1

Kyrene Middle School Needs Assessment

Tempe, AZ

February 2015

WestEd — a national nonpartisan, nonprofit research, development, and service agency — works with education and other communities to promote excellence, achieve equity, and improve learning for children, youth, and adults. WestEd has 17 offices nationwide, from Washington and Boston to Arizona and California, with its headquarters in San Francisco. For more information about WestEd, visit WestEd.org; call 415.565.3000 or, toll-free, (877) 4-WestEd; or write: WestEd / 730 Harrison Street / San Francisco, CA 94107-1242.

© 2013 WestEd. All rights reserved.

Contents EXECUTIVE  SUMMARY........................................................................................................................................1  

OVERVIEW..............................................................................................................................................................5  Purpose...............................................................................................................................................................5  

Reviewer ............................................................................................................................................................5  

Methodology .....................................................................................................................................................6  

KMS  STUDENT  ACHIEVEMENT  PROFILE.................................................................................................... 10  AIMS  Results  by  Team................................................................................................................................. 10  

AIMS  Results  by  Subgroup......................................................................................................................... 11  

Overall  Findings  for  Achievement  Gaps ............................................................................................... 13  

AIMS  Results  by  Team  and  Subgroup .................................................................................................... 13  

AIMS  Results  by  Students  Within/Outside  of  District...................................................................... 15  

FINDINGS:  AREAS  OF  STRENGTH ................................................................................................................. 16  Theme  1:  Teacher  Engagement ............................................................................................................... 16  

Theme  2:  Instructional  Capacity ............................................................................................................. 17  

Theme  3:  School  Community.................................................................................................................... 18  

FINDINGS:  POTENTIAL  AREAS  OF  NEED.................................................................................................... 19  1.  Effective  School  Leadership ................................................................................................................. 19  

2.  Healthy  School  Culture .......................................................................................................................... 28  

PRELIMINARY  RECOMMENDATIONS .......................................................................................................... 32  Effective  School  Leadership ...................................................................................................................... 32  

Healthy  School  Culture ............................................................................................................................... 34  

APPENDIX ............................................................................................................................................................ 39  

1

Executive Summary Kyrene School District commissioned WestEd to conduct a comprehensive needs assessment for Kyrene Middle School (KMS) across multiple school elements known to positively impact school transformation. The needs assessment included multiple data collection activities and employed a mixed method approach to better understand the types of activities that contribute to positive student outcomes at KMS.

The purpose of this report is to provide the district with findings and recommendations that can enhance the district’s and school’s efforts to actively support both learning and other student outcomes at KMS.

Following are the key areas of strength identified during the review:

• Data across multiple measures suggest that there is a high level of teacher engagement with both students and parents. Students report that their interactions with teachers are positive and that teachers are attentive to their needs. In addition, students are pleased that their teachers are accessible when they need support. Parents are appreciative of the consistency and type of communication they have with teachers.

• Students, teachers, and parents alike believe that the instructional capacity at KMS is of high quality. All reported that KMS staff challenge students to learn in an environment that is supportive, encouraging, and promotes academic success.

• A majority of teachers believe that KMS is a welcoming and involved school community and staff fosters an appreciation for student diversity. Additionally, students have positive perceptions of their physical and emotional environment overall but express some environmental concerns, while parents feel comfortable making school-related decisions and problem solving with teachers.

The assessment identified the following potential areas of need:

• Data across multiple collection methods suggest possible needs in the area of effective school leadership, specifically administrative leadership.

o Teachers at KMS face significant student behavioral challenges to maintaining and promoting an academic learning environment. They are concerned that dedicating class time to discipline and behavior management has negatively impacted academic learning for all students. Students articulated they are concerned with bullying, violence, disrespectful behavior and classroom disruptions, and have concerns that discipline strategies are applied inconsistently and appear ineffective.

o Teachers revealed that they want more consistent, ongoing engagements with administrators, specifically through improved communication, teacher feedback, and site-level planning. They expressed a sense of disconnect with

2

administrators, as well as a lack of consistent feedback and support, especially around student discipline from administration.

• Responses from teachers, students, and parents suggest a need to address school culture more consistently and effectively to build a safe, supportive, and equitable environment for all students.

o Some students do not feel that their schoolmates treat each other with respect nor are they able to work out disagreements when needed. Although they feel behavior is improving somewhat, teachers, along with students, would like to see a school-wide system in place , that is enforced, to address the behavior that leads to bullying and harassment.

o Teachers perceive differences in the activities, resources, and approach of other teachers and especially across teacher teams. They report competition between teams, favoritism, and inequitable distribution of resources and supports needed to effectively and efficiently address student learning. They believe the inequity is affecting their peer relationships.

Based on the areas of strength and needs, the following recommendations are offered. Please note that each section of the report includes additional recommendations related to effective school leadership and healthy school culture. Effective School Leadership

• Review existing organization of teacher and student team structure. Data across all measures, including academic achievement data, suggest patterns indicative of homogenous grouping and not all students are achieving at a high level. The district and KMS collaboratively should explore options for maintaining the Preparatory Academy, while also ensuring all students benefit from high academic expectations and the resources to achieve them.

• Establish a representative school Leadership Team. While a strong principal is crucial to achieving significant school improvement, leadership must be distributed to build a solid commitment among all staff and stakeholders. Establish a working leadership body made up of teachers and school leaders that is inclusive of all stakeholders. Establish a selection/election system for joining that is equitable for teachers.

• Establish consistent, reliable, and equitable venues for all KMS teachers to have a voice and receive feedback. Data from the needs assessment consistently conveyed a teaching force that is waiting to be asked for their opinion and/or asked to participate in the life of the school community. A number expressed a desire for ongoing feedback.

3

Healthy School Culture

• Engage in trust-building professional development with all staff and leaders to understand why trust has been broken in the past and what people have to do to build trust again. Gain staff-wide consensus on adopting a commitment to uphold the trust building norms that emerge and ensure that trust-breaking norms are set and avoided. Collect survey data throughout the year on progress and celebrate or intervene when appropriate.

• Create a sense of schoolwide community by forming deliberate, structured connections between administrators and teachers; teachers to teachers across teams and programs; and students to students across teams and programs. Capitalize on a teaching staff, student body, and parent community that are committed to KMS and have voiced a desire to form a schoolwide community in addition to and beyond a team and program community.

• Assume administrative leadership in establishing and supporting implementation of clear

and consistent consequences for student misbehavior schoolwide. Teachers must be well-trained on the “non-negotiables” of student actions in their classroom, hallways, and common areas. The entire school staff must consistently uphold these expectations for all students. Establish discipline from a positive behavior perspective that strives to create a safe learning environment for teachers and students.

4

5

Overview Kyrene School District is a K-8 school district serving parts of Tempe, Chandler, Guadalupe, and Phoenix, Arizona, as well as portions of the Gila River Indian Community within Maricopa County. Kyrene Middle School College Preparatory Academy (KMS), the largest of six middle schools in the district, serves approximately 1,200 students in grades 6-8 in Tempe. The student population is 39 percent White, 28.8 percent Hispanic, 15.9 percent African American, and 8 percent American Indian. Approximately 40 percent of students receive free/reduced price lunch.1

Purpose

Kyrene School District contracted with WestEd for the purpose of conducting a comprehensive needs assessment of Kyrene Middle School’s areas of strengths and potential areas of need. The process included collecting, analyzing, and reporting data, as well as making initial recommendations for continued improvement. The needs assessment process included the following data collection methods:

• A pre-assessment reflection day with key stakeholders on school strengths and potential areas of need using research-based characteristics of effective schools as the framework

• Interviews with site and district administrators and lead department and grade level teachers (including special education and classified staff)

• Focus groups of teachers, students, and parents • Classroom observation visits • Online staff, student, and parent surveys • Academic achievement data

This comprehensive needs assessment may be used by local stakeholders as a basis for action planning and/or a baseline from which to measure progress over time.

Reviewer

WestEd, a nonprofit research, development, and service agency, works with education and other communities to promote excellence, achieve equity, and improve learning for children, youth, and adults. We have a long-standing commitment to the field of education at all levels and have a combined experience base of 46 years of educational leadership.

