2

3

UW & SPS CSIS Proposal

Collaborative Schools for Innovation and Success - a pilot project of the UW College of Education and Seattle Public Schools Collective Responsibility for Enduring Problems of Practice The enduring problems of education, of which the opportunity and achievement gap is one, deserve systemic, innovative, research-based solutions that make real progress. Researcher Anthony Bryk argues that for decades the higher-education community has failed to deliver these solutions, in part because “our current educational research and development (R&D) infrastructure fails to connect to enduring problems of improvement in our nation’s schools" (Bryk and Gomez 2008). In fact, a "small but growing cadre of scholars and policy organizations have coalesced around an argument that the social organization of the research infrastructure is badly broken and a very different alternative is needed (e.g., Burkhardt and Schoenfeld 2003; Coburn and Stein 2010; Committee on a Strategic Education Research Partnership 2003; Hiebert et al. 2002; Kelly 2006; National Academy of Education Report 1999)” (Bryk, et al., 2011, p. 128). Something is needed to bridge the divide between researcher and practitioner in a way that makes practice more central and research more accessible. As Bryk describes it: "a more problem-centered approach that joins academic research, clinical practice, and commercial expertise" (p. 128). The Collaborative Schools for Innovation and Success Pilot Program (CSIS) offers Universities and School Districts in Washington the opportunity to come together and facilitate the organization and social arrangements between schools and universities, and within schools and universities that will create this new paradigm and yield more value for students. The vision of the University of Washington College of Education (UW COE) - Seattle Public Schools (SPS) Pilot Program is a dynamic network in which teachers, school and district leaders, university professors, novice teachers, residents, families and students are learning together from collective practice. The theory of action for this effort holds that taking a deeply clinical, problemcentered approach to creating networks of professional learning can build an effective model for developing skills and capacity among the wide range of participating educators and begin to erase the learning opportunity and achievement gap among students. In the last decade, the UW COE has put enduring problems of practice at the center of its work, learning a great deal from its school and district partners and positioning itself to erase the divide between the university and K-12 schools as called for by this collaborative effort with SPS. This Pilot Program builds on a long history of partnership between the University of Washington and the Seattle Schools, expanding and intensifying strong existing relationships around supporting students and preparing teachers. An essential component of creating social arrangements for collaborative work is the co-creation of both the vision and the strategies of that collaboration (Ball & Forzani, 2011; Horn & Little, 2010; NCATE, 2010; Wilson & Berne, 1999). Based on that core need for collaboration and co-creation, the specific strategies and work of the Pilot Program can not be fully identified prior to a well-formed, mindful, planning process that brings together SPS, Roxhill Elementary School, the larger Roxhill School community, and UW 4

UW & SPS CSIS Proposal

COE. Central to that planning will be what research literature identifies as being meaningful in school change efforts, as well as a commitment to engaging in collaboration in a manner supported by evidence. Therefore, the narrative below reflects a framework around which the planning and co-creation will occur and upon which the UW COE and SPS, consistent with the original bill HB 2799, will capitalize on their existing work and partnerships over the next year. Partners will plan for innovation that not only improves student achievement, but also enhances the effectiveness of teacher preparation, builds capacity in practicing educators, and develops strong networked learning communities to support ongoing improvement. The narrative is divided into five main sections: Partnership: Capacity, Context, and Roles; School Selection; Research Base and Theory of Action; Creating the Innovation and Success Plan; and Using the Results. Partnership: Capacity, Context, and Roles The UW COE and SPS are natural partners in this pilot project for a number of reasons. Chief among them is the strength of the existing relationship between the two organizations. The relationship is based on a common commitment to a robust educational system and myriad programs characterized by interdependence. This long history of successful partnership results in mutual benefit for the institutions’ respective students. Partnership Capacity A number of the specific partnership programs bear mentioning in this proposal as they provide examples of how the school, District and University have forged their existing partnership to support educator development with a focus on student learning. Further, these programs will serve as building blocks for the CSIS Pilot Project. The Ackerley Partner School Network The Ackerley Partnership School Network is a 7 year old program with similarities – in vision – to the CSIS Pilot. It brings together expertise from SPS and teacher education to benefit the education system at large and positively impact today’s students. The UW COE Teacher Education Program (TEP) places teacher candidates in Ackerley Partner schools for their yearlong practicum. Partner schools are not simply locations for teacher candidates to try out teaching practices; rather they offer opportunities for all partners to learn together while providing systematic mentoring and modeling of best practices. The partnership combines onsite teacher education with access to cutting-edge, school-based research. For example, TEP’s math and literacy methods courses are taught in Ackerley schools. In these practice-based methods courses, university faculty and classroom teachers collaborate to both demonstrate and coach teacher candidates as they learn to teach. The experience gives UW teacher candidates onsite practice as they learn concepts; helps the UW faculty stay informed about the current work at SPS; gives the school faculty access to UW current methods; and gives elementary students greater access to individualized academic attention. 5

UW & SPS CSIS Proposal

The Ackerley partnership also provides professional development for principals in partner schools and places Principal Candidates, through the UW’s Danforth Program, in Ackerley schools. The work of the Ackerley partnership is supported by a 1.3 million dollar endowment generating approximately 6% of the total endowment value to support UW COE’s work with schools. The Dean of the College of Education is committed to growing the endowment through private donations to 2 million dollars over the next two years. Thus, the ASPN endowment provides a reliable funding source to support the UW COE’s work with SPS. Teacher Education Program The UW’s Teacher Education Program (TEP) is constantly evolving to meet the needs of the broader education community and the local teaching workforce demands of Washington school districts. In order to prepare teachers to respond effectively to the complex challenges of today’s public school classrooms, TEP prepares new teachers to use evidence-based strategies to provide equitable and effective opportunities for all children to learn. To that end UW’s TEP prepares teachers for culturally, linguistically and socio-economically diverse settings by offering: 

Opportunities to learn about and work with socioeconomically and linguistically diverse student populations – including English Language Learners and students served by Special Education programs;



Year-long placements in a partner school in racially/ethnically diverse and/or povertyimpacted community;



Community-based practicum in diverse, poverty-impacted communities;



A full year of fieldwork in one of the high needs schools in the greater Seattle region, taken concurrently with on-campus courses;



Field-based methods courses in which program faculty and partner school colleagues team to provide instruction in partner school classrooms;



Continuous interweaving of coursework and fieldwork experiences, with particular focus on issues related to culturally responsive teaching, English Language Learners, and children with special educational needs throughout the program; and



Individualized pathways for supplementing Masters degree requirements (beyond those for the basic teaching residency certificate), including specializations in English Language Learners, special education, math/science, reading and others.

The partnership between the UW COE and SPS is a critical element for TEP. In any given year, approximately 100 teacher candidates are learning in SPS classrooms and mentored by SPS educators. Elementary Literacy and Elementary Mathematics Methods courses are co-taught with Seattle Schools’ teachers in the context of SPS classrooms (Roxhill served as the site for the previous practice-based methods course). To foster continual improvement of preparation 6

UW & SPS CSIS Proposal

programs, the college closely coordinates with various personnel within the District to ensure that teacher preparation meets both state requirements and local needs. Along with direct participation in the design and monitoring of programs, educators from Seattle Schools and Central Office participate on a number of leadership groups including the UW COE TEP Professional Educator Advisory Board. Center for Educational Leadership The Center for Educational Leadership (CEL) is nationally recognized for helping school leaders develop the instructional leadership expertise necessary to improve the quality of teaching and learning. CEL has been working with SPS district and school leaders to deepen their knowledge of high quality teaching using CEL’s 5 Dimensions of Teaching and Learning, a research-based instructional framework for observing and analyzing classroom instruction and providing meaningful feedback to teachers. Working closely with each other and CEL coaches, SPS principals have deepened their expertise necessary for the hard work of leading instructional improvement. In addition to working with school leaders, CEL has worked closely with SPS Central Office team on a number of priority issues. CEL works with district leaders throughout the country on a process of Central Office Transformation. This custom designed transformation process can include: 

Designing the right transformation strategy for districts, working side-by-side with the superintendent and staff;



Assessing the readiness of the central office to take on transformation work;



Developing plans, curriculum, and tools tailored to individual districts;



Deepening leaders’ understanding of quality teaching using the 5 Dimensions of Teaching and Learning framework;



Guiding central office leaders in developing school principals’ instructional leadership practice; and



Supporting district leaders with one-on-one coaching in the difficult work of re-culturing, retraining, reorganizing, and refocusing central offices on the business of learning.

