Beg. Of Year - Instructional Review

Mims Elementary School

September 16, 2016

SIP Goals
Goal 1: Teachers will understand, plan, and implement standards based instruction in all content areas to increase student achievement.
TASKS
Opening
  • Present: School:Shari Tressler, Karen Tabor, Anne Skinner, Tracy Beck, Kathy Bremer District: Dr. Laura Reinhart, DJ Crannell, Janet Stephenson, Jacqui Fraser, Michelle Ferro, Debra Pace, Debbie Wood DOE Region III-Wendy Appleby
  • Purpose of Visit: To collaborate with the school and district to plan ways to increase student achievement.

Instructional Review Focus
  • Ambitious Instruction/CWTs 3rd-6th grade classrooms
Mims Elementary / Not in Place / Partially in Place / In Place
2015-16 Base-line / 2014-15
Base-line / 2014-15 Mid-Year / 2015-16 Base-line / 2014-15 Base-line / 2014-15
Mid-Year / 2015-16 Base-line / 2014-15
Base-line / 2014-15
Mid-Year
Lesson reflects the full intent of the grade-level Standard(s). / 4/7=
57% / 10/12=
83% / 3/9=
33% / 1/7=
14% / 2/12=
17% / 3/9=
33% / 2/7=
29% / 0/12=
0% / 2/9=
22%
Tasks are aligned to the full intent of the grade-level standard(s). / 7/13=
54% / 11/13=
85% / 4/11=
36% / 3/13=
23% / 2/13=
15% / 5/11=
45% / 3/13=
23% / 0/13=
0% / 2/11=
18%
The teacher orchestrates conversation and tasks that incorporate accountable talk to show, tell, explain and prove reasoning. / 6/10= 60% / 12/13=
92% / 5/11=
45% / 2/10=
20% / 1/13=
8% / 3/11=
27% / 2/10=
20% / 0/13=
0% / 3/11=
27%
Debriefing Process
  • Analyze CWT data to identify trends
  • Accountable talk is an area of focus for 2015-16.
  • Limited evidence of direct instruction occurring.
  • 54% of classrooms showed the instructional tasks not aligned to the full intent of the grade-level standards. (In 46% of classrooms they were partially/in place).
  • 57% of classrooms lessons did not reflect full intent of standard; 43% of classrooms did reflect full intent of standard.
  • SIP recommendations
  • G1.B1.S1 – Focus this strategy on improving teacher planning
  • Action steps
  • Create lessons and common assessments that reflect standards and item spec
  • Coaches develop content knowledge of teachers through coaching cycle, modeling lessons and provide feedback. (I took out Resource Teachers – consider that we want to build the capacity of school-based coaches to support teachers and not become reliant on Resource Teachers to do the modeling )
  • After leadership clarifies expectations for accountable talk (see attached), teachers will plan for accountable talk and establish “looks like”/”sounds like” charts
  • “Calendarize” district Res.Teachers, Coaches, visits, actions and teacher support (How will they know that they have impacted teaching and learning?
  • G1.B1.S2 – Focus this strategy on planning creating common assessments (related to UbD)
Additional recommendations:
  • Set clear expectations/non-negotiables for reading block – small group/whole group/Daily 5
  • Incorporate coaching cycle into SIP for teachers that need it (differentiated coaching)
  • Develop CWT calendar to monitor instructional delivery of effective lesson planning
Additional Data:
1st and 2nd grade classrooms September 16, 2015
Mims Elementary / Not in Place / Partially in Place / In Place
2015-16 Base-line / 2015-16 Base-line / 2015-16 Base-line
Lesson reflects the full intent of the grade-level Standard(s). / 0/3=
0% / 2/3=
67% / 1/3=
33%
Tasks are aligned to the full intent of the grade-level standard(s). / 0/3=
0% / 3/3=
100% / 0/3=
23%
The teacher orchestrates conversation and tasks that incorporate accountable talk to show, tell, explain and prove reasoning. / 0/2= 0% / 1/2=
50% / 1/2=
50%