SCHOOL QUALITY REVIEW REPORT FOR
Manzanita Seed Elementary School 2409 East 27th Street, Oakland, CA 94601 Oakland Unified School District Principal: Katherine Carter 2012-2013 School Quality Review Lead and Report Author Marie Roberts/Quality Community School Development Office School Quality Review (SQR) Team Members Darren Avent/Kaiser School Elementary Principal Kafi Payne, Manager/Teacher Support Development & Retention, TDO Annette Oropoza/Mental Health Program Manager, Region 2, FSCP Claudia Ortiz-Silva/Transitional Students & Families, Specialist/Migrant Ed, FSCP Han Phung/Transformational Leadership Coach, SIG Office
CONTENTS OF THE REPORT
BACKGROUND TO OUSD’S SCHOOL QUALITY REVIEW WORK
PART 1: THE SCHOOL CONTEXT
PART 2: THE SCHOOL’S QUALITY OUTCOMES
PART 3: FINDINGS - SUMMARY EXPLANATION OF RUBRIC RATINGS
PART 4: FINDINGS - FOCUS STANDARDS RATINGS CHART
PART 5: FINDINGS - NARRATIVE OF STRENGTHS AND CHALLENGES
APPENDIX 1: DATA PROFILE
APPENDIX 2: SCHOOL SELF-REFLECTION
APPENDIX 3: RUBRICS FOR SCHOOL QUALITY FOCUS STANDARDS
Manzanita Seed Elementary School School Quality Review 2012-2013
2
BACKGROUND TO OUSD’S SCHOOL QUALITY REVIEW WORK During 2010-2011, fourteen task forces were formed with representation from a variety of stakeholders ranging from students and parents, to teachers, administrators, and community partners throughout Oakland. The Quality Community Schools Development Task Force was formed to define and set out a work plan to move the community toward a common vision of quality in Oakland’s schools. The Quality Community Schools Development Task Force created a set of School Quality Standards, comprised of six Quality Indicators delineating sixty-one Quality Standards. This work incorporates findings from other task forces (Teaching Effectiveness, Effective Leadership, Full Service Community Schools, Experience and Achievement, and African American Male Achievement) that were also addressing elements of quality in schools. At the end of the year, the School Quality Standards and the School Quality Review (SQR) process were incorporated into the District Strategic Plan, which was adopted by the OUSD Board of Education in May 2011. The 2011-2012 was Year 1 of School Quality Review implementation. The goal of the Quality Community Schools Development office for year 1 was “to implement a successful pilot of 15 schools for School Quality Reviews across 3 regions in grades K-8.” In this “pilot” year, in addition to completing the 15 SQR reports, the emphasis was on design, capacity building, promoting district-wide awareness of the new process, and aligning it to District tools and systems. For Year 2 in 2012-2013, the plan is to begin reviewing high schools as well and complete reviews on a total of 21 schools (eleven elementary, five middle and five high schools). Revision of tools and processes continues, but the SQR Teams will again focus on select, “high leverage” school quality standards and not every standard. High school reviews will be designed to align with the high school WASC accreditation process. About this report: The following report provides a description of this school’s strengths and challenges in its development toward the school quality defined in the OUSD School Quality Standards. This report does not offer specific recommendations for further improvement or growth. A key goal of the School Quality Review is for schools to “see” what they do well and what needs improvement. It is the school community, in coordination with central supports, which should identify what should be done next to improve the quality of services the school provides students and families. These next steps need to be carefully planned and prioritized by the various stakeholders of the school and incorporated into the Community Schools Strategic Site Plan (CSSSP).
Manzanita Seed Elementary School School Quality Review 2012-2013
3
PART 1: THE SCHOOL CONTEXT Recent “School Quality” Story Manzanita SEED Elementary School is a K-5 dual immersion program focused on teaching students in both English and Spanish. The school is part of a pair of schools that were created when the larger Manzanita Elementary School was divided. Manzanita SEED (School of Expeditionary learning, Equity and Diversity) was born out of the idea that smaller schools were better to create a “connectedness,” increase achievement, and engage students, particularly in minority and low-income communities. According to the Manzanita SEED School SelfReflection, the vision for the school was created by a design team of teachers, parents, and community partners over the 2004 – 2005 school year. Led by this vision that “all students will become proficient in both languages and multi-culturally competent,” SEED has put into place three pillars to sustain it: 1. Expeditionary Learning 2. Linguistic and Cultural Inclusion 3. Family-School Integration The school opened in the fall of 2005 as a K-2 school. From its opening, the school has worked with The National Equity Project which coached the principal and teachers in meeting the vision. Teachers at SEED have the unique opportunity of writing their own curriculum and do so through the support of Expeditionary Learning. In the last eight years, SEED has been recognized as a 2010 National Title I Distinguished School and as a mentor school for Expeditionary Learning. Location/Neighborhood and Community Description/Description of School Facilities Manzanita Seed Elementary School is located in one of Oakland’s most racially, ethnically, and culturally diverse areas. Atop a hill on 25th Avenue and East 27th Street, the school is north of 580 in the southern part of the Fruitvale area, specifically, the Reservoir Hill/Meadowbrook neighborhood. Houses and some apartments border the school on four sides. With the District’s small school initiative, the once united large elementary school split into two small schools in 2005. Now, each school has its own identity, houses its own principal, and operates individually, except for some shared personnel and a few shared amenities, including the cafeteria, library, and multi-purpose room. The schools also share a custodian, librarian, a nurse, and a speech therapist. There are several gates through which constituents for both schools gain access to the campus. A tall flight of stairs on 25th Avenue leads to the Manzanita SEED main gate. Just through the gate are the three main buildings and four large portables which make up the SEED campus. The other large buildings and cluster of portables belong to SEED’s site partner, Manzanita Community School, the elementary school sharing the grounds. Manzanita Seed Elementary School School Quality Review 2012-2013
4
There is a large playground, also shared between the schools. Before the school day begins, children and families are found gathered on the playground. It is difficult for the outsiders to tell which students attend which school unless they have on their uniforms.
Student Demographics At the time of the January School Quality Review visit, during the 2012-2013 school-year, approximately 350 students were enrolled in Manzanita SEED. This enrollment signifies the third consecutive year of increased enrollment, averaging an addition of 41 students each year. The greatest increase occurred this year, with an additional 69 students enrolling, creating the need for the opening of an unexpected kindergarten class. Sixty-one percent of the Manzanita Seed students are Latino, which is a slightly higher percentage than the average over the last five years (59%). African American students make up 17% of the student population; this percentage has been consistent for the last five years. Asian/Pacific Islander students comprise 7% of Manzanita Seed’s enrollment, a percentage which has gradually declined from the 15.9% in 2008-2009. The White student population has greatly increased from .8% to 10.8% over that past five years. There has been a decrease in the percentage of English Learners at the school over the last 5 years from 54.2% in 2008-2009 to 50.3% last year. While the RFEP population increased between 12.7% in 2008-2009 to 19.8% in 2011-2012. (There was no data for the 2012-2013 school year regarding the RFEP students.) SEED serves a community in which 85% of the students qualify for free and or reduced lunch and many families are immigrants and working class.
School Leadership Katherine Carter is in her tenth year as principal of Manzanita Seed. Carter began as a teacher on the Manzanita Elementary School campus in 1995 when it was still one of Oakland’s large elementary schools. In 2003, the campus was separated into two small schools, Manzanita Seed and Manzanita Community School, at which time, Carter took command of SEED. According to Carter, the “goal was to help children understand and respect themselves, their community, and the world and to prepare students to branch out into the world as bilingual, biliterate leaders and lifelong learners.” Since 2003, Carter has led her school to an 837 API score, a National Title I award, and to national recognition as an Expeditionary Learning Mentor
Manzanita Seed Elementary School School Quality Review 2012-2013
5
School. Carter will end her tenure as principal this year as she transitions to the Harvard Graduate School of Education. Manzanita SEED Staff At the time of the January 14- 16 site visit, Manzanita SEED had 15 regular classroom teachers. In addition, the staff included the following members: Position Librarian Administrative Assistant ASP Director Family Coordinator Nurse Music Attendance Clerk RSP Intervention Intervention Custodian RSP Aide Speech Therapist Psychologist Noon Supervisor
# .6 1 1 .25 .6 .6 .5 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
Notes
PT shared with Manzanita Community
Shared with Manzanita Community Shared with Manzanita Community
Instructional Program Teachers team teach at each grade level except 4th grade which is self-contained. One teacher teaches in Spanish and one in English.
In kindergarten through 3rd grade, the Spanish teacher teaches one block of math and one block of content-integrated literacy. The English teacher teaches one block of language arts, and one block of content-integrated literacy. The 4th grade class is self-contained, the teacher teaches one block of science and content-integrated literacy in Spanish and one block of math and one block of contentintegrated literacy in English.
Manzanita Seed Elementary School School Quality Review 2012-2013
6
In 5th grade, the Spanish teacher teaches one block of science, and one block of contentintegrated literacy and the English teacher teaches one block of math and one block of content-integrated literacy in English. All students at are taught in English for one half of the day and in Spanish for the other half. Students in special education learn through a full-inclusion program.
Manzanita Seed Elementary School School Quality Review 2012-2013
7
PART 2: THE SCHOOL’S QUALITY OUTCOMES Academic Performance Index (API) Manzanita Seed had a net 5 year growth of 159 points on the API between 2007 and 2012, an average of 31.8 points per year. This growth included an 83 point growth in 2008-2009, a 106 point growth in 2009-2010, an 8 point growth in 2010-2011, and a 15 point decrease in 20112012 The following data shows the growth of significant API sub-groups at Manzanita Seed: Hispanic/Latino student API growth for 2012 was -5, moving the group from an 830 score to a score of 825. English Learners API growth for 2012 was –14, moving the group from an 834 score to 820. Socio-economically Disadvantaged student API growth for 2012 was -26 points, moving the group from 824 to 798, falling below the 800 target. Neither the Asian population of 12, nor the African American student population of 20 was numerically significant to the data for API growth; however the groups did have a 5 point and 13 point increase respectively, in the 2012 scores. (NOTE: As the school has exceeded the state goal of 800 on the API score, the expectation each year is student growth. As long as scores, both for school and sub groups remain above 800, there are no targets assigned each year by the state.) California Standards Test (CST) twoyear cohort growth data for 2010-2011 and 2011-2012 provides a more detailed understanding of student performance at Manzanita Seed. English Language Arts CST 2-Year Cohort Growth data 2010-11 and 2011-12 Group Grew or Stayed at Slid or Stayed “Advanced” “Proficient, Basic, or Stayed “Far Below Below Basic” Basic” All Students 33% 42% 25% rd 3 grade 25% 39% 36% th 4 grade 43% 46% 11% th 5 grade 25% 39% 36% African American 30% 40% 30% Asian 20% 40% 40% Latino 33% 45% 22% English Learner 19% 47% 34% RFEP 41% 46% 13% Manzanita Seed Elementary School School Quality Review 2012-2013
8
In ELA, Manzanita SEED students showed progress. 4th graders showed progress with more than two-fifths of the students either growing or holding at the “Advanced” performance band. African American student performance showed progress with almost one-third of the students either growing or holding at the “Advanced” performance band. Almost four-fifths of the Latino and more than four-fifths of the Re-designated Fluent English Proficiency (RFEP) groups showed progress either growing or holding at a performance band. Overall in English Language Arts, 59% of Manzanita SEED students scored “proficient or advanced” on the 2011-12 CST, a decrease of 4.4% from the previous year.
