Winter 2014

Vol. 9, No. 2 Winter 2014

Principal Navigator The magazine of the Ohio Association of Elementary School Administrators serving Ohio’s pre-k, elementary, middle level, and central office administrators

Higher Expectations for All:

Focus on the Common Core

T

2 age 3of the p o t urn ults

s the re you took d a e r y e ut to S surv and find o to E T O 2013 going in fall AESA is m!

O what o with the d

with

presents

LITERACY

LIVE

57th Annual Professional Conference & Trade Show Live from Kalahari Resort in Sandusky, OH June 17 - 18, 2014

Save the Date & Bring Your Teachers Register today! As an alternative form of payment for yourself and your teachers, use your Scholastic Dollars™ from Scholastic Book Fairs held at your school.

For more information and to register, visit oaesa.org/professional_conference.asp

We invite you to share YOUR professional experiences, observations, and research with your colleagues by writing an article for the Principal Navigator magazine.

We are currently looking for articles on the following topics: Spring 2014 Issue Literacy March 15, 2014 This upcoming spring, the magazine will center on the importance of all aspects of literacy and will serve as a precursor to OAESA’s 57th Annual Professional Conference & Trade Show, which has the theme of “Literacy Live” in June 2014.

To submit an article, email navigator@oaesa.org for guidelines.

Thank you for your contributions!

We could not produce this magazine without them!

Vol. 9, No. 2 Winter 2014

Principal Navigator

The magazine of the Ohio Association of Elementary School Administrators serving Ohio’s pre-k, elementary, middle level, and central office administrators

Feature Articles 6 Collaborating to Meet the Common Core Listening/Speaking Standards

by Amy Kramer

14

Remember Where You Came From: Ten Principles on Empathy for Aspiring Principals

by Mark Gainer

22

Common Core: Perspective from the Private Sector

by Dr. Jim Rigg

26

Top Ten Ways to Ensure Core Readiness For All Students

by Pam Allyn

Table of Contents 3

Executive Director’s Exchange

by Julie Davis, EdD

5

Letter to the Editor

8

SAIL for Education Ohio Instructional Leadership Academy

by Donna Ball

10

Highlighting a PrinciPAL Dr. Christina Russo

13

Central Office Connection Understanding the edTPA

by Dr. Jim Wightman

16

OAESA Board of Directors

18

OAESA Chalkboard: News from the Association

20

Middle School Matters Ohio School of Character Award

by Dr. Lucy Frontera

24

Elementary Essentials Ohio Ready School Fall Seminar a Big Success

by Zana Vincent

Legal Report Ohio Supreme Court Tackles a Controversial Termination Case

by Dennis Pergram, esq.

30

Health Issues Achieving Student Success Through Quality School Health Services

by Angela Norton and Dawn Abbott

32

Legislative Report Survey Says...

by D. Mark Jones

36

I Like What OTES is Doing for Me...

I Just Don’t Like What It Is Doing to Me!

by Ken Pease

37

Common Core Shifts in Language Arts & Mathematics

39

Useful Resources for Understanding the Common Core

40

Sorry...We’re BOOKED

42

New Members

44

Cheryl Montag Named Ohio’s 2013–14 National Distinguished Principal

28

is proud to be sponsored by the following:

Corporate Members

GOLD

PLATINUM “Exclusive” Members

The Chaddock Group Concordia University Chicago eDoctrina The Horace Mann Companies Ohio Tuition Trust Authority

Members

Bowling Green State University Interactive Achievement

SILVER Members

Amplify Learning California Casualty’s A+ Auto & Home Insurance Lexia Learning Systems Mayerson Academy Rowland Reading Foundation

BRONZE Members

Franklin-Covey Martin Public Seating, Inc.

Our promise: To support those who support our children.

That’s why we’re working with OAESA to provide access to auto and home insurance designed exclusively for you and your fellow school administrators.

For a free coverage comparison,

Auto and Home Insurance ®

2 w Principal Navigator

call 1-866-680-5141 or visit www.CalCas.com/OAESA

Principal Navigator OAESA Board of Directors President, Elizabeth DiDonato, Claymont City Past President, Jeromey Sheets, EdD, Lancaster City President-Elect, Kevin Gehres, Van Wert City NAESP Representative, Kenneth Bernacki, West Geauga Local Zone 1 Director, Teresa Snider, Vinton County Local Zone 2 Director, Sean McCauley, EdD, Cincinnati City Zone 3 Director, Stephanie Klingshirn, Mississinawa Valley Zone 4 Director, Heidi Kegley, Delaware City Zone 5 Director, Troy Armstrong, Wauseon Exempted Village Zone 6 Director, Erin Simpson, Wadsworth City Zone 7 Director, Gretchen Liggens, Cleveland Metropolitan Zone 8 Director, David Rogaliner, Chardon Schools Zone 9 Director, Cynthia Brown, Jackson Local Zone 10 Director, Timothy Barton, South-Western City Middle School Rep., Barbara Werstler, Twinsburg City Central Office Rep., Daniel Graves, Columbus City Assistant Principal Rep., Amanda Albert, Northmor Local

Editorial Committee Jeromey Sheets, EdD, Lancaster City, chair Keith Helmlinger, Sidney City Laurie Vent, Upper Sandusky Exempted Village Tammy Louise Wagner, Carey Exempted Village Dr. Charles Wilkins, retired Paul Young, PhD, retired Stephen Zinser, Cincinnati Archdiocese

OAESA Staff Julie Davis, EdD, Executive Director D. Mark Jones, Associate Executive Director Kathy Windau, Membership Coordinator Audrey Carson,Communications Specialist Nancy Abrams, Business Manager/Admin. Assistant Joanne Turner, Coordinator of Office Operations Abigail Smith, Editor, Principal Navigator Tony Piehowicz, Corporate Membership Advisor

SAIL Staff Tyler Carson, Advisor, SAIL/Univ. Partnerships Melissa Butsko, Advisor, SAIL/Univ. Partnerships Unless otherwise noted, all articles published in the Principal Navigator become the property of OAESA and may not be reprinted without permission. The articles published in the Principal Navigator represent the ideas and/or belief of the authors and do not necessarily express the view of OAESA unless so stated. Advertising inquiries should be addressed to OAESA (Telephone: 614/794-9190, FAX: 614/794-9191, Email: info@oaesa.org).

The Principal Navigator (ISSN 1088-078X) is published three times per school year by the Ohio Association of Elementary School Administrators, 2600 Corporate Exchange Drive, Suite 168, Columbus, OH 43231. Subscriptions are available only as part of membership. Annual membership dues in the Association are $250 of which $30 is for a year’s subscription to Principal Navigator. Periodicals postage paid at Westerville, Ohio and at additional mailing offices.

POSTMASTER: Send address changes to Principal Navigator, Ohio Association of Elementary School Administrators, 2600 Corporate Exchange Drive, Suite 168, Columbus, OH 43231.

Executive Director’s Exchange

by Julie Davis, Ed.D. This issue’s theme of Higher Expectations for All seemed appropriate for the Winter 2014 issue, as we embark upon Ohio’s new learning standards. Adopted by the Ohio State Board of Education in 2010, the new standards for students include the disciplines of science, social studies, English language arts, and math. The English language arts and math standards are called Common Core State Standards because Ohio worked with many other states to develop them, while the science and social studies standards are specific to Ohio.

These new standards focus on developing students’ critical thinking, problem-solving, and writing skills, with an emphasis on skills that are necessary for a successful transition into today’s workforce.

Our new standards emphasize a deeper understanding of materials, rather than basic memorization or test-taking skills. Additionally, the new standards allow teachers to explore fewer topics in more depth. And, proponents claim that our students will be better prepared to work within a global economy.

I have heard some comment that this is a national curriculum. I do not see it that way, as I believe there is a distinct difference between curriculum and standards. A standard represents what students should know and be able to do, while a curriculum is a road map educators use to meet those goals or expectations. In Ohio, local control means just that, and it supports the belief that those closest to the students are best positioned to know how to support their learning. Ohio law specifies that districts, schools, and teachers determine the curriculum through textbook adoption, lesson design, literary texts, and other instructional materials selected or created by teachers and district leadership.

This issue of the Navigator has been written to give you a little more information about the Common Core. Dr. Pam Allyn, one of the authors of the CCSS, has provided us with some useful information on p. 26. Take a look at what Amy Kramer from BGSU has to say about collaboration and the core in her article on p. 6. Also on p. 37 we’re sharing with you some of the basic shifts in the standards followed by resources to help you navigate the Common Core (p. 39). Hopefully you will find something on the following pages to take with you as adopt these new standards in your schools.

That’s not all that’s in this issue, however. We have published the much-anticipated results of our survey about OTES on p. 32. Please check it out and see how your voice is making a difference! And after you’ve finished reading the article about the survey, make sure to look at Ken Pease’s article on p. 36. Ken is serving on an NAESP/NASSP-sponsored committee about evaluation. Read the Letter to the Editor (p. 5) for more information about Ken. Happy 2014! As always, we wish you much success and continued happiness in the new year.

Sincerely, Dr. Julie Davis Executive Director

OAESA is affiliated with the National Association of Elementary School Principals (NAESP).

Winter 2014 w 3

Does Teacher Retention Have Your Attention?

PEaK Online Coaching

revolutionizes how to support your teachers.

State retirement plans are a moving target Horace Mann helps you help your employees. Horace Mann tracks the system for changes. Our agents also offer educator workshops to explain the plan and answer questions.

Give us 20 minutes.

We’ll make your job easier.

To learn more, find your local agent at horacemann.com.

4 w Principal Navigator

• Provides targeted coaching with self-assessments, chats, forums, videos and articles • Enables 24/7 access to

personalized teaching resources through online platform • Facilitates easy access to a personal coach throughout the school week • Eliminates inefficient scheduling and travel time, saving time and money • Reflects research that coaching improves new teacher retention Learn More!

866-709-0735 www.MayersonAcademy.org

Letter to the

Editor Dear Editor,

Dear Editor,

I recently received the call for articles for the upcoming issue of the Principal Navigator (Winter 2014), and I thought of an idea of a possible section that could be included in the magazine that I would be willing to contribute to. OAESA offers an aspiring principal membership but does not have articles focused on those who are yet to become administrators. While the magazine’s content is awesome, I think it would be really beneficial to those who are aspiring principals to have an article to read each month about how the topic relates to aspiring principals and how they can prepare themselves for when they step into the administrator role. As an aspiring principal myself, I am always trying to stay current on topics related to principals and building leadership and feel this would be helpful. I also believe that an article like this each month would also allow current administrators an opportunity to see issues through the eyes of a current teacher.

We’d like to congratulate Ken Pease, principal of Slate Hill Elementary in Worthington Schools, for being selected to serve on the NAESP/NASSP Teacher Evaluation Committee.

In November NAESP/NASSP called for nominees in all grade levels from across the country to be part of the committee, which will work with NAESP/NASSP to examine challenges and discuss solutions to problems facing principals as they roll out the new evaluation systems. Based on these discussions, the committee will then work together to make policy recommendations designed to strengthen systems at the local, state, and national levels.

OAESA nominated Ken, and he is only one of eighteen principals chosen to serve on this committee, which began meeting in December and will continue to meet periodically in upcoming months.

Thank you, Ken, for taking time out of your busy schedule to make a difference and for representing Ohio on this critical matter.

Please let me know your thoughts. I would love to craft up a draft of an article for the upcoming issue if you’d be interested.

Thanks for your time, Mark Gainer, third grade teacher, Cedarville Elementary Dear Mark, Thank you for your excellent idea. I ran it past the Editorial Committee, and everyone was in agreement that we should definitely include articles for aspiring principals. Thank you for sharing your thoughts with us and for submitting an article for this issue.

Sincerely, Abigail Smith Editor Mark’s article is titled “Remember Where You Came From: Ten Principles on Empathy for Aspiring Principals” and can be found on p. 14. Have an idea you’d like to see in the magazine? Drop us a line!

Sincerely, all of us at OAESA Please make sure you check out Ken’s article on p. 36 about his experience with evaluation. And stay tuned to our organization, as we will update you about the committee’s progress throughout the year.

Let Us Know What You Think!

Would you like to share your thoughts with us about this issue? Do you have suggestions for the organization? Or would you like to celebrate a recent success you or a colleague has experienced in the field? Please send us your ideas, preferably in 300 words or less, to navigator@oaesa.org. To be considered for publication, you must include your full name, your title, and the name of your school. We look forward to hearing from you!

Winter 2014 w 5

Collaborating to Meet the Common Core Listening/Speaking Standards

by Amy Kramer Educators everywhere have been preparing for months—some for years.

Now we think we understand the expectations of the Common Core State Standards. Depth over surface teaching, choosing appropriate text complexities, asking students to select their own materials to solve a problem, and using more real-life experiences are all parts of implementing the Common Core. So we are ready to plan out what will make our students college and career ready. Right?

But wait…there’s more? What are these “speaking and listening” standards? Doesn’t it have something to do with, “I speak and the students listen?” Simply put, for our students to be truly college and career ready, we need to shake the old model of “sit-and-get” instruction. Students need to start collaborating and presenting information to others, so they are equipped to compete on a global level. Classrooms come with mixed personalities, beliefs, and cultural backgrounds. To be successful in a diverse world, students need to learn how to collaborate, hold conversations, and engage in healthy debates. These are skills that lots of adults still grapple with, yet now educators are being asked to teach them to students as young as those in kindergarten.

The speaking standards ask students to be able to articulate information learned in an oral fashion, constructing what they want to convey and how they are going to convey it. The listening standards ask students to be able to listen to information that is being presented, carefully extract important details, and pull that new knowledge in with other existing knowledge to create a new repertoire of information. Most of the 6 w Principal Navigator

classroom management considerations will become important with the speaking and collaborative nature of the standards. Keep in mind when it comes to the speaking and listening standards, they should not be taught in isolation. A great opportunity exists within these standards—teachers can (and should) practice the expected skills in a variety of subjects. The principles can be universally applied to a multitude of topics; however, explicit instruction and practice should happen before students are formally assessed.

One particular standard that is common in the primary and intermediate grades is to “follow agreed upon rules for discussion and carry out assigned roles.” Dissecting the standard will reveal that we are really asking our students to be able to accomplish five things: 1) generate and agree upon rules (either as a class before group work begins or each group is responsible for generating the rules, depending on the age and maturity of the students); 2) follow the designated rules; 3) follow social pragmatics for sustaining discussions and conversations; 4) identify roles within the group and carry them out; and 5) develop or increase tolerance for other opinions.

It is obvious that in order for students to be able to meet this and other speaking and learning objectives, there has to be work on the teacher’s end to set the tone for how this will look. Proper planning will yield far better results than thrusting students into groups and expecting collaboration to “just happen.” With this particular standard, as well as for other speaking and listening standards, teachers should slow down and incorporate them over time. Below are some ideas:

1. Teachers will need to collaborate on the speaking and listening standards and peel them back, layer by layer, to determine what is expected for successful implementation, as in the example above.

