TEMPLETON ES Current Status: Step 4 June 2015 BOE or EXECUTIVE LEVEL or SCHOOL NAME – Type Information Here.

TEMPLETON ES Current Status: Step 4 June 2015 BOE or EXECUTIVE LEVEL or SCHOOL NAME – Type Information Here

A Note About Journey Presentations Becoming Data Wise is all about working collaboratively to follow a clear process and cultivate the habits of mind that support continuous improvement. In that spirit, we have developed the “Data Wise Journey Presentation" as a framework for capturing what you did and what you learned. Our hope is that the conversations you have in putting together this presentation will set you up well as you think about how to deepen your work, and that you will find that this document helps you communicate within our district where and how your school has engaged in school improvement. Creating a journey presentation should not be an exercise in trying to make it look like you did things you didn’t actually do. This is not a good use of time for schools engaging in school improvement that will impact student achievement for all students! So as you work on this document, tell it like it is. If you did not do something, leave it blank or include a note to that effect. If you did things in a different order, or doubled back, or got stuck, that is okay. This work is not always linear; the point of the journey presentation template is to offer a shared language and a shared medium from which to learn from one another despite the fact that the work can be messy. In order for the journey presentation to depict the “real” work toward school improvement and for your school to receive useful feedback, the end goal is for the district to consistently work toward“BEING” Data Wise and not “DOING” Data Wise. The good news is that a step your team struggled with may be a place where another team made good progress. The potluck metaphor can be instructive here: when first starting to do the work of improvement, we may not all be good cooks but as long as everyone has something to contribute, when we get together to share our practice, we'll have a rich meal.

Why We Must Complete The Journey… The point of the journey presentation is to offer a shared language and medium to guide our collective learning about improving literacy instruction.

Templeton Elementary School Data Wise Journey SY 2014 - 2015 Team Members Ebony L. Harris, Principal Claudia Piper, Assistant Principal Amy Robinson, Testing Coordinator Theresa Surmanek, RELA ILT Regina Walters, Math ILT Shannon Jones, Math Resource Karen Key, Reading Specialist Donna Drakeford, OCSI Specialist First Submission: December 19, 2014

TEAM & STRUCTURES Step 1: Organize for Collaborative Work Step 1: Revisit this step as needed during the year to ensure strong teams and structures

Step 1: Our Process: OCSI Data Wise Training for Administration: The principal and testing coordinator met with a member of the OCSI team to prepare for the Leadership Retreat. This helped to build a foundational understanding for the work for the year.

Step 1: Our Process: Leadership Training Data Wise Training with Leadership Team (Wednesday, July 30, 2014 - Thursday, July 31, 2014): The Instructional Council facilitated the data training with the leadership team. The team completed all key tasks of Step I. This helped this team to organize for collaborative work for the year and to build capacity among school leaders so they could replicate the same tasks on their respective teams.

Step 1: Our Process: Staff Training and Collaborative Planning Data Wise Training for the Staff: The principal and leadership team completed Step 1 of the Data Wise process with the staff during the pre-service week and during the first few weeks of school during collaborative planning. We wanted to organize for collaborative work as a whole-staff and among collaborative planning teams.

Step 1: Our Evidence Standard Meeting Agenda: Last year, we used a standard meeting agenda that included objectives/outcomes, team roles, times for each agenda item, and next steps at the end. This year we added our “TEAM” norms, which were developed during the summer leadership team meeting and adopted by the staff during pre-service week. We also added the role of Parliamentarian. This helped serve as a visual reminder and to ensure that we hold each other more accountable to the norms we created. We also added the “Plus/Delta” protocol at the end of each meeting. This helped to encourage more thoughtful reflection of the processes we used. 2013-2014 Agenda 2014-2015 Agenda

Step 1: Our Evidence Collaborative Planning Schedule - We continued with the collaborative planning structure we used last year. We built 90 minutes of collaborative planning time per week into each team’s schedule. Students go to two 45-minutes specials during that time. This year we had to be creative with specials coverage since we reallocated funds and had one less specials teacher than we did last year.

