West Ed Study - Girard At Large

Transcription

A STUDY OF MOUNTAIN VIEW MIDDLE SCHOOL
2012-2013
Submitted to:
Dr. Stacy Buckley
Superintendent
11 School Street
Goffstown, NH 03045
Submitted by:
Kevin Perks
Stephen Hamilton
Learning Innovations at WestEd
300 Unicorn Park, 5th Floor
Woburn, MA 01801
Phone: 781.481.1104
Date: March 1, 2013
Table of Contents Executive Summary ................................................................................................................ 6 Background and Purpose ................................................................................................................. 6 Data Collection ................................................................................................................................ 6 Strengths and Recommendations .................................................................................................... 7 Our Thanks ...................................................................................................................................... 7 Introduction ........................................................................................................................... 8 Section 1 -‐ Research Questions & Methods........................................................................... 11 Research Questions .............................................................................................................. 11 Methods............................................................................................................................... 12 Student Learning and Achievement ............................................................................................... 12 Classroom Instruction .................................................................................................................... 14 Perceptions of Teaching and Learning ............................................................................................ 15 Surveys of Culture and Climate ...................................................................................................... 15 Focus Groups and Interviews ......................................................................................................... 17 Section 2 -‐ Results ................................................................................................................ 20 Results for Student Learning................................................................................................. 20 The Measures of Academic Progress (MAP) ................................................................................... 20 Performance in Language Use from 2010-‐2012 .............................................................................. 20 Performance in Math from 2010-‐2012 ........................................................................................... 21 Performance in Reading from 2010-‐2012 ....................................................................................... 21 Performance by the Classes of 2016 and 2017................................................................................ 21 Results from The New England Common Assessment Program (NECAP)......................................... 22 Math Results.................................................................................................................................. 22 Reading Results ............................................................................................................................. 23 Writing Results .............................................................................................................................. 24 Science Results .............................................................................................................................. 24 Results for Classroom Instruction ......................................................................................... 25 Teach for Success ........................................................................................................................... 25 Learning Environment.................................................................................................................... 25 Instructional Practices to Support All Learners ............................................................................... 26 Student Engagement...................................................................................................................... 26 Assessment Practices ..................................................................................................................... 26 Cognitive Level of Questions and Activities .................................................................................... 27 Instructional Approaches ............................................................................................................... 27 Student and Faculty Surveys .......................................................................................................... 27 Student Results.............................................................................................................................. 28 Differences Among Grade Levels.................................................................................................... 29 Differences Between Faculty and Students .................................................................................... 29 A Study of Mountain View Middle School: 2012-2013
2
Responses to the Open-‐Ended Questions....................................................................................... 30 Summary of Themes from Student Surveys – What I Like about MVMS ......................................... 31 Summary of Themes from Student Surveys – What I Do Not Like about MVMS.............................. 32 Summary of Themes from Student Surveys – Anything Else ........................................................... 34 Summary of Themes from Teacher Surveys – What I Like about MVMS ......................................... 36 Summary of Themes from Teacher Surveys – What I Do Not Like about MVMS ............................. 37 Summary of Themes from Teacher Surveys – Anything Else ........................................................... 37 Parent Surveys............................................................................................................................... 38 Results from the Scaled Items ........................................................................................................ 38 Results from the Open-‐Ended Questions........................................................................................ 39 Parent Summary -‐ What MVMS Should CONTINUE Doing .............................................................. 39 Parent Summary -‐ What MVMS Should STOP Doing....................................................................... 41 Parent Summary -‐ What MVMS Should START Doing ..................................................................... 43 Staff Surveys .................................................................................................................................. 46 Results from the Scaled Items ........................................................................................................ 47 Staff Summary -‐ What MVMS Should CONTINUE Doing ................................................................. 48 Staff Summary -‐ What MVMS Should STOP Doing.......................................................................... 50 Staff Summary -‐ What MVMS Should START Doing ........................................................................ 51 Focus Groups and Interviews ......................................................................................................... 53 Focus Group Results – MVMS Staff ................................................................................................ 54 Focus Group Results – MVMS Staff ................................................................................................ 55 Focus Group Results – MVMS Students .......................................................................................... 57 Focus Group Results – MVMS Parents............................................................................................ 61 Section 3 – Discussion of Results........................................................................................... 64 Introduction ......................................................................................................................... 64 Research Question 1 ............................................................................................................. 66 What are the strengths and challenges of teaching and learning at Mountain View Middle School as seen from an analysis of student and teacher data?....................................................................... 66 Strengths ....................................................................................................................................... 66 Areas for Growth and Development............................................................................................... 67 Research Question 2 ............................................................................................................. 68 How do key stakeholder groups perceive teaching and learning at Mountain View Middle School? Specifically, a) what beliefs do these stakeholders have about teaching and learning, and b) what actions (past and present) do they believe have helped and/or hindered teaching and learning and why?.............................................................................................................................................. 68 Student Beliefs............................................................................................................................... 68 Staff Beliefs.................................................................................................................................... 70 Parent Beliefs ................................................................................................................................ 72 Research Question 3 ............................................................................................................. 74 How do the perceptions of key stakeholder groups around teaching and learning align or not align with the student and teacher data? ............................................................................................... 74 Where There Was Alignment ......................................................................................................... 74 A Study of Mountain View Middle School: 2012-2013
3
Where There Was Less Alignment .................................................................................................. 75 Section 4 – Recommendations.............................................................................................. 76 Introduction ......................................................................................................................... 76 Safety and Discipline...................................................................................................................... 77 Vision & Governance ..................................................................................................................... 78 Classroom Instruction & Curriculum............................................................................................... 80 Communications ............................................................................................................................ 81 Additional Recommendations ........................................................................................................ 82 Section 5 – Appendices......................................................................................................... 84 Appendix A ........................................................................................................................... 84 Teach for Success (T4S) Program .................................................................................................... 84 Appendix B ........................................................................................................................... 88 Student and Teacher Survey -‐ Results ............................................................................................ 88 Parents Survey -‐ Results................................................................................................................. 91 Staff Survey -‐ Results ..................................................................................................................... 93 Appendix C ........................................................................................................................... 96 Staff Focus Group Questions .......................................................................................................... 96 Student Focus Group Questions ..................................................................................................... 98 Parent Focus Group Questions ..................................................................................................... 100 Appendix D ..........................................................................................................................102 Chart 1 – Performance in Language Use on 2010 MAP Assessment .............................................. 102 Chart 2 – Performance in Language Use on 2011 MAP Assessment .............................................. 102 Chart 3 – Performance in Language Use on 2012 MAP Assessment .............................................. 103 Chart 4 – Performance in Math on 2010 MAP Assessment ........................................................... 103 Chart 5 – Performance in Math on 2011 MAP Assessment ........................................................... 104 Chart 6 – Performance in Math on 2012 MAP Assessment ........................................................... 104 Chart 7 – Performance in Reading on 2010 MAP Assessment ....................................................... 105 Chart 8 – Performance in Reading on 2011 MAP Assessment ....................................................... 105 Chart 9 – Performance in Reading on 2012 MAP Assessment ....................................................... 106 Graph 1 – Class of 2016 Performance in Language Use -‐ Grades 6 Through 8 ................................ 106 Graph 2 – Class of 2016 Performance in Math -‐ Grades 6 Through 8 ............................................. 107 Graph 3 – Class of 2016 Performance in Reading -‐ Grades 6 Through 8 ......................................... 107 Graph 4 – Class of 2017 Performance in Language Use -‐ Grades 5 Through 7 ................................ 108 Graph 5 – Class of 2017 Performance in Math -‐ Grades 5 Through 7 ............................................. 108 Graph 6 – Class of 2017 Performance in Reading -‐ Grades 5 Through 7 ......................................... 109 Appendix E ..........................................................................................................................110 Graph 7 – NECAP Percent Proficient or Above in Math for All Students – 6th Grade ...................... 110 Graph 8 – NECAP Percent Proficient or Above in Math for All Students – 7th Grade ...................... 110 Graph 9 – NECAP Percent Proficient or Above in Math for All Students – 8th Grade ...................... 111 Graph 10 – NECAP Percent Proficient or Above in Math for Students with an IEP – 6th Grade....... 111 Graph 11 – NECAP Percent Proficient or Above in Math for Students with an IEP – 7th Grade....... 112 A Study of Mountain View Middle School: 2012-2013
4
Graph 12 – NECAP Percent Proficient or Above in Math for Students with an IEP – 8th Grade....... 112 Graph 13 – NECAP Percent Proficient or Above in Reading for All Students – 6th Grade ................ 113 Graph 14 – NECAP Percent Proficient or Above in Reading for All Students – 7th Grade ................ 113 Graph 15 – NECAP Percent Proficient or Above in Reading for All Students – 8th Grade ................ 114 Graph 16 – NECAP Percent Proficient or Above in Reading for Students with an IEP – 6th Grade... 114 Graph 17 – NECAP Percent Proficient or Above in Reading for Students with an IEP – 7th Grade... 115 Graph 18 – NECAP Percent Proficient or Above in Reading for Students with an IEP – 8th Grade... 115 Chart 10 – NECAP Percent Proficient or Above in Writing – 8th Grade ........................................... 116 Chart 11 – NECAP Percent Proficient or Above in Science – 8th Grade ........................................... 116 A Study of Mountain View Middle School: 2012-2013
5
Executive Summary
Background and Purpose
In recent years, Mountain View Middle School (MVMS) in Goffstown, New Hampshire has
come under increasing public scrutiny; and on multiple occasions, parents, teachers, and community members have raised questions about the quality of programs and services, as well as the
culture and climate at MVMS. As a result, the Goffstown School Board requested a study be
conducted of the school. The purpose of the study was to investigate strengths and challenges of
teaching and learning as well as the culture and climate at MVMS. Learning Innovations at
WestEd (LI/WE) conducted the Study of MVMS from September 2012 to January 2013. Below
is a brief overview of the data collected and some of the main findings and recommendations.
Data Collection
The following research questions framed the study of MVMS.
1. What are the strengths and challenges of teaching and learning at MVMS as seen from an
analysis of student and teacher data?
2. How do key stakeholder groups perceive teaching and learning at MVMS? Specifically, a)
what beliefs do these stakeholders have about teaching and learning, and b) what actions
(past and present) do they believe have helped and/or hindered teaching and learning and
why?
3. How do the perceptions of key stakeholder groups around teaching and learning align or not
align with the student and teacher data?
4. Based on the findings to the above questions, what strategic actions can MVMS take to improve the overall learning experience for students?
A variety of data were collected to investigate these research questions. Student achievement on
the Measures of Academic Progress (MAP) and the New England Common Assessment Program
(NECAP), as well as classroom observations of instruction were used to explore the first reA Study of Mountain View Middle School: 2012-2013
6
search question. Surveys, focus groups, and interviews were used to collect perceptual data from
students, staff, and parents to answer the second research question. In order to explore the third
research question, the findings from the surveys, focus groups, and interviews were compared to
the achievement results as well as across the different stakeholder groups.
Strengths and Recommendations
The broad findings of this study conclude that MVMS is a public school with many dedicated
children, parents, and staff who are doing much to support the learning of students. The data also
suggest there are multiple areas of improvement that the school can target to support a plan and
strategy for ongoing school improvement. Four key areas of improvement include vision and
governance; curriculum and classroom practices; communications; and safety and discipline.
While this report makes many recommendations, four key recommendations include the following:
1. Continue investing in and supporting the Positive Behavioral Interventions and Supports
(PBIS) plan.
2. Create a visioning committee to explore and clarify the vision and mission of MVMS.
3. Consider researching and conducting additional classroom observations to determine
future areas for professional development in support of instructional practice.
4. Develop a plan for celebrating student and staff success and publish this information for
parents and the community.
Our Thanks
Finally, the staff at LI/We would like to extend its thanks to all of the staff, parents, and students
who participated in this study of Mountain View Middle School. It is clear all who participated
in this study are committed to serving students well. It is our hope that this study will help SAU
#19 in supporting the hopes and dreams of all involved in teaching and learning at MVMS.
A Study of Mountain View Middle School: 2012-2013
7
Introduction
The purpose of this report is to present findings from the study of the Mountain View Middle
School (MVMS) conducted by Learning Innovations at WestEd (LI/WE) between September
2012 and January 2013. This study is the second that has been conducted of MVMS; Drs.
Richard Lates and Fred Wolff conducted the first in 2002.
There have been a variety of changes at MVMS since 2002. Over the past few years, concerns
have risen that have received significant and well-documented attention in the local press, the
online community, and local community forums. In response to these concerns, the Goffstown
School Board created a Study Committee to explore the concerns and seek possible solutions.
The Committee, which is still standing as of the writing of this report, consists of district staff,
members of the school board, parents, and community members.
The notes from the first meeting held by the Study Committee in July of 2012, include the
following:
MVMS has been in existence for more than twenty years. Throughout this time, the public
perception has vacillated between being positive (two time Middle School of the Year
Award, The New England Association of Schools and Colleges (NEASC) accreditation)
and negative (staff turnover, rigor, climate and culture). Much of the conversation
surrounding MVMS is based on perceived actions or reputation. It is important for the
school and the community to determine strengths and challenges and to develop a plan
for success based on facts and data. The School Leadership Team has been developed to
8
establish the “what is” and the “what we want to be”, to develop a plan for
implementation and continue to measure (through the use of data) the outcomes of that
plan.
In August of 2012, the Study Committee met again and developed a list of over 175 questions
based on standards established by the National Middle School Association. The Goffstown
School Board issued a Request for Proposals (RFP) from third-party institutions to develop and
implement a plan to collect and analyze data addressing the questions it had identified. In
September of 2012, LI/WE submitted a proposal that was eventually selected by the Study
Committee of MVMS.
This study conducted by LI/WE was designed to respond to the Study Committee’s request to
investigate the strengths and challenges of MVMS, particularly as they related to the initial 175plus questions generated by the committee. In its initial proposal, LI/WE framed the study
around two broad research questions, which were later expanded to four. Although the Study
Committee generated an extensive list of questions, LI/WE felt it would be more effective to
focus on the areas of learning, teaching, culture, and climate. The reason for this narrower focus
is that a data driven investigation of all the questions framed by the Study Committee would
have only allowed for a superficial analysis of each question. Instead, LI/WE chose to explore a
key set of questions that strongly relate to the questions generated by the Study Committee and
to do so through a more robust analysis of multiple data sources, which included achievement
data, observations of classroom instruction, surveys of students, staff, and parents, and focus
group discussions with staff, students, and parents.
9
This document is a report of the findings from the study conducted by LI/WE. The report is
divided into five parts. The first section describes the four research questions and the methods
used to collect and analyze the data. The second section shares the results of the data analysis.
The third section considers the results as they relate to each of the first three research questions.
The fourth section provides a targeted list of recommendations based on findings from this study
and aimed at supporting further dialogue to inform future MVMS goal setting and action plans.
The report concludes with a set of appendices that include additional documents that were a part
of the study.
10
Section 1 - Research Questions & Methods
Research Questions
The initial proposal LI/WE submitted to School Administrative Unit #19 serving the Goffstown,
Dunbarton, and New Boston School Districts identified two research questions to frame the
study of MVMS. These guiding questions were developed after considering the more than 175
questions developed by the Study Committee. The original research questions were written as
follows:
•
What are the strengths and challenges of the programs and services at MVMS?
•
Based on the strengths and challenges, what strategic actions can MVMS take to improve
the programs and services in accordance with the school’s mission?
During the first meeting of the district leadership team and staff from LI/WE, the decision was
made to revise the questions to focus more specifically on teaching and learning and to add two
additional research questions. The purpose of the additional questions was to capture perceptions
about the culture and climate of MVMS, particularly as they relate to teaching and learning. The
final research questions that framed the study are listed below.
•
What are the strengths and challenges of teaching and learning at MVMS as seen from an
•
How do key stakeholder groups perceive teaching and learning at MVMS? Specifically,
a) what beliefs do these stakeholders have about teaching and learning; and b) what actions (past and present) do they believe have helped and/or hindered teaching and learning and why?
11
•
How do the perceptions of key stakeholder groups around teaching and learning align or
not align with the student and teacher data?