The Comprehensive School Assistance Program (CSAP) within WestEd has directed numerous research and program evaluation projects leading to systemic school and district reform.

1 Source: National Center for Educational Statistics 2013; Arizona Department of Education AZ Report Card 2013-2014

6

Beyond needs assessments and action planning, our work focuses on supporting schools around numerous reform interventions, including: building effective site leadership, establishing a pool of highly committed and qualified staff, establishing rigorous standards-based curriculum and targeted assessments, implementing research-based instruction, offering on-going professional development and coaching, establishing a healthy school culture, engaging families and communities, and making efficient use of fiscal resources.

Methodology

WestEd implemented a mixed-methods approach to better understand the quality of activities contributing to higher and more meaningful student outcomes at KMS. This approach provided a breadth and depth of data collection procedures (both quantitative and qualitative) and allowed for multi-level analyses. Data for this needs assessment was collected using the following approaches:

• Structured classroom observations focused on the use of evidence-based classroom practices.

• Key interviews with district administrators, site administrators, and general and special education teachers, captured a depth of knowledge not highlighted in surveys and document data analysis.

• A series of parent, student, and teacher focus groups contributed a variety of perspectives from stakeholders throughout the school community.

• Online parent, student, and teacher surveys examined perceptions and beliefs regarding quality of instruction, school climate, and relationships with and among staff.

• Data analysis explored recent school academic achievement trends in state and district assessments.

Stratified random sampling was used to select participants for interviews, teacher focus groups, and classroom observations attending to grade level, content area, and team assignment. Attention was paid to stakeholders across the school, including general education teachers, special education teachers, program specialists/coordinators, and assistant principals. WestEd worked with district administration and the site principal to recruit a sample of representative individuals for the pre-assessment stakeholder meeting, student focus groups, parent focus groups, and all surveys.

Classroom observations and survey data were analyzed using descriptive statistics (frequencies, percentages, and means) to determine similarities and differences among respondents and across assessment areas. Focus group and interview data were independently compiled and analyzed according to research-based qualitative content analysis procedures including coding of responses, categorization of emerging themes, and synthesis of findings and lessons learned (Auerbach & Silverstien, 2003; Creswell, 1998; and Roberts, 1997). Analyses began by identifying emerging themes and categories. Focused coding techniques were then used to elaborate and connect themes when possible, and to delineate potential sub-themes within the broader topics. This process allowed for a more rigorous classification and management of text and narrative into controllable bits of data, so that WestEd could make valid

7

inferences from interview, focus group, and survey data. The specifics of each data collection method are outlined below and the most significant themes for each data collection activity are identified within the Findings section of the report.

Classroom Observations

A sample of 18 classrooms across KMS was observed over two data collection visits in the month of November 2014. Observations were conducted in grades 6 through 8 across English language arts (ELA), math, social studies, science, and special education classes. A WestEd-developed observation protocol was used to gather data around instructional practices (e.g., lesson objective and relevancy to learners), teaching approaches (e.g., direct and constructivist instructional methods), formative assessment, language development (including vocabulary), and implementation of literacy and mathematical Arizona College and Career Ready Standards instructional shifts. Active learner engagement as well as learning environment (e.g., routines and procedures) was also noted.

Interviews

As part of the needs assessment process, individual interviews were conducted with KMS administrators (principals and assistant principals), district administration, school specialists, office staff, and teachers (24). Interviews lasted on average 45 minutes and were conducted by three WestEd team members onsite and two WestEd members offsite (via phone). Interview questions covered the following areas: (1) positive attributes at KMS, (2) challenges at KMS, (3) school climate, (4) communication, (5) formal and informal staff feedback processes, (6) implementation of standards-based curricula, (7) use of periodic assessments to assess student learning, (8) professional development, and (9) student achievement and other student outcomes. Interview data were independently compiled and analyzed using qualitative content analysis including coding of responses, identification of emerging themes, and synthesis of findings. WestEd identified emerging themes for each interview and focus group item. Focused coding techniques were then used to elaborate and connect themes within broader topics. While the scope of each interview was broad, distinct themes emerged for each group of interviews.

Focus Groups

As part of the needs assessment process, focus groups were conducted with groups of teachers (4), parents (2), and students (3). Focus groups lasted on average 45 minutes and were conducted by two WestEd team members at the school site. Focus group questions covered the following areas: (1) positive attributes at KMS, (2) challenges at KMS, (3) school climate, (4) communication, (5) formal staff feedback processes, (6) student achievement and other student outcomes, (7) parent and family engagement, (8) teacher quality, and (9) areas for improvement. While the scope of each focus group was broad, distinct themes emerged.

8

Surveys

WestEd administered surveys to three groups capturing perceptual and attitudinal data from teachers, students, and parents at KMS. Tabular summaries by item of teacher, student, and parent surveys are found in the Appendix.

Teacher Survey

The teacher survey consisted of nine domain areas: (1) Instructional Capacity, (2) Student Health and Behavior, (3) Student Supports, (4) Administrative Practices, (5) Professional Development and Training, (6) School Climate, (7) School Community, (8) Equity, and (9) Diversity. The teacher survey was distributed to teachers via Qualtrics, a web-based survey platform. Surveys were emailed to 78 KMS teachers in January 2015 and they were given two weeks to complete the survey. A total of 53 teachers participated in the survey, yielding a 68 percent response rate. Survey responses were analyzed using descriptive data, while qualitative responses were coded and analyzed for emerging trends. Where possible, WestEd coded responses into two discrete categories. For example, when asked to indicate whether participants’ “Strongly Disagree,” “Disagree,” “Agree,” or “Strongly Agree” within a series of statements, WestEd coded these responses into two broader categories: (1) Agree (includes Agree and Strongly Agree) and (2) Disagree (includes Disagree and Strongly Disagree). See Table 1 for a listing of all combined response types.

Table 1. Combined Responses (Anchors) Reported in Narrative

Construct Anchors Combined Anchors Reported in Narrative

Level of Agreement

Strongly Disagree, Disagree, Agree, Strongly Agree

Agree (Agree and Strongly Agree) Disagree (Strongly Disagree and Disagree)

How Many Almost None, Few, Most, or Nearly All  

Few/Almost None Most/Nearly All

Frequency Never, Occasionally, Frequently, or Always  

Never/Occasionally Frequently/Always  

Safety Very Safe, Mostly Safe, Somewhat Safe, Not Safe  

Safe (Mostly Safe and Very Safe) Not Safe (Somewhat Safe and Not Safe).  

The majority of teachers (67.3%) reported having at least three years of experience at KMS, with more than half of respondents (51.9%) having at least five years experience. The majority (71.2 %) are general education teachers, while 9.6 percent are special education teachers, and 19.2 percent serve in other positions at KMS.

9

Student Survey

The student survey2 focused on school climate by exploring six conceptual domains: (1) Physical Environment, (2) Emotional Environment, (3) Teaching and Learning, (4) Relationships, (5) Community Engagement, and (6) Morale in the School Community. The survey was administered at designated class times during the week of January 20, 2015. Survey responses were analyzed using descriptive statistics (percentages, frequencies and means), while qualitative data was coded and analyzed for emerging trends. A total of 869 out of 1057 students completed the survey, yielding a response rate of 82 percent. The distribution of survey respondents by grade level included 32 percent from 8th grade, 36 percent from 7th grade, and 32 percent from 6th grade.

Parent Survey

The parent survey3 gathered information on parents’ perception of their children’s experiences at KMS as well as attitudinal satisfaction relating to the school’s learning and physical environments, instructional quality, relationships, and sense of belonging. The survey was distributed to parents via Survey Monkey, an online survey platform in January 2015. At least one parent in each household was identified to take the survey, based on available email addresses. Survey responses were analyzed using descriptive statistics (percentages, frequencies and means) while qualitative data was coded and analyzed for emerging trends. A total of 225 out of 822 parents participated in the survey, yielding a response rate of 27 percent. Approximately a quarter of respondents indicated Hispanic or Latino ethnicity, while over 50 percent indicated White.

