219846653 madison-middle-case-study

Get Homework/Assignment Done
Homeworkping.com
Homework Help
https://www.homeworkping.com/
Research Paper help
Online Tutoring
click here for freelancing tutoring sites
FLORIDA TURNAROUND LEADERS PROGRAM
2012
Case Study Report:
Madison Middle School
Authors:
Josetta Destin-Washington
Terrance Gibson
Derek Negron
CrystalSpence
S E P T E M B E R 2 0 1 2

1
School Profile
School Name MadisonMiddle School
StudentDemographics 6,7 and 8
Numberof Students(total as of02/12) 583
Numberof Instructional Staff 42
Numberof Non-Instructional Staff 35
Numberof Administrative Staff 3 (principal andtwoassistantprincipals)
Current School Grade 2011-12 = F
School Grade History 2010-2011 = D 2009-10 = D
DifferentiatedAccountabilityStatus Correct II
PercentFree / ReducedPrice Meals 94%
Title I Status Yes
Mission/VisionStatements
School Vision:
The visionof MadisonMiddle School isto promote andenhance students’sense of self-esteemand
knowledge while empoweringpridetopromote life-longlearnersandproductivecitizens.
School Mission:
The missionof MadisonMiddle School istoprepare all studentsfora productive future.
LeadershipChanges
2011-2012 RennyNeyra
2007-2011 Dr. Tonya Dillard
There has beenapatternof highadministrationturnoverasadministratorshave nottypicallyremained
at MadisonMiddle more than three years.
Student Demographics
*Federal Sub-PopulationDescriptors:Asof June 21, 2012
White Black Native Asian Pacific Non-Hispanic Hispanic
1% 59% 0% 0% 0% 60% 40%
Additional Sub-Population Descriptors
ELL %ELL ESE Total % ESE Free/Reduced %
Free/Reduced
2012 78 14 71 12 539 94

2
Student Attendance
Numberof
Absences
0 1-5 6-10 11-15 16-20 21+ Average
Percent
2011-2012 15 137 147 88 79 115 92.53
2010-2011 15 186 176 87 62 138 92.81
2009-2010 28 225 157 99 65 100 93.81
The data indicatesthat the numberof studentswith twenty-one or more absencesin2012 decreased
from the previousyear. However, there are an excessive numberofabsences
Mobility
Movement
Organization School
Year
Transfer In Transfer Out Mobility
IndexNew Within Outside Private Within Outside Private Other
MadisonMiddle
2011-
2012
30 106 49 4 91 29 1 5 58
Miami-Dade
MadisonMiddle
2010-
2011
45 122 57 3 99 32 4 4 42
Miami-Dade 39887 25077 18845 2282 26150 13150 2662 4482 25
MadisonMiddle
2009-
2010
36 106 62 1 100 36 7 8 41
Miami-Dade 39965 27478 20089 2389 28542 13587 2601 4482 24
According to the data, the mobilityrate increasedby sixteenpercentage pointsduring the last
schoolyear.Additionally,MadisonMiddle’smobilityhasconsistentlybeenhigherthan the District’s
average.
Student Discipline Data
In School SuspensionStatistics
School Year Total # of Offenses
Resultingin In-School
Suspension
2011-2012 90
2010-2011 70
2009-2010 16

3
Faculty Qualifications
2010-2011
Numberof Instructional Staff49 % of Teachers withAdvanced Degrees51%(25)
% of First-YearTeachers4.1% (2) % Highly QualifiedTeachers46.9% (23)
% of Teachers with1-5 Years Experience28.6% (14) % Reading EndorsedTeachers10.2% (5)
% of Teachers with6-14 Years of Experience44.9% (22) % National Board CertifiedTeachers0%(0)
% of Teachers with15+ Years ofExperience22.4% (11) % ESOL EndorsedTeachers12.2% (6)
2011-2012
Numberof Instructional Staff 42 % of Teachers withAdvanced Degrees40.5% (17)
% of First-YearTeachers14.3% (6) % Highly QualifiedTeachers57.1% (24)
% of Teachers with1-5 Years Experience33.3% (14) % Reading EndorsedTeachers11.9% (5)
% of Teachers with6-14 Years of Experience38.1% (16) % National Board CertifiedTeachers0%(0)
% of Teachers with15+ Years ofExperience14.3% (6) % ESOL EndorsedTeachers16.7% (7)
The data indicatesthat the percentof first year teachersincreasedfrom 4.1% to 14.3% from 2011 to
2012. Additionally,several teacherswithsix or more years of experience andteacherswith advanced
degreesnolonger teach at Madison Middle.Thisdata will be important to monitor whenanalyzing
teacher efficacyand pedagogy.
School Culture/ClimateSurvey Results
A three year school climate survey of students, parents, and staff of Madison Middle School
produced the following responses; the response rate, source of each theme, and how they
compare to all the other middle school climate surveys are as follows:

