Criterion A: Consistent Leadership As a member of the Building Leadership Team I have for the past two years, participated

in team decisions on action plans for raising the level of achievement for all students and especially our subgroups. These actions included Marzanos 9 book groups, plans for increased parental involvement, and more staff collaboration time. Concerning collaboration, we have worked out the scheduling for the 2011-2012 school year that will allow for sufficient time for the staff (Teacher Based Teams) to meet by departments and grade levels in order to continue work with creating common quarterly or summative assessments, and gathering data on student achievement. The TBTs will chart students and subgroups by content indicator mastery so as to better make decisions about where remediation is needed, what benchmarks need to be addressed more aggressively and discuss what instructional approaches may be working best to accomplish specific course benchmarks. To gain a better grasp of what type of teacher based teams would be most effective and how to best facilitate the work of the teacher based teams several members of the BLT myself included attended a day long in- service sponsored by the ODE and our State Support Team Region 6 on June 9th, 2011. The focus was on understanding the roles and duties of the District and Building Leadership Teams in implementing productive TBTs within our respective buildings. There will be emphasis on uses of data analysis, the need to focus on subgroups and employing the 5-step process of inquiry. This information can now be a basis for our continued work as the new school year begins. By giving the teachers time and means to build these data banks, analyze the data and collaborate on student strengths and weaknesses more informed instructional decisions can be made to help raise student achievement As part of a Junior High teacher in-service day on November, 2007, Mrs. Mays invited staff to share some of their best instructional practices. Myself and three other teachers volunteered. The goal was to utilize the wealth of knowledge within our own staff to take advantage of an opportunity to share and borrow best practices from each other. I presented and fielded

questions on 8 practices I had found to be key to student achievement in my history courses. As I review the document (E1) again in preparation for use here, I was pleased to see that many of the suggestions I made at that time have been reinforced by the new policy changes and initiatives for instructional focus over the past 4 years. For example my unit test class average competition (solely based on achievement and the quarterly class goal celebration) ties in neatly with Marzanos Reinforcing effort and providing recognition and Setting objectives and feedback. My suggestion of using guiding questions and targets mirrors the work we have done with grading and assessment. In particular Jan Chappuis book Seven Strategies of Assessment for Learning has as a first strategy clear and understandable vision of learning target. My focus on constant class assessment and try again activities that I shared with staff turned out to be a precursor for our grading and assessment policy of using frequent formative assessment, taking corrective actions and encouraging students to retry testing until mastery was achieved. Through these instructional practices that were shared by staff that day we hoped to have an impact on the quality of instruction taking place within our building. It may have served to reinforce for some teachers that what they were doing represented a good practice that they should continue. For some the ideas that were presented could be adjusted to fit their content and situation then implemented with a known resource person available for questions or suggestions. This practice of utilizing the professional knowledge and experience within our own district is valuable and I wish the idea was used by the district more frequently. Over the past year I have worked on the districts LEA (local education agency) Transformation team helping to plan the 4 year Race to the Top (RttT) scope of work in the area of standards and assessments, using data to improve instruction, great teachers and leaders, and turning around the lowest-achieving schools. Though each assurance area is important and and needed for success, my focus for 2010-2011 and beyond will be teacher evaluation and

support training element. As the state and nation inevitably moves toward greater teacher accountability using my transformational team membership to help build a system that sees the support and development of great teachers critical to raising student achievement. Steps in the first two years seems to move us in that direction. In the area of Great Teachers and Leaders the scope of work weve developed currently seeks to establish teams to devise evaluation systems, training for evaluators, creation of evaluation tools ,using evaluation findings to drive professional development, and we hope allow for teacher support from mentors when requested. As social studies department head Im working closely with my department members as we continue to revise & coordinate our curriculum for 8th grade American history and 7th grade world studies to prepare for the new state social studies course of study.. I feel it is vital that our department at each grade level begin from a common set of guiding questions and learning targets each emanating from both the content statements and expectations for learning for each strand and topic in the new state course of study. It is only from these common sets of questions and targets that we can then coordinate common summative assessment for each unit of study and guarantee that all essential content is covered. Another huge benefit of getting department members working from common unit summative assessments (as opposed to common quarterly assessments) is that we can use the test result data immediately to address instructional and student weaknesses while the content unit is still fresh in our minds. I can encourage members to compare test results and instructional practices to help us determine what is working best with students and how we can better provide instruction for the next unit or the next year. (E2) shows one of several common unit guides and the corresponding summative assessments we have created to date. Each organized by guiding questions for easy contracting and remediation efforts ultimately leading to improved overall student achievement.