2 This student school climate survey for KMS is based on a modified version of the New Jersey School Climate Survey (NJSCS). The NJSCS draws heavily from field-tested survey instruments that were found mainly on the United States Department of Education’s Safe and Supportive Schools Technical Assistance Center website. 3 This parent school climate survey for KMS is based on a modified version of the New Jersey School Climate Survey (NJSCS). The NJSCS draws heavily from field-tested survey instruments that were found mainly on the United States Department of Education’s Safe and Supportive Schools Technical Assistance Center website.

10

KMS Student Achievement Profile WestEd collected and organized various data points from state and district sources to develop a profile of KMS student achievement by sub-group, grade, and team using data from 2012-2013 and 2013-2014.

AIMS Results by Team

Overall, Kyrene students perform highest in the reading subject area as measured by Arizona’s Instrument to Measure Standards (AIMS). Students who are in Team 7C or 8C outperform all other student groups in the areas of mathematics, reading, and writing (see Figure 1). Fewer than half of students meet mathematics standards in Teams 7A (39%) and 7D (47%); similarly, only 42% of students meet writing standards in Team 7D.4

Figure 1. Students who Meet or Exceed Standards as Measured by 2014 Subject Matter Test as Organized by Team

44 The science subject test is not included in this analysis.

11

AIMS Results by Subgroup

The highest performing subgroup is students identified as White, with 82.3 percent meeting or exceeding mathematics standards as illustrated in Figure 2. English learners and students identified as Black have the largest gap, 45.4 percent and 46.3 percent respectively, in achievement compared to the highest performing subgroup.

Figure 2. Subgroup Achievement Gap Within Students Who Meet or Exceed Standards (2014 AIMS Math)

82.3%  

46.3%  

45.4%  

39.4%  

34.2%  

32.3%  

19.6%  

17.5%  

10.3%  

0%   10%   20%   30%   40%   50%   60%   70%   80%   90%   100%  

Black  

English  Learners  

Native  American  

Hispanic  

Students  With  Disabilities  

Free-‐  and  Reduced-‐Price  Lunch  

Two  or  More  

Asian  

White  

Achievement  Gap  Between  Highest  Performing  Subgroup  

12

In the area of reading, students of Two or More Races outperform all other subgroups, with all tested students meeting or exceeding standards (see Figure 3). The achievement gap in reading, while in general smaller than that identified in math, is largest for English learners (26.3% gap), and students identified as Black (26.7% gap) or Native American (36.7% gap).

Figure 3. Subgroup Achievement Gap Within Students Who Meet or Exceed Standards (2014 AIMS Reading)

Students identified as White have the highest percentage of learners who meet or exceed writing standards (79.6%, see Figure 4). Large gaps exist between the highest performing subgroup and students identified as Black (36.9% gap), Two or More Races (38.4% gap), Native American (38.7% gap), and English learners (48.0% gap).

Figure 4. Subgroup Achievement Gap Within Students Who Meet or Exceed Standards (2014 AIMS Writing)

100.0%  

36.7%  26.7%  26.3%  20.1%  15.3%  10.0%  8.0%  5.6%  

0%   10%   20%   30%   40%   50%   60%   70%   80%   90%   100%  

Native  American  Black  

English  Learners  Hispanic  

Free-‐  and  Reduced-‐Price  Lunch  Students  With  Disabilities  

Asian  White  

Two  or  More  

Achievement  Gap  Between  Highest  Performing  Subgroup  

79.6%  

48.0%  38.7%  38.4%  36.9%  

24.2%  22.1%  17.2%  

7.6%  

0%   10%   20%   30%   40%   50%   60%   70%   80%   90%   100%  

English  Learners  Native  American  

Two  or  More  Black  

Hispanic  Students  With  Disabilities  

Free-‐  and  Reduced-‐Price  Lunch  Asian  White  

Achievement  Gap  Between  Highest  Performing  Subgroup  

13

Overall Findings for Achievement Gaps

Students who are economically disadvantaged (Free and Reduced Price Lunch) and students with disabilities are, in general, meeting standards more than students identified as Hispanic, Black, Native American, and English learners.

AIMS Results by Team and Subgroup

Teams 7A and 7D struggle the most with supporting all students to meet or exceed standards in mathematics. All teams except 7C and 8C have at least one subgroup where fewer than half of the students identified are unable to meet mathematics standards as measured by AIMS) see Figure 5).

Figure 5. Students Who Meet or Exceed Mathematics Standards as Measured by 2014 AIMS, by Team and Subgroup

Key: darker shading indicates “Less likely to meet standard”; lighter shading indicates “More likely to meet standards.”

14

Figure 6 shows that most teams are able to help student subgroups meet standards in reading. Exceptions include students identified as Native American in Team 7A, students identified as English learners in Team 7B, and students identified as Asian in Team 7D.

Figure 6. Students Who Meet or Exceed Reading Standards as Measured by 2014 AIMS, by Team and Subgroup

Key: darker shading indicates “Less likely to meet standard”; lighter shading indicates “More likely to meet standards.”

Teams 7A and 7D struggle the most with supporting all students to meet or exceed standards in Writing (see Figure 7). All teams except 7C and 8C have at least one subgroup where fewer than half of the students identified are unable to meet mathematics standards as measured by AIMS.

Figure 7. Students Who Meet or Exceed Writing Standards as Measured by 2014 AIMS, by Team and Subgroup

Key: darker shading indicates “Less likely to meet standard”; lighter shading indicates “More likely to meet standards.”

15

AIMS Results by Students Within/Outside of District

As shown in Figure 8, the only notable difference compared to students who reside outside of the district are those in Grade 8, where they underperform their peers in mathematics (regardless of economic background). Based on the analysis of student achievement data, there were no other discernible patterns detected.

Figure 8. Percent of Students who Meet or Exceed Standards as Measured by 2014 AIMS, by Matriculation Within and Outside of District

  From  District  

  Mathematics   Reading     Grade  7   Grade  8   Grade  7   Grade  8  

All  Students   57%   71%   78%   88%  

Free-‐  and  Reduced-‐Price  Lunch   55%   73%   76%   91%     Outside  of  District  

  Mathematics   Reading     Grade  7   Grade  8   Grade  7   Grade  8  

All  Students   52%   57%   81%   92%  

Free-‐  and  Reduced-‐Price  Lunch   55%   59%   81%   89%  

16

Findings: Areas of Strength  The following findings are organized by major areas of strength as supported by the needs assessment evidence. Each section begins with an overview of the strength area followed by detailed findings across multiple measures. Recommendations for stakeholders to consider in planning are presented in the Preliminary Recommendations section of the report.

Data across multiple measures suggest committed, vested teachers that attend to students and parents are at the center of KMS’ strengths. Most teachers surveyed believe there is strong instructional capacity at KMS and that KMS is a welcoming community. Results also suggested areas for improvement in setting high academic standards for all students, setting a clear focus on student outcomes when teachers collaborate on curriculum and instruction, and upholding the same expectations for all students.

Theme 1: Teacher Engagement

In the student survey area of teacher and staff behavior, KMS students reported relatively strong levels of attitudinal satisfaction. Of the 869 students who responded to the survey, students Agreed that teachers are accessible and available (66.8%), and treat students fairly (68.6%) and respectfully (78.5%). They also Agreed that teachers really care about them (76.5%) and are willing to take the time to give students extra help (75.2%).

Parents reported that the teachers at KMS are engaged, attentive, and accessible to both students and parents. Two parents noted that some teachers do not communicate in a timely manner and one reported that newer teachers appear to struggle and may need more support.

Numerous sentiments expressed the view of teacher engagement:

• Excellent experience with teacher teams (email one teacher and all team teachers reply).

• Whether amazing teacher or not every single teacher I have ever worked with is very dedicated, a drive to do, drive for the students.

• Attentiveness of the staff… You get calls whether your child is doing well or bad. • My son has had some great relationships with teachers here • To me what is solid is the staff - teachers and administration. They are all awesome, and

there is consistency that I appreciate.

