Health
Symposium
26
Feb
2008


STAGE
1:
Identify
Desired
Results

Established
Goals:

• To
provide
a
plan
for
the
design
and
implementation
of
a
districtwide
K‐12
health
curriculum

evaluation
process.

• To
provide
directions
to
K‐12
health
teachers
about
what
curriculum
evaluation
requirements

need
to
be
incorporated
into
district
and
school‐based
health
curriculum
guides/plans.

• To
determine
how
effective
the
implemented
curriculum
is
in
accomplishing
the
overall
mission

and
goals
of
the
district.

Enduring
Understandings
 Essential
Questions

• The
purpose
of
program
evaluation
is
to
 • Is
our
current
K‐12
Health
curriculum

determine
what
is
working,
what
is
not
 design
one
of
quality?

working,
what
to
change,
and
what
to
keep.

 • Is
the
K‐12
Health
curriculum
being

Program
evaluation
is
a
process
used
to
 implemented
as
designed?

assess
the
quality
of
what
is
going
on.
 • Are
students
mastering
the
key
learner

• The
function
of
a
program
evaluation
is
to
 outcomes
identiFied
in
the
implemented

provide
adequate
information
to
staff
 curriculum
(state
and
national
standards)

members
responsible
for
making
decisions
 for
K‐12
Health?

How
do
we
know

about
improving
the
curriculum.

 (assessment)?

• Is
the
K‐12
Health
curriculum
effective
in

accomplishing
the
overall
goals,
missions,

and
vision
of
the
Stanwood‐Camano
School

District?

Learners
will
know….
 Learners
will
be
able
to…

• Teachers
and
curriculum
design
teams
need
 • Map
the
actual
health
curriculum
occurring

to
stay
abreast
of
current
standards
and
 in
their
school.

incorporate
them
into
the
development
of
 • Analyze
each
map,
and
compare
the
actual

curriculum
guides
and
documents.
 curriculum
to
State
and
National
standards.

• A
quality
design
responds
to
the
needs
of
 • Articulate
gaps,
repetitions,
and

students
and
reFlects
the
best
of
educational
 redundancies
in
the
SCSD
K‐12
health

research
and
practice,
both
generically
and
 curriculum.

with
respect
to
individual
disciplines.
 • Share
the
curriculum
with
other
teachers
in

• The
goal
of
a
K‐12
program
evaluation
is
to
 the
Stanwood‐Camano
School
District

identify
the
strengths
and
weaknesses
of
the
 

written
curriculum
to
determine
what
 

should
be
revised
and
modiFied,
and
to

determine
the
degree
to
which
teachers
are

actually
implementing
the
written

curriculum.

Research
and
experience

indicate
that
major
discrepancies
often
exist

between
the
curriculum
as
written
and
the

curriculum
that
is
implemented.

STAGE
2:
Determine
Acceptable
Evidence

Performance
Tasks

• Health
Symposium
Norms

• Articulates
the
tasks
and
Final
products
of
the
Health
Symposium
Team
through
an
Innovation

ConFiguration
(purpose
and
product)








 
 STAGE
3:
Learning
Plan

Day
1:



REFLECTION ON A WORD

Each person first writes and then shares in a Go-Round his or her take on the term Health Education. There is
no dialogue, nor is there any discussion. A variation can be to put these on chart paper and post for a “gallery
walk.”


FEARS AND HOPES

Purpose: To acknowledge the fears and hopes that participants bring to a meeting and by doing so to build a
sense of shared expectations.
Details: Time: 5 to 20 minutes. Size of group: up to 25.
Supplies: writing materials for individuals, chart paper, markers.
Steps:
1. Introduction. Write briefly your greatest fear/your greatest hope.
2. Pair-share. Share with a partner, if time.
3. Listing. Facilitator charts fears and hopes.
4. Debriefing. Did you notice anything surprising? What was your reaction to expressing negative thoughts?
Would you use this activity?