•
Based on the findings to the above questions, what strategic actions can MVMS take to
improve the overall learning experience for students?
Staff from LI/WE collected and analyzed a variety of data to explore these questions. Below is a
description of the methods and instruments used to collect the data and the procedures used for
data analysis.
Based on the research questions above, three broad categories of data were identified for collection and analysis. The first category of data focused on student learning and achievement and
consisted of data from the Measures of Academic Progress (MAP) developed by the Northwest
Evaluation Association (NWEA) and recent results from the New England Common Assessment
Program (NECAP). The second category of data included information about instruction. These
data included classroom observations of instruction in all classrooms at MVMS over a two-day
period in January 2013. Finally, perception data about teaching, learning and the culture and
climate of MVMS were also collected from students, teachers, administrators and parents. Following is a description of the data gathering methods and strategies used to analyze the data.
Methods
Student Learning and Achievement
A variety of data were available that describe student achievement at MVMS. For the purposes
of this study, we assessed how student achievement at MVMS compares to national averages and
state averages. To determine how students at MVMS have performed in comparison to peers
12
across the country we used data from the MAP. To compare local student performance with students across New Hampshire, we used data from the NECAP.
LI/WE analyzed assessment scores from the spring of 2010, 2011, and 2012 from the MAP assessment developed by the NWEA to assess student learning at MVMS. The MAP assessments
are a collection of tests used by schools across the country. Millions of students take the MAP
assessments every year. Due to the large number of students who take these tests, the results are
normed so that schools can determine how well their own students perform in comparison to students across the country. Students at MVMS take the Reading, Math, and Language Use assessments. LI/WE used a variety of procedures to analyze the MAP results. First, we recorded the
average scores for students in each of the three areas and compared these to the national averages. Next, we considered any changes in average scores over the three years, as well as how the
Classes of 2016 and 2017 performed over the past three years. We also considered any differences in achievement among students from New Boston, Dunbarton, and Goffstown in grades
five and six.
The second source of data LI/WE used to analyze student learning came from the NECAP,
which is used to assess students every fall in the areas of Math, Reading, Writing, and Science.
LI/WE analyzed student achievement on the NECAP and compared this to results across New
Hampshire. In reading and math, LI/WE looked at longitudinal data for the percent of students
performing at proficient and above as compared to the state in grades six, seven, and eight. We
also compared the percentage of students with an IEP who performed at or above average with
students across the state. In writing and science, we reviewed eighth Grade data from the past
13
two or three years and compared the percentages of all students and those with an IEP who performed at or above proficiency with those from students across the state.
Classroom Instruction
To collect information about instruction, three staff members from LI/WE observed classroom
instruction at Mountain View Middle School over a period of two days. Although MVMS has its
own observation tool for conducting observations and collecting data about teaching, LI/WE
chose to use the observation instrument from The Teach for Success (T4S) program to collect
instructional data at MVMS (See Appendix A for more information about Teach for Success).
There were a few reasons LI/WE selected the T4S observation tool. First, T4S is a program that
is firmly grounded in teacher-practice research. Each strategy that classroom observers look for
has been shown to have a positive impact on student achievement. Second, the T4S tool has been
shown to have strong validity. Finally, all three observers who conducted observations have engaged in extensive training and practice to ensure high inter-rater reliability when analyzing
teacher practice.
The T4S Observation Instrument identifies six areas of teacher practice that include a total of
twenty-two specific, research-based strategies that lead to increased student achievement. The
six areas of teacher practice include the following:
•
Learning Environment
•
Student Engagement
•
Instructional Practices to Support All Learners
14
•
Cognitive Level of Questions and Activities
•
Instructional Approaches
•
Assessment Practices
When the LI/WE observers visited classrooms at MVMS, they looked for evidence of strategies
within each of these areas. Appendix A describes each of the six areas in greater depth. Also included in Appendix A is research that supports the T4S observation tool.
Perceptions of Teaching and Learning
A variety of data were collected to capture and analyze perceptions about teaching, learning, and
the climate and culture of MVMS from students, faculty, administrators, and parents. LI/WE
used three methods to collect perceptual data: surveys, interviews, and focus groups. Below is a
description of the procedures, protocols, and methods used during data collection and analysis.
Appendix B includes the surveys given to students, faculty, staff, and parents. Appendix C provides the questions used to frame discussions in the focus groups.
Surveys of Culture and Climate
A series of surveys were developed to collect data from students, teachers, MVMS staff and parents that focused on culture and climate around teaching and learning. In order to develop the
surveys, LI/WE researchers considered the 175-plus questions generated from the Study Committee in August of 2012. After analyzing these questions, the researchers decided to use preexisting survey instruments that had already been assessed for construct validity1. The surveys
1
Construct validity refers to the importance of ensuring that questions on a survey actually measure what is intended. Creating and analyzing the
validity of items on a new survey require significant testing and statistical analysis, which were beyond the scope and means of this study.
15
that were eventually selected and used draw heavily upon the work of Victoria Bernhardt2. Samples of all the surveys can be found in the appendices.
During the week of November 5, 2012, two surveys were administered to students and teachers
at MVMS. The survey was administered online in school via SurveyMonkey. Before the surveys
were administered, MVMS sent a letter to parents informing them about the student surveys and
gave them the opportunity to have their children abstain. The teacher survey was identical to the
student survey and asked teachers to predict how they thought the students would respond.
The surveys for students and teachers consisted of thirty-one statements and three open-ended
questions. Respondents were asked to indicate the extent to which they agreed with each statement on a Likert scale of one to five. They were also asked to share additional thoughts in the
open-ended questions. Data analyses consisted of identifying areas of strength and concern related to the thirty-one scaled items. LI/WE also compared items where teachers’ perceptions
were very different from the students. To analyze the open-ended questions, researchers at
LI/WE coded the responses to determine the most common themes and issues related to each
question.
LI/WE also sent surveys to staff and parents. These were different from the surveys completed
by students and teachers. The staff and parents were asked to complete these additional surveys
and mail them in postage-paid envelopes directly to LI/WE within two weeks. Similar to the student surveys, the staff survey included fifty-five Likert items and three open-ended questions.
2
Bernhardt, Victoria L. (2004). Using data to improve student learning in middle schools. Larchmont, NY: Eye On Education.
Bernhardt, Victoria L. (2004). Data analysis for continuous school improvement (2nd ed.). Larchmont, NY: Eye On Education.
16
The parent survey consisted of twenty-five Likert items and three open-ended questions. Procedures for analysis were similar to those used for the student and teacher surveys.
Focus Groups and Interviews
In addition to the surveys, LI/WE conducted focus groups to collect data from students, teachers,
and parents. LI/WE also interviewed administrators from MVMS. Below are descriptions of the
procedures used for selecting individuals for the focus groups and interviews, as well as the protocols and the methods used to analyze the data.
Teacher Focus Groups
LI/WE conducted three teacher focus groups. The process for selecting staff to participate in
these focus groups was conducted by LI/WE staff and was observed by the president of the
teacher’s association. Teachers were selected at random from a list of staff. As part of the selection process, faculty were selected until three focus groups had balanced representation in the
following categories: classroom teacher, specialized staff, special education, unified arts, paraprofessional, grade level, years of service and gender.
The teacher focus groups were held in December of 2012. Each focus group took place during
the school day and lasted for 60 minutes. Six questions were used to frame the discussions. To
encourage thoughtful and honest responses, participants were assured that they would not be
identifiable in the final report. Participants were also asked to maintain confidentiality and to not
share with others what was discussed. During the discussions, all comments were recorded on
chart paper in order to ensure the accuracy of information. Participants were encouraged to make
17
changes or corrections as the discussion progressed. Copies of the invitation to teachers and the
questions used to frame the discussion are included in the appendices.
In order to analyze the data collected during the focus group conversations, researchers from
LI/WE transcribed the information from the chart paper into a Word. Next, similar to the process
used for the open-ended questions on the surveys, the data were coded thematically. Common
themes around strengths and potential areas of improvement were identified.
Student Focus Groups
The study also included four focus groups of students. Teachers from each team at each grade
level were asked to nominate an equal number of boys and girls who would be willing to discuss
their experiences as middle school students at MVMS, and who would represent the range of pupils on each team. The teachers were also encouraged to identify students from the three different
towns in SAU #19. Once a list of students was created, LI/WE sent letters and consent forms to
the students and their parents. Students who returned consent forms were eligible to participate
in the focus groups.
LI/WE conducted the student focus groups in January of 2013. Each focus group took place during the school day and lasted for 60 to 80 minutes. Similar to the teacher focus groups, a set of
six questions was used to frame the discussions. In order to encourage thoughtful and honest responses, the students were told that the final report would protect student anonymity. Participants
were also asked to maintain confidentiality and not to share what was discussed during the focus
18
group once it was over. The same procedure of using chart paper was used to capture data.
Analyses were the same as those used for the teacher groups.
Parent Focus Groups
LI/WE conducted two focus groups with parents. Attempts were made to identify parents who
had substantial knowledge of MVMS. Therefore, invitations were sent to all members of the parent group for MVMS, as well as parents who participated in the Study Committee. Invitations
were sent out via email and the focus groups were held in January of 2013. The protocols and
procedures for collection and analysis of the data were identical to those used during the teacher
and student focus groups.
Administrator Interviews
LI/WE invited all administrators from MVMS to be interviewed. Two staff members from
LI/WE conducted the interviews and used the same guiding questions as the focus groups.
Again, each individual was informed that his or her anonymity would be protected in the report.
During each interview, one staff member from LI/WE took notes on a computer. Afterwards,
each participant was given a copy of the notes and invited to suggest any changes. None of the
participants requested any.
19
Section 2 - Results
Results for Student Learning
The Measures of Academic Progress (MAP)
LI/WE used results from the MAP at MVMS as a primary source of data to analyze student
learning. Data were collected from the spring assessments in 2010, 2011, and 2012 in the areas
of language use, math, and reading. For each area, LI/WE compared the average performance of
students in grades five through eight against the national average. LI/WE also compared results
from fifth and sixth grade students in all three towns. Finally, researchers looked at the threeyear performance from two cohort groups (the classes of 2016 and 2017) in order to determine
how single groups of students performed over time in comparison to national averages. Results
for the MAP assessments can be found in Appendix D.
Performance in Language Use from 2010-2012
Over the three-year span from 2010 to 2012, students on average in SAU #19 consistently
performed above the national mean in the area of Language Use (See Charts 1-3 in Appendix D).
However, there is a noticeable difference in the average level of achievement from students in
the three different towns in grades five and six. In general fifth and sixth grades students from
New Boston outperformed students from the other two schools. The only exception was fifth
grade in 2012. There was no noticeable trend between Dunbarton and Goffstown in student
performance, which varied from year to year and grade to grade.
20
Performance in Math from 2010-2012
Similar to the performance in Language Use, average scores for students in grades five through
eight were consistently above the national average in math (See Charts 4-6 in Appendix D).
Again, there were some differences by town in grades five and six. In 2010 and 2011, students
from Dunbarton and New Boston significantly outperformed students from Goffstown. However,
these differences decreased significantly in 2012 where there was greater parity between the
schools.
Performance in Reading from 2010-2012
The third set of assessment data focused on reading (See Charts 7-9 in Appendix D). Once again,
students in grades five through eight consistently performed above the national average. The
only exceptions were in 2011 when fifth grade students from Dunbarton performed below
national averages and in 2012 when sixth grade students from Dunbarton again performed below
national norms. Student performance between the schools varied from year to year. In 2012, fifth
grade students from Goffstown slightly outperformed the other two schools. In sixth grade, the
students from New Boston had the highest average scores.
Performance by the Classes of 2016 and 2017
In general, the three-year data for the Classes of 2016 and 2017 illustrate that the rate of growth
for students at MVMS is either similar to or exceeds national norms (See Graphs 1-6 in
Appendix D). In addition, by seventh and eighth grade, students at MVMS on average scored
significantly higher than students in the same grade across the country. By the time they were
finishing seventh grade, the average scores for the class of 2017 exceeded the national norms for
tenth grade in Language Use and Math and eleventh grade for Reading. By the time they were
21
finishing eighth grade, the students from the Class of 2016 were scoring on average better than
50 percent of eleventh graders across the country.
Results from The New England Common Assessment Program (NECAP)
The second source of achievement data came from the NECAP, which was accessed from the
New Hampshire Department of Education’s website. For this study, researchers analyzed
longitudinal data in math and reading over a seven-year span, from 2006 to 2012. Since similar
longitudinal data were not available in writing and science, we looked at the past two or three
years of data in those subject areas. Graphs of the NECAP data can be found in Appendix E. If
readers are interested in analyzing additional data about student achievement at MVMS, LI/WE
encourages them to visit New Hampshire’s Department of Education website, which has a robust
array of data about all of the schools in the state.
Math Results
Over the past seven years, students in grades six, seven and eight at MVMS consistently
performed significantly above the state average in math (See Graphs 7-9 in Appendix E). In sixth
grade, the percentage of students performing at or above proficiency fluctuated, but over the past
four years 76-79 percent of students met or exceeded standards as compared to the mid to lower
70’s percentile range for the state. In grades seven and eight, the percentage of students
performing at or above proficiency has steadily risen by ten percentage points or more.
The percentage of students with Individualized Education Programs (IEPs) who perform at or
above the state average in math has tended to be less than the state average over the past seven
years (See Graphs 10-12 in Appendix E). In sixth grade the percentage of students at MVMS has
been less than the state average every year since 2006. In seventh grade, the state average was
22
higher five of the seven years, although seventh graders at MVMS performed two percentage
points higher in 2012. Students with IEPs have fared relatively better in eighth grade and
outperformed the state four of the past seven years. Between 2011 and 2012 there was a steep
decline in the number of students with IEPs who performed at proficiency or above from 30
percent in 2011 to 13 percent in 2012. The state average in 2012 was 23 percent.
Reading Results
The results for reading over the past seven years are more mixed than those for math (See
Graphs 13-15 in Appendix E). It is important to point out that the percentage of students meeting
and exceeding state standards at MVMS over the past seven years has increased significantly by
seven to nine percentage points. The average increases across the state have been almost
identical. For the past two years, students in sixth grade have performed above the state average.
In seventh grade, the percentage of students reading at or above proficiency at the state level was
higher than the average for students at MVMS. In eighth grade, students at MVMS have
performed at the state average or one or two points higher.
The reading results for students with IEPs also show mixed results (See Graphs 16-18 in
Appendix E). One impressive piece of data can be seen in sixth grade. In 2010 only 12 percent of
students with IEPs performed at or above proficiency in reading. This number jumped to 52
percent in 2011 and 46 percent in 2012. For both of these years this was significantly above the
state average. There was a similar increase in seventh grade from 7 percent proficiency in 2011
to 30 percent proficiency in 2012, which was just under that state average of 33 percent. In
eighth grade the percentage of students meeting or exceeding state standards has been more
23
stable; however the average performance for students with IEPs across the state has tended to be
higher than for eighth grade students with IEPs at MVMS.
Writing Results
Eighth grade is the only year in which middle school students take a writing assessment on the
NECAP. In addition, writing data on the NECAP was only available for the past two years (See
Chart 10 in Appendix E). In 2011, 64 percent of MVMS students met or exceeded the state
standards. This was the same as the state average. In 2012, 56 percent of eighth grade students at
MVMS performed proficiently or higher compared to 61 percent of students across the state.
This difference was the same for students with IEPs in 2012, where 14 percent of eighth grade
students at Goffstown met or exceeded standards compared to 19 percent for the state.
Science Results
Over the past three years, the percentage of students performing at proficiency or higher in
eighth Grade science was 25 percent, 23 percent, and 30 percent for 2010, 2011, and 2012
respectively (See Chart 11 in Appendix E). Each year this was slightly lower than the percentage
of students across the state, where 28 percent, 28 percent, and 32 percent of the students met or
exceeded proficiency. Students with IEPs historically tend to struggle more on the science
assessment. In 2012 two percent of students with IEPs at Goffstown met or exceeded the state
standards. The number was also low across the state at six percent.
