Writing Policy Review Process Rebecca Woosley Carol Franks Renee Boss KDE Literacy Consultants 1.

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
Session Objectives Begin to understand the goals, purpose and rationale for Program Reviews Learn about the components of implementing Program Reviews.
Advertisements

Roles and Responsibilities. Collaborative Efforts to Improve Student Achievement Guidelines for developing integrated planning and decision making processes.
Emergency Management Planning For Schools and Districts July 30, 2013 Senate Bill 8 House Bill 354.
Goals-Based Evaluation (GBE)
Technology Integration Plan (TIP) Overview Meeting Welcome TIP Teams.
SLG Goals, Summative Evaluations, and Assessment Guidance Training LCSD#7 10/10/14.
Teacher Evaluation Model
Carol Franks, KDE Literacy Consultant
Please Mute Your Cell Phones & Place them at a distance that prevents feedback Place your Office Phones on Mute unless indicating that you have a question.
Evaluating School Literacy Programs October 22, 2009 Presented by Pamela Wininger, Reading Consultant Carol Franks, Writing.
First Induction Meeting for Owners and Principals of Private Schools and Kindergartens. October 2009.
School Writing Programs October 7, 2009 Presented by Carol Franks, Writing Consultant, KDE , ext
School Site Council Guidelines Roles and Responsibilities Adapted from: Administrator’s Guide to School Site Councils Prepared by California.
Implementation of the North Carolina Read to Achieve Program May 7, 2013.
Commit” ” to Program Reviews Rhonda Back Program Review Director Bath County Public Schools Kentucky Association of School Councils September 17, 2014.
Local Wellness Policy Its Purpose and Its Power Local Wellness Policy Training Workshop Division of School & Community Nutrition and Coordinated School.
Purpose Program The purpose of this presentation is to clarify the process for conducting Student Learning Outcomes Assessment at the Program Level. At.
ASSESSMENT& EVALUATION Assessment is an integral part of teaching. Observation is your key assessment tool in the primary and junior grades.
Copyright © 2008, Intel Corporation. All rights reserved. Intel, the Intel logo, Intel Education Initiative, and Intel Teach Program are trademarks of.
Los Angeles County Office of Education Division for School Improvement School Site Council (SSC) Training September 9 th 2008 Anna Carrasco From presentation.
Goals of This Session Provide background for program review development Describe document make-up.
Interim Joint Committee on Education June 11, 2012.
Literacy Achievement Plans Adams 12 Five Star Schools A Guide to Initiating, Implementing, and Managing LAPS Revised October 2010.
Programs of the Intel Education Initiative are funded by the Intel Foundation and Intel Corporation. Copyright © 2007 Intel Corporation. All rights reserved.
Early Childhood Education (ZA) Endorsement Program Reviewer Technical Assistance Office of Professional Preparation Services Michigan Department of Education.
Stronge Teacher Effectiveness Performance Evaluation System
Honors Level Course Implementation Webinar Honors Rubric and Portfolio Review Process October 7, 2013.
Implementation of the North Carolina Read to Achieve Program CCSA March 25, 2013.
“We will lead the nation in improving student achievement.” CLASS Keys TM Module 5 Pre-Evaluation Conference Spring 2010 Teacher and Leader Quality Education.
The Professional Learning and Evaluation Model. Missouri Essential Principles of Effective Evaluation Measures educator performance against research-based,
EVALUATIONS, STUDENT GROWTH MEASURES & KEEP AUG 25, 2014 BILL BAGSHAW, ASSISTANT DIRECTOR.
