Recent Changes

October 1, 2012~ Meeting Summary
Members Present:
Topic:
Protocol Used:
Key Points1st, 2012
PLG Focus Questions
How many teachers in the group are teaching at grade level for the majority of Discussions:
Decisions Made:
General Minutes:their time?
-Iver teaches different levels and abilities, Kate teaches all 11th except one, 4/6 for Kim, Mary Chase teaches 3/6, Jeremy teaches all juniors, Heather teaches all, Mary Finnemore, Mixed , Laurie is all Juniors, Sara teaches 95% Sophomores, Elizabeth is all Juniors, Chris is mostly Freshmen and Sophomores.
Three of the members have a Junior Advisory.
Brainstorm the types of writing AND the types of assignments we have students do.
- Iver (Descriptive – Quick Writes, Short Answers)
- Kate (Chemistry – Expository and Persuasive – Constructed Response, Quick Write, Paragraph, Sum it Ups, Descriptive conclusions, to d)
- Kim (Math – Expository – Constructed Response, Essay, Quick Writes
- Mary (Social Studies – Expository and Persuasive – Quick Write, Short Answer, Constructed Response, Essay, Research paper)
- Elizabeth (Expository and Persuasive – Use different techniques, do them all except Research (Although they have talked about it but do go over research skills, Essay paragraphs. Did want to clarify that it was a 3-body essay, not necessarily a five-part essay.
- Descriptive and Expository – Quick Writes, Constructed Response, Short Answer,
Need to have a clarification between constructed response and short answers.
- Guidance does do a data sheet but that is not until Senior year.
- Sara – Spanish (Narrative and Expository – Paragraph and some quick writes)
- Chris (Read 180)– All of them . Start with narrative, expository – Reading logs, narrative essays, persuasive essays, book reports, no lab reports or research papers
What types of writing skills do you assess on your rubrics or in your grading of these assignments?
- Chris – grammar, punctuation sentence structure, topic paragraph and depth to the body.
- Heather – grammar,
- Iver – grammar,
- Do not focus on spelling, but do correct errors, complete sentences, they will lost points for these things
- Mary Finnemore (Depends on assignment, if doing it by hand then do not necessarily grade for logistics, if typed then check for spell checked, ask that they get their pronouns correct in conclusions, do they the supporting evidence. They do not have a separate grade for this.
- Jeremy - the SAT does not take away points for grade, during classes he does not take off points for grammatical errors, if the assignment is typed and they have the access to technology then he expects it to be polished.
- Kim – computer determines how it will graded. Looking for terminology and to ensure that they are using it correctly
- Mary Chase – Clear logic, support, evidence, complete sentences, correct use of terminology
- Sara – Depends on the level as well as the assignment. AP Reasoning as long as it does not interfere with the argument or purpose of the answer.
What are some conclusions we can draw about the student writing experience at this grade level?
- Jeremy – believes it depends on the interest in the subject
- Elizabeth – the students are writing and then printing
- Mary – Grammar is required if technology is used and that in class work is not graded. Mary believes that it is about task done, not necessarily task done well.
- Mary Chase – most student believe that they only need to write well in English, not specifically for other contents
- Mary – what are they doing with our comments that we make. They need the time to actually to fix it.
- Heather – having students rewrite is starting to cause a problem. Revision of the writing process– how is working? Consider averaging the grade, how about asking them to write another essay, encourage students to do the prep work and then actually write the essays in class.
- TP23R(Topic, Position, 2-3 Reasons)
- Kate – What kind of strategies are you using, Before strategies – organizers and then time in class.

