PRD 8/2009
Dr. Kenneth Jenkins, Principal Specialist
PRD 8/2009
Leadership TeamHQ Teachers - Professional Development (PDP)
Curriculum ResourcesStandards-Based InstructionAligned AssessmentPositive, Safe Learning Environment
Comprehensive Systematic School Plan
for Improvement
PRD 8/2009
Needs Assessment using dataxxx
Collaboration and capacity buildingProgress Monitoring
Comprehensive Systematic School Plan
for Improvement
PRD 8/2009
5 PRD 8/2009
1 of 3 middle schools in CCSDPoverty index 81%409 students in grades 6, 7, and 8
264 African American students122 White students
42 certified staff members (11 males, 31 females)
Changing demographics since school began tracking data for “expected progress” 857 then to 409 students now
CMS studentsLike other high poverty schools, CMS has struggled to reach the report card targets for which the bar is raised each year.
6 PRD 8/2009
50% or more students enter CMS lacking essential skills (e.g. multiplication facts)
50% or more students enter CMS readingbelow grade level
CMS students
"I don't care what they do on TV, Jerome, you can not call a life line."
7 PRD 8/2009
High priority need READING On the average, CMS students begin the school year
approximately 2 years below grade level in reading. STAR reading assessment Fall 2008
Most 7th and 8th graders who are over 2 years below grade level in reading have built up walls of resistance and don’t want to keep trying because of past failures in learning to read.
Grade Level Average Instructional Reading Level
6 4.2 Scored as well as a 4th grader after 2 months of instruction
7 4.6 Scored as well as a 4th grader after 6 months of instruction
8 5.7 Scored as well as a 5th grader after 7 months of instruction
In what ways does reading impact all subjects?
8 PRD 8/2009
Meeting the Reading Challenge
The average reading level at all grades improved! 6th grade growth exceeded expectations:
equivalent to 8 months of growth in 7 month period
Grade Beginning of Year
Grade Equivalent
After 7 Months
Grade Equivalent
Change after
7 Months
6 4.6 5.4 +0.8
7 5.3 5.7 +0.4
8 6.3 6.7 +0.4
An almost impossible challenge Accelerate progress 1+ grade levels in a single year
with students who failed to master reading in grades 1-5.
STAR reading assessment Growth 2008-09
9 PRD 8/2009
ACCOUNTABILITY Student Achievement CMS PACT PERFORMANCE LEVELS
Subject Year % BB % Basic %Prof. %Adv
ELA 2008 49.6% 40.6% 9.1% 0.8%2007 48.6% 39.3% 11.2% 0.9%2006 43.3% 44.9% 11.6% 0.2%
Math 2008 33.8% 52.1% 8.6% 5.5%2007 35.2% 49.0% 11.9% 4.0%2006 45.8% 43.0% 8.4% 2.9%
Science 2008 51.9% 30.2% 10.3% 7.6%2007 51.7% 29.9% 9.4% 9.1%2006 58.4% 30.2% 6.5% 4.9%
Soc. St. 2008 46.8% 41.6% 6.7% 4.8%2007 46.0% 41.4% 9.7% 2.9%2006 49.8% 40.9% 5.7% 3.6%
Proficient /Advanced 2006 – 2007 Significant gain in percent of students attaining proficient/advanced performance for all 4 core areas
2008 School choice resulted in decrease Proficient/Advanced students (significant number of former top students no longer attend CMS)
Below Basic (BB) 2006 – 2007 Less BB students in math, science, social studies
2008 Less BB continued for math but not other subjects
10 PRD 8/2009
Federal No Child Left Behind legislation Adequate Yearly Progress Proficient/Advanced performance targets in ELA and Math
State Education Accountability Act School Report Card All core subjects
Accountability
11 PRD 8/2009
A constantly moving target…
Learning is like rowing upstream, not to advance is to drop back.
– Chinese proverb
12 PRD 8/2009
The challenge of hitting a moving target
Target*
CMS All
School Report Card Scores
2005
2006
2007
2008
2.4 2.5 2.6 2.7
2.3 2.4 2.5 2.5
* Targets based on value needed to move out of “at risk” status - The bar is raised each year
Looking beneath the surface…
What can we learn from disaggregated data by subject, grade, etc.?
