FLORIDA TURNAROUND LEADERS PROGRAM

Case Study Report: Madison Middle School
Authors: Josetta Destin-Washington Terrance Gibson Derek Negron Crystal Spence

2012

SEPTEMBER 2012

School Profile
School Name Student Demographics Number of Students (total as of 02/12) Number of Instructional Staff Number of Non-Instructional Staff Number of Administrative Staff Current School Grade School Grade History Differentiated Accountability Status Percent Free / Reduced Price Meals Title I Status Madison Middle School 6,7 and 8 583 42 35 3 (principal and two assistant principals) 2011-12 = F 2010-2011 = D 2009-10 = D Correct II 94% Yes

Mission/Vision Statements
School Vision: The vision of Madison Middle School is to promote and enhance students’ sense of self-esteem and knowledge while empowering pride to promote life-long learners and productive citizens. School Mission: The mission of Madison Middle School is to prepare all students for a productive future. Leadership Changes 2011-2012 Renny Neyra 2007-2011 Dr. Tonya Dillard There has been a pattern of high administration turnover as administrators have not typically remained at Madison Middle more than three years.

Student Demographics
*Federal Sub-Population Descriptors: As of June 21, 2012 White 1% Black 59% Native 0% Asian 0% Pacific 0% Non-Hispanic 60% Hispanic 40%

ELL 2012 78

Additional Sub-Population Descriptors %ELL ESE Total % ESE Free/Reduced 14 71 1 12 539

% Free/Reduced 94

Student Attendance
Number of Absences 2011-2012 2010-2011 2009-2010 0 15 15 28 1-5 137 186 225 6-10 147 176 157 11-15 88 87 99 16-20 79 62 65 21+ 115 138 100 Average Percent 92.53 92.81 93.81

The data indicates that the number of students with twenty-one or more absences in 2012 decreased from the previous year. However, there are an excessive number of absences

Mobility Movement
Organization Madison Middle Miami-Dade Madison Middle Miami-Dade Madison Middle Miami-Dade 20092010 20102011 School New Year 30 20112012 45 39887 36 39965 Transfer In Transfer Out Within Outside Private Within Outside Private Other 106 49 4 91 29 1 5 Mobility Index 58

122 25077 106 27478

57 18845 62 20089

3 2282 1 2389

99 26150 100 28542

32 13150 36 13587

4 2662 7 2601

4 4482 8 4482

42 25 41 24

According to the data, the mobility rate increased by sixteen percentage points during the last school year. Additionally, Madison Middle’s mobility has consistently been higher than the District’s average.

Student Discipline Data
In School Suspension Statistics School Year Total # of Offenses Resulting in In-School Suspension 90 70 16

2011-2012 2010-2011 2009-2010

2

Faculty Qualifications 2010-2011 Number of Instructional Staff 49 % of First-Year Teachers 4.1% (2) % of Teachers with 1-5 Years Experience 28.6% (14) % of Teachers with 6-14 Years of Experience 44.9% (22) % of Teachers with 15+ Years of Experience 22.4% (11)

% of Teachers with Advanced Degrees 51% (25) % Highly Qualified Teachers 46.9% (23) % Reading Endorsed Teachers 10.2% (5) % National Board Certified Teachers 0% (0) % ESOL Endorsed Teachers 12.2% (6)

2011-2012 Number of Instructional Staff 42 % of First-Year Teachers 14.3% (6) % of Teachers with 1-5 Years Experience 33.3% (14) % of Teachers with 6-14 Years of Experience 38.1% (16) % of Teachers with 15+ Years of Experience 14.3% (6)

% of Teachers with Advanced Degrees 40.5% (17) % Highly Qualified Teachers 57.1% (24) % Reading Endorsed Teachers 11.9% (5) % National Board Certified Teachers 0% (0) % ESOL Endorsed Teachers 16.7% (7)

The data indicates that the percent of first year teachers increased from 4.1% to 14.3% from 2011 to 2012. Additionally, several teachers with six or more years of experience and teachers with advanced degrees no longer teach at Madison Middle. This data will be important to monitor when analyzing teacher efficacy and pedagogy.

