1 / 10

Instructional Decision Making Update

Instructional Decision Making Update. Spring 2009. Objectives. DE Update IDM School Improvement Survey Results Website Next Steps. DE Update. April Meeting: Will continue to meet next year – 3 times Budget cuts= grant is gone

duy
Download Presentation

Instructional Decision Making Update

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Instructional Decision MakingUpdate Spring 2009

  2. Objectives • DE Update • IDM School Improvement Survey Results • Website • Next Steps

  3. DE Update • April Meeting: • Will continue to meet next year – 3 times • Budget cuts= grant is gone • Brainstormed how to continue to move IDM forward with limited funding. • More discussion about integrating IDM with ICC.

  4. IDM-School Improvement Results • Why we did it… • Who participated? • What do the data tell us? • Implications for our practice

  5. Why we did it… • Study implementation of the IDM process • Look for growth in districts • Identify patterns for guiding future learning needs • Inform next steps

  6. Who participated? • Williamsburg • English Valley • Mount Vernon • College Community • West Branch • Marion • Monticello • Linn Mar

  7. What do the data tell us? • Process is being used for addressing needs of low performing students- not so much for high performing students. • High % feel they have the technical assistance to do the job. • 2% routinely practice IPDM (34% don’t know or have not yet started; 37% didn’t respond) • Most use screening procedures in their practice

  8. What do the data tell us? • Decision making criteria is a concern re: analysis of data at all levels (screening, formative and diagnostic) • 19% are routinely graphing student data • Core Instruction: 40% use flexible grouping for less proficient; only 20% for high performing students. • Supplemental Instruction: 43% for less than proficient; 18% for high performing students. • Intensive: 44% use flexible grouping for less proficient; 4% for high performing students.

  9. Implications for our practice • Revisit IDM principles • Best Practice for All Learners (BPAL) • Further study where it’s going well

  10. IDM Website • Added IDM-Revisit power point • Revised the “cheat sheet” • Take off performance monitoring graph--Replace the “tip sheet” for web-based (IEP) graphing tool • Update example sheets (academic, behavior, support, etc.) • Add websites (interventioncentral.org, rubistar, etc.) • Add BPAL documents when complete

More Related