Staff Developer In-Residence by lkl36201

VIEWS: 5 PAGES: 62

									                                   Professional Development

                                        Staff Developer
    Muncy                            In-Residence Program
                                                            April 2004
    School
    District                                                                           Presenters:
  Lawrence P. Potash                                                                  Marcie Toohey
    Superintendent
                                                                                      Kim Hamilton

www.muncysd.k12.pa.us
                        Co Chairs: Kim Hamilton, Marcie Toohey Administrators: Cal Barto, Portia Brandt, Michele
                        Williamson Faculty: Rae Pitchford (MEA), Pam Laczkowski, Nannette Rusczyk, Chris Geiger,
                        Chris Vicars, Paula Luhold Support Staff:Mary Smith, Joelyn Neidig, Community: Carla 0
                        Auten, Janet Payne, Dan Berninger, Ken Blessing
                             Program Development
                                             Act 48 Team


               1. Review Staff Development Needs
    Staff          Data from Administrators
                       Professional Development Plan (PDP) with mid and end-of-year
 Developer              conferences
                       Classroom observations / evaluations
In-Residence           Walk-through supervision data
  Program          Teacher surveys
                   Evaluations from in-service activities
                   Test Data (analysis by administrators and teacher
                    committees)
                           Program Development
                           Act 48 Team / Administration


                  Review Staff Development Needs
    Staff
 Developer        Identify Research-based Programs
In-Residence
  Program         Identify Staff Developer In-Residence Program(s)

                  Identify Staff Developer
               Effective Process



    Staff
 Developer
In-Residence
  Program
                    Strategic and Goal Directed
                     Professional Development Plan (PDP)



    Staff
 Developer      Individualized – personal and organizational goals
In-Residence
                Detailed description of needs and goals
  Program
                Completed in conjunction with principal
               The Process
               Chris Geiger



    Staff
 Developer
In-Residence
  Program
                     Strategic and Goal Directed


    Staff      Mid-year / End-of-Year Conferences
 Developer
In-Residence      Completed independently – part of PDP process
  Program         Reviewed with Principal
                  Strengths / weaknesses of activities discussed
                  Professional development goals identified
               Making Changes to the Plan



    Staff
 Developer
In-Residence
  Program
                    Sustained and Job-Embedded
                           Design-Your-Own Days

                Proposals Developed
    Staff
 Developer      Collaboration / Teamwork
In-Residence    Application of Skills and Concepts
  Program       Analysis of Effectiveness of Strategies
                Evaluation / Adjustment
                Goal-setting
                     “Design-Your-Own Day”
                              Collaboration / Teamwork
                           Application of Skills / Concepts
                        Analysis of Effectiveness of Strategies
                               Evaluation / Adjustment




    Staff
 Developer      Teacher
In-Residence   Facilitators
  Program
                 Increases Student Achievement



    Staff
 Developer
               Test Data Analyzed and Used
In-Residence       in Program Development
  Program
                   in Program Evaluation
               Increases Student Achievement



    Staff
 Developer
In-Residence
  Program
                          Research-Based


    Staff      Programs
 Developer        Differentiated Instruction
In-Residence
  Program         Standards-based Instruction
                  Balanced Literacy
                  Reading in the Content Areas
               Differentiated Instruction



    Staff
 Developer
In-Residence     Dr. Charles Starkey
  Program
                Bloomsburg University
                   Differentiated Instruction
               Steve Haddon, Grade 6 Language Arts



    Staff
 Developer
In-Residence
  Program
               Differentiated Instruction
                Chris Geiger, Grade 5 Math



    Staff
 Developer
In-Residence
  Program
                  Balanced Literacy
                             Word Work
                          Guided Reading
                              Writing
               Self-Selected Reading / Leveled books




    Staff
 Developer
In-Residence   Dr. Chris Cherrington
  Program
               Bloomsburg University
               Guided Reading /Word Work
                 Tracy Clemens, Kindergarten



    Staff
 Developer
In-Residence
  Program
                   Word Work
               Anne Johnson, Grade 2



    Staff
 Developer
In-Residence
  Program
               Guided Reading /Writing
                Jesica Kerstetter, Grade 1


    Staff
 Developer
In-Residence
  Program
                  Standards-Based Instruction



