Introduction

Dr. Heine, our peer review chair, forwarded a copy of the Peer Review Chairperson Contact Visit Report to our principal, Sarah Artez, in March of 2001. Ms. Artez shared the report with our steering committee immediately. Fred Levendowski, the steering committee chair, shared the report with the members of the steering, mission, and profile committees and scheduled a follow-up meeting for the steering committee. After reviewing the report, we determined that we needed to define our next steps and establish a timeline. After reviewing the NCA Team Chair Software, we decided that we were entering Phase V of the school improvement process and reviewed the steps in this phase. The following tasks were established for the next year of our school improvement cycle.

After receiving the Peer Review Chair Report from Dr. Heine, the steering committee met to discuss formation of goal committees. The role of the goal committees, as presented by steering committee chair, Fred Levendowski, was to develop the essence of the goals, to develop a set of assessments to determine the degree of student growth over time, and to agree upon a set of interventions that will be implemented throughout the school. In addition, we needed to develop a documentation system to ensure that the interventions were put into place. These steps would then frame the development of a school improvement plan that would guide our efforts over the course of the school improvement cycle. We felt that membership on the goal committees, like the steering committee, should reflect all elements of the school community. Each of these committees, therefore, should include teachers from the core teams and the exploratory teachers, a member of the student council, and a parent. The goal committees were to be standing committees whose members would continue throughout the life of the cycle.

At Holgarth Middle School (HMS), we were concerned with providing for representation from all elements within the school community while still keeping the committees to a reasonable size. Our first step was to select goal committee chairs. Fred Levendowski sent a notice to all staff members requesting nominations for the positions of chair for the two goals: reading comprehension and written communication. Fortunately, in both cases there were teachers who volunteered to serve in this important leadership role. For the reading comprehension goal committee, Don Martin, a sixth grade reading teacher, was selected to serve as chair. Don has long been interested in reading, has served on the reading curriculum committee for the district, is a member of the public library board of directors, and is an active member of the International Reading Association. Roberta Stepanov was selected to chair the written communication goal committee. Roberta is an eighth grade language arts teacher, has chaired the district language arts curriculum committee, and is the advisor for the Holgarth Middle School Flyer, our monthly school newspaper. The steering committee determined that each of our goal committees would be made up of two core teachers from each grade level, one teacher from the exploratory areas, a special education teacher, a parent, and a member of the HMS student council. Each goal committee, therefore, would consist of a chair and 10 members. Each of our goal committee chairs was also added to the membership of the steering committee.

At a special faculty meeting arranged by our principal, Sarah Artez, the two goal committee chairs presented an overview of the tasks ahead and the need to determine membership on the committees. At that meeting, the core teachers were formed into grade level groups and the exploratory teachers and special education teachers also formed into groups. Each group selected teachers to represent them on the two goal committees. In this manner, each of the core teams had at least one person serving on one of the goal committees. Both the PTA board and the student council were asked to select one person to serve on each goal committee.

Capacity Assessment Instrument

We reviewed the capacity assessment instrument contained in two of the NCA software programs, Developing the School Profile and the NCA Team Chair Software, and decided to seek input from the entire staff in completing the instrument. Each core team was asked to review and complete the capacity assessment instrument at a regular team meeting during April. Exploratory teachers met as a group to complete the instrument, and other staff members who were not a part of a team met as a group to provide their input. The members of each team or group reached consensus on a rating for each criterion and submitted their ratings to the steering committee. The steering committee calculated a composite rating for each criterion and entered the ratings in the NCA Team Chair Software. The graph on page 28 represents the results of our completion of the capacity assessment instrument.