Step 1: Our Evidence Templeton Organizational Chart - This year we adjusted our organizational chart to be more stream-lined and user-friendly. We also purposely chose a visual arrangement that we feel better represents teamwork and collaboration, which is one of our core values and sets a purpose for each of the teams represented. 2013-2014 Organizational Chart 2014-2015 Organizational Chart

Step 1: Our Evidence Compass Points Protocol - As collaborative planning teams we completed the Compass points protocol to determine our work style preferences. The results are posted around our professional development room. We also met with our learning style preferences to answer the various questions about what our strengths are, areas of growth, which groups we may work best with and which groups we may face challenges when working with.

Step 1: Our Evidence Professional Development Room: - We have a room dedicated for staff to use for weekly collaborative planning meetings, Leadership meetings, SPMT meeting, instructional council meetings, etc. This room is a space where we keep our artifacts, data, and priority question.

Step 1: Our Evidence Professional Development Room (cont): - At the start of the year the vision we had for our Professional Development room was to display the small groups for each classroom and teachers would update this information as the groups changed. After reflecting on this practice we determined that it would be more effective to use Google Docs for collecting small group information. We then transformed the room to allow for each grade level to display their priority questions, grade level data and plus/deltas. Start: Current:

Step 1: Our Evidence Data Inventories As a leadership team and with collaborative planning teams we created a Google doc spreadsheet for our Data Inventories for the external and internal assessments. From our internal assessment we were able to determine that we did not many data sources so we developed a wishlist of data that we would like to collect.

Step 1: Our Evidence Inventory of Instructional Initiatives - With the Leadership and collaborative planning teams we created an Instructional Initiatives document to analyze what programs, initiatives and resources we have available to for the teachers and students. As a team we realized that we have many resources and some were not being utilized. We determined that as a school we would focus on a few programs and use them with fidelity to ensure their effectiveness.

Step 1: Our Reflections ▪Staff members wrote plus/deltas at the end of each collaborative planning session and professional development to provide feedback about the session. The statements below are the feedback that the staff provided. What worked wellWhat to change next time ●Hands on learning ●The compass rose activity helped me realize my strengths in relations to my team so I am better at using my time collaboratively. ●Visuals and interactions ●Working as a team with everyone’s input will only improve relations and make for better outcomes for all ●Everyone being willing to give input ●More specific details about what the process will look like at our school ●What will be the teacher’s responsibilities in this process ●Balance of time with receiving information and implementation

Step 1: Our Reflections ▪LEADERSHIP RETREAT - 7/29/15 What worked wellWhat to change next time Norms: Seeing them on the agenda Compass rose activity to help us look at our styles. Seeing the swoosh and ACE in the powerpoint presentations to keep us reminder and at the forefront of our work. Monitoring Tool: Everyone had access to the grade-level data Plus/Deltas: Do them with a purpose. Similar to an exit ticket to get specific feedback. Parliamentarian--It didn’t help in meetings… Have accountability partners or could facilitators handle this? Rolling agenda----Online with the dates. Post data in the PD room for visual reminder

Step 2: Build Assessment Literacy INCREASED COMFORT WITH DATA Step 2: Revisit this step as needed during the year to ensure staff’s comfort with assessments

Step 2: Our Process Principles of Responsible Data Use - During our July Leadership Team meeting and collaborative planning meetings in the beginning of October, the team created scenarios that applied to actual assessments and use of data that have occurred or could likely occur at Templeton. Assessment Scavenger Hunt- Summer Leadership: The teams used the assessment report scavenger hunt to compare the SRI and the DRA assessments to determine see similarities and differences and how and when to use this information. Collaborative Planning: Teams used the item analysis reports from Edusoft and Performance matters to complete the assessment report scavenger hunt. We also created a list of questions we still have and what we need to become more data literate.

Step 2: Our Evidence Principles of Responsible Data Use - These scenarios were used to facilitate discussion about applying principles of data use.

Step 2: Our Evidence Assessment Scavenger Hunt - The teams used the assessment scavenger hunt to analyze item analysis reports from acutal tests given last year and this year.