While Seattle has not yet engaged in all elements described above, the relationship has been deepening in the last few years and more work is planned for this summer and next school year. Seattle-specific Educator Context Two recent changes to SPS policies and practice also provide important context for the work of educator preparation and academic achievement, and thereby give shape to the CSIS theory of action and planning process.

7

UW & SPS CSIS Proposal

SPS Ratification of Danielson Framework The Danielson Framework is Seattle’s clearly defined, agreed upon framework for quality teaching. In accordance with the 2010 Washington State law that required each school district to establish a new evaluation system, including a four-leveled rating, by 2013, SPS and the Seattle Education Association (SEA) negotiated development of an evaluation framework. The Danielson Framework was mutually agreed upon by SPS and SEA to help strengthen every employee in their practice. The implementation of the Danielson Framework and the new teacher evaluation system has impacted UW teacher preparation. As candidates learn to teach in schools that are aligned with the vision of teaching expressed in the Danielson Framework, the preparation programs must incorporate the framework and help candidates navigate it. The partnerships between SPS and CEL, SPS and UW educator preparation, and the budding partnership in this CSIS effort provide opportunities for the UW to leverage its experience in job-embedded professional development as Seattle implements the types of instruction it is seeking to support system-wide. Multi-Tiered Systems of Support SPS also recently developed the Multi-tiered System of Support (MTSS) process that uses a variety of data points to target appropriate interventions, services and resources to schools that need them. The MTSS is a cornerstone in the District’s efforts to ensure every child receives a high quality education. CSIS will incorporate the MTSS and build on the infrastructure as school-specific plans are developed. The following excerpt from SPS Board Policy 2163 provides an overview of the MTSS: The District utilizes the core principles of the Multi-tiered Systems of Support (MTSS) process which combines systematic assessment, decision-making and a multi-tiered services delivery model to improve educational and social and emotional behavioral outcomes for all students. Under this model, students receive support through differentiation in core classroom instruction and small group instruction in class or during additional intervention time. The District’s process identifies students’ challenges early and provides appropriate instructions by ensuring students are successful in the general education classroom. In implementing the MTSS process, the district shall apply: A. Data-driven academic and behavioral interventions in the general education setting; B. Measure the student’s response to intervention; and C. Use multiple assessments and progress monitoring to inform instruction. The Superintendent is authorized to develop procedures to implement student interventions; and use teacher observations and classroom, school, or district assessments to identify students who are at risk of academic or behavioral problems and thereby in need of scientific research-based interventions.

8

UW & SPS CSIS Proposal

Partnership Roles and Responsibilities The School, District and University will spend the planning year surfacing the available resources; identifying the most applicable and promising research-based practices; conducting a needs assessment; developing and testing tools; and building the Innovation Plan. A collaborative approach will be taken to project activities, yet each institution will have specific roles and responsibilities in the planning year. The charts below outline specific roles and responsibilities and a planning timeline for the project. CSIS Roles and Responsibilities Areas of Responsibility

UW COE Responsibilities

SPS Responsibilities

Project Leadership

Establish and convene joint Project Leadership Team. Ensure project is aligned with complimentary COE efforts; provide overall guidance and direction for project. Project Leadership Team will include Roxhill Principal, UW COE Dean, key leaders from respective organizations.

Co-develop and participate on Project Leadership Team. Ensure project is connected to School and District initiatives and learning networks to maximize application of learning throughout District; ensure personnel are available for CSIS planning.

Project Management

Oversee overall project planning year, ensuring planning benchmarks are met, full Innovation Plan developed.

Participate in selection of Project Leadership Team; oversee SPS specific management responsibilities.

Fiscal and Human Resource Management

Ensure fiscal and operational resources responsibly managed to meet planning phase goals. The UW COE has a long history of grants and contract management.

Ensure subgrant is responsibly managed to meet planning phase goals. Ensure appropriate School and District personnel participate in planning phase without disrupting school operations, student learning, and school-based community support (e.g. arrange for supplemental principal support and manage teacher release time – supported by planning grant).

Teacher and Principal Preparation

Prepare, place candidates at Roxhill; include them in planning phase to ensure candidate voice is incorporated into Innovation Plan. Develop teacher residency program in collaboration with SPS and Alliance for Education for

Participate in candidate preparation programs (e.g. on PEAB, as cooperating teachers). Co-develop urban teacher residency program in collaboration with UW COE and Alliance for Education for potential inclusion in implementation.

9

UW & SPS CSIS Proposal

potential inclusion in implementation. Teacher and Principal Professional Development and Engagement

Co-create and co-deliver preliminary professional development (PD) in preparation for implementation; lead cocreation of PD plan for Innovation Plan.

Roxhill teachers and administrators participate in needs assessment and development of Innovation Plan. School staff may co-create PD in preparation for implementation.

Needs Assessment and Community Engagement

Conduct a full learning and community support needs assessment in collaboration with School and community.

Assist in design and participate in full needs assessment in collaboration with School and community. Ensure stakeholders from local community and District are represented.

Research and Evaluation

Design research agenda and program evaluation to ensure learning from project is fed back into project and shared with other schools, districts and preparation programs.

Co-design research agenda and evaluation. Provide access to, and participate in analysis of, appropriate data.

Communication Ensure project is appropriately visible in local, state and national communities. Learning Networks

Ensure planning is integrated into existing learning networks and establish networks for implementation. Networks include the Ackerley Partnership Network, Washington Association of Colleges for Teacher Education (www.wacte.org), Community Center for Educational Results (www.ccedresults.org).

10

Ensure project is appropriately visible within the District, partnering institutions and local, state and national communities. Ensure planning is integrated into existing SPS networks and establish networks for implementation. Networks include the SW Region of Seattle Public Schools, Community Center for Educational Results, and Puget Sound Educational Service District.

UW & SPS CSIS Proposal

Jan

Feb

Mar

Apr

Oct

X

X

X

X

X

Aug

16. Revise Innovation Plan 17. Recruit Residency Candidates 18. Initiate fundraising plan for CSIS implementation 19. Reassess needs/ continue Professional Development 20. Transition out of planning phase and into implementation phase

X

Jul

15. Launch PD

X

Jun

10. Revise work plan and identify next level priority goals 11. Write Innovation Plan based on CE work 12. Initiate Development of Wellness Data Tracking Tools 13. Expand learning networks based on CE work 14. Create Professional Development (PD)

X X

May

9. Visit exemplar schools/communities

Dec

2. Hire and establish contracts for Project Manager and Assistant Principal 3. Create detailed work plan for Project Leadership Team 4. Educate families and community members about the Project 5. Establish Community Engagement (CE) Plan including asset mapping and needs assessment 6. Initiate Residency Development Initiate Asset Mapping and Needs Assessment 7. Establish or convene existing school-based learning networks and community partner networks 8. Implement Community Engagement Plan

UW COE Dean and SPS Superintendent Project Leadership Team

Nov

1.Announce Grant Award to school community

Assignment

Aug

Task

Sept

Collaborative Schools for Innovation and Success -Year One Planning Time Line*

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

Project Manager (PM) PM and Principal (Prin.)

