Skip to content

Blog

Q&A: Supporting Teachers in Professional Learning

Teacher engagement in professional learning is a topic we’ve talked about a fair amount at Frontline Education.

How can school systems increase that engagement? And what does it look like to put teachers in control of their own professional development (PD)?

Providing relevant, just-in-time PD opportunities is part of the answer — and online professional development course libraries for teachers can provide a wealth of on-demand learning. But the district’s role doesn’t stop there. Studies have shown that ongoing district support is vital if such a program will be successful.

In a recent webinar, we examined how districts can provide that support. That webinar led to some great Q&A about what school district support in professional learning should really look like.

One statistic cited in the webinar from the 2013 Teaching and Learning International Survey notes that in the United States, 95.2% of teachers surveyed engaged in professional development when they were given district support, but without that support, the number dropped to 1.7%. Do those statistics relate only to online training? Or does it refer to other types of professional learning as well?

That’s an important point — this statistic refers to any form of professional development, not just online training.
The perception is that engagement with live workshops is inherently higher, when in fact it’s not. Live workshops tend to have more support built around them. They’re planned and facilitated by the district. They’re often on-site. And if they take place during the school day, substitutes are provided.

Online professional development often doesn’t tend to receive the same support. Unfortunately, there is often a Field of Dreams-esque attitude to offering a library of online courses: “If you build it, they will come.” We purchase an online library. We tell our teachers it’s out there, we give them access to it — and we wait for them to show up at that field of dreams. When they don’t show up, unlike the ghost of Babe Ruth, we’re disappointed. But the fact is, with any form of professional development, some kind of support is needed in order to see legitimate engagement.

Survey results: with district support, engagement in PD was 95.2%. Without support, 1.7%. http://bit.ly/2yXGeP3

   CLICK TO TWEET THIS 

What does this kind of support look like? Should it include monetary compensation?

Although this study didn’t address the specific question of monetary compensation, that could certainly be considered organizational support. Teachers generally have an expectation that professional development will be paid time, or that they’ll be compensated for that time in some way — that if they go to an approved workshop, they’ll be reimbursed for the workshop and paid for their time.

Financial incentives can be tricky. Sometimes a school system will provide online trainings with the expectation that teachers will take the courses because they’re provided at no cost to the teacher. But simply offering a “free” workshop or online class may lower its perceived value, and typically such an approach means the courses go unused. However, when teachers or substitutes are required to take certain classes, they generally do.

So is requiring training the only way that districts can support teachers in professional development?

Definitely not. Recognition can be a powerful tool — finding ways to show that our teachers and staff are engaged in professional learning, and that we appreciate that, can be a good incentive.

Career pathing systems are another method that can lead to engagement more like what you see in corporate settings, because there are tangible incentives. For example, demonstrating a certain skill level through engagement or evaluations might lead to being selected as an instructional coach or a department lead, which might provide access to additional resources or grants.

Some school systems also use micro-credentials to incentivize professional learning and open career opportunities for teachers who demonstrate certain competencies.

Pay, recognition, career pathing, micro-credentials & goal-alignment: how districts can support engagement in PD. http://bit.ly/2yXGeP3

   CLICK TO TWEET THIS 

It seems that, for the most part, teachers take the training that they want to take. How do we make the most of that motivation?

We need to ask, “Is there a divide between what learning opportunities we as administrators think teachers should take, and what teachers want to take? And if so, why?” That’s an important question to answer. Do teachers believe they don’t need improvement in the areas we think they do? Is it that the district initiative that was selected this year doesn’t resonate with them? Could it be that teachers agree with the topic area, but the format of the learning opportunity doesn’t appeal to them?

Examining the professional development that teachers “want to take” can be informative. Combined with a clear picture of your teachers’ strengths, needs and goals, it can shed light on whether we’ve set the right professional learning requirements, whether additional alignment is needed between personal and organizational goals and what additional communication or feedback is needed to get everyone on the same page.

Of course, providing such support is no silver bullet — we shouldn’t expect a 50x increase in teacher engagement as a result of increased recognition, paid time for PD or career growth incentives. Yet the fact remains: the difference in engagement, and by logical extension, impact, of professional development offered with increased district support, is enormous.

Looking for a better way to provide relevant, personalized professional learning and offer teachers voice and choice in their own professional growth? Learn more about Frontline Professional Growth.

Podcast: Deep Dive into the Special Education Teacher Shortage

 

 
The word is out — special education in the U.S. is experiencing a severe teacher shortage, and recent data about the shortage speaks loudly:

  • Forty-eight states plus the District of Columbia have identified shortages of teachers in special education and related services.[1]
  • Half of all schools and 90% of high-poverty schools are struggling to find qualified special education teachers.[2]
  • The shortage in special education is now so severe that some districts are actively recruiting teachers from countries outside the U.S., including the Philippines.[3]
  • 12.3% of special education teachers leave the profession — that’s nearly double the rate of general education teachers.[4]
  • 82% of special education teachers and SISPs report that there are not enough professionals to meet the needs of students with disabilities.[5]

The question is no longer, “Is there a shortage?” but, “What can we do to turn the tide?”

In this podcast, we explore root causes of the shortage at the district and school levels — starting with pre-service teacher education and continuing through teacher recruitment, onboarding, retention and professional growth.

Dr. Tom Reap and Cydney Miller listen and respond to recent quotes from administrators serving on the front line of K-12 special education. Cydney, a former human resources director for Clarksville-Montgomery County School System, and Tom, a former director and administrator with over 20 years’ experience in special education, combine their unique perspectives to address the concerns of a current superintendent and special education director.

Does your organization have a system to recruit, hire and support special education teachers that will grow with your team? Consider how Frontline Education can help you find, develop and retain the right teacher talent.

 

References
[1, 2] Sutcher, L., Darling-Hammond, L., & Carver-Thomas, D. (2016). A coming crisis in teaching? Teacher supply, demand, and shortages in the US. Washington, DC: Learning Policy Institute. Retrieved from: https://learningpolicyinstitute.org/sites/default/files/product-files/A_Coming_Crisis_in_Teaching_REPORT.pdf.
[3] EdWeek. (2017). School Districts Look to Philippines to Fill Teacher Vacancies [Blog post]. Retrieved from: http://blogs.edweek.org/edweek/teacherbeat/2017/07/school_districts_look_to_philipines_to_fill_teacher_vacancies.html
[4, 5] National Coalition on Personnel Shortages in Special Education and Related Services. (2016). About the Shortage. Retrieved from: http://specialedshortages.org/about-the-shortage.

5 Reasons Teachers Love Competency-based Learning & Micro-credentials

 

 

Schools and districts across the country are turning to competency-based learning, using tools like micro-credentials for teacher development. As opposed to traditional workshops, micro-credentials allow learners to gain and demonstrate mastery of skills incrementally. They’re changing the way educators think about professional development, and recent research indicates that teachers love them.

Here’s why:

1. Yesterday’s traditional PD model often doesn’t translate to classroom practice.

Studies by the Gates Foundation and others overwhelmingly show that teachers are dissatisfied with traditional professional development. Their data also suggests that the widely used workshop-based model doesn’t help teachers make changes in their classrooms. Recognizing this, the Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA) goes so far as to state that “stand-alone, 1-day, and short-term workshops” do not meet its definition of effective professional development.

