NORTH CENTRAL ASSOCIATION

*****************

END OF FIVE-YEAR CYCLE

EXTERNAL VISITATION

TEAM REPORT FOR THE

LAUREL-CONCORD

PUBLIC SCHOOLS

December 8-9, 2003

TABLE OF CONTENTS

List of Team Members Page 1

Agenda for Visitation Day Page 2

Improvement Goals Page 3

Capacity Assessment for School Improvement: Page 3

Chart of Visitation Team’s View Page 3-a

Summary of Visitation and

Commendations Regarding School Improvement Process Page 4

Considerations for Next Steps Page 6

Concluding Remarks Page 8

Appendices: Scores of Visitation Team

Appendix A – Capacities Assessment Instrument Page 9

Appendix B – Rubrics of Documentation Report Page 16

Alphabetical List of

External Team Members

Dr. Brad Connor Director, Student Services Papillion-LaVista P.S.

Mishelle Fields Elementary Teacher Ponca Public Schools

Dr. Jack Gilsdorf Team Chair Department of Education

Dave Hawkins Assistant Superintendent South Sioux City P.S.

Randy Jochum Secondary Principal Osmond Public Schools

Joe Reinert Superintendent Wayne Public Schools

Dr. Tim Sharer Education Department Wayne State College

Jess Wolf Science Instructor Hartington P. S.

Team Consultant

Bob Uhing Special Education Director Education Service Unit 1

Laurel-Concord Public Schools

North Central Accreditation

External Team Visit

Monday and Tuesday, December 8-9, 2003

A G E N D A

Monday, December 8^th

5:30 p.m. School Report/Program Overview – LC Conference Room

6:30 p.m. Dinner with Board, Administration and Steering Committee

7:30 p.m. Tour of Facilities

Tuesday, December 9^th

07:30 - 08:15 Coffee and Rolls with L-C Staff – LC Conference Room

08:15 – 09:15 Orientation For External Team – LC Conference Room

09:15- 10:00 Oral Report from the Steering Committee – L.C. Conf. Rm.

10:00 – 10:15 Break

10:15 – 11:15 Sub Committee Reports/Interviews:

Instruction Committee: Board Room

Assessment Committee: Central Office

Communications Committee: L.C. Conf. Rm.

11:15 – 12:00 External Team Discusses Findings – L.C. Conf. Rm.

12:00 – 01:00 Lunch at the Pizza Ranch – L.C. Conference Room

01:00 – 03:30 External Team Report Preparation – L.C. Conference Room

03:45 – 04:15 External Team – Oral Report – L.C. Conference Room

II. List of Improvement Goals

1. All students will improve in Reading.

2. All students will improve in Writing and Language Arts.

III. The School’s Capacity for School Improvement

On the following page (3-a) the reader will find a Capacities Assessment chart completed by the External Visitation Team at the time of their visitation in December of 2003. A copy of the Capacities Assessment completed by a consensus of the faculty of Laurel-Concord Senior High completed in October of 2003 may be found in the schools’ Documentation Report. A commentary of the team’s observations concerning any differences between the two Capacity Assessment Instrument’s scores may be found in Appendix: A.

Since the Capacities Assessment Instrument did not exist when the school began this five-year cycle of school improvement, there is no baseline score to which one may compare either of these scores. These scores may serve as baseline scores for the next five-year cycle of school improvement.

IV. Summary of Visitation and Commendations About the

Overall Progress of the

School Improvement Process

Summary of Visitation:

The visitation schedule presented on page X was the one planned for the day. However, from the outset plans were disrupted. Two team members were unable to attend due to emergency schedule conflicts. Snow began to fall early in the morning and by late morning team members began to leave to try to get home before roads became impassable. By 1:30 in the afternoon all had departed and were on the road.

Subcommittee members were encouraged to continue the discussions with their leaders by phone or e-mail and subcommittee leaders were requested to submit their report to the team chair. The visitation team report is weakened by being unable to discuss their findings together and to provide a more unified report.

