Missouri Model Districts FrameworkInfographics and Practice Profiles
Missouri Department of Elementary and Secondary Education (DESE)May 2017 (Version 1.0)2
Suggested citation: Missouri Model Districts Infographics and Practice profiles (2017). Missouri Department of Elementary and Secondary Education: University of Missouri-Kansas City, Institute for Human Development.
The Department of Elementary and Secondary Education does not discriminate on the basis of race, color, religion, gender, national origin, age, or disability in its programs and activities. Inquiries related to Department programs and to the location of services, activities, and
facilities that are accessible by persons with disabilities may be directed to the Jefferson State Office Building, Office of the General Counsel, Coordinator – Civil Rights Compliance (Title VI/Title IX/504/ADA/Age Act), 6th Floor, 205 Jefferson Street, P.O. Box 480, Jefferson City, MO 65102-0480; telephone number 573-526-4757 or TTY 800-735-2966; fax number 573-522-4883; email [email protected].
The contents of this presentation were developed under a grant from the US Department of Education to the Missouri Department of Elementary and Secondary Education (#H323A120018). However, these contents do not necessarily represent the policy of the US Department of Education, and you should not assume endorsement by the Federal Government.
The UMKC-IHD is an applied research and training center for human services and has been in existence for over 40 years. UMKC-IHD and its approximately 50 faculty and staff work with a variety of university, community, state and national constituents to build
the capacity of systems, organizations, programs, families, and individuals through applied research, training, community services and supports, and information dissemination.
Missouri Department of Elementary and Secondary Education (DESE)May 2017 (Version 1.0) 3
Journey of a Missouri Model DistrictCommitment
Identify effective practices & systems in place Assess the
Current Real
ity
Are foundations of effective school practices in place?
Are leadership & capactiy-building supports in place?
Are effective teaching/learning practices in place?
Develop Comprehensive Implementation PlanIdentify Supports & Resources to Address Gaps in Knowledge/Doing
Apply Training, TA, & Coaching at District Leadership/Team
Levels
Apply Training, TA, & Coaching of School-Based Implementation Coaching
to Build Capacity
Healthy School
District Leadership ready to commit
Educators’ mindsets focused on improving learning for
all
Loading...
Loading...
Recognize &
Address Gaps
in Knowledge
& Practice
Step 1Commit
Step 2Identify
Step 3Address Gaps
Step 4Develop
Step 5Implement
Step 6Success!
What is
the
impact
on
students
?
START HERE
District-Wide Implementation with Fidelity
Know Thy Impact: CollectiveTeacher
Efficacy
Learning for ALL Growth Mindset
Sustainability: Effective School Systems &
Practices
Missouri Department of Elementary and Secondary Education (DESE)May 2017 (Version 1.0)4
InfographicsFor each component of the MMD framework is an Infographic.
To improve outcomes for all students, educators need to know:
Why Collaborate?
Collaborative Teams
(Carroll, 2009)
The Big Idea!
THE WHY…
THE HOW…
The Research
Collaboration is based on cooperativeness, learning from errors, seeking feedback about progress and enjoying venturing into the ‘pit of not knowing’ together with expert help that provides safety nets and, ultimately, ways out of the pit.
Quality teaching is not an individual accomplishment, it is the result of a collaborative culture that empowers teachers to team up to improve student learning beyond what any of them can achieve alone.
(Hattie, 2015)
Teachers and schools that engage in better quality collaboration have better achievement gains in math and reading. Moreover, teachers improve at greater rates when they work in schools with better collaboration quality.
To improve student outcomes by becoming more skilled educators through developing common purposes and goals.
THE WHAT…Educators intentionally use collaborative skills to discuss effective practices around improved student outcomes.
Educators effectively utilize team processes. Team processes are critical!
The Process
Effective teams use processes for efficient and focused collaborative meetings. Agendas and Minutes Roles Norms Collaborative skills Consensus Protocols
“The key question is how to define a focus on learning and teaching in a way that makes them sufficiently , central, and capable of being improved systematically.”
(Hattie, 2015)
Better Student Outcomes
+ Stronger Educators
(Ronfeldt, Farmer, McQueen, and Grissom, 2015)
Missouri Department of Elementary and Secondary Education (DESE)May 2017 (Version 1.0) 5
Definition
Data-Based Decision MakingUsing Student Data to Support Instructional Decisions
Make data part of an ongoing cycle of instructional improvement
Teach students to examine their own data and learning goals
Establish a clear vision for school-wide data use by teachers andteaching teams
Provide supports that foster a data-driven culture within the school
Purpose
The Process
Data-Based Decision Making (DBDM) = small teams meet regularly and use an explicit, data-driven structure to disaggregate data, analyze student performance, set incremental student
learning goals, engage in dialogue around explicit
and deliberate classroom instruction, and
create a plan to continuously monitor instruction and student learning.
Guiding Questions
(Mike Schmoker, 2003)
How many students are succeeding in the subject I/we teach?
Within those subjects, what are the areas of strengths and weakness?
How can I/we establish and sustain a culture and process for strategic instructional decision-making across our building, teams and classrooms?
(Gilbert, 1978; McIntosh, Horner & Sugai, 2009)
BenefitsUsing a DBDM process shifts the work of school teams from a reactive or crisis driven process to a pro-active, outcomes driven process, and sets the stage for continuous improvement.
Missouri Department of Elementary and Secondary Education (DESE)May 2017 (Version 1.0)6
What is Common Formative Assessment?
Common Formative Assessment
What types of assessments do we currently use?
Who analyzes the assessment results?
What functions should assessment instruments have to provide greatest leverage?
Team-developed Common Formative Assessments: are a more efficient use of
teachers’ time. are more equitable for
students. are more effective in
monitoring and improving student learning.
can inform and improvethe practice of both individual teachers and teams of teachers.
can build the capacity of the team to achieve at higher levels.
are essential to systematic interventions when students do not learn.
(DuFour, DuFour, & Eaker, 2007)
Benefits
“Assessment is not something that is done to
students separate and apart from instruction; assessment must be – must be seen to be – something that is done withstudents as an integral part of
the learning process.”(O’Connor, 2002)
Common = Given by all teachers at a grade level or in a content area
Formative = Provides data to inform planning and instruction
Assessment = Provides analytical rather than evaluative information
(Cook & Negron, 2009)
Questions to Consider
The Learning Process
What is the difference between assessment OF learning and assessment
FOR learning?
It is a process!
How can I best use selected response, constructed response, and performance task assessments?
Missouri Department of Elementary and Secondary Education (DESE)May 2017 (Version 1.0) 7
Effective teams use processes for efficient and focused collaborative meetings. Agendas and Minutes Roles Norms Collaborative skills Consensus Protocols
Developing Assessment Capable
Effect Size
Assessment Capable Learners
(1.33 effect size)
(Hattie, 2015)
How can I close the
gap?
(Chappuis, 2015)
LearnersWho are Assessment Capable Learners?
know the learning target for the lesson
can describe where they are in relation to the criteria
use that information to select learning strategies to improve their work
(Stiggins & Chappuis, 2010)
Bull’s eye! I can do this well all the time!
Getting better. I’m starting to understand what to do.
Just beginning, I am not sure how to do this
When students self-assess regularly, track and share their progress, their confidence as learners grows. Their motivation to do well increases as does their achievement.
Closing the Gap
Understand what they are supposed to learnMonitor their progressSet GoalsReflect on their learning
Students who:
Students...Provide descriptive feedback linking learning goals to success criteriaProvide feedback about strengths and ways to improvePace instruction to allow for frequent feedbackPrompt students to assess their own progress
Teachers...
Missouri Department of Elementary and Secondary Education (DESE)May 2017 (Version 1.0)8
What is Metacognition?
Metacognition• Awareness of one’s own actions and
their effects• Posing internal questions to find
information and meaning• Developing mental maps, pictures, or
plans• Monitoring plans throughout a
process and revising plans when they do not work
• Self-evaluating a completed plan(Costa, 2008)
The Research
I am a learner.
Reflection
Does the solution
make sense?
StrategicWhy is this strategy the best to solve the problem?
What is the question?
Comprehension
How is this problem like one I already
solved?
ConnectionFour Types of Self-addressed Metacognitive Questions
Effect Size: .53
After Instruction
During&
Before
Impact of Metacognition
• Shapes active rather than passive learners
• Gives students a sense of control over learning
• Promotes “deep learning”• Makes students aware of their own
thinking (McElwee, 2009)(Hattie, 2009)
When Students are Metacognitive they understand...
This is my task.
I know my steps.
I have ideas of solutions.
I can apply my knowledge to
various situations.
(Nokes & Dole, 2004)
The contents of this presentation were developed under a grant from the US Department of Education to the Missouri Department of Elementary and Secondary Education (#H323A120018). However, these contents do not necessarily represent the policy of the US Department of Education, and you should not assume endorsement by the Federal Government.