Data gathered through the three student focus groups further supported the sentiment of positive teacher engagement:

• They give me better things to do. They call us up and tell us what we have to do. They won’t let us sit there and do nothing. They make us do our work, so that we aren’t failing.

• If you respect the teachers, they will respect you. If you listen to them and what they ask you to do, then they will respect you back. The teachers will teach or talk to or treat each individual student different based on how that student treats them.

17

And more specifically regarding teacher feedback on school work:

• You can tell when a teacher is being mean and when they are trying to push you to do better.

• Teachers treat homework looking for best effort and understanding not just right/wrong. • They tell us to study more and try harder, so we can do better next time.

Theme 2: Instructional Capacity

In the area of instructional capacity, students indicated relatively strong levels of attitudinal satisfaction as measured by the student survey. At least 66 percent of students Agreed that teachers challenge students to learn; recognize effort and success (67.8%); give encouragement (79%); and support class discussions (78.9%) and student dialogue (76.9%). Only one measure of instructional quality stood out with a lower level of attitudinal satisfaction: 42.8 percent of students Agreed with the statement “My teachers do not notice if I have trouble learning something.”

When the 53 teachers were asked on the survey to indicate their level of agreement on how many adults at KMS behave in a manner that supports instructional capacity, most teachers indicated that KMS has strong instructional capacity and Agreed that KMS:

• Provides additional academic support to students when needed (78.4%). • Promotes academic success for all students (86.8%). • Provides a supportive place for students to learn (90%). • Sets high academic standards for all students (62.3%).

Teachers were also asked about staff qualities that support instructional capacity. The results indicated that teachers:

• Report that Most/Nearly All adults at KMS treat each other with respect (92.2%). • Feel a responsibility to ensure that all students receive a quality education (92%).

About 1/3 less of teachers Agreed that KMS sets high academic standards for all students (62.3%) and believe that there is a clear focus on student outcomes during collaboration (62.5%).

Classroom observations also shed light on the school’s learning environment. Specific routines and procedures that support a positive environment for learning were observed in 10 of the 18 classes (56%). Student and teacher interactions that demonstrated a high level of rapport were observed in 10 classes (56%). Teachers consistently modeled and maintained high standards of conduct in 11 classes (61%), while students took an active role in managing their own and others’ behavior in 9 classes (50%).

Preparatory Program: When surveyed if there was anything else they would like to share, 78 percent of the 225 parents who completed the survey offered a wide variety of comments, from identification of challenges and strengths to compliments for individual teachers. A theme

18

emerged regarding the KMS Prep Program, with most parents who mentioned the prep program noting its high quality. They also noted that if their children were not in prep, they would not be at KMS. Some parents also noted that prep students are isolated and that the program should be more academically rigorous.

Theme 3: School Community

A majority of teachers indicated that KMS is a welcoming and involved community. They reported that Most/Nearly All of the adults at KMS believe that every student can learn (86%) and be successful (82%). They also reported that Most/Nearly All of the adults demonstrate that they care about all students (88%). A smaller majority (60%) reported that Most/Nearly All of adults uphold the same expectations for all students.

Teachers also indicated that they feel KMS is welcoming to families. A large majority Agreed that parents have an opportunity to communicate regularly with staff (91.7%) and share concerns about the school (79.2%). They also Agreed that KMS follows up on parent concerns (87%) and partners with parents in problem-solving (73.9%).

Regarding equity, a large majority (91.8%) of teachers Agreed that closing the achievement gap is a high priority at KMS. They also Agreed that KMS provides students with equal opportunities in enrichment activities (66%) and extracurricular activities (61.2%). However, only about half of teachers (54.3%) Agreed that KMS provides students opportunities to help others (i.e., service learning).

Regarding diversity, teachers indicated that KMS promotes the strengths and opportunities that come with diversity. A large majority of teachers Agreed that KMS:

• Fosters an appreciation for student diversity (91.4%) • Fosters respect for others (91.8%) • Encourages staff to examine their own cultural biases that may impact relationships with

students (89.4%) • Encourages teachers to use instructional materials that reflect the culture of their

students (79.2%).

Finally, a majority of teachers (78.4%) indicated that ethnic conflict among students is Occasionally/Never a problem at KMS.

Student survey questions in this domain focused on students’ level of agreement in: (1) opportunities for student expression and involvement and (2) family engagement. In the area of student expression, students Agreed with the following statements:

• Have opportunities to express themselves at school (75%). • Believe that teachers and other adults at school listen to their ideas (68.8%). • Have lots of chances to help decide things (e.g., activities) (61.5%). • Help decide what goes on in their school (62.8%).

19

A large majority of students surveyed indicated that they have engaged families and Agreed with the following statements:

• Their parents would punish them if they skipped school (85%). • Their parents ask about homework (91.6 %). • Their family wants them to do well in school (96.9%).

Parent survey results supported all themes, indicating positive perceptions of the school’s physical and emotional environments, instructional quality, their children’s and their own sense of engagement and belonging, and the staff behavior that impacts learning. Across almost all statements used to measure attitudinal satisfaction, a large majority of parents (more than 80%) selected Agreed in relation to positive attributes about the school. The statements for which a smaller majority of parents (less than 80%) Agreed are listed below:

1. Emotional Environment • Students at my child’s school are well behaved (69.3%).

2. Instructional Quality • The best teachers and staff are kept at this school (75%). • Teachers assign high-quality homework that helps my child learn (78.6%). • School staff has helped my child learn how to manage their time (78.5%).

3. Community Engagement • Parents are involved in making important school decisions (69.8%). • I am actively involved with the school (57.1%).

Findings: Potential Areas of Need The following findings are organized by potential areas of need as supported by the needs assessment evidence. Each section begins with an overview of the need area followed by detailed findings across multiple measures. Recommendations for stakeholders to consider in planning are presented in the Preliminary Recommendations section of the report.

Data across multiple measures suggest two major possible areas of KMS need: (1) effective school leadership, and (2) healthy school culture. The findings in each area of need are further broken down into elements to illuminate data from the needs assessment. Effective School Leadership examines administrative engagement in the areas of: a) student behavior and discipline, b) planning and communication, and c) curriculum and instruction (including collaboration and planning, professional development, and student supports). Healthy School Culture examines a) discipline, b) school climate, and c) community engagement.

1. Effective School Leadership

20

Research consistently confirms that strong, focused school-site leadership is a critical component of student and school success (Kearney, 2010; U.S. Department of Education, 2010; Bryk et al., 2010; Shannon & Bylsma, 2007). Researchers have found that leadership is second only to classroom instruction among all school-related factors that contribute to student learning, especially in high need schools (Leithwood, Louis, Anderson, and Wahlstrom, 2004). Principals have influence on a large variety of activities that lead to school effectiveness - direction-setting and organizational design are among the most important of these activities. Williams et al. (2006) found in a large-scale study that schools with principals demonstrating a strong vision were more likely to successfully drive reform efforts and achieve higher performance scores. Effective principals are particularly important in the turnaround efforts of failing schools (Leithwood, Day, Sammons, Harris, & Hopkins, 2006; Herman et al., 2008). While a strong principal is crucial to achieving significant school improvement, leadership must be distributed to build a solid commitment among all staff and stakeholders. Teachers, school staff, and complex area specialists can all play a role in the effective leadership of a school site (Shannon & Bylsma, 2007; Patton & Munoz, 2008). In addition, district leadership has been found to have a positive influence on turning around low-performing schools (Baroody 2011). The district supports overarching policy coherence and can ensure that schools have the necessary resources to leverage reforms and maintain improvements that help advance the achievement of all students (Fullan, Betani, & Quinn, 2004; Huberman et al., 2011; Lane, 2009).

Theme 1: Administration Engagement

Data across multiple collection methods suggest possible needs in the area of effective school leadership. Responses suggested a need for administrative engagement in the areas of: a) student behavior and discipline, b) planning and communication, c) curriculum and instruction (including collaboration and planning, professional development, and student supports).

a. Student Behavior and Discipline

When asked to describe challenges that they believe should be addressed by the district or school leadership, the strongest theme to emerge from the teacher survey is that teachers at KMS face significant student behavioral challenges to maintaining and promoting an academic learning environment. They report that most of their class time is dedicated to discipline and behavior management, which minimizes instructional time and academic learning for all students. They also report that the school’s administration inconsistently applies consequences and does not support teachers when it comes to student discipline.