Why? For one thing, workshop topics are often too broad and fail to connect with the day-to-day needs of their audiences. They lack the kind of job-embedded learning that leads to long-term success. Professional development that impacts teacher practice happens in context: it directly relates to the competencies and skills teachers use every day in class.

Here’s some hand-picked content you may enjoy

White Paper: “Flipped Professional Learning: How (and why) to structure a flipped or blended learning model for individuals and groups” 

2. Micro-credentials are more than just summative.

Just as summative assessment alone fails to equip students with the tools they need to make lasting gains in learning, professional development models rooted solely in evaluation and compliance fail to help teachers meaningfully improve their practice. Instead, PD that integrates formative learning strategies maximizes educator growth. For example, a traditional approach to teacher evaluation training for new administrators might provide two six-hour days of instruction followed by a single summative exam. As a micro-credential, however, this training could break up the necessary competencies into component skills. Administrators would learn, practice, receive feedback and demonstrate mastery of each skill in sequence, thus preparing them step-by-step to succeed on the final exam.

Shifting focus from compliance to competency, micro-credentials help teachers master skills for the classroom. bit.ly/2wS53rB

   CLICK TO TWEET THIS 

By shifting the focus from compliance to competency, micro-credentials help teachers master skills and implement them in their classrooms. The micro-credential learning pathway requires reflection and self-evaluation, and it culminates in users selecting and submitting evidence that they feel best demonstrates the target competencies. The emphasis is truly on helping teachers master their classroom practice and reach their full potential.

3. Micro-credentials are a big step toward giving teachers voice and choice in their PD.

One of the clearest takeaways from research on professional development and teacher satisfaction is that teachers want to have a say in their PD. They want learning opportunities that are relevant to their needs and the needs of their students, and since they’re in the best position to know what those needs are, they want a voice in the PD they’re offered. Micro-credentials empower teachers to choose which skills and competencies they’ll pursue, bringing their own goals, needs and interests — as well as those of their students — to the table.

Micro-credentials also let learners schedule their sessions and determine the pace. This adaptability to teachers’ demanding schedules marks a welcome departure from the “one-size-fits-all” PD model.

4. Micro-credentials make mastery manageable.

Granular by nature, micro-credentials build competencies in small, focused steps, making them easy to incorporate into daily practice. This is especially important given the fact that implementation is often the hardest part of PD. The Center for Public Education notes that “the largest struggle for teachers is not learning new approaches to teaching but implementing them.” By breaking PD down into bite-sized pieces and requiring proof of competency, micro-credentials help close the gaps between knowledge acquisition, implementation and mastery.

5. Micro-credentials reinforce accountability.

Be honest: have you ever attended a conference and paid less than rapt attention? Maybe you checked your email and feeds, dozed off for a minute or brought a stack of papers to grade. PD that centers on seat time typically doesn’t require much more than attendance, and unfortunately, attendance is a poor measure of mastery.

Micro-credentials make the case for a competency-based learning model over one primarily based on seat time, and they require demonstration of skills and abilities. In other words, they require evidence — and the words “evidence-based” appear 27 times in the ESSA regulations describing acceptable professional development for Title II funding.

Tweet: The words ‘evidence-based’ appear 27 times in ESSA regulations about PD for Title II funding. #microcredentials bit.ly/2wS53rB

   CLICK TO TWEET THIS 

Teachers love micro-credentials.

In contrast with the current widespread dissatisfaction around traditional PD, the most exciting thing about micro-credentials is that teachers love them. In fact, a recent survey of micro-credential users showed that 97% of respondents who had completed at least one micro-credential indicated that they wanted to pursue another micro-credential in the future. That’s because micro-credentials are more than mandatory continuing education—they’re formative learning opportunities that personalize professional development, make mastery manageable, and reinforce accountability—all of which helps teachers improve their practice and apply what they’ve learned in their classrooms.

Your RTI & MTSS Data Analysis Team: Nerve Center of Tier 2/3 Services

Data Analysis Team and Tier 2 and 3 Services

Student data tells a story. When schools administer building-wide academic screeners, screening data has the remarkable power to predict which students are at serious risk of academic failure and need targeted RTI and MTSS interventions.

At Tiers 2 and 3, the Data Analysis Team (DAT) is the building-level group that interprets this data ‘story’ — they analyze screening information to discover and place students requiring more intensive academic support.[1] The role of the DAT is to use data to oversee entry and exit of students across Tiers 2 and 3.

The DAT meets after each of 3 school-wide academic screenings that take place in fall, winter and spring. Each time they meet, the DATs tasks are to:

  1. Share screening results with grade-level teachers to help them to improve instruction;
  2. Identify students that qualify for Tier 2/3 services; and
  3. Assemble an individual plan for each student identified for Tier 2/3 services.

DAT Goals

DAT members should also set goals for academic performance, and apply decision-rules to evaluate student progress. These critical functions will be topics of future posts as the school year continues.

The DAT is typically a multi-disciplinary building-level team. While there is no minimum or maximum number of team members, the team should collectively:

  • Be familiar with the state academic standards and academic curriculum for each grade level in the building.
  • Be knowledgeable of all intervention personnel and evidence-based programs available in the school for Tier 2/3 interventions.
  • Be skilled in applying benchmarks to estimate the risk for academic failure of each student picked up in the screening.
  • Be able to match identified students to appropriate interventions while providing students with sufficient instructional support.
  • Have the capacity to document in writing the Tier 2/3 intervention plan set up for each student.

Preparing For & Holding Tier 2/3 Intervention-Planning Meetings

(Adapted from Kovaleski et al., 2013; Kovaleski & Pedersen, 2008).

True to its name, the primary mission of the Data Analysis Team is to analyze and respond to student academic data. In preparation for the DATs work, the school identifies an appropriate range of screening tools and other data sources capable of accurately assessing student basic academic skills and/or curriculum skills.

Step 1: Select screeners.

The school chooses an appropriate range of screening tools to accurately assess student basic academic and/or curriculum skills. For each screening tool, the school establishes ‘cut-points’ — score ranges that allow students to be sorted and placed in categories according to their level of risk for academic failure. Those categories may include:

Tier 1: Core Instruction: Low Risk: No intervention is needed.

Tier 1: Classroom Intervention. Emerging Risk: A classroom intervention plan is sufficient.

Tier 2: Supplemental Intervention: Some Risk: The student requires intervention beyond core instruction to remediate off-level academic skill gaps. Tier 2 groups are limited to 7 students and meet at least 3 times per week for 30 minutes.

Tier 3: Intensive Intervention. At Risk: The student requires the most intensive level of intervention support matched to their unique skill deficits. Tier 3 groups are limited to 2-3 students and meet daily for 30 minutes or more.

Step 2: Find additional data sources.

The school can select additional data sources (e.g., state test scores; teacher nomination) for identifying students needing intervention support. When possible, cut-points are established for these additional data sources (e.g., organizing raw scores into cut-points on a state reading test to correspond with Tiers of intervention).

Step 3: Weight screeners & other data sources.

The school weights (in descending order of importance) are measures to be used to make intervention placements, with the most reliable, diagnostic sources appearing in first position.

