Discussion

Report
School Improvement
Planning: Student
Learning
Spring, 2012
Let’s get started…
Opposites Card Sort: Teamwork
• As a team, match the opposites.
One card represents best practice,
the other less effective practice.
Some teachers resist
working with you. You go
ahead and do good work.
Some teachers resist
working with you. You
decide you can’t move
ahead until everyone is
compelled to work with
you.
Your team understands
that sometimes it must
“go slow to go fast” and
proceeds accordingly.
Your team writes an
aggressive plan with
expectations of large
gains in student learning
in one year.
You help everyone in your
group understand
individual meeting
preferences and styles,
and together, analyze the
capacity of the group to
work together.
You take charge of the
group and plan meetings
based on your
preferences and style.
Your faculty collects and
analyzes data in four
categories (demographic,
perception, student
learning, and school
processes) to determine
the focus of the student
learning action plan.
Your team reviews
standardized test data
and determines the focus
of the student learning
plan.
Your team uses a
consensus process to
reach decisions,
respecting the opinion of
those who initially
dissent.
Your team experiences
conflict among the faculty
but decides to ignore it.
Your team plans for
quality meeting time in
August to allow for full
collaboration in
writing/revising the
school improvement plan
for student learning.
Your team completes the
school improvement plan
for student learning
without input from all
faculty members.
You regularly review
student progress,
celebrate results, and
make adjustments as
needed.
You review standardized
test results once a year.
You communicate your
school improvement
goals to
parents/boards/parish
community.
Your school improvement
goals are only shared
/discussed with faculty.
You explore a variety of
professional learning
options to assist teachers
in preparing for the CCSS.
Teachers are directed to
implement new
instructional strategies
and assessments that
support the CCSS.
Your team, in
collaboration with the
faculty, maps out all
professional learning for
the year to support the
student learning goal(s)
and implementation of
the CCSS.
You plan the use of your
in-service days for the
year as you go along, not
being intentional about
supporting teacher and
student learning.
Let’s get started…
• When all cards are matched,
determine which card most
accurately reflects your current
practice as a team.
Let’s get started…
• Reflection questions:
–How many of the cards we
selected reflect best practice?
–How can we move from our less
effective practices to best
practice?
Learning from Leadership Study
Effective data-use schools:
• Actively use data to monitor the
outcomes of School Improvement Plans
• Use formative assessments at regular
intervals throughout the year
• Use data in making decisions about
professional development planning
• Use data in conversations with parents about
students performance and programming
• Use data to move from problem
identification to problem solving
What Data Do We
Need to Pay Attention
To?
Looking Back
Demographics
Student
Learning
Perceptions
School Processes
Multiple Measures
What Data Do We Need to Pay
Attention To?
Multiple Measures Worksheet:
• Determine which measures you are currently
using to evaluate student learning. You may
have additional data sources to list.
What Data Do We Need to Pay
Attention To?
Discussion:
• Have you considered data from multiple
sources?
• What additional data sources could you
use to inform our planning?
What Data Do We
Need to Pay Attention
To?
Looking Forward
The Numbers are in…
Data Review Worksheet:
Growth
Consistency
Equity
Standards
Break Out Session
High School Teams:
Discussion and review of data
sources for growth,
consistency, equity, and
standards.
Break Out Session
Elementary School Teams:
Discussion and review of ECRA
data.
Action Plan Feedback
Discussions
Snapshot: Retention Data
# of Students
Tested
Number and % of
Gr. 5 Class of 2014
students since Gr. 3
Number and % of
Gr. 7 Class of 2012
students since Gr. 3
Grade 3
Grade 5
Grade 7
2,495
2,485
2,465
2,138 = 86%
1,825 = 74%
Snapshot: Student Achievement
Cohorts
READING TOTAL
Number of Above Average
Students (75-99)
Number of Average Students
(25-74)
Number of Below Average
Students (1-24)
Spring Testing
Grade 3 (2012)
Results
Spring Testing
Grade 5 (2012)
Results
Spring Testing
Grade 7 (2012)
Results
905
886
989
1,193
1,234
1,171
397
365
305
Growth – Matched Students
Spring Testing
Grade 3 (2008)
Results
Spring Testing
Grade 5 (2010)
Results
Spring Testing
Grade 7 (2012)
Results
Number of Above Average
Students (75-99)
764
798
835
Number of Average Students
(25-74)
898
862
847
Number of Below Average
Students (1-24)
165
166
143
READING TOTAL
Consistency
Reading
Total
Grade 3
Grade 5
Grade 7
2008
2,618
66
59
2,681
68
60
2,737
66
59
2009
2,681
64
58
2,694
65
58
2,650
64
58
2010
2,558
63
57
2,580
66
58
2,468
66
59
2011
2,550
62
57
2,638
65
58
2,550
66
59
2012
2,495
62
57
2,485
63
57
2,465
66
58
NP
NC
E
NP
NC
E
NP
NC
E
Break Out Session
Discussion and review of
ECRA data.
