South Middle School
Staff Weekly Newsletter: February 17 - February 21
Week at a Glance
- Presidents' Day - No School
Tuesday, February 18 (LAZY DAY)
- 3 Year Eligibility for JRL (Room 1, 7:40 a.m.)
- Annual IEP for TC (Room 4, 7:45 a.m.)
- Admin Meeting (District Office, 9:00 - 10:30 a.m.)
- TIDE Meeting (SMS, 5:30 - 7:00 p.m.)
- Facilities Planning Committee (DO, 5:30 - 7:30 p.m.)
Wednesday, February 19 (DISNEY DAY)
- PLCs (Various locations, check with PLC Team Leader for time)-Level Team Meeting (Various locations, 7:40 - 8:40 a.m.)
- Juntos Family Workshop #1 (SMS, 5:30 - 8:00 p.m.)
Thursday, February 20 (SQUAD DAY)
- Annual IEP for JVM (Room 4, 7:45 a.m.)
- Classified LMC (Board Room, 8:00 - 11:30 a.m.)
- ELA Meeting (District Office, All Day)
Friday, February 21 (WACKY)
- IIP & Red Zone Meeting (Barret's Office, 7:30 - 9:30 a.m.)
- 3 Year Eligibility for MD (Room 1, 7:40 a.m.)
- Feb PTSA (Barret's Office, 12:00 - 1:30 p.m.)
- SIOP #3 (SOESD, All Day)
Supervision Schedule
Supervision Schedule (8:10 - 8:25 a.m.) - 15 minutes a day as assigned.
Team 3:
6th Grade Hall: Sheppard & Karbowski
T @ 7th/8th Grade Hall: Davis
8th Grade Hall: Counselors
Large Gym: Bigelow/Baertschiger
Parking Lot AM: Thompson
Parking Lot PM & Buses PM: Wolford & Moore
Daily Supervision Schedule:
Parking Lot/Exit AM: Aguilera, Huerta & Admin
Parking Lot/Exit PM: Aguilera, Kindrick & Admin
Cafeteria AM: Miller/McCarty & Hopkins/Karbowski
Bus PM (3:09 - 3:25): Hopkins/Karbowski, Admin & Team Teacher
Staff Shout-Out
Heather Ransom
Thanks to Heather for getting creative in keeping students accountable. She made more than a couple phone calls home this past week with her students to let parents know that their students were not living up to classroom expectations. Thanks to Heather for teaming with us in getting parents involved!
Weekly Article
Staff,
In light of our upcoming PLCs where we look at student work/data, this article fits with our outlook on PLCs. Remember to ask:
- What do we expect our students to learn? (Goals/Expectations)
- How will we know they are learning? (Assessment)
- How will we respond when they don't learn? (Intervention)
- How will we respond if they already know it? (Enrichment)
Enjoy!
Does “Data-Driven Instruction” Work?
In this Education Week article, Heather Hill (Harvard Graduate School of Education) expresses skepticism about the widespread practice of teacher teams analyzing interim assessment data. “This practice arose from a simple logic,” says Hill: “To improve student outcomes, teachers should study students’ prior test performance, learn what students struggle with, and then adjust the curriculum to offer students remediation where necessary.
By addressing the weaknesses revealed by the test results, overall student achievement would improve.” Driven by this logic, “data-driven instruction” is now a cornerstone of teacher meetings across the country. It’s also become a billion-dollar business, with products offered by McGraw-Hill, NWEA, Achievement Network, commercial test-item banks, and others.
But “rigorous empirical research doesn’t support this practice,” says Hill. Why would this seemingly commonsensical practice not improve teaching and learning? Drawing on research and her own observations of teacher teams, Hill cites several ways that data-analysis time can be unproductive:
- Discussing students’ progress, or lack thereof, in general terms;
- Citing outside-of-school reasons for students’ failures – a bad week at home, not studying, poor test-taking skills;
- Planning short-term instructional “fixes” for struggling students;
- Focusing on the “bubble” students – those just below state test score cut-offs;
- Not digging into students’ misconceptions, errors, and learning difficulties.
What was almost always missing in the teacher meetings Hill observed was a broader discussion of how to improve instruction, including “how to ask more-complex questions or encourage students to use more evidence in their explanations.” [See an article by Richard DuFour and Douglas Reeves in Marshall Memo 628, “The Futility of PLC Lite”]
Hill did find a few studies that showed positive results from teacher data meetings. One program in the Netherlands used computer-based interim assessments and “instructionally focused feedback to teachers and students and personalized online student assignments.”
Another from the University of Pennsylvania helped teachers create assessments, look at the results, and engage in professional development focused on content and students’ thinking.
But these are the exception; Hill concludes that data-driven instruction is an unproven idea.
“Does Studying Student Data Really Raise Test Scores?” by Heather Hill in Education Week, February 12, 2020 (Vol. 39, #21, p. 24), https://bit.ly/38Gpn2c; Hill can be reached at
February Birthdays!
- Janna Reid - February 4th
- Shelly Bigelow - February 6th
- Kregg Scarcello - February 7th
- Morgan Rastellini - February 11th
- Scott Gottula - February 13th
- Kyle Blank - February 13th
- Dave McCarty - February 17th
- Alison Hopkins - February 24th
- Ronnie Kindrick - February 24th
- Billy Miller - February 25th
- Wesley Kriz - February 26th
- Casey Petty - February 28th