By way of reminder, CMS mobilized G2G as a response to Dr. John Cronin's analysis and reportof the NWEA results of CMS students from 2004-2006. On page 12 of his report, Dr. Cronin referred to CMS as "a reasonably good school with aspirations to become a great one." That statement, which he said several times during his November visit, led to the genesis of G2G.
As G2G reviewed the recommendations of Dr. Cronin, page 10 of his report gave us some insight as to our purpose. It reads:
The grouping arrangements in place today work substantively better for high achieving students than low achievers. In reading and language usage, the flexible grouping arrangement produced better growth for high achievers than the ability grouping arrangements. Low achieving students have shown poor growth in the flexible grouping arrangement, but did not show substantively better results in ability grouped situations. In mathematics, the current course assignments produce excellent growth with high achieving students in grades seven and eight, although growth has slipped this past year. This assignment system has produced poor results with low achieving students and these results have declined further during the most recent school year.
This leads to the general conclusion that decisions about grouping per se may not have much to with the results produced by the middle school. The school employes flexible grouping arrangements for reading and groups by achievement in mathematics. These "conflicting" arrangements have both worked relatively well for high performers and both work very poorly for low performers. Thus simply making a change in grouping arrangements, whether toward or away from ability grouping, without a constellation of changes that are targeted more directly at improving the quality of curriculum and instruction, is unlikely to make much difference.
With the declaration from Dr. Cronin that a change in grouping would not appear to have an effect on the performance of students at CMS, G2G focused on the "Constellation of Change" about which he wrote and spoke. Our discussions, both with the committee proper and the faculty-at-large have led to a focus on three key domains: Curriculum, The Holistic Well-being of Students (which includes the social, emotional, academic, and physical well-being of our students), and the Constancy of Purpose that Dr. Cronin spoke of so eloquently at his presentation (See the "Great" Schools Diagram to see how the three domains intersect). Moreover the G2G committee has come to the conclusion that in order to provided a high quality education for each student, the three domains must be acutely balanced. Specifically, if any one of the three domains is deficient the ability of the school to deliver high quality education will be compromised.
With the "Great" Schools Diagram model in mind, G2G is now involved in a couple of processes. First, trying to determine how well each domain is currently woven into the fabric of the school. Are we lacking in any of the three domains? More than one? All three? Further, can specific reasons be determined as to why any one or some combination of the three domains are deficient? Is there a domain (or 2? or 3?) in which CMS is outstanding? Why are we outstanding? Is there a common trait between those areas in which we are outstanding that can be replicated? Which leads to the second process. Developing action plans to address deficient domains and replicate those that are outstanding. More will come of this process on a later post.
