1. Dr. Kenneth Jenkins, Principal Specialist
Building Blocks
of Restructuring
Colleton Middle School
Dr. Kenneth Jenkins,
Principal Specialist

2. Comprehensive Systematic School Plan for Improvement
Building Blocks
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. Comprehensive Systematic School Plan for Improvement
Restructuring Processes
Needs Assessment using data xxx Collaboration and capacity building Progress Monitoring
Comprehensive Systematic School Plan
for Improvement
Need for rapid change!

4. Restructuring
Looking back

5. CMS students Bulldog Pride! 1 of 3 middle schools in CCSD
Poverty index 81%
409 students in grades 6, 7, and 8
264 African American students
122 White students
42 certified staff members (11 males, 31 females)
Changing demographics since school began tracking data for “expected progress” then to 409 students now
Like other high poverty schools, CMS has struggled to reach the report card targets for which the bar is raised each year.

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

7. 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. Meeting the Reading Challenge
STAR reading assessment Growth
Grade
Beginning of Year
Grade Equivalent
After 7 Months
Change after
7 Months 6
4.6
5.4
+0.8 7
5.3
5.7
+0.4 8
6.3
6.7
The average reading level at all grades improved!
6th grade growth exceeded expectations: equivalent to 8 months of growth in 7 month period
An almost impossible challenge
Accelerate progress 1+ grade levels in a single year
with students who failed to master reading in grades 1-5.

9. ACCOUNTABILITY  Student Achievement  CMS PACT PERFORMANCE LEVELS
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 – Less BB students in math, science, social studies
2008 Less BB continued for math but not other subjects
Subject Year % 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%
Approximately 1/2 of students performed below grade level in ELA, science, and social studies.

10. Accountability Federal State 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

11. Learning is like rowing upstream, not to advance is to drop back.
A constantly moving target…
Learning is like rowing upstream,
not to advance is to drop back.
– Chinese proverb

12. The challenge of hitting a moving target
School Report Card Scores
The challenge of hitting a moving target
* 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.?
2005
2006
2007
2008
2.4
2.5
2.6
2.7
2.3
Target*
CMS All
Based on 4 core subjects
grades 6, 7, and 8

13. PACT Student Performance Data
Data analysis leads to identifying root causes and key leverage areas to target for improvement
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

14. Disaggregated by grade
School Report Card Scores
Disaggregated by grade
2005
2006
2007
2008
2.4
2.5
2.6
2.7
2.3
Target*
CMS All
Gr. 6
Gr. 7
Gr. 8
Continuing to look beneath the surface...
What are pockets of excellence?
... and areas needing support?

15. ELA disaggregated by grade
School Report Card Scores
ELA disaggregated by grade
2005
2006
2007
2008
2.4
2.5
2.6
2.7
2.3
2.2
2.1
Target*
CMS All
ELA
Gr. 6
Gr. 7
Gr. 8
Continuing to look
beneath the surface...
What are pockets of excellence?
... and areas needing support?

16. Social Studies disaggregated by grade
School Report Card Scores
Social Studies disaggregated by grade
2005
2006
2007
2008
2.4
2.5
2.6
2.7
2.3
2.8
2.2
Target*
CMS All
Soc. St.
Continuing to look
beneath the surface...
Gr. 6
Gr. 7
Gr. 8
What are pockets of excellence?
... and areas needing support?

17. Science disaggregated by grade
School Report Card Scores
Science disaggregated by grade
2005
2006
2007
2008
2.4
2.5
2.6
2.7
2.3
2.1
2.2
Target*
CMS All
Science
Gr. 6
Gr. 7
Gr. 8
Continuing to look
beneath the surface...
What are pockets of excellence?
... and areas needing support?

18. Math disaggregated by grade
School Report Card Scores
Math disaggregated by grade
2005
2006
2007
2008
2.4
2.5
2.6
2.7
2.3
2.8
2.9
2.1
2.2
Target*
CMS All
Math
Continuing to look
beneath the surface...
Gr. 6
Gr. 7
Gr. 8
What are pockets of excellence in math?
How has each grade improved over time?

