Mount Eagle Elementary School

School Information

School Name: Mount Eagle Elementary School
District Name: Fairfax County Public Schools
School Address: 6116 N. Kings HWY, Alexandria, VA, 22303
School Phone: 703.721.2100
School Fax: 703.721.2197
Principal: Brian Butler
Principal E-Mail: Brian.Butler@fcps.edu
Assistant Principal: Dawn Hendrick
Assistant Principal E-Mail:Dawn.Hendrick@fcps.edu
Web Address: http://www.fcps.edu/MtEagleES/

2009-10 Demographics

Number of Students: 300
Number eligible for Free and Reduced Lunch: 80%
Percent of Limited English Proficient: 65%
Percent of Special Education: 16%
School Based Gifted Services: All students receive some form of accelerated service support through the Advanced Academic Resource Teacher
Mobility Rate: 36%
Fairfax County Mobility Rate: 13%
Racial/Ethnic Percentages:

White: 4.1%
Black: 12.6%
Hispanic: 71.0%
Asian/Pacific Island: 9.7%
Other: 2.6%

Narrative:

Mount Eagle Elementary School 2009-2010 School Year:

Mount Eagle is a Title I School in Fairfax Count Virginia.  In 2006 Mount Eagle began its journey in becoming a true Professional Learning Community under the leadership of Administrators Brian Butler and Dawn Hendrick.  The majority of the students are minorities, so minority students must learn if our school is going to meet with success under the rules of No Child Left Behind.  We meet with success by following current research and what we know.  We know from experience that minority students can learn when the adults in the building are learners and share their expertise in collaborative teams. We incorporate the assessment and data gathering practices of schools like Elizabeth Vaughan, so that we can understand in detailexactly which information each student understands and does not understand.  We can use this information so that students can be identified right away and adjust our instruction or be identified for interventions so that no child "falls between the cracks".  Although we are proud of our latest Standards of Learning test results, much more work needs to be done in order to continue to ensure that “all students” are meeting with success.  The challenge now is to sustain and build upon the good work that is taking place and to continue to look at what is not working and adjust accordingly.

View Leveraging Knowledge–2008 document from Office of Educational Planning, Department of Accountability FCPS.

 

Student Achievement Data:

< = TS or Too Small... A group below state definition for personally identifiable results
- = No data for this group
* = State Data not yet available

Grade 3
Percent of Students Passing State Assessment (school/state)
Year	Math	Reading
2006-07	76.5/89	50/65
2007-08	88.5/89	82.4/84
2008-09	90/89	90/86
2009-10	97/92	92/93

 

Grade 4
Percent of Students Passing State Assessment (school/state)
Year	Math	Reading
2006-07	74.1/81	71.4/87
2007-08	57.1/84	65.2/88
2008-09	97/86	94/89
2009-10	94/88	83/88

 

Grade 5
Percent of Students Passing State Assessment (school/state)
Year	Math	Reading
2006-07	80.6/87	63.2/87
2007-08	88.9/88	73.9/89
2008-09	94/90	94/92
2009-10	94/92	94/90

 

Grade 6
Percent of Students Passing State Assessment (school/state)
Year	Math	Reading
2006-07	66.7/60	75/84
2007-08	53.5/68	75/85
2008-09	92/85	92/86
2009-10	100/86	88/88

 

Overall Reading Performance
Percent of Students Passing State Assessment (school/state)
Year	All	Black	Hispanic	White	Students with Disabilities	Dis-advantaged	Limited English Proficient
2006-07	68/85	77/76	58/72	NA/91	57/62	62/73	61/67
2007-08	82/87	82/78	83/81	NA/91	81/67	81/77	84/79
2008-09	92/89	TS	94/85	TS	92/73	91/81	96/83
2009-10	89/89	TS	94/85	TS	91/73	90/81	91/83

 

Overall Math Performance
Percent of Students Passing State Assessment (school/state)
Year	All	Black	Hispanic	White	Students with Disabilities	Dis-advantaged	Limited English Proficient
2006-07	75/80	86/68	66/71	91/85	59/58	70/67	70/70
2007-08	70/84	66/73	60/75	NA/88	53/65	63/73	65/75
2008-09	93/86	81/77	96/79	TS	100/71	94/77	93/79
2009-10	96/88	TS	96/82	TS	100/73	95/80	96/82

 

Please comment on any aspect of the data that you believe is particularly significant.

