PART 3: FINDINGS - SUMMARY EXPLANATION OF RUBRIC RATINGS Focus Standard 1.1

Focus Standard Meaningful and Challenging Curriculum

Rubric Placement Beginning

Summary Explanation of Ratings  The school-wide effort to increase student voice encouraged engagement strategies like Think-Pair-Share, Wait Time, and Reciprocal Teaching. However, these practices were

not consistent.  Teachers struggled with management and students were often off task. 1.2

Safe and Nurturing Learning Experiences

Beginning

 Students, parents, and staff reported a lack of safety.  Supportive and encouraging language was lacking and there was little celebration of achievement.

1.4

Active & Different Types of Learning

Beginning

 There were few examples of active and different ways of learning.  Instruction was geared toward the construction of meaning, disciplined inquiry, and problem solving 40% of the time or less.

1.7

Students Know What They are Learning, Why, and How it can be Applied

Beginning

 Few students recognized the connection between the day’s learning and longer-term outcomes.  Teachers were not clear or specific with students about learning targets.

1.8

Academic Intervention & Enrichment Support

Beginning

 Classroom and school-wide strategies provided some universal supports including allotted weekly time for teacher intervention through group pullout, but not universal practices.  Intensified academic supports were very limited.

1.10

Equitable Access to Curriculum

Developing

1.11

College-going Culture & Resources

Beginning

 The Team found substantial evidence that diverse groups of students were proportionally represented in the academic programs.  Achievement gaps for minority students have continued.  Few teachers were explicit about skills preparing for students for college.  Less than 10% of the students connected their learning to a future goal.

2.1

Safe & Healthy Center of

Undeveloped

Hoover Elementary School School Quality Review 2012-2013

 Parents reported they did not have access to the school grounds for activities or

11

Community

2.2

2.5

Coordinated & Integrated System of Academic Learning Support Services Identifies At-Risk Students & Intervenes

meetings.  There was no evidence of the school being open to the community for use. Beginning

 There were few on-site strategies, services, and partnerships which responded to student and family needs.

Developing

 Both COS Team and the SST were in place which allowed the school a method of identifying which students were struggling and why they were struggling.  The Team found little evidence of academic tutorial programs.

Inclusive, Welcoming & Caring Community

3.1

Collaboration

Developing

 Grade level and cross grade level collaboration meetings were coordinated bi-monthly.  The DuFour process for formal collaboration is not followed.

3.2

Data Development & Analysis

Developing

 Clear uses of data, data meetings, individual targets, and a data board in the office conference room were present in some cases.  Data does not inform programmatic decisions.

3.4

Professional Learning Activities

Developing

 Teachers meet with coaches and principal for academic conferences.  Some PLC’s have been established.

4.2

Working Together in Partnership

Undeveloped

4.5

Student/Family Engagement on Student Progress

4.6

Family Engagement on Academic Expectations and Opportunities

Hoover Elementary School School Quality Review 2012-2013

Undeveloped

 There was little evidence of students, staff, and families feeling safe.  Parents reported feeling unwelcomed and unwanted at the school.

2.6

Beginning

Undeveloped

 There was little evidence that the school had high-quality activities and strategies which built the capacity of students, families, and community to work together in partnership.  There were some strategies in place to engage families regarding academic progress.  The frequency of teacher-parent communication varied significantly from teacher to teacher.  There was little evidence that the school engaged with families about the what, why, and “so what” of the academic program.

12

4.7

Standards of Meaningful Engagement

Undeveloped

 There was little evidence of the implementation of standards of meaningful engagement to build effective student, family, and community partnerships.

5.2

Partners with Students and Families in Decision Making

Undeveloped

 There was little evidence of shared decision making with students and families.  Parents reported that their involvement felt limited by school administration.

5.4

Vision Driven

Beginning

 Some members of the school community were knowledgeable about and committed to the school vision.  There was little evidence of the school’s leadership engaging all constituents in aligning their efforts to the vision.

5.5

Focused on Equity

Beginning

 The Principal put bilingual staff in place to address communication concerns.  The Team found no explicit evidence of staff being engaged in or focused around dialog or practice regarding historical inequities.

5.6

Supports the Development of Quality Instruction

Beginning

 There was a structure in place in which the Principal, Literacy Coach, Math Lead, and Science Prep Teacher guided, monitored, and supported instructional practices.  Curricular instructional strategies were stretched and fragmented.  ILT members reported that their role was advisory and not part of a power-sharing process.

5.9

Culture of Mutual Accountability

Beginning

 The staff had developed some student outcomes and goals for learning and behavior.  Staff did not identify specific targets of academic performance, nor measures of academic or interpersonal behavior.  The principal and teachers were still wrestling with developing into an effective team with a shared view and capacity to deliver challenging and meaningful curriculum.

5.10

Organizational Management

Developing

 The school leadership effectively used the district’s budgeting systems.  Funds do not address the needs of students as only 25% are reading at grade level.

Hoover Elementary School School Quality Review 2012-2013

13

PART 4: FOCUS STANDARDS RATINGS CHART Quality Focus Focus Standard Indicator Standard 1 1.1 Meaningful and Challenging Curriculum 1 1.2 Safe and Nurturing Learning Experiences 1 1.4 Active & Different Types of Learning 1 1.7 Students Know What They are Learning, Why, and How it can be Applied 1 1.8 Academic Intervention/ Enrichment 1 1.10 Equitable Access to Curriculum 1 1.11 College-going Culture & Resources 2 2.1 Safe & Healthy Center of Community 2 2.2 Coordinated & Integrated System of Academic Learning Support Services 2 2.5 Identifies At-Risk Students & Intervenes 2 2.6 Inclusive, Welcoming & Caring Community 3 3.1 Collaboration 3 3.2 Data Development & Analysis 3 3.4 Professional Learning Activities 4 4.2 Working Together in Partnership 4 4.5 Student/Family Engagement on Student Progress 4 4.6 Family Engagement on Academic Expectations and Opportunities 4 4.7 Standards of Meaningful Engagement 5 5.2 Partners with Students and Families in Decision Making 5 5.4 Vision Driven 5 5.5 Focused on Equity 5 5.6 Supports the Development of Quality Instruction 5 5.9 Culture of Mutual Accountability 5 5.10 Organizational Management Hoover Elementary School School Quality Review 2012-2013

Rubric Rating

Undeveloped

Beginning

Developing

Sustaining

Refining

Beginning Beginning Beginning Beginning Beginning Developing Beginning Undeveloped Beginning Developing Undeveloped Developing Developing Developing Undeveloped Beginning Undeveloped Undeveloped Undeveloped Beginning Beginning Beginning Beginning Developing

14