(Reproduce this page for each goal identified in section 2



Interpreting the Action Plan for Grapeview School

Alicia Keegan

December 8, 2008

The SMART goals for the action plan, for Grapeview School, have been joined to create a cohesive timeline of events for staff members to follow that make learning meaningful. When interpreting the action plan templates, be aware of the first action plan that is a combination of both goals. For ease of understanding each individual goal, I have also separated the two SMART goals and color-coordinated them. Grapeview School will be using the combined goals template because of its relative connections to reach the overarching goal to improve student learning through communication and collaboration.

|Action Plan: Grapeview School 2008 |

|List SMART Goals: The Grapeview School staff will review state standards for math, science, and writing while analyzing WASL results to create meaningful lessons and stimulating activities that will help to |

|increase student WASL scores 3-5% in each grade level by spring 2010. The Grapeview School teachers will continue to analyze the research basis for the instructional strategies being used in the classroom |

|by finding data to support their effectiveness in the classroom. Collected strategies that prove to be the most effective, determined by the research data, will be implemented into classrooms to improve |

|student scores 3-5% in math, science, and/or writing by winter 2010. |

|Goal Champion (Who will take the lead?): Principal |

|Description of Proposed Action/Activity (What is going to be |Research/Rationale For Activity (Explain how | Results |Person(s) |Resources |Timeline |

|done to address this goal?) |best practices and needs assessment data |(What will be the evidence of the |Impacted |(What will be |(When will the |

| |justify this activity) |impact on the goal) |(Who will be |needed?) |activity occur?) |

| | | |involved?) | | |

|PLC Committee Meetings-The math, science, and writing |PLC Committee Meetings-“If there is anything |The students will be able to increase|Students in grades |Funds to pay |Winter 2009-Analyze |

|committees will analyze current WASL results and compare them|that the research community agrees on, it is |their WASL scores in math, science, |K-8 |certificated teachers|WASL results and |

|to state standards. Each committee will create a list of |this: The right kind of continuous, |and writing by 3-5% at each | |for after school |state standards. |

|needs for its subject area at each grade level. |structured teacher collaboration improves the|applicable grade level by |Para-educators |tutoring. |Create needs chart. |

|Staff Collaboration Meetings-The entire staff will meet to |quality of teaching and pays big, often |participating in stimulating, | | |Analyze instructional|

|share findings from the PLC committee meetings. The staff |immediate, dividends in student learning and |research-based classroom activities |Certificated teachers|Reference materials |strategies. Create |

|will discuss needs and create a general needs chart for each |professional morale in virtually any setting”|that correlate with state standards. | |for instructional |timeline. |

|grade level with activities for supporting the needs. |(Schmoker, 2005, p. xii). | |Principal |strategies that |Implement activities |

|Needs Chart-The needs chart will include the needs for each | |The teachers will be able to apply | |support the content |from the needs chart |

|subject at each grade level. It will also include |Staff Collaboration Meetings and Update |their knowledge of effective | |areas of math, |with effective |

|lesson/activity ideas to address the needs. |Meetings-“Collegiality is the presence of |instructional strategies by teaching | |science, and writing |instructional |

|Independently, teachers will analyze one instructional |four specific behaviors as follows: Adults |meaningful lessons in the classroom | |including both print |strategies. After |

|strategy that can be implemented in the subject area they |in schools talk about practice. These |that align with state standards for | |materials and |school tutoring and |

|were assigned to in the PLC committee meetings. They will |observations about teaching and learning are |math, science, and writing, and | |technology. |individual teaching |

|determine, from research, if that instructional strategy is |frequent, continuous, concrete and precise. |tutoring students after school. | | |assignment updates. |

|effective in the classroom. |Adults in schools observe each other engaged |Other support staff will be able to | |More FOSS science | |

|Staff Collaboration Meetings-The entire staff will meet to |in the practice of teaching and |participate in meaningful activities | |kits (1 per grade |Spring 2009-Update |