Missouri Department of Elementary and Secondary Education (DESE)May 2017 (Version 1.0) 9
When is Coaching Needed?
Coaching for Better Instruction = Improved Outcomes
Coaching bridges Professional Development to practice
School Collaborative Data Team
Individual Teacher
Professional Development Provider
Teachers and teams improve practices
Teachers help peers learn new practices
Who Needs Coaching?
Why Coaching is Important?
How Coaching Works?
Because we value outcomes, 80% or more of the time spent on performance support should be devoted to “coaching” practitioners how to do the intervention, better and better over time.
Karen Blase and Dean Fixsen, University of North Carolina - Chapel Hill
I don’t know how to use these skills in my classroom
I can demonstrate my new skills in training but I STILL don’t know how to use this in my classroom
I can demonstrate my new skills and I am starting to understand how to use these in my classroom
I can use my new skills in my classroom!I am a better educator with coaching!
Theory & Discussion
Demonstration in Training
Practice & Feedback in
Training
Coaching in Classroom
0% transfer new skill into their practice after learning theory.
Though 30% demonstrate skills in training, 0% transfer new skills to practice after seeing it demonstrated in training.
5% will transfer new skills to classroom after learning theory, seeing it demonstrated, practicing and receiving corrective feedback during training.
After receiving coaching in the classroom, 90-95% were able to demonstrate knowledge, and skill, and use those skills in their classroom.
Met
hods
of
Prof
essio
nal
Deve
lopm
ent
(Joyce & Showers, 2002)
Fidelity of Professional Development
Coaching is a process!
1. When learning for the first time2. When wanting to learn more3. When trying to remember and/or apply4. When things change5. When something goes wrong
The Five Moments of Need©(Dr. Conrad Gottfredson 2010)
Missouri Department of Elementary and Secondary Education (DESE)May 2017 (Version 1.0)10
Colla
bora
tive
Team
s (CT
)Pr
actic
e Pr
ofile
Esse
ntial
Fun
ction
Exem
plar
y Im
plem
enta
tion
Profi
cien
t
Clos
e to
Pro
ficie
nt
(Ski
ll is
em
ergi
ng,
but n
ot y
et to
pr
ofici
ency
. Coa
chin
g is
reco
mm
ende
d.)
Far f
rom
Pro
ficie
nt
(Fol
low
-up
prof
essi
onal
de
velo
pmen
t an
d co
achi
ng a
re
criti
cal.)
1Ed
ucat
ors
colla
bora
tivel
y de
velo
p co
mm
on p
urpo
ses a
nd
goal
s for
impr
oved
st
uden
t out
com
es th
at
embr
ace
conti
nuou
s sc
hool
impr
ovem
ent.
Team
s add
ress
3/4
of t
he fo
llow
ing
at
leas
t tw
ice
mon
thly
, as e
vide
nced
by
agen
das a
nd m
inut
es:
1. d
iscus
sing
data
and
mon
itorin
g st
uden
t pr
ogre
ss2.
iden
tifyi
ng in
stru
ction
al p
racti
ces t
hat
resu
lt in
stud
ent l
earn
ing
3. id
entif
ying
stud
ents
nee
ding
re-
teac
hing
4. al
igni
ng in
stru
ction
al p
racti
ces t
o ac
adem
ic st
anda
rds
Team
s add
ress
3/4
of t
he fo
llow
ing
at
leas
t mon
thly
, as e
vide
nced
by
agen
das
and
min
utes
:1.
disc
ussin
g da
ta a
nd m
onito
ring
stud
ent p
rogr
ess
2. id
entif
ying
inst
ructi
onal
pra
ctice
s tha
t re
sult
in st
uden
t lea
rnin
g3.
iden
tifyi
ng st
uden
ts n
eedi
ng re
-te
achi
ng4.
alig
ning
inst
ructi
onal
pra
ctice
s to
acad
emic
stan
dard
s
Mon
thly
age
ndas
and
m
inut
es sh
ow 2
- 4
item
s are
add
ress
ed
Mon
thly
age
nda
and
min
utes
show
fe
wer
than
2 o
f the
ite
ms a
re a
ddre
ssed
2Ed
ucat
ors e
ffecti
vely
im
plem
ent g
roup
pr
oces
ses i
n co
llabo
rativ
e m
eetin
gs.
Team
s mee
t wee
kly
usin
g ag
enda
and
m
inut
es in
col
labo
rativ
e m
eetin
gs.
Team
s mee
t at l
east
mon
thly
util
izing
ag
enda
s and
min
utes
in c
olla
bora
tive
mee
tings
.
Mee
tings
occ
ur
regu
larly
with
no
set
sche
dule
Mee
ting
times
ar
e irr
egul
ar,
infr
eque
nt, a
nd/o
r oft
en c
ance
led
Team
s use
age
ndas
whi
ch in
clud
e 8/
9 of
th
e fo
llow
ing:
• te
am/g
roup
nam
e•
date
/tim
e/lo
catio
n•
outc
omes
(inc
lude
s req
uire
d m
ater
ials)
• pa
st it
ems t
o re
view
• ne
w it
ems
• ce
lebr
ation
s•
norm
s•
role
s•
next
mee
ting
date
Team
s use
age
ndas
whi
ch in
clud
e 7/
9 of
th
e fo
llow
ing:
• te
am/g
roup
nam
e•
date
/tim
e/lo
catio
n•
outc
omes
(inc
lude
s req
uire
d m
ater
ials)
• pa
st it
ems t
o re
view
• ne
w it
ems
• ce
lebr
ation
s•
norm
s•
role
s•
next
mee
ting
date
Agen
das i
nclu
de 4
-6
of th
e re
com
men
ded
item
s
Agen
das i
nclu
de
few
er th
an 4
re
com
men
ded
item
s or a
re n
ot
deve
lope
d
Prac
tice
Profi
les
For e
ach
com
pone
nt o
f the
MM
D fr
amew
ork
is a
Prac
tice
Profi
le.
Missouri Department of Elementary and Secondary Education (DESE)May 2017 (Version 1.0) 11
2(c
ontin
ued)
Educ
ator
s effe
ctive
ly
impl
emen
t gro
up
proc
esse
s in
colla
bora
tive
mee
tings
.
Team
s use
min
utes
and
com
mun
icati
on
that
incl
ude
8/9
of th
e re
com
men
ded
item
s:
• pu
rpos
e fo
r the
mee
ting
• w
here
and
whe
n he
ld•
list o
f the
atte
ndee
s •
task
s ach
ieve
d du
ring
the
mee
ting
• de
cisio
ns m
ade
at th
e m
eetin
g•
list o
f acti
ons a
gree
d up
on in
clud
ing
who
it w
as a
ssig
ned
to a
nd th
e co
mpl
etion
dat
e•
cent
ral p
lace
with
eas
y ac
cess
all
parti
cipa
nts t
o pr
ovid
e up
date
s and
co
mm
ents
• ag
enda
s tha
t use
con
siste
nt te
mpl
ate
for e
asy
refe
renc
e •
agen
das d
istrib
uted
to a
ll st
akeh
olde
rs
Team
s use
min
utes
and
com
mun
icati
on
that
incl
ude
7/9
of th
e re
com
men
ded
item
s:
• pu
rpos
e fo
r the
mee
ting
• w
here
and
whe
n he
ld•
list o
f the
atte
ndee
s •
task
s ach
ieve
d du
ring
the
mee
ting
• de
cisio
ns m
ade
at th
e m
eetin
g•
list o
f acti
ons a
gree
d up
on in
clud
ing
who
it w
as a
ssig
ned
to a
nd th
e co
mpl
etion
dat
e•
cent
ral p
lace
with
eas
y ac
cess
all
parti
cipa
nts t
o pr
ovid
e up
date
s and
co
mm
ents
• ag
enda
s tha
t use
con
siste
nt te
mpl
ate
for e
asy
refe
renc
e •
agen
das d
istrib
uted
to a
ll st
akeh
olde
rs
Min
utes
incl
ude
few
er
4-6
reco
mm
ende
d ite
ms
Min
utes
incl
ude
few
er th
an 4
re
com
men
ded
item
s or a
re n
ot
deve
lope
d
3Ed
ucat
ors i
nten
tiona
lly
use
colla
bora
tive
skill
s in
col
labo
rativ
e te
am
mee
tings
.
