New York State Education Department



Kenmore-Tonawanda UFSD

[pic]

Instructional

Improvement Plan

2009-2010

Art Department

Amy Veltri -CLS

|PLAN OUTLINE |

| |

| |

|DEPARTMENT INFORMATION/STAKEHOLDER SIGNATURES |

| |

| |

|DEPARTMENT PLANNING TEAM/DEPARTMENT TEAM MEMBERSHIP SIGNATURE PAGE |

| |

| |

|PART I: DISTRICT VISION/DEPARTMENT MISSION STATEMENT |

| |

| |

|PART II: NARRATIVE DESCRIPTION OF THE DEPARTMENT |

| |

| |

|PART III: DATA COLLECTION |

|SECTION A – DEPARTMENT DEMOGRAPHIC DATA |

|SECTION B – STUDENT ACHIEVEMENT DATA |

|SECTION C – OTHER PERTINENT DATA RELATED TO STUDENT ACHIEVEMENT |

| |

| |

|PART IV: NEEDS ASSESSMENT AND IDENTIFIED CONCLUSION STATEMENTS,ROOT CAUSES, IMPLICATIONS AND PRIORITIES |

| |

|PART V: PROCESS TO INFORM STAFF AND PARENTS |

| |

|PART VI: DEPARTMENT GOALS, OBJECTIVES, AND ACTION PLANS |

| |

| |

| |

| |

| |

| |

| |

| |

| |

| |

| |

| |

| |

| |

| |

| |

| |

| |

|DEPARTMENT INFORMATION |

| |

| | | DISTRICT: |Kenmore –town of tonawanda ufsd | |

|department contact person: | Amy Veltri | |

| |

|Department Telephone: |716-874-8401 ext 6430 |Fax: | | |

| | |

|CLS OFFICE LOCATION: |Room 430 Kenmore West High School | |

|EMAIL: ____ a_veltri@kenton.k12.ny.us __________________________ |

| | | | | |

|Assistant Superintendent: |Janet Gillmeister | | | |

| | | | | |

| | | | | |

|* Indicates that the person has reviewed this document. Comments may be attached to this plan | |

DEPARTMENT PLANNING TEAM MEMBERSHIP TABLE:

|Name |Position / Constituency Represented |Signature** |

|Amy Veltri |CLS/ Art K-12 |[pic] |

| |Art Teacher 9-12 | |

|Lisa Mihelbergel |Jefferson Elementary Art Teacher K-5 |[pic] |

|Emilie Sears |Hoover Elementary Art Teacher K-5 |[pic] |

| | | |

| | | |

| | | |

| | | |

| | | |

| | | |

| | | |

| | | |

| | | |

| | | |

| | | |

| | | |

| | | |

** Indicates participation in the development of the Instructional Improvement Plan.

PART I: DISTRICT VISION AND DEPARTMENT MISSION

District Vision:

We educate, prepare, and inspire all students to achieve their highest potential.

State your department mission that reflects its intent to achieve this vision. (Note: The department’s mission must articulate high expectations for all students.)

Art Department Mission:

[pic]

Within every individual is the innate ability to create. In Ken- Ton, our art program fosters and celebrates this distinctly human characteristic. We nurture the growth of developing minds by providing opportunities to explore, invent, express, dream, reflect, and communicate in a stimulating environment that fosters critical thinking and celebrates diversity. Our school community values and supports the arts for both their uniqueness and their integral role in the education of all children.

Our art programs provide multiple opportunities for problem solving as students learn about art and through art. It is through art that students transfer learning across curricular areas, weaving meaning and relevancy to connect all subjects. We acknowledge multiple solutions as students discover, perceive and value their creative self, diverse cultures and their environment. Through the development of visual and cultural literacy, our students are prepared to intelligently analyze and interpret their visual world. Above all, it is through the arts that we ask questions, ponder unsolved problems, take risks, and seek to understand human experiences both past and present.

The above mission statement was collectively developed by the Ken-Ton Art Department in 1998. Since its creation, it has represented our common purpose as art educators, our collective values, and our shared aspiration for the youngsters in our school community.