2. The beginning of the year needs to be spent on establishing a classroom culture that will lend itself to positive student interactions. Diving right into the curriculum without taking the time to develop a sense of “team” will hinder your efforts later in the year.

Give the students an opportunity to get to know each other and develop relationships. Teambuilding will foster an understanding and empathy for other classmates and will, in turn, reduce the chances for bullying. Since students will be expected to present, it is only natural for many to feel shy and reserved about public speaking. Letting the students get to know one another first will ease some, although not all, of the nervousness.

3. Start easy. Make the first couple presentations over an easy topic they feel comfortable with.

4. Role-playing is a great way to demonstrate to students how to carry on a conversation about an on-grade level topic. Teachers can work with students to role-play how to converse. Or the teacher can pull in another adult, and they can model a conversation.

5. Encourage debate. Students need to learn how to defend their point of view, citing specific examples and referencing materials. When a teacher allows for “safe” debating, they are creating an environment where differing opinions are not only welcomed but encouraged!

6. A suggestion would be to have conversation extenders posted in the room that can help students learn the skill of carrying on a conversation. The purpose is to have something they can easily refer to while practicing. Students can ask clarifying questions, summarize the main points, or make opinion statements (Himmele & Himmele, 2011).

Clarifying Questions Can you tell me again about ______________?

Can you give me an example of ___________?

Summarization So what I hear you saying is _______________.

Let me recap what you’ve just said.

My Opinion I really agree with what you said about ______________ because _________________.

I disagree with what you said about ______________ because _________________.

Students will need critical groundwork laid so they feel secure and comfortable enough to accomplish what the Common Core is asking us to do. For students to get the opportunity to practice these skills, there are a few steps teachers should think about before and during the school year.

Before school starts teachers should set the stage for collaboration.

As soon as a class roster is given out, the teacher should begin preparing for groups. Look at last year’s records (when applicable) and sort them into groups of four; arrange desks so the groups can often and easily converse is a great place to start. Other considerations when creating groups

are gender, personalities, and disabilities. Some of these considerations a teacher might not discover until after the students arrive. Groups should be changed periodically throughout the year. Groups should be changed frequently enough so students learn to work with lots of different individuals, but not too frequently because students will not have had enough time to develop trust with their group members. Based on experience, it is recommended that groups be changed every six weeks. Also, when we think of “group work,” we often categorize it in working with three to four students, but life skills can also be learned by working in pairs. Mixing it up will give students varied experiences.

As the school year gets in motion, one of the best things a teacher can do is specifically praise what he or she expects…often. If a teacher overhears great group or partner work, the teacher should publically praise the desired interactions between students. Another way to keep building a culture of collaboration is to define what it looks like and discuss how well students are doing after each opportunity to collaborate, highlighting specific examples of praise and improvements. Also, make time for relationships to bloom. Students need to collaborate in a classroom that is friendly, polite, and where it is safe to make mistakes.

Expressive language, as described within the Common Core, is paramount for students to acquire new vocabulary words and deepen their level of comprehension. Also, giving them the opportunity to converse about content-rich topics with an adult and peers will deepen their cognitive abilities and will, in turn, lead them to be better readers and writers.

Conversing with others is a skill, especially in the primary grades, that needs to be explicitly taught and practiced. It should be an ongoing effort with continuous feedback. A teacher’s classroom management plan will need to be thought about in terms of student collaborations and presentations.

Reference: Himmele, P., & Himmele, W. (2011). Total participation techniques. (pp. 68–70). Alexandria, VA: ASCD.

Amy Kramer is currently an instructor and mentor at Bowling Green State University in Bowling Green, Ohio, where she teaches classroom management and supervises methods and student teachers in the field. Before moving to higher education, she served as principal of a K–8 building for six years. Working with pre-service teachers is a new passion for Mrs. Kramer as she has seen first hand the struggles teachers undergo in their first few years of teaching. You may reach Mrs. Kramer by phone, 419-297-6998, or by e-mail, amyk@bgsu.edu.

Winter 2014 w 7

OHIO INSTRUCTIONAL LEADERSHIP ACADEMY

by Donna Ball

The Ohio Instructional Leadership Academy (OILA) became a reality with the first face-to-face institute held on September 24 and 25, 2013 at the Crowne Plaza in Dublin, Ohio. After applying to the academy, one hundred fifty-four principals and teachers were selected to comprise fifty-four teams from forty-five school districts and community/career center schools throughout Ohio. OILA was made possible through generous federal funds from Race to the Top. It was created through a visionary process collaboration among representatives from OAESA, OASSA, BASA, OEA, and OFT. Knowing the sometimes overwhelming job of school administrators, OILA is designed to address the key skills and competencies that a successful instructional leader must possess to ensure the academic achievement of each student.

This hybrid learning experience includes three face-to-face institutes, and four online courses, offered through SAIL for Education and Concordia University Chicago, as well as supported collaborative work between building principals and teachers. The first online course, Instructional Leadership for School Improvement, uses resources from Dr. Anthony Muhammad’s book, The Will to Lead, the Skill to Teach: Transforming Schools at Every Level, as well as modules from the Ohio Leadership Advisory Council (OLAC).

Dr. Muhammad inspired participants at the September institute with his message about building a healthy school culture. He modeled strategies of high-level collaboration and engaged the group in shared, decision-making activities that could be easily replicated. The excitement and enthusiasm of Dr. Muhammad’s message resonated with the group as he encouraged attendees to create “schools that provide adequate guidance to all kids and that they aspire to become the transformational institutions that make the community a better place to live…”

8 w Principal Navigator

The next institute will take place March 19 and 20, 2014, at the Embassy Suites Hotel in Dublin. There will be two prominent presenters who will focus on the Common Core State Standards (CCSS): Dr. Pam Allyn, best-selling author of Be Core Ready: Powerful, Effective Steps to Implementing and Achieving the Common Core State Standards will speak during the evening session. On the following day, Sandra Alberti, Director of State and District Partnerships and Professional Development for Student Achievement Partners, will share strategies to support the transition to the CCSS. Dr. Alberti served on the team that was responsible for the development of the Common Core. Through her work with the nonprofit organization, Student Achievement Partners, Dr. Alberti helps to clarify the Common Core, to focus the communication to stakeholders and also to support classroom teachers as they implement the standards.

Both speakers will support the work of OILA attendees as they strengthen the collaborative processes necessary for school improvement and shared leadership.

Donna Ball is the project manager for the Ohio Instructional Leadership Academy. Donna retired from Marysville Schools where she served as an elementary principal for eight years. She also served on the OAESA Board of Directors for three years as the Zone Four Director.

Ohio Instructional Leadership Academy

Ohio Instructional Leadership Academy

Winter 2014 w 9

Highlighting a PrinciPAL Dr. Christina Russo Zone Two

and a mobility rate of close to 18 percent. At one point we were listed as the fourth poorest zip code in the state. The neighborhood is surrounded by a landfill and industries. Recently the crime rate has escalated.

Our students come from single female head-of-the-household families. Many are homeless. Older students are often in charge of younger siblings. The students have little experience outside the neighborhood.

Students often come to school tired and hungry or angry. They come from chaotic homes, which offer very little structure.

What do you consider your biggest challenge? How do you deal with it?

Dr. Christina Russo was nominated by OAESA Zone Two Director, Dr. Sean McCauley, as an exemplary principal in her zone. OAESA is proud to share with its members a little insight into this truly outstanding principal and community leader.

Dr. Christina Russo has been in education for an impressive thirty years, teaching in both private and public schools as well as in universities in the greater Cincinnati area. In one of her current roles, she has been serving Cincinnati Public Schools (CPS) as principal of Winton Hills Elementary since 1997. Winton Hills is an urban school serving 387 students in grades Pre-K–6. During Dr. Russo’s tenure at Winton Hills, she’s accomplished a great deal, including moving the school from the “Academic Watch” category to “Effective.” She also organized the restructuring of the school from a Pre-K–3 school to Pre-K–8 and then back to Pre-K–6.

Dr. Russo relocated Winton Hills to a different building and supervised the school planning committee responsible for working on the design and construction of a new school building as well. She’s also established community partnerships, resulting in the development of her school as a leading example of a “Community Learning Center.” As if all that weren’t enough, Dr. Russo also works as a turnaround coach for CPS, helping other principals in the district improve their schools.

Dr. Russo was kind enough to take some time out of her busy schedule to answer the following questions to share with our members. Enjoy reading her thoughtful responses. We hope they inspire you as they have certainly inspired us.

Tell us a little bit about your school and the specific challenges to working in your inner-city environment.

Winton Hills Academy is located in the largest public housing unit in the area. We have the highest poverty rate (98.6 percent) in the district 10 w Principal Navigator

Our biggest challenge is overcoming the chaotic lives our students lead. The lack of structure in their homes leads to inconsistent follow thorough with homework, coming to school properly dressed, arriving to school on time and prepared for learning both mentally and physically.

Some of the parents support the education of their students but have limited skills. Other parents are more resistant. Some try but are ineffective in dealing with their children. Overall many of our parents have trouble negotiating their lives, which leaves little time for school support.

We developed a Community Learning Center to have systems in place to support the needs of the students. We have strong mental health presence in our school and a partnership with the local medical center.

Our after school program serves over a fourth of the population. We have strong business and community supports, which assist with the physical needs of our students and support a strong tutoring program.

We are continually working to develope programs that will engage our parents.

Name three goals you have for your school in upcoming years.

My primary goal is continuing to increase the academic accomplishments of the students. We were in the “Continuous Improvement” status on the [old] state report card for many years trying to become “Effective.”

Last year, we finally would have made it into the “Effective” category, if the rating system had not changed. This put us in the top third of our district. Our report card showed good student growth, and our performance index showed continued improvement. We want to be a school of excellence and recognized as such. I would like for the accomplishments of the staff and students to be recognized broadly to give validity to the great work they are doing.

Our motto is “to excel academically and socially by believing all things are possible to build a brighter tomorrow.” With this in mind, another goal is to continue to provide opportunities for students to engage in activities that will expand their horizons. This year we are organizing our first student trip to Washington, DC. We have a former student, whom we have supported over the years—both financially and emotion-

Do you have any advice for other administrators in dealing with the CCSS? I actually have little advice in this area since I am still in the discovery stage myself. What I would say is to make sure that the teachers get good, ongoing training. I believe that the teachers should be the experts in their specific content areas. I don’t consider myself a content specialist—I work hard to hire teachers who are and provide the support for them to continue to grow and develop into specialists. So my advice would be to make sure to develop a group of excellent teachers and provide the support and encouragement [each staff member needs] to continue to grow into academic specialists.

Winton Hills ally, studying abroad in Italy and teaching English in Florence. We have five students enrolled in private schools. We developed a foundation to help provide these supports—so a goal is to make sure the foundation expands and develops into a lasting entity.

A third goal, which has remained elusive, is to have the school be the catalyst for systemic change in the neighborhood. We are making gains this year with the good work of our resource coordinator. While our neighborhood is not the residence of choice for most of our families, we do want our school to be a reason they wish to remain and improve the neighborhood.

Now that we’ve dealt with the difficult stuff, let’s take a closer look at you! Tell us three words that describe you.

• Committed (to providing the best and safest school possible) • Caring (building, not only a team but a family—by taking care of the adults, they will take care of the students) • Passionate (about the strive for excellence)

How do you motivate and encourage your staff?

I try to motivate and encourage the staff by recognizing their individual and collective efforts. I place a high emphasis on building strong teams. I involve them in all decisions and have them take ownership in the school. I think one of the best ways to motivate staff is by creating a culture of excellence in everything we do—continuing to raise our academic achievements; continually adapting and changing to remain current; and taking care of our building and grounds, which remain in excellent condition after nine years. In this way they recognize that they are valued.

Smiles all around at Winton Hills Academy in Cincinnati, Ohio I have worked hard over the years to create a sense of family among the staff—where we take care of each other and provide the What is your favorite way to wind down after a long support needed. We work in a very difficult neighborhood, and I want day (or week) of work? Do you have any particular staff to have a commitment to the school and each other. We have very stress busters that you think might be helpful to other little staff turnover.

administrators?

I enjoy being with family and friends and keep an active life outside The theme for this issue is Higher Expectations for All, and we are focusing on the Common Core State of school. I cook and entertain, ski, play bridge, enjoy music, and am Standards. How have the new standards impacted active in my community and in my church. I think it is important to maintain a balance in your personal and professional life. your school?

Working with the Common Core has meant that we have needed to be involved in extensive training—thinking of the standards with a more in-depth approach. It has also meant extensive conversations with vertical teams to make sure that each grade level understands what is expected above and below their specific grade level. We have worked out a tiered implementation schedule to bridge the gap between the old and the new standards. This conversation continues as we learn more about expectations. (continued on page 12) Winter 2014 w 11

ACCOLADES FOR

Dr. Christina Russo...

“I have known Tina for a long time. She is a professional who is completely dedicated to her students. Tina works hard to encourage her students, her staff, and her colleagues. She is level headed and a voice of reason in the ever-changing world of education. Tina is currently serving as a principal coach for Cincinnati Public Schools and has done so for several years. She is a friend and mentor, and I get encouragement from her. When I want to talk about something or need advice, Tina is the person I call. On another note, Tina is a great cook, or should I say chef. I believe the kitchen to be her favorite room in the house.”

—Sean McCauley, EdD, principal, Ethel M. Taylor Academy, and zone two director, OAESA “Under Dr. Russo’s phenomenal leadership, Winton Hills has evolved into a remarkable educational success story, an accomplishment rarely achieved in our nation’s impoverished communities. Winton Hills is located in one of the most impoverished neighborhoods in the entire state (almost 99 percent of our student population is labeled ‘economically disadvantaged’). We are in one of the most dangerous neighborhoods in Cincinnati. Our school’s mobility rate is also more than 18 percent. Dr. Russo has guided her staff through these challenges, creating a safe haven for children within an often-volatile neighborhood, building a strong academic program, and offering a wealth of opportunities that support the entire community.

“Achieving…the rank of ‘Effective’ on the old reporting system last school year, Dr. Russo has made Winton Hills the exception to the rule, overcoming seemingly hopeless statistics and proving that a great principal is the backbone of a successful school and that schools can overcome and flourish in the most challenging of environments.

“Dr. Russo has the courage to guide her teachers in piloting innovative ideas to meet the needs of the population we serve. It is a pleasure and an honor to teach under the guidance of a principal who is so supportive and encourages teachers to thrive as professionals. More than 60 percent of the teaching staff has taught at Winton Hills for ten to eighteen years. There are rarely teaching vacancies, unless someone retires! Dr. Russo inspires us to believe in a brighter tomorrow for each and every child. This is her mission. She never falters or deviates from this. You feel it when you walk through the doors of our building.

“We are seeing students return to tell us they are attending college. This has become the norm, and our students tell us it is because of our high expectations. Poverty is not an excuse. Dr. Russo has set this standard for all students. She is changing attitudes within the entire community. Just as the school’s success is a surprising beacon amid the harsh reality of the neighborhood, Dr. Russo (a petite, fearless, yet humble Italian woman) shines and proves that heart, soul, and exceptional leadership can overcome all obstacles.”

