 |
|
Team Name:
|
|
PLC Wednesday, May 12
|
|
Meeting Date
|
|
May 12
|
|
Team Goal(s):
|
|
To review EOY data in both reading and writing
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Team Members Present:
|
|
Team Members Absent:
|
|
3rd grade
|
|
|
|
5th grade
|
|
|
|
2nd grade
|
|
|
|
Kindergarten
|
|
Patty Trott
|
|
1st grade
|
|
Bryce Hermanson
|
|
4th grade
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topics/Meeting Outcomes:
|
See below!
|
|
Questions/Concerns:
|
3rd grade:
Reading success:
Students made good growth and most made expected growth
Writing success:
Students made excellent growth in writing this year. What helped was using mentor text and going deeper rather than wider. Modeling
What we learned from our data:
Reading :
Students struggled with comprehension especially in the area of inferential
thinking. How can we improve our instruction in this area? What are other grade level expectations in the area of comprehension? We also need to use more non-fiction text than H/M offers.
Set up a home reading plan so that reading consistently happens at home
Writing:
We would like to concentrate more on sentence fluency next year as this seemed to be our area of concern.
5th grade:
Reading success:
Consistency was a key component of success. Our instruction is weighted in the area of metacognition and inferences.
Writing success:
Setting high expectations and consistency worked well.
What we learned from our data:
Reading:
We would like to work with tier two teachers with scheduling expectations next year to honor everyone’s instructional time and build consistency of instruction.
Would like to explore ways to challenge our higher readers with G/T teacher.
Math
Would like to explore instructional verses enrichment expectations for G/T math students for next year.
2nd grade:
Reading success:
Having tier 2 support front load the anthology stories. Houghton Mifflin series offers consistency. Didn’t order the workbooks this year and have found it beneficial to use some of the Wk/B activities as a whole class review using the white board.
Writing success:
Consistency worked well.
What we learned from our data:
Reading goals:
Would like to use more non-fiction text on day five to expand their non-fiction skills. Set fluency goals for students who need fluency instruction.
Writing:
Teach more sentence fluency skills next year.
Kindergarten:
Reading Success:
Using A-Z books has helped this year.
Making connections.
Writing success:
High expectations
What we learned from our data:
Reading:
Would like to expand our A-Z subscription so that we are able to use other materials offered. H/M needs to be supplemented to accommodate full day kindergarten expectations.
Would like to see a school wide continuum on comprehension so that we know what is expected at each grade level
Writing:
Plan for more time to practice small moments before assessment.
1st grade:
Reading success:
Tier 2 support helped a lot this year. Taking those students that are at a level 3-4 at the beginning of the year has really\ helped.
Writing success:
Setting writing goals and being able to conference more effectively with students
What we learned from our data:
Reading:
Would like to increase instruction on comprehension –authors message
Writing:
Word choice and sentence fluency are areas we would like to work more on next year. Also, organization and leads –instructional ideas needed.
4th grade
Reading:
Independent reading, shared reading and guided reading are all going well.
Instruction on summaries has helped.
Writing:
Being familiar with Lucy Calkins this year has helped and having students come with consistency of language and expectations has been very helpful.
What we learned from our data:
Reading:
Using Better Answers with non-fiction next year will be a goal. Using goal setting with students is another goal.
Writing:
Expand conferencing and quick writes.
|
|
Team Feedback Form
|
|
Team Name:
|
|
K-5 Teachers
|
|
Meeting Date
|
|
2/2/10
|
|
Team Goal(s):
|
|
Working in vertical teams to align our units of study for writing
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Team Members Present:
|
|
Team Members Absent:
|
|
K-5 teachers
|
|
|
|
Janet V
|
|
|
|
Sue A
|
|
|
|
Stacey S.
|
|
|
|
Kathleen P.
|
|
|
|
Drew B.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topics/Meeting Outcomes:
|
Participated in collaborative dialogue to vertically align and scaffold nonfiction writing K-2 and persuasive writing 3-5, focusing on how instruction was alike and what expectations were different.
|
|
Questions/Concerns:
|
Are we spending too much time in personal narrative?