PART II: NARRATIVE DESCRIPTION OF THE DEPARTMENT

The narrative description should provide a “snapshot” of the department and contain an overview of the school’s current educational program and the significant changes that will be implemented for the 2009-2010 school year. It must contain the following:

❑ information about the department’s community and its unique/important characteristics;

❑ student achievement trends;

❑ an overview of instructional programs and school-wide educational initiatives, including accelerated and/or enriched curriculum offerings, programs for English Language Learners, Academic Intervention Services; and

❑ a description of existing collaborations/partnerships with community-based organizations,

colleges / universities and businesses.

The Ken-Ton Art Department was nationally recognized as a program exemplifying excellence in Art Education as published in Gaining the Arts Advantage: Lessons from Districts that Value Arts Education (1999). Since that time, over eighty percent of the art teachers who contributed to our collective resume of evidence in delivering progressive instruction and demonstrating the essential role of community involvement and partnerships are still in our classrooms today furthering these efforts. Although there isn’t a “school report card for the arts”, we are proudly regarded by the Art Education community as one of Western New York’s leading art programs. Our diverse and talented art staff is comprised of art educators, a large number of exhibiting artists, and dually certified teachers that include: special education, a reading specialist, a Nationally Board Certified Art Teacher, a college instructor, and a leader in our State art organization (NYSATA). Over the years we have established a strong network of people and resources that keeps us close to our communities rich cultural assets, local colleges and universities, and local arts organizations which impact our program and students.

We are strong advocates for young people, as we believe in the power of their ideas and the uniqueness in which these ideas manifest through art learning experiences. We value meaning over measurement and seek, through our curriculum, to embrace and celebrate the most human aspects of learning: wonder, discovery, connection, beauty, and even play. Although this may appear “soft” in a culture of increased accountability and standardized tests, one should not underestimate the value of the Arts in our changing world and economy. In his book, The New Basics: Education and the Future of Work in a Telematic Age, author David Thornburg provides data indicating that twenty-two percent of today’s jobs require creativity as a needed skill. Notable author, Daniel Pink, in his book A Whole New Mind provides a compelling argument as to why “the era of "left brain" dominance, and the information age that it engendered, are giving way to a new world in which "right brain" qualities-inventiveness, empathy, and meaning predominate.” The needed skills to excel in the 21st century are also the basis for The NETS standards (National Educational Technology Standards), in which the first desired performance indicator in today’s digital age is identified as creativity. Thornburg, Pink, and others such as creativity expert Sir Ken Robinson have impacted our collective thinking and thus, our curricular efforts to educate, prepare and inspire all students to achieve their highest potential through art.

The research referenced above mirrors student learning trends in our art program. Connections are being

thoughtfully aligned to increase opportunities and achievement for our students. At both high schools

we have received state approval to offer Multi-Media Studio in Art, a digitally based foundation course for students who prefer demonstrating art concepts and skills through digital means. This new course is offered in conjunction with the traditional program offering of Studio in Art. Our program has grown with increased numbers of students participating in Advanced Placement Art courses, offering greater challenge and rigor. Our current AP program, which includes students developing 2-D, 3-D and drawing portfolios, will further expand this year to include AP Art History, which we anticipate will attract both art students and those of the social sciences. There are numerous interdisciplinary trends impacting student achievement which capitalize on the natural connections of the arts with other disciplines: middle school students creating a video documentary of the 85th Anniversary of their school to include integrated components of history, writing, and digital storytelling while collaborating with local historians; several integrated literacy programs at the elementary level weaving art into reading and writing, and an entire school community dedicated to interdisciplinary collaborations to engage learners through art, via art.

Together we provide dozens of opportunities for our students to showcase their achievements, compete in local art competitions and exhibit in art shows including: the Advanced Placement National Invitational Exhibition, the Daemen College All High Art Competition, The University at Buffalo Annual Art Exhibit and Competition, The Keenan Center All High Photography Show, The Buffalo State College WNY Clay Olympics Regional Exhibition and the NYSMA Media Arts Exhibit. Many of our schools exhibit in the annual Central Terminal multi-district art show located in our city’s historic train station, and all of our schools participate in the Ken-Ton Showcase, a community event sponsored by our local Chamber of Commerce.

