St Agnes' Primary Learning Collaborative - a Journey for ALL staff

In PLTs we discussed what were our non-negotiables in sentence structure from the writing progressions. What did we believe was essential. It became evident at this point that all indicators within CrT were informing our judgements, but staff still wanted to create the wall around this micro level before expanding into the use of the whole CrT indicators. We focused our attention within 'text forms and features.' After each team agreed on their non-negotiables, these were then shared at the next PLT. Did we now still agree on our non-negotiables around sentence structure (in light of what teams have chosen before and after)? Do we see the continuum and are able to make comparisons so that we can move students along and back? Teams then created an explanation of the indicators and developed student examples in light of what the progression indicators were wanting. These were also shared with teams across the school and amendments were made accordingly. What percentage do we beli...

Using the fishbowl technique staff viewed a Case Management Meeting which involved the Principal, Year 2 teacher, Year 1 teacher (Knowledgeable Other) and Assistant Principal (Learning and Teaching). The team viewed the work sample provided by the Year 2 teacher. The teacher had the opportunity to share the student's profile and what instructional strategies had been trialled so far. Following the script, the Knowledgeable Others made suggestions for instruction and so did each table of teachers. The team will resume in three weeks time to review the impact of the instruction.  Staff agreed on the following practicalities: Our next staff meeting was to determine what data would be used to create the data wall. Staff were asked to consider, given they were within the current reporting period, their current class and place students within the Venn Diagram. Many staff used their work samples to help confirm their judgements. Teacher Assistants looked over all three classes and gave in...

Staff indicated what they are doing well on the left of the AW chart and where their area for growth was on the right. Staff then watched a video from a student in the class. Was what they were saying or not saying reflecting what they believe about their own practice? Could the student answer the following questions: What are you learning about? Why are you learning about that? (LI) How are you going with your writing and how do you know? (SC) Where do you go for help with your writing? (Descriptive feedback/3rd Teacher) What's on the walls in your classroom that help you and how do they help you? Do you talk to anyone about your writing? How do you know what to talk about? (Peer assessment/accountable talk) What does the teacher do to help you with your writing? What do they say you need to do to improve? (Descriptive feedback/goal setting) What goal are you working on in your own writing? (Self assessment) What goal has the teacher set for you or a peer? , Once again, the power ...

We provided staff with the Case Management Meeting template and scripts. Staff then viewed the video of a CMM provided by the Diocese available from: https://sites.google.com/lism.catholic.edu.au/lyn-sharratt-collaborative/professional-resources/6-case-management-approach. Staff were asked to observe what worked, what they were wondering and what they believe will look different in our context. Staff made note of the following: The number of people in the meeting - was it necessary? The use of the previous year's teacher in the meeting - what a great resource. The amount of leadership at the table - is there a balance of voice? What the teacher shared - was it instruction focused?  What was shared as a possible 'go to next' - was it more around content then on the 'how to move the student in their learning?'  

  Presentation to the CSO and Lyn Sharratt 2.6.22

  Staff had been asked what questions they had about Case Management Meetings at the Staff Development Day. They were given the second brochure created by the Diocese on Case Management meetings and were able to tick off answers to their own questions. Any questions that were not answered would be taken by the Learning Collaborative team and answered in the next session. Staff then chose five children and were instructed to pick an area within writing to create a mini data wall. Staff ranked the children as WB, WA, WB so that the data wall was not long and exhaustive. In pairs staff discussed who they identified, where they placed them on the wall and why and shared what instruction had been given to date. Together they brainstormed what was the next teaching point for these children and explored why they thought a particular child was stuck where they were. At the end of the meeting staff expressed how the CMM focused on building the capacity of the teachers together and how instr...

We began our day reviewing Chapter 7 from 'Clarity.' Staff discussed and shared their key learnings around Data Walls. Staff noticed how data walls visually present achievement and growth. They shared statements around how data walls are a preventive measure in response to student needs that should be c o-constructed and therefore co-owned by staff. It became clear the p riority and role of Case Management Meetings (CMM's) in response to the data of a student. they saw these meetings as an opportunity to brainstorm, plan, implement, reflect and evaluate instructional strategies that are and are going to be put in place. The data wall was something they felt provided evidence of intervention and prevention. Whereas, CMM's are a community of professional trust, where there is no judgement on the teacher's practice but instead a focus on instruction strategies that have been put in place so far, the strengths of the students and where the teacher should go next in m...