SchoolWorks School Quality Review Report West Early College November 7 – 8, 2016 100 Cummings Center, Suite 236C, Beverly, MA 01915 (978) 921-1674 www.schoolworks.org Table of Contents About the School Quality Review Process ...................................................................................... 1 Domains and Key Questions ........................................................................................................... 2 Domain 1: Instruction ................................................................................................................. 3 Domain 2: Students’ Opportunities to Learn .............................................................................. 7 Domain 3: Educators’ Opportunities to Learn ............................................................................ 9 Domain 4: Leadership and Community .................................................................................... 11 Appendix A: Site Visit Team Members ......................................................................................... 14 Appendix B: Implementation Rubric ............................................................................................ 15 Appendix C: Summary of Classroom Observation Data ............................................................... 16 About the School Quality Review Process The School Quality Review (SQR) protocol and review process provides a third-party perspective on current school quality for all students. The process will include two days of collecting evidence on site through interviews, classroom visits, and document review. While on site, the team meets to discuss, sort, and analyze evidence it is collecting. The site visit team uses evidence collected through these events to determine ratings in relation to the protocol’s criteria and indicators. The report documents the team’s ratings for key questions within each of the four domains identified in the SQR protocol: Instruction, Students’ Opportunities to Learn, Educators’ Opportunities to Learn, and Leadership and Community. © 2016 SchoolWorks, LLC. All rights reserved. Page 1 Domains and Key Questions Based on trends found in the collected evidence, the site visit team assigns a rating to each key question. Rating Domains Level 1: Level 2: Level 3: Level 4: Does Not Meet Partially Meets Meets Exceeds Domain 1: Instruction 1. Classroom interactions and organization ensure a classroom climate conducive to learning. Level 2: Partially Meets 2. Classroom instruction is intentional, engaging, and challenging for all students. Level 2: Partially Meets 3. Teachers regularly assess students’ progress toward mastery of key skills and concepts, and use assessment data to make adjustments to instruction and to provide feedback to students during the lesson. Level 2: Partially Meets Domain 2: Students’ Opportunities to Learn 4. The school identifies and supports special education students, English language learners, and students who are struggling or at risk. Level 2: Partially Meets 5. The school has a safe, supportive learning environment that reflects high expectations. Level 3: Meets Domain 3: Educators’ Opportunities to Learn 6. The school designs professional development and collaborative systems to sustain a focus on instructional improvement. Level 3: Meets 7. The school’s culture indicates high levels of collective responsibility, trust, and efficacy. Level 3: Meets Domain 4: Leadership and Community 8. School leaders guide and participate with instructional staff in the central processes of improving teaching and learning. Level 2: Partially Meets 9. School leaders effectively orchestrate the school’s operations. Level 3: Meets 10. Communities, parents, and families are actively engaged in their student(s)’ progress and school improvement. Level 3: Meets © 2016 SchoolWorks, LLC. All rights reserved. Page 2 West Early College November 7-8, 2016 Domain 1: Instruction 1. Classroom interactions and organization ensure a classroom climate conducive to learning. Level 2: Partially Meets Structured Learning Environment Ineffective 1 8% • Partially Effective 2 3 29% 25% Effective1 4 38% The learning environment is structured and learning time is maximized in most classrooms through effective planning and guidance. The effective implementation of a structured learning environment that maximized learning time was evident in 38% of the classrooms visited (n=24). In these classrooms, site visit team members noted that content-language objectives and lesson agendas were posted and/or stated by teachers. Observed teachers were also prepared to execute their lessons and had technology cued and learning materials ready in advance. Site visit team members further noted that students who completed lesson activities before their peers were provided with additional learning tasks, such as think-ahead questions. In 54% of the classrooms visited, site visit team members observed the partially effective implementation of a structured learning environment. In these classrooms, site visit team members noted that teachers were prepared; however, learning time was not maximized. In