|share findings from their research on instructional |administration. These observations become |that will help students to make gains| |level) for students |meetings. Continue |

|strategies and share data. The results will be discussed to |the practice to reflect on and talk about. |in WASL scores by using | |to practice inquiry |with action plan. |

|find the best ways to implement the lessons/activities from |Adults engage together in work on curriculum |research-based instructional | |based science labs |Administer the WASL. |

|the needs chart. |by planning, designing, researching, and |strategies chosen by the entire | |that teach to the | |

|Timeline-The entire staff will create a timeline for |evaluating curriculum. Finally, adults in |staff. | |GLEs. |Fall 2009-Update |

|implementing lessons/activities with effective instructional |schools teach each other what they know about|The entire staff will be able to | | |meetings. Analyze |

|strategies. Monthly meetings will be set to discuss progress|teaching, learning, and leading. Craft |evaluate their progress by completing| |Time at staff |WASL results. |

|and student assessment results. |knowledge is revealed, articulated, and |the survey analysis of the school a | |meetings to discuss | |

|Individual Teaching Assignments/After School Tutoring-The |shared” (Barth, 1990, p. 31). |second time. | |needs and set a |Winter 2010-Complete |

|staff will determine which teachers will be needed to teach | | | |timeline for |the OSPI survey and |

|additional math, science, and/or writing. Also, the staff |Needs Chart and Timeline- Schools should | | |implementation of |survey analysis to |

|will determine which teachers will be needed to teach after |cultivate 4 “knowledge arts” that work with | | |research-based |evaluate |

|school tutoring sessions. |the goals for Professional Learning | | |instructional |effectiveness of the |

|Update Meetings-Updates on progress will be made once a month|Communities: | | |strategies. |action plan. Discuss|

|in a regular staff meeting. Challenges will be discussed as |Creating Knowledge | | | |progress for the WASL|

|well as ways to solve problems that arise. |Communicating Knowledge | | |Survey and survey |and the SMART goal |

|Final Evaluation and WASL Testing-The WASL will be given and |Organizing Knowledge | | |analysis templates |for the action plan. |

|the results analyzed. Staff members will be given an |Acting on Knowledge | | |from the OSPI. | |

|opportunity to complete a second survey analysis to compare |These knowledge arts make knowledge | | | | |

|with the first survey analysis. Progress will be discussed |meaningful for teachers, accessible to both | | | | |

|for both WASL scores and SMART goals in a staff meeting. |teachers and students, and improve student | | | | |