School Culture/Climate Survey 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:

3

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

Madison Middle School % 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 Madison Middle School % Agree 2009-2010 2010-2011 2011-2012

72%

48%

88%

All Middle Schools % Agree

73%

74%

76%

4

Parents (Continued)

The Teachers are knowledgeable and understand the subject matter School Year Organization Madison Middle School % Agree 2009-2010 2010-2011 2011-2012

69%

63%

79%

All Middle Schools % Agree

83%

83%

85%

The Principal does an effective job running my child’s school School Year Organization Madison Middle School % Agree 2009-2010 2010-2011 2011-2012

57%

59%

52%

All Middle Schools % Agree

81%

82%

84%

5

Students I feel safe at my school School Year Organization Madison Middle School % Agree 2009-2010 2010-2011 2011-2012

30%

38%

41%

All Middle Schools % Agree

67%

67%

72%

My school has enough books and equipment to help me learn School Year Organization Madison Middle School % Agree 2009-2010 2010-2011 2011-2012

38%

43%

43%

All Middle Schools % Agree

58%

65%

66%

6

Students (Continued) My Teachers know a lot about the subjects they teach School Year Organization Madison Middle School % Agree 2009-2010 2010-2011 2011-2012

67%

72%

68%

All Middle Schools % Agree

80%

80%

80%

My Principal does a good job running the school School Year Organization Madison Middle School % Agree 2009-2010 2010-2011 2011-2012

38%

44%

34%

All Middle Schools % Agree

62%

63%

67%

7

Staff I feel safe and secure School Year Organization Madison Middle School % Agree 2009-2010 2010-2011 2011-2012

33%

25%

60%

All Middle Schools % 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 Madison Middle School % Agree 2009-2010 2010-2011 2011-2012

56%

85%

47%

All Middle Schools % Agree

39%

13%

39%

8

Staff (Continued) Administrators solve problems effectively School Year Organization Madison Middle School % Agree 2009-2010 2010-2011 2011-2012

33%

40%

40%

All Middle Schools % Agree

74%

74%

77%

The overall climate or atmosphere at my school is positive and helps students learn School Year Organization Madison Middle School % Agree 2009-2010 2010-2011 2011-2012

26%

35%

40%

All Middle Schools % Agree

78%

78%

81%

9

Community Demographics (provided by ESRI)
2008 Summary Zip Code 33147 Total Population Total Households White Alone National

46,857 13,803 29.2% 61.7% 0.2% 0.2% 4.9% 3.8% 37.4% 47.5% 52.5% $26,959 72.8% 21.3% 5.9% $173,071

309,299,265 116,384,754 72.3% 12.6% 0.9% 4.6% 6.7% 2.9% 15.4% 49.1% 50.9% $54,749 45.5% 34.8% 19.6% $260,559

Black Alone American Indian Alone Asian or Pacific Islander Alone Some Other Race Alone Two or More Races Hispanic Origin Male Female Median Household Income HH Income Under $50K HH Income $50K-$100K HH Income Over $100K 2008 Average Home Value

10

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 system to 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 classroom level to identify students who are meeting/exceeding benchmarks, at moderate risk or at high risk for not meeting benchmarks. The classroom teachers submit a Student in Need of Assistance form which 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. - The General Education Teachers: Facilitator that identifies strategies for staff and team members, determine effective processes to involve all members and facilitating communication
11

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 to problem solving and mathematics 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. - 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 of professional development; and provides support for assessment and implementation monitoring.
12

- 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) and principal 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); researchbased 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 classroom instruction. 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

13

Student Achievement Reading Grade 6 2010
% Level 1 % Level 2 % Level 3-5 School District State 38 21 17 30 17 16 32 62 67

2011
School District 45 20 22 17 33 63 State 17 17 67 School 48 29 23

2012
District 22 25 53 State 19 24 57

Reading Sub-skills: 6th grade Comparison of State Average to School Points 2011-12
18 16 14 12 10 8 6 4 2 0 Vocabulary Reading Application Literary Analysis Informational Text Points Possible State Average School Points