Durin
g te
am m
eetin
gs, p
robl
em-s
olvi
ng
and
shar
ing
invo
lves
at l
east
6/7
of t
he
follo
win
g co
llabo
rativ
e be
havi
ors:
•
paus
ing
• pa
raph
rasin
g•
posin
g qu
estio
ns•
putti
ng id
eas o
n th
e ta
ble
• pr
ovid
ing
data
• pa
ying
atte
ntion
to se
lf an
d ot
hers
• pr
esum
ing
positi
ve in
tenti
ons
Durin
g of
team
mee
tings
, pro
blem
-so
lvin
g an
d sh
arin
g in
volv
es a
t lea
st 5
of
the
follo
win
g co
llabo
rativ
e be
havi
ors:
• pa
usin
g•
para
phra
sing
• po
sing
ques
tions
• pu
tting
idea
s on
the
tabl
e•
prov
idin
g da
ta•
payi
ng a
ttenti
on to
self
and
othe
rs•
pres
umin
g po
sitive
inte
ntion
s
Durin
g te
am m
eetin
gs,
prob
lem
-sol
ving
an
d sh
arin
g in
volv
es
few
er th
an 5
of
the
reco
mm
ende
d co
llabo
rativ
e be
havi
ors
The
colla
bora
tive
beha
vior
s do
not
occu
r dur
ing
team
m
eetin
gs
Missouri Department of Elementary and Secondary Education (DESE)May 2017 (Version 1.0)12
Data
-bas
ed D
ecis
ion
Mak
ing
(DBD
M)
Prac
tice
Profi
le
Esse
ntial
Fu
nctio
nEx
empl
ary
Impl
emen
tatio
nPr
ofici
ent
Clos
e to
Pro
ficie
nt
(Ski
ll is
em
ergi
ng, b
ut n
ot y
et
to p
rofic
ienc
y. C
oach
ing
is
reco
mm
ende
d.)
Far f
rom
Pro
ficie
nt
(Fol
low
-up
prof
essi
onal
dev
elop
men
t an
d co
achi
ng a
re c
ritica
l.)
1Ed
ucat
ors
colle
ct,
char
t, an
d di
sagg
rega
te
stud
ent
lear
ning
da
ta.
• ≥9
0% o
f tea
cher
s adm
inist
er c
omm
on
form
ative
ass
essm
ent a
nd u
se c
omm
on
scor
ing
met
hod
to e
valu
ate
stud
ent
profi
cien
cy.
• ≥9
0% o
f tea
cher
s sha
re c
hart
ed c
lass
dat
a w
ith th
e da
ta te
am p
rior t
o m
eetin
g.•
Resu
lts a
re d
isagg
rega
ted
into
4
profi
cien
cy g
roup
s acc
ordi
ng to
spec
ific
scho
ol n
eeds
(e.g
., sp
ecifi
c su
bgro
ups)
.•
Resu
lts a
re a
vaila
ble
elec
tron
ical
ly to
all
team
mem
bers
and
adm
inist
ratio
n at
all
times
.
• ≥8
0% o
f tea
cher
s adm
inist
er c
omm
on
form
ative
ass
essm
ent a
nd u
se c
omm
on
met
hod
to e
valu
ate
stud
ent p
rofic
ienc
y.
• ≥8
0% o
f tea
cher
s sha
re c
hart
ed c
lass
da
ta w
ith th
e da
ta te
am p
rior t
o m
eetin
g.•
Resu
lts a
re d
isagg
rega
ted
into
4
profi
cien
cy g
roup
s acc
ordi
ng to
spec
ific
scho
ol n
eeds
(e.g
., sp
ecifi
c su
bgro
ups)
.•
Resu
lts a
re a
vaila
ble
to a
ll te
am
mem
bers
at a
ll tim
es.
• ≥7
0% o
f tea
cher
s adm
inist
er
com
mon
form
ative
ass
essm
ent a
nd
use
com
mon
scor
ing
met
hod
to
eval
uate
stud
ent p
rofic
ienc
y.
• ≥7
0% o
f tea
cher
s sha
re c
hart
ed c
lass
da
ta w
ith th
e da
ta te
am p
rior t
o m
eetin
g.•
Resu
lts a
re d
isagg
rega
ted
into
few
er
than
3 p
rofic
ienc
y gr
oups
.•
Resu
lts a
re a
vaila
ble
only
to te
am
mem
bers
pre
sent
for t
he m
eetin
g.
• <7
0% o
f tea
cher
s adm
inist
er
com
mon
form
ative
ass
essm
ent a
nd
use
com
mon
scor
ing
met
hod
to
eval
uate
stud
ent p
rofic
ienc
y.
• <7
0% o
f tea
cher
s sha
re c
hart
ed c
lass
da
ta w
ith th
e da
ta te
am p
rior t
o m
eetin
g.•
Resu
lts a
re n
ot d
isagg
rega
ted.
• Re
sults
are
ava
ilabl
e on
ly to
team
da
ta re
cord
er.
2Ed
ucat
ors
anal
yze
resu
lts to
id
entif
y pr
iorit
y le
arni
ng
need
s.
• Te
am li
sts s
tren
gths
, misc
once
ption
s, a
nd
infe
renc
es fo
r 4 p
rofic
ienc
y gr
oups
.•
Stre
ngth
s and
misc
once
ption
s are
di
rect
ly re
late
d to
the
com
mon
form
ative
as
sess
men
t and
all
esse
ntial
stan
dard
s.•
Lear
ning
nee
ds a
re p
rioriti
zed.
• Pr
ioriti
zed
need
s are
cat
egor
ized
acco
rdin
g to
a h
iera
rchy
of p
rere
quisi
te
skill
s.
• Te
am li
sts s
tren
gths
, misc
once
ption
s,
and
infe
renc
es fo
r 4 p
rofic
ienc
y gr
oups
.•
Stre
ngth
s and
misc
once
ption
s are
di
rect
ly re
late
d to
the
com
mon
fo
rmati
ve a
sses
smen
t and
a ta
rget
ed
stan
dard
.•
Lear
ning
nee
ds a
re p
rioriti
zed.
• Pr
ioriti
zed
need
s are
cat
egor
ized.
• Te
am li
sts s
tren
gths
, misc
once
ption
s,
and
infe
renc
es fo
r 3 p
rofic
ienc
y gr
oups
.•
Stre
ngth
s and
misc
once
ption
s are
di
rect
ly re
late
d to
the
com
mon
fo
rmati
ve a
sses
smen
t and
targ
eted
st
anda
rd(s
).•
Lear
ning
nee
ds a
re p
rioriti
zed.
• Pr
ioriti
zed
need
s are
not
cate
goriz
ed.
• Te
am li
sts s
tren
gths
, m
iscon
cepti
ons,
and
infe
renc
es b
ut
does
not
list
by
profi
cien
cy g
roup
s.•
Any
stre
ngth
s and
misc
once
ption
s lis
ted
are
not d
irect
ly re
late
d to
the
com
mon
form
ative
ass
essm
ent a
nd
targ
eted
stan
dard
(s).
• Le
arni
ng n
eeds
are
not
prio
ritize
d.•
Prio
ritize
d ne
eds a
re n
ot
cate
goriz
ed.
3Ed
ucat
ors
esta
blish
SM
ART
goal
s bas
ed
on d
ata-
iden
tified
st
uden
t le
arni
ng
need
s.
Team
mee
ts th
e 5
crite
ria o
f SM
ART
goal
s an
d 7/
8 ad
ditio
nal g
oal c
riter
ia.
Team
mee
ts th
e 5
crite
ria o
f SM
ART
goal
s an
d 4/
8 ad
ditio
nal g
oal c
riter
ia.
Team
mee
ts th
e 5
crite
ria o
f SM
ART
goal
s and
few
er th
an 4
of t
he
addi
tiona
l goa
l crit
eria
.
Team
mee
ts fe
wer
than
5 c
riter
ia o
f SM
ART
goal
s.
SMAR
T Go
al C
riter
ia:
1. A
re sp
ecifi
c to
targ
eted
subj
ect a
rea,
gra
de le
vel,
and
stud
ent p
opul
ation
2.
Are
mea
sura
ble
and
how
mea
sure
men
t will
occ
ur is
spec
ified
3. A
re a
ttain
able
dem
onst
ratio
n of
per
cent
age
gain
s or i
ncre
ases
in te
rms o
f exp
ecte
d ch
ange
4. A
re re
sults
orie
nted
, and
mus
t be
som
ethi
ng le
arne
rs c
an d
o an
d th
at is
rele
vant
5. A
re ti
me-
boun
d w
ith a
set ti
mef
ram
e es
tabl
ished
Addi
tiona
l Goa
l Crit
eria
: •
are
base
d on
cor
rect
ly c
alcu
late
d da
ta p
erce
ntag
es
• re
flect
> 8
0% o
f stu
dent
s in
the
cate
gorie
s of p
rofic
ient
, clo
se, a
nd fa
r fro
m p
rofic
ient
are
pro
ficie
nt b
y po
st-a
sses
smen
t•
are
iden
tified
sepa
rate
ly fo
r stu
dent
gro
wth
in th
e in
terv
entio
n ca
tego
ry, o
n a
case
-by-
case
bas
is•
are
deriv
ed fr
om sp
ecifi
c te
am in
fere
nces
• in
clud
e ba
selin
e (p
re-a
sses
smen
t) m
id-a
sses
smen
t and
out
com
e (p
ost-a
sses
smen
t) fo
r all
esse
ntial
stan
dard
s•
indi
cate
clo
sure
of a
chie
vem
ent g
aps f
or ta
rget
ed st
uden
t gro
ups
• ar
e fe
w a
nd p
rioriti
zed
• in
clud
e sc
hedu
led
time
set f
or fo
rmal
ana
lysis
of r
esul
ts
Missouri Department of Elementary and Secondary Education (DESE)May 2017 (Version 1.0) 13
4Ed
ucat
ors
use
data
to
sele
ct a
co
mm
on
inst
ructi
onal
pr
actic
e/st
rate
gy to
im
plem
ent
with
fide
lity.