One of our most notable strengths is the Art Department’s rich tradition in connecting school to community through partnerships and collaborations including: students creating art work for permanent display at The Roswell Park Cancer Institute; a school-wide auction of student art work to benefit cancer research; students raising money to fight hunger through the international project Empty Bowls and students designing prints for Art for Heart. Many students have participated in the Young Curators Program sponsored through The Albright Knox Art Gallery and for several years one of our high schools held its annual art show at the distinguished Anderson Gallery, an affiliate of The University at Buffalo.

The most significant change our department is addressing is the need to renew the k-12 art curriculum to reflect our student’s immediate and future needs. We’ve recognized the need to reestablish our foundational core and commit once again to defining the concepts, content and skills that will provide the most meaningful learning experiences of enduring value for our students. Some of these changes will involve rethinking past practices and defining the characteristics of a 21st Century Art Curriculum. It will also include revisiting long standing foundational principles from which all educators are connected in nurturing good citizens and productive workers, and in fostering sense makers who make emotional, philosophical, and aesthetic sense of their surroundings. Given the abundance of converging research in education, we have the advantage of knowing “what works” as it relates to brain based research, classroom instructional strategies, and learning structures that cause learning. The most invigorating aspect is that we

have a highly committed and motivated staff from which to marshal expertise and share best practices in

the pursuit of improving student learning and achievement.

PART III: DATA COLLECTION – SECTIONS A, B, AND C

PART III - SECTION A: School Demographic Data

|STUDENT INFORMATION |PERCENT OR NUMBER * |

|Grades served |K-12 |

|Enrollment (total number of students served)( may be disaggregated by course/section) |N/A |

|Attendance Rate (%)where pertinent (course, section, lab) |N/A |

|Percent of economically disadvantaged/ low-income students (eligible for free or reduced lunch) by assessment |N/A |

|Percent of general education students |N/A |

|Percent of students with disabilities (receiving IEP-mandated services) |N/A |

|Number of English Language Learners (ELL)/ Limited English proficient (LEP) |N/A |

|Ethnicity and gender data: : Please use the following equation…Number in subgroup/TOTAL number of students= % |

|White: __/___ =____% |Asian or Pacific Islander: __/___ =____% |Male: __/___ =____% |

|Black: __/___ =____% |American Indian / Alaskan Native: __/___=___% |Female: __/___ =____% |

|Hispanic: __/___=____% | |

*in percent or number…Indicate data can be found in appendix and attach Starbase and /or D.W. data.

|STAFF INFORMATION |PERCENT OR NUMBER |

|Total number of full time teachers in department |23 |

|Total number of part time teachers in department |0 |

|Percent of teachers fully licensed and permanently assigned to the department |100% |

|Percent of teachers with more than 2 years teaching in this department |86.96% |

|Percent of teachers with more than 5 years teaching anywhere |86.96% |

|Percent of teachers with Masters Degree or higher |86.96% |

|Total number of department chairs |5 |

PART III - SECTION B:

• High School foundation course; Studio in Art Final Course Grades- past 4 years

• High School foundation course; Multimedia Studio in Art- first year offered

• 4yr AP Studio in Art Data from The College Board

• Middle level final course grades- past 4 years.