    Staff
 Developer
In-Residence   Muncy School District Lead Teachers
  Program
                      Teacher Core Group
                 Standards-Based Instruction
               Rae Pitchford, Grade 4 Language Arts


    Staff
 Developer
In-Residence
  Program
               Standards-Based Instruction
               Shawn McCahan, Grade 8 English



    Staff
 Developer
In-Residence
  Program
               Reading in the Content Area



    Staff
 Developer
In-Residence      Dr. Elaine Pongratz
  Program
                 Bloomsburg University
               Reading in the Content Area
                Pete Buckle, Grade 7 Science



    Staff
 Developer
In-Residence
  Program
               Reading in the Content Area
                 Chris Persing, Grade 9 Civics



    Staff
 Developer
In-Residence
  Program
               Staff Developer In-Residence
                Sharing and Implementing Strategies



    Staff
 Developer
In-Residence
  Program
               Staff Developer In-Residence
                   Advantages and Benefits



    Staff
 Developer
In-Residence
  Program
                      Supporting Data
                         Test Results



    Staff
 Developer
In-Residence   Stanford Achievement Data
  Program
                       PSSA Data
               Increases Student Achievement



    Staff
 Developer      Stanford Achievement
In-Residence
  Program            Test Results
                                    STANFORD ACHIEVEMENT
                            STUDENTS ABOVE 50TH PERCENTILE BY CLASS
                                           READING

100%


90%


80%


70%


60%
                                                                                      1997-98 READING
50%                                                                                   1998-99 READING
                                                                                      1999-00 READING
40%                                                                                   2000-2001 READING
                                                                                      2001-2002 READING
30%                                                                                   2002-2003 READING

20%


10%


 0%
       2014   2013   2012     2011   2010   2009   2008   2007   2006   2005   2004




                                                    6
                                    STANFORD ACHIEVEMENT
                            STUDENTS ABOVE 50TH PERCENTILE BY CLASS
                                             MATH

100%


90%


80%


70%

                                                                                     1997-98 MATH
60%
                                                                                     1998-99 MATH
                                                                                     1999-00 MATH
50%
                                                                                     2000-01 MATH
40%
                                                                                     2001-02 MATH
                                                                                     2002-03 MATH
30%


20%


10%


 0%
       2014   2013   2012    2011   2010   2009   2008   2007   2006   2005   2004



                                                  7
                 Increases Student Achievement



    Staff      Pennsylvania System of School Assessment
 Developer
In-Residence                  PSSA
  Program
                           Test Results
               PENNSYLVANIA ASSESSMENT
                     GRADE 5 MATH
                 PERFORMANCE LEVELS

100%

90%

80%

70%
                   Advanced and Proficient
60%
                                                                            ADVANCED
       71%                     68%                   64%                    PROFICIENT
50%
                                                                            BASIC
40%    38%                                                37%               BELOW BASIC
             33%              34% 34%

30%                                                 27%
                                                                25%
                   21%
20%                                     17%
                                              15%
                                                                      11%
10%                      7%


 0%
              N=86                  N=91                   N=94
              GR.5                  GR.5                   GR.5
              2003                  2002                   2001



                               24
              PENNSYLVANIA ASSESSMENT
                       GRADE 5
             READING PERFORMANCE LEVELS

100%

90%

80%

70%
                   Advanced and Proficient
60%
                                                                               ADVANCED
       71%                      67%                    66%                     PROFICIENT
50%
                                     44%                                       BASIC
40%    38%                                                   37%               BELOW BASIC
             33%
                                                       29%
30%
                               23%                                 22%
                                           19%
20%                17%
                                                 14%
                         12%                                             12%
10%

 0%
              N=84                    N=91                    N=92
              GR.5                    GR.5                    GR.5
              2003                    2002                    2001



                                25
               PENNSYLVANIA ASSESSMENT
                       GRADE 8
               MATH PERFORMANCE LEVELS

100%

90%

80%
               Advanced and Proficient
70%
                                                    63%
60%
       60%                                                                 ADVANCED
                              57%                        51%
                                                                           PROFICIENT
50%
             44%                                                           BASIC
                                   39%
40%                                                                        BELOW BASIC

30%

                   20% 21%               21% 22%               21%
20%                          18%
       16%                                                           16%
                                                   12%
10%

 0%
              N=77                  N=80                  N=84
              GR.8                  GR.8                  GR.8
              2003                  2002                  2001


