School Effectiveness Review ityschools.org

[Pages:26]Office of Achievement and Accountability Division of Research Services

School Effectiveness Review

2017 - 2018

Woodhome Elementary/Middle School April 24-26, 2018

200 East North Avenue Baltimore, Maryland 21202

Table of Contents Part I: Introduction and School Background ....................................................................................................... 3

Introduction to the School Effectiveness Review............................................................................................ 3 School Background .......................................................................................................................................... 3 Part II: Summary of Performance Levels ............................................................................................................. 4 Part III: Findings on Domains of Effective Schools .............................................................................................. 5 Domain 1: Highly Effective Instruction ............................................................................................................ 5 Domain 2: Talented People ........................................................................................................................... 11 Domain 3: Vision and Engagement ............................................................................................................... 14 Domain 4: Strategic Leadership.....................................................................................................................18 Performance Level Rubric ................................................................................................................................. 21 Appendix A: School Report Comments ............................................................................................................. 22 Appendix B: SER Team Members ...................................................................................................................... 25

2 Baltimore City Public Schools, 2017-18

Part I: Introduction and School Background Introduction to the School Effectiveness Review

Baltimore City Public Schools (City Schools) developed the School Effectiveness Framework and the School Effectiveness Review process in 2009. The School Effectiveness Review (SER) uses trained school reviewers to measure a school's effectiveness against City Schools' School Effectiveness Standards. The School Effectiveness Standards are aligned with City Schools' effectiveness frameworks for teachers and school leaders. The SER provides an objective and evidence-based analysis of how well a school is working to educate its students. It generates a rich layer of qualitative data that may not be revealed when evaluating a school solely on student performance outcomes. It also provides district and school-level staff with objective and useful information when making strategic decisions that impact student achievement. The SER team, comprised of representatives from City Schools who have extensive knowledge about schools and instruction, gathered information from teachers, students, parents, and leadership during a two-day site visit. During the visit, the SER team observed classrooms, reviewed selected school documents, and conducted focus groups with school leadership, teachers, students, and parents. The SER team analyzed evidence collected over the course of the SER to determine the extent to which key actions have been adopted and implemented at the school. This report summarizes the ratings in the four domains and related key actions, provides evidence to support the ratings, and ? based on a rubric ? allocates a performance level for each key action. More information about the SER process is detailed in the School Effectiveness Review protocol, located on the City Schools website and available upon request from the Office of Achievement and Accountability in City Schools.

School Background

Woodhome Elementary/Middle School serves approximately 376 students in Pre-Kindergarten through Eighth grade. The school is located on Moyer Ave in the Woodhome Heights community of Baltimore, Maryland. The principal, Ms. Shontel Douglas, has been at the school for seven years. For more information about the school's student demographics and student achievement data, please see the School Profile, located on the City Schools website.

3 Baltimore City Public Schools, 2017-18

Part II: Summary of Performance Levels

Based on trends found in the collected evidence, the SER team assigns a performance level to each key action.

Domains and Key Actions

Level 4: Highly Effective

Performance Levels

Level 3: Effective

Level 2: Developing

Level 1: Not Effective

Domain 1: Highly Effective Instruction 1.1 Teachers plan highly effective instruction.

1.2 Teachers deliver highly effective instruction.

1.3 Teachers use multiple data sources to adjust practice.

1.4 School leadership supports highly effective instruction.

1.5 Teachers establish a classroom environment in which teaching and learning can occur.

Domain 2: Talented People 2.1 The school implements systems to select, develop, and retain effective teachers and

staff whose skills and beliefs represent the diverse needs of all students. 2.2 The school has created and implemented systems to evaluate teachers and staff against

individual and school-wide goals, provide interventions to those who are not meeting expectations, and remove those who do not make reasonable improvement. Domain 3: Vision and Engagement 3.1 The school provides a safe and supportive learning environment for students, families, teachers, and staff. 3.2 The school cultivates and sustains open communication and decision-making opportunities with families about school events, policies, and the academic and social development of their children.

3.3 The culture of the school reflects and embraces student, staff, and community diversity.

Domain 4: Strategic Leadership 4.1 The school establishes growth goals that guide strategic planning, teaching, and

adjusting of practice to meet student needs. 4.2 The school allocates and deploys the resources of time, staff talent, and funding

to address the priorities of growth goals for student achievement.

Effective Developing

Effective Effective Effective

Developing Effective

Developing Effective Effective

Developing Effective

4 Baltimore City Public Schools, 2017-18

Part III: Findings on Domains of Effective Schools

Domains and Key Actions

Level 4: Highly Effective

Performance Levels

Level 3: Effective

Level 2: Developing

Domain 1: Highly Effective Instruction

Key action 1.1: Teachers plan highly effective instruction.