X X

Project Leadership Team

X

X

X

X X

X

X X

X X

Zeichner (et al) PM & Prin., with consultant PM & Prin.

X

PM, Prin., CBO leads Key staff, school/community leaders PM

X

PM Herrenkohl

X

PM & Prin. Kazemi, Rimmer, PM & Prin. PM & Prin. through learning networks PM Zeichner (et al) Stritikus Kazemi, Rimmer, PM & Prin. PM & Prin, Leadership Team

X X

X

X

X X

X

X X

X

X X X

X

* Note the timeline above does not include regular activities such as placing TEP candidates or principal interns in Partner Schools.

11

UW & SPS CSIS Proposal

School Selection Leadership from Seattle Schools and the UW COE came together to select the school for the CSIS pilot. Roxhill Elementary While Roxhill is not the lowest performing school in the District, it is amongst the lower performing elementary schools in key areas (e.g. 3rd and 4th grade mathematics) and is in the first steps of School Improvement. (Note that the lowest performing schools in the District are already SIG schools and not eligible for this grant competition.) Roxhill is a vibrant public school in the Southwest corner of Seattle, near White Center. Its 375 students reflect the diversity and cultures of its surrounding neighborhood. More than fifteen languages are spoken at the school with English, Spanish, Somali, Vietnamese, and Tagalog being the most common; 40% of Roxhill students are English Language Learners. Roxhill also has a self-contained program for students with autism and approximately 29% of its students have Special Needs. The majority of the students – 80% - qualify for Free and Reduced Priced Lunch. Table 1: Roxhill Elementary Demographics Compared with SPS Average

Roxhill

Eligible for Free English Language and Reduced Learner Priced Lunch 80% 40%

Children with Special Needs

Children of Color (non-white)

29%

87%

SPS Avg. 43% 12% 14% 57%  From the Seattle Public Schools and the Office of the Superintendent of Public Instruction 2011 The school has not made AYP for three consecutive years based on poor results in Math for its Special Education and Low Income Students. As seen in table 3 below, 3rd grade reading scores are nearly 20 percentage points lower than the district average, while 4th grade is nearly 30 points lower. Mathematics at these two grade levels is even more problematic, with more than a 30 point spread between the district average scores and Roxhill scores. According to the OSPI Washington State Report Card 2010 – 2011 student subgroups at Roxhill (e.g. limited English proficient students, students of color, low income students) consistently underperform compared to District average scores. Table 3: Roxhill Elementary MSP Results, 2010-11, Compared with SPS Average 3rd grade

4th grade

Reading

Math

Reading

Math

SPS Avg.

79%

67%

72%

65%

Roxhill

61%

35%

43%

33%



OSPI 2010-11 Washington State Report Card

A major area of concern for the school is the underperformance of its substantial ELL population. ELL students underperformed in the area of Mathematics as measured on the MSP in 2011. Whereas 50% of ELL students passed the Reading MSP, an increase of 11% from the previous year, only 34% passed the Mathematics MSP, reflecting a decline of 3% from the previous year (see Table 4). 12

UW & SPS CSIS Proposal

Further, ELL Hispanic/Latino students underperformed in the area of Mathematics as measured on the MSP 2011. Whereas 53% of ELL Hispanic/Latino students passed the Reading MSP, an increase of 6% from the previous year, only 36% passed the Mathematics MSP, reflecting a decline of 11% from the previous year. Additionally, when compared with Black, Asian/Pacific Islander and White students, this is the only group whose percentage of proficiency declined in the area of Mathematics. Table 4: Roxhill Versus District ELL Outcomes for 3rd-5th Reading and Math MSP Reading % Proficient Roxhill District Difference

Reading % Growth 50% 33% + 17%

Math % Proficient 11% 6% + 5%

Math % Growth 34% 27% + 7%

-3% -2% -1%

Academically, Roxhill does have strengths relative to some elementary schools in the District, primarily in its year to year growth for 4th and 5th graders, which exceed the SPS average rates of growth (see Table 5). MSP Reading Scores in fifth grade also exceed the SPS average (see Table 3). These areas of strength present opportunities for to build upon in the CSIS. Exploring what is working at Roxhill will be an important step in the planning process. Table 5: Examples of High Rates of Annual Growth for Roxhill Students

4th and 5th graders who met or exceeded typical growth on the state reading test 4th and 5th grade English language learner students who met or exceeded typical growth on the state reading test

Roxhill 63%

SPS 53%

71%

48%

The Roxhill School Community does have substantial concerns regarding the health and social/emotional well being of its students and an interest in understanding the ways in which risk factors in these domains are impacting academic performance. According to the school, many of its families have health and mental health needs stemming from issues of poverty, homelessness, immigration, and lack of access to services and nutrition. Significant health needs which contribute to poor academic performance and attendance, as reported by Roxhill staff, are dental related issues, chronic health conditions such as asthma, skin disorders, ear infections (some with resulting hearing loss), obesity, ADD and ADHD. The mental health needs of students include: loss and grief, trauma-related issues, secondary and primary victims of domestic violence and child abuse/neglect, abandonmentrelated issues, attachment disorders, anger management, social skills, and self-esteem concerns. These issues are likely reflected in Roxhill’s attendance data. During the 2010-2011 school year, 30% of the students had 10 or more absences from school. So far in the 2011-2012 school year (as of April 6, 2012), 33% of the Roxhill students have had excessive absences, defined at this time of the year as 7 or more absences. Certain populations have higher incidences of poor attendance (see Table 6). 13

UW & SPS CSIS Proposal

Table 6: 2011-12 Excessive Absences By Grade Grade K 1 2 3 4 5

Number of students with excessive absences 35 21 20 9 18 11

Percentage of grade with excessive absences 39% 28 32 20 31 24

20% of the students with excessive absences are ELL students. 49% of the students with excessive absences are kindergartners and 1st graders, which is particularly alarming given the critical nature of early learning (Jimerson, et.al, 2000; Alexander, et. al, 2001) These challenges, as well as the strengths to build on, make Roxhill an ideal school for intervention and support such as will be developed through the CSIS. Two other important factors in the selection of Roxhill were its leadership team and its already well-developed relationship with UW COE (established in 2007). Leadership and Staff Led by Principal Carmela Dellino, the school has established itself as a community of learners with an avid commitment to social justice with a teaching staff that has demonstrated tenacity for pursuing the highest quality of education for all students. Ms. Dellino has been an educator for over 28 years. She taught English at middle and high school for twelve years before becoming a school counselor, working intensively with children ages 5 – 18 and their families dealing with issues of grief and loss. After twenty years working in schools, Ms. Dellino became a principal, first working as an assistant principal at Shorewood High School in Shoreline then taking the helm at Roxhill in the 2008-2009 school year. Dellino’s diverse experience makes her uniquely suited to lead planning year activities for this CSIS project. Relationship to UW COE Roxhill Elementary has a strong working with the UW COE. Roxhill was a school site for Studio Days, a precursor to the practice-based methods courses now an integral part of TEP. The school is an active member of the Ackerley Partnership (described above). The school worked with TEP to pilot a program that brought together cooperating teachers and teacher candidates to engage families in teacher home visits. These visits help teachers learn about familial strengths, gain cultural competency around students’ home environment, and includes families educational planning for their child. Sixteen teacher candidates from UW COE have been placed at Roxhill over the last 3 years. Four recent UW Teacher Education Program graduates currently serve as teachers at the school. Research Base and Theory of Action As stated above, the vision of the University of Washington College of Education - Seattle Public Schools CSIS Pilot Program is a dynamic network in which teachers, school and District leaders, university professors, novice teachers, teacher residents, families and students are learning together from collective practice. The rearrangement of social relationships between and amongst these groups – using some of the mechanisms and 14