multiple classrooms, teachers allotted excessive amounts of time for learning activities and transitions. For instance, in one classroom, site visit team members observed that the do-now activity lasted more than 15 minutes. In another observed classroom, the teacher allowed students to transition from one task to another for 7 minutes. Further, site visit team members observed that students who finished assignments ahead of their classmates were not provided with additional learning choices and sat passively while waiting for the next component of the lesson. Supportive Learning Environment Ineffective 1 8% • 1 Partially Effective 2 3 8% 17% Effective 4 67% Most classroom interactions are cooperative and conducive to learning. In 67% of the classrooms visited, strategies that promoted cooperative classroom learning were effectively employed. In these classrooms, teachers and students were seen smiling and using a positive tone of voice. In addition, site visit team members noted that teachers were responsive to students’ emotional and learning needs. For example, in one visited classroom, the teacher was heard asking a student, “Are you having a rough day?” In another classroom, site visit team members observed that a teacher recognized that a student had been absent for multiple days and provided additional guidance around the learning activity so that the student could meaningfully participate in the lesson. Methods that were partially effective in fostering cooperative interactions were evident in 25% of visited classrooms. In these classrooms, site visit team members noted that some students were verbally disrespectful to each other. In addition, some teachers’ tone of voice and body language conveyed frustration when Due to rounding, the percentages for a particular indicator may not appear to total to 100%. © 2016 SchoolWorks, LLC. All rights reserved. Page 3 West Early College November 7-8, 2016 students misbehaved. For instance, teachers were heard sighing when students did not comply with directions. 2. Classroom instruction is intentional, engaging, and challenging for all students. Level 2: Partially Meets Instructional Strategies Ineffective 1 13% • Partially Effective 2 3 42% 33% Effective 4 13% Teachers do not yet consistently use a variety of instructional strategies and materials to support students’ diverse needs. Teachers effectively employed instructional strategies and materials in 13% of the classrooms visited. In these classrooms, site visit team members noted that students accessed content through multi-sensory materials and multiple modalities, and teachers used multiple instructional formats. In 75% of visited classrooms, teachers were partially effective in using a variety of instructional strategies and materials. In these classrooms, site visit team members noted that most teachers provided students with multi-sensory materials and modalities, graphic organizers, and other non-linguistic representation of content. For instance, teachers were seen utilizing document cameras, laser pointers, charts, and pictures to convey content to students. In addition, many students engaged with technology and in peer learning. However, site visit team members noted that these teachers briefly employed only one-or-two of these strategies and used limited variations of groupings throughout lessons. For instance, one teacher incorporated technology in the lesson; however, site visit team members noted that students worked on laptops for five minutes only. In another classroom, the teacher directed students to participate in a pair-share dialogue, but the bulk of the lesson occurred in a whole-group format. Further, site visit team members observed that teacher, rather than student, talk dominated the majority of lessons in these classrooms. Higher-order Thinking Ineffective 1 29% • Partially Effective 2 3 38% 8% Effective 4 25% Instruction requires some students to use and develop higher-order thinking skills. Site visit team members observed the effective development of higher-order thinking skills in 25% of the classrooms visited. In these classrooms, teachers asked open-ended questions and required students to explain their thinking. For instance, one teacher asked students to justify why the lesson’s rigor level was a five; students explained that they are analyzing data to inform their learning. In 46% of observed classrooms, site visit team members noted the partially effective implementation of higher-order thinking skills. In these classrooms, site visit team members observed that teachers asked lower-order thinking questions and students participated in low-level learning tasks. For example, students were asked, “What are ___?” and “Where are ___?” In addition, students were seen following along while teachers read text aloud and copying annotations made by teachers on worksheets. Site visit team members also noted multiple missed opportunities to incorporate rigor into lessons. For instance, many teachers were heard asking open-ended questions; however, they answered their own questions before allowing students the opportunity to respond. In 29% of the classrooms visited, site © 2016 SchoolWorks, LLC. All rights reserved. Page 4 West Early College November 7-8, 2016 visit team members observed the ineffective implementation of higher-order thinking skills. In these classrooms, questions and rigor were not evident. For example, in one classroom, the observed lesson consisted of students looking at and informally discussing basic elements of a picture. 