Antecedents

This is the third in a four part series describing the Holgarth Middle School experience using the NCA-CASI Performance Accreditation Framework and School Improvement Process. The first article (Journal of School Improvement, Spring 2001) viewed the Holgarth Middle School staff members as they began their school improvement cycle, traced the activities of the school's steering committee through the first four stages of the SIP process, and concluded with a visit by the external peer review chair. The second article (Journal of School Improvement, Fall 2001) followed the school staff as they completed and analyzed the Capacity Assessment Instrument, defined the essence of the reading comprehension and writing goals selected, developed a set of assessments to measure the degree of student growth over time, and agreed upon a set of interventions designed to cause student growth to occur. A preliminary school improvement plan was developed, and the arrangements were made for the visit of the peer review team. This article begins at the point of the first team visit, and the narrative is offered from the perspective of a steering committee member.

Orientation for the Peer Review Team

After all of the months preparing our school improvement plan, we were anxious for some feedback from our peer review team. Fred Levendowski, our steering committee chair, and Sarah Artez, our principal, had made arrangements for the team to be housed in a nice motel in town. In collaboration with Dr. Boris Heine, our peer review team chair, we decided to host an informal dinner for the team in the teacher's workroom at Holgarth Middle School on Sunday evening, November 20, beginning at 6:00 p.m. Members of the steering committee, the chairs of the goal committees, and our school administrators attended. The dinner was catered, and we arranged the setting so that our staff members and members of the visiting team were intermingled at tables. Following the dinner, Fred Levendowski welcomed the team to the school and made brief remarks about the anticipation felt by the staff for the visit. Sarah Artez gave a map of the school to team members and led them on a tour of the facility.

By 7:30 p.m., the team had gathered together in the workroom provided by Holgarth for team use during the visit. Dr. Heine oriented the peer review team members regarding their responsibilities and the expectations held by the Holgarth staff for their work. He presented the rubric assessment and comment section for assessments, interventions, and staff development from the NCA Tools for External Team Chairs software and explained how these instruments would be completed. In addition, he reinforced the division of responsibilities for the team members. Three of the team members were assigned to the goal of reading comprehension and three to the goal of written communication. The following tentative schedule was also shared with the team members.

Using sample questions from the NCA software, Tools for External Team Chairs, Dr. Heine led the members of the peer review team through the types of questions that might be asked during interviews of teachers, students, and community members. By 9:00 p.m., team members had concluded the orientation and returned to their motel for the evening.

Reception for the Team

A staff reception was arranged for 7:30 a.m. in the Holgarth library. The school hospitality committee provided a continental breakfast for faculty and team members. Ms. Artez welcomed the team to Holgarth and introduced Fred Levendowski. Fred gave a brief outline of the visit ahead and stressed the collaborative nature of a peer review visit. He then introduced the team members. By 8:15 a.m., the reception had concluded. Teachers moved on to their teaching stations, and the team moved to the assigned workroom.

Meeting with the Steering Committee

The workroom had been arranged with the tables forming a big square, allowing the seven members of the peer review team and the ten members of the steering committee to be seated together around the tables. This meeting was arranged for the first period of the school day, and we had 45 minutes to present an overview of the school improvement efforts at Holgarth. A group of roving substitute teachers was in place to relieve teachers serving on the steering committee. Fred gave a briefing on the history of our school improvement plan and the role of the steering committee in managing the SIP. Peer review team members asked clarifying questions regarding the linkage of the goal committee work to the oversight of the steering committee, the data management process envisioned by the steering committee, communication within the school community regarding the operation of the plan, and the engagement of the staff, students, and parents in the process. Various members of the steering committee responded to team questions as they occurred.

The members of the peer review team met for about 15 minutes following the steering committee meeting to process the information received and consider specific issues to be raised in discussions with the goal committees.

Meetings with the Goal Committees and Student Representatives

Following the general meeting with the steering committee, three of the visiting team members assigned to review the reading comprehension goal met with members of that goal committee. The reading goal committee presented their assessment, intervention, and staff development plans that extended through the SIP cycle. This discussion was centered on the elements within the evaluation rubrics associated with this goal and taken from the Tools for External Team Chairs software supplied by NCA.

The other three members of the visiting team met with a group of students to discuss their experience and views on the improvement goals of the school. Our principal, Ms. Artez, had arranged for 18 students from various classes to gather in a section of the school library. Fred Levendowski, our visiting team chair, had arranged three tables and randomly assigned students to one of three groups; each of the team members, therefore, had a group of six students with whom to interact.

