I appreciate Brian's perspective on taking a look at the micro view. Going beyond the hoop jumping and working to truly understand the true reality of the school, making the SIP process meaningful. Looking over Firgrove's website to predict and analyze the type of data we would expect to see in an effort to see authentic work was enlightening!
I appreciated Brian's explanation of how Puyallup is making the CSIP process meaningful and a more "bottom up" process. He also addressed a paradox that exists in education right now: there is such a focus on state test/achievement data, yet the most powerful use of data comes from the classroom level. Brian's frank assessment about the inability for state data to drive instruction is something we must all grapple with as emerging leaders. How do we acknowledge the importance of sharing our big picture, summative data while simultaneously helping teachers and principals focus on building level and classroom to drive student learning? It will be interesting to see how this evolves over the next few years...
I agree! I like that he is realistic about the usefulness of a high stakes, once a year assessment and it's ability to strongly impact instruction. His approach is a rarity in my opinion.
My biggest takeaway from Brian's talk tonight was the notion that since both student growth goals and school improvement plans should be based on the same data, we can expect that teachers' student growth goals would align with the larger goals of the school.That really helps take out the argument that evaluating student growth goals is entirely subjective and that a principal can't evaluate the quality of a goal in which s/he hasn't taught -- now I am realizing that while I may not be as sophisticated in my understanding of science as my AP Physics teacher, I am skilled in being able to look at data and discern the alignment between the goals and the data. My wonder goes to Ray's question about district-generated templates that establish parameters (or even goals) for all buildings even when the data and demographics from building to building is so different.
I struggle with this idea because I feel like in my current setting and prior experiences that these two components don't typically occur in timelines that complement each other. It makes me reflect that SIP and SGGs may need to begin at staff days before school starts or at the beginning of the year.
It's so cool to hear from both our guest speakers and from our class mates. We really are the cohort of awesomeness. I like that Brian has a very pragmatic understanding of CSIP. It makes sense that the processes of CSIP and TPEP should compliment each other rather than duplicating or counter-producing each other. Really good insights from Brian. I wonder if it's feasible to also roll student growth goals into a CSIP or is that getting too unwieldy.
My biggest take away from Brian's presentation tonight was the idea that student-teacher growth goals should inform the CSIP. In addition, I really appreciated the idea that data from the classroom is the most important and as it gets farther away, there is potential for it to become "less important." From my discussion in our small groups this evening I am thinking about how to ensure the there is full community involvement and how do we ensure we build in this time?
Ok. So having Brian and Nicole tonight was such an awesome experience. Brian is has created a new awareness about CSIP and Student Growth processes. I am inspired to learn more. Tonight I learned some very good insights from Brian's presentation.
Brian is always so enthusiastic and positive about everything that he presents. I learn so much from him because his energy is contagious and I always focus on what he has to say. I appreciated our discussion of a CSIP and its connection to Student growth goals. After having us look at the CSIP information from Firgrove Elementary, I have a better idea of what I need to see or have to create in the CSIP at the school that I will eventually lead.
I appreciated these quotes from Brian: “Grades do not equate to student learning,” and “Data closest to the classroom is what I care most about.”
I also like the quotes from tonight from Brian: “Grades do not equate to student learning,” and “Data closest to the classroom is what I care most about.”
It was a very insightful evening on how you could report out data to stake holders.
Thank you Brian for sharing the importance of communicating the connectedness between the CSIP and grade-level goal-setting. So often, we sit down in teacher teams to write grade-level Smart Goals (micro level) and it feels separated from the CSIP (macro level) when in fact the team goals should inform the CSIP. Team goals should be a reflection of the work that goes in to improving teaching and learning on a daily basis with the end result of that work communicated by the building goal established in the CSIP. Thank you Nicole for reiterating the power in teaching students to set their own goals, chart their own progress, and ultimately share the success that can happen when you put effort and determination into a planned attack to master a skill or concept.
Derrick I share your appreciation for tonight's speakers. It was an informative evening.
Seeing student growth goals in action was inspiring. I look forward to learning more about MAP and how it maybe a helpful assessment piece in monitoring student achievement.
I really appreciated how Brian was able to take the CSIP process, which can be seen as a "compliance task" or a complicated process and really drill down to the elements that are at the heart of a CSIP: Mission/Vision, Data, Goals, Improvement Activities (based on best practices), Results As we looked at the Firgrove example of these elements of the CSIP, it was refreshing to see how the process is viewed as a collection of tools and evidence of how a school is supporting students as opposed to a mere checklist.
I appreciate Brian's perspective on taking a look at the micro view. Going beyond the hoop jumping and working to truly understand the true reality of the school, making the SIP process meaningful. Looking over Firgrove's website to predict and analyze the type of data we would expect to see in an effort to see authentic work was enlightening!