| |learning with a purpose (DuFour, 2005, p. | | | | |

| |156). | | | | |

| | | | | | |

| |Instructional Strategies-The McREL study | | | | |

| |identified 9 strategies “that have a high | | | | |

| |probability of enhancing student achievement | | | | |

| |for all students in all subject areas at all | | | | |

| |grade levels” (Marzano, Pickering, Pollock, | | | | |

| |2001, pp. 6-111). The 9 strategies are: | | | | |

| |Identifying Similarities and Differences | | | | |

| |Summarizing and Note Taking | | | | |

| |Reinforcing Effort and Providing Recognition | | | | |

| |Homework and Practice | | | | |

| |Nonlinguistic Representations | | | | |

| |Cooperative Learning | | | | |

| |Setting Objectives and Providing Feedback | | | | |

| |Generating and Testing Hypotheses | | | | |

| |Cues, Questions, and Advance Organizers | | | | |

| | | | | | |

| |Teaching Assignments/After School | | | | |

| |Tutoring-“The individual classroom teacher | | | | |

| |has even more of an effect on student | | | | |

| |achievement than originally thought” (Marzano| | | | |

| |et al, 2001, p. 3). The most important | | | | |

| |factor for student learning success is the | | | | |

| |teacher and his/her success. If the teacher | | | | |

| |is ineffective, student progress suffers. | | | | |

| |Keeping the most effective teachers with | | | | |

| |their most comfortable subject areas will | | | | |

| |ultimately improve student learning. | | | | |

| | | | | | |

| |WASL Testing-These will be the testing | | | | |

| |results that will allow PLCs to gain a focus | | | | |

| |ensuring that all students learn. Through | | | | |

| |collaboration, teachers will be able to | | | | |

| |analyze WASL scores before and after the | | | | |

| |action plan has taken place to foster a | | | | |

| |culture of collaboration that focuses on | | | | |

| |student results and helps them to succeed | | | | |

| |academically (DuFour, 2005, p. 210). | | | | |

| | | | | | |

| |Final Evaluation-Using the OSPI generated | | | | |

| |survey analysis, the staff will be able to | | | | |

| |evaluate its success of the proposed action | | | | |

| |plan. If there are any items that were | | | | |

| |challenging, the staff should not avoid them | | | | |

| |because “the challenge is working through the| | | | |

| |conflict and viewing an attempt gone awry as | | | | |

| |a chance to begin again more intelligently” | | | | |

| |(DuFour, 2005, p. 251). | | | | |

References:

Barth, R.S. (1990). Improving Schools from Within: Teachers, Parents, and Principals Can Make the Difference. San Francisco, CA:

Jossey-Bass Publishers.

DuFour, R., Eaker, R., & Dufour, R. (Eds). (2005). On Common Ground: The Power of Professional Learning Communities. Bloomington,

IN: National Educational Service.

Marzano, Robert J., Pickering, Debra J., & Pollock, Jane E. (2001). Classroom

Instruction That Works: Research-Based Strategies For Increasing Student Achievement. United States of America: McREL.

Schmoker, M. (2006). Forward. Here and Now: Improving Teaching and Learning. In DuFour, R., Eaker, R., & Dufour, R. (Eds). (2005).

On Common Ground: The Power of Professional Learning Communities. Bloomington,

IN: National Educational Service.

|Action Plan: Collaboration/Alignment |

|List SMART Goal: The Grapeview School staff will review state standards for math, science, and writing while analyzing WASL results to create meaningful lessons and stimulating activities that will help to |

|increase student WASL scores 3-5% in each grade level by spring 2010. |

|Goal Champion (Who will take the lead?): Principal |

|Description of Proposed Action/Activity (What is going to be |Research/Rationale For Activity (Explain how | Results |Person(s) |Resources |Timeline |

|done to address this goal?) |best practices and needs assessment data |(What will be the evidence of the |Impacted |(What will be |(When will the |

| |justify this activity) |impact on the goal) |(Who will be |needed?) |activity occur?) |

| | | |involved?) | | |

|PLC Committee Meetings-The math, science, and writing |PLC Committee Meetings-“If there is anything |The students will be able to increase|Students in grades |Reference materials |Winter 2009-Analyze |

|committees will analyze current WASL results and compare them|that the research community agrees on, it is |their WASL scores in math, science, |K-8 |for WASL results that|WASL results and |

|to state standards. Each committee will create a list of |this: The right kind of continuous, |and writing by 3-5% at each | |support the content |state standards. |

|needs for its subject area at each grade level. |structured teacher collaboration improves the|applicable grade level by |Para-educators |areas of math, |Create needs chart. |

|Staff Collaboration Meetings-The entire staff will meet to |quality of teaching and pays big, often |participating in stimulating, | |science, and writing |Create timeline. |

|share findings from the PLC committee meetings. The staff |immediate, dividends in student learning and |research-based classroom activities |Certificated teachers|including both print |Implement activities |

|will discuss needs and create a general needs chart for each |professional morale in virtually any setting”|that correlate with state standards. | |materials and |from the needs chart |

|grade level with activities for supporting the needs. |(Schmoker, 2005, p. xii). | |Principal |technology. |with effective |

|Needs Chart-The needs chart will include the needs for each | |Other support staff will be able to | | |instructional |

