Presentation is loading. Please wait.

Presentation is loading. Please wait.

PRD 8/2009 Dr. Kenneth Jenkins, Principal Specialist.

Similar presentations


Presentation on theme: "PRD 8/2009 Dr. Kenneth Jenkins, Principal Specialist."— Presentation transcript:

1 PRD 8/2009 Dr. Kenneth Jenkins, Principal Specialist

2 PRD 8/2009 Leadership Team HQ Teachers - Professional Development (PDP) Curriculum Resources Standards-Based Instruction Aligned Assessment Positive, Safe Learning Environment Comprehensive Systematic School Plan for Improvement

3 PRD 8/2009 Needs Assessment using data xxx Collaboration and capacity building Progress Monitoring Comprehensive Systematic School Plan for Improvement

4 PRD 8/2009

5 5 1 of 3 middle schools in CCSD Poverty index 81% 409 students in grades 6, 7, and African American students 122 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 students Like other high poverty schools, CMS has struggled to reach the report card targets for which the bar is raised each year.

6 6 PRD 8/ % or more students enter CMS lacking essential skills (e.g. multiplication facts) 50% or more students enter CMS reading below grade level CMS students "I don't care what they do on TV, Jerome, you can not call a life line."

7 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 7 th and 8 th graders who are over 2 years below grade level in reading have built up walls of resistance and dont want to keep trying because of past failures in learning to read. Grade LevelAverage Instructional Reading Level 64.2 Scored as well as a 4 th grader after 2 months of instruction 74.6 Scored as well as a 4 th grader after 6 months of instruction 85.7 Scored as well as a 5 th grader after 7 months of instruction In what ways does reading impact all subjects?

8 8 PRD 8/2009 Meeting the Reading Challenge The average reading level at all grades improved! 6 th grade growth exceeded expectations: equivalent to 8 months of growth in 7 month period GradeBeginning of Year Grade Equivalent After 7 Months Grade Equivalent Change after 7 Months 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

9 9 PRD 8/2009 ACCOUNTABILITY Student Achievement CMS PACT PERFORMANCE LEVELS SubjectYear% BB% Basic%Prof.%Adv ELA %40.6% 9.1%0.8% %39.3%11.2%0.9% %44.9%11.6%0.2% Math %52.1%8.6%5.5% %49.0%11.9%4.0% %43.0% 8.4%2.9% Science %30.2%10.3%7.6% %29.9% 9.4%9.1% %30.2% 6.5%4.9% Soc. St %41.6% 6.7%4.8% %41.4% 9.7%2.9% %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 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 11 PRD 8/2009 A constantly moving target… Learning is like rowing upstream, not to advance is to drop back. – Chinese proverb

12 12 PRD 8/2009 The challenge of hitting a moving target Target* CMS All School Report Card Scores * 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 13 PRD 8/2009 PACT Student Performance Data Data analysis by school, grade, subject, subgroups Teacher role In/ Out reports Expectation 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 14 PRD 8/2009 Disaggregated by grade Target* CMS All School Report Card Scores Gr. 6 Gr. 7 Gr. 8

15 15 PRD 8/2009 ELA disaggregated by grade School Report Card Scores Target* CMS All ELA Gr. 6 Gr. 7 Gr. 8

16 16 PRD 8/2009 Social Studies disaggregated by grade School Report Card Scores Target* CMS All Soc. St. Gr. 6 Gr. 7 Gr. 8

17 17 PRD 8/2009 Science disaggregated by grade School Report Card Scores Target* CMS All Science Gr. 6 Gr. 7 Gr. 8

18 18 PRD 8/2009 Math disaggregated by grade School Report Card Scores Target* CMS All Math Gr. 6 Gr. 7 Gr. 8

19 19 PRD 8/2009 Teachers with In/Out 2008 PACT growth Mathematics* Steedley+.40 Fanchette+.23 Fanchette SPICE +.18 Wiggins SPICE +.10 Barnhill INTERVENTIONIST +.28 Millen Special Needs +.17 Science** Archer+.58 Morton+.20 Kennedy+.20 Millen Special Needs +.67 Jeffords Special Needs +.10 * All students tested annually ** Only students with matching scores; Testing only gr. 4, 7 for all students