Standards of Learning 2010 Test Results (Data from spring 2010 tests):
Math – 96% Pass Rate
English - 89% Pass Rate

During the 2009-2010 school year, we found our challenge to be those students who were new to Mount Eagle.  Although, these students made positive growth throughout the year, these students were the ones who by in large did not pass the SOLs.  We are a school with a high transient rate, but have found that students who have been at Mount Eagle for multiple years do well on the SOLs.  The challenge for us is to get the students who have only been with us for a short period of time up to speed within the year in order to do well on the state tests.  We will continue to analyze the data and put plans in place in order to target the specific areas of concern for these students, and give them the time and support that they need to be successful.   

Mount Eagle – Leveraging Knowledge to Close the Gap

 “I think, in general, that every staff member at our school is finally on the same page in terms of where we need to go. I feel that our goals are now streamlined, shared, and attainable. We seem to have a
vision and everyone is on board to get there!” (Teacher, Mount Eagle)

“Last year Mount Eagle ES students were taught by our SUM teachers to ‘explain’ their thinking on every math question using pictures, numbers, or words. Many of my students got into the habit of using all three explanations involving their problems. This process helped them understand fully WHY their answer was correct.”
 (Teacher, Mount Eagle)

“ALL teachers are responsible for all children.” (Teacher, Mount Eagle)

Leveraging Knowledge – 2008
Office of Educational Planning
Department of Accountability FCPS

Commitment to academic achievement:

Administrators, teachers, and staff were committed to providing the resources and expertise to promote the academic achievement of their students. “Our goals are now streamlined, shared, and attainable. We seem to have a vision and everyone is on board to get there!” (Teacher)

One teacher noted that team meetings allowed “everyone to be on the same page” and provided “for more sharing of ideas” and that “the administration actively participated in and monitored instruction through visits to the classrooms.” The principal and assistant principal “have brought many new ideas to the staff and the staff has supported them all. They do not sit in their offices, but come into the classrooms sometimes three or four times a day to see the students Learning.” (Teacher)

“ALL teachers are responsible for all children.” (Teacher)

Focus on best practice instruction in reading and writing: The entire staff took Balanced Literacy training and Language Arts staff followed up with more training. Specific skills being targeting were comprehension strategies (e.g. context clues, inferring). All grade levels are becoming familiar with “word study” and conducted reading and writing workshops in their classrooms. “Students have learned what to expect during reading and writing times and, as they move through the grades, they can build their learning on a familiar structure.” (Teacher) Groups of reading students were rearranged every two weeks so everyone had an opportunity to assess student needs. “In general, we have taught our students to LOVE reading.” (Teacher) A well stocked book room supported a strong take-home reading program and access to useful technology that supported language arts. The staff at Mount Eagle developed monthly common assessments in Language Arts. One of the ways Mount Eagle fostered achievement on the SOLs was to “teach test taking as a genre” (Teacher) during the Language Arts block. This allowed students to learn how and why tests were written. One teacher noted the “our teachers are very good at making sure students learn vocabulary in an authentic way” through the “morning news show, math wall, math stops.”

Language Arts Update for 2009-2010
At this point in our growth as language arts instructors, we’re starting to reflect and analyze the practices we say are in place to see if they really are in place the way best practice research says they should be.  Are we actually implementing all of the aspects of a reading and writing workshop?  Are we using the gradual release of responsibility to guide our mini-lessons topics?  Are we truly monitoring student learning? Do students understand that our goal is to turn them into proficient readers and writers?  Are we really using guided reading to teach small groups of students what they need, or are we just pulling small groups of students based on a reading level without a targeted focus for instruction? 

