Mountain Meadow Elementary

District Information

School Name: Mountain Meadow Elementary
School Address: 11812 Mundy Loss Road E, Buckley WA 98321
School Phone: 360.829.3356
School Fax: 360.829.3388
Principal: Adam Uhler
Principal Intern: Siri Cablayan
Building Learning Improvement Coordinator: Tracy Nelson
Web Address: http://mm.whiteriver.wednet.edu/

Demographics

Number of Students: 528
Number Eligible for Free and Reduced Lunch: 27.7%
Percent of Limited English Proficient: 0.95%
Percent of Special Education: 15.3% of overall population, 9.6% of K-5
Racial/Ethnic Percentages:

• White: 91.6%
• Black: 0.7%
• Hispanic: 3.9%
• Asian/Pacific Island: 5.2%
• Native American:1.1%

Present Student Achievement Data in at least three points to demonstrate trends –

Mountain Meadow/White River School District/WA State

Grade 3	Reading (MM/WR/WA)	Math (MM/WR/WA)
2005-06	82.5/73.7/68.3	77.8/69.8/64.2
2006-07	84.6/81.5/70.9	89.9/75.9/69.6
2007-08	84.6/78.4/70.7	78.5/80.1/68.6
2008-09	83.3/82.1/71.4	87.2/83.2/66.3
2009-10	76.9/80.3/72.1	78.0/80.0/61.8
2010-11	82.9/80.2/73.1	76.8/71.8/61.6

 

Grade 4	Reading (MM/WR/WA)	Math (MM/WR/WA)	Science (MM/WR/WA)	Writing (MM/WR/WA)
1996-97	48.5/52.7/47.9	10.6/15.9/21.4	15.2/31.9/42.8	NA
1999-00	84.8/61.8/65.8	56.1/34.5/41.8	43.9/27.6/39.4	NA
2003-04	98.1/76.9/74.4	92.5/65.0/59.9	77.4/55.8/55.8	NA
2006-07	86.3/80.3/76.6	61.7/56.1/58.1	71.6/60.5/60.2	NA
2009-10	80.2/74.5/67.2	75.3/72.3/53.7	80.2/71.4/61.1	NA
2010-11	73.0/69.3/67.3	73.0/67.2/59.3	NA	68.5/67.6/61.4

Grade 5	Reading (MM/WR/WA)	Math (MM/WR/WA)	Science (MM/WR/WA)
2005-06	93.8/83.7/76.3	71.9/55.4/55.8	39.4/31.0/35.7
2006-07	87.3/77.4/71.9	73.2/64.7/59.5	62.5/44.6/36.5
2007-08	85.4/81.4/75.6	69.5/69.0/61.2	48.8/45.5/43.0
2008-09	87.3/83.8/74.0	70.4/68.0/61.9	64.8/49.5/44.9
2009-10	76.3/73.9/69.6	71.3/68.7/53.6	56.3/39.9/34.0
2010-11	87.2/73.5/67.7	78.2/70.1/61.3	79.5/63.6/55.7

The Washington Assessment of Student Learning (WASL) was the assessment that measured student learning of the state’s academic standards from 1997-2009.  In the 2009-2010 school year, the assessment changed to the Measure of Student Progress.  Although the name changed as well as the format (more multiple choice and less extended response questions), the assessment is aligned to the same standards.  On average, scores were down state wide in reading and math; however, the White River School District bucked that trend.  Students are tested each spring in grades 3-8 and 10 in reading and math.  Students also are tested in writing in grades 4, 7 and 10 and science in grades 5, 8 and 10.

Please comment on any aspect of the data that you feel is particularly significant.
The establishment of a collaborative culture, focus on each student’s learning, attention to results, and strong school-parent partnerships led to significant improvements in student achievement from 1998-2006.  Within that time, the percentage of students meeting or exceeding the state proficiency standard increased from 68 percent to 98 percent in reading and from 42 to 92 percent in math.  The most significant gains were made in the area of writing.  The percentage of students meeting or exceeding the state proficiency standard increased from 19 to nearly 90 percent. 