24
Results for Classroom Instruction
Teach for Success
On January 22 and 23, 2013 three researchers from LI/WE observed teacher instruction in fiftyfive classrooms at MVMS. The approximate amount of time for each observation was fifteen
minutes. As mentioned in the previous section, the three observers looked for evidence of
strategies within each of the six areas identified by the Teach for Success Program.
When considering the results below it is important to keep a few important points in mind. First
of all, while teachers were informed that they were going to be observed, they were not aware of
what the observers were looking for. Secondly, the data only indicate what LI/WE staff observed
during a fifteen-minute period in each classroom. This is a very small window of data collection
and only provides a limited snapshot of classroom practices across the school over a two-day
period. In other words, there was much that took place in each classroom that was not observed.
When considering the results below, particularly areas where there was a lack or lower
percentage of evidence, LI/WE strongly encourages readers to look at these data as indicators of
where MVMS could potentially collect more data or provide future professional development.
Learning Environment
A positive learning environment sets the stage for effective learning. The LI/WE observers
looked for a variety of evidence about the learning environment in the classrooms observed. The
observers saw evidence of teachers fostering a climate of fairness, caring, and respect in 98% of
classrooms. Similarly, they also observed evidence of teachers working to maintain standards for
25
behaviors and routines in 91% of classrooms. In 73% of classrooms, teachers were observed reinforcing or recognizing student effort.
Instructional Practices to Support All Learners
In a majority of classrooms (78%), there was clear evidence of teachers’ actions and instruction
related to learning objectives or standards; however observation of all three attributes related to
communication of standards or objectives was noted in fewer classrooms (18%). In 40% of
classrooms, observers noticed teachers deliberately providing instructional scaffolding to support
student understanding. While teachers in over one quarter of the classrooms demonstrated practices that make learning relevant for students, there was less evidence of researched based practices relative to vocabulary development, and facilitation of student interactions or discussions
related to intended learning.
Student Engagement
Observers recorded evidence of teachers in eighty percent of classrooms directing students to be
engaged in learning. In addition, there was evidence of teacher practices that caused ‘mandatory’
engagement of eighty-five percent or more of students in more than a third of classrooms (38%).
Assessment Practices
The classroom observers also looked for data around classroom assessment, particularly
formative assessment strategies, as well as teachers’ attempts to monitor and make adjustments
during class based on feedback and information about learning as it was taking place. In almost
half of the classrooms (49%), the observers witnessed teachers making adjustments based upon
26
what was transpiring in class. Observers also saw evidence of effective formative assessment
strategies being used in fifteen percent of the classrooms.
Cognitive Level of Questions and Activities
Teach for Success identifies four broad levels of cognitive engagement for questions and
activities. These levels, in ascending order, are 1) remembering, 2) understanding, 3) applying,
and 4) analyzing and evaluating. Based on the observational data collected, more than half of the
cognitive level questions and activities framing instruction focused on remembering (24%) or
understanding (42%). There was also evidence in a third of the classrooms observed of students
applying skills (29%), or engaging in activities that required analysis and/or evaluation of
information (5%). This percentage of classrooms where higher cognitive level questions and
activities observed was higher than what is typically observed when first gathering T4S data at
schools where there has been no prior training relative to the instrument and its research base.
Instructional Approaches
The most common instructional approach observed in the fifty-five classrooms was teacher-led
instruction in a whole-class setting (67%). Seatwork or work in stations with teacher interaction
was observed in over a third of the classrooms (38%). There were significantly fewer
observations of student-led learning or learning in small-group settings.
Student and Faculty Surveys
All students and faculty at MVMS were invited to complete a survey about the culture and
climate around teaching and learning. The survey included thirty-one Likert items and three
opened-ended questions. For the Likert items, respondents were asked to indicate the extent to
27
which they agreed or disagreed with single statements where a score of 5 indicated strong
agreement and a 1 indicated strong disagreement.
The open-ended items gave individuals an opportunity to describe their feelings about MVMS in
their own words. The first two questions asked each person what he or she likes or dislikes about
MVMS. The last question gave individuals a chance to add anything else. Faculty members
completed the same survey as the students and were asked to predict how they thought the
students would respond. Almost all of the students and faculty responded to the survey: 825
students and 56 faculty members. Average results for all of the Likert items on the student and
faculty surveys can be found in Appendix B. Below are descriptions of the key findings.
Student Results
The overall results from the student surveys were generally very positive with an average overall
score of 3.88 out of 5.0. The items to which students responded most favorably were about
family confidence: My family wants me to do well (4.82), and My family believes I can do well
(4.68). The next two highest rated items were about teachers: My teachers believe I can learn
(4.32), and My teachers are good teachers (4.31). The lowest rated statements from the scaled
items focused on behavior and student voice. The item with the lowest score was the statement
Students behave well at school, which received an average result of 2.75. The second and third
items rated the lowest by students on average were I have choices in what I learn (2.78), and I
have freedom at school (3.20).
28
Differences Among Grade Levels
Overall, there were observable differences by grade level in how students responded to items on
the survey. One key finding is that students from higher grades tended to respond less favorably
to the statements. On average, the overall scores decrease 0.2 points from grade level to grade
level. The two items that saw the greatest decrease had a theme that centered on general feelings
about MVMS. The statement that saw the greatest decrease in rating was This school is good,
which decreased from 4.41 for fifth graders to 3.07 for eighth graders. The item with the second
highest decline was I like this school, which went from a 4.52. to a 3.21. The statement with the
third highest average decline was My principal cares about me. This item received an average
score of 4.08 for fifth grade and a 2.99 for eighth grade. One other statement had an average
decline of greater than 1.0 between grades five and eight. The statement I have freedom at school
received an average score of 3.86 for fifth graders and a 2.79 for eighth graders.
Differences Between Faculty and Students
On average, the faculty responded to the scaled items very similarly to the students. The average
difference between the faculty and students for all items was 0.04. However, there were larger
variations for a handful of items. Three items where the faculty predicted much higher scores
centered on student behavior, perceptions about levels of challenge and fun. In response to the
statement Students behave well at school, the average teacher prediction was 3.51 where students
averaged a 2.75, indicating that students have a less favorable view about student behavior.
Teachers gave the statement I am challenged by the work my teachers ask me to do a score of
4.14, whereas students averaged a response of 3.45. Similarly, I have fun learning averaged a
rating of 4.04 for teachers and 3.40 for students.
29
There were items where students responded more favorably than the teachers predicted. Two
items dealt with perceptions about administration. The statement My principal cares about me
received an average score of 3.54 and 2.71 from students and teachers respectively. Similarly,
the statement Students are treated fairly by administrators at MVMS yielded an average result of
3.84 and 3.24. The other category that saw the greatest difference between students and faculty
where students responded higher on average focused on perceptions of family support. The
statements My family believes I can do well and My family wants me to do well received average
scores of 4.68 and 4.82 from students and 3.96 and 4.11 from teachers respectively.
Responses to the Open-Ended Questions
On the survey, students and faculty also had the opportunity to respond to the following three
items:
•
The things I like about MVMS are...
•
The things I do not like about MVMS are...
•
Is there anything else you would like us to know about MVMS?
A majority of the students and faculty wrote something for each of these questions. There were
820 student responses to Question 1, 795 responses to Question 2, and 663 responses to Question
3. Many students also provided lengthy responses to each question. In regards to the faculty
survey, 51 teachers responded to Question 1, 47 responded to Question 2, and 30 responded to
Question 3.
Below we describe the predominant themes generated from each question. It may be helpful to
keep in mind that the results below indicate dominant themes and issues that appeared as the
30
responses were coded. Due to the method used for coding, which sometimes applied multiple
codes to a single statement, made it difficult to quantify the percentage of individuals who made
comments related to each of them. Such levels of analysis were beyond the scope of this study.
However, whenever possible LI/WE does point out when a theme or issue was particularly
prominent.
Summary of Themes from Student Surveys – What I Like about MVMS
Five broad themes emerged from the open-ended question about what students like about
MVMS. In general, the areas where students indicated the greatest amount of approbation were
for their classes, specific groups of individuals, support they receive for their learning, school
activities, and recess.
The most frequent praise or positive comment about MVMS related to classes students take. All
classes were represented; however the students were very demonstrative in their praise for
Unified Arts classes, especially music. One student put this very succinctly and wrote, “I LOVE
the music department program.”
Students tended to praise three groups of individuals: teachers, other students and administrators.
Out of these three groups, teachers received the most commendations. Students commented most
frequently about how teachers try to support them. As one student put it, “I like how all the
teachers have pushed me towards success and care about me.”
Related to the comments about the teachers, students also frequently described appreciation for
the various ways MVMS supports their learning. Students liked how they had time and support
31
to do work in school. They also appreciated the encouragement they receive from teachers.
Students most frequently mentioned how they like team time and the opportunity this provides in
working on their assignments.
Students indicated they also liked school activities, including after-school programs, sports, field
trips, and whole school activities during the day. While most of the activities received similar
support, the most common activity students identified were after-school sports.
Finally, many students indicated favorable attitudes toward recess. Many students expressed an
appreciation for being able to be themselves and to be active for a part of the day. As one student
wrote, “I like that we have recess at school to let all the energy out...”
Summary of Themes from Student Surveys – What I Do Not Like about MVMS
The primary dislikes that students expressed about MVMS sorted into the following broad areas:
misbehavior by other students, rules, lunch, recess, teachers, school activities, issues related to
instruction and rigor, and complaints about facilities and equipment.
By far, the most common complaint students have about MVMS revolves around misbehavior by
other students. What students seem to dislike the most is how some students mistreat or bully
other students. One student captures much of what other students expressed when he or she
wrote. “[B]ullying. People making others feel less important...”. Other concerns were using
inappropriate language, a general lack of following rules, and too much noise during dismissal,
in the hallways, and at team time.
32
Another area of criticism by students focused on school rules. In general, students mentioned that
they feel some rules are silly, such as not being allowed to wear hats or chew gum. Many
students expressed dissatisfaction with not being able to use electronic devices. Some students
described how they did not like PAWS Pride or the recent adoption of the PBIS programs; a
smaller number indicated that they felt it was not working. Another area where students
commented on rules related to dismissal. In general, students described dismissal time as noisy
and chaotic - yet they also dislike how they had to wait in lines and were not able to chat with
friends.
Two related areas that were mentioned very frequently by students were lunch and recess.
Regarding lunch, students criticized the food in general, long lines, and not enough time to eat.
Regarding recess, many students expressed a feeling of unfairness that seventh and eighth grade
students are not able to go outside for recess after lunch.
Students also expressed dislike about specific teacher behaviors. The most common criticism
focused on teachers being too strict or inconsistent in the enforcement of rules. Next was a
perceived lack of respect for students, particularly when enforcing rules. Students also expressed
concerns that teachers were often unaware of bullying that was taking place.
The students at MVMS also articulated a variety of dislikes related to school activities. Most of
these criticized the lack of activities, particularly whole school activities designed to foster
school pride. As one student wrote, “I wish that MVMS had spirit days…I believe that school
spirit helps make learning fun and creates enthusiasm for students to come to school.” Many
other students expressed similar sentiments.
33
Another area of concern students mentioned involved instruction and rigor. The most common
complaint in this category was too much homework. Two related comments were that the work
is not challenging enough and that there is a lack of advanced options for some students (e.g.
“The things that I do not like about MVMS are that they don’t challenge some of the students
that already know and understand the teachings...”). Other comments pointed to a lack of
personalization to meet individual needs and boredom during class. For example, one student
wrote, “I do not like the grouping in MVMS. I think we should be sorted by ability. That way,
the more advanced students could get their work done and do extra work, but the students who
need more help could receive more help”.
A final area where students expressed a variety of dislikes had to do with the school facility or
equipment. The number one issue related to the bathrooms. Students commented that the
bathrooms are sometimes dirty, contain broken hardware, and have a substantial amount of
graffiti. Some students commented that bathrooms were closed at times. Students also
complained about lockers being too small and not available for all students. They also mentioned
that some of the chairs were old and in danger of falling apart.
Summary of Themes from Student Surveys – Anything Else
A majority of the students who wrote comments in response to Question 3 used this opportunity
to reiterate their likes and dislikes from the first two questions. The largest category of comments
focused on the students’ desire for more whole school activities to build school spirit. The next
category raised the issue of recess once again, particularly how students want it to be longer and
available to all students. The topic of bullying continued to be raised as a concern, with appeals
34
for staff to do more to help. Students also continued to complain about the bathrooms and
lockers. Students took the opportunity to reiterate whether or not they like going to MVMS, with
the large majority expressing that they do like MVMS. On the other hand, multiple students
indicated that they like school less than they did a few years ago. Finally, another common theme
centered on lunch, where once again students asked for better food and more time to eat and be
with friends.
In addition to the repetition of the issues above, two additional themes emerged during the
coding of Question 3 that were less prevalent in the responses to the first two questions. The first
theme involves whole school safety and the second relates to student voice.
Although it was not the most frequent comment by students to Question 3, numerous students
expressed concerns about overall school safety, particularly in reference to the multiple
lockdowns that have taken place in recent years. For example, some students wrote, “There are a
lot of bad people who get us into lockdowns” and “Last year there were three emergencies that
they never talked to us about (no one came in to talk to us) it and I thought they should’ve.”
Additional comments expressed similar sentiments. One student described the lockdowns as
scary and explained that he or she did not know if they were real or fake when they happened.
A second theme that emerged in the responses to Question 3 was choice and student voice. These
comments focused on the desire for students to have the power to organize more whole school
activities. At other times they focused on smaller ways students wish to express themselves.
Below are representative comments around this theme.
35
•
“Administrators are not open to kids’ ideas. We all come up with fun ideas that are
also reasonable and we try very hard to think of ways that we could all come together
and enjoy our school. About 98% of our ideas are pushed aside and ignored without a
second look.”
•
“A lot of people including me had decorations on the front of our lockers and the
office took them off without telling us.”
•
“I think people should be able to choose their classes.”
•
“THIS SCHOOL UNDERESTIMATES THE KNOWLEDGE AND POWER OF
SOME OF THE STUDENTS!!!”
Summary of Themes from Teacher Surveys – What I Like about MVMS
As mentioned above, on the faculty survey the teachers were asked to predict how the students
would respond to Questions 1-3. Overall, the teachers’ comments were similar to the students’.
Four major themes emerged from their responses to the opened-ended questions. The four things
teachers thought the students would like were the teachers, their friends, the opportunity to play
sports and engage in afterschool activities, and the opportunity to change classes during the
school day.
There were two primary differences between the student and teacher responses. The first was
that teachers thought students would indicate that they liked being able to switch classes in
middle school. This was not a common theme in the student surveys. The other difference was
that students expressed how they liked the support they were given in school by their teachers
36
and how often. While a few teachers thought students might communicate this, the theme was
not consistent across the faculty surveys.
Summary of Themes from Teacher Surveys – What I Do Not Like about MVMS
Five main themes were apparent from the teacher predictions of what students dislike. The main
thing teachers thought students would dislike was homework. Next, the teachers were aware of
students’ frustration with a lack of school activities during the day, particularly activities
intended to build school spirit. Teachers also predicted that students would indicate dislike of
particular rules as well as the lack of consistency in enforcing rules. In addition to this, teachers
guessed that students would want longer lunch and more time for recess.
Teachers did not accurately predict some of the things that students did not like. For example,
only one teacher accurately predicted students’ condemnation of misbehavior and bullying by
other students. Teacher responses also did not include students’ desire to be challenged either
through the type of activities in class or more advanced options for courses. Finally, teachers did
not accurately guess student complaints about the school bathrooms.
Summary of Themes from Teacher Surveys – Anything Else
For the final question of the survey, teachers responded in a similar manner as the students,
however there were two differences. According to the teacher predictions, some teachers thought
students would express support for MVMS and share concerns about some of the negative stories
that have been publicized. On the other hand, where many students used Question 3 as an
opportunity to request chances to build school spirit and to have more of a voice, only a couple
of teachers predicted this reaction from students.
37
Parent Surveys
LI/WE also sent a survey to all MVMS parents. As mentioned above, this survey consisted of
twenty-five Likert items and three open-ended questions. Similar to the student and teacher
surveys, parents were asked to indicate the extent to which they agreed or disagreed with each
single statement where a score of 5 indicated strong agreement and a 1 indicated strong
disagreement.