▪ Staff members wrote plus/deltas at the end of the session. The statements below are the feedback that the staff provided. Step 2: Our Reflections What worked wellWhat to change next time ●Rich conversation about the principles of responsible data use ●Scavenger Hunt- Intermediate teachers like the item analysis on performance matters ●Couldn’t see relevance ●More theory, not practical ●Wanted to speed of the process to make it applicable ●The team planned on using the building literacy assessment placemat activity but when the first team used it they did not find it valuable

▪ LEADERSHIP RETREAT - 7/29/15 Step 2: Our Reflections What worked wellWhat to change next time Principles of responsible data use activity Scavenger hunt with the leadership team Continued examination of the assessments Select assessments to focus on

Step 3: Create Data Overview PRIORITY QUESTION

The focus area for this journey was: 1.School Wide Priority Question 2.Individual Grade Level Priority Questions School Wide: On November 12th, we created 6 teams with a grade level representative on each team. Teams rotated around the cafeteria in a gallery walk. Staff members used the priority question protocol to write questions about the data. Staff members viewed the current and past DRA, SRI, and Math Unit data and MUST results. On December 10th, staff members narrowed the list of questions down to two questions and then debated both questions until a decision was made about our school wide priority question. Grade Level: Grade level teams met during Collaborative Planning to share their data presentations, staff members completed a gallery walk of the data and used the priority question protocol to write questions about the data relevant to their grade level and subject area. Grade level teams created a priority question for their grade level. Our focus area relates to instruction and narrows the scope of inquiry while remaining broad enough so that all staff members participating in the data overview saw themselves playing a role in it. Our priority question arose from a collaborative process, relates to instruction, narrows the focus of inquiry, takes into account current resources, and taps into something we are motivated to investigate. Step 3: Our Process

School-wide Priority Question - Staff members were strategically assigned to sit with colleagues from different grade levels/departments. We gave each group a copy of the Modified Question Formulation Technique protocol and the Characteristics of a Priority Question. Teams used this during their gallery walk. Step 3: Our Evidence

School-wide Priority Question Gallery Walk During the Gallery Walk, the teams reviewed the data by grade level and individual teacher. Each team noted any similarities and wonderings regarding the data. Step 3: Our Evidence

Step 3: Our Priority Question ▪Teams shared wonderings from Gallery Walk and developed focus questions. A few examples of the questions are: What support do teachers need in order to close the gaps? How can we use this data to create the best classrooms for our students? ▪We identified the following priority question: How can we effectively manage instructional time to best meet the needs of our students? Our priority question arose from a collaborative process, relates to instruction, narrows the focus of inquiry, takes into account current resources, and taps into something we are motivated to investigate.

Step 3: Our Priority Question What we are currently doing related to the priority question. What evidence will we collect related to the priority question? ●time estimates for lessons ●prepare materials for lesson the day before to maximize instructional time ●use a timer to stay on track ●review components of lesson plans to stay on task ●have supplies ready before lesson ●use transition time and effectively ●collaborate with team members, ESOL, and para professionals to model efficiently ●use flexible groups to target specific skills ●prepare for next day before leaving for the day ●train students to begin activities while teaching small groups ●use of strong procedures in class ●prioritize what can be done after hours ●Keep a log of student work with dates and times (specific day) Include work from pull-out groups ●Tracking the schedule/work samples of students that are pulled out during the day - look at data ●Qualitative study on time effectiveness (personal) ●follow master schedule ●peer observations of teachers with strong management skills ●tracker of pull out/push in time/frequency ●extending lesson throughout week instead of two to three day cycle ●videotape self to see how well time is being used ●collect data to see allocated vs actual time use ●create a weekly schedule

Step 3: Grade Level Priority Questions We identified the following priority question: K: How can we support our students in reaching the highest level of expected growth? 1st: How can we push students to think critically within their ability level? 2nd: How can we utilize the Math data to create better small group instruction? 3rd-5th Reading: How can we maximize allocated time and resources to efficiently address the five components of reading? 3rd-5th Math: What strategies can we use to increase and maintain student critical thinking and making connections in math?

Step 3: Our Reflections Staff members reflected on the staff-wide and grade-level priority question process using the plus/delta protocol. Feedback about individual data presentations was also sent via FAC meeting notes. What worked wellWhat to change next time ●Collaborate with colleagues from various grade levels ●Able to see school wide data ●Reflecting on data with and from other grade levels ●Everyone was included in the process ( ESOL,paras, specialists) ●Rotaion format to view data vs analyzing data at table was conducive to quality conversations ●Would have liked more time to look at and analyze the data ●Some staff members did not see the connection between student achievement and individual data presentations.

Step 3: Revised- Redefining the Priority Question. Upon Reflection and review of Chapter 3, the team agreed our Priority question was teacher-centered and not directly aligned to the data. As a result, the Instructional Team met to plan two activities to implement with the Leadership Team in preparation for the School-Wide Data Wise Meeting. The charts below were used to discuss why the priority question needed to be revised.

