Montgomery Public Schools - ALSDE Public... · Montgomery Public Schools 307 S. Decatur ... levels...

District Review Report

Montgomery Public Schools 307 S. Decatur Street, Montgomery, Alabama 36104

Review dates May 16-18, 2017

Overall effectiveness Inadequate

Effectiveness of Leadership and Governance Inadequate

Effectiveness of District support for Learning Inadequate

Effectiveness of Operational Systems Requires Improvement

Quality of School Outcomes Inadequate

Summary of key findings

Effective District Practices

District staff are committed and work together as a team.

District staff have developed a wide range of curricular materials to support teachers in the planning and delivery of lessons and units of work that are aligned with the College and Career Readiness Standards in ELA and math. These materials direct teachers to recommended resources and model lessons.

District staff have developed an induction and support package for new principals which provides them with essential information and guides them through their first year in school and beyond.

District staff know the relative strengths and weaknesses of teaching and learning in the highest need schools and have provided professional development matched to their needs.

District staff have developed effective systems and procedures to collect and analyze student performance data so that they know exactly how well the students in each school are achieving against each element of the College and Career Readiness Standards for ELA and math.

District staff have useful systems for identifying and developing staff with the capacity to be future school leaders. Many of the more effective school leaders in the district were developed in this way.

Priorities for Improvement

District leaders and staff should take quick and effective action to support and hold school principals accountable for implementing Data Driven Instruction (DDI) across all their schools.

District leaders and staff should enable and empower principals to ensure that teachers deliver thoughtfully planned lessons that consistently engage and challenge students and are adapted to meet the learning needs of all students.

District leaders and staff should ensure that school leaders and instructional staff are meeting the specific learning needs of English language learners, students with disabilities and higher achieving students.

District leaders should now transfer ownership of the high-quality curricular resource guidance materials they have developed to school leaders and instructional staff by shifting its emphasis from refining these materials and resources to ensuring that they are being implemented with fidelity in all schools.

District leaders should quickly identify, purchase and implement with fidelity a coherent reading program to engage and challenge students in grades K through 8 so that teachers are effectively supported to rapidly increase student progress and raise academic standards in reading.

The school board should support and hold the superintendent and her staff accountable for ensuring that the recommendations detailed above are implemented quickly and effectively.

Review report: Montgomery Public Schools May 16-18, 2017 of 18

Full report

Review judgements

Effectiveness of Leadership and Governance Inadequate

The District Board has not been effective in holding the Superintendent and her District staff to account for improving student progress and raising the very low levels of achievement in the 27 Montgomery schools where the State Department of Education has decided to intervene. Given the lack of impact on these very low scores, the governance of the district must be judged to be inadequate overall.

The District Board has a very challenging task as it works with the State Department of Education to meet the many needs of a large and generally under-served urban community with very limited resources. While there are many matters that require urgent attention, there are several priorities for improvement that must be dealt with as quickly as possible. (Listed on page 2).

The Board must establish more rigorous accountability structures and must ensure that District staff are enabled and empowered to more effectively meet the needs of all students in all schools so that academic standards are raised significantly. Issues that require immediate attention include: improvements to the totally inadequate support currently provided for English Language Learners; the purchase and implementation of a comprehensive reading program; the need to ensure that district policies are implemented with fidelity; and the rapid removal from the school system of those staff that are unwilling, or unable to provide the quality of education that the students of Montgomery need to prosper and succeed in a modern and technological world.

District leaders do not have sufficiently effective structures in place to provide rigorous oversight of the schools they are responsible for. They do not therefore ensure that District curriculum and improvement staff visit all school sites often enough to ensure that District mandated policies are being implemented with fidelity by school leaders and instructional staff, and that the quality of teaching and learning is of a high enough quality. Because of this lack of monitoring and weak general oversight, the leadership and management of these 27 high need schools by the District are judged to be inadequate.

The Superintendent and her staff have an accurate understanding of what needs to be done as evidenced by the very candid self-assessment produced to assist this effectiveness review, but they will need significant support from the State Department of Education to ensure that they can develop and implement a district improvement plan that can radically improve the education that is currently being provided to the students in these 27 high need schools.