• Se
lect
ed in
stru
ction
al p
racti
ces a
re D
ESE
appr
oved
.•
Sele
cted
inst
ructi
onal
pra
ctice
s/st
rate
gies
: �
targ
et p
rioriti
zed
need
s and
are
ev
iden
ce-b
ased
�ha
ve a
n eff
ect s
ize >
.60
impa
ct o
n st
uden
t gro
wth
�ar
e lin
ked
to p
rioriti
zed
need
s for
eac
h pr
ofici
ency
gro
up �
incl
ude
lear
ning
env
ironm
ent,
time,
fr
eque
ncy,
and
dura
tion
to b
e us
ed
• Se
lect
ed in
stru
ction
al p
racti
ces a
re
DESE
app
rove
d.•
Sele
cted
inst
ructi
onal
pra
ctice
s/st
rate
gies
: �
targ
et p
rioriti
zed
need
s and
are
ev
iden
ce-b
ased
�
have
an
effec
t size
of >
.40
impa
ct o
n st
uden
t gro
wth
�ar
e lin
ked
to p
rioriti
zed
need
s for
ea
ch p
rofic
ienc
y gr
oup
Sele
cted
inst
ructi
onal
pra
ctice
s/st
rate
gies
: •
targ
et p
rioriti
zed
need
s.
• ar
e de
scrib
ed in
det
ail t
o al
low
for
repl
icati
on.
• ar
e lin
ked
to p
rioriti
zed
need
s for
ea
ch p
rofic
ienc
y gr
oup.
Sele
cted
inst
ructi
onal
pra
ctice
s/st
rate
gies
targ
et p
rioriti
zed
need
s.
5Ed
ucat
ors
expl
ain
resu
lts
indi
cato
rs
for p
roce
ss
(cau
se) a
nd
prod
uct
(effe
ct).
• W
eekl
y or
mor
e fr
eque
ntly
, tea
m
disc
usse
s exp
ecte
d ca
use
data
(tea
cher
be
havi
or) r
elat
ed to
exp
ecte
d st
uden
t re
sults
(effe
ct d
ata)
for e
ach
profi
cien
cy
grou
p, w
ith d
etai
l for
repl
icati
on.
• W
eekl
y or
mor
e fr
eque
ntly
, disc
repa
ncie
s in
stud
ent r
esul
ts a
re e
xam
ined
in re
latio
n to
diff
eren
ce in
impl
emen
tatio
n da
ta.
• M
onth
ly, b
ased
on
data
, im
prov
ed
impl
emen
tatio
n pr
oces
ses a
re
reco
mm
ende
d or
alte
rnati
ve in
stru
ction
al
prac
tice
and/
or st
rate
gy is
cho
sen.
• At
leas
t eve
ry tw
o w
eeks
, tea
m
disc
usse
s exp
ecte
d ca
use
data
(tea
cher
be
havi
or) r
elat
ed to
exp
ecte
d st
uden
t re
sults
(effe
ct d
ata)
for e
ach
profi
cien
cy
grou
p, w
ith d
etai
l for
repl
icati
on.
• At
leas
t eve
ry tw
o w
eeks
, di
scre
panc
ies i
n st
uden
t res
ults
are
ex
amin
ed in
rela
tion
to d
iffer
ence
in
impl
emen
tatio
n da
ta.
• Q
uart
erly
, bas
ed o
n da
ta, i
mpr
oved
im
plem
enta
tion
proc
esse
s are
re
com
men
ded
or a
ltern
ative
in
stru
ction
al p
racti
ce a
nd/o
r str
ateg
y is
chos
en.
• At
leas
t qua
rter
ly, t
eam
disc
usse
s ex
pect
ed c
ause
dat
a (te
ache
r be
havi
or) r
elat
ed to
exp
ecte
d st
uden
t res
ults
(effe
ct d
ata)
for e
ach
profi
cien
cy g
roup
, with
det
ail f
or
repl
icati
on.
• At
leas
t qua
rter
ly, d
iscre
panc
ies
in st
uden
t res
ults
are
exa
min
ed
in re
latio
n to
diff
eren
ce in
im
plem
enta
tion
data
.•
Sem
i-ann
ually
, bas
ed o
n da
ta,
impr
oved
impl
emen
tatio
n pr
oces
ses
are
reco
mm
ende
d or
alte
rnati
ve
inst
ructi
onal
pra
ctice
and
/or s
trat
egy
is ch
osen
.
Team
disc
ussio
n ab
out e
xpec
ted
caus
e da
ta (t
each
er b
ehav
ior)
and
stud
ent
resu
lts (e
ffect
dat
a) o
ccur
s but
doe
s no
t inc
lude
a c
ause
/effe
ct d
iscus
sion,
or
use
s inc
ompl
ete
data
.
6Ed
ucat
ors
desig
n an
d pr
actic
e on
goin
g m
onito
ring
of re
sults
(m
onito
r, re
flect
, ad
just
, re
peat
).
• W
eekl
y or
mor
e fr
eque
ntly
, tea
ms u
se
data
to se
lf-re
flect
and
self-
asse
ss fo
r im
plem
enta
tion
fidel
ity a
nd re
cord
di
scus
sion.
• Aft
er 2
ass
essm
ents
(pre
-, m
id, p
ost-)
fo
r the
tim
efra
me
have
bee
n co
mpl
eted
, vi
sual
repr
esen
tatio
n of
gro
wth
is
disp
laye
d.•
Visu
al re
pres
enta
tion
of re
sults
is k
ept
elec
tron
ical
ly.
• Ti
mes
are
sche
dule
d fo
r for
mal
ana
lysis
of
resu
lts.
• Eff
ect s
ize(s
) is/
are
calc
ulat
ed a
nd
reco
rded
.
• Ev
ery
two
wee
ks, t
eam
s use
dat
a to
self-
refle
ct a
nd se
lf-as
sess
for
impl
emen
tatio
n fid
elity
and
reco
rd
disc
ussio
n.•
After
2 a
sses
smen
ts (p
re-,
mid
, po
st-)
for t
he ti
mef
ram
e ha
ve b
een
com
plet
ed, v
isual
repr
esen
tatio
n of
gr
owth
is d
ispla
yed.
• Vi
sual
repr
esen
tatio
n of
resu
lts is
kep
t el
ectr
onic
ally.
•
Tim
es a
re sc
hedu
led
for f
orm
al a
naly
sis
of re
sults
.
• Q
uart
erly
, tea
ms u
se d
ata
to
self-
refle
ct a
nd se
lf-as
sess
for
impl
emen
tatio
n fid
elity
and
reco
rd
disc
ussio
n.•
After
2 a
sses
smen
ts (p
re-,
mid
, po
st-)
for t
he ti
mef
ram
e ha
ve b
een
com
plet
ed, v
isual
repr
esen
tatio
n of
gr
owth
is d
ispla
yed.
• Vi
sual
repr
esen
tatio
n of
resu
lts is
ke
pt e
lect
roni
cally
. •
Tim
es a
re sc
hedu
led
for f
orm
al
anal
ysis
of re
sults
.
• Tw
o tim
es p
er y
ear,
team
s use
da
ta to
self-
refle
ct a
nd se
lf-as
sess
fo
r im
plem
enta
tion
fidel
ity b
ut
disc
ussio
n is
not r
ecor
ded.
• Aft
er 2
ass
essm
ents
(pre
-, m
id,
post
-) fo
r the
tim
efra
me
have
bee
n co
mpl
eted
, visu
al re
pres
enta
tion
of
grow
th is
disp
laye
d.
Missouri Department of Elementary and Secondary Education (DESE)May 2017 (Version 1.0)14
Com
mon
For
mati
ve A
sses
smen
t (CF
A)Pr
actic
e Pr
ofile
Esse
ntial
Fun
ction
Exem
plar
y Im
plem
enta
tion
Profi
cien
t
Clos
e to
Pro
ficie
nt
(Ski
ll is
em
ergi
ng,
but n
ot y
et to
pr
ofici
ency
. Coa
chin
g is
reco
mm
ende
d.)
