MASSP News Center

MASSP’s own, William Scaletta, principal of Lakeshore High School Stevensville, MI, has been elected to the prestigious NASSP Board of Directors at the NASSP Annual Convention in San Antonio, TX this February. Bill (preferred) will serve a four-year term representing Region 4, which includes Minnesota, South Dakota, North Dakota, Wyoming, Wisconsin, as well as Michigan.

“I feel like I have a new jumpstart on my career,” Bill said of the commitment that will keep him in the principal’s chair for four more years. “People are coming up to me saying ‘I’m glad you’re staying.’ It’s a great feeling knowing that people want you to stay.”

Bill said that he is looking forward to having the opportunity to represent Michigan and the other states in having a voice in the legislation that is coming out of Washington, DC. He said as a Board member he will have a first hand opportunity to represent principals in advocating for elimination of unfunded legislative mandates and he will work hard to eliminate the surprise legislation that comes out of the Capitol.

Bill will also be an advocate for NASSP’s goals, which include:

1. Increase membership of NASSP
2. Enhance leadership growth opportunities for middle level and high school principals and assistant principals using a variety of media.
3. Promote education policies that enhance middle level and high school leadership for student success.
4. Expand and enhance student programs and their ability to serve student leaders and advisers.

Bill is no stranger to Board leadership. He served on the MASSP Board of Directors in 1994-1996, 2001-04, and 2007-2009 and was the MASSP President in 2002. Bill has been a member of MASSP since 1979. Bill has been a member of NASSP for 23 years.

By Butch Yurk
Principal, Manistique MS/HS
MASSP Board of Directors Member

The Academic Booster Club was formed at Manistique High School in 1989.  Initially, the group was spearheaded by a dynamic high school English teacher named Betty LaPointe.  Betty sought out a few parents and other community members who had the vision of forming a club that would acknowledge and publicly recognize top scholars in our school.

Slowly, the group begin to set up the framework and criteria regarding admission and retention in the Academic Booster Club.  It was not as easy or simple as one might think, as the group wanted to differentiate between those who were Honor Roll students, High Honor Roll students, all-A students, or gifted and talented students.  While acknowledging these students, the group also wanted to identify those students who had an enthusiastic attitude about school, as well as a great work ethic.  This small group of parents and citizens brought in the high school teaching staff to assist them in recognizing these students.

Initial funding for the group came via individual donations or business contributions.  Soon after, the club began having fundraisers such as poinsettia sales, alcohol-free tailgate parties at HS sports events, chill cook-offs, etc.  One of the largest employers in our area, Manistique Papers Inc., annually sponsored the student recognition dinner.

Over the years, the club became more formalized, complete with officers, regular meetings, and financial guidelines.  One of the key reasons that the club enjoyed success during this time was that the teachers “bought into” the whole concept of recognizing great students.  They became an integral part of the Boosters, and willingly volunteered dozens of hours with attending meetings and serving as the liaison between the students and the other club members.

Some examples of programs the group was able to provide included educational field trips, mini-grants for teachers who worked with these students, mentoring programs, and bringing in motivational speakers or groups for the entire school district.  Much like athletic booster clubs operate, the Academic Booster club tried to provide “extras” that the school district would not or could not fund.

It’s now been nearly 20 years, and Manistique Area Schools is proud to say that we still have a functioning Academic  Booster Club that continues to identify and recognize students in our district who are worthy of acknowledgment!

Each year, Michigan Association of College Admissions Counselors (MACAC) hosts two National College Fairs in Michigan.

The West Michigan Fair in Grand Rapids April 15th
Metro Detroit Fair in Livonia April 17th.

Each fair hosts over 120 colleges (including nearly every college in Michigan) and offers parents and students the chance to talk with admissions representatives about their colleges. In addition, free counseling is available for students and parents, as are information sessions on how to choose a college, financial aid, and more.

These fairs tend to draw more colleges (especially out-of-state colleges) than the college fairs hosted in high schools, and they give juniors and their families the “heads-up” they need in the spring to be ready for senior year with applications to colleges that best fit their needs. We host the Michigan fairs in April as a follow up to MME—now that the students have taken the test, they need to see what colleges will best meet their goals and needs.

Principals, please announce this information and support your students with a visit to the National College Fair in your area.

Closing the Achievement Gap for African American Males

By Diane McMillan
Associate Director

Managing successful transitions from elementary to middle school is tough in and of itself. Managing that transition for students who are already falling into the achievement gap is even tougher. I attended a recent conference in Louisville, KY and attended a session where the Jefferson County Public Schools (JPCS) presented a program that is closing that gap and keeping African American males engaged in school. I was impressed and thought that this program was a model for students who are at risk of failure.

The Street Academy, a Saturday school program offered by the Louisville Urban League, is meeting with great success for a group of struggling male students. The goals of the Street Academy is to assist African American males attain proficiency in reading, increase school attendance, and reduce negative behavior in school. Presently, 40 young men grades 4-7 attend the Academy, which is taught by JCPS teachers, Chris Rasheed, Terry Humphrey, and Kevin Garner.

The Street Academy uses a unique instructional model. The Academy provides academic enrichment, direct instruction in reading and math, and a full component of tai chi, a martial art that teaches stress reduction and body control.

“Our students must learn with their hearts and their minds,” said Baba Serakali, a program mentor and tai chi instructor. Serakali said that tai chi teaches them to control their body which teaches them discipline in the classroom. This translates into better academic performance, as students modify their behavior to become more focused on their school work.

Rasheed said, “Our model depends on the parents, the instructors, and the students. The parents are like the batteries, the program are the like the wires that connects to the light bulb (student). When the batteries are charged, the wires supply the energy, and the light bulb comes on.”

In 2007, 29 students at high risk for failure participated in the program, with 100% advancing to the next grade level. ~from the 2007 Annual Report, Louisville Urban League.

More on the Elementary to Middle School Transition

This time of year is busy for middle school administrators as they plan for the transition of two grades, 8th grade to high school and elementary to middle school. While the transition from middle school to high school may seem to get more attention, a successful transition to middle school from elementary is critical for future student success.

Transition Activities

~From ERIC Digest
The following examples may be helpful in selecting or creating a transition plan to best suit your community:

* The need for curriculum articulation for all teachers at all levels should be clearly understood. Teachers from sending and receiving schools can meet to discuss curriculum and instructional practices.

* Teachers from receiving schools can visit the sending schools to initiate personal contacts.

* Letters can be sent home welcoming students and families, and inviting them to school activities.

* Parent Teacher Association members can call each new family welcoming them to the school.

* Guidance counselors and special education teachers from each school can meet to share information.

* Students of the receiving school can become “ambassadors” of goodwill. Student-to-student contact, preceded by a discussion of what information might be useful to new students, can help establish personal links. Sending-school students can be paired with receiving-school students for visitation days.

* Letters between students in the sending and receiving schools can be exchanged.

* Programs new to the entering students can be highlighted during student visitations.

* An unstructured open house can be held prior to the opening day of school; a structured evening open house can be held during the second week of school.

* A school handbook can be distributed to each family. Be sure to include phone numbers; school history; yearly schedules; teachers identified by grade level, team, and subject taught; bell schedules; lunch procedures; and other practical information.

Other Website Articles of Interest

The Elementary to Middle School Transition: Five Helpful Hints for Parents (includes a Parent Tip Sheet)

Transition to Middle School

By Diane McMillan
Associate Director

The Next Generation in Assessment and Accountability was the topic of a March forum in Chicago. I attended with a team from around the state to discuss what assessment will look like in the next ten years in Michigan and implementation of the Secondary Credit Assessment system.

Joseph Martineau, the new director of MDE’s Office of Educational Assessment and Accountability led our state team along with facilitators from Great Lakes East, Great Lakes West-Learning Point Associates, Westwind Education Policy, the Assessment and Accountability Comprehensive Center/CRESST, the Assessment and Accountability Comprehensive Center/WestEd and the Regional Education Laboratory Midwest.

The prediction for the next generation of assessment centered on formative instruction and assessment. With the assessments like MME providing the summative data for states, the focus is forecast to be on formative assessments that provide feedback and information about student learning.

