Orientation to Middle School Study

1
Orientation to Middle School Study

• November 13, 2002

2
History of Conversion

• Eau Claire began to explore the idea of
  converting to the middle school concept during
  the 1986-1987 school year.
• We actually became middle schools in the fall
  of 1990 and are now in our 13th year of
  implementation.

3
Junior High Model

• Literally a mini-high school.
• Teachers were secondary trained.
• Teachers focused heavily on course content.
• Teachers planned alone or by discipline.
• Teachers did not know which other teachers served
  their students.
• Staff members were isolated in their teaching
  because there was very little collaborative time
  provided.
• Extra curricular activities were the same as high
  school with an elimination policy for competitive
  groups.
• We were in the WIAA competitive sports circuit.

4
What Triggered the Change

• Overcrowding in elementary schools
• Interest generated by the information we were
  learning about middle schools.

5
Middle School Transition Goals

• Develop a more child centered and nurturing
  school
• Make large schools seem smaller.
• Give students multiple options to explore through
  both formal and informal methods.
• Design a program to meet the unique developmental
  needs of our students.

6
To Reach These Goals

• Several committees were formed to study the many
  components that made up exemplary middle schools

7
Four Pillars of Excellence
ECASD Middle School Study Orientation
8
Middle School Mission Statement

• It is the mission of the Eau Claire Middle
  Schools to promote positive intellectual,
  emotional, social, artistic and physical growth
  in all students by providing programs and
  opportunities that enable students to

9
Middle School Mission Statement

• Develop positive self-esteem and interpersonal
  relationships
• Continue building academic competencies and
  critical thinking skills
• Practice problem solving and decision-making
• Explore their aptitudes, interests and creative
  abilities
• Develop a sense of responsibility to themselves,
  their home and their community.

10
Comparisons of where we started and where we are
now.
Then
Now
11
AFFECTIVE ED

• Then
• Activities done once a week during Home Base
• Ideas were canned
• Did not necessarily connect with anything else
• Teachers were not thrilled with delivery or
  results

• Now
• Teams departments absorbed affective education
  ideas into daily instruction
• New curriculum was added/expanded in health, FCE,
  social studies, other areas that incorporates
  affective education
• As a district community, Eau Claire established
  Core Values
• Change groups
• Star Time advisor/advisee)

12
EXPLORATION

• Then
• Required exploration elective offerings.
• Many electives were long and specialized.
• Few field trips/assemblies.
• Club activities done once a week and changed each
  quarter.

• Now
• Some required exploration plus electives.
• Shorter electives so more to sample.
• Field trips and assemblies that enrich the
  general life of our students as well as
  compliment the curriculum.
• Club activities incorporated in longer time
  periods once a quarter.

13
EXPLORATION

• Now
• Extensive extramural no cut athletics for grade 7
  8
• Addition of sixth grade sports program.
• Refined non-athletic extra curricular offerings.

• Then
• Eighth grade competitive athletic teams
  incorporated top players plus intramural options.
• Minimal intramural programs.
• Options existed for non-sport extra-curricular
  activities.

14
HOUSE CONCEPT

• Then
• Teams were organized in part to give students,
  and parents, the feel of a smaller environment
  and to designate contact people for them.
• Teams were very new to our organization.
• Orientation and staff development activities were
  provided to teams to begin to identify roles,
  responsibilities, team direction, etc.

• Now
• Teams continue to provide the small school feel
  and a contact for parents and students.
• Teams have gone through many transitions and
  growth experiences over the years.
• We continue to periodically provide staff
  development activities related to successful
  teaming.

15
HOUSE CONCEPT

• Then
• Teams could not include all staff members (our
  variety of elective classes makes our scheduling
  too complex to include exploratory teachers on
  teams).

• Now
• We are offering a wide variety of exploratory
  activities preventing exploratory teachers from
  having the same type of teaming experience as the
  current team teachers we are providing
  opportunities for exploratory staff to develop
  different collaborative activities.

16
HOUSE CONCEPT

• Then
• Teams focused primarily on individual student
  performance and managerial tasks.
• Communication between team members and
  exploratory staff was a challenge.

