Princeton Public Schools Welcomes Tri-State Evaluation Team K-12: Writing December 12, 2012.

Princeton Public Schools Welcomes

Tri-State Evaluation TeamK-12: WritingDecember 12, 2012

Welcome and Overview:

Judy Wilson, Superintendent of SchoolsBonnie Lehet, Assistant SuperintendentBarbara O’Breza, District Supervisor of

Language Arts

Organization of Presentation:

Introduction: Language Arts Achievement Council Members

Organization of Presentation (cont’d):

Process for preparation

Organization of presentation

Implementation of Major Recommendations: Addition of Data Analyst. Addition of 1.5 Literacy

Coaches. Improved process for

identifying AIS students particularly at Middle School.

Implementation of Major Recommendations (cont’d):

Website: work of the Council posted.

Changes in Teacher Practice and Student Achievement:

Consistent PD: TCRWP; inter-disciplinary approach: K-8; implementation of CCSS.

HSPA scores: only 8 students were PP in 2012.

Essential Question #1:

“To what extent is there evidence of consistent implementation of the K-12 Language Arts curriculum in writing.”

Presenters: Amy Nagle and Nancy Livingston

PK-5:

All student work in writing folders. Literacy Coaches: Stephanie and Casey. TCRWP: consistent professional development and

purchase of resources. Curriculum on Rubicon Atlas. Curriculum updated and aligned with CCSS. PD for Administrators: writing workshop.

6-8:

Writing Folders are reviewed and passed to the next teacher.

Consistent inter-disciplinary professional development in writing.

Students complete writing logs after each assignment.

Writing curriculum in the process of being aligned with CCSS.

9-12:

Writing Folders are maintained and reviewed.

Students complete writing logs after each assignment.

Grade level meetings and collaboration on writing assignments.

Essential Question #2:

“To what extent is there evidence that instruction in writing is informed by data analysis and formative assessment.”

Presenters:

Bryan Hoffman, Data Analyst

Literacy Coaches: Stephanie Landis

and Casey Upson

Data Analysis:

Addition of Data Analyst: 2012-2013.Role of Data Analyst.Extent of work so far: NJ/ASK.Development of protocol for K-5 grade

level meetings.

Sample Data:

Data: K-5:

Grade level data analysis meetings started with Grade 4, JP, November 30.

Analysis includes: presentation of NJ/ASK scores and sample writings.

Literacy Coaches developed protocols for grade level meetings.

Data: 6-12:

Collection and analysis of summer program results for 6-9.

Development of an at-risk list for PHS.Developed protocol for dissemination of

the disk from the State.

Role of Literacy Coaches in Data Analysis:

Suggest strategies based upon the data.Collaboratively, Literacy Coaches and

Data Analyst structure grade level meetings.

The team meets with grade level teachers in each school to review data and develop plans for student achievement.

Essential Question # 3:

“ To what extent is there evidence of research-based instructional strategies and practices (e.g., writing process, rubrics, conference logs, self-reflection) in writing in the instructional program?”

Presenters: Sharrie Barish and Ellen Vickers

Instructional Practices:

K-5: Writing Process: TCRWP. K-12: Metacognition: all students practice self-

reflection when they complete writing logs. 6-8:PD: 2011-2012: Four sessions on writing

constructed responses with English, Social Studies and Special Education teachers.

6-8: PD: 2012-2013:Two sessions have taken place on Using Teacher Feedback to Improve Student Achievement.

Student work is maintained in writing folders.

Essential Question #4:

“To what extent is there evidence of the monitoring of student achievement/progress in writing on a K-12 continuum?”

Presenters: Doug Levandowski, Greta Muca, Alana Smith

Monitoring student progress:K-5

PD: Inter-disciplinary approach to implementing the Common Core State Standards and developing assessments.

PLC: all teachers participate in analysis of student work

AIS: identification of at risk students is in place.

Monitoring student progress: 6-8

PD 2011-12: inter-disciplinary approach to improving student achievement on the constructed response.

PD 2012-13: inter-disciplinary approach to improving student achievement by providing feedback on student work.

Flex PD: implementing the Common Core. AIS: summer curriculum committee established criteria

for placement and developed protocol for identifying new students who need to be placed.

Monitor students for placement in AIS on a regular

basis.

PD Constructed Response

Monitoring student progress: 9-12

Flex PD: implementing the CCSS. PLC: reviewed student achievement with the

summer reading essay. Summer Curriculum Work: Aligned the

curriculum with CCSS. Summer AIS Curriculum Work: Established

process for monitoring work of at risk students and the process for identifying at risk students who need to be placed in AIS.

Significant Next Steps:

Uninterrupted Block of Time for Elementary Language Arts

Electronic PortfolioWriting BenchmarksTechnology Integration