3. Teachers regularly assess students’ progress toward mastery of key skills and concepts, and use assessment data to make adjustments to instruction and to provide feedback to students during the lesson. Level 2: Partially Meets Assessment Strategies Ineffective 1 29% • Partially Effective 2 3 25% 17% Effective 4 29% In-class formative assessment strategies do not reveal most students’ thinking about learning goals. Site visit team members observed the effective use of in-class assessment strategies to reveal students’ thinking about learning in 29% of classrooms. In these classrooms, site visit team members noted that teachers evaluated the majority of students’ progress toward mastering learning goals. For example, one teacher was observed intentionally circulating among all students to gauge their understanding of the content being delivered. Additionally, in 42% of the classrooms visited, assessment strategies were partially effective. In these classrooms, site visit team members observed that teachers employed assessment strategies but noted that only some students’ understanding was evaluated. For instance, some teachers circulated around classrooms to assess students’ answers and thinking; yet, site visit team members noted that these teachers reached only roughly half of the students in their classes. In addition, while some teachers were seen employing cold-calling to check students’ understanding, only a few students, rather than most, were asked questions. Further, site visit team members observed teachers utilizing thumb tools and the fist-of-five to assess students. However, some teachers did not require all students to participate or only checked for understanding around directions and procedures, rather than the content being covered. In 29% of the classrooms visited, site visit team members observed the ineffective use of assessment strategies. In these classrooms, assessment was not in evident. Feedback Ineffective 1 29% • Partially Effective 2 3 38% 25% Effective 4 8% Timely, frequent, specific feedback is not provided consistently throughout the learning process to inform improvement efforts. Teachers employed strategies that were partially effective in providing students with feedback in 63% of observed classrooms. In these classrooms, site visit team members noted that many teachers provided feedback to a limited number of students. For instance, one teacher was observed affirming comprehension, clarifying misunderstandings, and guiding students to improvement through statements such as, “That’s a great example;” “Talk to me about ___;” and “Why do you get to decide ___.” However, site visit team members noted that less than half of the class received feedback. In addition, many teachers were heard providing generalized feedback and/or feedback around procedures, rather than content. Examples included: “That’s interesting;” “Good;” and “Everyone ready?” Site visit team members also noted missed opportunities to provide feedback. For instance, in one observed classroom, a student conveyed confusion about word © 2016 SchoolWorks, LLC. All rights reserved. Page 5 West Early College November 7-8, 2016 pronunciation, but the teacher did not address the misunderstanding. In another classroom, multiple groups of students expressed confusion about the same question, but the teacher did not offer clarification to the whole class. Further, feedback was ineffectively supplied to students in 29% of classrooms visited. In these classrooms, feedback was not in evident. © 2016 SchoolWorks, LLC. All rights reserved. Page 6 West Early College November 7-8, 2016 Domain 2: Students’ Opportunities to Learn 4. The school identifies and supports special education students, English language learners, and students who are struggling or at risk. Level 2: Partially Meets • The school has a process for identifying struggling and at-risk students but does not yet systematically monitor student progress. School leaders and teachers consistently reported the process for identifying struggling and at-risk students. Both stakeholder groups explained that teachers meet daily in departmental professional learning communities (PLCs) and during wholeschool weekly professional development to discuss students of academic and behavioral concern. School leaders and teachers indicated that teachers come to consensus to decide if a Multi-Tiered System of Supports (MTSS) referral is appropriate. If so, both stakeholder groups stated (and review of the MTSS referral form verified) that teachers complete a common MTSS referral form that is housed in Googledocs. School leaders further explained that teachers capture classroom interventions they employed prior to initiating the referral and outline their primary concern(s) on the MTSS form. School