SHS: We met formally at lunch in my classroom but most of the time met informally between classes or when we could find a time. The ideal situation would be to have the same prep hour and meet once a week for planning purposes.

CHS: See attached list. We found that lunch meeting worked the best. We also met several times after school.

FHS: I met with both Kent & Jean unofficially with visits to their classrooms when possible, in the halls and during lunch or after school. This was a hit and miss process as we had no official meeting times, no common prep hours, etc. It was especially hard to meet with Jean as she was part time in the building and she was here only during my teaching time. However, we communicated as often as possible.

Dorothy of New Start and I got together for a tour and explanation of New Start. I also supplied her with six white boards. We discussed curriculum and curriculum revision.

My suggestion for making these meetings possible is (ideally) to set compatible schedule (i.e. common prep time) for these meeting to take place or set up bimonthly meeting times each moth before or after school

DeMiguel: Before school, and on weekends. Generally we met in my classroom. One teacher and I met outside of school. I allow the mentee to choose a convenient time for them and I try to work that into my schedule.

FHS: Lunch time, in our lunch room. It is hard for me to meet with 3 mentees. Lunch worked since we were all together already. I think you need to leave it up to the mentor and mentee to work out based on their schedules.

DeMiguel: I met with the mentees before and after school, as well as on Wednesday afternoons, in the Mentees’ classrooms.

Knoles: We met after school mostly on Monday or Tuesday at 3:15 We met in may room. We would do better if some quality release time were given earlier in a day!

Knoles: I usually met with my mentees after school or on half days. The meetings either took place in my room or the mentees’ rooms. We found that lunch time meetings were not long enough. Meetings usually took place when new science kits arrived or when help was needed integrating curriculum or when transition decision were needed.

Christensen: Our meeting times were very loosely structured. In general, we would meet during our Wednesday School Improvement time. However, during the second semester we failed to establish a set schedule of formal meeting times. I think such a schedule is of great importance to the success of a program such as this.

Kinsey: In classrooms, mine or theirs, after school mostly, works fine.

Kinsey: We would meet in the mentee or mentors room. We met when materials were needed or questions or concerns came up. I think a morning meeting once a month would lead to more consistency and allow for questions or concerns.

FMS: These meetings took place either in their classroom or in mine. What seemed to work well in making sure that we met was that we had a set time and day to meet. Then we could add to this time if we saw fit. We occasionally chose a more informal setting when I acted more as a support then a mentor.

Killip: 6:30 AM-7:30AM Group meeting were held at a local restaurant. This worked well for us because we were not interrupted (with was happening often in the fall). So, we met in, and out, of school. We had a problem with some of us teaching STARS. our after school program and others, not. So meeting after school was not an option. I don’t think you can set a specific time for everyone. Each group has to work that out for themselves.

Killip: We met Thursday morning s at 7:30 in my room. We had to meet in the mornings, because of STARS after school.

MEMS: We met after school from 2:30 to 3:00 or 3:30 in a classroom. Sometimes, only AZTEC mentees met with me and sometimes the meetings included other math teachers. After the first semester including other members of the department seemed best.

MEMS: I met with Kristen McKinnon and Amy Jones every Tuesday after school in my classroom. Some weeks we met additional days.It works the best if you are teaching the same subject. For example, we all taught Life Science this year.

Cromer: We met at lunch time on Thursdays in my classroom. Our schedules are the same only at lunch so that was what made that timeframe possible.

Marshall: We met and planned two times a month for DAP subjects. One time a week for Mental Math. Most meetings that were planning meetings took place on Fridays. Discussion meetings took place in the mornings or when convenient. We found the best time was Friday, our early release time. Meeting time was 30-60 minutes.

Leupp: Core Prep- 10:15 - 11:12 AZTEC-Teach Math Class NAU Fridays In Hall in passing etc.

