In attendance: Alicia Garfinkel, Aaron Hanna, Vicki Otten, Emily Kallaur, Lauren Miller, Karen Abrams and Mr. C
- Review and approve meeting minutes from March and April
Vicki made a motion to approve. Karen seconded the motion. All approved!
Items for Discussion
- Updates from Mr. C
- Filled 3 of the open positions for next year, have 2 more we are interviewing for
- Visit with the Chancellor went well; discussed social-emotional learning, writing program in our school, and Reggio
- Plan for I/E implementation in 2017/18 school year
- Planning for grade 3-5 for I/E, grades 1-2 will have it in class and can do it anytime in their day (those grade levels will no longer be departmentalized)
- Program coordinator will work with team on logistics for enrichment and school-wide support team will be a part of planning instructional pieces
- Kids will have choice of activity during enrichment time
- Increase success in enrichment and self-motivation to complete activity
- Will create a parent link to enrichment program
- Group will sit down early this summer to plan
- Master schedule will have transitions built in throughout the day
- I/E will happen on M, T, Th, F – On Wednesdays, teachers have LEAP meetings and students will have enrichment in the form of the SEM model (not the I/E block)
- Grades K-5
- Students will take surveys of interests
- Roxanne will work with teachers to do planning, create groups, research, etc.
- First 2 weeks is planning, then 6 week cycle, final week is reflection and debrief for students and teachers (there will be 4 of these over the course of the school-year)
- M, T, Th, F – Morning Meeting and Closing Circle in schedule; on Wednesday, no Morning Meeting – but 10 minute transition and announcements with logistics of day, then extended Closing Circle
- HSA Paddles Up $$ will help support this (experiential learning)
- Wilson Feeder Pattern Community Working Group updates
- Reflections on this year and looking ahead: lessons/priorities for next year’s LSAT
- Key takeaway: focusing on one main issue this year (I/E block) led to useful feedback and recommendations for Mr. C. Recommendation to take a similar approach next year.
- Next year’s budgeting and planning process will be geared toward ensuring a successful transition to the modernized Murch on Davenport St.
Minutes respectfully submitted by Alicia Garfinkel
Present: Alicia Garfinkel, Aaron Hanna, Adam Riggs, Vicki Otten, Emily Kallaur, Lauren Miller, Sarah Heist and Mr. C
Meeting was called to order at 5:37 pm
- We reviewed two pages Mr. C handed out about I/E and the school’s vision
- Interviews revealed some patterns in teachers’ and aides’ thoughts on Enrichment block
- Need for common planning time, more thought given to how kids are assigned to groups/projects, and clear expectations
- Would be great to have some teachers/aides get together over the summer (paid) and prep things for the coming year so we can start off with things in place
- Extended planning/planning time before each cycle
- Work more with Roxanne; utilize aides interests/talents in projects
- Lots of positive remarks
- Next year (from Mr. C): School Support teachers will help with planning Enrichment; planning time will be in place during the school day (some LEAP, some Enrichment); Program Coordinator for Enrichment next year to help with prepping activities, etc.; ALT team will support efforts
- Next steps – figuring out in the big picture, can this work? What else do we need?; Also, want to survey the kids. Mr. C will speak to Roxanne about creating one
- Training aides – next year we have people who will be able to provide training
- Chris will have a proposal of what next year will look like ready by the 10th
- We will discuss with teachers during the week of the 15th
- Bring information to meeting on 24th
Those present: Chris Cebrzynski, Emily Kallaur, Aaron Hanna, Lauren Miller, Richard Nugent and Vicki Otten
Recap on final budget:
- Everything that was discussed with the LSAT at the February meeting is in the budget.
- School wide instructional support positions: ELA, Math, Technology, Library Coordinator, Program Coordinator all in that pool. Will take some pressure off the Instructional Coaches and Administration for LEAP support
- Because we could not fund a program coordinator less than half time, needed to pay more
- HSA will pick up the cost of one special ed education
- Have a decent amount left in our non-personnel budget this year so starting to purchase supplies for next year out of this year’s money; will lighten the pressure on next year’s non-personnel budget which is smaller
Next year, will they consider enrollment data differently as we prepare to go in new building? Base their enrollment figures on historical data. Looking towards next year, we should have at least an increase in 60 students; maybe as high as 75 which will let us return to previous staffing levels.