The open-end items gave parents an opportunity to describe their feelings about MVMS in their
own words. The first question asked parents to describe what MVMS should continue doing. The
second question asked what MVMS should stop doing. The final open-ended question asked
what MVMS should start doing. Two hundred and eighty five parents completed and returned a
survey.
Results from the Scaled Items
Overall, the average results for the scaled items were somewhat neutral. The total range of
average scores was 2.2 points, from an average low of 2.4 to an average high of 4.6. However,
after removing the highest item (I support my child’s learning at home) and the lowest item (The
school has a good public image) then the total range of average scores is a 1.0 - from a 3.0 to a
4.0. This suggests that overall parent perceptions of MVMS are mildly positive.
On average, parents only agreed or strongly agreed to three statements. As cited above, the
statement that parents agreed with the most was I support my child’s learning at home (4.6). The
next two items that parents agreed with the most were the following statements: I respect the
school’s teachers and My child is safe at school.
38
The items that parents disagreed with the most represent a variety of different topics. There was
only one statement in with which parents generally disagreed: The school has a good public
image. This item received an average score of 2.4. The next three items that parents agreed with
the least were the following: The school’s administration communicates well with me (3.0), The
school succeeds at preparing children for success in high school (3.1), and I respect the school’s
principal (3.2).
Results from the Open-Ended Questions
Many parents who responded to the survey commented on one or all of the three open-ended
prompts. Some even added additional comments, which were coded as well. Below is a
description of the major themes and issues that were generated from each question.
Parent Summary - What MVMS Should CONTINUE Doing
There were six major themes as they relate to what parents, in general, feel the MVMS should
continue doing. These included 1) continuing to provide a wide range of methods to
communicate with parents, 2) continuing to use PowerSchool as a tool to display student
progress, 3) continuing to implement specific approaches to support student learning, 4)
continuing to support the hiring and retention of high quality teachers, 5) continuing to group
students in teams, and 6) continuing to address bullying.
For Question 1, many parents requested MVMS to continue communicating with parents. They
often specified the types of communication they value the most. In no particular order, these
included communicating through emails, through the weekly PAWS Pride newsletter, sending
39
the newsletter as an email, parent/teacher conferences, progress reports, open houses, and the
text and phone alerts for school closures and delays.
The single item that parents requested MVMS to continue the most was the use of PowerSchool,
the parent portal that gives parents access to current information about students’ progress and
grades. Parents frequently articulated their appreciation for having such immediate access to
information about their children’s learning. The following are some of the comments about
PowerSchool: “Powerschool is great!”, “Continue with the Consolidated Parent Portal for all
children in Goffstown”, and “PowerSchool is a great way for me to get connected with the
students’ progress and school information.”
Parents also made a point to ask MVMS to continue providing students with high quality
instruction and activities. Common requests in this area asked teachers to keep challenging the
students and supporting students with special needs. A number of parents were satisfied with the
current curriculum and asked that it be maintained. Many respondents also asked MVMS to
continue focusing on preparing students to be successful in high school and to continue
providing a variety of courses, activities, and sports for students. Many parents asked for classes
like Algebra, world language, and music to continue.
Parents in the responses often complimented teachers and many asked administration to continue
hiring highly qualified teachers and supporting all teachers in order to retain staff that are
effective. One comment that summarizes the sentiments of many parents is the following: “I feel
that there are many exceptional teachers in the school who are there to do everything they can to
40
promote a positive learning experience for the students. I feel that they truly care about the
students’ well-being and the academics they present.”
One aspect of the school day that many parents also commented on was team time. Many saw
the value of this block of time, particularly as a time for students to engage in their work and
seek extra help. The most common request about team time was to continue it. As one parent put
it, “Team Time is a great opportunity for extra help and support.”
Finally, another important theme that emerged from the responses to Question 1 was bullying.
Parents are clearly concerned about bullying and asked MVMS to continue working to stop
bullying at school, at recess, and on the buses. Many saw the importance of the PBIS program as
a valuable tool in helping prevent bullying. One parent asked the school to install more cameras.
Another parent exhorted staff to keep monitoring the students before, during, and after school.
Parent Summary - What MVMS Should STOP Doing
Most of the parents’ comments regarding what MVMS should stop doing revolved around three
broad areas. Most of the comments exhibited a concern with the administration at MVMS and
they identified a variety of administrative practices and policies they wish to see cease. Parents
also expressed the desire to see a couple communication patterns end as well. Finally, there were
two requests that many parents had in common around classroom practices.
Parents who responded to the survey requested that the MVMS administration stop enacting or
supporting a variety of practices or policies. The most common request was to stop discouraging
parents from participating in and volunteering to help out with school activities. Some examples
41
parents cited were how parents were no longer invited to events like the Turkey Trot or
assemblies. Some parents also claimed that it was much more difficult to support fundraisers
than in years past. Parents also asked the administration to stop resisting school-wide activities
designed to promote school spirit and to involve the students in more community-building
activities. One parent wrote, “MV should stop taking away student ownership of the school. It is
not a business – it is a group of children who should have a say in activities that are appropriate.”
Another phenomenon noticed by many parents is what could be described as an inconsistent
enforcement of rules and behavior. Some examples cited by parents included a policy to have
progress reports signed; yet the signatures were purportedly never collected. As one respondent
wrote, “Progress reports are supposed to be signed and returned but nobody follows-up. Once
found report in bottom of my child’s backpack weeks after it should have been turned in. No
follow-through – no point.” Another example cited the wellness policy. This parent commented
by stating, “I think MVMS should start being more consistent with policies, such as the
“wellness policy” of SAU #19 (a policy I cannot find written anywhere). We were told there are
not parties or holiday snacks because of the policy (fine.) Then 3 times in less than 2 weeks,
cupcakes and cookies were brought to the class and passed out. This discrepancy is NOT
ACCEPTABLE TO ME AT ALL!”
Finally, many parents mentioned two teacher practices they would like to see end. The first was
what a couple parents described as an “exodus” by teachers at the end of the school day and the
lack of teacher presence outside during dismissal. Another practice commented on by some
42
parents was the habit of some administrative staff leaving the school to take cigarette breaks
during the day.
Parent respondents also highlighted two aspects of communications they want to see end. The
first focused on what is perceived as too much of a focus on the negative and not enough on the
positive. In addition, while it was clear from the responses that parents appreciate having
multiple venues for communication, many commented that administration sometimes did not
respond in a timely fashion or at all to concerns raised by them. Often these concerns revolved
around bullying and questions about a child’s performance in school.
Responses to Question 2 yielded a few classroom practices that many parents would like to see
end. The first is a perceived practice of increasing challenge by giving students more work or
homework, rather than assignments that are more cognitively demanding. Another request was to
stop teaching all students the same way. As one parent wrote, “Stop teaching the students as if
they are all on the same level. It creates and encourages mediocrity”. Finally, another frequent
comment was to stop taking students on non-education field trips, such as excursions to local
sporting events during the school day.
Parent Summary - What MVMS Should START Doing
The bulk of parent comments to the open-ended survey questions appeared within Question 3.
Many parents had many suggestions about what MVMS could do to improve its programs and
services. The recommendations focused on four main areas. These included increasing 1)
accountability for students and teachers, 2) support for learning and success, 3) involvement by
students and parents at MVMS, and 4) positive communications with parents.
43
One theme generated from the responses to Question 3 focused on accountability for students
and teachers. For students, the comments concentrated on requests for MVMS to start holding
students more consistently accountable for inappropriate behavior that specifically included
bullying and the use of inappropriate language. One concerned parent wrote “Our daughter did
not have a very good experience at MVMS... The kids were rude to my daughter and foul
language was used by them all the time. There seemed to be no rules or enforcement...” Other
parents expressed concern about their own children who they described as being bullied. One
parent wrote, “Make sure the bullying stops! My child is bullied and [was] punched twice with
nothing being done.” Another wrote that MVMS should start “really watching these increasingly
violent kids...when their kids come home beaten, stolen from, and constantly verbally abused.”
Parents also asked for more accountability for teachers. Although many parents were pleased
with the performance of many of the teachers at MVMS, many recounted negative experiences, a
lack of communication, or dissatisfaction with the instruction their children had received.
Another area where parents wanted teachers to be more accountable was staying after school to
provide more support and not leaving at the bell.
A second theme that was prevalent across the parent responses was the desire for MVMS to do
more to support learning for all students. One parent identified a variety of things MVMS could
start doing to improve instruction. This parent stated that MVMS could “start collaborating to
implement best practices that push the students and help them be better thinkers and problemsolvers. Utilizing rubrics, more project-based, hands-on assignments, and creating teacherfacilitated learning in the classrooms that incorporate the higher levels of learning based on
44
Bloom’s Taxonomy. Teachers need to use more formative assessments to ensure student learning
and move away from the idea of ‘covering’ the curriculum. We need a leader who will partner
with the staff to create this kind of environment.” The most common element within this theme
was the desire for students to be challenged more, but not by necessarily giving more homework.
One parent emphasized this by stating that “academic rigor is not measured by [the] amount of
homework.”
Another area where parents would like to see MVMS do more is by providing even more options
for advanced students. One parent expressed this in some detail writing the following: “School
should be challenging to the students who can excel, I feel the school teaches to lowest common
denominator and provides assistance/guidance to those that need extra help BUT does absolutely
nothing to encourage growth for gifted students. Parents have been told to seek challenging
courses OUTSIDE of the school.”
A third theme that was apparent across the many responses was the desire for MVMS to start
involving parents and students more in a variety of ways. One respondent commented that one of
the most important things missing at MVMS is pride in the school. The entire comment was as
follows: “I was glad to see the public was open to attend the Veteran’s Day ceremony and I
believe that all activities should be open to parents: talent show and other gatherings. It is
“Pride” in our schools that his missing – how can a child be proud if he can’t include his
parents?” Many other parents expressed the hope that MVMS would begin empowering students
to take a more active role in decision-making. Also related to involvement was the wish that
Mountain View would become more welcoming to parent volunteers during the school day. One
45
parent wrote the he or she hoped MVMS would start “allowing parents to volunteer
more…teachers need help with photocopying, etc. Parents are happy to help.”
The fourth category of comments identified ways to improve communications. Broadly
speaking, many parents hoped that MVMS would begin to focus more on the positive and
celebrate the students, school and teachers more. In addition, some parents reiterated that they
wanted MVMS to start responding to their emails and addressing their concerns in a more timely
fashion. One individual wished the administration would “stop ignoring parents when they
contact administration.”
Two additional areas parents suggested MVMS could improve communications targeted
teachers. Many parents hoped that teachers would begin to communicate more consistently with
parents. One parent wrote, “More teacher/parent calls or some sort of communication. My child
went from Honor Roll last year to ABC & F’s... The teachers never contacted me about this.”
Another parent suggested, “There needs to be more communication from school to home. Last
year received almost no communication. This year is a little better.” Related to this, many
parents also asked for greater consistency in keeping the teacher websites up to date. According
to many of the parents, some teachers are much better than others at this. As one comment put it,
“All teachers should maintain a website and regularly post grades. There is wide variation among
teachers regarding the availability of this information.”
Staff Surveys
Similar to the parents, all staff members at MVMS were invited to complete a survey about the
culture and climate. This survey was lengthier and included fifty-five scaled Likert items. Staff
46
members were also asked the same three open-ended questions as parents. Again, respondents
were asked to indicate the extent to which they agreed or disagreed with each single statement
where a score of 5 indicated strong agreement and a 1 indicated strong disagreement. Below are
descriptions of key findings from the Likert items as well as the open-ended responses.
Results from the Scaled Items
Similar to the parent surveys, the majority of Likert items on the staff survey had averages in the
3.0-point range. However, there were multiple items that averaged in the 4.0’s, and a few items
that averaged in the mid 2.0’s. These are described below.
The highest scoring items from the survey were the questions that asked staff if they believed
specific instructional practices could increase student learning. Most staff recognized the
effectiveness of these research-based strategies and approaches. Next, the staff members who
completed the survey believe that, in general, other teachers treat them with respect (4.4) and
listen if they have ideas about doing things better (4.2). The respondents also indicated that they
believed administrators outside of the principal and superintendent treat them with respect (4.0).
Three additional areas averaged high scores, as indicated by the following statements; That my
job expectations are clear to me (4.0), that quality work is expected of me (4.1), and that every
student can learn (4.2).
There were five general areas that received relatively lower scores. These were items related to
the principal, communication, morale, the school’s vision, and the public image of MVMS. In
five out of seven areas, beliefs about the principal scored below a 3.0, indicating that, in general
staff did not agree with these statements. They included the following: My principal is an
47
effective instructional leader (2.4), My principal facilitates communication effectively (2.3), My
principal is effective in helping us reach our vision (2.4), My principal supports shared decisionmaking (2.5), and My principal supports me in my work with students (2.8).
Two additional areas that received relatively low scores were communication and public image.
In general, staff members did not agree that communication is effective between administration
and staff (2.3), between administration and parents (2.7) and MVMS and the community (2.8). In
a somewhat related category, staff also did not believe that the school’s public image is accurate
(2.9).
The final two areas with lower scores were morale and vision. Staff members were asked two
questions about the vision of MVMS. One statement – The vision for MVMS is clear – scored a
3.0, while the statement – The vision for MVMS is shared – received a score of 2.8. Finally,
results from the survey suggest concerns about morale. The average response for the statement, I
believe morale at MVMS is high received and average score of 2.4 – one of the lowest on the
survey. Similarly, the statement I believe morale at MVMS has been an issue in the past garnered
a relatively higher average score of 3.9. However, it is important to point out that the statements I
believe morale at MVMS is improving and I believe my personal morale is high both received
higher average scores of 3.3 and 3.4 respectively.
Staff Summary - What MVMS Should CONTINUE Doing
Four broad themes emerged from the seventy-five staff responses to the first open-ended question. The most common suggestion by far from staff was for MVMS to continue supporting the
PBIS program and PAWS Pride. One staff member mentioned that it is making a noticeable difA Study of Mountain View Middle School: 2012-2013
48
ference, writing that the “PBIS initiative seems to be a breath of fresh air in this learning community. It is not that it is a new idea or has innovation. It has us working together to achieve a
common goal. The leadership should have instituted something similar long ago. There seems to
be accountability with the initiative, which was lacking in the past.” Staff also encouraged the
school to continue enforcing the tenets of PBIS more consistently and to continue working to
maintain high expectations.
Many staff also expressed the hope that MVMS would continue to provide high quality professional development for teachers. In this vein, some staff commented on the effectiveness of recent work around curriculum and workshops on the Common Core State Standards. Others also
hoped that the support in literacy and math would continue.
Improving communication was another common theme among what the staff hoped that MVMS
would continue working on. Staff members specifically requested that MVMS continue to share
positive experiences and news about students and events. Others hoped the school would continue trying to dispel negative and false rumors. A couple others encouraged the school to keep
communications honest and transparent.
Related to comments about communication, were
hopes that MVMS would continue to improve is public image.
Another dominant theme from Question 1 was the hope that Mountain View would continue to
focus on school improvement. Some thought the current study was a move in the right direction.
Others mentioned that they thought the culture and climate was improving and expressed the desire for this to continue. Related to this theme were requests that MVMS continue what some see
as a recent trend to involve more stakeholders in the improvement efforts, like parents, commuA Study of Mountain View Middle School: 2012-2013
49
nity members, and students. As one staff member wrote, “MVMS should continue to foster a
community of learners (adults and students) where all are respected and treated fairly.”
Staff Summary - What MVMS Should STOP Doing
The bulk of staff responses coalesced into four broad categories: negative administrative behaviors, school or administrative practices, communications, and student discipline.
Most of the responses from staff members for Question 2 identified perceived negative behaviors
from administrators they want to see stopped. Staff identified a variety of behaviors. In general,
many teachers asked that administration stop treating staff and students with disrespect and to
trust them more. As one respondent stated, “I would like to see the end of the micromanaging of
most aspects of school life (except sports, chorus, and band) that gives the impression that there
is a lack of faith in the faculty.” Others described what they referred to as unfair treatment of
teachers. A specific example cited by a staff member was that in the past, the principal had “set
teachers up with parents by having meetings and engaging in communication unbeknownst to the
teacher and then calling the teachers in to meet with parents who are angry and upset without
giving the teacher any prior notice or time to prepare.” Additional examples of unfair treatment
identified a pattern of treating male staff with favoritism. There were multiple comments about
this.
