Vermont's Vision for Schools: Shaping Our Future Together

Shaping Our Future Together is a resource for building public understanding of school redesign in Vermont.  It includes talking points; a list of frequently asked questions; an Act 77 "elevator speech"; and, most helpful, a guide to protocols, from the School Reform Initiative, that support dialogue.

Science Databases for Students

School Library Journal recommends these online science resources for students:

• Britannica ImageQuest (K and up) – http://britannica.co.uk/home/products/imagequest/

• ProQuest Research Companion (Grade 9 and up) – http://www.proquest.com

• Rosen “Core Concepts”: Biology and Chemistry (Grade 6 and up) – http://biology.rosendigital.com and  http://chemistry.rosendigital.com

• Scholastic ScienceFlix (Grade 4 and up) – http://biology.rosendigital.com

• Spartici (Grade 8 and up) – http://www.sparticl.org

“Best Databases” by Mahnaz Dar in School Library Journal, February 2015 (Vol. 61, #2, p. 28-29)

(spotted in the Short Items section of issue # 574 of the Marshall Memo - a fabulous resource for educators)

National Core Arts Standards

Check out these recently developed standards for dance, media arts, music, theatre, and visual arts at http://nationalartsstandards.org.

 Spotted in “New Arts + Literacy Standards = Opportunity” by Gail Connelly, Mark White, and Dennis Inhulsen in Principal, January/February 2015 (Vol. 94, #3, p. 22-25),

http://bit.ly/1A0zB8b (This article provides helpful background information.)

(spotted in the "Short Items" of Marshall Memo #574 

John Hattie on Effective School Leadership

(Originally titled “High-Impact Leadership”)

           In this Educational Leadership article, John Hattie (University of Melbourne, Australia) reports that more than 80 percent of principals see themselves as transformational leaders – setting a vision, creating common goals, inspiring the troops, buffering external demands, staffing well, and giving teachers autonomy. But recent studies have shown that this approach is much less effective than instructional leadership, which has the following mind-frames:

-   Believing that student learning is about what teachers and leaders do or don’t do;

-   Focusing on the impact of teaching on learning;

-   Setting challenging targets to maximize student outcomes;

-   Seeing assessment as feedback on adults’ actions;

-   Evaluating every staff member’s impact on student learning;

-   Understanding the importance of listening to students’ and teachers’ voices;

-   Creating an environment in which everyone can learn from errors without losing face.

“High-impact instructional leadership is riskier than transformational leadership,” says Hattie, “because leaders have to publicly declare what success means – and they may not get there, at least not quickly.” It’s about measurable goals, teaching practices that produce results, and success for all subgroups.

            Hattie says one thing he’s learned from the Visible Learning meta-analyses is that “almost everything in education works” – but to different degrees. Here some leadership traits that produce very strong results:

-   Believing in evaluating one’s impact as a leader: Effect size .91

-   Getting colleagues focused on evaluating their impact:  .91

-   Focusing on high-impact teaching and learning:  .84

-   Being explicit with teachers and students about what success looks like:  .77

-   Setting appropriate levels of challenge and never retreating to “just do your best”:  .57

“The high-impact leader creates a school climate in which everybody learns, learning is shared, and critique isn’t just tolerated, but welcomed… There’s mutual agreement that any interventions that don’t achieve the intended impact will be changed or dropped.” This means moving from anecdotes and war stories to solid evidence. Also:

-   Teachers collaborating on curriculum and assessments;

-   Teachers evaluating their own learning, knowing what to do when they get stuck, and learning from each other;

-   Leaders conducting low-key classroom visits and giving teachers frequent feedback;

-   Senior teachers visiting classrooms looking at student learning versus teacher actions.

Hattie tells the story of a school turnaround. Initially, when students were asked to describe a good learner, they talked about listening to the teacher, doing their work, being well-behaved, and trying their hardest. In addition, says Hattie, most teachers “weren’t making the connection between student achievement and their own practices, weren’t paying enough attention to what students were saying or doing, and didn’t understand the importance of learning intentions and success criteria as a means of ensuring that they and their students understood the purpose of learning and could monitor its progress.” Teachers also made excuses about students being poor and not reading at home.