Commendations

The team commends the school system for the following positive steps and accomplishments taken during this five-year cycle of school improvement:

Instruction Subcommittee

1. The staff has done an admirable job of collecting and analyzing student data as it reflects overall performance and achievement of their students.

2. Generally this data reflects continued gains of student performance in the majority of areas assessed.

3. It appears that current instructional practices are resulting in high levels of academic proficiency and consistent growth for most students in areas aligned with state and district standards.

4. District administrators have researched and selected proven instructional techniques for all staff to learn and use in their classrooms.

5. Staff have received frequent and consistent in-service to upgrade their instructional skills, especially in relationship to the targeted APL strategies that the district has selected and expects every staff member to model.

6. A commitment is evident from the Board and Superintendent, all the way to the classroom instructors to follow “Best Practice” instructional techniques and to provide adequate training and support to implement these techniques.

7. There is an expectation and consistent follow-through by administration for all staff to demonstrate “buy-in” to the use of proven instructional strategies in their classrooms.

Assessment Committee

8. The commendations are many and the recommendations few. The committee only wishes that their schools were as progressive in as many ways as the Laurel system is. Members indicate they know they benefit from the visits to Laurel in what they can bring home to their own districts.

9. The two primary goals of reading and language arts improvement are certainly being addressed in every way possible with desired results. The local assessment committee has assembled quite an arsenal of data. Bottom line is that they are improving in the desired areas and have goals and plans to go to the next step.

10. The committee extends commendations for school-wide acceptance of APL strategies to get best practices in the classrooms. School-wide those with whom we spoke seem to be very happy with these results.

Communication Committee

11. Scores on the rating scale were generally quite high, reflecting a high level of satisfaction with goal achievement among the staff. Comments from staff members, and other evidence of success shared with the NCA External Visitation Team during this visit consistently confirmed the high marks being represented on this self-rating scale.

12. Numerous activities and procedures are in place to encourage open communication among all parties in the district and it appears that parents and staff are taking advantage of these opportunities to interact, express concerns, and ask pertinent questions about the academic progress of Laurel-Concord students.

13. The staff were highly complimentary of the work of their superintendent and the leadership displayed by their administrators. They also expressed a belief that their school board was very supportive of the process, has been willing to allocate necessary funds and release time for staff training and is willing to take some risks in allowing their staff to determine the future directions for school improvement activities.

14.While the self-rating scores would suggest some areas needing continued improvement, the amount of effort and involvement among staff being shown by this district toward open communication is commendable. Staff comments seem to confirm a high level of trust and respect for the leadership being shown in the district and a commitment to keeping lines of communication open at all levels. Their goal to continue to increase parental access to student information support this level of trust and honest desire to work as a partner with parents to help their children improve.

15. Overall, the steps being taken in the Action Plan to improve communications appear appropriate and seem to be right on schedule toward success. District staff should be commended for their efforts to open the doors of their school in nearly every way possible to their community.

V. Considerations for Next Steps

Instruction Committee

1. Student performance data was evident for the total student population on such instruments as the TERRA NOVA, but additional disaggregation of data for some subgroups (gender, low income, non-college bound) was missing. Disaggregation of these subgroups in the same fashion as was used with English Language Learners and Special Education populations may be of value to look at how these groups of students compare to the others, and analyze if any specific APL strategies could be emphasized with certain populations if weaknesses are evident.

2. When the staff was questioned about specific modifications/accommodations being made in their instructional techniques in order to address “pockets” of students who were not demonstrating academic success, they were unable to identify any “pockets” and/or changes taking place to customize instructional practices for subgroups. They didn’t seem aware of any groups of students who were consistently struggling academically. It seemed that they believed continued use of the APL strategies for all students or single large-group activities would result in academic improvement for any subgroups that were not performing as well as the rest.

3. Reading test results indicated a consistent drop in performance of 7-8^th graders from 1999-2002, (p.89) but committee members seemed unaware of any efforts to analyze this drop or adjust reading instruction for these grades to change this trend. While this is only one indicator, it may reflect a need to modify instructional practices prior to, or during the 7^th-8^th grade years.