Staff also described specific school practices they wish to see end. The most common request
was to stop dividing and re-assigning staff every year. One staff member wrote the following:
“MVMS needs to stop changing teacher assignments!! Not only does this create a ton of anxiety
among the staff with everyone worried about where they will end up next year, but it doesn’t alA Study of Mountain View Middle School: 2012-2013
50
low teachers to get to know the grade, material or co-teachers they are working with in any given
year because they just get moved the next year. It also causes teachers to not want to put in the
time and effort required to create engaging lessons. Finally, the students don’t get the teaching of
a teacher who knows the material well, can anticipate problems, and understands where students
often struggle.” Other staff members questioned the overall effectiveness of faculty meetings.
Some also asked that the Do-Now activity be ceased. Another respondent asked MVMS to stop
the practice of not inviting paraprofessionals to faculty meetings.
Communication was another big topic. Similar to sentiments expressed in responses to Question
2 staff members requested that MVMS stop focusing on negative communications and trying to
put on a “dog and pony show”. Others commented on the inconsistency of communications and
asked for this to stop as well. The fourth category focused on discipline. Many staff members
requested that MVMS cease what they perceive as inconsistent practices related to discipline and
the enforcement of rules and expectations.
Staff Summary - What MVMS Should START Doing
A majority of staff recommendations about what MVMS should start doing focused on improving the culture and climate. Respondents believed the culture and climate of MVMS would improve by focusing on five areas: Building school spirit, enforcing PBIS and rules more consistently, improving communications, supporting democratic practices, and improving morale.
The largest category of comments for Question 3 focused on promoting school spirit and supporting a wider variety of school-wide activities to promote school spirit. Some suggestions for
doing this were to revive spirit week, assemblies, sports rallies, and concerts. One staff member
51
wrote, “Promote more school spirit – spirit wear on Fridays and theme days for special events.
Bring the school together.”
Many staff members continued to support the PBIS program and the need to continue enforcing
its tenets and the rules on a consistent basis. Many comments in the responses were akin to the
following statement that MVMS “needs to start following and enforcing their own and the district’s rules and policies.” Another individual wrote, “PBIS needs to stay in place and possibly
expand during the next year.”
Communication was another popular theme. In general, staff members wanted MVMS to start
improving communications by focusing on the positive. Some also suggested MVMS celebrate
the good work of students and staff more. Another suggestion was to do more to inform parents
and communities about the curriculum work around standards.
A variety of comments indicated that many staff members believe MVMS can improve the culture and climate by starting to adopt democratic practices. For example, one wrote that MVMS
should “encourage the ideal of democracy in the school. I feel that I have had more input into
the school the past two months than I have had in the past six years.” Another stated that s/he
“would like to see the end of the environment built by the administration that does not value collaborative and cooperative work environments, does not support education for social responsibility and democracy and has placed many roadblocks to these goals in the past.”
Finally, myriad comments from staff focused on improving morale. Many respondents generally
asked for MVMS to ‘fix’ morale. Others reiterated some of the negative comments from QuesA Study of Mountain View Middle School: 2012-2013
52
tion 2 and asked that administrators and some teachers stop treating each other with disrespect.
However, one comment provided an example of how MVMS could do this. This individual
wrote the following: “On the first day of the 2012-2013 school year with the presence of [a district leader] the change of climate was evident. There was a sense of excitement that had not
been felt in a very long time. The focus was on bringing back order to our school with RESPECT
and DISCIPLINE leading the way. It brought back a feeling of community to our school that
had been lacking for so long. It had such a positive impact on everyone. We all need to feel a
sense of worth in order to be successful.”
Focus Groups and Interviews
In addition to the surveys for students, faculty, staff and parents, we also engaged staff members,
students and parents in deeper conversations about MVMS. In order to converse with staff
members, we conducted three focus groups that consisted of non-administrative faculty. Thirty
invitations were sent to MVMS staff; most responded and attended the discussions. Five
administrators were also invited to participate in one-on-one interviews: the principal, the
assistant principal, the dean of students, the curriculum coordinator, and the special education
director. Everyone but the principal, who was not at school the day of the first round of
interviews, was interviewed. A follow-up email was sent to him to schedule an alternate date to
interview; there was no response.
Over twenty students in grade five, six, seven, and eight participated in four focus groups.
Eleven parents participated in two focus groups. In addition, two parents who were unable to
participate sent emails sharing some of their thoughts and ideas about MVMS.
53
All of the focus groups and interviews were conducted in a similar manner. LI/WE used six
questions to frame the discussions. The six questions were the following:
1. What is it like to be a (staff member, student, or parent of a student) at MVMS?
2. How does the current educational program at MVMS support student learning?
3. How does the current leadership at MVMS support teaching and learning?
4. How would you describe the culture and climate of MVMS over the past three years?
5. Please review the research questions that frame the study of MVMS. Is there anything that
will help us answer these questions that was not addressed during today’s discussion or in the
staff surveys?
6. Exit Ticket - Please answer the following question on an index card. What is one word you
would use to describe MVMS?
A copy of the complete document that was shared with focus group members and interviewees is
provided in Appendix C.
Focus Group Results – MVMS Staff
As described earlier, the results from the focus groups were coded in the same way as the openended questions on the surveys. In order to maintain anonymity, the results from the focus
groups and interviews with administrators have been blended together. While we encouraged all
who participated to keep the conversations confidential, we recognize that participants took a
54
risk sharing their views in the presence of others. We also would like to recognize the integrity
and courage it took for the educators to participate in these conversations.
Finally, it is also important to remind readers that the results from the focus groups and
interviews shared below, just like those from the surveys, describe prevalent themes that arose
during the conversations. Not every comment and thought is captured below. In addition, it is
also important to remember that the purpose of the focus groups and interviews is to complement
the surveys.
Focus Group Results – MVMS Staff
A variety of common and interrelated themes emerged from the analysis of data from the focus
groups and interviews with staff. To begin with, most of the discussants perceived the need for
the public’s perception of MVMS to change. They saw three primary ways to do this: 1) by
continuing to provide high quality professional development and opportunities for faculty to
collaborate, 2) by continuing to support PBIS and similar school-wide initiatives focused on
students, and 3) by improving how staff interact and behave towards each other.
The groups and individuals we spoke to recognize that MVMS needs to change and improve its
public image. Many shared beliefs that there was too much negative press and that a few of
MVMS’s critics were being given too much voice. There were also perceptions that the media is
more interested in covering negative stories about MVMS than positive ones. On the other hand,
it was also acknowledged that MVMS could do a better job promoting good news and success
stories. Underlying much of the discourse about MVMS’s image was a sense that things were
shifting in a positive direction and a hope for improvement in the future.
55
The educators we talked with also recognized the importance of high quality professional
development and the need to support collaboration around curriculum and teaching as a way to
continue MVMS’s improvement. Many individuals expressed appreciation for recent
professional development around the Common Core State Standards (CCSS) and a variety of
work related to literacy, math, and student behavior like PBIS and PAWS Pride. In general, staff
recognized the shifting landscape in education, precipitated in part, as they see it, by the advent
of the CCSS. Some participants advocated for MVMS to do more to support new and struggling
teachers. Paraprofessionals and specialists also requested to be more involved in training and
support around these initiatives. Similarly, the individuals we spoke with saw the importance of
giving educators the time to collaborate on this work, especially collaborations that include team
teachers, special educators, and paraprofessionals.
Related to the above theme, participants frequently mentioned the recently adopted PBIS
program, which focuses on using positive reinforcement to support student behavior. Most
believe PBIS is working, but many of the staff members did describe challenges to having
everyone at MVMS implement PBIS consistently. Many also believe that the PBIS initiative has
helped to improve morale by giving the staff a common goal and project focused on student
success. Some also praised the district leaders who have been involved in guiding this work.
Another common theme across the focus group discussions was a concern about how staff
members treat each other at times. One concern related to how administrators treat and talk to
staff members. In general, teachers described a sense of not feeling valued or respected by toplevel administration at MVMS. Some participants also indicated that at times they also felt
56
uncomfortable sharing their opinions and voicing their own concerns with fellow faculty
members. Despite the concerns expressed above, it is important to point out that many of the
people LI/WE spoke with mentioned that they did have colleagues they trust and go to for
support. However, because of the tensions described above, multiple individuals did express a
feeling of ‘being on an island’.
Finally, as mentioned above, the educators who were involved in the focus groups and interviews
were asked to use one word to describe MVMS on an index card. In a way, these results
summarize the hope, frustration, and pride MVMS educators have about MVMS. The majority
of responses focused on hope and progress. The index cards included the following words:
evolving, upswing, could be great, progressing, diamond in the rough, and hopeful. Others
focused on some of the challenges and used the following descriptors: confusing, challenging,
oppressive, divided, disconnect, and stressful. A few others wanted to point out the positive.
They wrote better than advertised, inviting, not a word but , and a school I would send my
children to. One index card was an outlier and had one thing written on it: PBIS.
Focus Group Results – MVMS Students
Similar to the student surveys, the student focus groups provided a wealth of data to synthesize.
Overall, the findings from the focus groups were highly consistent with those from the surveys.
In general, the students shared similar thoughts across all grade levels with two exceptions. In
general, the eighth graders had fewer concerns about bullying. The other difference was what
LI/WE perceived as a slight decline in positive attitudes towards MVMS in the older grade
levels. Nonetheless, the bulk of comments from the student focus groups coalesced around six
57
broad areas: Student Behavior, Discipline, Safety, Instructional Practices, Student Activities,
Treatment of Students, and Lunch & Recess.
One of the most frequent topics of discussion during the student focus groups was the behavior
of other students – particularly bullying. Students in each focus group identified bullying as a
problem. Some students did point out that MVMS does try to prevent it and that PBIS is
supposed to help, but that it still happens. The students also expressed concern about frequent
swearing and inappropriate conversations between students. The students identified four contexts
where behavior is particularly problematic: dismissal times, busses, lunch, and recess.
In general students recognized that MVMS staff try to enforce the rules and discipline but were
not always consistent in doing so. The students provided some examples stating that there were
different rules in different places; an example cited was the use of iPods. They mentioned that
some rules were not equally enforced like swearing, being noisy, or texting. Another example of
inconsistency was a rule that purportedly contradicts the student handbook. According to one
student, the handbook states students can walk around the school, yet this is not permitted. The
students also commented that discipline was sometimes too extreme – too light or too harsh.
Students also noticed that some teachers do not follow the school rules. For example, a few
students mentioned seeing teachers using their cell phones and texting during school.
Students also had issues with PBIS and PAWS Pride. While many recognized the purpose of
these initiatives, students in grades six through eight commented that Paws Pride was “babyish”.
Students in two different grade levels also commented that seeing teachers break rules
58
undermines the integrity of the Paws Pride program. Some students in the fifth and sixth grades
wished staff would start using the ‘paws’ again for rewards.
Similar to the surveys, a number of students also expressed concerns about safety. In general, the
students did state that they generally feel safe at MVMS and recognized efforts that MVMS has
taken like requiring visitors to show ID, providing practice drills and installing cameras.
However, recent events appear to have undermined the confidence of some. Students
recommended more practice and assurances that MVMS is doing everything it can to keep them
safe. The students offered some suggestions on how to do this. These included the following:
•
Making it so alarms and bells can be heard everywhere
•
Having more practice drills
•
Regularly going through and reviewing the safety bag
•
Making sure subs know what to do during emergency procedures.
The students shared their views on instructional practices at MVMS. In general, the students
expressed appreciation for when teachers personalize instruction, give them choices, and go out
of their way to support them. They often asked for all of these practices to continue. A number of
students also wished teachers would not leave at the bell and be more available for help after
school. The students also lamented the amount of homework, yet described how they like it
when teachers challenge them by giving them different and challenging work, not just more
work.
59
Another popular topic of discussion among the students was school activities. One of the most
common themes was the request for more school-wide activities to build school spirit. The
students gave examples of a variety of activities they like: the Turkey Trot, Winter Carnival,
dances, spirit days, and field trips. They also mentioned that they wished the Student Council
would do more to support these types of activities. The students also expressed appreciation for
the number of after school activities. They hope these continue and would love even more
choices.
Consistent with the responses from the student surveys, the individuals in the student focus
groups shared their views about lunch and recess. In general the students shared their wishes for
lunch and recess to be longer. They also discussed how they wished the older students could get
recess. One student described a feeling of betrayal about this stating the following: “Wish there
was recess in 7th and 8th grade. We felt betrayed when we were told we would get it and then it
didn’t happen.”
One topic of discussion that a few students were particularly passionate about focused on how
students want to be treated by the staff at MVMS. Some described a desire to have more voice
and involvement, particularly in creating opportunities to build school spirit. Others talked about
the desire to be treated like an adult and as an individual. Others generally shared their wish to be
given more freedom, particularly the students in upper middle school grades.
Finally, just like the staff members, the students were asked to use one word or phrase to
describe MVMS. In general, these comments sum up the conversations. The cards could be
sorted into two general categories. One collection of cards was complimentary of MVMS; the
60
other was more critical. The positive comments were the following: supportive and fun, safe,
going places, fabulous, freedom, interesting, different in a good way, and helps me learn. A
subset of cards qualified this praise. These included the following: fun, but stressful, fun, but
hectic, and good, but not great. The group of critical comments included not fun and
overwhelming, no student voice or union, expected to be followers, plain, firm, no pride, one step
forward and one step back, no follow through or exercise, and unorganized, liberal, and
politically correct.
Focus Group Results – MVMS Parents
A dozen parents shared their views about MVMS. In general, the parents were hopeful about the
future of MVMS, were supportive of the teachers, and felt as if there had been recent
improvements at the school. Many also believed the PBIS program was having a positive impact
on the climate and culture. That being said, the parents primarily focused on a variety of
concerns. These included low morale among students and staff, lack of parental involvement in
the school, challenges communicating and interacting with administration, concerns about high
teacher turnover, questions about the quality of the curriculum, a desire for more advanced
courses, and more support during transitions from elementary school and to high school.
Morale often came up in the conversation with parents. A few parents described how their
children had become less interested in school during their tenure at Mountain View. Parents also
expressed a concern about the morale among staff. Multiple participants shared experiences
where teachers had shared with them their reticence about going to work. Other parents also
61
described a noticeable difference between the climate at the high school and the middle school,
in that the high school seems more like a community.
One of the most frequent topics of conversation was frustration around the lack of parent
involvement and the difficulty parents were having being involved in school activities. One
parent shared statistics describing the number of volunteer hours over the past five years.
According to these data, parents volunteered for 5,890 hours during the 2007-2008 school year
compared to 2,506 hours during the 2011-2012 school year. Parents attributed this decline to a
lack of feeling welcome by administration and a general sense that the MVMS administration
does not support parent involvement. One example a parent gave was that parents are no longer
allowed to participate in activities they once did, like the Turkey Trot.
Related to concerns about parent involvement was a frustration over communication with the
MVMS administration. Multiple parents expressed negative experiences communicating with
administrative staff. A couple said they were reticent to raise concerns or ask questions for fear
of being labeled. Many of the parents also expressed a desire to know more about curriculum and
grading policies.
Parents also communicated concerns about high teacher turnover. They were quick to praise
many of their children’s teachers; however the general perception of many in the group was that
many of the teachers did not stay or last long at MVMS. Related to this issue were concerns
about the perception that teachers were frequently reassigned from one team to another.
62
A common question asked by many of the parents regarded the quality of the curriculum.
Concerns were raised about the integrity of some courses, with the most frequent concern
targeting the middle school Spanish curriculum. Multiple parents worried that the middle school
students were not being adequately prepared for high school. Others communicated a desire for
greater personalization and support for student learning.
Areas that received high praise from the parents were some of the optional classes that some
students were eligible to take like the music classes, world languages, and advanced math . Some
parents expressed the wish for more advanced options for students. Others criticized how
difficult it was for students to get into some of these classes – like the math class.