|subject at each grade level. It will also include |Staff Collaboration Meetings and Update |participate in meaningful activities | |More FOSS science |strategies. |

|lesson/activity ideas to address the needs. |Meetings-“Collegiality is the presence of |that will help students to make gains| |kits (1 per grade | |

|Final Evaluation and WASL Testing-The WASL will be given and |four specific behaviors as follows: Adults |in WASL scores by using | |level) for students |Spring 2009- |

|the results analyzed. Staff members will be given an |in schools talk about practice. These |research-based instructional | |to practice inquiry |Administer the WASL. |

|opportunity to complete a second survey analysis to compare |observations about teaching and learning are |strategies chosen by the entire | |based science labs | |

|with the first survey analysis. Progress will be discussed |frequent, continuous, concrete and precise. |staff. | |that teach to the |Fall 2009- Analyze |

|for both WASL scores and SMART goal in a staff meeting. |Adults in schools observe each other engaged |The entire staff will be able to | |GLEs. |WASL results. |

| |in the practice of teaching and |evaluate their progress by completing| | | |

| |administration. These observations become |the survey analysis of the school a | |Time at staff |Winter 2010-Complete |

| |the practice to reflect on and talk about. |second time. | |meetings to discuss |the OSPI survey and |

| |Adults engage together in work on curriculum | | |needs and set a |survey analysis to |

| |by planning, designing, researching, and | | |timeline for |evaluate |

| |evaluating curriculum. Finally, adults in | | |implementation of |effectiveness of the |

| |schools teach each other what they know about| | |meaningful |action plan. Discuss|

| |teaching, learning, and leading. Craft | | |activities. |progress for the WASL|

| |knowledge is revealed, articulated, and | | | |and the SMART goal |

| |shared” (Barth, 1990, p. 31). | | |Survey and survey |for the action plan. |

| | | | |analysis templates | |

| |Needs Chart and Timeline- Schools should | | |from the OSPI. | |

| |cultivate 4 “knowledge arts” that work with | | | | |

| |the goals for Professional Learning | | | | |

| |Communities: | | | | |

| |Creating Knowledge | | | | |

| |Communicating Knowledge | | | | |

| |Organizing Knowledge | | | | |

| |Acting on Knowledge | | | | |

| |These knowledge arts make knowledge | | | | |

| |meaningful for teachers, accessible to both | | | | |

| |teachers and students, and improve student | | | | |

| |learning with a purpose (DuFour, 2005, p. | | | | |

| |156). | | | | |

| | | | | | |

| |WASL Testing-These will be the testing | | | | |

| |results that will allow PLCs to gain a focus | | | | |

| |ensuring that all students learn. Through | | | | |

| |collaboration, teachers will be able to | | | | |

| |analyze WASL scores before and after the | | | | |

| |action plan has taken place to foster a | | | | |

| |culture of collaboration that focuses on | | | | |

| |student results and helps them to succeed | | | | |

| |academically (DuFour, 2005, p. 210). | | | | |

| | | | | | |

| |Final Evaluation-Using the OSPI generated | | | | |

| |survey analysis, the staff will be able to | | | | |

| |evaluate its success of the proposed action | | | | |

| |plan. If there are any items that were | | | | |

| |challenging, the staff should not avoid them | | | | |

| |because “the challenge is working through the| | | | |

| |conflict and viewing an attempt gone awry as | | | | |

| |a chance to begin again more intelligently” | | | | |

| |(DuFour, 2005, p. 251). | | | | |

References:

Barth, R.S. (1990). Improving Schools from Within: Teachers, Parents, and Principals Can Make the Difference. San Francisco, CA:

Jossey-Bass Publishers.

DuFour, R., Eaker, R., & Dufour, R. (Eds). (2005). On Common Ground: The Power of Professional Learning Communities. Bloomington,

IN: National Educational Service.