While the district has robust structures in place to measure student needs that includes measures of performance, risk factors, and special populations, it does not have sufficiently effective systems and structures in place to ensure that school leaders act on this information and provide effective supports for these most vulnerable students.

Review report: Montgomery Public Schools - May 16-18, 2017 of 18

While data systems are used effectively to identify areas of need in individual schools, there are no effective structures to ensure that these issues are actioned and resolved by school leaders and instructional staff. There is currently, for example, no effective process in place to manage the willful non-participation by a proportion of staff at school sites that leaves many much-needed programs without the power to succeed. Further growth and support is needed to enable movement from the creation of a plan to effective implementation of an accountability system that supports significant change and improvement.

Fiscal Management:

While the finance department is chronically understaffed and has at least 8 full time vacancies, including a Chief Financial Services Officer, it is maintaining basic operations. The department is running smoothly under the leadership of an acting director, accompanied by a small but dedicated staff that includes a contingent of retirees who are holding down key positions. The district has met their most recent fiscal reserve standards under this system, but must move to swiftly to provide permanent staffing for the critical key positions to maintain its fiscal standing.

The staff members interviewed shared their concerns that District leaders are endangering the future solvency of the district by not filling these permanent positions as a matter of urgency. The acting director continues to move things forward in the interim and has set priorities for supporting the schools by streamlining the antiquated budgeting procurement approval process.

Human Resources:

The department is well managed and suitably staffed and is strategically aware of some of the issues it faces. The District pays competitive salaries. The department is very busy because many staff move on after a relatively short time in post, and are always looking for suitable candidates in shortage areas like math, general science, special education and modern foreign languages (MFL). The department replaces 200 plus teachers every year and always tries to fill vacancies in priority schools first, as they can be the most difficult.


Effectiveness of District support for Learning Inadequate

The review of the 27 schools receiving interventions from the Alabama State Department of Education showed very clearly that the quality of learning was inadequate in all but four of those schools. The four schools that were judged to be better than inadequate were judged to require improvement.

One of the main areas in which student learning was consistently observed to be ineffective was the extent to which students were developing the skills that they would need to be successful at college or in future careers. Not only were most students in this group of schools not achieving the academic grades they would need to succeed at college, but most were not developing higher order thinking skills such as critical thinking and problem solving needed to complete more complex assignments. Additionally, students are not typically developing the habits of persistence and resilience that they would need to push through difficult situations, or cope with setbacks.

District leaders and staff have not been effective in supporting school leaders and instructional staff to be successful in providing the kind of learning experiences that will effectively support the development of College and Career Readiness Skills (CCRS). Not enough has been done either to support teachers to develop a thorough understanding of these requirements, or to help instructional staff see the need for making the shifts in professional practice that are required to successfully facilitate a different way of learning.

To make things easier for school leaders and instructional staff, the district curriculum team worked diligently at the central office as they familiarized themselves with the standards, identified and catalogued suitable teaching and learning materials, and developed pacing guides and other professional supports.

Much of the professional development (PD) developed by district curriculum leaders consisted of sharing what they had learned and explaining where materials could be found on-line to replace text books that the district could not now afford to purchase. The focus was on what was to be taught and not enough time was taken helping instructional staff to understand that this new content could not be taught successfully using traditional methods and helping them to develop the new instructional approaches that were required.

Without the thorough practical knowledge of what the teaching of the new CCRS requires, often best gained by extensive time spent unpacking and discussing them with groups of colleagues at the school level, many teachers never became sufficiently familiar or confident with the content. They did not fully understand the need to change the way that they planned and delivered lessons, so that they could successfully facilitate learning situations where students can develop a deeper understanding of the concepts through frequent opportunities to collaborate, discuss problems together and learn from each other.

The failure by the District, and to some extent the State Department of Education, to ensure that instructional staff fully understood these new standards and, just as importantly, realized the need to plan and present this material in a different way has resulted in high levels of anxiety and frustration at the building level, with many staff not knowing how or why they are supposed to change their instructional practices.