We are constantly keeping track of student data: standardized testing data as well as data from the DRA (a performance based reading assessment).  We use this data to guide our instruction on a daily basis.   Teachers are conferring and setting goals with students in reading and writing to help make them an active part of their growth as readers and writers. As educators of high poverty students, we do not have a single minute to waste on instruction that is not meeting the needs of our students.  This year, with a focus on best practice reading and writing instruction, we should see our passed advanced scores increase due to increased time spend on authentic reading and writing.

Focus on math: In keeping with its emphasis on collaboration and the importance of staff “being on the same
page”, the entire staff received training to strengthen math instruction. Much of the credit for improving student
achievement in math at Mount Eagle was attributed to the SUM (Step Up Math) team who constantly planned with
teams, modeled instruction, created common assessments, and kept teachers abreast of information that was posted
“in Gateways as well as current trends in mathematics instruction.” (Teacher) The staff used cognitive guided
instruction which allowed students to solve math problems in their own way with the requirement that they had to
explain their thinking using pictures, numbers or words. “We also implemented Math Toolbox Kits that had
manipulatives at their fingertips for their use.” (Teacher) “We also have a math lab that is accessible and stocked
with the necessary tools for learning from manipulatives to supplementary books and lessons.” (Teacher)

Math Update for 2009-2010
Our math focus has changed from “What lesson is next in the textbook?” to “What objectives will we be covering this unit?  How will we be differentiating the instruction to meet the needs of our students? What are the best resources to teach this objective?”   Units of instruction are built while “unpacking” the standards to further our understanding of them and discussing the mathematics as a team.  The units and lessons are revised as we constantly reflect on our practices while asking ourselves the 5 guiding questions. 

Our common assessment data is heavily relied upon to inform us of which teaching moves were successful and what areas we need to refocus our instruction.  Systematic re-teaching is built into the pacing of each unit.  Sometimes we designate a day or two to revisit previously taught objectives so that we can focus on our students’ misconceptions.  Other times we rely on the use of small groups and rotations to provide multiple opportunities for our students to master the curriculum. 

Interventions: “Our students took part in Project READS, participated in after-school programs such as our Sixth
Grade Social Studies program that stresses reading strategies, and received additional support through volunteer
tutors.” (Teacher) “We have become skilled ‘intervention’ teachers. My team has special groups running to help
certain students achieve certain skills and to make sure that no one slips through the cracks!” (Teacher)

Update for 2009-2010
Every six weeks a team of teachers, including math specialists, reading specialists, ESOL teachers, special education teachers, and the grade-level classroom teachers, convenes to discuss student progress.  At these meetings we spend time discussing individual students and using data to analyze any difficulties they are having learning.  Once we have a clear picture of what the problem is, the team comes up with a plan.  This plan could range from something as simple as adjusting the student’s small group focus in reading or math to something as intense as daily intervention with a specialist for an hour/day.  The key is that all of us are putting our heads together to target this student’s needs in the best way we can, and then we reconvene six weeks later to talk about whether or not the student is making progress.