—Julie Dellecave, fourth/fifth grade teacher, Winton Hills “This is my tenth year working for Dr. Russo. She is the captain of our school family and keeps us all on even keel, handling staff, students, and parents with care and compassion. Yet she makes us all accountable for our actions. She has endless energy and a positive attitude that we strive to match, pushing her staff to perform past usual expectations. We are a family at Winton Hills because of her support, understanding, and fair treatment of all. I have been asked many times, ‘Why do you stay there, in such a lousy neighborhood, when you could go to so many nicer areas?’ and my reply is always ‘because of the principal.’ She inspires loyalty from all the staff, most having been here for ten to fifteen years, which is fairly rare in most elementary schools. We are all so very proud of Dr. Russo and what we’ve all been able to accomplish with her leadership.”

—Lynn Sparks, support specialist, Winton Hills “Dr. Russo is a principal who champions her teachers. She supports us in many ways, and I believe the biggest testament to that fact is that the majority of our teachers have been at our school for over ten years. Our school is located in the highest poverty neighborhood in Cincinnati, so there are plenty of challenges. The fact that we have an excellent principal and a great staff that supports each other make teachers want to stay. Dr. Russo frequently asks if there is anything she can do to support us, keeps us informed with what she knows, and does everything she can to emphasize that our main focus is student achievement. Our students and staff are lucky to have her as our leader!”

—Allison Miller, teacher, Winton Hills “I have been working with Dr. Russo for twelve years. She is a wonderful person to work for. She always wants what’s best for her students and her staff. Her presence is known throughout the school building, and she tries hard to take the time to stop by each classroom every day. She has always been very supportive of me and the rest of my colleagues. She is always a very positive person, which makes our school a very positive place to work. As for Common Core, we have already had many in-services to help us transition to the new standards. She should be very proud of her accomplishments, and I am lucky to be working with her. I hope she remains principal in our building for many years to come.”

—Jennifer Wagner, first grade teacher, Winton Hills

12 w Principal Navigator

Central Office

Connection

by Dr. James Wightman

The edTPA, formerly known as the Teacher Performance Assessment was developed by the Stanford Center for Assessment, Learning, and Equity (SCALE), with input from teachers and teacher educators. This assessment is now being used by all fifty-one teacher preparation programs in the Ohio. Indications are strong that edTPA will eventually be required for initial licensure. edTPA is a performance-based assessment of a teaching candidate’s ability to effectively teach his/her content. The assessment is aligned with InTASC and NCATE/CAEP standards and supported by the American Association of Colleges for Teacher Education. Additionally, edTPA is closely aligned with the Resident Educator Summative Assessment and Ohio Teacher Evaluation System, and it is also content specific.

Central to the edTPA is the development of a candidate portfolio that documents planning, instruction, and assessment from the student teaching experience. The performance-based nature of the edTPA requires reflection by the candidate on her/his planning, teaching, and student learning. And it provides an additional component to preservice candidate assessment beyond traditional licensure exams.

Three tasks compose the edTPA. These tasks are: Planning for Instruction and Assessment; Instructing and Engaging Students in Learning; and Assessing Student Learning.

Task one, Planning for Instruction and Assessment, requires the candidate to obtain data on the students in his/her class. This data includes the age range of the students, the number of students on IEPs/504 plans, and the number of ELL learners, gifted students, struggling readers, and underperforming students. In regard to the students on IEP/504 plans, the candidate must identify the specific supports, accommodations, or modifications a student receives.

The candidate plans three to five consecutive lessons, referred to as learning segments. The candidate must also explain the central focus of what he/she will teach, address how the students are able to engage with the content; explain complex features of the lessons; detail how the lessons build upon each other; discuss how prior knowledge and prerequisite skills impact learning; how personal, cultural and community assets relate to the central focus; and how the lessons are developmentally appropriate. The teaching candidate must also address how the instructional strategies selected are appropriate for whole class, small group, and individual needs. Finally, the candidate must describe how they will monitor student learning and submit assessments.

Task two, Instructing and Engaging Students in Learning, involves the candidate video recording himself/herself teaching the students.

Videos range in length from ten minutes to no more than twenty

minutes and must include both clear visual and audio recording. The requirements for what the content of the video must include varies from edTPA content, ensuring that the candidate be actively engaged with students—either whole group or small group—and how the candidate supports student learning. In addition to the video recording, a candidate must provide written responses that demonstrate how he/she promotes a positive learning environment, engages students in learning, deepens student learning, and what he/she would do instructionally different to better support learning and what basis he/she is using.

Task three, Assessing Student Learning, includes reflection upon the actual learning that took place during the three to five learning segments.

This task requires the candidate to analyze student learning citing the evaluation criteria used, provide a graphic or narrative that summarizes learning for the whole class, and evaluate the work samples of three students and the whole class summary to assess patterns of learning for the entire class as well as differences for specific groups or individuals.

Additionally, the candidate must cite the feedback provided to students to support these conclusions. Supplying specific evidence of student understanding and detailing how the candidate will use assessment to drive further instruction is also part of this third and final task.

Pre-service candidates must gain access to and use far more data regarding the students they are working with than ever before. Principals, teachers, and central office personnel responsible for the placement of pre-service teachers need to be aware of these requirements—and the need for candidates to record part of the assessment.

Candidates successfully completing the edTPA will have participated in an experience that makes them reflect on the relationship between student learning and their teaching. These candidates will understand how the process of informed planning, appropriate instruction, and quality assessment enhances student learning. They will possess the knowledge and skills necessary to be successful in the high-accountability classroom of today. These candidates should also be better prepared to successfully complete the Resident Educator Summative Assessment.

Cooperating teachers, pre-service candidates, building administrators, and university faculty, working collaboratively, will enable this learning experience to be highly informative, and ultimately assist in producing better-prepared entry-year teachers.

Dr. Jim Wightman is an assistant professor at Capital University.

Before working at Capital, Jim served as an elementary principal and a middle school principal in a number of school districts around Ohio.

He and his wife, Lisa, reside in Powell, Ohio, with their two daughters.

Winter 2014 w 13

Remember Where You Came From: Ten Principles on Empathy for Aspiring Principals

by Mark Gainer As a current third grade teacher and aspiring elementary principal, I am amazed at the number of changes that have come down to the classroom level in such a short period of time. Teachers now must navigate the Common Core State Standards, RTI, Value Added, Third Grade Reading Guarantee, and new state assessments, not to mention an entirely new evaluation model for both teachers and schools—all under the assumption that these initiatives will “raise the bar” and improve teaching and learning. It’s truly enough to make your head spin, and I didn’t even mention everything!

Here are ten principles I hope I never forget when the time comes for me to step into a leadership role (I’ve also included a practical tip for how each principle looks in action.):

1. Be advocates for your teachers. Administrators must realize that, for the most part, teachers are doing the absolute best job they can, given their circumstances. Each new mandate only feels like more weight on a teacher’s shoulders. Principals should be willing to stand up for their teachers and make their voices known to agents of change when burdens become too much. High expectations are great, but there is a tipping point. Administrators must carefully observe staff and know when enough is enough.

Practical tip: Send monthly letters to the local state representative and state senator in the district where your school is. Give them updates on 14 w Principal Navigator

how legislative decisions are impacting teaching and learning specifically.

Try to avoid getting caught up in only financial burdens, and really focus on both the positive and negative impacts of legislation. We say all the time that legislators are out of touch with the classroom, but do we make the effort to let them know?

2. Weigh all possible options before jumping in to something new. With new Common Core State Standards, schools must adapt curriculum and assessments to better match the new expectations. There are so many different options out there that it can be overwhelming. I recently worked as a part of a team on choosing a new language arts curriculum for my school. We looked at all of our new options in depth before coming to the conclusion that it was better to beef up what we already had to meet the new expectations, rather than simply purchasing something new. There were two obvious benefits: First, it saved our district a considerable amount of money. Second, teachers were already familiar with the curriculum, so there wasn’t a big learning curve. We simply made recommendations to improve delivery of instruction and purchased some new materials to fill holes that needed to be addressed, according to the Common Core.

Practical tip: When considering a new curriculum or assessment, ask the salesperson or use your personal contacts to find districts that are already using the product. Take a group of teachers to that school to watch it in action. Use the time to ask questions, make observations, and then discuss how that product would fit in your school. On top of making a product evaluation, teachers also get to see other teachers in action— what great professional development!

3. Listen to your teachers. Teachers are where the rubber meets 7. If it ain’t broke, don’t fix it! It is likely that your school is the road in a school. Their voice needs to be heard. Administrators who simply rely on one-way communication are missing out on a wealth of knowledge and insight in their buildings. Teachers will quickly be able to tell you what is working and what is not. Having the trust in your staff that they are in tune with their students, and the field of education as a whole, is essential.

Practical tip: Have monthly “staff chats”—optional, informal gatherings where teachers enjoy a snack you provide and discuss hot-topic issues.

Post the topic in advance, so teachers can brainstorm thoughts, and be the moderator to keep it on topic. It’s easy to get off on rabbit trails. Then use input from these staff chats to inform your decisions.

4. Focus on trends, not snapshots. It’s easy in today’s highaccountability age to feel pressure to make immediate changes when things don’t go well. State reports cards are highly publicized, and while it may indicate some weaknesses, it is unwise to base decisions on one snapshot in time. Instead, look for trends and ask questions: Where is our school consistently strong? Where do we need improvement? Is there a particular demographic of student that we as a school seem to be missing the mark with consistently? It’s easy to get caught up in looking at one tree and miss the whole forest. Make sure to take in the big picture over time.

Practical tip: Chart numerical performance data using line graph features in Microsoft Excel or a similar software program. Inputting data literally takes just minutes, and then it’s just a matter of hitting a button and a graph appears, which can immediately show trends.

already doing many things well. Change can be a good thing sometimes, but don’t change programs that are working.

Practical tip: Hang a poster in the workroom labeled “Things We Do Well” with sticky notes nearby. Encourage teachers to jot down and post things they notice going well in the school. It simply gives you, as the principal, a way of seeing positives all around.

8. Communicate. Teachers get nervous when they feel in the dark.

It is extremely important to communicate important information to teachers regularly, even if it may not be good news. Use discernment, though—remember that a lot changes from the start to finish of new legislation!

Practical tip: Send out a weekly memo to staff through e-mail, and make a regular component of that a “Legislative Update” section where you can include information about legislation that will impact teachers.

9. Stay up to date on changing requirements (or at least try). Everyone knows the frustration of having new mandates being sent our way at school. It’s even more frustrating when the target is moving! It is critical to stay up to date on current legislation, so you are not blindsided as an administrator when the time comes to implement something.

Practical tip: Be active in organizations like OAESA. What a tremendous wealth of knowledge these organizations provide in their weekly e-mails, monthly newsletters—not to mention the Principal Navigator!

10. Focus on best practices. Everything a school does should be 5. Stay positive. The negativity snowball doesn’t take long to get based on best practice. With best practice as your guide, it’s hard to miss

rolling fast. While it may be hard at times, it is crucial to remain positive.

Remind teachers of the rewards that are found in teaching. After all, that’s why almost everyone gets into the field of education to begin with!

the mark. Every discussion about teaching and learning should in some way relate to best practice. Teachers can’t do it all, but it’s important to have the goal.

Practical tip: Provide notes of encouragement, treats, and other reminders to staff that you truly care for them, and point out what a good job they are doing. A simple “good job” goes such a long way!

Practical tip: Provide resources to teachers that are easy to understand and highly practical on effective teaching practices. Remember, you don’t want to be adding something new to their plate too often, but give your teachers books, videos, or websites to explore that will help improve their teaching.

6. Equip teachers. One of my frustrations as a teacher is that I often feel like I lack true understanding of concepts and issues, or I may be not up to speed on how to use a particular piece of technology that would improve my instruction. Sure, I’ve heard the lingo, and may even know a little about a subject, but I’m afraid to try something or engage in a discussion for fear I may fail. Administrators are teachers of teachers. Find ways to teach your staff about new teaching techniques, assessments, and requirements. Teachers who feel equipped and encouraged to try new things will do that, which will likely improve instruction!

Practical tip: For many districts, money is tight, and instead of paying big bucks for professional development, don’t forget that there are many experts in your building! Invite teachers on your staff that you notice are strong in certain instructional techniques or with certain technology to lead in-service training for other staff. Not only does this save a considerable amount of money, but it builds a professional learning community.

Teachers who are recognized for their expertise will feel valued!

With all of this being said, administrators must be pillars of consistency in their buildings—not only for the sake of the teachers but also the students who come to school each day. I certainly understand that principals are also under a tremendous amount of pressure as well. After all, each new mandate and expectation affects them as well! But, a principal is a leader—a person people look to for a model of what should be done.

My wife says it all the time, “Attitude reflects leadership.” A consistent, empathetic administrator should equate to a highly motivated staff and a consistently high-performing school.

Mark Gainer is an aspiring principal currently serving as a third grade teacher at Cedarville Elementary, a part of Cedar Cliff Local Schools in Cedarville, Ohio. He received his master’s degree in educational leadership from the University of Dayton in 2011 and his bachelor’s degree in early childhood education from Cedarville University in 2007. You can reach him at markegainer@gmail.com.

