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