Leupp: Lunch, Vans some Fridays. Lunch room vans when we can here and there! Having a prep time the same as the other people at school. Our location leave little time for meeting on a regular basis. Friday is our half day but many of those have other meetings scheduled. We had one observation all year and no feed back on what we are doing. We tried to do hands on. Looking for material that could help students to learn.

Weitzel: Our meetings were 10/6/00, 11/17/00 12/8/00, 1/5/01 and 5/18/01. Early release has been very helpful.

Weitzel: Dates: 10/6/00,11/17/00, 12/8/00, 1/5/01, 5/18/01, These meetings took place on Early Release Days, Schedules are difficult to work around so scheduling meetings about 1 week in advance worked best.

Sechrist: Early release days and during math lessons. In the mentees’ classroom. Although I encouraged mentees to see me any time with math related issues, I made most of the contacts. May times they were busy. Perhaps a specific set time for meetings would help.

Thomas: We met in various classroom throughout the year. It was convenient to be able to meet on Wednesdays (our School Improvement days). It would not have been as easy otherwise.

Thomas: Met mostly after school for our formal meetings (Tuesdays). Informal lunch meetings took place at random as did the before school discussions. Total time is 20-30 hours. After April I really tapered off because of testing etc.

South Beaver: Mainly in my classroom, after school. Some were informal, in hall, etc. They need to be "do-able" not over load already busy young teachers.

SHS: The area of focus first semester was answering questions about curriculum, scheduling, and general information about school policies, paperwork and procedures. Each teacher was teaching different subjects we emphasized state and national standards test prep, etc. One teacher had previous experience teaching science we discussed more teaching methods. The other two were new and we spent more time on classroom management and how to use our textbook series

CHS: The main focus of our meetings were curricular issues, what was working well, if something did not work well, we discussed how we could change or reteach the concepts. Several of the AZ State Math Standards have been modified and we discussed how these changes might impact our curricula. We will offer several math classes in the fall of 2001 which will incorporate quite a lot of LEP/ESL assistance.

FHS: These meetings were problem solving discussions on disruptive classroom behaviors and means of correcting these students behaviors, methods of presenting materials, acquisition of supplies and field trip monies, issues of department communication, curriculum. and textbook adoption. Occasionally there was just discourse on mutual problems in the classroom, i.e. unmotivated students. In addition, we shared ideas or curriculum materials that we came across and thought were appropriate for our classrooms.

FHS: White boards New AZ/AIMS Standards New textbooks Not a lot really though since all 3 were experienced teachers. Just new to FUSD.

DeMiguel: We focused on the state science standards. How they were meeting the standards. How they were using the kits. How do they (do they) integrate other subject areas (language arts, math, social studies, art, music)

DeMiguel: Areas of focus-Math standards; new methods; individualizing instruction Subjects-effective use of manipulative, word problem strategies, involving parents in math instruction, inclusion of special needs students, pacing of instruction, use of Accelerated Math, new math text adoption

Knoles: Math, We discussed the scope and sequence of curriculum implementation and the NCTM standards. We discussed what was developmentally appropriate for their grade levels. One teacher felt pressure to "follow" the text and didn’t change her presentation methods. The other was very open to change!

Knoles: My area of focus was basically science and how to make the subjects/concepts flow from one unit to the next. The individual science kits were gone through including set-ups and how to enrich the concepts throughout the curriculum. Often we discussed standards, standardized testing and how not to feel overwhelmed or unconfident in covering necessary curriculum

Christensen: When we met, our discussions focused on a variety of topics. Perhaps, the most beneficial aspect of the program is simply letting others know that there is support and a willingness to help when things get tough.

Kinsey: Science-State Standards needs to teach.

Kinsey: We focused on state standards and how to meet those standards. We made mentees aware of books and materials we could provide. We discussed standards and appropriate science, math materials and methods.

FMS: My mentees and I discussed primarily math. We discussed the writing of lesson plans, incorporating math in other subject areas, specific lessons and problems to be aware of, and how to use RTOP{ concepts as well as the white boards. Most of the time was spent talking about teaching strategies and ideas. However, some of the time was spent discussing student issues, meeting individual needs, and venting frustrations.