According to Margaret Heritage of the Assessment and Accountability Comprehensive Center/CRESST, formative assessment is “an ongoing process to close the gap between the learner’s current state and desired goals.” Formative assessment can uncover address details about student learning that the larger, summative tests cannot.

The vision of the department is to integrate formative instruction and assessment training into existing professional development and not create another separate initiative that will be “one more thing” on educators’ plates. Already, a philosophical shift seems underway in the department. (Martineau’s Memo) Expect to hear more on formative assessment and MDE’s plans in the coming months.

Here is a sample clip from the Marshall Memo. MASSP has just entered into an agreement with the Marshall Memo to bring you the latest in educational new in a condensed form. It’s just another way we at MASSP strive to serve you by bringing the latest and best information right to your desktop!

Eleven Ways to Improve Students’ Writing

“When students write more frequently,” says Douglas Reeves in the Center for Performance Assessment’s newsletter, “their ability to think, reason, analyze, communicate, and perform on tests will improve. Writing is critical to student achievement.”

The newsletter goes on to quote a recent Carnegie Corporation meta-analysis of strategies for improving students’ writing:
• Teach strategies. “Explicitly and systematically teaching steps necessary for planning, revising, and/or editing text” has a 0.82 effect size, says the study.
• Teach summarization. When students are taught and frequently practice distilling the essence of a piece of writing, the effect size is 0.82.
• Have students write collaboratively. When students work in pairs or small groups to plan, draft, revise, and edit their compositions, the effect size is 0.75. Cooperative writing is especially helpful for low-achievers.
• Set goals. Telling students the purpose of writing assignments and assigning students specific, reachable goals for their writing has an effect size of 0.70.
• Use word processing. Allowing students to word-process their writing is helpful at every stage of the writing process and has an effect size of 0.55. It’s especially beneficial for struggling writers.
• Practice sentence-combining. Teaching students to construct more complex and sophisticated sentences from shorter, simpler material enhances the quality of writing; it has an effect size of 0.55.
• Use prewriting. Having students create a prewriting organizer before their first draft improves the quality of writing and has an effect size of 0.32.
• Use inquiry activities. “Involving students in writing activities designed to sharpen their inquiry skills improves the quality of their writing,” says the Carnegie study. It has an effect size of 0.32.
• Use process writing. “Emphasizing real audiences, extending opportunities for writing, and providing opportunities to self-reflect” are key to improving writing, and have an effect size of 0.32.
• Look at exemplars. It helps when students look at models of good writing in different genres and consciously emulate them in their own writing. But if students read exemplars quickly and superficially, it doesn’t help. “Instead, students need to tear the examples apart until they can identify the specific tools the writer used to build the strong piece of writing,” says the study.
• Write in the content areas. Writing in social studies, science, and math is helpful, with an effect size of 0.25.

By Diane McMillan
MASSP Associate Director
Just about everywhere I go these days, I hear frustrated and sometimes angry educators weighing in on the details of the Michigan Merit Curriculum Personal Curriculum (PC). With MDE, special educators, ISDs, superintendents, Central Office personnel, and others all vigorously expressing their views about the RIGHT WAY, to implement the personal curriculum language in the Michigan Merit Curriculum, it’s much like having too many cooks in the kitchen. Principals, while you have a million things on your plate, this is one process that you may want to step up to take on the role as the head chef and take control of the soup, or in this case, the PC planning process.

No offense to other educators and interested parties involved in the process, but you, the principal, have the most to loose.

• Too many Personal Curriculums granted and you may find the state superintendent knocking on your superintendent’s door. As, the building leader, your superintendent will be paying you a visit.
• Too many Personal Curriculums and you will find yourself in the position as a non-AYP school because too many of your students have not taken enough of the MMC content to be proficient on the MME. We all know that the PRINCIPAL is the only educator mentioned specifically in the NCLB sanctions who can loose their JOB, if their school consistently fails to meet AYP
• And most importantly, too many personal curriculums, and you may graduate students who are not ready for education beyond high school and the world of work. It is unfair to students to allow them to graduate without all the requisite skills and knowledge needed for life in the global world of the 21st Century. There are no “personal curriculums” in the world in which our students will live.

Michigan principals have been at the forefront in advocating for students in Michigan. Michigan principals led the charge for a college readiness examination for all the students in Michigan. It was a hard fought victory for our students. Principals were also at the forefront advocating for graduation requirements that will make our students college and work ready and able to compete in the global economy.

So, I’m going to look at the Personal Curriculum through the lens of the role of the principal as the instructional leader of the building. Also, in my former role as high school redesign consultant at MDE, I was directly privy to what was the intent of the lawmakers who wrote this section of the law about the personal curriculum and I reviewed the final language. I can say with confidence that the intent of the personal curriculum, as envisioned by the crafters of the section, has been way overblown and has made much more complicated than intended.

#1—My first visit would be with the Superintendent of School.

• Ask to design the Personal Curriculum planning process with my building team
• Find out the superintendent’s thoughts on who will be the superintendent’s designee and Central office support.
• Discuss potential Board policy additions and revisions Set time lines for the completion and submission of the proposal

#2—My next step would be to gather together a building team that includes counselors, special education personnel, department chairs, career and technology educators, administrators and union representatives to do a close read of the actual section of the Michigan Merit Standard law that talks about the personal curriculum.

• I would pay attention to words like “may” instead of “shall”, “assessment” instead of “exam or test,” “credit” instead of “course”, “in communication with” and not quarterly meeting. The law says a district “may” devise a personal curriculum, and “may” award a diploma. The diploma belongs to the local school district and is signed by YOU, the building principal. Although most districts will write personal curriculums and will award diplomas for the completion of the personal curriculum, this is not a mandate.

• In your proposal to the Superintendent, suggest a clear Board policy to outline when, how, and if completion of the personal curriculum will result in a diploma.

The idea of “cut scores” and “alternate cut scores” does not appear in the section 5 of the MMS that outlines the personal curriculum. My guess is that the “cut scores” referred to in the MDE guidance document are related to the part of the law that describes what is “credit”. According to the MMS, credit is granted “in part” by earning a qualifying score on an assessment or assessments of the subject content expectations. The qualifying score chosen by the district. Local districts determine the “part” and the “assessment(s)”.

This assessment was never intended to override the teacher’s grade and evaluation, nor be the sole basis for failure. Districts can choose what assessments they will use and how much weight they will carry in determining if the student will receive credit. Districts have chosen to use everything from individual teacher finals, department finals, portfolios (especially in subject areas that don’t lend themselves to paper and pencil examinations), capstone projects, district developed finals, etc as the assessment.

This notion of cut scores and alternate cut scores is confusing and complicated. Since it is not a part of the PC language in the law, I would not include it in the PC discussion, other than to define how “credit” is awarded in your building. In making the PC, the student and parent should have a clear idea of how “credit” will be earned.

The language “the parent must be “in communication with” each teacher every calendar in the personal curriculum was deliberately chosen to allow more options for parents than just face to face meetings. There is no need to reinvent the wheel here. Quarterly communication can take the form of meetings, phone calls, scheduled progress reports, report card notes, letters, school websites, emails, conference calls, etc. The communications can be scheduled at the PC planning session.

#3–Do an environmental scan to determine the human resources, financial costs, and other materials needed to carry out the personal curriculum process. Again, a close read of the law is in order. The law says: “…and the pupil’s high school counselor or another designee qualified under section 1233 or 1233a selected by the high school principal.” The intent here is to provide flexibility to principals if a school counselor is not available. School administrators who have a teaching degree, department chairs, and the student advisers (in schools with an advisory program) can be enlisted to relieve the time pressure on the counselor. Also, it seems that individuals from the ISD, Special Education and/or Central Office could also fill in on teams. Department chairs and curriculum specialists could also be involved, especially if a student wants to modify the content expectations as part of their personal curriculum plan.

#4–Develop guidelines for “practicable for the pupil” provision. Besides the EDP, IEP and Transition Plan, take into account that students may have other aspirations and goals. For example:

• If the student is a talented athlete, then the NCAA Clearinghouse list of eligible classes must be a consideration for the PC development.
• If the student is a gifted art, career and technology student or music student, the PC should not impede scholarship, apprenticeship, or admissions opportunities.