After years of stability and substantial growth towards ensuring the learning of our students, led by Janel Keating, the school’s principal position became a revolving door, with four principals in five years.  There was also a good bit of staff turnover during this period, with an entirely new teaching team at fourth grade.  The upheaval is evident in the decline our data in nearly every area.  Unfortunately, for the first time in 2009-2010, we did not meet AYP in a category—special education grade reading. 

The most pressing challenge in recent years lie in rebuilding our sense of vision and mission—to ensure the learning of each child existed as more than a hollow axiom.  Under Janel Keating’s leadership, Mountain Meadow maintained collective commitments, but they were not documented—with changes in leadership and staff, once clear commitments were lost.  Many staff members hired in the last three years did not share in this common “communal” knowledge. 

Throughout the 2009-2010 school year, the staff spent a good bit of time discussing what Mountain Meadow could be if we truly realized our mission.  We are re-establishing a laser-like focus on student learning.  Through this work, the staff has established written collective commitments, collaborative unit planning for writing and math, collaborative analysis of pre/formative/post assessments, RTI, and PBIS.  Through this work, Mountain Meadow is once again fully committed to ensuring the learning of each child.  The success of this work is illustrated in continued improvement in fourth and fifth grade math as well as sustained success in fourth grade writing.  In 2009-2010, fourth graders posted a 13 % gain in the number of students meeting proficiency in Math.
                          
Please present additional information that indicates your efforts to build a professional learning community have had a positive impact on students and/or teachers.
Mountain Meadow Elementary School is recognized as one of the highest academically performing elementary schools in Washington State.  It is a showcase school with teachers and administrators, receiving hundreds of visitors a year.  These educators are given the opportunity to observe the work of collaborative teams, successful learning programs, and strategies to provide students additional time, support and enrichment during the school day and in the after school programs.  

Mountain Meadow’s 2005-2006 scores were the highest in the district and some of the highest in the state with 98.1 percent of its students meeting the standard in reading and 92.5 percent meeting the standard in math.  Although the state assessment scores have declined since then, they are still generally the highest in the district.  In 2009-2010, White River School District’s math scores in grades three, four, and five were the highest in Pierce County and some of the highest in Washington state.  Mountain Meadow fourth grade writing scores have been the highest in the district, averaging about 80 percent, for the last three years, 20 percent higher than the state average.

As discussed above, perhaps the most important step to reestablishing our focus was to revisit our vision and mission, as well as establish our collective commitments—what we were truly committed to doing.  The vision of Mountain Meadow Elementary School is to provide leadership, professional staff development, alignment of curriculum, assessment and instruction, in a caring learning environment and to build parent and community partnerships.  The mission of Mountain Meadow Elementary School is to ensure high levels of learning for each child preparing them for future success.  We have established the following collective commitments in order to accomplish our mission and make our vision a reality.  They represent our shared purpose and will guide us daily as we interact with our learners, peers, and community.  The Mountain Meadow Learning Community will…

1. Respectfully collaborate around revising and informing our instruction based on learning data and standards
2. Proactively and intentionally work with all learners and provide extra time and support
3. Make learning targets clear to help each learner achieve standard and reach the target
4. Model life long learning and the commitment to quality work with continual growth.
5. Actively involve parents and community in the learning process.

 

Please elaborate upon strategies you have found to be effective in any of the following areas:

1. Monitoring student learning on a timely basis.

Mountain Meadow’s first collective commitments states, “We will respectfully collaborate around revising and informing our instruction base on learning data and standards.”  Our second collective commitment states, “We will proactively and intentionally work with all learners and proved extra time and support.”  For a number of years, Mountain Meadow had a common practice for the grade-level teacher teams, paraeducators, and the principal to review assessment data to design learning environments and instructional strategies that yielded the highest levels of learning for all students.  We do not wait for students to fail before we give them additional time and support. 

In the 2009-2010 school year, we formalized this process with grade level RTI meetings every four to six weeks.  During this time, we specifically examine reading data. 

• We use universal screeners for reading and math K-5, concentrating on oral reading fluency in grades one through three in addition to comprehension in grades three through five. 
• Students that are uncovered as strategic (tier two) learners are progress monitored bi-monthly and receive additional instruction to meet their needs. 
• Students that are uncovered as intensive (tier three) learners are progress monitored weekly and receive research-based intensive reading interventions for 90-120 minutes a day. 
• Progress monitoring data along with in-program assessment information guides the discussion and work of the RTI meetings.  If a student is not making adequate progress, the first thing the team does it problem solve, often making sure that the students is receiving adequate time and intensity for their learning.