Schmoker, M. (2006). Forward. Here and Now: Improving Teaching and Learning. In DuFour, R., Eaker, R., & Dufour, R. (Eds). (2005).

On Common Ground: The Power of Professional Learning Communities. Bloomington,

IN: National Educational Service.

|Action Plan: Standards/Alignment |

|List SMART Goal: The Grapeview School teachers will continue to analyze the research basis for the instructional strategies being used in the classroom by finding data to support their effectiveness in the |

|classroom. Collected strategies that prove to be the most effective, determined by the research data, will be implemented into classrooms to improve student scores 3-5% in math, science, and/or writing by |

|winter 2010. |

| |

|Goal Champion (Who will take the lead?): Principal |

|Description of Proposed Action/Activity (What is going to be |Research/Rationale For Activity (Explain how | Results |Person(s) |Resources |Timeline |

|done to address this goal?) |best practices and needs assessment data |(What will be the evidence of the |Impacted |(What will be |(When will the |

| |justify this activity) |impact on the goal) |(Who will be |needed?) |activity occur?) |

| | | |involved?) | | |

|Independently, teachers will analyze one instructional |PLC Committee Meetings-“If there is anything |The teachers will be able to apply |Students in grades |Funds to pay |Winter 2009- Analyze |

|strategy that can be implemented in the subject area they |that the research community agrees on, it is |their knowledge of effective |K-8 |certificated teachers|instructional |

|were assigned to in the PLC committee meetings. They will |this: The right kind of continuous, |instructional strategies by teaching | |for after school |strategies. Create |

|determine, from research, if that instructional strategy is |structured teacher collaboration improves the|meaningful lessons in the classroom |Para-educators |tutoring. |timeline. |

|effective in the classroom. |quality of teaching and pays big, often |that align with state standards for | | |Implement activities |

|Staff Collaboration Meetings-The entire staff will meet to |immediate, dividends in student learning and |math, science, and writing, and |Certificated teachers|Reference materials |from the needs chart |

|share findings from their research on instructional |professional morale in virtually any setting”|tutoring students after school. | |for instructional |with effective |

|strategies and share data. The results will be discussed to |(Schmoker, 2005, p. xii). |Other support staff will be able to |Principal |strategies that |instructional |

|find the best ways to implement the lessons/activities from | |participate in meaningful activities | |support the content |strategies. After |

|the needs chart. |Staff Collaboration Meetings and Update |that will help students to make gains| |areas of math, |school tutoring and |

|Timeline-The entire staff will create a timeline for |Meetings-“Collegiality is the presence of |in WASL scores by using | |science, and writing |individual teaching |

|implementing lessons/activities with effective instructional |four specific behaviors as follows: Adults |research-based instructional | |including both print |assignment updates. |

|strategies. Monthly meetings will be set to discuss progress|in schools talk about practice. These |strategies chosen by the entire | |materials and | |

|and student assessment results. |observations about teaching and learning are |staff. | |technology. |Spring 2009-Update |

|Individual Teaching Assignments/After School Tutoring-The |frequent, continuous, concrete and precise. |The entire staff will be able to | | |meetings. Continue |

|staff will determine which teachers will be needed to teach |Adults in schools observe each other engaged |discuss their progress by | |More FOSS science |with action plan. |

|additional math, science, and/or writing. Also, the staff |in the practice of teaching and |participating in update meetings on a| |kits (1 per grade | |

|will determine which teachers will be needed to teach after |administration. These observations become |consistent basis. | |level) for students |Fall 2009-Update |

|school tutoring sessions. |the practice to reflect on and talk about. | | |to practice inquiry |meetings. |

|Update Meetings-Updates on progress will be made once a month|Adults engage together in work on curriculum | | |based science labs | |

|in a regular staff meeting. Challenges will be discussed as |by planning, designing, researching, and | | |that teach to the |Winter 2010- Evaluate|

|well as ways to solve problems that arise. |evaluating curriculum. Finally, adults in | | |GLEs. |effectiveness of the |