Killip: Science. content, standards, methods, classroom management, scheduling, equipment...I would have to say that less than 5% of our time was spent on non pedagogic issues. That would have been our discussions about our participation in AZTEC, our purpose and goals, and meeting times, etc. We felt an obligation, due to our contract, to discuss issues in teaching.

MEMS: Early meetings focused on content especially the standards. Later, teaching techniques and strategies were shared. Quite a bit of discussion centered around problems with inclusion students and other students who were not ready to work on 7th and 8th grade standards. I would establish at the beginning that meetings would be both group and individual and schedule them that way from the beginning.

MEMS: Mostly we discussed curriculum. We centered our discussion on hands on inquiry based, student centered methods.

Cromer: We often focused on how to accommodate a constructivist methodology with math instruction in first grade where there is limited base on which to generate information on the students’ part. We looked at lessons where this methodology might work best and discovered, with this very young group of students, it isn’t particularly useful.

Killip: Focuses were on AZ Standards, Stanford 9 expectations and format (layout of questions) DAP Requirements, Math textbook adoptions Teaching some of our challenged learners, Mental Math, problem solving white board ideas.

Marshall: Money, Fractions, Analysis, Probability, Graphing, Measurement, Developing, Strategy for Solving problems, All areas were aligned with DAP. We had a planning meeting , a lesson with hands on materials and an evaluation. Money and measurement were in depth units. (two weeks) Due to time constraints discussions focused mostly on pedagogic issues.

Leupp: White boards, ordering equipment classes and plans. Most issues were nuts and bolts of teaching and equipment.

Leupp: Math. Material that we use in the class. Sharing math manipulatives in both traditional as well as applying them to new situations. Being creative with junk. At first I had a real hard time letting go of control in the class. It was also hard to talk with other teacher about letting student control their learning. The use of the white boards helped me to give up that control. I could see what the students were learning when they interacted with one another.

Weitzel: RTOP familiarized and guided our enrichment and remediation. The subjects we covered were math and science. We tried to align the science kits to the Arizona State Standards Our student population at Weitzel is very diverse, so there is a great variance in our pedagogic issues.

Weitzel: Our area of focus included science and math lessons. We focused on techniques and strategies that were academic and behavioral in nature. We discussed lessons that went well and that may need refinement. We discussed AZ State Standards and made sure we were teaching grade appropriate standards.

Sechrist: What was currently being taught in the mentees’ classroom. Many math related topics including problem solving, place value, graphing drills, geometry, fraction/decimal conversion grouping dynamics.

Thomas: We looked at the RTOP and discussed ways to implement various areas of RTOP into our science lessons. We also spent a good portion of our time getting our first science fair up and going. (GIG PROJECT) We also discussed grants, our grant writing for next year.

Thomas: Focused on Math specifically, time spent teaching, activities for content strands, resource materials for new math series Harcourt Brace, testing (STAT 9) strategies, materials improving scores, multi age consideration and challenges.

South Beaver: We began with science, then focused on how to use white boards. Most of our later session concerned management, organization etc.

SHS: We had three new teachers (Science, Spanish and Philosophy majors) Math was not their degree in college they had just enough hours to teach it. They had much to learn about math before we could begin methods on teaching it. Two will not be returning next year (we have 3 positions open again) Consistency in personnel would help hiring math majors to teach math would help.It was nice to have the opportunity to work with the new teachers.

CHS: Working with a veteran teacher was nice however monies would be better spent working only with those new teachers and those teachers with less than 3 years experience. We also need a larger supply of white board markers. My students have used 15 dozen markers the life of a marker seems to be 2 weeks with continuous usage.