When a student’s data shows an inconsistent profile (e.g., with some sources indicating a need for intervention and others suggesting that the student is low-risk), the school assigns greater weight to the more ‘trustworthy’ data sources to help to resolve the uncertainty.

Using Data to Have Conversations About Each Student

With your school-wide academic screening system in place, the DAT is ready to make data-based decisions about who is to receive Tier 2/3 intervention services. The DAT meets after fall, winter and spring building-wide screenings to update the roster of students eligible for supplemental interventions. Here are the general stages of DAT preparation and meetings that unfold after each screening:

  1. Prepare screening data.The DAT prepares school-wide screening data in formats suitable for sharing with classroom teachers and making Tier 2/3 service placement decisions. Your team should display this information in a way that’s likely to motivate educators to act on it. For example, teachers may benefit from individualized reports that include screening results for each student in their classroom along with summary performance information for all students at that grade level.To aid them in determining who is eligible for Tier 2 and Tier 3 services, DAT members should have access to clear, easy-to-read lists of students organized by intervention Tier according to the screening benchmark norms.
  1. Conduct grade-level instructional conversations. The full DAT (or its representatives) meet with teachers at each grade level. Grade-level teachers are given data reports containing academic screening results for their students, including summaries highlighting patterns of student performance and eligibility lists by Tier for that grade level.
The goals of DAT grade-level conversations are to:
  • Evaluate the effectiveness of core instruction. DAT and teachers review the numbers and percentages of students whose screening results met or exceeded benchmarks. A general rule of thumb is that core instruction is judged to be adequate if at least 80% of students perform at or above the benchmark cut-point.
  • Examine patterns of student performance. DAT and teachers next look over the screening results to see what grade- or class-wide patterns of performance emerge. Relative areas of strength and weakness are identified.
  • Brainstorm ideas to strengthen instruction. Once specific areas of student weakness are identified, the conversation turns to a discussion of specific strategies that teachers can incorporate into core instruction across the grade level to improve learning and outcomes. A recorder takes notes and the resulting ideas are formulated as an ‘action plan’ for teachers to implement.
  • Identify Tier 2/3 students. The DAT next reviews screening results at each grade level. The team’s task now is to identify students who qualify for Tier 2/3 services because they fall below cut-point scores on the academic screening measure(s). (For specific guidelines on how to sort students into intervention tiers, consult the technical documentation that accompanies your screeners.)
  1. Develop Tier 2/3 intervention plans. In the final segment of the DAT meeting, the team assigns each student to a specific intervention program and creates a matching plan. For each student, the team decides on details such as what group and intervention program that learner should be assigned to, the frequency and length of intervention sessions, and the number of weeks the intervention will last before check up. Of course, each student’s plan will also have a data component — a method of progress-monitoring — initial (baseline) assessment, and a clear outcome goal.The DAT also creates a written record of the intervention plan.  A key consideration for schools is how the content of these plans can be managed most efficiently. In the near term, DAT members need ready access to the intervention plans to evaluate student progress. Over the longer term, schools must be able to assemble a student’s full history of RTI support to judge whether they are responding adequately to academic interventions. An electronic management system for RTI/MTSS records is a recommended solution, ideally balancing ease of access with data security.
Here’s some hand-picked content you may find helpful: sample agenda and script for running DAT meetings.

Final Thoughts on the Role of Your Data Analysis Team

The DAT is essential to the smooth functioning of RTI and MTSS for academics. Its responsibilities are great — to manage Tier 2/3 entry and exit for the school’s most at-risk students. Therefore, the DAT is most likely to serve as an effective ‘decision point’ for routing students to appropriate academic services when it can depend on reliable screening data and follow a structured problem-solving meeting agenda.

Does your organization have a scalable workflow that supports high-quality data capture and analysis for struggling learners? Take a look at how Frontline’s RTI & MTSS Program Management software can help you identify and support each student.

 

Reference
1. Kovaleski, J. F., VanDerHeyden, A. M., & Shapiro, E. S. (2013). The RTI approach to evaluating learning disabilities. New York: Guilford Press.

2. Kovaleski, J. F., & Pedersen, J. (2008). Best practices in data analysis teaming. In A. Thomas & J. Grimes (Eds.), Best practices in school psychology, V. Bethesda, MD: National Association of School Psychologists.

5 Reasons to Manage Teacher Professional Development & Learning Online

Google “online professional development” and you’ll find scads of articles about taking online PD courses. That’s great (we believe online courses can play a big role in meeting teachers’ needs — more on that later), but we’re thinking bigger.
 
What I mean is, why is it a good idea to manage professional learning online? To use a cloud-based system to administrate, track and report on PD, and provide follow-up opportunities for collaboration?
 
If you’re a large district with thousands of employees, using an online system to manage professional learning is almost mandatory: stuffed binders and overflowing file cabinets just won’t cut it. But even if your school system is small, there are still powerful reasons to use a professional development management system to run your program.
 

Even if your school system is small, there are powerful reasons to manage PD online: http://bit.ly/2ySZLgL

Click To Tweet

 
1. Get more buy-in, engagement, voice and choice.
Since every teacher is unique — with varied backgrounds and experiences, strengths and needs, gifts and areas of interest — assuming that everyone needs the same professional development is a mistake. Nothing new here: despite the ubiquity of large-group workshops, educators know that this format is generally less-than-optimal.
 
An online professional development management system allows teachers to create their own individual growth plans, set goals and propose learning opportunities. And although providing individualized PD certainly requires more than simply having a plan in place, that plan is the place to start.
 
Some systems can also be purchased with libraries of online courses. By allowing courses to be taken in bite-sized chunks, such content can be useful in meeting individual teacher needs. And when teachers are able to engage in learning that supports them toward their goals, it can help increase buy-in as well. But note: if the program is to be successful, the importance of providing district support to teachers as they take such courses cannot be overstated.
 
2. Tie professional learning to classroom observations and evaluations.
As school systems shift from seeing evaluations as a way to score a teacher’s performance (and by extension, to determine salaries, promotions and the like) and move toward a more collaborative process aimed at improving instructional practice, the close connection between observations and professional learning has come to the fore.
 
At Frontline, we call this the “Learning Loop” — where each teacher’s needs and strengths are highlighted, and appropriate learning opportunities can be recommended to address them. A system that melds professional learning and evaluations together can help people find the right learning opportunities and provide visibility into each teacher’s growth journey, increasing transparency in the process. And it’s a tangible way school districts can take steps toward meeting the Every Student Succeeds Act’s criteria for data-driven professional learning — learning that’s based upon and responsive to real-time information about the needs of teachers and students.
 

5 great reasons to manage K-12 professional development online: http://bit.ly/2ySZLgL

Click To Tweet

 
3. See exactly where you are (so you know exactly where you’re going).
Professional learning represents a significant investment districts make in equipping teachers. But does it make an impact on the classroom? Does it help to improve teaching? Does student achievement climb?
 
These are questions a professional learning management system can help answer by letting teachers log their changes to classroom practice and provide feedback after learning activities, so you can see if those activities are making a difference.
 