| |schools teach each other what they know about| | | |action plan. Discuss|

| |teaching, learning, and leading. Craft | | |Time at staff |progress for the |

| |knowledge is revealed, articulated, and | | |meetings to discuss |SMART goal for the |

| |shared” (Barth, 1990, p. 31). | | |needs and set a |action plan. |

| | | | |timeline for | |

| |Needs Chart and Timeline- Schools should | | |implementation of | |

| |cultivate 4 “knowledge arts” that work with | | |research-based | |

| |the goals for Professional Learning | | |instructional | |

| |Communities: | | |strategies. | |

| |Creating Knowledge | | | | |

| |Communicating Knowledge | | | | |

| |Organizing Knowledge | | | | |

| |Acting on Knowledge | | | | |

| |These knowledge arts make knowledge | | | | |

| |meaningful for teachers, accessible to both | | | | |

| |teachers and students, and improve student | | | | |

| |learning with a purpose (DuFour, 2005, p. | | | | |

| |156). | | | | |

| | | | | | |

| |Instructional Strategies-The McREL study | | | | |

| |identified 9 strategies “that have a high | | | | |

| |probability of enhancing student achievement | | | | |

| |for all students in all subject areas at all | | | | |

| |grade levels” (Marzano, Pickering, Pollock, | | | | |

| |2001, pp. 6-111). The 9 strategies are: | | | | |

| |Identifying Similarities and Differences | | | | |

| |Summarizing and Note Taking | | | | |

| |Reinforcing Effort and Providing Recognition | | | | |

| |Homework and Practice | | | | |

| |Nonlinguistic Representations | | | | |

| |Cooperative Learning | | | | |

| |Setting Objectives and Providing Feedback | | | | |

| |Generating and Testing Hypotheses | | | | |

| |Cues, Questions, and Advance Organizers | | | | |

| | | | | | |

| |Teaching Assignments/After School | | | | |

| |Tutoring-“The individual classroom teacher | | | | |

| |has even more of an effect on student | | | | |

| |achievement than originally thought” (Marzano| | | | |

| |et al, 2001, p. 3). The most important | | | | |

| |factor for student learning success is the | | | | |

| |teacher and his/her success. If the teacher | | | | |

| |is ineffective, student progress suffers. | | | | |

| |Keeping the most effective teachers with | | | | |

| |their most comfortable subject areas will | | | | |

| |ultimately improve student learning. | | | | |

| | | | | | |

| |Update Meetings-The staff will be able to | | | | |

| |discuss its success of the proposed action | | | | |

| |plan. If there are any items that were | | | | |

| |challenging, the staff should not avoid them | | | | |

| |because “the challenge is working through the| | | | |

| |conflict and viewing an attempt gone awry as | | | | |

| |a chance to begin again more intelligently” | | | | |

| |(DuFour, 2005, p. 251). | | | | |

References:

Barth, R.S. (1990). Improving Schools from Within: Teachers, Parents, and Principals Can Make the Difference. San Francisco, CA:

Jossey-Bass Publishers.

DuFour, R., Eaker, R., & Dufour, R. (Eds). (2005). On Common Ground: The Power of Professional Learning Communities. Bloomington,

IN: National Educational Service.

Marzano, Robert J., Pickering, Debra J., & Pollock, Jane E. (2001). Classroom

Instruction That Works: Research-Based Strategies For Increasing Student Achievement. United States of America: McREL.

Schmoker, M. (2006). Forward. Here and Now: Improving Teaching and Learning. In DuFour, R., Eaker, R., & Dufour, R. (Eds). (2005).

On Common Ground: The Power of Professional Learning Communities. Bloomington,

IN: National Educational Service.