Far f
rom
Pro
ficie
nt
(Fol
low
-up
prof
essi
onal
de
velo
pmen
t an
d co
achi
ng a
re
criti
cal.)
1Ed
ucat
ors d
evel
op
clea
r and
mea
ning
ful
lear
ning
targ
ets t
o gu
ide
inst
ructi
on a
nd
stud
ent l
earn
ing.
Mee
t 5/6
crit
eria
:•
Lear
ning
targ
et is
cle
arly
con
nect
ed to
an
ess
entia
l lea
rnin
g in
the
dom
ain.
•
Lear
ning
targ
et d
evel
ops d
eep
unde
rsta
ndin
g of
und
erly
ing
conc
epts
an
d/or
acq
uisiti
on o
f ski
lls.
• Le
arni
ng ta
rget
cle
arly
eng
ages
hig
her
orde
r thi
nkin
g pr
oces
ses.
•
Lear
ning
targ
et is
cle
arly
man
agea
ble
and
can
be a
ccom
plish
ed in
the
cour
se
of a
less
on o
r uni
t (m
ay b
e se
vera
l pe
riods
). •
Lear
ning
targ
et is
cle
arly
exp
lain
ed to
st
uden
ts.
• Co
nnec
tions
bet
wee
n cu
rren
t lea
rnin
g ta
rget
and
prio
r lea
rnin
g ar
e cl
early
m
ade.
4/6
crite
ria a
re m
et in
clud
ing:
• Le
arni
ng ta
rget
is c
lear
ly c
onne
cted
to
an e
ssen
tial l
earn
ing
in th
e do
mai
n.
3/6
crite
ria a
re m
et
incl
udin
g:•
Lear
ning
targ
et is
cl
early
con
nect
ed to
an
ess
entia
l lea
rnin
g in
the
dom
ain.
Few
er th
an 3
of t
he
crite
ria a
re m
et.
2Ed
ucat
ors e
stab
lish
clea
r and
mea
sura
ble
stud
ent s
ucce
ss c
riter
ia
in a
rubr
ic, s
corin
g gu
ide,
or c
heck
list.
Mee
t 4/5
crit
eria
.•
Succ
ess c
riter
ia a
re c
lear
ly a
nd
effec
tivel
y al
igne
d to
lear
ning
targ
ets.
•
Succ
ess c
riter
ia c
lear
ly a
nd e
ffecti
vely
re
late
to w
hat s
tude
nts w
ill sa
y, do
, m
ake
or w
rite
to sh
ow e
vide
nce
of
lear
ning
. •
Succ
ess c
riter
ia c
lear
ly a
nd e
ffecti
vely
re
flect
way
s for
stud
ents
to in
dica
te
thei
r cur
rent
stat
us re
lativ
e to
the
lear
ning
targ
ets.
•
Succ
ess c
riter
ia a
re c
omm
unic
ated
in
lang
uage
stud
ent c
an fu
lly u
nder
stan
d.
• Su
cces
s crit
eria
are
freq
uent
ly re
ferr
ed
to d
urin
g th
e le
arni
ng p
roce
ss.
3/5
crite
ria a
re m
et in
clud
ing:
• Su
cces
s crit
eria
are
cle
arly
and
eff
ectiv
ely
alig
ned
to le
arni
ng ta
rget
s.
• Su
cces
s crit
eria
cle
arly
and
effe
ctive
ly
rela
te to
wha
t stu
dent
s will
say,
do,
mak
e or
writ
e to
show
evi
denc
e of
le
arni
ng.
The
follo
win
g cr
iteria
ar
e m
et:
• Su
cces
s crit
eria
ar
e cl
early
and
eff
ectiv
ely
alig
ned
to
lear
ning
targ
ets.
•
Succ
ess c
riter
ia
clea
rly a
nd
effec
tivel
y re
late
to
wha
t stu
dent
s w
ill sa
y, do
, mak
e or
writ
e to
show
ev
iden
ce o
f lea
rnin
g.
Few
er th
an 2
of t
he
crite
ria a
re m
et.
Missouri Department of Elementary and Secondary Education (DESE)May 2017 (Version 1.0) 15
3Ed
ucat
ors c
onst
ruct
an
d/or
use
qua
lity
asse
ssm
ent i
nstr
umen
ts
whi
ch a
re o
f sou
nd
desig
n an
d m
easu
re th
e le
arni
ng ta
rget
s.
Mee
t 4/5
crit
eria
:Fo
rmati
ve a
sses
smen
ts:
• ar
e us
ed to
col
lect
dat
a on
stud
ent
lear
ning
dur
ing
the
lear
ning
pro
cess
.•
are
fully
alig
ned
with
the
lear
ning
ta
rget
and
succ
ess c
riter
ia.
• ar
e cl
early
app
ropr
iate
for t
he p
urpo
se
of g
ener
ating
dat
a in
rela
tion
to th
e su
cces
s crit
eria
. •
are
cons
isten
tly a
nd st
rate
gica
lly
plac
ed d
urin
g th
e co
urse
of t
he
lear
ning
pro
cess
.•
pro
vide
opp
ortu
nitie
s for
stud
ents
to
clea
rly sh
ow w
here
they
are
in re
latio
n to
mas
tery
of t
he le
arni
ng ta
rget
.
3/5
crite
ria a
re m
et in
clud
ing:
• Fo
rmati
ve a
sses
smen
ts a
re u
sed
to c
olle
ct d
ata
on st
uden
t lea
rnin
g du
ring
the
lear
ning
pro
cess
.
2/5
crite
ria a
re m
et
incl
udin
g:•
Form
ative
as
sess
men
ts a
re
used
to c
olle
ct d
ata
on st
uden
t lea
rnin
g du
ring
the
lear
ning
pr
oces
s.
Few
er th
an 2
of t
he
crite
ria a
re m
et.
4Ed
ucat
ors u
se
asse
ssm
ent d
ata
to im
prov
e st
uden
t le
arni
ng.
Mee
t 3 o
f the
follo
win
g cr
iteria
.•
The
teac
hers
’ dec
ision
s abo
ut n
ext
step
s are
com
plet
ely
base
d on
ev
iden
ce.
• Th
e te
ache
r tak
es c
lear
ly a
ppro
pria
te
actio
n ba
sed
on e
vide
nce
(e.g
., to
co
ntinu
e as
pla
nned
, sca
ffold
, giv
e st
uden
t fee
dbac
k, sh
ift fo
cus)
. •
The
teac
her f
eedb
ack
to st
uden
ts
is cl
early
alig
ned
with
the
lear
ning
ta
rget
and
succ
ess c
riter
ia.
2/3
of th
e cr
iteria
are
met
incl
udin
g:•
The
teac
hers
’ dec
ision
s abo
ut n
ext
step
s are
com
plet
ely
base
d on
ev
iden
ce.
The
follo
win
g cr
iteria
ar
e m
et:
• Th
e te
ache
rs’
deci
sions
abo
ut n
ext
step
s are
com
plet
ely
base
d on
evi
denc
e.
No
crite
ria a
re m
et.
Missouri Department of Elementary and Secondary Education (DESE)May 2017 (Version 1.0)16
Deve
lopi
ng A
sses
smen
t Cap
able
Lea
rner
sPr
actic
e Pr
ofile
Esse
ntial
Fun
ction
Exem
plar
y Im
plem
enta
tion
Profi
cien
t
Clos
e to
Pro
ficie
nt
(Ski
ll is
em
ergi
ng, b
ut n
ot y
et
to p
rofic
ienc
y. C
oach
ing
is
reco
mm
ende
d.)
Far f
rom
Pro
ficie
nt
(Fol
low
-up
prof
essi
onal
de
velo
pmen
t and
co
achi
ng a
re c
ritica
l.)1
Educ
ator
s te
ach
stud
ents
to
det
erm
ine,
“W
here
am
I Go
ing?
