Children First Intensive

ELA Best Practices:Celebrating the Successes

of Teacher Teams

A Collaboration of ESA CFN 6 & ESO Network 19Eastwood Manor, Bx October 22, 2009

Deena Abu-Lughod, SATIF; Frederica Capshaw, Instructional Specialist; Karen Ames, Achievement Coach; Jo Ann Benoit, Deputy Network Leader for Instruction,

Daisy Fontanez,

Agenda8:21 Welcome and Introductions8:30 Outcomes, Norms8:50 Quality Review Connections9:15 Video Analysis10:00 Break10:15 Group A: Writing: X81 Group B: Assessment: X61, X42, article11:00 Group C: Writing: X280, X4 Group D: Curriculum: X95, X36811:45 ELA Resources: Arnie Zeitlin, Sussman Sales12:15 Lunch1:00 Inquiry Team Fishbowl, and Q&A – X226 2:00 Group E: (repeat high demand) Group F: Formative Assessment2:30 Closing and EvaluationP/MS 4 Teachers and Writers Project: Ms. Perez and Victor Vargas (SE 6/7/8 + ELL 5/6 – big mix of ranges; Authors

work with these classes to increase writing volume and quality – 4 classes a week)P/MS 95 Coherent Curriculum: Delia DeroseP/MS 280 Timed-on-Demand Writing: Christina AielloMS/HS 368 Collaborative Curriculum Development, for Differentiated Instruction: Amanda Chansingh, Antoine Laronsiliere,

Marie BakerPS 81 Vertical Design of Writing: Melodie Mashel, Phyllis Beinstein + 1PS 42 Tracking Reading Progress: Dan RacicPS 61 Online Assessments: Chamrouen Ruoeng

Outcomes for the day (Survey Monkey Results – 33 respondents)

Understand expectations of schools vis a vis (a) Coherent curriculum (21 respondents)(b) Differentiated Instruction (23 respondents)(c) Data and Assessment (18 respondents)(d) Teacher Teams (18 respondents)

as embodied in the Quality Review.

Learn how our schools work towards achieving the expectations through presentations of promising practices.

Identify online tools that can support schools.

Norms

1.Equity of voice

2.Silence electronic devices

3.Listen to understand

4.Contribute to the success of the group

5.Safety to share perspectives

6.Seek innovation

Connecting Activity:

Powerful Words

Quality Review Connections: 1.1

Quality Review Statement 1.1: Design engaging, rigorous and coherent curricula, including the Arts, for a variety of learners and aligned to key State standards.

To be proficient, a school must (a) align curricula to State standards and make purposeful decisions to emphasize key standards given the needs of students. (In Well Developed schools the curricula is aligned to these standards across grades and subject areas);

(b) emphasize rigorous habits and higher order skills as evidenced in the teachers’ curricula. (In Well Developed schools, these must be embedded in a coherent way across grades and subject areas);

(c) ensure that curricula challenge and engage a variety of learners with different needs. (In Well Developed schools, they must engage individuals and groups of students, including the lowest and highest achieving students, special education students, and English language learners.)

Select (a), (b) or (c), and describe what you would expect to see as evidence.

Quality Review Connections: 1.2

Quality Review Statement 1.2: Develop teacher pedagogy from a coherent set of beliefs about how students learn best, and ensure that it is: aligned to the curriculum, engaging, and differentiated to enable all students to produce meaningful work products.

To be proficient, (a) teaching practices are aligned to the curriculum and reflect an articulated set of beliefs about how students learn best. (In Well Developed schools, they reflect a coherent set of beliefs that is informed by discussions at the team and school level.)

(b) Teaching strategies and classroom routines are differentiated to ensure multiple entry points for all learners into the curricula.(In Well Developed schools, there are supports and extensions.)

(c) Teaching strategies and classroom routines lead to a general level of student engagement and thinking, as evidenced in work products and processes. (In Well Developed schools, there is a high level of student engagement and thinking.)

Select (a), (b) or (c), and describe what you would expect to see as evidence.

Quality Review Connections: 2.2

Quality Review Statement 2.2: Gather and analyze information on student learning outcomes to identify trends, strengths, and areas of need at the team and classroom level.