Gradually teachers shifted to looking at results and continuously improving practice. Students began to understand what they were learning, knew their goals in the learning progression, and saw themselves as agents of their own success. In the first two years, students gained, on average, two years for each year of work.

“High-Impact Leadership” by John Hattie in Educational Leadership, February 2015 (Vol. 72, #5, p. 36-40), http://bit.ly/17HMIk8; Hattie can be reached at jhattie@unimelb.edu.au

The summary above was written by Kim Marshall and appeared in issue #574 of The Marshall Memo.

VRI - 2015 Summer Institute!

Vermont Reads                       2015 SUMMER INSTITUTE

REGISTER ONLINE NOW! August 3, 4, 5 , 2015  at the  Stoweflake Resort and Spa Keynote: Reading Workshop 2.0: Supporting Readers in the Digital Age By: Frank Serafini This presentation will focus on the changes happening in reading instruction in light of the Digital Revolution. We will look at the features of new texts being used in contemporary classrooms, the lessons necessary for comprehending digital and multimodal texts, and the digital resources available for reading, sharing, discussing and analyzing print-based, digital and multimodal texts. A framework will be shared that demonstrates how the reading workshop structure provides instructional opportunities and reading strategies to help students comprehend and interrogate digital and multimodal texts. Various online resources, and student examples will be shared. Dr. Frank Serafini is an award winning children's author and illustrator, a landscape photographer, a devoted guitar player, and an Associate Professor of Literacy Education and Children's Literature at Arizona State University. Frank has recently been awarded the Arbuthnot Award from the International Reading Association as the 2014 Distinguished Professor of Children's Literature. Frank has published six books with Heinemann Publishers including: The Reading Workshop, Lessons in Comprehension, Around the Reading Workshop and Classroom Reading Assessments. Frank's new book is entitled: Reading the Visual: An Introduction to Teaching Multimodal Literacies with Teachers College Press.  Mini Strands - August 3 Reading the Visual: Teaching Multimodal Literacies Gr. K-8 Frank Serafini Reading and Writing in the Mathematics Classroom Gr. 2-6              Melinda Robinson Embracing the Common Core State Standards (CCSS) through Inquiry Learning Gr. K-6 Theresa Young                                                                                                                   Engaging Adolescents in A Digital World Gr. 5-12 Maggie Eaton Fostering "Academic Discussions" in the Middle Level and Secondary Content Classroom through the Lenses of Common Core Standards Gr 6-12 Therese Akerley, Heidi Western, and Cynthia Reyes                                                                                                                                             Assessment in the Reader's Workshop that Informs Daily Instruction Gr. 2-5 Rebecca Cardone Informational Writing with Beginning Writers: Emergent Writers Can Create Informational Texts Too! Gr. K-2 Beth Moore Full Strands - August 4 & 5 Writer's Workshop in the K-2 Classroom Gr. K-2                    Adrienne Magida                                                                                                                          Creating Authentic Formative Assessment Opportunities: Incorporating Performance Assessment into a Standards-Based Curriculum Gr. K-12 Lori Dolezal & Kris Breen             Driven to Dig Deeper: Integrating Science, Social Studies, Technology and Literacy to Energize Student Engagement and Learning Gr. 3-8 Christine Hertz & Maura Kelly Designing Units of Study for Writer's Workshop Gr. 1-8 Jenn Childress and Kosha Patel Adolescent Literacy in the Spotlight: A Focus on Essential Components and How to Integrate Them in the Disciplinary Classroom Gr. 6-12 Alysia Backman and Lisa Driver                                                                         Applying Common Core Standards to the Effective Teaching of Vocabulary in Content Area Classrooms Gr. 3-6 Pat Nally Small Group Work in Reading Workshop: Shared Reading, Guided Reading, Strategy Lessons, Book Clubs and More Gr. K-2 Beth Moore Exploring the Reading Workshop Model Gr 3-6 Nancy Woods & Cathy White Learning About and From Informational Texts: From ABC Books to Historical Recounts Gr. K-6 Pam Chomsky-Higgins                                                    Setting Up For Success: Organizational Systems and Structures with Literacy Instruction that Responds to Standards and Students Gr. K-6 Theresa Young Registration Information Early Bird Special! Register for the entire Institute by May 15 for $600 person or $550 per team member Registration fees after May 15 are as follows: Monday only: $225.00 per person* Monday, Tuesday & Wednesday: $650 per person* A Team of 5 Registrants from the same school or district will be given a reduced rate of $600/person.  All registrations must be received at the same time to qualify for the group rate.  Please fill out a separate registration form for each registrant. *Includes continental breakfast, lunch, and all materials.   A separate registration form is required for each individual and must be accompanied by a check or purchase order made out to VRI at UVM. Registrations and checks or purchase orders can be mailed to:  Vermont Reads Institute at UVM 204D Mann Hall, UVM 208 Colchester Ave Burlington, VT 05405 TO REGISTER AND FOR MORE INFORMATION, CLICK HERE OR GO TO:www.vriuvm.org.