Level 1: Not Effective

Effective

Teachers implement standards-based daily lessons, units, and long-term plans using appropriate curriculum planning documents. School leadership and teachers reported that teachers are using the Baltimore City Public School curriculum as well as the Springboard, Jacob's Ladder, Fundations, and Building Vocabulary curriculum programs. A review of lesson plans and site visit team observations confirmed the implementation of these curriculum programs which are grounded in Common Core State Standards. Specifically, one lesson plan noted the following objective: "Students will be able to justify an author's claim by identifying text evidence to support the claim" which was aligned with CCSS RI2.8 "Describe how reasons support specific points the author makes in a text."

Teachers design daily lessons that meet learners' unique needs. School leadership and teachers reported that small instructional groups per data, accommodations, and differentiated activities should be included in lesson plans. A review of lesson plans confirmed accommodations and differentiation in all lesson plans and small instructional groups in most lesson plans. Specifically, one lesson plan included Guided Reading Lesson Plans for groups of students on two different reading levels. The Guided Reading Lesson Plans included two distinct texts, vocabulary words from the text, and different skills focused on with each group of students. For example, one group focused on retelling the story, while the other group focused on explaining how specific images clarify a text.

Teachers set and track goals based on students' performance levels. School leadership stated that goals have been established for students based on i-Ready and Text Reading Comprehension (TRC) data in addition to ANet data, which teachers confirmed. School leadership and teachers stated that they are tracking students' progress through unit assessments, exit tickets, and formative assessments as well as through progress monitoring. Teachers reported that general goals set for students include students making .75 to 1 year's growth or students increasing their scores by a certain number of points on the i-Ready assessment. A review of posted goals, i-Ready analysis sheets, ANet trackers, and TRC trackers confirmed that teachers set and track goals for students. For example, Amplify Data Analysis forms indicated the reading level students should attain by administration of the next assessment.

5 Baltimore City Public Schools, 2017-18

Key action 1.2: Teachers deliver highly effective instruction.1

Developing

Some teachers use and communicate standards-based lesson objectives and align learning activities to the stated lesson objectives. In 50% of classes (n=12), teachers communicated standards-based lesson objectives by explaining and/or referencing the objective during the lesson. Continuing, in 58% of classes, the learning activities and resources aligned with the lesson objectives. In one class, a teacher referred to the following posted objective at the end of class: "Prepare for the final unit assessment by reviewing prefixes in Unit 5." During the class, the teacher reviewed prefixes with students, provided vocabulary words, and had students analyze words to determine their meanings.

Most teachers present content in various ways and emphasize key points to make content clear. In 67% of classes (n=12), teachers presented students with accurate grade-level content aligned to appropriate content standards. In one class, the objective was "I can say diagraph sounds. I can spell words with diagraph sounds." which was linked to a standard RF.K.2. d "Isolate and pronounce the initial, medial vowel, and final sounds (phonemes) in three phoneme words." Additionally, in 67% of classes, teachers presented content in various ways (two or more) to make content clear. For example, in the previously mentioned class the teacher presented content through tapping out sounds, blending with arm movements, and emphasizing sounds orally. Finally, in 75% of classes, teachers emphasized important points to focus the learning of content. In the previously mentioned class, the teacher made mention of "tricky" words that did not follow the pattern.

Some teachers use multiple strategies and tasks to engage all students in rigorous work. In 58% of classes (n=12), teachers scaffolded and/or differentiated tasks by providing rigorous grade-level instruction for all students. In one class, the teacher differentiated by grouping students and assigning tasks to students based upon data. Continuing, in 58% of classes students had opportunities and time to grapple with complex texts and/or rigorous tasks. For example, in one class students were tasked with analyzing the author's answer to determine if the evidence utilized in the article supported the author's claim. Students were then asked to give examples to support their rationales.

Some teachers use evidence-dependent questioning. In 50% of classes (n=12), teachers asked questions that required students to cite evidence and clearly explain their thought processes. Additionally, in 75% of classes, teachers asked questions that were clear and scaffolded. In one class, the teacher asked the following questions during a lesson on the letter `E': "What letter are we doing? What picture can you draw for the letter `E'? Why did you put the letter there? Where should I put this picture?

1 Key action 1.2 evidence comes directly from classroom observations that were conducted as part of the SER. All classroom observations are twenty minute in which the observers are looking for teachers to demonstrate components of the Instructional Framework. The completed classroom visit tool can be found in appendix A.

