Writing Success Team

 

October 6, 2005 Minutes

 

Members Present:        Stuber, Davis, Holst, Bruni, Harstad-Bell, Betencourt, Curtis, KcKee, Langan, Kuhnhausen, Hoke, Scarola, J. Robertson, Lary, and Young.

 

Welcome by Stuber, 12:00 p.m.

 

Introductions made.

 

K-8 Student Success Writing Team overview by Stuber.

 

Discussion facilitated by Young on “What would you like to accomplish today?”

 

Groups discussion and subsequent reports by building staffs.

            HS.      Latest scores may reflect one group of students.

Longitudinal information desired.

More coordination by HS staff would be desired, Dept Head mentioned.

All staff use S/S, Learner Outcomes, Matrices

            MS      Students not “getting” grammar, conventions, punctuation.

                        Run-on sentences a problem

                        Students want to write stories and creativity is there, need basics first

                        Staff does have curriculum meetings for content areas

                        Reading a writing are split still and viewed as a positive aspect.

                        Breakfast program fosters readiness to learn.

                        Brain research and applied teaching practices should be encouraged.

            EL       L.O.s broad enough to allow creativity in teacher strategies.

                        Assessment pieces tend to pigeon-hole narrow aspect of L.O.

                        L.O.s are good references.

                        Lack of a program (text series) seen as a weakness

                        Weakest area is conventions.

                        Elementary enjoys reading and writing (affective domain of education)

 

Group discussion also touched on:

            Benefits of a systemic Language Arts program tied to texts with supplemented assessments tied to state standards.

            Retention problems from grade level to grade level.

            Developing a “vision of success.”

            Sacrifices to be made in order to satisfy the perception that “good schools” have high state marks and AYP gains.

            The psychomotor domain of writing and other aspects which impact scores

            The need for “voice” in writing and its absence from the state rubric for scoring student work.

 

Next Meeting:

            1.  Data review.           Young will collect state writing scores for the district.

                                                Stuber will collect district writing scores.

                                                Group will analyze for common problem areas.

 

2.      2.      Identify Problem Areas.

 

3.  Meeting time/date:             November 2, 2005 at 8:30 a.m.   Board Room

 

Total meeting time:  1.5 hours (note to staff.  This meeting qualifies for Article 11 reimbursement.  I will record length of each meeting for your records.)