Many teachers therefore revert to the ways they have always taught and which do not now meet the learning needs of the students.

This problem has been compounded at District level by a reluctance from leaders to get staff out into schools to monitor what is happening, to model the most successful strategies, to coach school leaders and instructional staff and to both support and hold school leaders and teachers to account for raising academic standards by implementing the most successful strategies.

District leaders quickly realized that school leaders and teachers would need considerable support in several different aspects of professional practice, and have developed an extensive program of PD intended to improve the quality of teaching and learning across the district. Recent initiatives have included the introduction of a new lesson planning template, complete with protocols, for ensuring that all lesson plans meet basic standards. While this process has ensured that all teachers are planning lessons that broadly meet the compliance criteria, there is not enough emphasis on requiring teachers to explain either how the content is to be presented, or how it is to be made accessible and relevant to all students. In many schools the reviewers met teachers who described this process as being time consuming and bureaucratic, and found that the lessons delivered often deviated considerably from what was planned. While the uploading of lesson plans onto a district website for checking does release school leaders from much of the monitoring load, it currently limits the individualized feedback that is required to improve planning.

A District initiative to encourage Data Driven Instruction (DDI) has resulted in many schools creating data rooms where student and staff performance data is presented using a well-considered structure. This is increasing the use of data in some schools, but is largely dependent on the extent to which school leaders support this initiative, and requires teachers to spend quality time considering the implications of this data on the lessons they plan and the way in which they group students. In many schools the teachers do not use assessment data that shows what students already know, and can do, to inform the planning and delivery of lessons that are accurately matched to the learning needs of students, and which challenge them at their own level.

Data produced by the District shows that 98 percent of the teacher workforce are designated as highly qualified, but review evidence showed that, while there were pockets of good practice in almost every school visited, the quality of teaching was inadequate overall, and was not of a high enough quality to enable students to make the rapid progress that they need to achieve higher academic standards. Many teachers do not have consistently high enough expectations of what each pupil can achieve, and do not establish and maintain classroom routines that lead to high levels of academic rigor and productivity.

A District initiative to improve the quality of questioning through PD aimed at increasing the Depth of Knowledge (DOK) found in classrooms has only been partially successful, as implementation has been inconsistent from school to school. It is a similar situation with the efforts made by District staff to increase the amount of differentiated instruction. Despite all this PD, school review evidence shows that many teachers still do not use effective questioning and discussion techniques to check understanding, or to develop higher order learning skills such as critical thinking, independence and creativity.


Without frequent and rigorous monitoring visits by District staff that focus on both supporting and holding school leaders to account for implementing mandated programs and approaches, there is unlikely to be a significant improvement in the quality of teaching and learning and an increase in the percentage of students reaching proficiency in core areas.

In math and ELA, the district has identified foundational or grade level standards and provides PD to teachers around teaching to standards. However, principals do not generally attend in this training and are not all well enough equipped to be able to monitor and support teaching and learning from an informed position.

Although the curriculum provides a well-developed, standards based support structure for instruction in ELA and math, there is a lack of core instructional materials to support the teachers in planning and resourcing lessons that are sufficiently engaging and challenging and that are matched to the learning needs of the students. The lack of a coordinated sequential reading program contributes to the excessively low achievement in reading and writing across all grade levels and content areas.

The District expectation is that teachers will use web-based resources to develop lessons that teach the standards but many teachers are not sufficiently aware of what is available. Additionally, they are either unwilling or unable to search for and modify these resources so that they meet the learning needs of their students. The situation is made increasingly complex when you factor in the large numbers of students that are operating at well below grade level. The result is that in many lessons the work set is not well enough planned to teach the required complexity of the standards.

The transiency of both students and teachers adds to the low achievement of students. The transiency of students is approximately 18 percent, and among teachers it is over 10 percent, with 261 out of 2000 teaching staff planning to move schools this year. The loss of more than 200 teachers each year often results in ELA, math and science classrooms being staffed by inexperienced teachers and/or long term substitutes, many of whom are not providing instruction of an appropriate standard, resulting in poor progress and low levels of achievement. Students moving between schools during the school year are not guaranteed a seamless transition in instruction, as the content and sequence of standards varies between schools.

