Intensive Care Unit
It has long been a challenge at the middle school to keep students focused on their work and grades. Students in general are busy with activities, family, chores, and responsibilities. When they leave school, homework ceases to exist for a great deal of students as the rest of their lives take precedence. As a staff we knew it was necessary to set an intervention program, not only give students time to do their work, but also to show the importance of accurate, completed, quality work. Funding cuts had seen the end of the afterschool tutoring program that had been in place. The need for a program, at minimal cost, became exceedingly apparent with each “D, F, I” list. The percentage of students with one or more failing grades was averaging around seventy percent. Forty percent of those students had more than one failing grade. Simmons was in dire need of some assistance!
Our administration came across a book entitled Power of ICU by Danny Hill and Dr. Jayson Nave. After reading the book, our admin was energized about the potential, and they arranged a book study for a deeper analysis of the program with selected staff from all grade levels, core and encore teachers. As a participant in the initial book study, I was impressed with not only the overall concept, but also the detail the authors put into their explanation of the ICU program. I was both hopeful and excited about the prospect of seeing this program in action and the potential benefits it could bring to the students.
After the book study was completed, the select staff met and discussed the pros and cons of initiating such a program at Simmons. The consensus from the small group was that this program held a great deal of promise, and with some effort, it could be a great fit for Simmons. Because of this consensus, participation in a second book study included all educational staff. Staff members also had the opportunity to travel to Watertown to attend a workshop hosted by the authors of the book. Upon their return, more excitement regarding the possibilities and potential rewards prompted a decision to create a pilot program for the following educational year, although there was much work to be done.
It was exceptionally important that all teachers, educational assistants, and support personnel were onboard with the program from its inception. Onboard meant only accepting quality work from students, expecting all work to be completed, and all staff was required to familiarize themselves with the ICU list and monitor Homerooms student who frequented the list. Equally important were the parents. Parents need be informed of the program itself and its requirements. Students would be in contact with parents during school hours to keep them informed of what work was missing and what needed to be redone.
Our plan of action started with the creation of a Google Document open to all staff members to monitor and amend the ICU list. The program was introduced to parents and students at the open houses at the beginning of the 2009-2010 school year, and details were included in the student handbooks and in newsletters to parents. On the first day of each week, teams met to identify students with failing grades in core classes; this of course meant that teachers needed to have their grades up to date. Students placed on the ICU were brought into the team to discuss missing and unacceptable work. Students then made a call home to parents to explain why they were on ICU. ICU appointments were scheduled and students were required to attend. They remained on the ICU list until work was satisfactorily completed.
After the pilot year, the SMS staff evaluated the program. The data from the “D, F, I” list at midterms and quarters was compared to previous years and it was shown to have a dramatic drop, about sixty-six percent, in the number of failing students. Students were held more accountable for the quality of their work. As the year progressed, the list became shorter every week and students became watchdogs for each other. The philosophy of ICU became school wide.
With each year, the ICU program is revised. Initially, the program only dealt with failing grades in core classes. It became apparent that the encore classes needed to be included in the program when the “D, F, I” list began to consist of only encore classes. As a teacher of an encore class, I was very pleased with this move. Not only did it ensure that work was being completed in all classes, but it helped remove the idea that encore class grades were less important than that of core classes. All grades count.
In addition to the inclusion of encore classes, work quality was also reassessed. It was not long acceptable to just turn something, but quality work was required. Students can be returned to the ICU list should their work not be of significant quality. Students can expect pullouts from encore classes when needed, and have ICU sessions in the morning during homeroom, during lunch, and extra nights after school.
Since the ICU program began at Simmons, the number of failing grades has fluctuated, but it has never return to its previous number. While the program is designed to work in virtually any situation, every group of students passing through the halls of Simmons is inherently different. It can take some time to identify which strategies will work best and modify the program accordingly. The program has also expanded throughout the district.
