Chippewa Valley Schools

CHIPPEWA VALLEY SCHOOLS

Process for Proposing

Curriculum

Anyone may develop and route a proposal.

1st:Complete a written proposal using one of the following:

•Curriculum Proposal Form (use for new, substantially changed, major district subject review)

•Materials/Textbook Proposal Form (use for major review and replacement/change)

2nd:Route your proposal for review and suggestions through the Curriculum Council, Principal(s), SIT/NCA Chairs/Goal Chairs, Building Department Chairand others as appropriate. Note: The above requires multiple Routing Forms and copies of the proposal for critiques by stakeholders.

*As the proposer, you are responsible for:

•Typing, routing and submitting in a timely fashion

CURRICULUM PROPOSAL

Date: / May 8, 2012
Title of Proposal: / Handwriting Without Tears – Pilot Proposal for grades K-1
Initiator: / Lynn Mair/Marina Licari – LA Council / School: / Representing All Elementary Schools
Department/Grade:
Language Arts Council – Grades K-1

OUTLINE FOR WRITING A CURRICULUM PROPOSAL

All information must be typed, single spaced, within the space provided on these sheets. Maintain normal margins and do not reduce size of type in order to increase text. (Attach routing sheets.)

1. / Describe your proposal:
This proposal is to pilot the Handwriting Without Tears (HWT) handwriting program in grades K-1 for the 2012-2013 school year.
At this time, Chippewa Valley does not utilize a consistent handwriting approach. This prompted the Language Arts Council to begin researching various writing programs and develop a set of standards. These standards were based upon council discussion as well as feedback from Kindergarten and First Grade representatives participating on the Report Card Committee:
It was determined that:
1)Teacher and student materials should be cost-effective and easily accessible
2)Teacher resources should be easy-to-use and integrate into the classroom with instructional time being kept at a minimum
3)Manipulatives/instructional tools should be available for students and teachers
4)Key print concepts such as spacing, letter formation and proper grip are addressed
5)In-service training is available and provided free-of-charge
6)Incorporation of Interactive/online resources would be beneficial
The decision to utilize the HWT program for a pilot was made after reviewing current research on handwriting, evaluating a variety of programs available on the market, and looking at what isused by the MISD Occupational Therapists who currently service some of our students.
The Language Arts Council researched the following programs: Handwriting Without Tears, D’Nealian and Zaner-Bloser. The decision was made to pursue Handwriting Without Tears since it is a comprehensive, hands-on instructional program that provides teachers with training, print and digital resources and manipulatives to develop consistent handwriting practices within the classroom at the overall lowest cost. (see supporting documentation: HWT Curriculum Analysis, Zaner-Bloser Curriculum Analysis, and D’Nealian Curriculum Analysis)
The 2012-2013 pilot would include 24 representatives with equal representation from all 12 elementary schools. At each elementary, one representative will be from Kindergarten and the other representative will be a first grade teacher. Based on data collected, teachers participating in the pilot will represent various years of experience. Teachers current handwriting practices (such as utilizing ball-and-stick, D’Nealian, etc) will also be taken into consideration in order to provide a fair and consistent starting point.
Participating students will be evaluated three times throughout the course of the school year in order to gauge growth. Participating teachers will meet 2-3 times throughout the school year and complete survey responses in order to provide feedback on the program.
Once information regarding the success of the pilot has been gathered, future decisions will be made by the Language Arts Council.