Should Non Fiction be taught at every grade level? How much time?
Do we believe it is important to teach poetry K-5?
Should test taking be taught as a UOS genre?
How and when do we embed genre choice for students?
Do UOS truly align across grade levels? Do any grade levels need to increase rigor?
|
|
Team Feedback Form
|
|
Team Name:
|
|
1-5 grade teams
|
|
Meeting Date
|
|
Wednesday, December 16, 09
|
|
Team Goal(s):
|
|
To review writing data from common assessment and write new six week writing goals
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Team Members Present:
|
|
Team Members Absent:
|
|
1-5 grade teachers
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topics/Meeting Outcomes:
|
1st grade writing goal: The %of first grade students scoring proficient or above in narrative writing will increase from 6%-60% by February 12th 2010
2nd grade writing goal: The %of 2nd grade students scoring proficient or higher in organization will increase from 38% to 50% and in conventions from 20% to 50% by February 12, 2010
3rd grade writing goal: The %of 3rd grade students scoring proficient or higher in Ideas and content will increase from 71% to 80% and in organization from 75% to 80% by February 12, 2010
4th grade writing goal: The % of 4th grade students scoring proficient or higher in word choice will increase from 51% to 65% by February 12, 2010
5th grade writing goal: The % of fifth grade students scoring proficient or above in organization will increase from 52% to 70% and in word choice from 69% -80% by February 12, 2010
|
|
Questions/Concerns:
|
1st grade; writing went well this time due to the fact that students had a lot of schema for “how too” unit
2nd : need more practice writing seed ideas and also need to build stamina. We would like to work on leads
3rd: Would like to establish Essential learnings so we can go into depth more
4th: We would like help with a poetry rubric and help with Better Answers
|
|
Team Feedback Form
|
|
Team Name:
|
|
K-5
|
|
Meeting Date
|
|
12-9-09
|
|
Team Goal(s):
|
|
Independent reading discussion
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Team Members Present:
|
|
Team Members Absent:
|
|
All K-5 teachers
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topics/Meeting Outcomes:
|
o Independent reading questions
o Anchor chart - reading conference checklist for students
o Differentiating student reading conferences
o Sharing your conferencing notebook
o Debbie Miller DVD on conferencing with readers
o Next steps- Mini-lessons & written/oral responses to IR
|
|
Questions/Concerns:
|
How do I help students set goals for Independent Reading?
What should I teach and assess in IR conferences?
Is this a good time to teach and reinforce comprehension strategies?
|
|
Team Feedback Form
|
|
Team Name:
|
|
K-5 PLC
|
|
Meeting Date
|
|
11-18-2009
|
|
Team Goal(s):
|
|
Celebrate successes in implementing Independent Reading conferring routines and record keeping tools by vertical teams.
|
|
|
|
Work in grade level teams to create lesson plans for December Shared Reading formal observations by Drew and Barb.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Team Members Present:
|
|
Team Members Absent:
|
|
all
|
|
NA
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topics/Meeting Outcomes:
|
Independent Reading- Goal setting during IR conferences has increased student engagement. Students look forward to scheduled conferences and can talk about what they’ve been working on as a reader. Conferring sheets will be put on the Literacy Partnerships wiki space following a mini-training.
Teachers started organizing their shared reading lesson plan for their observations in December.
|
|
Questions/Concerns:
|
Look-fors were reviewed and suggestions for improving the HM lesson were discussed including: Emphasis on building background knowledge, linking new purpose to prior learning, providing a focus on vocabulary, adding depth to the think aloud, providing opportunities for purposeful student engagement.