UW & SPS CSIS Proposal

strategies proposed below - will have a profound effect on organizational learning. As such, the theory of action for this effort holds that taking a deeply clinical, problem-centered approach to creating networks of professional learning will build an effective model for developing skills and capacity amongst the wide range of participating educators and begin to erase the learning opportunity and achievement gap amongst students. This theory of action integrally links closing the achievement gap with educator preparation and professional development. Therefore, this discussion of the theory of action and its research base does not delineate (as indicated in the application materials) two distinct theories of action. Instead, this theory of action (and its research base) describes the ways in which a re-arrangement of social relationships in three broad areas leads to profound organizational learning and improved outcomes for educators and, ultimately, students. Organizational learning is defined by Collinson and Cook (2007) as “the deliberate use of individual, group, and system learning to embed new thinking and practices that continuously renew and transform the organization in ways that support shared aims” (p. 8). According to Boreham and Morgan (2004), when organizations learn, “coworkers transcend the boundaries which separate them from colleagues, establish a common (and expanded) understanding of the object of their joint activity and make a collective decision on how to achieve it” (p. 313). Ultimately, changing the way the elements of the education system interact will result in more responsive and intellectual-rich instruction, the maintenance of ambitious expectations for all students, and a concurrent improvement of learning outcomes across all subject areas. In essence, improving organizational learning will improve student learning. The CSIS will focus on the establishment, expansion, and reconfiguration of learning networks in three primary areas: 1) Enhanced instructional quality through job embedded professional development; 2) Improved social and emotional wellness through deepened school-community partnerships; and 3) Strengthened educator preparation through innovative university-district collaboration. 1) Instructional Quality The most powerful predictor of student learning is quality of instruction (Haycock, 1998; Peske & Haycock, 2006; National Academy of Education, 2009). For this project, the vision for quality instruction is drawn from the Danielson Framework’s four domains: planning and preparation; classroom environment; instruction; and professional responsibilities. The framework will provide a guide as the CSIS partners plan to deprivatize practice, develop shared vision of instruction, identify common instructional routines, build teachers’ knowledge, and develop job embedded professional development activities that support teachers as they apply new knowledge in their classrooms. Efforts to improve instruction – to get teachers to what is sometimes termed “ambitious instruction” – have often focused on a single element of teaching and learning or the content knowledge of individual teachers. While these elements matter, the theory of action and research driving this project suggest that the persistence of poor performance is rooted in the need to build individual and organizational capacity to provide high-quality instruction; therefore improved teacher instruction and student achievement will be a result of a systemic rearrangement of the relationships between and among teachers, leaders, students, and the university. This collaboration therefore seeks to break down the pervasive norm of private, individualized practice whereby each teacher struggles alone to choose and master the right instructional practices to meet the remarkable heterogeneity of student needs she faces each day. This will be replaced by a network of education professionals that leads to organizational learning. 15

UW & SPS CSIS Proposal

The planning year will help determine the current organizational assets at Roxhill and the ways which instruction is currently organized. Roxhill’s current Professional Learning Communities will provide the necessary collaborative space to investigate instructional practice and determine the types of Networked Improvement Communities necessary for the “innovative, knowledge producing” work called for by this project. Networked Improvement Communities are spaces that arrange “human and technical resources so that the community is capable of getting better at getting better (Englebart 2003)” (Bryk, et., al, 2011, p. 130). In the case of this Pilot Project, the networks will provide the space for the organizational learning necessary for the UW COE and SPS to build educational models of success together at Roxhill. There are a number of specific mechanisms – or types of Networked Improvement Communities - the project could use to enhance organizational learning and capacity. All of them centered on the growing awareness that professional learning communities of this nature are linked to improved instruction and student learning (Lewis, 2012). Because the ultimate strategies will be co-created, we can not say with certainty what they will look like, only what they will accomplish: They will create job-embedded professional development activities: the project’s emphasis on job-embedded professional-development activities will reflect recent studies (see Ball & Cohen, 1999; Borko, 2004; Grossman et al., 2009) demonstrating the limits of improving instructional practice through external coursework alone. Building professional communities removed from close interaction with students can lead to simplistic or overused ideas such as cooperative learning. What is required is the ability and disposition to use knowledge of content and knowledge of students in flexible ways in order to learn how to teach in a particular situation. In order to respond to a student who asks a question while the class is working independently, for example, one must know how to observe that particular student’s work, interpret that work, elicit elaborations, and intervene in a way that makes it possible for the student to move on (Franke, Kazemi, & Battey, 2007; Lampert, 2001). To improve teachers’ practice, the project must help them acquire (1) the interactive skills required to engage students in serious academic work and (2) the ability and willingness to use knowledge in particular moments of practice. Jobembedded professional development activities will provide carefully designed opportunities for teachers to analyze student learning as well as to plan, observe, and enact ambitious practices. Teachers will also develop pedagogical content knowledge: Since Shulman (1986) originated the term “pedagogical content knowledge,” educational researchers have been attuned to the idea that effective teachers are those who have developed significant levels of both disciplinary and pedagogical content knowledge. Research (e.g., Hill, Rowan, & Ball, 2005) has established that teachers who can adjust content and methods to what they observe in student performance are more likely to lead a wide range of learners to succeed at rigorous academic work. The different types of possible learning communities through which these job embedded activities and pedagogical knowledge will be developed include content labs, cross-grade-level video clubs, common teacher planning time, content meetings, as well as Roxhill’s pre-existing professional learning communities. The specific types of communities and the resources needed to sustain them will be determined during the planning year using the needs assessment and guided by the Project Manager, Principal, and a Project Leadership Team composed of School, District and UW COE faculty and staff. The ways in which a content lab might be used is described below as an example of the type of collaboration that will exist: During a Content Lab, grade level teams collaborate on planning to teach common instructional tasks. They then observe the tasks being enacted with students, try out a follow-up task with a small group of students, and, finally, debrief the experience. In the debriefing the facilitator guides the teachers through questions directed at better 16

UW & SPS CSIS Proposal

understanding how students were or were not learning and the implications for their own practice and contentbased knowledge. Applying these new insights, teachers develop their own instructional plans. Each content lab day includes core content meetings when teachers have opportunities to deepen their content knowledge. The content foci will be driven by assessments of student and teacher learning needs and aligned with Common Core Standards. These meetings are co-led by content-area experts (math, reading, science) and educators. Teachers have common planning time, allowing them to continue the conversations and analysis stimulated in the Content Labs. At least once a month, a project staff member facilitates these common planning times and also makes monthly classroom visits to help teachers apply new knowledge and skills. Video clubs are held after school to allow teachers across grade levels to participate. Prior to each meeting, a project staff member videotapes a set of lessons conducted by different teachers. The staff member reviews the tapes and selects excerpts that illustrate issues in learning and teaching. When they meet, the staff member and teachers view the excerpts and ask questions about student engagement, understanding of concepts, approaches to problems, and interactions with each other. 2) Social Emotional Wellness While developing proficient students by increasing instructional quality will be a primary aim, studies consistently find students make greater gains academically when programs attend to social and emotional skill building. Substantial evidence links students’ health and emotional wellness to improved academic achievement (Durak, et. al., 2011); therefore, there is increasing awareness of the need for schools to integrate educational, medical and support services for students. Indeed, the provision of integrated - highly collaborative, holistic, process-oriented student services are central to a variety of evidence-based school, organization, and community-change theories (Bandura, 1977; Goodman et al, 1990; McLeroy et al, 1988; Parcel et al, 1988). For these reasons, another essential focus for the re-arrangement of social relationships that enable organizational learning is in the realm of social and emotional development. The co-creation of the Innovation and Success Plan will include not just teachers and researchers, but also families and community based organizations. The importance of the planning process in this area is heightened by the fact that Roxhill just received a grant from the City of Seattle Families and Education Levy focused on student wellness. Integrating the two efforts will take great care and careful planning. The Levy funded work may move Roxhill toward developing a “full-service school” model or another community-oriented model for enhancing student wellbeing. The CSIS partnership is poised to incorporate the principles of a full service model (if the school so chooses), the basic tenets of which are discussed below. The model of “full-service” schools (Dryfoos, 1994) recognizes that children, particularly those from low-income families and disadvantaged backgrounds, are best served by schools that blend high quality education with academic supports with health and wellness programs developed in collaboration with community partners. Research on full-service schools show that comprehensive programming that attends holistically to the needs of children and their families hold promise for improving academic outcomes for students, reducing conduct and mental health problems, and improving school-family partnerships (Dryfoos, 1994, Warger, 2002). In addition to supporting students’ academic goals, full-service schools typically provide other services, such as health screening, counseling, mentoring, case management, and parent education (see “informal education homepage and encyclopedia of informal education” at http://www.infed.org/schooling/f-serv.htm). These services are coordinated centrally and administered by school staff and other contracted providers. The full-service schools model builds on the foundations of positive youth development (Lerner et al., 2005) and prevention science (Coie et al. 1993 IOM, 1994; Botvin, 2004), which seek to integrate knowledge on the 17