leaders and teachers stated that the MTSS team then convenes; reviews referral, academic, and behavioral data; and crafts intervention plans. Both stakeholder groups reported that teachers monitor the progress of those students referred to the MTSS team during daily PLCs and weekly professional development sessions. However, when asked, most teachers did not present specific examples of how they monitor students’ advancement toward meeting MTSS intervention plan goals or next steps if students do not demonstrate sufficient academic and/or behavioral progress. Further, support staff reported that the MTSS process was recently adopted at the school and explained that it has not yet been fully implemented. • The school implements appropriate supports for struggling and at-risk students. School leaders reported that students are scheduled for daily double blocks in literacy and mathematics – one for general instruction and one for intervention or enrichment. School leaders stated that students in need of literacy support receive Read180 or English-language development instruction, and students struggling with mathematics are supported through Math180 or math fellows during their intervention blocks. Support staff further explained that 10 fellows push in to classrooms during intervention blocks to deliver individual and/or small-group instruction and implement interventions with guidance from the teachers they support. In addition, school leaders reported that the school hired two interventionists who provide push-in and pull-out support as needed. School leaders and support staff also stated that the school provides credit recovery support to students at risk of not graduating. Both stakeholder groups explained a teacher facilitates five periods of credit recovery during which students work at their own pace but receive one-on-one tutoring when needed. Support staff further indicated that general education teachers are starting to examine using credit-recovery interventions when crafting re-teach plans for struggling students. 5. The school has a safe, supportive learning environment that reflects high expectations. • Level 3: Meets The school holds high expectations for academic learning. School leaders and teachers reported that the school celebrates students’ academic performance, explaining that students receive tickets that can be redeemed for prizes when they submit excellent academic work. School leaders, teachers, and students also stated that are recognized for demonstrating academic growth through shout-outs during weekly morning assemblies. In addition, students consistently reported that their teachers © 2016 SchoolWorks, LLC. All rights reserved. Page 7 West Early College November 7-8, 2016 uniformly hold high expectations of them during class, indicating that their teachers expect all students to complete high-quality work. Site visit team members also observed that teachers held students accountable during lessons, noting that students were not able to elect to opt-out of learning. For instance, teachers were seen re-engaging students who became off-task during instructional activities. Further, school leaders, teachers, and students stated (and site visit team members observed) that students track their own academic performance. Specifically, all three stakeholder groups explained that teachers disseminate academic data to students through Google classroom, data walls, or a student portal. Students further indicated that they chart their data in graphic organizers or on computers, stating that they interact with their data in some form at least once a week. • The school provides a safe environment to support students’ learning. School leaders, teachers, students, and parents reported that students feel safe at school. School leaders stated that they installed multiple surveillance cameras, conduct frequent door checks throughout each school day, and hold regular safety drills (e.g., fire, lock down, lock out) to ensure students’ safety. Students also explained (and site visit team members observed) that the school employs safety officers who patrol the school, teachers routinely stand at their doors during transitions, and school leaders are highly visible in hallways. School leaders, teachers, support staff, and students further reported that the school utilizes restorative justice practices to facilitate the peaceful resolution of conflicts between students. Students also stated that bullying is a rare occurrence at the school. In addition, teachers and students stated that students are overwhelmingly kind to each and often welcome new students to the school. Site visit team members also observed orderly hallways, and clean classrooms and common spaces. © 2016 SchoolWorks, LLC. All rights reserved. Page 8 West Early College November 7-8, 2016 Domain 3: Educators’ Opportunities to Learn 6. The school designs professional development and collaborative systems to sustain a focus on instructional improvement. Level 3: Meets • Professional development is active, intensive, and sustained. School leaders and teachers reported (and review of the professional development calendar