PLC: The staff at Mount Eagle strengthened their PLC process by building and sustaining a system of time and
support to ensure that each and every child was being attended to. Team meetings became more consistent and
included teachers, administrators and resource teachers. In the words of several teachers, “All teachers teach all
children”, which meant that ESOL, LD, instructional assistants, and teachers taught all reading groups. Staff
meetings were structured around the four basic questions of PLC: Are students learning? How do we know? What if they aren’t learning? What if they are? The staff at Mount Eagle focused on the last two questions and further use of common formative assessments and team-developed assessments. Teachers were involved in “constant checking for improvement… periodic observations, tests, review of daily work (and) discussion of progress.” (Teacher)
“Through this collaborative process, we are improving on differentiating and adapting instruction.” (Teacher) “We
really collaborated these past few years to make sure that every member of our team knew each student in and out.
Everyone on the team had access to students’ Observation Survey results, DRA information, and writing samples.
We revisit these results often to check for progress and reevaluate our students.” (Teacher) Clearly collaboration
using the basic principles of PLC is catching on because, in the words of the principal: “We used to have PLC
meetings. Now we just have meetings because PLC is a way of life.”
Staff development: School wide training in reading and math promoted discussions about student progress,
common language and consistent teaching strategies across grade levels. Teachers used “lesson study” in which
one teacher taught and others observed.

Staff Development Update for 2009-2010
We are moving toward a more differentiated team-based model for staff development.  We have provided extended time for classroom teachers to meet and plan with the reading and math specialists and required teacher attendance.  Although it may have seemed like a lot of meeting time at first, over time teachers have come to value this time with the team to plan instruction.  It is especially helpful in language arts as this time allows special education teachers and ESOL teachers to be part of planning with the classroom teachers and reading specialist.  This way a skilled personal is not just showing up and supporting as an Instructional Assistant. .  The same is true for planning math.  While meeting as a team, we have input from special education teachers and other specialists so that we can build lessons together, differentiate instruction, and outline the week ahead. Because they are part of the planning, they are an integral part of the delivery of whole group instruction and targeted small group instruction.

 

Please present additional information that indicates your efforts to build a professional learning community have had a positive impact on students and/or teachers.

Mission Statement:

At Mount Eagle Elementary School, we believe that all kids can learn. We have high standards of learning that all students are expected to achieve. Our mission is accomplished in a safe, inclusive environment in which learning is paramount and cultural diversity is valued. Students, staff, and community support enable students to master challenging academic materials. Our shared educational purpose including common knowledge, common language, and common expectations are the keys to our academic success.

Mount Eagle Guiding Questions:

Here at Mount Eagle each teacher asks the following five guiding questions as they collaboratively plan all instruction:

1. What is it we want all students to learn?
2. How will we respond when they know it?
3. How will we respond if they don't learn?
4. How will we respond when they already know it?
5. How do we engage in relevant pedagogy and professional development to ensure that we are collectively answering these questions?

 

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

1. Monitoring student learning on a timely basis.

Monthly Common Assessments in Math, DRA given to all students to assess reading levels and to monitor learning. Quarterly SOL like assessments are given to students in grades K-6 to assess learning in reading and math. Teachers meet to discuss mini-formative assessments on a daily, weekly and monthly basis, in their team meeting formats. Teams co-score writing, reading and math assessments to ensure inter-rater reliability. Grades K-1 participate in the Eagles Nest Reading Program which gives incentives for students to monitor and improve their reading level. Students are celebrated at assemblies.

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

Collaborative Team Meetings look at ways of assisting teachers by giving strategies and guidance around instructional practices and ways in which students learn. Identified students are required to take part in the SOL After School Support Program and/or the Eagles Wings Tutoring Program. Students, who do not meet the initial Kindergarten benchmarks, work with a retired teacher and Instructional Assistants during the school day to support closing this Phonological Awareness Gap. In 2006-2007 Mount Eagle began preliminary work on building a Pyramid of Interventions in order to collective answer questions 3 & 4 of our Guiding Questions. This system of time and support (Pyramid of Interventions) has been adjusted since the original framework was developed, and continues to be a work in progress. A framework of this system can be seen below. All staff members collaborated to develop this system, and as 0f 2009 we continue to monitor and adjust as needed. This remains our biggest challenge, but also our biggest reward when done well and consistently.

Mount Eagle’s School-Wide System of Time and Support:

• The process should ensure students receive the intervention in a timely fashion–at the first indication they are experiencing difficulty and/or if they are excelling.
• The process should direct rather than invite students to devote the extra time and take advantage of additional support.
• Most importantly, students should be guaranteed they will receive this time and support regardless of who their teacher might be.