During the next period, the process was reversed. The three team members who had been in conversation with the students returned to the team workroom to meet with members of the writing improvement goal committee. The members assigned to the reading comprehension goal then moved to the library for a further round of conversations with another 18 students.

At the end of this two-hour period of discussion with goal committees and conversations with students, the visiting team met for 30 minutes to process their impressions and to clarify any remaining issues to be further explored.

Lunch Conversations

Half of the visiting team members had lunch with students in the lunchroom and half had lunch with the teachers in the teacher workroom. These were informal times for the visiting team members to talk with people and immerse themselves within the school routine.

Teacher and Staff Interviews

Following lunch, the peer reviewers began their visits to classrooms and conducted interviews with the professional staff members. Four of the peer reviewers were assigned to the four core teams that had a team planning period during the afternoon, one team member interviewed the counselors, one visited the media center and interviewed the center staff, and the remaining team member met with exploratory teachers during the afternoon as their schedules permitted. We were able to use our roaming substitutes to release several of our exploratory teachers for interviews during the afternoon. This process allowed several teachers with after school coaching responsibilities to participate in interviews during the school day. All of the peer reviewers visited classrooms when they weren't conducting interviews. The classroom visits were short, as expected. Dr. Heine had indicated that morning that the peer review team members would be visiting classrooms to observe the types of teaching strategies employed by the staff and to gather information and about the general ambiance of the school. He had explained that the peer review team members were not visiting the classrooms to evaluate teachers, materials, or the curriculum. This information reduced the anxiety some of the staff felt about the classroom visits and let the team members observe classes functioning in a pretty typical manner.

The five remaining core teaching teams, exploratory teachers not yet interviewed, and the special education staff members were asked to assemble in assigned areas after school and participated in group interviews led by the peer reviewers. All of the interviews were conducted using the suggested questions from the NCA Tools for Team Chairs and School Leaders software. Mr. Levendowski had distributed these questions to the staff prior to the visit so we knew that the interviewers would be seeking information about the following areas.

The peer review team also verified, through the interviews, that all of the staff would be involved in the implementation of at least some of the interventions in the school improvement plan and that all students would be involved in the performance activities outlined in the plan. Most of the Holgarth staff members appreciated knowing in advance what the peer reviewers would be seeking and went to the interviews with examples, lesson plans, notes, meeting agendas, and other items that could be used to illustrate their involvement in the school improvement process and how it was or would be implemented in their classrooms.

Meeting of the Peer Review Team

All of the interviews had been completed by 4:00 p.m., and the team met until 6:00 p.m. to present their preliminary impressions, discuss observations and potential areas of concern, and begin work on the assessment, intervention, and staff development rubrics. While we weren't required to remain at school, a number of the steering committee members and the two goal committee chairs worked at school until 5:30 p.m. in order to be available to the peer reviewers. This proved to be helpful as we were able to answer several questions for the reviewers and provided them with some additional information about the assessment rubrics used with the 6 + 1 Traits of Writing.

Team Dinner

The peer review team recessed at 6:00 and ate supper together at a local restaurant. The administrative staff and steering committee members had discussed joining them for supper but had concluded that both the peer reviewers and school staff needed to relax from the intense and demanding work of the day and opted to let the reviews enjoy their dinner privately. The peer review team members returned to their lodging following the dinner and worked on their assigned reports.

Meeting with Parents

The team arrived in the school at 7:15 a.m. on the second day of the visit. The principal had arranged for a group of parents to meet in the library with the team members from 7:30-8:00 a.m. The team formulated questions regarding the school improvement plan as well as the climate for teaching and learning within the school. These questions were taken from the NCA Tools for External Team Chairs software and also included reference to the items within the Capacity Assessment Instrument. Thirty-five parents accepted an invitation to visit with team members. The hospitality committee for the school had arranged rolls, coffee, and juice for the parents. Dr. Heine, the peer review team chair, opened the session with brief remarks about the purpose of the visit and the need for the team to connect with all elements of the school community. Each of the parents was issued a number from one through seven as they entered the library, and each team member took responsibility for facilitating conversations with a group of five parents at a table. Following these discussions, the team met for 15 minutes to share impressions of parent responses.

Meeting with Classified Staff Members

At the conclusion of the parent meetings, three of the team members met with groups of classified staff members. These discussions also centered upon the school improvement plan as well as the climate for teaching and learning within the school. These meetings were planned for 30 minutes. The remaining team members continued teacher interviews and class visits.