In addition to RTI meetings, teams collaboratively plan and implement unit of instruction for writing and math.  As part of this process, teams analyze pre, formative, and summative assessments to gather feedback about the effectiveness of their instruction and the students learning needs.

• Teams reviewed assessment results line-by-line, kid-by-kid.  Students who are experiencing difficulty receive extra instructional support prior to the summative assessment.  At times, interventions are delivered at the team level (e.g. walk to math) or at the classroom level with the teacher working with a small group or an individual.
• Grade level teams publically share their work at monthly staff meetings.  Teams share their learning target, proficiency goal, methodology, interventions, results, and next steps.  During this time, they are called on to highlight what made the difference for each child. 
• School leaders and teacher teams are relentless in their study of intervention programs and instructional strategies, noting what interventions were having the greatest impact on student learning.

 

2. Creating systems of intervention to provide students with additional time and support for learning.

• The master schedule is specifically designed around the principle of embedding additional time and support to meet the learning needs of our students.  Core time for reading and math is protected. 
• All students that need intervention, regardless of label (SPED, LAP, Title, ELL), receive needed timely, directed, research based intervention.  
• Kindergarten and first grade have two 60-minute reading blocks everyday. 
• Grades two through five have 90-minute reading blocks everyday. 
• Each grade has a 60-minute math block everyday.
• Intense, researched-based interventions provided for reading (Read Well, ERI, Read Naturally, SOAR, Reading Mastery, and Corrective Reading) and math (Connected Math and Corrective Math).
• Small group instruction—students most in need receive the most help by the most skilled staff
• After school programs for enrichment: chorus, visual art, band, and drama
• White River High School students trained as tutors work with primary students an hour each morning.
• Trained our parent volunteers to assist in our intervention programs, especially Read Naturally.
• Established building-wide behavior expectations—The Timber Wolf Way
• Check In/Check Out for students in need of tier two behavior interventions

3. Building the capacity of teachers to work as members of high performing collaborative teams who focus the efforts of their team on improved learning for students.

• The principal and staff studied effective schooling practices in an effort to build shared knowledge, including the following:

• The Correlates of Effective Schools—Lezotte
• Nine Characteristics of Effective Schools
• Professional Learning Communities at Work—DuFour, DuFour, & Eaker
• Pyramid Response to Intervention—Buffum, Mattos, & Weber
• Seven Strategies of Assessment for Learning—Chappuis
• Visible Learning—Hattie
• Growth Mindset—Dweck
• Common Formative Assessments—Ainsworth & Veigut
• Classroom Instruction that Works—Marazano, Pickering, & Pollock

• The principal and staff analyze their practices and procedures in light of their commitment to learning specifically asking, “What would we want for our own child?”
• All decisions are filtered through the “learning” filter.
• Staff established norms at the team and building level—how we behave is really the only thing we have control over.
• In the fall of 2010, the staff reviewed and recommitted to upholding a clear vision, mission, and created collective commitments—we are crystal clear regarding what will we promote, protect, and defend.
• In 2009-2010, grade-level team leaders were established.  Team leaders are trained and compensated with a small stipend for their work.  It is the team leaders’ job is to be the lead learner of their team and ensure that their team maintains its focus on learning.
• Staff is provided time to collaborate, including:

• One-hour late start every Monday—this time is scarified and protected for collaboration about student learning
• RTI meetings schedule every 4-6 weeks
• Team Meetings Schedule before or after the school day
• All staff meetings have a learning focus…nuts and bolts are taken care of through the staff bulletin.
• Additional time provided through all school assemblies
• Sub Time for Grade Level Teams: Math focus 2006-2009, writing focus 2010-2011

At Mountain Meadow, the first step in embedding a “focus on learning” into the day-to-day culture of the school was to engage collaborative teams of teachers in a process that addresses three critical questions:

(1) What is it we want all students to learn?

• Teams studied the standards (Washington State Grade Level Expectations) to create Power Standards
• Created pacing guides
• Action research surrounding instructional resources to best meet the learning needs of our students
• Create Unit Plans that include assessments (pre/formative/post) and timely interventions.
• Planned lessons together

Example of the work of the collaborative teams as we improved writing.

