16 ANNUAL REPORT SARAH NEGRETE, PHD · 2020. 3. 16. · 2015-16 annual report sarah negrete, phd director 1290 burns rd. elko, nv

2015-16 ANNUAL REPORT

SARAH NEGRETE, PHD

DIRECTOR 1290 BURNS RD. ELKO, NV

2

Table of Contents

PROGRAM .................................................................................................................. 5 Service Area .................................................................................................................................................5 Governance Board....................................................................................................................................6 Staff ...................................................................................................................................................................6 Staff Professional Development.......................................................................................................8 Organizational Structure .....................................................................................................................9 Funding........................................................................................................................................................10 Trainings.....................................................................................................................................................10 Classification of Work .........................................................................................................................11 Services and Resources ......................................................................................................................12 Distribution of Resources .................................................................................................................12 Indicators of Quality ............................................................................................................................15 Identifying and Responding to School Needs ........................................................................16

Work ......................................................................................................................... 19 Developing Administrator Confidence and Skill in Using NEPF.................................19 NELIP Writing Workshop and Conferencing Strategies..................................................27 Humboldt County School District Writing Initiative.........................................................31 Exploring NVACSS ..................................................................................................................................36 Implementation of Eureka Math 2015-16 ...............................................................................46 New Literacies: Research for Teachers by Teachers ........................................................53 High School NEPF Learning – Focus on Standard 4............................................................60

District Summaries................................................................................................ 66 Elko County School District..............................................................................................................66 Eureka County School District .......................................................................................................71 Humboldt County School District .................................................................................................75 Lander County School District........................................................................................................79 Pershing County School District....................................................................................................84 White Pine County School District ...............................................................................................88 Charter Schools .......................................................................................................................................92

Appendices.............................................................................................................. 94 Appendix A: Governance Board Agendas ................................................................................95 Appendix B: List of NNRPDP Trainings .....................................................................................99 Appendix C: Scope of Work ...........................................................................................................104 Appendix D: NNRPDP Evaluation Form .................................................................................107 Appendix E: 5-Year Plan .................................................................................................................108 Appendix F: Opinion Rubric .........................................................................................................113 Appendix G: Syllabus ........................................................................................................................114 Appendix H: Understandings .......................................................................................................116 Appendix I: Observation Form....................................................................................................117

3

List of Tables

TABLE 1: TEACHERS, ADMIN., AND STUDENTS BY DISTRICT ................................................................ 5 TABLE 2: TEACHER, ADMIN., AND STUDENTS: CHARTER SCHOOLS.................................................... 6 TABLE 3: NNRPDP STAFF .................................................................................................................................. 8 TABLE 4: CO ST OF COORDINATOR TIME 2015-16 .................................................................................. 14 TABLE 5: REGIONAL MEAN RATINGS OF TRAININGS............................................................................. 16 TABLE 6: PD FOR EUREKA MATH ................................................................................................................. 47 TABLE 7: STUDENT SCORES ........................................................................................................................... 49 TABLE 8: TEACHER UND ERSTANDINGS ..................................................................................................... 52 TABLE 9: TEACHER TIC REFLECTION STATEMENTS.............................................................................. 57 TABLE 10: ELKO CSD M EAN RATINGS......................................................................................................... 68 TABLE 11: TRAININGS ELKO CSD ................................................................................................................. 69 TABLE 12: ELKO COUNT Y SCHOOL DISTRICT SCIENCE CRTS .............................................................. 70 TABLE 13: ELKO COUNT Y SCHOOL DISTRICT HSPE................................................................................ 70 TABLE 14:EUREKA CSD M EAN RATINGS .................................................................................................... 73 TABLE 15: TRAININGS EUREKA CSD ............................................................................................................ 74 TABLE 16: EUREKA COUNTY SCHOOL DISTRICT SCIENCE CRTS ........................................................ 74 TABLE 17: EUREKA COUNTY SCHOOL DISTRICT HSPE .......................................................................... 75 TABLE 18:HUMBOLDT CSD MEAN RATINGS ............................................................................................. 77 TABLE 19: TRAININGS HUMBOLDT CSD ..................................................................................................... 78 TABLE 20: HUMBOLDT CO UNTY SCHOOL DISTRICT SCIENCE CRTS.................................................. 79 TABLE 21: HUMBOLDT CO UNTY SCHOOL DISTRICT HSPE ................................................................... 79 TABLE 22: LANDER CSD MEAN RATINGS ................................................................................................... 82 TABLE 23: TRAININGS LANDER CSD ........................................................................................................... 82 TABLE 24: LANDER CO UNTY SCHOOL DISTRICT SCIENCE CRTS ........................................................ 83 TABLE 25: LANDER CO UNTY SCHOOL DISTRICT HSP ............................................................................ 83 TABLE 26: PERSHING CSD MEAN RATINGS ............................................................................................... 86 TABLE 27: TRAININGS PERSHING CSD ........................................................................................................ 86 TABLE 28: PERSHING COUNTY SCHOOL DISTRICT SCIENCE CRTS .................................................... 87 TABLE 29: PERSHING COUNTY SCHOOL DISTRICT HSPE ...................................................................... 87 TABLE 30: WHITE PINE CSD MEAN RATINGS ........................................................................................... 90 TABLE 31: TRAININGS WHITE PINE CSD .................................................................................................... 90 TABLE 32: WHITE PINE COUNTY SCHOOL DISTRICT SCIENCE CRTS ................................................ 91 TABLE 33: WHITE PINE COUNTY SCHOOL DISTRICT HSPE .................................................................. 91 TABLE 34: ELKO INSTITUTE FOR ACADEMIC ACHIEVEMENT SCIENCE CRTS ................................ 93

LIST OF FIGURES

FIGURE 1: REGIONAL DISTRIBUTION OF WORK BY TYPE .................................................................... 11 FIGURE 2: COORDINATOR TIME REGIONALLY ......................................................................................... 13 FIGURE 3: PERCENT CERTIFIED STAFF/COORDINATOR DOLLARS ................................................... 13 FIGURE 4: NNRPDP HOURS BY DISTRICT JULY 2013 THRO UGH MAY 2016 .................................... 15 FIGURE 5: EXPLAINING INSTRUCTIONAL STANDARDS TO A COLLEAGUE ...................................... 21 FIGURE 6:USE OF NEPF RUBRIC .................................................................................................................... 21 FIGURE 7: COMFORT LEVEL IN JUSTIFYING SCORES .............................................................................. 22 FIGURE 8: BELIEF THAT NEPF IS DOABLE ................................................................................................. 22 FIGURE 9: BELIEF NEPF WILL CHANGE INSTRUCTION ......................................................................... 23 FIGURE 10: NEPF AND EFFECTIVE FEEDBACK......................................................................................... 23 FIGURE 11: NEPF AND ACCO UNTABILITY.................................................................................................. 24 FIGURE 12: SCORES FOR ON DEMAND WRITING ..................................................................................... 34 FIGURE 13: NUMBER OF WORDS .................................................................................................................. 35 FIGURE 14: MOVEMENT FROM NON-PROFICIENT TO PROFICIENT .................................................. 35 FIGURE 15: UNDERSTANDING STRUCTURAL COMPONENTS OF NVACSS ........................................ 39

