Making Middle Grades Work

1. Making Middle Grades Work 2010-2011 TAV Exit Report Summary Aiken County Middle Schools May 24, 2011

2. MMGW Technical Assistance Visits “Snapshot” of one day as seen by visitors to our schools Baseline data Use as a tool to further our work, not an evaluation

3. 10 Key Practices High expectations - Extra help/ extra time Upgraded core academics Strong leadership Qualified teachers All students matter – guidance Teachers working together Students actively engaged Using technology for learning Support from parents Using data

4. Priority Focus Areas for MMGW Increase the rigor of academic core courses to improve the success rate of all students Provide leadership at all levels to support a plan for continuous improvement Use of data to drive instruction Use student-centered instructional strategies that promote engagement Develop a comprehensive advisement program-all students matter Enhance family and community engagement

5. TAV Process • Teams consisted of a teacher from a feeding elementary school, four teachers from the high school, a team leader chosen by the state, and one or more educators from outside the district. • They met after school on the first day for an introductory presentation by the school and then received training on how to collect observational data. • On Day 2 the team members visited all classes at least twice and interviewed groups of teachers, students, and parents. • On the final day the team leader presented a preliminary report in the form of a PowerPoint. Later the schools receive a detailed report with all of the data collated and specific resources to address the areas of need identified by the team. • What follows is a summary of some commonalities among the eleven exit PowerPoints.

6. Rigor Team members looked at whether standards were posted in classrooms, level of expectations, level of questioning, rigor of instruction, emphasis on literacy, use of rubrics, and similar teacher behaviors. All eleven middle schools received recommendations to increase the level of rigor within their classrooms.

7. Strong Leadership Across All Levels The visiting team interviewed parents and looked at how often administrators visit classes, whether the school has their MMGW focus teams in place and active, and teacher collaboration within the school and within the district The team indicated twice as many promising practices as areas of need among our schools for this focus area. The absence of common planning time at some schools and the need for more collaboration among schools in the district were suggestions for improvement at several schools.

8. Use of Data to Drive Instruction Teams looked at how often teachers meet to review data and plan, whether data is used to guide and improve instruction, how we were addressing the achievement gap, and the extent to which we celebrate student successes. Although there were promising practices observed throughout the district, the teams identified this as an area needing improvement, particularly in terms of teachers’ using data to drive instructional decisions.

9. Engaging Instructional Strategies The teams looked at how engaged the students were in the classes, teachers’ instructional strategies, and utilization of technology. Again, although there were areas of promising practices, such as the use of small group instruction and hands-on activities, the teams identified this topic as an area needing improvement. Two suggested targets for improvement were the need for more differentiated and student-centered instruction and the need to fully utilize the interactive capabilities of the SmartBoards.

10. Comprehensive Advisement Program The teams observed the counseling programs and the opportunities for remediation available at each middle school. The two most complimented areas were our programs to provide extra help to students and our transition programs from elementary to middle school. One area of need they cited was the need for improved advisor/advisee programs.

11. Family and Community Engagement The teams examined the state parent survey data for each school and interviewed parent representatives. They also looked at our SICs and PTOs, our communication with parents, and business partnerships. Our various strategies to communicate with parents was singled out as a promising practice at all eleven middle schools. They also complimented the business partnerships at several of our middle schools. All of the schools, however, will receive suggestions about how to get more parental involvement.

12. Overriding Observations • The visiting teams cited more promising practices than evidence of need in the focus areas of leadership, family and community engagement, and student advisement and counseling • The visiting teams repeatedly complimented our district’s adoption of the Making Middle Grades Work framework, utilization of MAP testing, Synergistic Labs, our district literacy initiative, and the extent to which principals visit classrooms to observe instruction. • The need for more rigor, better utilization of data to drive instruction, and for more engaging instructional strategies were cited as areas for improvement at all of our middle schools.

13. What’s Next? Each school is examining their individual TAV report and other data about the strength of their instructional program. The information has been divided among the schools’ focus teams for action. Focus team goals may need to be updated. They are asked to select and prioritize action steps All action steps should be monitored for effectiveness. Schools are using this data to guide revision of their strategic plans and to help them plan professional development. District resource personnel are assisting in this effort and will be monitoring the results. We will also be using this data to guide district professional development for our middle schools.