Do

Do - Part I

Identify the part(s) of your plan you were able to implement (given the nature of leadership work, your project may actually continue beyond submission of your capstone portfolio).

Over the course of the school year the Title I teacher and I were able to successful implement an alternative grouping strategy during the math block in second-grade. While the other two second-grade teachers were very hesitant and made it clear they did not want to be apart of our team teaching plan they did not have any reason why it wouldn't work for them as it didn't require any change on their part. We were able to form a mixed ability math group without having to pull out the students that were perceived as lower achieving. Within our 90 minute math block we were able to utilize a variety of different group strategies each day. Students worked with partners, in mixed ability skill groups, strategy groups, as well as whole class and independent instruction and practice. We are excited to continue this team teaching model next year.

How successful was your plan of action at addressing the challenge? Which stakeholders and practice or program were impacted?

My team teaching partner and I felt the year was very successful as we saw the confidence of all students grow, but especially the confidence of our students that would have been pulled out under the old grouping model. We were able to easily differentiate within our skill and strategy groups for all students resulting in great growth throughout the year. We ended the year with seven second grade students that would have been pulled out under the old grouping model and I would like to share their growth throughout the year.

While we felt very successful in our classroom of providing an innovative and engaging learning environment for a mixed ability classroom we did not feel successful in expanding it beyond our classroom. We were met with lots of push-back and criticism from colleagues.

Student 1 moved after the first two months of school.

Student 2 Data

Student 2

Artifact 1

Student 2 was a new student to our school this year and tested very low using our school wide benchmark assessment STAR Math. She tested into the third percentile and had a scaled score of 250 at the beginning of the year. This identified her as a student requiring Tier III services, however, she received Tier III interventions for reading four days a week and left no time for math interventions outside of the math block. Her confidence was very low and she interacted very little with her peers. As the year progressed her confidence grew, we setup systems of safe interaction with her peers, and her math skills rose. During the third quarter she missed a couple weeks of school due to weather and family emergencies and we saw some regression with her confidence, interactions with peers, and her ability to retain new skills. However, at the end of the year her STAR Math assessment showed a gain of 25 percentile points to place her in the 28th percentile and her scaled score was 450. According to the STAR Math Assessment she grew from a kindergarten grade equivalency to a 2.5 grade equivalency in one school year.

Student 3 Data

Student 3

Artifact 2

Student 3 was a student we felt was misplaced from the beginning of the year. He was a bright student but lacked motivation and confidence in himself. His classroom teacher also felt he needed to be pulled into a small group because he did not have a high level of support at home. At the beginning of the year, his STAR Math Assessment placed him into the 15th percentile with a scaled score of 326. His scores qualified him for Tier II intervention services, but he was also receiving reading interventions and received no math interventions outside of the math block. We worked hard to build his confidence and he soon was actively participating in lessons and willingly sharing his problem solving strategies. At the end of the year he tested within the benchmark range rising to the 49th percentile with a scaled score of 494. According to the STAR Math Assessment he made a grade equivalency growth of 1.5 years.

Student 4 Data

Student 4

Artifact 3

Student 4 joined our math class at mid-year. He had previously attended our school, but then moved for the last part of first grade. His homeroom teacher was willing to give him a chance in her math class because his beginning of the year STAR Math Assessment scored him into the 34th percentile with a scaled score of 383. This identified him as a student qualifying for Tier II intervention services. At mid-year she was concerned that he seemed to not be understanding the lessons and his progress monitoring scores were making very little growth. He was also going through some changes at home with mom returning home after being released from prison and his teacher felt he would benefit from being pulled out into a small group. It was clear this student had a lot going on in his life and he did struggle to retain information at first, but slowly with our skill and strategy groups be began to make progress. His progress throughout the year was slow and steady, but at the end of the year his assessment showed he rose to the 39th percentile with a scaled score of 474. His test scores estimated a grade equivalency growth of .8 in a year.