                             32
              PENNSYLVANIA ASSESSMENT
                       GRADE 8
             READING PERFORMANCE LEVELS

100%

90%
                     Advanced and Proficient

80%
                                                        84%
70%
                                                            63%
60%
       66%
                                                                             ADVANCED
                               64%                                           PROFICIENT
50%
             44%                    44%                                      BASIC
40%                                                                          BELOW BASIC

30%
                   25%
       22%                                            21%
                              20%         19%
20%                                             17%

                         9%                                       10%
10%                                                                     6%

 0%
              N=77                   N=80                    N=84
              GR.8                   GR.8                    GR.8
              2003                   2002                    2001



                               31
               PENNSYLVANIA ASSESSMENT
                       GRADE 11
               MATH PERFORMANCE LEVELS

100%

90%

80%

70%
                   Advanced and Proficient
60%
                                                                               ADVANCED
                                                        57%                    PROFICIENT
50%
       53%                      52%                                            BASIC
40%                                                          38%               BELOW BASIC
             31%                     30%
30%                                              27%
                   25%                                             24%
       22%               22%   22%         21%
                                                       19%               19%
20%

10%

 0%
              N=94                    N=82                    N=95
              GR.11                   GR.11                   GR.11
              2003                    2002                    2001



                                39
              PENNSYLVANIA ASSESSMENT
                       GRADE 11
             READING PERFORMANCE LEVELS

100%

90%

80%
                   Advanced and Proficient

70%
                                                        73%
60%                             62%                          56%              ADVANCED
       65%                                                                    PROFICIENT
50%
                                     43%                                      BASIC
             39%                                                              BELOW BASIC
40%

30%    26%
                         23%               21%
                               19%                                 19%
20%                                              17%   17%
                   13%
10%                                                                      8%


 0%
              N=93                    N=82                    N=95
              GR.11                   GR.11                   GR.11
              2003                    2002                    2001



                                38
                                Professional Development


                                           ? Questions ?
 Muncy
 School
 District                                                                           Presenters:
Lawrence P. Potash                                                                 Marcie Toohey
  Superintendent
                                                                                   Kim Hamilton


                     Co Chairs: Kim Hamilton, Marcie Toohey Administrators: Cal Barto, Portia Brandt, Michele
                     Williamson Faculty: Rae PItchford (MEA), Pam Laczkowski, Nannette Rusczyk, Chris Geiger,
                     Chris Vicars, Paula Lupold Support Staff:Mary Smith, Joelyn Neidig, Community: Carla 39
                     Auten, Janet Payne, Dan Berninger, Ken Blessing
               Supporting Data




    Staff
 Developer
In-Residence   Lesson Materials
  Program
                              Appendix



    Staff      Professional Education and Portfolio
 Developer          Planning Guide (PDP)
In-Residence
  Program      Design-Your-Own Day Proposal
               Design-Your-Own Day Evaluation
Muncy
    Staff
 Developer
School
In-Residence
  Program
               Professional Education
District                   &
               Portfolio Planning Guide
                       2003-2004

                                          50
                      Personal and Professional
                                Goals
               Name                               Building

    Staff      1. Personal / Professional Goal:
 Developer     •   Examples of Personal/Professional goals:
In-Residence   •   Improvement of classroom management
  Program      •   Use of alternative assessment
               •   Using portfolio assessments
               •   Using computer technology in instruction
               •   Use instructional support techniques
               •   Meeting the needs of inclusion students
               •   Use of differentiated instruction
               •   Designing standards-based classroom lessons/instructions
                     Implementation of Goals
               2. List the ways you plan on incorporating or
               implementing the goal(s):

               Questions to consider in creating this list:
    Staff
 Developer                  •What are the specific tasks you plan to do to
In-Residence                meet your      goal(s)?
  Program                   •How will you incorporate the key components of
                            the goal in your teaching?
                            •What changes do you plan to make in your
                            instruction to incorporate the goal?
                            •What will change for your students, parents,
                            and colleagues?
                    Professional Development
                          and Education
               3. List your professional development activities in this section.
                  How will you learn or be trained?
                 Did you consider the following?