4

FIGURE 16: UNDERSTANDING CONCEPTUAL SHIFTS ............................................................................ 39 FIGURE 17: IDENTIFYING ELEMENTS OF THREE DIMENSIONS .......................................................... 40 FIGURE 18: UNDERSTANDING STRATEGIES SUPPORTING SCIENCE LEARN ING ........................... 40 FIGURE 19: IDENTIFYING ELEMENTS OF THREE DIMENSIONS .......................................................... 41 FIGURE 20: PERPETUAL SHIFTS ................................................................................................................... 42 FIGURE 21: FOLLOW UP REFLECTION ........................................................................................................ 42 FIGURE 22: UNDERSTANDING INTEGRATING 3 DIMENSIONS ............................................................ 43 FIGURE 23: DESIGNING INSTRUCTION FOR STUDENT PARTICIPATION IN SEPS .......................... 44 FIGURE 24: IMPACT ON INSTRUCTION ....................................................................................................... 45 FIGURE 25: SAMPLE EXIT TICKET ................................................................................................................ 48 FIGURE 26: RUBRIC FOR SCORING EUREKA MATH ................................................................................. 49 FIGURE 27: STUDENT WORK CONCEPTUAL UNDERSTANDING .......................................................... 50 FIGURE 28: TEACHER CONCERN STATEMENTS ....................................................................................... 56 FIGURE 29: IMPACT OF FORMATIVE OBSERVATIONS............................................................................ 62 FIGURE 30: IMPACT OF PD ON CONFIDENT IMPLEMENTATION ........................................................ 63 FIGURE 31:CONFIDENCE IN IMPLEMENTING STANDARD 4................................................................. 64 FIGURE 32: PERCENT CONFIDENT IN IMPLEMENTING STANDARDS................................................ 65 FIGURE 33: NNRPDP HOURS IN ELKO CSD JULY 2013 THRO UGH MAY 2016 .................................. 67 FIGURE 34: DISTRIBUT ION OF NNRPDP HOURS ELKO CSD 2015-16................................................. 67 FIGURE 35: NNRPDP WORK IN ELKO CSD 2015-16................................................................................. 68 FIGURE 36: NNRPDP HOURS IN EUREKA CSD JULY 2013 THROUGH MAY 2016 ............................ 72 FIGURE 37: DISTRIBUT ION OF NNRPDP HOURS EUREKA CSD 2015-16........................................... 72 FIGURE 38: NNRPDP WORK IN EUREKA CSD 2015-16 ........................................................................... 73 FIGURE 39: NNRPDP HOURS IN HUMBOLDT CSD JULY 2013 THROUGH MAY 2016 ..................... 76 FIGURE 40: DISTRIBUT ION OF NNRPDP HOURS HUMBOLDT CSD 2015-16 .................................... 76 FIGURE 41: NNRPDP WORK IN HUMBOLDT CSD 2015-16 .................................................................... 77 FIGURE 42: NNRPDP HOURS IN LANDER CSD JULY 2013 THROUGH MAY 2016 ............................ 80 FIGURE 43: DISTRIBUT ION OF NNRPDP HOURS LANDER CSD 2015-16........................................... 81 FIGURE 44: NNRPDP WORK IN LANDER CSD 2015-16........................................................................... 81 FIGURE 45: NNRPDP HOURS IN PERSHING CSD JULY 2013 THRO UGH MAY 2016 ........................ 84 FIGURE 46: DISTRIBUT ION OF NNRPDP HOURS PERSHING CSD 2015-16 ....................................... 85 FIGURE 47: NNRPDP WORK IN PERSHING CSD 2015-16 ....................................................................... 85 FIGURE 48: NNRPDP WORK IN WHITE PINE CSD JULY 2013 THROUGH M AY 201 ........................ 88 FIGURE 49: DISTRIBUT ION OF NNRPDP HOURS WHITE PINE CSD 2015-16 ................................... 89 FIGURE 50: NNRPDP WORK IN WHITE PINE CSD 2015-16 ................................................................... 89 FIGURE 51: NNRPDP WORK IN CHARTER SCHOOLS JULY 2013 THRO UGH MAY 2016 ................ 92 FIGURE 52: DISTRIBUT ION OF NNRPDP WORK BY TYPE CHARTER SCHOOLS............................... 93

5

PROGRAM

Service Area

The NNRPDP service area covers six school districts in six counties in Northeastern

Nevada. Service is provided for 15 high schools, 18 junior or middle schools, and 35 elementary schools, and for two charter schools, one in Elko County and one in

White Pine County. The Elko County School District is the largest geographically and has the greatest number of students (9,996) and teachers (618). The Eureka County School District is the smallest geographically and has the fewest students

(276) and teachers (26). Overall, there are 16,944 students across the region and 1,068 teachers. Regionally, student numbers have fluctuated little over the past three

years, with the highest number occurring in 2013-14 (17,017). Teacher numbers follow a similar pattern, though a decline in the number of teachers the current year may be attributable to vacancies filled by full-time substitutes, particularly in the

Elko County School District. (See Table 1.)

Graduation rates regionally were 80 percent in 2015, with the Eureka County School District having the highest with 100 percent and the Elko County School District having the lowest with 80 percent. Statewide, the graduation rate for 2015 was 70

percent. Ethnic diversity characterizes most of the region’s school districts though some individual schools are fairly homogenous ethnically. Regionally, white

students comprise 61 percent of the total student population; Hispanics, 30 percent; and Native Americans 5.4 percent. Thirty-seven percent of the students across the region qualify for Free or Reduced Lunch.

School

District

Teachers

Administrators

Students Oct.

2014

2015-16 Oct.

2014

2015-16 Oct. 2014 2015-16

Elko 645 618 32 35 9,743 9996

Eureka 29 26 3 2 247 276

Humboldt 213 227 16 15 3,473 3,421

Lander 71 68 6 4 1,049 1,003

Pershing 61 53 5 4 692 634

White Pine

94 81 10 7 1,249 1,254

Totals 1,113 1073 72 67 16,453 16,584 Table 1: Teachers, Admin., and Students by District

6

Charter

Schools

Teachers

Administrators

Students* 2014-15 2015-16 2014-15 2015-16 2014-15 2015-16

Elko Institute

for Academic

Success

10 9 1 2 185 185

Learning

Bridge 8 9 1 1 151 175

Totals 18 18 2 3 336 360 Table 2: Teacher, Admin., and Students: Charter Schools

Governance Board

The NNRPDP Governance Board is made up of 14 voting members--the

superintendents of each of the region’s six school districts, a teacher representative from each district, and the president of and a professor from Great Basin College. Also on the board, but not a voting member, is a representative from the State

Department of Education. The superintendent of the Elko County School District is the current board president. The board, which is required to meet twice each school

year, approves and provides oversight for the NNRPDP budget and the broader professional development initiatives done across the region. Board meetings are held interactively. The NNRPDP director sets meeting dates and establishes each

meeting’s agenda based on the needs of schools and districts and feedback from site and district administrators, board members, and regional coordinators. The board is also responsible for hiring the director and approving additions to the staff. (See

Appendix A for board meeting agendas.)

Staff

The NNRPDP staff consists of the director, seven regional coordinators, and an

office manager. The director, who has a doctorate in Literacy Studies, is in her third year with the program. The seven regional coordinators have over 40 years cumulative experience in professional development; two have been with the program

for over 10 years. Among the staff, the office manager has the longest tenure, having been with the program since 2003. The vacancy left by the retirement of one

coordinator in June has been filled; however, primarily due to budget concerns, staffing is likely to remain at current levels into the foreseeable future.

The NNRPDP director, who resides in Elko, is responsible for the successful

implementation of professional development in the region. Regionally, she oversees carrying out state mandated professional development (e.g. NEPF) and helps create and design initiatives complementary to those required by the state (e.g. the

NNRPDP Leadership Academy). She also works with district administrators to discern, plan and implement professional development to meet needs unique to

particular districts (e.g. Humboldt County Language Arts Initiative). Furthermore,

7

the director monitors the day-to-day professional development work done across the region, confers with the coordinators on the progress of their work, and regularly

meets with the whole staff to evaluate and refine ongoing professional development at district and site levels and to plan upcoming work. She supervises and evaluates

the regional coordinators and office manager annually and attends Statewide Coordinating Council meetings, which oversee the regional professional development centers statewide.

The seven regional coordinators are responsible for providing professional

development to 70 schools and 1,068 teachers over an area roughly the size of the state of Georgia. The ratio of coordinators to teachers is 1:152. One of the coordinators resides in Winnemucca, and three in Ely. Three coordinators, live in

Elko, where the NNRPDP office is located.

To meet legislative mandates and to respond to and fulfill the professional development needs of districts and schools, the coordinators have expertise in discrete curricular areas and grade levels, with math and language arts dominating

but also encompassing technology, science and the development of leadership skills. Coordinators devote significant time to their own professional development to meet

the various demands for professional development across the region. (See Staff Professional Development, page 8.)