• Reviewed the Narrative Writing standards
• Studied the Washington State “Benchmark” rubric
• Compared “Benchmark” rubric to “District adopted writing program rubric.
• Designed Mountain Meadow Grade level benchmark writing rubrics/checklists.
• Agreed on common prompts
• Designed common support or scaffolding
• Created a road map/pacing guide – taught in time allotted

Principal’s role

• Provide time to collaborate
• Provide training in “best practice”
• Provide materials ( Step Up to Writing, Lucy Calkins, Stephanie Harvey, etc.)
• Facilitated with staff the backward design of checklists
• Model—“Importance of Teaching Writing”
• Classroom Observations tied to Writing
• Collected and read student writing.
• Made time for kids to share their writing with the principal
• Sent writing to the superintendent to read.
• Writing posted by grade level in the hallways.
• Made sure that each team shared their results at staff meetings

(2) How will we know when each student has learned?

• Agreed upon “Standards for Quality Work” by grade level
• Collaborative monitoring and analysis of assessment data through unit reflection process
• Teams analyzed student work and designed instructional interventions
• Time is set aside for teams to meet and discuss student progress in an effort to make instructional, and possibly program changes, in a timely manner.
• Public professional practice was fully integrated into Mountain Meadow—colleagues casually exchanged ideas, assessments, writing prompts, rubrics and analyzed student work.                       
• Student work posted in hallways and in the principals office: learning target, evidence, prompts, rubrics
• Focused study of student learning using Collaborative Analysis of Student Learning (CASL)

(3) What happens in our school when a student does not learn?

• RTI meetings specifically focused on reading; teams analyze progress monitoring data line-by-line, kid-by-kid and students who are experiencing difficulty receive additional time and support.
• Teams Analysis of Common Assessments (TACA) for all writing and math units

• In what areas did our students do well?
• What instructional strategies helped our students?
• What skill deficiencies do we see?
• What patterns do we see in the mistakes and what do they tell us?
• Which students did not mast the essential standards and need additional time and support?
• What intervention will be provided to address unlearned skills, and how will we check for success?
• Do we need to tweak or improve this assessment?
• Which Students mastered the standards and what is our plan for extension activities?

• Teams share their analysis of their most recently completed units in math or reading at monthly staff meetings.  Teams share their results line by line, child by child and highlight what made the difference for each child.  We looked for evidence to see if the interventions working?  We analyzed the intervention programs, the instructional strategies, as well as, the structures students were placed in to receive the additional time and support.

• School leaders and teacher teams were relentless in their study of intervention programs and instructional strategies, noting what interventions were having the greatest impact on student learning.

• Grade-level to grade-level conversations about kids give staff the opportunity to share relevant information about students.  For example, in August, our fourth grade team met with the third grade team to review (student-by-student) state assessment results and plan reading instruction so that they proactively intervened in the child’s learning to ensure future growth.  Discussion reflected instructional strategies and learning environments that would best meet the needs of each child.

• Teacher teams engaged in a systematic process, Collaborative Analysis of Student Learning (CASL,) to analyze selected student work over time based on identified needs of the students.  Teachers analyze student work products/assessments and work together to design instructional interventions and strategies to meet identified learner needs. 

• Staff studied “Differentiated Instruction”

In a nutshell, here’s what we really did at Mountain Meadow:

• Focus on what we can do, rather than what they can’t.

• We don’t leave anything about teaching & learning to chance.

• We set goals/expectations high for staff and students.

• High expectations were supported in classroom by teacher and principal.

• Relentless focus on learning and analyzing results.

• Principal willing to roll up her sleeves and do the work alongside staff.

• Realized quickly that job title does not matter so much as one’s potential to contribute.

 

List any awards and recognition garnered by your school

• 2000 - Reading Achievement Award
• 2001 Reading Achievement Award
• 2001 State Recognition—Exceeding 3-year Washington Assessment of Student Learning Goals
• 2003-2004 Reading Achievement Award, Math Achievement Award, &Writing Achievement Award
• 2004-2005 Reading Achievement Award & Math Achievement Award
• 2005-2006 Reading Achievement Award
• 2007-2008 Writing Achievement Award