13 PRD 8/2009
PACT Student Performance Data
Data analysis by school, grade, subject, subgroupsTeacher role
In/ Out reportsExpectation is at least 10% of students will move up
1 performance level on state test with no students slipping Teacher reflection and collaboration (PDP)Goal setting and working with “bubble” students
Achievement gap analysis and planning African American students Students from a culture of poverty
State and Federal Accountability
Data analysis leads to identifying root causes and key leverage areas to target for improvement
14 PRD 8/2009
Disaggregated by grade
Target*
CMS All
School Report Card Scores
2005
2006
2007
2008
2.4 2.5 2.6 2.7
2.3 2.4 2.5 2.52.4 2.6 2.6
2.3 2.5 2.6
2.4 2.3 2.3
Gr. 6Gr. 7Gr. 8
15 PRD 8/2009
ELA disaggregated by grade
School Report Card Scores
2005
2006
2007
2008
2.4 2.5 2.6 2.7
2.3 2.4 2.5 2.5
2.3 2.4 2.3 2.3
2.4 2.3 2.2
2.3 2.3 2.4
2.5 2.2 2.1
Target*
CMS All
ELAGr. 6Gr. 7Gr. 8
16 PRD 8/2009
Social Studies disaggregated by grade
School Report Card Scores
2005
2006
2007
2008
2.4 2.5 2.6 2.7
2.3 2.4 2.5 2.5
2.4 2.4 2.5 2.6
2.4 2.8 2.8
2.2 2.4 2.5
2.6 2.4 2.4
Target*
CMS All
Soc. St.Gr. 6Gr. 7Gr. 8
17 PRD 8/2009
Science disaggregated by grade
School Report Card Scores
2005
2006
2007
2008
2.4 2.5 2.6 2.7
2.3 2.4 2.5 2.5
2.4 2.3 2.5 2.5
2.1 2.6 2.4
2.3 2.5 2.7
2.4 2.2 2.2
Target*
CMS All
Science
Gr. 6Gr. 7Gr. 8
18 PRD 8/2009
Math disaggregated by grade
School Report Card Scores
2005
2006
2007
2008
2.4 2.5 2.6 2.7
2.3 2.4 2.5 2.5
2.3 2.5 2.6 2.7
2.8 2.8 2.9
2.5 2.8 2.8
2.1 2.2 2.6
Target*
CMS All
Math
Gr. 6Gr. 7Gr. 8
19 PRD 8/2009
Teachers with In/Out 2008 PACT growth 1.0
Mathematics*Steedley +.40
Fanchette +.23
Fanchette
SPICE
+.18
Wiggins
SPICE
+.10
BarnhillINTERVENTIONIST
+.28
MillenSpecial Needs
+.17
Science**
Archer +.58
Morton +.20
Kennedy +.20
MillenSpecial Needs +.67
JeffordsSpecial Needs +.10
* All students tested annually
** Only students with matching 2007-08 scores; Testing only gr. 4, 7 for all students
20 PRD 8/2009
Teachers with In/Out 2008 PACT growth 1.0
English Language Arts*
TriplettINTERVENTIONIST
+.30
Edwards +.24
ReidSpecial Needs
+.15
Thomas +.10
Social Studies**Walsh +.49
Martin +.44
* All students tested annually** Only students with matching
2007-08 scores; Testing only gr. 4, 7 for all students
21 PRD 8/2009
CMS AYP 2008 (Adequate Yearly Progress NCLB)
5 student participation objectives met
5 student achievement objectives not met
ELATarget 58.8% % of students scoring Proficient/Advanced
CMS Subgroups: All, W, AA, F/R, Spec. Needs
MathTarget 57.8% % of students scoring Proficient/Advanced
5 student participation objectives met
5 student achievement objectives not met
94.0% Attendance RateOther
1 attendance objective not met
10 out of 21 objectives met
22 PRD 8/2009
A changing population over time
Attendance zone changes
LessHonors/ SPICE/ Advanced
students
MoreSpecial Needs
students
23 PRD 8/2009
“Met” Standard
“Exceeded” Standard
Adequate Yearly Progress (NCLB)
2008-2009 Extended team of teachers working with top students (SPICE/Honors)
PASS replaces PACT - New performance levels SC like other states’ definition of “proficient” in 2009
AYP Changes
BasicProficientAdvanced
24 PRD 8/2009
Improvement from 2005 to
2008
Comparison to other CCSD schools
English
Language
Arts
School % Basic & Above
2005
% Basic
& Above 2008
Change from
2005 to 2008
School Improvement
rank
NSES 55.5% 79.1% 23.6% 1
CES 65.1% 73.1% 8.0% 2
* BSES 60.7% 66.7% 6.0% 3
CMS 48.1% 50.4% 2.3% 4
FCMS 52.8% 54.9% 2.1% 5
RMS 63.3% 61.5% -1.8% 6
* FHES 72.9% 70.4% -2.5% 7
HSES 63.3% 59.3% -4.0% 8
* BES 75.2% 61.6% -13.6% 9 * denotes READING FIRST school
Basic and Above =
On/above grade level performance =
Met or Exceeded Standard
New AYP target will equate to “Basic and Above” performance
58.8% of students
25 PRD 8/2009
Improvement from 2005 to
2008
Comparison to other CCSD schools
Mathematics
School
% Basic &
Above 2005
% Basic & Above
2008
Change from
2005 to 2008
School Improvement
rank
CMS 46.7% 66.2% 19.5% 1
NES 62.7% 80.8% 18.1% 2
CES 64.5% 73.1% 8.6% 3
HES 58.0% 64.0% 6.0% 4
FCMS 50.1% 55.8% 5.7% 5
RMS 66.3% 67.3% 1.0% 6
FHES 62.7% 63.3% 0.6% 7
BSES 65.9% 54.4% -11.5% 8
BES 71.4% 55.1% -16.3% 9
New AYP target will equate to “Basic and Above” performance
57.8% of students
Target increases in 2011
79% of students
26 PRD 8/2009
2008-2009 Focus Plan (FSRP) External Review Team Requirements (ERT)
Goal-setting 3 instructional goals 2 school leadership goals 2 district leadership goals
Monitoring “satisfactory implementation”
27 PRD 8/2009
2008-2009 Focus Plan Goals
1. English Language Arts as evidenced by 75% of the students attaining a
passing score of 70% or higher on a comprehensive standards-based exam.