Mathematics CST 2-Year Cohort Growth data 2010-11 and 2011-12 Group Grew or Stayed at Slid or Stayed “Advanced” “Proficient, Basic, or Stayed “Far Below Below Basic” Basic” All Students 48% 33% 19% rd 3 grade 43% 43% 13% th 4 grade 43% 30% 26% th 5 grade 61% 25% 14% African American 20% 40% 40% Asian 50% 40% 10% Latino 49% 31% 20% English Learner 38% 35% 26% RFEP 59% 28% 13% In Mathematics, Manzanita Seed also showed mixed progress with increase in some areas: Almost one-half of the Latino students grew to or stayed in the “Advanced” performance band. Almost two-thirds of the 5th grade and the RFEP students grew or stayed in the “Advanced” performance band. 4th grade had slightly more than two-fifths of the students grow or hold at the “Advanced” performance band. More than two-fifths of the 3rd grade grew or stayed in the “Advanced” performance band. Overall, in Mathematics, 77% of Manzanita Seed students scored “proficient or advanced” on the 2011-12 CST, an increase of 2.5% over the previous year.
Manzanita Seed Elementary School School Quality Review 2012-2013
9
CELDT Manzanita SEED tested a total of 140 students on the California English Language Development Test (CELDT) during the 2011 – 2012 school year. The number of students at each Overall Performance Level was as follows: 8 Advanced, 30 Early Advanced, 43 Intermediate, 24 Early Intermediate, 35 Beginning. Forty-five of the students tested were kindergarten students.
Attendance In 2011-12, 66% of Manzanita SEED students attended school at least 95% of school days. This was 8 percentage points less than the 74% district rate for all K-5 students. In 2011-2012, 6% of Manzanita SEED students were chronically absent, meaning they missed more than 10% of school days. This was 4 percentage points lower than the district chronic absence rate for all K-5 students. In 2011-2012, no Manzanita SEED students were severally chronically absent, meaning they missed more than 20% of school days. The chronic absence rate for all K-5 students in the district was 2%. The attendance data for Manzanita Seed’s two largest student sub-groups, African American and Latino students, reflects a disproportionality. o In 2011-12, 60% of the African American students attended school at least 95% of school days. This was 7 percentage points lower than the 67% of Latino students who attended school at least 95% of school days. o In 2011-2012, 11% of the African American students were chronically absent, meaning they missed more than 10% of school days. This was 5 percentage points higher than the 6% chronic absence rate for Latino students. Suspensions and Expulsions In 2011-12, student suspensions at Manzanita Seed decreased compared to the previous years. In the previous four years, the percent of students suspended had been as high as 4.4%. The rate dropped to 1.3% in 2010-11. In 2011-12, the percent of students suspended was .7%.
Manzanita Seed Elementary School School Quality Review 2012-2013
10
PART 3: FINDINGS - SUMMARY EXPLANATION OF RUBRIC RATINGS Focus Standard
Rubric Rating
Summary Explanation of Ratings
Meaningful and Challenging Curriculum
Developing
1.2
Safe and Nurturing Learning Experiences
Developing
1.4
Active & Different Types of Learning
Developing
1.7
Students Know What They are Learning, Why, and How it can be Applied
Developing
1.8
Academic Intervention & Enrichment Support
Developing
1.10
Equitable Access to Curriculum
Developing
1.11
College-going Culture & Resources
Beginning
Manzanita has adopted Expeditionary Learning and through this program has developed some consistent practices including word walls, lesson targets, thematic curriculum, sentence scaffolding, etc. There is inconsistency in the implementation and understanding of the Expeditionary Learning program. Students consistently reported that they felt safe and parents reported satisfaction with how safe and nurturing classrooms were. School policies and practices were not followed consistently by staff and poor student behavior was ignored in some classes. Students work together (reasoning, reading, writing, and/or speaking the language of the discipline. There is little scaffolding and/or diagrams to support the learning of Spanish, especially at third through fifth grade. Learning targets were posted or explicitly described by teachers in most cases and students were able to identify the learning target for the lesson. There were not clear connections between the daily objective and the long term learning goal. There were classroom strategies and school-wide systems identifying students who were struggling and needed academic support, especially kindergarten through second grade. The majority of the support focused on Spanish speakers learning English, while there was little support for English speakers learning Spanish. Diverse groups of students were proportionally represented in the academic classrooms including English Language learners and Special Education students. There were few supports to assist English speaking students with Spanish mastery, especially African- American students. Four percent of the teachers were explicit that certain skills and dispositions prepare students to be successful in college and careers.
Focus Standard 1.1
Manzanita Seed Elementary School School Quality Review 2012-2013
11
2.1
Safe & Healthy Center of Community
Developing
2.2
Coordinated & Integrated System of Academic Learning Support Services Identifies At-Risk Students & Intervenes
Sustaining
2.5
Developing
2.6
Inclusive, Welcoming & Caring Community
Sustaining
3.1
Collaboration
Developing
3.2
Data Development & Analysis
Sustaining
3.4
Professional Learning Activities
Sustaining
4.2
Working Together in Partnership
Developing
4.5
Student/Family Engagement on Student Progress
Sustaining
4.6
Family Engagement on Academic Expectations and Opportunities
Sustaining
Manzanita Seed Elementary School School Quality Review 2012-2013
The Manzanita SEED site was used by the community for Zumba, community meetings, language classes, etc. Safety issues were reported by staff and parents who were concerned about the access onto the campus during the day being unsafe and the cause of several thefts. Through the Expeditionary Learning program, the staff provided all students with curriculum focusing on character growth, teamwork, reflection, and community responsibility. Goals conferences were held with each teacher following benchmark assessments and directly addressed classroom intervention. Interventions focused on the needs of Spanish speakers learning English with little support in place for English speakers and for the upper grade students. Students and parents reported they felt free from threat of bullying and/or discrimination and that when issues arose, the school addressed them. Manzanita teachers met in school site PLC’s and monthly in the Dual Language Inquiry Cohort. PLC’s functions were inconsistent from grade level to grade level. Manzanita SEED collected multiple kinds of data about student performance and used this data to group students and plan intervention. The school provided professional development that modeled effective practices, promoted teacher leadership, and supported teachers to continuously improve their practice. Students and their families worked in partnership through a variety of structures
and mechanisms including SSC, ELAC, LOC, and the Team Leaders Committee. There were parent concerns regarding SSC access. There were multiple high-quality activities and strategies which engaged students and their families in knowing how students were progressing including: Academic Expos, Student Led Conferences, Student Study Teams, newsletters, emails, family bulletin boards, etc. Student Led Conferences, Monday Assemblies, Academic Expos, and weekly newsletters provided families with opportunities to understand what their children were learning.
12
Standards of Meaningful Engagement
5.2
Partners with Students and Families in Decision Making
Sustaining
5.4
Vision Driven
Sustaining
The school vision was focused on student learning and high expectations for all students and was known by all constituents.
5.5
Focused on Equity
Sustaining
The school leadership guided and supported the services that support all students to have equal access to learning.
5.6
Supports the Development of Quality Instruction
Sustaining
5.9
Culture of Mutual Accountability
Sustaining
Expected student learning outcomes and the school vision guided, monitored, and supported curricular choices, interventions, instructional practices, and professional learning. The school staff developed clear student outcomes and goals and clear staff professional expectations and goals.
5.10
Organizational Management
Manzanita Seed Elementary School School Quality Review 2012-2013
Refining
Expeditionary Learning practices allowed students to build skills around leadership, voice, and advocacy. School practices and policies implemented standards of meaningful engagement to build effective partnerships including LOC, Parent Team Leaders, Monday Assemblies, etc. Collaborative structures included SSC, ELAC, Team Leaders, and the Technology Committee.
4.7
Refining
The school’s resources were allocated in service of the school vision and these
resources were maximized in service of the vision.
13
PART 4: FOCUS STANDARDS RATINGS CHART Quality Indicator 1 1 1 1
Focus Standard 1.1 1.2 1.4 1.7
1 1 1 2 2
1.8 1.10 1.11 2.1 2.2
2 2 3 3 3 4 4
2.5 2.6 3.1 3.2 3.4 4.2 4.5
4
4.6
4 5
4.7 5.2
5 5 5
5.4 5.5 5.6
5 5
5.9 5.10
Focus Standard Meaningful and Challenging Curriculum Safe and Nurturing Learning Experiences Active & Different Types of Learning Students Know What They are Learning, Why, and How it can be Applied Academic Intervention/ Enrichment Equitable Access to Curriculum College-going Culture & Resources Safe & Healthy Center of Community Coordinated & Integrated System of Academic Learning Support Services Identifies At-Risk Students & Intervenes Inclusive, Welcoming & Caring Community Collaboration Data Development & Analysis Professional Learning Activities Working Together in Partnership Student/Family Engagement on Student Progress Family Engagement on Academic Expectations and Opportunities Standards of Meaningful Engagement Partners with Students and Families in Decision Making Vision Driven Focused on Equity Supports the Development of Quality Instruction Culture of Mutual Accountability Organizational Management
Manzanita Seed Elementary School School Quality Review 2012-2013
Rubric Rating Developing Developing Developing Developing
Undeveloped
Beginning
Developing
Sustaining
Refining
Developing Developing Beginning Developing Sustaining Developing Sustaining Developing Sustaining Sustaining Developing
Sustaining Sustaining Refining Sustaining Sustaining Sustaining Sustaining Sustaining
Refining
14
PART 5: FINDINGS - NARRATIVE OF STRENGTHS AND CHALLENGES The School Quality Review team spent three days (January 14, 15, and 16, 2013) observing classrooms, school-wide activities, and various parts of the campus inside and outside the building. The team conducted a variety of interviews (individually and in groups) with students, parents, teachers, classified staff, administrators, and community partners. The team also reviewed the school documents, performance data, and budget. The following narrative presents the general conclusions by the School Quality Review Team on how Manzanita Seed Elementary School is developing toward the School Quality Standards. As a summary it does not include much of the specific evidence that supports these conclusions. To see this detail, the reader must consult the Rubric Analysis in the following Part 3 of the report. Each section of the Summary begins with a description of the specific focal standards for which the SQR Team gathered evidence and made its evaluation. The Team did not gather evidence on every School Quality Standard, as described above on page 3. The following narrative relies on specific language of each standard’s rubric and the developmental scale for the ratings. That scales is:
Undeveloped
There was little evidence found that the school implemented the practice(s) and/or built the conditions described in the standard.