Criterion B: Focused Collaboration One of the most rewarding experiences for me was serving as a first year teacher mentor on 7 different occasions, 2 in the past five years. This peer coaching opportunity was both challenging and enriching for me. In all situations we used the Ohio First Mentoring Program for our activities and Pathwise served as best practices model. The program required up to 5 classroom observations, 5 districts level meetings/work sessions and numerous one on one meetings to share, analyze observations, and plan. My approach with each of ten activities was as a collaboration designed to encourage the mentee to analysis what is taking place in their classroom, isolate any weakness and develop a plan to implement for solving the weakness. This approach allowed me to facilitate mentee growth in a collaborative environment, not evaluative. As noted by the timesheet (E3) a description of the tasks and many hours that I spent on the program all motivated me to reflect on my own practices, gave me need to review best practices in education, and introduced me to many innovative practices coming out colleges. For the past two years I have been working closely with the department members to continually revise & coordinate our course scope of work for 8th grade American history to more accurately mirror the ongoing revisions being made at the state level. In response to these changes, we are collaborating on the creation of common guiding questions and learning targets for each of our content units all based on the content statements and or expectations for learning from the revised state curriculum. These guiding questions and targets (E2) have become our focus for all of our instructional practices as well as our template for creating formative and common unit summative assessments for each of our content units. Through working together as department I anticipate we can meet the district goal of common summative assessments for all content units by the end of the 2011-2012 school year. By working from common unit summative assessments we can use the test data immediately to address

instructional and student weaknesses while the content unit is still fresh in our minds. By organizing the summative assessment by guiding questions and learning targets we can quickly isolate areas of individual student difficulty and fashion the remediation to directly target these weaknesses. We will learn from each other by examining the multitude of factors that might account for discrepancies in results (if existing) including our approaches to instruction (if different), the best practices that were implemented by each of us, and the frequency of our use of formative assessment and remediation, to name just a few. Working with parents has been a priority in my approach to teaching for many years. I seek to build avenues to keep communication open and encourage parental involvement and awareness. This begins with my letter home at the beginning of the school year outlining the class guide, my teaching philosophy and an invitation to contact me with ideas, questions or comments. I refer them to my web site, www.charlesgreenhistory.com, for greater details about my class and an easy contact me link for additional ways to provide me with feedback. My Moodle online class and Junior High lesson plan site gives parents and students access to all of my unit materials and weekly lesson plans. Parents know their child more than anyone and I feel keeping them informed and seeking their input is of vital importance for student success. Our department has used our community resources many times over the years, Most recently we have utilized the talents of Mr. Bill Cash and his wife Cherie. Each year Mr. Cash anchors our Civil War day for the 8th grade students to help bring to life our Civil War unit. Students learned about the Civil War with artifacts and demonstrations from both the soldier and women perspective. Students were drilled in marching and battle formations, sampled hardtack and salt pork and witnessed a musket firing demonstration. (E4) By eliciting ideas and coordinating activities with other staff members we were able to provide an interdisciplinary experiences by providing students with war related activities in their other classes during the day. These

included Morse Code, Motion with water balloon artillery, 1860 baseball, and causality statistics. Criterion C Focus on Students and Environment One of the most effective and eye opening instructional approaches Ive found for raising the achievement level for all students regardless of student performance level is the combining of highly illustrated Powerpoint or Prezi presentations as the means to provide the information and modeling of key unit concepts accompanied with the integration of Classroom Performance System (CPS). By my periodically asking a series of predetermined questions, Ive created within CPS and referenced in the ppt. presentation (based on the guiding question and learning targets established as the discussion goal), I can focus my discussion and modeling to only that guiding question, giving more clarity to my instruction. Use of CPS helps me to check student understanding of concepts discussed and determine the temperature of the classroom. Students anonymously respond with clickers, so feedback comes from both high and low ability students and is very accurate. Depending on responses, I can better pace my instruction, isolate on specific students who seem to be having difficulty through the Mobi, immediately find ways to further explain and model the concept if needed, simplify the concept into more concrete terms, solicit student aid in explaining concepts, and recheck for understanding prior to moving forward. If needed, a remediation assignment can be provided and time to meet for extra help during homeroom can be arranged to help clarify the content. In (E5) I show an example of CPS results and a remediation activity that was provided and completed. To formally assess students during a class discussion and intervene with the class or individual immediately has helped tremendously with end of the unit summative assessment scores. A new but beneficial practice that I have found to have had a lot of positive impact on student achievement is the opportunity students have to contract for reassessment. Often even after effort both by the student and teacher all or some portion of a unit is not fully understood. In the