Have staffing in place that allows some flexibility with scheduling LEAP time during the school day.
We will have I/E next year – looking at a number of different options as to how to provide that to students
How do we begin to get feedback that will help us shape what we are going to do with this program?
- What do you believe is the most effective model for enrichment?
- What is the best use of teachers in I/E?
- What is the best use of aides in I/E?
- Teachers: combination of survey and focus group
- Take a look at the mini survey that was already done – develop the focus questions from that data
- Focus groups that include one rep from each grade level
- Go out with a survey first to assess what has happened
- Move into focus groups: based on what we have found in data, how do we move forward?
- Create a survey that really helps get the right information that helps make this a regular part of our curriculum
- Questions that address how do we support I/E. How do we provide staff with the resources they need to provide quality I/E?
- Start with a small group of interviews with a diverse group of people who have been involved in I/E this year; each person interviewed by 2 people
- Develop set of questions that will be used for each interview: from the data then move on to focus groups
- Each of us come up with group of questions that would be helpful to ask teachers – out of those questions will be a list of questions that need for the next level
Aaron, Emily, Vicki and hopefully Sarah will meet later next week to sift through the questions.
Present - Alicia Garfinkel, Aaron Hanna, Vicki Otten, Emily Kallaur, Lauren Miller, Stefanie Berger, Adam Riggs, Karen Abrams
Meeting was called to order at 5:38
- Review November minutes
Vicki motioned to approve the minutes, Adam seconded the motion.
2. Items for Discussion
- Stefanie Berger joined us to discuss implementation of the enrichment program to date: mission/objectives, challenges, successes, what works, ideas for next year, etc.
-Emily reviewed past discussions about I/E
-Stefanie went over the most recent Enrichment offerings (explorers, junior great books, weather, math project from cornerstones, and more)
-Want kids to learn in a hands-on way and have different experiences than they would be exposed to in the classroom
-Projects are presented to other students once completed
-GoQuest is new program that all kids are being added to (paused I/E block to add them to this) and will be a great addition to the enrichment program (as well as for teachers to use); could be helpful with helping to connect grade-levels
-Junior Great Books program connects and progresses thru each grade-level
-Aides are documenting and saving lessons
-Stefanie thinks 4th and 5th grade I/E is running very well
-Idea of enrichment is to broaden kids exposure and understanding of topics (and more than just literacy and math)
-Aides don’t have a place to keep all of the kids projects and supplies
-30 minute time can be limiting, especially with lower grades, for longer projects - especially with needing to move around building, move supplies and find a space
-Aides are buying own supplies
-Need to look into what professional development and support may be required to build a strong, sustainable program
Ideas for going forward-
-Could be great for completed projects to be presented to parents and/or to other classes
-Have a “toolbox/bank” or lessons to pull from so that it’s not a prescribed thing each year, but aides are not making new lessons all the time; projects need to be ready to go at the beginning of the school year
-Enrichment training for aides
- Next steps:
- survey/focus groups?
-Scope and sequence for I/E block?
-How to measure success?
-Figuring out upfront costs and budget needs—define high, middle, low budget scenarios
-Finding “kits” and projects that are already made
-Coordinate with HSA—possibility to fund materials or other support? Display I/E projects at Auction?
-Researching costs and programs
-Karen is going to reach out to Sue
-Aaron, Stefanie and Vicki are going to research programs
-Mr. C – consider budget requirements
- Text for Murch website describing I/E block for parents
- Small group has draft of letter à will be sent around to LSAT
- DCPS webinar on budget process—link to be shared with group
- Present: Chris Cebrzynski, Alicia Garfinkel, Aaron Hanna, Vicki Otten, Sara Heist, Emily Kallaur, Lauren Miller, Karen Abrams and Adam Riggs.
- Meeting was called to order at 5:35 PM.
- Adoption of the Minutes from October – Sarah made the motion to approve the October minutes, Adam seconded the motion – all approved
- Mr. C spoke about the new chancellor and a phone call he had with him and other DC Principals.
- We hope he will have the chance to visit Murch soon
- What is RTI? How is it different from I/E?
- RTI à The program/plan/method that identifies and tracks students as at risk or below grade level; very specific – lots of assessments and coordination; RTI comes in 6 week cycles – if the intervention is not successful, it can be modified, or moved to getting an IEP
- I/E is based on data and all students participate
- Another way to think about it – “A student who has an RTI plan will receive an RTI during I/E, but a student in I/E doesn’t always have an RTI plan.”