Professional development (PD) on planning lessons that meet the needs of most students has not been effective in ensuring that instruction is of a sufficiently high quality across District schools. Although the PD is generally of good quality, the trickle-down approach to training, where a representative from each school is trained and is then expected to train their colleagues back at school, is not effective. This is largely because there is not enough follow-up at either District or school level to ensure that either the training is shared, or that if it is shared, the content or strategy is implemented with any fidelity. ELA and math lessons continue to target instruction to students performing below grade level, mitigating against acceleration toward grade level standards.

PD is informed by student achievement data, a district wide needs assessment, and information from the Chief Academic Officer and core content administrators. PD is well-resourced, but much of the budget is used employing staff to assist low performing schools by providing much needed coaching support and reducing the size of some classes. Three coaches provide job-embedded PD for 53 schools, but review evidence indicates that many schools do not make good enough use of this resource.


While the district has allocated substantial resources to PD, the support and monitoring of PD strategy implementation and success is limited as many principals do not regularly attend PD sessions for teachers, and are often not therefore sufficiently aware of how to support and monitor new initiatives.

While there are pockets of effective instruction in almost every one of the 27 schools visited, to date there are not systemic improvement strategies in place to ensure that all students will receive satisfactory instruction in all the subject areas.

An organized effort has been put in place by District curriculum specialists to develop a science program aligned to new science standards. Resources have been allocated to purchase new textbooks K-12 and FOSS science kits that include lesson plans. Schools are encouraging teachers and students to participate in science fairs and schools are investing in science PD for teachers as evidenced by the training of 200 teachers this August in the use of the STEM-scopes science curriculum. Some schools are participating in a STEM leader program that encourages the development of science teachers and a STEM/science culture.

The District adopted a social studies textbook in 2014 but did not purchase it. The social studies director retired and was never replaced, and there is no District level monitoring of quality and standards in the subject. This means that the District cannot be certain that the state requirements for instructional minutes are being adhered to, since the program is guided by individual department heads at the secondary sites. In 1 of the middle schools visited the time originally allocated to social studies was being used for the teaching of art.

Special Education:

Although the District special education program is well considered and designed to meet the variable needs of students with disabilities, the lack of the rigorous monitoring of its implementation in individual buildings means that the quality varies widely and, in many schools, it is little more than a pull-out program with little relation to grade level content.

Despite several innovative changes within the department including the development of ‘Growth Mindset’ and the use of Depth of Knowledge (DOK), practice in most of the

schools visited has not changed sufficiently and typically consists of students being pulled out from mainstream classes. Since this involves them missing their regular classes, the result is that most students fall even further behind their peers. The already low performance of students with disabilities declined still further in 2015/16.

The department complies with federal guidelines for the services provided for students with an Individual Education Programs (IEP). These students make up some 10 percent of the student population, which is low compared with many similar urban areas. Case managers are assigned to each building to conduct IEP meetings and monitor student progress. In response to the concerns of case managers a separate skills class has been created that enables them to meet with their students daily.

While Special Education Facilitators, employed by the District, are given regular update training in the expectation that they will, in turn, train the staff in the schools in regulation and instructional trends in special education, this rarely happens because principals do not typically take advantage of these opportunities to train special education staff alongside the general education staff.


The District has mandated that co-teaching must take place in at least 1 class in each school, but since District staff do not monitor either the frequency or quality of the implementation of this policy, little evidence of effective co-teaching was observed during the reviews of the 27 schools. The mandate that special educators should be invited to professional learning communities (PLC) or data meetings with their general education colleagues to plan together and discuss the progress of individual students with disabilities has been implemented with similar inconsistency.

Although there is special education support in each school, much of the teaching for students with disabilities is typically provided at levels much lower than their actual grade level. The result is that learning for students with disabilities is not being accelerated, and often results in these students falling further behind.