2. Mathematics as evidenced by 77% of the students attaining a
passing score of 70% or higher on a comprehensive standards-based exam.
3. Science as evidenced by 70% of the students attaining a
passing score of 70% or higher on a comprehensive standards-based exam.
By April 1, 2009, students in grades 6-8 will demonstrate achievement in….
28 PRD 8/2009
2008-2009 Focus Plan Goals continued
1. ….through monitoring the instructional program. 2. … through providing professional development.
By April 1, 2009, the principal will provide support to increase student achievement as evidenced by attainment of targeted pass rates on comprehensive standards-based exams as follows: English Language Arts, 75%, Mathematics, 77%, and Science 70%, ….
By April 1, 2009, the district will provide support to ensure that students in grades 6-8 will demonstrate achievement as evidenced by attaining the three content goals (ELA, math, and science pass rate targets).
District Administrators’ Instructional Leadership to Increase Student Achievement
Principal’s Instructional Leadership to Increase Student Achievement
29 PRD 8/2009
2008-2009 Focus Plan (FSRP)Bimonthly support and oversight: ERT-Liason on site
District leadership support/review of data Classroom Common Assessments (SMART goals) Classroom Observation Data
30 PRD 8/2009
2008-2009 Goals Achieved
Percent of students passing comprehensive standards-based exams
SubjectsFSRP
Target Set
1st semester % Passing
(70+)
FSRPTarget
Met
2nd
semester % Passing
(70+)
Mathematics 77% 78% 80%
Science 70% 74% 81%
English Language Arts
75% 75.4% 74%
Social Studies 79% 81% 79%
31 PRD 8/2009
2008-2009 Progress Monitoring
Comprehensive Standards-Based Exams
Bi-monthly S.M.A.R.T. Goal Assessments (80% of students score 80% with reteaching/retesting as needed for mastery learning)
Weekly ELA “Cold Text” Assessments
STAR Reading and Accelerated Reading Assessments
PDP and Teacher Reflection
Measures of Academic Progress (MAP) (2 times per year for all students; 3 times per year for special populations)
Coaching Cycle
Plan Teach / Observe / Assess Reflect
32 PRD 8/2009
44%
47%
9%39%
46%
15%
Below / Not met
Basic / Met
Prof-Adv / Exceeded
2008-2009 Progress MonitoringReading MAP
• 41% of CMS students improved one performance level:
Not Met Met Exceeded
Grade 6: 56% improved one level 44% scored Basic or above (Met +)
Grade 7: 38% improved one level 59% scored Basic or above (Met +)
Grade 8: 27% improved one level 68% scored Basic or above (Met +)
33 PRD 8/2009
2008-2009 Progress MonitoringMathematics MAP
61%
37%
2%
45%
49%
6%
Below / Not metBasic / Met
Prof-Adv / Exceeded
• 48% of CMS students improved one performance level:
Not Met Met Exceeded
“Bubble” students:• 47% improved one level• 64% scored Basic or above (Met/Exceeded)
Intervention MET3 students:• 57% improved one level• 54% scored Basic or above (Met/Exceeded)
Students with learning disabilities in self-contained classes:
• 27% improved one level• 12% scored Basic or above (Met/Exceeded)
• Only 40% of SPICE/Honors had matching fall and spring scores
PRD 8/2009
35 PRD 8/2009
School Status 2009-2010
Expected Progress on PACT for ERT-supported “at risk” schools 0.3 increase over 3 years on report card score CMS was 0.001 point from reaching this target
State of Emergency CMS 2009-2010
PPS Status
36 PRD 8/2009
2009-2010 PPS partnership
1 out of 41 schools in the state
3 levels of support based on need: Turnaround, Support, District-Assisted
CMS – Tier 2 Support SCDE – Assistance with finance, budgeting, staffing,
recruitment, retention, partnerships, leadership team, district/state programs and initiatives, support system of professional development activities for teachers, principals, and district staff to include a developmental curriculum approach model for 2009-10
37 PRD 8/2009
2009-2010 Support and OversightBi-weekly: PPS-Liason on site SC Dept. of Ed. Support
Monthly: District leadership support/review of data
Classroom Common Assessments Classroom Observation Data
PPS Professional Learning Community Collaboration Meetings Regional Meetings Regional Monthly Teacher Support
Regional S 2MART Centers
Theory of Actio
n