• Now
• Our intent is that teams are balancing their time
  to include staff development activities,
  discussions about instruction and assessment, and
  curriculum integration activities as well as the
  student performance and managerial tasks.
• Given the size of our schools, communication in
  many forms continues to be a challenge that we
  address improvements have been made in the last
  13 years.

17
INTERDISCIPLINARY and ACTIVITY BASED

• Then
• Teachers were accustomed to teaching
  independently and tentatively began planning
  together.
• Staff development activities focused on helping
  staff members learn and practice strategies for
  interdisciplinary teaching and activity-based
  learning.

• Now
• Teachers are more likely to look for connections
  and collaborate on units than in the past.
• Staff development continues in a variety of areas
  and generally is focused on good instructional
  practices.

18
INTERDISCIPLINARY and ACTIVITY BASED

• Then
• Interdisciplinary efforts were large, contrived
  events.
• Textbooks were provided for every student in
  every subject.

• Now
• Interdisciplinary activities vary from team to
  team and teacher to teacher, but generally, there
  are a larger number and more natural
  opportunities for students to participate in
  interdisciplinary learning than when we began.
• A wider variety of resource materials are being
  used, and in many cases, the textbook is one
  resource instead of the central content of the
  class.

19
INTERDISCIPLINARY and ACTIVITY BASED

• Then
• There was very little technology available to
  staff or students.
• Use of lecture, worksheet, and multiple-choice
  quiz/test was the predominant teaching style.
• Sixth grade staff sometimes felt left out and
  underappreciated by the upper grade teachers
  they struggled to find common ground in their
  cooperative work.

• Now
• Extensive opportunities in technology exist for
  both staff and students.
• Lectures, worksheets, multiple choice quizzes
  tests are just a few of the variety of teaching
  strategies used by staff no longer dominate our
  programs.
• Our teachers are connected across grade levels
  and appreciate what they can learn and share
  together.

20
INTERDISCIPLINARY and ACTIVITY BASED

• Then
• Teachers in grades 7 8 had a secondary
  background and style while 6th grade teachers
  moved from the elementary structure.

• Now
• Teachers in middle schools come from a variety of
  backgrounds the addition of a middle school
  emphasis at the university level has helped us.

21
Middle School Retreat

• December 6, 2000, all 3 middle schools met to
  review our current program.
• Information was gathered and was used to initiate
  most of our recent modifications.
• Many suggestions needed further study and needed
  to be looked at in combination.

22
Middle School Retreat

• Example 1 Staff suggested the addition of new
  electives, but because our current program is so
  full, we cannot add a class without taking
  something away.
• Example 2 Staff commented that nine weeks is
  too short for the depth we want out of some of
  our electives changing the length of grading
  periods is a very large all district decision.

23
Middle School Retreat

• As a result of these and other large questions,
  this Middle School Study was proposed.

24
The Next Steps

• Action Committees have been formed.
• Focus questions and a timeline have been
  identified for each committee.
• Each group will review current research, current
  practice, and feedback obtained from staff,
  students, parents, and community members to shape
  their recommendations.

25
The Next Steps

• Groups will make recommendations that will
  sustain our exemplary status for the next ten
  years.
• The steering committee will put together the
  information from all of the groups and make
  implementation recommendations and a proposed
  timeline to the school board.

26
The Next Steps

• Our hope is to phase in changes just as we have
  for the last decade.
• Given the high number of staff members over the
  age of 50, this would be a good time to
  transition in any curricular changes.
• Every effort would be made to do the phase in
  through attrition and not lay offs.

27
Purpose of Study

• This study does not indicate the need for a major
  overhaul of our programs.
• It is not the intent of this project to fix
  something that is not broken.
• This project is intended to be proactive.

28
Purpose of Study

• Given that we are currently considered model
  middle schools and our large philosophical leap
  was made in 1990, the intent of our work is to
  look forward and ensure that we are considered
  exemplary in ten or fifteen years.

29
Request for Input

• To express your ideas, ask questions, or share
  concerns, please contact a member of the steering
  committee or the facilitator of one of the action
  committees.