New Data Raises Key Questions for Vermont Schools: NESSC Common Data Project

by Nancy Cornell February 9, 2015

The Common Data Project, released in December, 2014 by the New England Secondary Schools Consortium (NESSC), shines a light on some key indicators of school effectiveness, and raises important questions that should inform state and local conversations about school improvement, community supports for struggling students and their families, equity and basic fairness.

The 2014 Common Data Project Report compares information on graduation rates, drop out rates, college enrollment, and college persistence for all of the New England states except Massachusetts: (Connecticut, Maine, New Hampshire, Rhode Island, and Vermont).

Here are some key findings related to Vermont:

           How did high school graduation rates compare across the five New England states included in the study?

·      In 2013, Vermont had the 2^nd highest high school graduation rate (86.6%) of the five states included in the report - higher than CT (85.5%), but lower than NH (87.9%)

o   However, in Vermont, the 2013 graduation rate for economically disadvantaged students was 75.2%

            How did the 2013 high school dropout rates compare across the five states?

·      In 2013, Vermont had the highest high school dropout rate (9.6%) of the five New England States.

o   The 2013 dropout rate for economically disadvantaged students was 18% - second highest of all five states (exceeded only by CT at 18.4%)

o   Vermont’s dropout rate for students with disabilities was 19.2%, the highest in the five New England states.

            How did 2013 college enrollment rates compare across the five states?

·      In 2013, Vermont had the lowest college enrollment rate (52%) of the five states.

o   Only 35% of Vermont’s economically disadvantaged students enrolled in college (this was the lowest of all five states).

o   Only 18.1% of students with disabilities in Vermont enrolled in college – the second lowest college enrollment rate of the 5 states.

            How did the college persistence rates in 2012 compare across the five states?

·      Vermont’s 2012 college persistence rate was 80.6% (lower than every other New England state in the report, except Rhode Island – 77.7%).

o   College persistence for Vermont’s economically disadvantaged students was 70%.

o   College persistence for Vermont students with disabilities was 63.1%.

If we’re serious about equity - about whether public schools should serve all students; if we’re serious about aiming to ensure that all Vermont students participate successfully in some form of post-secondary education (2-year college, 4-year college, or post-secondary technical training), this report is most helpful.   It raises important questions, that should be the focus of action-oriented discussions in school districts, in the Legislature, in the Vermont State College system, at the Agency of Education, at the Agency of Human Services, and in state and local inter-agency planning sessions.  Here are some of the questions this data raised for me:

·      What should Vermont do to eliminate childhood poverty?

·      How do Vermont secondary schools, and Vermont post-secondary institutions support economically disadvantaged families in planning for the post-secondary education of their children – and what additional support should they provide?

o   How are schools in other New England states, (especially New Hampshire), reducing their high school drop out rates, especially for economically disadvantaged students?

o   What steps are schools in other New England states taking (especially Connecticut and Maine) to increase the college enrollment rate for economically disadvantaged students?

o   What explains higher college persistence rates for economically disadvantaged students in other New England states (especially New Hampshire and Maine)?

·      How should Vermont elementary and middle schools, and Vermont post-secondary institutions, assist economically disadvantaged families in starting early in their planning for the post-secondary education of their children?