Instruction

Targets

(complete and discuss periodically)

Formative Assessment of Collaborative Teams (FACT)

Rating

Every teacher can trace an obvious connection between each classroom lesson and a component of an accepted core curriculum and that these connections are collaboratively evaluated

Research in instruction and management has isolated similar elements of effective practice. To maximize learning or production, teachers or managers should provide clear behavioral expectations, appropriate tools and opportunities to build skills through practice, rewards or recognition for success, all supported by relationships based on trust and esteem. Collaborative teams, employed by an increasing number of schools, are a management strategy designed to improve instruction. Participating in collaborative teams should promote elements of effective management so that teachers can better employ elements of effective instruction. In other words, if teachers are more clear about what is expected of them, they are more likely to communicate clearer expectations to their students, and so on. This formative tool helps collaborative teams to monitor components of collaboration that promote elements of effective management. The result of which should be better instruction, which translates into accelerated learning. FACT is presented in three parts: preparation, collaboration, and instruction. The first part can be scored at the beginning of each team meeting. The second part can be scored at the end of each team meeting, and the final part is best used to guide team discussions held once each grading period. Higher scores do not guarantee better outcomes, but higher scores should allow a better chance at both team and individual success. More importantly, however, when many students fail to improve, lower scores indicate a place to target collaboration improvement efforts.

Assessment
Every teacher uses common formative assessments for academic skills that are aligned with an accepted core curriculum
Rating

Instructional Strategies
Instructional strategies, for both academics and behavior management, are generally drawn from what works literature, and are externally monitored where possible
Rating

Professional Development
Professional development is frequent enough and relevant to instructional strategies; and teachers have a say in the what and how often of their professional development
Rating

Preparation
Attendance
Rating

(complete at the beginning of each meeting)

Screening

Every teacher has identified students in greatest academic and behavioral need and has committed to providing them with an individualized intervention

3. Every member of the collaborative team is present and was on time 2. One member of the collaborative team is not present or was late 1. More than one member of the collaborative team is not present or was late

Rating

Goals

For each identified student, every teacher has written academic and/or behavioral goals and has identified data which are collected to monitor student progress

Agenda
Rating

Data Analyses

3. A meeting agenda was distributed prior to meeting-day and had all agreed upon elements (prior meeting minutes; action plan; code of conduct; assigned roles; etc.) 2. The meeting agenda was late or incomplete 1. There was no agenda for the meeting

Rating

Every teacher has data on each identified student organized in a table or graph and designed to show status, progress, and goals

Rating

Roles
3. Roles (e.g., facilitator, time keeper, scribe, etc.) were clearly assigned prior to meeting-day and were included on the agenda 2. Roles were clearly assigned at the collaborative team meeting 1. Roles were either not assigned or it was not clear to everyone at the meeting who had what role
Rating

Course Corrections
Every student who fails to meet an academic and/or behavioral goal is given additional time and support until the goal is met
Rating

Action Plans Scoring

3. Yes, this accurately describes our teachers and their instruction 2. Almost, our teachers and their instruction have met two or three of the underlined attributes 1. Partially, our teachers and their instruction have met one or two of the underlined attributes 0. No, our teachers and their instruction do not meet any of the underlined attributes
CENTER
FOR THE SCHOOL OF THE FUTURE 6505 Old Main Hill; Logan, UT 84322-6505 866-430-0708 www.csf.usu.edu

3. Action plans (for academic and behavioral outcomes) were distributed and each activity included a responsible party, a timeline, a list of resources needed, and a monitoring or evaluation strategy 2. Action plans were distributed, but lacked specifics 1. Action plans were not distributed or one or both did not exist

Rating

Evidences
3. Each teacher brought with them evidences of student progress (graphical displays, work samples, gradebooks, etc.) 2. One teacher did not bring evidences of student progress 1. More than one teacher did not bring evidences of student progress
Rating

School Date

Team Evaluator

Notes

Collaboration
Participation

(complete at the end of each meeting)

Rating

3. Every member of the collaborative team spoke more than once on the status, progress, or instructional strategy used on students 2. One member of the collaborative team failed to speak more than once 1. More than one member of the collaborative team failed to speak more than once
Evidences Members looked at those speaking, members invited others for comment, members thanked others for comments, group norms were established and followed, and members made reference to common academic standards set by the team.

Expertise
3. More than one member of the collaborative team made a suggestion, related a story, or pointed to an outside resource about an instructional strategy that has worked in the past 2. One member of the collaborative team shared expertise 1. Not one member of the collaborative team shared expertise
Evidences Members were eager to share, research journals and/or books were present, members looked to colleagues for advice, members shared their opinion even when they were in the minority, members discussed each others teaching methods and philosophies, and members discussed additional professional development needs. Rating

Professionalism
3. Every member of the collaborative team was engaged, upbeat, cooperative, and supportive 2. One member of the collaborative team was less than professional 1. More than one member of the collaborative team was less than professional
Evidences Members smiled, compromised, were democratic, easily reached consensus, were willing to ask for help, spoke respectfully about students and families, displayed an attitude of autonomy in making decisions, were not distracted by outside issues (phone calls, checking assignments, reading, etc.), and were present for the entire meeting. Rating

Roles
3. Every assigned member of the collaborative team carried out their role with respect for the collaborative process 2. One assigned member of the collaborative team failed to carry out their role 1. More than one assigned member of the collaborative team failed to carry out their role or roles were not clear or assigned
Evidences The facilitator moved the meeting through the agenda, the time keeper looked at the clock (watch) and prompted members to refocus the conversation, and the scribe took notes. Rating

Productivity
3. Collaborative team SMART academic and behavioral goals were set, reviewed, and adjusted based on systematic evidences 2. Collaborative team SMART academic and behavioral goals were discussed 1. Collaborative team did not review or have yet to set SMART goals for one or both domains
Evidences Graphic or tabular data were present that clearly showed improvement, tasks were completed, members produced materials, activities, curriculum and common assessments to improve instruction, members celebrated gains in student learning or behavior, members discussed ways to differentiate instruction, members analyzed actual student work or performance and made recommendations, and new behavioral goals or learning targets were developed based on the data. Rating
01/13/09

Meeting Focus
Student Performance Professional Development

(mark all that apply)

Team Self Evaluation Formative Assessment