{Date} ~ Meeting Summary
Members Present:
Topic:Iver Lofving, Mary Finnemore, Matt Guistra, Elizabeth Wathen, John Christopher, Jeremy Lehan, Kim McEwen, Kate Drummond
Topic: Implementation of Collins Writing Program
Protocol Used: Modified Ping Pong
Key Points of Discussions:
Decisions Made:
General Minutes:
NOTES FROM DISCUSSION
Positives
JC: I have done a lot of Type 1 and 2 over the years (w/out labeling as such). Sees that it will be easy to use. Projects will fall into Type 3 and 4; may be a matter of labeling them differently. The emphasis on reading own work was great.
IL: We do need to focus on literacy.
KM: Agrees with JC. Likes the concept of FCAs, so that it can be more applicable to her discipline, e.g., using five mathematical terms.
EW: Speaker was dynamic and engaging.
KD: Interested to see if this approach will bring results.
MF: A common language for all of us (staff and students). Common vocabulary will facilitate discussion among staff, will create momentum, and will make it easier in dealing with students—don't have to teach process if learned in another class. College Options students seem to perform in writing than in other types of assessment in her discipline. Likes the idea of having teachers in same discipline trying an assignment, labeling Type 1/Type 2, and then comparing notes, seeing how it goes.
Negatives
JC: Grading seems harder (even with the presenter's suggestions), especially as the class size gets bigger. Would prefer that Type 1 not be graded.
IL: Not useful in that many of his kids "not literate." Questions whether the Collins system is really appropriate in 21st century.
MG: Worried that emphasizing writing in foreign language will "jump the gun" and stifle development in language because the emphasis in the early years is on verbalization.
EW: Would have been nice to know goals of workshop beforehand.
JC/EW: Will FCAs cause other areas to slide?
MF: Like John, having a hard time trying to relabel things she's already doing.
Needs
JC: Need clarity about whether we are supposed to use common vocabulary, or is the expectation just that we will do these different types of assignments.
JL: Give grade-level, subject area teachers an opportunity to work together and try Type 1 and Type 2 in a more deliberate way.
KD: I don't know if Type 4 and 5 are doable in science. Need more info. Wonder f there will be a follow-up. Wold like to know if there are FCAs in Grade 11 for English; that would be good knowledge to have.
EW: Worried about overdoing it, as we did with literacy strategies, everyone doing Triple Entry vocabulary sheets.
Next Steps
Have teachers in same discipline try out a Type 1 or Type 2 assignment. The "type" will be announced. Results will be shared and discussed at next PLG.

{Date} ~October 1, 2012~ Meeting Summary
Members Present:
Iver Lofving, Mary Finnemore, Matt Guistra, Elizabeth Wathen, John Christopher, Jeremy Lehan, Kim McEwen, Kate Drummond
Topic: Implementation of Collins Writing ProgramTopic:
Protocol Used: Modified Ping Pong
Key Points of Discussions:
Decisions Made:
General Minutes:
NOTES FROM DISCUSSION
Positives
JC: I have done a lot of Type 1 and 2 over the years (w/out labeling as such). Sees that it will be easy to use. Projects will fall into Type 3 and 4; may be a matter of labeling them differently. The emphasis on reading own work was great.
IL: We do need to focus on literacy.
KM: Agrees with JC. Likes the concept of FCAs, so that it can be more applicable to her discipline, e.g., using five mathematical terms.
EW: Speaker was dynamic and engaging.
KD: Interested to see if this approach will bring results.
MF: A common language for all of us (staff and students). Common vocabulary will facilitate discussion among staff, will create momentum, and will make it easier in dealing with students—don't have to teach process if learned in another class. College Options students seem to perform in writing than in other types of assessment in her discipline. Likes the idea of having teachers in same discipline trying an assignment, labeling Type 1/Type 2, and then comparing notes, seeing how it goes.
Negatives
JC: Grading seems harder (even with the presenter's suggestions), especially as the class size gets bigger. Would prefer that Type 1 not be graded.
IL: Not useful in that many of his kids "not literate." Questions whether the Collins system is really appropriate in 21st century.
MG: Worried that emphasizing writing in foreign language will "jump the gun" and stifle development in language because the emphasis in the early years is on verbalization.
EW: Would have been nice to know goals of workshop beforehand.
JC/EW: Will FCAs cause other areas to slide?
MF: Like John, having a hard time trying to relabel things she's already doing.
Needs
JC: Need clarity about whether we are supposed to use common vocabulary, or is the expectation just that we will do these different types of assignments.
JL: Give grade-level, subject area teachers an opportunity to work together and try Type 1 and Type 2 in a more deliberate way.
KD: I don't know if Type 4 and 5 are doable in science. Need more info. Wonder f there will be a follow-up. Wold like to know if there are FCAs in Grade 11 for English; that would be good knowledge to have.
EW: Worried about overdoing it, as we did with literacy strategies, everyone doing Triple Entry vocabulary sheets.
Next Steps
Have teachers in same discipline try out a Type 1 or Type 2 assignment. The "type" will be announced. Results will be shared and discussed at next PLG.