• Proficiency levels; El, Middle, and HS Common Unit: Art and Everyday Life

|Studio in Art 2005-06| |085-100 |065-84 |000-064 |Total |Total % proficiency |

|Kenmore East |Totals |72 |43 |7 |122 |94% |

| | |59% |35% |6% | | |

|Kenmore West |Totals |88 |85 |22 |195 |89% |

| | |45% |44% |11% | | |

|Studio in Art 2006-07| |085-100 |065-84 |000-064 |Total |Total % proficiency |

|Kenmore East |Totals |76 |50 |7 |133 | |

| | |57% |38% |5% | |95% |

|Kenmore West |Totals |62 |72 |22 |156 | |

| | |40% |46% |14% | |86% |

|Studio in Art 2007-08| |085-100 |065-84 |000-064 |Total |Total % proficiency |

|Kenmore East |Totals |80 |52 |4 |136 | |

| | |59% |38% |3% | |97% |

|Kenmore West |Totals |88 |75 |17 |180 | |

| | |49% |42% |9% | |93% |

|Studio in Art 2008-09| |085-100 |065-84 |000-064 |Total |Total % proficiency |

|Kenmore East |Totals |69 |42 |6 |117 | |

| | |59% |36% |5% | |95% |

|Kenmore West |Totals |53 |58 |10 |121 | |

| | |44% |48% |8% | |92% |

|Multimedia | |085-100 |065-84 |000-064 |Total |Total % proficiency |

|Studio in Art | | | | | | |

|( First Year) 2008-09| | | | | | |

|Kenmore East |Totals |38 |12 |2 |52 | |

| | |73% |23% |3% | |97% |

|Kenmore West |Totals |85 |75 |13 |173 |92% |

| | |49% |43% |8% | | |

|AP Studio in Art 2006 |Number of students |Number of students |Number of students |Number of students |Number of students |Number of students |

| |scored |scored |scored |scored |scored | |

| |5 |4 |3 |2 |1 | |

|Grade 4 |105 |47 |40 |18 |0 |88% |

|Franklin El | |45% |38% |17% |0% | |

|Grade 5 |60 |37 |18 |5 |0 |95% |

|Franklin El | |62% |30% |8% |0% | |

|AVG | | | | | |92% |

|Grade 5 |63 |46 |17 |0 |0 |100% |

|Edison El | | | |0% |0% | |

|AVG | | | | | |100% |

|Grade 5 |102 |31 |69 |2 |0 |98% |

|Hoover El | |30% |68% |2% |0% | |

|AVG | | | | | |96% |

|Grade 5 |57 |47 |10 |0 |0 |100% |

|Jefferson El | |82% |18% |0% |0% | |

|AVG | | | | | |100% |

|Grade 5 |66 |50 |10 |6 |0 |94% |

|Roosevelt El | |75% |5% |2% |0% | |

|AVG | | | | | |93.5% |

|Grade 5 |56 |44 |11 |1 |0 |99% |

|HolmesEl | |49% |20% |2% |0% | |

|AVG | | | | | |99% |

|Grade 5 |71 |26 |32 |12 |1 |87% |

|Hamilton El | |37% |45% |17% |1% | |

|AVG | | | | | |94% |

|Grade 5 |90 |68% |28% |3% |1% |96% |

|Lindbergh El | | | | | | |

|AVG | | | | | |95% |

|Middle level | | | | | | |

|KMS- D.Swanson |24 |15 |5 |2 |2 |96% |

|Self-Portrait | |63% |21% |8% |8% | |

|KMS-R.Tomasello |23 |16 |4 |0 |3 |97% |

|Graphic Novel | |70% |17% |0% |13% | |

|KMS Totals | | | | | |96.5% |

|HMS-J.Indridridson |95 |93 |2 |0 |0 |100% |

|Louis Comfort Tiffany | | | |0% |0% | |

|Stained Glass Painting| | | | | | |

|HMS-J.Kubala |37 |28 |9 |0 |0 |100% |

| | |76% |24% |0% |0% | |

|HMS Totals | | | | | |100% |

|FMS-B.McCullagh |550 |400 |140 |10 |0 | |

| | |70% |25% |5% |o% |95% |

|FMS Totals | | | | | |97.5 |

|KE- Carr |48 |30 |18 |0 |0 |100% |

| | |63% |37% |0% |0% | |

|KE-SaGurney |50 |38 |8 |3 |1 |96% |

| | |76% |16% |6% |2% | |

|KE Scaduto |42 |38 |3 |0 |1 |99% |

| | |90% |7% |0% |3% | |

|KE Wallace |81 |73 |7 |1 |0 |99% |

| | |90% |9% |1% |0% | |

|KE-Totals | | | | | |99% |

|KW-Rogalski |64 |43 |19 |0 |2 |98% |

| | |67% |30% |0% |3% | |

|KW-Veltri |19 |17 |0 |2 |0 |98% |

| | |89% |0% |11% |0% | |

|KW-Totals | |

|Elementary |96% |

|Middle |99% |

|High School |98% |

PART III - SECTION C: Other Pertinent Data Related to Student Achievement

Student learning data appears in a shared intranet resource folder on First Class. Due to the large

number, size, and types of files, including this data in Appendix form was not feasible. Other pertinent data sets will be identified and collected as part of the 2009-10 Art Department process.