4. A rather high percentage of students in Grade 4 (p.102) were unable to meet proficiency in certain reading standards. Committee members did not indicate any specific instructional strategies being used to address these groups. It would be wise to look closely at these standards, determine if they are really considered necessary, and address any instructional changes necessary to bring students up to a level of proficiency.

5. Specifically in the area of writing, committee members were unaware of any efforts to quantify the actual amount of time teachers across the curriculum were requiring students to write. They sensed that there was a greater emphasis on writing in the district, and perhaps that more writing was taking place, but they could not confirm that this was true across all curricular areas. It would be of value to determine if all teachers were in fact incorporating writing activities within their subject areas, actually instructing students on how to improve their writing skills within their subject matter, and using actual writing exercises to assess student performance.

6. Student Portfolios are compiled at the elementary level, but staff were unaware of what happens to these materials after 6^th grade, or if any continued effort is made at the secondary level to compile or analyze samples of student work. The portfolio concept, especially the concept of an electronic portfolio should be incorporated K-12, not just at the K-6 level.

Assessment Committee

7. Teachers expressed concern in their rubric about research time and planning time in general. The committee notes that teachers in most districts are getting very distressed over all the extra time asked of them to do work on standards, portfolios, and school improvement. It appears that same mood is present in Laurel.

8. One concern expressed by some of the committee members was that the data that the school committees collect be understandable to the average patron. The patrons of the district have access to the data but may have some difficulty in understanding its meaning.

9. A concern for the future is the realization that with a 10% reduction in student population the school will have to strive harder to continue to maintain the high level of student outcomes with less resources.

Communication Committee:

Introduction: Four areas on the North Central Rubrics reflected the possibility of a need to improve. However, neither the external team members conducting the interview nor the two local co-chairs could pinpoint the reasons that these particular four areas might have been rated lower by the staff than the others. Of the four areas, two seemed to deal with how the district was using data to accomplish its goals. They were: 1) data collection and 2) analysis and use of profile data. The other two areas were: 3) understanding of the process and commitment and 4) goal selection and rationale.

10. It is recommended that further discussion with the staff might be helpful to clarify why these areas were rated low. It is possible that staff and parent survey data may be examined more closely to determine if any areas of weakness could be identified. Continued monitoring of the access and frequency of use of both Power School and the district’s Homepage might also be helpful.

11. It is recommended that parent and community use of the student performance data be confirmed. It may be too early to collect enough data regarding parent and community use, but in time this data will become more valuable in confirming the use of these methods of communication. On first glance, it would appear that these communication methods are being received well by staff and parents. This needs to be confirmed.

12. As use of the student performance data becomes more evident, efforts need to focus on using this information to pinpoint areas where communication channels can be improved. Simply knowing the number of times parents are accessing the information, for example, is only the first step in determining how to make the communication system even better.

13. Continued review and clarification to staff of the purpose and ultimate goal in mind for this target area may be helpful, as well as the path being forged to reach that goal.

14. As additional data becomes available to quantify the use of the communication methods being made available, this data should be carefully analyzed in order to more precisely target the needs of the community, staff, students and parents in keeping everyone on the same page toward success.

15. Once the above is done, it is quite likely that other areas of improvement will become a greater concern and both the school staff and community members can feel secure that a positive, effective system of mutual trust, respect and communication is in place.

Concluding Remarks

The Laurel-Concord district, board and its staff should be commended for the exceptional job they are doing in taking the process of school improvement seriously. While staff may feel they lack adequate resources and time to address school improvement, they may find that compared to other districts around them they are being provided a great deal more time and resources than many of their peers.

The visionary leadership and commitment from the Superintendent and the building principals are admirable. It becomes obvious to anyone visiting this district that the commitment to ensuring student success is not only the mission of the school, but also the mission of the board and the entire community. This district continues to be, in many instances a “lighthouse” district in Nebraska. The energy, creativity, and commitment you have shown to date will serve you well in the future. The team wishes you well.