Winter 2014 w 15

OAESA Board of Directors 2013–2014

16 w Principal Navigator

Elizabeth DiDonato President

Eastport Avenue Elementary 1200 Eastport Ave Uhrichsville, OH 44683

(740) 922-4641 edidonato@claymontschools.org

Kevin Gehres President-elect

Van Wert Elementary 10992 State Route 118 South Van Wert, OH 45891

(419) 238-1761 k_gehres@staff.vwes.net

Jeromey Sheets, EdD Past President

Tallmadge Elementary 611 Lewis Ave. Lancaster, OH 43130

(740) 687-7336 j_sheets@lancaster.k12.oh.us

Kenneth Bernacki NAESP Respresentative

Robert C. Lindsey Elementary 11844 Caves Rd. Chesterland, OH 44023

(440) 729-5980 ken.bernacki@westg.org

Teresa Snider Zone 1 Director

Central Elementary 507 Jefferson Ave. Mc Arthur, OH 45651

(740) 596-4386 teresa.snider@vinton.k12.oh.us

Sean McCauley, EdD Zone 2 Director

Ethel M. Taylor Academy 1930 Fricke Rd. Cincinnati, OH 45225

(513) 363-3600 mccauls@cps-k12.org

Stephanie Klingshirn Zone 3 Director

Mississinawa Valley Elementary 10480 Staudt Rd. Union City, OH 45390

(937) 968-4464 stephanie_klingshirn@darke.k12.oh.us

Heidi Kegley Zone 4 Director

Frank B. Willis Intermediate 74 W. William St. Delaware, OH 43015

(740) 833-1700 kegleyhe@delawarecityschools.net

Troy Armstrong Zone 5 Director

Wauseon Primary 940 E. Leggett St. Wauseon, OH 43567

(419) 335-4000 t.armstrong@wauseonindians.org

Erin Simpson Zone 6 Director

Overlook Elementary 650 Broad St. Wadsworth, OH 44281

(330) 335-1420 wadc_simpson@wadsworthschools.org

Gretchen Liggens Zone 7 Director

James A. Garfield Pre-K–8 3800 West 140th St. Cleveland, OH 44111

(216) 920-7000 gretchen.e.liggens@cmsdnet.net

Dave Rogaliner Zone 8 Director

Hambdem Elementary 13871 Gar Highway Chardon, OH 44024

(440) 286-7503 dave.rogaliner@chardonschools.org

Cynthia Brown Zone 9 Director

Sauder Elementary 7503 Mudbrook St. NW Massillon, OH 44646

(330) 830-8028 clbwjc@jackson.sparcc.org

Timothy Barton Zone 10 Director

Alton Hall Elementary 1000 Alton Rd. Galloway, OH 43119

(614) 801-8000 timothy.barton@swcs.us

Barbara Werstler Middle School Representative

Geo Dodge Intermediate School 10225 Ravenna Road Twinsburg, OH 44087

(330) 468-2200 bwerstler@twinsburg.k12.oh.us

Daniel Graves Central Office Representative

Columbus City School District 270 E. State St. Columbus, OH 43215

(614) 365-5000 dgraves@columbus.k12.oh.us

Amanda Albert Assistant Principal Representative

Northmor Elementary 7819 State Route 19 Galion, OH 44833

(419) 947-1900 albert.amanda@northmor.k12.oh.us

TBD Urban/Minority Representative

LUCAS

HANCOCK

WYANDOT

ALLEN HARDIN

AUGLAIZE LOGAN

SHELBY DARKE

3 PREBLE

MIAMI

Y ER OM TG N GREENE O M

HAMILTON

CLERMONT

WARREN

AW

CR

MARION

KNOX

10

Columbus

HIGHLAND

ADAMS

PIKE

SCIOTO

MAHONING COLUMBIANA CARROLL

HARRISON

GUERNSEY BELMONT

NOBLE PERRY

PICKAWAY

1

9

G

IN

K

US

UM

PORTAGE

STARK

COSHOCTON

M

FAIRFIELD FAYETTE

WAYNE

LICKING

FRANKLIN

ROSS

BROWN

MEDINA

HOLMES

MORROW

CLINTON

2

RD

FO

UNION DELAWARE

CHAMPAIGN CLARK

BUTLER

4 MADISON

MERCER

6

HURON

SENECA

JEFFERSON

VAN WERT

PUTNAM

8

TRUMBULL

LORAIN

SUMMIT

HENRY PAULDING

CUYAHOGA

ERIE

SANDUSKY

WOOD

ASHTABULA

GEAUGA

TUSCARAWAS

5

DEFIANCE

LAKE

7

ASHLAND

WILLIAMS

OTTAWA

RICHLAND

FULTON

MONROE

MORGAN WASHINGTON

HOCKING ATHENS

VINTON

MEIGS JACKSON GALLIA LAWR

ENCE

Winter 2014 w 17

A S E OA

d r a o b k l a

Ch

News fro m the Association

eck

re you ch Reminder: Make sulks . Each week

out OAESA’s Tuesday Ta rmation about we send out valuable info members. After a topic important to our e blog to join the reading the email, visit th ministrators about discussion with fellow ad catch up? You can the week’s topic. Need to at www.oaesa. find past Talks on the blog alks. wordpress.com/tuesday-t

SAIL fo that e r Educat io i gradu ght stude n report s n Univ ate from C ts will ersity onco Dece C mber hicago in rdia slate d for . Fifty-one Janua mark appli s r c endo the first y’s start. J ants are coho rsem a nuar rt e desig y ned f nt only— for princ also cour beco or stu ipal se m have e princip dents wis work h a ma ster’s als but wh ing to o alre degr ee. ady

Call for Pro Professi posals for the 5 ona 7th Have an l Conference: L Annual ite id like to s ea for a present racy Live! har atio from acr e with colleagu n that you’d es os 17, 2014 s the state? Now and teachers ,O th and we’d AESA is accepti rough January ng lo visit the ve to hear from proposals, website YOU. Ple for org. Que a stions? C details at www.o se ontact th 614.794.9 aesa. eo 1 carson@ 90 or reach Aud ffice at rey by e oaesa.or mail, g.

18 w Principal Navigator

rs and rd of Directo a o B ’s A S E A O time out of k o to rs e b m staff me r the annual fo s e v li y s u their b n taff Retreat o e the Board and S 2013 to outlin r , 7 – 6 r e b m Nove es fo rimary focus p ’s n o ti a iz e n orga ear. Welcom y l o o h c s 4 1 the 2013– pson, Zone im S n ri E : rd a to the bo anda Albert, m A d n a r, to e!

Six Direc epresentativ R l a ip c n ri P t Assistan

rful

e ree wond h t f o t a e r e ret o from th ork for you: t o h p a ’s at w Here ers, hard b m e m d boar

e

OAESA’s so continue cial media prese st nc have 214 o grow! We curr e en lik 460 peo es on Facebook tly ple ,a feed. If y are following o nd ur t ou then con ’re on social me witter dia ne conversa ct with us and j , oin the tion!

n gshirn, Zo n li K ie n a eph irector, St e Four Director D ix S e n y, Zon son, Zo Erin Simp or, and Heidi Kegle ect Three Dir

Did you enjo y the article s ab Need more?

OAESA is pa out evaluation in this is rt sue (starting nering with conference on p. 32)?

OASSA to b January 22, ring you an 2014, comp to use evalu e le valuation te with upd atio ates, legal a Kids’s Jamie n data. Presenters inclu s p e c ts, and how d Meade, and e Deb Camp Julia Simme b a lot of talk e ll o f B A SA, Battelle rer and Matt about evalu for hew Lutz of ation going important.”

O o DE. “There’s n .

Cost is $165 We’ll let you for members k oaesa.org to /$265 for no now what’s really register. Qu n-members estions? Call . Visit www 614.794.919 .

0.

Winter 2014 w 19

Middle School

Matters

by Dr. Lucy Frontera, Executive Director Ohio Partners in Character Education

OHIO SCHOOL OF CHARACTER AWARD:

A Proven Path to School Improvement To continue its path to school improvement, Ohio is one of about thirty states that participate in the State School of Character (SSOC) Awards program, a preliminary step to being recognized as a National Schools of Character (NSOC). The NSOC program is sponsored by the Character Education Partnership (CEP) in Washington, DC, and has recognized exemplary schools since 1998 using the Eleven Principles of Effective Character Education (please visit info.character.org/11-principlesdownload for more information). These guiding criteria define both good Character Education and good education, through the following criteria: • Positive culture and climate • Opportunities for service • Meaningful and challenging academic curricula • Self-motivation for students • Staff engagement as a learning community and in shared leadership • Partnerships with families and community members • Regular assessment

How does the application process work?

Schools use the Eleven Principles of Effective Character Education to self-assess their program, noting strengths, weaknesses, and ways to improve. To help guide the application process, the framework offers concrete examples of how each of the eleven principles is represented in a school. Noting these examples, schools complete an online application detailing how they have met each of the eleven principles. Many schools have commented that the application process itself tremendously helped them look at their school from a different perspective, as well as provide a road map to where they could improve. Even more helpful is the feedback each applicant receives as a result of the application.

In Ohio, a panel of judges drawn from professional educators and staff from former NSOC winners evaluates each application and provides feedback. In some cases, a site visit can be arranged to provide further assistance in improving both the application and the school’s program.

Periodically workshops are offered on the application process or on strategies for implementing good Character Education.

Schools that achieve a high score on the application are named “Ohio Schools of Character” and advance to CEP to be evaluated for the NSOC designation by another panel of nationally qualified judges. Schools that score high enough are named as NSOC finalists and in most cases, a site visit by a national expert is conducted. The results of the site visit 20 w Principal Navigator

and other data provided by the school are then reviewed by a blue-ribbon panel that decides whether to award the NSOC designation. Schools that do not achieve the designation are provided detailed feedback and suggestions for how their program can be improved. The process is quite rigorous, and the “free” feedback is extremely valuable.

Since Ohio joined the SSOC program in 2007, more schools are continuously added to the Ohio Schools of Character roster. Prior to 2007, only one Ohio school was named as a NSOC; Freedom Elementary in West Chester. Since then, Ohio has named seven schools or districts Ohio Schools of Character, three of which became NSOC, and the other four were NSOC finalists. For a complete list of qualifying Ohio schools, visit www.charactereducationohio.org.

Why is the SSOC/NSOC program a “path to school improvement”?

“Schools that embrace Character Education become places where people want to be because they bring out the best in everyone,” said Mark Hyatt, president of CEP. “While not a quick fix, Character Education provides effective solutions to ethical and academic issues that we all care about, such as bullying, cheating, truancy, and dropout rates. When our schools are healthy and strong, so are our families and communities.”

National and state schools of character deal with many of the same challenges other schools face nationwide: • Fourteen percent of students in NSOC schools received special education services, compared to 12 percent nationwide.

• In almost half of NSOC schools, 25 percent or more of students were eligible for free or reduced-price lunch.

• In 20 percent of NSOC schools, the percentage of students receiving English as a Second Language (ESL) instruction was above the national average of 10 percent.

• In 7 percent of schools, the student mobility rates were 10 percent or higher.

Yet, these schools also enjoy positive outcomes on academic and social measures: • Ninety-three percent of NSOC schools saw a decline in suspensions over the past three years.

• Eighty-one percent saw a decline in disciplinary referrals.

• Seventy-nine percent saw a rise in reading scores on state tests or end-of-course tests over the past five years (or had pass rates over 85 percent).

• Seventy-eight percent saw a rise in math scores on state tests.

What do applicants have to say about the program?

The first Ohio School of Character to be named a NSOC after Ohio’s inclusion in SSOC program in 2007 was Fairbrook Elementary in Beavercreek. “The Ohio School of Character program was highly instrumental in helping Fairbrook develop its character program, a program that not only helped the students of Fairbrook but one that was also adopted by the school district so all students could benefit,” said Barb Rhea, the lead teacher of the Character Education program. “Staff received information on how to implement an exemplary program, gained knowledge from professional Character Education speakers and attended forums where ideas on Character Education were shared. Creating a great school climate was a goal, winning the award was a great achievement, but the reality of seeing our students become great school leaders and citizens of good character went beyond our expectations.”

Janet Baker, superintendent of Hamilton City Schools, a larger urban district in southwest Ohio, has a strong commitment to Character Education, which is evident in everything this district does. “The Hamilton City School District’s mission focuses on preparing students for college, career, and life,” said Baker. “Being a diverse urban district, high expectations are key for all students. One of the hallmarks of our comprehensive pre-k–12 academic program is our strong Character Education program. Character Education is integrated into all academic and cocurricular activities. Staff and community have been trained in both moral

and performance character, enabling them to innovatively incorporate character in their daily lessons and interactions with staff and students. In addition, the program is consistent across the district through the teaching and modeling of identified character traits. Our program has served as a model for other school districts and communities as well as gaining state and national recognition. Hamilton was named the Ohio District of Character and the National School District of Character in 2012.”

New for 2014 The Ohio program is sponsored by Ohio Partners in Character Education, a “future workforce” initiative of the Ohio Better Business Bureaus and the BBB Center for Character Ethics. Starting in 2014, the Character Council of Greater Cincinnati and Northern Kentucky will join the Ohio program as a cosponsor. The council has been the sponsor of the Kentucky School of Character Program since 2008.

For more information about the Ohio and National School of Character programs, go to www.charactereducationohio.org, http://www. charactercincinnati.org/education.php or www.character.org.

Dr. Lucy Frontera is the Executive Director of Ohio Partners in Character Education. Her office is located at the following address: 1169 Dublin Road, Columbus, OH 43215. And you may reach her by phone at (614) 486-6531 x137 or by e-mail, lucy.frontera@ charactereducationohio.org.

Winter 2014 w 21

Common Core: Perspective from the Private Sector

by Dr. Jim Rigg, Superintendent

There has been a lot of conversation lately about the Common Core State Standards, a prevalent educational movement in the United States.

The Common Core clearly seems to have caught the attention of many people in southwest Ohio; the topic comes up frequently when I speak to parents and Catholic school supporters, and I have received a number of questions about how the Common Core will impact teaching within the 114 Catholic schools of the Archdiocese.

As a Catholic school parent and as an educator, I understand the interest around the Common Core. Our schools have made a commitment to provide the best, most rigorous, and most authentically Catholic education to the students we serve. How does the Common Core movement support this mission? How can we harness the Common Core to benefit the learning in our schools?

All teachers, in both public and private schools, are asked to teach students according to defined standards. These standards illustrate what students are supposed to know and be able to do by the time they leave a particular grade. Historically, teachers have been presented with a laundry list of instructional standards that they must sprint to cover by the end of the year. By offering instruction that is “a mile wide and an inch deep,” teachers have complained (and data has borne out) that students are emerging from schools lacking a deep understanding of key knowledge and skills.

The Common Core changes this, representing a fundamental shift in the teaching and learning process. The Common Core focuses intensely on a smaller number of standards that have been directly linked to success in college and career. Rather than running through a checklist of dozens of bureaucratic standards, students strive for true mastery in 22 w Principal Navigator

targeted areas. There is an emphasis on creativity, critical thinking, and real-world applications.

Development of the Common Core began in 2007, emerging out of conversations between states about aligning common standards. As the Core developed, universities and the national councils for subject areas (math, language arts, etc.) helped to identify key standards. In the years that followed, forty-five states and over one hundred Catholic dioceses integrated the Common Core into their own curriculum standards.

The Common Core has been publicly supported by the US Army, the US Chamber of Commerce, the College Board, and many other organizations.

In the Archdiocese, our involvement with the Common Core began in 2011. For many years, Catholic elementary schools have utilized a Graded Course of Study (GCS), developed by the Catholic Schools Office.

Like all curricula, the GCS guides teachers on what students are supposed to know and be able to do by the end of the school year. The GCS for all subjects (with the exception of religion) is based upon the standards of the state of Ohio. We essentially take Ohio’s standards, alter them to fit our goals for instruction, and infuse them with our Catholic identity.

But two years ago, the state of Ohio began adopting the Common Core. Like prior years, we are adapting Ohio’s standards, which now include a tie to the Common Core. The vocabulary is important here: we are adapting, not adopting. As with any educational movement, we are taking the best of the Common Core and making it our own, to the ultimate benefit of our students.