PART IV: NEEDS ASSESSMENT

Analysis of Student Achievement and Program Effectiveness

|Conclusion Statement #1 |

| |

|Student proficiency has not been consistently defined, measured, monitored, and evaluated as it relates to The NY State Learning Standards for The Arts and The|

|Core Art Curriculum. |

| |

|Root Cause (s) for Conclusion Statement #1 |

| |

|Lack of reliable data sets, multiple measures of data and processes for collecting, analyzing and sharing data. |

|Lack of training and practice in data driven decision-making (DDDM). |

|Lack of training and practice in monitoring and evaluating the current action plan (are we doing what we said we would... if not, why not... is it making a |

|difference)? |

|The written curriculum and the taught curriculum are not yet aligned. |

|The middle level grading system does not accurately distinguish proficiency levels. |

|We may be comparing “apples to oranges” when reviewing student achievement data, as there are inconsistencies between what is being measured and how it is |

|being measured. |

|Student proficiency averages are all at a distinguished level except for Advanced Placement courses. |

|Curricular expectations may be more rigorous at some levels/ courses than others. |

| |

|Implications for Instructional Programming for Conclusion Statement #1 |

| |

|As a result of the above, we will: |

| |

|Determine and create common measures from which to gauge student learning and further define and measure student proficiency. |

|Establish a collaborative approach to data driven decision-making. |

|Determine methods to monitor student learning in order for teachers to report out what instructional changes will be made to improve student achievement based |

|on data. |

|Examine and review 08-09 results collaboratively. |

|Determine what data is reliable, unreliable and still needed. |

|Develop more reliable data sets for future use and analysis. |

|Monitor core map alignment and implementation of the NY State Learning Standards for the Arts within each classroom. |

| |

|Conclusion Statement #2 |

| |

|There is a need to look at student work for the purpose of: defining proficiency, problems solving, analyzing student performance data to inform instruction, |

|aligning curriculum and instruction, and sharing best practices. |

| |

|Root Cause (s) for Conclusion Statement #1 |

| |

|Student proficiency has not been consistently defined between teachers or levels. |

|The interrelatedness of cause data (the action of adults) and effect data (student achievement results) has not been systemically analyzed to cause learning in|

|a more purposeful, interdependent, and efficacious manner. |

|DDDM is negatively perceived as a process of analyzing assessment data and teaching to the test. |

|Assessing student artwork has subjective components making reliability of data difficult. |

|Teaching in isolation hinders curriculum coherence and synergy. |

|Lack of time for collaboration and consensus |

|Core maps are newly developed, therefore fidelity to written curriculum vs., taught curriculum (or teacher preference) is still unknown. |

|Lack of dedicated time for diagnosing vs. scoring student performance |

| |

|Implications for Instructional Programming for Conclusion Statement #1 |

| |

|As a result of the above, we will: |

| |

|Further define proficiency |

|Increase opportunities for collaboration with a focus on increasing student performance levels. |

|LASW for the purpose of problem solving, analyzing student performance to inform instruction, and sharing best practices. |

|LASW for the purpose core map alignment of curriculum and instruction to the NY State Art Learning standards. |

|Continue to build community, shared commitment, and focus. |

|Celebrate accomplishments. |

Based on the above analysis the following priorities have been identified for 2009-2010

▪ Create a more inclusive, collaborative process for gathering, examining, and analyzing student results.

▪ Develop more reliable data sets for future use and analysis.

▪ Monitor student learning to determine the instructional changes that need to be made to improve student achievement.

▪ Monitoring core map implementation with focused attention to defining and measuring proficiency.