verified) that instructional staff participate in school-wide professional development on Tuesdays. Both stakeholder groups stated that professional development topics are driven by teacher need as identified through teacher request and trends that emerge during classroom observations. School leaders also reported that weekly professional development is differentiated this school year; teachers expressed that a one-size-fits-all approach to professional development topics does not benefit all teachers. School leaders and teachers further explained that teachers and support staff convene as a whole group, are presented with a menu of professional development options, and attend sessions that best address their instructional needs. For example, review of recent differentiated menus showed that teachers selected among the following topics: behavior management or trauma-informed teaching; formative assessment, higherorder thinking skills, or instructional strategies and group work roles; and interactive word walls or content-language objectives. In addition, school leaders and teachers reported that teachers meet daily in departmental PLCs, explaining that topics presented during weekly school-wide professional development are revisited to provide teachers with follow-up implementation support. • Educators collaborate regularly to learn about effective instruction and students’ progress. School leaders and teachers reported (and review of PLC artifacts verified) that teachers convene daily in departmental PLCs to discuss students’ progress, assess student work, analyze data, create and evaluate instructional plans, and craft assessments. Both stakeholder groups stated that the daily focus of PLCs differ by department, explaining that each department requires different supports to best serve their students. However, school leaders and teachers indicated (and review of the PLCs’ daily structures document verified) that all PLCs follow a set structure for the week. For instance, review of the PLCs’ daily structures document showed that some departments devote multiple days to examining student work, while others spend more time analyzing achievement data throughout the week. In addition, school leaders stated that PLCs are facilitated by PLC leaders who ensure established PLC structures are followed with fidelity. School leaders also indicated (and review of the PLC rubric confirmed) that PLC leaders evaluate the overall effectiveness of PLC time using a rubric. Review of the rubric showed that the following areas are assessed when evaluating PLCs: use and analysis of data, progress monitoring, and interventions; setting expectations and instructional planning; and PLC culture and collaborative norms. Further, school leaders stated that they regularly videotape PLC meetings. School leaders explained that they meet with PLC leaders every week to watch the videotapes and critique for strengths and areas of opportunities and discuss rubric results to ensure PLC time is maximized and focused on student learning and achievement. 7. The school’s culture indicates high levels of collective responsibility, trust, and efficacy. • Level 3: Meets Educators’ mindsets and beliefs reflect shared commitments to students’ learning. School leaders and teachers consistently reported that they are committed to preparing all students for college and career. In addition, school leaders, teachers, and support staff explained that most students face hardships outside of school, stating that they are dedicated to meeting all students’ needs while at © 2016 SchoolWorks, LLC. All rights reserved. Page 9 West Early College November 7-8, 2016 school. In addition, students reported that their teachers provide support “all the time and anytime.” For example, teachers and students indicated that teachers volunteer to tutor or counsel students before and after school. Teachers and support staff also reported (and review of professional development topics verified) that support staff delivered trainings around trauma-informed instruction. Support staff explained that the trainings aimed to educate teachers about how outside trauma that students experience impacts their behavior at school, so that teachers could better respond with empathy and appropriate strategies. Further, teachers and support staff explained that they must educate the whole child, explaining that in order to develop students intellectually, they must also cultivate students’ character and supply social-emotional support. • The school reflects a safe, trustworthy, and growth-oriented professional climate. Teachers and support staff consistently reported that they feel comfortable talking to school leaders about questions, concerns, and/or suggestions. Teachers also stated that they welcome observations and embrace feedback from school leaders because such high levels of trust have developed between school leaders and teachers. Teachers and support staff further indicated that they share respectful, collegial relationships. Teachers explained that they solicit advice and ideas around instruction, request peer observations, and routinely share best practices. For example, one