The District Gifted and Talented program is managed as part of the special education program and provides good part time support to the highest achieving students in pull-out sessions held each week in the elementary schools. While the needs of most higher achieving high school students are apparently met by Advanced Placement (AP) classes, there is no coherent provision for higher achieving students in the middle school phase.

English Language Learners:

The support for English language learners (ELL) is inadequate. Currently the learning needs of approximately 1800 students are supposed to be being met by the equivalent of just 16.5 teachers. The program lacks the funding and the resources needed to support the largest group of English learners in the state of Alabama. The Superintendent understands the importance of resolving this situation, but despite her presentations to the board, they have not been sufficiently responsive to the needs of this underserved and growing population.

Alabama is an English Only state and the approach adopted by many teachers is that it is not their responsibility to teach ELL students, but the sole responsibility of the ESL resource teacher. Reviewers noted in several of the school visits that the learning needs of ELL students were not being addressed by school leaders and staff, and these students are often left for long periods of time without any support.

Student Interventions:

The District hired a K-12 Director of Response to Instruction 2 years ago to establish intervention teams in each building. In the original plan, 3 coordinators were to work with building facilitators, report the activities of the building intervention teams and provide training to the intervention teams. Implementation was inconsistent, however, with many principals designating staff other than those identified by the Director to fulfill coordination responsibilities, which limited the impact of the Director. Without dedicated building level support, the efforts to consistently implement Response to Intervention (RtI) have stalled.

Although the District has implemented the high-quality Compass Learning Odyssey intervention program at grades K-5, which provides students with access to work that is well-differentiated and accurately matched to the learning needs of the students, the weekly evidence records of participation show that many students spend as little as 10 minutes on this activity. Review evidence shows clearly that the work students complete on Compass Learning Odyssey is the only differentiated work that many


students get.

Reading 180 and Math 180 are used as intervention resources at the middle and high school levels, but are generally having minimal impact because students are often assigned to these programs without sufficient regard for their need. These programs are also plagued by their implementation by long term substitutes who do not fully understand these programs and do not always use them properly. Both these potentially excellent programs should only be used by teachers that have had access to the detailed training provided by the publishers.

The Director has identified that the main problem is the poor quality of Tier I first instruction, which typically lacks sufficient rigor, does not interest or engage the students and is not generally well enough matched to the learning needs of the students. The emphasis should be on improving the quality of Tier I instruction, rather than moving students onto interventions that in many cases would not be required if first instruction had been of a higher quality. School reviewers saw little evidence or tiered instruction in classrooms.


Effectiveness of Operational Systems Requires Improvement

Information Technology and Data Support:

Technology is not being funded adequately and there is no dedicated budget to support the department. Staff are paid for out of the ‘Operations’ budget and any other purchases are paid for from grants. Despite these financial structures, the technology infrastructure is in good shape and effectively supported the on-line standardized testing structure this year, much of the hardware is old and generates a lot of work orders, 14,000 in the last 12 months, to keep it running. This situation places significant pressure on the short-staffed technology team, who are trying to support 53 schools.

Student Attendance and Tardiness:

The Director of Students Support Services and her team tracks multiple data sources and is aware that attendance is a huge issue across the Montgomery School District. Chronic attendance is running at 12 percent, and is having a debilitating effect on student achievement. Currently, 3690 students have been absent for more than 17 days, and are not therefore receiving the education that they need to be ready for the challenges they will face after high school.

The District has established routines for dealing with persistent absentees. After 5 unexcused absences, the student and parent(s) are served a letter and are required to appear before a judge, who explains the importance of attending school. As a deterrent, this is clearly not working.

The issues created by such high numbers of student absences are exacerbated by very high levels of teacher absence, with almost 900 teachers having taken more than 10 days off school. These absences create huge disruption and result in a variety of unsatisfactory coping strategies, including the employment of substitute teachers and the splitting up of classes, that all have a positive impact on the quality of student learning and levels of achievement.

Parental and Community Involvement:

The District has hired a Parent Liaison Director to increase parental involvement. The District also hired a Director of Community Schools to increase community investment and involvement in the schools, and to develop a pilot program with staff at Davis and Nixon Elementary Schools.