UW & SPS CSIS Proposal

developmental etiology of problem behaviors with that of rigorous evaluation studies. Prevention science is a field devoted to studying and reducing risk factors and enhancing protective factors for a range of youth problems, including bullying and school dropout, substance use/abuse, and mental disorders (IOM, 1994, 2009). The field has adopted a public health framework in which risk and protective factors are systematically targeted in planned intervention efforts. Schools are recognized as ideal settings in which to implement innovative, research-based prevention programs (National National Academies, 2009; Hawkins & Herrenkohl, 2003; Monahan, Oesterle, & Hawkins, 2010; D. B. Wilson, Gottfredson, & Najaka, 2001; S. J. Wilson & Lipsey, 2007) because all youth, including those at highest risk of problems, are required to attend. The full-schools model capitalizes on momentum over the past several decades to broaden the mission of public schooling to bring prevention more fully into the domain of schools. It also serves as another model through which to re-arrange social relationships in support of academic achievement and student growth. Instead of individual organizations – schools, mental health clinics, CBOs – maintaining a siloed approach to their piece of a child’s wellbeing, they come together in a mindful, collaborative way to build processes and systems to support children and families. Research has also consistently shown that students whose families are more involved in schools experience greater academic success, better attendance, better grades, and better motivation (Caspe, et al., 2007; Watson, et al., 1983; Griffith, 1986; Henderson and Berla, 1995; Levine and Lezotte, 1995). Moreover a recent longitudinal study shows that 1) increases in family involvement predict increases in literacy achievement, and that 2) family involvement in school matters most for children at greatest risk (Dearing et. al, 2004). For these reasons, the planning year (discussed in detail below) will include families, and families will help determine what types of family-engagement activities make the most sense for the Roxhill community. One possibility includes homevisits, a research-based intervention that provides an opportunity to bridge the - often wide - cultural divide between school and home. Programs, like home visits, focused on improving students’ academic and social-emotional learning are developed from a social-ecological framework that emphasizes the interconnection between schools and families. What happens in one context influences the other. When communication between teachers and parents is poor or inconsistent, children can receive conflicting messages about their work and what to prioritize in school. They can also be exposed to norms and values that do not align, undermining efforts to enhance students’ academic performance. The prevention literature features various examples of school-based programs in which parents are engaged as active partners in efforts to reduce behaviors or issues of concern, as in multi-component classroom interventions that include family-support staff or parenting workshops (Hawkins & Herrenkohl, 2003). The fullservice schools model emphasizes parent involvement and goes beyond that of other programs by including, for example, counseling and family planning services, welfare services, and parent education along with home visitations. 3) Educator Preparation Similarly, the rearrangement of social relationships provides the central theoretical premise for the improvement of educator preparation. In this case, the specific focus for these social arrangements is around the universitynovice teacher-school relationships as well as the relationships between teachers in the school. While the UW TEP has always strived to evolve based on the needs of the educator workforce and evidence from the schools and communities for which it prepares teachers, the use of intentional Networked Improvement Communities (described above) in a clinical or practice-based context will provide the space for the coming together of novice teachers, SPS District Staff, and UW COE researchers to more fully explore innovation and knowledge production.

18

UW & SPS CSIS Proposal

The creation of these relationships will foment a fundamental shift in the way participants view and use different kinds of expertise. Unlike traditional professional development models in which outside expertise (university, district, etc.) brings a specific method or intervention to a set of educators (school, grade band, classroom) with the intent of changing practice, this model values the network of expertise. Thus classroom practitioners, university faculty, teacher candidates, etc. rely on one another to provide, or co-create, the expertise necessary to address the learning and opportunity gaps in a specific school setting. There is growing recognition of the “importance of context, local development activity…school culture and leadership in promoting increased professionalism and encouraging learning” (Lewis, 2012, p. 480) for teachers and teacher candidates alike. Rearranging the social relationships to create inter-dependence and reliance upon one another for expertise creates a new paradigm for the ways in which teacher educators learn in practice-based settings. This new paradigm, centered on networks of expertise, also builds on other research-based notions about effective educator preparation including “making inquiry an integral part of the professional lives of teachers” (Cochran-smith & Lytle, 1992) and the importance of cooperating teachers. In its entirety, the CSIS will support the UW TEP to continue its efforts to evolve and strengthen the quality of the practice-based components of its educator preparation in keeping with research that indicates “prospective teachers who report better quality student teaching experiences feel more prepared to teach, more efficacious, and plan more years in teaching and in the district than peers who report lower quality experiences” (Ronfeldt & Reininger, forthcoming, p. 28). The network model will allow the development of what Cochran-Smith and Lytle (2009) call inquiry as stance among the teacher candidates involved in the CSIS Networked Improvement Communities. Cochran-Smith and Lytle build this idea on their concept of developing educators’ “knowledge of practice.” That is, developing teacher expertise depends on simultaneously learning formal knowledge and learning from investigating the experience of teaching in real classrooms. CSIS learning communities will focus their attention on deepening and improving teaching as they “…generate local knowledge, envision and theorize their practice, and interpret and interrogate the theory and research of others” (2009, p. 289). This is a particularly significant experience for TEP candidates. It is important that candidates develop a view of themselves as continuous learners, as active participants in expanding the expertise of a group of educators with a wide range and length of teaching experience. Developing an inquiry stance as part of Networked Improvement Communities will help candidates acquire the habits and skills they will need to learn and inform their practice throughout their careers. Teacher candidates will be supported to adopt an inquiry stance through involvement in the Networked Improvement Communities where the cooperating teachers will model this practice. Indeed, the relationship between cooperating teachers and teacher candidates is fundamental to most aspects of candidate learning: The quality of the cooperating teacher is the strongest predictor of perceptions of instructional preparedness and efficacy. Given the cooperating teacher has more direct contact with student teachers than perhaps anyone else, and is best positioned to model instruction and provide feedback, these findings make intuitive sense. The findings are also consistent with cross-national evidence that mentorship and modeling provided by supervising teachers have important influences on student teachers’ instructional practice (Cook, 2007; European Agency for Development in Special Needs Education [NEADSNE], 2010; Murray et al., 2004)” (Ronfeldt & Reininger, forthcoming, p. 30). To this end, Roxhill will continue to host five or more candidates for the year-long practicum. The 2012-2013 candidates will help with the creation of the Innovation Plan, participate in current school-based PLCs and provide essential feedback to UW’s TEP program about the ways in which their deep involvement in ongoing inquiry and knowledge production at the school impacted their preparation. Further, TEP will consider moving a school-based methods course to Roxhill. This hub of activity will be connected with the focus for professional development in the school and will pave the way for engagement with the Residency model described in the next section. 19