• If your student is scheduled to take the MME in the junior year, the PC should include enough of the MMC to earn a college-reportable score and a shot at the Michigan Promise grant. The MDE mathematics and science departments have already identified pre and post MME content expectations that could be used as a guide when determining what is “practicable.

# 5–Involve others in the planning process before submitting the final proposal.

• District Office
• ISDs/RESAs
• Teachers’ Union
• MDE

Some other things:

• Remember, you don’t have to say YES to every personal curriculum plan. There may be other avenues to help the student accomplish their goals. Testing out after remediation, a systematic approach to interventions, online opportunities, early warning systems, a change of program, dual enrollment, advanced placement, as well as multiple and varied assessment opportunities (or a combination of these strategies) may be an answer before writing a personal curriculum.
• As part of the process, you can establish timeframes or windows for the application process to manage the workflow of your staff.
• As principal, you may want to hold yourself out of the initial PC development process, so that you can be the final line of appeal.
• MASSP has posted information, including sample forms from other districts that are also working on the development from their PC process, as well as the PowerPoints from the PC webinars. Visit the link often, as we will continue to update it when we get new information. You can also post your own forms to share with your colleagues.

So, principals, in this case, I urge you to take charge of your destiny. Take the lead with your faculty to develop a Personal Curriculum planning process that works for your students, families, staff, superintendent, and you. You have the ability to keep the process simple, efficient, and uncomplicated. No one else is better equipped and, perhaps, no one else has more at stake.

By Steven M. Beyer
Associate Principal, Stevenson HS

Doing What We Do Best:
A Simple Straight Forward Approach to Improving Student Achievement

One of the great advantages of being a building administrator is that you see first hand the issues confronting public education. I see the Keep-It- Simple approach as the easiest, most straight forward way to improve student achievement. Most of the improvements that I am about to suggest are not only simple- many of my ideas cost very little new tax payer dollars. Some of my ideas do ask for a shifting of educational dollars- a change in paradigm to use an old, overused educational cliché.

Living in Southeastern Michigan we see first hand the impact that the changing auto industry has had on the people of this region. I would suggest that many of my ideas need to be applied to the auto industry as well. We know how to make cars in Metro Detroit and in education, we know how to educate students. Now, we have to put in place simple, common sense changes so the focus is on student achievement, just like the auto industry has to focus on only one task which is building high quality, fuel efficient cars that Americans want to buy.

Here are my simple, common sense ideas that can be instituted with little or no new educational dollars:
#1: All Schools should have a common grading scale for every assignment. The grading scale should be computed on the 4.0 scale so there is only a ten point difference between scores.

If a student doesn’t complete an assignment they are given a zero, like they should. The zero however, is in direct proportion to all the other grades a student has earned. Use of a 4.0 grading scale does mean that teachers have to weigh grades. The result is that student achievement is measured accurately and the value of every assignment is in direct proportion to all the others. “A pound of flesh” is not welded from a student for a zero. A zero is simply a zero, and is based on a ten point division, not a sixty point division which is far too common using a traditional one hundred point grading scale.

#2: No Extra Credit should be given in a class. Instead of extra credit, students who need support should be allowed to do multiple assessments in order to show mastery.
I believe that students should be allowed to do correctives and rewrites in order to earn another chance at retaking an assessment. Give the students a second, even a third chance to show they have mastered the material. Book reports, leaf collections, dioramas, posters, PowerPoint presentations should not be used as a substitute for having students show they have mastered key concepts of a class. I love to see dodecahedrons hanging from the ceiling of a Geometry class, but these items are no substitute for students knowing how to solve for sloop, or solve proofs.

#3: All high schools should give only the ACT test on the prescribed test day. No other MME supplemental tests should be given. Only juniors who are taking the test should report to school on that day.
If we make taking the ACT a requirement for graduation, schools can easily meet the 95% tested standard on the state wide testing day. All MME supplemental tests should be shifted to common statewide course-end final exams/secondary credit assessments for every subject listed in the Michigan Merit curriculum. The shift in paradigm hoped for here is that the data examined by public will change from MME test scores to how students scored on common final exams or assessments, and their ACT composite score.

#4: We should dedicate the half day of instruction that is associated with Parent-Teacher Conferences as fall testing day. Schools should give a nationally-normed test to every student at each high school grade level.
This gives schools data on how students are performing, and gives students practice taking a nationally-normed test. When students take the ACT test in the spring of their junior year the score they earn should reflect what they have learned in school. A simple approach would be:

• Ninth Graders take the Explore Test
• Tenth Graders take the Plan Test
• Eleventh Graders take an ACT Practice Test

Twelfth graders may opt out a test if they have made application to a post secondary school, community college, trade school, or the military. This idea would cost school districts, but resources could be easily shifted so we have direct data on each student’s individual performance on a nationally normed test. Any changes in the curriculum would be based on student testing data that support proposed changes.

#5: The quickest way to show measurable improvement in student learning is to have students write more often.
Students need to be writing at least one piece of writing in every class at least once a week. The writing should be scored for subject specific content, and on the six point ACT writing rubric. Student writing should be done so it is part of the natural flow of a class. Students need to be writing lab reports in Chemistry, not personal narratives. The focus of all writing should be like this article, in which the writer takes a position based on their own learning and experience. Students need to use writing to express in simple, straightforward terms of what they have learned.

#6: Students who fail a core class should start retaking this course immediately.
Students who fail a core class should begin the make-up process following the last regularly scheduled class of the day. If the student is involved in extra curricular activities-they will miss these events, because our common sense, simple approach as a school is that student achievement is our only focus.
What do you do about transportation for these students who have to stay beyond the regular school day? We will ask student and their parents to provide their own transportation. Our focus is on making sure that all students achieve, if transportation is a problem the easiest solution is to pass the class during the regular school day.

#7: High School should start at 8:50 a.m.
If districts run a tiered bus system the high school should be the late school and the elementary schools should be the early schools. In single run bus districts the same logic should prevail. All school should start near the nine o’clock hour. The benefit to this common sense approach is that on snowy mornings, the later starts gives more time for the roads to be cleared, thus limiting the number of snow days.

Research from Minnesota consistently shows that high school students need a minimum of nine hours of sleep. A later start to the school day makes getting the proper amount of sleep possible. Since the need for student sleep is an important factor in improving student achievement, districts should start evening events at 5:00 p.m. This would allow students to be home early enough in the evening to get a full nine hours of sleep.

Each of these ideas are simple, straightforward, pragmatic changes that can dramatically improve student achievement. May of these ideas require little or no money to implement. Some ideas involve subtle changes in the way the state uses assessment dollars to measure student achievement. Most of these ideas suggest changes using a common sense approach. These ideas are seeped in research data that show these approaches improve student achievement.

The Keep-it-Simple approach helps us as educators focus on what we are paid to do, and in fact what we do best–Educate Students!

Steven M. Beyer, February, 2008
Steven Beyer is Associate Principal at Stevenson High School in Sterling Heights, Michigan, a 2,125 student building grades 10-12. Stevenson High School is one of four high schools in Utica Community Schools

The Executive Budget presented by Governor Jennifer Granholm just last month may already be in trouble, but the problem at this point is not a repeat of last year’s budget impasse between the Executive Office and the Legislature. This time, as it was going into last year’s budget debacle, the issue is again money—or, more specifically, the lack thereof.

This week, the members of the Senate Appropriations Committee were given a presentation by Senate Fiscal Agency (SFA) Director Gary Olson in which he said the proposed Executive Budget couldn’t be enacted without additional revenues. The proposal, which Ms. Granholm labeled her “best ever,” called for funding increases for higher education and community colleges along with an increase in the basic grant awarded to welfare recipients. According to Mr. Olson, the proposed budget’s total spending may have to be adjusted downward by nearly $250 million due, in part, to lower projections for property tax revenues and the ongoing tobacco settlement payments dispute. Mr. Olson also said the Senate Fiscal Agency now predicts revenues for the current fiscal year will come in some $134 million below current expectations but that shortage should not necessarily result in Executive Order reductions or the proration of school aid payments.