NEEDS

2. / What identified needs of students have led to the writing of this proposal?
As a district, Chippewa Valley does not currently utilize a consistent handwriting curriculum. Looking at handwriting research along with the adoption of the new Common Core Standards, it has become necessary for our district to provide students and teachers with a consistent writing program.
Through surveys within our district, it has become apparent that our elementary schools do not currently utilize a consistent writing format. Schools are utilizing methods such as “Ball-and-Stick”, D’Nealian, Handwriting Without Tears, etc. Even within the individual grade levels, a teacher may utilize one style of print while another teacher may be utilizing a different format completely.
3. / What content GLCE’s/HSCE’s are addressed by this proposal?
The CCSS include standards for legible manuscript writing in kindergarten and grade 1. The Michigan GCLEs also address the need for students to write legibly. (see supporting documentation: HWT Common Core Correlation).
4. / How will student achievement be affected by the proposal?
Based on current research, improving students handwriting ability has a positive impact on academic performance and achievement.
Handwriting is an essential skill for both children and adults (FederMajnemer, 2007). Even in the age of technology, handwriting remains the primary tool of communication and knowledge assessment for students in the classroom. The demands for handwriting are great, whether in the classroom or beyond. A 1992 study (McHale & Cermak) found that 85 percent of all fine motor time in second-, fourth- and sixth-grade classrooms was spent on paper and pencil activities. A more recent study (Marr, Cermak, Cohn & Henderson, 2003) noted that kindergarten children are now spending 42 percent of their fine motor time on paper and pencil activities.
Research literature extensively documents the consequences of poor handwriting on early literacy and academic performance. Children who experience difficulty mastering this skill [handwriting] may avoid writing and decide that they cannot write, leading to arrested writing development (Graham, Harris and Fink, 2000). Handwriting is critical to the production of creative and well-written text (Graham & Harris, 2005) affecting both fluency and the quality of the composition. Illegible handwriting also has secondary effects on school achievement and self-esteem (Engel-Yeger, Nagakur - YanuvRosenblum, 2009; Malloy-Miller, PolatajkoAnstett, 1995).
5. / Describe how your proposed curriculum/program would work (in narrative fashion):
Teachers participating in the pilot would attend one day of training and receive all resources necessary for instruction. For the first year, all essential and suggested materials will be provided. Pilot teachers would use these materials within their classrooms, collect data on student growth and compare this data with students who did not participate in the program.
6. / How much time in the instructional day will this program/curriculum consume?
Since teachers currently teach handwriting informally within grades K and 1, the integration of a specific writing program will not consume any additional time. Handwriting Without Tears indicates that approximately 10 minutes of instruction should occur during the school day.
7. / What personnel are involved? Certification/qualifications? Does the staff need to be Highly Qualified according to state/federal guidelines to teach this program?
A total of 24 regular education teachers representing grades K and 1 will be involved in the pilot. No additional certification or qualifications are necessary. (This pilot has also been offered to Special Education Services. If Special Services determines they would like to participate in the pilot, they would be responsible for funding their teachers.)
8. / Describe Professional development needed to implement this proposal.
All pilot teachers will attend the Handwriting Without Tears training workshop. HWT will waive the course registration fee for the initial workshop. Ongoing support will be provided throughout the pilot duration by online resources, staff development/training opportunities, and webinars. A HWT curriculum specialist will be an available resource to provide guidance in material usage and to answer questions, as deemed necessary, by district/school administrators.
9. / Does this proposal affect other teachers and/or departments? If yes, please explain.
No additional teachers will be affected by the proposal, however, we will be asking for 4 volunteers to ask as the “control” group as we gather data. Volunteering teachers would agree to have their students assessed at the same time as HWT participants..
10. / How many students would your proposal involve?
The proposal would involve 12 classrooms of Kindergarten students as well as 12 classrooms of first graders.
11. / Has this course been piloted in the district? If yes, please attach pilot proposal and evaluations.
No, this proposal is for the pilot itself.
If no, is it feasible to pilot these materials/texts for one year? (1 line)
12. / Does this program/curriculum replace a current offering or is it an additional program/curriculum?
This program does not replace a current offering since no handwriting program has been established by our district. Teachers in grades K and 1 must teach handwriting but no resources are currently provided or available to them.

RESEARCH

Provide data to support the need for this proposal. (It can be district data research, existing programs in other districts, student surveys, etc.)
Survey information gathered by principals at the end of the 2010-2011 school year indicated that elementary teachers throughout the district do not use a consistent writing format.
Information provided by Language Arts Council Representatives also indicated that no/limited materials were currently available to teachers and the materials that were available were not consistent throughout the district.
Since the Language Arts Council has focused on writing over the past few years, this is a logical step in developing a comprehensive program for our students.

EVALUATION (The initiator is responsible for the evaluation and it is to be submitted

to the K-12 Evaluation Committee)

What method(s) of evaluation would be used to determine the success or failure of this proposed course? (Student achievement, student survey, teacher opinion, independent observer, student achievement, attitude survey, etc.) Please attach tool.
Teacher Input: Teachers will complete a mid and end-of-year survey indicating their experience with the program. They will also meet 2-3 times throughout the school year to discuss the program effectiveness and address any concerns.
Student Growth: Teachers will administer the Screener of Handwriting Proficiencyprovided by the HWT company. The Screener can be administered to a whole class within 10-15 minutes and it provides immediate results and suggestions. The Screener provides teachers with online scoring assistance, class and individual student progress reports, and remediation plans for intervention. This data will allow teachers to monitor efficacy of their handwriting instruction and track the success of the pilot through student performance.
A link to the online screener can be found here: This will provide further information on the assessment itself as well as how it is administered to students and sample reports available to teachers.
When will evaluation take place?
Students will be assessed three times during the pilot period (beginning, middle and end of year).
End of the year evaluations will be completed by pilot teachers.

