Chicago Education Reform History
Principles Of Instruction and Instructional Leadership At Scale
Teaching And Learning In Practice: Lessons From CPS
Leading In Practice: Lessons From CPS
Immediate Recommendations for 2009-10
26
28. Strategic Vision
School Leadership In Context
Move capacity to the school.
Fundamentally, we develop capacity at the school level to support
instructional change. Externally driven reforms will flatten unless ownership
is developed at the school level.
How To Get There At Scale
Teams enable adult
learning.
Data builds and sustains
teamwork.
• The changes we want are
transformational, not additive.
• These changes require
complex new knowledge,
skills, and dispositions.
• Deep understanding
demands repeated
opportunities to learn,
practice, reflect, and refine
with peers.
• Data is the fuel that starts
teams talking and sustains
that conversation.
• As much as possible, data
should be local (based on
local curriculum and teacher
actions) and actionable
(namely, not only annual
data).
Structures and routines
describe the practice of
leadership.
• Organizational routines (e.g.
weekly department meetings)
and the artifacts that result
(e.g. agendas, minutes)
define the practice of leading
schools.
• To improve teacher
leadership in practice, focus
on improving these
structures, routines, and
artifacts.
• Performance management
routines are a vehicle for
teaching these practices.
Knowledgeable principals are an essential foundation for the above work.
27
29. Whose job is it to make principals better?
OPPD
Recruitment
LSC
AIOs
Placement
OEAS
Induction
Talent Management
Coaching/
Mentoring
IDA, HST+L
Evaluation
New Schools
C&I Support
HS ILC
28
30. The AIO Case: Lessons In Leadership Development
Designed
Focus on improving instruction
• Strong network of support
• Best in class professional
development
• Candidates selected for their
instructional expertise
Professional Learning Community
Lived
Diffused focus
• Competition and management
• Procedural focus for professional
development
• Candidates selected for many
reasons with instructional expertise
somewhere on the list
Isolation
Clear Routines
• Walkthrough routine
• Principal meeting routine
Routines appropriated for purposes
beyond their original intent
Enhance learning culture
Preserved hierarchical culture
29
31. Proposed Next Steps (3 of 3)
8. Major effort to develop capacity of school leaders, school leadership teams, and “principal
managers”. Focus on the instructional core.
9. Frame performance management as a capacity building strategy; we can’t recruit and fire
our way to a world class education system.
30
32. Agenda
Chicago Education Reform History
Principles Of Instruction and Instructional Leadership At Scale
Teaching And Learning In Practice: Lessons From CPS
Leading In Practice: Lessons From CPS
Immediate Recommendations for 2009-10
31
33. Recap: Proposed Next Steps
1.
Position instruction as central work of CPS; define five other strategic priorities (performance
management, portfolio management, human capital, safety and security, central office) by their
relationship to instructional improvement.
2.
Ongoing advice and support from Harvard and CCT to CPS on re-organization of infrastructure for
supporting teaching and learning.
3.
Continue to participate in national education-related reform leadership networks (e.g. Harvard’s
PELP, Aspen’s UMLN and ULLN).
4.
Avoid the “black box.”
5.
For lower tier schools, consider expansion of core curriculum implementation. (Leadership is
essential.)
6.
Focus school level performance management on connecting assessment and instructional
materials implementation.
7.
Accelerate curriculum definition, design, and implementation work in science, arts, and social
science.
8.
Major effort to develop capacity of school leaders, school leadership teams, and “principal
managers”. Focus on the instructional core.
9.
Frame performance management as a capacity building strategy; we can’t recruit and fire our way
to a world class education system.
32
34. Some other deep dives for the near future…
Coaching
Assessment Design and Use
Leadership Development
New Teacher Induction
Curriculum, Standards, Instructional Materials
What else?
33
35. The Instructional Core
Principle #1: Increases in student
learning occur only as a
consequence of improvements in
the level of content, teachers’
knowledge and skill, and student
engagement.
CONTENT
Principle #2: If you change one
element of the instructional core,
you have to change the other two.
Principle #3: If you can’t see it in
the core, it’s not there.
Principle #4: Task predicts
performance.
Principle #5: The real accountability
system is in the tasks that students
are asked to do.
TEACHER
STUDENT
Principle #6: We learn to do the
work by doing the work.
Principle #7: Description before
analysis, analysis before prediction,
prediction before evaluation.
34
