Professional Collaboration). For a full list of the practices and indicators implementation continuum, see Appendix A. Figure 1. Example of Indicators Within Turnaround Practice 1: Leadership, Shared Responsibility, and Professional Collaboration Turnaround Practice 1. Leadership, Shared Responsibility, and Professional Collaboration Item Number Indicators Limited Evidence Developing Providing Sustaining 1.4 Monitoring Implementation and School Progress School leaders rarely prioritize improvement initiatives for implementation nor are processes or protocols in place for systemic implementation. School leaders prioritize improvement initiatives for implementation; however, processes and protocols for systemic implementation are emerging or not well defined. School leaders prioritize improvement initiatives; processes and protocols for systemic implementation are well defined. A majority of staff members are aware of the priorities, and some monitoring of these initiatives takes place. School leaders are actively engaged in monitoring implementation of turnaround efforts, use this information to prioritize initiatives and strategies, communicate progress and challenges and seek input from staff, and continuously and systematically monitor progress. 1.54 Trusting Relationships Relationships between teachers and instructional supports (e.g., coaches) are not guided by trust; teachers feel coaching and instructional support is judgmental, and evidence of collaboration among staff is limited. Some relationships between teachers and instructional supports (e.g., coaches) are guided by and some teachers feel instructional support is nonjudgmental, but this is inconsistent throughout the school. Some groups of teachers may collaborate with colleagues to share strategies, such as developing standards-based units, examining student work, analyzing student performance, and planning appropriate interventions. However, this is not consistent among all staff. Most relationships between teachers and instructional supports (e.g., coaches) are guided by trust, and most teachers feel that instructional support is nonjudgmental. There is evidence that most staff at least occasionally use collegial relationships to share strategies in such work as developing standards-based units, examining student work, analyzing student performance, and planning appropriate interventions. Most staff members share a relational, trust-focused culture with each other and their instructional supports (e.g., coaches) that is solution oriented and focused on improvement as exemplified by frequent collaboration in developing standards-based units, examining student work, analyzing student performance, and planning appropriate interventions. Educators regularly share their strengths and struggles, in the spirit of helping each other continually improve their practice.
collection day. The principal and district representatives then have one week to review the initial draft of the Monitoring Site Visit Report for factual correctness and to communicate with the site lead. After the report has been reviewed by the school and district, AIR submits the final version to ESE. Roles and Responsibilities To collect accurate information during the Monitoring Site Visit, it is critical that the visit is coordinated and seamless and that the site lead and team members are respectful and earnest about the pursuit of evidence on the school’s progress. To be clear about expectations for the school leader and staff members, partners, the site visit team, and ESE staff, Figures 2–5 provide an overview of the roles and responsibilities of each party during the Monitoring Site Visit process. Figure 2. School Leader Monitoring Site Visit Roles and Responsibilities School Leaders PHASE 1. MONITORING SITE VISIT PREPARATION AND PRELIMINARY DATA COLLECTION Understand the intent of the Monitoring Site Visit is to provide feedback on the school’s progress. Serve as the of contact for the Monitoring Site Visit (or appoint a designee to do so). Coordinate Monitoring Site Visit logistics with the site lead, including scheduling dates for the interviews and focus groups as well as the classroom observations in a timely fashion. Complete the school leader’s questionnaire (if new) or update last year’s questionnaire (provided by site lead). Provide the following requested documents: Master schedule Daily school schedule School map Staff list (names, roles, and e-mail addresses) Optional documents the school wishes to provide Communicate the purpose and process for the Monitoring Site Visit to the faculty and staff members and share information provided by the site lead (see Confidentiality in the next section). The summary document in Appendix I may be distributed to staff in advance of the visit. Facilitate administering the staff survey, which includes providing e-mail addresses of staff and reminding staff to complete the survey. Identify students and obtain parental permission for participation in a focus group (at the middle school and high school levels only). Encourage to participate in the survey. PHASE 2. ON-SITE DATA COLLECTION Participate in the school leader interview and end-of-visit interview. Provide and designate space for administering the stakeholder interviews and focus groups (Monitoring Site Visit Interviews and Focus Groups Day).