We need time to hold a mini-training on how to use the wiki.
|
|
Team Name:
|
|
K-5
|
|
Meeting Date
|
|
10/07/09
|
|
Team Goal(s):
|
|
Review HM Integrated Theme Tests (ITT)
|
|
|
|
Compare ITT, DRA2, MAP scores
|
|
|
|
Complete reading data walls
|
|
Team Members Present:
|
|
Team Members Absent:
|
|
Lonie, Wenberg
|
|
|
|
Claus, Urbanek
|
|
|
|
Carson, Shamas-Wright
|
|
|
|
Cavallero, Hermanson
|
|
|
|
Hubbard, Trott, Skarwecki
|
|
|
|
Abrams, Vittal
|
|
|
|
Muncey, Cardenas
|
|
4th rescheduled for 10/14/09
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topics/Meeting Outcomes:
|
Reviewed Integrated Theme Tests (ITT) results; discussed how to share results with students; compared DRA2, MAP, & ITT scores; completed data walls
|
|
Questions/Concerns:
|
ITT-
What we noticed we need to work on (instructional focus):
5th grade- how to answer multiple choice questions; how to use text evidence in written responses; vocabulary meanings
3rd grade- answer both parts of a question; supporting answers with details/evidence from text; how to form an opinion
2nd grade- how to write restatements; review & practice prior to testing
1st grade- NA (1st test occurs after 2nd theme)
Sharing ITT Results with students to improve understanding:
· Avoid focusing on the correctness of the test; it is not about how many right or how many wrong they got
· Use proficiency scores, NOT percentages
· Confer individually or in small groups following test
· Review what students did well to build awareness
· Review areas where student(s) did not meet proficiency, showing them what a proficient answer looks like and what they could do to improve their responses
· Provide additional instructional and practice in areas of concern
DRA2 & MAP
· Very few students are below proficiency level
· Students in yellow/ partially proficient all need phonemic awareness; receive instruction from para
Next focus:
· Where are we housing ITT protocols?
· When should student scores be entered into the new online files?
· How do we use ITT scores as evidence to support student learning and proficiencies?
· What does proficient look like?
|
|
Team Feedback Form
|
|
Team Name:
|
|
K-5 PLC
|
|
Meeting Date
|
|
9/30/09
|
|
Team Goal(s):
|
|
Review shared reading framework
|
|
|
|
Learn about AssessTrack and its features
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Team Members Present:
|
|
Team Members Absent:
|
|
Hubbard, Skarwecki, Trott
|
|
|
|
Cavallero, Hermanson
|
|
|
|
Carson, Shamas-Wright
|
|
|
|
Lonie, Wenberg
|
|
|
|
Cardenas, Muncey
|
|
|
|
Claus, Urbanek, Brueckner, Abrams, Vittal, Stagner
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topics/Meeting Outcomes:
|
We reviewed components of shared reading (before, during, after) in the Literacy Framework
Patti Turner reviewed components of AssessTrack data management software. Staff looked at student data and identified students of need.
|
|
Questions/Concerns:
|
Time for teachers to talk about shared reading practices.
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Team Feedback Form
|
|
Team Name:
|
|
K-5
|
|
Meeting Date
|
|
9/16/2009
|
|
Team Goal(s):
|
|
Review common assessment data
|
|
|
|
Set year long and six week goals
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Team Members Present:
|
|
Team Members Absent:
|
|
Lonie, Wenberg
|
|
|
|
Cardenas, Muncey
|
|
|
|
Claus, Urbanek
|
|
|
|
Carson, Shamas-Wright
|
|
|
|
Cavallero, Hermanson
|
|
|
|
Hubbard, Skarwecki, Trott
|
|
|
|
Abrams, Brueckner, Stagner, Vittal
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topics/Meeting Outcomes:
|
Reviewed assessment data in spreadsheet
Placed students on data diamonds in the RAFTO
Set year long goal
Set 6 wk goal
K EOY Goal:
K 6 Week Goal:
1st EOY Goal: The % of 1st grade students scoring proficient or better in narrative writing will increase from 6% to 80% by the end of April 2010 as measured by the district writing rubric.
1st Grade 6 week goal: The % of 1st grade students scoring proficient or better in Ideas and Content will increase from 7% to 40% by October 2009 as measured by the district writing rubric.
