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

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

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!

Restructuring Looking back 2008-2009

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” 857 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.

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."

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?

Meeting the Reading Challenge STAR reading assessment Growth 2008-09 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.

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 – 2007 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 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% Approximately 1/2 of students performed below grade level in ELA, science, and social studies.

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

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

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

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

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?

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?

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?

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?

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?

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 2007-08 scores; Testing only gr. 4, 7 for all students * All students tested annually

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 2007-08 scores; Testing only gr. 4, 7 for all students * All students tested annually

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

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

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

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

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

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”

2008-2009 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.

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).

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

1st semester % Passing (70+) 2008-2009 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%

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)

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 2008 Spring 2009

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 2008 Spring 2009

Restructuring Looking forward 2009 - 2010

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

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

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

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

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

“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.

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?

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

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

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

“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

C M