Summary

Two goals that Grapeview School will be striving to meet have been chosen as needs, from the OSPI survey analysis, in the categories of Alignment, Standards, and Collaboration. Attempting to meet these goals will provide opportunities for the staff to work in teams across grade levels to help students to achieve. Also, the staff will be able to work together to plan what will be taught on a routine basis. Staff members will also be able to build trust in one another. Teachers will be given an opportunity to help all students meet high academic standards by using more effective strategies to help low-performing students as well as the general student population. Using these goals as a guide, instructional staff will have a better understanding of the state standards. Instruction will build on what students already know, and the schoolwork will be meaningful to students. Classroom activities will be more intellectually stimulating for all students because teachers will know the research basis for the instructional strategies being used, and be using WASL results to help plan activities in the classroom. The SMART goals for implementation at Grapeview School are:

• The Grapeview School staff will review state standards for math, science, and writing while analyzing WASL results to create meaningful lessons and stimulating activities that will help to increase student WASL scores 3-5% in each grade level by spring 2010.

• The Grapeview School teachers will continue to analyze the research basis for the instructional strategies being used in the classroom by finding data to support their effectiveness in the classroom. Collected strategies that prove to be the most effective, determined by the research data, will be implemented into classrooms to improve student scores 3-5% in math, science, and/or writing by winter 2010.

The proposed action plan has already been put into place by the principal. The action plan is a timeline of activities that address the two SMART goals that have been combined for staff to effectively make needed changes in curriculum, communication, and collaboration. Between winter of 2009 and winter of 2010, the staff will be participating in Professional Learning Community (PLC) committee meetings to analyze current WASL results in a comparison with state standards. PLC committees will create a list of needs for its subject area at each grade level. Staff will meet to share findings from the PLC committee meetings in staff collaboration meetings. Participants will discuss needs and create a general needs chart for each grade level with activities for supporting the needs. The needs chart will include the needs for each subject at each grade level. It will also include lesson and activity ideas to address the needs. Independently, teachers will analyze one instructional strategy that can be implemented in the subject area they were assigned to (math, science, writing) in the PLC committee meetings. They will determine, from research, the effectiveness of that instructional strategy in the classroom. The entire staff will meet to share findings and data. The results will be discussed to find the best ways to implement the lessons and activities from the needs chart. The entire staff will then create a timeline for implementing lessons and activities with effective instructional strategies. Monthly meetings will be set to discuss progress and student assessment results. The staff will determine which teachers will be needed to teach additional math, science, and/or writing. Also, the staff will determine which teachers will be needed to teach after school tutoring sessions. Updates on progress will be made once a month in a regular staff meeting. Challenges will be discussed as well as ways to solve problems that arise. Finally, the WASL will be given and the results analyzed. Staff members will be given an opportunity to complete a second survey analysis to compare with the first survey analysis. Progress will be discussed for both WASL scores and SMART goals in a staff meeting.

In order to reach these two goals successfully, staff members will need resources like funds to pay certificated teachers for after school tutoring. Reference materials for instructional strategies that support the content areas of math, science, and writing will be needed that include both print materials and technology. More FOSS science kits (1 per grade level) will be needed for students to practice inquiry based science labs that teach to the GLEs. Also, time will be needed at staff meetings to discuss needs and set a timeline for implementation of research-based instructional strategies. Once the goals have been met, both the survey and survey analysis templates from the OSPI will be needed for staff to evaluate the action plan.

Many people will be impacted by these goals. First of all, students in grades K-8 will be impacted. The students will be able to increase their WASL scores in math, science, and writing by 3-5% at each applicable grade level by participating in stimulating, research-based classroom activities that correlate with state standards. Para-educators, certificated teachers, and the principal will also be impacted by the action plan and its timeline of activities. The teachers will be able to apply their knowledge of effective instructional strategies by teaching meaningful lessons in the classroom that align with state standards for math, science, and writing, and tutoring students after school. Other support staff will be able to participate in meaningful activities that will help students to make gains in WASL scores by using research-based instructional strategies chosen by the entire staff. The entire staff will be able to evaluate their progress by completing the survey analysis of the school a second time.

