IPI (Instructional Practices Inventory) is part of the CCSD Strategic Plan under Focus 3. The goal is that 30% of our IPI observations will reflect higher order, deeper thinking. In the IPI model, a code 6 or 5 indicates higher order thinking. One of the big concepts of IPI is that even though the observations are very short (5 minutes or less) the sheer number of observations will reveal a clear trend of what kids are experiencing. Just a couple of important reminders regarding IPI:
- IPI is NOT evaluative of individual teachers in any way. All the data is aggregated. No one looks at individual classrooms or teachers. We don’t care which classrooms or teachers were revealed with specific codes. It’s all about looking at the overall trend of the big picture.
- IPI is not a hierarchy. With the exceptions of codes 1 and code 2 — which we should do our best eliminate: disengaged students and teachers — the rest of the codes are all valuable and good practice. We don’t want to see an elimination of codes 3 or 4 — the lower order thinking codes. Kids need these types of experiences to fully and deeply learn. The big question is what proportion of codes 3, 4, 5, and 6 do we think is optimal…?
Here are some of the highlights when I look our data:
- We came very close to our goal of 30% of observations at levels 5 and 6 this spring — 29.2%!
- We continue to have low numbers of levels 1 and 2 — each less than 1%. Again, it’s really positive to have both of these values come in very low.
- When looking at data across the year — (fall, winter, and spring) we come out to 25.6% of the observations being at level 5 or 6.
- We improved across the year as well: fall total percentage of 5s and 6s was 22.7%, in winter it was 25.5%, and in the spring we were at 29.2%. We conducted a total of 2969 total observations across all buildings this year.
There’s a lot to celebrate in these numbers! We almost reached our targeted goal in the spring observation cycle. I suspect this means that the conversations about this data that happened within staff meetings and PLCs over the course of the year played a part in this increase. We continue to have very low values for student and teacher disengagement which is great to see as well.