Documenting Ongoing ELD Progress Using the Secondary ELD Assessment REF Amaris Rivas Coordinator’s Meeting April 10, 2008.
Score the Washington Educational Technology Assessments Educational Technology.
School Writing Programs Kentucky Department of Education October 2009.
1 DRAFT Monitoring/Evaluation Overview September 20, 2010 Title III Director’s Fall Meeting.
Teacher and Principal Evaluations and Discipline Under Chapter 103.
Curriculum & Instructional Projects at the Florida Center for Reading Research Research Symposium November 6, 2006 FCRR.
Implementing School Plans in ePlan
Washington State Teacher and Principal Evaluation Project Introduction to Teacher Evaluation in Washington 1 June 2015.
Ohio Superintendent Evaluation System. Ohio Superintendent Evaluation System (Background) Senate Bill 1: Standards for teachers, principals and professional.
1 Support Provider Workshop # East Bay BTSA Induction Consortium.
2012 Instructional Materials Process for Bridge Year Drew Hinds and Paula Merritt Office of Educational Improvement and Innovation Oregon Department of.
Module 2: Joint Committee Decisions Content contained is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License.
Writing Policy for SBDM Councils. Goals of this Session provide an overview of Senate Bill 1 requirements related to writing provide guidance in reviewing.
Early Childhood Education (ZA) Endorsement Program Reviewer’s Guidelines December 12, 2008 PM Dr. Bonnie Rockafellow Education Consultant Office of Professional.
Systems Accreditation Berkeley County School District School Facilitator Training October 7, 2014 Dr. Rodney Thompson Superintendent.
External Review Team: Roles and Responsibilities A Very Brief Training! conducted by JoLynn Noe Office of Assessment.
Earning IPDP Points Annual Review of Responsibilities and Procedures.
Council for the Advancement of Standards in Higher Education CAS Standards and Self- Assessment in Higher Education Tony Ellis, CAE Director of Education,
Policy Guidance. I.Policy Statement II.Purpose III.Definitions IV.Standards V.Responsibilities VI.Authorization VII.Legal References VIII.History Policy.
North Carolina Educator Evaluation System Jessica Garner
NH Department of Education Developing the School Improvement Plan Required by NH RSA 193-H and Federal Public Law for Schools in Need of Improvement.
Kentucky Core Academic Standards Pike County Schools.
Best Practices in CMSD SLO Development A professional learning module for SLO developers and reviewers Copyright © 2015 American Institutes for Research.
Learning today. Transforming tomorrow. REED: Review Existing Evaluation Data 55 slides.
Required Skills for Assessment Balance and Quality: 10 Competencies for Educational Leaders Assessment for Learning: An Action Guide for School Leaders.
Lenoir County Public Schools New North Carolina Principal Evaluation Process 2008.
District Literacy Program A Summary of the.  The Henderson County School District Literacy Program includes elements mandated in Senate Bill 1.  The.
March 23, SPECIAL EDUCATION ACCOUNTABILITY REVIEWS.
Writing and Submitting Student Learning Objectives
Benchmarks of Quality (BOQ) Training
Component 1: Content Knowledge
Honors Level Course Implementation Guide Q & A Session Social Studies
Teacher Evaluation “SLO 101”
Targets I can identify elements that need to be revised in SGG drafts.
Oregon Process Meeting February 15, 2013 Drew Hinds and Paula Merritt
Parent Involvement and No Child Left Behind (NCLB)
Evaluations & Student Growth Measures
Roles and Responsibilities
Roles and Responsibilities
Presentation transcript:

Writing Policy Review Process Rebecca Woosley Carol Franks Renee Boss KDE Literacy Consultants 1

Use of the Writing Policy Guidance Tool This Writing Policy Guidance Tool (WPG) Tool will be used by teams appointed by district SBDM coordinators to review the writing polices of all the schools in their district and to provide feedback to them. 2

Purposes of the Writing Policy Guidance Tool to identify strengths and weaknesses in a school’s writing policy to give schools a way to self-assess and revise polices before submitting them to district offices 3

At this time - Download and print: X High School Draft Policy 4

At this time - Download and print: Writing Policy Guidance Tool annotated for WebEx 5

“Each school-based decision making council or if there is no school council, a committee appointed by the principal, shall adopt policies that determine the writing program for its school….” Senate Bill 1 (SB1),

Programs, Plans, Policies What’s the difference? Program - includes the components that will be evaluated in the writing program review process : Curriculum and instruction Formative and summative assessments Professional development and support services Administrative/Leadership support and monitoring 7

Plan – a schoolwide writing plan describes the action to be taken by teachers in order to implement the school’s writing program, including what will be learned and how it will be assessed Policy – the rules and guidelines adopted by SBDM to be implemented in the school’s writing program 8

Requirements for the Writing Policy Senate Bill 1 (March 2009) stipulates the following categories of information that must be covered in the school’s writing policy: 9

Requirements for the Writing Policy Communication Skills Grading procedures and feedback to students regarding their writing and communication skills 10

Requirements for the Writing Policy the responsibility for the review of the portfolios and feedback to students other policies to improve the quality of an individual student’s writing and communication skills 11

Senate Bill 1 (SB1), 2009 states that, “A school’s policy for the writing program shall address the use of the portfolio for determining a student’s performance….” Writing Portfolios for a New Era 12

What will be in the portfolio? Writing portfolios, consisting of samples of individual student work that represent the interests and growth of the student over time shall be a part of any writing program in primary through grade twelve (12). SB1,

How is the Writing Policy Guidance Tool structured? 14

the Structure … The essential components of each category appear in the left column under the Description heading. The middle column with the heading, Essential items addressed?, includes Yes and No options. 15

Structure (continued) The third column, under the heading, If no, possible reason, includes descriptive bullets. The last column is for schools to use when thinking about how the descriptors are addressed in their writing plan. 16

The Writing Policy Review Process for Districts 17

Districts will review the writing polices required by Senate Bill 1, 2009 and report the results to KDE no later than Feb. 28,

The Process for District SBDM Coordinators - 1. Establish a district due date for schools to turn in their SBDM- approved writing polices to you. 2. Assemble a district team who will use the WPG Tool to review schools’ writing policies. 19

The Process for District SBDM Coordinators - 3. If a school receives a NO in any category, return the policy for revision. (Be sure to include a new short-term due date.) 4. When the policy is returned to you, review it again to assure that all components stipulated in SB1 have been met. 20

The Process for District SBDM Coordinators - 5. After the district team appointed by the SBDM coordinator reviews each school’s writing policy, the SBDM coordinator will provide feedback to each school using the Writing Policy Guidance Tool. 21

The Process for District SBDM Coordinators - 6. Once all schools’ writing policies have been approved by the review team, prepare the report to be sent to Mary Jo Rist at KDE using the spreadsheet form she sent you. The date all complete reports are due to KDE is Feb. 28,

The Process for District SBDM Coordinators - The District SBDM Coordinator will create and maintain an electronic folder for district use of the policies and the feedback document(s) for each school. Only the Writing Policy report will be sent to Mary Jo Rist. 23

Basic Steps When Using the WPG Tool 24

1 st - review the school’s policy noting the categories and contents. Next - using the WPG Tool - highlight Yes or No in the second column of the Tool for each of the categories 25

If No is highlighted - move to the next column and highlight the bullet that best describes the possible reason that essential items are not addressed in the policy. use the Other bullet if the reasons provided do not describe the deficiency in the policy. 26

Basic Steps (continued) A comments space is included at the bottom of each category for additional feedback and guidance. 27

If a school’s policy receives a NO in any category -  The school team will revise that portion of the policy.  The school SBDM council will approve the revised policy and send it to the district office by the district- established deadline. 28

After using the WPG Tool to review a policy or after receiving district feedback, schools should consider - What revisions are needed to address the deficiency? Can the deficiency be addressed simply by clarifying language ? 29

Pause the WebEx and read X High School’s Writing Draft Policy Refer to the annotated Tool during this part of the WebEx At this time - 30

Applying the Writing Policy Guidance Tool to X School’s Draft Policy 31

32

33

34

35

The Policy Draft in the WebEx- is NOT perfect has several strengths as well as some deficiencies is used to demonstrate how to use the Writing Policy Guidance Tool to determine how a school meets (or fails to meet) the requirements. 36

Remember The Writing Policy Guidance Tool includes the basic components that must be a part of every school’s writing policy. A school’s writing policy may go beyond these components. 37

Use the WPG Tool- to identify strengths and weaknesses in a school’s writing policy to self-assess and revise polices before submitting them 38

Contact information: SBDM Process questions: Mary Jo Rist (502) Writing Policy questions: Rebecca Woosley Carol Franks Renee Boss (502)