Beginning
There was some evidence found that the school implemented the practice(s) and/or built the conditions described in the standard.
Developing
There was substantial evidence found that the school implemented the practice(s) and/or built the conditions described in the standard.
Sustaining
Refining
There was strong & consistent evidence found that the school implemented the practice(s) and/or built the conditions described in the standard. There was strong & consistent evidence found that the school implemented the practice(s) and/or built the conditions described in the standard, and the school has implemented systems to review and improve these practices/conditions.
Manzanita Seed Elementary School School Quality Review 2012-2013
15
Quality Indicator 1: Quality Learning Experiences for All Students For Quality Indicator 1, the School Review Team investigated how a school is developing toward the quality described in 7 focus standards: Standard 1: A quality school provides students with curriculum that is meaningful and challenging to them. Standard 2: A quality school provides safe and nurturing learning environments. Standard 4: A quality school uses instructional strategies that make learning active for students and provide them with different ways to learn. Standard 7: A quality school ensures that students know what they're learning, why they're learning it and how it can be applied. Standard 8: A quality school provides academic intervention and broader enrichment supports before, during, and after school. Standard 10: A quality school provides and ensures equitable access to curriculum and courses that prepare all students for college. Standard 11: A quality school has a college-going culture with staff and teachers who provide college preparedness resources. Every Manzanita Seed kindergarten through first grade student learns math and one block of content-integrated Literacy in the Spanish language, and one block of content-integrated literacy in the English language. In fourth and fifth grades, every student learns one block of Math and one block of content-integrated literacy in the English language, and one block of Science and one block of content-integrated literacy in Spanish. The nature of the Manzanita Seed program in and of itself creates a meaningful and challenging environment for all students in attendance because all students learn in two languages every day. The school’s Vision Statement identifies a clear expectation that all students will be: “Bi-literate and bilingual, academically proficient at or above grade level in both English and Spanish; culturally competent and able to understand other cultures and have high self-esteem.” For students to listen, speak, write and learn in two languages every day is rigorous. According the School SelfReflection, the school was challenged with having the same level of rigor in Spanish Language Arts (SLA) as in the English Language Arts (ELA). “Student proficiency levels in SLA are much lower than in ELA. “
Manzanita Seed Elementary School School Quality Review 2012-2013
16
Standard 1.1: A quality school provides students with curriculum that is meaningful and challenging to them: (DEVELOPING) While looking at Manzanita Seed classrooms, the following conditions were observed that capture the presence of meaningful and challenging curriculum in classrooms (outlined in the rubrics in Appendix 3). In 66% of the observations conducted by the Team, learning built on students’ prior knowledge, skills, and experiences. In 52% of the observations conducted by the Team, students applied learning to questions or problems connected to their interests, goals, experiences, and communities. In 74% of the observations conducted by the Team, students communicated their thinking, supported by teacher/peers, using the language and reasoning of the discipline. In 48% of the observations conducted by the Team, the curriculum reflected an academic push, from the teacher, to have all students progress far and attain high levels of mastery. Overall, the SQR Team observed substantial evidence of meaningful and challenging curriculum in Manzanita Seed classrooms. The Team observed consistent and embedded practices schoolwide including word walls, lesson targets (objectives), scaffolding, musical strategies (songs), poems of the week, and themes across subject areas. In addition, there was evidence of activities which served as routines to address prior knowledge, skills and experiences. Some teachers introduced guiding questions in the beginning of lessons, “Why do animals need trees?” How did dinosaurs survive? What does perimeter mean and how is it determined?” These teachers repeated these questions throughout the lessons and reviewed diverse ways of approaching the answers. Lessons often reviewed previous learning. In almost three-fourths of the observations, the Team found evidence of student input, collaboration, Think/Pair/Share and positive re-enforcement. Teachers encouraged student responses to their questions in English and Spanish. Students responded to questions and story prompts with sentence structures scaffolds when needed. In some cases, they asked one student for an answer and then asked another student to explain why the answer was the correct or wrong one. Student learning was supported through the following whole school approaches, leveled reading, dual language homework packets, and concept integration in lessons. According to the School Self-Reflection, SEED adopted Expeditionary Learning to assist in the implementation of the school’s vision. The SEED School Self-Reflection, defined the Expeditionary Learning program as “a comprehensive school reform model based on five core practices: Curriculum, Instruction, Assessment, Culture and Character, and Leadership. The Team observed the building of relationships from teacher to teacher and student to student
Manzanita Seed Elementary School School Quality Review 2012-2013
17
through the daily interactions and routines. The Team also observed the development of thematic curriculum and the adaption of curriculum to meet the interests and needs of diverse populations. However, the SQR Team found that teachers were inconsistent in their understanding and implementation of the Expeditionary Learning. The implementation of this curriculum varied based on a teacher’s tenure at the school. Veteran Seed teachers had a clear understanding of the procedures, while new teachers varied greatly in their implementation and knowledge of purpose. In some cases new teachers were using the previously made posters and songs without clarity around the original learning concepts or thematic strategies. In addition, the implementation of the bilingual learning strategies was very different after the second grade. The kindergarten through second grade students were able to interact, repeat, and respond in both English and Spanish, whether they were native or second language learners. In these classrooms, the majority of students seemed to participate though sometimes with support. However, the Team observed a change in the third through fifth grade classrooms. At these levels, there was a noticeable separation between native English speakers and native Spanish speakers during the Spanish learning times. Native English speakers were quieter, asking fewer questions and offering fewer answers when probed. Though there were many English language scaffolds in the classrooms, there were few tools available for Spanish scaffolding. By the fifth grade, many native English learners either did not speak during the Spanish language learning blocks, or whispered to each other in English. Standard 1.2: A quality school provides safe and nurturing learning environments. (DEVELOPING) While looking at Manzanita Seed’s classrooms, the following conditions were observed that captured the presence of safe and nurturing learning environments in classrooms (outlined in the rubrics in Appendix 2). In 81% of the observations conducted by the Team, students were safe and learned free from intimidation, bullying, and/or discrimination. In 59% of the observations conducted by the Team, classroom routines and structures supported students to build positive relationships across different individual and cultural “lines,” so that they could effectively work and learn together. In 63% of the observations conducted by the Team, the classroom was an “accepting” environment in which the contributions, culture and language of each student is validated, valued, and respected.
Manzanita Seed Elementary School School Quality Review 2012-2013
18
In 37% of the observations conducted by the Team, all students managed their emotions to persist through difficult academic work. In 59% of the observations conducted by the Team, the physical environment of the classroom was clean and organized to be safe and supportive of learning.
In addition to this evidence of safe and nurturing learning experiences in Manzanita Seed’s classrooms which was directly observed by the SQR Team, consider the following strengths reported by students and parents. From the student interviews conducted by the SQR Team, students consistently reported that they felt safe in their classrooms. Most reported that they liked their teachers and had “good relationships” with them. Similarly, the parents interviewed reported satisfaction with how safe and nurturing the classrooms were. They reported that their children were well cared for in the classroom. In addition to this evidence, teachers described their routines and structures for building a positive learning environment and managing student behavior. Manzanita Seed teachers presented a fairly consistent, shared view of effective school/classroom routines and structures rooted in work the staff had done with Expeditionary Learning which focused on building and sustaining a strong school culture that fostered character growth, high expectations, and equity. The Team observed the school start of each week through a Monday Assembly which included engaging students, staff, and families in song, student readings, and school accomplishments and expectations. This meeting was led by the principal, however clearly reflected student empowerment and teacher leadership. The beginning of each day in the classrooms at Manzanita Seed included Morning Meeting: oral/chorale class reads of learning and character targets, and morning greetings from teacher to student and student to student. Teachers attributed the positive interaction between students to the use of “I messages” and explained that the students had been taught to resolve their own conflicts using processes like “Rock Paper Scissors.” An embedded school process supported by teachers and practiced by students was “1 put-down/3 put-ups, meaning anyone saying one negative thing to a student had to say three positive things about them. In addition, most classrooms had some form of visible behavior chart focusing on positive actions in kindergarten through 2nd grade. However, there was some inconsistency in follow-through with the behavior chart process and school policy. The Team observed teachers overlooking
Manzanita Seed Elementary School School Quality Review 2012-2013
19
and in some cases, ignoring poor student behavior. In these cases, students were not corrected or redirected and were able to distract other students.