Ironically, Mr. Olson noted the anticipated stimulus program approved by the federal government would prove to be a mixed blessing to Michigan. Mr. Olson argued the program will reduce General Fund revenues due to accelerated business depreciation allowances, a stimulus feature that will reduce state tax revenues by more than $22 million in the current fiscal year and by nearly $115 million in the 2008-09 Fiscal Year. Conversely, Mr. Olson said projections anticipate stronger consumer spending when the stimulus checks arrive which would boost Sales Tax totals and add an estimated $54 million to the School Aid Fund this fiscal year and some $19 million in the coming year. Mr. Olson also noted that there is not unanimity for this assessment among the state’s top financial officials with the Treasury Department in disagreement over the predictions.

Responding to Mr. Olson’s presentation, officials with the State Budget Office agreed the state’s revenue stream deserved careful and constant monitoring. However, they also noted the May Revenue Estimating Conference—which historically sets the final income and spending numbers for the budget process—is still more than two months off. That exercise, they said, would determine “where we stand.” Budget Office officials also argued the items included in the Governor’s “very modest supplemental” spending request were “necessary and affordable,” needed to be done before the end of the fiscal year and should not be subject to any limitations. Conversely, on a more ominous note, House Fiscal Agency Director Mitch Bean said his agency’s revenue estimates were “in the same ballpark” as those cited by Mr. Olson.

As for legislative members, Senate Appropriations Committee Chair Ron Jelinek (R-Three Oaks) advised subcommittee members to be cautious as they develop their suggested spending plans. That sentiment was echoed by Senator Michael Switalski (D-Roseville), the Committee’s Democratic Vice-Chair, who said the admonishment to exercise caution in developing the individual budgets was good advice to heed. Based on the budget schedule released by the two Appropriations Committee chairs, subcommittees are set to start reporting their proposals to the full committee next week.

By Jim Ballard
Executive Director

It’s been an interesting week for MASSP in Lansing. Two of our legislative initiatives have received public support from some very important players.

Most immediate are our efforts to reform some areas of the Michigan Merit Examination. This is being written two days before many of you administer the Michigan Merit Exam so I think this might catch your attention. Staff of the Chair of the Senate Appropriations Committee has told us he has instructed them to include all our MME amendments in his School Aid Bill that is scheduled to be released this week. This is a big step – right sponsor in the right bill. Second, MDE assessment staff announced last week at the testing conference that the 2009 assessment most likely will include the third component of the WorkKeys and that the open-ended responses in the social studies test will be dropped. This keeps in place the ACT writing portion. Given the financial news, Senators will be looking for ways to save money and our $4.2M savings in retakes should look attractive. So, in summary, everything we wanted seems to be falling in place.

MASSP received a big vote of confidence last week when from the speaker platform at the Governor’s Education Summit, State Superintendent Mike Flanagan mentioned that he agrees with the need to amend the personal curriculum legislation to allow an off-ramp as being presented by our association. That same day we met with vice-chair of the House Education Committee to make sure our off-ramp was included in possible amendments. Follow-up meetings are scheduled.

We have had meetings on the expansion of management rights for building principals upon a schools listing as not meeting AYP. These meetings continue, but no one is rushing to put this legislation in place.

By Brad Banasik, Legal Counsel
Michigan Association of School Boards

As a safety measure, many school districts have installed video cameras in school buses, buildings and parking lots. The cameras provide administrators with an extra set of eyes to deter and watch for unacceptable or illegal conduct. Another benefit of video cameras is the strong evidence they can preserve on tape for disciplinary decisions and liability claims.

However, when a school district uses video cameras, it may be creating an “education record” that is subject to the requirements and regulations of the Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act (FERPA). If a surveillance videotape is found to be an “education record,” then the disclosure of the recording to a parent of a student appearing in the tape or to anyone in general could be restricted. FERPA prohibits school districts from releasing personally identifiable information (other than directory information ) contained in a student’s education records to anyone but certain enumerated federal, state, and local officials and institutions, unless authorized by the student’s parent.

The question of whether surveillance videotape constitutes an education record for a particular student is, unfortunately, not an easy question for school districts to answer. Accordingly, this article will attempt to clarify the issues involved in determining whether a video recording qualifies as an education record and provide guidance to school districts on the possible legal implications associated with disclosing or withholding video recordings.

The Likely Scenario

A fight erupts in the high school cafeteria. The altercation, at first, is limited to two students, but other students get involved either as peacemakers or as additional aggressors in defending one of the original combatants. In particular, most of the additional participants include members of the football team because the instigator of the fight is the high school’s starting quarterback. In the aftermath of the altercation, the quarterback is suspended for five days from school and prohibited from playing in the final two games of the football season. His adversary was taken to the hospital for treatment on cuts and a broken nose; he was suspended for two days. The other members of the football team who were aggressors received the same disciplinary treatment as the quarterback.

The altercation was recorded by four video cameras positioned in the cafeteria. The recordings, which contain recognizable images of all the students who were in the cafeteria, are stored on a CD-ROM disk. The video system used by the school does not allow the recordings to be edited or the video images to be altered for the purpose of ensuring that footage can always be considered legitimate evidence.

In time, the school district receives several requests to view the altercation or receive a copy of the CD-ROM disk. The parents of the quarterback wish to view the footage to prove that their son was only acting in self-defense. Several other parents are certain that the video would show that the other football players were trying to break up the fight, rather than teaming up on the other student. The parents of the injured student are considering a civil lawsuit against the quarterback and would like to have a copy of the disk for evidence. The local police department would like to use the disk as evidence to commence a criminal proceeding against the quarterback. And, of course, the local newspaper would like to receive a copy of the disk for a story on the disciplined football players.

Does FERPA permit the parents of the disciplined students to view or receive a copy of the CD-ROM disk? Does Michigan’s Freedom of Information Act require the disk to be disclosed? The answers to these questions depend on whether the disk is an “education record” under FERPA for the identified students.

What is an “Education Record?”

As noted above, FERPA generally prohibits the disclosure to third parties of “personally identifiable” information contained in “education records,” without the consent of a parent or eligible student. The term “education records” is defined by FERPA as all records, files documents and other materials containing information directly related to a student; and maintained by the education agency or institution, or by a person acting for such agency or institution. This includes all records regardless of medium, including, but not limited to, handwriting, videotape or audiotape, electronic or computer files, film, print, microfilm, and microfiche. “Personally identifiable” information includes, but is not limited to, a list of personal characteristics that would make the student’s identity easily traceable, or other information that would make the student’s identity easily traceable.

Thus, without considering any of the five exceptions relating to the definition of an education record, a surveillance videotape would appear to constitute an education record if the images on the video directly relate to specific students and it is maintained by the school. And, if the video images personally identify individual students, the disclosure of the videotape would, accordingly, be restricted. However, varying and conflicting interpretations by the Family Policy Compliance Office (FPCO), courts, and state attorney generals in regards to how the definition of education records applies to surveillance videotapes complicate the status of video images for purposes of complying with FERPA and state public records laws.

The FPCO’s Original Interpretation

In Letter re: Berkeley School District, (hereinafter “Berkeley Letter”) the FPCO concluded that a parent may only inspect a school videotape showing his or her child engaged in misbehavior if no other students are pictured. It stated in relevant part:

“If education records of a student contain information on more than one student, the parent requesting access to education records has the right to inspect and review, or be informed of, only the information in the record directly related to his or her child…. If, on the other hand, another student is pictured fighting in the videotape, you would not have the right to inspect and review that portion of the videotape.”

Consequently, based on the Berkeley Letter, videotapes are education records for each student depicted in a video image.

The FPCO’s New Unofficial Interpretation

After issuing the Berkeley Letter, the FPCO has apparently provided “informal advice” to attorneys and school districts on a case-by-case basis in regards to questions about how the definition of education records applies to surveillance videotapes. The new unofficial guidance by the FPCO provides that video images are education records only for the students “directly related” to the focus or subject of the video (i.e., a fight, drug deal, or some other disturbance that causes the students to be the focal point of the video). In other words, if a camera captured an altercation, the resulting videotape would constitute an education record for the students actively involved in the altercation; other students in the background of the video, whether walking down the hall, sitting on the bus, or eating lunch, would be considered “set dressing” (not relevant to the incident) and their images would not be covered by FERPA.

