NYSTCE Revised (May 2019) School Building Leader Part One Diagnostic Test

Case: Stonebridge K–8 School: autumn learning and participation records

Stonebridge K–8 School serves 680 students. Its shared vision emphasizes students investigating consequential questions, testing ideas with evidence, and contributing to school decisions. In grades 5–8, students develop proposals about an issue affecting the school. They present proposals to a school council that may recommend projects for implementation.

The principal is reviewing the autumn cycle before allocating spring time and staff support. The school uses a common individual task to monitor reasoning, while group proposals and public presentations serve additional purposes. All records are simulated.

Document: Autumn learning and participation records

December review: grades 5–8

Each grade has 80 students. Forty students per grade were randomly selected for an individual reasoning check before the inquiry cycle. The same students completed an equivalent check after the cycle. Each check gave students evidence about an unfamiliar school issue and asked for a recommendation that considered a competing explanation. Teachers agreed on scoring examples and checked ratings in pairs.

Grades 7 and 8 reassigned four inquiry periods to additional practice assessments and one to a grade assembly. These additions used the same timetable slots that had been reserved for reviewing evidence, receiving criticism, and revising proposals. The district's required assessments took place in other periods.

Student groups chose different school issues. The older grades tended to choose proposals involving staffing or expenditure, while younger grades tended to propose changes in the use of existing spaces. Presentation attendance was voluntary. Among students in the common-task sample, 41 of the 54 students meeting criteria initially attended the presentation, compared with 55 of the 106 students not yet meeting criteria.

Document: Proposal records and decision-making notes

Two proposal histories

Grade 5: playground shade. The group measured temperatures and recommended a location. Peer reviewers asked where students spent recess. The group added observations of playground use and revised the proposed location before its presentation. Its final explanation compared the two locations using both sets of records.

Grade 8: lunchroom waiting. The group counted students in each queue and recommended a third queue. The group prepared its display during its third inquiry session. At the presentation, a council member asked whether slow payment processing could explain the waiting. The students said their counts did not distinguish that possibility. Their calendar contained no further inquiry period before the council selected proposals for consideration.

Committee notes

• Grade teams requested extra practice assessments after low results on a mathematics benchmark. They reported that the practice helped students become familiar with the assessment format.
• The principal's office approved the added activities separately. The request forms contained attendance and staffing information, but not the learning sequence that would be displaced.
• Families praised students' public speaking. Some preferred a daytime event because work schedules prevented evening attendance.
• Students asked how proposals that did not win the audience vote would be considered by the council. Several wanted to respond to questions that arose during presentations.
• The council explained that funding, safety, and maintenance affect implementation decisions. It was willing to review proposals that were not the audience's preferred choice.
• Teachers reported that volunteers could help students examine proposals but needed guidance about responding to unfinished work.