South Middle School
Staff Weekly Newsletter: February 24 - February 28
Week at a Glance
- Annual IEP for GT (Room 4, 7:45 a.m.)
- Assistant Principal Interview #1 (Front Office, 3:15 - 4:15 p.m.)
Tuesday, February 25
- Annual IEP for TC (Room 4, 7:45 a.m.)
- 8th Grade GPHS Visit (SMS to GPHS, 9:00 - 11:30 a.m.)
- Assistant Principal Interview #2 (Front Office, 3:15 - 4:15 p.m.)
- Juntos Family Workshop #2 (SMS, 5:30 - 8:00 p.m.)
Wednesday, February 26
- PLC - Instruction (Meet in SMS Library to Breakout, 7:45 a.m.)
- Student of the Month Lunch (Barret's Office, 12:30 p.m.)
Thursday, February 27
- 8th Grade Parent Night (GPHS, Classified LMC (Board Room, 8:00 - 11:30 a.m.)
Friday, February 28
- Eligibility Meeting for IS (Room 4, 7:45 a.m.)
- Pep Assembly (SMS Gym, PM Assembly Schedule)
Supervision Schedule
Supervision Schedule (8:10 - 8:25 a.m.) - 15 minutes a day as assigned.
Team 4:
6th Grade Hall: Ward & Karbowski
T @ 7th/8th Grade Hall: DeHarmony
8th Grade Hall: Serrage
Large Gym: Bigelow/Baertschiger
Parking Lot AM: Willaman
Parking Lot PM & Buses PM: Gottula & Pell
Daily Supervision Schedule:
Parking Lot/Exit AM: Aguilera, Huerta & Admin
Parking Lot/Exit PM: Aguilera, Kindrick & Admin
Cafeteria AM: Miller/McCarty & Hopkins/Karbowski
Bus PM (3:09 - 3:25): Hopkins/Karbowski, Admin & Team Teacher
Staff Shout-Out
ELA/SS Teams
Thanks to our ELA/SS Teams for digging into their own learning this week. We had a great visit by the OrRTIi team on Wednesday morning and throughout the day as they visited classrooms. Then the ELA team was out for a full day of PD with the OrRTIi team at the DO. Finally, they kept powering through with much of our staff as they went to training for SIOP. Lucky for the rest of us is that there will only be one more day with 15 subs in the building come March! Great job, teams!
Weekly Article
Staff,
As we've been diving into reading and math assessment data lately in our teams, this article is especially interesting. Consider comparing class-wide and grade-wide screening data to grades we've given in class.
Enjoy!
How Teachers’ Standards and Expectations Affect Student Performance
In this paper from the Thomas B. Fordham Institute, Seth Gershenson reports on his study of how the grading practices of eighth- and ninth-grade North Carolina math teachers affected their students’ content mastery and downstream math success. Gershenson looked at Algebra I data in North Carolina from 2006 to 2016 because during those years, high-school students were required to take Algebra I and sit for a statewide end-of-course exam.
This made it possible to compare students’ scores on a common assessment with teachers’ grades. For example, if students were given good grades by their teachers but scored poorly on the statewide test, that was an indication of low teacher standards and expectations and/or a watered-down curriculum. The huge data set made it possible for Gershenson to look at grades and test results for the same course across the state, and zero in on teachers and students in the same school in the same year.
Gershenson’s focus was on teachers’ standards and expectations. “One way that teachers convey their expectations,” he says, “sometimes directly and sometimes indirectly, is through the grades they assign. Students can respond to this information by recalibrating their own expectations and beliefs about what’s possible, reengaging with school, and putting forth greater effort… When students who have not mastered the material receive passing marks anyway, they can become complacent and fail to reach their full potential. Lax grading is a pernicious practice that provides students and parents with a false sense of security and accomplishment that might prevent them from trying harder, learning more, and maximizing their own future prospects in the ‘real world.’”
Across the state, comparing teachers’ grades with end-of-course results revealed widespread grade inflation: more than one-third of students who earned a B in Algebra I from their teachers failed to score proficient on the state Algebra I exam, and more than half of B students fell short of the state’s “college-and-career-ready” standard. Gershenson interviewed teachers and found a variety of opinions on what grades meant:
- “I kind of think a B is like the new average… and if you’re A, it’s above average, and if it’s a C, then it’s like, nobody likes a C anymore."
- “An A in my classroom, unfortunately, means that they probably turned everything in. It’s not necessarily A work, but that’s what it means because if you put out a rubric, and you’re like, ‘Okay, they’ve met these standards, but it’s absolutely awful work,’ you have to give an A."
- “The teachers who grade a little bit easier, like just easy, they probably struggle with teaching it, and so they feel that they don’t want to have to [deal with] complaints, so they just give the kids the grade, so they don’t have to hear about it, or they felt guilty that they didn’t teach it right.”
So what did the study conclude? Here are the major findings:
- Students learned more from teachers who had higher grading standards. In other words, students whose teachers’ grades during the Algebra I course were more in line with performance on the state test were the most effective. “No matter how you slice it,” says Gershenson, “stricter grading standards appear to have a sizable impact on student performance.”
- Teachers with higher grading standards improved their students’ performance in subsequent math classes up to two years later, as well as their post-secondary intentions. Gershenson looked at Geometry and Algebra II grades and found a strong link with more realistic grades during the Algebra I course.
- Teachers with higher grading standards significantly improved the learning outcomes of all student subgroups. This was true for male, female, Hispanic, and African-American students, and for those with strong and weak math backgrounds.
- Teachers with higher grading standards significantly improved student learning in all types of schools. In affluent and less-affluent schools, and in middle and high schools with different school climates, the power of teacher standards and expectations was almost identical.
- Teachers who attended selective colleges, held graduate degrees, and had more experience tended to have higher grading standards. Female teachers also had higher standards than male teachers.
- Grading standards tended to be higher in middle schools, suburban schools, and schools serving more-advantaged students. “More-affluent schools have grading standards that are, on average, more than one-third of a standard deviation stricter,” says Gershenson.
“Great Expectations: The Impact of Rigorous Grading Practices on Student Achievement” by Seth Gershenson, February 2020, Thomas B. Fordham Institute, https://bit.ly/37h4IQH
JFK - Progress
Creativity with Boundaries
January Students of the Month
February Birthdays!
- Janna Reid - February 4th
- Shelly Bigelow - February 6th
- Kregg Scarcello - February 7th
- Morgan Rastellini - February 11th
- Scott Gottula - February 13th
- Kyle Blank - February 13th
- Dave McCarty - February 17th
- Alison Hopkins - February 24th
- Ronnie Kindrick - February 24th
- Billy Miller - February 25th
- Wesley Kriz - February 26th
- Casey Petty - February 28th