4
Parents
I am satisfied with the choice of educational programs offered at my child’s school
School Year
Organization 2009-2010 2010-2011 2011-2012
% Agree
74% 62% 72%
All Middle Schools
% Agree
80% 81% 83%
My Child’s School uses adequate disciplinary measures in dealing with disruptive students
School Year
Organization 2009-2010 2010-2011 2011-2012
Madison Middle
School
% Agree
72% 48% 88%
All Middle Schools
% Agree
73% 74% 76%

5
Parents (Continued)
The Teachers are knowledgeable and understand the subject matter
School Year
Organization 2009-2010 2010-2011 2011-2012
% Agree
69% 63% 79%
All Middle Schools %
Agree
83% 83% 85%
The Principal does an effective job running my child’s school
School Year
Organization 2009-2010 2010-2011 2011-2012
% Agree
57% 59% 52%
Agree
81% 82% 84%

6
Students
I feel safe at my school
School Year
Organization 2009-2010 2010-2011 2011-2012
% Agree
30% 38% 41%
Agree
67% 67% 72%
My school has enough books and equipment to help me learn
School Year
Organization 2009-2010 2010-2011 2011-2012
% Agree
38% 43% 43%
All Middle Schools
% Agree
58% 65% 66%

7
Students (Continued)
My Teachers know a lot about the subjects they teach
School Year
Organization 2009-2010 2010-2011 2011-2012
% Agree
67% 72% 68%
Agree
80% 80% 80%
My Principal does a good job running the school
School Year
Organization 2009-2010 2010-2011 2011-2012
% Agree
38% 44% 34%
Agree
62% 63% 67%

8
Staff
I feel safe and secure
School Year
Organization 2009-2010 2010-2011 2011-2012
% Agree
33% 25% 60%
Agree
86% 84% 89%
My ability to do the best possible job at my school is limited by insufficient resources (e.g.
funds, books, equipment, supplies etc.)
School Year
Organization 2009-2010 2010-2011 2011-2012
% Agree
56% 85% 47%
Agree
39% 13% 39%

9
Staff (Continued)
Administrators solve problems effectively
School Year
Organization 2009-2010 2010-2011 2011-2012
% Agree
33% 40% 40%
Agree
74% 74% 77%
The overall climate or atmosphere at my school is positive and helps students learn
School Year
Organization 2009-2010 2010-2011 2011-2012
% Agree
26% 35% 40%
Agree
78% 78% 81%

10
Community Demographics (providedby ESRI)
2008 Summary
Zip Code
33147
National
Total Population 46,857 309,299,265
Total
Households
13,803 116,384,754
White Alone 29.2% 72.3%
Black Alone 61.7% 12.6%
American
Indian Alone
0.2% 0.9%
Asian or Pacific
Islander Alone
0.2% 4.6%
Some Other
Race Alone
4.9% 6.7%
Two or More
Races
3.8% 2.9%
Hispanic Origin 37.4% 15.4%
Male 47.5% 49.1%
Female 52.5% 50.9%
Median
Household
Income
$26,959 $54,749
HH Income
Under $50K
72.8% 45.5%
HH Income
$50K-$100K
21.3% 34.8%
HH Income
Over $100K
5.9% 19.6%
2008 Average
Home Value
$173,071 $260,559