past this was acceptable but with achievement tests of such significance, allowing students to continue on without full evidence of understanding content fails both the student and myself. One example was on the unit, Confederation to Constitution. Most students did well on summative assessment except for the part on ratification. Having the reassessment contract allows students the opportunity to conference with me, assist with identifying any weaknesses in their understanding, help with determining what steps might help to close the gap between their achievement and ability, and set goals for a grade and completion date. In this example I had a student who originally scored 68% on the assessment. After time to meet again with me, study and complete any other work we agreed on, she could see me for a retest. In this case 7 oral questions to the student proved to me she understood the content. As such her score increased to what it would have been had she got a similar set and number of questions correct on the test, 87%.. In (E6) you see a student contract made this year, the score received, the remediation we agreed upon, the reassessment made and the new grade assigned. A win- win for both of us. She received a higher score and better understanding and I got a greater likelihood of her scoring higher on a future state test. Teaching such an academically diverse set of students with a large percentage of special needs and other sub-group students, I feel one of the most critical elements for success is establishing clear and specific guiding questions and learning targets that tell students what they are expected to know and be able to do by the completion of a unit of study. No student can be expected to get somewhere regardless of ability unless they are told there they are going. In my room these guiding questions and learning targets are created from the state curriculum, posted in the room for myself and students to reference and all instruction and modeling of concepts and learning activities are geared toward their mastery. By providing students with a copy of the

guiding questions and learning targets in a check off format, displaying them on the board, (E7) constantly referencing them as the content unit is explored and formatively assessing throughout the lesson, both myself and students have the opportunity to gauge and record when targets are mastered. This check off system can greatly assist students in identifying gaps in their understanding and the need for action, such as further study or conferencing. An example of this in practice is with my citizenship skills jigsaw activity. Here the students are divided into mastery groups, and given the targets that lead to understanding of the guiding question, Each student mastery group is assigned one of the four targets and provided key investigation questions to explore. The mastery group goal is to work together and help each person in the group fully understands the target and is capable of explaining it to others. After sufficient time, students go to their breakout groups that consist of 1 or 2 members from each mastery group. Each day one target is shared with the breakout group until each member of that group can prove they fully understand the target. With time remaining at the end of the class set aside for me to use CPS questions we could formally assess, check if mastered, and determine if any students need additional work on the target, and then meet with them. With this activity and a similar approach to all my units, I have total student engagement, student collaboration and teaching, laser focus on the learning targets, self and group assessment, formative assessment within the group and whole class, and opportunities for remediation when necessary. My classroom test data shows an increase of summative test averages prior to reassessment from the 2009-2010 school year to the 2010- 2011 school year of 7.86% when employing these methods as noted in

(E8) chart.
Criterion D: Focus on Content, Instruction, and Assessment One example of my focus on state required content, instructional techniques and assessments for student achievement is my Webquest activity that was also shared and

implemented by my 8th grade history colleague. The unit is titled, Geography and Economic Life in the 13 Colonies. The Webquest is built around a blending of guiding questions and learning targets taken from the new social studies model curriculum with a high engaging student centered unit that incorporates such building and district initiatives as integration of technology, differentiation, cooperative learning, formative assessment and remediation. Students were provided with a description of their task, procedures, grading, and project rubric. The students were divided into teams of two and assigned either a New England, Middle, or Southern colonial region. Based on the difficulties lower level students had with the project the previous year, one modification I made was creating multi-ability tutorial like teams of two. In this way, students could help each other as they progressed through the project. Close monitoring of students work, a requirement that students take turns at the computer, and periodic formative assessment meetings assured engagement by both members of the team. Student teams opened their pre-established ppt. template to begin work and were directed to the bank of pre- approved URLs for their given topic. A picture bank was also provided to help supplement the limited picture search possible due to internet security. The bank also contained pictures I took while visiting and researching Boone Hall Plantation in Charleston, SC., and the Middleton Plantation and cotton market in Savannah, GA. The ppt. presentations were divided up into 4 parts. Student teams were instructed to concentrate on one part of their content investigation at a time. Student teams could move on to a second part only after demonstrating a mastery understanding of the part they had covered. As facilitator of the unit, I provided help where needed in regard to content and extra resources. One key to the success of the Webquest project, and summative assessment scores was the periodic formative assessments given as teams worked their way through each of the four parts of the ppt. template. After students had a generous period of time to develop a part of the