A final topic of concern was support during transitions. Parents noticed that some of their
children struggled when they left elementary school and came to the middle school. For example,
two parents commented that going from no grades to grades was a huge shift. The parents also
worried that the students were being adequately prepared for high school. Parents who had
students who transitioned from MVMS to the high school described difficulties adjusting during
those transitions as well.
63
Section 3 – Discussion of Results
Introduction
Section 3 of this report focuses on answering the first three research questions that framed this
study.
1. What are the strengths and challenges of teaching and learning at MVMS as seen from an
2. How do key stakeholder groups perceive teaching and learning at MVMS? Specifically, a)
what beliefs do these stake holders have about teaching and learning, and b) what actions
(past and present) do they believe have helped and/or hindered teaching and learning and
why?
3. How do the perceptions of key stakeholder groups around teaching and learning align or not
align with the student and teacher data?
The discussion of Question 1 draws upon results from the MAP, the NECAP, and the classroom
observations using the Teach for Success observation tool. When relevant, the discussion also
draws upon data from the surveys and additional resources that were provided by SAU #19.
A variety of data were used to consider Question 2. These included the surveys, the focus
groups, and the interviews. It is important to reiterate that these data represent perceptions, not
facts or, in many cases, measurable variables. That being said, much can be learned and inferred
64
from the comments about what key stakeholders believe in regards to teaching and learning at
MVMS.
In order to answer Question 3, LI/WE compared the achievement data and classroom observation
data to common perceptions across the surveys and discussions. However, although it goes beyond the scope of the question, LI/WE also considered where perceptions across three
stakeholder groups of students, staff, and parents did and did not align. The data indicated that
there were important similarities and differences that helped to shape the recommendations described in the next section.
Finally, before delving into the first three research questions, it is important to state again that the
answers to the research questions are grounded in LI/WE’s analysis, as a third party, of the data
collected. We are cognizant of the fact that readers may be aware of data not included in this
study. This awareness will understandably shape each individual’s reading of the findings. It is
our main intent that the findings and analyses provided in this document support the larger discussion that needs to take place, and we acknowledge that LI/WE’s findings are not all encompassing or exhaustive by any measure. LI/WE also recognizes that other readers may see and
make connections that were not apparent to us. Again, this will only help support further discussion and planning. This was the reason for explaining methods and attempting to provide a great
deal of data, while protecting anonymity.
65
Research Question 1
What are the strengths and challenges of teaching and learning at Mountain View Middle
School as seen from an analysis of student and teacher data?
Strengths
The achievement data indicate that a majority of students at MVMS are learning and meeting
standards in math, reading, and writing. MVMS students consistently perform above national
averages as indicated by the results on the MAP assessments. In addition, the students also consistently outperform students across the state. Another strength is the recent improvement made
in reading for students with IEPs over the past one and two years in grades six and seven.
In regards to teaching, a few important strengths stand out from the data. Based on the classroom
observations, teachers are working hard to cultivate positive learning environments. In a majority
of the classrooms observed, teachers were clearly 1) fostering a climate of fairness, caring and
respect; 2) maintaining standards of behavior, routines, and transitions; and 3) recognizing and
reinforcing students’ efforts. Other data also corroborate these observations. Out of the five elements of effective teaching listed on the staff survey, the highest scoring item was a belief in fostering a positive learning environment, which averaged a 4.7 out of 5.0. Many students were also
quick to praise their teachers and articulate appreciation for their support. All of this helps shape
positive learning environments. The PBIS program also reinforces MVMS’s commitment to fostering a culture of fairness, caring, and respect.
Additional strengths were also apparent from a variety of data as well. One of these was teacher
recognition of the importance of providing high quality instruction in the classroom. A variety of
66
comments articulated the need for personalizing and differentiating instruction through supports
for struggling students to advanced options for precocious students. A dedication to pursuing
high quality instruction was also evident from the high scores staff gave to the five elements of
effective teaching from the staff surveys. These elements were using research-based strategies,
maximizing student engagement, using formative assessment, applying effective questioning
techniques, and fostering a positive learning environment. The fact that many teachers requested
that high quality professional development continue also points to this area as a strength.
Areas for Growth and Development
The data also indicate clear areas for growth that may provide useful guidance for future planning. In regards to student achievement, while students consistently perform above national averages for language use on the MAP assessments, students have recently underperformed in writing in relation to students across the state. Similarly, a majority of students are not meeting state
standards in science, although this is also true for students across the state.
Another area of improvement regarding student achievement is the success rate for students with
IEPs in reading, writing, and math. Although there are some exceptions, in all three areas the
percentage of students with IEPs that meet or exceed standards is less than many other schools
across the state. These data suggest that more can be done to support students who struggle in
these core areas.
In regards to teaching, the classroom observations suggest a few areas of possible growth and
professional development support. Specifically, using formative assessments, communicating
standards and objectives to students, emphasizing or asking students to use academic vocabulary,
67
and/or applying techniques to maximize engagement are areas for further exploration and consideration.
That being said, LI/WE does recognize that observing instruction over two days is a limited
sample set. It should also be noted that while the observation tool LI/WE used is researched
based, the faculty of MVMS were unaware of the specific attributes being looked for and the
‘baseline’ data observed was similar to that observed in most schools where there has been little
or no training relative to these instructional practices and strategies. At the minimum, these data
do warrant further investigation into teachers’ understanding of and awareness of how to apply
specific elements in their instruction. Given the faculty’s desire for continued high quality professional development, these data and any additional data gathered in the future, might yield useful and appreciated topics for future workshops.
Research Question 2
How do key stakeholder groups perceive teaching and learning at Mountain View Middle
School? Specifically, a) what beliefs do these stakeholders have about teaching and
learning, and b) what actions (past and present) do they believe have helped and/or
hindered teaching and learning and why?
Student Beliefs
The data provided by students indicate a few strong beliefs students appear to hold in common.
The first of these is the importance for students to feel safe as a foundation for being able to
learn. Across the stakeholder groups, individuals expressed concerns about bullying and the
recent lockdowns (real and practice). A variety of actions appear to have hindered or helped
68
MVMS foster perceptions of safety. Some actions that have helped have been specific measures
MVMS has taken to promote safety – like practice drills, requiring ID to enter the facility, and
installing cameras. The PBIS program also appears to have been an important initiative in
support of safety. Possible actions that have hampered feelings of safety appear to be the real
lockdowns and emergency procedures that have taken place and a perceived lack of follow-up
communication about these events. Something else that may be inhibiting perceptions of safety is
inconsistent enforcement of PBIS across the school and a lack of staff awareness of bullying. It
should also be noted that focus groups and surveys occurred after the terrible tragedy in
Newtown, CT, which might have affected feelings expressed during the focus group discussions.
Students also indicated that they have specific beliefs and attitudes towards learning. Four beliefs
that stood out from our analysis of the data are the following: 1) learning should be engaging, 2)
instruction should be personalized to meet students’ needs, 3) students should be challenged, and
4) students should have some choice regarding what they learn. Student comments suggest that
some prefer to receive more challenging work not more work. Another possible way teachers
may unintentionally hinder learning as seen through the lenses of students’ beliefs is by relying
primarily on whole group instructional practices. Actions that appear to have helped in this
regard include providing students with opportunities to engage in challenge options and
advanced courses.
Another strong belief that was salient across the various data was the belief that students should
be integrally involved in shaping the school’s culture. Related to this were beliefs that MVMS
should provide frequent opportunities for students to build school spirit and that students should
69
have voice in shaping these experiences. A variety of actions appear to have worked against
these beliefs. One includes changes in and the elimination of activities like spirit days. Another is
the perceived lack of willingness to support students when they assemble and work together for
common causes like more activities to promote school community. The perceptions data indicate
that the various after school activities, including the sports programs, and activities like the
Turkey Trot and Winter Carnival have helped promote school spirit and unity.
A fourth belief that became apparent from analysis of the data is the belief that students should
have daily opportunities to move and exercise. Students who have recess frequently commented
about how much they appreciate it and wish it could be longer. Students who do not have it
clearly lament the fact. Exacerbating student frustration as it relates to this belief is the lack of
frequent gym classes. On the other hand, many students appreciated the opportunity to
participate in afterschool sports.
Staff Beliefs
The data indicate that staff members also hold specific beliefs in common. Many individuals
clearly communicated belief in the value of collaborating with other colleagues in high quality
professional development. Recent professional development on the PBIS program and
workshops around programs and practices in support of the Common Core Standards are
examples of past actions that have positively reinforced this belief.
It was clear from the data that staff members believe in consistent enforcement of rules and
expectations. They also expressed comments indicating a belief in consistent (and positive)
treatment of staff. Comments from various stakeholders suggest there may have been past
70
actions that undermined this belief. One includes teachers and teams having different rules and
enforcing them in different ways. Another issue that may have frustrated individuals is the
perceived unequal treatment of some staff members by administrators. On the other hand, PBIS
appears to have been a powerful and effective initiative in support of increasing greater
consistency around expectations for behavior and an initiative that is supporting greater staff
collaboration.
Staff members at MVMS also indicated strong beliefs around the importance of feeling as if they
are part of a supportive and collegial community in service of children. Comments about MVMS
staff not being a family offended some individuals who believe in the importance of having a
strong educational community at MVMS. It should also be noted that there were data from staff
across the surveys and focus groups that indicated some were uncomfortable with comments or
actions from colleagues and administrators, and that collegial ‘norms’ for communication and
interaction might be worthy of reflection and group processing.
Similarly, staff also expressed a clear belief in the importance of celebrating and appreciating
students and staff in positive ways. In addition, the perceived lack of activities designed to
promote school spirit and resistance to student attempts to build school spirit appear to make it
harder for individuals to feel like they are a part of positive collective endeavor of teaching and
learning.
Finally, the staff of MVMS also communicated a commonly held belief in the importance of the
school having a positive reputation. It is clear that recent negative press and negative interactions
among staff have damaged MVMS’s standing in the public’s eye. However, recent efforts
71
around PBIS and the CCSS have helped foster hope that MVMS’s image is on an upswing.
Similarly, the fact that the district is taking steps to engage in this study also appears to have
kindled a sense of optimism among many, even though some question the use of district funds to
support this study by LI/WE.
Parent Beliefs
Through the surveys and focus groups parents expressed many thoughts and concerns that seem
to be shaped by five broad beliefs. The first belief focuses on the role of parents at MVMS.
Many of the parents made it clear they believe parents play a vital role in support of teaching and
learning. Actions that have helped parents enact this belief in the past include MVMS’s
willingness to provide many different avenues of communication; like newsletters, emails, and
the parent portal in PowerSchool. PowerSchool has clearly empowered parents to take an active
role in supporting students. On the other hand, many parents expressed frustration over
difficulties in volunteering and getting involved in activities and fundraisers. Similarly, parents
are also frustrated when teachers do not regularly update PowerSchool and their websites in a
timely manner. Another concern that has appeared to frustrate parents in their role as support for
students is the perceived lack of feeling welcome by the MVMS administration.
Many parents also expressed belief in the importance of all students receiving high quality
instruction. Related to this was the belief that MVMS should prepare students for success in high
school. In addition, parents also believe that in order to prepare students well, teachers need to
personalize learning and challenge each student appropriately by providing advanced options for
those who are ready, as well as additional support for students who need it. This belief could be
72
one reason many parents communicated frustration about teachers leaving school right at the end
of the school day. Similarly, many parents expressed appreciation for the existence of advanced
options like algebra and world language, and they expressed the desire to see more options like
this.
Another related belief is hiring strong teachers and supporting them to be highly effective in the
classroom. Parents clearly lauded the district for hiring excellent teachers in the past. They also
lamented MVMS’s high teacher turnover rate, which according to data provided by the district
has consistently been one of the highest in SAU #19. Parents also perceive that a lack of
evaluation of teachers and a lack of accountability for ineffective teaching has compromised
student learning. Many parents indicated their support for providing teachers with high quality
professional development, which in itself is notable since community members in other districts
are not always supportive of taxpayer funds being used to support staff development.
Finally, similar to the students, many parents believe that students need to be and feel safe. Some
worry that there is still too much bullying at MVMS. Others fear there have been too many
emergencies and lockdowns. On the other hand, many MVMS parents praised the PBIS program
and believe that it is having a positive impact in this area.
73
Research Question 3
How do the perceptions of key stakeholder groups around teaching and learning align or
not align with the student and teacher data?
Where There Was Alignment
In reviewing the student achievement data and results from the classroom observations, and
considering the beliefs across the different stakeholder groups, LI/WE could see many areas
where actual performance and perceptions align. It appears that most of the individuals would
agree that MVMS is a good school and is effectively educating the majority of students. That
data also suggest that most individuals would also agree that MVMS has room for improvement
and the potential and capacity to make those improvements.
The belief that effective instruction really matters is consistent across constituencies. There also
appears to be general agreement around some of the characteristics that constitute effective
instruction, including such practices as personalizing learning, providing additional support for
students who need it, and striving to challenge all students appropriately, to name a few.
Similarly, most would agree that hiring and supporting effective teachers is essential to serving
students well.
There is also strong agreement among all who participated in the various phases of this study that
students must be safe and they must also believe they are safe. Although there are some who
disagree, the vast majority of participants believe that the PBIS program is having a positive
impact on student behavior. There is also general agreement that more can be done to support
74
this program and improve the consistency through which it is implemented and supported by
staff.
The importance of effective communication in helping MVMS move forward was another area
where views aligned. This includes effective communication between administration and staff,
between members of the teaching staff, between teachers and parents, and between MVMS and
the community. In addition, there also appears to be consensus around the notion that MVMS
needs to focus more on the positive, address its challenges or areas for growth and development,
and not overly focus on the negative voices of a few.
Where There Was Less Alignment
Although there were many issues and beliefs that were common across the stakeholder groups,
there were key areas where there did not appear to be strong alignment. In some areas, there are
significant tensions that LI/WE believes need to be addressed in order for MVMS to continue on
its path of improvement.
An important area where there did not appear to be strong alignment was around the extent to
which students with IEPs are being effectively supported. Although many individuals across
stakeholder groups did mention the importance of supporting students who struggle, there was
strikingly little reference to students with disabilities, specifically students with IEPs. However,
the NECAP data would indicate that MVMS is trailing other schools in this sub group of
students and would benefit from looking further into practices to support students with special
needs. That being said, it is important to point out the recent gains in reading in the sixth and
seventh grade test scores, particularly those for students with IEPs. There is likely some value in
75
analyzing the successful practices being utilized and impacting growth for this specific group of
students.
Another area of potential focus is classroom instruction. Although there was common agreement
in the importance of effective instructional strategies and techniques, as well as agreement
around what some of these are, there was not consensus about the degree to which teachers are
consistently applying these techniques. Comments and questions raised by students and parents,
as well as the classroom observational data, suggest that teachers and students would benefit
from additional inquiry and possible future professional development in this area. In addition,
teachers are receptive to high quality professional development and would support the utilization
of thoughtfully orchestrated professional development that is research based and aligned to areas
for growth and faculty interest.
Finally, there appears to be profound differences in the overall vision for MVMS as well as the
philosophy and practices aimed at implementing it. For example, the two statements about vision
(The vision of MVMS is clear and The vision of MVMS is shared) on the staff survey were two of
the lower scoring items.
Section 4 – Recommendations
Introduction
The final research question for this study asks, “What strategic actions can MVMS take to
improve the overall learning experience for students?”
76
Before we address this question, we would be remiss if we did not start out by noting how
welcomed we felt in the process of gathering data for this study. The school’s leaders, staff, and
faculty welcomed WE/LI staff, shared concerns and responded to surveys in a manner that
exemplified a profound commitment to students and the broader educational community. While
the focus of this final section is to offer recommendations for consideration, we want to clearly
state that these suggestions are intended to support school leaders, faculty, and staff (who clearly
desire the best for their students), in making MVMS even better.
This section provides some suggested actions and practices that have evidence in other contexts
of positive impact when implemented with fidelity. It is important to point out these
recommendations are not all inclusive. Some of the recommendations may already be in the
process of being implemented. We also suggest that reflection and discussion of these findings
should inform additional dialogue and local decisions as to which actions are likely to be the
most useful and impactful in the near and longer term. If and when that happens, we suggest that
MVMS review the current policy, program, or practice in question and with consideration of the
data presented. These recommendations are not intended to be portrayed as “the only” elements
for growth or improvement at MVMS. They are provided as suggestions that can play a
significant role in helping the school address areas for development that were identified through
the multiple sources of data.