- The Murch I/E Program – What does it look like? (Murch Mindcraft)
- Looked at handout by Stefanie Berger
- Aides implement the Enrichment, classroom teachers do the Intervention (groups are mixed within the grade-level based on need); Math Specialist and Enrichment Coordinator help too – 12 adults help during each grade level’s I/E block
- Math – 10% are in the intervention block - grades 3 -5
- ELA – 17% are in the intervention block – grades 3-5
- 2nd – 5th grade have 30 minutes per day (1st grade has a different model)
- STEM competitions starting in January to add more Science and Math to I/E
- Most cycles are 3 weeks – number of days a week depends on groups/grade level
- Responses from teachers & aides on I/E
- 72% of teachers responded that a challenge is that there is not time to meet to discuss I/E
- (School-wide Enrichment à Ms. Bentley – separate from I/E block (based on their interest survey); 2nd – 5th graders will all have an enrichment project with her.)
- Discussion of articles and information on other I/E programs
- Going forward
- Coming up with specific Goals and Objectives of I/E block
- Communication with parents about the I/E block
- Section on the website about it?
- Get 3 or 4 measurable/achievable goals
- Would help get all grade levels more on the same page
- Enrichment à Clarify what we are doing – not pushing to the next grade-level, but exploring creativity and curiosity
- Make a scope & sequence for I/E block?
- At the end of the year, look back at projects and see overlaps in grade levels and see how to connect them and what to use again next year.
- Discussion of budget considerations to help with this more
- Time set aside on PD days to plan for I/E
- One idea – Once a month, grade-level teams get a full day to plan with specific goals
- This work is being done to be utilized for next year.
- Future thoughts à Utilizing parents with knowledge in specific areas to help (ex: meteorologists)
- What is RTI? How is it different from I/E?
A small group will meet to work on creating a draft of goals (Emily, Karen, Vicki, Aaron, Lauren).
- Adam talked about the issues we are experiencing with laptops at school
- Suggested sending out a survey to all teachers – is everyone having this problem? Can we reach out to HSA about fixing this?
- Mr. C will put Adam in touch with the DCPS person in charge of technology to discuss if we can use Chrome Books.
Present: Chris Cebrzynski, Alicia Garfinkel, Aaron Hanna, Vicki Otten, Sarah Heist, Emily Kallaur, Lauren Miller, Richard Nugent, Adam Riggs and Karen Abrams
Meeting was called to order at 5:35 PM
- Reviewed September minutes
- September minutes were approved
Items for Discussion
- Updates from Mr. C (facilities; security/drills; enrichment; music program)
- Security Drills
- Practiced a Fire Drill going off campus and onto the sidewalk and plaza
- Started using alarms
- Did the Earthquake Drill
- New enrichment program started this year
- Student enrichment groups are re-formed periodically around different themes
- Teachers create groups based on different scores and factors
- Some ways the LSAT could help assess program implementation later in the year:
- Sending out a teacher and aide survey
- Getting students together for mini focus groups
- Making sure differentiation is present and going well
- Music Program
- Going strong!
- Event in December includes entire school – in UDC’s auditorium
- School satisfaction survey data - Pushed to next meeting to discuss further.
- 96% of students had a positive view on their experience at Murch this past year
- Social Emotional scored at around 76%
- Comprehensive school plan
- Emily and Chris sent this around to us before the meeting to review
- Math and Reading are two goals, then has action steps related to ALT, Student Achievement and Differentiation/Differentiation Practices in the Classroom
- This is data the District requires we hand in to track our progress, and it is in line with other schools in our cluster.
- There is useful information in this plan for Murch to use, especially with the change in teacher evaluations and with differentiation. ALT helps with internal monitoring - looks at Professional Development and Data Analysis throughout the school
- Mr. Cebrzynski will meet with the Chief of Schools soon to present his plan.
- PARCC scores
- Shows last year’s scores compared to current scores by grade-level
- Looking for trends in the data – only have 2 years worth so far
- Murch kids are doing well! Compared to Upper NW schools, we are in the middle of the pack, but we have a different diversity rate (ELL, Special Education, apartment buildings, out of bounds, kids leaving and new kids coming) than many of the schools in the group.
