|
Inside this issue
Important Upcoming Events/Meetings
June 5 Elementary School Principals Meeting June 10 Special Education Leadership Team Meeting June 10-11 FAST Forward '19 June 19 Superintendent Council NOW Register for summer PD opportunities! gced.k12.mn.us > Far right tab that says MORE |
The Progress, June 2019:
Volume 4, Issue 10 The Progress archive
Click here to view past issues from the current school year. Comments? Suggestions for new articles?
Contact Jillynne Raymond, jraymond@gced.k12.mn.us ESY @ RBEC
|
District Teams Wrap Up Problem Solving Teams PD with CAREI
Teams from GCED and all member districts wrapped up a year long learning experience this past month. The Center for Applied Research and Educational Improvement (CAREI) recognize the challenges of problem solving teams in public education. When caring educators see a student struggling with learning outcomes, they want to fix the problem. Usually, immediately. While the intent is in the right place, there are times when we rush to solve a problem before actually understanding the root cause of the problem. An essential foundation of a district's MTSS (Multi-Tiered System of Support) is schoolwide problem solving though. If we rush through the problem solving, we are doing an injustice to our system itself. Remember, the system supports the students and the staff members.
The first step in building our capacity with problem solving is to remember that a problem is simply the gap between what we expect to occur and what actually occurs. If we design our lessons to reach 85% of our learners, but only 60% of our learners meet the learning targets, then there is a gap with our expected outcomes. That is the problem to focus on during the problem solving model.
As we all know professional development is less than effective in isolation. The intent is that teams initially trained to dig deeper with problem solving will go back to their districts to help build their sites' capacity with problem solving. We will all continue to work on improving our problem solving.
Thanks to this year's participants in the problem solving professional development!
Cannon Falls = Jen Chappius, Kristin Kirk, Sharon Noble
Goodhue = Makenna Holt, Casey Veiseth
Kenyon-Wanamingo = Amy Buchal, Laura McAnally, Katy Schuerman
Lake City = Makenna Holt, Brittany Liljevall, Siri Vollan
Red Wing = Jennie Bordonara, Carey Field, Candis Haekencamp, Nicole Jack, Jason Kjos, Molly Paulson
River Bluff Education Center = Alisha Dalsin, Maggie Helwig
ZM = Wendy Ahern, Abby Bartelma
GCED District Office = Cherie Johnson, Jillynne Raymond
The first step in building our capacity with problem solving is to remember that a problem is simply the gap between what we expect to occur and what actually occurs. If we design our lessons to reach 85% of our learners, but only 60% of our learners meet the learning targets, then there is a gap with our expected outcomes. That is the problem to focus on during the problem solving model.
As we all know professional development is less than effective in isolation. The intent is that teams initially trained to dig deeper with problem solving will go back to their districts to help build their sites' capacity with problem solving. We will all continue to work on improving our problem solving.
Thanks to this year's participants in the problem solving professional development!
Cannon Falls = Jen Chappius, Kristin Kirk, Sharon Noble
Goodhue = Makenna Holt, Casey Veiseth
Kenyon-Wanamingo = Amy Buchal, Laura McAnally, Katy Schuerman
Lake City = Makenna Holt, Brittany Liljevall, Siri Vollan
Red Wing = Jennie Bordonara, Carey Field, Candis Haekencamp, Nicole Jack, Jason Kjos, Molly Paulson
River Bluff Education Center = Alisha Dalsin, Maggie Helwig
ZM = Wendy Ahern, Abby Bartelma
GCED District Office = Cherie Johnson, Jillynne Raymond
GCED wins the Challenge Games
|
|
|
GCED staff members are always up for a challenge! This year's Challenge Games (Red Wing YMCA Community Fundraiser/Team Building) were no exception. With true team grit, GCED took 1st place in our division. Under the leadership of the incredible Team Captain Cindy Luhman, all contributed to the overall winning team score.
|
|
Community Transition Interagency Committee (CTIC)
|
The Community Transitions Interagency Committee (CTIC) supports the state mission of the Olmstead Plan, "Minnesota will be a place where people with disabilities are living, learning, working, and enjoying life in the most integrated setting." Highlights from their May meeting:
2019-20 Collaboration and Professional Development Planning The committee reflected on this year's work and their mission moving forward with the intent to build their collective capacity on behalf of supporting our students' transitions. Region 10's Christian Wernau shared the Transition TA Model as a potential framework that has 1 prong as Interagency Collaboration; this is CTIC. The group will be able to use the collaborative framework to better improve transition planning and service delivery. Work Challenge Day The committee reflected on a recent activity designed to help students prepare for entering and being successful in the work world. Students attended a work challenge day, offered in 3 locations in SE Minnesota. GCED students participated at the Northfield site; they learned about transition and career opportunities as well as competed in various activities related to skills needed on the job. For example, one event was problem solving on the job. RBEC student Mary Nibbe and her team took first place in this event.
|
Grants/Scholarships
For more information or assistance on the following grants and scholarships, contact The Arc MN SE Region at 507.287.2032.
|
|
The Research and Training Center on Community Living (RCT-CI) is a part of The College of Education and Human Development of UMN. Their research impacts and informs policies and practices that impact the lives of people living with disabilities.
Five years of their work is chronicled in summaries and brief videos; check it out at ici.umn.edu/products/summaries/RTC-CL/2013-18. |
Student Outcomes in Reading and Math: How are we doing?
We hear a lot about growth, which is only natural. At a system level, our students' rate of growth can let us know how we are doing. We have limited time and resources so it is important to ask if what we are doing is impacting our students' growth. Are we satisfied with the results? What are we doing well? What do we want to improve?
|
Reading Growth
13.5% - Aggressive Growth 39% - Typical Growth 32% - Modest Growth 15.5% - Flat Growth |
Math Growth
18% - Aggressive Growth 36% - Typical Growth 32% - Modest Growth 14% - Flat Growth |
In addition to growth, it is important that we look at student proficiency outcomes at a system level. We have identified the answers to the 4 essential questions:
- What do we want our students to know?
- How will we know if they know it or not?
- How will we respond if they do not know it?
- How will we respond if they already know it?
|
Reading Risk Category
65% - College Pathway/Low Risk Category 20% - Some Risk Category 15% - High Risk Category |
Math Risk Category
61% - College Pathway/Low Risk Category 22% - Some Risk Category 17% - High Risk Category |
Teachers' Summer Reading List