Beyond that, an online system can help track the data points needed to show progress toward professional learning objectives, school improvement plans and individual, building, district or state-level goals. Are your teachers required to take 100 hours of professional learning every five years? Suddenly, it becomes easy to see where each one is in hitting that target.
 
4. Keep the learning going, even after the activity ends.
You’ve been there: you attend a conference, workshop or team meeting, and come away with great ideas and new strategies to implement. But somehow, they never take flight. Sound familiar?
 
We all know learning should be ongoing, and the best way for that to happen is by collaborating with other educators. Some online systems can provide an environment for teachers and PLCs to connect, discuss and collaborate after the formal activity has ended. Better yet, they can help you monitor how coaching, mentoring and peer collaboration are supporting educator growth and impacting practice, and include them as part of each individual’s learning history.
 
And many educators have discovered just how useful video is for coaching, mentoring and self-reflection. Managing professional learning online enables you to track these learning formats, and some tools even give you the ability to upload your own videos to watch and self-reflect, or to share with a colleague and invite feedback.
 
5. Save time and money.
Who can’t get behind more efficiency and bigger bang for your buck? Online professional development management systems mean less time pushing paper, less time pulling data together from different places, less time searching for that file that got sandwiched somewhere on your desk and less time moving different spreadsheets and Google Docs around your screen.
 

Here’s some hand-picked content you may enjoy

Case Study: How Frontline Professional Growth helps Greece Central School District manage professional learning more effectively — and save time and money in the process.
Read Now

 
Still creating a paper catalog of PD opportunities? Save on printing costs — and make sure it’s always up-to-date — with a digital catalog instead. Have a backlog of emails to return, proposals to approve and PD reimbursements to process? Consider a system with customizable workflows to speed things along. Struggling to manage schedules, track registration and attendance at professional learning events? Those are all things that a cloud-based system can handle, freeing you up to start tackling items on your “Someday” list.
 
Interested in seeing just how an online system can help power up your professional learning program? Frontline Professional Growth gives you the tools to support best practices for real-world impact — and make your job easier at the same time. See how it can work for you.
 

Report: Special Education Classification Rates Across U.S.

Special Ed State Report
By 2014-15 the number of children served under IDEA was 6.6 million or 13% of total public school enrollment.  When looking at this data, districts, schools and educators must consider equity in education and the appropriateness of the classification of special needs students in and across states.

ESSA says each state is responsible for achieving equity for its special needs students.  This means that family income, race, ethnicity, English Language Learners’ proficiency and disability status should no longer be predictors of a student’s educational potential.  Equity is ensuring all students receive the resources they need to be successful, such as rigorous teachers, up-to-date instructional materials and more.

But with the significant flexibility allowed by IDEA in determining methods used to identify and classify special education students, how does classification from state to state look across the U.S., and do educators and administrators agree with the classification landscape in their local districts?

A recent Frontline Research & Learning Institute report, Crossing the Line: Exploring Equity in Special Education Across the United States, explores this question in depth.

Classification Rates by Region and State

The Institute report notes that the highest classification percentages are clustered in four northeast states with 17.8% in New York followed by 17.6% in Massachusetts, 17.5% in Maine and 17.1% in Pennsylvania. States on the lower spectrum were scattered across the country with Texas at 8.6% followed by Idaho at 9.8%, Colorado at 10.4% and Hawaii at 10.5%.

Here’s some hand-picked content you may enjoy

[Quiz] Administrative Tasks Under IDEA: Who is impacted the most: teachers or administrators?

Take the Quiz

Educators React to Their Local Classification Rates

The Institute surveyed 3,000+ administrators, educators and related service providers to see how they felt about the classification rates in their local districts. Despite the fact that classification rates vary greatly across states, the majority of nationwide respondents (56%) believe that the appropriate number of students are classified in their local system.

special education classification report part 1
Source: Frontline Research & Learning Institute. (2017). Crossing the Line: Exploring Equity in Special Education Across the United States.

Results vary a bit when breaking them down by role. While special educators and principals reported feeling that more students should be classified than currently are, administrators and directors of special education felt that fewer students should be classified.

You can see how perceptions break down by these job categories and how they compare to the national statistics in the full report.

special education classification report part 2
Source: Frontline Research & Learning Institute. (2017). Crossing the Line: Exploring Equity in Special Education Across the United States.

What About Your School System?

How do you think the number of students who are classified with a disability compares to the number of students who should be classified with a disability in your school system? And to take it a step further — what measures currently in place in your organization are working well to identify and support students with special needs?

Learn more about state-specific classification trends, equity and equality in the full report.

References
1. Frontline Research & Learning Institute. (2017). Crossing the Line: Exploring Equity in Special Education Across the United States. Malvern, PA. Retrieved from https://www.frontlineinstitute.com/reports/special-ed-report/.

Warning: Is your district at risk of a cyber security breach?

Is your district at risk of a cyber security breach?
Just this month, over 143 million American discovered their sensitive information was compromised by a massive security breach at Equifax. Once again Americans find themselves scrambling to update passwords and wondering when the scammer emails and phone calls will start rolling in.

For school districts, cyber security now more than ever needs to be at the top of everyone’s mind. With the majority of district information – including sensitive student information – moving online, districts need to know how to protect themselves. The cyber security of dozens of school districts has been compromised in the past few years, sometimes by mischievous students and (more often) by intruders with more insidious motives.

How does a cyber security breach happen?

One of the most startling implications of the cyber age is how easily hackers can gain access to school district data. Occasionally, third-party vendors can be hacked, which can lead to a district’s own data being compromised.

Often, however, it takes as little as one employee clicking on a single email, or an unprotected file on a district computer. From there districts are at risk of sensitive data – including student information – being illegally accessed.

Students often know how to hack or “jailbreak” their school-issued devices, too – exposing them to potentially harmful content and scams.

What can we do to protect our online data?

First, school district employees need to understand how these cyber attacks take place. Most attacks take place when an employee opens a phishing email. From there, hackers can gain access to district employee information or even gain control of district websites. And on average, these attacks take months to detect, long after the damage is done.

District staff need to be educated on identifying suspicious emails and the tricks hackers employ, such as contacting them via email addresses similar to, but ultimately different from their colleagues’ addresses.

Consider doing a phishing simulation with training.  You can take advantage of some well-developed and free resources from EDUCAUSE.

Here’s some hand-picked content you may enjoy

Cyber Security in K-12: Is Your School District Prepared?  

Second, district staff need to be educated on how to handle sensitive data. Some student or staff information, such as social security numbers, should never be handled without proper encryption.

One of the best resources for understanding student privacy and how you can develop your own program is at FERPA SHERPA. Another good overview of how to manage privacy risk with EdTech is at ikeepsafe.org.

How can I learn more about cyber security?

Take steps towards greater employee and student information security with our free Cybersecurity Program Getting Started Guide. The guide includes a checklist and links to additional resources, so you can confidently evaluate your own district cybersecurity program.

Download now

10 Tips for Present Levels of Performance that Strengthen IEPs

Every IEP must include statements that describe the student’s present levels of both academic achievement and functional performance. We’ve reviewed the IEP requirement for describing how the disability affects involvement and progress in the general education curriculum in my last post, including an analysis of both student disability-related characteristics and their impact in participating in the demands of the student’s curriculum.