2nd EOY Goal: The % of 2nd grade students scoring proficient or better in Ideas & Content, Organization, Word Choice, and Conventions will increase from 2% to 80% by the end of April 2010 as measured by the district writing rubric.
2nd Grade 6 week goal: The % of 2nd grade students scoring proficient or better in Ideas and Content will increase from 14% to 40% by October 2009 as measured by the district writing rubric.
3rd EOY Goal: The % of 3rd grade students scoring proficient or better in narrative writing will increase from 25% to 80% by the end of April 2010 as measured by the district writing rubric.
3rd Grade 6 week goal: The % of 3rd grade students scoring proficient or better in Ideas and Content will increase from 22% to 40% and in Organization from 20% to 40% by October 2009 as measured by the district writing rubric.
4th EOY Goal: The % of 4th grade students scoring proficient or better in narrative writing will increase from 44% to 80% by the end of April 2010 as measured by the district writing rubric.
4th Grade 6 week goal: The % of 4th grade students scoring proficient or better in Ideas and Content will increase from 39% to 50% and in Organization from 37% to 50% by October 2009 as measured by the district writing rubric.
5th EOY Goal: The % of 5th grade students scoring proficient or better in narrative writing will increase from 35% to 80% by the end of April 2010 as measured by the district writing rubric.
5th Grade 6 week goal: The % of 5th grade students scoring proficient or better in Ideas and Content will increase from 44% to 80% and in Organization from 31% to 60% by October 2009 as measured by the district writing rubric.
|
|
Questions/Concerns:
|
Goal questions
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Team Feedback Form
|
|
Team Name:
|
|
K-5
|
|
Meeting Date
|
|
9/9/2009
|
|
Team Goal(s):
|
|
Review district rubric
|
|
|
|
Collaboratively score common assessments
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Team Members Present:
|
|
Team Members Absent:
|
|
Lonie, Wenberg
|
|
3rd rescheduled to Thursday
|
|
Cardenas, Muncey
|
|
|
|
Claus, Urbanek
|
|
|
|
Carson, Shamas-Wright
|
|
|
|
Cavallero, Hermanson
|
|
|
|
Hubbard, Skarwecki, Trott
|
|
|
|
Abrams, Brueckner, Stagner, Vittal
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topics/Meeting Outcomes:
|
Reviewed district rubrics, each team member scored two writing pieces. Discussed what a low, med and high paper would look like. Finish scoring by next Tuesday and put into spreadsheet.
|
|
Questions/Concerns:
|
Rubric questions
K: Is district rubric rigorous enough?
1st:
2nd: change language in use of transitions, need to revise, are transitions part of organization or fluency?
3rd:
4th:
5th:
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Team Feedback Form
|
|
Team Name:
|
|
K-5
|
|
Meeting Date
|
|
9/2/09
|
|
Team Goal(s):
|
|
Writing vertical articulation
|
|
|
|
Independent reading strategies
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Team Members Present:
|
|
Team Members Absent:
|
|
K: Skarwecki, Trott, Hubbard
|
|
|
|
1st: Cavallero, Hermanson
|
|
|
|
2nd: Carson, Shamas-Wright
|
|
|
|
3rd: Lonie, Wenberg
|
|
|
|
4th: Cardenas, Muncey
|
|
|
|
5th: Claus, Urbanek
|
|
|
|
Vittal, Abrams, Brueckner, Sandoval
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topics/Meeting Outcomes:
|
**K-5 articulation about what proficiency looks like at the beginning of the year in writing at each grade level. Teachers split into groups and charted what they considered important characteristics of beginning year writing proficiencies. Posted lists, and information will be compiled and discussed at a later date.
**Independent Reading: Whole group discussion of IR routines. Looked at just right posters, strategies for selecting text, managing routines, recording student choices, and organizing collections.
|
|
Questions/Concerns:
|
**Continue to work on meeting norms
**Need to continue discussion on writing proficiency
**Continue to develop strategies for independent reading, moving from knowledge to application and developing consistent school-wide expectations
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|