11
School wide Tools and Strategies
Response to Intervention
Madison Middle Rtl team consists of the principal, assistant principals, academic coaches,
student services personnel, general, and special education teachers. The individuals selected
for the team have a history of meeting the needs of all students. The individuals have a strong
knowledge and skills within their specific content areas or expertise. The members take on role
as instructional leader, facilitator, and content specialist, staff Liaison, and/ or data mentor:
Renny L. Neyra, Principal
Eida Herrera, Assistant Principal
Niesha Mack-Freeman, Assistant Principal
Yolanda Smith, Literacy Coach
Giuseppe Castaldi, Literacy Coach
Scott Peterson, Science Coach
Tanielle Jones, Math Coach
Jasmine Reyner, School Psychologist
Yolanda Nunez, Counselor
Vernon Howard, Counselor
General Education Teachers
Madison Middle School Rtl Leadership Team will focus meetings around developing and
maintaining a problem solving systemto bring out the best in our schools, our teachers, and in
our students. The team meets once a week to engage in the following activities: Review data
from monthly reading, mathematics, writing, and science assessment and link to instructional
decisions; review the data by grade level and classroomlevel to identify students who are
meeting/exceeding benchmarks, at moderate risk or at high risk for not meeting benchmarks.
The classroomteachers submit a Student in Need of Assistance formwhich is then reviewed by
the team. Data on this student is reviewed an a determination to proceed or not is then made.
Based on the above information, the Rtl team will identify interventions and resources needed
to aide students in achieving mastery. Madison’s Rtl team will collaborate regularly, problem
solve, share effective practices, evaluate implementation, make decisions, and practice new
processes and skills. Within their roles, Rtl team members will perform additional duties as
specified below.
- Ms. Renny Neyra, Principal: Instructional Leader that provides a common vision for the use of
data-based decision-making, supporting school staff by communicating the Rtl process, building
school culture, gathering input and creating order by providing specific routines and
procedures, share leadership responsibilities with other team members, communicates with
parents, encourage and support within the school regarding RtI plans and activities.

12
- The General Education Teachers: Facilitator that identifies strategies for staff and team
members, determine effective processes to involve all members and facilitating communication
within the school with leadership team and staff. Other duties include: providing information
about core instruction, participate in student data collection, deliver instruction/intervention,
collaborate with other staff to implement interventions, and integrate materials/instructional
with student activities for students not meeting AYP and state standards.
- The Special Education Teachers: Facilitator that identifies strategies for staff and team
members, determine effective
processes to involve all members and facilitating communication within the school with
leadership team and staff. Other
duties include: participate in student data collection, integrate core instructional
activities/materials into targeted instruction
for students not meeting AYP and state standards, and collaborate with general education
teachers.
- Taielle Jones, Math Coach: Content specialist that provides foundational knowledge to
understand how students learn toproblem solving and mathematics content, why some
students struggle, ensures that when new curricular materials areobtained teachers receive
professional development, monitor fidelity of use of curricular materials and strategies,
supportsthe implementation of the school’s intervention plans, provide early intervening
services for children to be considered “atrisk;” assists in the design and implementation for
progress monitoring, data collection, and data analysis; participates in the design and delivery
of professional development; and provides support for assessment and implementation
monitoring.
- Scott Peterson, Science Coach: Content specialist that provides foundational knowledge to
understand how students learn to problem solving and science content, why some students
struggle, ensures that when new curricular materials are obtained teachers receive professional
development, monitor fidelity of use of curricular materials and strategies, supports the
implementation of the school’s intervention plans, provide early intervening services for
children to be considered “at risk;” assists in the design and implementation for progress
monitoring, data collection, and data analysis; participates in the design and delivery of
professional development; and provides support for assessment and implementation
monitoring.
- Yolanda Smith and Giuseppe Castaldi, Reading Coaches: Content specialist that provides
foundational knowledge to understand how students learn to read, write and spell and why
some students struggle, ensures that when new curricular materials are obtained teachers
receive professional development, monitor fidelity of use of curricular materials and strategies,
supports the implementation of the school’s intervention plans, provide early intervening
services for children to be considered “at risk;” assists in the design and implementation for
progress monitoring, data collection, and data analysis; participates in the design and delivery