teacher reported inviting another teacher’s instructional guidance because that teacher possessed more expertise. Teachers also indicated that working at the school feels like “a family” and stated that staff often socialize outside of school. © 2016 SchoolWorks, LLC. All rights reserved. Page 10 West Early College November 7-8, 2016 Domain 4: Leadership and Community 8. School leaders guide and participate with instructional staff in the central processes of improving teaching and learning. Level 2: Partially Meets • School leaders have established a college-preparatory, career-ready academic vision but have not yet set clear goals to meet that vision. While school leaders stated that the staff has to yet to collectively author a formal statement, school leaders, teachers, and support staff consistently reported that the school’s mission is to prepare all students for success in college and career. In support of the mission, school leaders and teachers explained that the school houses a Career Connect program that offers courses in two career and technical education pathways – a medconnect pathway and a techconnect pathway. School leaders and teachers stated that students are introduced to the pathways in middle school through elective classes, such as robotics and graphic design and the Career Spark program that enables 6th grade students to visit businesses and industries that fall under the umbrella of the pathways. Both stakeholder groups further explained that 9th grade students then select a pathway on which to focus and take a concentration of courses designed to teach the essential knowledge and skills needed to pursue a degree or career in that pathway. For instance, review of the medconnect pathway showed that students take courses such as Project Lead the Way Principles of Biomedical Science, Fitness for Life, Biology, and Chemistry. In addition, school leaders, teachers, and support staff indicated (and review of pathway courses verified) that multiple pathway courses are dual enrollment through partnership with the Community College of Denver. School leaders and teachers further indicated (and review of internship records confirmed) that high school students intern with local businesses that have partnered with the school to gain valuable on-the-job experience and insights. However, when asked about specific goals related to students’ college and career readiness, school leaders articulated only vague goals around attendance, academic behaviors, instruction, and professional development. • School leaders are working to ensure that teachers deliver high quality instruction. School leaders and teachers reported that school leaders and two senior team leads (STLs) conduct frequent observations. Specifically, both stakeholder groups explained that teachers are observed at least 17 times per school year and receive five formal and a minimum of 12 informal observations. School leaders and teachers explained that STLs are designated as teacher leaders, teaching classes half of the day and serving as observers the other half. Both stakeholder groups further stated that observers also act as instructional coaches and provide consistent, timely feedback to improve teachers’ instructional practice. Teachers described the feedback they receive as helpful, explaining that their observer/instructional coach creates bite-sized action steps to be immediately implemented. For example, one teacher found feedback around incorporating collaborative strategies beneficial to implementing center rotations as an instructional strategy. In addition, reviewed written feedback from instructional coaches included: “Great job modeling. How can we get students to the Practice portion quicker?” and “During planning, teacher will choose the specific goal of the lesson. Teacher will slow down her pace when it is focused on giving directions. Teacher will then speed up her pace during the activities. This will change the pace for students so that they understand the difference.” © 2016 SchoolWorks, LLC. All rights reserved. Page 11 West Early College 9. School leaders effectively orchestrate the school’s operations. November 7-8, 2016 Level 3: Meets • School leaders lead intentional, strategic efforts to drive the effectiveness of the school’s program and the sustainability of the organization. School leaders and teachers reported (and review of the staff roster verified) that school leaders targeted financial resources this year around instruction, explaining that the school now employs three deans of instruction. School leaders explained that they realized that teachers needed more instructional support and three deans would enable them to provide differentiated professional development, PLC support, and comprehensive coaching. In addition, school leaders indicated that they made budget allocations so that they could compensate staff for a soft-start to the year. Specifically, school leaders and teachers explained that staff convened one-week early to focus on rituals, routines, and culture in order to ensure a smooth opening to the school year. In addition, school leaders and teachers stated that school leaders