The office manager provides a critical link between and among the NNRPDP staff and teachers and administrators throughout the region. She assists the director in

preparing the annual budget, tracks expenses, provides board members with agendas, and records and disseminates the minutes of each board meeting. She creates the coordinator logs whose data provide a year-to-year overview of professional

development in the region and insight into the distribution of time and resources devoted to individual districts, schools, and initiatives. She also records and

summarizes participant evaluations of the professional development they receive and provides a summary of the number, length, and outcome of professional development of trainings done in each district.

8

NNRPDP STAFF 2015-16

NAME POSITION AREA OF CONCENTRATION

Sarah Negrete, Ph.D. Program Director

Chris Back Office Manager

Valerie Byrnes Regional Coordinator K-8 Math, SIOP, STEM, Technology

Aaron Hansen Leadership Coordinator NEPF, Leadership

Holly Marich Regional Coordinator K-8 Literacy, K-5 Math, National

Boards, STEM, Technology

Connie Thomson Regional Coordinator

Parent-Teacher Coordinator

K-8 Math, RISE, K-12 Science

Jessie Westmoreland NELIP Coordinator

Parent-Teacher Coordinator

K-6 Literacy, Coaching, Data Teams,

Differentiated Instruction, MAP

Tina Westwood Regional Coordinator 6-12 Math, Alternative Education

Treena Whaley Regional Coordinator K-12 Literacy, K-5 Math, Standards

Based Grading, RISE

Table 3: NNRPDP Staff

Staff Professional Development

A critical component of the effectiveness of the professional development work in Northeastern Nevada relies on the ongoing professional development of the

program’s regional coordinators. Between July of 2015 and May of 2016, coordinators dedicated 1,483* hours to their own professional development. Of the

170 entries made in coordinator logs enumerating their own PD, 29 percent of the trainings pertained to NVACS and 39 percent to NEPF. Only 14 percent of their professional development required travel. Topics ranged from coaching, cognition

and CFGs (Critical Friends Groups) to literacy and math. A whole staff book study focused on Ron Ritchart’s Creating Cultures of Thinking: The 8 Forces We Must

Master to Truly Transform Our Schools. All seven coordinators took part in online trainings from Learning Forward, an organization for professional developers focused on “how to plan, implement, and measure high-quality professional

learning.” *Excludes travel time

9

Organizational Structure

A simplified flow chart of the NNRPDP’s organizational structure would illustrate professional development work generated at the Governance Board level,

communicated to the program director, and then to the regional coordinators who carry out the work determined by the Board.

Governance Board Director Regional Coordinators

The above chart best reflects the structure outlined in the legislation that created the regional professional development programs and suggests a top-down management

model; however, to better capture the channels of communication within the NNRPDP itself, a refinement of this chart illustrates input and feedback flowing from the regional coordinators to the director and then to the Governance Board

Governance Board Director Regional Coordinators

To capture the flow of ideas and the long established culture of cooperation regionally, an additional refinement of the chart would illustrate the input of teachers to site administrators, from site administrators to district administrators, and from

district administrators to the Governance Board, as well as a reversal of that flow from Governance Board to district administrators to site administrators to teachers.

Governance Board Director Regional Coordinators District Administrators

Site Administrators Teachers

10

Finally, to reflect the lines and flow of communication that have been established over the years, a last refinement illustrates input and feedback among and between

educators at all levels across the region. The planning, implementation, and assessment of professional development in Northeastern Nevada rely on maintaining the shared vision and across-the-board buy-in fostered by the exchange of

information, expertise, and ideas.

Governance Board Director Regional Coordinators District Administrators Site Administrators Teachers

Funding

The NNRPDP’s base operating budget for FY 2015-16 was $1,243,736, the same

figure as the past several years. There is some anticipation that the budget will either be maintained at present the level or reduced in the next biennium (beginning with the 2017-18 fiscal year). Either scenario has the potential of significantly

compromising the delivery of professional development services in the region.

Trainings

During the 2015-16 school year, the NNRPDP provided 50 trainings involving 230

separate training events to 49 percent of the certified staff in the region’s six school districts. Fifty-four percent of the training events focused on content, 42 percent on

pedagogy, and 4 percent on assessment. Up from 56 percent the previous year, implementation was the primary outcome of 65 percent of training events in 2015-16; for 23 percent the outcome was knowledge, and for 12 percent the outcome was

awareness. The concentration on implementation underscores the NNRPDP’s staff emphasis on transforming practice through professional development. Content or

pedagogy was the focus of 96 percent of the trainings, both key elements in strengthening practice. (See Appendix B for a list of the year’s trainings and Appendix C for Scope of Work.) See the Work section of this report for details of

specific trainings.

11

Classification of Work

The work of NNRPDP’s regional coordinators is divided among five categories: Preparation, Travel, Professional Conversation, Instructional Training, and

Observation*. Coordinators keep a record of time devoted to each of these categories in logs created by the office manager. New initiatives (e.g. Humboldt County School District’s 2015-16 ELA initiative) typically require that coordinators

devote more time to preparation than for work that is carried on from one year to the next. For instance, coordinators have devoted 41 percent of their time in preparation

in Humboldt’s ELA initiative, exceeding the regional average for time spent in preparation. Regionally, between July of 2015 and May of 2016, coordinators spent nearly 7,000 hours in professional development, which included 1,824** hours—17

percent of the total—on their own PD. In 2015-16, on average, coordinators spent 30 percent of their time on preparation, which is consistent with previous years and

which suggests that new work dominates the professional development done across the region. Though considerable travel is required of coordinators, time devoted to travel was 18 percent for 2015-16, which is consistent for travel the previous year.

Between July of 2015 and May of 2016, coordinators spent a total 52 percent of their time at school sites, down from 56 percent in 2014-15. Overall, coordinators spent

2,050 hours on Preparation, 1,225 hours on Travel, 2,176 hours on Professional Conversation, 1,056 hours on Instructional Training, and 282 hours on Classroom Observation. (See Figure 1.)

*Professional conversations include any event or activity where coordinators are not directly providing PD but

are providing feedback or expertise (e.g. debriefing, task force work, committee work, PLC meetings, etc.);

instructional training is direct instruction provided to a group of educators; classroom observation includes any

form of observing teachers in a classroom setting (walkthroughs, data collection, etc.).

**Includes travel time

Figure 1: Regional Distribution of Work by Type

32%

19%23%

19%

7%

Regional Distribution of Work by Type

Preparation

Travel

Professional Conversation

Instructional Training

Classroom Observation

12

Services and Resources

Though generally the professional development services offered by the NNRPDP have remained consistent over the years, the needs of schools and districts and new

legislative mandates shape those services and dictate which are most appropriate and effective to fulfill whatever demands arise. In 2015-16, a considerable amount of coordinator time was dedicated to Professional Conversation and Instructional

Training, roughly 32 and 16 percent respectively, both of which embody services provided since the program’s inception. For instance, Professional Conversation

contains elements of mentoring and coaching and reflects an emphasis on dialog between coordinators and teachers and administrators; Instructional Training indicates services delivered in the form of workshops and classes. Through the

processes of evaluation and feedback, services are refined and augmented as the needs of teachers and administrators are further discerned. For instance, a series of

workshops may be augmented by classroom observations and professional conversations carried out in the context of those observations. In most cases, however, services are multifaceted by design. Trainings in the Nevada Educator

Performance Framework, and the Nevada Early Literacy Program, for instance, employ Instructional Training, Professional Conversation, and Classroom

Observation. On the other hand, work with the first cohort of the Teacher Academy relies exclusively on Professional Conversation. (See p. 16, Identifying and Responding to Professional Development Needs.)

Though services offered on-site are arguably more desirable, interactive video and

various means of electronic communication play a critical role in delivering professional development across the region and maintaining relationships critical to the program’s success. Augmenting direct services is the NNRPDP’s professional

library with more than 800 volumes and 50 DVDs. Additionally, the program’s Website (http://nnrpdp.com/) provides information about offerings, trainings,

standards, and links to sites focusing on curriculum and assessments pertinent to Nevada educators.

