- Figure 1.1: The 14 Parameters
- Figure 1.2: The 14 Parameters of System and School Improvement
- Figure 1.3: Precision Watermark Underpinning System Improvement Plan
- Figure 1.4: Understanding the Intersection of the 14 Parameters Is Critical
- Figure 1.5
- Figure 1.6: First Page of the 14 Parameter System and School Self-Assessment Tool for Improvement
- Figure 1.7: Wilcannia-Forbes Education Services action Plan
- Figure 1.8: Examples of School Data walls in the Ipswich Cluster
- Figure 1.9: Elementary Storefront From Learning Fair
- Figure 1.10: Secondary Storefront From Learning Fair
- Figure 2.1: Parameter #1: Shared Beliefs and Understandings
- Figure 2.2: At the Data Wall Walk Looking for Evidence of Students’ Improvement
- Figure 2.3: Sample SMART Goal at Geham State School
- Figure 2.4: Data Wall of Students’ Performance at Geham State School
- Figure 2.5: Results of Students Who Achieved a “C” Standard or Above in English
- Figure 2.6: Where Do You Go for Help?
- Figure 2.7: ”I Can Assist You” Envelopes at the Data Wall
- Figure 2.8: The 14 Parameters, Emphasizing Parameter 12
- Figure 2.9: Larapinta Child & Family Center
- Figure 2.10: Children Are at the Center
- Figure 3.1: Parameter #11: Collaborative Inquiry – a Whole System Approach
- Figure 3.2: Tri-Level Collaborative Inquiry
- Figure 3.3: Percentage of Students in the Bottom Two Bands, NAPLAN, Grade 3, 2014
- Figure 3.4: Percentage of Students in the Bottom Two Bands, NAPLAN, Grade 5, 2014
- Figure 3.5: Percentage of Students in the Top Two Bands, NAPLAN, Grade 3, 2014
- Figure 3.6: Percentage of Students in the Top Two Bands, NAPLAN, Grade 5, 2014
- Figure 3.7: Percentage and Number of Students in the Bottom Two Bands, NAPLAN, Grades 3 and 5, 2014–2017
- Figure 3.8: Percentage and Number of Students in the Top Two Bands, NAPLAN, Grades 3 and 5, 2014–2017
- Figure 3.9: Cluster 5 Z Scores, Grade 3, 2017, NAPLAN Reading, Writing, Spelling, Grammar, and Numeracy
- Figure 3.10: The 14 Parameters, Emphasizing Parameter 7
- Figure 3.11: Leadership for Coherence Framework
- Figure 3.12: Changes in Teacher Capacity and Classroom Practice Based on Type of Professional Learning
- Figure 3.13: Conditional Growth Indices (CGI): Overall District Results
- Figure 3.14: Elementary Student Improvement Over Four Years of Implementing PLCs
- Figure 3.15: Percentage of Secondary Students at or Above ACT Benchmark: An Internal Analysis
- Figure 3.16: Learn in Order to Lead and Lead in Order to Learn
- Figure 4.1: Parameter #3: Quality Assessment Informs Instruction
- Figure 4.2: Assessment Literacy
- Figure 4.3: Planning With the End in Mind
- Figure 4.4: The Assessment Waterfall Chart
- Figure 4.5: Anchor Charts Support Students in Answering “What Am I Learning?” and “How Am I Doing?”