The survey also asked teachers to indicate their level of agreement with a series of statements about student supports at KMS, including those targeted at equity, discipline, and behavior. A majority of the 53 teachers who responded to the survey indicated they Agreed that KMS clearly communicates behavioral expectations for students (68%), provides adequate support services (72.3%) and counseling services for students in need (67.4%). A majority (77.8%) also Agreed that KMS encourages all students to enroll in rigorous courses, regardless of their race/ethnicity. However, a majority of teachers indicated that they Disagreed with the effectiveness and

21

fairness of the school’s discipline practices. Seventy-five percent of teachers Disagreed that the school consistently enforces appropriate consequences when rules are broken; 65.2 percent Disagreed that the school handles student discipline problems effectively; and 56.5 percent Disagreed that the school handles discipline problems fairly.

b. Planning and Communication

A need for more consistent, ongoing engagement with administrators, specifically through improved communication and teacher feedback, emerged as a need for teachers.

As demonstrated in the 24 teacher interviews, some teachers expressed high satisfaction with the amount of time administrators spend with them, the type of feedback they receive, and the administrators’ open-door policies, they expressed some concerns. Teachers reported a sense of disconnect with administrators, as well as a lack of consistent feedback and support, especially around student discipline, from administration. They reported observing administrative disorganization and inconsistent levels of administrator engagement and follow-through. Some teachers also reported feelings of distrust or being undermined, and cited administrative practices as the cause for these feelings.

Of the 53 teachers who completed the survey, all were asked to indicate their level of agreement with a series of survey statements about administrative practices at KMS. Teachers were also asked to report how often site leaders visited their classrooms to provide feedback and improve instructional practices.

A large majority of teachers Agreed that site leaders at KMS provide the following:

• Sufficient access to communications technology (96.2%) and instructional technology (85.7%).

• A safe environment that promotes active student learning (86.3%). • An environment of transparency with parents (82.6%). • A safe environment that promotes active teacher instruction (72%).

A smaller majority Agreed that site leaders do the following:

• Provide the necessary resources to do their jobs (61.5%). • Encourage staff to participate in decision-making that affects school practices (56%). • Invite teachers to determine the content of professional development at the school

(53.1%). • Help to maintain an environment of trust with other staff (52%).

It is noteworthy that one administrative practice area that the majority of teachers found lacking was in protecting teachers from non-teaching tasks. Specifically they Disagreed with the following statement:

22

• Site leaders protect them from tasks that interfere with their essential role of educating students (54.9%).

Sixty percent of teachers indicated that site leaders visited their classrooms to provide feedback and improve instructional practices at least three times since the start of the school year.

Sentiments included:

• Our principal is an asset. We have a tough population. She has an open door policy and understands both sides of the kids and teacher perspective.

• The admin team is already out at all the lunches, and that visibility helps with the students. That high visibility may need to be taken into the school buildings as well so that teachers see the admin team is working with the students. It helps teachers feel supported when student advisors, intervention specialists, and admin team is visible working with students. They feel less alone.

• Feel like administration needs to know I truly need support if I write up a student; students are upping behavior because they see no consequences; we control ourselves within our team.

• [Administrative staff] are supposed to observe/have walkthroughs every two weeks but didn’t do it, didn’t see them till 9th week of school. I thrive on feedback. Suppose to have 2 full observations per year, 50-60 data points over year… feel neglected.

Corresponding to what was reported in teacher interviews, teachers participating in the four focus groups reported a sense of disconnect with administrators, particularly around student discipline, planning, and communication. They reported a lack of administrative follow-through with regard to discipline, as well as limited support for teachers in disciplinary strategies. Teachers also reported the administration is lacking in consistent practices and follow-through regarding planning, communication, and meetings. Similar sentiments include:

• Admin are overloaded with behavior. 90% of their day. • Logistics. Not communicated details about what and when and where and why a

meeting or even might be taking place. Little details are not communicated. Schedules are up in the air until the last minute. There aren’t equal standards for all adults. For example at 7th grade they were told one standard about showing videos, 8th grade told something different. They hadn’t communicated with each other.

• Communication – last minute, unorganized makes me feel like time is not valued. • Wish I had more communication with admin. There are people who are talking to

administrator every single day and others of us that never speak to admin…

Similarly, when teachers were asked via survey to describe challenges that they believed should be addressed by the district or school leadership, teachers identified site leader planning and communication as another challenge. They suggest more upfront planning and timely communication so that teachers have time to prepare.

23

The need for ongoing communication is further supported with school administrative staff reporting they have minimal opportunity for providing informal feedback to their teaching staff. They further reported that this was due to their high workload related to student discipline. Teachers also indicated inconsistent opportunities to provide feedback and a high workload due to discipline referrals. One administrator noted a desire to improve instructional practices in an effort to improve student engagement. He/she said: “Teachers need to receive consistent feedback on how to improve their skills, excel, and apply their strengths….My role isn’t viewed as an instructional resource. I’m viewed as a discipline resource. Part of helping that student is helping them be engaged in class, and I want to build on that.” Similar sentiments included:

• I am unable to do as much informal observations and feedback because more of my time is dedicated to discipline.

• We have highest discipline referrals in district (1800 versus 300 referrals in district).

The need for improved communication was further echoed through the parent survey. Nearly 20 percent of parents Disagreed that the school communicates effectively with parents, and communication was an emerging theme from parents’ comments at the conclusion of the survey. When asked if there was anything else they would like to share, 78 percent of parents offered a wide variety of comments, with communication as an emergent theme. Parents indicated they would like more accurate, reliable, and timely information from the school’s administration about school events, policies, and practices, and from the Parent Vue communication system about class lessons and homework assignments. One parent also indicated that the school’s communication structures do not accommodate families with limited access to technology. Several parents indicated that they would like front office staff to be more approachable. They reported that they feel unwelcomed and discriminated against because of their socioeconomic status.

c) Curriculum and Instruction

A number of organizational systems impacting curriculum and instruction were identified in need of administrative support, including collaboration and planning, student supports, and professional development.

Collaboration and Planning

Teachers in focus groups identified a need for more coherent planning practices within tracks, grade levels, and subject areas. Teachers cite a lack of overlapping planning periods, proximity, and adequate overall planning time as significant roadblocks to collaboration. Some teachers noted that this lack of planning time leads to challenges in adapting curricula.

24

• …greatest challenge is curriculum…My time being spent on inventing wheel can’t really use what district has given me.

• …don’t get to work with my department – maybe meet 1-2 times a month. • Collaboration time by department minimal compared to time by team. • Overall stress is getting monumental – CCSS, SIP, - I just want to take time with my

colleagues and plan instruction.

When surveyed about staff qualities that support instructional capacity, a number of results suggest areas for improvement in the area of curriculum and instruction: 62.5 percent of responding teachers Agreed that there is a clear focus on student outcomes when teachers collaborate on curriculum and instruction; 62.3 percent Agreed that KMS sets high standards for all students; and, 60 percent reported that Most/Nearly All of adults uphold the same expectations for all students. Also, relatively high numbers of teachers Disagreed with the following statements:

• There is sufficient time to collaborate (72.5%). • The morale among staff is positive (63.3%).

Regarding expectations, administrative staff shared a similar concern that teachers have a sense of care and concern for students to the possible detriment of higher expectations.

Student Supports

While teacher survey data indicated that the majority of respondents Agreed that KMS provides adequate support services (72.3%) and counseling services (67.4%) for students in need, both parents and students offered a number of suggestions for consideration.

Students named a varied list of supports they feel are needed at KMS, including changes to the curriculum, instruction, and school schedule; and increased access to technology and afterschool sports and activities. Students requested more fieldtrips; school dances; schoolwide events, such as the Fall Festival and Carnival; and after-school activities, both athletic and non-athletic. Students also requested improved sports facilities and access to afterschool team sports as well as to well-organized, student-run clubs that focus on robotics, building, Lego, anime, Pokémon, and art.