Now it’s time to drill down, identify the student’s most urgent needs related to their disability and describe specific skills he or she demonstrates within that area of need. In doing so, IDEA requires a description of skills including academic achievement and functional performance.

Relationship Between Academic Achievement and Functional Performance

Some IEP formats require a statement specifically on academic achievement and a separate statement on functional performance; others combine both areas in one text box in the IEP. Either way, both are required— be sure to refer to guidance from your state on their specific expectations. While guidance may differ from state to state, let’s take a look at the guidance from the U.S. Office of Special Education Programs (OSEP).

Academic Achievement — generally refers to a child’s performance in academic areas (e.g., reading or language arts, math, science, and history)”.   (71 Fed. Reg. at 46662).

Functional Performance — “is generally understood as referring to ‘skills or activities that are not considered academic or related to a child’s academic achievement.’” This term “is often used in the context of routine activities of everyday living.” (71 Fed. Reg. at 46661).

  • This may include a wide range of skills including, but not limited to:
    • daily living skills such as dressing, eating, hygiene;
    • mobility skills,
    • social skills,
    • communication skills,
    • behavior skills,
    • executive functioning.

While academic achievement will focus on present levels of performance in academic settings, functional performance should address the student’s performance across all school settings.

Some of these skills are discrete and easily separated, such as the academic skill of reading or a student’s ability to brush their teeth independently. However, other skills may impact both academic and functional skills such as a student’s oral communication. For example, oral communication may impact academic performance such as in providing oral presentations or participating in class discussion, and functionally impact the student’s social skills, self-advocacy, etc. In this case, references may be found in both the statements of academic achievement and statements of functional performance sections of the IEP.

It falls to the IEP creator to make explicit connections between the statements so the reader is able to understand the extent to which the disability impacts the student’s performance.

Structuring a Strong Present Levels of Performance Statement

  1. Describe the student’s skills — Within each relevant domain (i.e. reading. math, mobility), describe those skills the student is able to demonstrate. Remember — acquisition of skills is a process. Sometimes you will describe skills the student has mastered and other times you will describe the conditions under which a student performs, even though he or she may still need supports.

    Be specific and verbally paint a picture in the IEP – @FrontlineEdu http://bit.ly/2xGudtb

       CLICK TO TWEET THIS 

    Be specific and verbally paint a picture — by helping the reader visualize what the student can do, you are making this section of the IEP actionable. Think about it — if a teacher knows what a student can do, they can plan an instructionally relevant lesson. The reverse (focusing on what a student can’t do) may not be true.

  1. Identify the student’s urgent needs — Once you have a complete picture of how the student performs in a particular domain, take a look at what the demands and expectations for the student are in the general education curriculum. In other words, what skills, if acquired this upcoming year, would have the greatest impact on the student’s involvement and progress in the general education curriculum?
  2. How to determine what is urgent
    • Compare present levels within context of curriculum, in order to
      • Determine degree of urgency, that will
      • Determine targeted need(s), which will drive
      • Specially designed instruction and goals
  1. After you’ve determined what is urgent — answer these 2 questions
    • What would it take for this student to be involved and progress in the general education curriculum? This section should describe what works for this student — strategies, materials, methods — in the designated areas of need.
    • What has worked in the past, what are student’s preferences, interests, etc.?
  1. Capture high-quality baseline data — The final component of the Present Levels of Performance Statement is the baseline data which will serve as the foundation for the annual goal(s). I don’t want to short change this important topic, so stay tuned for the next blog!

Writing a Strong Present Levels of Performance Statement

  1. Connect the dots — Each section of the IEP should inform the next section. “How disability affects” statements and “statements of present levels of academic achievement and functional performance” are, in a sense, two sides of the same coin. When read together, they should present an actionable picture of the student’s performance levels and needs.
  2. Paint a picture — Provide objective data and descriptive language about the student’s skills or behaviors and the conditions under which they are demonstrated — this will help a teacher plan instruction.
  3. Skills, not just scores — Other sections of the IEP include information from the most recent evaluation, so there’s no need to restate all that information unless it has direct bearing on baseline data. And any scores provided in this section should also include a description of the skills that make it relevant.
  4. Two heads are better than one — Collaborate with other teachers and related service providers to write comprehensive Present Levels of Performance Statements. It’s ok to blur the lines between instruction and related services, as they often are deeply intertwined — the Present Levels of Performance Statement is a vehicle to connect these dots! Provide explicit connections between things such as self-regulation (functional) and writing (academic); attentional skills (functional) and summarizing (academic), etc.
  5. Cast a Wide Net — Take a thoughtful approach as to how the student’s disability impacts functional performance. Focusing strictly on academics is only half of the requirement.

Key Takeaway: Maximize Benefit of Present Levels of Performance Statement

Remember, a well-constructed Present Levels of Performance Statement sets the stage for determining goals, specially designed instruction and services. And a well-constructed Present Levels of Performance Statement provides next year’s teacher with the great instructionally relevant information they need to hit the ground running and maximize benefit to the student.

Want to dive deeper? Discover the 6 best practices to elevate IEPs.

 Show me more

Your RTI and MTSS Academic Screening Process: Performing a Check-Up

Your RTI and MTSS Academic Screening Process

Modern air travel is a marvel of complexity, with thousands of commercial flights traversing the world each day. At the center of this transportation web, air traffic controllers bring order to potential chaos by tracking every aircraft safely from liftoff to landing.

The RTI/MTSS model, too, is complex. It requires that schools track the academic performance of all students, identify those with academic delays, and proactively place these learners in supplemental (Tier 2) or intensive (Tier 3) intervention support. And once at-risk students close the skills-gap with typically performing peers, schools must be ready to exit them from Tier 2/3 services.

School-wide academic screeners provide the equivalent of air traffic control for RTI/MTSS. These screeners serve as a kind of radar screen for RTI/MTSS providers — an efficient method to help your team identify which students are at heightened risk for academic failure and need ‘catch-up’ intervention services, and which have made adequate progress at Tier 2/3, and can be discharged.

Because so much of the impact of RTI/MTSS depends upon the quality and use of screening data, veteran RTI/MTSS districts should start the school year by reviewing their school-wide screening procedures. In particular, districts should investigate whether they have the right tools for screening; are consistent in their application of screening data for Tier 2/3 entry and exit; and are avoiding premature screening in the fall that can overidentify students for Tier 2/3 services. Let’s look at each question separately.

Evaluating the Quality and Use of Screening Data

Do our academic screeners identify the ‘right’ students?

An important question about your school’s current set of screeners is whether they actually detect those students who most need intervention.

There are essentially two types of school-wide academic screeners: (1) basic-skills measures, and (2) general (curriculum) skills measures. Screeners that assess basic skills are brief, timed measures that assess both accuracy and fluency in foundation academic skills such as reading fluency or math computation. In contrast, screeners that assess general skills provide more global information about students’ mastery of skills tied to national or state academic standards.