FHS: A comprehensive plan of what we wanted to accomplish in the mentoring program needs to be devised. I have sample mentoring programs from Greenway HS in Phoenix. Please see attached. Specific goals and objectives that mentors and mentees would like to accomplish in the academic year need to be established early and revisited several times throughout the year. This year seemed that the mentoring program was very casual and I didn’t know exactly what I was supposed to be doing. Specific time needs to be established for mentors and mentees to communicate. I feel that this is a very valuable program that needs to have a little more structure o become a more effective.

FHS: Don’t include teachers as mentees unless they are 1st year teachers or really think they need the extra help.

DeMiguel: There was some confusion at the start about the RTOP and the change of the mentors. Meeting as a group was helpful.

DeMiguel: There were few guidelines. The RTOP was the focus of our training before the year began, then abandoned. Our school had no "new" teachers, so mentoring took place on a different level. I enjoyed this.

Knoles: To have more guidelines to the mentees as a "program" for the mentors to follow, to have contact with some "grant" personnel in person to discuss effectiveness, problems, etc.

Knoles: Possibly workshops put on by various mentors to show the various science kits and how to use them. Maybe by grade level with several mentors as trainers and open discussion and experimentation with mentees.

Christensen: The ties to AZTEC and RTOP were/are vague and confusing. However, as a source of funding, it becomes important. In the future, I will commit more time and energy to being an effective mentor. From the outset, I was unsure of the goals of the program and never really developed an effective beneficial mentor/mentee relationship.

Kinsey: Can’t say. Our program at Kinsey worked.

Kinsey: I would like to have regular meetings each month with the mentees/mentors.

FMS: it would be extremely advantageous to have better communication in terms of expectations of the mentors. The mentors should also have to participate in the RTOP trainings so that they may share this knowledge with their mentees.

Killip: A list of expectations (more defined) as there is no confusion and all groups are the same in time and effort.

Specific expectations-written. If you say you are going to observe, then observe.

I would probably have 2 (long) meetings during the year and have an agenda of issues to cover. Sometimes, and hour is not enough time.

Killip: A guideline at the beginning of the year of topics to be covered (general) so we could also include building needs and specific teacher needs. Follow through on observations and feedback I would make a list of teacher needs at the beginning. I waited this year until after Christmas, to late!

MEMS: One of the teachers is an experience high school math teacher middle school content was her only area of concern. One teacher is an experienced teacher at elementary and MS but new to this level of math and was most interested in content assistance and teaching techniques. The third teacher is an inexperienced teacher and could have used the most assistance but probably got the least out of the group meetings.

MEMS: None of us were contacted this year, we felt as if we were on the right track, but received no direction.

Cromer: I would suggest using constructivist methods in Science more and math less with the younger students. Also, a bit more direction on the part of the facilitators of the mentors would be helpful.

Marshall: It would be nice to have sub time to allow the teachers viewing time with other teachers. Recommendation: Continued alignment with DAP.

Leupp: Time set aside for meetings more guidance? Maybe keep in touch with questions more.

Leupp: More training The only training was two meetings at the first of school. See the video and do it this way. Our school was visited once but no feedback was given. I feel we were going in the right direction but not sure. I feel more confident now. We have looked at teaching with hands on material and have obtained many things to help.

Weitzel: A uniform guide and questionnaire format to help in unifying progress and success. The open endedness caused great confusion and difficulty in knowing how to guide mentees. Next year it might help to have a format and form for monthly documentation.

Weitzel: I feel that directions and clear expectations need to be set early in the year.

Sechrist: Less mentees, perhaps a more rigid meeting time and set of guidelines for helping mentees.

Thomas: Design mini lessons for mentees that exhibit RTOP methods.

Perhaps more "how to" training for mentors and more instruction on RTOP methods. A model lesson for mentors and mentees real live body. The mentees would like feedback on their 1st observation. (Never got feedback)

Thomas: Perhaps selecting those teachers with 3-5 years experience might help since most beginning teachers are overwhelmed and don’t really know what they need or want from a mentor. Since time is a factor that challenges classroom teacher the district should schedule time that is part of our teaching day maybe once a month or more. Inservice time.

