Language Arts Success Team Meeting
November 7, 2006
Members present: Weber, Robertson, Scarola, Baltrusch, Priddle, Bruni, Langan, Kuhnhausen, Bettencourt, Harstad-Bell, McKee, Holst, Moran, Rothaar, Pelphrey, Young, Stuber
Team reviewed goals and proposed activities
Team reviewed assessment results
Team divided into groups by building to review their assessment results in conjunction with K-8 Writing Team recommendations, and to record reading/writing strengths and weaknesses.
Share out reading results.
Creslane strengths: 3rd grade reading has improved consistently over the last 3 years. Learner outcomes are passed at 85% K-5. 5th grade vocabulary had the highest %. Total reading in literature improved the most 3rd grade. Also develop an interpretation. From 3rd to 5th grades students increased by 9%.
MS strengths: Every student has reading. Accelerated Reader=context clues, vocab can be used as LO. SSR in Adv 2x/week. Students ask to read. SSR in social studies 6/8. 8th grade “science in the news.” 7/8 “health in the news.” Looking forward to new library.
HS strengths: Ability to read and come up with responses/critiques. Cross-curriculum reading. A direct relationship to reality and necessity.
Creslane weaknesses: 5th grade has declined. Reading to perform a task is slightly lower in 3rd grade and 5th. Lower scores in examine content and structure. Fewer students pass the benchmarks compared to LO. 3% lower than state average. High reader needs are not met. Low reader needs are not being met. Lack curriculum and staff.
MS weaknesses: 7th grade missing Social Studies. Taught how to read/locate article in newspaper. Nonfiction magazines. – idea = mags in Adv.
HS weaknesses: How students are tested. Literary elements and devices (poetry). Many students state they hate to read.
Share out writing results.
Creslane strengths: Strong voice. Kids like to write.
MS strengths: Teachers. Flexibility in syllabi allow for needs of students. Writing across the curriculum.
HS strengths. Voice. Word choice. Technology, blessing or curse?
Creslane weaknesses: Conventions. Sentence fluency. Males score lower at MS. Organization. Learner outcome matrices not matching state test outcomes.
MS weaknesses: Length of periods. Cross curriculum work not assessed. Inconsistent in student directions (state assessments). Students not applying their knowledge of rules.
HS weaknesses: Conventions. Organization. Oral communication. Audience participation. Use of technology.
Share out conclusions.
Creslane Strengths: We are meeting or exceeding reading scores for 80% of students. Teachers are doing this with teacher-created materials.
Creslane weaknesses: We are not meeting the needs of the highest/lowest students. We have to make our own materials. We need a common vocabulary. Need to revise LO.
MS conclusions: Are we LO kid or LO parent oriented? Missing LO categories. Do we send home LO results? Why are LO on web if a teacher tool. Time….needed! assessment tools do not measure/reflect concept application to work. Confusion on drafting.
HS conclusions: If held accountable for testing, we have the appropriate help if we teach, not to the test, but how to take the test. Technology can be a blessing or a curse (spec ed). Speech is weak. ESL population is growing. Writing and reading requires a community of teachers and integrated curriculum. LO need revision and simplification. Professional development tied to reading/writing.
Discussion was held on our “next steps” with respect to design of LO and assessments. Next meeting we will: consider the LO and assessments, best practices in writing and language arts and review the 4J LA adoption rubric. Helpful reading for next time: WritingNext a paper from the National Writing Project…look for it online at www.all4ed.org
Our next meeting will be 1:00 p.m. on November 15th.
Total meeting time: 2.5 hours. Cumulative committee time to date: 2.5 hours