13
of professional development; and provides support for assessment and implementation
monitoring.
- Jasmine Reyner, School Psychologist: Staff Liaison that brings a perspective necessary for team
decision making, gains input and communicate with each staff members, participates in
collection, interpretation, and analysis of data; facilitates development of intervention plans;
provides support for intervention fidelity and documentation; provides professional
development and technical assistance for problem-solving activities including data collection,
data analysis, intervention planning, and program evaluation; facilitates data-based decision
making activities.
Madison Middle School RtI Leadership Team will meet with the Educational Excellence School
Advisory Council (EESAC) andprincipal to help develop and implement the 2011– 2012School
Improvement Plan (SIP). The team will monitor data on: all students not making AYP and not
meeting state standards. The Rtl team will monitor the fidelity of the delivery of instruction and
interventions before, after, and during the school day. In addition, the team will provide
support to students who are below mastery on the District’s Interim and Madison Monthly
assessments. Madison’s RtI team will assist with coordinating strategies and developing an
action plan that set clear expectations for instruction that incorporate the following: (Rigor,
Relevance, Relationship); systemic approach to teaching (Gradual Release, Essential Questions,
Activating Strategies, Teaching Strategies, Extending, Refining, and Summarizing); research-
based instructional strategies proven to improve student achievement (Similarities and
differences, Summarizing and note taking, Reinforcing effort and providing recognition,
Homework and practice, Representing knowledge, Learning groups, Setting objectives and
providing feedback, Generating and testing hypotheses, Cues, questions, and advance
organizers), and data driven classroominstruction.
To monitor the progress of students working academically below that of their peers, Madison
Middle School Rtl team and staff utilizes the Edusoft Assessment Management System to
manage the following academic data: Baseline data: Progress
Monitoring and Reporting Network (PMRN), District Baseline Assessment, Florida
Comprehensive Assessment Test (FCAT). To identify students who may need additional
intervention, data from Cognos reporting system, which includes student’s school attendance
history, Student Case Management System, teacher or parent referrals, and suspension reports
will be utilized to summarize tiered data.
• Progress Monitoring: PMRN, AIMS web, Curriculum Based Measurement (CBM), FCAT
Simulation, Student Grades
• Midyear: Florida Assessments for Instruction in Reading (FAIR), Madison Monthly
Assessments, and the District Mid-year Assessment.
• End of year: FAIR, Madison Monthly Assessments, District Assessments, and 2012 FCAT
• Frequency of Data Days: twice a month for data analysis

14
Student Achievement
Reading Grade 6
2010 2011 2012
School District State School District State School District State
% Level 1 38 2117 45 20 17 48 22 19
% Level 2 30 17 16 22 17 17 2925 24
% Level 3-5 32 62 67 33 63 67 23 53 57
Reading Sub-skills: 6th grade Comparison of State Average to School Points 2011-12
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
18
Vocabulary Reading
Application
Literary Analysis Informational Text
Points Possible
State Average
School Points

15
Reading Grade 7
2010 2011 2012
% Level 1 39 18 14 3918 14 44 21 18
% Level 2 29 18 17 25 18 17 33 25 25
% Level 3-5 22 64 68 35 65 68 23 54 58
Reading Grade 8
2010 2011 2012
% Level 1 46 21 17 37 20 17 38 19 17
% Level 2 36 27 27 37 28 27 40 28 27
% Level 3-5 18 51 55 26 52 55 2254 55
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
Vocabulary Reading
Application
Literary Analysis Informational
Text
Points Possible
State Average
School Points

16
6th grade Mathematics
2010 2011 2012
% Level 1 47 2723 48 29 23 41 2623
% Level 2 22 2019 26 20 20 32 25 25
% Level 3-5 30 53 57 26 51 57 27 50 53
Math Sub-skills: 6th grade Comparison of State Average toSchool Points 2011-12
2010 2011 2012
% Level 1 41 21 17 46 22 19 43 19 17
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
Vocabulary Reading
Application
Literary Analysis Informational
Text
Possible Points
State Points
School Points
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
18
20
Possible
State
School

