SUNY Oswego
Course Outline for Project SMART 2010

I.  	COURSE NUMBER AND CREDIT:  EDU 505 - 3 SH

II. 	COURSE TITLE:  Using Data to Improve Student Learning

III. 	COURSE DESCRIPTION:  Participants will examine performance data on their 	schools’ students from the past 5 years to examine trends in achievement gaps (race, 	gender, socio-economic status, English as a Second Language, ability) in a core 	curriculum area, disaggregating data for subgroups, and deriving implications for their 	curriculum and instruction focused on equity-based 	teaching. They will develop an 	action plan based on this data for the academic year, will devise pre and post 	assessments of student learning, and will implement curriculum to improve student 	achievement in one or more core curriculum areas.

IV. 	PREREQUISITES: Acceptance in Project SMART.

V.  	JUSTIFICATION FOR COURSE: This course is part of Project SMART, a year-	round 	professional development initiative that provides on-going, sustained, collaborative, 	inquiry-oriented, standards-based experiences for teachers, pre-teachers, and college 	faculty.  This course involves teacher teams in assessing/reflecting on/designing 	instructional and professional development activities on some aspect(s) of their teaching 	that relates to student achievement, inquiry, diversity, reflection, authentic learning, and 	social justice.  Participants will include K-12 teachers from Oswego County 	schools, the Syracuse City schools, the Onondaga Nation School, and New York City 	schools, supported by 	higher education faculty.

	Ongoing teams formed in the academic year will use the institute to examine the 	impacts of the practices implemented during the year on teaching practice and student 	learning. Teachers will use this reflective process to plan for the upcoming year. 	Teachers will bring data on these topics and will have conversations about intended 	and unintended consequences of high stakes testing, disaggregating performance data, 	and developing assessment tasks to get at what they set as important goals 	for their 	students’ learning. Teachers will examine and perhaps develop alternative 	forms of 	assessment that empower teachers and students to examine work to represent self-	directed learning.	

VI.             COURSE OBJECTIVES: As a result of taking this course, participants will be able to:
1.      Disaggregate performance data for subgroup performance on statewide and district assessments in a core curriculum area, and identify strategies for enhancing achievement of under-performing groups.
2.      Using “Data Strategies”, develop, identify, pilot authentic assessment tasks that provide data about the impact of curriculum they have implemented and/or will implement to assess student progress.
3.      Analyze performance data on their students and identify areas to revise curriculum and instruction to enhance performance with all subgroups.
4.   Based on analysis of data on student learning, plan, implement, and reflect on instruction and curriculum activities for the year in order to strengthen student learning in one or more core curricula areas. 
5.   Participate in GESA (Generating Expectations for Student Achievement) overview and plan to integrate into the team’s work. 

VII.	COURSE OUTLINE:

1.      Study group teams share reports of academic-year instructional and professional development work, including data on teacher learning and student performance.
2.      GESA facilitator training orientation (for new participants) or update (for continuing participants)– research, observation, facilitation skills around the five areas of disparity. For those already GESA facilitators—focus is on deepening facilitation skills, increasing repertoire of awareness activities about anti-bias teaching, and increasing knowledge about the research base for GESA.
3.      Teams disaggregate data on student and teacher learning in one (or more) core curricular areas, examine and analyze samples of their student work to assess learning outcomes, and plan, implement, and reflect on curriculum and instruction activities to strengthen student learning in the area examined.
4.      Teachers reflect and report on their own and student learning using the team action plan format, and formulate professional development goals and an action plan for the upcoming year.

VIII.    METHODS OF INSTRUCTION: Readings, team discussion, data analysis, cross-district dialogues, team sharing. 

IX.       COURSE REQUIREMENTS: Each student will work on a team to (1) review, reflect on, and share the past year’s professional development activities; (2) learn more about Data Strategies, research based practice in their core curricular area, and the GESA professional development model; (3) complete a team report on disaggregated student performance data and an action plan for curriculum, instruction, and professional development.

X.        MEANS OF EVALUATION: 33% review, reflect upon, and share past curriculum, instruction, and professional development activities in light of new information; 33% planning for upcoming curriculum, instruction and professional development activities; 33% attendance and participation.

XI.       RESOURCES: This course will place no additional demands upon the Department or the College.  All costs for personnel and materials will be defrayed through a Project SMART TLQP grant to the Institute for Interdisciplinary Educational Studies at SUNY Oswego.