Definitions for Indicator Implementation Continuum The indicator implementation levels provide an overview of the process of developing, providing, and ultimately sustaining specific practices within each of the turnaround practice areas. Each of the indicators has a unique 4-point implementation continuum, specific to the indicator, which generally corresponds to the generic implementation levels described in Table 2. Table 2. Indicator Implementation Continuum Limited Evidence Developing Providing Sustaining Necessary organizational practices, structures, and/or processes are nonexistent, evidence is limited, or practices are so infrequent that impact is negligible. For example, common planning time is not scheduled, or instructional leaders are unaware of research and promising practices. Organizational practices, structures, and/or processes exist on paper or are being tried but are not yet fully developed or implemented consistently. For example, the practice may be implemented by only some teachers or with a target group of students or may intermittently be used but is not part of a consistent approach. Processes are inconsistent or operate in silos. For example, data might be collected, but only a few people are looking at or effectively using the information. Systems are functional, and structures and processes have been implemented consistently throughout the school; however, either communication between systems may be lacking or systems do not contribute to systemic decision making. For example, an assessment system is in place and data are tracked, but results are not used in collaboration with other systems, such as teacher effectiveness or instructional guidance. The organizational practices, structures, and processes are functioning effectively, and timely feedback systems are embedded to identify potential problems and challenges. Feedback systems include progress checks to inform timely course corrections. The practice is embedded into the school culture.
1.3 Vision/ Theory of Action and Buy-In School leaders have a loosely defined theory of action or vision along with established goals and interim benchmarks to guide dramatic school improvement, but the goals and benchmarks are not used to inform the school’s work. There is little to no sense of urgency or collective responsibility for realizing school improvement. School leaders have a defined theory of action or vision along with established goals, and interim benchmarks have been communicated to some staff. A common sense of urgency and shared ownership for the success of all students exists among some staff and leaders, but not all staff members share this responsibility. School leaders have a defined and communicated theory of action or vision along with established goals and interim benchmarks to drive priorities related to turnaround efforts, and these goals and benchmarks are understood and implemented consistently by most staff. A common sense of urgency and purpose for improvement is evident among a majority of staff members, but ownership and responsibility for success of all students may still be centralized at the principal or leadership team level. School leaders and most staff members understand the theory of action or vision driving the priorities related to turnaround efforts, are familiar with the goals and interim benchmarks used to consistently monitor progress (e.g., at least once a month), and identify and prioritize the next level of work. A common sense of urgency and ownership for the success of all students is shared among most staff, as demonstrated through staff discourse and actions. 1.4 Monitoring Implementation and School Progress School leaders rarely prioritize improvement initiatives for implementation nor are there processes or protocols in place for systemic implementation. School leaders prioritize improvement initiatives for implementation; however, processes and protocols for systemic implementation are emerging or not well defined. School leaders prioritize improvement initiatives; processes and protocols for systemic implementation are well defined. A majority of members are aware of the priorities, and some monitoring of these initiatives takes place. School leaders are actively engaged in monitoring implementation of turnaround efforts, use this information to prioritize initiatives and strategies, communicate progress and challenges and seek input from staff, and continuously and systematically monitor progress.
1.5 Trusting Relationships Relationships between teachers and instructional supports (e.g., coaches) are not guided by trust; teachers feel coaching and instructional support is judgmental, and evidence of collaboration among staff is limited. Some relationships between teachers and instructional supports (e.g., coaches) are guided by trust, and some teachers feel instructional support is nonjudgmental, but this is inconsistent throughout the school. Some groups of teachers may collaborate with colleagues to share strategies, such as developing units, examining student work, analyzing student performance, and planning appropriate interventions. However, this is not consistent among all staff. Most relationships between teachers and instructional supports (e.g., coaches) are guided by trust, and most teachers feel that instructional support is nonjudgmental. There is evidence that most staff at least occasionally use collegial relationships to share strategies in such work as developing units, examining student work, analyzing student performance, and planning appropriate interventions. Most staff members share a relational, trust-focused culture with each other and their instructional supports (e.g., coaches) that is solution oriented and focused on improvement as exemplified by frequent collaboration in developing standards-based units, examining student work, analyzing student performance, and planning appropriate interventions. Educators regularly share their strengths and struggles, in the spirit of helping each other continually improve their practice. 1.6 Use of Time for Professional Development and Collaboration The schedule includes little or no time for professional development or collaboration between teachers. The schedule does not include adequate time for professional development opportunities, collaboration time for teachers is limited, and/or the available time is not used effectively to improve teaching and learning. The schedule includes adequate time for professional development opportunities and collaboration for most teachers. Use of time is generally used well to improve teaching and learning. The schedule includes adequate time for professional development opportunities and collaboration for most teachers. There is a process in place for evaluating the schedule based on collected data to maximize opportunities for teacher professional development and ensure it helps all educators continually improve their practice (e.g., targeted coaching, peer observations) and collaboration time.