Student reflections across themes include:

• We need more technology – more computers. We get to use computers in some classrooms. All classrooms have computers, but some only have a few. Everyone can’t be on the computer at the same time. You are not allowed to bring your own computer.

• More opportunities for extra credit. The kids who are struggling, don’t care. The teachers say if you don’t turn in your assignments, then you don’t deserve extra credit.

• More time to transition classes beyond 3 minutes. • Improved sports facilities so multiple sports can take place.

25

• If student council could go to every single grade and every single classroom and let kids write down their suggestions for what to change. Then they can pick some reasonable ones and make the change.

Parents also expressed sentiments identifying a desire for more student supports:

• How about some sort of mentoring class – something that provides resources. After school support is really students managing themselves and teacher just watches. Why not use the students? Students are asking for interaction.

• How about if grade teams could mix in Exploratories? Introduce a Buddy Team like in the past (e.g., paired general education with special education).

• What are the resources for struggling students? • District has not been supportive of this school as they need to be given the unique

school needs– e.g., giving this school a Title I designation so that we can get the extra support; providing extra hands in classrooms.

Professional Development

While professional development did not emerge as a primary theme, teachers reported during interviews that professional development offerings are not coordinated or conducted in an organized manner at KMS. The lack of cohesive and relevant professional development may be leading to perceptions by teachers that no professional development opportunities exist or are not offered in a way to meet the needs of staff or students.

Sentiments expressed by teachers regarding professional development include:

• How do you meet those demands (associated with higher number of at-risk students) without extra help? Teachers are being asked to meet the need and it is very difficult.

• My coach goes out of her way to help with resources, and she’s very approachable. • There is no training for this role. The district office has training for others, but not this

role. • Because of my field, there isn’t much in the district for me. If they let us do more ‘out of

district’ training, that’d be great. I could learn from someone who [has] been successful in my field specific to my field.

Teachers were also asked via survey to rate the quality of the professional development they received during the past twelve months. Of the teachers reporting having received the following types of professional development, a majority of teachers rated the training as Good/Very Good:

• Content area (74.3%) • Use of formative assessments of student work (61%) • Classroom management techniques (53.6%).

26

Approximately half of teachers rated as Poor/Fair the following types of professional development received:

• Working with English learners (53.6%) • Working with students in special education (50%).  

Figure 9 illustrates the areas in which teachers reported receiving no professional development in the past 12 months.

Figure 9. Areas in which teachers reported receiving no professional development during the past 12 months (n=52)

Teachers were also asked whether they would like more coaching and professional development supports. A majority of teachers reported they would not like more coaching (62.2%), but would like more professional development (71.1%). The areas in which they would like more professional development are:

• Content area (5)5 • Classroom strategies, particularly teaching more with less time, creative learning

strategies, and hands-on activities (3) • Learning Goals and Scales (3) • Behavior management / student discipline (3) • Arizona’s College and Career Ready Standards • Critical thinking • Formative Assessments • Communication

5 The number in parentheses indicates the frequency of write-in requests for a particular type of professional development. If no number is listed, only one survey respondent wrote-in that option.

38.5%  

46.2%  

32.7%  

19.6%  

46.2%  

0.0%   20.0%   40.0%   60.0%  

working  with  students  in  special  educa?on.  (n=52)  

working  with  English  learners.  (n=52)  

your  content  area.  (n=52)  

the  use  of  forma?ve  assessments  of  student  work.  (n=51)  

classroom  management  techniques.  (n=52)  

27

A smaller majority of teachers (56%) also reported that they would not benefit from more professional development in working with diverse racial/ethnic/cultural groups.

Classroom observation data tends to support the additional professional development topics identified as needed by teachers. Approximately one-third of the 18 classes observed clearly communicated a learning objective, either in writing or orally. Of those lessons that clearly communicated objectives, 67 percent were at Depth of Knowledge (DOK) Level 1 (recall), with the remaining split between DOK Levels 2 (skill/concept) and 3 (strategic thinking). In regard to active learner engagement, the DOK of the work, assignments, or activities in which students were involved was at DOK Level 1 in 14 of the classes observed. Attention to DOK level (a measure of the cognitive complexity of/level of thinking required by a standard, task, or test item) is important to ensure that the rigor of instruction and assessment is aligned with the intended rigor of Arizona’s College and Career Ready Standards and new assessments. According to Wenglinsky (2000), the ability to ask questions and provide instructional activities that include high-order thinking skills is one of the teacher qualities directly related to student achievement.

The most common teaching approach observed was direct instruction (67%), which is characterized by the teacher presenting academic content to students, such as in a lecture or demonstration. Indirect instruction, in which instruction is mainly student centered and the teacher serves primarily as a facilitator of student learning, occurred in 11percent of the classes observed. In the remaining classes, neither form of instruction was taking place, with students working independently on assignments, homework, worksheets, or review work. Data suggests a possible need for professional development in what teachers referred to as “creative learning strategies, and hands-on activities.”

A formative assessment process was evident in two (11%) of the classes observed. Formative assessment is a deliberate process used by teachers and students during instruction that provides actionable feedback that is used to adjust ongoing teaching and learning strategies to improve students’ attainment of learning goals. In this process, the teacher clearly defines the intended learning, provides instruction and learning experiences designed to elicit evidence of student learning, interprets that evidence, and then acts on the evidence to improve student learning.

Thirteen strategies aligned to the most critical instructional shifts necessary to fully implement Arizona’s College & Career Ready Standards (AZCCRS) are listed on the observation instrument. Of the 13 strategies listed, those in most common use were “Learners use technology tools related to the learning objective(s)” (4 classes) and “Learners read informational text” (3 classes). Of the remaining eleven strategies, six were observed 1-2 times each, and five were not observed.

28

2. Healthy School Culture

High-performing schools have cultures characterized by high expectations, organizational intentionality, community engagement, teacher collaboration, and high degrees of “psychology of success”-promoting practices (Shindler et al., 2009; Almanzan, 2005). These elements combine to form a school culture that is supportive, safe, caring, challenging, and participatory. Students develop a sense of autonomy, competence, and belonging when they feel “lovingly pushed” to learn (Cohen et al., 2009). A healthy culture also leads to improved school connectedness, learning engagement, attendance, classroom behavior, academic aspirations, and performance (AIR 2010; Brand et al., 2003; Fleming et al., 2005; Libby 2004). Negative behaviors such as substance abuse and violence are also diminished in the face of a healthy school culture (Gottfredson et al., 2005; Resnick et al.,1997; Way, Reddy, & Rhodes, 2007). Teachers and administrators should send messages that intelligence is fluid and give students the freedom to stretch themselves, make mistakes, and try again. Only in growth reinforcing cultures, where teachers and administrators are developed and encouraged to safely fulfill their own potential, will professionals then be able to help their students thrive in bias free environments (Dweck 2010). These complex entities do not develop overnight. They are shaped by the ways principals, teachers, and other key people reinforce, nurture, or transform underlying norms, values, beliefs, and assumptions (Deal & Peterson, 1999).

Responses across multiple measures suggest a need to address school culture, including: a) student behavior and discipline, b) school climate, and c) inter-team relationships.

a. Student Behavior and Discipline

In examining student health and behavior on the teacher survey, respondents were asked to indicate whether they think KMS students arrive well-rested, alert, and healthy. WestEd coded these responses into two broader categories: Most/Nearly All and Few/Almost None.

The majority of teachers reported that Most/Nearly All students are healthy (68.8%) and arrive at school alert (58%). However, a majority of teachers indicated that Few/Almost None of KMS students arrive at school well-rested (56%).

Teachers also reported that several student behaviors are Frequently/Always a problem:

• Disruptive classroom behavior (88%) • Disruptive non-classroom behavior (74%) • Harassment among students (63.8%) • Truancy (58.3 percent) • Bullying among students (56.3%).