Validation of the Capacity Assessment Instrument

By 9:15 a.m., the meetings with parents, classified staff members, and all teacher interviews had concluded, and the team assembled for a discussion on the school self-ranking of the Capacity Assessment Instrument (CAI). Dr. Heine led the team through each of the grouped items on the instrument and solicited comments and observations regarding the degree to which the team felt these conditions characterized the school improvement plan and the climate for teaching and learning. At a white board, he drafted language that might capture the degree to which the Holgarth staff had evaluated itself regarding the five capacities that support school improvement. Several strengths identified within the capacities were noted as well as several recommendations for continued growth within these areas.

Writing the Report

Once the CAI had been reviewed, the team met for discussions and worked on their reports. Dr. Heine had indicated that the peer review team would work on final drafts of the assessment, intervention, and staff development rubrics, develop comments for the two goal areas, and work on a draft of the general commendations and next steps for our school during their meeting time. The reviewers broke for lunch at 11:30 a.m. Some of them joined the students in the lunchroom and several joined the staff in the faculty dining room for lunch. Since several of the reviewers needed to leave before the final exit report, we appreciated this last chance to visit with them and thank them for helping us with our school improvement efforts. One of the reviewers commented that she felt the rubrics in the NCA Software Suite were a great help in focusing the purpose of the visit on school improvement and made the completion of the reports easier and quicker for the peer review team members.

The peer review team met after lunch to share their reports with the other reviewers, discuss any additional comments and observations, approve the final draft of the commendations and suggestions, and make any necessary revisions to the rubrics and reports. This process allowed reviewers not assigned to a goal to share any information concerning a goal that they had gathered through their interviews with the staff members. While the individuals assigned to the goal usually had an accurate set of perceptions, the process of sharing allowed other team members to offer observations from their interviews and classroom visits that supported the ratings and comments in the report or that might lead the reviewers to change the rating of a criterion in the rubric or revise a comment in the report. Dr. Heine had indicated at the welcoming coffee that the team members would be completing all of their reports through the NCA Tools for Team Chairs and School Leaders software. The rubrics and reports in the software provided a common format for the visit and allowed the reviewers to complete their reports before leaving the school. The software reduced the typing burden on the visiting team chair and would help in getting the final report to us shortly after the conclusion of the visit.

The Exit Report

At 2:45 p.m., Dr. Heine met with Ms. Artez and reviewed the contents of the exit report with her. Dr. Heine assured us that this review was a final "reality check" he conducted to make sure that the peer review team hadn't missed any important information or facts before the exit report was delivered to the school community. Because the peer reviewers were only here for two days, it was possible that they could lack some of the facts about an observation or suggestion, and Dr. Heine wanted to resolve any possible misconceptions before delivering the exit report. We were assured that this was not an opportunity for the principal to "veto" any portion of the report. We felt confident that the integrity of both our principal and that of the NCA process wouldn't allow the review to become a veto session.

The staff members assembled in the lunchroom for the exit report at 3:15 p.m. The exit report was open to the public, and we had invited the administrative staff from the district office and other buildings, school board members, parents, and members of the media to attend. As instructed by Dr. Heine, we had communicated to all of the groups invited that the exit report would be a short overview of the findings of the peer review team. It would focus on the general strengths of the school and its school improvement efforts and would offer several suggestions for our consideration as we revised and implemented our plan. The session would not be a "question and answer" period nor would Dr. Heine offer any comparison between Holgarth Middle School and other schools in our district or area. We were pleased that a number of non-staff guests chose to attend the exit report. A member of the Holgarth Community School Board, the superintendent of schools, our district curriculum director, at least one administrator from each building in the district, our parent and student representatives on the steering committee, our student council officers, the president of the Parent-Teacher- Association, and several PTA members attended.

Following a welcome and introduction by Ms. Artez, Dr. Heine began the delivery of the exit report. He thanked the staff, students, administration, and community for their preparation and hospitality during the visit. Dr. Heine briefly reviewed the purpose of the visit and the duties of the peer-review team members for those individuals in the audience who had not been present at the staff coffee on the first day of the visit.

The strengths and commendations were shared with the audience first. Some of the commendations mentioned by Dr. Heine included the following:

We were especially pleased to know that the team had found that the staff felt involved in the school improvement efforts and understood the expectations of the plan. While we had made special efforts to involve the entire staff and had worked diligently to create "buy in" among the staff, confirmation of success in our endeavor from an outside source provided us with a boost.

Dr. Heine also offered several recommendations or next steps that we might consider to improve our capacity to support school improvement and that could strengthen our school improvement efforts. These suggestions included: