Professional Development Team - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

professional development team n.
Download
Skip this Video
Loading SlideShow in 5 Seconds..
Professional Development Team PowerPoint Presentation
Download Presentation
Professional Development Team

play fullscreen
1 / 15
Professional Development Team
122 Views
Download Presentation
arden
Download Presentation

Professional Development Team

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - E N D - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Presentation Transcript

  1. Professional Development Team Weekly Meeting December 2, 2013 REMINDER: We will begin at 9:30 today. Use this time to complete the survey: http://bit.ly/18I9w0d

  2. Fidelity Team – Fall 2013 • Joyce Gardner- Leader, Region 8 • Beth Edwards- Region 1 • Mary Russell- Region 3 • Jody Cleven- Region 4 • Amy Blake-Lewis- Region 5 • Adriane Mingo- Region 6 • Tericia Eller- Online Facilitator Feedback from Fidelity Check

  3. Survey Results • Information received from 8 out of 8 regions

  4. What went well • Content was well received. The teams enjoyed reading the 8 Smooth Steps and did not seem to recall using it in the past. • Teams loved using the planning guide from the 8 Smooth Steps. • Teams invested time in the SI component. They hope that their interests and needs will be recognized and become a focus for the Region 1 SI. • Teams stayed for the entire event- ending around 2:00 was a plus. • Time for LEAs to evaluate their professional development. • The 8 smooth steps article was beneficial.

  5. What went well (cont.) • Participants enjoyed deep discussions about different types of data and looking at a robust and thorough evaluation of PD. participants also enjoyed sharing successes and thinking ahead to sharing at SI. • They loved the data portion. I think districts really want more time with this. • We ended up using a different article – a Guskey article. This worked well. It was not something they had seen and they made positive comments and said that there were pieces that they would definitely take back. • The Summer Institute activity that allowed folks to collaborate around their needs and what they felt they could provide to others went very well. We were able to get some good data and feedback.

  6. What went well? (cont.) • I added a section about sharing accomplishments which worked very well. • I also did not use the 8 smooth steps article, but rather a Guskey article about the 5 levels of evaluating PD which also worked well. • Participants enjoyed time to review data and plan next steps. Participants also enjoyed the opportunity to chart strengths and topics they could present during summer institute. • Our region was very appreciative of the ʺworkʺ time set aside for district teams. Sharing success stories and best practices was also very beneficial.

  7. What went well? (cont.) • Teams used the work time and the Logic model form to analyze the effectiveness of the PD they have delivered and recognized components they had not considered. • Sharing of the big ideas of the 8 Smooth Steps article revealed common themes and needs. Work time was valued. • Review of Guskey. • Structured work time. • Time for teams who did not have a PD plan to build one. The Logic model gave them a simple structure to accomplish this. We had time to provide one on one help. • SMORE flyer gave teams great info as to what to bring and what to expect

  8. What did not work well? • Asking districts to submit plans did not work well for region 3 (probably because of the notification time). • Some LEAs did not attend in complete teams, so that made the work session difficult. • Participants did not connect to the 8 Smooth Steps article. Many said it was a repeat of previous FCs and they tuned out. • Our folks had already been exposed to the 8 Smooth Steps article. • Less paperwork for participants (too many templates and papers to fill out even if some were electronic). • The least amount of talking possible on the part of the PD Leads and the most amount of time spent in guided collaboration around specific topics. • Using the article that we have already used at previous sessions was not well-received.

  9. What did not work well? (cont.) • Districts with a strong grasp on PD and PD Evaluation appeared to want/need more than was provided in the session. Struggling districts had difficulty even with sending a ʺteamʺ to the session and, in many cases, sent only 1 or 2 representatives. These districts needed much support in planning. Districts who were most successful appear to have had consistency in their team memberships and attendance. The content was not as differentiated as needed. • Needs work- adjust Base ball activity.

  10. Considerations for Spring • Some regions are behind and need to revisit what we have done in the past. • Differentiate activities and allow LEAs/charter choose how to use their time. before the session. Perhaps think about a survey with choices, so that PD leads can design based on needs. • The design team should keep in mind that this might be the last Fidelity Support. • The Fidelity Support should be designed with the focus on items that pushes them forward and support independence--because districts may not have PD leads as resources next year.

  11. Considerations for Spring • Turning over responsibility to LEAs for sharing. Address next steps moving forward. • When designing activities for the session, keep in mind that not all districts send a full team. We have several districts that only send 1-2 representatives. Because of this we had difficulty completing the plus/ delta activity. • Our folks need time to showcase what they have accomplished during the course of the grant and share with one another what they will do to keep professional development and collaboration going once the RESA sessions are gone.

  12. Considerations for Spring (cont.) • They need some additional time collaborating with each other to discuss how they will handle PD once Race to the Top is gone. • They need to check the data they have been gathering about PD. • I think they liked the rotating stations for collegial conversations from last spring and would suggest doing something like that again.

  13. Considerations for Spring (cont.) • They need time to review data, discuss PD needs of their districts, plan PD for next year, and decide how they will support their teachers and administrators within the district after RttT. • We need to provide a framework for their planning and give them time. • We asked teams to bring back the plan they revised for the period between fall and spring Fidelity checks so we can continue to support their work in building capacity for strong PD and ensuring positive results - so we need to continue this component. • Strong PD Plans are an important key to successful PD efforts. We were surprised at the number of districts that needed our help prior to and during the FC session. Our continued support in this shows that we value effective PD planning

  14. Considerations for Spring (cont.) • Participants need to really focus on student data as directly aligned with Guskey's highest level. Districts would appreciate a connection with their Goal Summary Reports and other student achievement data as these relate to PD. The large focus should be on equipping districts to move forward and solidify networks across the regions that will allow them to carry on the work that we have begun and supported. It is important to keep in mind the need to differentiate as district capacities are extremely varied.

  15. Spring 2014 Design Team • Beth Edwards- Region 1 • Mary Keel- Region 2 • Mary Russell- Region 3 • Jody Cleven- Region 4 • Paul Marshall and Amy Blake-Lewis- Region 5 • Adriane Mingo- Region 6 • Lisa Amerson- region 7 • Joyce Gardner- Region 8 (Team Leader)