3-Year School Improvement Plan by eld18221

VIEWS: 42 PAGES: 42

									 3-Year School
Improvement Plan
  David Quattrochi
      Principal

   Angela Penner
     Teacher
        The Beginning
The Whole Faculty Study Group concept (Carlene
Murphy) is the foundation behind our 3-year
School Improvement Plan.
– Training for Administrators (2004)
   • Jefferson County ESC
   • Franklin County ESC
   • Principals Study Group
– Training for Staff
   • Leadership Meetings
   • Professional Development Days
– Implemented in 2005-2006 School Year
    Whole Faculty Study
     Groups (WFSG)
What is it?
School embedded professional development that
  focuses on 5 guiding principles:
  1. Students are first
  2. Everyone participates
  3. Responsibility is equal
  4. Leadership is shared
  5. The work is public
Murphy (2001)
            WFSG’s
Why Whole Faculty Study Groups?

 1. Creates a collaborative environment.
 2. Opportunity to analyze student data and
 identify student needs
 3. Provides time during the school day for
 teachers to collaborate
 4. Improves student and teacher learning
WFSG’s Key Components
• 1. Context

• 2. Process

• 3. Content
A Framework for Designing
 Professional Development
         (Murphy)

Context: Organizational or cultural
 factors that facilitate or impede
 progress toward intended results,
 such as a shared vision and
 collegiality.
A Framework for Designing
 Professional Development
         (Murphy)

Process: How individuals, groups, and
  the whole will function, behave, or
  perform; procedures to be followed;
  means for the acquisition of new
  knowledge and skills.
A Framework for Designing
 Professional Development
         (Murphy)

Content: What individuals, groups, and
 the whole will study, learn, or become
 skillful in doing to achieve intended
 results; skills, attitudes, and
 knowledge to be acquired.
   National Standards
• The National Staff Development
  Council (2001)
  – Correlates with the WFSG concept
    • Context – learning communities, leadership,
      resources
    • Process – data driven, evaluation, research-
      based, collaboration
    • Content – equity, quality teaching, family
      involvement
Review of 3-Year School
   Improvement Plan
• Goal

 The goal at WES is to obtain a 90%
  passing rate on the Ohio
  Achievement Tests.
         Definitions
– 1. Standards - describe, in broad terms, what
  students should know and be able to do.
– 2. Indicators – A specific statement of the
  knowledge and/or skills that a student
  demonstrates at each grade level.
– 3. Content – Where is the material coming
  from? Example, Textbooks, Supplemental
  Resources, etc.
– 4. Assessments – How are we measuring
  student progress.
– 5. Benchmarks – What all students should know
  and be able to do at a specified time (check
  point)
 Context, Process, Content
  (Murphy, 2001) WFSG’s
• Context – addresses the culture of the
  school; Teachers are feeling comfortable
  meeting in grade levels and across grade
  levels; Collaborative culture
• Process – the “how” of staff development;
  Teachers are using the WFSG process;
  job-embedded professional development
• Content – the actual skills and knowledge
  acquired through professional
  development; Teachers mapped the
  curriculum; Completed Power Standards;
  Analyzed Test Data; Assessment For
  Learning and Value-Added Assessment
Review of 3-Year Plan
                 Context
                 (Culture)




                 Process
                 (WFSG)                    Content
                                         (Assessment)

     Content
      (Power                 Content
    Standards)               (Mapping)
       Results Now
     (Schmoker,2006)
–  “Life in Multivariate”
   There are many factors that affect student
   achievement (SES, race, etc.)
However
1. Quality of Teaching (Value-Added Assessment)
2. Focus on Standards (Curriculum)
3. Balanced assessment system
   (formative/summative assessments)

These outweigh the variables that students bring
   to the classroom.
    Review of 3-Year Plan

• Phase I: Creating the Tools

  – Teachers mapped the curriculum

  – Math Map


  – Reading Map
  Review of 3-Year Plan
• Phase 2: Power Standards/Analyzing Maps
  – Teachers will address the following question:
     • How can we implement Power Standards in our
       classroom?

     Other Questions that will be addressed during this
       phase:
     • Do all the indicators correlate with the Benchmarks?
     • Are there any gaps or redundancies in the
       curriculum?
     • Are all the indicators/benchmarks being taught?
     • How can we integrate different content areas?
     Power Standards
Definition
Power Standards refers to those
  standards or indicators that are
 CRITICAL FOR STUDENT
 SUCCESS.

We can substitute the word
 “Standard” for “Indicator”
      Important Points
• 1. We are not advocating the elimination of
  certain indicators.
• 2. We are prioritizing the indicators
  rather than regarding all of them equal.
• 3. Knowing the “essential skills” is more
  effective than covering every concept in
  the book.
• 4. All standards must be taught; however,
  it is important to decide which standards
  are critical and which ones can be given
  less emphasis
  Identification Criteria
One way of looking at the Identification
   Criteria in simple terms:
1. School
2. Life
3. State Test
What do your students need for success – in
  school (this year, next year, etc.), in life,
  and on the Ohio Achievement Test?
      Power Standards
How are we going to implement Power
   Standards in our Whole Faculty Study
   Groups?

Answer:
1. Review OAT test score results as they
   relate to your grade level.
2. Identify the indicators that were tested
      Power Standards
• Identify the indicators on test that
  caused your students difficulties.
  You can find this data using the Item
  Analysis Report, which is in your
  binder along with last year’s practice
  tests.