14

Reading Grade 7 2010
% Level 1 % Level 2 % Level 3-5 School 39 29 22 District State 18 14 18 17 64 68

2011
School District 39 18 25 18 35 65 State 14 17 68 School 44 33 23

2012
District 21 25 54 State 18 25 58

Reading Sub-skills: 7th grade Comparison of State Average to School Points 2011-12
16 14 12 10 8 6 4 2 0 Vocabulary Reading Application Literary Analysis Informational Text Points Possible State Average School Points

Reading Grade 8 2010
% Level 1 % Level 2 % Level 3-5 School District State 46 21 17 36 27 27 18 51 55

2011
School District 37 20 37 28 26 52 State 17 27 55 School 38 40 22

2012
District 19 28 54 State 17 27 55

Reading Sub-skills: 8th grade Comparison of State Average to School Points 2011-12
16 14 12 10 8 6 4 2 0 Vocabulary Reading Application Literary Analysis Informational Text Possible Points State Points School Points

15

6th grade Mathematics 2010
% Level 1 % Level 2 % Level 3-5 School District State 47 27 23 22 20 19 30 53 57

2011
School District 48 29 26 20 26 51 State 23 20 57

2012
School 41 32 27 District 26 25 50 State 23 25 53

Math Sub-skills: 6th grade Comparison of State Average to School Points 2011-12
20 18 16 14 12 10 8 6 4 2 0

Possible State School

7th grade Mathematics 2010
% Level 1 % Level 2 % Level 3-5 School District State 41 21 17 21 27 27 38 51 55

2011
School District 46 22 27 21 26 57 State 19 19 62

2012
School 43 20 27 District 19 28 54 State 17 27 55

Math Sub-skills: 7th grade Comparison of State Average to School Points 2011-12

16

14 12 10 8 6 4 2 0 Number Base Ten Ratios and Geometry and Statistics and Proportional Measurement Probability Relationships Possible Points State School

8th grade Mathematics 2010
% Level 1 % Level 2 % Level 3-5 School District State 34 27 14 31 23 20 35 60 66

2011
School District 34 16 22 22 39 63 State 12 20 68 School 33 30 36

2012
District 23 22 56 State 22 21 57

Math Sub-skills: 8th grade Comparison of State Average to School Points 2011-12
20 18 16 14 12 10 8 6 4 2 0 Number Operations Expressions, Equations & Functions Geometry & Meansurement Possible Points State School

17

8th Grade Science 2010
% Level 1 % Level 2 % Level 3-5 School District State 55 33 25 31 33 32 14 34 43

2011
School District 55 33 31 33 35 34 State 25 32 42 School 52 31 17

2012
District 27 30 43 State 22 31 46

Science Sub-skills: 8th grade Comparison of State Average to School Points 2011-12
16 14 12 10 8 6 4 2 0 Nature Science Earth Sapce Science Physical Science Life Science Possible Points State School

8th Grade Writing 2010
% Scoring 3 or Above % Scoring 4.0 or Above % Average Score School District State 85 95 96 54 3.5 74 4.0 76 4.1

2011
School District 95 96 71 3.8 79 4.1 State 97 82 4.2 School 50 10 2.6

2012
District 75 28 3.2 State 78 33 3.3

18

Writing: 8th grade Comparison of State Average to School Points 2011-12
7 6 5 4 3 2 1 0 Mean Score Possible Points State School

Professional Development
Reading 2009 – 2010
Focus/Topic Students in grades 6 – 8 must target skills in Words/Phrases and Comparisons utilizing graphic organizers; concept and vocabulary maps. Description/Purpose This PD is intended to support instruction of words/phrases and comparisons. How to lessons/professional development will be provided so that teachers can provide ongoing instruction for students on how to 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. 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 how to build stronger arguments to support their answers, students will learn to examine rubrics and the appropriate benchmarks to ensure a complete understanding of the assessed skill. Participants All Teachers Target Date August 2009 Evaluation 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.