Student 5 Data

Student 5

Artifact 4

Student 5 also joined us at mid year. He had a very unique situation as he was severely hearing impaired. He spent the first part of the school year with his homeroom teacher but with one-on-one paraprofessional support. His classroom teacher found that his lack of language skills hindered him from being able to demonstrate different math skills. She also struggled with the paraprofessional working him being able to provide support rather than just doing the work for him. At mid-year he and his paraprofessional joined our classroom and within the first two weeks were were able to remove the paraprofessional from the entire math block. We had to get creative and learn a bit of sign language to be more effective teachers, but we found he was a very bright math student who needed more instruction on what the math language was asking him to do. Once he understood the question he was very successful. At the beginning of the year his STAR Math Assessment scaled score was 311 placing him in the 2nd percentile. This qualified him for Tier III intervention services, but like our other students he received reading and speech interventions and did not receive any math interventions outside the math block. At the end of they year his assessment showed incredible growth. He rose to the 55th percentile with a scaled score of 507. His assessment showed that me made 1.7 years of growth within the year.

Student 6 Data

Student 6

Artifact 5

Student 6 didn't join us until mid-year as well. Like student 3 she was very bright but lacked confidence and motivation during math. While I think she could have been very successful in her homeroom math group I think she would have also benefited from being in our math block for the entire year. At the beginning of the year her STAR Math Assessment placed her into the 11th percentile with a scaled score of 308. This qualified her for Tier II intervention services, but once again reading interventions took precedence and she received no math interventions outside the math block. It took till almost the end of the year to see her confidence bloom which is one of the reasons I wish she had been in our group from the beginning. By the end of the year she showed growth in her STAR Math Assessment and rose to the 39th percentile with a scaled score of 474. She showed a grade equivalency of 1.4 years in one year.

Student 7 Data

Student 7

Artifact 6

Student 7 joined us at mid-year because she had been receiving special education services two days a week to help her meet her math goals. Her classroom teacher wanted to give her an opportunity to be in her math group and felt her special education services would be enough to help her be successful. At the beginning of the year her assessment placed her into the seventh percentile with a scaled score of 283. This qualified her for Tier III intervention services and she did receive special education support twice a week for the duration of the year. When she joined us at mid-year her classroom teacher felt that the lessons were moving too quickly for her and that she wasn't able to retain information from day to day. We found that she was an incredibly hard worker, but required a great deal of process and practice time for new and previously taught skills. At the end of the year, she showed amazing growth on her STAR Math Assessment. Her end of the year assessment placed her into the 58th percentile with a scaled score of 513. This equated to two years of growth within one year. I am positive our use of strategy and skill groups allowed her the process and practice time she needed to master as many skills as she did.

Overarching Competency - Interpersonal Effectiveness

Throughout this process I felt I grew in my Interpersonal Effectiveness, but I'm not sure I am to the point where I can help others grow in this area. My team teaching partner and I both grew in our ability to support each other and built a great deal of trust. We had many conversations not just about planning, but conversations that critiqued our model so we could ensure we were basing our actions on student needs. This required us to admit to ourselves and to each other when things weren't working the way we had hoped. We both serve on the Leadership team and attempted to facilitate conversations with other teachers about the positive effect of our model on all students to try and build a shared vision. We did not feel those conversations were successful. I was able to reach out to a fifth grade teacher and have some productive conversations about our current reality and visions for a more equitable school environment for all students. One of our special education teachers was also willing to discussion different grouping options and see what her role in promoting change could be. My team teaching partner reached out to the other title teachers and set up a meeting to discuss some ideas.

Email Log - Title Teachers

Title Teachers Brainstorming

Artifact 7

My team teaching partner reached out to the other two title teachers in the elementary and one of them was willing to meet and discuss how we could be more inclusive in reading. Unfortunately, the other title teacher decided upon a sudden retirement and our district decided not to refill her position.