XI.             FACULTY REQUIREMENTS: The course will be instructed by an 	interdisciplinary team of teacher educators, Project SMART teachers, and 	consultants 	involved in Project SMART.

XII.          BIBLIOGRAPHY:

Airasian, P. (1994). Classroom assessment. New York: McGraw-Hill.

Birchak, B. Connor, C., Crawford, K.M., Kaser, S., Turner & Short, K. (1998).  Teacher study groups:  Building community through dialogue and reflection.  Urbana, IL:  National Council of Teachers of English.

Bigelow, B., Christensen, L. & Karp, S. (2002).  Rethinking our classrooms: Teaching for equity and justice. Volume 2. Milwaukee, WI:  Rethinking Schools, Ltd.

Bloom, B. S., Englehart, M. B., Furst, E. J., Hill, W. H., & Krathwohl, D. R. (1956). Taxonomy of educational objectives: The classification of educational goals; Handbook 1: The cognitive domain. New York: Longman. (classic).

Burnaford, G., Fischer, J., Hobson, D. (Eds). (2001).  Teachers doing research:  The power of action through inquiry.  Second Edition.  Mahwah, NJ:  Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Publishers.

Cobb, C. (2003) Effective instruction begins with purposeful assessments. The Reading Teacher, 57 (4), 386-388.

Cochran-Smith, M. & Lytle, S. L. (1998) Inside/outside:  Teacher research and knowledge. New York:  Teachers College Press.

Delett, J. S., Barhnardt, S., & Kevorikian, J. A. (2001). A framework for portfolio assessment in the foreign language classroom. Foreign Language Annals, 48 (6). 559-568.

Demers, C. (2000). Beyond paper and pencil assessment. Science and Children, 38 (2), 24.D’Souza, L., Miller, G., McQuillan, P., Scheopner, A., Mitchell, K., Gleason, A. M., & Cochran-Smith, M. (2007). Reflecting on pupil learning: Growing as a teacher. Paper presented at the annual convention of American Educational Research Association.

Donegan, M., & Trepanier-Street, M. (1998). Teacher and parent views on standardized testing: A cross-cultural comparison of the uses and influencing factors. Journal of Research in Childhood Education, 13 (1), 85. 29-60.

Duggan, S. & Gott, R. (2002) Problems with the assessment of performance in practical science: Which way now? Cambridge Journal of Education, 32 (2), 183-201.

Duncan-Andrade, J. M. R. (2005). Developing social justice educators. Educational Leadership,62(6), 70–73.

Fewster, S. & MacMillan, P. D. (May/June 2002). School-based evidence for the validity of curriculum-based measurement of reading and writing. Remedial and Special Education 23(3), 149-56.

Goldstein, H. (2001). Using pupil performance data for judging schools and teachers: Scope and limitations. British Educational Journal, 27 (4), 433-442.

Grayson, D. A. & Martin, M. D. (1997).  Generating expectations for student achievement:  An equitable approach to educational excellence.  Canyon Lake, CA:  Graymill.

Meisels, S. J., DiPrima, D., Nicholson, J., & Atkins-Burnett, S. (2001). Parental reactions to authentic performance assessment. Psychology and behavioral Sciences Collection, 7 (1), 1-24.

Murrell, Jr. P. C. (2001).  The community teacher:  A new framework for effective urban teaching.  New York:  Teachers College Press.

Payne, R. K. (1998). A framework for understanding poverty. Revised Edition.  Highlands, Texas:  RFT Publishing Company.

Popham, W. J. (2004). Why assessment illiteracy is professional suicide. Education Week, 62 (1), 82.

Scott, S. J. (2001). A task-centered approach to performance-based assessments. General Music Today, 14 (3), 10-14.

Shepard, L. A. (2000). The role of assessment in a learning culture. Educational Researcher, 26 (7), 4-14.

Stefanou, C., & Parkes, J. (2003). Effects of classroom assessment on student motivation in fifth-grade science. Journal of Educational Research, 96, (3), 152-163.

Vogler, K. E. (2003). An integrated curriculum using state standards in a high-stakes testing environment [Electronic version]. Middle School Journal. 34 (4), 5-10.

Wiggins, G. P. (1998). Educative assessment. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Wong. P, Glass, R., eds. ( 2009 ).Prioritizing Urban Children, Teachers, and Schools Through Professional Development Schools, NY: SUNY Press.