Additionally, the Texas Attorney General refers to the FPCO’s new unpublished position in two opinions that address the disclosure of a school’s surveillance videotape that includes footage of an altercation. The opinions note:

[T]he Family Policy Compliance Office of the Department of Education (“DOE”) has determined that videotapes of this type do not constitute the education records of students who did not participate in the altercation. The DOE has, however, determined that the images of the students involved in the altercation do constitute the education records of those students. Thus, FERPA does apply to the students involved in the altercation. Further, DOE has determined that the students involved in the altercation are directly related to each other because of the altercation.

The opinions ultimately allowed the parent whose son was involved in the altercation to review and inspect the videotape. While the videotape included images of other students who were part of the focus of the videotape as a result of their participation in the altercation, the opinions determined that consent from their parents was unnecessary for the review and inspection of the videotape because the students’ images were directly related to the requestor’s son.

Court Cases

In a 2005 case, a New York state court reached the conclusion that a school district surveillance tape was not an education record within the meaning of FERPA and, therefore, was subject to disclosure. In deviating from the FPCO’s Berkeley Letter, the court based its decision on the purpose of FERPA:

This Federal statute is intended to protect records relating to an individual student’s performance. FERPA is not meant to apply to records, such as the videotape in question which was recorded to maintain the physical security and safety of the school building and which does not pertain to the educational performance of the students captured on this tape.

The court did refer to the FPCO’s Berkeley Letter, but determined that, in this case, the student’s due process rights outweighed the school district’s interest in protecting any claimed confidentiality on the tape.

More recently, the Washington State Supreme Court ruled that a videotape from a school bus surveillance camera was subject to public disclosure under state law. In this case, the school district denied a request by a parent to view the videotape on the basis that it was exempt from disclosure under Washington’s Public Disclosure Act (PDA) according to a student file exemption. Similar to FERPA, the student file exemption protects the confidentiality of student records in Washington by exempting from disclosure “[p]ersonal information in any files maintained for students in public schools….”

In reaching its decision, the court limited the student file exemption to only cover information that is both “personal” and “maintained for students;” it then adopted the same line of reasoning as the New York court by emphasizing that a surveillance camera primarily serves as a means of maintaining security and safety on school buses. Consequently, videotapes produced by a surveillance camera are, in the court’s opinion, significantly different from the types of records schools traditionally maintained in students’ personal files, such as a student’s grades, standardized test results, assessments, or class schedules.

Waiting for Clarification from the FPCO

School officials and school attorneys are anxiously waiting for the FPCO to provide formal, written guidance on the status of school video footage under FERPA. The National School Boards Association (NSBA) has continued to press the FPCO to clarify its current position on how FERPA’s definition of education records applies to surveillance videotapes while considering state public records laws and the above court cases. The fact that the FPCO has acknowledged that it is currently working on formal guidance is, hopefully, a sign that school districts will soon be able to rely on an official position from the FPCO in handling public records requests for surveillance videotapes.

In the interim, some of the confusion over releasing and withholding surveillance videotapes could be eliminated if the videos are created and maintained in such a manner that they qualify as a recognized exception to FERPA’s definition of education records. The exceptions neither require nor prohibit the release of such exempted documents, but allow schools to follow their own policies or applicable state law in regards to their disclosure. Of the five exceptions, the one that could apply to student images captured on videotape is the exception for the records of law enforcement units.

The Law Enforcement Unit Exception

FERPA excludes from the definition of education records – and thereby from the restrictions of FERPA – records that a law enforcement unit of a school or school district creates and maintains for a law enforcement purpose. A “law enforcement unit” is an individual, office, department, division, or other component of a school district – such as a unit of commissioned officers or noncommissioned security guards – that is officially authorized or designated by the school district to enforce any federal, state, or local law or maintain the physical security and safety of the school.

FERPA narrowly defines a law enforcement record as a record that is (1) created by the law enforcement unit, (2) for a law enforcement purpose, and (3) maintained by the law enforcement unit. Thus, while a school district can disclose, without student consent, student education records to school law enforcement units under FERPA’s exception for school officials with legitimate educational interests , these records are not thereby converted into law enforcement unit records because the records were not created by the law enforcement unit.

Maintaining Videotapes as Law Enforcement Records

If a school district wishes to exclude security videotapes from the restrictions of FERPA, it should consider designating a department or an individual to serve as the district’s law enforcement unit responsible for controlling the surveillance cameras and maintaining the resulting videotapes. As long as the videotapes are created for a law enforcement purpose (i.e., maintaining the physical security and safety of a school) and they remain in the possession of the law enforcement unit, the videotapes constitute law enforcement, rather than education, records.

The law enforcement unit’s responsibilities relating to law enforcement records do not, however, prevent the designated individual or department from also performing non-law enforcement unit functions for the school district, including investigation of incidents or conduct that constitutes or leads to a disciplinary action or proceedings against the student. In the preamble to the FERPA regulations published in the Federal Register, on January 17, 1995, the U.S. Department of Education clarified further the status of records created by an individual or a department responsible for performing law enforcement and school related functions:

[W]here a law enforcement unit also performs non-law enforcement functions, the records created and maintained by that unit are considered law enforcement unit records, even where those records were created for dual purposes (e.g. for both law enforcement and disciplinary purposes). Only records that were created and maintained by the unit exclusively for a non-law enforcement purpose will not be considered records of a law enforcement unit.

Additionally, a law enforcement official may permit a school official responsible for discipline to view a surveillance videotape without risking the videotape’s status as a “law enforcement unit record.” However, if a school official who is not a law enforcement official receives a copy of the surveillance videotape, that videotape becomes an education record subject to FERPA as a result of the copy being maintained by a component of the school district that is not the law enforcement unit.

A school district creating a law enforcement unit must have its school board take action to establish the unit. Parents and students should also be notified of which office or school official will serve as the school’s law enforcement unit. This can be accomplished by including the designation in a board policy, student handbook, or in the school district’s annual notification to parents of their rights under FERPA. Law enforcement unit officials who are employed by the school district should also be designated as “school officials” with a legitimate educational interest” in the FERPA notification in order for them to receive personally identifiable information from student’s education records.

Disclosing Law Enforcement Unit Records

Because law enforcement unit records are excluded from the definition of educations records, schools may disclose information from them to anyone without parental consent. The issue of whether a school district must disclose records of a law enforcement unit is regulated by section 13(1)(b) of Michigan’s Freedom of Information Act (FOIA). Under this provision, a public body may exempt from disclosure investigating records compiled for law enforcement purposes, but only to the extent that disclosure as a public record would do any of the following: “(i) interfere with law enforcement proceedings, (ii) deprive a person of the right to a fair trial or impartial administrative adjudication, or (iii) constitute an unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.”

Further, the grounds for preventing the disclosure of records in connection with an ongoing investigation include “fears of revealing evidence, witnesses, prospective testimony, the transactions being investigated, the direction of the investigation, governmental strategy, prospective new defendants, and the scope and limits of the government’s investigation.”

Conclusion

The hypothetical scenario at the beginning of the article provides an example of the multiple issues involved in disclosing or withholding surveillance video footage. The issues, however, are not quite as complicated if the videotape is not education record under FERPA. If the video was created and maintained by the school’s designated law enforcement unit, then it could be disclosed to all the requesting parties without worrying about consent from the parents of any of the students directly involved in the altercation. If the school district wanted to keep the disk confidential, it would have to establish “particularized justification” for withholding the disk pursuant to section 13(1)(b) of FOIA. Thus, the disk would have to qualify as an investigatory record, and then the district would have the burden of proof to show that its disclosure would interfere with law enforcement proceedings, deprive a person of the right to a fair trial, or constitute an unwarranted invasion of privacy for the students who are shown on the video.

If the disk does not qualify as a record of a law enforcement unit, then the district must determine if the disk amounts to an education record for the students who images are captured on the video. Clearly, under guidance formally issued by the FPCO, the disk would be a record for the quarterback, the injured student, and the football players involved in the altercation. However, under a strict interpretation of the Berkeley Letter, the parents of these students could only view the tape if all of the parents consented to the disclosure. In this case, redacting portions of the tape is not an option because the school’s video system was rendered intentionally un-editable, but it could be an expensive and time consuming option for a school district that uses an editable video system.