Holgarth Middle School Capacity Assessment Analysis

SIP School Improvement Plan
IS Information System
PS Process of Schooling
VL Vision, Leadership-Governance, and School Community
RA Resources and Allocation

Figure 1

The staff members were able to view the capacity graph and analyze the results. The results of the assessment indicated that our school was probably in Stage 2 in terms of our capacity to support school improvement. "Information System" and "Resources and Allocation" were our strongest capacities, approaching the Stage 3 level. "Vision-Leadership" and "Process of Schooling" were identified as capacities that we might want to build upon in order to support our ability to engage in the process of school improvement. We discussed our rating for "School Improvement Planning" and felt that the NCA process we are currently using would strengthen our capacity in this area. A completed copy of the capacity assessment instrument is available at http://www.usd.edu/nca/.

Essence of the Goals

In our discussion of the reading and writing goals, we saw the importance that the NCA ascribes to determining the essence of the goals. Articulating the essence helped us develop a common understanding of the goal as it relates to our various subject areas. We wanted to be sure that everyone had a common language to describe how the two goals fit into our teaching. We wanted to be sure that we all had the same picture regarding our aspirations for student growth in each of the goal areas.

To help define the essences, we went to the NCA web site. We found that the phrasing of the essence for reading comprehension and written expression found on this site captured the goals as we envisioned them. For reading comprehension, the essence we agreed upon was "the ability to obtain information (thoughts or feelings) from print; to obtain the intended meaning; and to make personal meaning of the information." In the area of written expression, we agreed that the essence of that goal was "using written language to convey information (thoughts and feelings) so that a variety of readers can obtain the intended meaning and make personal meaning of what is written."

Our next step was to share the essence of the two goals with the entire faculty of HMS. Our principal provided us some time at a regularly scheduled faculty meeting so that we might present this information to the staff. After a brief discussion and response to some questions, the teachers met in their core team, and exploratory groups. Each group then discussed examples of what student learning might look like if the essence were realized in the various curricular areas. These ideas were written down on newsprint for all to see and then transcribed for distribution to the Holgarth school community.

With the assurance now that the faculty had a common understanding of the meaning of the two goals, the goal committee met to determine how we would assess progress in each area. We looked at two means of assessment. The first was to examine the assessment tools used in the Student Profile that led our school to identify these goals, and the second was to identify other assessments that could help us determine the degree to which student growth occurred over time.

Assessment

The next task, determining assessments for the goals, was also assigned to the two goal committees, chaired by Don Martin and Roberta Stepanov. The committees began their work with a review of their role and tasks as presented in the NCA Team Chair Software and reviewed the rubric in the software that will be used to evaluate our assessment plans. In preparation for their work, they reviewed a number of articles and studies, reviewed best practices and resources related to their goal area, and pursued ideas through a search of educational websites such as McREL and NWREL. Fortunately for the writing goal committee, a recent issue of the Journal of School Improvement (Spring 2000) focused on writing, and it contained a number of ideas for both interventions and assessments. Following several meetings to discuss the literature and resources, view possible assessment practices, and align the assessments with the goals, the committees selected common metric (those measures that are standardized or norm referenced) and context bound (those measures that are normally a routine aspect of classroom instruction or locally developed) assessments for the two goals.

In the area of reading, the goal committee agreed that we should continue to use the Stanford Achievement Test as a common metric measure at the sixth and eighth grade levels to assess total reading, reading vocabulary, and reading comprehension. In addition the committee decided to use a curriculum-based measure to further assess student progress. To do this, the committee used a process that equates fluency with reading ability. Through the norms developed for the school by the special education staff, we would be able to do one-minute reading probes of current curricular material with each student (grades six, seven, and eight) quarterly and analyze how that student did individually and how he or she did compared to the building norms. A third assessment instrument selected by the reading committee included the Reading an Informational Text and Reading a Literary Text scoring rubrics from the Traits of an Effective Reader program (Northwest Regional Education Laboratory, 1996). The goal committee also determined that we would continue to track perception data related to reading from our student, parent, and follow-up surveys as additional means of assessment. The committee recommended adding several questions to the surveys that would address the amount of reading students engage in and student use of web-based reading materials.