17
% Level 2 21 27 27 27 21 19 20 28 27
% Level 3-5 38 51 55 26 57 62 27 54 55
2010 2011 2012
% Level 1 34 27 14 34 16 12 33 2322
% Level 2 31 23 20 22 22 20 30 22 21
% Level 3-5 35 60 66 39 63 68 36 5657
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
Number Base
Ten
Ratios and
Proportional
Relationships
Geometry and
Measurement
Statistics and
Probability
Possible Points
State
School
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
18
20
Number
Operations
Expressions,
Equations &
Functions
Geometry &
Meansurement
Possible Points
State
School

18
8th Grade Science
2010 2011 2012
% Level 1 55 33 25 55 33 25 52 27 22
% Level 2 31 33 32 31 33 32 31 30 31
% Level 3-5 14 34 43 35 34 42 17 43 46
Science Sub-skills: 8th grade Comparison of State Average to School Points 2011-12
8th Grade Writing
2010 2011 2012
% Scoring 3 or
Above
859596 959697 507578
% Scoring 4.0
or Above %
5474 76 71 7982 10 28 33
Average Score 3.5 4.0 4.1 3.8 4.14.2 2.6 3.2 3.3
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
Nature
Science
Earth Sapce
Science
Physical
Science
Life Science
Possible Points
State
School

19
Writing: 8th grade Comparison of State Average to School Points 2011-12
Professional Development
Reading
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
Mean Score
Possible Points
State
School
Focus/Topic Description/Purpose Participants Target
Date
Evaluation
Students in grades 6 – 8
must target skills in
Words/Phrases and
Comparisons utilizing
graphic organizers; concept
and vocabulary maps.
This PD is intended to support
instruction of words/phrases and
comparisons. How to
lessons/professionaldevelopment
will be provided so that teachers
can provide ongoing instruction
for students on howto work with
semantically related words how
to derive word meanings and
word relationships from context,
expose students to a variety of
genres to identify the sequence of
events,challenging practice on
making inferences as well as
provide practice with affix and
root word activities.
All Teachers August
2009
Duration:
Ongoing
Teachers will
employ Edusoft
to monitor
student progress;
Word Walls,
student work
samples to
include graphic
organizers,
concept maps,
vocabulary maps
and students’
personal
dictionaries will
also be utilized to
monitor progress.
must target skills in
Reference/Researchusing
reciprocal teaching, note
taking, summarization,
opinion proofs and
questioning the author.
This PD is intended to support
instruction of reference/research.
How to lessons/professional
development will be provided so
that teachers can provide ongoing
instruction for students on howto
build strongerarguments to
support their answers, students
will learn to examine rubrics and
All Teachers August-
September
2009
Teachers will
employ Edusoft
to monitor
student progress;
Lesson Plans will
also be used to
monitor progress.

20
2009 – 2010
2010 – 2011
Date
Evaluation
Students in grades 6 –
8 need targeted skills
on implementing
instructional strategies.
PD on Differentiated
Instruction (DI) and
Creating Independence
Through Student-
Owned Strategies
(CRISS) will be
utilized.
This PD (CRISS) is intended to
teach teachers to teach students to
locate, analyze, synthesize,and
verify supporting details within a
text. No description of how DI PD
would be implemented in the
Reading section.
Language Arts
and Reading
Teachers
August
2010
Duration:
Ongoing
3rd
Tuesday-
8:30 am
Student work
samples, District
and schoolmonthly
assessments,
classroom
walkthroughs, and
Lesson Plan
documentation.
Students in grades 6 –
8 must receive training
on utilizing the online
reading intervention
programs
These programs are geared to
student that fall into the Level 1
and/orLevel 2 reading category.
This PD is intended to teach
teachers to implement the online
reading programs (Language,
Voyager, and Compass Learning)
to ensure student execution/usage
with fidelity.
Language Arts
and Reading
Teachers
August
2010
Duration:
Ongoing
Student work
samples online
computer generated
usage report,
observation of
center use and
Lesson Plan
documentation.
2011 – 2012
Date
Evaluation
need targeted skills on
implementing
instructional strategies.
PD on Differentiated
Instruction (DI), Bell to
Bell Instructionsand
Instructional
Frameworks will be
utilized.
The PD is intended to teach teachers
how to effectively utilize student data
to drive instruction; implement and
monitor Bell to Bell instructional
frameworks to support literacy
instruction.
Language Arts
and Reading
Teachers
August
2011
Duration:
Ongoing 3rd
Tuesday-
8:30 am
Interim and
Monthly
Assessments.
must receive training on
utilizing the online
reading intervention
programs
These programs are geared to student
that fall into the Level 1 and/orLevel
2 reading category. This PD is
intended to teach teachers to
implement the online reading
programs (Language, Voyager, and
Compass Learning) to ensure student
execution/usage with fidelity.
Language Arts
and Reading
Teachers
August
2011
Duration:
Ongoing
FAIR;
Interim and
Monthly
Assessments.
the appropriate benchmarks to
ensure a complete understanding
of the assessed skill.