The district could seek additional clarification from the FPCO in regards to disclosing the disk without consent to the parents of the students directly involved in the altercation. As mentioned above, the FPCO has provided “informal advice” to school officials that goes beyond the Berkeley Letter in relation to two issues: (1) a videotape that shows students in the background of an altercation or any other event is not an education record for those students, and (2) if multiple students are the focal point of an event captured on video, a school would not need to obtain consent of the parents of the students to show all the parents the video because the involved students are directly related to each other as a result of the event. However, under the unwritten guidance, the school may not give a copy of the video to any of the parents without consent from the involved students’ parents. Thus, in the scenario, the parents of all the students involved in the altercation could view the disk in the absence of consent from the students’ parents, but the lack of consent would prohibit the district from copying and releasing the disk to any of the parents. This result would prohibit the parents of the injured students from a receiving a copy of the disk for evidence in pursuing a civil lawsuit against the quarterback.

In regards to the media’s request for a copy of the disk, the FPCO’s position appears to be that the parents of the quarterback, the injured student, and the other football players have to provide unanimous consent before a copy of the disk is released.

The local police department in the scenario would likely have to issue a subpoena in order to receive a copy of the disk for commencing a criminal proceeding. This would then require the district to make reasonable efforts to notify the students’ parents of the subpoena in advance of complying with it.

This article probably raises more questions than answers. Hopefully, answers to these questions may be coming in the form of written guidance from the FPCO. NSBA and MASB will continue to monitor the FPCO’s formally issued policy guidance and will inform Michigan school officials when that guidance provides additional clarification on the status of school video footage under FERPA.

By Robert Ebersole, Assistant Legal Counsel
Michigan Association of School Boards

The Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals in Cincinnati, OH, has recently released an opinion, Brannum v Overton County School Board, ___F3d___, 2008 WL 441436, that concerns the use of surveillance cameras in a school setting. The decision clearly states that there are limits on the use of video surveillance technology in the school setting.

In an effort to enhance safety and security, surveillance cameras were installed in a Tennessee middle school and the school district did not enact guidelines or written rules at any level to govern the usage of those cameras. The building principal and assistant principal made the decision to place some of the cameras in the boys and girls locker rooms. For six months the cameras recorded district students and visiting athletic team members dressing and undressing, and the images were stored. The recorded images were also accessible via an internet connection.

The plaintiffs alleged violations of their federal constitutional rights pursuant to 42 US Code § 1983 and the Court was asked to decide a motion for summary judgment. The school district argued that the officials named in the suit should be deemed to have governmental immunity and the case dismissed.

The Court held, in a strongly worded opinion, that video surveillance is inherently intrusive, and that the students’ privacy rights were protected by the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution. The panel opined that there is a much greater expectation of privacy in a locker room than in a hallway.

The Court also noted that there were no written rules to regulate the placement of the cameras or their operation, and that no notice had been given to students and their parents that videotaping was being conducted. No evidence was presented that the school officials had a well founded concern about the safety of students in the locker rooms. It was also noted that locker rooms are places specifically designed to offer privacy and that students have a, “universal understanding,” that such locations are places of heightened privacy.

Turning to the officials who were being sued, the Court found that the superintendent/director of schools and school board members were entitled to qualified immunity from suit because they only decided to seek greater safety and security by having cameras installed and did not direct the locations where cameras should be placed. The principal and assistant principal who were delegated the authority to determine the locations of the cameras were deemed not to be immune and must now face trial.

Before a school district employs surveillance cameras in any locker or restroom facility, legal counsel should be consulted. There may be justification for the use of video technology in such places, but the facts must be examined and evaluated carefully. Consideration must also be given to notifying the students and parents of the need for and the scope of any such surveillance. Finally, written rules or regulations governing the use of the cameras and any recordings must be enacted.

[NOTE- The issue of whether a surveillance video recording of students qualifies as an “education record” under the Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act is discussed in the article “Students, FERPA and Videotape,” by Brad Banasik, MASB Legal Counsel. The article is in the Winter 2008 edition of Council News, a biannual newsletter published by the Michigan Council of School Attorneys - http://www.masb.org/pdf/MCSA_winter08.pdf.]

This article from the Thomas B. Fordham Foundation explores the relationships, and often the conflicts, between school reform and teacher union contracts.

By Chester E. Finn, Jr. and Michael J. Petrilli


It’s no real surprise that, after years of lurking menacingly in the shadows, The Contract has emerged into the spotlight, indeed has leaped to the top of the education policy agenda. Sooner or later, the purveyors of any number of flavors of school reform were bound to see their prospects entangled with teachers’ collective bargaining agreements.

Consider the standards-and-accountability movement. In its early days, reformers focused on setting clear expectations for what students should learn, developing reliable measures of whether they were learning it, and spouting vague talk about holding “schools” accountable. Eventually, though, they came up against the plain reality that one can’t really hold institutions accountable (especially when they’re not legally distinct entities); one holds people accountable. And if those people are to include teachers, their union contracts are an unavoidable issue.

So too with the school choice movement. (Those disappointed by the weak response of school districts to vouchers and charter schools eventually blame union contracts.) The “teacher quality” movement. (How to transfer great teachers to poor schools if the contract works against it?) Or those, like us, who want to see stronger school leadership and effective management. Each has collided in some sense with collective bargaining agreements (and, in non-collective bargaining states, the formal board policies that substitute for such agreements).
So, all roads lead to Rome, and all reforms lead eventually to The Contract. Hence it’s no wonder that the past few years have seen an explosion of studies, analyses, and symposia examining teacher collective bargaining agreements and their impact on just about everything that matters in education.

Some of this work has been quite good. The most impressive product has come from the National Council on Teacher Quality (NCTQ) (on whose board Finn serves), with financial help from the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation: an exhaustively detailed database that codes the collective bargaining agreements of the fifty largest school districts–along with analogous board policies in non-collective bargaining states.

Meanwhile, our friends and colleagues Rick Hess (director of education policy at the American Enterprise Institute) and Marty West (assistant professor at Brown University) published A Better Bargain: Overhauling Teacher Collective Bargaining for the 21st Century. In this crisp manifesto, they laid out a compelling argument for thinner, smarter teacher contracts, the kind that allow principals to do their jobs effectively while still protecting teachers from arbitrary and capricious behavior. They specifically identified three areas–compensation, personnel policies, and work rules–where leaders need significantly greater authority if they are to manage strong schools.

We saw the makings of a great combination: NCTQ had the data while Hess and West had the vision and theory. Put them together and perhaps we could find out which of the nation’s fifty largest school districts have contracts that allow for strong school management–and which do not.

West wasn’t available, but to our delight Hess agreed to identify the indicators in the NCTQ database that best mapped onto their vision of effective school leadership, then use them to appraise the teacher labor agreements of the nation’s big districts. The result: The Leadership Limbo.

The results are truly informative–but complicated, too, and a bit surprising. Those seeking simply to bash teacher contracts may want to stop reading now. To be sure, at the time we tapped NCTQ’s database, plenty of large school districts (fifteen, to be exact) had the sort of restrictive, cumbersome teacher union contracts that most alarm reformers. They explicitly barred school leaders from many of the practices that their peers in the business world take for granted: offering extra pay for high-demand skills or strong performance, for instance, or choosing the best applicant for a job instead of the person with greatest seniority, or outsourcing tasks that aren’t central to the organization’s mission.

Nor should reformers take solace from the fact that just five of the fifty districts in the analysis can claim relatively “flexible” teacher labor agreements that explicitly give leaders broad authority to manage their schools effectively. (The Fortunate Five are Guilford County, North Carolina; Austin, Dallas, and Northside, Texas; and Fairfax County, Virginia.) Particularly because the study is skewed to the “right to work” South–Dixie tends to organize its districts by county, making them bigger than those in the North and West, and thus is disproportionately represented in any study of the “largest” districts–it’s disappointing to see so few leader-friendly agreements.