6 Baltimore City Public Schools, 2017-18

 Most teachers check for student understanding and provide specific academic feedback. In 50% of classes (n=12), teachers conducted one or more checks for understanding that yielded useful information at key points throughout the lesson. In 58% of classes, teachers gave students specific academic feedback to communicate current progress and next steps to move forward. In one class, the teacher circulated to check students' answers and gave the following feedback to a student: "As I go around I see a lot of you getting the first question right, but you are having trouble with number two. Go back to your notes. What do they say?..."

Some teachers facilitate student-to-student interaction and academic talk. In 50% of classrooms (n=12), teachers provided multiple or extended opportunities for student-to-student interaction and academic talk. In 17% of those interactions, students engaged in discussions with their peers to make meaning of the content or deepen their understanding. In one class, a teacher provided an extended opportunity for small groups of students to read a chapter of a text and answer scaffolded questions. Finally, in 58 % of classes, students used academic talk, and when necessary, teachers consistently and appropriately supported students in speaking academically. For instance, in one class, students identified and discussed textual evidence to support their answers.

Key action 1.3: Teachers use multiple data sources to adjust practice.

Effective

Teachers analyze students' progress toward goals. School leadership and teachers reported that data analysis occurs during collaborative planning meetings. School leadership and teachers reported that once trends are analyzed from the data and small groups are formed, teachers implement strategies to address students' areas of growth, and students are reassessed. Aside from collaborative planning meetings, teachers stated that they are collecting and analyzing data from formative assessments in order to determine strategies needed to address students' areas of growth. Review of data analysis forms confirmed that teachers are analyzing data and generally included the following steps after data collection: identifying students' skill deficits and implementing strategies to address the deficits. Additionally, some data analysis forms required teachers to identify dates for reassessment.

Teachers modify instruction in response to data. School leadership and teachers reported that teachers modify instruction through implementing small instructional groups based upon i-Ready, TRC, and ANet data. Additionally, school leadership and teachers reported that teachers are reteaching skills and differentiating homework to provide additional practice on certain skills. Teachers added that they are making modifications by scaffolding difficult concepts and chunking texts. A review of a section labeled instructional plan on one data analysis sheet indicated that the teacher would implement the following instructional strategies to address students' deficits in counting: "give students multiple opportunities to count objects and add objects to practice counting on", "use a number line to count up or back", and "emphasize counting strategies", and others.

7 Baltimore City Public Schools, 2017-18

 Teachers appropriately recommend students for some tiered interventions including opportunities for acceleration. School leadership and teachers reported that interventions are primarily provided through small group instruction to address the needs of students in need of enrichment and acceleration, which a review of small group and guided reading lesson plans confirmed. Teachers also reported that some reading and math interventions are provided in the after-school program (AFC) through i-Ready lessons. School leadership and teachers stated Gifted and Advanced Learning (GAL) opportunities are also provided through small group instruction through the use of the Jacob's Ladder curriculum in second and third grades. School leadership added that the curriculum would be implemented for fourth and fifth grades next year. School leadership and teachers reported that seventh and eighth grade classes are homogenously grouped, and teachers are implementing the Springboard curriculum for students identified as Gifted and Advanced Learners.

Key action 1.4: School leadership supports highly effective instruction.

Effective

School leadership holds and promotes an instructional vision of high student achievement. School leadership reported that instruction should ensure that children are at or above grade level, are able to articulately communicate their thoughts through speaking and writing, are able to exhibit fluency in math, and think critically to problem-solve. When asked about strategies to support the instructional vision, school leadership stated that "explicit modeling is the number one high yield strategy" implemented to support the curriculum. Additionally, school leadership stated that instruction should be differentiated and teachers should augment instruction with the use of anchor charts and graphic organizers. Teachers confirmed that instruction should prompt students to engage in academic conversations and be differentiated to meet students' needs. Teachers also stated that students should be able to engage in academic conversations and exhibit fluency in mathematical processes. A review of the professional development plan indicated that in school year three (201718) teachers would "become efficient in the implementation of literacy and informational standards".

School leadership ensures that teachers engage in the planning of the curricula through oversight of standards-based units, lessons, and pacing. School leadership and teachers reported that oversight of planning and pacing occurs through informal observations and lesson plan checks as well as during collaborative planning meetings. Specifically, school leadership reported that a component of collaborative planning meetings is a check-in around pacing, which teachers and a review of collaborative planning agendas confirmed. Collaborative planning agendas also confirmed that teachers are planning components of lessons during collaborative planning meetings.

8 Baltimore City Public Schools, 2017-18

 ................
................

In order to avoid copyright disputes, this page is only a partial summary.

Google Online Preview   Download