Unit 3: Rigorous and Adaptive Learning Systems

Participants have already engaged with NCEE’s Blueprint for a High-Performing Education System and the major features of the NISL program’s Conceptual Framework for Strategic Thinking in our first unit, which focused on the educational context, and in our second unit, which centered on context, vision, strategy, and decision-making. With this broad canvas of globalization, urgency, and challenges as the backdrop, NISL now spotlights the Rigorous and Adaptive Learning System that is presented in the NCEE Blueprint (website | PDF).

The learning system is composed of interlaced parts that must be coherent in themselves and aligned with one another for this system of systems to work effectively. Moreover, the very operation of the system hinges on effective teachers and principals and responsibility for decision-making is distributed among various levels within the overall education system, ranging from policy-making parts of the system through intermediate administrative structures to the school, to departments, and eventually to the classroom.

The NCEE Blueprint (website | PDF) describes how high-performing systems are designed so that all of these pieces and parts work together to provide for rigor and adaptiveness in pursuit of the tripartite goals of excellence, equity, and efficiency in students’ learning journey to completion of a valued qualification that gives them access to the next level of education. It is not uncommon for the learning system to be referred to simply as the curriculum or curriculum and instruction or, perhaps, curriculum, instruction, and assessment. Yet, as the NCEE Blueprint’s (website | PDF) description shows, these terms embrace critical parts of the system but by no means all, and each serves as a shorthand for the complex set of interrelated purposes and practices that contribute to student achievement. 

This unit is designed to help participants build an understanding of the concept of learning system by means of a comparative study of the learning systems of Massachusetts and Estonia. This study is conducted by means of document analysis. These documents provide visibility into many aspects of the respective systems, but they tend to be limited to the more universally specified details rather than the school-based manifestations of elements such as formative assessment and provision for students needing additional support. 

By contrast, a case study of a school’s implementation of formative assessment practices provides a close description of some elements of the learning systems in a school setting, but does not spell out all aspects of the system. This prompts participants first to attend to the role of leadership in ensuring the coherence and focus of the learning system and second to consider ways in which the principal of the case study school might have pursued a more comprehensive approach to achieving system coherence and alignment.

The comparative study of learning systems combined with the study of learning system leadership sets the stage for participants’ investigation of two questions with direct application to their own learning systems. The question “How is your learning system doing relative to the goal of equity?” asks participants to focus on the overall goals of the school system—excellence, equity, and efficiency. On this occasion, participants are asked to set the goals of excellence and efficiency to one side and to concentrate their efforts on the other, equity. They identify an aspect of this goal to work on and determine the criteria they could use to monitor progress toward achieving improvements relative to the goal of equity.

The question “To what extent does your learning system support student engagement for student achievement?” focuses participants’ attention on research that connects engagement with achievement and reviews factors affecting students’ engagement, the majority of which are school-related. They examine cases of students whose engagement has flagged for a variety of reasons and consider the possibility that any of those cases might be replicated in their own schools. This leads to action planning to investigate their own learning system through this lens.

Finally, the unit continues the process of guiding participants through the process of laying the foundations for action learning. Participants conduct an analysis of their faculty members’ input to the Contextual Analysis Tool and consider implications for identifying a focus for action learning.

This unit rounds out Course One and its focus on the education context and strategic thinking against the backdrop of globalization, urgency, and challenges. It also serves as a bridge to Course Two, which lifts the “hood” of the learning system to explore current research-based understanding of how people learn, the meaning of student-centeredness and its implications for equity, and related aspects of student motivation and engagement that are touched on in this unit.

• The learning system should reflect the school system’s vision for the knowledge, skills, and dispositions of the graduates it is designed to prepare.
• The roles and relationships of the learning system’s actors are an integral part of the system’s design.
• The concept of learning system encompasses the curriculum, teaching methods, assessment, and all other components of the goals, methods, and supports for student learning.
• Learning systems of different jurisdictions differ in significant ways; for example, their view of the learner in relation to the curriculum and process of learning, or the degree of curriculum central prescription relative to school-level decision-making.
• In effective learning systems the parts are highly coherent in themselves and closely aligned with one another.
• The degree of system-wide specification relative to school-based decision making is a significant dimension on which learning systems vary.
• The principal, and school leadership more generally, have an integral role in achieving and maintaining the rigor and coherence of the learning system.
• The principal, and school leadership more generally, have a responsibility to identify and counteract educational injustice. 
• Students who report high levels of engagement with their schooling tend to achieve at higher levels than students who report low levels of engagement.
• Research indicates that school-controlled factors have a significant influence on students’ engagement in school.
• School leadership has a responsibility to identify and act to overcome systemic structures and practices that negatively influence student engagement in school.
• A high-performing school system sets the tripartite goal of excellence, equity, and efficiency.
• The goal of equity can be made meaningful and amenable to monitoring by articulating and measuring it within a specific school context.