Most of the concerns that have reached me over the past few weeks have revolved around the political dimensions of the Common Core. I

have never seen the Common Core as a political issue. Some have suggested that the Common Core represents a political over-reach of the current federal administration. Others claim that the federal government will use data mining and other techniques to track students. I sense that certain groups are imposing political agendas onto the Common Core, and this has aroused great passion on both sides of the political spectrum. Regardless of the concerns, we are at liberty to use the Common Core as we see fit. As private schools, we can harness the benefits of the Common Core while avoiding political entanglements.  Catholic schools have a long-standing and well-deserved reputation for academic excellence. Even more importantly, our schools have a proven record of passionately forming and awakening the faith within our students. I feel that the Common Core, adapted to fit our needs, provides an opportune compliment to our mission. I am tremendously optimistic

about the future of our Catholic schools. The release last fall of Lighting the Way: A Vision for Catholic Schools has filled our Archdiocese with energy and hope for the future of Catholic school education. Catholic schools are a beacon of hope for over 45,000 students in southwest Ohio, and I know that this success will continue for generations to come.

Dr. Jim Rigg is the superintendent of the Catholic schools in the Cincinnati Archdiocese.

Winter 2014 w 23

Elementary

Essentials

by Zana Vincent

Ohio Ready School Fall Seminar a Big Success October 4, 2013, was an exciting and productive day for Ready School representatives who attended the statewide Ohio Ready School Professional Development Seminar. The topic focused on the importance of addressing the social, emotional, and physical well-being of the young child. Dr. Cathy Hamilton, known for her work addressing differentiated instruction as it impacts all learners, was the guest speaker for the day. Dr. Hamilton spoke from her head and her heart about the research on the culture of poverty, ethnicity in America, disability issues, and English as a second language—and the impact these can have on student achievement. She shared with participants her multitude of experiences that led her to develop healthy patterns and practices for educators to use with children—ones that support their social and emotional growth and cognitive development. These practices addressed understanding the human brain’s response to stimuli, building student and family relationships, creating an inclusive and stimulating learning environment, and providing well-designed lessons that acknowledge levels of student needs.

To extend the seminar theme to Ready School home sites, Ready School coaches introduced a book study opportunity to participants: Minds in the Making by Ellen Galinsky, Opening Minds by Peter Johnston, Under Resourced Learners by Ruby Payne, and Safe, Invited, and Master Taught by Dr. Cathy Hamilton. At the close of the day, sets of books were available for schools to use for a book study at their respective sites. Coaches also included a reflection journal in each set of books for recording thoughts to share with others, as the books rotate from site to site.

Additional highlights of the day included an informative presentation

by Dr. Stephanie Siddens, Director, Office of Early Education and School Readiness at the Ohio Department of Education. She shared information about the current progress related to the kindergarten entry assessment and the expansion of Step Up to Quality, Ohio’s early learning program standards and rating system. She also provided a Q&A session, which gave participants an opportunity to seek clarification and give input.

Later in the day, Jina Bohl, Director of Curriculum and Instruction in the Western Brown Local School District, shared a correlation chart linking the Ready Schools Initiative’s seven focus areas to the Ohio 24 w Principal Navigator

teacher evaluation performance rubric. The seven components encompass aspects in education that are crucial to being successful, effective, and accomplished teachers.

Feedback from participants overwhelmingly cited the usefulness of the seminar’s content and activities. They also noted that the program was well rounded with information relevant to educators, parents, and students—many of them indicating how they were looking forward to using the newly acquired information.

This year, Ready School activities will continue with regional network meetings scheduled for December 11 in the southwest area of the state and January 15 in the northeast. Two additional regional network meetings will be scheduled in the spring. In addition, each site continues to practice the Ready School philosophy as it works to provide a safe, inviting, productive, and rich learning environment for all children.

Ready School members write what being a “ready school” means to them.

Ready School Project Manager, Zana Vincent, and ODE’s Dr. Stephanie Siddons

The conference was a great place to network with colleagues from across the state.

Two attendees hare what a ready school is with others.

(Love the color coordination!)

A moment for reflection: “I’ve come to the frightening conclusion that I am the decisive element in the classroom.

It’s my personal approach that creates the climate.

It’s my daily mood that makes the weather.

“As a teacher, I possess a tremendous power to make a child’s life miserable or joyous.

I can be a tool of torture or an instrument of inspiration.

I can humiliate or humor, hurt or heal.

“In all situations, it is my response that decides whether a crisis will be escalated or de-escalated and a child humanized or de-humanized.” ~ Haim Ginott Dr. Cathy Hamilton, the keynote speaker Winter 2014 w 25

Top Ten Ways to Ensure Core Readiness for All Students

by Pam Allyn

We facilitate Common Core learning through what we teach and how we teach it. The following list includes action steps that teachers and school leaders should embrace to see their students become successful readers, writers, speakers, and listeners inside and outside the classroom.

1. Know the writing types.

The three types of writing that students will want to understand and differentiate are narrative, informational, and argument/opinion. These three types should be defined and demonstrated often and interchangeably, for real purposes, and to varying audiences. Explore the strongest qualities of each type, and have fun with subgenres! For example, you could have students write memoirs, fairy tales, or characters studies in a narrative unit, and photo captions, news articles, blogs, or picture books in an informational unit. In an opinion unit, you can have students write editorials, social media blasts, and letters to the editor, as well as book reviews and book blurbs. The concept of writing about reading applies to all the writing types. Our students will learn to write about reading through responses that include narrative, information, and opinion.

2. Give children ownership and choice.

Young children should embrace choice in book selection to gain motivation in their reading life. Your students should have daily opportunities to peruse and select books that they find highly interesting (and readable). This way they connect to specific genres and authors that will 26 w Principal Navigator

lead to a sustainable model of independent reading. Access is key, and with online libraries and reading apps available in the virtual realm, we are in a position of being constantly surrounded by books. The Common Core is always angling toward independence—that is the ultimate goal.

We have to give our students time each day to read with the power of choice and to write with that power of choice too. The Common Core should fuel a sense of the child—mastering ideas, sharing knowledge, and reading and writing for real audiences.

3. Embrace the LitLoop.

Within your individual lessons and over the course of the year, stay together with your students in the “LitLoop”—my term for the deep and inextricable link between reading, writing, listening, speaking, and viewing. Invite creative videos, audio podcasts, and spoken debate forums into your curriculum and allow your students guided and scaffolded entry into our ever-changing twenty-first century world.

4. Read aloud.

Research shows that daily read alouds to children put them almost a year ahead of children who do not receive daily read alouds, “regardless of parental income, education level or cultural background.”1 Read alouds 1

Melbourne Institute of Applied Economic and Social Research, March 2013. http://www.theage.com.au/national/proof-of-benefits-of-readingto-children-20130302-2fd7s.html

at every age allow you to model close reading skills and display a passion for reading. Reading aloud instructionally helps students to visualize the processes a reader goes through to uncover meaning. Read alouds illustrate the power of voice, characterization, informational gathering, stamina, and fluency. The communal aspect of a read aloud—where students come together and share the community of story—is more crucial than ever in a fast-paced, sometimes fragmented world.

5. Provide time for both collaboration and independence.

The school day should feel like a constant flow, between students working together, exploring texts, and discussing them, and independence: students practicing what they are learning as readers, writers, speakers—and listeners. This flow takes practice, instructional practice.

Visit other classrooms to see teachers working on this balance. Set up time during faculty meetings to share quick snippets of video showing how students collaborate and how they work independently. The Common Core is a great opportunity to dig deep into the instructional flow together as a team. Upper-grade teachers can learn a lot from primary teachers about the power of collaboration in the primary grades. Primary teachers can learn from upper-grade teachers about independence. But all grades need opportunity for both.

6. Use technology for authentic literacy.

Technology can really help extend our students’ access to books, learning programs, and other useful tools that strengthen literacy learning. With a seemingly endless number of apps and websites available (plenty of them free, too), students can personalize their learning experiences. Incorporating digital and interactive forms of text into your LitLoop creates a more authentic learning world. We as adults embrace new media all the time, thus it would be unwise not to outfit your students’ learning world with digital resources alongside print ones. Three-fourths of all kids have access to mobile devices at home.2 Let’s stay ahead of the innovative curve by employing wonderful educational tools, like Scholastic’s Storia app, Pearson’s We Give Books, Make Belief Comix, Anki flashcards, StoryBuddy, and Figment, to name a few.

7. Value stamina and motivation.

There is no way our students will achieve the Common Core goals if they are not engaged and building stamina and motivation as readers, writers, speakers, and listeners. All the work we do cannot be about the text itself; it has to be about the work we do around the text: bringing children close, letting them practice building their muscles on texts they love, and motivating them by offering text that is endearing and exciting for them.

How can I celebrate that? How can I honor that?” Do it for yourself too.

What in your leadership felt successful today? Give yourself a moment to reflect on what felt good and do that again tomorrow.

9. Create a powerful and resilient home-school connection.

Make literacy an opportunity for celebration. My nonprofit organization, LitWorld, created World Read Aloud Day to inspire the communal urge of reading, and cultivate the joy that reading creates in our lives.

Have “LitFests” where parents and children can read and write together with the support of teachers and administrators. Educate the community on the Common Core by creating a systemic and approachable mode of communication around the Common Core (use Twitter, texting, and any other ways parents and children are comfortable!).

10. Build the kind of community that empowers children as leaders.

Let’s make this the first initiative that really and truly includes children. Have them become “Core Ready Youth Ambassadors.” They can post their writing on the school website, speak to other grade levels about books they’ve read, and invite their families to help them build stamina as readers and writers. The future belongs to our children. Let the future be now.

Pam Allyn is a world-renowned expert in home and school literacy connections. She is the founding director of LitLife, a professional development organization specializing in reading and writing instruction and the Common Core State Standards, and LitWorld, a groundbreaking global literacy initiative reaching children across the United States and in more than sixty countries. World Read Aloud Day, which she created, is now celebrated by millions of people around the world in March of each year. Pam’s work has been featured on Good Morning America, the Today Show, NBC News, Oprah Radio, the Huffington Post, the New York Times, and across the blogosphere. Pam recently received the 2013 Scholastic Literacy Champion Award for her work with children. She has served as the Global Ambassador for Scholastic’s Read Every Day Campaign since 2012. Pam is the author of many books, including Your Child’s Writing Life, winner of the Mom’s Choice Award, What to Read When, and the National Parenting Magazine Award. Her most recent book, Be Core Ready, and the accompanying Core Ready series have just been published.

8. Affirm the steps forward.

For all of us, children, teachers, administrators, and parents, we need each other. And we need to be supportive of each other. If this initiative turns into a “blame game,” we are sunk. We need to stop every day and ask: “What has someone in my community done to move forward?

2

Zero to Eight: Children’s Media Use in America 2013 (Common Sense Media). http://www.commonsensemedia.org/sites/default/files/ zero_to_eight_2013.jpg Winter 2014 w 27

Legal Report

by Dennis Pergram, esq. of Manos, Martin, Pergram & Dietz Co., LPA

Ohio Supreme Court Tackles Controversial Termination Case

In November 2013, the Ohio Supreme Court issued a decision in the controversial termination case of Freshwater v. Mt. Vernon City School District Board of Education 2013-Ohio-5000. Although this case involved a teacher termination, the termination statutes that apply to teachers also apply to principals, and the Ohio Supreme Court’s decision provides further definition of “good and just cause,” which is a ground for termination under R.C. 3319.16.

Freshwater was a science teacher in the Mount Vernon City School District who was the subject of a termination hearing conducted by a referee. More than eighty witnesses testified over the thirty-eight different days of witness testimony, which spanned almost twenty-one months.

During this time, there were hundreds of exhibits and ultimately over six hundred pages of transcript. The Board of Education set forth four grounds that it alleged constituted “good and just cause.” The grounds alleged were: (1) the Tesla coil incident; (2) his failure to adhere to established curriculum; (3) his role as administration-appointed facilitator, monitor, and supervisor of the student group Fellowship of Christian Athletes; and (4) his disobedience of orders.

The referee concluded that grounds two and four were valid bases to recommend the termination of Freshwater’s contract.

Freshwater’s Board of Education accepted the referee’s recommendation and terminated Freshwater’s contract. The Board’s decision was affirmed by the common pleas court, and on appeal to the court of appeals, the court of appeals affirmed. That led to an appeal to the Ohio Supreme Court.

The majority of the Ohio Supreme Court (this majority will hereinafter be referred to as just the “Ohio Supreme Court”) found that the 28 w Principal Navigator

record established two patterns in Freshwater’s teaching career from 1994 through 2002—he repeatedly received positive evaluations, and he repeatedly was advised not to distribute materials about creationism and intelligent design to students.

For example, in 2003, Freshwater submitted a proposal to his board of education titled “Objective Origins Science Policy” in which Freshwater requested the board to add a statement to the science curricula that would allow teachers/students to critically examine the evidence both for and against evolution. The board rejected Freshwater’s proposal; however, according to the Ohio Supreme Court, the board’s denial of his proposal did not dissuade Freshwater from teaching, as if his proposal had been adopted.

A complaint was made to the board about Freshwater having a Bible on his desk and a collage on the classroom window that included the Ten Commandments. Freshwater was then instructed not to display religious materials in his classroom. Subsequently, the district engaged an independent investigator, HR On Call, Inc. (HROC), to investigate allegations against Freshwater, and they appointed a monitor to sit in his classroom and take notes. HROC found, among other things, that Freshwater taught creationism or intelligent design and the unreliability of carbon dating as reasons to support opposing evolution and that he discussed the meaning of Easter and Good Friday with his students. The report also concluded that Freshwater was insubordinate by failing to remove all religious materials from his classroom, as ordered by his principal.

The Ohio Supreme Court found that Freshwater’s principal had made it clear to him that as a public school teacher, he could not engage in any activity that promotes or denigrates a particular religion or religious belief while on board property, during any school activity, or when he was teaching. The Ohio Supreme Court held that that is the law and what the First Amendment commands.

The Ohio Supreme Court further found that Freshwater not only ignored the district’s directive, he defied it. After he had been directed to remove items, Freshwater deliberately added to them, incorporating the Oxford Bible and the book Jesus of Nazareth into the classroom. He then refused to remove his personal Bible from his desk and refused to remove from his wall a depiction of former President George W. Bush, former Secretary of State Colin Powell, and others in prayer. The Ohio

Supreme Court then went on to define “insubordination,” holding that the term insubordination has been defined as a willful disobedience of, or refusal to obey, a reasonable and valid rule, regulation, or other order issued by the school board or an administrative superior. The Ohio Supreme Court was careful to note that disobedience alone does not establish insubordination and that the school board must also establish that the order was reasonable and valid.

In examining whether Freshwater’s refusal to remove his personal Bible from his desk was the refusal of an order that was reasonable and valid, the Ohio Supreme Court found that it was not. It found that Freshwater had a First Amendment right to display his Bible on his desk.

On the other hand, the Ohio Supreme Court found that Freshwater’s refusal to remove the other items from his classroom—the Oxford Bible, Jesus of Nazareth, and the George W. Bush/ Colin Powell poster— was not protected First Amendment activity by Freshwater and that the order to remove the same was reasonable and valid and Freshwater’s willful disobedience of that order was insubordination.

The Ohio Supreme Court’s decision was a four-three decision, with four members of the court voting to uphold the termination and three members of the court voting against the termination.