Here’s some hand-picked content you may enjoy

A list of RTI/MTSS academic screening tools can be found at the National Center on Intensive Intervention 

Both basic-skills and general-skills screeners can accurately highlight which students stand out from peers as needing intervention support. So how do schools determine which type of screener is best for them? That decision will hinge on the average academic standing of your students. If your school has substantial pockets of learners who struggle with entry-level academic deficits that interfere with access to the grade-level curriculum, you will definitely want to include basic-skills screeners in your RTI/MTSS assessment plan.

Evaluating the Quality and Use of Screening DataAlternatively, your school may have a relatively high-performing student population for whom basic-skill mastery is not a major obstacle. In this scenario, you might forego basic-skills screeners, since they would probably offer little additional useful information to make Tier 2/3 decisions. High-performing schools might instead adopt general-skills screeners that provide rich information about each learner’s mastery of curriculum-embedded skills.

Of course, schools can also elect to use a mix of basic- and general-skills screeners to benefit from the strengths of both types of assessment.

Schools should avoid the temptation to use informal classroom academic assessments as RTI/MTSS screeners. While such measures can certainly help teachers to monitor day-to-day student progress in core instruction, they are not normed and lack objective benchmarks that allow instructors to quantify learners’ risk for academic failure.

Similarly, beware of relying on teacher nomination as a data source for Tier 2/3 eligibility. While the nominations of educators can indeed flag at least some students needing intervention, they often simply corroborate the results of school-wide academic screeners. (This overlap is unsurprising, since teacher ratings and formal screeners both assess academic performance.) Also, teacher judgment is subjective, leading to the possibility that non-academic considerations can sometimes influence which students they nominate. For example, a classroom teacher might nominate a student for a Tier 2 reading group whose reading skills are intact but who displays challenging behaviors.

Are we consistent in enforcing entrance and exit criteria?

The power of school-wide screenings lies in their ability to predict academic failure. Educators place confidence in this proactive RTI/MTSS risk assessment because each screener allows schools to set specific score ranges and cut-points to define eligibility for services at Tiers 2 and 3. The expectation, then, is that student passage into and out of Tier 2/3 services is grounded on data and governed by transparent decision rules. Sometimes, however, subjective factors creep into the process.

For example, schools may find themselves recruiting students for Tier 2/3 services who would not qualify based on screener scores alone — because of extraneous factors such as parent requests, anecdotal accounts of classroom academic delays, or even a desire to ‘keep numbers up’ to justify intervention-staff positions.

Certainly, schools should have the latitude to select an occasional student for Tier 2/3 intervention who performs adequately on screeners but who presents with extenuating circumstances that suggest the need for such support. When truly in doubt, it is best to err on the side of providing intervention. But if your school finds itself drifting into the pattern of allowing frequent ‘exceptions’ as it applies its decision rules for entering and exiting students at Tiers 2 and 3, consider tightening up the process.

Tighten Up the Process

First, scrutinize your screeners and cut-points to verify that they can be trusted to find students who are truly at academic risk. Then, promote the understanding among teachers, parents and other stakeholders that subjective concerns about student performance should be backed up by objective screening data in order for a child to quality for Tier 2/3 services.

Is our school’s fall screening data accurate?

A well-documented phenomenon over the summer break is that students’ basic math and reading skills can regress. Sometimes called the ‘summer slide’, this slippage in skills does not affect all students equally. The good news is that it is also usually temporary, with most students catching up to their previous year’s level after several weeks of resumed schooling. However, schools can get an erroneous and overly pessimistic picture of school-wide student performance if they conduct academic screenings too quickly at the start of the school year. If possible, schools should delay fall academic screenings until the fourth or fifth week of school. If the screening is conducted earlier, there is the danger that the school will document students’ partial recovery from summer regression and overidentify those needing Tier 2/3 support — when in fact many of these learners will rapidly bounce back to higher levels of achievement.

The press for an early fall screening date can be driven by the school’s need for data to put together Tier 2/3 intervention groups. As a workaround, some schools have discovered that they can instead use data from the spring screening of the previous year to identify students eligible for Fall Tier 2/3 services. Using Spring data to set up intervention groups allows students to receive Tier 2/3 support immediately in the fall. Tier 2/3 assignments can then be updated as soon as fall screening results are available.

In Summary: Lead with Objective Student Data

School-wide academic screenings lend considerable power to the RTI/MTSS model. They have the potential to identify struggling learners quickly and accurately, allow schools to organize intervention resources efficiently to apply exactly the dose of intervention a student requires, and permit conversations about students to be grounded in objective data rather than subjective ‘gut’ feeling.

With all that is at stake, schools should ensure that their RTI/MTSS academic screening regimen is optimized to yield the right data, that the data is used consistently to recruit those who require intervention, and that fall screenings are timed to reveal an accurate snapshot of students in need.

Does your organization have an efficient method to help identify which students need intervention services? When performing your organization’s RTI/MTSS Academic Screening Process Check-Up this year, consider how implementing Frontline’s RTI & MTSS Program Management software can help manage and scale even the most complex RTI processes.

 Learn more

7 Quick Statistics on Employee Absences & Substitute Teacher Activity

Quick Statistics Employee Absences

Standing on the cusp of a new school year, it might be hard to focus on anything but the buzz of back-to-school activities. But to set yourself up for success, you need context — a solid understanding of how everything went last year, and what you want to happen this year.

Good thing you have access to the newly-released annual absence report from the Frontline Research & Learning Institute! The new report is stuffed full of fascinating findings, giving you insight into national trends in school district employee attendance and substitute activity.

Don’t have time to look through the full report right away? We’ve pulled seven bite-sized stats you can read through now, with questions to reflect on for the coming year.

During the 2016-17 school year….

one Employees requiring a substitute averaged 11.16 absences.

This is down from an average of 11.73 absences during the 2015-16 school year. However, this downward trend is limited to employees requiring a substitute. Those employees who do not require a substitute took more time off this past year, with an average of 26.88 absences — up from 24.95 the year before.

average number of absences per employee
Have you noticed similar changes in your district?

two 17% of absences were professionally related.

Of the absences taken in 2016-17, 17% were for reasons such as professional development, school business or field trips. This is down just slightly from 2015-16, which saw professionally related absences account for a full 18% of all absences.

percentage of absences by reason

How can you mitigate the impact of school- and district-sponsored absences on instructional time?

three 22% of employees had perfect attendance.

The percentage of employees with perfect attendance fell by 9%, from 31% to 22%. Meanwhile, the percentage of those with more than ten absences during the course of the school year rose by 7%.

percentage of employees requiring a sub by number of days absentHave you noticed similar trends in your schools? How can school leaders encourage better attendance this year?

four 46% of enrolled substitutes did not work.

Of the substitutes enrolled in 2016-17, nearly half did not work at all during the school year. In comparison, non-working substitutes accounted for 39% of the substitute pool in 2015-16.

percentage of non-working substitutes
What can you do over the coming school year to encourage substitutes to work in your schools?

five Over 30% of professionally related absences were reported within 4 days.

Short lead times make finding substitute coverage difficult — yet professionally related absences (which tend to be planned weeks in advance) continued to be reported on short notice.
fill rate for professional related absences by absence reporting lead time What processes can you put in place to facilitate longer lead times and ensure that a qualified, prepared substitute is ready to fill in?

six The lowest fill rates happened around the weekend.