• Understand the concept of a learning system. 
• Recognize and analyze learning systems through multiple lenses.
• Analyze learning systems through multiple lenses.
• Articulate connections between a Rigorous and Adaptive Learning System and Effective Teachers and Principals.
• Describe the role and responsibility of the school leader in achieving and maintaining the coherence and rigor of the learning system.
• Identify ways by which the school leader can establish structures, supports, and incentives to lead improvements in the effectiveness of the learning system.
• Understand the relationship between student engagement and student achievement.
• Create an action-oriented approach to enhancing student engagement.
• Identify possibilities for improvement-focused action in specific aspects of equity and related qualitative and quantitative measures of improvement.
• Analyze faculty input to the Contextual Analysis Tool and identify implications for ongoing action learning.

It is important to complete the pre-work prior to the beginning of the section in which the pre-work will be used (noted in parentheses) in order to participate fully. Be prepared to spend about 2–3 hours total on pre-work.

Pre-work that is available digitally can be accessed by clicking on the hyperlinks below or in the appropriate menus in the Unit Library to the right. Pre-work that is not available digitally will have been provided in the materials you received before the start of the NISL program.

Please note: Where complete professional books are provided electronically, the books are for the registered participants’ individual use only and may not be downloaded, printed, or shared in any way. Access to the digital version of the text, along with any individual annotations made by the registered participant, will be available across any device used to log into the NCEE Portal.

• (3.3) Read Shaping a Standards-Aligned Instructional System Through Formative Assessment Practices, Executive Development Program Case Study #1. This is available in the Unit 3 Library in the Case Studies menu.

• (3.7) Use the Feedback Diagnostics to send the Context Analysis Tool to 6–10 colleagues that represent diverse membership of your school or district. For guidance on how to do this, you may wish to watch this short video. Download or print the report prior to Section 3.7. 

• (3.7) Use the Feedback Diagnostics Report to analyze your colleagues’ responses to the tool. Conduct the analysis for each leadership domain by answering the questions in the Context Analysis Tool User Guide found in the section “During Unit 3” and then “Analyze responses from site-based members.” Capture these reflections in a digital format (document) to allow you to revise and eventually place them in the portal. In Section 3.7, you will have time to compare your responses to those of your colleagues.

• NISL materials
• Journal
• Laptop or tablet with wireless internet capabilities

• Building Educational Equity Indicator Systems: A Guidebook for States and School Districts
• Estonia Curriculum Packet Overview 
• Estonia Curriculum Documents
• Hong Kong Curriculum Packet Overview 
• Hong Kong Curriculum Documents
• “Learning from Student Voice: Are Students Engaged?”
• Massachusetts Curriculum Packet Overview 
• Massachusetts Curriculum Documents
• Context Analysis Tool User Guide

• NCEE’s Blueprint for a High-Performing Education System [web | PDF]

• Victoria Curriculum Packet Overview

• Victoria Curriculum Documents

• Shaping a Standards-Aligned Instructional System Through Formative Assessment Practices, Executive Development Program Case Study #1

• “Glossary of Terms Associated with Learning Systems”
• “Data on Student Engagement”
• “NISL Contextual Analysis Tool Team Report”
• Organizing and Interpreting Results from Your Feedback Diagnostics
• “Self-Reflection: NISL Contextual Analysis Tool”

• DisruptEd Youtube post (13:03) with New Zealand principals, Claire Amos and Steve Mouldey, April 2, 2020 
  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GPC-GlX8yqQ&t=10s 

• Recording of NCEE Network of Learning Supports Zoom discussion with panel from Clayton County Public Schools, GA, September 30, 2020
  https://drive.google.com/file/d/17NlwGflNx1cTxKyo8PBMMkus5lB7rw6S/view

• YouthTruth Student Survey
  youthtruthsurvey.org

• The unit opens with a review of sources that participants studied in Units 1 and 2, which relate to this unit’s focus on features of the Learning System as described in NCEE’s Blueprint for a High-Performing Education System and the role of school leaders in assuring the system’s coherence, rigor, and adaptability.
• Participants explore the concept of the learning system through a comparative analysis of learning systems of high performing school systems. This process begins with a discussion of the terminology associated with learning systems, especially with regard to curriculum and assessment, when examining systems internationally. It is common, for example, to find the same term being used to refer to different elements of a system or to find different terms being used to describe identical elements of the system. There is not a single correct set of terminology; rather, it’s important to know that terminology is used differently in different systems.
• The study of learning systems includes a comparative analysis of several systems, including Massachusetts as the highest performing U.S. school system and Estonia. The comparative analysis focuses on mathematics at the 7th grade level to provide a common focus, takes account of characteristics such as the distribution of authority and responsibility between the overall system (country or state) and the school, and the role of the teacher/faculty in relation to curriculum and assessment decisions.
• The unit then widens its focus to include Effective Teachers and Principals and considers the relationship between teachers and principals and the learning system, especially the role of the principal and school leadership in assuring the coherence, rigor, and adaptiveness of the learning system. This discussion centers on a case study of a middle school and its principal’s action learning focus on implementing formative assessment practices. Discussion in the leader’s role incorporates an exploration of research on culturally sustaining leadership to promote equity in culturally diverse school settings.

