23
Finally . . . We “Met Growth” Again! PATRICIA UNDERWOOD, PRINCIPAL AT LELAND MIDDLE SCHOOL NCMLE CONFERENCE TUESDAY, MARCH 8, 2016

Finally . . . We "Met Growth" Again!

Embed Size (px)

Citation preview

Page 1: Finally . . . We "Met Growth" Again!

Finally . . . We “Met Growth” Again!PATRICIA UNDERWOOD, PRINCIPAL AT LELAND MIDDLE SCHOOLNCMLE CONFERENCE TUESDAY, MARCH 8, 2016

Page 2: Finally . . . We "Met Growth" Again!

School Demographics

Students — 780 Grade 6 - 243 Grade 7 - 259 Grade 8 - 278

EC Students — 124 (15.9%)

69% Free and Reduced Lunch

Staff--- Principal and 3 Aps

1 Administrative intern 1 SRO 2 Counselors

32 Core Teachers 8 EC teachers

3 Resource, 3 cross-cat self-contained, 1 autism, 1 MU

10 Elective teachers 1 Literacy teacher 1 media coordinator

Page 3: Finally . . . We "Met Growth" Again!

AMO Subgroups Whole School White Black Multiple races Hispanic Economically

disadvantaged Students with

Disabilities AIG

Page 4: Finally . . . We "Met Growth" Again!

Test Data from 2012-13 to 2013-14

2012-13 Did Not Meet Growth -

13.69 Performance Composite 33.9%

School Performance Grade Stats- Had not begun

Targets overview--- Reading- #Met- 14 , #Targ- 16, 85.7% Math- #Met- 9 , #Targ- 16, 57.1% Science- #Met- 10, #Targ- 11, 90.9%

2013-14 Did Not Meet Growth - 2.72 Performance Composite CCR 40% Performance Composite GLP 46% School Performance Grade Stats-

Overall Performance-50, D Reading Performance-54, C Math Performance-40, F

Targets overview--- Reading- #Met-10 , #Targ-16, 62.5% Math- #Met-8 , #Targ-16, 50% Science- #Met-10, #Targ-11, 91%

Page 5: Finally . . . We "Met Growth" Again!

Devastating results in 2012-13 Searching for reasons

why . . . Challenging demographics

including a huge influx of EC students

Transient population Administrative staff

changes 5 teachers who struggled

to work with our demographic population

Unexpected appearance of MS 13 in our community

State politics had teachers out of focus

Page 6: Finally . . . We "Met Growth" Again!

BUT we must meet students where they are and move them forward! That translates into

“Meeting growth”! I began to wonder if we

needed to “hit the bottom” to see that we had to change some processes and procedures that had been in place for a long time

Remember: “Mom is not keeping her best children at home and only sending us the ones who struggle to learn.”

Page 7: Finally . . . We "Met Growth" Again!

So we begin . . . a new School Improvement Team is elected . . . A strong group of key leaders

emerge--- 1 rep from each grade level Principal 1 AP AD TOY 1Elective 1 Classified employee 1 EC teacher 1 Support staff (literacy teacher,

media coordinator, etc.) 1 counselor

Initial actions: Throw out the old SIP and start

from scratch . . . . Not just a revision or revamping of the former plan, but a genuinely new plan

PBIS input used to address the concerns with motivation and behavior

Revisit our mission and vision statements

Revisit our AVID program Revisit our level of fidelity in all

initiatives Consider what PD is needed to

move forward

Page 8: Finally . . . We "Met Growth" Again!

The leadership team presents the new plan to the 2013-14

staff.Teacher teams present: The School Improvement Plan New PBIS changes for the

year and training for new employees to our school

AVID training- use of the binder, especially the table of contents, and Cornell notes

Literacy initiative and focus PLC scheduling, planning,

and documentation

Page 9: Finally . . . We "Met Growth" Again!

The Board of Education wants to hear personally from everyone who

had growth and everyone who didn’t . . . Not an easy

conversation!

Page 10: Finally . . . We "Met Growth" Again!

The following is the presentation shared

on Oct. 21, 2014

Page 11: Finally . . . We "Met Growth" Again!

3 Significant Factors from our Data

How close to Meeting Growth- LMS was at -2.72. In order to meet growth, we needed to be at a minimum of -2.00. [We were -13.69 in 2012-13]

Number of teachers: Exceeding- 4 Meeting- 23 Not Meeting- 8

Areas of strength and weakness: Exceeded Growth in Science 6, Social Studies 8 Met Growth in Science 8 Negative growth in Reading 6 offset positive growth in grades 7 and

8; negative growth in Math 7 offset growth in grades 6 and 8 math

Page 12: Finally . . . We "Met Growth" Again!

Actions in 2014-15 to Address Areas of Concern

• Dr. Mark L’Esperance from ECU is working with our Language Arts, Math, and Science 8 PLCs to teach us how to more effectively collect and use data to adjust instruction

• More specific format and plan for PLC meetings• Strategic placement of students in literacy to

support student needs, including the addition of math sections

• Revisiting our lesson plan format to be sure that we are fully addressing differentiation

Page 13: Finally . . . We "Met Growth" Again!