COST PROJECTION

Please be specific. Include additional personnel, in-service, materials, technology, shipping and handling, if appropriate.
Please see the attached HWT Pricing Document. The document specifically lists the materials provided, cost for pilot implementation, and projected future costs. There are 3 options available to our district regarding the materials if the program is adopted.
The HWT proposal costs:
2012-2013 Pilot Cost – breakdown available on pages 2-5 of attached Pricing document

• For the initial pilot, 24 classes (12 Kindergarten, 12 1st Grade) would receive all HWT products in order to guarantee all materials are in each building.
• The HWT company will provide 4 sets of “free” Kindergarten materials at a savings of $5,762.04. If the pilot is not approved for district-wide adoption, non-consumable materials would need to be returned to the company.
• The total cost for CVS is $20,486.18 including 10% shipping and handling.
• This averages $1,440.51 per Kindergarten classroom and $746.84 per First Grade classroom.
• 1 Day of professional development/training is included free of charge for any teachers/administrators wishing to attend. This is a savings of $305 per attendee.

2013-2014 Initial Implementation for First Year Classrooms – breakdown available on pages 6-7 of attached Pricing document.

• Based on current figures, it is expected that there will be 40-43 total Kindergarten classes. At the 1st Grade level, 48 classes or blends are expected.
• Materials would be needed for 31 Kindergarten sections and 36 1st Grade classrooms since pilot teachers would already have the instructional materials
• Professional development/training is included
• For full district-wide implementation in grades K-1, three pricing options are available:
• Option 1 = $71,542.41, Option 2 = $40,357.52, Option 3 = $15,608.32

Second/Future Year Classrooms – breakdown available on pages 8-9 or attached Pricing Document.

• Based on current figures, it is expected that there will be 40-43 total Kindergarten classes. At the 1st Grade level, 48 classes or blends are expected.
• For full district-wide future replacement costs in grades K-1, three pricing options are available:
• Option 1 = $41,073.41, Option 2 = $31,462.87, Option 3 = $21,199.36

Total Cost of the Proposal: First Year / $20,486.18 / Annual Consumable Costs / See pricing document

Document1

Textbook/Curriculum Proposal Review

Curriculum Council

PROPOSAL FOR:
REVIEWED BY (NAME/GROUP)
Yes / No / The council unanimously supports this proposal. (If no, please explain in comments.)
Yes / No / The proposal is well-documented and supported.
Yes / No / The proposal meets curriculum needs.
Yes / No / The proposal would positively impact student learning. (Explain in comments section.)
Yes / No / This proposal supports a required course.

Overall Rating:

Immediate Need / Needed / Future Consideration / Not Needed
Comments:
Curriculum Council Leader Signature / Date
Proposal discussed at council meeting on / (date).
Return this form to: / by (date)

C:\Documents and Settings\lmair\Desktop\HWT Proposal\send to principals\HWT Curriculum Proposal.docx

Textbook/Curriculum Proposal Review

Principal

PROPOSAL FOR:
REVIEWED BY (NAME/GROUP)
Yes / No / The proposal is well-documented and supported.
Yes / No / The proposal meets the current need(s) of the building/grade.
Yes / No / The proposal would affect other departments/programs. (Explain in comments section.)
Yes / No / There is an on-going yearly cost to this proposal.
Yes / No / There are other P.D./staff management issues associated with this proposal. (Explain in comments section.)

Overall Rating:

Immediate Need / Needed / Future Consideration / Not Needed
Comments:
Signature / Date
Building
Return this form to: / by (date)

C:\Documents and Settings\lmair\Desktop\HWT Proposal\send to principals\HWT Curriculum Proposal.docx

Textbook/Curriculum Proposal Review

SIT/NCA Chairs/Goal Chairs

PROPOSAL FOR:
REVIEWED BY (NAME/GROUP)
Yes / No / The proposal is well-documented and supported.
Yes / No / The proposal meets the current need(s) of the building/grade.
Yes / No / The proposal would affect the students/building in a negative way. (Explain in comments section.)
Yes / No / I/We have discussed this proposal with stakeholders at the same level.
Yes / No / Does this proposal relate to a building NCA goal?

Overall Rating:

Immediate Need / Needed / Future Consideration / Not Needed
Comments:
Elementary Signature (three required) / Date
Middle School Signature (two required) / Date
High School Signature (two required) / Date
Position/Building
Return this form to: / by (date)

C:\Documents and Settings\lmair\Desktop\HWT Proposal\send to principals\HWT Curriculum Proposal.docx

Textbook/Curriculum Proposal Review

Building Department Chair

(Middle and High School only)

PROPOSAL FOR:
REVIEWED BY (NAME/GROUP)
Yes / No / The department unanimously supports this proposal. (If no, please explain in comments.)
Yes / No / The proposal is well-documented and supported.
Yes / No / The proposal meets curricular needs and department goals.
Yes / No / The proposal would positively impact student learning. (Explain in comments section.)
Yes / No / This proposal supports a required course.

Overall Rating:

Immediate Need / Needed / Future Consideration / Not Needed
Comments:
Department Chair Signature / Date
Proposal discussed at department meeting on / (date).
Return this form to: / by (date)

C:\Documents and Settings\lmair\Desktop\HWT Proposal\send to principals\HWT Curriculum Proposal.docx