For many of us, that makes this is our "senior year" together; year-four of this little experiment in home-grown school administration, to see if a teacher with no administrative training or experience, drafted out of your own ranks, could provide the leadership necessary to carry a school like Marshall forward.
Then, as now, we had a lot of things to discuss: procedures, policies, new systems and schedules. Back then Synergy was called Genesis, we were worried about an influx of out-of-boundary enrollments from "failing" schools, CTs were still called PLCs, there was no TPEC, no online gradebook, no Common Core, no teacher performance pay package, and the threat of a RIF loomed large on the horizon...
So much has changed.
At the same time, so much hasn't changed.
Marshall is still proudly a magnet school, providing each and every one of our students with unique, standards-based, extracurricular opportunities that no other school in the region can match; we continue to be sought out by numerous out-of-boundary families eager to enroll their children in our program; we're also still a neighborhood Title 1 school, serving an ever-increasing population of low-income students who live near the poverty-line; and we're still ranked as a "C" school by the powers that be based on our AIMS and AIMS-A scores as reported on the AZLEARNS rating scale.
Taken individually, as small parts of the whole, it's easy to look at any one of these indicators by itself and proclaim either our collective success or failure based on its discrete impact on our overall achievement. But to look at just one indicator in isolation is for-certain an insufficient means for measuring the success or failure of an entire school.
Looking only at our AIMS/SAT 10 scores, or our AZLEARNS letter grade, is easily the most commonly insufficient way to gauge our success or failure as a school. Looking at these data-points as component-parts of our data/achievement-puzzle, I think that's a fine way to use these indicators.
But, overall, there are several additional interesting points of data for us to consider when attempting to evaluate our achievement as a school over the course of the past several years.
For instance: since 2011 our enrollment has grown at a fairly steady rate, and with the influx of new students our enrollment of low-income students has likewise increased substantially. Here's how:
Free-and-reduced Lunch Eligibility (Marshall)
| 2010 | 2011 | 2012 | 2013 | 2014 |
| 46.4% | 48.5% | 54.7% | 54.4% | 56.9% |
Spot the trend?
That's an almost 11% increase in students who are eligible for federal lunch subsidies in just five years. That means this year we will identify nearly 350 of our approximately 600 students as low-income students, eligible for free-and-reduced lunch benefits. We know, and research supports the contention, that these students are among our most-challenging, most at-risk, most needy students, not just in terms of the nutritional support they require, but also in terms of the academic remediation and intervention necessary to bring them up to grade-level and then keep them there.
Marshall is changing.
Not for the worse, nor for the better. But it's definitely evolving, trending in a direction wherein we will be called upon to serve, I think for the next-phase in our history, a skewing-ever-lower socio-economic demographic. Again, that's not better or worse, but it certainly is quite different from Marshall's previous history as a tight-knit neighborhood school primarily serving Clark Homes, Downtown, Coconino Estates, and Cherry Hill precincts somewhat more exclusively.
Lots to chew on there. Here's some more:
Below are two matrices, the first charts our rate-of-success on AIMS by grade-level over the past three school years, the second follows three distinct Marshall cohort groups of students over the same three years of AIMS achievement.
Like it or not, this first table charts the rate of achievement or effectiveness of a group of teachers teaching at a common grade level over time. Keep in mind, this is precisely how AIMS scores are reported to the public each year.
| Gr. Level | Reading 11-12 | Reading 12-13 | Reading 13-14 |
| 3rd | 73 | 71 | 69 |
| 4th | 80 | 76 | 74 |
| 5th | 74 | 74 | 72 |
| Math 11-12 | Math 12-13 | Math 13-14 | |
| 3rd | 75 | 62 | 67 |
| 4th | 66 | 64 | 64 |
| 5th | 38 | 55 | 58 |
What do you see?
Remember: throughout this period, our demographic was shifting.
This next matrix is somewhat different and contains data that is not readily apparent to the public when they're shown AIMS data.
The tables below follow cohort groups of students over the same time period. Many (though by no means all) of the students in Group A started with us as third graders in 2011, Group B as 4th graders in 2011, and Group C as fifth graders in 2011. There's less longitudinal data for this chart (so some of the cells are empty) because only one of these cohorts has been with us all three of these years.
There are a couple interesting trends to be observed here.
| Cadres | Reading 11-12 | Reading 12-13 | Reading 13-14 |
| Grp. A | 72 | 74 | 72 |
| Grp. B | 80 | 77 | |
| Grp. C | 72 | ||
| Math 11-12 | Math 12-13 | Math 13-14 | |
| Grp. A | 72 | 63 | 58 |
| Grp. B | 65 | 54 | |
| Grp. C | 36 |
What do you see this time? When viewed through the lens of a shifting demographic, are there lessons to be learned from this data?
Let's change the subject for a moment: Way back in August 2011, I asked those of you who were here a simple but intentionally thought-provoking question at the end of that first meeting together, by way of encouraging you to reflect on the job you do and why you do it.
Do you recall what that question was?
I'll tell you. It was:
If someone had told you, back in the beginning of your teaching career, that teaching as a profession would become what it has become today, would you still make the same decision to be a teacher?
If recollection serves, (almost?) every one of you who were here that day answered in the same way, positively affirming your choice now as then to become what you are: a teacher, despite the circumstances.