Distribution of Resources

Allocation of NNRPDP resources for each school district is largely determined by

the districts themselves. Services are also driven by state and federal mandates and by initiatives designed by the NNRPDP to fulfill or augment the professional development needs of the region.

Six separate logs are the sole data source for coordinator time and for a breakdown

of that time into the various classifications of work previously mentioned. The logs themselves distinguish among professional development regionally and include NELIP, NEPF, Family Engagement, Teacher Academies, general PD done within

districts, initiatives unique to districts (e.g. Humboldt’s ELA initiative), and the coordinators’ own professional development. (See Figure 2 for coordinator time

regionally). Approximately 52 percent of professional development is specific to the

http://nnrpdp.com/

13

region’s six school districts, including any initiative unique to a district; 77 percent of work not specific to a district is devoted to the implementation of NEPF and 47

percent to NVACS. Based on data from coordinator time logs, 13.8 percent of all trainings involved some degree of Parent and Family Engagement.

To provide one picture of the distribution of resources to districts, professional development hours dedicated to specific districts are calculated in terms of the dollar

cost of coordinator time. (See Figure 3.) Data are affected by the significant differences in the number of certified staff among the districts and by the percentage

of staff (unduplicated numbers) receiving training. (See Table 4.)

Figure 2: Coordinator Time Regionally

Figure 3: Percent Certified Staff/Coordinator Dollars

43%

9%8%

3%

11%

4%

8%0%

14%

Coordinator Time Regionally

General PD Work

TALA

NEPF

NELIP

Teach Acad. Cohort 2

Teach. Acad. Cohort 1

Humboldt ELA

Parent Involvement

Coordinator PD

7%

5%

6%

21%

2%

57%

20%

3%

10%

36%

0%

30%

White Pine

Pershing

Lander

Humboldt

Eureka

Elko

Percent Certified Staff and Coordinator Dollars by District 2015-16

Percent Dollars

Percent Certified Staff

14

District* Served

Total No. of

Certified Staff**

Percent of

Region’s Certified

Staff**

Cost of Coordinator

Time

Cost per Total No.

of Certified

Staff**

Cost per Unduplicated

No. of Certified

Staff**

Percent of Certified

Staff** Receiving Training

Elko 653 57% $83,604 $128 $288 44% Eureka 28 2% 0 0 0 0 Humboldt 242 21% $96,298 $379 $796 50%

Lander 72 6% $26,081 $362 $555 65% Pershing 57 5% $9,837 $172 $983 18%

White Pine

88 7% $54,118 $615 $741 83%

Region*** $120,077

State**** $30,806

Table 4: Cost of Coordinator Time 2015-16

*Figures are for work devoted to a district ** Includes teachers and administrators

*** Figures for work done regionally, which includes certified staff from more than one district . Work done for

Eureka certified staff is included here but not in work devoted to districts.

****Work done at the state level that impacts the region but is not a training for certified staff

Prior to 2013-14, the NNRPDP’s dollar-per-teacher expenditures for districts with the fewest teachers typically either equaled or exceeded the per teacher expenditures

for the districts with the most teachers. For instance, in 2012-13 the Elko County School District, with 57 percent of the region’s teachers, received 49 percent of

coordinator time calculated in dollars. The Pershing County School District, with 6 percent of the region’s teachers, received 16 percent of coordinator time calculated in dollars. In the past two years, however, professional development initiatives in

districts with a greater number of teachers have affected the coordinator time calculated in dollars for each district. For instance, data from 2013-14 indicate that the Humboldt County School District, with approximately 19 percent of the teachers

in the region, received 42 percent of professional development dollars calculated in cost of coordinator time, and, in 2014-15, 47 percent. In 2012-13, Humboldt

received 17 percent. In 2015-16, the Humboldt County School District received 36 percent of professional development dollars calculated in cost of coordinator time*. The shift in the allocation of resources between 2012-13 and subsequent years is the

result of the Humboldt County School District’s emphasis on professional development; however, the data on coordinator time is based on work which is done

exclusively within a district, not region wide professional development which serves all districts (e.g. trainings on the Nevada Educator Performance Framework (NEPF), Nevada Academic Content Standards (NVACS), Teacher Academies, NELIP) and

work done at the state level. Besides the dollar-per-teacher figures provided in Table 4, the distribution of resources is also indicated by the hours coordinators devote to

professional development in each district. (See Figure 4 for a three year comparison of professional development hours in each district.) *Excludes regional and state figures

15

Figure 4: NNRPDP Hours by District July 2013 through May 2016

*Does not include hours for regional work that includes certified staff in more than one district.

Indicators of Quality

The most easily quantifiable and, over the years, statistically stable indicator of the quality of NNRPDP work has been the mean ratings compiled from the NNRPDP evaluations completed by teachers and administrators who participate in NNRPDP

professional development trainings, workshops, and initiatives during the year. The eleven* questions on the evaluation focus on the training’s content, the presenter’s

skills and knowledge, and the usefulness and impact the training is likely to have on the participants. In the 2015-16 school year, 1,084 evaluations were completed. (See Appendix D for NNRPDP Evaluation Form.*) Mean ratings for several areas have

steadily increased, though inferences drawn from the data need to take into account year-to-year fluctuations in the number of respondents and the focus of trainings;

nonetheless, the data point to the high quality of trainings. (See Table 5 for mean ratings.) *Questions 10 and 11 were added to the evaluation form for 2015-16.

While the data from the evaluations to some degree indicate the quality of the

NNRPDP’s work, other less quantifiable indicators provide further evidence of both efficacy and quality. Longstanding collaborations and partnerships between the NNRPDP and districts and schools are a testament to the program’s reliability in

responding to needs and its flexibility in tailoring and delivering professional development to fit the unique character and circumstances of those being served.

0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500

White Pine

Pershing

Lander

Humboldt

Eureka

Elko

NNRPDP Hours by District*

2013-14 2014-15 2015-16

16

Also difficult to quantify is the number of teachers who volunteer or apply to participate in ongoing and newly instituted services to the entire region. The year-

to-year success of the Nevada Early Literacy Program (NELIP) and teacher participation in both cohorts of the Teacher Academy and the newly instituted

Teaching and Learning Academy (TALA) provide examples. The coordinators’ dedication to augmenting, renewing, and improving their own

knowledge and skills both reflects and indicates the program’s commitment to quality and to delivering the most effective and relevant professional development

possible.

QQuestion 2011-

12

2012-

13

2013-

14

2014-

15 2015-16

1.The training matched my needs. 4.28 4.44 4.56 4.55 4.63

2. The training provided opportunities for interactions and

reflections.

4.63 4.66 4.79 4.81 4.84

3. The presenter’s experience and expertise enhanced the

quality of the training

4.68 4.73 4.72 4.77 4.77

4. The presenter efficiently managed time and pacing of the

training.

4.64 4.70 4.73 4.74 4.78

5. The presenter modeled effective teaching strategies. 4.59 4.59 4.61 4.63 4.68

6. The training added to my knowledge of standards and/or my

skills in teaching subject matter content.

4.38 4.46 4.52 4.50 4.55

7. The training will improve my teaching skills. 4.36 4.48 4.51 4.54 4.56 8.I will use the knowledge and skills from this training in my

classroom or professional duties.

4.47 4.57 4.63 4.65 4.68

9. This training will help me meet the needs of diverse student

populations (e.g., gifted and talented, ELL, special ed., at-risk

students).

4.19 4.36 4.38 4.49 4.39

10. My learning has prompted me to change my practice. NA NA NA NA 4.24

11. My learning today will affect students’ learning. NA NA NA NA 4.52

Table 5: Regional Mean Ratings of Trainings

Identifying and Responding to School Needs

Often overlooked as one of the basic requirements of successful professional development is maintaining a sense of continuity and unified purpose in the trainings offered to teachers and administrators. To preserve that sense of continuity in

professional development trainings from year to year, the NNRPDP staff emphasize the critical nature of informed instruction, meaningful and valid assessment, and

clearly articulated and shared instructional goals. That is, rather than present professional development as a fragmented, isolated, or constantly shifting set of programs, mandates, or initiatives, professional development is offered within the

context of an on-going and cohesive approach to improving instruction and enhancing student performance. Fostering this sense of and belief in the continuity

of professional development is crucial in allaying the misgivings and overcoming the resistance that many educators experience in the high stakes, high pressure environment of the classroom.