Mondays & Fridays had lowest fill rates in 2016-17, even though Mondays had the same percentage of absences Thursdays — indicating that substitutes prefer to work during the middle of the week.
percentage of absences and corresponding fill rates by day of week
What can be done to counteract this trend?

seven Employees were absent more toward the end of the week.

As seen in the graphic above, Fridays continue to be a high-absence day, with 23% of employee absences falling on the last day of the week. With a corresponding drop in fill rates (with Fridays averaging a fill rate of only 81%), this could have a significant impact on instructional time.

How would these numbers change if professional development was never scheduled on Fridays when school is in session?

About the data: These statistics are based on data from over 5,000 K-12 organizations using Frontline’s absence and substitute management tool. This represents data from 3,345,182 employees and 46,285,736 absences. This data is so comprehensive that the Center for Research and Reform in Education at Johns Hopkins University has declared it to be representative of national trends.

Want to see absence benchmarks from the Institute side-by-side with your own data? Learn more about the Institute Report in Frontline’s Absence Management system.

 Learn more

8 Features Tech Directors Want in Student Data Storage & Analytics

No one is more invested in student data management than district technology administrators. Am I right, tech directors, tech coordinators? After all, you are the folks who maintain this data and often spend countless hours gathering and disseminating valuable data points to teachers, principals, curriculum directors, counselors, and superintendents.

The good-news/bad-news is that the trend toward data-driven learning models has helped fuel a growing market for data mining and learning analytics solutions. It’s good because you have more technology options, and it’s bad because too many choices can complicate the procurement process. To help with decision making, here is a list of 8 elements that are critical to a quality student data management and analytics system.

1. One Place to Store Data

It’s extremely difficult to harness the power of student data when it’s fragmented and out of reach to the people who need it. Replacing data silos and spreadsheet reporting, an effective K-12 student data analytics solution should integrate and aggregate all data sources into one system for utilization and reporting. In other words, it should integrate seamlessly with your student information, gradebook, LMS, special education, and other student solutions as well as serve as “data central” for all assessments—state, 3rd-party, and local.

A lot of vendors promise full integration between a school’s technology solutions through open interoperability frameworks, their own APIs, or custom processes. Reaching the dream of real-time data sharing can be elusive, however. Only a unified suite platform can eliminate potential incompatibility issues like manual data entry, duplication of data, and nightly data migrations. With one unified platform, you can ensure that everyone has access to the most current, accurate, and relevant data.

 2. Ease of Use for You and Teachers

Giving teachers the ability to use data to enhance teaching is probably one of the biggest game-changers in modern education. But student data is effective only if users know how to interpret it. A system that’s simple to access, use, and navigate is the first and most important step to user adoption and success.

How do you define usability? If you’re in IT, it probably includes things like simple installation processes, easy update procedures, and painless troubleshooting. For busy educators, ease of use can be answered through questions like these: Do I have to log in separately and remember another username and password? Does it have a familiar look and feel? Will it help me save time/become more efficient? Can it be easily integrated into my daily activities? Are there multiple ways to access information? Can I get anytime/anywhere access?

3. Multiuser Access with Role-Based Security

Here’s one feature that can help replace hundreds of user-specific reports and save countless hours or weeks spent gathering and distributing data. Data systems using role-based security and permission restrictions not only help districts maintain the confidentiality and integrity of student data, but they also give staff members easy access to the information they need to perform their jobs. In typical scenarios, teachers are able to view assessment data of all students enrolled in their classrooms, intervention specialists can see student data based on their caseload, principals have access to all students in their building, and so on. This process can also be applied to parents/guardians and students when accessing student-specific assessment and performance data.

4. Training for Teachers

It’s no surprise to district IT personnel that integrating technology in the classroom is more complicated than just giving teachers access to software. Because teachers possess varying levels of tech skills, have different and preferred learning styles, and generally lack the time to learn how to use various programs, it’s wise to consider solutions (and technology support providers) that offer a range of training and support options. A multifaceted approach could include face-to-face training, online web-based training, self-directed in-product help, online community forums, and even professional development certification programs.

5. Access to Historical, Timely, Relevant Data

If raising student achievement and improving instruction are among your district’s goals for student data analysis, then you’ll want to pay close attention to the types of data that are available from prospective systems. Number one, does it allow teachers to see historical, longitudinal data that can help to create a rich picture of student progress over time? Imagine a teacher pulling up their students’ past test scores, including the most recent end-of-year exams, before the start of the school year. This is the kind of information that allows teachers to develop a sense of their students’ strengths and challenges, and integrate this data into their planning process.

Number two, does it provide timely information—from state tests, local assessments, and other data points—that can help teachers inform and modify their instruction on the fly? Data that comes to educators late, after they’ve spent weeks or months working with students and getting to know their achievement levels, is essentially worthless.

Number three, are teachers getting data that’s relevant and easy to understand? Having access to students’ overall assessment scores is important, but when teachers can see data points that tie to learning standards, that’s when the magic happens. And don’t forget about other types of data—like demographics, attendance, discipline, interventions, IEPs, and special needs—that are useful in understanding the student as a whole.

6. Robust, Interactive Reporting

How do you bring your data to life and give it meaning? Whether a superintendent is comparing the latest building-by-building OGT test results, or a teacher is viewing student performance across multiple assessments and multiple years, everyone wants the ability to move in and out of data and find the key information they need. In addition to user dashboards and standard and custom reports, a good data management solution includes drill-down, filter, and sort capabilities that enable users to make sense of their data and see what’s happening at the micro level.

Imagine a scenario where a teacher can look at a visual graph of her students’ OCBA English scores, filter by students falling below “proficient” ranking, drill down to see how these students performed on individual standards, and then sort them into small groups for personalized instruction or intervention referral. Of course, for even greater flexibility and data sharing, systems should allow users to export their data to spreadsheets, such as Excel or Google Sheets.

7. Easy Importing of Assessment Data

A robust assessment data management solution should be fully capable of aggregating data from diverse sources. That’s a given. But as with any quality technology product, the devil is in the details.

Be sure to ask questions about methods used to import data, including both archived and ongoing assessments. For example, how easy is it to import multiple years’ worth of historical assessment data?  And which party—the district or the technology provider—will handle and schedule that task? What’s the process for importing data from various testing providers? Specifically, is there a centralized page, file formatting templates, or other tools to help automate data imports directly from the provider’s website?

Finally, given the ever-changing nature of education legislation and testing requirements, districts will want to know how the vendor manages the wide range of K-12 assessment providers. For example, how quick are they to make new assessments available for importing, and how well do they respond to test provider changes or updates that could impact data access?

8. Integrate with District Learning Programs

A data mining and analytics tool is usually not enough, on its own, to impact student learning unless its embedded into school-wide education practices, processes, and procedures. Giving educators easy access to student performance data right from their student information, gradebook, or learning management system is a good start. Even better is a system that allows districts to support their own curriculum and learning programs—including interventions and student learning objectives—in an environment that provides a framework for collaboration and continuous data analysis.

Report: Data-Driven and Classroom-Focused Professional Development

A look at the data with Elizabeth Combs of the Frontline Research & Learning Institute

When the Every Student Succeeds Act was signed in December 2015, educators working in professional learning (as well as in every other area of education) took note. In particular, the criteria defining effective professional development grabbed K-12 administrators’ attention.