21
Math
2009 – 2010
Date
Evaluation
Students in grades
6 – 8 must target
skills in Number
Sense,
Measurement and
Geometry.
The PD will be designed to teach
teachers to effectively implement the
Instructional Focus Calendar and design
effective lessons. To address Number
Sense students will receive ongoing
instruction and lessons that reinforce
properties of numbers, understanding
operations with integers, and
understanding the relative size of
numbers. To address Measurement,
teachers will provideinstructions with a
variety of measurement activities that
requires using measurement tools and
interactive lessons.To address Geometry
students will receive ongoing instruction
and lessons that reinforce properties of
numbers, understanding operations with
integers, and understanding the relative
size of numbers.
Math
Teachers
October
2009
Teachers will
employ Edusoft to
monitor progress;
student work
samples to include
thematic projects,
problem solving,
and word walls will
also be used to
monitor progress.
Students in grades
6 – 8 need
targeted
Differentiated
Instruction (DI).
This PD is intended to teach teachers to
employ High Yield Instructional
Strategies.Teachers and coaches will
work in small groups with students
emphasizing instructions at different
levels using measurement concepts and
applying learning to solve real-world
problems.
Math
Teachers
August-
September
2009
Department Chair
and Math Coach
will employ
Edusoft to monitor
student progress.
Students in grades
6 – 8 need
targeted
interventions
using Online Math
Based Programs.
This PD will teach teachers to utilize
available online technology programs
(i.e. Riverdeep, FCAT Explorer, Gizmo)
to provide students with additional
practice for one hour once a week in
small ability based groups.
Math
Teachers
August
2009
Department Chair
and Math Coach
will employ
Edusoft to monitor
student progress as
well as review
technology based
data reports.
Students in grades
6 – 8 need
targeted skills on
effectively
utilizing
Manipulativesand
Hands-on-
This PD will teach teachers how to
emphasize instruction using visual cue;
graphic representations; and pictures to
help students masterrelated vocabulary
words.
Math
Teachers
September
2009
Department Chair
and Math Coach
will employ
Edusoft to monitor
student progress.

22
Activities.
2010 – 2011
Date
Evaluation
need targeted
Differentiated Instruction
(DI), skills on effectively
utilizing
Manipulatives,Hands-on-
Activities,and High Yield
Instructional Strategies.
This PD is intended to teach
teachers to teach students to
utilize hands-on activities to
explore area and volume using
non-traditional units of measure
(i.e. using nets,construct cubes,
prism, and tetrahedrons of
different scales and compare
ratios of edge, length, area, and
volume of the models). This will
allow expose students to
converting units of measure
between measurement systems
(US) customary or metric (SI),
dimensions, and derived units to
solve problems.
Math
Department
August
2010
Duration:
Ongoing
3rd
Tuesday-
8:30 am
Student work
samples, District
and schoolmonthly
assessments/data
reports.
need targeted
interventions using
Online Math Based
Programs.
This PD will teach teachers to
teach students to utilize hands-on
experiences to facilitate the
conceptuallearning and
understanding ofalgebraic
concepts and how to apply
learning to the real world. The PD
will include the use of tangible
manipulatives such as tiles,
pattern blocks and connecting
cubes.
Math
Department
August
2010
Duration:
Ongoing
Student work
samples, District
and schoolmonthly
assessment data,
and technology
based computer
generated
data/reports.
2011 – 2012
Date
Evaluation
Students in grades
6 – 8 need targeted
interventions using
Online Math
Based Programs.
This PD will teach teachers to teach
students to utilize hands-on experiences
to facilitate the conceptuallearning and
understanding ofalgebraic concepts and
how to apply learning to the real world.
The PD will include the use of tangible
manipulatives such as tiles, pattern
blocks and connecting cubes.
Math
Department
August
2011
Duration:
Ongoing
Student work
samples, District
and school
monthly
assessment data,
and technology
based computer
generated
data/reports.