Take a moment to ponder that anew, or if you're new to our ranks since then, to ponder it afresh.
I hope so.
We'll get back to that in a few minutes.
For now let's look at a little more data to help us gauge our progress.
Copies of our previous year's AZLEARNS data-sheets are available via the following links:
[2012] [2013]
A copy of our 2014 AZLEARNS score has finally become available for "public" consumption. It was "embargoed" until recently... while the state double-checked their math, one presumes.
Something to keep in mind as you look at this next group of data points: our AIMS/AIMS-A and AZLEARNS scores are only based on the results of students who started the school year day-one at Marshall: Full Academic Year (FAY) students.
Also remember, when the state produces this data and uses it to measure our effectiveness, it is, in all honesty, reporting on the rate of achievement of a group of teachers at particular grade-levels (ie: How well did the fourth grade at Marshall do this year compared to last year?). It's only with some effort to disaggregate the data that we're able to report on the actual growth of common cohort groups of students over time (ie: Did the students who were third graders last year grow in knowledge and ability between this year and the last?), which I've attempted to do above.
With that in mind, here are some of the key data points from our 2014 AZLEARNS data sheet:
| Pass | Reading (% Change) | Math (% Change) | |
| 3rd | 69% (-2) | 67% (+5) | |
| 4th | 74% (-2) | 64% (0) | |
| 5th | 72% (-2) | 58% (+3) | |
| Med. %-ile | Reading (% Change) | Math (% Change) | |
| 3rd | 47% (+12) | 42% (+5) | |
| 4th | 50.5% (-7.5) | 50% (+18) | |
| 5th | 42% (+5) | 35.5% (-6.5) | |
Here's some more data for you...
| AZLEARNS Points | 2012 | 2013 | 2014 | |
| Composite | 67 | 70 | 73 | |
| Growth | 48 | 41 | 41 | |
| ELL | 0 | 0 | 3 | |
| Total | 115 | 111 | 114 |
And, last but not least, the rate of growth for all of our students, and then for our all-important bottom quartile students, where, again, much of our enrollment growth has occurred:
| Growth %-ile | 2012 | 2013 | 2014 |
| All FAY students | 50 | 40.5 | 45 |
| Bottom Q FAY students | 44.5 | 39.25 | 35.5 |
What can you make of all this information? What do you think it can tell us?
Personally, I think all of this data is telling us a number of things...
First of all, I believe that our consistent scores in several areas, most especially our solid three-year AIMS passing rate of 67%, lead me to believe that we've done well to "stem the tide" and thus minimize the potential impacts of of the remarkable shifts in our school-wide socio-economic demographic which have occurred during the last few years.
Our focus on Math last year, setting SMART goals in CTs, and committing to a Morning Math review/reteaching routine each day appears to have enabled us to enhance our achievement in Math significantly across the board.
Almost universally, year after year, we're increasing our median percentile rankings in all subject areas and for all students who are with us for a full academic year (FAY).
We're doing an increasingly more successful job of "reclassifying" our ELL students as proficient English speakers.
I believe that the fact that, every respect, our fourth grade AIMS Science scores are well in excess (on average more than 5 percentage points) of the state, county, and district average scores, demonstrates that Marshall's emphasis on the sciences through our classroom instruction and magnet programs is valid and working to the advantage of our students. Were there a similar AIMS assessment in the arts, I think we would see similarly impressive results.
And, we're slowly but surely trending back in a positive direction as far as our AZLEARNS letter grade goes, though for now we remain fixed, nevertheless, within the "average" distribution.
Overall: well done!
These are all positive indicators which, once again, lead me to believe that we're not just stemming the tide of a shifting demographic, but in many subjects and at many grade levels, gaining ground, too.
That's good stuff.
But it begs the question: what should we do to stay on this improving trend-line?
What do you think?
I believe most of us are willing to commit to this effort to continue to not just "stem the tide" of our shifts in demographic and need, but also to continue to work toward maintaining the upward track we seem to be on. Simply put: I think we can continue to do even better.
As we discussed last year at this time, all of the component parts are in place at Marshall. We have a much richer and deeper array of assets here than any other elementary school in the district.
And make no mistake: You, collectively as Marshall teachers, are our greatest assets.
I truly believe that Marshall's teaching staff is the most extraordinarily well-qualified and exceptionally talented group of teachers at any school in town.
Our Core Values, which we've developed together last year, lead me to believe that we're on the same page when it comes to who we desire to be and what we desire to achieve on behalf of the students at Marshall.
But, still, the work to do better is not going to be easy.
We're going to need to remain committed, as a staff, to doing even more: more consistent delivery of solid instruction, more scaffolding and differentiation, more formative assessment, more review and reteaching, more ability-grouped strategic intervention, more collaboration between grade-level cohorts, more partnering with parents, more communication between home-and-school... the list goes on.
So, before we adjourn today, I need to ask you one last thing:
If someone had told you, A FEW YEARS AGO, that teaching AT MARSHALL MAGNET SCHOOL would become AS CHALLENGING has become today, would you still make the same decision to be a teacher HERE?
What say you?
As you contemplate your response, I ask only that you "Let your Yes be yes, and your No be no."
But I hope it's yes.
If it is, that's great!
Let's do this.