Students offered similar responses when asked to indicate their level of agreement with a series of survey statements about the physical environment at KMS. In general, KMS students Agreed that they like their physical environment (83.3%) and the length of the school day (71.5%), but

29

approximately half of respondents reported that their school is not kept clean (46.1%) and that they do not have enough time to get from one class to the next (48.6%). In the area of student behavior, students reported low levels of attitudinal satisfaction. The majority of students Disagreed with the following statements:

• Most students in my school are easily able to work out disagreements with other students (59.3%).

• Students in my school treat each other with respect (57.9%). • Most students in my school are well-behaved (58.3%).

More specifically, when prompted for additional comments or ideas to share about their school, 468 students offered a wide variety of comments, from identification of challenges and strengths to compliments for individual teachers. WestEd analyzed this qualitative data and a related theme emerged, “student behavior and discipline,” which is described below.

Student Behavior and Discipline

Student survey results indicated that they are concerned with bullying, violence, disrespectful behavior, and classroom disruptions. They reported that discipline strategies are applied inconsistently and appear ineffective. Several students reported that they want more teacher help with student conflicts and behavioral challenges. Some indicated that they told a teacher about their concern, but nothing appeared to be done. One student wrote: “[I] mean the teachers here are really nice. [I] just think if they can do something about the students that would be great. [T]he teachers just need to get out there.” Another student suggested the school provide students with tools to manage conflict: “I think there should probably be a better way students can express their feelings about one another. I've seen alot [sic] of drama and violence.”

A similar theme emerged from the parent survey. When asked if there was anything else they would like to share, 78 percent of parents offered a wide variety of comments, from identification of challenges and strengths to compliments for individual teachers. WestEd analyzed this qualitative data and identified the following as an emerging theme:

• Student Behavior and Discipline. Parents indicated that they are concerned with challenging student behavior at KMS. They cited instances of on-campus bullying, fighting, drug-use, disrespectful behavior, and dress code violations.

b. School Climate

Teachers were asked to indicate their level of agreement with a series of survey statements about the school’s physical and emotional environment, sense of community, equity, and diversity. They were also asked to indicate how many adults at KMS uphold or demonstrate learning ideals. Finally, teachers were asked to indicate how much of a problem ethnic conflict is at KMS. While a number of findings shed a positive light on some aspects of school (see Findings: Areas of Strength); a number of findings raise concerns about the school climate at

30

KMS. Among those findings that raise concern are “physical and emotional environment” and “relationships.”

Physical and Emotional Environment

Only about half of teachers indicated that KMS is a well-maintained environment and is emotionally safe. Fifty-two percent of teachers Agreed that the school is an environment that is well maintained and 55 percent Agreed that the school is emotionally safe for all students. Additionally, half of teachers (51.1%) Disagreed that KMS provides meaningful opportunities for student input on important school matters. A related theme emerged from written comments on the survey, noting that the KMS campus is not maintained well and that there is not enough time in the schedule for class transitions. Teachers suggest that the district maintain the school better and allow for more time between classes so that students are able to use the restroom and ask follow-up questions before heading to their next class.

Students were similarly asked two sets of questions related to their school’s emotional environment with interesting results. One set addressed the students’ level of safety they feel in different areas on campus. Students indicated positive attitudes about how other students behave at school with regard to schoolwork. The majority of students Agreed that most students at KMS do their best even when the work is difficult (65%) and try to do a good job on schoolwork even when it is not interesting (68.9%). Additionally, the majority of students Disagreed with the statement that they give up when they cannot solve a problem easily (56.4%).

Students also indicated positive attitudes toward their physical and emotional safety at KMS. The majority of students (88.9%) reported that they feel Safe in their classrooms. However, approximately one quarter of students report feeling Unsafe in the hallways and bathrooms (23.9%) and around the school campus (26.1%).

Parents reported the school’s existing team structure as a strength, while also mentioning possible related issues of community and disparity. They reported that programs are “segregated,” “stand alone,” or “seem more isolated and differentiated.” They also reported that “[t]he program labels mystify parents.” Intertwined into their discussion about the strengths of the team structure are their interactions with the teachers themselves: participating parents mostly reported “excellent experience with teacher teams,” while one parent reported that communication from the teacher and school is not timely. Parents noted their own role in providing supports for students to succeed, and reported a desire for additional student supports at the school site, particularly those that will:

• Build community across teams • Address the needs of struggling students • Provide supports to teachers in the areas of differentiated instruction and classroom

management

31

• Meet students’ unique medical needs • Provide needed resources and high quality teachers to all teams.

Sentiments that support parents’ view that the team structure is a strength that may also lead to issues of community and disparity include:

• PREP– technically 2 years ahead in math and stretched in ELA –stand alone, stick together for all their classes – seems more isolated and differentiated.

• Some teams are excellent. Not sure that team capacity is consistent. • The fact that students are labeled so students self segregate. • I think labels help students because pushes them but it’s hurting us a school community

– labels in general – bulk of students, general population, does not even fall into these labels; problem because some students boast about this.

• The program labels mystify parents; where is the parity and what is the gap (e.g., PREP students with no homework and yet my honors student is drowning in homework – how is that possible?)

Relationships

Survey questions within this domain focused on two key areas: (1) teacher/staff behavior and (2) student behavior. Students were asked to indicate their level of agreement with a series of statements related to interpersonal communication.

In the area of teacher and staff behavior, KMS students reported high levels of attitudinal satisfaction. Students Agreed that teachers are accessible and available (66.8%), and treat students fairly (68.6%) and respectfully (78.5%). They also Agreed that teachers really care about them (76.5%) and are willing to take the time to give students extra help (75.2%).

In the area of student behavior, students reported low levels of attitudinal satisfaction. The majority of students Disagreed with the following statements:

• Most students in my school are easily able to work out disagreements with other students (59.3%).

• Students in my school treat each other with respect (57.9%). • Most students in my school are well behaved (58.3%).

c. Inter-Team Relationships

Interview data suggests teachers observe differences in the activities, resources, and approach of other teachers and especially teacher teams. They report competition between teams, perceived administrative favoritism for certain teams, and inequitable distribution of resources and supports needed to address student learning. Teachers further noted a common lack of structure both within and between teams related to instructional approach, resources, and parent engagement practices. “They want consistency, but they expect each teacher to do their own.”

32

Reflective sentiments include:

• There are relationship issues on campus. There is a lack of bonding. There are a variety of “us vs. them” relationships.

• The support for special education students is not always aligned with the general education. We have around 24 students on each team. There are too many in the population and it’s exploding. It’s a challenge to balance the behaviors with the caseloads and the resources we have.

• Very parent-driven on the PREP team, and we over-communicate. Other students need our support.

• If you’re a prep teacher, you’ll have a middle school population who will follow the rules. If you’re teaching classes like that all day, you’re missing the other side. You talk to teachers who deal with 35 kids and a mixed bag who don’t want to follow instructions…it’s the discipline problem. It’s frustration with the students and parents. It’s “us vs. them.”

School administrative staff also reports positive relationships within teacher teams compared to strained relationships between teacher teams. Finally, in what may be a reflection of this area of need, 63 percent of teacher survey respondents Disagreed with the following statement: The morale among staff is positive.

Preliminary Recommendations Effective School Leadership

The following preliminary recommendations are offered:

• Review existing organization of teacher and student team structure. Data across all measures, including academic achievement data, suggest patterns indicative of homogenous grouping and not all students are achieving at a high level. The district and KMS collaboratively should explore options for maintaining the Preparatory Academy, while also ensuring all students benefit from high academic expectations and the resources to achieve them.

• Establish a representative school Leadership Team. While a strong principal is crucial to achieving significant school improvement, leadership must be distributed to build a solid commitment among all staff and stakeholders. Establish a working leadership body made up of teachers and school leaders that is inclusive of all stakeholders. Establish a selection/election system for joining that is equitable for teachers.

• Establish ongoing district-to-school communication with regular checkins and feedback

in regard to district initiatives and approved school plan.