Duration: Ongoing

Students in grades 6 – 8 must target skills in Reference/Research using reciprocal teaching, note taking, summarization, opinion proofs and questioning the author.

All Teachers

AugustSeptember 2009

Teachers will employ Edusoft to monitor student progress; Lesson Plans will also be used to monitor progress.

19

2010 – 2011
Focus/Topic Students in grades 6 – 8 need targeted skills on implementing instructional strategies. PD on Differentiated Instruction (DI) and Creating Independence Through StudentOwned Strategies (CRISS) will be utilized. Students in grades 6 – 8 must receive training on utilizing the online reading intervention programs Description/Purpose 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. Participants Language Arts and Reading Teachers Target Date August 2010 Evaluation Student work samples, District and school monthly assessments, classroom walkthroughs, and Lesson Plan documentation.

Duration: Ongoing 3rd Tuesday8:30 am

These programs are geared to student that fall into the Level 1 and/or Level 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
Focus/Topic Students in grades 6 – 8 need targeted skills on implementing instructional strategies. PD on Differentiated Instruction (DI), Bell to Bell Instructions and Instructional Frameworks will be utilized. Students in grades 6 – 8 must receive training on utilizing the online reading intervention programs Description/Purpose 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. Participants Language Arts and Reading Teachers Target Date August 2011 Evaluation Interim and Monthly Assessments.

Duration: Ongoing 3rd Tuesday8:30 am

These programs are geared to student that fall into the Level 1 and/or Level 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.

20

Math 2009 – 2010
Focus/Topic Students in grades 6 – 8 must target skills in Number Sense, Measurement and Geometry. Description/Purpose 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 provide instructions 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. 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. 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. Participants Math Teachers Target Date October 2009 Evaluation 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).

Math Teachers

AugustSeptember 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.

Math Teachers

August 2009

Students in grades 6 – 8 need targeted skills on effectively utilizing Manipulatives and Hands-onActivities.

This PD will teach teachers how to emphasize instruction using visual cue; graphic representations; and pictures to help students master related vocabulary words.

Math Teachers

September 2009

Department Chair and Math Coach will employ Edusoft to monitor student progress as well as review technology based data reports. Department Chair and Math Coach will employ Edusoft to monitor student progress.

21

2010 – 2011
Focus/Topic Students in grades 6 – 8 need targeted Differentiated Instruction (DI), skills on effectively utilizing Manipulatives, Hands-on-Activities, and High Yield Instructional Strategies. Description/Purpose 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. This PD will teach teachers to teach students to utilize hands-on experiences to facilitate the conceptual learning and understanding of algebraic 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. Participants Math Department Target Date August 2010 Evaluation Student work samples, District and school monthly assessments/data reports.

Duration: Ongoing 3rd Tuesday8:30 am

Students in grades 6 – 8 need targeted interventions using Online Math Based Programs.

Math Department

August 2010 Duration: Ongoing

Student work samples, District and school monthly assessment data, and technology based computer generated data/reports.

2011 – 2012
Focus/Topic Students in grades 6 – 8 need targeted interventions using Online Math Based Programs. Description/Purpose This PD will teach teachers to teach students to utilize hands-on experiences to facilitate the conceptual learning and understanding of algebraic 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. Participants Math Department Target Date August 2011 Evaluation Student work samples, District and school monthly assessment data, and technology based computer generated data/reports.

Duration: Ongoing

22

Science

2009 – 2010
Focus/Topic Students in grades 8 must target the following sciences: Physical, Chemical, Earth/Space, and Life/Environmental using Effective Implementation of the Focus Calendar. Description/Purpose 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 of inquiry-based activities. To address Life/Environmental students will participate in environmental challenges and/or programs that provide students the opportunity to investigate and explore interrelationships of human’s and earth’s systems. 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 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 Participants Science Teachers Target Date October 2009 Evaluation Teachers will employ Edusoft to monitor progress; Reports generated from walkthroughs, and FCAT Science scores.

Students in grades 8 must target the following sciences: Physical, Chemical, Earth/Space, and Life/Environmental using Differentiated Instruction (DI).