Justice Pfeifer, one of the three dissenters, wrote a very strong dissenting opinion, stating as follows:

The effect of the Freshwater case on future termination cases remains to be seen. The full sixty-eight-page slip opinion from the Ohio Supreme Court can be found at Freshwater v. Mount Vernon City School District Board of Education, Slip Opinion No. 2013-Ohio-5000.

Dennis Pergram, esq., who is legal counsel to OAESA, is a partner in the law firm of Manos, Martin, Pergram & Deitz Co., LPA, a former chairperson for the Ohio State Bar Association Committee, and has practiced school law for over thirty years.

Thus concludes the sorry saga of John Freshwater, excellent junior high science teacher, terminated as a result of an extreme overreaction of the parents of a decent student, followed by even less informed and measured responses by Mount Vernon school administrators and the school board. The Mount Vernon school board and school administration are the nominal winners of this case, but they have managed to divide a really nice community and cost the school board and/or its insurance providers well over a million dollars to free itself of a very good teacher. And the people they did it for left town.

Justice Pfeifer was also concerned that the court’s majority decision will have far reaching consequences, stating that: In its effort to be rid of Freshwater’s case without too much heavy lifting, this court has set a very low bar for what constitutes “good and just cause.”

Precedent from this court regarding R.C. 3319.16 is fairly limited, but now we have a case on the books setting forth that good and just cause means very little cause at all. Teachers throughout this state should feel much less secure in their employment today.

Winter 2014 w 29

Health Issues

by Angela Norton and Dawn Abbott

Achieving Student Success Through Quality School Health Services

The standards for measuring student success are a common topic dominating discussions among educators and policy leaders. Often those discussions also include exploring ideas for providing new learning opportunities that will lead to an increase in the academic success of students. Controversy surrounds the issues of how to best achieve and measure student success. Whether it is achieved through implementing the Third Grade Reading Guarantee, adopting the Common Core State Standards, and/or teacher assessment, the overarching goal is constant.

All energies are focused on raising learning standards that will better prepare students for college and careers. However, another critical component of student success that is not often included in academic assessments is the availability and use of school health services. It is well documented that a student’s ability to learn and be successful in school is closely tied to his or her physical and mental well-being. Implementing any or all of the above practices will yield less than optimal results if the student is not healthy, as the ability to remain appropriately attentive will be compromised. A school building that is properly staffed to provide health services for its students will present them with an advantage for academic success compared to one that is not.

The position of the National Association of School Nurses is that the primary objective of school health services be to strengthen education outcomes by assisting students in attaining and maintaining a high level of health and to support their families in obtaining care for each child’s identified and potential health needs. The school nurse is a valuable resource to the school community. In some locations of the state, the 30 w Principal Navigator

school nurse may be the only health care professional readily accessible to students. The professional school nurse uses clinical knowledge and judgment to provide a variety of health services including but not limited to health screenings, managing chronic illnesses, coordinating referrals, and developing Individual Health Care Plans. Most importantly, the school nurse serves as a liaison between school personnel, family and healthcare providers. Their presence and work provides a standard of care for students and staff that is not replicable by any other staffing arrangement and helps ensure a safe and healthy school environment.

The absence of school health standards across the state leads to confusion and a lack of understanding among school personnel and the community about the role of the school nurse. Additionally, the difference

in resources within each district also creates a huge variability in types of health services schools offer. In an effort to help schools provide a baseline of health services to all students, the Ohio Department of Health (ODH) has created several free resources to assist school districts and their health clinic staff in meeting the complex health care needs of their students. The following is a partial list: First, documents on health topics, developed in accordance with best practice standards and in compliance with related Ohio Revised Code provisions, are available. These materials were developed by ODH school nurse consultants and other national and state content experts.

Second, the ODH offers a variety of no-cost or low-cost conferences and a series of professional development training opportunities that include continuing education credits. As with any other profession, it is vitally important to be well informed and to keep current on topics in the field. Professional development opportunities for school nurses ensure that they have the knowledge and resources necessary for providing the highest quality of health services to the school community.

In addition to publications and formal trainings, the ODH, upon request, provides individualized technical support for schools in their health service efforts. School nurse consultants are available as resource experts not only for school nurses but also school administrators and other interested individuals, organizations, and agencies. These ODH consultants have an extensive background in the principles and practices of nursing in the school setting as well as in comprehensive school health programs, nursing/staff education, and health services program development. They are always available to provide guidance and consultation that promotes statewide quality standards for Ohio’s school communities. In most cases technical assistance is provided via telephone and/or e-mail consultation.

The short- and long-term value of integrating quality health services in schools through competent, well-prepared nurses is clear. Academic success cannot be fully realized if provision for the health care needs of students is not adequate. To achieve student success and to raise the bar for academic achievement we must also address the health issues of the student population. A well-developed school health program guided by the professionally trained nurse can help schools achieve that goal.

For more information on school health resources, including how to subscribe to the school nurse bulletin board, please visit ODH’s school nurse website at http://www.odh.ohio.gov/odhprograms/chss/schnurs/ schnurs1.aspx.

Resources: American Nurses Association and National Association of School Nurses. School Nursing: Scope and Standards of Practice, 2nd Edition. (2011). Silver Spring, MD: Nursebooks.org.

National Association of School Nurses, available online at http://www.nasn.org.

Selekman, J. (2006). School Nursing: A Comprehensive Text. F.A. Davis Company, Philadelphia.

Angela Norton is the program chief of School and Adolescent Health at the Ohio Department of Health. She can be reached at angela. norton@odh.ohio.gov Dawn Abbott, BSN, MEd, RN, LSN, NCSN, is the school nurse consultant at the Ohio Department of Health. You may reach her at 614-644-0205 or by email at dawn.abbott@odh.ohio.gov.

Winter 2014 w 31

Legislative Report

by D. Mark Jones

! … s y a S y e v r u S The last few years have brought a plethora of statewide education reforms intended to produce significant improvement in the academic success of Ohio’s public school students. While each one of these initiatives would constitute a substantial change worthy of careful and deliberate attention individually, perhaps none has created a more significant, wholesale change in the daily work of our elementary and secondary building administrators than Ohio’s new teacher evaluation system, known as OTES. Without question, principals from every level and from every corner of the state have expressed strong sentiments about the increased demands brought on by our new evaluation process.

In an effort to both clarify and quantify the concerns of our member principals, the Ohio Association of Elementary School Administrators (OAESA) and the Ohio Association of Secondary School Administrators (OASSA) conducted a joint, statewide survey of all members in early November. The electronic survey was sent to every member of our two organizations, and the response clearly showed that Ohio’s principals want to share their opinions about the changes in teacher evaluation. Within just the first few hours, several hundred members had already completed their responses to the fourteen items on the survey, revealing a level of interest rarely seen for a single-topic issue. By the time the survey window had closed, exactly one thousand building and district administrators had taken advantage of the opportunity to assist OAESA and OASSA in defining the impact of OTES on their daily work.

Based upon the survey results, several broad conclusions can be drawn about our members’ perceptions of OTES/OPES, as well as the implications for our work going forward as instructional leaders. Described below are both the detailed results of our poll and a brief analysis of the findings. Because this initial survey was conducted during the midst of just the first round of observations and walkthroughs, a more complete picture of the effects generated by Ohio’s new teacher evaluation policy, upon the work of school administrators, could be derived from a year-end survey. Still, what we have found so far is enlightening to say the least!

The first item on our joint survey asked the participant to identify 32 w Principal Navigator

the level of their current assignment, which allows for a disaggregation of the rest of our data. This creates the opportunity for us to look for similarities and/or variations among levels. The second question directed participants to indicate the category of their assignment, allowing us to make comparisons between the responses of principals, assistant principals, and central office personnel. Next, we included a third question that simply asked respondents whether or not their district was using the OTES model this year, as many districts are still operating under master agreements, previously signed with their teachers, that stipulate other evaluation procedures. Until these current agreements expire, such districts are not required to implement the OTES process. Finally, the fourth item on our survey asked respondents to describe their district’s level of involvement with electronic tools designed to assist them with their evaluation process, and eTPES was offered as an example of such a tool. A summary of the results from these first four items can be found in Tables 1 through 4 below: Table 1 What is the level of your current assignment?

Elementary

35.6%

Middle School

14.4%

Junior High

3.9%

High School

42.2%

District Office

3.8%

Table 2 What is the category of your current assignment?

Principal

65.3%

Assistant Principal

28.8%

Curriculum Coordinator

2.1%

Other Central Office Administrator

3.7%

Table 3 Is your district using the OTES model for teacher evaluation this year?

Yes

87.9%

No

11.9%

No response

0.2%

Table 4 Is your district using any electronic tool to assist you in your evaluations?

Yes, the entire process is done electronically.

42.3%

Some parts are electronic; others are paper and pencil.

28.2%

Only the final rating needs to be submitted electronically.

23.6%

We are using no electronic tools at all.

5.7%

No response

0.2%

Following these first few items, we next asked participants a series of three questions designed to measure their evaluation workload in terms of both number of teachers assigned to evaluate and hours per week devoted to the process. In addition, for comparative purposes, we asked what respondents believed was the ideal number of hours that should be spent on teacher evaluations. Any significant discrepancy between the actual and desired number of hours dedicated to teacher evaluations could indicate a reason for the unusually high level of stress reported by our principals during the first few months of the current school year.

Table 5 shown below compares the results of items five through seven on our survey to the respondent’s level of assignment. It reveals a high degree of consistency across levels of assignment, with small variations that can be easily explained by the nature of the different levels. For example, while the typical elementary school has a much smaller staff size than the average high school, because most elementary principals are the only administrator in the building, the evaluation workload cannot be shared with assistant principals, as is common at the upper levels. Therefore, the staff load for our elementary principals would likely be as great or greater than their high school counterparts. Still, the survey indicates a fairly even match in the evaluation workload for administrators across the K–12 spectrum.

Table 5 Evaluation Workload Versus Level of Assignment Number of Teachers to Evaluate

Hours Per Week on Evaluations

Ideal Hours for Evaluations

Elementary

24.76

14.60

6.40

Middle School

22.47

11.77

5.89

Junior High

19.89

12.20

7.19

High School

21.16

12.34

6.98

Averages for All

22.07

12.93

6.58

Level of Assignment

As shown in Table 5, the average school administrator in Ohio has an evaluation caseload of twenty-two teachers and is spending nearly thirteen hours each week completing the various requirements of his or her district’s evaluation model. However, these results show averages for all administrators, including those from districts that have not yet implemented the OTES process. When these two subgroups are compared, the numbers are strikingly different, revealing that the OTES principals have both caseloads and a time-involvement nearly double that of their nonOTES counterparts. In all likelihood, this variation is a function of the fact that most older evaluation models typically do not require a formal evalu-

ation of every classroom teacher every year, as does the OTES process.

This information is summarized in Table 6.

Table 6 OTES Workload Versus Previous Evaluation Model Workload Model of Evaluation

Number of Teachers to Evaluate

Hours Per Week on Evaluations

Ideal Hours for Evaluation

Principals using OTES for Evaluations

23.89

13.59

6.77

Principals using Previous Evaluation Models

13.46

7.35

5.62

Table 6 offers some interesting revelations. A quick glance reveals that principals using the OTES model have almost twice as many teachers to evaluate and are spending almost twice as much time on the process. But this is only part of the story. For example, dividing the reported hours per week spent on teacher evaluations by the number of assigned teachers, we can determine an average amount of time per teacher (TPT) required by the various evaluation methods. Surprisingly, the OTES process doesn’t appear to have increased the TPT for our principals, as both the previous models and OTES are reported to involve about thirty-two minutes per teacher per week. The drain on time created by OTES, then, is not a result of the process itself but rather a function of the requirement to formally evaluate every teacher every year. It should be noted, however, that our survey was conducted in mid-November, just as our administrators were finishing the first of two rounds of formal observations and walkthroughs that constitute the OTES process. Because the OTES principals still have another complete round to accomplish (and since most previous evaluation models only involve one observation cycle), the final impact from the shift to OTES may well be a quadrupling of the time involved with teacher evaluation rather than doubling as we have seen so far. This, again, points to the need for a follow-up survey of our members at year’s end.

With respect to the question that asked our members to suggest an “ideal” number of hours per week they believe should be spent on the work of teacher evaluation, the answers remained very consistent across all levels, regardless of which method was being used. In general, our members indicated they believe devoting six or seven hours per week to the task could accomplish an effective evaluation process.

The next item on our survey was designed to ascertain what other activities typically performed by our members have been affected by the increased time demands associated with OTES. Respondents were offered several options, listing a variety of usual administrative functions, and instructed to check all for which they have reduced their normal amount of time spent. In addition, they were provided an “other” selection that allowed them the chance to include text of their own ideas for tasks that have been impacted by OTES. A summary of these affected responsibilities is shown below in Table 7. Two noteworthy aspects bear mentioning: First, the most commonly reported area to be adversely affected by OTES was “personal time outside of work.” This certainly matches all the anecdotal reports of “staying late in the evenings” or “coming in to the office (continued on page 34) Winter 2014 w 33

for several hours on the weekends” that we have heard so frequently this fall from our members. It also aligns quite naturally to the point made by so many principals that “the other routine tasks don’t disappear, we just have to find time to squeeze the demands of OTES into our everexpanding list of responsibilities.” This fact would explain why so many have reported that they are finding the time factor associated with OTES so overwhelming. Second, for those who submitted additional areas that have suffered a loss in time-on-task, the most commonly reported suggestion was clearly student discipline. It would be quite telling to know if other school employees have also perceived a decline in the engagement of their building administrators with respect to student discipline as a result of the time demands associated with the OTES process.

Table 7 Reduction of Time Spent on Other Administrative Activities Activity

Percent Reported

Personal Time Outside of Work

76.3%

Time Spent Engaging with Students

74.4%

Informal Time in Classrooms and around School

71.6%

Informal Discussions with Teachers and Staff

68.0%

Reading or Researching Educational Literature

66.9%

Planning Staff Development Activities

53.6%

Time Spent Meeting with Parents

27.8%

Other

17.3%

To identify any supports that school districts are offering their administrators to assist them with the added burdens from OTES, we compiled a short list of ideas from our members and asked each respondent to check those choices that their district offers. Of the supports, the one most frequently identified was the technological tools to assist in managing the data, like specialized apps for their iPads. Another common approach to providing relief to principals involved the assignment of certain staff members to other supervisors from the district office for evaluation (e.g., assigning special education teachers to special education supervisors). Unfortunately, the most common response from our members was “My district has provided no additional supports.” The complete results are printed in Table 8 below and likely reflect the lack of financial ability for our schools to adequately fund any additional help to implement the requirements of OTES. Table 8 Supports for Implementing the Teacher Evaluation Process Type of Support Offered

Percent

My district has provided NO additional supports.