South Beaver: We were all disappointed to receive no input on the lessons observed.

SHS: Not yet test scores are not available yet. Our students may show the effects of a "revolving door" department over the past 4 or 5 years.

CHS: I noticed that there were more improvements in student progress first semester. The students were more receptive to innovative lessons and they were not bothered by changes in weekly expectations. My Second semester students are more difficult to motivate and they are verbal and outspoken when expectations vary.

FHS: Without instruments or pre and post assessments student achievement due to mentoring could not be measured.

FHS: Not that I could tell. No.

DeMiguel: Science is not tested or measured with Stanford or AIMS so I have no hard data. but I do know that with my mentees more time was devoted to teaching science than in many other classrooms. The teachers with whom I worked, are intimately knowledgeable about the standards.

DeMiguel: Teachers assessed students on an ongoing basis. Their own data showed improvements in student achievement. Confidence in math ability also increased.

Knoles: Only in my program, but I already teach in a constructive and pedagogy and have a developmental scope and sequence as well as a model for mastery. I shared all materials with my mentees.

Knoles: Students were very enthusiastic about science. They always love the kits. But adding enrichment and integrating with other subjects is also a very effective tool to reach the learners with different learning styles.

Christensen: I personally did not notice changes in my students. I do not know about the mentees and their classes.

Kinsey: Mentees got material and supplies. The seemed to teach better.

Kinsey: N/A

FMS: The students improved in the area of participation. They were much more willing to answer questions and become involved in their learning process.

Killip: We had no preprogram assessment. Other than normal classroom growth, we can not determine this I think the biggest improvement/change was a result of the white boards. They had a big impact in my classroom (mentor). I don’t know how I lived without them before. Thank your!! (Especially for ESL/Resource students because there is so much language being used Student -to-student discourse is the one huge observable change in my room.

Killip: I loved the white boards and felt they were very effective. Awesome problem solving tool very visual to share w/everyone. I also started a new math program (Math Land) and between the two my students really took off this year.

MEMS: No. Teachers were pleased to get the white boards and thought the students enjoyed those lessons and probably took more away from them but differences in achievement results were not measured.

MEMS: Students in our classes loved doing white board presentations They became very efficient and creative.

Cromer: In relation to math, not particularly (I teach 2nd grade) with regard to science exploration. I found the tools useful and the children were more able to apply their own sense of logic and knowledge.

Marshall: Yes, Children were very confident doing the DAP. Mrs. Wilson’s DAP scores are high.

Leupp: Can answer better in summer after grades out.

Leupp: Student overall seem to have a better grasp of what math is. They talked about math and shared their ideas with one another. The leaders were excited about new idea and concepts. Those who struggled with basic facts and concepts had greater difficulty keeping up.

Weitzel: I think with brainstorming and bimonthly meetings we received feedback which could be documented. I didn’t observe changes in students, because of class dynamics. There was more enrichment and support with teachers whom participated in RTOP.

Weitzel: I feel that teaching within the Arizona Math Standards helped my students prepare and do well on the AIMS and STAT 9 tests. I have not seen the results yet. I have seen active participation and I have seen active participation and peer communication from my students. I feel they are focused on academic tasks assigned

Sechrist: I gave advise, teaching ideas, and provided a sounding board for the mentees. I had no objective way of measuring student change. Perhaps an objective tool for measuring mentees’ development would be more realistic. There may be too may variables which impact student development to ascertain the impact of this program.

Thomas: Yes. Our entire school participated in a science fair (that hasn’t happened in many years). All students were exposed to a scientific process, designing projects, and publicly displaying their projects.

Thomas: Kids notice how much time is spent on math and realize the priority that is placed on the subject. Encouraging kids to work on solving problems and discuss their reasoning helps they clarify their own thinking. working together fosters a sense of "community of learning" that offers support and encouragement. The white boards give the kids opportunities to make model, diagrams, pictures to solve problems.

