1 / 21

The Wakefield Schools

Focused Monitoring 2008-2009 Jocelyn Robinson Assistant Principal. The Wakefield Schools. Consists of five named villages: Union, Sanbornville, Wakefield village proper, East Wakefield and North Wakefield 12 lakes and ponds 8.9% of those under 18 live in poverty

carrieann-thompson
Download Presentation

The Wakefield Schools

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Focused Monitoring 2008-2009 Jocelyn Robinson Assistant Principal The Wakefield Schools

  2. Consists of five named villages: Union, Sanbornville, Wakefield village proper, East Wakefield and North Wakefield 12 lakes and ponds 8.9% of those under 18 live in poverty 42% students free/reduced lunch (state average 23%) The Villages of Wakefield

  3. Union School Paul School Spaulding High School Governor Wentworth Bright Beginnings The Schools of Wakefield

  4. For 2008 - 2009: Corrective Action – District Restructuring – School Focused Monitoring – District 2003 – School did not make AYP for Math for SpEd – Year 2 Math for 2004-2005 2004 – School did not make AYP for Math for SpEd – SINI Year 1 Math for 2005-2006 2006 – School made AYP for Math not for Reading – Advance to SINI Year 2 Math: DINI Year 1 Math for 2006-2007 2007 – School did not AYP for Math and Reading for SpEd – Advance to SINI Year 3 Math: DINI Year 2 Math for 2007-2008 2008 – School did not make AYP for Math or Reading for SpEd (or any subgroup) – Advance to SINI Year 4 Math; SINI Year 2 Reading: DINI Year 3 Math and Year 1 Reading for 2008-2009 2009 – School made AYP for Math for All Groups – Remain SINI Year 4 Math; SINI Year 2 Reading: DINI Year 3 Math and Year 1 Reading for 2009-2010 NECAP History

  5. 2009 AYP Report shows that the Paul School made adequate yearly progress in all areas. As a whole school, we exceeded the target index score in reading (Target = 86: Paul School = 90.2) and math (Target = 82: Paul School = 89.2). However, the special education subgroup did not meet the target index score in reading (Paul School = 70.2) nor math (Paul School = 71.6). They did, however, make AYP under Safe Harbor. 2008 NECAPThe Good News - A Cautionary Tale

  6. Corrective action is the collective name given to steps taken by a State Educational Agency (SEA) that substantially and directly responds to serious instructional, managerial and organizational problems in the Local Educational Agency (LEA) that jeopardizes the likelihood that students will achieve proficiency in the core academic subjects of reading and math. Corrective Action

  7. The state must provide technical assistance in order for the district to implement one of the following: 1. defer programmatic funds or reduce administrative funds 2. Institute and fully implement a new curriculum based on state and local content and academic achievement standards that includes appropriate, scientifically research-base professional development for all relevant staff. 3. Replace LEA personnel who are relevant to the inability of the LEA to make adequate progress 4. Removed individual schools from the jurisdiction of the LEA and arrange for their public governance and supervision 5. Appoint a receiver or trustee to administer the affairs of the LEA in the place of the superintendent and school board 6. Abolish or restructure the LEA Corrective Action

  8. The Options Option 1: Chartering: reopen the school as a public charter school Option 2: Turnaround: replace all or most of the school staff (which may include the principal) who are relevant to the failure to make adequate yearly progress Option 3: Contracting: enter into a contract with an entity, such as a private management company, with a demonstrated record of effectiveness, to operate the public school Option 4: State Takeover: turn the operation over to the state, if permitted by state law and agreed to by the state Option 5: Other: any other major restructuring of the school’s governance arrangement that makes fundamental reforms, such as significant changes in the school’s staffing and governance, to improve student academic achievement in the school and that has substantial promise of enabling the school to make adequate yearly progress as defined in the state plan. Restructuring

  9. 2006 NECAP 81% of Sp Ed students score below proficient 44% of all students score below proficient 2007 NECAP 91% of Sp Ed students score below proficient 47% of all students score below proficient 2008 NECAP 69 % of Sp Ed students score below proficient 28% of all students score below proficient Focused Monitoring

  10. Bill Lander, Superintendent * Paula Wensley, SAU Director of Student Services * Linda Stimson, SAU Curriculum Coordinator * Priscilla Colbath, School Board Cheryl Martin, Parent Pat Troy, Principal * Jocelyn Robinson, Assistant Principal * Jeanne Desjardins, Special Education Coordinator * Annie McKenzie, Title 1 Coordinator Deb Wilson, Social Worker Penny Cotreau, Classroom Teacher Wendy Trausi, Classroom Teacher Gretchen Russell, Special Education Teacher Carolyn McPherson, Special Education Teacher Cindy Akers, Paraprofessional Jane Bergeron-Beaulieu – SERESC consultant * Jen Dolloff – SERESC consultant * Bob Andrews – SERESC consultant * FM Team(s)

  11. At the Paul School, what are the contributing factors to the achievement gap that exists between students who scored proficient and above and those who did not? Essential Question

  12. Step 1: Get Ready for Inquiry Step 2: Organize and Analyze Data Step 3: Investigate Factors Impacting Student Achievement Step 4: Determine Effective Practices and Write a Plan Step 5: Implement, Monitor and Evaluate The 5-Step Inquiry Process

  13. Leadership Curriculum, Instruction and Assessment Parent/Family Engagement Formation of Subcommittees

  14. Checklists of Success Indicators Mapping Current Initiatives – Inventory of Initiatives Inventory of Team Structures within the Building NECAP and NWEA scores from 2006 – 2008 Paul School Staff Leadership Survey Spaulding High School Focus Groups – Staff / Students Paul School Focus Groups – Staff / Students Spaulding High School Parent interviews Paul School Staff and Parent Survey Survey of Reading / Math programs for each grade Survey of Instructional Time for each grade Survey of Assessments used for each grade Survey of data used for each grade level Survey of interventions available at each grade level Spaulding High School Student data – grades, attendance, behavior, course selection IEP Review Data – Data - Data

  15. Cheryl Martin, Parent Penny Cotreau, Teacher Debra Wilson, Social Worker Cindy Akers, Paraprofessional Jocelyn Robinson, Assistant Principal Jane Bergeron-Beaulieu, SERESC Consultant Parent/Family Engagement Members

  16. Parent Voice 'State of Our Schools' survey with parents of Paul and Union Schools students Phone interviews with parents of Wakefield students currently attending Spaulding High School Staff Voice 'State of Our Schools' survey with staff of Paul and Union Schools Focus Groups with staff of Spaulding High School Review of information from Focus Groups conducted by Leadership subcommittee Student Voice Focus Groups for Paul School students (grade 3-8) Focus groups for Wakefield students at Spaulding High School Parent/Family Engagement

  17. The lack of effective communication systems at all levels within the educational community impacts student achievement. Members of the educational community include, but are not limited to: SAU and its staff, school staff and administration (Paul, Union, Spaulding), school board, parents, students and the community at large. Hypothesis

  18. At the Leadership Institute in April and follow-up work, the hypotheses of all three subgroups were reviewed. As a result three areas of need were evident: Climate / Culture Professional Development Curriculum and Instruction From these the Action Plan was developed. Hypotheses to Action Plan

  19. The establishment of effective, direct and honest communication systems at all levels will lead to increased student achievement. 1. A process will be in place for decision making that all members will uphold. 2. All members of the educational community will communicate with each other in a respectful manner – 3. All members are responsible for the mission and vision of the school enabling all students to achieve. Goal

  20. Given the breath and depth of the Action Plan the challenges are great including: 1. Central Office Changes 2. School Level Changes 3. Stakeholder Support Challenges Ahead

  21. Cassidy, Jerrell. Ball State University 'State of Our Schools Survey'. Epstein, Joyce et.al. 'School, Family, and Community Partnerships'. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press. 2002. Henderson, Anne et. al. 'Beyond the Bake Sale'. New York: The New Press. 2007. Marzano, Robert. 'What Works in Schools'. Alexandria, VA: ASCD. 2003. Richardson, Joan. Tools For Schools 'Focus Groups' Walberg, Herbert, ed. 'Restructuring and Substantial School Improvement'. Charlotte, NC: Information Age Pub. 2007 Sources

More Related