40.6%

Providing technological tools to assist with evaluations

36.9%

Assigning certain staff to others for evaluation

22.0%

Hiring additional administrators at the building level

7.4%

Hiring retired administrators to assist with other duties

5.2%

Hiring outside evaluators to perform staff evaluations

2.6%

We have received many anecdotal comments from various members this fall about the positive, instruction-based conversations they have en34 w Principal Navigator

joyed with their staff this year as a result of the OTES process. Because of this, we included an item asking respondents to rate their current teacher evaluation model, whether OTES or not, on a scale from one to ten, for its effectiveness in producing growth and improvement in their teachers’ instructional techniques. While we expected to see greater confidence in the OTES model over the traditional evaluation methods for creating such instructional improvement, based on its “best-practice” assertions, the survey appears to yield very little difference in the principals’ perceptions about its overall effectiveness. The average score on the one-to-ten rating from the OTES principals was a 5.4, and the average score for our non-OTES principals was a 5.2. Perhaps this is because of a decreased comfort level with the mechanics of OTES, or the fact that we are barely three months into a wide scale implementation of this process; still, the lack of discernible difference in this area was worth noting and bears watching. Table 9 shown below provides the complete results from this item.

Table 9 How would you rate your current evaluation model for producing Improvement in the instructional techniques of your teachers? (1 to 10, weakest to strongest) 1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

OTES 4% 6% Principals

11% 9% 19% 13% 18% 17% 2% 1%

NonOTES Principals

10% 10% 24% 10% 11% 15% 6% 1%

7% 6%

The survey also included two open-ended items about the teacher evaluation process, allowing participants to offer specific comments. The first question asked respondents to describe one improvement that they would make if they could to the evaluation model they are currently using. The second, more general, question was the final item on the survey.

It simply asked if they had anything else to add that was not covered by the survey. While responses to the item asking for improvement suggestions produced a wide array of responses, several broad themes emerged.

Not surprisingly, these ideas were all related to the concept of reducing the amount of time involved in the process. The most frequent of these suggestions identified reducing the number of required formal observations from two to one as the best possible revision. This was followed closely by the idea of not requiring every teacher to be evaluated every year and typically included the suggestion of placing any teacher who earns a rating of either skilled or accomplished on an every-other-year evaluation cycle. While distinctly different in their approach, both suggestions accomplish the goal of the third most-often cited comment, which was simply to “reduce the amount of time involved” in the evaluation process. Taken collectively, these ideas reflect, not so much dissatisfaction with the actual concepts or goals of OTES but rather recognition of the overwhelming impact on the demands of their time it has produced.

The survey’s final item is also revealing in its message. The fact that even after responding to thirteen other items, some of which required open-ended, thoughtful answers, we still had almost 60 percent of the participants take the time to add their own additional remarks is indeed impressive. Some of these comments were quite lengthy. Taken as a whole, this level of feedback demonstrates that our members are eager to share their impressions about teacher evaluation. Equally as impressive was the general tone of their answers at the end. The majority of respon-

dents were complimentary of the OTES model, often citing the positive nature of the rich, instruction-based conversations that the process had generated between them and their teachers. They recognized the positive impact that this new model has on moving them more clearly into the desired role of “instructional leader” of their school. And they also appreciated the continuous improvement facet of this approach. Inescapably, however, the overall message remains that the increased demands on their time has led to less time to engage with both students and staff, and much less personal time for their own families. Sadly, many expressed serious doubt that they could sustain this pace even for the rest of this school year, let alone a full career in administration.

We also included two items on the survey to gauge our members’ perceptions of their own evaluation system, the OPES model. The first of these two was not intended to be a trick question, as all administrators are supposed to be evaluated under OPES beginning this year. However, because we have heard through many informal conversations already this year that some principals don’t see much attention being paid to this requirement, we simply asked our respondents whether or not they were being evaluated under OPES. As a sign of the slow start to OPES, more than 10 percent of those in our survey replied that they are not being evaluated under OPES. Perhaps a follow-up survey nearer to the end of the year would yield different results; still, the requirements of OPES, like those of OTES, would lead us to the conclusion that a significant number of districts are well behind schedule in the implementation of their administrative evaluation process.

The second item related to their evaluation this year asked our principals how much time they were devoting to the task of documenting evidence of their own performance on the OPES rubric. In theory, a proper

and effective evaluation of an administrator should be as comprehensive as that of a teacher evaluation, since the OTES and OPES models both follow a similar format, including self-reflection, goal-setting, observations, and walkthroughs. Because the job of collecting evidence and documentation of their performance on specific standards is likely to be new for many of our members, we wanted to determine how much time, in hours per week, they were devoting to this expectation as well. The survey instrument allowed them to answer this in either text or numerical format.

Most respondents provided a number of hours per week, which averaged to 1.77 hours of weekly documentation to meet their OPES requirements.

The remaining 10 percent replied with text, which invariably expressed frustration about this additional burden on their time, usually along the lines of “Who has any time left over for this task!?”

In summary, the results of the survey provide us with detailed information about our members’ perceptions, concerns, and suggestions with respect to teacher and principal evaluation in our schools this school year. Without a doubt, this data can and should be used to generate further discussions about the refinement of Ohio’s efforts to improve instruction through effective evaluation. Thank you so much for all of you who took the time to fill out this survey.

D. Mark Jones is the Associate Director of OAESA. Before joining the association in the summer of 2013, Mark served as an elementary principal in Pickerington City Schools for thirty-three years. You can reach Mark by email at mjones@oaesa.org.

Winter 2014 w 35

I Like What OTES Is Doing for Me…

I Just Don’t Like What It Is Doing to Me!

by Ken Pease

If you had asked me a few years ago what tools I would like to help raise expectations for teaching, the list would have been long. It would have included the ability to frequently walk through teachers’ rooms and to evaluate them using a set of standards that would take the subjectivity out of the process. I would have liked the ability to evaluate teachers on all parts of their day and not simply the forty-five minutes I observed them, once a year or so. I would have liked the teachers taking ownership in their evaluation. I would have wished that teachers would seek out the job coach, get peer reviews, and even videotape their lessons. I would have asked to have more authentic conversations with them to drive instructional improvement—one teacher at a time. In short, I would have asked for OTES. In my second year using the rubric, I have found it to be a terrific tool that has shifted my ability as principal to improve instructional practice for every one of my teachers. When asked recently by my superintendent how OTES was going, I was quick to point out all the benefits it is affording me. However, through that discussion, I also realized all that OTES is taking away from me.

I have a relatively large building, just shy of 550 kids. This year I am responsible for evaluating thirty-seven teachers, totaling seventy-four evaluations. This summer my principal colleagues and I came up with a plan to tackle this daunting task: First we created evaluation binders for every teacher. The teachers use the binders to collect evidence of their work. This binder is not a requirement, but every teacher is using it. It is made up of tabs for every part of the rubric. As teachers collect evidence, they add it to the binder. Evidence of peer coaching goes in the “professional responsibilities” tab, while parent and teacher surveys go in the “knowledge of students” tab. The teachers have appreciated the binders, as it allows them to display evidence that I normally would not see. The next step in tackling OTES was to populate my calendar for the entire year. Once I determined the number of evaluations I had to complete, I assigned certain groups of teachers to certain weeks. My new teachers took priority on the calendar because I had certain deadlines of when they needed to be evaluated. I also determined which weeks I would complete walkthroughs. Each teacher was given a schedule on the first report day of the school year. Therefore, they knew exactly which weeks 36 w Principal Navigator

I would evaluate them and which weeks I would walkthrough. The walkthroughs occur randomly throughout each teacher’s designated week, while they select a time in their assigned week for the observation.

With my binder and schedule completed, I have been working furiously to finish the job. I enjoy the time in the classroom and the rich conversations I have with teachers. I work hard to give authentic feedback and have actually been thanked by several teachers. I have become a better instructional leader, and I am thankful for OTES and the time it gives me to work with teachers.

With that said, we are now experiencing unintended consequences of OTES. The amount of time I spend working on evaluations is negatively impacting my effectiveness in the building. Every day I used to spend time on recess, lunch, and/or car duty. I looked forward to opening vehicle doors in the morning to greet kids and foster important parent relationships. Recess duty used to let me connect with kids and teachers.

Two days a month, I was fortunate enough to meet with my grade-level teams and run PLCs. At one time I sat in on all of our IAT meetings, as well as our IEP meetings. I had time to problem solve, reward kids for good choices, and meet with troubled parents. Discipline was also an important and regular part of my day, but now it takes a back seat to OTES. Many times I am unavailable to help teachers with students who are having a bad day because I am completing evaluations. While I still participate in all of these things, it is to a much lesser extent, and it is negatively impacting my ability to be the principal my kids, parents, and staff deserve. The observations and walkthroughs are a heavy load, compounded by over a hundred thirty- to forty-minute, pre and postconferences that number over one hundred. I don’t believe that maintaining this pace and schedule is possible in future years for elementary principals across the state.

The OTES rubric has been well thought out and is a powerful tool for changing how we strengthen teaching across Ohio. However, the implementation plan needs adjusting. Districts will either need to allocate more evaluators to keep the pace, or evaluations will need to be scaled back to one per teacher per year. Doing so would maintain the integrity of the evaluation, raise standards of teaching, and allow principals to get back to the rest of their work.

Ken Pease is in his eighth year as an elementary principal. He is currently the principal at Slate Hill Elementary School in Worthington City Schools, just north of Columbus. He lives in Hilliard with his wife and four children. You can contact Ken by email at KPease@ worthington.k12.oh.us.

Common Core Shifts Common Core Shifts for English Language Arts/Literacy

1. Regular practice with complex text and its academic language

Rather than focusing solely on the skills of reading and writing, the Standards highlight the growing complexity of the texts students must read to be ready for the demands of college and careers. The Standards build a staircase of text complexity so that all students are ready for the demands of college- and career-level reading no later than the end of high school. Closely related to text complexity—and inextricably connected to reading comprehension—is a focus on academic vocabulary: words that appear in a variety of content areas (such as ignite and commit).

2. Reading, writing and speaking grounded in evidence from text, both literary and informational

The Standards place a premium on students writing to sources, i.e., using evidence from texts to present careful analyses, well-defended claims, and clear information.

Rather than asking students questions they can answer solely from their prior knowledge or experience, the Standards expect students to answer questions that depend on their having read the text or texts with care The Standards also require the cultivation of narrative writing throughout the grades, and in later grades a command of sequence and detail will be essential for effective argumentative and informational writing.

Likewise, the reading standards focus on students’ ability to read carefully and grasp information, arguments, ideas and details based on text evidence. Students should be able to answer a range of text-dependent questions, questions in which the answers require inferences based on careful attention to the text.

3. Building knowledge through content-rich nonfiction

Building knowledge through content rich non-fiction plays an essential role in literacy and in the Standards. In K–5, fulfilling the standards requires a 50-50 balance between informational and literary reading. Informational reading primarily includes content rich non-fiction in history/social studies, science and the arts; the K–5 Standards strongly recommend that students build coherent general knowledge both within each year and across years. In 6–12, ELA classes place much greater attention to a specific category of informational text— literary nonfiction—than has been traditional. In grades 6–12, the Standards for literacy in history/social studies, science and technical subjects ensure that students can independently build knowledge in these disciplines through reading and writing.

To be clear, the Standards do require substantial attention to literature throughout K–12, as half of the required work in K–5 and the core of the work of 6–12 ELA teachers.

For CCSS shifts in math, turn to p. 38. (continued on page 38) Winter 2014 w 37

Common Core State Standards Shifts in Mathematics 1. Focus strongly where the Standards focus

Focus: The Standards call for a greater focus in mathematics. Rather than racing to cover topics in today’s milewide, inch-deep curriculum, teachers use the power of the eraser and significantly narrow and deepen the way time and energy is spent in the math classroom. They focus deeply on the major work* of each grade so that students can gain strong foundations: solid conceptual understanding, a high degree of procedural skill and fluency, and the ability to apply the math they know to solve problems inside and outside the math classroom.

2. Coherence: think across grades, and link to major topics within grades

Thinking across grades: The Standards are designed around coherent progressions from grade to grade.

Principals and teachers carefully connect the learning across grades so that students can build new understanding onto foundations built in previous years. Teachers can begin to count on deep conceptual understanding of core content and build on it. Each standard is not a new event, but an extension of previous learning.

Linking to major topics: Instead of allowing additional or supporting topics to detract from the focus of the grade, these topics can serve the grade level focus. For example, instead of data displays as an end in themselves, they support grade-level word problems.

3. Rigor: in major topics* pursue: • conceptual understanding, • procedural skill and fluency, and • application with equal intensity.

Conceptual understanding: The Standards call for conceptual understanding of key concepts, such as place value and ratios. Teachers support students’ ability to access concepts from a number of perspectives so that students are able to see math as more than a set of mnemonics or discrete procedures.

Procedural skill and fluency: The Standards call for speed and accuracy in calculation. Teachers structure class time and/or homework time for students to practice core functions such as single-digit multiplication so that students have access to more complex concepts and procedures Application: The Standards call for students to use math flexibly for applications. Teachers provide opportunities for students to apply math in context. Teachers in content areas outside of math, particularly science, ensure that students are using math to make meaning of and access content.

High-level Summary of Major Work in Grades K-8 K–2 Addition and subtraction—concepts, skills, and problem solving and place value 3–5 Multiplication and division of whole numbers and fractions—concepts, skills, and problem solving

6 Ratios and proportional relationships; early expressions and equations

7 Ratios and proportional relationships; arithmetic of rational numbers

8 Linear algebra and linear functions *For a list of major, additional, and supporting clusters by grade, refer to Focus in Math at www.achievethecore.org/focus, pp. 4–12.

Article printed with permission from www.achievethecore.org.

38 w Principal Navigator

Common Core Resources Do you need more information about the new standards? Do you want to know where to direct teachers and parents for answers to their questions? We know you’re busy, so here’s a list of eight resources we’ve compiled for you. Feel free to tear out this list, copy it, and pass it on to others!

for You

Achieve the Core

If you don’t know where to start, Achieve the Core is the place. This site was founded by the nonprofit organization, Student Achievement Partners, with one goal in mind: to support educators across the country in their efforts to implement the Common Core State Standards. This website is full of informative and practical material about the Core—ranging from videos to PDFs to PowerPoint presentations, designed for teachers, leaders, and parents—that is free for you to copy and share, no permission necessary. Visit www.achievethecore.org for more.

Achieve

Achieve is an independent, nonpartisan, nonprofit education reform organization that works with states to improve education. Achieve helped develop the Common Core, so you’ll find quite a lot of relevant information from the source. The links and publications on this site include messaging do’s and don’t’s and messaging cards, an implementation workbook for all states, and even resources for legislators (pass it on!). Finally, Achieve houses EQuiP Rubrics, which are designed to test how well lessons align to the Common Core. You can visit Achieve’s CCSS pages at www.achieve. org/achieving-common-core.

Alliance for Excellent Education

Alliance for Excellent Education is a national advocacy organization working to guarantee that all students receive an excellent education. The Alliance’s motto is: Every child a graduate. Every child prepared for life. While the primary focus of the organization is on high school students, the information the alliance has about the Common Core is for everyone. From the latest buzz about the standards to information about what is happening in each state, archive.all4ed.org/common-standards has it all.