    Staff            • District-level in-service workshops, training
 Developer           • Building-level in-service workshops, training
In-Residence         • College or university courses
                     • I.U. courses
  Program            • Workshops, seminars, conferences
                     • Professional reading or research
                     • Distance learning opportunities; internet based learning
                     • Peer observation
                     • Peer teaching or coaching
                     • Observation of model programs
                     • Visits to other schools
                     • Other:
                     Possible Portfolio Content
               4. Collect examples of evidence that indicate you have met
               or are working toward your goal(s).
               This should be a purposeful collection of evidence. You do not
               need to include every test, worksheet, or piece of student work!
               Choose items that you are particularly proud of, items that
               exhibit growth, items may need revision, etc.
    Staff      Examples of artifacts are not limited to, but may include:
 Developer         • Teacher-created tests
In-Residence       • Worksheets
                   • Study guides
  Program          • Publications
                   • Student work
                   • Lesson plans, units outlines
                   • Communication to or from students, parents, supervisors,
                        peers
                   • Photographs, videotapes, descriptions
                   • Anecdotal records
                   • Classroom observation reports from supervisors or peers
                            Showcase

               Include items in this section of your portfolio
               that may not be directly related to your goals,
    Staff      but reflect on you as a teaching professional.
 Developer
In-Residence   Such items may include notes of praise from
  Program      students, parents, peers; Certificates; photos;
               anecdotal notes; etc.
                                     Reflection
               6. Reflection is an explanation of why certain items were placed in
               the portfolio and a self-assessment of goal attainment. Reflections
               allows us to examine our strengths, identify our challenges, and
               plan for professional development.


                Questions to be considered:
    Staff
 Developer      • Assuming I have met, or I am working toward meeting my
In-Residence              professional goal(s), What impact has this had on
                          student learning in my classroom?
  Program
                • What impact has meeting or working toward my
                          professional goal had on me as a professional
                          educator?
                • What if any adaptations or modifications need to be made
                          for next year?
                • What are my professional development needs?
                           Mid-year Progress
                           Discussion Sheet
               Include this sheet when submitting your portfolio to your
               principal for midyear review.


    Staff      • What is working in your portfolio development
 Developer             process and achievement of your goals?
In-Residence
  Program      • Where are you having difficulty?

               • How can your supervisor assist?
                         Design-Your-Own Day
                               Proposal
                             In-Service Professional Development Proposal

               Name:
               Building:
               Subject/Grade Level:           Date:
    Staff
 Developer     Describe your in-service/professional development objectives and how
In-Residence   they relate to your Professional Development Portfolio.
               My (our) proposal for accomplishing these objectives (Describe
  Program
               activities / strategies, to be used

               Assistance/materials/equipment/facilities, etc. (if any) needed.

               This proposal will directly contribute to increased student
               achievement in the following way(s):
                        Design-Your-Own Day
                              Proposal
               After you have completed your professional development activities,
               please prepare a brief self-evaluation and place it in your Professional
               Development Portfolio. Summarize what you were able to accomplish,
               describe unanticipated obstacles, follow-up activities, etc. (An in-
    Staff      service evaluation form will be provided.) If applicable, include copies
 Developer     of materials which can be complied and shared with other staff
In-Residence   members
  Program
               Please indicate: I am willing to share the products / information I
               develop with my department of grade level. Yes          No

               ADMINISTRATIVE APPROVAL:
               Building Principal:                                   Date
               Director of Curriculum/Instruction:                   Date
                       Design-Your-Own Day
                            Evaluation
               1. I (we) were able to accomplish the following professional
                  development objectives:
               2. I (we) feel the activities will increase student achievement in
    Staff         the following ways
 Developer
In-Residence   3. Describe any unanticipated obstacles you encountered (if
                  any):
  Program
               4. Do you feel that Do you have any suggestions for improving
                  the design/format of this type of professional development
                  activity?      Yes       No
               5. the Act 48 Committee should continue to recommend
                  professional development days similar to the March 19 day?
                        Yes      No     Comments:
                        Design-Your-Own Day
                             Evaluation
               6. What are your future professional development needs?
               7. Rate the general benefit/quality of the day.
    Staff                1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
 Developer
                         Comments:
In-Residence
  Program      8. If you prepared materials, summary reports, performance
                  tasks, curriculum mapping, etc., please attach a copy to this
                  evaluation form.


               Please return this form to your building-level office secretary by

								
To top