The math program at Mount Eagle is facilitated by our SUM (Step Up Math) teachers, who focus their energies around a variety of initiatives to enhance students’ achievement. It is a good example of how time and support are included during the school day. See details of the Mount Eagle math program.

Evolution of Mount Eagle’s Pyramid of Interventions Since 2006

2006-2008

2008-2010

2010-present

In 2010, after reading the Pyramid Response to Interventions by Buffum, Mattos, and Weber, our pyramid continued to evolve into a more simplistic visual model, but an increasing rich and more effective practical model for all students and staff.  We also continued to deepen our collective understanding of the good research based instruction at the Core or Tier I of the Pyramid.  We continued to use the LEARN Lesson Plan Model with our main focus being on the Active part of the lesson, Kagan, and a Five to Six week Collaborative Team Meeting-Progress Monitoring cycle.

In 2009-2010 we used the book 40 Reading Intervention Strategies for Students (Research Based Support for RTI), by Ellen K. McEwan-Adkins.  This book was a perfect resource which helped us focus on core instruction.  We used the following excerpt to help all staff understand the importance of quality initial instruction and a solid pyramid of interventions.

No System of Interventions Will Compensate For Ineffective Teaching

Educators must fight the war to raise student achievement on two fronts-providing time and support for teachers at the same time they are providing time and support for students.  Teachers will need assistance to build their collective capacity to work in collaborative teams, clarify essential learning, develop high-quality assessments, and use data to inform and improve individual and team practice.  No matter how effective they become in this process, however, they will continue to find that some students do not acquire the essential knowledge and skills despite their best efforts.  If all students are to learn, there will be a need to provide some additional time and support.

On the other hand, although a system of interventions is a necessary condition for high levels of learning, it is not sufficient alone.  No plan to provide students with additional time and support for learning can compensate for ongoing ineffective instruction.  There is abundant research confirming that what teachers do in their individual classrooms matters a lot (Haycock, 1998; Marzano; 2003; Wright, Horn, & Sanders, 1997).  Thus, while a staff is working to answer the question, “What will we do to provide intervention when students do not learn?” it is also imperative to grapple with the question, “What represents best practice in teaching and assessing essential knowledge, skills, and dispositions our students must acquire?”  It would be a huge mistake to assume a system of interventions can solve the problems created by poor instruction occurring on a wide-scale basis.  Schools need both skillful teachers and a system of interventions.
                                      Revisiting Professional Learning Communities at Work pp 255-256

3. Building teacher capacity to work as members of high performing collaborative teams that focus efforts on improved learning for all students.

The schedule allows for daily common planning time for grade level teams. Math and Reading Specialists meet with grade level and vertical teams to plan, talk about and model different instructional strategies implementation (starting the dialogues of formalizing Marzano’s Strategies), assess those strategies as they relate to student learning, develop common assessments, analyze results of common formative assessments, target individual students for additional support or acceleration, and access those staff members whose positive student results on formative assessments were directly related to research based instructional strategies. Grade level teams meet bi-weekly with the administration to focus on student learning.

The itinerary for all meetings is focused around the questions:

1. What is it we want all students to learn?
2. How will we respond when they know it?
3. How will we respond if they don't learn?
4. How will we respond when they already know it?
5. How do we engage in relevant pedagogy and professional development to ensure that we are collectively answering these questions?

When planning staff development, the focus is to develop common language, common knowledge, and common expectations as we focus on learning. As an administrative team, the goal has been to develop a school wide reading program in which all staff members are able to firmly grasp an understanding of the districts expectations in terms of the reading workshop. The entire staff took a balanced literacy class, and used the guiding questions, to develop a deeper understanding of the teaching-learning process.