distribute numerous leadership roles among the staff. Both stakeholder groups reported (and review of the school’s organizational chart verified) that the school is guided by three core leadership teams – the school advisory committee (SAC), the instructional leadership team (ILT), and the school leadership team (SLT). School leaders and teachers indicated that school leaders manage each team with assistance from teachers and support staff who serve as members. In addition, stakeholder groups explained (and review of the school’s organizational chart verified) that the school has multiple subcommittees that include school leaders and teachers and that support each core team. Teachers further reported that the team and committee structure ensures teacher voice throughout all facets of the school. • School leaders implement systems to hire and retain teachers and staff who can drive dramatic student gains. School leaders and teachers consistently reported the process used to hire instructional staff at the school. Both stakeholder groups explained that the school’s Instructional Leadership Team (ILT) that includes school leaders and teachers is largely tasked with executing the process. School leaders and teachers stated that school leaders first conduct informal telephone interviews with candidates. Both stakeholder groups indicated that school leaders then invite viable applicants to formally interview with the ILT. School leaders and teachers further explained that candidates who have favorable interviews are asked to model lessons at the school or submit teaching videotapes. In addition, school leaders and teachers indicated that the school employs multiple strategies to retain teachers. For example, school leaders and teachers stated that new teachers are assigned an ambassador who provides support around acclimating to the school. Teachers also indicated that school leaders believe in giving leadership opportunities to teachers, stating that school leaders grow “teachers from within.” In addition, school leaders and teachers stated that the school’s social committee plans frequent activities for staff and names outstanding teachers as Cowboys of the Month. 10. Communities, parents, and families are actively engaged in their student(s)’ progress and school improvement. • Level 3: Meets The school provides opportunities for students to form positive relationships with peers and adults in the school. Teachers and students indicated that school encourages peer mediation, explaining that the school implemented a Cowboy Court program that encourages students who face behavioral consequences to request to appear before a jury of their peers. Both stakeholder groups indicated (and review of Cowboy Court questions verified) that the jury listens to students’ testimony and © 2016 SchoolWorks, LLC. All rights reserved. Page 12 West Early College November 7-8, 2016 makes rulings around what actions must be taken to restore offenses. School leaders and teachers also reported (and review of the school’s schedule verified) that students attend an advisory period every morning except Tuesdays. Both stakeholder groups explained that teachers use advisory to build relationships with and provide social-emotional support to students. For example, teachers explained that students set goals, participate in class meetings, and complete culture- and relationship-building activities with their peers and teachers. In addition, school leaders, teachers, support staff, and students reported that teachers and students use a PRIDE (Purpose, Respect, Integrity, Determination, Engagement) rubric to assess each other every week. School leaders stated that they adapted the PRIDE rubric from the College and Career Readiness rubric, explaining that the PRIDE rubric encompasses the soft skills and behaviors needed to thrive academically, professionally, and personally. School leaders, teachers, support staff, and students indicated that after students and teachers score each other, teachers facilitate dialogue around the results. For instance, site visit team members heard one teacher soliciting feedback after some students submitted low teacher respect scores that week. • The school engages families in support of students’ learning. School leaders and teachers indicated that engaging families through regular communication and events is a priority for the school. School leaders and teachers stated that teachers frequently communicate with parents to celebrate academic and behavioral successes and share concerns. Teachers further explained that they initiate telephone contact with parents at the beginning of the school year to introduce themselves and establish positive lines of communication in the event they must make negatives calls later in the year. In addition, school leaders, teachers, and parents indicated (and site visit team members observed) that the school employs a family liaison who is tasked with recruiting parent volunteers and advertising upcoming school functions. School leaders and teachers also stated that the liaison speaks Spanish and offers translation services to Spanish-speaking parents. In addition, school