Data Review Worksheet
Break Out Session
Action Plan Feedback
Discussions
Lunch!
Common Core State Standards
Implications for
Instruction and Assessment
•
The Common Core Standards emphasize student outcomes
at higher levels of cognitive performance/critical thinking.
•
Instruction must expect higher levels of critical
understanding.
English Language Arts/Literacy
• Building knowledge through content-rich
nonfiction and informational texts
• Reading and writing grounded in evidence
from text
• Regular practice with complex text and its
academic vocabulary
ELA Percentage of Informational and
Non-fiction Text
ELA Percentage of Writing Type
Grade
To Persuade
To Explain
To Convey
Experience
4
30%
35%
35%
8
35%
35%
30%
12
40%
40%
20%
Text Complexity
We must
systematically
expose
students to
increasingly
complex texts.
TEXT COMPLEXIT Y GRADE BANDS AND
ASSOCIATED LEXILE RANGES
Text Complexity
Grade Band in the
Standards
Old Lexile Ranges
Lexile Ranges Aligned
to CCR expectations
K-1
N/A
N/A
2-3
450-725
450-790
4-5
645-845
770-980
6-8
860-1010
955-1155
9-10
960-1115
1080-1305
11-CCR
1070-1220
1215-1355
Mathematics
• Less content but at a much deeper level of
understanding and application
• Coherent progression from grade to grade.
• Focus on conceptual understanding,
procedural skill and fluency, and application
with equal intensity.
Standards for Mathematical Practice
1. Make sense of problems and persevere in solving them.
2. Reason abstractly and quantitatively.
3. Construct viable arguments and critique the reasoning of
others.
4. Model with mathematics.
5. Use appropriate tools strategically.
6. Attend to precision.
7. Look for and make use of structure.
8. Look for and express regularity in repeated reasoning.
Mathematics Common Core State Standard Clusters by Grade
K
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
High School
Counting and
Cardinality
Ratios and
Proportional
Reasoning
Number Operations in Base Ten
Number and Operations Fractions
Number and Quantity
The Number System
Algebra
Expressions and Equations
Operations and Algebraic Thinking
Functions
Functions
Geometry
Measurement and Data
Statistics and Probability
Statistics and Probability
Modeling
K – 12 Domains
Domains
Counting and Cardinality
Operations and Algebraic Thinking
Number and Operations in Base
Ten
Measurement and Data
Geometry
Number and Operations - Fractions
Ratios and Proportional
Relationships
The Number System
Expressions and Equations
Statistics and Probability
Functions
Algebra
Number and Quantity
Modeling
K
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9-12
15
MinuteBreak
Problem Solving vs. Problem
Identification
Problem Identification:
We have concerns about the CCSS and
don’t feel our teachers are ready to
implement them.
The CCSS are coming, whether we’re
ready or not.
Problem Solving vs. Problem
Identification
Problem Identification:
We have concerns about the CCSS and
don’t feel our students can handle
the content demands.
There are no CCSS for those who need
extra help.
Problem Solving vs. Problem
Identification
Problem Identification:
Our students continue to struggle in
goal areas.
Who?
Why?
Problem Solving vs. Problem
Identification
Problem Identification:
We lack the resources to support
teacher and student learning
initiatives.
It’s all about collaboration.
Planning Professional Learning
Reflection: 2011-12
Did our in-service time support our student
learning plan?
Did we make the best use of our professional
development resources?
Did we manage our time to provide frequent
and job-embedded professional learning?
Planning Professional Learning
Office for School Professional
Development Timeline
CCSS Mathematics Professional
Development Timeline
2012-13 Professional Learning Plan
• Using the 2012-13 Professional Learning Plan
worksheet, begin drafting your plan.
– List the dates of your 10 calendared PD days
– What days are already planned? (For example,
Sustaining the Mission dates)
– Add any dates from the Office for Schools PD
timelines that apply
Next Steps
School Improvement Planning Document
• Revised to allow for an Annual Review
• Document that will be used for all School
Improvement Goals related to accreditation
Next Steps
• Plan a day in August to collaboratively
write/revise your student learning action
plan. The day should be facilitated by the
team.
• Submit the plan electronically to Sue Nelson
by September 30, 2012
Feedback appreciated..
• Please complete the evaluation - one per
school – and leave it on the table as you
leave.
Thank you!

similar documents