Although the District has begun to transform these 2 elementary schools into community schools by establishing scout troops, providing fields for Pop Warner teams, recruiting volunteers from Read Across America and The Power of 10 Men, the District still has some self-imposed barriers to community and parental involvement. These barriers include policies concerning parental attire in schools and instructional policies that require the reading instructional block to occur between 8:30 and 10:30 AM. The latter also becomes a barrier to student achievement for those students whose parents do not consistently bring them to school on time.

There have been many attempts in the current school year to engage parents. Primary among these is the Home Visit Project, which seeks to assist parents in their homes to better understand the issues that their students face at school. Although the project is limited to a few pilot schools, it is showing some promise.


Other initiatives that have had mixed results include parent meetings at community centers, and a cooperative effort with Office Depot to provide “classrooms” in the store staffed by district teachers to explain reading and math instruction to parents.

The District appears to be making more progress with community involvement through its sponsorship of weekend network nights that have seen more than 80 people attend. In addition, in response to a District wide trend of parents of walkers to keep them home during inclement weather, the District has engaged in a rain gear drive to provide students with appropriate cover on rainy days, hoping to boost attendance.

Both initiatives are new this school year and are staffed with people who know the needs of students and are therefore able to use grant money effectively and creatively to encourage greater community participation in the schools.


Quality of School Outcomes Inadequate

Student Achievement and Progress:

The Alabama Accountability Act (AAA) ranks schools using the ACT Aspire results. Montgomery is ranked at the bottom of this list.

In all the 14 elementary schools reviewed, the average percentage of students in Grade 3 achieving proficiency in math on the 2015/16 ACT Aspire assessment was below the state average of 59 percent. In 1 school, the percentage of Grade 3 students achieving proficiency in math was below 10 percent, while in a second school, the percentage proficient was between 10 and 20 percent.

In all the 14 elementary schools reviewed, the average percentage of students in Grade 3 achieving proficiency in reading on the 2015/16 ACT Aspire assessment was below the state average of 37 percent. In 11 schools, the percentage of Grade 3 students achieving proficiency in reading was less than 10 percent, while in 2 other schools, the percentage proficient in reading was between 10 and 20 percent.

In all the 14 elementary schools reviewed, the average percentage of students in Grade 4 achieving proficiency in math on the 2015/16 ACT Aspire assessment was below the state average of 53 percent. In 1 school, the percentage of Grade 4 students achieving proficiency in math was less than 10 percent, while in 9 more schools, the percentage proficient in math was between 10 and 20 percent.

In all the 14 elementary schools reviewed, the average percentage of students in Grade 4 achieving proficiency in reading on the 2015/16 ACT Aspire assessment was below the state average of 41 percent. In 8 schools, the percentage of Grade 4 students achieving proficiency in reading was less than 10 percent, while in 6 schools, the percentage proficient in reading was between 10 and 20 percent.

In all the 14 elementary schools reviewed, the average percentage of students in Grade 5 achieving proficiency in math on the 2015/16 ACT Aspire assessment was below the state average of 45 percent. In 2 schools, the percentage of Grade 5 students achieving proficiency in math was less than 10 percent, while in 7 more schools, the percentage proficient in math was between 10 and 20 percent.

In all the 14 elementary schools reviewed, the average percentage of students in Grade 5 achieving proficiency in reading on the 2015/16 ACT Aspire assessment was below the state average of 36 percent. In 2 schools, the percentage of Grade 5 students achieving proficiency in reading was less than 10 percent, while in 9 schools, the percentage proficient in reading was between 10 and 20 percent.

In all the 8 middle schools reviewed, the average percentage of students in Grade 6 achieving proficiency in math on the 2015/16 ACT Aspire assessment was below the state average of 54 percent. In 1 school, the percentage of Grade 6 students achieving proficiency in math was less than 10 percent, while in 4 more schools, the percentage proficient in math was between 10 and 20 percent.