Yet the most surprising finding is that labor agreements in a majority of large districts are neither blessedly flexible nor crazily restrictive: they are simply ambiguous, silent on many key areas of management flexibility, neither tying leaders’ hands outright nor explicitly conferring authority on them to act. We call this the “Leadership Limbo.” And we take it as more good than bad, for it means, at least in the short run, that aggressive superintendents and principals could push the envelope and claim authority for any management prerogative not barred outright by the labor agreements. And it means that, for a majority of big districts, the depiction of The Contract as an all-powerful, insurmountable barrier to reform may be overstated.

But don’t call us naïve. The long run may be very different and leaders who move aggressively to exploit contractual ambiguities may end up paying the price. Teacher unions have ways of tying leaders’ hands beyond getting explicit language into collective bargaining agreements.

Still, reform-minded leaders should take some heart. In the report, we offer our advice for language to fight for in the next contract negotiation, language that others have succeeded in getting into contracts in their own districts. In the meantime, most leaders can push the envelope more than their lawyers may be telling them–a measure of management flexibility is waiting to be seized.

In July, high school students from throughout the state will attend a highly acclaimed camp that helps them develop their leadership potential. Unfortunately, many schools do not have the funds to help their students attend this life-enhancing camp. And, many eligible students cannot pay their own way.
For the second consecutive year, the SET SEG Educational Foundation will provide financial assistance via scholarships to high schools whose students wish to attend the Michigan Association of Student Councils/Michigan Association of Honor Societies (MASC/MAHS) Summer Leadership Camp at Albion College, July 27- Aug. 1.
READ MORE

What Some See As The Goal of MI’s 21st Century Schools

There seems to be little support for Governor Granholm’s education initiative, MI’s 21st Century Schools. Click here for a summary of this initiative as first proposed. The way it’s developed, for many, there is not a lot to like.

Click here to view a video of a principal’s story about his high school, Locke High School, in the Watts area in Los Angles, CA. It’s stories like this that motivate Michigan’s policymakers to look for new ways to organize high schools with high failure rates.

By Diane McMillan
Associate Director

As stated in the January 2008 article, the grade level and high school Content Expectations are huge steps in the direction towards the goal of preparing all students for postsecondary education and work. However, unless implemented with fidelity and in ways that address the learning styles of all students, they remain words on trapped pieces of paper.

To make the content expectations come to life for students, educators must have and be able to use a variety of instructional and assessment strategies to enable student access to the curriculum, motivate student learning, and provide data for achievement.

One of the benchmarks of highly successful schools is the skill of the faculty to use varied and appropriate strategies to foster student learning. As administrators, you would want to see multiple active learning strategies in your classrooms, coupled with multiple assessments to document student learning.

Some Broad Categories of Instructional Strategies
(There are several specific strategies in each of these Categories. Click here for a Glossary of Instructional Strategies)

• Reading and Writing Strategies Across the Curriculum
• Small Group/Collaborative Learning
• Project-Based Learning
• Inquiry Based Learning
• Problem Based Learning
• Demonstration & Presentation
• Coaching/Modeling
• Scaffolding
• Self-directed Learning
• Whole Group Lecture/Discussion

The Problem with Lecture-Based Instruction

Lecture/Whole Group Instruction remains the predominant mode of instruction employed by most secondary teachers. However, most people tend to forget what they hear. According to Mel Silberman, Active Learning: 101 Strategies to Teach Any Subject, There are several reasons why most people tend to forget what they hear.
• The rate at which a teacher speaks and a student listens are different. Most teachers speak about 100 to 200 words per minute. If a student is listening attentively, they hear only 50 or 100 words, because listening requires thinking.
• It’s hard to concentrate for a sustained period of time. One study showed that students retain 70 percent of the first 10 minutes of a lecture and only 20 percent during the last 10 minutes (McKeachie, 1986)

Other Problems with Lecture (Johnson, Johnson, & Smith, 1991)
• Student attention decreases with each passing minute
• It appeals only to auditory learners.
• It tends to promote lower level learning of factual information
• It assumes that all students need the same information and at the same pace.
• Students tend not to like it.

Adding visuals can increase retention from 14-38 percent. Also, the instructor can appeal to a wider audience of students who are visual and/or auditory learners. “But,” Silberman says, “merely hearing something and seeing something is not enough to learn it.”

So, as administrator, you would want to see lecture used at times when the teacher wants to impart lower level factual information and then in short “lecture bursts”, keeping in mind the information above.

Multiple Assessments

Using a variety of assessments will also give educators a more accurate picture of what the students actually know and can do. Performance-based assessments require students to demonstrate higher order thinking skills. Just as the lecture, the paper and pencil standardized test has its place, but cannot tell alone what a student has learned. Used along with other assessment measures, an educator can get a more accurate picture of student achievement and mastery of the content expectations.

Types of Assessment Measures (Examples from MDE High School Assessment Action Team report, March 2006)

• High School Tests (summative and formative)
• Course/Credit Assessments
• Portfolios
• Certificate of Mastery Assessments
• Capstone Projects
• Inventories and Surveys
• Adjudicated Performances
• Exhibitions

By working with faculty, principals can provide professional learning opportunities and collaborative learning sessions, as well as feedback coaching to help in the effective implementation of the grade level and high school content expectations.
Other Resources

Instructional Strategies for Engaging Learners
Instructional Strategies
Instructional Strategies online

By Pat Wilson O’Leary
Vicksburg Community Schools

The classroom is where the rubber meets the road in schools. Our best assessments, curriculum, and instruction make it or don’t within the separate four walls of the classroom.

This article is second in a series of three concerning walk-through observations. As clarified in the first art, what you observe in the classrooms won’t be of most importance if you haven’t done your legwork first:
• You have defined your purposes for walk-throughs (WT).
• You have brainstormed with staff what your School Improvement Plan looks and sounds like at each grade level and content area.
• You have invited teachers to accompany you.
• You have decided what note taking method you will use.
• You are ready to make your quick visit.

The plan looks like this:

1. Move away from the door, to the back or side of the classroom.
2. Scan the student population and notice where their attention is focused.
3. Walk to all four walls. Notice what is on the walls, white board, or screen.
4. Talk to two or three students, without interrupting instruction.
5. Thank the teacher and students and leave the classroom quietly.

In our first article, we defined a WT as a 5-10 minute focused, unscheduled observation in a classroom. When you enter the room, move away from the door. Show your signal to the teacher that you are in for a WT, not delivering a message or coming for a child. Some principals show the back of their clip board which is labeled “WALK-THROUGH” in bold letters. Some pull an index card from their pocket.

Resist taking your laptop. The laptop increases teacher concern, takes some of your valuable observation time for set-up, and confines you to one part of the room. If more than one administrator or teacher is in the room, separate and do not talk to each other. Otherwise, you risk distracting or worrying the teacher you are observing

Depending on the agreements you have with your staff, you will look for one or all of the factors listed below. Or you and your staff may be focusing on a specific program component; i.e. guided reading, math manipulatives, algebraic thinking, etc. Observe and note only those factors to which you and your staff have agreed.

Student engagement: Scan the student audience. Where is their attention? Note the number attending to the teacher, the activity, screen, text. If taking notes, do not write judgment statements like “A few students in class were bored.”). Instead, write data statements like: “At 10:25 there are 15 of 22 students looking at teacher. Five students writing, 2 have head on desk and eyes closed.”

Classroom management: What evidence do you see of classroom management? Look for and note bulletin boards which state a discipline plan, i.e. classroom rules, rewards, and consequences. What routines are evident?

Examples of Classroom Rules and Routines
• The teacher asks for and only call on students who raise their hands.
• A bathroom pass is hanging by the door, and a student quietly gets up, takes the pass, exits the room, and returns quietly.

Curriculum: How do you know what is being taught? Note if the objective, big idea, or goal is on the board, or monitor all student responses to see if they know the lesson objectives. Are they frequently stated by the teacher.

Instruction: What methods of instruction are being used? Is it lecture, whole group, individual, or small group? At what level of Bloom’s Taxonomy are the questions and activities geared? Are a variety of methods and thinking skills encouraged?

Walk the Walls: Don’t catch yourself in one corner of the room. What is visible in the classroom? Brain research encourages educators at at all levels to have an attractive, colorful room with cues for content and processes being taught. Do you see Word Walls, number lines, timelines, writing process posters, a Periodic Table, maps? Are items fresh or brown and curled at the edges? Is the wall being used as a current teaching tool? List what you see.