17

On a more basic level, the professional development needs of schools and teachers

often are determined by refinements in academic standards (e.g. the NVACS) and a detailing of evaluative criteria used to measure the effectiveness of instruction and

school performance (e.g. the Nevada Educator Performance Framework (NEPF)). These needs, more often than not, require a deepening of understandings and knowledge that are the products of previous professional development trainings.

The longstanding open communication between the NNRPDP and district and site

administrators and teachers serves as an avenue for discerning and responding to the professional development needs across the region. Services are tailored to deliver effective and sustained professional development, often through a collaboration with

district personnel in response to district needs. (See 2013-14 Annual Report for details of K-6 NVACS ELA Initiative and 2014-15 Annual Report for details of K-6

NVACS Math Initiative.) In 2015-16 the Humboldt County School District initiated a K-6 writing initiative to follow the previous two years’ math initiative. NNRPDP staff and a district administrator collaborated in planning for the professional

development. Ultimately all of the K-6 teachers in four of the district’s elementary schools participated. Teachers were provided with Lucy Calkin’s Units of Study in

Opinion/Argument, Information, and Narrative. (For details see Humboldt County School District Writing Initiative, page 31.)

Besides delivering ongoing professional development to carry out district initiatives, NNRPDP staff develop trainings, workshops, or academies that serve teachers across

the region. The NNRPDP Teacher Academy presents an example of such work. In the 2014-15 school year it was apparent that teachers would benefit from a focused, concentrated examination of the soon-to-be-instituted Nevada Educator Performance

Framework (NEPF). To meet that need, NNRPDP staff designed and implemented its Teacher Academy, which was loosely modeled after the Leadership Academy

provided to administrators as an introduction to the NEPF. A second cohort of teachers was recruited for a 2015-16 Teacher Academy. Though scaled back from the previous year’s Academy because of budget limitations, teachers in the second

cohort met in combined elementary/secondary groups six times for a full day beginning with an orientation meeting prior to school in August. Subsequent

sessions beginning in September and ending in March focused on one of the five NEPF standards. Teachers from four of the region’s six school districts participated and earned three Southern Utah University credits.

As an extension of last year’s work, NNRPDP staff offered teachers who had

participated in the first Teacher Academy to continue that work in 2015-16. Thirty teachers elected to participate. The teachers from the first cohort met for three half day sessions and one full day session in March where they joined teachers from the

second cohort to hear Dr. John Almarode speak on attaining high rigor in the learning process.

18

NNRPDP staff designed a Teaching and Learning Academy (TALA) to nurture a unified vision for school improvement within school sites. To participate in TALA,

schools were required to apply to the NNRPDP. Initially four schools from across the region were selected and a fifth was added in the spring of 2016. Teacher leaders

and site administrators from those schools formed a “guiding coalition” to identify needs and develop goals for ongoing improvement at their site, and, with assistance from the NNRPDP, promote and implement professional development that would

support whole faculties in attaining those goals. The teacher leaders and site administrators from participating schools met as a whole group four times in Elko.

To strengthen communication among the schools and between the administrators and the NNRPDP, one coordinator conducted two “GoToMeetings” for the principals and maintained regular communication with them throughout the year. Staff also

conducted observations and provided feedback throughout the year.

Services are also provided to fulfill the unique circumstances that may arise during the school year. For instance, administrators may discern gaps in training or professional development needs particular to an individual school’s grade level or

teachers and request services tailored specifically to meet those needs. Such services may take the form of workshops on grade level pedagogy or subject content or may

involve regular coaching sessions with a teacher who is new to a particular grade level or who needs support in the nuts and bolts of classroom management.

Planning, which focuses both the short- and long-term work of the NNRPDP, is a critical component of the NNRPD’s work. Staff meet regularly to critique, shape

and refine work done within the context of each academic year, and the NNRPDP’s 5-Year Plan, most recently revised in 2015, provides a map for the ongoing and anticipated professional development needs of the region’s certified staff. (See

Appendix E for 5-Year Plan.)

19

Work Following are seven studies of professional development work done across the

region in 2015-16, each written by one of the regional coordinators. Each provides a detailed account of and reflection on the work itself and, broadly, a sense of the

scope, focus, and effectiveness of professional development not captured in the overview of trainings provided on page 10.

Developing Administrator Confidence and Skill in Using NEPF

Overview

Humboldt County School District (HCSD) partnered with the Northeastern Nevada

Regional Professional Development Program (NRPDP) for the purpose of better implementing the Nevada Educator Performance Framework (NEPF) in the school year of 2015-16. The goals were to develop a level of capacity and comfort among

school administrators with the framework as a means for improving instruction. Since the partnership was focused only on administrative training, the specific goals

were: 1. Principals and assistant principals will feel more comfortable assigning

scores using the NEPF instructional standards and indicators.

2. Principals will feel more confident while assigning scores. 3. Principals will identify challenges in the system and make recommendations

for process changes at the state level.

Training

The training was scheduled to be delivered four hours per month for eight months, starting in September. The materials used for the training were the Inter-Rater

Reliability training modules developed by Center for Research on Evaluation, Standards and Student Testing (CRESST), which was commissioned by the Teachers

and Leaders Council. The primary for delivering the training was Aaron Hansen, NNRPDP Leadership Coordinator, who received module training from Margaret Heritage, former CRESST Director. The modules were designed to have

administrators watch videos (11-15 min) of a teacher delivering instruction at various grade levels, within various subjects, and with various demographics of

students. Then participants assigned scores using the NEPF rubric and scoring guides. Participants compared their scores with a learning partner, and then in groups of four, coming to consensus through discussion. Once consensus was

achieved, the groups reviewed and discussed with the NNRPDP coordinator a set of master scorer’s scores and notes provided by CRESST. The purpose of these

modules was to align participant thinking with that of the master scorers’. The intent of these modules was that administrators across the state would experience the same

20

modules with the same processes in order to achieve some rater reliability across the state.

All responding participants indicated that the training was either effective or highly

effective. Measuring Progress

The process for measuring the goals listed above was to administer the same survey questions to administrators, once at the beginning of the year and once at the end of

the year. An additional three questions were posed on the post survey. Survey Questions

1. I could explain the NEPF instructional standards to a colleague.

2. I can name the five instructional standards included in the NEPF.

3. I feel comfortable in my ability to use the NEPF rubric to give accurate

scores for my teachers’ practice.

4. What was your comfort level at the beginning of this year in your ability to

assign accurate scores to your teachers' practice?

5. What is your comfort level in justifying your scores with evidence as you

meet with your teachers?

6. What is your comfort level in justifying your scores with evidence as you

meet with contentious teachers you supervise?

7. I have a system for collecting and organizing evidence for teacher

evaluations.

8. To what degree do you believe the NEPF evaluation system is doable?

9. To what degree do you believe the NEPF evaluation system will change

instructional practices?

10. To what degree do you believe the NEPF framework will better allow you

to recognize and provide meaningful feedback to your highly effective

teachers?

11. To what degree do you believe the NEPF framework will better allow you to

hold ineffective teachers accountable compared to the old system?

12. Do you feel like you have received sufficient training for assigning accurate

scores to your teachers?

13. What currently is your greatest obstacle to implementing the NEPF

evaluation system well?

In addition to the original questions, principals and assistant principals were asked the following questions during the post survey:

1. How effective do you feel the training has been?

2. If you could suggest a change in the NEPF evaluation process, what would it

be?

3. What resources, if any, do you feel that you need to more effectively use the

NEPF to improve instruction?

21

Results

Upon request the full data set may be made available. Some of the more notable

results are represented in Figures 5 through 11 below.