Science Teachers

AugustSeptember 2009

Teachers will employ Edusoft to monitor progress; Reports generated from walkthroughs, and FCAT Science scores.

23

thinking, and the development and discussion of inquiry-based activities. To address Life/Environmental students will participate in environmental challenges and/or programs that provide students the opportunity to investigate and explore interrelationships of human’s and earth’s systems.

2010 – 2011
Focus/Topic Students in grades 8 need targeted instruction and opportunities to utilize ComputerBased Programs and need exposure to the 5 E Model. Description/Purpose This PD is intended to teach teachers to expose students to higher order thinking skills as well as provide opportunities for students to explore their surroundings for evidence cause and effect relationships by incorporating lab investigations and 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. Participants Science Department Target Date August 2010 Evaluation Student work samples, District and school monthly assessments/data reports; and Gizmos online technology data.

Duration: Ongoing Thursdays8:30 am

2011 – 2012
Focus/Topic Students in grades 8 need targeted instruction on Essential Labs. Description/Purpose This PD will teach teachers to teach students to engage in hands-on and interactive investigations as well as provide students enrichment opportunities. Participants Science Department Target Date August 2011 Evaluation Student work samples and monthly assessment data.

Duration: Ongoing

Writing 2009 – 2010
Focus/Topic Students in grade 8 need skills to Support Details in combined Narrative and Expository writing. Description/Purpose 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. . Participants All Teachers Target Date September 2009 Evaluation 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.

24

2010 – 2011
Focus/Topic Students in grade 8 need targeted instruction in Writing Elements/ Techniques, and Supporting Details for Persuasive and Expository writing. Description/Purpose The PD will review persuasive and expository writing techniques as well as how to utilize previous FCAT Writing Anchor papers 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. Participants All Teachers Target Date September 2010 Evaluation Student work samples, District and school monthly assessments/data reports.

2011 – 2012
Focus/Topic Students in grade 8 need targeted instruction on Writing Elements. Description/Purpose This PD will target effective persuasive and expository writing techniques. Minilessons 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. Participants All Teachers Target Date September 2011 Evaluation Student writing notebooks/folders; student final work products with feedback evidence.

Performance Standards
(Legend: 1=Above Prediction; 0=At Prediction; -1=Below Prediction) 1.5 1 0.5 0 2009 -0.5 READING -1 -1.5 2010 2011

READING

25

(Legend: 1=Above Prediction; 0=At Prediction; -1=Below Prediction)

MATH
1.5 1 0.5 0 2009 -0.5 -1 -1.5 2010 2011 MATH

(Legend: 1=Above Prediction; 0=At Prediction; -1=Below Prediction)

WRITING
1.5 1 0.5 0 2009 -0.5 -1 -1.5 2010 2011 WRITING

26

(Legend: 1=Above Prediction; 0=At Prediction; -1=Below Prediction)

SCIENCE
1.5 1 0.5 0 2009 -0.5 -1 -1.5 2010 2011 SCIENCE

COMPARISONS WITH PREDICTED SCORES SUBJECT AREA Reading Math Writing Science ACTUAL SCORE1 37 43 95 21 PREDICTED SCORE2 25 25 90 16 DIFFERENCE +12 +18 +5 +5 PREDICTION LEVEL Above Prediction Above Prediction Above Prediction Above Prediction

The above data indicates Madison Middle exceeded the prediction and goals that was set in the school improvement plan.
1= Percent Meeting Standard 2= Percent meeting standard compared to similar middle schools based on free/reduced lunch

PERCENT MAKING LEARNING GAINS COMPARED TO DISTRICT MIDDLE SCHOOLS
SUBJECT AREA Reading Math Reading Lowest 25% Math Lowest 25% SCHOOLSCORE 56 64 68 66 DISTERICT AVERAGE 61 * 60 * DIFFERENCE -5 * +8 * EXPECTATION LEVEL At Expectation * Above Expectation *

Note: Geometry baseline was used for district average. Individual of each school within the district, lowest 25% learning gains in math was less than 5% and therefore isn’t revealed in order to maintain the anonymity and privacy of students.

27