UW & SPS CSIS Proposal

A program in the initial stages of development, a local Urban Teacher Residency, could provide an option for building on the relationship between Roxhill cooperating teachers and teacher candidates as well as the overall school-based clinical preparation component of UW TEP. Funds have already been secured for the co-creation of an Urban Teacher Residency with Seattle Schools and the Alliance for Education. The development process will be concurrent with the CSIS planning year. The initial needs and capacity assessments conducted via the CSIS will determine how Roxhill will participate in the Residency. Seattle Urban Teacher Residency Pilot Urban Teacher Residencies, which began to emerge across the country about ten years ago, utilize existing university infrastructure to apply innovative teacher preparation practices in a public school setting. The residency model embodies best practices in recruitment, screening, preparation, placement, induction, and context-specific training for urban school districts. In general, teacher residencies: •

Focus on residents learning alongside an experienced, trained mentor;

•

Emphasize field-based opportunities to learn supported by theoretical learning, as opposed to emphasizing university-based coursework accompanied by field experiences;

•

Prepare teachers in the context of the very schools in which they hope to be hired;

•

Collectively share responsibility for the preparation of teachers among the partners (typically a school district, a university, and a community based organization such as a local education fund),

•

Focus activities on ensuring residents are committed to and capable of sustaining long careers in high poverty, culturally and linguistically diverse schools; and

•

Are organized to adjust teacher preparation as specific school district needs evolve over time.

Another design principle for many residency programs is that candidates will emerge from the program exceptionally well prepared to meet the needs of specific subgroups within the district. In the case of the Seattle Urban Teacher Residency, SPS has identified its highest need areas as ELL and Special Education; in particular the District is hoping the residency program will increase the number of new teachers qualified for content area teaching and teaching ELL or Special Education populations. Seattle Education Association leaders are supportive of this direction. In addition to its focus on meeting the needs of specific districts and high-need urban classrooms, teacher residency programs reduce the time and other resources that districts must commit to new teacher orientation and reduce the costs associated with teacher turnover in high-needs schools. Currently urban school districts like Seattle devote significant resources to orienting teachers to the particular norms, practices and tools of the district. The development of a residency program, with shared responsibility for the preparation of teachers, will reduce the amount of time SPS must devote to orientating novice teachers to its unique structures and expectations. This will result from better alignment between the teacher education program and the district’s practices. For example, the project will organize residency training around the Danielson Framework, which will result in alignment between candidate teaching practice and the teacher evaluation criteria that will apply to the residents when they are employed by the district. Existing residency programs (e.g., Boston, Chicago, and Denver) typically conceive of teacher preparation through a common epistemological lens: “This lens conceives of teacher cognition as situated (Brown, Collins, & Duguid 1989; Lave & Wenger, 1991) and mentoring as educative (Feiman-Nemser, 2007), prioritizes a continuous and collaborative approach to teacher learning and development (Lieberman & Miller, 2004), and perceives of inter20

UW & SPS CSIS Proposal

institutional partnerships as settings for systemic learning and transformation (Senge, 2000)” (Dickstein and Green, 2012, p. 1). Because the residency model will be jointly designed by SPS, the Alliance for Education and the UW COE during the course of this Pilot, the exact theories and research base under which the program will operate are not yet fully defined. However, the general set of theories and research base around residencies (which is a relatively new phenomenon), include the following core elements: 

The development of inter-institutional collaborations in service to the needs and values of partner school district(s);



Rigorous recruitment, selection, and development of residents;



Highly effective mentor teachers committed to the local context;



Tight integration of theory and practice; and a



Comprehensive system post-residency support for graduates once hired as independent teachers of record. (Dickstein and Green, DATE)

These core elements are largely already operating in TEP. The residency would place a greater emphasis on the opportunities to learn in-practice, but it would not be a shift away from essential principles. Endorsements Currently all TEP candidates are encouraged to pursue endorsements in either ELL or Special Education before they leave the university. A large proportion of candidates enter their first teaching position with such a second endorsement. The numbers increase each year. This summer, for example, the ELL endorsement program is over subscribed. Nearly half of the newly certified secondary and elementary teachers will add an ELL endorsement to their certification. The college is exploring a variety of ways – adding whole new sections of endorsement programs at times other than summer, the inclusion of multiple endorsements during the residency, etc. - for increasing the number of candidates that pursue second endorsements in high-need areas. As the planning for the CSIS takes shape, UW COE and SPS will pay careful attention to the learning and social emotional needs of Roxhill’s ELL and special education populations since they have been already identified as priorities. Both the UW COE and SPS have faculty with expertise to support ELL and special education teaching and learning needs. The CSIS pilot offers an opportunity to explore co-creating site-specific options for adding endorsements for candidates and practicing teachers. Utilizing the expertise that exists within the Networked Improvement Communities will be a key strategy. Related Theoretical Drivers The types of profound shifts in social arrangements envisioned by this project will require strong leadership from the Project Leadership Team as well as district and other school leaders. These leaders will need to be armed with the necessary data to establish and adjust the course of action as necessary. The narrative below briefly addresses the types of leadership and data systems and supports envisioned by the project, with the specifics to be decided upon during planning.

21

UW & SPS CSIS Proposal

Leadership The types of changes envisioned by this theory of action can only be actualized and sustained with the support of exceptional leadership at all levels of the system. While SPS provides the framework for quality instruction, and the UW COE brings its expertise in professional development to the collective vision for ambitious instruction, the school leaders will play a vital support role. The principal will be called upon to create an environment in the school that holds the vision and presses teachers to improve practice utilizing the resources brought by the partnership. Therefore, the UW COE will work closely with Roxhill’s leadership to improve their practice in this area. The University of Washington’s Center for Educational Leadership (described above) provides direct support to school and district level leaders on how to support achievement gap closing instruction. By placing CEL on the Project Leadership Team, the manner in which school and district level leadership can contribute to the goals of the project will be kept in close focus. Should the planning year result in identifying a need for leadership development, CEL will be poised to provide that support. In the coming year CEL will take responsibility for the UW Danforth Principal Preparation program, working closely with local superintendents (and others) in order to transform UW principal preparation into a competency based program with specific instructional leadership performance guarantees in place for all graduates. In addition Danforth will place one or two principal interns at Roxhill during the planning year. This will ensure additional support for school administrators as well as an additional layer of co-created learning and network for expanding the reach of the CSIS work. Data Driven Decision Making Through the new evaluation system based on the Danielson Framework, the MTSS and other efforts, Seattle Schools has been developing system capacity to select and use evidence for decision making. However, SPS officials have indicated building level teams frequently struggle with utilizing the amount of data that is available to them; they need support to know how to best apply the information available to them. In addition to the work of connecting social emotional wellness with student learning data, the UW COE has experience developing the capacity of grade-level teams to understand what the existing data means and what other types of data would support teaching and learning. Further, evidence based program improvement is a fundamental element the UW’s own teacher education programs. For example, beginning in 2005 faculty undertook a comprehensive ethnographic study of TEP teacher candidates’ experiences in the program, following them into their first three years of teaching (Horn, et al, 2008; Nolen, et al 2008). The data generated by this study challenged faculty assumptions about the efficacy of the program and were immediately taken up as an imperative for program redesign. Program faculty began using evidence from the Teacher Performance Assessment, a rigorous performance assessment of novice teacher practice, years before it was required for preparation program completion and state licensure. Assessment data, including the student work itself, is regularly taken up by faculty to assess program strengths and areas for improvement. A similar use of data will be used to inform both the development and the progress of all CSIS elements. Data use will be essential in a) identifying evidence that informs specific instructional practice rather than simply reflecting general trends, b) determining needs and assets during the planning process; c) tracking progress on the Project’s goals and strategies, and d) creating innovative systems of measurement that describe student and school progress from a holistic point of view. The specific monitoring systems will be developed during the planning 22

