Instructional Network 5

On Tuesday the 12^th I was able to attend the Schenck retreat in Conifer. It was a very productive day and teachers were introduced to the data team cycle with presenters from CTLT. The teams worked hard to follow the data cycle through. Schenck is fortunate to have an in-building data facilitator and I am hopeful that Kim and I can meet with her soon to begin to plan our work.

The team attended the Cowell retreat at Snow Mountain Ranch. Our support and conversations focused on providing the core curriculum with fidelity. The Cowell team was receptive and we are looking forward to continuing our work together. Suzanne clearly articulated the connections between RtI and core instruction and Patricia made the necessity of considering ELL’s evident. My role focused on implementing EM with fidelity and trying to reach the needs of ALL learners. I am hopeful that my role with the facilitator and math interventionist will be productive.

Michelle and I attended the BIT meeting at Schenck this past week. The team continues to develop and plan for implementing the Beacon proposal for next year. Several objectives were accomplished during the meeting. The team reviewed past progress and identified successes and areas that needed follow up. Conversations continued around school culture and climate and the role of the BIT in making decisions in connection with the School Leadership Team.

In the afternoon we were presented with CTLT’s Transforming Students into Learners. The goal was to give BIT members information to help them in planning the professional development course for next year. The session surfaced concerns around school culture and climate as well as the urgency around completing elements of the CDE grant to generate the maximum benefit for the grant money. These significant issues were approached and discussed and awaiting resolution.

The next formal meeting for the BIT is the August retreat in Conifer?

Minutes from the meeting will be attached when made available.

I was able to join Nickie at Holm as she reviewed end-of-year BOE expectations with teachers. Teachers provided great feedback around the implementation of the new 2007 EM. Many teachers were working with creating and maintaining a meaningful and manageable system for collecting data on students. It was common to hear teachers express some frustration around the complexity of assessments in EM. We engaged in a conversation around using assessments that were useful in informing instruction not just for the purposes of collecting. Teachers seemed to appreciate the release from tediousness of collecting data that for now, is not connected to their teaching.

My meeting at Holm with Nickie went well. We reviewed using grade level goals sheets to make assessment easier for teachers. Nickie has designed and researched a very cool form that lists all the opportunities to assess a given goal throughout the year. I will continue to discuss using some specialist/curriculum folks to help complete the forms for all teachers. Additionally, we discussed getting a book list for TRACKS together.

We also discussed a concern about clarifying expectations for Kinder assessment. Teachers are not clear on what will be necessary to include in the BOE for next year’s first grade teacher.

Last week Wendy, Donna and I met to review the plan for next year’s data team cycle. During the meeting a number of key ideas surfaced around the Network 5 team continuing to meet the needs at Sabin.

First, Donna expressed interest in developing a more strategic, thoughtful and intentional coaching relationship with the facilitators. This would involve specific meetings to conduct cognitive coaching sessions as well as pre- and debrief sessions around data team meetings.

Another opportunity would be to have more specialist support around straight facilitation of key leadership team meetings. Rather than an active participatory role we would act as a moderator/facilitator of team discussion. One meeting where this might be useful would be the Sabin leadership team meetings, which would include:

• Principal
• AP
• Facilitator
• IB coordinator
• Psychologist
• Data Administrator-district person
• Instructional Specialist

We also discussed Adaptive schools and a toolbox that Wendy has “built” to help with this. I will contact Ann Pearce to follow up for possible support opportunities.

Sabin will also be a Writing Alive school next year. They already have the dates for next year’s trainings.

• 8/11 and 8/12—intro all grades
• 8/8—Kinder/ECE
• 9/11—primary
• 9/15—intermediate
• 9/30—intermediate 3:30-6:30
• 10/6—primary 3:30-6:30
• 10/13—intermediate 3:30-6:30
• 10/23—primary 3:30-6:30
• 11/6—primary all day
• 11/11—intermediate all day
• 1/9—primary all day
• 1/20— intermediate all day
• 2/5— primary all day
• 2/23—intermediate all day
• 4/15—intermediate all day
• 4/16—primary all day

Of interest to Dana and likely Kim is Donnas thinking around differentiating the data team process with the grade levels based on where they are. We need to consider how this might be implemented.

Data team meetings will occur all day on the 2^nd and 4^th Wednesdays this coming year. We will likely start with math next year and focus on planning for the first cycle.

We also discussed potentially having an instructional specialist involved with the IB coordinators meetings.

Michelle and I were able to spend the day with the BIT (Beacon Implementation Team) at Schenck. The day was facilitated by Mary Romke, from Front Range BOCES. The outcomes for the day included a review of the Thimming school visit and an introduction to the data-driven decision-making process. All participants were thoroughly engaged in the conversations and the team appeared to have an exceptionally positive experience. We received several useful examples and tools to support and implement the data team process effectively. We were able to have difficult but useful discussions about surfacing assumptions and relying on evidence. The team is working to develop next steps and a plan for moving this information to the larger group. The next BIT meeting will occur on May 19^th. If you would like copies of the tools provided please contact Rob Michelle.

Work at Brown has been intense the last two weeks. Erin and I have reconfigured their entire lab and much of the building to run the Larson software. The school has ordered a new lab of computers as well for next year. I can’t say enough about how well Erin did getting things moving. She was always right on top of the situation and was able to get us support when needed. The bottom line is that they school is now able to implement a meaningful intervention using the software and we are looking forward to seeing the results. Furthermore, teachers have had fantastic conversations around how to move students ahead using these targeted interventions.

Another outcome of this work was the decision to move forward with collecting data at Brown regarding the work teachers have done to make this intervention work. The goal will be to use this data to make some decisions around support for interventions in additional schools.

In the midst of the revamp of the lab I also engaged in grade level team meetings with the staff. The meeting was centered on developing common understandings amongst teams for the planning and implementation of interventions, specifically Larson math. All of the meetings went well and our outcomes were productive. Here is a brief summary of the team meetings.

• K-Work on building tech skills
• 2-using paras effectively
• 4-5-efffective questioning

Overall, the work around getting the math program back up and running is continuing and we hope that it has a positive resolution for staff and students. A follow up meeting will occur in early May.

Suzanne and I had a great visit with Megan last week at Cowell. Megan will be the new full-time math interventionist for Cowell next year. Our conversation centered around what the interventionist role will look like and the importance of implementing the core curriculum as a key aspect of a successful interventionist program design. We reviewed the district’s current situation with role description and identification of a math intervention programs. Our questions arose over the need to have a much more clearly defined interventionist role at both the district and school level as well as a clearer understanding that intervention support is supplemental not supplantive. Our next steps are to help Cowell chart this course as they move ahead with the PD connected to their school review. They will occur as an embedded part of the ongoing work of their leadership team.