The program has generated honest communication between students, parents, and staff. This candid communication allows all parties with a stake in a child’s academic welfare to be on the same page. There is less pressure on the staff to pursue coursework and acquire quality work from students. The overall reward for parents, students and staff was an improvement in scores on report cards and the DakotaSTEP test, but most important is the students achieve an improved understanding of the foundational concepts in all subjects.
Our administration came across a book entitled Power of ICU by Danny Hill and Dr. Jayson Nave. After reading the book, our admin was energized about the potential, and they arranged a book study for a deeper analysis of the program with selected staff from all grade levels, core and encore teachers. As a participant in the initial book study, I was impressed with not only the overall concept, but also the detail the authors put into their explanation of the ICU program. I was both hopeful and excited about the prospect of seeing this program in action and the potential benefits it could bring to the students.
After the book study was completed, the select staff met and discussed the pros and cons of initiating such a program at Simmons. The consensus from the small group was that this program held a great deal of promise, and with some effort, it could be a great fit for Simmons. Because of this consensus, participation in a second book study included all educational staff. Staff members also had the opportunity to travel to Watertown to attend a workshop hosted by the authors of the book. Upon their return, more excitement regarding the possibilities and potential rewards prompted a decision to create a pilot program for the following educational year, although there was much work to be done.
It was exceptionally important that all teachers, educational assistants, and support personnel were onboard with the program from its inception. Onboard meant only accepting quality work from students, expecting all work to be completed, and all staff was required to familiarize themselves with the ICU list and monitor Homerooms student who frequented the list. Equally important were the parents. Parents need be informed of the program itself and its requirements. Students would be in contact with parents during school hours to keep them informed of what work was missing and what needed to be redone.
Our plan of action started with the creation of a Google Document open to all staff members to monitor and amend the ICU list. The program was introduced to parents and students at the open houses at the beginning of the 2009-2010 school year, and details were included in the student handbooks and in newsletters to parents. On the first day of each week, teams met to identify students with failing grades in core classes; this of course meant that teachers needed to have their grades up to date. Students placed on the ICU were brought into the team to discuss missing and unacceptable work. Students then made a call home to parents to explain why they were on ICU. ICU appointments were scheduled and students were required to attend. They remained on the ICU list until work was satisfactorily completed.
After the pilot year, the SMS staff evaluated the program. The data from the “D, F, I” list at midterms and quarters was compared to previous years and it was shown to have a dramatic drop, about sixty-six percent, in the number of failing students. Students were held more accountable for the quality of their work. As the year progressed, the list became shorter every week and students became watchdogs for each other. The philosophy of ICU became school wide.
With each year, the ICU program is revised. Initially, the program only dealt with failing grades in core classes. It became apparent that the encore classes needed to be included in the program when the “D, F, I” list began to consist of only encore classes. As a teacher of an encore class, I was very pleased with this move. Not only did it ensure that work was being completed in all classes, but it helped remove the idea that encore class grades were less important than that of core classes. All grades count.
In addition to the inclusion of encore classes, work quality was also reassessed. It was not long acceptable to just turn something, but quality work was required. Students can be returned to the ICU list should their work not be of significant quality. Students can expect pullouts from encore classes when needed, and have ICU sessions in the morning during homeroom, during lunch, and extra nights after school.
Since the ICU program began at Simmons, the number of failing grades has fluctuated, but it has never return to its previous number. While the program is designed to work in virtually any situation, every group of students passing through the halls of Simmons is inherently different. It can take some time to identify which strategies will work best and modify the program accordingly. The program has also expanded throughout the district.
The program has generated honest communication between students, parents, and staff. This candid communication allows all parties with a stake in a child’s academic welfare to be on the same page. There is less pressure on the staff to pursue coursework and acquire quality work from students. The overall reward for parents, students and staff was an improvement in scores on report cards and the DakotaSTEP test, but most important is the students achieve an improved understanding of the foundational concepts in all subjects.