School-wide Priority Question - We looked deeper into select data sources. We used data from our learning walk, during which we found lack of evidence for in-depth student speaking and writing. As a school, we looked at an item analysis of the MUST tests and ESOL writing, specifically at the items that required extended written responses. Step 3 Revised: Our Evidence

REVISED~ Step 3: Our Priority Question ▪ As a result of staff effort, use of data and along with review of the chapter we generated a new priority question. ▪We identified the following priority question: How are students using evidence and vocabulary to support and express their ideas in their writing ? Our priority question arose from a collaborative process, relates to instruction, narrows the focus of inquiry, takes into account current resources, and taps into something we are motivated to investigate.

Step 3: Our Reflections LEADERSHIP RETREAT - 7/29/15 What worked wellWhat to change next time Learned about what a priority question is so when it was time to create our own we knew what a priority question. Continued with it throughout the year Deliberate and baby steps for learning. We must teach it before we do it. Do things as a school first and then in smaller groups.

Step 4: Dig into Student Data LEARNER-CENTERED PROBLEM

Step 4: Our Process March 20th: Donna Drakeford, OCSI Specialist, met with the Instructional Council to provide assistance with preparation for Step 4. March 25th: The Instructional Council prepared the Leadership team for the school-wide Step 4 process. March 27th: The Instructional Council debriefed with Donna Drakeford, OCSI Specialist related to the Leadership team meeting and next steps for school-wide Step 4 delivery. May 6th: The staff met to practice using the Looking at Student Work Protocol. The team looked at work samples from members of the leadership team in table groups. May 11th - May 22nd: Grade level teams chose a common informational writing assignment to use for their work samples. At collaborative planning, each team narrowed down student work to 6 representative samples for the grade level. May 27th: At the staff meeting, the team reviewed information about Step 4 and what a learner-centered problem is (based on feedback from meeting on 5/6/15). Teams worked in small groups, with each group looking at the work samples from one of the grade level teams. Each group used the protocol to develop a Learner Centered Problem for that grade level. These were shared with the large group at the end of the meeting. Next step: Review grade-specific LCPs to determine school-wide LCP.

Step 4: Our Evidence Leadership Meeting 3/25

Step 4: Our Evidence Staff Meeting 5/6

Step 4: Our Evidence Staff Meeting 5/27

Step 4: Our Reflections (Staff Meeting (5/6/15) What worked wellWhat to change next time  I like that we look at our student work from our population.  Having the standards while looking at the student work was helpful. We were able to see where they are and where they are going.  This help visualize student work in a different way  All members were engaged in reading and analyzing the student work. + Nice to see a variety of student work, nice to look at patterns in student work ●Groups were too big ●More practice on analyzing student work ●We need more time to complete the agenda ●Do we have an official copy of the guiding question? Can it be sent out to staff members? ●I would like to analyze writing in other subjects. ● Need some examples of LCPs ● Time ● Confused about relevance of certain parts of the meeting - not sure the purpose ●Need more information about the expectations for the grade level

Step 4: Our Reflections (Staff Meeting (5/27/15) What worked wellWhat to change next time ●Group worked well together. The smaller group size made for better conversation. ●Working with different grade levels was productive. ●Agreeing on a learner-centered problem ●Had a great collaborative effort in finding our question ●Goals were clear ●Being able to analyze the work and see/hear the similarities across the grade level ●Common ideas in different groups LCP ●Using our samples to see the writing norms at Templeton ●It was beneficial to see the writing standards while we analyzed the work samples to see how students need to progress through the years ●Team stuck to protocol and stayed on task ●It was useful to see math writing through a writing scope ●LCP process is becoming easier/ more habitual ●Had more time to look at all of the data ●Need more understanding of process - How will this improve instruction? How long is a LCP/PQ supposed to take for a school? ●Need more examples of LCP in action ●Challenging to see how one problem can apply for all grade levels ●Would have been better to focus on 2 samples and shared more ●Need more time to have rich discussion about student samples

Step 4: Our Reflections LEADERSHIP RETREAT 7/29/15 What worked wellWhat to change next time Doing the practice several times was helpful and we learned together. Working in smaller groups by the end was helpful because we were deliberate in what we were doing and why we were doing it.