Figure 5: Explaining Instructional Standards to a Colleague

Figure 6:Use of NEPF Rubric

50%

14%

36%

57%

14%29%

Pre Survey Post Survey

I could explain the NEPF Instructional Standards to a colleague

Not at all 1 2 3 4 Absolutely 5

57%43%

29%43%

7% 14%


I feel comfortable in my abilty to use the NEPF rubric to give accurate scores for my

teachers'practice.


22

Figure 7: Comfort Level in Justifying Scores

Figure 8: Belief that NEPF is Doable

14%

64%

14%

21%

86%


What is your comfort level in justifying your scores with evidence as you meet with your

teachers?


29%29%

71%

43%

29%


To what degree do you believe that the NEPF evaluation system is doable?


23

Figure 9: Belief NEPF Will Change Instruction

Figure 10: NEPF and Effective Feedback

43% 43%

50% 43%

7% 14%


To what degree do you believe the NEPF evaluation system will change instructional

practices?


21% 29%

50% 29%

29%43%


To what degree do you believe the NEPF framework will better allow you to recognize

and provide meaningful feedback to your highly effective teachers?


24

Figure 11: NEPF and Accountability

Narrative Comment

Following is a sample of the responses to the written response questions on the post

survey: Q 1. What currently is your greatest obstacle to implementing the NEPF

evaluation system well?

“Getting into classrooms regularly to truly ascertain levels of

implementation.”

“I feel like it is taking me entirely too long. I question if I am over processing

it. Am I not managing my time efficiently? This is overwhelming and very

frustrating.”

“Time-Time-Time”

“Time!”

“The learning process we have engaged in is valuable and effective.

However, the process for writing the evaluations using the Summative

Evaluation document is tedious and time consuming.”

“I love the NEPF… I think it is Too much to evaluate anyone on in one

year’s time and therefore in turn takes away from teaching and preparation

time to try and collect artifacts and connect with standards etc. Its asking too

much at once.”

“This system is no different that the Danielson model. We junked that

because it was a check list. This is no different. We now just ask teachers to

7% 14%

36% 29%

36% 43%

21% 14%


To what degree do you believe the NEPF framework will better allow you to hold

inneffective teachers acccountable compared to the old system?


25

scan things in the computer and "prove it," or check it off the list, which is

really ineffective”

Q 2. If you could suggest a change in the NEPF evaluation process, what would

it be?

“Checklists on final evaluation indicators so less time-consuming.”

“Consolidate some of the indicators and mandatory evidence sources. There

is a lot of redundancy and it creates more time and work.”

“Go back to a system for Teachers to "focus" on say 2 Standards a year, but

need to include all within their individual Instructional Practices. The next

year would be 3 Standards. 2. Also, the amount of time an Admin. is putting

into all evaluations is unreasonable. Come up with a check off sheet for your

effective-highly effective Teachers to help spend necessary time working

with your lower end Teachers. In a sense you would also be more likely to

truly identify the lower end Teachers. Reminder, Teachers aren't banging on

our doors to get into the Nevada School Systems to Teach.”

“Evaluate on 2 standards each year, so teachers can focus in on those two in

depth. Only ask for 1 artifact per indicator. I feel as if it was too

overwhelming for teachers this year.”

“I would like to see a checklist for each standard and indicator where you

simply check off the evidence you have observed and then based on what you

have checked off a number can be assigned.”

What resources, if any, do you feel that you need to more effectively use the

NEPF to improve instruction?

“Training time for teachers!”

“Time for administrators.”

“Possibly timeline/requirement document samples to track observations and

evaluations. Perhaps a look into what other districts have in place to make

this work.”

Discussion

As the 2015-16 school year began, the district administrators had already received

significant amounts of training in the standards, but the focus of that training had not yet been on scoring. Despite the prior exposure to the standards, there was high levels of anxiety, not just in the district but state wide, related to the new evaluation

system. In part, the anxiousness came simply from the fact that the system has potentially high consequences for individual educators, and it was unfamiliar. Many

administrators lacked confidence in their ability to use the tool to fairly evaluate the level of effectiveness of educators.

26

What became apparent as the training continued throughout the year, along with

administrators learning through the experience of doing live evaluations, was that administrators did become more comfortable with assigning scores and became more

confident in the viability of those scores. However, it is noteworthy to point out that, while their level of efficacy regarding

their ability to make accurate scores went up, administer beliefs about the system’s viability did not raise commensurately. In fact, when asked if the system is doable,

respondents reported beliefs overwhelmingly declined. Also worthy of notice is that respondents’ beliefs either stayed static or improved when asked about whether the system would help them better recognize highly effective teachers or hold ineffective

teachers accountable. The seeming contrast of these findings are best answered in the narrative answers that were given by respondents. Overwhelmingly, respondents

named time or the unwieldy process of the actual evaluation as their number one obstacle for implementing the system as designed. The data suggests that while administrators can develop confidence in using the NEPF and their belief in its

intentions of providing better feedback to all teachers, they simply do not feel like they have the time to do it.

Recommendations and Reflections for Future Viability of NEPF

The NEPF process is very labor intensive, particularly if done well. However, it isn’t the labor itself that is holding the system back. It is not difficult for most

administrators to see the potential power of teachers receiving constructive feedback through a common framework, using a common vocabulary, precisely describing what they do well and what they can do better. Despite the potential, the time

demand on a typical administrator throughout a typical day is what is inhibiting most administrators from using the system as intended.

If the system is to have a chance at realizing its potential, the state or districts must start to allocate resources to schools to garner the time needed. With appropriate

resources, schools could hire or assign one leader as a true leader of instruction that will use the NEPF system as intended, or help redefine the principal’s day to day

role to become the leader of instruction by hiring additional staff to manage the day to day managerial duties of a school. It is apparent that without these changes, the NEPF evaluation system will never fully realize its complete potential of improving

instruction and learning at the scope for which it was created.

27

NELIP Writing Workshop and Conferencing Strategies

“Just wanted to update you on my progress in teaching writing. You said that if I teach it, they will learn. I have been very explicit about the strategies and today I

had a student write a paper that met all my criteria. So thank you so much for the class and advice. I am feeling much better about my teaching of writing.” - Austin School Principal/Teacher, February 2016 (email)

The teacher quoted above participated in an interactive class offered by the

coordinator assigned to early literacy. Nevada Early Literacy Intervention Program (NELIP) is designed to meet the literacy needs of all elementary teachers in the Northeastern Region. The interactive class is offered in all six counties in an effort to

fulfill the assignment of reaching elementary teachers. The class focus is always in either reading, word study, or writing. The last two years have focused on writing

due to the increased interest in writing instruction brought about by Nevada Academic Content Standards (NVACS).

What impact can an interactive writing strategies class have on teachers and students? It can give teachers specific strategies to empower their students, it can

build teacher confidence in writing instruction which then carries over into confident student writers, it can forever change the way writing is taught.

Preparation, Materials and Participants The coordinator had observed that teachers across the region were attempting to

implement writer’s workshop in their classrooms with varying degrees of success and many were running into similar difficulties. Also, conferencing with student writers was a common concern. Thus, the coordinator searched for texts that would

offer strategies to address the difficulties of writer’s workshop and the challenges of conferring with student writers.

In this region there are many teachers who are isolated geographically, but others feel isolated in their teaching of writing. One of the goals of the class this year was

to partner each teacher with another teacher in a grade alike situation so that they could confer about successes, challenges, and next steps. Technology was embedded

in the class to partner teachers across the area. The first text chosen was The Unstoppable Writing Teacher: Real Strategies for the

Real Classroom by M. Colleen Cruz. This book was selected because it tackles the common concerns, struggles, and roadblocks that all writing teachers face, and helps

teachers engage in problem solving those challenges. “We can’t solve all the problems we’re faced with in writing instruction, but we can choose how to respond to them. And our responses will make all the difference” (Cruz, 2015, p. 8). To

address individual needs, the coordinator asked each teacher to name their biggest ‘monster’ (it is often ‘time’) and then work with reflection, reading, and partner talk

to make an action plan. Then, of course, to follow through with the action plan and reflect again and plan again each class meeting.