Our Focus and SIP Adjustments

Instructional Focus of the Year

Critical thinking/problem solving/higher order questioning [help students discern what is being asked in the question so that they may answer appropriately]

Using data more effectively to adjust instruction

PBIS- complete Module 2

Adjustments to SIP since its writing

Fine-tuning of the literacy has occurred due to drilling into EVAAS data, SRI and SMI baseline data for the new year

Intent conversations about our lesson planning format based on training received through the Learning Focused materials

Page 14: Finally . . . We "Met Growth" Again!

Taking action on our plan---

PLCs and planning— Means of documentation Our lesson plan became

the minutes of the meeting

Specific meeting schedule so that administration can attend all meetings if possible

Lesson plan template is revised and as the year progressed, the Learning Focused model was introduced

Page 15: Finally . . . We "Met Growth" Again!

Our Literacy period model--- a school-wide focus on questioning

Was year 4 of our current format 3-day of week plan with the format:

Mon, Tues, Thurs.- school-wide lesson focus on critical thinking skills and higher order questioning

Literacy teacher developed a powerpoint introduction for each Monday; collaborative lesson on Tues. and independent practice on Thursday; all materials were given to teachers the week prior to needing them

Independent reading on Wednesday and Friday with a writing component added into Friday’s lesson

Page 16: Finally . . . We "Met Growth" Again!

We developed a tool for our staff and students . . .

Page 17: Finally . . . We "Met Growth" Again!

Dr. Mark L’Esperance from ECU– training using EVAAS

Led us in a study of looking at a teacher’s trend data Using the Teacher Diagnostic

section of the data, teachers identified the 1/3 of their students that performed the strongest for them and the lower 1/3

Self-examination of strategies used that did and did not work the previous year

Tracking intentional strategies to be used this year

Tracking and following successes and failures

Page 18: Finally . . . We "Met Growth" Again!

How did it turn out in 2014-15?

2013-14 Did Not Meet Growth - 2.72 Performance Composite CCR 36 Performance Composite GLP 46 School Performance Grade Stats-

Overall Performance-50, D Reading Performance-54, C Math Performance-40, F

Targets overview--- Reading- #Met-10 , #Targ-16, 62.5% Math- #Met-8 , #Targ-16 , 50% Science- #Met-10, #Targ-11, 91%

2014-15 Met Growth 0.21 Performance Composite CCR 40.0 Performance Composite GLP 48.9 School Performance Grade Stats-

Overall Performance-55, C Reading Performance-55, C Math Performance-45, D

Targets overview--- Reading- #Met- 11, #Targ-16, 68.8% Math- #Met- 8, #Targ-16, 50% Science- #Met-13, #Targ-13, 100%

Page 19: Finally . . . We "Met Growth" Again!

Where did the reading growth come from?

2013-14 AMO Targets All- 38% (Not met) Black- 22.8% (Not met) Hispanic- 27.1% (Not met) Multiple races- 51.4%

(Met) White- 47% (Not met) EDS- 30.9% (Not met) SWD- < 5% (Not met) AIG- 94.1% (Met)

2014-15 AMO Targets All- 40.5% (Not met) [+] Black- 24.7% (Not met) [+] Hispanic- 35.7% (Not met)

[+] Multiple races- 44.7%

(Met) [-] White- 48.9% (Not met)

[+] EDS- 30.0% (Not met) [-] SWD- 9.4% (Not met) [+] AIG- 91.5% (Met) [-]

Page 20: Finally . . . We "Met Growth" Again!

Where did the math growth come from?

2013-14 AMO Targets All- 23.4% (Not met) Black- 15.6% (Not met) Hispanic- 18.7% (Not met) Multiple races- 31.4% (Not

met) White- 27.8% (Not met) EDS- 17.9% (Not met) SWD- < 5% (Not met) AIG- 79.4% (Not met)

2014-15 AMO Targets All- 31.2% (Not met) [+] Black- 18.8% (Not met) [+] Hispanic- 22.3% (Not met)

[+] Multiple races- 28.4% (Not

met) [-] White-40% (Not met) [+] EDS- 19.2% (Not met) [+] SWD- < 5% (Not met)

[same] AIG- 85.4% (Met) [+]

Page 21: Finally . . . We "Met Growth" Again!

Where have we gone from here?

Election of another strong leadership team

Continued questioning focus Continued PLC focus Continued PBIS initiative Continued AVID focus Changes in literacy focus for

the year Repetition of the Dr.

L’Esperance process using EVAAS data and intentional focus

Page 22: Finally . . . We "Met Growth" Again!

We certainly are not where we want to be but turning the corner and meeting growth again gave our staff the affirmation and courage that they needed to teach with confidence again!

Page 23: Finally . . . We "Met Growth" Again!

Questions?

Please share anything that is working at your school.Patricia C. UnderwoodPrincipal, Leland Middle [email protected]