South Beaver: The use of white boards did improve student involvement in lessons presented.

SHS: I will be leaving the district next year to pursue a PhD.

CHS: Yes, if I could work with a new teacher. I feel that discussion with new teachers are useful and appreciated.

FHS: Yes, I have several ideas that I would like to discuss with Dan and Jim for improvements next year concerning the beginning of the year training and the structure of the mentoring program throughout the year. I would like to help implement some of these ideas.

FHS: Yes and no It was easy money, almost to easy. I kept on checking with the mentees but they didn’t need much help.

DeMiguel: You bet, it helped me in my own teaching. I kept me focused on the standards. I always gain in the sharing process.

DeMiguel: Maybe, I learned a great deal about the variety of teaching strategies and challenges here at DeMiguel. Not sure if DeMiguel is going with math or science next year.

Knoles: No. I didn’t see enough support for mentors or mentees to allow for change. I had no time to observe a lesson during the structured math time of one of my mentees. I had a reliable source five 3 model lessons but I received little feedback from the mentee. No change noted.

Knoles: Yes, I would be willing to mentor next year. Not only was it rewarding to help the unfamiliar with the concepts, it was helpful to my teaching to get new ideas and approaches for my own classroom.

Christensen: I am willing to mentor again next year. However, I would approach the responsibility much differently and with a more defined structure.

Kinsey: Yes-helps out people who are new to our profession.

Kinsey: Yes, I enjoy sharing ideas and providing support for the mentees.

FMS: No, I would not like to mentor again next year. I felt that I was able to share many ideas and information. However, I do not feel that I met all of the mentor expectations.

When I was observed, I was told I needed to change some things. I still do not know what these things are and would gladly appreciate the input. There needs to be better communication in terms of feedback. This would be much appreciated.

Killip: Yes, but we were told that our school had to choose Math or Science. Math was chosen.

Killip: Yes, I would especially now that I know what to expect, and I feel my views fit in with this program. I feel strong in math and have ideas to offer.

MEMS: Yes. I do a great deal of this anyway, but this time it was scheduled and planned so more beneficial..

MEMS: Yes, I enjoyed working with Kristen and Amy. They are excited about teaching! I think we all feel it was a wonderful support system.

Cromer: Yes, but in science.

Marshall: Yes, it was a two way learning experience. Teaching lessons together with the mentee and sometimes both mentees was enriching added depth to what the children were taught. It was equally enriching for the mentor and mentees.

Leupp: Probably but I will need more guidance.

Leupp: Yes. Like with many things in trying to teach others I learned more. I started thinking differently about how I did things in my class. I always liked teaching math and science it was a lot more "fun" this year.

Weitzel: Possibly, It will depend on the direction at the beginning of the year.

Weitzel: No, I felt the direction and expectations weren’t clear and do like to know what is expected of me.

Sechrist: I would do it again if there were more specific guidelines given.

Thomas: I’m not sure. It’s alot of work and I’ve heard it’s going to be more next year. (Math/Science combining)

Thomas: Will be with Career Ladder next year.

South Beaver: Yes, I feel that it can be very beneficial. If I do participate I’ll be more organized and focused.

CHS: I don’t always teach with an RTOP emphasis I do use white boards frequently.

FHS: Yes, under the right circumstances.

DeMiguel: Sure

DeMiguel: Who will view these?

Knoles: No

Knoles: Yes

Christensen: I would not be comfortable with this.

MEMS: No! Having seen how you use videos of classroom teachers I would not even consider it.

MEMS: No I’m camera shy I also am concerned about how the films were used in training. A pre-service teacher was made a laughing stock and I felt it was very inappropriate.

Cromer: Yes

Killip: Maybe

Kinsey: No

Marshall: Yes

Leupp: Not yet.

Weitzel: Is this for local/Arizona or National use? I need to know before I make a decision.

Thomas: Yes!

Thomas: Not in classroom next year