In the area of writing, the goal committee decided to use the state writing assessment as the common metric measure of student improvement in this area. We saw a need to conduct this assessment at each grade level (the state only assesses at fourth, eighth, and tenth grades) in order to better identify the skills and needs of students early in their middle school career. The committee also decided to employ the seven rubrics for the 6 + 1 TRAITS of Writing as developed by the Northwest Regional Education Laboratory (2000). The committee felt that we should continue to use the questions related to writing skills from our student, parent, community, and follow-up surveys as additional means of assessment. Since all of these surveys employed a Likert style rating, statistical analysis of data from the surveys will be possible.

Interventions

Once the essences of the goals were established and the assessments were aligned with the goal, our two goal committees were ready to begin investigating possible interventions that could be employed. Some ideas concerning interventions and strategies were discovered in the review of the literature that the committees had already done. Both committees made extensive use of the Internet to research possible interventions. Popular sites included the NCA website's library (Neville's Library and Target Area Goal Database) and the Regional Educational Laboratory sites. The committees also used the resources of curriculum area experts at the local university. After a number of promising interventions were identified, the committees visited several schools employing some of these interventions to take a closer look at the programs and strategies. The committee members also reviewed the information and the Intervention Rubric in the NCA Team Chair Software as they began their work on interventions.

The reading committee chose three interventions for the school staff: (1) students will employ a standard approach for reading for both academic and pleasure reading in the school setting, (2) students will engage in additional reading activities, and (3) students will increase their use of web-based reading materials. The committee also began exploring the activities and strategies connected to each intervention that would be needed for the development of the school improvement plan. A final check was made by the committee to ensure that the interventions were aligned with the assessments and the defined essence of the goal.

The writing goal committee chose two interventions: (1) students will demonstrate an increase in the frequency of writing across all curricular areas and (2) students will demonstrate the use of a prescribed model for all formal writing activities in all classes. This committee also checked for alignment between the goal, the assessments, and the interventions. The committee felt that they were ready to begin working on the components of the school improvement plan for the writing goal.

Developing the Preliminary School Improvement Plan

The committee members spent several weeks exploring possible strategies and actions that might be used to implement the interventions. Some of the committee members visited schools that were using promising programs and strategies in the area of reading and writing.

Reading

Intervention 1: Students will employ a standard approach for reading for both academic and pleasure reading in the school setting.

The committee found that a number of programs for reading existed for middle level students and decided that several of these programs could meet the needs of Holgarth's students. They did not feel that it was necessary for us to create our own program. After careful consideration of several models for academic reading, the committee chose the Traits of an Effective Reader created by and available through the Northwest Regional Education Laboratory (1996). The committee determined that the activities for this intervention would include teaching the Traits of an Effective Reader to all of the staff, teaching this approach to reading to all of the students, reviewing the traits with students in all subject areas on a periodic basis, learning how to use the rubric assessments that are a part of the program, having faculty members employ the rubrics in all of their classes, and providing parents with information about the program and encouraging them to reinforce it during student reading activities at home. Staff members would also need to learn how to employ the curriculum based reading measurements that will be used as an assessment for the goal.

Intervention 2: Students will engage in additional reading activities.

Activities planned for this intervention included Sustained Silent Reading (including conferences with the teacher), grade level reading groups based on student skill levels and interests, and implementation of a Junior Great Books program at HMS. Implementation of these activities would require the staff to develop the skills needed to identify the reading level of students and how to conduct a Junior Great Books program.

Intervention 3: Students will increase their use of web-based reading materials.

Activities planned for this intervention include instruction for all students in research on the Internet, development of assignments in all classes requiring students to include web-based reading as a portion of the supplemental materials in each class, the completion of at least one interdisciplinary written research project a year that includes research from the web, and instruction for all students concerning the evaluation of materials appearing on the web.

Writing

Intervention 1: Students will demonstrate an increase in the frequency of writing across all curricular areas.

