Site+Support

DIRECTIONS: Please review the data and the CSTeam debrief. Add any comments to this page that might add to the interpretation of data, implications for professional development, or support/resources that you might be able to suggest. Please add the comments at the bottom of the page rather than risk inadvertantly deleting or changing something within the actual text. ** New data from the Jan. 5 Site Support which focused on English, ELL, Sp. Ed., and History is listed in parentheses behind each bulleted item. **
 * The following data represents what was compiled as a result of classroom observations with both Site Support Members and the Curriculum Steering Team (CSTeam) at James Rutter Middle School on Dec. 2, 2009. The CSTeam reviewed the data, identified positive trends, and identified areas of concern (noted after the statistics). From that interpretation of data, areas for professional development were identified.**

​

· 79% of the work posted had a clear connection to a standard · Vast majority of students could verbally explain what SUTW is and tell how they use writing in the various content areas ** Areas of Concern: · 54% of the classes had an objective posted, but inconsistently · 46% of rooms had student work displayed at the analysis level of Bloom’s · 79% of rooms had no evidence of structured student interaction except for classroom setup to support student interaction ** General statements or questions based on the interpretation of the data: · Teachers generally had agendas, but what is the difference between a task, standard, and objective? · Currently, there is no consistent way of communicating a learning objective to students. · Objective language: verb + content (e.g., analyze the character Phoebe) · Possible sentence frame for the lesson plan template; modeled for staff · 2 ideas regarding objectives: 1.) how is it communicated to students? 2.) how do we write an objective? · For Dec. 2 minimum day, we’ll use a sentence frame and a prompt that asks teachers how it will be communicated. ** Prof. Dev. Implications: An “easy” way to state an objective; discuss importance of consistency · Idea: use L-7 as the exemplar room for various goals · Suggestion for revising observation form: delineate between posted work and level of rigor versus work that is examined and determining that level of rigor · Discussion: Personal best wall versus a mastery level · Suggestion for form: Standard posted by “mastery level” student work Prof. Dev. Implications refresher for structured student interaction (e.g., think time, purpose to raised hands, structure created)…define structure · Students who move to basic and proficient rely on consistent structured student interaction · Pose the question: in a 52 minute period of time what percent of the time should be direct instruction, student interaction, collaboration ** Opportunities: · Staff Development Day (will be mainly focused on bold goals) · CS Team meetings (need to determine agendas based on priorities (objectives, SSI, CFU, posting student work · Next staff meeting (Disseminate findings to staff on December 18th) · Department meetings · On site support
 * · 93% of classrooms show student work
 * · 43% of classrooms did not have evidence of Step Up to Writing
 * · What is an objective?
 * · When looking at trends or patterns, look at it in two ways: 1.) look at it as a snapshot of the day (e.g., is it an anomaly such as portfolio/substitute teacher days, 2.) look at it over time to see if the trends or patterns go up or down