Following the timeline for implementation will be appropriate for staff members because each proposed activity has been researched for effectiveness. Beginning in the winter of 2009, staff will analyze WASL results and state standards. The WASL results will be the testing results that will allow PLCs to gain a focus ensuring that all students learn. Through collaboration, teachers will be able to analyze WASL scores before and after the action plan has taken place to foster a culture of collaboration that focuses on student results and helps them to succeed academically (DuFour, 2005, p. 210). Staff will also create a needs chart, analyze instructional strategies, and create a timeline. They will do this because schools should cultivate 4 “knowledge arts” that work with the goals for Professional Learning Communities:

• Creating Knowledge

• Communicating Knowledge

• Organizing Knowledge

• Acting on Knowledge

These knowledge arts make knowledge meaningful for teachers, accessible to both teachers and students, and improve student learning with a purpose (DuFour, 2005, p. 156). The McREL study identified 9 strategies “that have a high probability of enhancing student achievement for all students in all subject areas at all grade levels” (Marzano, Pickering, Pollock, 2001, pp. 6-111). The 9 strategies are:

• Identifying Similarities and Differences

• Summarizing and Note Taking

• Reinforcing Effort and Providing Recognition

• Homework and Practice

• Nonlinguistic Representations

• Cooperative Learning

• Setting Objectives and Providing Feedback

• Generating and Testing Hypotheses

• Cues, Questions, and Advance Organizers

Next, teachers will implement activities from the needs chart with effective instructional strategies. After school tutoring and individual teaching assignment updates will be made. “The individual classroom teacher has even more of an effect on student achievement than originally thought” (Marzano et al, 2001, p. 3). The most important factor for student learning success is the teacher and his/her success. If the teacher is ineffective, student progress suffers. Keeping the most effective teachers with their most comfortable subject areas will ultimately improve student learning. In the spring of 2009, update meetings will be held, continuation of the action plan will occur, as well as administration of the WASL. In the fall of 2009, update meetings will continue and the WASL results will be analyzed. Finally, in the winter of 2010, staff members will complete the OSPI survey and survey analysis to evaluate the effectiveness of the action plan. They will discuss progress for the WASL and the SMART goals for the action plan. If there are any items that were challenging, the staff should not avoid them because “the challenge is working through the conflict and viewing an attempt gone awry as a chance to begin again more intelligently” (DuFour, 2005, p. 251). All of the meetings will be PLC committee meetings or staff collaboration meetings because, “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” (Schmoker, 2005, p. xii). “Collegiality is the presence of four specific behaviors as follows: Adults in schools talk about practice. These observations about teaching and learning are frequent, continuous, concrete and precise. Adults in schools observe each other engaged in the practice of teaching and administration. These observations become the practice to reflect on and talk about. Adults engage together in work on curriculum by planning, designing, researching, and evaluating curriculum. Finally, adults in schools teach each other what they know about teaching, learning, and leading. Craft knowledge is revealed, articulated, and shared” (Barth, 1990, p. 31).

References

Barth, R.S. (1990). Improving Schools from Within: Teachers, Parents, and Principals Can Make the Difference. San Francisco, CA:

Jossey-Bass Publishers.

DuFour, R., Eaker, R., & Dufour, R. (Eds). (2005). On Common Ground: The Power of Professional Learning Communities. Bloomington,

IN: National Educational Service.

Marzano, Robert J., Pickering, Debra J., & Pollock, Jane E. (2001). Classroom

Instruction That Works: Research-Based Strategies For Increasing Student Achievement. United States of America: McREL.

Schmoker, M. (2006). Forward. Here and Now: Improving Teaching and Learning. In DuFour, R., Eaker, R., & Dufour, R. (Eds). (2005).

On Common Ground: The Power of Professional Learning Communities. Bloomington,

IN: National Educational Service.

................
................

In order to avoid copyright disputes, this page is only a partial summary.

Google Online Preview   Download