20 20 PRD 8/2009 Teachers with In/Out 2008 PACT growth English Language Arts* Triplett INTERVENTIONIST +.30 Edwards+.24 Reid Special Needs +.15 Thomas+.10 Social Studies** Walsh+.49 Martin+.44 * All students tested annually ** Only students with matching scores; Testing only gr. 4, 7 for all students

21 21 PRD 8/2009 CMS AYP 2008 (Adequate Yearly Progress NCLB) 5 student participation objectives met 5 student achievement objectives not met ELA T arget 58.8% % of students scoring Proficient/Advanced CMS Subgroups: All, W, AA, F/R, Spec. Needs Math Target 57.8% % of students scoring Proficient/Advanced 5 student participation objectives met 5 student achievement objectives not met 94.0% Attendance Rate Other 1 attendance objective not met 10 out of 21 objectives met

22 22 PRD 8/2009 A changing population over time Attendance zone changes Less Honors/ SPICE/ Advanced students More Special Needs students

23 23 PRD 8/2009 Met Standard Exceeded Standard Adequate Yearly Progress (NCLB) 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 Basic Proficient Advanced

24 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 NSES55.5%79.1%23.6% 1 CES65.1%73.1%8.0% 2 * BSES60.7%66.7%6.0% 3 CMS48.1%50.4%2.3% 4 FCMS52.8%54.9%2.1% 5 RMS63.3%61.5%-1.8% 6 * FHES72.9%70.4%-2.5% 7 HSES63.3%59.3%-4.0% 8 * BES75.2%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 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 CMS46.7%66.2%19.5% 1 NES62.7%80.8%18.1% 2 CES64.5%73.1%8.6% 3 HES58.0%64.0%6.0% 4 FCMS50.1%55.8%5.7% 5 RMS66.3%67.3%1.0% 6 FHES62.7%63.3%0.6% 7 BSES65.9%54.4%-11.5% 8 BES71.4%55.1%-16.3% 9 New AYP target will equate to Basic and Above performance 57.8% of students Target increases in % of students

26 26 PRD 8/ 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 27 PRD 8/ 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 28 PRD 8/ 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 Principals Instructional Leadership to Increase Student Achievement

29 29 PRD 8/ 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 30 PRD 8/ Goals Achieved Percent of students passing comprehensive standards-based exams Subjects FSRP Target Set 1 st semester % Passing (70+) FSRP Target Met 2 nd semester % Passing (70+) Mathematics77%78% 80% Science70%74% 81% English Language Arts 75%75.4% 74% Social Studies79%81% 79%

31 31 PRD 8/ 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 32 PRD 8/ Progress Monitoring Reading 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 33 PRD 8/ Progress Monitoring Mathematics MAP 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

34 PRD 8/2009

35 35 PRD 8/2009 School Status Expected Progress on PACT for ERT- supported at risk schools 0.3 increase over 3 years on report card score CMS was point from reaching this target State of Emergency CMS PPS Status

36 36 PRD 8/ 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

37 37 PRD 8/ Support and Oversight Bi-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 2 MART Centers Theory of Action S upport S ervices for M aking a R eal T ransformation

38 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 39 PRD 8/2009 Family Involvement Strategies School Parenting Personnel o Part-time Parent Facilitator o Parent and Data Communication Coordinator Two-Way Communication o In 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. o Auto-Dialer Message o Agenda books – Homework assignments; o correspondence o Integrade Pro grade reports, missing tasks, etc. o Parent Conferences Volunteers o Sign up at 6 th grade orientation, GAP Kickoff, Open House Learning at Home o Parent Center Resources o Family Night – Math/Science/Literacy Decision-making Parent Teacher Organization School Improvement Council Parent Advisory Committee for Title I Community Collaboration o SIC Members/Community Leaders o Career Fair

40 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 41 PRD 8/2009 Co-development, implementation, and monitoring of the SCDE approved PPS Plan of Action (Focused School Renewal Plan format) Monitor teachers 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 Palmetto Priority School Requirements

42 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 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, 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 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 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 46 PRD 8/2009


Download ppt "PRD 8/2009 Dr. Kenneth Jenkins, Principal Specialist."

Similar presentations


Ads by Google