30
Middle School Steering Committee Members

• Deb Hansen,
• Chair - DeLong
• Stacey Basting
• Central Office
• Johanna Benson
• Northstar
• Gregg Butler
• Central Office

• Laurie Hittman
• Central Office
• Ron Martin
• South
• Kevin Stevens
• DeLong
• Dave Valk
• Northstar
• John Wallace
• South

31
The Action Committees

• Middle School Instructional Program
• Affective Education
• Discipline Models
• Instructional Strategies Assessment
• Grading/Reporting to Parents

32
Middle School Instructional Program
Co-facilitated by Laurie Hittman and
Michele Wiberg

• Kit Schiefelbein
• Northstar
• Stacey Basting
• Central Office
• Rozie Bejin
• DeLong
• Carole Galloy
• South
• Bonnie Fetzek
• DeLong
• Mike Galloy
• South
• Sharon Gilles
• Central Office
• Donna Hitchens
• DeLong

• Kristel Tavare
• DeLong
• Brenda Johnson
• South
• Todd Johnson
• South
• Heidi Mahler
• South
• Gary Rambo
• South
• Susan Savolainen
• Central Office
• Dan Walsh
• DeLong

33
Affective Education- Co-facilitated by Michelle
Pond and Cory Bixby

• Gregg Butler
• Central Office
• Cindy Dahl
• DeLong
• Kristi Ekern
• DeLong
• Becky Larson
• South
• Laura Nicolet
• Northstar

• Nate Schock
• South
• Joan Suick
• DeLong
• Becky Van Es
• Northstar
• Cathy Veitch
• South

34
Discipline Models- facilitated by Tim OReilly

• Ken Abel
• Northstar
• Dawn Day
• DeLong
• Sally Johnson
• South

• James Martin
• DeLong
• Stacey Zeman
• DeLong

35
Instructional Strategies and Assessment -
facilitated by Stacey Basting

• Gretchen Beckstrom
• Northstar
• Blanche Bishoff
• DeLong
• Dick Fields
• Central Office
• Sue Fulkerson
• South
• Don Hauser
• Special Ed. Dept.
• Sue Hughes
• DeLong

• Barb Karlan
• Northstar
• Sue Kern
• DeLong
• Carol Kirk
• DeLong
• Matt Kulasiewicz
• South
• Cass Lamb
• DeLong

36
Grading/Reporting to Parents- Co-facilitated by
Deb Hansen and Jennifer McDonough

• Stacey Bauer
• Northstar
• Karen Bejin
• DeLong
• Sarah Fisher-Burton
• DeLong
• Margie Gabrys
• Northstar
• Laurie Hittman
• Central Office

• Arlene Radtke
• South
• Ryan Sherman
• DeLong
• Judy Tulgren
• DeLong

37
Timeline For Middle School Study

• June 2002 MS Steering Committee formed
• Aug./Sept. 2002 Key topics identified
• October 2002 Action committee members recruited
  to address key topics
• November 2002 Orientation Meeting for all middle
  school staff
• November 2002 Initial meeting of action
  committees
• December 2002 Orientation presentation to the
  Board of Education
• Nov. 2002/Mar. 03 Committee work
• April 1, 2003 Instructional Program, Affective
  Education, and Discipline
• Committees make recommendations to the
  Steering Committee
• April/Nov. 2003 Instructional Strategies/Assessme
  nt and Grading/
• Reporting to Parents Committees continue work
• May 2003 Steering Committee prepares Phase I
  Recommendations
• based on the recommendations of the action
  committees
• May/June 2003 Public listening session on Phase
  I Recommendations
• June 2003 Phase I Rec. and Implementation
  Timeline brought to the Board of Education
• Sept./Oct. 2003 Course Catalogue updated
• December 1, 2003 Instructional
  Strategies/Assessment Grading/Reporting to
  Parents
• Committees make recommendations to the
  Steering Committee
• January 2004 Steering Committee prepares Phase
  II Recommendations

38
Thank you for your support and interest in our
middle schools.