PART V: PROCESS FOR REPORTING NEEDS ASSESSMENT FINDINGS

The above needs assessment is tentative until the following collaborative processes take place:

▪ On September 3rd, 2009 the Art Department will engage in the process of monitoring and evaluating last years action plan. Activities aimed to build a more inclusive, collaborative process for gathering, examining, and analyzing student results is an identified priority for the 2009-10 school year.

▪ The 2009-10 Art Department IIP will be edited/amended as a result of the evaluation process.

▪ The art staff will communicate department data and related IIP via open house and teacher web pages.

▪ By the end of October 2009, an Art Department protocol will be collectively established from which to gather, examine, and analyze student results.

▪ Input will be gathered during these activities from which to expand participation in the IIP process as well as to communicate student and department data to the community.

PART VI: SCHOOL/DEPARTMENT GOALS, OBJECTIVES, AND ACTION PLAN

Goal: By 2014, 100% of students enrolled in the visual arts program will demonstrate proficiency in meeting the NY State Art Learning Standards.

Objective: By June 2010, all students enrolled in the visual arts program will demonstrate proficiency in meeting the NY State Art Learning Standards as per the following target proficiency rates: Studio in Art (94.8%), Multimedia SIA (95.6%), AP SIA (70.4%), Middle Art (97.6%), and Elementary Art (96.8%).

Strategy: To establish an Art Department Data Team with an emphasis on determining and creating measurement tools from which to gauge, monitor, and improve student learning.

Targeted Audience: All K-8 students and all students enrolled in secondary art electives.

Root Causes Addressed: #1. Lack of reliable data sets, multiple measures of data and processes for collecting, analyzing and sharing data.

#2. Student proficiency has not been consistently defined and measured as it relates to The NY State Learning Standards for The Arts and the core Art Curriculum.

#3. The written curriculum and the taught curriculum are not yet aligned.

|Activities |Timeframe |Participants |Lead Person |Resources |Measurable Evidence of Success |

|Identification of data needed to improve the Art IIP|Sept 2009 |All Art teachers |Amy Veltri |2008-09 IIP |Procedural outline from 08-09 followed by |

|process and make more informed decisions. |Completed | | |Student Achievement |documented consensus items to improve current |

| |by Oct 2009 | | |data/ results. |process and establish department protocol. |

|Determine and create common measurement tools from |Oct 2009- |All Art teachers |Amy Veltri |Sample measurement |Measurement tools created for instructional use. |

|which to gauge student learning. |Dec 2010 | |Dept Chairs |tools. Dept res. folder.|Implemented and Posted electronically. |

|Implement tools and strategies. | | | |Core maps. |Evidence of implementation and data shared on |

| | | | | |ERD’s. |

|Increase coherence by determining core map |By January 2010 |All Art teachers |Amy Veltri |Survey/ checklist |Survey/ checklist data |

|implementation and further aligning all measurements| | |Dept Chairs |Core maps |Aligning 3 core map units (concepts, skills, and |

|to NY State Learning Standards for The Arts and core| | | |Student work |assessments) with performance data (student work).|

|curriculum maps. | | | |Teacher lessons and |Shared and posed electronically. |

| | | | |resources | |

|Determine methods to monitor student learning in |By Feb 2010 |All Art teachers |Amy Veltri |Student work |Template for data collection, data analysis and |

|order for teachers to report out what instructional | | |Dept Chairs |Teacher lessons and |dissemination is created. Shared and Posted |

|changes will be made to improve student achievement | | | |resources. Dedicated |electronically. |

|based on data. | | | |time. | |

Milestone: By the end of October 2009, An Art Department Data Team will be established and a DDDM process and will be underway from which to gauge, monitor, and improve student learning.

By the end of Oct 2009, common measurement tools will have been created and implemented to gauge student learning.

By February 2010, results of implementing common measurement tools will have been analyzed, acted upon, and monitored to determine instructional changes.

Evaluation By the end of March 2010, 66% of student performance data will have been collected, analyzed, acted upon, and shared for the

purpose of informing instructional practices to improve student learning.

Follow-up: Utilize a checklist to monitor progress towards meeting milestone/evaluation targets and target dates. Make instructional adjustments accordingly.