Common Core State Standards Initiative

For the most comprehensive data about the new standards, visit www.corestandards.org. Filled with specific information about the standards by subject matter and by grade level, this site is packed with the facts. Here’s an excerpt from math standards, grade two introduction: “In Grade 2, instructional time should focus on four critical areas: (1) extending understanding of base-ten notation; (2) building fluency with addition and subtraction; (3) using standard units of measure; and (4) describing and analyzing shapes.” The site also has a wide list of resources in PDF format that you can download and use.

Common Core Tools: Mathematics

This blog focuses on sharing updates and useful material related to the CCSS in mathematics. Tools include specifics about math standards, information to share with parents, and the Illustrative Mathematics Project, which is a nonprofit organization comprised of educators dedicated to providing the best resources for teachers of mathematics. The site also encourages community participation, so you can join the discussion on the forums, enter writing contests, and watch presentations about the math standards from the comfort of your desk chair. Visit www.commoncore. me for more information.

PARCC

The Partnership for Assessment of Readiness for College and Careers (PARCC) is a consortium of eighteen states plus DC (Ohio included) and the US Virgin Islands that is developing a common set of K–12 assessments in English and math, which will be implemented in 2014–15. No surprise that there’s a wealth of information about the CCSS on this site, including sample assessment items and task prototypes, giving educators of substantial preview of what to expect next year. You can visit the site at www.parcconline.org.

Share My Lesson

Share My Lesson is chock full of information about the Core, including timely articles, interviews with critical players, sample questions from PARCC, resources for parents, webinars about the Core, and even a CCSS forum and blog. But that’s not even the main premise for the site—it’s a place where teachers can exchange lesson ideas. Check out www.sharemylesson.com and be sure to share it with your staff.

The Teaching Channel

Registration for this site is free, gaining you access to over 180 informative videos about the Common Core. Most videos are less than ten minutes in length, so they don’t take up much time but offer a wide range of topics, from CCSS overviews to implementation to lesson plans. You can also search for videos and filter them by most viewed, most discussed, and newest. The Teaching Channel is a great resource to share with your staff: www. teachingchannel.org.

Winter 2014 w 39

Sorry

...We’re BOOKED Growing into Equity, Professional Learning and Personalization in HighAchieving Schools

by Sonia Caus Gleason and Nancy Gerzon

This book offers an examination of practices that enable Title 1 schools to become high achievers. It showcases four schools that have met this challenge in spite of barriers like urban violence and high poverty. What makes this examination unique in the field of school improvement books is the connection of two concepts often viewed in isolation by school leaders. The authors use case studies to make an argument for the necessity of viewing personalization of student learning and professional learning for instructional staff as interconnected concepts. The demands of greater rigor and assurance of academic growth by every student have forced teachers and school leaders to carefully consider how we monitor and guide students on an individualized basis.

At the same time, implementation of new teacher evaluation models is forcing all school stakeholders to consider how to foster similar growth among our professional staff.

The authors use the studies to showcase practices from the case study sites that allow us to view these needs as related concepts. The case study chapters are poignant and timely. Each study includes an overview of lessons learned by these innovative schools along with artifacts, such as team meeting protocols and planning documents that the reader can easily adapt and use. Unfortunately, these lessons are obscured by the heavily jargoned prose of the introductory and summative chapters. Most building administrators in the era of OTES will have little time or patience for the academic vernacular.

Reviewed by David Ulbricht, principal, Echo Hills Elementary School, Stow Munroe Falls City Schools

2 In this book, equity has a very distinct two-part definition. First, equity means every student is challenged and supported to meet high standards, regardless of who they are or where they are from. The researchers, Gleason and Gerzon, believe that a true commitment to equity means understanding each child, both as a person and as a learner, in order to personalize his or her education. The second part of equity means providing personalized professional development and supports for each teacher, so he or she can meet the needs of every student, thereby enabling all students to reach high levels of learning.

40 w Principal Navigator

This book explains what Gleason and Gerzon learned from studying, in depth, four schools that have been high-achieving for five years or longer. Two schools were urban and two were rural with poverty rates ranging from 45 percent to 80 percent and a variety of ethnicities.

One was a high school, one was pre-K–8, and the others were a pre-K–5 and a pre-K–6.

I enjoyed the vivid case studies and concrete evidence described for each school in chapters two through five. Each chapter focused on one school and gave specific examples of what they were doing to achieve their high performances, including forms, protocols, and strategies. The researchers also described the way professional development was organized, with an emphasis on data, collaboration, shared leadership, and collective accountability. All the schools were intentional in their approach to overall school quality with a focus on a continuous cycle of instructional improvement and personal reflection. If you are looking for different ways to think about school improvement and additional resources, then I would recommend this book.

Laurie Vent, principal, South and East Elementary Schools, Upper Sandusky Exempted Village Schools

I’m in the Principal’s Seat, Now What?

by Allan R. Bonilla

Dale Carnegie said, “Common sense is not common practice.”

This book is full of what most administrators would consider common sense—structured visibility, building a positive culture, collaborating instead of delegating, change, celebrating, welcoming parents, and more.

But are all of these items common practice in your school?

While this book was purposely written for beginning administrators, it provides a good reflection for veteran administrators as well. This book is a quick read. Each chapter has an “afterthoughts and reflections” page at the end, which offers a self-assessment of current practice.

Especially in the current world of OTES, SLOs, TGRG, and more, these reflective pieces offer a nice reminder of what really matters and what

administrators should be striving for in their buildings—pieces that may be slipping in the wake of modern mandates. Ignore the “turn-around principal” theme on which the publisher and author try to capitalize.

Information presented in this book is nothing new. The ideas given are just good practices and are probably already being done by many administrators. Overall, this book would be a good gift for a beginning or aspiring administrator, and experienced administrators might like this book on their shelves to pull out and use the reflection components from time to time.

Reviewed by Stephanie Klingshirn, principal, Mississinawa Valley Elementary, Mississinawa Valley Schools

We extend our appreciation to Corwin Press for providing these publications to our reviewers.

You can order these books and many other educational materials at

www.corwinpress.com

Or call 800-233-9936 Or fax to 800-417-2466 Or mail to 2455 Teller Road, Thousand Oaks, CA 91320

Those with purchase orders for large quantities or who need assistance matching our books to their district’s initiatives or school needs can speak with a sales manager by calling 800-831-6640.

Support accountability decisions.

Use mCLASS®DIBELS Next® with DIBELS®AD™ for student growth-based input in teacher evaluation programs.

To learn more about this ODE Approved Assessment for Value-Added from Amplify, contact: Melissa Martinsen, M. Ed Regional Director, Educational Partnerships c.440.610.0004 or email mmartinsen@amplify.com © 2013 Amplify Education, Inc. All trademarks and copyrights are the property of Amplify or its licensors

Winter 2014 w 41

New Members Zone 1 Jennifer Adkins Andrea Bobo Heather Bowles Bruce Bryant Shane Freshour Trisha Harris

Kellie Hayden Jay Hickman Anna-Catherine LaFond Charles Laswell Lorri Lightle Arianna Neading

Melissa Buckalew John-James Clark Bethany Douglas Codi Hatten Therese Hunt Jennifer McDonald

Josh Michael Christine Reeves Tara Rosselot Michael Stanfield-Fegley Kathleen Ware

Tony Albrinck Jean Brady Shannon Chester Nicholas Elam

Eric Hughes Nicole Jones Alison Latino Brian Lemke

Daniel Rettinger Jon Sweet Tracy Trogdlon

Kristin Baker Misty Baker Stacy Barker Mark Binkley Matthew Bradley

Jeremy Clark Derek French Ryan Knuckles Angela Macwhinney Angela Murphy

Anita Newman Benjamin Porter Jennifer Sautter Amy Smith Kelli Thobe

Hope Brinkman Geoffrey Halsey John Knapp Robert Morgan

Jenicka Reamer Gail Rusinko Megan Spangler David Sprouse

Eric Urban

Zone 2 Zone 3 Zone 4 Zone 5

42 w Principal Navigator

Brook Price Clinton Rhodes Joni Scipione Janeen Spradlin Kirk Washburn

Eric Turlo Melisa Watters Travis Woodworth Jill Young

Zone 6 Kesh Boodheshwar Sandra Chisnell Jason Kaczay

Zone 7 Timothy Anderson Sun Choe Renee Dzurnak James Franko Christopher Keating

Zone 8

Paul Milcetich Jeffrey Morris Joel Nau

Robin Richardson Heather Searight

Cristy Reiley Donald Sparks Lewis Treece

Kimberly Aponte George Burich Angela Dooley Marc Fritz Kathleen Gavalier Richard Kover

Shawn Marcello Christine Miley Deborah Nanney Angel Owens Amber Previte Traci Shantery

Mary Alice Sigler Michelle Skillman Sandy Smith George Thomas Scott Thompson Paul Trotter

Antoinette Viscounte Jessica Zebroski Michael Zoccali

Judith Black Jodie Hughes Kendall Jones

Kate Kandel Colleen Kornish William Luther

Christopher Pullen John Reindel Eric Seibert

Tim Sherman Michael Shipper

Joyce Albright Martha Barley Sherry Birchem Jason Brasno Courtney Brown Ernest Clinkscale Lauren DeMars Sandee Donald

Donna Jarrett Gabrielle Karpowicz Levonda Kreitzburg Brittany Loparich Maria Manzola Marie Montgomery Travis Morris Amy Morris

Saradhi Narra Michael Oates Julie Paige Kristina Sander Michael Schaefer Laura Schnebelen Melanie Wightman Olympia Williams

Carla Wilson David Wilson Dara Young

Michael Daley Laura Groboske Mitch Heffron Daphne Irby

Thomas Jandris Michelle Jordan Daniel Kemats Charmaine Lupinacci

Jared Moore Nick Neiderhouse Travis Pulfer Cathleen Schwenn

Rachael Seifert

Zone 9 Zone 10

Other New Members

Winter 2014 w 43

Cheryl Montag Named Ohio’s 2013–14 National Distinguished Principal Cheryl Montag, principal of JF Burns Elementary School in Maineville, Ohio, was selected as Ohio’s 2013 National Distinguished Principal. Cheryl received her bachelor’s degree from Bowling Green State University, her master’s degree from Wright State University, and her administration degree from the University of Cincinnati/ Wright State University. Prior to becoming principal of JF Burns in 1997, Cheryl served the school as a first and second grade teacher then as an assistant principal. In 2011 JF Burns Elementary was the recipient of OAESA’s Hall of Fame Award, under her leadership.

“Cheryl was nominated and selected by her fellow principals through a statewide search process conducted by OAESA,” said Dr. Julie Davis, OAESA Executive Director, “We were proud to have her represent our state in October as well as throughout the year.”

Cheryl Montag and her husband, Al.

Cheryl Montag and Arne Duncan, US Secretary of Education

44 w Principal Navigator

On October 8, 2013, the National Association of Elementary School Principals (NAESP) named sixty-one outstanding elementary and middle school principals from across the nation and abroad as the 2013 National Distinguished Principals (NDPs). The NDPs were honored October 25 at an awards banquet in Washington, DC, which has been generously funded by VALIC for nearly twenty-five years.

US Secretary of Education Arne Duncan delivered the opening address.

Established in 1984, the two-day NDP program occurs annually during October, National Principals Month. It recognizes both public and private school principals that make superior contributions to their schools and communities. The NDP honorees are selected by NAESP state affiliates, including the Ohio Association of Elementary School Administrators (OAESA), and by other committees representing private and overseas schools.

NAESP Executive Director, Gail Connelly, commended the NDPs for exemplary school leadership. “Only a principal can move a school from good to great, simultaneously championing children and uplifting the communities they serve,” she said. “We congratulate this class of NDPs for their steadfast dedication to educating our nation’s children to their fullest potential.”

serving ohio’s preK, elementary, middle level, and central office administrators

Membership Form Tell Us About Yourself!

Professional ............................. $250.00 Associate/Aspiring .......................$60.00 Retired .....................................$60.00 Institutional ...............................$60.00

Name E-mail address School Position Title Years in this Position: _ 2 years or fewer _ 11-20 years

_ 3-10 years _ 20+ years

(Total number of years in this position, not necessarily at your current school)

Active..................................... $235.00 Institutional Active ..................... $280.00 Emeritus ................................. $118.00 Retired .................................... $60.00 Associate ................................. $135.00 Aspiring Principal ........................ $80.00

Total School Address City, State, Zip Code

Method of Payment Full Payment (Check or credit card) Purchase Order #______________

School District

(Payment due within 30 days—See Expiration Policy)

School Phone

Payroll Deduction: $275, includes professional membership ($250) and processing fee($25). Maximum of 10 equal installments.

School Fax

Make check payable to OAESA for your OAESA membership. If also joining NAESP, include NAESP membership fee in check total.

School Information (check all that apply) _ PreK _ Elementary _ Middle _ Public _ Private _ Parochial _ Charter _ Title I _ Urban _ Suburban _ Rural

Home Address

City, State, Zip Code

OAESA 2600 Corporate Exchange, Suite 168 Columbus, OH 43231 Fax: 614-794-9191 · Phone: 614-794-9190

Card Type: _ Master Card _ Visa _ Discover Card Number Expiration Date Cardholder name Security Code (last 3 digits on back of the card)

Cell/Home Phone Preferred Address: _ Home _ School Referred By (if applicable) Membership Renewal Date:

City, State, Zip Signature Any account with an outstanding balance more than 30 days delinquent will be suspended and must be brought current before membership can be reinstated.

Winter 2014 w 45

Periodical Postage Paid Westerville, OH

SAVE THE DATE! June 17-18, 2014

with

presents

LITERACY

LIVE

57th Annual Professional Conference & Trade Show Live from Kalahari Resort in Sandusky, OH June 17 – 18, 2014

D��’� M��� T��� O��-O�-A-K��� C��������� F�� A������������� ��� T�������, F��������: • • • • • • • •

A free “unconference” Monday afternoon Over twenty clinics addressing hot topics Third Grade Reading Guarantee resources An awards dinner recognizing outstanding schools and leaders Big Red Dog! No-cost resources for educators Breakouts from Scholastic including the Power of Booktalk, Raising Readers, and Strengthening Independent Reading Breakfast and lunch included in price

FEATURED SPEAKERS Donalyn Miller, author of The Book Whisperer, reflects on her journey to become a reading teacher and describes how she inspires and motivates her middle school students to read forty or more books a year. She currently facilitates the community blog, the Nerdy Book Club, and co-writes a monthly column for Scholastic’s Principal-to-Principal newsletter.

Todd Whitaker, recognized as a leaddiscusses the importance of teaching and has resonated with hundreds of thousands of educators around the world.

Todd is a professor of educational leadership at Indiana State University, and he has spent his life pursuing his love of education by researching and studying effective teachers and principals.

For more information and to register, visit oaesa.org/professional_conference.asp