2.3 Identifying and Addressing Student Academic Needs No formal data collection process is in for identifying individual students’ academic needs. Specific protocols for using data and identifying actions to address student academic needs are not in place. Formal strategies and processes (e.g., instructional leadership team, collaborative planning, professional learning communities) are in place, with protocols for using data and identifying actions to address individual students’ academic needs. However, the protocols may not be consistently used or followed. Formal strategies and processes (e.g., instructional leadership team, collaborative planning, professional learning communities) and protocols for using data and identifying actions to address individual students’ academic needs are in place and consistently used, but communication among all staff about action steps is limited. Formal teaming and collaboration strategies, processes (e.g., instructional leadership team, collaborative planning, professional learning communities), and protocols are consistently used to address individual students’ academic needs by: (1) using data, (2) identifying actions to address student learning needs, and (3) regularly communicating action steps among all staff and teams to build and sustain a professional culture of learning. 2.4 Classroom Observation Data Use Instructional leaders rarely or never conduct class observations (e.g., learning walkthroughs). Evidence that specific and actionable feedback on the and effectiveness of instruction is being provided to individual teachers is limited or nonexistent. Instructional leaders conduct occasional or routine classroom observations (e.g., learning walkthroughs), primarily as a function of the principal role and with little to no timely feedback focused on strengthening teachers’ instructional practices. Observation and feedback may be focused only on a few grades or subject areas. Instructional leaders conduct regular classroom observations (e.g., learning walkthroughs) to gauge the quality of instructional practices and provide specific and actionable feedback on the quality and effectiveness of instruction. However, this information or data do not inform instructional conversations or the provision of targeted and individualized supports (e.g., coaching) for teachers, as needed. Instructional leaders conduct weekly or daily classroom observations (e.g., learning walkthroughs) focused on strengthening teachers’ instructional practices and provide specific and actionable feedback on the quality and effectiveness of instruction to individual teachers and teacher teams. These data inform instructional conversations and the provision of targeted and individualized supports (e.g., coaching) for teachers, as needed.
2.5 Student Assessment Data Use (for schoolwide decision making) Building and teacher leaders use limited to no student assessment data to make decisions related to schoolwide practices. Building and teacher leaders consider only student results on assessments when making decisions regarding schoolwide practices. Building and teacher leaders occasionally consider student results on benchmark and common assessments in addition to state assessments when making decisions regarding schoolwide practices. Building and teacher leaders consistently use student results on benchmark and common assessments and assessments to make decisions regarding schoolwide practices. 2.6 Student Assessment Data Use (for classroom instruction) is little or emerging awareness of best practices for analyzing student performance data to inform instruction and assessing progress toward intended student outcomes, or the effect of these practices is negligible. Some teachers are aware of the importance of using a variety of assessment data to inform instruction and for employing research-based instructional strategies to determine progress toward intended student outcomes. However, not all staff consistently use this practice. Most teachers are aware of their roles and responsibilities for using a variety of assessment data to inform instruction and for employing research-based instructional strategies to determine progress toward intended student outcomes. However, there are some barriers to using data effectively to improve instruction. Most teachers work individually and collaboratively to use a variety of assessment data (e.g., common assessment data, student work) to determine progress toward intended student and school outcomes, determine appropriate action steps, and monitor the results of those actions.
2.7 Structures for Instructional Improvement Structures, practices, and use of resources (e.g., collaborative meeting time, coaching, supports for implementing the Massachusetts Curriculum Frameworks) to support the use of assessment data, research-based instructional strategies, and differentiation and to ensure rigor and relevance are limited, do not exist, or are having negligible impact. Structures, practices, and use of resources (e.g., collaborative meeting time, coaching, supports for implementing the Massachusetts Curriculum Frameworks) to support the use of assessment data, instructional strategies, and differentiation to ensure rigor and relevance are in place but may be poorly defined, inefficient, or ineffective. Structures, practices, and use of resources (e.g., collaborative meeting time, coaching, supports for implementing the Massachusetts Curriculum Frameworks) to support the use of assessment data to and select instructional strategies and differentiation are clearly defined but are not always used consistently throughout the school. Structures, practices, and use of resources (e.g., collaborative meeting time, coaching, supports for implementing the Massachusetts Curriculum Frameworks) to support instruction, the use of instructional strategies, and differentiation are in place and consistently implemented, resulting in rigorous instruction, reflective of the shifts in cognitive demand for the Massachusetts Curriculum Frameworks, that meets the needs of each student.