• 4. Revise your Power Standards as
  needed
      Power Standards
• 5. Meet in grade levels and across grade
  levels to review content and check for
  “Vertical Flow”
• Summary
  – At this point, we will also use our curriculum
    maps to determine if gaps or redundancies
    exist in the curriculum. Are there indicators
    that are completely being missed between two
    or more grades?

  – Power Indicator Example
  Review of 3-Year Plan
• Phase 3: Assessment
  – Summative and Formative Assessments
  – Value-Added Assessment
  – Common Assessments

  Phase III will be used for teacher
   reflection and self-directed
   professional dialogue
   Review of 3-Year Plan
• Summary

• Teachers will use WFSG to complete
  process
• Teachers will have the tools and time
  (embedded professional development) to
  improve student learning
• Teachers will differentiate instruction and
  develop a well balanced assessment
  program.
            Results
          2005-2006
Our School Designation according to
 the State: EXCELLENT
We met 10 out of 10 Indicators
We met 5 out of 9 tested areas with a
 90% or better.
The 10th Indicator is for Attendance:
 We had a 94.7% attendance rate.
           WFSG’s
• State report card.pdf
  Wintersville Elementary
       Test Scores

• 2002-2006

• Test scores.xls
  Qualitative Research
 What Does Wintersville Elementary
  Think About Whole Faculty Study
              Groups?

• Whole Faculty Study Group
 Perceptions
               Findings
I surveyed 5 Teachers and 1 Superintendent
    Teacher Results
      All teachers have been involved in
       the WFSG for at least 2 years

      Grade levels meet at least once a
       month
        Guiding Questions
 1. Please describe your participation in the WFSG process.
       How long have you been participating in the WFSG
        process?
       How often do you meet?
 2. From your perspective, describe the purpose of the
  WFSG process?
 3. Please describe the impact of the WFSG process for
  teachers?
 4. Please describe the impact of the WFSG process for
  students?
 5. Based on your experiences with WFSG
  sessions, what would you say are the strengths of
  the WFSG process?
 6. What are the weaknesses of the WFSG
  process?
 7. If you had the opportunity to change the
  WFSG process in your school, what would you do
  differently?
 8. Is there anything else you would like to tell me
  about the program that I haven’t thought to ask?
 Superintendent Questions
• 1.   Please describe the process of implementing WFSG in
       Indian Creek?
• 2.   From your perspective, what is the purpose of the
       WFSG?
• 3.   Please describe the impact of the WFSG process.
   – For teachers?
   – For students?
   – Student learning?
• 4.   What are the strengths of the WFSG process?
• 5.   What are the weaknesses of the WFSG process?
• Most teachers stated that the purpose of
  the WFSG was to:

  – 1. Align content standards to curriculum
  – 2. Work collaboratively
  – 3. Download resources from ODE website
    “It allows us to look at the curriculum more
    carefully. The Ohio Achievement Test is
    critical.”
• Majority of teachers believed the goal of
  the WFSG’s was to:

  – 1. Increase student achievement
  – 2. Prepare students for the “real world”
  – 3. Prioritize indicators (skills)
    “The mapping process helps us to better
    understand what should be taught and identify
    gaps”.
• The strengths of the WFSG’s include:

  – 1. Teacher collaboration
  – 2. Opportunity to analyze curriculum
  – 3. Meet across grade levels with other
    teachers
  – 4. Determine if gaps and/or redundancies exist
    in the curriculum
     “It holds the teacher, students, principal accountable.
       Good teacher collaboration.”
• The weaknesses of the WFSG’s include:

  – 1. More time to work in grade levels (bi-
    monthly)
  – 2. Meet with other grade levels more often
  – 3. Difficult to stay on task for 2 hours

    “We would like to meet more with other grade
    levels.”
        Superintendent
          Responses
• “The WFSG concept is a collaborative effort
  among the administrators and teachers.”
• “It improves teacher instruction and student
  learning.”
• “The WFSG’s gives teachers time to share best
  practices and discuss processes.”
• “Test scores have improved. It has a positive
  impact. We are comparing apples to apples.”
     Document Analysis
• I examined Whole Faculty Study Group
  Logs from the teachers I interviewed.

  – “We started at 8:30 AM. We mapped Reading,
    Language Arts, and Math Benchmarks. We
    revised January’s maps.”

  – “Students are learning reading, language arts
    and math skills as outlined in the Academic
    Content Standards.”
• “We continued our mapping activities for
  reading, math and social studies and added
  some science. Reading, Math, Social
  Studies maps are finished.”

• “The students are working to master their
  indicators in order to improve their
  academic skills and achievement scores.”
   Summary of Findings
• Teachers perceive the WFSG process as a
  viable tool that increases student and
  teacher learning.
• The documents analyzed in this study are
  consistent with the teacher interview
  responses.
• The superintendent supports the WFSG
  process and believes that principals should
  play a key role
• The majority of teachers feel that more
  time is needed to meet with other grade
  levels.
• Test scores have improved since the
  implementation of the WFSG process
• The high school still has not implemented
  the WFSG process
• Job-embedded professional development
  allows teachers to work collaboratively
      Closing Thoughts
• “Every student can learn, just not on
  the same day; or the same way”
  (George Evans)

• Lastly, “If the only tool you have is a
  hammer, you tend to see every
  problem as a nail” (Maslow).

								
To top