Standard 1.4: A quality school uses instructional strategies that make learning active for students and provide them with different ways to learn. (DEVELOPING) While looking at Manzanita Seed’s classrooms, the following conditions were observed that capture the presence of instructional strategies that make learning active and provide students with different ways to learn (outlined in the rubrics in Appendix 2). In 81% of the observations conducted by the Team, students actively “worked”—reasoning, reading, writing, and/or speaking the language of the discipline. In 44% of the observations conducted by the Team, students “worked” together in the discipline, and their collaboration facilitated deep learning. In 70% of the observations conducted by the Team, students learned using various learning modalities and/or multiple intelligences. In 52% of the observations conducted by the Team, students used language support scaffolds (sentence frames, multiple choice oral responses, diagrams and other representations) to engage in learning. In 33% of the observations conducted by the Team, students developed questions, posed problems, made connections, reflected on multiple perspectives, and/or actively constructed knowledge. In 30% of the observations conducted by the Team, students explained and revised their thinking and built on and evaluated the thinking of others. In 37% of the observations conducted by the Team, the pacing of learning reflected an academic push to have all students complete learning activities and reach expected high levels of mastery (i.e., reflected that “every minute was used well”). In 19% of the observations conducted by the Team, various technologies were used to make learning active and to meet the learning needs of students. While overall the team observed evidence that students at Manzanita Seed were experiencing active and different ways of learning in the classroom, there was consistently enough evidence of its absence to conclude that Manzanita Seed was still developing towards implementing the practices and/or building the conditions described in the standard. Consider the frequencies reported above where the Team found evidence regarding whether specific conditions of active and different ways of learning were present in the classroom. These percentages indicate strength with the majority of the students, 81%, actively working in the discipline and 70% learning through the use of various modalities and intelligences. The Team observed a schoolManzanita Seed Elementary School School Quality Review 2012-2013
20
wide approach to embedding songs, themed posters, kinesthetic poetry readings, and chorale readings into lessons and the implementation of “think, pair, share” or “turn and tell a partner.” These practices were especially strong in kindergarten through second grade. However, the Team noted that there were differences in educational presentations between the two languages. Where the classrooms often had scaffolds and supports for learning English, this was not always true for acquiring skills in Spanish where there were fewer sentence frames and diagrams to support student engagement. In addition, as noted in 1.1, the Team observed a shift in student participation and engagement during lessons in Spanish after the third grade. These differences may account for the inconsistency in frequencies regarding student explanations and revisions of their thinking, pacing reflecting an academic push, and students developing questions, posing problems, and actively constructing knowledge. Standard 1.7: A quality school ensures that students know what they're learning, why they're learning it and how it can be applied. (DEVELOPING) During classroom observations, the SQR Team briefly talked to students about what they were learning and why. In 80% of the short interviews conducted by the SQR Team during classroom observations, the Manzanita Seed student interviewed knew the learning objectives for the lesson. In 30% of the short interviews conducted by the SQR Team during classroom observations, students recognized the connection between the day’s learning and longer-term outcomes. For students to know what they are learning and why, a teacher must be explicit about it. The SQR Team looked for the explicit ways that teachers made the objective, goal, or target of learning clear to students. In 80% of the observations conducted by the Team, teachers posted and/or explicitly described the learning target. The SQR Team also looked for the explicit ways that Manzanita Seed teachers checked the understanding of students and thereby clarified what understanding they were looking for and what it looks like to know or perform “well.” In 48% of the classroom observations, the SQR Team found that students had their learning checked with immediate feedback regarding their progress toward the day’s learning objectives. The SQR Team observed some processes of checking for understanding including, “fist to five,” thumbs up, and visual monitoring. The Team also observed that much of the checking was for behavioral or emotional situations as opposed to academic. Thumbs up or down often referred to how students were feeling. Standard 1.8: A quality school provides academic intervention and broader enrichment supports before, during, and after school. (DEVELOPING) There was strong and consistent evidence that Manzanita Seed had classroom strategies and school-wide systems that identified which students were struggling and needed academic Manzanita Seed Elementary School School Quality Review 2012-2013
21
support and which students were mastering targets and needed enrichment. The SQR Team found substantial evidence that school-wide systems efficiently referred students to needed academic supports, monitored their effectiveness, and adjusted them—ensuring that students “got in and got out” as progress occurred. The SQR Team also found that classroom and schoolwide strategies—before, during, and after school—provided a variety of academic supports. These included: “Universal academic supports (e.g., bi-lingual homework packets, teacher emails and phone numbers, and ASP homework help.) RTI in kindergarten and first grade included DIBLES/DRA screening for every student and “intensive” intervention from the bilingual intervention teacher who conducted small group and 1:1 reading intervention. “Targeted” academic supports including classroom pull-out by skill level, after school tutoring, and a summer Spanish immersion program. The SQR Team also found strong and consistent evidence that patterns of shared student characteristics (such as second language learner and special education status) were considered when identifying student academic needs and providing supports. The systems in place were specifically strong for students in kindergarten through second grade. The Team observed little support in the upper grades, especially fourth and fifth grades. In addition the Team found that the majority of the pull-out groups focused on reading intervention in English. There was little support for English speakers learning Spanish. The SQR Team did not observe strategies and systems identifying which students were mastering targets and needed academic enrichment. The SQR Team did not observe any specific in-class, pull-out, or “elective” enrichment opportunities during the day for these students. The ASP did provide academic enrichment programming for students enrolled in its program. However, because the ASP admission priorities did not focus on the “needs” of students mastering targets, their enrichment offerings could not specifically be considered strategies serving these students needs. They were important evidence of a supportive and healthy environment, and this will be analyzed in Quality Indicator 2. Revisiting the Manzanita Seed vision, here again, the Team struggled with the rigor involved in learning two languages throughout the day and the implications to academic enrichment. The Team recognized that students mastering learning targets in one language were faced with a unique and constant opportunity to master the other language, thus found academic
Manzanita Seed Elementary School School Quality Review 2012-2013
22
enrichment embedded in the daily routine practices of every class, but not specifically focused at students mastering targets. Standard 1.10: A quality school provides and ensures equitable access to curriculum and courses that prepare all students for college. (DEVELOPING) Diverse groups of students were proportionally represented in the academic programs, and there were policies, programs, and practices that ensured that different groups of students received some support. The SQR Team found substantial evidence that the school offered academic interventions that identified and supported specific learners who were part of historically lower-achieving groups, which gave them access to challenging curriculum and enabled them to achieve high standards. Special Education students were part of a fullinclusion process with available assistance in the classrooms. Most other interventions were focused on Spanish-speaking students learning English with little support for English speakers learning Spanish as noted in 1.1. The Team observed native English speakers who were learning Spanish struggling in the third through fifth grades to master the curriculum. The Team observed a specific difference in the engagement of African-American students in these classrooms. The Team did not observe any specific interventions to address this group of students. The school noted this difficulty with the English to Spanish curriculum. The SQR Team heard reports of the summer immersion program being developed by the school. This program will focus on specific Spanish immersion for 80 African American students. Standard 1.11: A quality school has a college-going culture with staff and teachers who provide college preparedness resources. (BEGINNING) In the observations conducted by the Team 4% of teachers were explicit that certain skills and dispositions (e.g., peer collaboration, study/organizational habits) particularly prepare students to be successful in college and careers. Manzanita Seed’s School Self-Reflection reported that “through fieldwork, service learning, and experts who come to the classrooms, students are exposed to a range of college educated professionals.” Manzanita students take field trips to observe professions/career options and interact with a variety of experts in different fields of work. However, the Team found little evidence of teachers being explicit regarding skills and dispositions particularly preparing students to be successful in college and careers.
Manzanita Seed Elementary School School Quality Review 2012-2013
23
Quality Indicator 2: Safe, Supportive & Healthy Learning Environment For Quality Indicator 2, the School Review Team investigated how a school is developing toward the quality described in 4 focus standards: Standard 1: A quality school is a safe and healthy center of the community, open to community use before, during, and after the school day. Standard 2: A quality school offers a coordinated and integrated system of academic and learning support services, provided by adults and youth. Standard 5: A quality school identifies at-risk students and intervenes early, to help students and their parents develop concrete plans for the future. Standard 6: A quality school creates an inclusive, welcoming and caring community, fostering communication that values individual/cultural differences. Standard 2.1: A quality school is a safe and healthy center of the community, open to community use before, during, and after the school day. (DEVELOPING) The SQR Team found substantial evidence that the Manzanita Seed campus (inside and out) was well maintained and attractive and that adults and students contributed to keeping the facilities this way. The SQR Team found evidence that safety procedures were in place and evident, and that they were known and followed by stakeholders. Arrival and dismissal in front of Manzanita Seed, as observed several times by different SQR team members over the course of the three days, was orderly, but presented some difficulty in monitoring. The campus was shared by two schools with several entrances. The Seed main gate was open on 25th Avenue while Manzanita Community School had its main entrance on East 27th Street. In addition, there were at least three other gates from which people could enter or exit the campus, all of which fell on major roadways including Grande Vista, and East 26th Street. There were adults monitoring at some gates, but not all. In addition, the campus sat in the midst of a very populated neighborhood with high crime rates. Staff members reported security incidents and thefts which had occurred on campus at different times of the day. During campus observations, the SQR Team observed adults on campus during the day who were difficult to identify as staff or not. Starting with arrival and continuing throughout the morning, parents were on campus, which created a strong community feel, but there appeared to be no active practice of having parents and other visitors check-in and wear badges so that they could be identified as non-staff. In addition, the Team noticed that a delivery truck arrived each day to drop off cafeteria food/supplies. The truck entered the back gate and drove across the main play area of the campus, while children were present, with no adults supervising the process.
Manzanita Seed Elementary School School Quality Review 2012-2013
24
The campus gates were open all day and the site was accessible for family and community. The Team was concerned however, that the layout of the main portable which housed the school office was not situated in a way which allowed school personal to know when anyone entered or exited the campus. In addition, the outside bathrooms were easily accessible to anyone entering the campus and not visible to school personal from their classrooms or offices. Children using these restrooms, with or without a partner were out of the view of all school personnel. Another concern which was raised by parents was the color of the school uniform. Several parents raised the concern that the choice of red for the shirts presented a problem for their children in the community and was a safety issue especially for students walking home. The SQR Team found evidence that the campus was open and utilized by the staff, parents and the community. The sight was utilized for Immigration classes, Spanish and English instruction for parents, Zumba class, the After-School Program, and the garden project. In addition, the Farmers Market, Local Organizing Committee (LOC), school volunteers, and Hero, utilized the campus for meetings and events. Parents and staff reported to the Team that the Oakland Communities Organization (OCO) had sponsored a variety of events at the school including a neighborhood Peace Walk which began at the sight and boasted 450 participants. Standard 2.2: A quality school offers a coordinated and integrated system of academic and learning support services, provided by adults and youth. (SUSTAINING) The SQR Team gathered strong and consistent evidence that Manzanita Seed had a coordinated and integrated system of support services. Manzanita SEED students were provided healthy food choices including healthy snacks, a lunch-time salad bar, and a campus “Farmer’s Market.” Healthy physical activities occurred on the playground and were monitored and supported through the school’s partnership through with the HEROES program. Students were able to obtain counseling, both individual and group, through a partnership with the Wright Institution,. The After-School Program collaborated and planned with the school staff to assure the provision of homework assistance and community building activities for more than 150 students daily. A part-time school nurse provided puberty education to the 4th and 5th graders, as well as, asthma education. Staff was trained by the school nurse in diabetes, seizures, asthmas and allergies. Seed shared a psychologist with the Manzanita Community School.
Manzanita Seed Elementary School School Quality Review 2012-2013
25
Through the school’s Expeditionary Learning program, Manzanita SEED provided students with curriculum focusing on character growth, teamwork, reflection, and community responsibility. There was a daily, school-wide focus on character traits and the daily posting of character targets for each class. Services at the school were coordinated efficiently and effectively by the Coordination of Services Team (COST) to support student learning. The COST consisted of the psychologist, resource teacher, SDC teacher, counseling coordinator, and the principal. This COST met monthly to discuss students with IEP’s and students referred because of social or emotional needs. At the time of the visit, the Manzanita SEED COST had a caseload of 55 students.