To be proficient, teacher teams and individual teachers (a) analyze summative data that are aligned with the school’s key chosen standards and curricula, and provide feedback to evaluate the effectiveness of classroom level, curricular, and instructional decisions. (A Well Developed school creates a clear portrait of student mastery.)

(b) supplement summative data analysis with Periodic Assessment data to identify trends, strengths, and needs of student subgroups. (A Well Developed school also tracks progress and adjusts classroom level curricular and instructional decisions.)

(c) consistently analyze student work, diagnostic assessments and projects to create a picture of individual students’ strengths and needs, and differentiate instructional strategies. (In Well Developed schools, they develop expertise in designing assessments.)

Group B and Group F will show some examples of how schools are meeting this QR Indicator.

Quality Review Connections: 3.2

Quality Review Statement 3.2: Use collaborative and data informed processes to set measurable and differentiated learning goals for student subgroups, and students in need of additional support.

To be proficient, teacher teams and individual teachers (a) use data to set goals for groups of students for whom they are responsible. (In Well Developed schools, they set annual and interim goals.)

(b) Analyze data to identify which students need additional supports and set differentiated goals for those students to accelerate their learning . (In Well Developed schools, they identify students who need extensions.)

(c) Team and classroom level goals are intended to leverage changes in classroom practice. (In Well Developed schools, these goals are targeted and thoughtfully designed.)

Group B and Group F will show some examples of how schools are meeting this QR Indicator.

Quality Review Connections: 4.2

Quality Review Statement 4.2: Engage in structured professional collaborations on teams using an inquiry approach that promotes shared leadership and focuses on improved student learning.

To be proficient, (a) a majority of teachers are engaged in structured professional collaboration on teams, using an inquiry approach. (In Well Developed schools, the vast majority are engaged.)

(b) use an inquiry approach in which the analysis of student assessment data and student work results in adjustments to in- and out-of-classroom resources to improve learning outcomes. (In Well Developed schools, they must also share key elements of teacher work and result in adjustments to curriculum, instruction, assessments and resource allocation.)

(c) develop distributed leadership structures to ensure that teachers are part of key decisions that affect student learning across the school. (In Well Developed schools, distributed leadership structures are embedded.)

The Inquiry Fishbowl will illustrate how one school is meeting this QR Indicator.

Data Link: A Focus on Writing

When reviewers look for “meaningful work products,” they are looking primarily at WRITTEN work.

Consider the following:

On average, between our two networks last year, 8-13% of students received full credit on the Listening passage and 9% obtained full credit on the Reading passage. Note that these passages are scored on CONTENT only (Writing Mechanics is scored separately).

In the highest scoring schools in our two networks, up to 34% received full credit on the Listening passage and 26% on the Reading passage.

Many of today’s presentations will focus on writing, since writing is central to our ability to communicate and provides a lens into our thinking.

ELA 2009 Listening Points

ELA 2009 Reading Points

8% of 4th graders got full credit

10% of 4th graders got full credit

Panel Protocol: Learning from Speakers

Purpose: To structure the experience (for speaker and learner) of the invited speaker format so that learning is maximized.

Details: The speaker has 10 minutes for his or her presentation. If only one group is presenting, the speaker has 20 minutes. Group size is 15 to 45.

Steps

1. Introduction. Explain the format to the group.

2. Speech. The invited speaker makes presentation.

3. Five-minute warning. Given by facilitator to speaker 5 minutes before agreed-upon ending time.

4. Huddling. Small groups form to explore questions and select their top questions.

5. Top questions. Speaker records questions but does not answer them until all questions are raised.

6. Answering. Speaker responds, attempting to construct responses that address all questions.

7. Sharing. If time allows, floor is open to additional questions and/or reflections to be shared with the speaker.

Group Reports

Thank you, Arnie

Arnie ZeitlinSussman Sales

Instructional Materials to Support English Language

Arts

Resources available on ARIS Connect

All the resources in your packets are available in electronic form in a folder posted on ARIS Connect in the CFN 6 and Empowerment Network 1.19 Communities.

Evaluation

Thank you for attending the session. Your feedback is important to us. Please complete the evaluation form and leave it, face down, on the table.