• From this foundation, the unit poses two questions related to participants’ own learning systems. The question “How is your learning system doing relative to the goal of equity?” asks participants to focus on the overall goals of the school system—excellence, equity, and efficiency. On this occasion, participants are asked to set the goal of excellence to one side, as it is commonly the sole focus, and to concentrate their efforts on the other two goals. They identify an aspect of each of these goals to work on and determine the criteria they could use to monitor progress toward achieving improvements relative to those goals.

• The question “To what extent does your learning system support student engagement for student achievement?” focuses participants’ attention on research that connects engagement with achievement and reviews factors affecting students’ engagement, the majority of which are school-related. This leads to action planning to investigate their own learning system through this lens.
• Finally, participants conduct an analysis of their faculty members’ input to the Contextual Analysis Tool and consider implications for identifying a focus for action learning.

• Elmore, Richard F. 2000. Building a New Structure for School Leadership. Washington, DC: The Albert Shanker Institute. 
• Glatthorn, Allan A, and Jerry M. Jailall. 2009. The Principal as Curriculum Leader: Shaping What Is Taught and Tested. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.
• Goodson, Ivor F. and Stephen J. Ball (Eds.). 1984. Defining the Curriculum. Philadelphia, PA: The Falmer Press.
• Gray, Susan Penny and William A. Streshly. 2008. From Good Schools to Great Schools: What Their Principals Do Well. THousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.
• Malin, Heather. 2018. Teaching for Purpose: Preparing Students for Lives of Meaning. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
• Schubert, William M. 1986. Curriculum: Perspective, Paradigm, and Possibility. New York, NY: MacMillan.
• Stenhouse, Lawrence. 1978. An Introduction to Curriculum Research and Development. London, UK: Heinemann.
• Wiener, Ross. Teaching to the Core: Integrating Implementation of Common Core and Teacher Effectiveness Policies. Washington, DC: The Aspen Institute.

• Achieve the Core: http://www.achievethecore.org
• Bay View Analytics: http://www.onlinelearningsurvey.com/oer.html
• NCEE’s Center on International Education Benchmarking: https://ncee.org/what-we-do/center-on-international-education-benchmarking/
• Engage NY: http://www.engageny.org

• Curriculum Development Council. 2017. “Mathematics Education: Key Learning Area Curriculum Guide (Primary 1–Secondary 6).” Kowloon, Hong Kong: Curriculum Development Institute.
• ______. 2017. “Supplement to Mathematics Education Key Learning Area Curriculum Guide: Learning Content of Junior Secondary Mathematics.” Kowloon, Hong Kong: Curriculum Development Institute.
• Finn, J. D., & Rock, D. A. 1997. “Academic success among students at risk for school failure.” Journal of Applied Psychology 82(2), 221–234. Accessed November 9, 2020. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.82.2.221
• Gallup. “How to Keep Kids Excited About School.” Accessed November 9, 2020. https://www.gallup.com/education/231728/keep-kids-excited-school.aspx
• ______. “Student Enthusiasm Falls as High School Graduation Nears.” Accessed November 9, 2020. https://news.gallup.com/opinion/gallup/211631/student-enthusiasm-falls-high-school-graduation-nears.aspx
• Government of the Republic of Estonia. 2011. “Basic Schools and Upper Secondary Schools Act.” Tallinn, Estonia. Accessed November 12, 2020. https://www.riigiteataja.ee/en/eli/ee/530102013047/consolide
• Lee, J.S. 2014. “The relationship between student engagement and academic performance: Is it a myth or reality?” The Journal of Educational Research, 107(3), 177–185. Accessed November 9, 2020. https://doi.org/10.1080/00220671.2013.807491
• Massachusetts Department of Elementary and Secondary Education. 2017. “Massachusetts Curriculum Framework–2017: Mathematics, Grades Pre-Kindergarten to 12.” Malden, MA: MA DOE
• ______. 2017. “Quick Reference Guide: Standards for Mathematical Practice, Grades 6–8.” Malden, MA: MA DOE. Accessed November 9, 2020. https://www.doe.mass.edu/frameworks/math/2017-06qrg-smp-6-8.pdf
• ______. 2017. “What to Look For: A Quick guide for observing classroom content and practice.” Accessed November 9, 2020. https://www.doe.mass.edu/frameworks/observation/
• National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine 2020. Building Educational Equity Indicator Systems: A Guidebook for States and School Districts. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. https://doi.org/10.17226/25833.
• Tucker, Marc S. 2019. Leading High-Performance School Systems: Lessons from the World’s Best. Alexandria, VA: ASCD.
• Victorian Curriculum and Assessment Authority (VCAA). Victorian Curriculum F-10 documents, annotated student work samples, curriculum planning resources, and additional documents found at https://victoriancurriculum.vcaa.vic.edu.au/ Accessed November 12, 2020.
• Wang, Elaine Lin, Heather L. Schwartz, Monica Mean, Laura Stelitano, and Benjamin K. Master. 2019. Shaping a Standards-Aligned Instructional System Through Formative Assessment Practices, Executive Development Program Case Study #1. Santa Monica, CA: RAND Corporation.
• YouthTruth. “Learning from Student Voice: Are Students Engaged?” Accessed November 9, 2020. YouthTruthSurvey.org