presentation, for example land and climate description, I would spend part of a class period meeting with each team of two and ask questions related to the guiding questions and targets for that particular part of the investigation. I would further review their progress on the ppt. slides and determine if the stated content and illustrations indicated that the students understood the content up to that point. Findings would be recorded on their rubric, (E9) for their reference. Most student groups would be instructed to move forward onto the next part of the ppt. If weaknesses were found, either verbally or within the ppt., extended time was given, suggestions for further research offered, clarification of a key concept provided, and sample illustrations presented. More time would be given to make corrections and additions and a follow up meeting would take place to ensure the team had made the necessary adjustments and understood the guiding question and targets for that investigation part. This process was followed for all four parts of the project. When the Powerpoints were completed they were uploaded to my Moodle class by the students so they could be shared with others in the classroom. The student presentations and defense of their work allowed for the sharing of discoveries and encouraged student collaboration through feedback and questioning. Further students took notes during each presentation for their use as they prepared for the summative assessment. The summative assessment was of course created and organized by the guiding questions and targets similar to those on (E2). This made for easy identification of student weaknesses during contracting for reassessment and allowed both the student and myself to identify from the scan quickly what areas needed remediation. We could then focus on only the weak area(s) allowing the student to put energy into what they dont know- not what they have already mastered. Collaboration on a reassessment contract similar to the one on (E6) would allow us to focus on the parts of the unit most missed on the exam, not the whole summative.

Criterion E Continued Professional Growth In response to the Building Leadership Teams recommendation of staff activities to help improve student achievement, I participated in a book study of Marzanos, Classroom Instruction That Works. The group of nine teachers scheduled 12 meeting times to discuss, share sample lessons we created representing Marzanos 9 essential instructional strategies, and assessing together the strengths of each and alternative setting in which to apply them. For myself, participation gave me insight and ideas into the application of the 9 essential strategies by professionals other then myself. It ensured that my students were given instruction using the nine strategies and I was able to assess the relative success of their employment, and experiment with variations. The idea was that though we typically use the strategies throughout the year, this would add greater familiarity with them and hopefully develop a more common habit of employing them. One training example I used was the gazette article worksheet that was a part of the Wikispaces Road to Revolution Gazette unit. With help from the language art department, this information organizer, (E10), helped students with collection of information on assigned topics for the gazette. They could better visualize the info needed, the amount needed, and better organize the info. It covered two of Marzonos 9, summarizing/note taking and organizers. The greatest impact on student achievement for me has been the 2 year Assessment for Learning professional development sessions on which I participated offered by the Urbana School District. The program took us through training on quality instruction in a standards based learning environment by first looking at instructional alignment where am I going then assessment where am I now and achievement how can I close the gap in student achievement. The training also encouraged us to look critically at our current alignment, assessment, and achievement practices and consider other options. The book, A Repair Kit for Grading-15 Fixes for Broken Grades, by Ken OConnor was provided for reading. Two

practices from the two year training that I implemented and feel had a strong impact on student achievement included; frequent formative assessments- learning is incremental, and remediation and conferencing as needed to deal with weaknesses in student achievement. One of the greatest changes in my instruction is the frequent use of formative assessment throughout a unit of study. They take place as each guiding question and target in a unit is explored. These frequent formative assessments help me to gauge where students are in understanding a guiding question and target up to that point and provide them remediation to correct any weaknesses. (E5) While discussing and modeling one of the guiding questions dealing with actions taken by colonial groups to resistance to British oppression several students scored below my acceptable 70% cut score. To deal with this I provided each of them a remediation activity and conference if requested to deal with the weakness. This process was followed throughout the unit of study. On the summative assessment, prior to contracting for reassessment, the achievement level on the Road to Revolution assessment for all class periods the previous year was 70.72%. This year with the change in assessment the average across all classes was 84.4%. as noted in (E8). The only variable I could control was formative assessment and remediation activities throughout the project which created better understanding, presentations, and ultimately greater achievement. Over the past several years I have had training in various technology tools such as; Gaggle, Moodle, CPS & Mobi, and Wikispaces. Each have had an impact on my educational practices and ultimately students performance. One tech application that had a great impact was the Classroom Performance System. CPS has allowed me to more frequently formally assess students in both whole and small group settings. I can then remediate immediately so that weaknesses that are found are not allowed to compound and eventually impact student long term achievement. The best way to assure success on end of unit summative assessments and reduce the need for reassessment contracting is to constantly check on students progress and remediate.