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: Wayne Watanabe
Principal email: wwatanabe@whiteriver.wednet.edu
Principal Intern: Christi Fast cfast@whiteriver.wednet.edu
Building Learning Improvement Coordinator: Tracy Livingston Nelson tlivings@whiteriver.wednet.edu

Demographics

Number of Students: 475
Number Eligible for Free and Reduced Lunch: 20.6%
Percent of Limited English Proficient: 1.9
Percent of Special Education: 17.5
Racial/Ethnic Percentages:

• White 89.3
• Black  0.4
• Hispanic  4.6
• Asian/Pacific Island  1.3
• Other  0.4

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

Mountain Meadow/WA State/White River School District

Grade 3	2006 (MM/WA/WR)	2007 (MM/WA/WR)
Math	77.8/64.2/69.8	82.5/68.3/73.7
Reading	89.9/69.6/75.9	84.6/70.9/81.5

 

Grade 4	2004 (MM/WA/WR)	2005 (MM/WA/WR)	2006 (MM/WA/WR)
Math	92.5/59.9/65	83.9/60.8/62	96.2/58.9/63.4
Reading	98.1/74.4/76.9	90.3/79.5/83.6	96.2/81.2/85.3
Writing	77.4/55.8/55.8	88.7/57.7/59.5	86.2/60.4/61.8

Grade 5	2006 (MM/WA/WR)	2007 (MM/WA/WR)
Math	71.9/55.8/55.4	73.2/59.5/64.7
Reading	93.8/76.3/83.7	87.3/70.9/77.4
Science	39.4/35.7/31	62.5/36.5/44.6

Percentage of students passing Washington Assessment of Student Learning: Mountain Meadow 1999-2006

Skill	Math	Reading	Writing
1999	43.1	68.4	19.0
2000	56.1	84.8	43.9
2001	66.2	79.2	64.9
2002	65.2	76.6	59.1
2003	81.4	78.6	68.6
2004	92.5	98.1	77.4
2005	83.9	90.3	88.7
2006	86.5	96	86.2

The Washington Assessment of Student Learning measures student learning of the state’s academic standards. 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.
Our collaborative culture, focus on each student’s learning, attention to results, and strong school-parent partnerships soon led to significant improvements in student achievement. Within a short period 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. The furthermore, the improvements were sustained over time. Mountain Meadow achieved:

• 100% AYP in reading 2004; 99% in 2005 and 100% in 2006
• 100% AYP in math in 2004; 94.6% in 2005; 96.6% in 2006

                          
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 was recognized as one of the highest academically performing elementary schools in Washington State.  It was a showcase school with teachers and administrators.  These educators were 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 most recent WASL 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.  Based on these scores, Mountain Meadow is No. 7 in the state for elementary student achievement and No. 1 when the state considers its 31 percent free and reduced lunch count.                                                
                                                            Enumclaw Courier-Herald 2005

 

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

1. Monitoring student learning on a timely basis.

It was a source of pride and 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 didn’t wait for students to fail before we gave them additional time and support. 

• Assessment results were reviewed by teams line-by-line, kid-by-kid and students who are experiencing difficulty received instructional support.

• The teams also used the data from White River School District benchmark assessments each trimester to monitor student learning and make instructional changes when necessary.

• Teams were specifically called on to analyze the last improvement - 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.

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

• The master schedule was specifically designed around the principle of embedding additional time and support to meet the learning needs of our students. 
• We created larger blocks of instructional time. We didn’t add time to the day – We used our time differently - Everyone helped solve the problems as they surfaced as we made the changes.
• Small group instruction – Students most in need received the most help by the most skilled staff
• Homework club embedded in the school day
• After school programs for intervention and enrichment
• Saturday School to complete unfinished work
• Collins Jr. High 9th grade students trained as tutors and they tutored 1 hour a day
• Trained our parent volunteers to assist in our intervention programs

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. - The Correlates of Effective Schools – Lezotte - Nine Characteristics of Effective Schools - PLC Work - Dufour, Dufour, Eaker

• The principal and staff analyzed their practices and procedures in light of their commitment to learning specifically asking “What’s Best for Kids” and decisions were filtered through this “learning” filter.

• Staff established team norms - How we behave… is really the only thing we have control over.

• Staff was provided time to collaborate. Examples below:

Before the work day
After the work day
All staff meetings
Additional time provided by contract
Additional time provided by Janel – teaching lessons – all school assemblies
Late Start
Sub Time for Teams
Common Plan Time
Principal adjusting the morning schedule

At Mountain Meadow the first step in embedding a “focus on learning” into the day-to-day culture of the school accomplishing this task is 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
• Created pacing guides
• Action research surrounding instructional resources to best meet the learning needs of our students
• 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
• 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 me.
• Sent writing to the superintendent to read.
• Writing posted by grade level in the hallways.

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

• Agreed upon “Standards for Quality Work” by grade level
• Monitored assessment data
• 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 in posted in hallways and in the principals office-evidence-prompts-rubrics

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

• Assessment results were reviewed by teams line-by-line, kid-by-kid and students who are experiencing difficulty received instructional support.

• Teams were specifically called on to analyze the last improvement. 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 that gave staff the opportunity to share relevant information about students. Example below:

You may find a team of fourth grade teachers - armed with assessment results, observations and knowledge about the learners from their previous fourth grade classroom -engaged in student-by-student discussions and sharing information with the fifth grade teachers.  Discussions 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 a period of 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