- Figure 4.6: Sample Anchor Chart of Learning Intentions and Success Criteria
- Figure 4.7: Linking Learning Intentions and Success Criteria Using Color Coding
- Figure 4.8: Collaborative Group Work in the Progressive Development of Success Criteria
- Figure 4.9: Co-Constructed Success Criteria
- Figure 4.10: Co-Developed Answer Using Co-Constructed Success Criteria
- Figure 4.11: The Venn Diagram as an Ongoing Diagnostic Tool
- Figure 4.12: Supporting Students’ Writing Using Collective Feedback
- Figure 4.13: Bump-It-Up Walls Show Students What It Takes to Get to the Next Level
- Figure 4.14: Example of a Primary Classroom Bump-It-Up Wall
- Figure 4.15: Example of a Grade 11 Bump-It-Up Wall—Moving From a “C” to an “A”
- Figure 4.16: The Cycle of Student Self-Assessment
- Figure 4.17: The Classroom Learning Wall
- Figure 5.1: Parameter #13: Cross-Curricular Literacy Connections
- Figure 5.2: The Instruction Waterfall Chart
- Figure 5.3: The Critically Literate Graduate
- Figure 5.4: Daily Use of Miscue Analyses in Teaching Reading
- Figure 5.5: The Interconnected Comprehension Strategies
- Figure 5.6: Literacy Skills Must Be Taught Across the Curriculum
- Figure 5.7: Students Co-Creating and Using Their Classroom Writing Continuum
- Figure 5.8: Students Discover Their Next Steps in Writing
- Figure 5.9: Secondary Co-Constructed Writing Continuum
- Figure 5.10: Students’ Voices Must Be Heard More Than Teachers’ Voices
- Figure 5.11: The Gradual Release and Acceptance of Responsibility Model
- Figure 5.12: Self-Assessment of a Robust Performance Task
- Figure 5.13: Secondary Students’ Rich Performance Task Descriptors
- Figure 6.1: Parameter #14: Shared Responsibility and Accountability
- Figure 6.2: Grade 5 Students Write for Kindergarten Students
- Figure 6.3: Two-Sided Transparent Painting Project
- Figure 6.4: The Six Stages in a Student-Led Collaborative Inquiry
- Figure 6.5: Three Collaborative Approaches Used in Thinking Classrooms
- Figure 6.6: The Interconnectedness of Project-Based Learning and the 14 Parameters
- Figure 6.7: A Student-Generated Pro-Pro Chart
- Figure 6.8: Students Intertwine Their Thinking Skills to Create a Causal Map
- Figure 6.9 and Figure 6.10: Sample Anchor Charts of Critical Thinking Prompts
- Figure 6.11: Accountable Talk Discussion Starters
- Figure 6.12 and Figure 6.13: The Ladder of Inference Used as a Tool for Thinking
- Figure 6.14: Students Demonstrate Metacognition
- Figure 7.1: Parameter #6: Case Management Approach
- Figure 7.2: Operating Norms to Support Co-Construction of Data Walls
- Figure 7.3: Guiding Principles in Co-Construction of Data Walls
- Figure 7.4: Data Analyses: What Is Noteworthy, Troublesome, Surprising, and a Question?
- Figure 7.5: A Screen Covers This Data Wall
- Figure 7.6: Using the Data Wall to Begin Every Meeting
- Figure 7.7: Deputy Executive Director Sue Walsh Leading Rich Discussion at a System Data Wall
- Figure 7.8: System Data Wall in CEWA
- Figure 7.9: The Impact of CLARITY on Precision in Practice
- Figure 7.10: Data Wall Co-Construction Is About Ownership of Progressive Thinking
- Figure 7.11: Data Wall Cards and Tags Depict Recommended Intervention Strategies
- Figure 7.12: Sample of a Data Wall Legend
- Figure 7.13: Rich Discussions at the Secondary Writing Data Wall
- Figure 7.14: Information Tags on Data Wall Convey Case Management Meeting Decisions
- Figure 7.15: Data Wall QR Codes Hold Case Management Meeting Information
- Figure 7.16: Parameter #5: Early and Ongoing Intervention
- Figure 7.17: Hilder Road State School Differentiation Ladder
- Figure 7.18: Reading Recovery Makes a Difference Even in the Harshest Conditions
- Figure 8.1: Parameter #2: Embedded Knowledgeable Others
- Figure 8.2: The Importance of a Consciously Skilled Teaching Force
- Figure 8.3: The Co-Teaching Cycle
- Figure 8.4: Coaching for CLARITY Using the Gradual Release and Acceptance of Responsibility Model
- Figure 9.1: Parameter #4: Principal as Lead Leader
- Figure 9.2: Six Leadership Dimensions That Bring CLARITY to System and School Improvement
- Figure 9.3: Results of Precision and CLARITY in School Leadership
- Figure 9.4: Grade 3 Reading Results Showing Improvement from 2008 to 2016
- Figure 9.5: Grade 5 Reading Results Showing Improvement from 2008 to 2016
- Figure 9.6: Linking the 5 Questions for Students to the Assessment Waterfall Chart (Figure 4.4)
- Figure C.1: The FACES of CLARITY