ReplyDeleteI appreciated Brian's explanation of how Puyallup is making the CSIP process meaningful and a more "bottom up" process. He also addressed a paradox that exists in education right now: there is such a focus on state test/achievement data, yet the most powerful use of data comes from the classroom level. Brian's frank assessment about the inability for state data to drive instruction is something we must all grapple with as emerging leaders. How do we acknowledge the importance of sharing our big picture, summative data while simultaneously helping teachers and principals focus on building level and classroom to drive student learning? It will be interesting to see how this evolves over the next few years...
ReplyDeleteI agree! I like that he is realistic about the usefulness of a high stakes, once a year assessment and it's ability to strongly impact instruction. His approach is a rarity in my opinion.
DeleteMy biggest takeaway from Brian's talk tonight was the notion that since both student growth goals and school improvement plans should be based on the same data, we can expect that teachers' student growth goals would align with the larger goals of the school.That really helps take out the argument that evaluating student growth goals is entirely subjective and that a principal can't evaluate the quality of a goal in which s/he hasn't taught -- now I am realizing that while I may not be as sophisticated in my understanding of science as my AP Physics teacher, I am skilled in being able to look at data and discern the alignment between the goals and the data. My wonder goes to Ray's question about district-generated templates that establish parameters (or even goals) for all buildings even when the data and demographics from building to building is so different.
ReplyDeleteI struggle with this idea because I feel like in my current setting and prior experiences that these two components don't typically occur in timelines that complement each other. It makes me reflect that SIP and SGGs may need to begin at staff days before school starts or at the beginning of the year.
DeleteIt's so cool to hear from both our guest speakers and from our class mates. We really are the cohort of awesomeness. I like that Brian has a very pragmatic understanding of CSIP. It makes sense that the processes of CSIP and TPEP should compliment each other rather than duplicating or counter-producing each other. Really good insights from Brian. I wonder if it's feasible to also roll student growth goals into a CSIP or is that getting too unwieldy.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteMy biggest take away from Brian's presentation tonight was the idea that student-teacher growth goals should inform the CSIP. In addition, I really appreciated the idea that data from the classroom is the most important and as it gets farther away, there is potential for it to become "less important." From my discussion in our small groups this evening I am thinking about how to ensure the there is full community involvement and how do we ensure we build in this time?
ReplyDeleteOk. So having Brian and Nicole tonight was such an awesome experience. Brian is has created a new awareness about CSIP and Student Growth processes. I am inspired to learn more. Tonight I learned some very good insights from Brian's presentation.
ReplyDeleteBrian is always so enthusiastic and positive about everything that he presents. I learn so much from him because his energy is contagious and I always focus on what he has to say. I appreciated our discussion of a CSIP and its connection to Student growth goals. After having us look at the CSIP information from Firgrove Elementary, I have a better idea of what I need to see or have to create in the CSIP at the school that I will eventually lead.
ReplyDeleteI appreciated these quotes from Brian: “Grades do not equate to student learning,” and “Data closest to the classroom is what I care most about.”
Thank you, Brian for coming to talk and teach us.
Juhi,
DeleteI also like the quotes from tonight from Brian: “Grades do not equate to student learning,” and “Data closest to the classroom is what I care most about.”
It was a very insightful evening on how you could report out data to stake holders.
Thank you Brian for sharing the importance of communicating the connectedness between the CSIP and grade-level goal-setting. So often, we sit down in teacher teams to write grade-level Smart Goals (micro level) and it feels separated from the CSIP (macro level) when in fact the team goals should inform the CSIP. Team goals should be a reflection of the work that goes in to improving teaching and learning on a daily basis with the end result of that work communicated by the building goal established in the CSIP. Thank you Nicole for reiterating the power in teaching students to set their own goals, chart their own progress, and ultimately share the success that can happen when you put effort and determination into a planned attack to master a skill or concept.
ReplyDeleteDerrick I share your appreciation for tonight's speakers. It was an informative evening.
DeleteSeeing student growth goals in action was inspiring. I look forward to learning more about MAP and how it maybe a helpful assessment piece in monitoring student achievement.
I really appreciated how Brian was able to take the CSIP process, which can be seen as a "compliance task" or a complicated process and really drill down to the elements that are at the heart of a CSIP: Mission/Vision, Data, Goals, Improvement Activities (based on best practices), Results
ReplyDeleteAs we looked at the Firgrove example of these elements of the CSIP, it was refreshing to see how the process is viewed as a collection of tools and evidence of how a school is supporting students as opposed to a mere checklist.