leaders, teachers, parents, and students reported that the school holds multiple events for families, including open house, parent-teacher conferences, and monthly coffees with the principal. Further, school leaders and parents stated (and review of the school’s organizational chart verified) that the school has a School Advisory Committee on which parents participate and offer feedback and ideas about school policies. © 2016 SchoolWorks, LLC. All rights reserved. Page 13 Appendix A: Site Visit Team Members The SQR to West Early College was conducted on November 7-8, 2016 by a team of educators from SchoolWorks, LLC. Rebecca Lieberman, Team Leader SchoolWorks, LLC Kathryn Cobb, Team Writer SchoolWorks, LLC Dominique Astier, Team Member SchoolWorks, LLC Jodi Carlson, Team Member Denver Public Schools Scott Springer, Team Member Denver Public Schools © 2016 SchoolWorks, LLC. All rights reserved. Page 14 Appendix B: Implementation Rubric The SQR team will use the following guidance to select a performance level for each key question. Note that the quality standard for each implementation level is based upon: the extent to which the SQR team finds multiple types2 and multiple sources3 of evidence related to the adoption and/or implementation of a practice or system AND the extent to which the SQR team finds evidence of high levels of adoption and/or implementation of a practice or system. Evidence Relating to Strength of Adoption/Implementation Extent to which SQR Team Finds Multiple Types and Multiple Sources of Evidence Key: Does Not Meet: Partially Meets Meets: Exceeds: Extent to which SQR Team Finds Evidence of High Levels of Adoption and/or Implementation 1 Implementation Level Does Not Meet 2 Partially Meets Evidence indicates that the key question is a practice or system that is developing at the school, but that it has not yet been implemented at a level that has begun to improve the school’s effectiveness, OR that the impact of the key action on the effectiveness of the school cannot yet be determined. 3 Meets Evidence indicates that the key question is a practice or system that has been adopted at the school, and is implemented at a level that has begun to improve the school’s effectiveness. 4 Exceeds Evidence indicates that the key question is a practice or system that has been fully adopted at the school, and is implemented at a level that has had a demonstrably positive impact on the school’s effectiveness. Rating Quality Standard Evidence indicates that the key question is not a practice or system that has been adopted and/or implemented at the school, or that the level of adoption/implementation does not improve the school’s effectiveness. 2 “Multiple types of evidence” is defined as evidence collected from two or more of the following: document review, stakeholder focus groups and/or interviews; and classroom observations. 3 “Multiple sources of evidence” is defined as evidence collected from three or more stakeholder focus groups and/or interviews; two or more documents; and/or evidence that a descriptor was documented in 75% or more of lessons observed at the time of the visit. © 2016 SchoolWorks, LLC. All rights reserved. Page 15 West Early College November 7 – 8, 2016 Appendix C: Summary of Classroom Observation Data During the site visit, the team conducted 24 observations, representing a range of grade levels and subject areas. The following table presents the compiled data from those observations. Common Core Alignment Indicator 1 1a. Common Core Literacy Alignment (for all classes other than math) Alignment to content standards Distribution of Scores % Ineffective (1) à % Effective (4) 2 3 4 27% 20% 27% 27% 0% 43% 43% 14% 17% 13% 21% 50% 8% 29% 25% 38% 8% 8% 17% 67% 19% 19% 23% 38% 13% 42% 33% 13% 21% 25% 29% 25% 29% 38% 8% 25% 29% 25% 17% 29% 58% 17% 21% 4% 29% 38% 25% 8% N = 17 1b. Common Core Math Alignment (for math classes only) Alignment to instructional shifts Alignment to content standards Alignment to instructional shifts Alignment to standards for mathematical practice N = 7 Classroom Climate 2. Behavioral Expectations Student behavior Clear expectations Consistent rewards and/or consequences Anticipation and redirection of misbehavior 3. Structured Learning Environment Teacher preparation Clear agenda Learning time maximized 4. Supportive Learning Environment Caring relationships Teacher responsiveness to students’ needs 5. Focused Instruction Purposeful Teaching Learning objectives High expectations Effective communication of academic content 6. Instructional Strategies Multi-sensory modalities and materials Varied groupings Student choice and leadership 7. Cognitive Engagement Active student participation Perseverance 8. Higher-order Thinking In-Class Assessment & Adjustment Challenging tasks Application to new problems and situations Student questions Metacognition 9. Assessment Strategies Use of formative assessments 10. Adjustments to Instruction Adjustment of instructional Strategies Adjustment of content Adjustment of organization of students 11. Feedback Feedback to students Student use of feedback © 2016 SchoolWorks, LLC. All rights reserved. Page 16