Support Services for Making a Real Transformation
38 PRD 8/2009
Obstacles and Challenges
Numerous teacher and administrative turnover in recent years
Inability of our students to read and comprehend 50% Below Basic – ELA 2008
Reduction in funding – loss of administrative and curriculum personnel, teacher cut backs lead to higher teacher/pupil ratio
Retention and recruitment of high quality teachers and leaders
Acceleration of reading progress for struggling ELA students
Parent involvement“When parents are involved, students achieve more, regardless of socioeconomic status, ethnic/racial background, or the parents’ education level.” —National Standards for Parent/Family Involvement
39 PRD 8/2009
Family Involvement Strategies School Parenting Personnel
oPart-time Parent Facilitator oParent and Data Communication Coordinator
Two-Way CommunicationoIn Touch – Parents view discipline, grades, attendance, PACT scores, and may correspond with the teacher via the internet. Teacher posts major assignments. Current data is exported from SASI and Integrade Pro on a regular basis. Teachers update grades weekly.
oAuto-Dialer MessageoAgenda books – Homework assignments; o correspondenceoIntegrade Pro grade reports, missing tasks, etc.oParent Conferences
VolunteersoSign up at 6th grade orientation, GAP Kickoff, Open House
Learning at HomeoParent Center ResourcesoFamily Night – Math/Science/Literacy
Decision-making Parent Teacher Organization School Improvement Council Parent Advisory Committee for Title I
Community CollaborationoSIC Members/Community LeadersoCareer Fair
40 PRD 8/2009
Restructuring
“Do what you can, where you are, with what you have.”
--Theodore Roosevelt
The challenge is for us to get all stakeholders to work collaboratively and cohesively together for the benefit of our students.
41 PRD 8/2009
Co-development, implementation, and monitoring of the SCDE approved PPS Plan of Action (Focused School Renewal Plan format)
Monitor teacher’s instructional practices (observations, written feedback, conferences with teachers, follow-up observations)
Professional Learning Communities for School-Based Professional Development
School Leadership Team Approved SCDE curriculum Instruction aligned with curriculum Comprehensive assessment system Stakeholder collaboration Student-centered school climate Strategies to address weaknesses (specific grade/content based on data) Comprehensive needs assessment
2009-2010 Palmetto Priority School Requirements
42 PRD 8/2009
Fine-tuning – Precision and intensity of implementation of
existing initiatives “Stay the course…”
Action Plan – specifics to be determined Instructional Goals for ELA and math Administrative Leadership Goals (principal/ district) Progress Monitoring
ommitted to aking
43 PRD 8/2009
Guidelines for PPS Action Plan Goals Required Instructional Goals for ELA and math
“Through a development curriculum approach, specific needs of students will be assessed, determining ongoing adjustments to be made according to the progress of students, ensuring academic improvement by May 3, 2010.” --sample goal from SCDE
Measurement will be determined by growth indices from Measures of Academic Progress (MAP)
Required Principal Instructional Leadership Goals Monitor instructional practices Lead staff in improvement in
instructional climate (surveys)
Required District Instructional Support Goal – Monitor all of the above
44 PRD 8/2009
Literacy Collaboration among stakeholders Literacy improvement plan
Leveled texts and SRA reading instruction daily SRA – Scientific Research Associates Program Direct Instruction in Decoding and Skill Kits Novel Units for “test out” groups
Schoolwide Student Writing - connections to character education
Schoolwide Reading Assessments: STAR, MAP, AR Classroom ELA assessments with “cold text” On-going Professional Development Reading Interventionist/ ELATE Program Literacy Coach/ Instruction Facilitator
45 PRD 8/2009
“Teaching is hard work. Success can be ensured for every student only when teachers pool their strengths and support each other by engaging in a common quest for continuous improvement.” -Turning Points, p. 141
46 PRD 8/2009