”
Whe
n te
achi
ng st
uden
ts to
dev
elop
lear
ning
go
als,
5/5
crit
eria
occ
ur:
Educ
ator
:•
writ
es d
aily
targ
ets u
sing
stud
ent-f
riend
ly
lang
uage
, usin
g “I
can
___
_,”
or “
I kno
w
____
” st
atem
ents
• cr
eate
s dai
ly o
ppor
tuni
ties f
or st
uden
ts to
us
e or
inte
ract
with
lear
ning
targ
ets
• de
velo
ps ru
bric
or s
corin
g gu
ide
for
appr
opria
te a
ssig
nmen
ts a
nd p
rovi
des
mul
tiple
opp
ortu
nitie
s for
stud
ents
to
use/
inte
ract
with
the
rubr
ic/s
corin
g gu
ide
durin
g th
e le
arni
ng•
anal
yzes
sam
ple
wor
k w
ith th
e st
uden
ts
usin
g st
rong
and
wea
k ex
ampl
es a
nd
aski
ng st
uden
ts to
justi
fy th
eir a
naly
ses (
an
on-g
oing
task
thro
ugho
ut le
arni
ng to
cla
rify
misc
once
ption
s)•
asks
stud
ents
to se
t dai
ly g
oals
in re
latio
n to
the
lear
ning
targ
ets
Whe
n te
achi
ng st
uden
ts to
de
term
ine
lear
ning
goa
ls, 4
/5
crite
ria o
ccur
and
mus
t inc
lude
:Ed
ucat
or:
• w
rites
dai
ly ta
rget
s usin
g st
uden
t-frie
ndly
lang
uage
, usin
g “I
can
___
_,”
or “
I kno
w _
___”
st
atem
ents
• cr
eate
s dai
ly o
ppor
tuni
ties f
or
stud
ents
to u
se o
r int
erac
t with
le
arni
ng ta
rget
s•
asks
stud
ents
to se
t dai
ly g
oals
in re
latio
n to
the
lear
ning
ta
rget
s
Whe
n te
achi
ng st
uden
ts to
de
term
ine
lear
ning
goa
ls,
3/5
crite
ria o
ccur
and
mus
t in
clud
e:Ed
ucat
or:
• w
rites
dai
ly ta
rget
s usin
g st
uden
t-frie
ndly
lang
uage
, us
ing
“I c
an _
___,
” or
“I
know
___
_” st
atem
ents
• cr
eate
s dai
ly o
ppor
tuni
ties
for s
tude
nts t
o us
e or
in
tera
ct w
ith le
arni
ng
targ
ets
Whe
n te
achi
ng st
uden
ts
to d
eter
min
e le
arni
ng
goal
s, fe
wer
than
3/5
cr
iteria
occ
ur.
Missouri Department of Elementary and Secondary Education (DESE)May 2017 (Version 1.0) 17
2Ed
ucat
ors
teac
h st
uden
ts
to d
eter
min
e,
“Whe
re a
m I
Now
?”
Whe
n te
achi
ng st
uden
ts to
self-
eval
uate
le
arni
ng p
rogr
ess,
5/5
crit
eria
occ
ur:
Educ
ator
:•
prov
ides
des
crip
tive
task
feed
back
to a
ll st
uden
ts th
roug
hout
thei
r lea
rnin
g th
at
clea
rly li
nks t
o le
arni
ng g
oal a
nd su
cces
s cr
iteria
• pr
ovid
es fe
edba
ck a
bout
stre
ngth
s and
off
ers i
nfor
mati
on to
gui
de a
ction
able
im
prov
emen
t to
all s
tude
nts m
ultip
le ti
mes
th
roug
hout
the
lear
ning
pro
cess
• pa
ces i
nstr
uctio
n to
allo
w fo
r fre
quen
t, de
scrip
tive
feed
back
to a
ll st
uden
ts a
nd
allo
ws ti
me
for s
tude
nts t
o ac
t on
the
feed
back
rece
ived
• as
ks st
uden
ts to
self-
regu
late
by
asse
ssin
g th
eir o
wn
prog
ress
and
justi
fyin
g th
eir
asse
ssm
ents
mul
tiple
tim
es th
roug
hout
the
lear
ning
pro
cess
• in
stru
cts s
tude
nts t
o se
t per
sona
l goa
ls ba
sed
on fe
edba
ck a
nd se
lf-as
sess
men
t
Whe
n te
achi
ng st
uden
ts to
self-
eval
uate
lear
ning
pro
gres
s, 4
/5
crite
ria o
ccur
.
Whe
n te
achi
ng st
uden
ts
to se
lf-ev
alua
te le
arni
ng
prog
ress
, 3/5
crit
eria
occ
ur.
Whe
n te
achi
ng st
uden
ts
to se
lf-ev
alua
te le
arni
ng
prog
ress
, few
er th
an
3/5
crite
ria o
ccur
.
3Ed
ucat
ors
teac
h st
uden
ts
to d
eter
min
e,
“How
do
I Clo
se
the
Gap?
”
Whe
n te
achi
ng st
uden
ts to
iden
tify
next
st
eps i
n le
arni
ng, 4
/4 c
riter
ia o
ccur
:Ed
ucat
or
• as
sists
eac
h st
uden
t in
dete
rmin
ing
wha
t m
ight
be
som
e of
the
next
inst
ructi
onal
st
eps f
or th
e in
divi
dual
.•
pace
s ins
truc
tion
to a
llow
for t
he fe
edba
ck
loop
and
focu
sed
stud
ent r
evisi
on.
• pr
ovid
es o
ppor
tuni
ties f
or st
uden
ts to
self-
refle
ct a
nd d
ocum
ent t
heir
lear
ning
.•
prov
ides
opp
ortu
nitie
s for
stud
ents
to
shar
e th
eir l
earn
ing.
Whe
n te
achi
ng st
uden
ts to
id
entif
y ne
xt st
eps i
n le
arni
ng, 3
/4
crite
ria o
ccur
.
Whe
n te
achi
ng st
uden
ts to
id
entif
y ne
xt st
eps i
n le
arni
ng,
2/4
crite
ria o
ccur
.
Whe
n te
achi
ng st
uden
ts
to id
entif
y ne
xt st
eps i
n le
arni
ng, f
ewer
than
2
crite
ria o
ccur
.
Missouri Department of Elementary and Secondary Education (DESE)May 2017 (Version 1.0)18
Met
acog
nitio
nPr
actic
e Pr
ofile
Foun
datio
ns p
rese
nt in
the
impl
emen
tatio
n of
eac
h es
senti
al fu
nctio
n: C
omm
itmen
t to
the
succ
ess o
f all
stud
ents
and
to im
prov
ing
the
qual
ity o
f ins
truc
tion.
Esse
ntial
Fun
ction
Exem
plar
y Im
plem
enta
tion
Profi
cien
t
Clos
e to
Pro
ficie
nt
(Ski
ll is
em
ergi
ng, b
ut n
ot y
et
to p
rofic
ienc
y. C
oach
ing
is
reco
mm
ende
d.)
Far f
rom
Pro
ficie
nt
(Fol
low
-up
prof
essi
onal
de
velo
pmen
t and
co
achi
ng a
re c
ritica
l.)1
Educ
ator
s de
velo
p m
etac
ogni
tion
in
lear
ners
Educ
ator
impl
emen
ts a
ll pr
ofici
ent i
tem
s and
has
in
tegr
ated
met
acog
nitiv
e pr
actic
es w
ith a
sses
smen
t ca
pabl
e le
arne
rs a
nd fe
edba
ck
prac
tices
.
Whe
n pr
esen
ting
stud
ents
with
a ta
sk,
the
educ
ator
mee
ts a
ll th
e fo
llow
ing
crite
ria.
Mod
elin
g pr
actic
es•
Mod
els m
etac
ogni
tive
prac
tices
by
talk
ing
abou
t thi
nkin
g an
d le
arni
ng
in g
ener
al a
nd sp
ecifi
cally
talk
ing
abou
t one
’s ow
n th
inki
ng a
nd
lear
ning
.•
Mod
els m
etac
ogni
tive
prac
tices
be
fore
, dur
ing
and
after
lear
ning
.
Prov
idin
g op
port
uniti
es fo
r stu
dent
s•
Prov
ides
opp
ortu
nity
for s
tude
nts
to th
ink
abou
t the
bes
t way
to
appr
oach
the
task
or a
ccom
plish
the
lear
ning
targ
et a
nd c
onne
ct to
prio
r ex
perie
nces
. •
Prov
ides
opp
ortu
nity
for s
tude
nts
to m
onito
r pro
gres
s in
rela
tion
to
lear
ning
targ
et a
nd su
cces
s crit
eria
. •
Prov
ides
stud
ents
opp
ortu
nity
to
dete
rmin
e if
lear
ning
targ
et w
as
met
and
refle
ct o
n w
hat w
ent w
ell,
wha
t did
not
go
wel
l, an
d w
hat t
o do
diff
eren
tly n
ext ti
me.
Whe
n pr
esen
ting
stud
ents
with
a
task
, the
edu
cato
r add
ress
es e
ither
m
odel
ing
prac
tices
or p
rovi
ding
st
uden
ts o
ppor
tuni
ties t
o pr
actic
e m
etac
ogni
tion,
but
bot
h ar
e no
t oc
curr
ing.
Whe
n pr
esen
ting
stud
ents
with
a ta
sk,
the
educ
ator
add
ress
es
neith
er m
odel
s m
etac
ogni
tive
prac
tices
no
r pro
vide
s stu
dent
s op
port
uniti
es to
pra
ctice
m
etac
ogni
tion.