The recommendations have been organized into four broad categories: Vision & Governance,
Curriculum & Classroom Practices, Communications, and Safety & Discipline.
Safety and Discipline
1. Continue to invest in and support the PBIS plan. For 2013-2014 develop a plan to improve
the consistency of implementation.
Mountain View Middle School, SAU #19, Goffstown NH, Jan. 22-23, 2013
77
2. Develop plans and procedures (possibly self-regulating) to hold staff accountable for
behaviors that embody the PBIS program.
3. Consider bringing back the paws as part of PAWS Pride – at least in the younger grades.
4. Develop a plan to train substitutes to support emergency procedures. Consider having
students play a supportive role in this, since they are the only individuals who are likely to be
available to support a substitute in the event of a real emergency.
5. Increase staff presence during dismissal at the end of the day.
Vision & Governance
1. Create a Visioning Committee to explore and clarify the vision and mission of MVMS. This
committee would be charged with determining where MVMS should be in one, two and three
to five years. It is recommended that this committee include representatives from the various
stakeholder groups: students, faculty, administration, school board, parents, and community
members.
2. As part of the visioning work, investigate other school models. For example, visit middle
schools with similar socio-demographics; nearby schools that have either undergone recent
transformation and/or are incorporating many of the principles stakeholders expressed.
LI/WE can recommend possible sites to visit.
3. Based on the results of the visioning work, determine a governance structure that will most
effectively support MVMS in implementing its vision. Again, it should be noted that research
does not suggest that one style of leadership in itself is the key to successful schools; rather,
it is how leaders shape a vision of academic success for all students; create a hospitable
educational climate; cultivate leadership in others; support improved classroom instruction;
78
and, manage people, data, and processes for school improvement; that are all important skills
for school leaders to employ. These leadership skills could be led by an individual or
through a ‘shared’ leadership structure; however, regardless of structure, the elements noted
above should be supported and implemented with fidelity.
4. Develop charters for all key groups, where each charter specifically outlines the role and
responsibilities of the group and its members; as well as what the group will do in support of
the vision and mission. Groups to consider: school board, school administration, student
advisory committee, curriculum committee, MVMS parent group, etc.
5. Clarify the roles and responsibilities of all key personnel and stakeholder groups; specifically
the key tasks and responsibilities of each as they relate to the vision and mission. This is very
different from job descriptions, which focus on individuals. Role descriptions are broader and
include roles for which there typically are no job descriptions. For example, it is very helpful
to have documentation and language that describes the formal roles of parents and what they
can do and be encouraged to do in support of the mission and vision of MVMS.
6. As part of the visioning work described above, develop short term (90 to 180 days) and fiveyear strategic action plans designed to help MVMS reach desired goals.
7. As part of the short-term plan, develop action steps to increase school spirit at MVMS. It is
recommended that students and teachers be involved in the creation of this plan.
8. Invite parents and staff to develop and provide an increased array of afterschool choices for
students as well as community service opportunities.
79
Classroom Instruction & Curriculum
1. Consider researching and conducting additional classroom observations, possibly involving
school leaders and faculty collaboratively, to gather additional data to compare with findings
from this study and inform future professional development targeting support for
instructional practice.
2. Based on data collected from classroom observations, provide professional development on a
variety of research-based practices or methods, which could include strategies for the
following: communicating standards and objectives to students, emphasizing and supporting
students’ use of academic vocabulary, applying effective questioning techniques, maximizing
student engagement, designing and using effective formative assessments, developing
engaging tasks that encourage higher order thinking, and using effective techniques for
differentiating instruction in meaningful ways.
3. Identify successful practices of and continue the recent work in reading for students with
disabilities.
4. Develop approaches in math to support students with IEPs similar to those which have been
effective with reading.
5. If not already in existence, develop and implement a school-wide writing prompt that all
students take and that teachers score collaboratively. This will provide MVMS with data
around writing performance for all students. It also helps all teachers develop consistent
expectations around writing standards.
6. Continue to provide professional development in support of the Common Core State
Standards. This could include workshops on the following:
80
a. Understanding the CCSS and the relationships between the standards.
b. Using the CCCSS to develop units of study and lesson plans.
c. Strategies for communicating standards to students and applying them in the classroom.
5. Develop assessment strategies that support implementation of the CCSS.
a. Increase capacity for teachers, special educators, and paraprofessionals to collaborate
around the following work:
•
Developing and designing lessons and units.
•
Observing and discussing instruction.
•
Analyzing and discussing student work.
6. Create or update transition plans that include strategies and activities to support transitions
from the elementary schools as well as to the high school.
7. Explore additional options of advanced courses for students – e.g. International
Baccalaureate, Pre-AP courses, etc.
8. Develop mentoring supports and programs for new teachers.
9. Develop a plan for consistent evaluation of staff.
Communications
1. Develop a plan for celebrating student and staff success and publishing this information with
parents and the community.
2. Review the student handbook to identify any inconsistencies between policy and practice.
81
3. Clarify and communicate the policy about updating classroom websites.
4. Clarify and communicate the policy for updating student progress and data in PowerSchool.
5. Develop a plan for communicating to students and parents after emergency procedures,
whether real or as planned practice, to alleviate fears and concerns.
6. Develop clear and consistent homework guidelines for each grade level. Communicate guidelines to students and parents, which should include an explanation of what parents can do at
home to support students and help them develop effective homework habits.
Additional Recommendations
In closing, there are three additional thoughts and recommendations that relate to the suggestions
above that may be helpful. First, it should be emphasized that all of the recommendations are
intended to play a role in helping to improve the culture and climate at MVMS. This was a study
of culture and climate as much as it was an inquiry into teaching and learning at MVMS. The
reason LI/WE began with recommendations around safety is that teachers and students cannot
effectively engage in teaching and learning if they do not feel safe and supported.
Second, we recommend the school collaboratively consider the importance of clarifying group
norms and behaviors for all MVMS staff (and preferably the entire MVMS educational
community). These norms should be defined, posted, and regularly referenced for personal and
collegial accountability. A strong foundation of collaboratively agreed upon and understood
norms for communication and interaction are the foundation for conversations and discourse
leading to a shared vision and mutual commitment to improvement and excellence. Regrettably,
it appears that much of the negative press of the past few years has targeted people. Frequently
this is not helpful and is often detrimental to the goal that most members of the MVHS
community share, which is to support effective teaching and learning. Very simply, it is better to
82
target and discuss data that can surface questions, inform hypotheses and lead to actions to
inform and support teacher practices leading to greater student achievement.
Finally, we encourage all constituents of MVMS to remember and not overlook the wisdom of
children. Throughout this study we were continuously impressed with the insight, hope, and
passion of the students. What is also important to point out is that out of all the groups, the
students were the most positive. They were the quickest to forgive. And interestingly, they
focused on identifying practices or situations where they hoped for change or improvement. In
general, they focused their energy on suggestions and their desire to make MVMS a better place
to be and learn.
83
Section 5 – Appendices
Appendix A
Teach for Success (T4S) Program
Today’s schools need to accommodate the learning needs of an increasingly diverse student population
as they also implement state academic standards. To successfully deliver a rigorous standards-based
curriculum to all students, teachers must consistently employ research-based teaching practices, and to
increase their effectiveness in doing so, administrators and teachers need to be able to collaboratively
discuss and examine the practice of teaching. Yet such communication can be difficult in the absence
of a common language for talking about what goes on in the classroom. Teach for Success (T4S) is a
professional development program designed to enable administrators, academic coaches, and teachers
to observe and discuss instruction objectively, so as to improve teaching practices and increase student
achievement.
T4S helps program participants learn and discuss a set of specific instructional strategies needed to
plan, deliver, and assess standards-based instruction. These are strategies that have been proven to be
effective for supporting student learning. In addition, T4S offers schools and districts skills, tools, and
a process that staff can use to observe and analyze the quality of instruction in all classrooms, so they
can understand and plan how to meet the professional development needs of classroom teachers.
While T4S emphasizes practices that enhance overall instruction, it does not address teachers’ content
knowledge, content-specific pedagogy (i.e., pedagogical content knowledge), or knowledge of academic standards.
The importance of an effective classroom teacher, long recognized intuitively, has been confirmed by
multiple studies examining the connection between teacher quality and student learning. Sanders and
Rivers most clearly illustrated — and quantified — that link in their 1996 study examining the difference in achievement levels between students who had a sequence of highly effective teachers and
those who had a sequence of less effective teachers, with effectiveness determined by the test scores of
teachers’ prior students. At the outset of the study, they measured no difference between the achievement levels of the two groups of second graders. Yet those who then were assigned for third, fourth,
and fifth grade to teachers in the top quintile of effectiveness performed 50 percentile points higher on
average at the end of that period than students who had been assigned for the same period to teachers
in the lowest quintile of effectiveness.
How do highly effective teachers like those in the Sanders and Rivers study become so skilled? A
range of research has identified various factors related to teacher effectiveness, among them, teacher
qualifications, such as education, certification, and experience; teacher characteristics, such as attitudes, beliefs, race, and gender; and teacher practices, such as planning, instructional delivery, classroom management, and interaction with students (Goe, 2007). Principals working with a given group
of teachers can do little to change the qualifications of those classroom educators in the short term.
While some teacher characteristics, such as attitudes and beliefs, can evolve, it is in the third category
of teacher practice that professional development can have the most immediate influence. And it is
here that T4S focuses, by offering a process through which teachers learn and plan how and when to
use specific research-based strategies in order to affect positive academic outcomes.
84
The multi-step process that T4S outlines reflects the findings of the Learning First Alliance (2000) that
learning a new behavior and effectively transferring it to the classroom requires: a) learning the skills
and understanding the theory and rationale for the new behavior; b) observing a model in action; c)
practicing the new behavior in a safe atmosphere; and d) implementing the new behavior in the classroom with support and coaching. T4S provides a structure and guidance for administrators and others
who work with classroom teachers to support teachers as they engage in this process.
The T4S program combines both content and guided practice for administrators, coaches, and teachers. It helps all T4S participants to learn and be able to recognize, when they see them in practice, 22
specific research-based teaching strategies that lead to increased student achievement. It also prepares
administrators and coaches to use a process that combines observation, analysis, evaluation, and a variety of ways to provide feedback to monitor and improve teachers’ implementation of these strategies.
The T4S program categorizes the featured strategies or elements into six sections. Within a given section, each element is further defined by specific teacher actions called attributes. Some attributes are
linked to more than one element and, thus, may appear in more than one section, although perhaps
worded differently. This is because certain teacher actions in the classroom, such as providing student
feedback, may serve different purposes depending on the teacher’s intent. The six sections of T4S are:
Section I. Instructional Practices to Support All Learners
This section focuses on specific practices that a teacher uses to best facilitate the transfer of knowledge
and skills to all students. This section draws on the work of Marzano, 2007; Echevarria et al., 2004;
Algozzine et al., 1997; Rosenshine and Stevens, 1986; and Hunter, 1982.
Section II. Student Engagement
This section focuses on what a teacher does to actively engage all students in learning and to the use of
selected student engagement techniques. This section draws on the work of Marzano, 2007, Marzano
et al., 2003; Gentile, 1988; Rosenshine and Stevens, 1986; and Hunter, 1976.
Section III. Assessment Practices
This section focuses on types of classroom assessments and on a teacher’s actions while assessing students day to day. This section draws on the work of Fisher and Frey, 2007; Guskey, 2003; and
McTighe and Ferrara, 2000.
Section IV. Cognitive Level of Questions and Activities
This section focuses on using the revised Bloom’s Taxonomy as a guide in determining the cognitive
level of questions and activities.
Section V. Instructional Approaches
This section focuses on different types of classroom approaches a teacher can take, such as whole
group instruction, small group instruction, and student seatwork. This section draws on the work of
Tomlinson and Eidson, 2003; Algozzine et al., 1997; Gentile, 1988; Rosenshine and Stevens, 1986;
and Hunter, 1982.
85
Section VI. Learning Environment
This section focuses on classroom climate, including the available resources within the classroom and
the nature of a teacher’s interactions with students. This section draws on the work of Evertson et al.,
2003; and Mendler and Curwin, 1983.
Selected References
Algozzine, B., Ysseldyke, J., & Elliot, J. (1997). Strategies and tactics for effective instruction.
Longmont, CO: Sopris West.
Echevarria, J., Vogt, M., & Short, D. (2004). Making content comprehensible for English language learners: The SIOP model. Needham Heights, MA: Allyn & Bacon.
Evertson, C., Emmer, E., & Worsham, M. (2003). Classroom management for elementary teachers. Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon.
Fisher, D., & Frey, N. (2007). Checking for understanding: Formative assessment techniques for
your classroom. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
Gentile, J. (1988). Instructional improvement: Summary of Madeline Hunter’s essential elements
of instruction and supervision. Oxford, OH: National Staff Development Council.
Goe, L. (2007). The link between teacher quality and student outcomes: A research synthesis.
Washington, D.C.: National Comprehensive Center for Teacher Quality.
Guskey, T. (2003). How classroom assessments improve learning. Educational Leadership,
60(5).
Hunter, M. (1976). Improved instruction. El Segundo, CA: Theory In Practice Publications.
Hunter, M. (1982). Mastery teaching. El Segundo, CA: Theory In Practice Publications.
Learning First Alliance, Executive Summary (November, 2000). Every Child Reading: A Professional Development Guide. Washington, DC: Author.
Marzano, R. (2007). The art and science of teaching: A comprehensive framework for effective
instruction. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
Marzano, R. (2003). What works in school: Translating research into action. Alexandria, VA:
Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
McTighe, J., & Ferrara, S. (2000). Assessing learning in the classroom. National Education Association of United States.
Mendler, A., & Curwin, R. (1983). Taking charge in the classroom: A practical guide to effective discipline. Reston, VA: Reston Publishing.
Rosenshine, B., & Stevens, R. (1986). Teaching functions. In M.C. Wittrock (Ed.), Handbook of
research on teaching, third edition (pp. 376–391). New York: MacMillan.
Sanders, W.L., & Rivers, J.C. (1996). Cumulative and residual effects of teachers on future student academic achievement. Knoxville, TN: University of Tennessee Value-Added Research and Assessment Center.
86
Tomlinson, C., & Eidson, C. (2003). Differentiation in practice: A resource guide for differentiating curriculum. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
87
Appendix B
Student and Teacher Survey - Results
(Scale: 5 = Strongly Agree, 4 = Agree, 3 = No Opinion, 2 - Disagree, 1 = Strongly Disagree)
Item
5th
6th
7th
8th
All
Faculty
I belong.
4.18
4.02
4.00
3.76
3.96
4.25
I am safe.
4.51
3.99
4.08
3.76
4.04
4.38
I have fun learning.
3.77
3.50
3.37
3.18
3.40
4.04
I like this school.
4.52
4.02
3.91
3.21
3.82
4.00
This school is good.
4.41
3.96
3.78
3.07
3.72
4.02
I have freedom at school.
3.86
3.34
3.23
2.79
3.20
3.20
I have choices in what I learn.
3.17
2.94
2.93
2.42
2.78
2.88
My teachers treat me with respect.
4.65
4.26
4.11
4.10
4.23
4.34
My teachers care about me.
4.63
4.24
3.95
3.91
4.10
4.43
My teachers think I will be successful.
4.54
4.15
3.97
3.92
4.10
4.29
My teachers listen to my ideas.
4.47
3.95
3.61
3.74
3.87
4.18
My principal cares about me.
4.08
3.75
3.55
2.99
3.54
2.71
My teachers are good teachers.
4.79
4.48
4.09
4.07
4.31
4.23
88
Item
5th
6th
7th
8th
All
Faculty
My teachers believe I can learn.
4.73
4.34
4.22
4.15
4.32
4.30
I am recognized for good work.
4.07
3.65
3.59
3.61
3.71
4.04
I am challenged by the work my
teachers ask me to do.
3.49
3.52
3.47
3.42
3.45
4.15
The work I do in my classes makes
me think.