Standard 2.5: A quality school identifies at-risk students and intervenes early, to help students and their parents develop concrete plans for the future. (DEVELOPING) Note: This standard complements Quality Indicator 1, Standard 8, which focuses on systems of academic support services to promote student learning. This Quality Indicator 2, Standard 5 focuses on health, safety, and socialemotional services to support at-risk students.
The SQR Team found substantial evidence that systems were in place to identify which students were struggling and why they were struggling. Goals Conferences were held with each teacher after ELA and math benchmark assessments to identify which students were and were not meeting benchmarks. From these conferences, teachers formed small groups for focused classroom intervention. The teacher, the principal, and the nurse were the “first line” of services that addressed students with needs. They worked with the students and communicated/conferenced with their parents. Based on this work, if they identified that a student had needs that required greater support, they referred the student for an SST and/or to the COST. In the SST or COST meetings, data on the student was reviewed and a referral made. The SQR Team also found some evidence that systems were in place to refer students to the supports that addressed their need(s) following the RTI model and that these systems identified gaps in services and sought to fill them. Specifically, the Team found that Manzanita SEED had supports using the RTI model in place for kindergarten and first grade students. At these two grade levels, there was a bilingual reading intervention teacher in place to work with students 1:1 and in small groups. Most of the reading intervention addressed the needs of Spanish speaking students. The Team found little evidence of support systems in place for English speakers and for students in the upper grades outside of the classroom teacher. Manzanita Seed Elementary School School Quality Review 2012-2013
26
Standard 2.6: A quality school creates an inclusive, welcoming and caring community, fostering communication that values individual/cultural differences. (SUSTAINING) The SQR Team found substantial evidence that students and parents felt safe and free from threat, bullying, and/or discrimination. In interviews, students reported generally that they felt safe at Manzanita Seed, but some of them also described moments or places where they did not feel safe. Students consistently expressed trust for their teachers, the support staff, and for the principal. Generally parents expressed trust for the teachers and the support staff. They spoke of the communication they received from teachers through emails and phone calls and gave examples of how teachers and/or support staff had helped them. Expressions of trust for the principal were more complex. Some spoke highly of her and described her commitment to the program and support for the students and families. Others expressed distrust, saying that she did not listen to parent input. The SQR Team also found substantial evidence that staff, students, and their families intentionally built caring and supportive relationships across different individual and cultural “lines.” The SQR Team gathered evidence of individual efforts by teachers and staff, as well as evidence of specific school-wide events, activities, and strategies which supported programs to construct these relationships,. For example, Monday Assemblies for all constituents, Parents Help Parents Phone Tree, grade level partners, and parent leaders for each class which met as a committee. Perhaps most importantly, the SQR Team found some evidence that the school had effective behavior management school-wide that created a positive school climate (rewards, progressive discipline plan, celebrations to recognize improvement/ achievement, daily routines that reinforce culture of the school, etc.). The staff spent considerable effort in creating school climate including identifying practices which imbedded climate control in daily practice through the Expeditionary Learning program. The Team found strong and consistent routines and structures extended from the classroom to the school campus. Campus observations by the SQR Team confirmed very few negative student interactions and when they were observed the Team observed students engaged in self-monitoring and well-learned solution strategies including “Rock, Paper, Scissors.”
Manzanita Seed Elementary School School Quality Review 2012-2013
27
Quality Indicator 3: Learning Communities Focused on Continuous Improvement For Quality Indicator 3, the School Quality Review Team investigated how a school is developing toward the quality described in 3 focus standards: Standard 1: A quality school makes sure that teachers work together in professional learning communities focused on student progress. Standard 2: A quality school ensures that staff regularly analyzes multiple kinds of data about student performance and their experience of learning. Standard 4: A quality school provides professional development that models effective practices, promotes teacher leadership, and supports teachers to continuously improve their classroom practice. Standard 3.1: A quality school makes sure that teachers work together in professional learning communities focused on student progress. (DEVELOPING) The SQR Team found strong and consistent evidence that Manzanita Seed teachers met in PLCs at least once a month for collaborative planning and inquiry focused on student learning. Teachers met regularly and worked together; the question was whether that collaboration matched the habits and outcomes of professional learning communities. The strengths and challenges of Manzanita Seed’s collaboration identified by the SQR Team suggested that it did. Manzanita Seed’s School Self-Reflection reported that grade level teams met weekly in what they called PLCs and monthly in the OUSD Dual Language Inquiry Cohort. These PLCs were very effective for some grade levels and not as effective for others. Specifically, the PLC process was less effective where there was only one teacher at a grade level. During the SQR site visit, the SQR Team observed several of these PLC meetings and gathered reported descriptions of their work. The SQR Team found evidence that teachers used their PLC time to map curriculum backwards from high leverage, important learning goals/outcomes/standards; selected essential questions, identified targets; collaboratively made curricular choices; and planned instruction and assessments. The SQR Team found evidence that teachers in PLCs regularly looked at evidence of student learning (formative and summative assessment data or student work) to understand students’ level of mastery of the learning objectives. The SQR Team found some evidence that all teachers took responsibility for creating and maintaining a quality PLC by participating fully, supporting a clear agenda, recording notes and decisions, and following-up with assigned tasks. This evidence suggested that Manzanita SEED PLCs were still in the development stages and issues of process and focus were still being sorted out.
Manzanita Seed Elementary School School Quality Review 2012-2013
28
Standard 3.2: A quality school ensures that staff regularly analyzes multiple kinds of data about student performance and their experience of learning. (SUSTAINING) There was strong and consistent evidence that Manzanita SEED collected multiple kinds of data about student performance and their experience learning. The Team found evidence of DRA, DIBELS, and CELDT data collected and incorporated into teacher/principal data conferences. This data was collected and used differently by each teacher. In addition, the school collected data using the Spanish Language Assessment and the assessment from the Expeditionary Learning program. The Team found strong and consistent evidence that Manzanita SEED used this data to group students and plan both assessments and interventions.
Standard 3.4: A quality school provides professional development that models effective practices, promotes teacher leadership, and supports teachers to continuously improve their classroom practice. (SUSTAINING) The SQR Team found strong and consistent evidence that Manzanita SEED provided professional development that modeled effective practices, promoted teacher leadership, and supported teachers to continuously improve their classroom practice. The Team also found strong and consistent evidence that professional learning activities at Manzanita SEED were embedded in practice. The school’s professional learning activities were useful to teacher practice with students and modeled effective instructional strategies. The SQR Team found strong and consistent evidence that professional learning activities were used to create shared agreements around curriculum and instruction and that teachers at each grade level collaborated in curriculum design and implementation. During collaboration teachers developed expeditions, refined best practices, and shared ideas. In addition, these learning activities were clearly aligned to the vision and mission of the school. The SQR Team found substantial evidence that professional learning activities at the school were developmental and differentiated to meet the needs of all teachers at the school. Manzanita staff participated in the OUSD Dual Language Inquiry Cohort, Expeditionary Learning trainings and the La Cosecha Conference.
Manzanita Seed Elementary School School Quality Review 2012-2013
29
Quality Indicator 4: Meaningful Student, Family and Community Engagement/Partnerships For Quality Indicator 4, the School Review Team investigated how a school is developing toward the quality described in 4 focus standards: Standard 2: A quality school shares decision-making with its students, their families, and the community, as part of working together in partnership. Standard 5: A quality school works with students, their families, and the community, to know how the student is progressing and participating in school. Standard 6: A quality school provides opportunities for families to understand what their child is learning; why they're learning it; what it looks like to perform well. Standard 7: A quality school builds effective partnerships by using principles of student and family/community engagement. Standard 4.2: A quality school creates the structures and mechanisms to work in partnership with students, families and community. (DEVELOPING) The SQR Team found substantial evidence that the school had high-quality activities and strategies which built the capacity of students, families, and community to work together in partnership. The Team learned that Manzanita SEED had a variety of strategies to keep families informed of and involved in efforts to support their children. The classes for English-speaking parents to learn Spanish, and Spanish-speaking parents to learn English helped to create a strong community where all parents could begin connecting with each other and build the language skills and understanding of school to engage fully in their children’s education. In addition, the Team found evidence of structures and mechanisms which brought families of all racial, ethnic, and socio-economic backgrounds, representing the student body, together as volunteers into the school including: the Parent Room Leaders Committee which organized the Manzanita SEED Room Parents into a committee that communicated with and informed other parents about school; the Technology Committee which consisted of parents and staff who supported technological needs on campus; the Local Organizing Committee (LOC) which supported parents in organizing and participating with activities on and off campus; Monday Assembly, and a variety of cultural events. The Academic Expos were evidence of families engaging with the school in practices and programs. The SQR Team also found some evidence that student, family, and community groups (Coordination of Services Team, the After-School Program, community agencies, etc.), in partnership with the school, set clear and measurable goals that were aligned with the school wide vision and goals. Manzanita SEED had a functioning SSC and a newly implemented ELAC in place through which parents had formal input into school goals. Parents and staff reported that the ELAC had been part of the SSC until this year. Though many parents reported that there were structures in place which supported partnerships between them and the school, the Team did hear parent reports regarding the perception that Spanish speaking parents were not welcomed or allowed language translation during SSC meetings.
Manzanita Seed Elementary School School Quality Review 2012-2013
30
Standard 4.5: A quality school works with students, their families, and the community, to know how the student is progressing and participating in school. (SUSTAINING) The school had multiple high-quality activities and strategies which engaged students and their families in knowing how students were progressing academically. These included Student Led Conferences in which the students made presentations explaining to their parents how they were performing and why; Academic Expositions which allowed the students to present curriculum activities and projects they had learned to the public and their families; scheduled parent-teacher conferences; Student Study Team meetings; and regular contact by teachers and other support staff to inform parents of student progress. The SQR Team found strong and consistent evidence that families and school staff had trusting relationships and engaged in regular, two-way, meaningful communication about student progress. The frequency of teacher-parent communication varied from teacher to teacher. Some communicated often, almost daily, and others not as often. Teachers communicated through various methods including weekly newsletters, grading period conferences, SSTs, information parent conferences, family bulletin boards, data letters, emails, calls or notes home (for positive and negative behaviors) on the yard before school when all classes gather together. The SQR Team found substantial evidence that the school created and implemented policies that encouraged all teachers to communicate frequently with families about student academic progress and student engagement in the school community. Standard 4.6: A quality school provides opportunities for families to understand what their child is learning; why they're learning it; what it looks like to perform well. (SUSTAINING) Note: In contrast to Standard 4.5, this Standard focuses on the ways the school engages families to understand what their child is learning; why they're learning it; what it looks like to perform well; how the learning connects to the school’s overall academic vision, and what the next steps educationally and developmentally will be.