An article, written by Mount Eagle Title 1 Step up Language Arts teacher (SULA) Mary Davis, was published in the May 2007 Fairfax County Public Schools’ Title 1 Connection newsletter, gives the reader an idea of how the process evolved.

How Mount Eagle Elementary School is using the “Balanced Literacy Model” to answer Professional Learning Community Guiding Questions.

Submitted by Mary Davis with support from Dawn Hendrick, Assistant Principal and Brian Butler, Principal

The staff at Mount Eagle decided to develop a school wide model for reading instruction. Through collaborative meetings and analyzing data, it was decided that “Balanced Literacy” would be the best path available to accomplish our mission statement. We are using five basic questions (DuFour, Eaker) to guide our conversations, meet the instructional needs of our students and plan support for our community. These five guiding questions that are serving as a productive model are:

1. What is it that we want our students to know?
2. How will we know when they know it?
3. What will we do when they don’t learn?
4. What will we do when they already know it?
5. How do we engage in relevant pedagogy and professional development to ensure that we are collectively answering these questions? 

The entire staff participated in Balanced Literacy Training, through the Language Arts Department and Title I out of the Lacey Center. The training provided a common language, common knowledge, common assessments and common expectations among the administration and staff. The staff also developed a deeper understanding of how to implement best practices during reading workshop.

Our instructional journey in the classroom began with the use of the “First Twenty Days” to develop the routines and procedures necessary for a manageable reading workshop. The First Twenty Days for Kindergarten and First grade was developed over the summer. Grades two through sixth used the First Twenty Days developed by Fountas and Pinnell. Grades two through six implemented the use of reader’s notebook; which has served as a resourceful tool in monitoring books read by students during their independent reading time. The reader’s notebook also provides continuous dialogue between the student and the teacher which enables the teacher to determine the student’s level of understanding about a text. 

Sets of books were purchased to support guiding reading during our uninterrupted reading workshop. We have received donations of books for classroom libraries throughout the year.  Teachers now have close to 15 books per student to support independent reading. Students are able to select from a broad variety of genres to read independently. Independent reading has become that special time of the day to enjoy the reading of books. Students across grade levels are able to sustain their reading time from twenty to forty –five minutes.

Awards and Recognitions:

-- In February of 2010, members of Mount Eagle’s staff participated in the PLC at Work Progress Report-Fish Bowl facilitated by Rick and Becky DuFour.  The team shared their journey and was asked questions by an audience of almost 200, as their practices, policies, programs and procedures were examined and highlighted the effective practices that have made the school a model Professional Learning Community.

--In January 2008, Mount Eagle was listed as a school that has shown promising practices by FCPS for showing strength in reducing the achievement gap among Black Students.

--Title 1 School with 100% Highly Qualified Teachers

--Language Arts and Math are reinforced and supported by specialist teachers in art, music, physical education, library, and technology.  These specialists wrote an article entitled Fine Arts Team Strengthens Cross-Curricular Learning, which was publishes for ASCD EXPRESS in the summer of 2007.

--Achieved State Accreditation in 03, 04, 05, 06 , 07, 08, 09, 10

--Eagles Wings Tutoring Program won Fairfax County Public Schools Partner of the year in 2004 and continues to serve as one of our school partners

--Coast Guard Volunteer Tutors serves as a school partner

--Brian Butler -Nancy Sprague Leadership Award – Outstanding First year Principal Nominee 2008 –As a First Year Principal in 2006-2007.

--Dawn Hendrick – Virginia Educational Association – Outstanding Assistant Principal Nominee – 2006-2007.

--Apple Federal Credit Union Technology Grant (Art Teacher and Technology Specialist)

--After-School Enrichment Program Highlighted on FCPS Television Station for “Closing the Opportunity Gap”

-- Three Nationally Board Certified Teachers on Staff

--Tara Murphy -  2008-2009 Fairfax County Public Schools  First Year Teacher of The Year Winner

--Beth Reidy 2009-2010 Bruce Oliver Leadership Award