The presentation went well. A few teachers told me it was fun and informative. They felt like it was important information they could implement in their classrooms. It took about 1.5 hrs.

Items added:

-handouts premade

-interactions between staff to model

-opportunities for resource previewing so they can ask me for copies or more support implementing in class.

I was initially a bit nervous to share this information with our staff, as a lot of it was new to them and had not been previously discussed at our campus since not every teacher had ELs. However, the presentation went well. Teachers were actively engaged, collaborated with one another, and had meaningful conversations, sharing ideas that benefited the whole group. They really enjoyed the partnering activity, especially since we had new data to look at. We successfully covered all three parts within the designated time frame (about an hour and a half). Moving forward, I plan to join CTMs throughout the school year to continue building on these resources and share ideas, hopefully, making the process feel less intimidating and more accessible for all of our teachers all year round.

The PD at Edison was great. I had my principal help with part 2 because TEAMWORK! The teachers participated actively and we modeled wait time effectively. Lots of aha moments with teachers specially with partnering. During the PD I happened to use a cognate without thinking to explain the short quiz question regarding integrated classrooms (true or false) and a teacher caught on the strategy I implicitly modeled. :D Also, the video sampled happened to be one of our own so it was more insightful to see a co-worker already using some of the Kagan Strategies on our own campus.

Veronica did a great job giving information about the EL program. Teachers were very engaged and even asked us for copies of the slides and kagan mats so that they could begin to implement some of the strategies they learned right away!

We were able to get through the entire PD but not the videos. I was able to share the slides with teachers so they could go back and review as needed. There were a few topics that may need to be reviewed moving forward:

-There were some questions regarding AZELLA data and how teachers feel students compare to the scores they received. Reviewing data more in-depth to analyze domain scores will be beneficial. This conversation expanded into discussions regarding student motivation and effort on the AZELLA- especially for the older grade levels. Future conversations may lead to increased student outcomes

-While the PD was impactful, it did feel like there was a disconnect between the information being shared with Integrated and Targeted teachers. I felt that Targeted teachers need more support aligning the curriculum maps to their lesson plans and structuring an ELD block of time. Moreover, there are unanswered questions regarding effective routines and procedures that each grade level could implement to ensure coherence as grade levels will share students. ELD teachers met to discuss logistics, but it is unclear if this information was communicated to Integrated staff specifically highlighting effective staff collaboration outside of CTM/VTMs (how will staff group students, what data will be collected, what will Integrated teachers be doing during their ELD blocks (ELA Tier 2/Intervention) and how Targeted instruction can align. Aside from the ELD reports I have shared, not all Targeted teachers were sure who they would be receiving during ELD time and which resources they are using (Language Launch, English 3D, curriculum maps, HMH). Some Integrated teachers were unsure of their program models, when their ELD times are, and who is servicing these students.

-Schedules are still a concern for staff (I know you are working on them), but more specifically CTM/VTM meetings may conflict with Wednesday Intervention schedules.

-Some teachers prefered to wait to group students based on their iReady data, so it may be beneficial to review partner structures later on.