In all the 8 middle schools reviewed, the average percentage of students in Grade 6 achieving proficiency in reading on the 2015/16 ACT Aspire assessment was below the state average of 42 percent. In 2 schools, the percentage of Grade 6 students achieving proficiency in reading was less than 10 percent, while in 6 schools, the percentage proficient in reading was between 10 and 20 percent.


In all the 8 middle schools reviewed, the average percentage of students in Grade 7 achieving proficiency or better in math on the 2015/16 ACT Aspire assessment was below the state average of 37 percent and less than 10 percent.

In all the 8 middle schools reviewed, the average percentage of students in Grade 7 achieving proficiency in reading on the 2015/16 ACT Aspire assessment was below the state average of 36 percent. In 3 schools, the percentage of Grade 7 students achieving proficiency in reading was less than 10 percent, while in 5 other schools, the percentage proficient was between 10 and 20 percent.

In all the 8 middle schools reviewed, the average percentage of students in Grade 8 achieving proficiency in math on the 2015/16 ACT Aspire assessment was below the state average of 31 percent, and less than 10 percent.

In all the 8 middle schools reviewed, the average percentage of students in Grade 7 achieving proficiency in reading on the 2015/16 ACT Aspire assessment was below the state average of 45 percent. In 3 schools, the percentage of Grade 8 students achieving proficiency in reading was between 10 and 20 percent, while in 5 other schools, the percentage proficiency was between 20 and 45 percent.

In all the 6 schools with high school students reviewed, the average percentage of students in Grade 10 achieving proficiency in math on the 2015/16 ACT Aspire assessment was below 10 percent.

In one of the 6 schools with high school students reviewed, the average percentage of students in Grade 10 achieving proficiency in reading on the 2015/16 ACT Aspire assessment was below 10 percent, while in 4 others, it was between 10 and 20 percent. In 1 school, the average percentage of students achieving proficiency in reading was more than 20 percent.

Although there is some growth on Performance Series Assessments, levels of student achievement levels on the ACT Aspire results do not reflect this growth. A three-year trend of ACT Aspire shows District level data shows more students scoring in levels 1 and 1 and fewer in levels 3 and 4. Fewer than half of the students, District-wide, meet grade level expectations. In some of the target schools these levels fell to below 20%. The district’s modest target improvement targets of 1 percent in both math and ELA were not met.

Based on trends in both internal and external assessment measures the District has triaged the schools into 3 Tiers with Tier III being the most in need of improvement. The list however, refers to other lists such as Failing Schools list. District staff are quick to point out that originally the district had 3 failing schools, which grew to 10 in recent months. In addition, they assert that there are schools on the list of 27 that have similar achievement to some schools in the other 29 schools. True, that this may be, the comparison of lists and criteria cloud the issue of extremely low student achievement across the district.

Through its assessment program the District has identified needs in both reading and math. The district has engaged the Nuehaus Education Center to provide support. There is little evidence to show that this move has made any measurable increase in student achievement so far.


Personal and Social Development:

District leaders are seeking to create a culture of care, by collecting and analyzing a wide range of student performance data and communicating it to schools each month so that they have an up-to-date picture of issues such as achievement, attendance and behavior. The purpose of this is to make quicker and more strategic interventions with students whose adverse attendance and behavior may jeopardize their academic progress. There has been some progress with several principals looking at less potentially damaging alternatives to suspension and the number has decreased from 13,000 to 7,000 over the past few years.

The Student Support Office has established a tiered system of alternative options to suspensions, that is being implemented with some success in several schools that were visited by review teams. In its monthly report the office identifies Tier I, first suspensions; Tier II 2nd and 3rd suspensions; and Tier III 4 or more suspensions. Alternative approaches include peer mediation, access to online resources and counseling. Many principals are reporting opposition to these approaches by some of their teachers as they see the reduction of students being suspended as another barrier to maintaining order and discipline in class

Staff in the Student Support Office concur with the observations of review teams and cite the general lack of academic rigor in many lessons as a significant contributing factor to poor behavior and attendance. Teaching that is targeted at the lower half of classes does not sufficiently engage, or challenge students, and provides many students with too much time to distract and disrupt the learning of others.