PROBLEM OF PRACTICE Step 5: Examine Instruction

Step 5: Our Process [Include bullet points about what we did to examine instruction (for example, protocols we used to focus, observe and debrief what we saw in classrooms)]

Step 5: Our Evidence [Include a photo or artifact from Step 5 (for example, a photo from a classroom observation, a note-taking form completed by a team member during a classroom observation, or a photo of an affinity protocol poster)]

Step 5: Our Problem of Practice [Insert what staff members noticed when examining instruction] We identified the following problem of practice: [insert problem of practice here. It can be helpful to begin this statement with the phrase “As teachers, we…”] Our problem of practice is directly related to the learner-centered problem, based on evidence found when examining instruction, within our control, a statement about practice (not a question), and specific and small.

Step 5: Our Reflections Insert evidence (plus/delta) that progress was made in examining instruction Documents you can add to your Reflection: Consider ACE Habits of Mind and add reflections about your learning connected to ACE and your improvement work.

Step 6: Develop Action Plan ACTION PLAN

Step 6: Our Process [Include bullet points about what we did to develop an action plan (for example, protocols we used for identifying and selecting instructional strategies and agreeing on what those strategies would look like in classrooms, professional development plans)]

Step 6: Our Evidence ACTION PLAN Problem of Practice: [insert problem of practice here] TaskWhoWhen

Step 6: Our Reflections Insert evidence (plus/delta) that progress was made in developing and action plan Documents you can add to your Reflection: Consider ACE Habits of Mind and add reflections about your learning connected to ACE and your improvement work.

ASSESSMENT PLAN Step 7: Plan to Assess Progress

Step 7: Our Process [Include bullet points about what we did to plan to assess progress (for example, protocols we used for choosing data sources and setting student learning goals)]

Step 7: Our Evidence

Step 7: Our Reflections Insert evidence (plus/delta) that progress was made in planning to assess progress Documents you can add to your Reflection: Consider ACE Habits of Mind and add reflections about your learning connected to ACE and your improvement work.

ASSESSMENT & ADJUSTMENT Step 8: Act and Assess

Step 8: Our Process [Include bullet points about what we did to act and assess (for example, protocols we used to assess the plan’s impact on teaching and learning, identify needed adjustments, and celebrate success)]

Step 8: Our Evidence [Insert evidence of student learning, adjustments to the plan, and/or celebrations of success, feeling free to add a slide with a photo or artifact from this step]

Step 8: Our Reflections Insert evidence (plus/delta) that progress was made in acting and assessing Documents you can add to your Reflection: Consider ACE Habits of Mind and add reflections about your learning connected to ACE and your improvement work.

[Insert the most pressing question that we have for the teaching team or our colleagues as we head into our next journey] Burning Question

Segun C. Eubanks, Ed.D., Chair Carolyn M. Boston, Vice Chair, District 6 Zabrina Epps, M.P.M., District 1 Peggy Higgins, LCSW-C, District 2 Amber Waller, District 3 Patricia Eubanks, District 4 Verjeana M. Jacobs, Esq., District 5 Lyn J. Mundey, MBA, CIPP/G, District 7 Edward Burroughs III, District 8 Sonya Williams, District 9 Beverly Anderson, Ph.D. Daniel Kaufman, Ph.D. Curtis Valentine, M.P.P. Jeffery Taylor II, Student Board Member Kevin M. Maxwell, Ph.D., Secretary Treasurer and Chief Executive Officer PRINCE GEORGE’S COUNTY BOARD OF EDUCATION

TEMPLETON ES Current Status: Step 4 June 2015 BOE or EXECUTIVE LEVEL or SCHOOL NAME – Type Information Here.

Similar presentations

Presentation on theme: "TEMPLETON ES Current Status: Step 4 June 2015 BOE or EXECUTIVE LEVEL or SCHOOL NAME – Type Information Here."— Presentation transcript:

Similar presentations

About project

Feedback

Log in

Auth with social network:

TEMPLETON ES Current Status: Step 4 June 2015 BOE or EXECUTIVE LEVEL or SCHOOL NAME – Type Information Here.

Similar presentations

Presentation on theme: "TEMPLETON ES Current Status: Step 4 June 2015 BOE or EXECUTIVE LEVEL or SCHOOL NAME – Type Information Here."— Presentation transcript:

Similar presentations

About project

Feedback