The SQR Team found strong and consistent evidence that the school engaged families, not only about how their children were progressing academically and socially, but about the what the why and the “so what” of the academic program through both the Student Led Conferences and the Academic Expositions. Weekly newsletters attached to the homework which highlighted the week’s academic targets in two languages allowed parents to know the learning expectation and follow their children’s progression throughout the year. While the Student Led Conferences brought clarity to both the parents and the students about what the child had learned and what it looked like to perform well, the Academic Expositions expounded on the “why.” The Team observed evidence that during the Expositions, students, performed, explained, created, and recreated learning for the parents and community to view. According to the Manzanita SEED School Self-Reflection, the Student Led Conferences, held twice a year,
Manzanita Seed Elementary School School Quality Review 2012-2013
31
had a 99% participation rate, and the Academic Exposition events, also held twice a year, had an 80% participation rate. Standard 4.7: A quality school builds effective partnerships by using principles of student and family/community engagement. (REFINING) The SQR Team found strong and consistent evidence that the school developed and implemented standards of meaningful engagement to build effective student, family and community partnerships. As identified in the School Self-Reflection, one of the theories of action “student achievement is based on is Family-School Integration.” This integration was evidenced through the Parent Team Leaders, the LOC, the Monday Assemblies, and the Academic Expos. The SQR Team found strong and consistent evidence that the school set goals and planned activities annually which brought students, families, and community into the school as authentic co-owners of the school, sharing responsibility for students’ learning. Examples of this included the Student Led Conferences and Academic Expos. These same activities, supported through the Expeditionary Learning practices in Manzanita SEED allowed students to build skills around leadership, voice, and self-advocacy.
Manzanita Seed Elementary School School Quality Review 2012-2013
32
Quality Indicator 5: Effective School Leadership and Resource Management For Quality Indicator 5, the School Review Team investigated how a school is developing toward the quality described in 5 focus standards: Standard 2: A quality school has leadership that shares school improvement and decisionmaking with students and their families. Standard 4: A quality school has leadership that ensures that the school’s shared vision is focused on student learning, grounded in high expectations for all. Standard 5: A quality school has leadership that creates and sustains equitable conditions for learning and advocates for interrupting patterns of historical inequities. Standard 6: A quality school has leadership that guides and supports the development of quality instruction across the school. Standard 9: A quality school has leadership that collaboratively develops outcomes, monitors progress, and fosters a culture of accountability. Standard 10: A quality school has leadership that develops systems and allocates resources in support of the school’s vision. Standard 5.2: A quality school has leadership that shares school improvement and decisionmaking with students and their families. (SUSTAINING) The SQR Team gathered substantial evidence that: students and their families participated in both mandated representative bodies (SSC, ELAC, etc.) and other collaborative structures; and students and their families were involved, through various leadership structures, in monitoring results of school programs and creating/revising improvement plans. In addition, Manzanita SEED had a committee of Team Leaders, parents who were elected by other parents to serve as classroom representatives (Room Leaders) for each classroom and disseminate information to all parents. This group held regular meetings and made decisions. The Technology Committee, which both staff and parents were active on, made school decisions. Standard 5.4: A quality school has leadership that ensures that the school’s shared vision is focused on student learning, grounded in high expectations for all. (SUSTAINING) The SQR Team found strong and consistent evidence that the school’s vision was focused on student learning and high expectations for all students. As reflected in the School SelfReflection: Our vision is for all students to be: Bi-literate and Bilingual: in both English and Spanish. Academically proficient: at or above grade level in both English and Spanish. Culturally competent: be able to understand other cultures and have high self-esteem.
Manzanita Seed Elementary School School Quality Review 2012-2013
33
The school’s vision guided all aspects of the school’s programs and activities. The school’s leadership engaged all constituents in aligning their efforts to the vision. Members of the community were knowledgeable about and committed to the vision. Standard 5.5: A quality school has leadership that creates and sustains equitable conditions for learning and advocates for interrupting patterns of historical inequities. (SUSTAINING) The Team found strong and consistent evidence that the school leadership guided the development and quality of services that support all students to have equal access to learning, including academic, social-emotional, health, family well-being, adult attitudes, etc. The school staff consistently engaged in practices that interrupted patterns of equity. The Team found strong and consistent evidence that the school staff frequently collected and analyzed learning data by subgroup in order to monitor and adjust practices designed to interrupt patterns of inequality. Resources were used to meet the needs of all students equitably. The Team found strong and consistent evidence that leadership fostered ongoing dialogue among school and community constituents across race, class, age, and school to engage in bold change to achieve equitable school results. School leadership acted in concert with allies to systematically address inequities; help others navigate the system and remove or circumvent institutional barriers to student opportunity and achievement. Standard 5.6: A quality school has leadership that guides and supports the development of quality instruction across the school. (SUSTAINING) The SQR Team gathered strong and consistent evidence that the leadership of the school guided, monitored, and supported curricular choices, instructional practices, and interventions based on expected student learning outcomes and the school vision. The SQR Team gathered strong and consistent evidence that the leadership of the school ensured that there was adequate professional learning, coaching, and supervision to develop quality instruction across the school.
Standard 5.9: A quality school has leadership that collaboratively develops outcomes, monitors progress, and fosters a culture of accountability. (SUSTAINING) The SQR Team gathered strong and consistent evidence that the school staff had developed clear student outcomes and goals for learning and behavior and monitored students’ progress. The school staff described clear student outcomes and goals for learning and behavior. In addition, the SQR Team gathered some evidence that the school staff followed clear processes and procedures to hold themselves accountable to one another and the goals and Manzanita Seed Elementary School School Quality Review 2012-2013
34
expectations, and that there was a culture of mutual accountability within the staff – staff members having productive difficult conversations that continually improved their collaboration and work with students and families.
Standard 5.10: A quality school has leadership that develops systems and allocates resources in support of the school’s vision. (REFINING) The SQR Team found strong and consistent evidence that the school’s resources were allocated in service of the school vision and that these resources were maximized in service of the vision. The school leadership effectively leveraged district and community resources, grants, and partnerships in service of the school vision. The SQR Team found strong and consistent evidence that the leadership effectively used the district’s budgeting systems (RBB, IFAS, etc.) to maximize use of state and federal funds in service of the school vision. The assignment and use of staff was appropriate, effective, and focused in service of the vision.
Manzanita Seed Elementary School School Quality Review 2012-2013
35
ABC School School Quality Review 2012-2013
36
ABC School School Quality Review 2012-2013
37
ABC School School Quality Review 2012-2013
38
ABC School School Quality Review 2012-2013
39
ABC School School Quality Review 2012-2013
40
ABC School School Quality Review 2012-2013
41
APPENDIX 2: SCHOOL SELF-REFLECTION
SCHOOL QUALITY REVIEW School Self-Reflection Manzanita Seed Elementary
2012-2013 School Year 42
1
What is the school’s “story”? What is the vision?
Consider the following: When you tell someone about your school, what do you say? How did your school come to be? What’s the “journey” your school has been on over the last several years? What is your school’s vision of a quality school? How is that vision defined and shared with all staff, students, and families? Who are the people on campus who “hold” that vision? Manzanita SEED is a small school located on a shared campus with Manzanita Community School. The vision for Manzanita SEED was developed by a design team of teachers, parents, and community partners over the 2004-05 school year. SEED opened in fall 2005 as a K-2 school and has grown to a K-5 with an enrollment of approximately 350 students. SEED serves a diverse community of lower income, immigrant, and working class families – about 43% Latino, 17% Asian, and 22% AfricanAmerican, and 15% mixed race/other. 51% of the students are English Language Learners, and 85% of the families in the school qualified for free and reduced lunch when we last collected this information in 2010. SEED is the first small school in OUSD to have opened up with a Special Education program as part of its design. Approximately 20% of the students at SEED are in Special Education Programs. SEED has a 2-way immersion program in Spanish and English for all students. Our vision is for all students to be: Bi-literate and Bilingual: in both English and Spanish Academically proficient: at or above grade level in both English and Spanish Culturally competent: be able to understand other cultures and have high self-esteem In order to meet this vision, our theory of action for student achievement is based on three pillars: 4. Expeditionary Learning 5. Linguistic and Cultural Inclusion 6. Family-School Integration
2
Strengths and Challenges
What are 3 “internal” strengths & challenges that impact that journey? What are 3 “external” strengths & challenges that impact your school’s journey? Where do you see your school headed? The three biggest internal strengths at SEED are: Strong, dedicated faculty: We have low staff turnover, and experienced teachers mentor new ones. 3 teachers are national board certified, and 6 are or have been BTSA coaches. Team-teaching model: Teachers work in collaborative teams to develop engaging curriculum and provide literacy support across Spanish and English. Cohesive school culture: Consistency in expectations, common school wide language around teaching and character development helps minimize behavioral challenges at recess and in the classroom. Additional strengths are: parental involvement, a diverse student population, strong Kinder program, inhouse After school program, and Arts Integration approach. The biggest challenges external challenges impacting our school are: Increasing class size: In a team-teaching model, an increase from 20:1 to 25:1 means teachers now have 50 student contacts. This makes it difficult to form close relationships with each child 43
and personalize instruction. Limited time to prep, teach, and assess. It is challenging to find the time to implement dual language, expeditions, and district expectations Lack of student buy-in to Spanish with upper grade students: The value placed on Spanish by students and families diminishes as students move up the grades
Our greatest External Strengths are our partnerships with community and professional organizations: Community involvement and Community partners: OCO, EBAYC, Learning for Life, Harvest of the Month, Champions for Change Poetry inside out, OFA funding, ALAS, etc. FOSS curriculum provided by OUSD Partnership with Expeditionary Learning to provide framework for curriculum development and comprehensive school reform The three biggest external challenges impacting our school are: District enrollment policies: As our enrollment numbers increase, it becomes more difficult to maintain an intimate learning community. Our demographics are changing, and it appears more “privileged” families are possibly crowding out local, less empowered families for admission Pacing and Assessment: Tools are based on a standardized tests, are not provided for Spanish Language Arts, science, or social studies. Money for programming: state and federal funding have been cut significantly in the last 5 years. Other external challenges identified by staff and faculty are: maintaining vision with district bureaucracy, having Inconsistent operational systems at a district level, and a lack of materials in Spanish for math and in expedition.
3
What are the school’s current improvement initiatives?
Please describe current initiatives. How and why was each initiative chosen? How successful has it been thus far, and what are the indicators of success? What is the strategic focus for your school? Expeditionary Learning
SEED has partnered with Expeditionary Learning since our planning year.
Our goals this year are to align and reinforce expedition content across language, and align the expeditions to the CCSS in ELA.