UW & SPS CSIS Proposal

process and will support individual and organizational capacity to be able to use data to drive instruction; and develop, expand, and inform the work of Networked Improvement Communities. Creating the Innovation and Success Plan In the planning year, the UW, SPS and the Roxhill School Community will engage in an evidenced-based community and school improvement process model similar to The Mariner Model. The Mariner Model, inspired by the “seamless and self-contained system of support for military families” was developed initially for schools through the support of the Department of Education Secretary’s Fund for the Improvement and Reform of Schools and Teaching (Hoyle, 2007) and is based on the Ecological Model (McLeroy et al, 1988). Its theoretical framework is found in the Model for Planned Change in Schools (Parcel et al, 1988) and Theories of Organizational Change (Goodman et al, 1990). The Mariner Model is not a programmatic effort - it “is a vehicle for school improvement….a systemic, school-based process that strengthens internal and external supports for positive youth development and encourages the necessary school and community connections for addressing risk and protective factors” (Hoyle, 2007, p. 5). Informed by the theoretical framework described above, teams, as well as individual members of the school community, will assess need, develop priorities, and co-create theoretically-sound, evidence-based, data-driven strategies that address instructional quality, wellness, and educator preparation in relation to school assets and resources. Initially professional development and pre-existing professional learning communities at the school-level will focus on effective group process, theoretical models of change, needs assessment and asset mapping, and the development of evidence-based strategies for addressing identified needs. These planning efforts will be closely linked with ongoing efforts at the school that already engage the community. Some examples of the initiatives to which the planning will be tied include: Saturday Academy Roxhill uses a Saturday Academy to help underperforming students develop scholarly habits and skills and receive additional instructional support in reading and math. The program already utilizes teaching candidates to assist with instruction and engages parents and students in community building activities. The Academy therefore provides an ideal space for community engagement related to the CSIS planning process. Further, its success (50% of Academy Scholars passed the Reading MSP, compared with 15% of like-cohort students) provides an excellent model and starting point for discussions of how instructional quality and student support services are linked to improve student achievement. Parent Engagement Strategies The school engages parents in a variety of ways, hosting family nights throughout the year highlighting math and literacy instruction and how to extend the learning to home. This year Roxhill launched an ELL Family Night Series to address the unique needs of ELL students. The first in the series was designed to help the school learn from our families what their greatest needs are and how the school can better support their children. From this conversation and information gathered, the school designed the remainder of the ELL Family Nights, which included a College Readiness Night. In some cases, parents are the leaders and instructors in events and provide the school the opportunity to celebrate the diversity of students and their families. Parents are involved in the PTA, fundraising, assisting in the classrooms, chaperoning, and as members of the Building Leadership Team and will be called upon to engage directly in the plans for their school. 23

UW & SPS CSIS Proposal

City Year Roxhill has a strong relationship with City Year, an education-focused national service program that place its Corps Members in schools to serve as tutors, mentors and role models to help students stay on track to graduate. At Roxhill, in addition to tutoring in the classroom and providing small group instruction, City Year provides significant leadership in the design and implementation of family events and engagement. City Year has membership on Roxhill’s Building Leadership Team, Student Intervention Team and led the Attacking Attendance campaign with the principal and family support worker. Their presence is interwoven in every aspect of the fabric of the school and, as the primary CBO in the school, they will be integral in supporting the planning and creation of the Innovation and Success Plan. Levy Funds As mentioned above, Roxhill recently learned that it is the recipient of Seattle City Levy Funds directed towards improving academic achievement, attendance and parent support. The CSIS Project’s Student Wellness efforts must go hand in hand with the use of these funds and the creation of systems of student and family support. In fact, the receipt of the funds affords the community an exciting opportunity to bring together the theoretical framework above with an influx of new resources targeted directly at closing the educational opportunity gap by supporting student needs. Planning related to the Levy Funds must happen concurrently with the creation of the Innovation and Success Plan. Head Start Roxhill is home to a Head Start (HS) program. The principal already works closely with HS to assist families with the transition to Kindergarten and identify strategies to meet academic, social-emotional, and cognitive student needs prior to entering Kindergarten. This relationship provides an excellent building block for collaborative conversations about Kindergarten readiness and early learning in the context of instructional quality, wellness, and educator preparation. Using the Results Taking school improvement to scale is another one of those enduring problems that universities, districts, and policy makers have struggled with for decades. As educational researchers Paul Cobb and Thomas Smith (2008) note: The daunting nature of "the problem of scale" is indicated by the well-documented finding that prior large-scale interventions that have attempted to penetrate the instructional core of classroom teaching and learning have rarely produced lasting changes in either teachers’ instructional practices or the organization of schools (Elmore, 2004; Gamoran et al., 2003)… Research in educational policy and leadership indicates that the limited impact of prior reform efforts is due in part to reformers’ failure to take into account the institutional settings in which teachers develop and refine their instructional practices (cf. Stein, 2004) (p. 232). This is precisely why this project will be so highly attuned to the institutional settings in which it is working, negotiating and re-negotiating the ways in which the institutions and its people work separately and together. By taking on instructional quality, wellness, and educator preparation at such a systemic level, this project hopes to address the problem of scale head on. As such, what this project aims for is a viable and dynamic demonstration site to understand these issues in complex ways, and to build tools and processes that other schools/districts can 24

UW & SPS CSIS Proposal

learn from - if not the specific strategies then the process by which those strategies came to be created for this very particular context. This, combined with SPS and UW COE’s work with the other districts in the region creates the opportunity for taking this work to scale. The Networked Improvement Communities created in and around the school will serve as direct examples for other schools and as microcosms for the types of macro-level networks necessary to support the dissemination of viable school improvement strategies. Ultimately, this networked approach can yield organizational learning at all levels of “organization” within the educational system - with the influence of knowledge and innovation expanding in widening concentric circles from individual schools and school communities outward to districts, universities, and eventually to state and national level education policy. Together, the University of Washington College of Education and the Seattle Public Schools envision their collaborative effort - joining the research, practice, and policy communities - will yield the types of outcomes and replicable processes long sought in efforts to address the enduring problems of a highly prepared educator workforce, and the learning opportunity and achievement gap. The opportunity to engage in the innovative research and development afforded by this inaugural program will have lasting impact for not just the Roxhill Community, Seattle Schools, and the University of Washington; but also, the broader education community, students, and teachers in Washington State.