Activities for this intervention include written assignments in all classes at least three times a semester to be graded for both content and structure, an increase of two additional written assignments in every class each semester following implementation of the 6 + 1 Traits of Writing model (Northwest Regional Education Laboratory, 2000), promotion of student opportunities to write for publication, required revision of all unacceptable written work in all classes, and creation of a school sponsored student literary publication.

Intervention 2: Students will demonstrate the use of a prescribed model for all formal writing activities in all classes.

The activities planned for this intervention include use of the 6 + 1 TRAITS of Writing model for all writing in all classes, teaching of the model to all teachers and students, sharing the components of the model with parents and encouraging parents to reinforce the model when helping their student with writing activities at home, development and training of the staff in the use of the scoring rubric, implementation of the rubric for use in all classes for prescribed writing assignments, and required revision of written assignments rated unacceptable when evaluated using the holistic scoring rubric.

Both of our goal committees developed a formal plan for their goal that included the activities, person(s) responsible for implementation, timeline, resources needed, assessment alignment, and staff development needed for each of the interventions. As a final activity, our goal committees assessed their work using the rubrics for Interventions and for Assessments from the NCA Team Chair Software. These rubrics are the same ones that our peer review team will use during the visit, and we felt that they were very useful in helping us evaluate our preliminary school improvement plan. A sample of a complete school improvement plan for the writing goal is available at http://www.usd.edu/nca/.

Selection of the Peer Review Team

With the set of assessments and interventions agreed upon and the preliminary SIP structure in place, the steering committee selected November 21 and 22 for a peer review visit. In a videoconference between Dr. Heine, our peer review visiting team chair, and the steering committee held on September 19, it was agreed that we would like to have three people with well-developed content and process knowledge assigned for each goal. For the reading goal, we selected two reading teachers from middle-level NCA accredited schools in our area of the state as well as a reading consultant from the state department of education. For the writing goal, we selected a teacher from an NCA accredited middle-level school, the language arts coordinator from a nearby large school district, and a professor in the department of curriculum and instruction at a local university.

Arrangements for the Visit

Dr. Heine discussed arrangements for the peer review visit with Fred Levendowski. A dinner hosted by the steering committee was planned as the first event of the visit. A team workroom was designated at the school, and a space for conversations between the team and the various school committees was arranged. The tentative working schedule for the team was discussed, and motel reservations for team members were made. A packet of information including a copy of the school profile, the school improvement plan, a faculty list including committee assignments, a school informational brochure, and the student/parent handbook was mailed to each of the peer review team members about 10 days prior to the visit. We made a nametag and arranged a parking space for each team member. Roving substitute teachers were provided to relieve teachers for committee meetings during the first day of the visit. Several substitute teachers were arranged for the second day to free up the steering and goal committee chairs for interaction with the team.

Next Steps

The steering committee felt well prepared for our peer review visit and was looking forward to the feedback we would receive from the team members. The next article in this series will discuss the peer review team visit, the report from the visit, revision of the SIP to reflect the recommendations of the peer review team, and implementation of our plan.

References

Northwest Regional Educational Laboratory (2000). Six + 1 Traits of Writing [on-line]. Accessed: August 2001. Available: http://www.nwrel.org/assessment/department.asp?d=1.

Northwest Regional Educational Laboratory (2000). Six + 1 Traits of Writing: Rubrics and Definitions [on-line]. Accessed: August 2001. Available: http://www.nwrel.org/assessment/pdfRubrics/6plus1traits.pdf.

Northwest Regional Educational Laboratory (1996). Traits of an Effective Reader [on-line]. Accessed: August 2001. Available: http://www.nwrel.org/assessment/department.asp?d=2.

Northwest Regional Educational Laboratory (1996). Traits of an Effective Reader: Scoring Guides [on-line]. Accessed: August 2001. Available: http://www.nwrel.org/assessment/scoring.asp?odelay=3&d=2.