All expeditions include arts integration and develop character through service as well as revision of student work toward mastery.
Dual Language Immersion
SEED teachers began participating in the OUSD Dual Language Inquiry Cohort in August 2012.
A challenge is how to take full advantage of the cross-school collaboration when schools have different models and are in different stages of development.
SEED teachers have mentored our partner schools, but haven’t benefited much from the OUSD Inquiry Cohort.
Meetings with the entire cohort are too large and one-size-fits all to be productive. 44
Teachers in our Dual Language PLC are just beginning to for connections and exchange ideas. This shows promise.
Collaboration and peer observation across SEED teachers supports rich learning at our site.
Data Inquiry
SEED engages in data inquiry in ELA, SLA, and math in order to modify instruction and identify students in need of strategic support or intervention.
Data inquiry is used effectively for grouping, planning/assessing, and intervention. Student progress can be seen on benchmarks, progress monitoring, and through year-to-year growth on the CST
It can be a challenge to find time to use data in grade level planning due to lack of time and competing demands
Another challenge is that the data only measures discreet skills, not the love of leaning that is our ultimate goal.
Culture and Character
SEED is focus on school wide character and service for the first time in 2012.
We are implementing service teams for all 4th and 5th grade students
Character traits were created school wide, and are beginning to be used in the classroom.
4
What are the school’s quality outcomes?
Please describe the overall strengths and challenges in the outcomes of your school.
How are students achieving/progressing toward defined academic and social-emotional goals? Describe any patterns of achievement/progress that you are aware of? What do you believe accounts for these patterns? Does your school have a strategic focus on any specific group(s) of students? How and why? What actions are being taken to address their needs?
Students are making progress towards our academic goals (see benchmarks, CST, etc.) , yet we do not have a good way to measure our social-emotional goals. We began assessing student progress in SLA last year, and this helped us identify the need to support English Only students with Spanish Language Enrichment after school and in the summer. English-only students, and African American boys in particular, show the greatest decline in Spanish reading over the summer. We are applying for an outside grant as well as district funds in order to create a summer and ASP enrichment program in Spanish.
45
Quality Indicator 1: Quality Learning Experiences for All Students 5
Describe the quality of curriculum and instruction at your school. 4
Evaluation:
Excellent
3
2
X
1 Unsatisfactory
Briefly describe the curricula you use in each subject area. Are there specific “programs” in use? Do you create or amend adopted curriculum in anyway? How is your curriculum structured across the day or week? Any common curricular themes across a grade or between grades? Any intervention structures (push in or pull out)? Briefly describe any common instructional strategies, language, procedures, etc. we should expect to see across teachers, content areas, or grade levels?
SEED has partnered with Expeditionary Learning Schools to implement our vision for student achievement. Expeditionary Learning is a comprehensive school reform model based on five core practices: Curriculum, Instruction, Assessment, Culture and Character, and Leadership. Teachers at each grade level collaborate to create two learning expeditions a year. Expeditions are based on social studies and science content standards and integrate language arts in both English and Spanish. The expeditions incorporate fieldwork and/or service learning and the arts. Both the process and product of student learning in the expedition is showcased at two yearly EXPOsitions of student learning. Teachers at each grade level team teach (except 4th grade this year, which is self contained). One teacher teaches in Spanish, and one teacher in English. In Kindergarten through 3rd grade, the Spanish teacher teaches one block of Math and one block of content-integrated literacy. The English teacher teachers one block of language arts, and one block of content-integrated literacy. In 4th and 5th grade, The Spanish teacher teaches one block of science, and one block of content-integrated literacy. The English teacher teaches one block of Math, and one block of content-integrated literacy. Which of these elements of your curriculum and instruction, described above, are particular strengths? What evidence tells you this?
Our school has shown consistent growth in student outcomes on the CST since our inception. In both Math and ELA, fewer students score FBB/BB and more students P/A over time. In 2010 the school received a National Title I Award for making more progress in closing the achievement gap between subgroups than any other Title I school in California. Student achievement in ELA, SLA and Math increases as students move through the grades at SEED. Middle school principals have reported to me that SEED students stand out because they love to read and are motivated to learn. Which of these elements are particular challenges? What evidence tells you this?
It is always a challenge to have the same level of rigor in our Spanish Language Arts Program as in our English Language Arts Program. Student proficiency levels in SLA are much lower than in ELA. In the beginning of the year, about 25% of 5th grade students read on grade level in Spanish (As measured by the Espanol Diagnostico de Lectura), whereas 77% of the students scored P/A on the first ELA benchmark, and 50% had an English lexile level at 5th grade or above. 46
6
Describe the quality of the school’s strategies and resources (before, during, and after school) to ensure that all students are academically successful. 4
Evaluation:
Excellent
3 X
2
1 Unsatisfactory
How does your school identify students who are struggling to meet expected learning targets (please note specific assessment strategies), identify why students are struggling, refer struggling students to supports that address their need(s), and provide supports (before, during, and after school) to struggling students?
RTI in Kindergarten and 1st grade SEED has a bilingual reading intervention teacher, Wilma Cuezzi, who works with Kindergarten and 1st grade students. (This position is supported through grants and fundraising.) After the fall Dibles/DRA screening, students who are in need of intensive intervention are referred to Ms. Cuezzi for small group and 1:1 reading intervention. She is currently seeing approximately 50 students. COS Team The COST (Coordination of Services Team) meets monthly to review the caseload of students who have IEPs or who have been referred for intervention for social or emotional needs. COST is made up of the school psychologist (Zarah Devera), Resource Teacher (Ray Brown), SDC teacher (Paul Davis), Counseling coordinator (Dr. Gooding from Wright Institute), and principal (Katherine Carter). 55 students are currently on the COS Team caseload. The COS Team follows up on and prioritizes referrals for counseling, After school program, and SSTs for students in need of academic and social intervention. Principal/Teacher Goals conferences After benchmark assessments in ELA and math, the principal meets with each classroom teacher to review the benchmark data as and identify diagnostic and progress monitoring tools for students who are not on benchmark. In the goals conference, the teacher also forms small groups for classroom intervention for students in needs of strategic intervention. In addition, the ELA scores are compared to the SLA scores to determine whether the student needs intervention in reading comprehension in general, or specifically in English language development.
47
7
Describe the quality of the school’s efforts to create a college-going culture with students and their families. 4
Evaluation:
3
2
1
X
Excellent
Unsatisfactory
What strategies, programs, and/or resources support students and their families to plan for college? Which are the strongest features, and why? Which most needs improvement? What strategies, programs, and/or resources support students to connect how the knowledge, skills and dispositions they are learning prepare them to succeed in college?
Which are the strongest features, and why? Which most needs improvement?
Students write poems and autobiographical essays about what they would like to do in the future, and explore different career pathways. Throughout the grades, students learn about important and influential people in history, and how education supported their achievement. This study culminates in 5th grade with the Change makers expedition, in which students select an important person from history, write a report about them, and bring them to life in our living history museum. Through fieldwork, service learning, and experts who come to the classroom, students are exposed to a range of college-educated professionals.
Quality Indicator 2: Safe, Supportive, & Healthy Learning Environments 8
Describe the quality of the school’s strategies to be a safe, supportive and healthy learning environment for students and families. 4
Evaluation:
Excellent
3
2
X
1 Unsatisfactory
What strategies does the school use to be a safe, supportive, and healthy learning environment for students and families— before, during, and after school? Consider strategies that Keep students focused and ready to learn; Keep students safe from physical/emotional threat or bullying; Keep families informed of and involved in efforts to support their child; Provide healthy food, health-focused physical activity, and health education to students and their families. Which are the strongest strategies, and why? Which most needs improvement?
Wellness council and full implementation of wellness policy: Healthy Snacks Salad Bar Farmers’ Market Focus on inclusive campus environment: Weekly community assemblies Greetings at community assemblies and in morning meetings Service teams for all 4th and 5th grade students Full inclusion model for special education
Conflict resolution, Put-ups, and I-messages 48
9
Describe the quality of the strategies and services (before, during, and after school) to support the emotional and social needs of students? 4
Evaluation:
3
2
1
X
Excellent
Unsatisfactory
How does your school identify students who are struggling for social-emotional reasons, identify why students are struggling, refer struggling students to supports that address their social-emotional need(s), and provide supports (before, during, and after school) to these struggling students?
See question #6 What strategies does your school use to create an inclusive, welcoming and caring community? Which are the most effective strategies, and why? Which most needs improvement?
Weekly community assembly 8:30-9:00. School wide character traits and professional development on character targets. School wide discipline policy based on positive discipline and logical consequences. Morning meetings in classrooms following the Responsive Classroom model.
Quality Indicator 3: Learning Communities Focused on Continuous Improvement 10
Describe the quality of professional learning at the school. 4
Evaluation:
Excellent
3 X
2
1 Unsatisfactory
How do teachers collaborate together to focus on student progress, reflect on their practice, and to learn and plan more effective curriculum and instruction? What collaboration has been most effective, and why? What has been least effective, and why? Any patterns to its effectiveness—by content area, by grade level, by specific support, etc.? What professional development activities have staff participated in this year (whole staff, groups, individuals)? Which have been the most effective activities, and why? Which activities need improvement, and why?
See #3 on school’s improvement issues. Grade level collaboration on expedition planning has been effective. It is difficult for the 4th grade teacher who does not have a planning partner. Our work with the dual language cohort is just beginning, and we are working on it being more teacher driven in true inquiry fashion. Teachers have or will attending the following outside PD: La Cosecha dual language conference Library Conference Expeditionary learning National Conference 49
What supports exist to organize, facilitate, and/or reflect on the effectiveness of professional learning (TSA, coach, central resource, professional network, etc.)?
Expeditionary Learning School Designer and professional network OUSD Dual Language Inquiry Cohort Teacher Leaders in Math and Science
Quality Indicator 4: Meaningful Student, Family, and Community Engagement 11
Describe the quality of the school’s engagement with students, parents &community. 4
Evaluation:
Excellent
3 X
2
1 Unsatisfactory
How often do teachers communicate with parents? What kinds of information do they communicate? What methods do they use to communicate with parents/guardians? Which are the most effective strategies, and why? Which most needs improvement?
In addition to ongoing informal communication, the following school wide structures support teacher/parent communication: Student Led Conferences 2x/year (99% participation rate) Exposition of Student work 2x/year (80% participation rate) Weekly newsletter attached to homework. How often does the school (school and volunteer leaders, specific staff, etc.) communicate with parents? What kinds of information do they communicate? What methods do they use to communicate with parents/guardians? Which are the most effective strategies, and why? Which most needs improvement?