Talk to students: During work time, quietly ask several students, “What are you doing?” “Why?” If a student replies, “Seat work,” ask a more probing question like, “What is the content and/or purpose of this work?” The students’ responses will indicate if students are just being compliant or if they are really thinking.

Resist going to your office and rewriting the notes. It will take too much time and be an excuse to not do WTs. If you have told teachers you are keeping notes, make a copy for your file and return the original to the teacher when you talk. Do not keep copies if that is not your agreement. Hidden records will break the trust you built in setting up the WT process. This data is meant to provide specific conversation starters and dialogue enhancers.

With practice, you will perfect the 5 – 10 minute scan. You will gather data to share with your teachers.

The final article to appear in MASSP newsletter in May of 2008 will clarify the sharing of data and coaching process.

Pat Wilson O’Leary, Instructional Specialist
Vicksburg Community Schools
301 S. Kalamazoo St.
Vicksburg, Michigan 49097
269-321-1038

Pat is available to contract Walk-Through Training in your district.

Article of Interest
Ziegler, Corrie. “Walk-Throughs Provide Stepped-Up Support.” Journal of Staff Development, Fall 2006 (Vol. 27, No. 4).

By Kevin Mowrer,
Principal, Manchester High School

A current elementary model is making its way to the middle and high school ranks. The tiered intervention approach has captured the attention of secondary administrators who are looking for ways to support struggling students in the Michigan Merit Curriculum.

The Michigan’s Integrated Behavior and Learning Support Initiative (MiBLSi) was identified by the Michigan Department of Education (MDE) in 2002. It was funded under Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) and a grant from MDE to three Intermediate School Districts: Macomb, Ottawa, and Kalamazoo.

What is MiBLSi? It is based upon effective practices in early literacy and positive behavior support which is documented through federally-funded research. According to the MDE memorandum on MiBLSi, “The overall goal of MiBLSi is to develop support systems and sustained implementation of a data driven outcomes model in elementary schools to help students become better readers with social skills necessary for success. This includes all students, including those with disabilities.”

The question secondary school administrators may ask is how does this apply to me? It sounds like an elementary model. While MiBLSi did begin as an elementary framework, its reported success is driving the effort up to middle and high schools. This energy has increased with the Michigan’s Michigan Merit Curriculum (MMC) and the gradual decrease in alternative education programs around the state. From district to district and region to region, early interventions for struggling students are becoming more essential.

MiBLSi is part of a national movement and gives a name to what effective schools and teachers have been doing for years. MiBLSi falls into the Response to Intervention (RtI) model, which gained popularity in Pennsylvania, Minnesota, and Iowa. RtI was suggested, though not mandated, by the 2004 update to IDEA. The emphasis of the IDEA law update was to strongly encourage schools to try other interventions before transitioning struggling students into Special Education services. So, instructional leaders were and are charged with ensuring instruction is differentiated for all students, adjusted adapted for some struggling students, and highly adapted for the most challenged students.

The proponents of RtI claim it is more timely and coherent than the current testing model, which is deemed a “wait to fail” model. Under traditional special education testing, a student’s IQ would be compared to his or her academic achievement. If there was a wide discrepancy between the two, the student would qualify for Learning Disabled (LD) services. Proponents of RtL would like to begin helping students before the students fail. This is becoming more of a viable option with 2004 reauthorization of IDEA, opening up 15 percent of special education funding to early intervention. This early intervention takes the form of a tiered approach to services.

Briefly, RtI and MiBLSi both seek to facilitate in schools a three tiered approach to addressing the achievement of all students in the school. They would affect both the behavior and academic component of a student’s performance.

Academic or Behavioral Systems

Tier 3: 1-5 percent of students
Individual Student Interventions
• Individual students
• Assessment-based
• High intensity, research-based procedures

Tier 2: 5-10 percent of students
Group Interventions
• Some students (at-risk of failure)
• Economical with personnel and intervention
• Rapid response

Tier 1: 80-90 percent of students
Universal Interventions
• All subjects, all students
• Preventive, proactive

Two further promises of RtI are consolidating services and research-based interventions. RtI has a strong focus on collaborating. The different categorical grants work together to serve all students in the school. This is the blessing and the curse of RtI: it brings many different services of the school together. The research basis of the interventions on the different tiers is emphasized in RtI. Struggling students, RtI theory says, should not be experimented on, rather be given the most proven interventions.

Many secondary schools currently are utilizing many of the techniques and methods of RtI, and the state is piloting and implementing its own version, MiBLSi. Though commonly implemented at lower levels, secondary school administrators need to be aware of the tiers of intervention and the data that corresponds to those levels.

Round Two of the CareerForward® Support Grant Begins

Eighty-six middle schools and high schools were granted $1,000 to $3,000 dollars, depending on size, in the first round of the CareerForward® Support Grant program. The grant is being promoted and administered in a joint partnership effort with MASSP, Traverse Bay Intermediate School District, MDE, MVU and Microsoft Partners in Learning.

The good news is that there is still time to receive the support grant. There is no deadline for submitting the grant and monies will be distributed until the funds run out. So, that’s a good reason to apply ASAP. Details and the application form are available by clicking on the highlighted words.

CareerForward® Support Grantees (click on the table for full view)

Don’t let your school be left out! Apply today!

As school districts experience shifts in population and demographics, training staff to work with new student populations is an interest. This article is from Teacher Magazine and outlines ways to foster a culturally responsive school setting that meets the needs of all students. Click here to read:

Seven Principles for Developing a Culturally Responsive Faculty

Iron Mountain High School is located in the city of Iron Mountain in Michigan’s Upper Peninsula; 300 miles north of Chicago, Illinois, and 500 miles north of Detroit, Michigan. Iron Mountain High School, a class B school, has an enrollment of approximately 430 students, and is proud to be the home of the first Academic Booster Club in the state of Michigan. Founded in 1996, the Academic Booster Club was the idea of four visionary women in the community who were concerned about the condition of the high school library. The outdated books and the hard uninviting furniture needed attention, but the school district did not have the money in the budget to dedicate to such improvements. The community, rallying behind the leadership visionaries, formed the Iron Mountain High School Academic Booster Club, the first of its kind in the State of Michigan. The founding purpose was:

“To promote, foster and facilitate academic achievement for all students at IMHS and to support the faculty and administration who inspire it. Our objective is to facilitate academic achievement by helping provide classroom and library needs that are greater than the school budget can handle. The Academic Booster Club is the vehicle between the school and the community.”

The money raised by the booster club was invested immediately into the high school library. They purchased comfortable, inviting furnishings and created attractive reading areas. New shelving and displays have also been added. The transformation of the Library into a Media Center has made this one of the most popular rooms in the school. And the greatest benefit of all has been that the circulation numbers have shot through the roof.

The Academic Booster Club is a 501c3 non-profit organization. They have raised funds through a variety of methods including a dinner auction, bake sales and simply asking for donations. The community has continued to support the club and following the Ednowment Guidelines and Investment Policies adopted by the club, the dream of reaching $200,000 fund equity that will be self-funding is close to becoming a reality.

The Booster Club supports every department in the High School and has very generously provided the following items for our students and teachers in the past few years:
Academic pins and letters, a digital camera for the yearbook, a spot light for the auditorium, electronic balances for the science department, ceiling mounted LCD projectors with the goal of equipping every classroom with ceiling mounted projectors by the end of next school year, dictionaries for the English and Spanish classrooms, novels for the English and History classrooms, electronics for the Industrial Arts department and a kiln for the Art department.

The support that the Academic Booster Club provides to the students, staff and administration of Iron Mountain High School is invaluable. We are very fortunate to live in a community that places such a high value on educating our students and providing them with the extras that the school district alone could not provide.

Technology can be used as an aid for solving the dropout dilemma according to eSchool News. Educators nationwide are concerned about stemming the tide of high school dropouts. New data suggest the steep economic impact that dropping out of school can have on individuals, and on the economy as a whole. But whether it’s for reasons of economic competitiveness, or simply as a moral imperative, giving students alternative paths to graduation is a top priority for many school leaders —and, fortunately, technology can help. Click here to read the entire article.