Missouri Department of Elementary and Secondary Education (DESE)May 2017 (Version 1.0) 19
Missouri Department of Elementary and Secondary Education (DESE)May 2017 (Version 1.0)20
Beco
min
g an
Inst
ructi
onal
Lea
der i
n Yo
ur B
uild
ing
Prac
tice
Profi
leFo
unda
tions
pre
sent
in th
e im
plem
enta
tion
of e
ach
esse
ntial
func
tion:
Com
mitm
ent t
o th
e su
cces
s of a
ll st
uden
ts a
nd to
impr
ovin
g th
e qu
ality
of i
nstr
uctio
n.
Esse
ntial
Fun
ction
Exem
plar
y Im
plem
enta
tion
Profi
cien
t
Clos
e to
Pro
ficie
nt
(Ski
ll is
em
ergi
ng, b
ut n
ot y
et
to p
rofic
ienc
y. C
oach
ing
is
reco
mm
ende
d.)
Far f
rom
Pro
ficie
nt
(Fol
low
-up
prof
essi
onal
de
velo
pmen
t and
coa
chin
g ar
e cr
itica
l.)1
A co
llabo
rativ
e cu
lture
and
cl
imat
e is
visib
le th
roug
h th
e st
uden
ts,
teac
hers
, and
ad
min
istra
tors
.
The
scho
ol le
ader
ship
pro
vide
s a
supp
ortiv
e en
viro
nmen
t tha
t in
clud
es a
ll of
the
profi
cien
t cr
iteria
, plu
s mee
ts 3
/4 o
f the
fo
llow
ing:
• di
scov
erin
g an
d de
velo
ping
the
capa
city
in st
aff
• cr
eatin
g a
new
par
adig
m/v
ision
fo
r sch
ool c
ultu
re•
prom
oting
incl
usio
n fo
r all
• m
odel
ing
an a
ttitu
de o
f ser
ving
The
scho
ol le
ader
ship
pro
vide
s a
supp
ortiv
e en
viro
nmen
t tha
t in
clud
es 4
/5 c
riter
ia.
• Sa
fe e
nviro
nmen
t for
all
as
evid
ence
d by
feel
ings
of t
rust
, re
spec
t, an
d co
mm
unic
ation
.•
Teac
hers
hel
p ea
ch o
ther
, in
clud
ing
on-g
oing
trai
ning
.•
Teac
hers
supp
ort a
ll st
uden
ts in
ev
ery
clas
sroo
m.
• Th
e sc
hool
is c
ultu
rally
resp
onsiv
e in
a w
ay th
at is
mul
tidim
ensio
nal,
empo
wer
ing
and
tran
sfor
mati
ve.
• A
build
ing
lead
ersh
ip te
am is
es
tabl
ished
and
of h
igh
qual
ity a
s ev
iden
ced
thou
gh m
embe
r rol
es,
team
func
tion
and
norm
s, a
nd
reco
rds o
f mee
tings
.
The
scho
ol le
ader
ship
has
a sc
hool
en
viro
nmen
t tha
t inc
lude
s at l
east
3/
5 pr
ofici
ent c
riter
ia.
The
scho
ol le
ader
ship
ha
s a sc
hool
env
ironm
ent
with
few
er th
an 3
of t
he
profi
cien
t crit
eria
.
2Le
ader
ship
su
ppor
ts
and
ensu
res
that
teac
hing
an
d le
arni
ng
prac
tices
eng
age
all s
tude
nts
in m
eani
ngfu
l le
arni
ng.
Sele
ct a
nd im
plem
ent e
vide
nce-
base
d eff
ectiv
e m
etho
ds th
at:
• ar
e no
t con
tent
rela
ted,
• ar
e tie
d to
teac
her s
tand
ards
,•
are
impl
emen
ted
with
fide
lity,
an
d•
info
rm d
ecisi
ons o
f pro
gres
s th
roug
h re
gula
rly sc
hedu
led
form
ative
ass
essm
ents
sele
cted
by
app
ropr
iate
team
s.
Sele
ct a
nd im
plem
ent e
vide
nce-
base
d eff
ectiv
e m
etho
ds th
at:
• ar
e no
t con
tent
rela
ted,
•
are
tied
to te
ache
r sta
ndar
ds,
• ar
e im
plem
ente
d w
ith fi
delit
y, a
nd
• in
form
dec
ision
s of p
rogr
ess
thro
ugh
asse
ssm
ent m
etho
ds
sele
cted
by
the
inst
ruct
or.
Sele
ct a
nd im
plem
ent e
vide
nce-
base
d eff
ectiv
e m
etho
ds th
at:
• ar
e no
t con
tent
rela
ted,
•
stat
e ar
e im
plem
ente
d w
ith
fidel
ity, a
nd
• in
form
dec
ision
s of p
rogr
ess
thro
ugh
asse
ssm
ent m
etho
ds
sele
cted
by
the
inst
ruct
or.
Sele
ct a
nd im
plem
ent
evid
ence
-bas
ed e
ffecti
ve
met
hods
that
: •
may
or m
ay n
ot b
e co
nten
t rel
ated
, •
are
impl
emen
ted
with
fid
elity
, and
•
info
rm d
ecisi
ons o
f pr
ogre
ss th
roug
h as
sess
men
t met
hods
se
lect
ed b
y th
e in
stru
ctor
.
Missouri Department of Elementary and Secondary Education (DESE)May 2017 (Version 1.0) 21
3Le
ader
s dev
elop
te
ache
r cap
acity
to
use
form
ative
as
sess
men
t th
roug
h su
ppor
tive
data
clim
ates
fa
cilit
ating
the
use
of fo
rmati
ve
data
.
Lead
ers w
ork
with
teac
her t
eam
s to
sele
ct a
nd/o
r cre
ate
rese
arch
-ba
sed
form
ative
ass
essm
ent
met
hods
that
incl
ude:
• cl
early
defi
ned
outc
omes
, •
a pr
oble
m-s
olvi
ng m
odel
, •
stru
ctur
ed a
sses
smen
t crit
eria
, an
d •
sele
cted
and
con
stru
cted
re
spon
ses.
Lead
ers w
ork
with
teac
her’s
on
rese
arch
-bas
ed fo
rmati
ve
asse
ssm
ent m
etho
ds th
at in
clud
e
3/4
crite
ria:
• cl
early
defi
ned
outc
omes
, •
a pr
oble
m-s
olvi
ng m
odel
, •
stru
ctur
ed a
sses
smen
t crit
eria
, an
d •
sele
cted
and
con
stru
cted
re
spon
ses.
Lead
ers d
esig
nate
sele
ct te
ache
rs
to d
evel
op re
sear
ch-b
ased
fo
rmati
ve a
sses
smen
t met
hods
th
at in
clud
e 2/
4 of
the
follo
win
g:•
clea
rly d
efine
d ou
tcom
es,
• a
prob
lem
-sol
ving
mod
el,
• st
ruct
ured
ass
essm
ent c
riter
ia,
and
• se
lect
ed a
nd c
onst
ruct
ed
resp
onse
s.
Lead
ers h
ave
little
un
ders
tand
ing
and
know
ledg
e of
for
mati
ve
asse
ssm
ent m
etho
ds th
at
incl
ude
one
or n
one
of th
e fo
llow
ing:
• cl
early
defi
ned
outc
omes
, •
a pr
oble
m-s
olvi
ng m
odel
, •
stru
ctur
ed a
sses
smen
t cr
iteria
, and
•
sele
cted
and
con
stru
cted
re
spon
ses.
4Le
ader
s ini
tiate
ev
iden
ce-b
ased
de
cisio
ns a
nd
proc
esse
s th
at fo
cus o
n ou
tcom
es.
Lead
ersh
ip te
ams e
stab
lish
syst
ems t
o su
ppor
t fre
quen
t an
d re
gula
rly sc
hedu
led
team
-ba
sed
deci
sion-
mak
ing
that
are
lin
ked
to m
ultip
le le
vels
of d
ata
and
esta
blish
prio
rities
(suc
h as
kn
owle
dge,
tim
e, e
valu
ation
, and
re
sour
ces)
for t
he sc
hool
yea
r.
Lead
ers e
stab
lish
syst
ems t
o su
ppor
t re
gula
r tea
m-b
ased
dec
ision
-mak
ing
that
are
link
ed to
mul
tiple
leve
ls of
dat
a an
d es
tabl
ish 2
or m
ore
prio
rities
(suc
h as
kno
wle
dge,
tim
e,
eval
uatio
n, a
nd re
sour
ces)
for t
he
scho
ol y
ear.
Lead
ers o
vers
ee sy
stem
s of
deci
sion-
mak
ing
that
are
link
ed
to o
ne o
r mor
e le
vels
of d
ata
and
esta
blish
prio
rities
(suc
h as
kn
owle
dge,
tim
e, e
valu
ation
, and
re
sour
ces)
for t
he sc
hool
yea
r.