23
Science
2009 – 2010
Date
Evaluation
Students in grades 8
must target the
following sciences:
Physical, Chemical,
Earth/Space,and
Life/Environmental
using Effective
Implementation of the
Focus Calendar.
The PD will teach teachers to
effectively implement the
Instructional Focus Calendar. To
address Physical/Chemical students
will receive ongoing instruction and
lessons using differentiated and/or
high yield instructional strategies that
apply physical and chemical science
concepts in real-world scenarios,and
conduct laboratory investigations that
include calculating, manipulating,
and solving problems. To address
Earth/Space, teachers will teach
students to explore their
surroundings for evidence of cause
and effect relationships that exist in
earth and space science by
incorporating lab investigations and
field studies.Students will develop
projects to increase scientific
thinking, and the development and
discussion ofinquiry-based
activities. To address
Life/Environmental students will
participate in environmental
challenges and/orprograms that
provide students the opportunity to
investigate and explore
interrelationships of human’s and
earth’s systems.
Science
Teachers
October
2009
Teachers will
employ Edusoft
to monitor
progress; Reports
generated from
walkthroughs,
and FCAT
Science scores.
must target the
following sciences:
Physical, Chemical,
Earth/Space,and
Life/Environmental
using Differentiated
This PD is intended to teach teachers
to employ High Yield Instructional
Strategies.To address
Physical/Chemical students will
receive ongoing instruction and
lessons using differentiated and/or
high yield instructional strategies that
Science
Teachers
August-
September
2009
Teachers will
employ Edusoft
to monitor
progress; Reports
generated from
walkthroughs,
and FCAT

24
Instruction (DI). apply physical and chemical science
concepts in real-world scenarios,and
conduct laboratory investigations that
include calculating, manipulating,
and solving problems. To address
Earth/Space, teachers will teach
students to explore their
surroundings for evidence of cause
and effect relationships that exist in
earth and space science by
field studies.Students will develop
projects to increase scientific
thinking, and the development and
discussion ofinquiry-based
activities. To address
Life/Environmental students will
participate in environmental
challenges and/orprograms that
provide students the opportunity to
investigate and explore
interrelationships of human’s and
earth’s systems.
Science scores.
2010 – 2011
2011 – 2012
Writing
2009 – 2010
Focus/Topic Description/Purpose Participants Target Evaluation
Date
Evaluation
Students in grades
8 need targeted
instruction and
opportunities to
utilize Computer-
Based Programs
and need exposure
to the 5E Model.
This PD is intended to teach teachers
to expose students to higherorder
thinking skills as well as provide
opportunities for students to explore
their surroundings for evidence cause
and effect relationships by
field studies. Students will learn to
use computer-based programs (i.e.
Gizmo) and instructional strategies
(i.e. 5 E Model) to explore and apply
new knowledge about science.
Science
Department
August
2010
Duration:
Ongoing
Thursdays-
8:30 am
Student work
samples, District
and schoolmonthly
assessments/data
reports; and Gizmos
online technology
data.
Date
Evaluation
need targeted
instruction on
Essential Labs.
This PD will teach teachers to teach
students to engage in hands-on and
interactive investigations as well as
provide students enrichment
opportunities.
Science
Department
August
2011
Duration:
Ongoing
Student work
samples and
monthly
assessment data.