25

References Alexander, K., Entwhistle, D., & Kabbani, N. (2001). The dropout process in life course perspective: Early risk factors at home and school. Teachers College Record, 103, 760-822. Ball, D. L. & Cohen, D. K. (1999). Developing practice, developing practitioners: Toward a practice-based theory of professional education. In L. Darling-Hammond & G. Sykes (Eds.), Teaching as the learning profession: Handbook of policy and practice (pp. 3-32). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Ball, D. L. & Forzani, F. M. (2011). Building a common core for learning to teach, and connecting professional learning to practice. American Educator, 35(2), 17-21, 38-39 Bandura, A. (1977). Self-efficacy: Toward a unifying theory of behavioral change. Psychological Review, 84(3): 191-215. Boreham, N. & Morgan, C. (2004). A sociocultural analysis of organisational learning. Oxford Review of Education, 30, 307–325. Botvin, G. J. (2004). Advancing prevention science and practice: Challenges, Critical Issues, and Future Directions. Prevention Science, 5(1), 69-72. Borko, H. (2004). Professional development and teacher learning: Mapping the terrain. Educational Researcher, 33(8), 3-15. Bryk, A.S. & Gomez, L.M. (2008). Ruminations on reinventing an R&D capacity for educational improvement. In The future of educational entrepreneurship: Possibilities of school reform, ed. F.M. Hess, 181–206. Cambridge: Harvard Education Press. Bryk, A.S., Gomez, L. M., & Grunow A. (2011). Getting ideas into action: Building networked improvement communities in education. In M.T. Hallinan (ed.), Frontiers in Sociology of Education, Frontiers in Sociology and Social Research Volume 1. The Netherlands: Springer. Caspe, M., Lopez, M. E., & Wolos, C. (2007). Family involvement makes a difference: Family involvement in elementary school children's education. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Family Research Project. Available at http://www.gse.harvard.edu/hfrp/ Cobb, P., & Smith, T. (2008). District development as a means of improving mathematics teaching and learning at scale. In K. Krainer, & T. Wood (Vol. Eds.). Participants in mathematics teacher education: Individuals, teams, communities, and networks (pp. 231-253). In T. Wood (Series Ed.), International handbook of mathematics teacher education: Vol.3. Rotterdam, The Netherlands: Sense Publishers. Cobb, P., & Smith, T. (2007). The challenge of scale: designing schools and districts as learning organizations for instructional improvement in mathematics. Lamberg, T., & Wiest, L. R. (Eds.), Proceedings of the 29th annual meeting of the North American Chapter of the International Group for the Psychology of Mathematics Education, Stateline (Lake Tahoe), NV: University of Nevada, Reno. Cochran- Smith, M. & Lytle, S. L. (1992). Inside, Outside: Teacher research and knowledge. NY, NY: Teachers College Press. Cochran-Smith, M. and Lytle, S. L. (1999). Relationships of knowledge and practice: Teacher learning in communities. Review of Educational Research in Education, 24: 249-305. Coie, J.D., Watt, N.F., West, S.G., Hawkins, J.D., Asarnow, J.R., Markman, H.J., Ramey, S.L., Shure, M.B., Long, B. (1993). The science of prevention. American Psychologist, 48 (10), 1013-1022. Collinson, V., & Cook, T. F. (2007). Organizational learning: Improving learning, teaching, and leading in school systems. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Dearing et. al. (2004). The promotive effects of family educational involvement for low-income children's literacy. Journal of School Psychology, 42(6): 445-460. Dickstein, S. & Green, V. (2012). Common trends across three first year urban teacher residency programs: using data to strengthen a movement. Urban Teacher Residency United Working Paper. Dryfoos, J. (1994). Full-Service Schools. A revolution in health and social services for children, youth and families. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Franke, M. L., Kazemi, E., & Battey, D. (2007). Understanding teaching and classroom practice in mathematics. In F. K. Lester (Ed.), Second handbook of research on mathematics teaching and learning (pp. 225-256). Greenwich, CT: Information Age Publishers. Grossman, P., Compton, C., Igra, D., Ronfeldt, M., Shahan, E., &Williamson, P.W. (2009). Teaching practice: A cross professional view. Teachers College Record, 111 (9), pp. 2065-2100. Goodman, R., et al. (1990). Mobilizing organizations for health enhancement: Theories of organizational change. Health behavior and health education: Theory, research and practice. Josey Bass: San Francisco, 314341 Griffith, J. (1986). Relation of parent involvement, empowerment, and school traits to student academic performance. Journal of Education Research, 90: 33-41, Haycock, K. (1998). Good teaching matters: How well-qualified teachers can close the gap. Washington, DC: Education Trust. Hawkins, J. D., & Herrenkohl, T. I. (2003). Prevention in the school years. In D. P. Farrington & J. Coid (Eds.), Early prevention of adult antisocial behaviour. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Henderson, A. T. and N. Berla, Eds. (1995). A new generation of evidence: the family is critical to student achievement. Washington DC, Center for Law and Education. Hill, H. C., Rowan, B., & Ball, D. L. (2005). Effects of teachers' mathematical knowledge for teaching on student achievement. American Educational Research Journal, 42(2), 371-371. Hoyle, T. (2007). The Mariner model: Charting the course for health-promoting school communities. Kent, OH: American School Health Association. Horn, I.S. & Little, J.W. (2010). Attending to problems of practice: Routines and resources for professional learning in teachers' workplace interactions. American Educational Research Journal, 47(1), pp. 181-217. Horn, I. S., Nolen, S. B., Ward, C. J., & Campbell, S. S. (2008). Developing Practices in Multiple Worlds: The Role of Identity in Learning to Teach. Teacher Education Quarterly, 35(3), 61-72. Institute of Medicine. (1994). Reducing risks for mental disorders: Frontiers for prevention intervention research. Washington, DC: National Academy Press. IOM, 2009 (change to National Academies) Jimerson, S. R., Egeland, B., Sroufe, L. A., & Carlson, B. (2000). A prospective longitudinal study of high school dropouts: Examining multiple predictors across development. Journal of School Psychology, 38, 525-549. Lampert, M. (2001). Teaching problems and the problems of teaching. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press. Lerner, R.M., Almerigi, J.B., Theokas, C., Lerner (2005). Positive youth development: A view of the issues. Journal of Early Adolescence, 25 (1), 10-16.

Lewis, K. S. (2012). Learning communities in learning schools: developing the social capacity for change. In c. day (ed). The routledge international handbook of teacher and school development. (pp 477-492). London: Routledge. Levine, D. U. and L. W. Lezotte (1995). Effective schools research. Handbook of research on multicultural education. J. A. Banks and C. A. M. Banks (eds). New York, Macmillan: 525-547. McLeroy, K. et al. (1988). An ecological perspective on health promotion programs. Health Education Quarterly, 15(4): 351-377. Monahan, K. C., Oesterle, S., & Hawkins, J. D. (2010). Predictors and consequences of school connectedness: The case for prevention. The Prevention Researcher, 17(3), 3-6. National Council for Accreditation of Teacher Education (2010). Transforming Teacher Education through Clinical Practice: A national strategy to prepare effective teachers. Washington, DC: NCATE National Academies (2009). Preventing Mental, Emotional, and Behavioral Disorders Among Young People: Report Brief for Researchers: The National Academies. National Academy of Education (2009). Teacher Quality: An Educational Policy White Paper. Washington, D.C: National Academy of Education. Nolen, S., Horn, I., Ward, C., Campbell, S. S., Childers, S.,& Mahna, K. (2008). Becoming teachers: A situative look at identity, motivation, and learning. Paper presented at the American Educational Research Association. Parcel, G. et al. (1988). Health promotion: Integrating organizational change and student learning strategies. Health Education Quarterly. 15(4): 433-450. Peske, H. & Haycock, K. (2006). Teaching inequality: How poor and minority students are shortchanged on teacher quality: A report and recommendations. Washington, DC: Education Trust. Shulman, L. S. (1986). Those who understand teach: Knowledge growth in teaching. Educational Researcher, 57, 1–22. Warger, C.L. (2002). Full service schools’ potential for special education. Alington, VA: ERIC Clearninghouse on Disabilities and Gifted Education, ERIC/OSEP Special Projects. Ronfeldt, M. & Reininger, M. (forthcoming). More or better student teaching? Teaching and teacher education. Watson, T., et al. (1983). The relationship of parent's support to children's school achievement. Child Welfare, 62: 175-180. Wilson, S. M., & Berne, J. (1999). Teacher learning and the acquisition of professional knowledge: An examination of research on contemporary professional development. In A. Iran-Nejad & C. D. Pearson (Eds.), Review of Research in Education (Vol. 24, pp. 173-209). Washington, D.C.: American Educational Research Association. Wilson, D. B., Gottfredson, D. C., & Najaka, S. S. (2001). School-based prevention of problem behaviors: A meta-analysis. Journal of Quantitative Criminology, 17(3), 247-272. Wilson, S. J., & Lipsey, M. W. (2007). School-based interventions for aggressive and disruptive behavior: Update of a meta-analysis. American Journal of Preventive Medicine, 33(2S), S130-S143.