You are on page 1of 26

Focused Conversations

Teacher Collaboration 9/26/08

Today’s Agenda
1. Focus on Collaboration – Why are we here? 2. Focused on what our students learn -Writing our Curriculum 3. Focused on Results 1. SMART 2. Analysis of Class Test Scores 3. Discussion of Individual students 4. Focused on our Five Year Plan 5. Close by 3:30pm

Warm Up – Ping Pong Problem Solving
1. Problem: How do you get the ping pong ball out? 2. 3 minutes on your own 3. Discuss with small group and come up with the best answer. Discussion Questions 1. What is the best solution? Why? 2. How many of you figured out the group ”best solution” individually? 3. Any piggybacking? 4. What if the question asked how to get the ping pong ball out the quickest, or the slowest would your best answer change?

Paying Dividends
If there is anything that the research community agrees on, it is this: The right kind of continuous, structured teacher collaboration improves the quality of teaching and pays big, often immediate, dividends in student learning and professional morale in virtually any setting. Our experience with schools across the nation bears this out unequivocally. (Schmoker 2006)

What collaboration isn’t . . .

• It isn’t simply teamwork. • It isn’t just collegiality. • It isn’t just time to get work done or share ideas.

What is the right kind of collaboration?
Focused on Student Learning
• • • • • • • What do our students need to know and be able to do? How will we know when they have learned it? What will we do when they haven’t learned it? What will we do when they already know it? Observations Surveys Common Assessments (Terra Nova, Other)

Uses Data

Shared Mission

Row as One
Great schools “row as one”; they are quite clearly in the same boat, pulling in the same direction in unison. The best schools we visited were tightly aligned communities marked by a palpable sense of common purpose and shared identity among staff – a clear sense of “we.” By contrast struggling schools feel fractured; there is a sense that people work in the same school but not toward the same goals. (Lickona and Davidson 2005)

Row as One -- Reactions

Collaboration This Year

our Curriculum Goal Assessment Strategy

Language Arts


oFocused oFive

Year Planning Observations/Planning


Our Shared Mission

Apostles Lutheran School . . .
_______ __________ of our _______________ and _________________________ with ___________________ in ________ ____________ education.

Apostles Lutheran School . . .
serves families of our congregation and community with excellence in Christ – centered education.

Expected Schoolwide Learning Results

Defining excellence

Spiritual Academic Social Physical

Test Score Analysis

Test Scores
• Mean Scale Score: “If Scale Scores are increasing, then student proficiency is increasing in absolute terms.”
• This number has no other inherent value. • An increasing number over years indicates student proficiency is growing (student is learning more each year)

• Median National Percentile: The Median is the middle score in a set or ranked scores. Called the “counting average”
• Preferred by many testing experts • it has the characteristic of being unaffected by extreme scores.

Test Scores
• Grade Mean Equivalent: These are not recommended for use by CTB however many schools request them. Generally scores within a couple grade levels are accurate, above or below that is less so.
• These can be grossly misinterpreted. • They should not be averaged directly. • Does not indicate the level at which a student is capable of working. • Indicates:

Test Scores
Proficiency Level: OPI (Objectives Performance Index) • An estimate of the number of items a student would be expected to answer correctly if there had been 100 similar items for that objective. • 0-44 is Low Mastery • 43-69 is Moderate Mastery • 70-100 is High Mastery

Are our children learning?
• How is student proficiency changing using the Mean Scale Score? • Is the observed change in student proficiency keeping pace with what is expected over the same time period for students across the nation using the Median National Percentile?

Class of 2008 Three Year Proficiency
730 720 710 Mean Scale Score 700 690 680 670 660 650 640 Reading Lang Math Science Soc. Stu. Grade 6 Grade 7 Grade 8

Class of 2008 Three Year MDNP
100 90 80 70 MDNP 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 Reading Lang Math Science Soc. Stu. Grade 6 Grade 7 Grade 8

Class of 2009 Three Year Proficiency
720 700 Mean Scale Score 680 Grade 5 660 640 620 600 Reading Lang Math Science Soc. Stu. Grade 6 Grade 7

Class of 2009 Three Year MNS
8 7 Mean National Stanine 6 5 4 3 2 1 0 Reading Lang Math Science Soc. Stu. Grade 5 Grade 6 Grade 7

Class of 2010 Three Year Proficiency
700 690 680 Mean Scale Score 670 660 650 640 630 620 610 600 Reading Lang Math Science Soc. Stu. Grade 4 Grade 5 Grade 6

Class of 2010 Three Year MDNP
100 90 80 70 MDNP 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 Reading Lang Math Science Soc. Stu. Grade 4 Grade 5 Grade 6

Our Analysis
• Two Teams: Odd / Even Grade Levels • Analyze achievement data.
• Look for trends – formulate “why” questions • Prepare charts if helpful.

• Write “why” questions on the Large Post Its • Piggybacking is allowed and encouraged!

Five Year Plan