The District has adopted Positive Behavior Interventions and Supports (PBIS) system wide to establish norms in managing student behavior but this is not being implemented with sufficient consistency since school leaders are not being held accountable for enforcing its use in all classrooms by District staff. Observations revealed that in most of the classrooms visited standards of behavior are not routinely posted in schools and classrooms and there is an absence of a consistent incentive program. Evidence gained from the site visits shows that schools that have implemented PBIS with fidelity have seen an enthusiastic response from students to the incentives program and a downturn in disciplinary issues.

The district is trying to shift its focus in managing student behavior from a punitive system to one based on quality relationships. To accomplish this shift, the student support staff offers monthly professional development sessions that are issue based. Another recent improvement is a change the suspension policy so that students that are excluded from school are now able to make up the work that they missed during the days on which they were excluded from school. The District has established partnerships with Montgomery area mental health agencies and a local psychiatrist so that it can be more responsive to the mental health needs of some students.


District Name Montgomery Public Schools

District Address 307 S. Decatur Street, Montgomery, 36104

Superintendent Margaret Taylor Allen

Board Chair Robert Porterfield

Information about this District (Taken from the District Website)

Montgomery Public Schools (MPS) is guided by a student-first philosophy. Our mission is to provide safe and caring communities where teachers teach and students learn at higher levels.

MPS is the third largest school system in the State of Alabama with 51 schools

MPS has a variety of academic programs and services to meet the diverse needs and interests of our students. We offer traditional schools with a full range of curriculum complemented by cultural arts, music, foreign languages, technology, career-technical education, and athletic programs.

Seven career academies in our traditional high schools equip students with skills for high-demand careers in advanced manufacturing, health occupations, information technology, culinary arts and hospitality, and business marketing.

We have nine magnet schools that cover all grade levels and themes ranging from science, performing arts, technology, accelerated academics to international studies. Plus, in the fall of 2012, MPS opened Montgomery Technical Education Center for high school students interested in skilled trades.

Throughout the district, there are programs for children with special needs, including two special education centers and services for gifted students. There are also early childhood education programs and a host of supplemental education services.

Our schools offer stimulating environments led by qualified and dedicated teachers. Simply put, Montgomery Public Schools has one focus...preparing students for life.

Three MPS high schools were ranked among the best schools in the nation by Newsweek Magazine and the U.S. News and World Report in 2012

Loveless Academic Magnet Program was named the best magnet school in the nation and No. 1# in the state; Brew Tech Magnet was ranked eighth best in the state; BTW Magnet was ranked ninth best school in the state.

MPS graduating seniors earned more than $23 million in scholarship offers in 2012.

MPS had four U.S. Department of Education Blue Ribbon Schools of Excellence.

Twenty-three MPS students were named National Merit and National Achievement Semifinalists for 2012-2013

MPS is the Montgomery County's third largest employer, contributing about $21 million to the local economy each month


Information about this Review

The review was completed over three days by a team of 4 experienced reviewers

The review team met with the Superintendent and all senior staff on multiple occasions.

The review team met with the members of the school board for over an hour.

The review discussed the following subjects:

o The status and culture of the District and the history of the State Intervention

o Teaching and Learning

o Instructional leadership and capacity building

o Assessment and testing

o Fiscal management

o Professional Development

o Human resources

o District accountability

o Parental involvement

o Strategic planning

o Security and site safety

o Student interventions

o Student achievement and progress

o A review of performance data K-12

o Curriculum and Instruction + individual subject interviews

o Stakeholder engagement and satisfaction

o District supports for students with disabilities

o District support for English Language Learners

o District Support for gifted and talented students


Review team

Lead Reviewer Tim Boyce

Team Reviewer James Hearns

Team Reviewer Magdalene P. Giffune

Team Reviewer Douglas Howard

Montgomery Public Schools - ALSDE Public... · Montgomery Public Schools 307 S. Decatur ... levels...

Documents

Transcript of Montgomery Public Schools - ALSDE Public... · Montgomery Public Schools 307 S. Decatur ... levels...