PROTOCOL FOR SETTING NORMS

Purpose: Not only to establish expectations for behavior but also to give “permission” for risk-taking and full
participation.
Details: This can take 10 minutes or an hour, depending on how deeply the facilitator and the group want to
go. Supplies. Chart paper and markers.
Steps:
1. Brainstorming. All ideas are listed; facilitator can add own. Allow silence at the beginning.
2. Discussion. Acknowledging that this is only a brainstormed list, the facilitator invites discussion/questions.
3. Synthesis. The facilitator helps form norms where there may be some disagreement— “Can we agree to use
judgment about use of cell phones?”
4. Consensus. The group agrees to use these norms and revisit them regularly. They also agree that it is a
working list and can be revised at any time.


BREAK:

15
minutes



Review
the
text:



• Applying
Systems
Thinking
to
Curriculum
Evaluation

• A
Guaranteed
and
Viable
Curriculum



Three Levels of Text Protocol


Purpose:

To
deepen
understanding
of
a
text
and
explore
implications
for
participants’’
work.



Facilitation:

Stick
to
time
limits.

Each
round
takes
up
to
5
minutes
per
person
in
a
group.

Emphasize

the
need
to
watch
airtime
during
the
brief
“group
response”
segment.

Do
1‐3
rounds.

Can
be
used
as
a

prelude
to
a
text‐base
discussion
or
by
itself.



Roles:

Facilitator/timekeeper
(who
also
participates);
participants



Process:

1. Sit
in
a
circle
and
identify
a
facilitator/timekeeper

2. Read
or
Review
the
text
and
identify
passages
(and
a
couple
of
back‐ups)
that
they
feel
may
have

important
implications
for
their
work.

3. A
Round
consist
of:

• One
person
using
up
to
3
minutes
to:

o Level
1:

Read
aloud
the
passage
she/he
has
selected

o Level
2:

Say
what
she/he
thinks
about
the
passage
(interpretation,
connection
to
past

experiences…etc.)

o Level
3:

Say
what
she/he
sees
as
the
implication
for
his
her
work.

• The
group
responds
for
a
total
of
3
minutes
to
what
has
been
said.

4. After
all
rounds
have
been
completed,
debrief
the
process.



PANEL
PROTOCOL




Purpose:

To
structure
the
experience
(for
panel
and
learner),
so
that
interaction
is
meaningful
and
a
clear

vision
for
the
purpose
of
the
work
is
provided.



Details:
Lasts
30
minutes
to
1
hour.
Any
size
group
broken
into
smaller
groups
of
4
to
10.
Panel
members

design
case
study(s)
(vignettes)
in
advance.



Steps:

1.
Introduction.

The
facilitator
explains
process.


2.
Case
reading.

Each
group
gets
a
case
to
read
and
is
encouraged
to
make
notes.

3.
Case
interpretation.

Groups
discuss
the
case
and
prepare
a
2­
to
3­minute
presentation
in
response
to:

What
is
this
a
case
of?
What
are
the
action
steps
we
recommend
to
solve
the
problem
in
it?
What
are
our

points
of
consensus/divergence
with
respect
to
these
action
steps?

5.
Presentations.

Small
group
present
its
conclusion

6.
Expert
reactions.
Each
expert
has
time
to
respond
to
the
presentations,
highlighting
strengths,

weaknesses,
overlooked
issues,
principles
for
decision­making,
and
so
forth.

7.
Questions
and
comments.
Participants
have
opportunity
to
question
each
expert.



Innovation Configuration

Overarching question: What are the tasks and final products of the health symposium team?

1. 

Visualize
and
brainstorm
the
components
of
the
new
program
or
practice.

2. 


For
each
component
identiFied
in
Step
#1,
visualize
and
brainstorm
the
ideal
for
the
key

individuals
involved
in
the
implementation.

3. 

For
each
component
identiFied
in
Step
#1,
visualize
and
brainstorm
the
unusable
for
the
key

individuals
involved
in
the
implementation

4. 

Continue
to
generate
variations
for
each
component,
essentially
Filling
in
the
gap
between
the
ideal

and
the
nonuse
level

5. 

Rewrite
each
variation
using
an
action
verb
to
begin
each
sentence.

6. 

Write
the
variations
from
left
to
right,
with
the
most
ideal
variation
on
the
far
left
and
nonuse
level

on
the
far
right.



Dignified Closing
• Curriculum
Development
Article

• Plus
Delta