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

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

21. CMS AYP 2008 (Adequate Yearly Progress NCLB)
10 out of 21 objectives met
ELATarget
58.8%
% of students scoring Proficient/Advanced
 5 student participation objectives met
 5 student achievement objectives not met
MathTarget
57.8%
% of students scoring Proficient/Advanced
 5 student participation objectives met
 5 student achievement objectives not met
Other
94.0%
Attendance Rate
 1 attendance objective not met
CMS Subgroups: All, W, AA, F/R, Spec. Needs

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

23. Adequate Yearly Progress (NCLB)
AYP Changes
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
old PACT
new PASS
AYP performance
AYP performance
Basic
Proficient
Advanced
“Met” Standard
“Exceeded” Standard 

24. School Improvement rank
Comparison to other CCSD schools
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
59.3%
-4.0% 8
BES
75.2%
61.6%
-13.6% 9
Improvement from 2005 to 2008
English
Language
Arts
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
* denotes READING FIRST school

25. School Improvement rank
Comparison to other CCSD schools
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
63.3%
0.6% 7
BSES
65.9%
54.4%
-11.5% 8
BES
71.4%
55.1%
-16.3% 9
Improvement from 2005 to 2008
Mathematics
New AYP target will equate to “Basic and Above” performance  57.8% of students
Target increases in 2011
 79% of students

26. 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. Focus Plan Goals
By April 1, 2009, students in grades 6-8 will demonstrate achievement in….
English Language Arts
as evidenced by 75% of the students attaining a passing score of 70% or higher on a comprehensive standards-based exam.
Mathematics
as evidenced by 77% of the students attaining a passing score of 70% or higher on a comprehensive standards-based exam.
Science
as evidenced by 70% of the students attaining a passing score of 70% or higher on a comprehensive standards-based exam.

28. 2008-2009 Focus Plan Goals continued
Principal’s Instructional Leadership to Increase Student Achievement
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%, ….
….through monitoring the instructional program.
… through providing professional development.
District Administrators’ Instructional Leadership to Increase Student Achievement
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).

29. 2008-2009 Focus Plan (FSRP) Classroom Common Assessments (SMART goals)
Bimonthly support and oversight:
ERT-Liason on site
District leadership support/review of data
Classroom Common Assessments (SMART goals)
Classroom Observation Data

30. 1st semester % Passing (70+)
Goals Achieved
Percent of students passing comprehensive standards-based exams
Subjects
FSRP Target Set
1st semester % Passing (70+)
FSRP
Target Met
2nd
semester % Passing (70+)
Mathematics
77%
78% 
80%
Science
70%
74%
81%
English Language Arts
75%
75.4%
Social Studies
79%

31. 2008-2009 Progress Monitoring PDP and Teacher Reflection
Coaching Cycle
Plan  Teach / Observe / Assess  Reflect
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
Measures of Academic Progress (MAP) (2 times per year for all students; 3 times per year for special populations)

32. 2008-2009 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 +)
Basic /
Met
Below /
Not met
Fall
Spring 2009

33. 2008-2009 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
Basic /
Met
Below /
Not met
Fall
Spring 2009

34. Restructuring
Looking forward

35. 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. 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

37. 2009-2010 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
Theory of Action
Regional S2MART Centers
PPS Professional Learning Community Collaboration Meetings Regional Meetings Regional Monthly Teacher Support
Support Services for Making a Real Transformation

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

40. “Do what you can, where you are, with what you have.”
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. 2009-2010 Palmetto Priority School Requirements
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
Which of these are
already in place at CMS?

42. C M 2009-2010 Fine-tuning – Action Plan – specifics to be determined
ommitted to
aking
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

43. 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. 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
SIF Grant

45. “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. C M