PART VI: SCHOOL/DEPARTMENT GOALS, OBJECTIVES, AND ACTION PLAN

Goal: By 2014, 100% of students enrolled in the visual arts program will demonstrate proficiency in meeting the NY State Art Learning Standards.

Objective: By June 2010, all students enrolled in the visual arts program will demonstrate proficiency in meeting the NY State Art Learning Standards as per the following target proficiency rates: Studio in Art (94.8%), Mutimedia SIA (95.6%), AP SIA (70.4%), Middle Art (97.6%), and Elementary Art (96.8%).

Strategy: Teachers will meet monthly to look at student work for the purpose of improving student achievement by: defining proficiency, using formative assessments to drive instruction, problems solving, analyzing student performance data to inform instruction, aligning curriculum and instruction, and sharing best practices.

Targeted Audience: All K-8 students and all students enrolled in secondary art electives.

Root Causes Addressed: #1. The interrelatedness of cause data (the action of adults) and effect data (student achievement results) has not been

systemically analyzed to cause learning in a more purposeful, interdependent, and efficacious manner.

#2. Proficiency has not been consistently defined between teachers or levels. Hence, there is a need to determine what proficiency levels looks like by examining student work (particularly in a visual discipline).

#3. Teacher Perceptions: DDDM is negatively perceived as a process of analyzing assessment data and teaching to the

test.

|Activities |Timeframe |Participants |Lead Person |Resources |Measurable Evidence of Success |

|Collaborative analysis of student learning. |Oct 9, 2009 Oct 15, |All Art teachers |Amy Veltri |Dedicated time |Collegial observations/ participation. Process |

| |2009 | |Dept Chairs/ Lead Facilitators|District protocol |observer reports. District templates routinely |

| |Monthly | | |Student work |utilized. Early Release Day (ERD) Evaluations. |

|Utilize LASW sessions to check core curriculum map |Oct 9, 2009 |All Art teachers |Amy Veltri |Core maps |Instructional template/ checklist aligned to core |

|alignment. |Oct 15, 2009 | |Dept Chairs/ Lead Facilitators|Student work |map. Student work samples aligned to core map |

| |Nov 19, 2009 | | |Alignment template |concepts, content, skills, and assessments. |

|Utilize LASW sessions to problem solve based on the |Oct 9, 2009 |All Art teachers |Amy Veltri |District protocol |Teacher feedback and reflection. |

|gap between student learning goals and student |Oct 15, 2009 | |Dept Chairs/ Lead Facilitators|Student work |Gap analysis template completed. Evaluation data |

|outcomes...what does the evidence reveal? Modify |Nov 19 2009 | | |Qualitative and |collected on ERDs. |

|instruction and implement tools and strategies. |Dec 17, 2009 | | |Quantitative. Data, common|Modified instructional materials |

| |All ERD’s | | |meas. Tools. |Edited core maps. Evidence of implementation/ |

| | | | | |modifications. |

|Develop complementary formal and informal |Oct 15, 2009 |All Art Teachers |Amy Veltri |Formative Assess. |Newly developed assessment tools. |

|assessments and build these into the flow of |Nov 19, 2009 | |Dept Chairs/ Lead Facilitators|literature and models. |Proficiency scales developed and implemented. |

|classroom instruction. |Dec 17, 2009 | | |Formal and inf. assess. |Modified instructional materials Edited core maps. |

| |Jan 21, 2010 | | |tools. |Evaluation data collected on ERDs. |

| |Feb 5, 2010 | | | | |

Milestone: By the end of Oct 2009, common measurement tools will have been created and implemented to gauge student learning.

By the end of December 2010, teachers will be routinely using formal and informal assessment evidence to drive instruction and reporting back student results to their peers.

By February 2010, results of implementing common measurement tools will have been analyzed, acted upon, and monitored to determine instructional changes.

Evaluation By the end of March 2010, 66% of student performance data will have been collected, analyzed, acted upon, and shared for the

purpose of informing instructional practices to improve student learning. Evidence of student growth and achievement will be charted.

Follow-up: Utilize a checklist to monitor progress towards meeting milestone/evaluation targets and target dates. Make instructional adjustments accordingly.

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

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

Google Online Preview   Download