Email Log - Fifth Grade

Collaborations with Fifth Grade Teacher

Artifact 8

One of our fifth grade teachers that I serve on the MTSS committee with was a wonderful resource and colleague that was willing to collaborate. We were able to develop a strong relationship based on trust and a shared vision of helping all students become successful. We didn't always agree on grouping practices but we were able to have respectful conversations about the pros and cons of mixed ability and ability groups. She was able to help me understand the perspective of many teachers that were convinced that ability grouping was the only and most effective teaching strategy. My conversations with this colleague helped me to better communicate and listen to other colleagues that were not as open minded as she was in order to work towards a shared vision.

Email Log - Special Education

Collaborations with Special Education Teacher

Artifact 9

We were lucky to hire an outstanding special education teacher. We had several conversations throughout the year about current grouping practices and the harm she feels it does to her special education students. Having two students in our math group on her caseload we worked closely to monitor student success. In doing so we were able to build a relationship and share the same vision of providing an inclusive education for our special education students with a push-in model. On January 9th, 2019 we had a conversation about possible collaborative opportunities for next year. At the time, we were not sure if she and I would be working with the same students providing us the opportunity to find alternative grouping strategies. We brainstormed ways we could approach the different grade levels she does work with in hopes to start a conversation about alternative grouping practices.

Overarching Competency - Communication

Communication was another key area that was vital to the success of our plan. In the beginning it was easy to communicate the need for change because my team teaching partner and I saw the same problem with our current grouping practices. It was easy for us to think of a new model, but we found it difficult to convince other teachers that there was a problem and to get them to support our new model. We had hoped with the research we had gathered and the success the students in our group that people would at least be willing to question the effectiveness of our current grouping practices and look for themselves into different options, but we were met with a great deal of resistance which leads me to believe that my communication skills still have a lot of needed growth. While I didn't feel I was successful in my communication efforts to look into different grouping models I was able to administer a staff survey with out Leadership team that allowed us to identify some needs and develop some ways to address those needs. By working with colleagues to address the needs identified in the survey I was working towards building relationships that show I am willing to take the issues that others find important seriously so that hopefully I will be met with the same open-mindedness when discussion grouping options.

Academic/PD Results Winter 2019

Academic Staff Survey Results

Artifact 10

Our Leadership team worked together to develop and administer a survey designed to see what teacher in our school needed to feel more successful in their craft. We then met as a team to identify the most high need areas to then address in cross grade level teams.

PBIS Staff Survey Winter 2019 Results

PBIS Staff Survey Results

Artifact 11

In addition to administring an academic survey we also administed a survey to identify some areas within behavior management. We again met to identify the high need areas and would then meet with cross grade level teams to brainstorm ideas for addressing those issues.

Cross Grade Level Topics - 2019

Cross Grade Level Agenda/Notes

Artifact 12

After the Leadership team worked together to put together an agenda k-2 teachers and 3-5 teachers met to brainstorm. We were able to make professional development recommendations to the administration, create a space where teachers can share ideas and ask questions without having to have yet another meeting, and begin developing a staff resource site that helps all teachers be on the same page as to district routines, protocols, and procedures.

Collaboration Station

Artifact 13

We built a padlet board as a place for teachers to collaborate, share ideas, and ask questions. This could be a place to share media to promote a shared vision and work towards positive change.

Foundational Competency - Exploring and Challenging Inequity

I found that because Exploring and Challenging Inequity was my Foundational Competency I was hyper-focused on the inequities that presented themselves in a variety of different ways. I found that most of the inequities within our school are due to teachers thinking they are helping a student. With our current system of ability grouping most of our students are placed in groups because of perceived achievement levels, behaviors, family support, and generalized stereotypes. I found the inequities in our student placements the most difficult conversations to bring up or have. Teachers would take if very personally if you questioned a student's placement or disagreed with student's placement. This is an area that I felt I grew in my own awareness, but feel I need to grow so that our school can recognize the inequalities that present themselves with our current grouping system.