The “new” definition of professional development wasn’t surprising —making sure learning is sustained, intensive, collaborative, and so on may not be easy — but the theory behind it isn’t new. But is it being practiced?

That question is at the heart of Bridging the Gap, a series of reports from the Frontline Research & Learning Institute. The Institute just released part 4 of the series, tackling the final 2 criteria in ESSA: “data-driven” and “classroom-focused.” Bridging the Gap looks at anonymized data from the professional development experiences of educators across the country and asks, “How close are we to this ideal?”

We spoke with Elizabeth Combs, Managing Director of the Frontline Research & Learning Institute to ask her what they found.

[Note: This interview has been edited for brevity and clarity.]

Tell me about the methodology you used in this fourth installment of Bridging the Gap. How has the Frontline Research & Learning Institute been looking at these criteria to evaluate the state of professional learning today?

report criteria Data-Driven and Classroom-Focused Professional DevelopmentELIZABETH COMBS: We started with data from over 200 school districts, which represents more than 100,000 teaching professionals who have participated in over 3.2 million professional learning activities over the last five years.

We developed a set of definitions for each of the six criteria that are included in the ESSA definition, then identified what metrics we can use to help districts determine the extent to which the PD they’re offering actually meets those criteria. Throughout the reports we identify [certain] districts where data pointed to high alignment for one or more of the criteria, and included them throughout the series to understand how districts can shift their professional learning programs to be more in alignment with best practice.

Let’s start with the idea of professional learning that is “data-driven.” What do we mean by that?

EC: While these criteria are included in the [ESSA] definition, they’re never defined. We took a stab at defining each of them in a way that can be measured. For “data-driven,” we defined it as professional learning that is based upon, and responsive to, real-time information about the needs of participants and their students.

What’s important about this concept? We have data all over the place — in virtually every facet of our lives — why does this matter so much within professional learning?

EC: That’s a great question, because it’s a common area of confusion. What the criteria is not about is simply learning about or using data as part of a professional learning experience. It’s about analyzing teacher and student data to identify specific areas of need or focus, and then participating in professional learning opportunities that directly support those needs. It’s about using data to identify, “Where are the areas that my students need the most help, and what can I learn as a professional to support them in that area?”

What are sources of data that districts could use to drive professional learning?

EC: There’s a lot of data available. The question is really, “What are the best sources [of data] that a district can use in the most effective way?” There are obvious ways of pulling data: assessments to identify areas where students consistently struggle. Teacher evaluation data to focus individual professional learning opportunities based on individual needs. And surveys, self-assessments, peer feedback, professional learning communities and conversations that can help in identifying teacher practice and areas of focus.

data drivenWhat did you find in your research? Have districts succeeded in providing data-driven professional learning?

EC: Unfortunately, the story isn’t so great. We found that only eight percent of the professional learning that’s being offered is data-driven. This is particularly concerning because it indicates that, while many of the professional learning opportunities that teachers engage in may be important, they’re not necessarily being determined by their individual needs or the specific needs of their students.

What does professional learning that’s not data-driven look like?

EC: Generally, professional learning that has been offered as a one-size-fits-all workshop would not be considered data-driven. Forward-thinking organizations are thinking through how to individualize or personalize professional learning so it’s not one-size-fits-all, so individuals can engage in professional learning that meets their very specific needs.

Let’s say I work in professional learning at a school district, and I’m trying to move our program in a more data-driven direction. What are some of the steps I should take? What are the questions I should be asking?

EC: I think the key is to start small — there are so many small steps a professional learning director can take, rather than trying to turn the Titanic by revamping their entire program. For instance, they can start by asking, “To what extent are professional learning activities that teachers are participating in selected based on rationale that includes data on their own, or their students’, needs?”

Another question is, “To what extent is the data being used to select professional learning related to daily teaching activities or student outcomes?” Just asking those questions of participants at the point when they’re enrolling in opportunities will help set expectations and start them thinking about how professional learning impacts their daily practice.

Here’s some hand-picked content you may enjoy

18,000 Reasons to Rethink Professional Development 

You looked in depth at Greece Central School District in New York. They’re a district that takes the ESSA criteria quite seriously, and as they’ve worked to realize a more data-driven model, you note that it has led to some changes that have shown promising results.

EC: They’re doing some amazing things with their professional learning program at Greece Central. And they’ve seen many exciting results. One has to do with teacher retention, something that we might not generally think about in the context of an outcome from an effective professional learning program. Greece Central’s teacher turnover fell from 22% in 2014 to 18% during the ’15-’16 year. That’s such an important metric to think about, given the current teacher shortage and the challenges that districts are facing.

Let’s look the last criteria for professional learning in ESSA: “classroom-focused.” How do you define “classroom-focused” in Bridging the Gap?

EC: We refer to classroom-focused professional learning as learning that is related to the practices taking place during the teaching process and relevant instructional processes. In other words, “As a teacher, are you learning skills, concepts or strategies that are directly related to what and who you are teaching every day?” That might seem like an obvious concept, but if we go back to a one-size-fits-all environment of professional development, it’s almost impossible to provide PD that’s directly related to what everyone is teaching at the same time.

classroom focusedThere’s some encouraging news here, right? What did you find as you looked at the data?

EC: We found very encouraging news here. We found that 85% of the activities that were offered were aligned to the InTASC standards directly related to teaching practice. We define that to mean that 85% of activities offered were, in fact, classroom-focused.

Classroom-focused learning has obvious benefits —stronger teaching, better learning, more improved student outcomes, etc. — but you write that it can also help to clarify professional learning itself. How so?

EC: The explicit connection between a professional learning activity and the standard of practice to which it’s aligned helps clarify the nature of that activity. This process results in clear expectations regarding the nature of the professional learning being offered.

What are the action steps for any district seeking to make professional learning more classroom-focused?

EC: There are many small steps that those leading professional programs can begin to implement. Simply providing teachers with the opportunity to observe master teachers, participate in mentoring and, of course, continue to ensure learning activities are aligned to teaching standards, will all help move this type of professional learning forward.

Tweet: Making PD more classroom-focused: “Start small, take baby steps and measure progress.” – @ecombs123 http://bit.ly/2vGqJJh

   CLICK TO TWEET THIS 

Do you have any words of encouragement for educators who might look at their professional learning programs and say, “Based on the criteria that the Every Student Succeeds Act gives us, we have a long way to go”?

EC: Start small, take baby steps and measure progress. The goal of the entire Bridging the Gap series is to provide leaders with ideas about how they can better align their programs with a best practice definition of professional learning, and to give them tools and metrics to measure their progress. We believe that’s the greatest value we’re offering through the reports: being able to document the extent to which all of the resources and efforts put into providing effective professional learning are making an impact, based upon a set of measurable criteria.

You can download Bridging the Gap, parts 1, 2, 3 and 4 at the Frontline Research & Learning Institute, as well as listen to the full interview with Elizabeth Combs at the top of this page.

Is your educator professional learning data-driven and classroom-focused? Want to make the connection from educator needs to personalized professional learning? Check out Frontline’s connected solution for teacher evaluation and professional development now.

 Show me more