601. Finally . . . We "Met Growth" Again! After 3 years of stagnating in school growth, our staff stepped back, regrouped and looked at ourselves differently. While we are not where we want to be, we Met Growth this year and raised our performance grade. The "plan of attack" caused us to take a fresh look at our processes and procedures. We will share how we turned things around. Presenter(s): Patricia Underwood Location: Arrowhead

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

2. 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

3. AMO Subgroups
 Whole School
 White
 Black
 Multiple races
 Hispanic
 Economically disadvantaged
 Students with Disabilities
 AIG

4. 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%

5. 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

6. 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.”

7. 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

8. 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

9. The Board of Education wants to hear
personally from everyone who had growth
and everyone who didn’t . . . Not an easy
conversation!

10. The following is the
presentation shared on
Oct. 21, 2014

11. 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

12. 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

13. 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

14. 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

15. 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

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

17. 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

18. 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%

19. 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) [-]

20. 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) [+]

21. 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

22. 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!

23. Questions?
Please share anything
that is working at your
school.
Patricia C. Underwood
Principal, Leland Middle School
punderwood@bcswan.net
910-371-3030