25
Date
Students in grade
8 need skills to
Support Details in
combined
Narrative and
Expository
writing.
The PD will teach teachers to teach
students the writing process across the
curriculum with an emphasis on
instruction in establishing a logical
organization pattern with supporting
details that are substantial,specific and
relevant. The revision and editing
process will be explicitly taught and
lessons will be modeled to demonstrate
best practices. .
All Teachers September
2009
Teachers will employ
Learning Express
Folio to monitor
progress; student
writing samples;
Small Learning
Community feedback
forms; Data Chat
forms; and electronic
portfolio will also be
used.
2010 – 2011
Date
Evaluation
Students in grade 8
need targeted
instruction in
Writing Elements/
Techniques,and
Supporting Details
for Persuasive and
Expository writing.
The PD will review persuasive and
expository writing techniques as well as
how to utilize previous FCAT Writing
Anchorpapers to further teach the
necessary writing skills. Students will
utilize writing samples to identify
supporting details; provide suggestions
for improvement; refer to revision and
editing chart to edit their papers; and
conference with peers and/or teachers.
2010
Student work
samples, District
and school
monthly
assessments/data
reports.
2011 – 2012
Date
Evaluation
Students in
grade 8 need
targeted
instruction on
Writing
Elements.
This PD will target effective persuasive
and expository writing techniques.Mini-
lessons and writer’s workshops will be
conducted to address writing deficiencies
through explicit instruction. Students will
be provided opportunities to make
adjustments and improvements towards
the mastery of targeted writing skills
through increased descriptive and
corrective feedback.
2011
Student writing
notebooks/folders;
student final work
products with
feedback evidence.
Performance Standards
(Legend:1=Above Prediction;0=AtPrediction; -1=BelowPrediction)

26
(Lege
nd:
1=Ab
ove
Predi
ction;
0=At
Predi
ction;
-
1=Bel
ow
Predi
ction
)
(Legend:1=Above Prediction;0=AtPrediction; -1=Below Prediction)
-1.5
-1
-0.5
0
0.5
1
1.5
2009 2010 2011
READING
READING
-1.5
-1
-0.5
0
0.5
1
1.5
2009 2010 2011
MATH
MATH

27
(Legend:1=Above Prediction; 0=AtPrediction;-1=Below Prediction)
COMPARISONS WITH PREDICTED SCORES
SUBJECT AREA ACTUAL SCORE1 PREDICTED SCORE2 DIFFERENCE PREDICTION LEVEL
-1.5
-1
-0.5
0
0.5
1
1.5
2009 2010 2011
WRITING
WRITING
-1.5
-1
-0.5
0
0.5
1
1.5
2009 2010 2011
SCIENCE
SCIENCE

28
Reading 37 25 +12 Above Prediction
Math 43 25 +18 Above Prediction
Writing 95 90 +5 Above Prediction
Science 21 16 +5 Above Prediction
The above data indicatesMadisonMiddle exceededthe predictionandgoalsthatwassetin the school
improvementplan.
1= Percent MeetingStandard
2= Percent meeting standard compared to similar middle schoolsbasedon free/reduced lunch
PERCENT MAKING LEARNING GAINS COMPAREDTODISTRICT MIDDLE SCHOOLS
SUBJECT AREA SCHOOLSCORE DISTERICT AVERAGE DIFFERENCE EXPECTATION LEVEL
Reading 56 61 -5 At Expectation
Math 64 * * *
Reading Lowest 25% 68 60 +8 Above Expectation
Math Lowest 25% 66 * * *
Note:Geometrybaseline was usedfor district average. Individualof eachschool within the district, lowest 25% learning gains in
math was lessthan5% andtherefore isn’t revealed inorder to maintainthe anonymityandprivacy of students.

219846653 madison-middle-case-study

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

What's hot

What's hot (20)

Viewers also liked

Viewers also liked (10)

Similar to 219846653 madison-middle-case-study

Similar to 219846653 madison-middle-case-study (20)

Recently uploaded

Recently uploaded (20)

219846653 madison-middle-case-study