33

• Include methods for communicating with the staff at large, gathering and sharing input on decision-making. Members are intended to represent the broader teacher voice when making decisions. Find ways of listening to and representing the student and parent voice. Leverage this body to guide and implement future reform.

• Have the Leadership Team model and facilitate the development of a unifying vision with aligned values and goals to guide the work of the entire school community and permeate the culture of the school.

• Revise/write the school improvement plan with guidance from the Leadership Team to align with goals and monitor the implementation of the plan.

• Build cohesion at the school around discipline, academic culture, goals, relationship building, and instructional excellence. The principal should engage in dialogue with parents and community members to solicit their support and identify common agreements that promote accountability for follow-through on their agreed-upon commitments.

• Create a comprehensive staff development plan, driven by student achievement and other data, in accordance with site needs. Include only a few goals, differentiated as needed, with multiple opportunities for adjustment as needed; ensure progress on the plan is monitored. All staff should be aware of the professional development structure and fully participate in it. Professional development plan data should be gathered —  by survey, or some other tool — and used to inform the school’s improvement efforts. Support all teachers in shifting their planning and pedagogy to fully adapt to Arizona’s College and Career Ready Standards in terms of planning, assessment, and instruction.

• Implement a coherent standards-based curriculum (including curriculum maps and pacing guides) across grade/subject levels to support the learning needs of all students in all courses. Revisit the use of teacher meeting and planning time to ensure collaboration is supporting both grade and content needs of teachers and students.

• Establish consistent, reliable, and equitable venues for all KMS teachers to have a voice and receive feedback. Data from the needs assessment consistently conveyed a teaching force that is waiting to be asked for their opinion and/or asked to participate in the life of the school community. A number expressed a desire for ongoing feedback. For example, establish, prioritize, and protect regular, ongoing ways for administrators to reach out to all teachers (e.g., brief schoolwide environmental sweeps by principal on bi-weekly basis; 2-3 hours per week by each administrator for brief informal classroom walkthroughs with feedback in designated teacher classrooms). Use visits to establish relationships with teachers and students, reinforce/refine professional development implementation, and offer discipline support.

34

• Provide leadership training and coaching for all administrators and teacher leaders (e.g., principal, assistant principals, grade level leads, department chairs). All leaders should receive regular and timely feedback on their growth. If internal district leaders do not have the capacity, they should consider investing in outside coaches to regularly support the growth of school level leaders.

• Set specific, measurable student achievement goals for each grade level, team, and program and use data on an ongoing basis to guide reform. For example, use data to identify and make adjustments to student support needs, professional development needs, and lesson planning.

Healthy School Culture

• Engage in trust-building professional development with all staff and leaders to understand why trust has been broken in the past and what people have to do to build trust again. Gain staff-wide consensus on adopting a commitment to uphold the trust building norms that emerge and ensure that trust-breaking norms are set and avoided. Collect survey data throughout the year on progress and celebrate or intervene when appropriate.

• Create a sense of schoolwide community by forming deliberate, structured connections between administrators and teachers; teachers to teachers across teams and programs; and students to students across teams and programs. Capitalize on a teaching staff, student body, and parent community that are committed to KMS and have voiced a desire to form a schoolwide community in addition to and beyond a team and program community.

• Form relationships between administrators and teachers and teachers across teams and programs. As noted by Finnigan & Daly (2014), relationships are important in educational reform. Teaching and learning are not solo but rather social endeavors and, as such, they are best achieved by working together. Reforms will necessitate communicating and building meaningful working relationships schoolwide. Revisit use of staff time by school, team, grade, content area, and classes (e.g., I Class). Collaboratively identify times and systems for building bridges across the school (e.g., allow student tutoring across programs).

• Assume administrative leadership in establishing and supporting implementation of clear and consistent consequences for student misbehavior schoolwide. Teachers must be well-trained on the “non-negotiables” of student actions in their classroom, hallways, and common areas. The entire school staff must consistently uphold these expectations for all students. Establish discipline from a positive behavior perspective that strives to create a safe learning environment for teachers and students.

35

Train teachers, staff, leaders, students and parents with the same training to help students comply with rules and expectations while developing improved student decision-making. Write and/or update student and parent handbooks as needed to provide clear and specific student behavior and academic expectations schoolwide. Consider the teachers’ suggestion for upfront behavior management planning and consistent follow-through on consequences. They also suggest the district provide more resources and support, including:

a. Behavior management programs (e.g., Scorpion Focus) b. A dedicated site leader for discipline (e.g., a Dean of Discipline) c. Opportunities for students who struggle with behavior to acclimate to a safe

academic environment (i.e., dedicated class time to address challenges and how to approach the day)

d. Resources for students in need e. Teacher training on effective behavior management strategies.

• Make a concerted effort to ensure families and students from all grades, teams, and

programs are active participants in the life of the school and feel welcomed, valued, and connected to the school community. Ensure participation from all grades, teams, and programs.

• Create incentives for staff and students around improvement efforts. These incentives can be as simple as celebrating the achievement of reaching teacher and grade-level team goals, and student and parent created goals. Implement assemblies and other celebrations to acknowledge a variety of academic achievements, including regular celebrations of growth for all students.

 

36

37

Citations Almanzan, H. M. (2005). Schools moving up. Educational Leadership, 62.

American Institutes for Research, (2010). A learning point: What experience from the field tells us about school leadership and turnaround.

Auerbach, C. F. & Silverstien, L. B. (2003). Qualitative Data: An Introduction to Coding and Analysis (Qualitative Studies in Psychology). NYU Press.

Baroody, K. (2011). Turning around the nations lowest-performing schools: five steps districts can take to improve their chances of success. Washington, DC: Center for American Progress; Education Resource Strategies.

Brand, S., Felner, R., Shim, M., Seitsinger, A. & Dumas, T. (2003). Middle school improvement and reform: Development and validation of a school-level assessment of climate, cultural pluralism, and school safety. Journal of Educational Psychology, 95(3), 570-588.

Bryk, A.S., Sebring, P.B., Allensworth, E., Luppescu, S., & Easton, J. Q. (2010). Organizing schools for improvement: Lessons from Chicago. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Cohen, S. A. (1987). Instructional alignment: Searching for a magic bullet. Educational Researcher, 16(8), 16-20.

Creswell, J. W. (1998). Qualitative inquiry and research design: Choosing among five traditions. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Deal, T. E., & Peterson, K. D. (1999). Shaping school culture: The heart of leadership. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Dweck, C. S. (2010). Mind-Sets and Equitable Education. Principal Leadership, 10(5), 26-29.

Finnigan, K. S. & Daly, A. J. The importance of relationships in educational reform. Shanker Blog: The Voice of the Albert Shanker Institute (July 7, 2014).

Fleming, C. B., Haggerty, K. P., Catalano, R. F., Harachi, T. W., Mazza, J. J., & Gruman, D. H. (2005). Do social and behavioral characteristics targeted by preventive interventions predict standardized test scores and grades? Journal of School Health, 75(9), 342-349.

Fullan, M., Bertani, A., & Quinn, J. (2004). New Lessons for Districtwide Reform. Educational Leadership. 61(7).

Gottfredson, G. D., Gottsfredson, D. C., Payne, A., & Gottfredson, N. C. (2005). School climate predictors of school disorder: Results from national delinquency prevention in school. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, 42(4), 421-444

Herman, R., Dawson, P., Dee, T., Greene, J., Maynard, R., Redding, S., and Darwin, M. (2008). Turning around chronically low-performing schools: A practice guide (NCEE #2008-

38

4020). Washington, DC: National Center for Education Evaluation and Regional Assistance, Institute of Education Sciences, U.S. Department of Education. Retrieved from http://ies.ed.gov/ncee/wwc/publications/practiceguides

Kearney, K. (2010). Effective principals for California schools: Building a coherent leadership development system. San Francisco: WestEd.

Leithwood, K., Day, C., Sammons, P., Harris, A., & Hopkins, D. (2006). Successful school leadership: What it is and how it influences pupil learning. Nottingham, UK: National College for School Leadership.

Leithwood, K., Louis, K., Anderson, S., & Wahlstrom, K. (2004). How leadership influen