28

The second text, to address conferencing concerns, was Let’s Talk, One-on-One:

Peer and Small-Group Writing Conferences by Mark Overmeyer. Throughout this book, Mark describes how classroom talk benefits students in a variety of ways,

from discovering their interests and backgrounds as writers to helping them develop the language to reflect on their writing progress. This book is packed with real classroom examples and stories to help educators make conferences more

manageable and meaningful.

Thirty teachers registered for the class; twenty-one finished the class and received graduate level credit. Eleven teachers were from Humboldt County, eight from Elko County, one from Lander County, and one from Pershing County.

Interactive Classes and Requirements

Class requirements included the following: ● fifteen hours of seat time, during which teachers engaged in discussions

around the required reading for each class;

● a classroom observation by the instructor during which the teacher taught a

writing mini-lesson, after which the teacher and the coordinator reflected on

the lesson;

● a partnership with another teacher using a shared Google Doc (shared

between the teachers and the coordinator). In this Google Doc they engaged

in a discussion about writing instruction challenges, successes, and next

steps. They offered each other advice and support, encouragement, and

celebrated success;

● a final reflective paper.

The class met six times during the months of September 2015 to November 2015. Each class was 2.5 hours and always began with a writing reflection which was

focused on an individual challenge they identified as something they wanted to work on during this class. Next, a discussion of the required reading was done in small, site-based groups, using a protocol to give equal voice to all. It is sometimes

challenging in an interactive situation to include the ‘singletons’ (we had a single teacher in Austin and one in Lovelock), but they were included with the Elko group

during discussion time. Insights and big ideas from the text were then shared out with the whole group by taking turns between sites. Three classes were devoted to each text. Each class ended with a partner time, during which each pair connected

via phone and/or Google Doc. Goals were set and reported on.

Classroom Observations The classroom observation serves multiple purposes: it allows the instructor to build rapport with the teacher by getting a first-hand look at their teaching situation, it

makes the teacher accountable for implementing the class content (in this case, writing workshop and/or conferencing), and it offers the opportunity for the

instructor to offer face-to-face feedback to each teacher. Visits to multi-grade

29

classrooms, observations of teachers instructing in writing, and eager writers tackling the challenge with enthusiasm make the observations the coordinator’s

favorite part of the class—even with long drives to outlying corners of the region. It is rewarding to the coordinator to see teachers trying to implement strategies that

they have learned about in class. And often, the feedback portion is a real ah-ha to the teacher. They want to learn, that is why they are taking the class, and so they welcome feedback and reflection. It is sad, but true, that teachers do wonderful

things in their classroom that are rarely seen and appreciated by another teacher. If the coordinator can shine some light on the good things they are doing, it is a win-

win and gladly received. Technology

The coordinator wanted to implement technology as part of the class to meet 21st Century literacy advances and to offer teachers the opportunity to participate in an

activity that they may want to try with their own students. The technology implemented was mainly through Google Docs. Two different

Google Docs were created and used during the class. For the first one, teachers were paired up with a teacher from another county or area that was in a similar grade

level. They created a Google Doc that was also shared with the coordinator. The responsibility was given each class for them to correspond via the Doc to reflect on their successes, challenges, and next steps and to set goals. They were to offer advice

to their partner, share resources, pictures, stories, just about anything that they thought might help. The coordinator went into each Doc after each class and

responded to the pair, answering questions, and giving advice and thoughts. Many of the partnerships were magical; great growth and sharing were done. Several struggled with Internet connections (outlying areas often have limited connection)

and two didn’t find the Doc to be helpful. Overall, it was useful for the coordinator to get the ongoing sense of what the challenges were and be able to respond

immediately to any questions or misconceptions. The coordinator would do this again, counting it as a success.

A second Google Doc was one shared by all. The coordinator created it, shared it, and invited teachers to put big ideas on it so that others could see their thinking. This

was little used, except for a couple of teachers, until the coordinator decided to make this a part of the required discussion. During the small group site discussion of the text, the coordinator asked each group to have a scribe (who was on the Google Doc)

and when the group found a big idea, the scribe put it directly into the Doc. This really upped the game of accountability and added some spice to the discussion. On

the down side, it was difficult for several sites to get on the Doc and they had to add thoughts later (when they went to home computers). These are real challenges faced in outlying areas that impact the learning of teachers and students.

30

Following is an excerpt from one teacher (from the shared Big Ideas Google Doc):

In class, during our whole group discussion, I found it interesting that many other members highlighted how important “language” is in the world of writing.

How powerful it will be if we can teach our students how to talk about their own writing as well as their peers. These talking/language opportunities allow our

students to hear positive, constructive and inspiration words about writing in general, as well as, their own writing specifically.

Just like learning how to discuss books during book clubs…we can teach our students how informed writers speak about each other’s writing. Perhaps we begin

by using sentence stems that begin to help them formulate their thoughts and to keep the conversation flowing. Some students may be confident enough to generate their own beginning of conversations.

Imagine what writers we will help to create for the future when we teach them how

to write and talk about writing. What wonderful conversations will occur? I imagine that students...future adults…will use this language/conversation skill taught through writing, reading and speaking that will so enrich their lives and

others. Perhaps this will lead these writers to become one of the great writers of the future to help us to understand the human condition and our world around us better.

Then we can learn, connect and feel with others who may live thousands of miles away. But through their writing we may feel like they are sitting right next to us with a cup of tea engaged in a great conversation that touches our souls.

What a wonderful thing that will be!

Conclusions

In reading over the final reflection papers of the teachers who took the class, the

coordinator found positive comments overall. Teachers felt supported in their writing instruction. The technology piece was a frustration for a few, but most felt it was a

valid way to share thinking and some might try it in their classrooms. Here are a few comments from teachers who participated in the class:

Reading The Unstoppable Writing Teacher opened my eyes to the importance of students writing every day and gave me ideas of realistic goals to set in my

classroom to make the most of writing time. My initial goal was to get my students more comfortable writing independently and to encourage them to come up with their own ideas for writing instead of giving the students writing prompts. The

chapter “I am not sure how to work with students who don’t know English” was very helpful for me to support the students who were struggling to get started and get

more comfortable writing. -2nd Grade Teacher

31

I really liked reading Let’s Talk. It was an easy read with so many ideas that I have

now turned into goals. Conferencing in the middle of the room, the use of the author’s chair, and information to use to create anchor charts. I have gained many

ideas for my ELL students as well from this book. (Which was one of my goals in the beginning, to help reach my ELL students.)

I enjoyed talking to my partners as well as reading their posts on Google Docs. I always left feeling better about my ability as a teacher. It is nice to hear that others

share the same struggles as you. They had some amazing suggestions for my low ELL student that has worked tremendously. So many ideas for me to contemplate and implement. From my student being afraid not unmotivated to starting writing

where my student is at, not necessarily where my class is at. These were all strategies that I have used that have made a huge difference in the writing of my

student. I feel more prepared to teach writing in the future if I have a student at the same level. -4th Grade Teacher

The texts read discussed practical, do it today strategies for writer’s workshop

dilemmas and gave class participants ideas and examples of conferencing with student writers. Teachers left the class having set goals, carried out action steps and reflected on progress. The resources they have will carry them forward in writing

instruction and student conferencing. An interactive class can have lifelong impact on instruction, forever changing the way instruction is delivered, teacher knowledge

and confidence level.

Humboldt County School District Writing Initiative

Outcomes

Students will build fluency and stamina in writing. Students will increase proficiency as writers in the three modes of writing specified

in the NVACS. Question

How does K-6 weekly district-wide professional development centered around

writing instruction aligned to NVACS impact student writing? Background

For the past several years, HCSD has focused a late-start professional development

time for elementary teachers K-6 district-wide on aligning instruction with the

32

NVACS. For the 2015-16 school year, the district changed the focus from NVACS Mathematics to NVACS ELA. Knowing the extensive scope of work to align

instruction with the ELA standards, a Design Team met in the spring of 2015 to narrow the focus. The Design Team consisted of a handful of teachers from across

the district’s elementary schools, the NNRPDP director and regional ELA coordinators, as well as the HCSD Assistant Superintendent.