- Teachers working towards using more “PARCC Language” so kids are more prepared; new math curriculum has higher level of questioning that will lend itself to helping with PARCC; PARCC is aligned to Common Core
- LSAT role with PARCC – Maybe looking at ELL data? Looking at data of kids who have been here throughout the grade levels, not kids who have come in during the middle of elementary school?
- Request sent to DCPS to get disaggregated data
- LSAT role and objectives for the year: how can we make a concrete positive contribution?
- Internal measures for success, Spelling, RTI, I/E, PARCC Data for pockets/trends that exist?
- I/E (Intervention/Enrichment) Block - Mr. Cebrzynski would like LSAT to help analyze how successful it is with surveys, discussions, etc. throughout the year. Do parents know what the I/E Block is?
- Advocacy: When issues arise, LSAT can speak up for Murch -Ex: Nurse Coverage, New school accountability plan
- Budget: We will look at it, make edits and propose/submit it with rationale
- Mr. Cebrzynski wants to know what we will focus on and begin to develop a procedure/protocol of how we will handle each one.
- We will send the list out internally and will have a specific list created by the next meeting.
- Nurse coverage: Our nurse coverage may decrease more – possibly to half-time (20 hours per week) from current level of 4 days/week. Letter advocating full-time nurse coverage was sent on behalf of LSAT to the Mayor and relevant personnel/officials
- UDC Relationships – Kids back in the gym sometimes for recess.
- Discussion about Fontas and Pinnell reading assessments. Time consuming, but important to do for differentiation and truly assessing where students are at the beginning of the year (as well as the middle of the year and end of the year).
- Discussion about teacher autonomy with lesson planning. Every grade level team differs, and subjects differ. Teachers have their own style, but it’s the same content. New math curriculum is helping with keeping language the same throughout classrooms and grade levels, but teachers can take lessons given and tailor them to the specific kids they are teaching. Parents can access the math curriculum online – greatminds.org
- LEAP coach to come to LSAT meeting after next cycle.
- Technology – Problems with laptops functioning, problems with Internet working
Meeting adjourned at 6:45pm.
Present: Chris Cebrzynski, Alicia Garfinkel, Aaron Hanna, Sarah Heist, Emily Kallaur, Lauren Miller, Richard Nugent, Vicki Otten, and Adam Riggs
The meeting was called to order at 5:35 PM and members introduced themselves to each other. Alicia Garfinkel was nominated and confirmed as secretary for the year.
Principal Chris Cebrzynski updated the group on the transition to Murch-UDC and other back-to-school issues:
- Enrollment is currently 574 students.
- School administration and DCPS are continuing discussions with UDC regarding use of the soccer field and gym, and construction of the playground.
- The Comprehensive School Plan will be shared with the LSAT by next week.
- Demolition/abatement work is beginning on the permanent Murch campus and according to the project management team it is on schedule for completion for the 2018-19 school year.
- Murch now has a nurse on site 4 days per week instead of 5 days due to programmatic changes by DOH.
Mr. Cebrzynski emphasized that he would appreciate the LSAT’s concrete input into ways to make Murch academic programs as successful as possible. The group discussed key themes and agenda items for the year:
- LEAP is in the earliest stage of implementation but will be an important program to track. In November, Mr. Cebrzynski could invite a LEAP coach to join the LSAT meeting in order to provide insights into progress. In the spring, the LSAT could consider holding focus groups with teachers to get feedback on how useful the program has been from their perspective, and how it could be improved.
- PARCC scores and school satisfaction survey data from last year are already available and can be discussed at the October meeting. In October we will also discuss the Comprehensive School Plan, and with that framework in mind, develop a more specific plan for the LSAT to play as constructive a role as possible this year.
- Preliminary discussions about budget priorities for the 2017-18 school year will begin in November/January, with the bulk of the budget preparation work to happen in late February/early March.
- Other topics that may be discussed (list to be revised throughout the year) may include the piloting of departmentalization in 1st/2nd grade, how to engage/reach out to families that have not been active in the school community, special education programs, ELL, etc.
The LSAT will meet on the 4th Wednesday of every month (except in November, which will be the 5th Wednesday due to Thanksgiving). Meetings will be at 5:30 pm in the conference room as follows:
- Oct. 26
- Nov. 30
- Jan. 25
- Feb. 22
- Mar. 22
- Apr. 26
- May 24
The meeting adjourned at 6:50 PM.