4.18
4.07
4.05
3.81
3.98
4.13
I know what I am supposed to be
learning in my classes.
4.23
4.17
4.10
3.90
4.08
4.00
I am a good student.
4.47
4.18
4.35
4.21
4.30
4.07
I can be a better student.
3.99
3.94
3.89
3.86
3.89
4.09
Quality work is expected of me at
MVMS.
4.49
4.39
4.19
3.93
4.21
4.09
Students behave well at school.
3.27
2.74
2.88
2.39
2.75
3.51
School rules are clear to me.
4.46
4.20
3.99
3.67
4.05
3.64
Students are treated fairly by
teachers at MVMS.
4.34
3.82
3.61
3.47
3.76
3.84
Students are treated fairly by administrators at MVMS.
4.20
4.00
3.87
3.47
3.84
3.24
Students at MVMS treat me with
respect.
3.87
3.56
3.55
3.39
3.54
3.84
Students at MVMS are friendly.
3.67
3.43
3.60
3.33
3.49
4.00
89
Item
5th
6th
7th
8th
All
Faculty
I have lots of friends at MVMS.
4.26
4.35
4.32
4.20
4.29
3.91
I have support for learning at
home.
4.36
4.14
4.11
3.95
4.11
3.63
My family believes I can do well.
4.88
4.72
4.65
4.59
4.68
3.96
My family wants me to do well.
4.90
4.84
4.78
4.77
4.82
4.11
90
Parents Survey - Results
Item
Average
My child is safe at school.
4.0
There is adequate supervision during school
3.7
There is adequate supervision before and after school
3.3
I feel welcome at my child’s school
3.7
I respect the school’s teachers
4.0
I respect the school’s principal
3.2
Teachers show respect for the students
3.7
Students show respect for other students
3.3
The school meets the social needs of the students
3.4
The school has an excellent learning environment
3.3
My child’s teacher helps me to help my child learn at home
3.4
I support my child’s learning at home
4.6
I am kept informed about my child’s progress
3.9
I know what my child’s teacher(s) expects of my child
3.6
The school meets the academic needs of the students
3.4
91
Item
Average
The school expects quality work of its students
3.6
I know how well my child is progressing in school
3.9
The academic program at MVMS is appropriately challenging for my child(ren)
3.3
Overall, the school performs well academically
3.4
The school succeeds at transitioning students from elementary to middle school.
3.6
The school succeeds at preparing children for success in high school.
3.1
The school has a good public image
2.4
The school’s assessment practices are fair
3.4
The teachers communicate well with me
3.3
The school’s administration communicates well with me.
3.0
92
Staff Survey - Results
Item
Average
I believe:
morale at MVMS is high
2.4
my personal morale is high
3.4
morale at MVMS has been an issue in the past
3.9
morale at MVMS is improving
3.3
I believe communication is effective between:
administration and staff
2.3
administration and parents
2.7
teachers and parents
3.9
MVMS and the community
2.8
My superintendent:
treats me with respect
3.7
is an effective leader
3.0
facilitates communication effectively
3.1
supports me in my work with students
3.4
supports shared decision making
3.0
allows me to be an effective instructional leader
3.4
is effective in helping us reach our vision
3.0
My principal:
93
treats me with respect
3.3
is an effective instructional leader
2.4
facilitates communication effectively
2.3
supports me in my work with students
2.8
supports shared decision making
2.5
allows me to be an effective instructional leader
3.0
is effective in helping us reach our vision
2.4
Other administrative staff at MVMS:
treat me with respect
4.0
are effective instructional leaders
3.2
facilitate communication effectively
3.2
support me in my work with students
3.7
support shared decision making
3.3
allow me to be an effective instructional leader
3.7
are effective in helping us reach our vision
3.3
I work with teachers who:
treat me with respect
4.4
listen if I have ideas about doing things better
4.2
I feel:
like I belong at MVMS
3.9
that the staff cares about me
4.0
recognized for good work
3.5
I have the opportunity to:
94
develop my skills
3.6
think for myself, not just carry out instructions
3.7
I believe student learning can be increased by:
using research-based instructional practices that support all learners
4.1
maximizing student engagement
4.4
using formative assessment
4.0
using effective questioning techniques
4.2
fostering a positive learning environment
4.7
I believe:
the instructional program at this school is rigorous
3.3
MVMS provides an atmosphere where every student can succeed
3.2
quality work is expected of all students at this school
3.2
that every student can learn
4.2
quality work is expected of me
4.1
quality work is expected of all the adults working at this school
3.5
the vision for MVMS is clear
3.0
the vision for MVMS is shared
2.8
we have an action plan in place which can get us to our vision
3.1
this school’s public image is accurate
2.9
that student outcomes for my class(es) are clear to my students
3.8
that student outcomes for my classes are clear to me
3.8
that my job expectations are clear to me
4.0
that others are clear about what my job is at MVMS
3.4
95
Appendix C
Staff Focus Group Questions
Background
In the fall of 2012, the Goffstown School Board commissioned Learning Innovations at WestEd to conduct a study of Mountain View Middle School. The purpose of the study is to assist the district in addressing the guiding questions below. This focus group will be one source of data that Learning Innovations will collect and analyze for its report due in February 2013.
Guiding Questions
• What are the strengths and challenges of teaching and learning at Mountain View Middle School as
seen from an analysis of student and teacher data?
•
How do key stakeholder groups perceive teaching and learning at Mountain View Middle School?
Specifically, a) what beliefs do these stake holders have about teaching and learning, and b) what actions (past and present) do they believe have helped and/or hindered teaching and learning and why?
•
How do the perceptions of key stakeholder groups around teaching and learning align or not align
with the student and teacher data?
•
Based on the findings to the above questions, what strategic actions can Mountain View Middle
School take to improve the overall learning experience for students?
FOCUS GROUP PROCEDURES
The purpose of this focus group is for Learning Innovations to gather as much information as possible in eighty minutes about
your perceptions of Mountain View Middle School. During today’s discussion, you will be asked a series of questions. For each
question you will have sixty seconds to record your initial thoughts. As a group you will then have about ten minutes to discuss
and share your experiences. A member from Learning Innovations will record your thoughts and supporting evidence on chart
paper. Thank you in advance for your support and cooperation.
1.
What is it like to be a staff member at Mountain View Middle School?
96
2.
How does the current educational program at Mountain View Middle School support student learning?
3.
How does the current leadership at Mountain View Middle School support teaching and learning?
4.
How would you describe the culture and climate of Mountain View Middle School over the past three years?
5.
Please review the research questions that frame the study of Mountain View Middle School. Is there anything that will help us
answer these questions that was not addressed during today’s discussion or in the staff surveys?
6.
Exit Ticket - Please answer the following question on an index card. What is one word you would use to describe Mountain View
Middle School?
97
Student Focus Group Questions
Background
Guiding Questions
1. What are the strengths and challenges of teaching and learning at Mountain View Middle School as
2. How do key stakeholder groups perceive teaching and learning at Mountain View Middle School?
3. How do the perceptions of key stakeholder groups around teaching and learning align or not align
4. Based on the findings to the above questions, what strategic actions can Mountain View Middle
The purpose of this focus group is for Learning Innovations to gather as much information as
possible in eighty minutes about your perceptions of Mountain View Middle School. During today’s discussion, you will be asked a series of questions. For each question you will have sixty
seconds to record your initial thoughts. As a group you will then have about ten minutes to discuss and share your responses. A member from Learning Innovations will record your thoughts
on chart paper. Thank you in advance for your support and cooperation.
1. What is it like to be a student at Mountain View Middle School?
2. How does Mountain View Middle School support student learning?
98
3. How do the leaders at Mountain View Middle School support teaching and learning?
4. How would you describe the culture and climate of Mountain View Middle School over the
past three years?
5. Please review the research questions that frame the study of Mountain View Middle School.
Is there anything that will help us answer these questions that was not addressed during today’s discussion or in the staff surveys?
6. Exit Ticket - Please answer the following question on an index card. What is one word you
would use to describe Mountain View Middle School?
99
Parent Focus Group Questions
STATEMENT OF PURPOSE
Background
Guiding Questions
1. What are the strengths and challenges of teaching and learning at Mountain View Middle School as
2. How do key stakeholder groups perceive teaching and learning at Mountain View Middle School?
3. How do the perceptions of key stakeholder groups around teaching and learning align or not align
4. Based on the findings to the above questions, what strategic actions can Mountain View Middle
The purpose of this focus group is for Learning Innovations to gather as much information as
possible in eighty minutes about your perceptions of Mountain View Middle School. During today’s discussion, you will be asked a series of questions. For each question you will have sixty
seconds to record your initial thoughts. As a group you will then have about ten minutes to discuss and share your responses. A member from Learning Innovations will record your thoughts
on chart paper. Thank you in advance for your support and cooperation.
1. What is it like to be the parent of a student at Mountain View Middle School?
2. How does the current educational program at Mountain View Middle School support student learning?
100
3. How does the current leadership at Mountain View Middle School support teaching and
learning?
4. How would you describe the culture and climate of Mountain View Middle School over
the past three years?
5. Please review the research questions that frame the study of Mountain View Middle
School. Is there anything that will help us answer these questions that was not addressed
during today’s discussion or in the staff surveys?
Exit Ticket - Please answer the following question on an index card. What is one word you
would use to describe Mountain View Middle School?
101
Appendix D
Chart 1 – Performance in Language Use on 2010 MAP Assessment
230 225 220 Na.onal Average Goffstown 215 Dunbarton 210 New Boston 205 200 5th 6th 7th 8th Chart 2 – Performance in Language Use on 2011 MAP Assessment
230 225 220 Na.onal Average Goffstown 215 Dunbarton New Boston 210 205 200 5th 6th A Study of Mountain View Middle School: 2012-2013
7th 8th 102
Chart 3 – Performance in Language Use on 2012 MAP Assessment
230 225 220 Na.onal Average Goffstown 215 Dunbarton 210 New Boston 205 200 5th 6th 7th 8th Chart 4 – Performance in Math on 2010 MAP Assessment
245 240 235 230 Na.onal Average 225 Goffstown 220 Dunbarton 215 New Boston 210 205 200 5th 6th A Study of Mountain View Middle School: 2012-2013
7th 8th 103
Chart 5 – Performance in Math on 2011 MAP Assessment
245 240 235 230 Na.onal Average 225 Goffstown 220 Dunbarton 215 New Boston 210 205 200 5th 6th 7th 8th Chart 6 – Performance in Math on 2012 MAP Assessment
245 240 235 230 Na.onal Average 225 Goffstown 220 Dunbarton 215 New Boston 210 205 200 5th 6th A Study of Mountain View Middle School: 2012-2013
7th 8th 104
Chart 7 – Performance in Reading on 2010 MAP Assessment
230 225 220 Na.onal Average Goffstown 215 Dunbarton New Boston 210 205 200 5th 6th 7th 8th Chart 8 – Performance in Reading on 2011 MAP Assessment
230 225 220 Na.onal Average Goffstown 215 Dunbarton 210 New Boston 205 200 5th 6th A Study of Mountain View Middle School: 2012-2013
7th 8th 105
Chart 9 – Performance in Reading on 2012 MAP Assessment
230 225 220 Na.onal Average Goffstown 215 Dunbarton 210 New Boston 205 200 5th 6th 7th 8th Graph 1 – Class of 2016 Performance in Language Use - Grades 6 Through 8
228 226 224 222 220 Na.onal Average 218 Goffstown 216 214 212 210 6th 7th A Study of Mountain View Middle School: 2012-2013
8th 106
Graph 2 – Class of 2016 Performance in Math - Grades 6 Through 8
245 240 235 Na.onal Average 230 Goffstown 225 220 215 6th 7th 8th Graph 3 – Class of 2016 Performance in Reading - Grades 6 Through 8
228 226 224 222 220 Na.onal Average 218 Goffstown 216 214 212 210 6th 7th A Study of Mountain View Middle School: 2012-2013
8th 107
Graph 4 – Class of 2017 Performance in Language Use - Grades 5 Through 7
224 222 220 218 216 Na.onal Average 214 Goffstown 212 210 208 206 5th 6th 7th Graph 5 – Class of 2017 Performance in Math - Grades 5 Through 7
240 235 230 Na.onal Average 225 Goffstown 220 215 210 5th 6th A Study of Mountain View Middle School: 2012-2013
7th 108
Graph 6 – Class of 2017 Performance in Reading - Grades 5 Through 7
224 222 220 218 216 Na.onal Average 214 Goffstown 212 210 208 206 5th 6th 7th A Study of Mountain View Middle School: 2012-2013
109
Appendix E
Graph 7 – NECAP Percent Proficient or Above in Math for All Students – 6th Grade
90% 80% 70% 60% Mountain View Middle School 50% 40% State 30% 20% 10% 0% 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 Graph 8 – NECAP Percent Proficient or Above in Math for All Students – 7th Grade
90% 80% 70% 60% Mountain View Middle School 50% 40% State 30% 20% 10% 0% 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 A Study of Mountain View Middle School: 2012-2013
2011 2012 110
Graph 9 – NECAP Percent Proficient or Above in Math for All Students – 8th Grade
90% 80% 70% 60% 50% Mountain View Middle School 40% State 30% 20% 10% 0% 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 Graph 10 – NECAP Percent Proficient or Above in Math for Students with an IEP – 6th
Grade
35% 30% 25% 20% Mountain View Middle School 15% State 10% 5% 0% 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 A Study of Mountain View Middle School: 2012-2013
2011 2012 111
Graph 11 – NECAP Percent Proficient or Above in Math for Students with an IEP – 7th
Grade
30% 25% 20% 15% Mountain View Middle School State 10% 5% 0% 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 Graph 12 – NECAP Percent Proficient or Above in Math for Students with an IEP – 8th
Grade
35% 30% 25% 20% Mountain View Middle School 15% State 10% 5% 0% 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 A Study of Mountain View Middle School: 2012-2013
2011 2012 112
Graph 13 – NECAP Percent Proficient or Above in Reading for All Students – 6th Grade
90% 85% 80% Mountain View Middle School 75% State 70% 65% 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 Graph 14 – NECAP Percent Proficient or Above in Reading for All Students – 7th Grade
90% 80% 70% 60% 50% Mountain View Middle School 40% State 30% 20% 10% 0% 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 A Study of Mountain View Middle School: 2012-2013
2011 2012 113
Graph 15 – NECAP Percent Proficient or Above in Reading for All Students – 8th Grade
90% 80% 70% 60% 50% Mountain View Middle School 40% State 30% 20% 10% 0% 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 Graph 16 – NECAP Percent Proficient or Above in Reading for Students with an IEP – 6th
Grade
60% 50% 40% 30% Mountain View Middle School State 20% 10% 0% 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 A Study of Mountain View Middle School: 2012-2013
2011 2012 114
Graph 17 – NECAP Percent Proficient or Above in Reading for Students with an IEP – 7th
Grade
40% 35% 30% 25% 20% Mountain View Middle School 15% State 10% 5% 0% 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 Graph 18 – NECAP Percent Proficient or Above in Reading for Students with an IEP – 8th
Grade
50% 45% 40% 35% 30% 25% 20% Mountain View Middle School 15% State 10% 5% 0% 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 A Study of Mountain View Middle School: 2012-2013
2011 2012 115
Chart 10 – NECAP Percent Proficient or Above in Writing – 8th Grade
66% 64% 62% 60% Mountain View Middle School 58% State 56% 54% 52% 2011 2012 Chart 11 – NECAP Percent Proficient or Above in Science – 8th Grade
35% 30% 25% 20% Mountain View Middle School 15% State 10% 5% 0% 2010 2011 A Study of Mountain View Middle School: 2012-2013
2012 116

West Ed Study - Girard At Large

Transcription

Similar documents

MountainHouse.net

brochure

Accountant Authorization

Poster - FWWS-Arrival Movie Night

Tvärån - Funäsfjällen

Markets Villefranche de Conflent and Fort Liberia Petit Train Jaune

ReTreat Yourself is a rejuvenating ladies weekend of soulful fun

7141 Burnt Mountain Road - Charlottesville Country Properties

NIKI GUDEX - Ivan Smith