Taking into consideration test scores and additional widespread evidence of need through informal interviews, the committee chose to focus on writing. Knowing the

time and effort required to build district-wide professional development from scratch, the Design Team suggested that the district consider a bold curricular move and purchase the Lucy Calkins Units of Study in Opinion/Argument, Information,

and Narrative Writing for all teachers K-6 and implement the recommended teaching methods on a broad scale.

The Units of Study were carefully crafted over a number of years, include the input of many educators, are aligned with CCSS in writing, and are grounded in 30+ years

of research through Columbia University’s Teachers College Reading and Writing Project. Additionally, the Units of Study are a comprehensive resource providing

not only lesson plans, unit plans, and assessment materials, but extensive teacher support including professional reading and coaching tips designed to build capacity around teaching writing. They have proven effective in many classrooms, schools,

and districts across the country.

The district chose to follow the recommendation of the Design Team and purchased the materials for all teachers K-6 knowing that, in order to understand and implement the teaching methods described, and knowing the comprehensive nature

of the materials, consistent and careful planning and support for educators would be crucial in moving forward to improve writing across the district.

Structure

The Design Team met regularly during the spring of 2015 to conceptualize the overall plan for the year and NNRPDP coordinators then assumed responsibility for

creating weekly learning plans and sharing those plans with site facilitators chosen to lead the learning at each school. All elementary teachers K-6 at the district’s four main elementary schools, led by site facilitators, participated in this professional

learning in hour long sessions once a week for 28 weeks. All but one PD session per month focused on professional learning around NVACS writing using the materials

provided; one session per month focused on NVACS math in order to maintain the impact gained in previous years.

The plan design engendered a strong “feedback loop” where NNRPDP coordinators created and “fed forward” the learning plan; site facilitators then led the learning at

their school while systematically collecting data from teachers about what was working and what might need to be adjusted. Site facilitators provided this feedback

33

to NNRPDP coordinators through a shared digital document as well as in weekly one-hour “huddles.” This timely feedback was used to adjust and differentiate the

plan to meet specific learning needs at sites.

Initial sessions focused on building a basic understanding of the materials’ components which include:

● Units of Study focused on each NVACS mode of writing with teaching

points, minilessons, conferences, and small group work for a comprehensive

workshop curriculum.

● A Guide to the Common Core Writing Workshop describing the essential

principles, methods, and structures of effective writing workshop instruction.

● If...Then...Curriculum: Assessment-Based Instruction containing additional

units to support and extend instruction and to prepare students for work in the

main units as needed.

● Writing Pathways: Performance Assessments and Learning Progressions, an

assessment system offering learning progressions, performance assessments,

student checklists, rubrics, and leveled writing exemplars.

● Resources for Teaching Writing CD-ROM providing unit-specific print

resources to support teaching the units.

● Units of Study Trade Book Packs used to model effective writing techniques,

encourage students to read as writers, and provide background knowledge.

Once teachers gained familiarity with all of the components in the materials as well as their format and uses, the structure of the professional learning sessions became very predictable alternating between a focus on content one week and analyzing

student writing the following week. Sessions that focused on content included professional reading and discussion activities designed to build strong pedagogical

content knowledge around teaching writing. Sessions that focused on analyzing student writing required teachers to bring student writing and, using the assessment materials listed above, analyze strengths and needs in order to make sound

instructional decisions to move the whole class, small groups, and individual writers forward.

Measuring Growth

Site facilitators provided a pre and post copy of student writing from any unit they taught during the year (units typically last from 4-8 weeks). Some provided pre and

post samples from other teachers as well. The researcher used the NVACS writing rubrics which are grade-specific for grades K-2 and banded for grades 3-8 to score the writing. NVACS writing rubrics assess five categories: Purpose/Focus,

Organization, Elaboration, Language and Vocabulary, and Conventions. In the 4-point scale, a score of 1 or 2 indicates non-proficient while a score of 3 or 4 indicates

proficient in a given category (See Appendix F, Opinion Rubric 3-5).

34

Results and Discussion

For this study, the researcher focused strictly on student outcomes in writing rather

than teacher outcomes since student outcomes are the most important measure of whether a particular instructional method or focus had a positive impact on learning. As shown in Figure 12 below, the results of the district-wide focus on writing K-6

using research-based, NVACS-aligned materials are notable.

Figure 12: Scores for On Demand Writing

Teachers collected a writing sample from students prior to teaching a unit in one of the NVACS writing modes. They collected another writing sample at the end of the unit in order to assess growth. As shown in Figure 13, students made notable growth

in a 4-8 week period.

5

Jan-00

8.2

10

12 11.5

9.5

12.813.7

12.714

15 14.5

12.75

K 1 2 3 4 5 6

Achievement Scores for On-Demand Writing Samples

Pre Post

35

Figure 13: Number of Words

While not a direct measure of fluency and stamina, measuring the number of words

students wrote correlates. Students produced a far greater volume of writing in the post assessments.

Figure 14: Movement from Non-proficient to Proficient

When analyzing student writing using the NVACS writing rubric and scoring five different aspects of the writing, not all students became proficient in all areas.

However, many did cross the line moving from non-proficient to proficient scores in at least one category. (See Figure 14.)

0

45

28

57

196

154

238.5

16

108

79

114

290

353

287.5

K

1

2

3

4

5

6

Number of Words

Pre Post

92%

43%

81%

94%

60%

82%

50%

K 1 2 3 4 5 6

Percentage of Students Who Moved from Non-Proficient to Proficient in

One or More Categories

36

Conclusion

A district-wide initiative with a specific focus, but no specified curricular materials, may produce student gains in writing. A district-wide initiative in which curricular

materials are provided, but no professional development, may or may not produce results. The initiative in Humboldt County where teachers were provided carefully chosen, well-researched curricular materials focused on building teacher capacity,

paired with consistent professional development, produced exceptional results.

Exploring NVACSS

Introduction

The Nevada State Board of Education adopted the Nevada Academic Content

Standards for Science (NVACSS) based on the Next Generation Science Standards (NGSS) in 2014. These standards demand significant conceptual shifts as noted in the National Science Teacher Association’s NGSS Position statement:

The continuum of teacher development from initial preparation through ongoing development is a critical factor in delivering the quality of instruction called for in

the Framework and the NGSS. Teachers need a thorough understanding of the disciplinary core ideas and practices they are expected to teach, how students learn them, and the range of instructional strategies that can support student learning.

Implementing the NGSS requires that experienced teachers make a significant shift in the content and manner in which they have been teaching and that beginning

teachers make a shift from how they were taught at the university level (p. 5). Effectuating the realization of these conceptual shifts starts with increasing

awareness and understandings of the NVACSS, and, based on informal conversations with various stakeholders throughout the region served by the

Northeastern Nevada Regional Professional Development Program (NNRPDP), it was determined a need did exist to further increase awareness and understandings of the standards. Thus, a professional development opportunity, Exploring the

NVACSS based on the NGSS for K – 5, was developed to achieve this outcome, as well as to ascertain the impacts associated with increasing educators’ awareness and

understandings of the NVACSS.

37

Structure

Exploring the NVACSS based on the NGSS for K-5 was a blended learning

opportunity offered to kindergarten through fifth grade (K-5) teachers in the six districts served by the NNRPDP. It was comprised of seven on-line modules, one full day on-site session hosted in Elko, Nevada, and follow-up reflections. (See

Appendix G.) The evaluation and structure of each of these facets was informed by the Guskey’s Five Levels of Professional Development (2002) and the Standards for

Professional Learning (Learning Forward, 2011). Throughout the on-line modules, K-5 participants from across the region delved into

A Framework for K-12 Science Education: Practices, Crosscutting Concepts, and Core Ideas, explored the structure and conceptual shifts of the NVACSS, the

integration of the three dimensions: disciplinary core ideas (DCIs), science and engineering practices (SEPs), and the crosscutting concepts (CCCs

Documents

16 ANNUAL REPORT SARAH NEGRETE, PHD · 2020. 3. 16. · 2015-16 annual report sarah negrete, phd director 1290 burns rd. elko, nv