Student Comparison

Student Data Comparison

Artifact 14

One particular inequity presented itself in our grade level. Student A's STAR Math Assessment showed her to be higher performing that Student B. During a grade level meeting the classroom teacher of both students presented the argument that Student A was a lower performing student and needed more intensive instruction because she did not have the family support to help her make the necessary gains. She needed repeated practice to master new skills. This student was moved to our group mid year despite scoring higher than Student B. Student B was not moved to our group because the argument made in his defense was that he was a hard working student with a supportive family that would work with him at home. His classroom teacher described him as a bright student that needed more process time and repeated practice. Fortunately, both students were given the opportunity to be successful without being pulled out of the general classroom, but the bias that was presented in the reasoning for different grouping showed an example of the inequity in our current grouping practices.

Pathway Competency - Instructional - Facilitate Collaborative Relationships

My team teaching partner and I worked all year to Facilitate Collaborative Relationships to grow in our craft but like the other competencies this is an area I feel I need to grow even more so that I can build consensus with larger teams of teachers, especially those that disagree that there is a problem in the first place. I was also able to reach out the a fifth grade teacher, a special education teacher and another one of the title teachers to engage in collaborative discussions about learning and teaching practices.

See Artifacts 7, 8, and 9.

What obstacles, if any, did you encounter?

Throughout the year my team teaching partner and I encountered very few problems during our math block. We were very honest with ourselves and each other and utilized the data to show that things were working or not working. We made little adjustments and tweaks to maximize student impact, but we found the biggest obstacles were outside the classroom. We never really convinced the other two second grade teachers that this was a successful model. We were told that this group of students wasn't as low performing as other groups we've had. As the end of the year drew near, we started to worry that all the work we did would be undone in third grade if our students would be pulled out of the general classroom for the math block. We contacted the third grade teachers to ask if they would like to hear what we did and the success we and the students experienced. It was not very well received and the third grade teachers do not plans on changing the current grouping system. Our students will be pulled out next year into a small group and taught skills at a slower pace than their grade-level peers.

Third Grade Meeting

Minimizing the Matthew Effect

Grouping Kids by Ability Harms Education, Two Studies Show

Rushing for Interventions

Raising Expectations and Achievement in Mathematics

Meeting with Third Grade Teachers

Artifact 15

My team teaching partner and I reached out to the third grade teachers when we realized that there was a very strong possibility that our current students would then again be ability grouped when they transition to third grade. We were met with mixed responses, but overall I felt our meeting went well. Two of the classroom teachers were open to hearing what we did to keep all students in the general classroom and the special education teacher wanted to find a way to make it work in third grade because she felt strongly about giving her special education students the opportunity to learn with their peers and be successful. One classroom teacher was very opposed to the idea of having a mixed ability classroom and voiced her concerns where high achieving children would be in an environment where there would be in a classroom of mixed ability students. She was worried the high achieving students would not be challenged. We shared that all students regardless of achievement level were provided instruction and practice opportunities to challenge them.

In addition to our student growth data we shared some outside research that assisted us as we planned and discussed our plan for the year.

My teaching partner and I felt the meeting was successful in that most of the third grade teachers were at least open to listening even if they were not willing to move to a different grouping model themselves. Listening with an open mind was a step in the right direction. Unfortunately, this meeting led to a meeting with our principal because the meeting was taken as my team teaching partner and I trying to destroy staff moral by suggesting an alternative grouping model.

Given the outcomes, describe any changes you might make to the Capstone project plan of action.

I think the data shows that our plan was successful and the students that are generally pulled out of the general classroom were able to be successful and make growth while being with their peers. We plan on doing the same thing in math again next year and were hoping for the opportunity to work together in reading as well. My team teaching partner will not be teaching second grade reading, but the special education teacher that is teaching a second grade group is interested in working together and we plan on meeting in August to discuss some options. I wish we had made more progress in conversations as a staff that look at different grouping strategies and more grade levels were willing to consider a new model of teaching to benefit all students. However, modeling the success of an alternative grouping model is an important step in moving towards school wide change.

Report abuse