Ther
e is
no sy
stem
in p
lace
fo
r tea
m-b
ased
dec
ision
-m
akin
g.
Missouri Department of Elementary and Secondary Education (DESE)May 2017 (Version 1.0)22
Scho
ol-B
ased
Impl
emen
tatio
n Co
achi
ngPr
actic
e Pr
ofile
Fo
unda
tions
pre
sent
in th
e im
plem
enta
tion
of e
ach
esse
ntial
func
tion:
Com
mitm
ent t
o th
e su
cces
s of a
ll st
uden
ts a
nd to
impr
ovin
g th
e qu
ality
of i
nstr
uctio
n.
Esse
ntial
Fun
ction
Exem
plar
y Im
plem
enta
tion
Profi
cien
t
Clos
e to
Pro
ficie
nt
(Ski
ll is
em
ergi
ng, b
ut n
ot y
et
to p
rofic
ienc
y. C
oach
ing
is
reco
mm
ende
d.)
Far f
rom
Pro
ficie
nt
(Fol
low
-up
prof
essi
onal
de
velo
pmen
t and
coa
chin
g ar
e cr
itica
l.)1
Deve
lopi
ng a
nd
mai
ntai
ning
co
achi
ng
rela
tions
hips
.
At th
e be
ginn
ing
of th
e co
achi
ng re
latio
nshi
p, th
e ed
ucat
or-c
oach
: •
desc
ribes
the
coac
hing
pro
cess
and
exp
ecta
tions
for t
he
educ
ator
-coa
ch a
nd c
oach
ed e
duca
tor
• po
ses q
uesti
ons a
nd li
sten
s to
the
coac
hed
educ
ator
des
crib
e cu
rren
t tea
chin
g su
cces
ses a
nd c
halle
nges
•
expl
ains
that
con
fiden
tialit
y w
ill b
e m
aint
aine
d
At th
e be
ginn
ing
of th
e co
achi
ng
rela
tions
hip,
the
educ
ator
-coa
ch
• de
scrib
es th
e co
achi
ng p
roce
ss
and
expe
ctati
ons f
or th
e ed
ucat
or-c
oach
and
coa
ched
ed
ucat
or
• po
ses q
uesti
ons b
ut d
oes n
ot
liste
n to
the
coac
hed
educ
ator
de
scrib
e cu
rren
t tea
chin
g su
cces
ses a
nd c
halle
nges
•
confi
denti
ality
is n
ot a
ddre
ssed
.
Coac
hes d
o no
t tak
e tim
e to
dev
elop
pos
itive
, pr
ofes
siona
l rel
ation
ship
s w
ith th
e bu
ildin
g ed
ucat
ors
as th
ey ta
ke o
n th
e fu
nctio
ns o
f sch
ool b
ased
im
plem
enta
tion
coac
h.
2Fa
cilit
ating
the
impr
ovem
ent
proc
ess.
The
educ
ator
-coa
ch su
ppor
ts th
e co
ache
d-ed
ucat
or to
lear
n an
d im
plem
ent n
ew te
achi
ng/le
arni
ng p
racti
ces b
y:
• ad
dres
sing
coac
hed
educ
ator
feel
ings
of b
eing
ove
rwhe
lmed
w
ith th
e im
plem
enta
tion
proc
ess b
y br
eaki
ng d
own
the
step
s or
met
hods
of i
mpl
emen
tatio
n in
to m
anag
eabl
e un
its•
givi
ng ra
tiona
le fo
r the
impo
rtan
ce o
f im
plem
entin
g th
e te
achi
ng/le
arni
ng p
racti
ce
• att
aini
ng v
erba
l com
mitm
ent f
rom
the
coac
hed
educ
ator
to
enga
ge in
the
coac
hing
rela
tions
hip
and
impr
ove
impl
emen
tatio
n of
teac
hing
/lear
ning
pra
ctice
s
The
educ
ator
coa
ch su
ppor
ts th
e co
ache
d ed
ucat
or a
t a m
oder
ate
to m
inim
al le
vel b
y:•
addr
essin
g co
ache
d ed
ucat
or
feel
ings
of b
eing
ove
rwhe
lmed
w
ith th
e im
plem
enta
tion
proc
ess b
y cr
eatin
g an
aw
aren
ess o
f the
step
s or
met
hods
of i
mpl
emen
tatio
n•
stati
ng th
e im
port
ance
of
impl
emen
ting
the
teac
hing
/le
arni
ng p
racti
ce w
ithou
t pr
ovid
ing
ratio
nale
exp
lain
ing
why
•
assu
min
g th
at th
ere
is a
com
mitm
ent f
rom
the
coac
hed
educ
ator
to e
ngag
e in
the
coac
hing
rela
tions
hip
and
impr
ove
impl
emen
tatio
n of
te
achi
ng/le
arni
ng p
racti
ces
The
educ
ator
-coa
ch
initi
ates
a c
oach
ing
rela
tions
hip
but d
oes n
ot
follo
w-t
hrou
gh.
Missouri Department of Elementary and Secondary Education (DESE)May 2017 (Version 1.0) 23
3Co
mm
unic
ating
in
a ti
mel
y an
d re
spon
sive
man
ner.
The
educ
ator
-coa
ch:
• us
es a
var
iety
of m
etho
ds (e
.g. e
mai
l, ph
one,
in p
erso
n, a
nd
vide
o co
nfer
ence
) for
che
ckin
g in
on
the
stat
us o
f pra
ctice
im
plem
enta
tion
with
the
educ
ator
(s)
• re
ques
ts a
nd is
resp
onsiv
e to
feed
back
from
the
coac
hed
educ
ator
abo
ut th
e co
achi
ng e
xper
ienc
e •
is re
spon
sive
to in
form
ation
nee
ds a
nd q
uesti
ons i
n a
timel
y m
anne
r, ex
plic
itly
and
mut
ually
agr
eed
upon
with
the
coac
hed-
educ
ator
(e.g
. Bot
h pa
rties
dec
ide
that
resp
ondi
ng w
ithin
m
utua
lly d
eter
min
ed n
umbe
r of d
ays i
s mos
t hel
pful
and
fe
asib
le)
The
educ
ator
-coa
ch:
• re
lies o
n on
ly o
ne fo
rm o
f co
mm
unic
ation
for c
heck
ing
in o
n th
e st
atus
of p
racti
ce
impl
emen
tatio
n w
ith th
e ed
ucat
or(s
). •
is in
cons
isten
t and
un
pred
icta
ble
in re
spon
ding
an
d pr
ovid
ing
feed
back
to
coac
hed
educ
ator
s’ in
form
ation
ne
eds a
nd q
uesti
ons
• Pr
ovid
es c
oach
ing
conv
ersa
tions
an
d/or
feed
back
that
are
one
-sid
ed a
nd d
irecti
ve, d
o no
t bui
ld
on th
e st
reng
ths o
f the
coa
ched
ed
ucat
or a
nd a
re n
ot so
lutio
n dr
iven
.
The
educ
ator
-coa
ch
over
look
s the
nee
d fo
r co
nsist
ent a
nd o
ngoi
ng
com
mun
icati
on a
nd/o
r fe
edba
ck w
ith c
oach
ed
educ
ator
s.
4En
gagi
ng in
so
lutio
n-dr
iven
di
alog
ue.
The
educ
ator
-coa
ch:
• fa
cilit
ates
ong
oing
coa
chin
g co
nver
satio
ns th
at b
uild
on
the
stre
ngth
s of t
he c
oach
ed e
duca
tor a
nd is
solu
tion-
driv
en.
• pr
ovid
es fe
edba
ck b
ased
on
dire
ct o
bser
vatio
ns
• po
ses r
eflec
tive
ques
tion
on “
wha
t is w
orki
ng”
and
“w
hat i
s not
w
orki
ng”
• re
view
s dat
a w
ith th
e co
ache
d ed
ucat
or a
nd u
ses d
ata
to d
esig
n ne
xt st
eps a
nd fr
ame
reco
mm
enda
tions
.
The
educ
ator
-coa
ch:
• w
ithou
t reg
ard
for s
tren
gths
, fo
cuse
s too
ofte
n on
the
coac
hed-
educ
ator
’s w
eakn
esse
s or
the
way
s in
whi
ch
impl
emen
tatio
n w
as p
oor o
r in
accu
rate
• pr
ovid
es fe
edba
ck w
ithou
t or
with
min
imal
dire
ct o
bser
vatio
n•
does
not
eng
age
in re
flecti
ve
ques
tioni
ng•
revi
ews d
ata
with
out u
sing
it to
in
form
nex
t ste
ps
The
educ
ator
-coa
ch is
ne
gativ
e an
d/or
doe
s not
ac
tivel
y en
gage
with
the
coac
hed
educ
ator
.
Effective Teaching and Learning for ALL studentsMissouri Model Districts
Top Related