October 1, 2012~{Date} ~ Meeting Summary
Members Present:
Topic:Iver Lofving, Mary Finnemore, Matt Guistra, Elizabeth Wathen, John Christopher, Jeremy Lehan, Kim McEwen, Kate Drummond
Topic: Implementation of Collins Writing Program
Protocol Used: Modified Ping Pong
Key Points of Discussions:
Decisions Made:
General Minutes:
NOTES FROM DISCUSSION
Positives
JC: I have done a lot of Type 1 and 2 over the years (w/out labeling as such). Sees that it will be easy to use. Projects will fall into Type 3 and 4; may be a matter of labeling them differently. The emphasis on reading own work was great.
IL: We do need to focus on literacy.
KM: Agrees with JC. Likes the concept of FCAs, so that it can be more applicable to her discipline, e.g., using five mathematical terms.
EW: Speaker was dynamic and engaging.
KD: Interested to see if this approach will bring results.
MF: A common language for all of us (staff and students). Common vocabulary will facilitate discussion among staff, will create momentum, and will make it easier in dealing with students—don't have to teach process if learned in another class. College Options students seem to perform in writing than in other types of assessment in her discipline. Likes the idea of having teachers in same discipline trying an assignment, labeling Type 1/Type 2, and then comparing notes, seeing how it goes.
Negatives
JC: Grading seems harder (even with the presenter's suggestions), especially as the class size gets bigger. Would prefer that Type 1 not be graded.
IL: Not useful in that many of his kids "not literate." Questions whether the Collins system is really appropriate in 21st century.
MG: Worried that emphasizing writing in foreign language will "jump the gun" and stifle development in language because the emphasis in the early years is on verbalization.
EW: Would have been nice to know goals of workshop beforehand.
JC/EW: Will FCAs cause other areas to slide?
MF: Like John, having a hard time trying to relabel things she's already doing.
Needs
JC: Need clarity about whether we are supposed to use common vocabulary, or is the expectation just that we will do these different types of assignments.
JL: Give grade-level, subject area teachers an opportunity to work together and try Type 1 and Type 2 in a more deliberate way.
KD: I don't know if Type 4 and 5 are doable in science. Need more info. Wonder f there will be a follow-up. Wold like to know if there are FCAs in Grade 11 for English; that would be good knowledge to have.
EW: Worried about overdoing it, as we did with literacy strategies, everyone doing Triple Entry vocabulary sheets.
Next Steps
Have teachers in same discipline try out a Type 1 or Type 2 assignment. The "type" will be announced. Results will be shared and discussed at next PLG.

{Date} ~ Meeting Summary
Members Present:
Topic:
Protocol Used:
Key Points of Discussions:
Decisions Made:
General Minutes:

9-26-12
10-1-12
12-3-12

9-24-12
9-26-12
10-1-12

October 1, 2012~ Meeting Summary
Members Present:
Topic:
Protocol Used:
Key Points of Discussions:
Decisions Made:
General Minutes:

September 26, 2012~ Meeting Summary
Members Present: Heather, Matt, Iver, Jeremy
Topic:
Protocol Used:
Key Points of Discussions:
Decisions Made: Writing
General Minutes:
What are the 5 most important observations we can make about the data?
Huge dip in 2008
We appear to be improving and catching up with the state.
Never met or exceed the state – slightly below average.
Similar scores to those with similar demographics.
Below average scores, generally greater than our partially proficient scores.
We do not have a majority of our students proficient.
What are 3 - 5 important conclusions we can draw from the data?
There is no data to suggest that our teaching practices affect these scores.
It appears that the level of proficient students is increasing but the students below are remaining constant.
We need a plan for students who are below proficiency.
What are some barriers (out of our control) that have an effect on the data?
Demographic changes/shifts
Home support/value of the SAT/education
The test days and effects of standardized testing on students (NWEAs).
What are some assets we have that will inform, support and/or guide our work?
Literacy Initiative (Not sure of direct effects on writing)
Writing Lab (Unsure it will operate as planned)
Collective brain power J
What are some next steps we should take as a staff in our PLG's?
What are the Common Core writing requirements?
What are specific components of writing that our students are struggling with?
Identify what form of writing are we hoping to improve.
Research to see how other schools are handling this writing.
What instructional strategies or approaches could we use individually or collaboratively to improve the data?
Regular timed writing in various contents based on the Common Core requirements.
Share effective writing strategies.
Encourage writing across the curriculum.