A monthly newsletter is sent home to all families in hard copy and also by email. Phone blasts are used to tell families that the newsletter is sent home, and also to do reminders about other important school events. Parent Room leaders use phone lists to call families about important events and support home-school communication as well. How are families actively involved as school leaders, support providers, and/or audiences at the school (or in other locations) to support students and school programs? Which is the most effective involvement, and why? Which most needs improvement?
Families are involved in the following committees: Room Leaders School Site Council Local Organizing Committee ELAC In addition, families volunteer to run the healthy snack program, salad bar, and to organize special events. How are families engaged by the school to be knowledgeable of and involved with their children’s learning? Which is the most effective engagement, and why? Which most needs improvement?
Student Led Conferences and EXPOs are most effective to keep families informed of their children’s 50
progress. In addition, we send data letters home to families following benchmark exams with their child’s results. How does the school share decision-making with students, their families, and the community? Which is the most effective, and why? Which most needs improvement? Decision making is shared though the committees listed above, and through input collected on surveys. An area that needs improvement is providing structure and training for committee members act as representatives of other parents. How does the school coordinate resources and services for families, students, and the school with businesses, agencies, and other groups, and provide services to the community? Which is the most effective, and why? Which most needs improvement?
51
Quality Indicator 5: EffectiveSchool Leadership & Resource Management 12
Describe the quality of the school’s leadership and management of the school. 4
Evaluation:
3
Excellent
2
1 Unsatisfactory
Describe how leadership is organized at this school. Who makes what kinds of decisions about what parts of the school?
Faculty and Staff take leadership roles in their own areas of interest (Examples: SSC, FC, MLK fest, etc.) Leadership team makes decision about curriculum and PD. Grade level teams are represented in the leadership team, which allows ideas to be shared between principal – lead team – grade levels. COS Team makes decision about how to allocate special resources and interventions SSC makes decisions about budget and programming. Parents are also able to participate in various leadership roles though the SSC, Fundraising Committee, Room Leader structure, and LOC.
Describe how school leadership guides and supports the development of quality curriculum & instruction.
Whole staff PD is used to determine where the gap is between our vision and our current practices, and to create plans for moving forward. Whole group PD is also used to create shared agreements around curriculum and instruction. Teachers have curricular autonomy to develop expeditions in accordance with the school agreements. Grade level expedition plans are reviewed by the principal, EL school designer, and another grade level team in consultancy protocols. Faculty and Staff have opportunities to participate conferences and PD that support the development of quality curriculum (example: Expeditionary Learning and La Cosecha Conference) Which are the strongest features of leadership and management, and why?
One of the strongest features is the principal, who leads through example of collaborative planning with parents, faculty, and staff. The principal empowers grade level teams to collaborate and teams use this time to develop expeditions, refine best practices, and share ideas with the whole staff. The relationships between the principal, staff, parents, students, and teachers are critical. What aspects of leadership and management most need improvement?
Consistency with roles Specific goals that hold people in leadership roles accountable for communication and follow through, to make sure that those teachers who chose to do less do more. More staff opportunities for leadership More opportunities for student leadership Better structures for representatives to be accountable to their constituencies.
52
13
Describethe fiscal, human, and in-kind resources the school uses beyond those resources presented in the district data systems (IFAS, AERIES, etc.).
What are these resources? How did the school come to have them? Who manages them and how? Which resources are most effective, and why? Which most need improvement?
Wireless generation I-touches are used for DRA/DIBLES assessment K-3 and EDL assessment K-5. It would be helpful if this data could be integrated into Edusoft or another district system.
14 Describe the steps the school took to complete this SQR Self-Reflection.
Questions #1 and #2 were answered based on input collected by staff and faculty at staff meetings. Question #12 is the compilation of responses given by teachers on the Lead Team. The rest of the Self-Reflection was completed by the principal.
53
APPENDIX 3: RUBRICS FOR SCHOOL QUALITY FOCUS STANDARDS
Quality Indicator 1: Quality Learning Experiences for All Students The Oakland Unified School District is committed to supporting high levels of learning for every student, ensuring that students are prepared for success in college, in their careers, and as citizens. Central to this commitment is the creation of quality learning experiences for all students. “Quality Learning Experiences for All Students” happen when every child is engaged and learns to high standards. The quality school makes sure that the school curriculum is challenging and connects to the needs, interests, and cultures of its students. It ensures that students learn in different ways inside and outside the classroom, including having opportunities to work with their peers, to investigate and challenge what they are taught, and to develop knowledge and skills that have value beyond the school. The quality school supports students to take risks and intervenes when they struggle. It inspires students to see how current learning helps them achieve future goals. In a quality school, each child’s learning is regularly assessed in different ways. This assessment information is used to plan their learning, to provide strategic support, and to empower the students and their families to manage their academic progress and prepare for various college and career opportunities. The following rubrics enable key school stakeholders to assess the development of a school toward the “quality learning experiences” standards, based on evidence from a range of sources. In addition, school leaders, central office personnel, and coaches will use these rubrics to design improvement strategies and support schools’ ongoing development. The unit of analysis for these rubrics is the school, not individuals within the school. These rubrics will not be used for the evaluation of school leaders, teachers, or other school personnel. Undeveloped
There was little evidence found that the school implemented the practice(s) and/or built the conditions described in the standard.
Beginning
There was some evidence found that the school implemented the practice(s) and/or built the conditions described in the standard.
Developing
There was substantial evidence found that the school implemented the practice(s) and/or built the conditions described in the standard.
Sustaining Refining
There was strong & consistent evidence found that the school implemented the practice(s) and/or built the conditions described in the standard. There was strong & consistent evidence found that the school implemented the practice(s) and/or built the conditions described in the standard, and the school has implemented systems to review evidence of these practices/conditions. And improve these practices and conditions
Definitions Learning experiences: Structured learning experiences found in the classroom during the day; in on-campus academic intervention and enrichment opportunities before, during, and after the school day; in mentoring, internship, and work-based learning opportunities organized by the school.
54
Quality Indicator 1: Quality Learning Experiences for All Students Standard Standard 1: Meaningful and Challenging Curriculum A quality school provides students with curriculum that is meaningful and challenging to them. Such curriculum is shaped by student input, targets their assessed learning needs, and takes advantage of their strengths and experiences. It educates them about their history and culture, and that of others. It shows how what is learned in school can help students to solve real problems in their lives. Standard
Standard 2: Safe and Nurturing Learning Experiences** A quality school provides safe and nurturing learning environments where adults and students care for each other, feel trust, and have relationships that fully engage students in their learning and inspire them to work hard and push toward higher levels of achievement.
Undeveloped
There is little evidence of the standard as described in the “Sustaining” column.
Undeveloped
There is little evidence of the standard as described in the “Sustaining” column.
Beginning
There is some evidence of the standard as described in the “Sustaining” column.
Beginning
There is some evidence of the standard as described in the “Sustaining” column.
Developing
There is substantial evidence of the standard as described in the “Sustaining” column.
Developing
There is substantial evidence of the standard as described in the “Sustaining” column.
Sustaining The school provides learning experiences that show strong and consistent evidence of the following: a. Learning builds on students’ prior knowledge/ skills/ experiences. b. Students apply learning to questions or problems connected to their interests, goals, experiences, and communities. c. Students communicate their thinking, supported by teacher/peers, using the language and reasoning of the discipline. d. Curriculum reflects an academic push, from the teacher, to have all students progress far and attain high levels of mastery. Sustaining The school provides learning experiences that show strong and consistent evidence of the following: a. Students are safe and learn free from intimidation, bullying, and/or discrimination. b. Routines & structures support students to build positive relationships across different individual and cultural “lines”, so that they can effectively work and learn together. c. The classroom is an “accepting” environment in which the contributions, culture and language of each student is validated, valued, and respected. d. All students manage their emotions to persist through difficult academic work. e. The physical environment of the classroom is clean and organized to be safe and supportive of learning.
Refining There is strong and consistent evidence of the standard as described in the “Sustaining” column. In addition, the school has implemented systems, including student input, to review evidence of these practices to ensure that all students experience meaningful and challenging curriculum across the day and across the campus.
Refining
There is strong and consistent evidence of the standard as described in the “Sustaining” column. In addition, the school has implemented systems, including student input, to review evidence of these conditions to ensure that all students experience safe and nurturing learning experiences across the day and across the campus.
**Note that this standard is focused on conditions in the classroom (or locations where the core activities of teaching and learning are happening). Broader, school-wide conditions of safety and nurture are addressed in Quality Indicator 2.
55
Quality Indicator 1: Quality Learning Experiences for All Students Standard
Standard 4: Active and Different Ways of Learning A quality school uses instructional strategies that make learning active for students, that provide them with different ways to learn, and that respond to their different learning needs (including language and literacy needs). Instruction is geared toward the construction of meaning, disciplined inquiry and the production of writing and problem-solving that has value beyond the school.
Undeveloped
There is little evidence of the standard as described in the “Sustaining” column.
Beginning
There is some evidence of the standard as described in the “Sustaining” column.
Developing
There is substantial evidence of the standard as described in the “Sustaining” column.
Sustaining The school provides learning experiences that show strong and consistent evidence of the following: a. Students actively “work”—reasoning, reading, writing, and/or speaking the language of the discipline. b. Students “work” together in the discipline, and their collaboration facilitate deep learning. c. Students learn using various learning modalities and/or multiple intelligences. d. Students use language support scaffolds (sentence frames, multiple choice oral responses, diagrams and other representations) to engage in learning. e. Students develop questions, pose problems, make connections, reflect on multiple perspectives, and/or actively construct knowledge. f. Students explain and revise their thinking and build on and evaluate the thinking of others. g. The pacing of learning reflects an academic push to have all students complete learning activities and reach expected high levels of mastery. (“Every minute is used well.”) h. Various technologies are used to make learning active and to meet the learning needs of students.
Refining
There is strong and consistent evidence of the standard as described in the “Sustaining” column. In addition, the school has implemented systems, including student input, to review evidence of these strategies to ensure that all students experience active and different ways of learning.
56
Quality Indicator 1: Quality Learning Experiences for All Students Standard
Standard 7: Students Know What They are Learning, Why, and How it can be Applied A quality school ensures that students know what they're learning, why they're learning it and how it can be applied. It ensures that students understand what it looks like to know, perform, and interact “well” (i.e. with quality). It makes sure that students play an active role in managing and shaping their learning and in developing an individualized learning plan for improvement.
Undeveloped
There is little evidence of the standard as described in the “Sustaining” column.
Beginning
There is some evidence of the standard as described in the “Sustaining” column.
Developing
There is substantial evidence of the standard as described in the “Sustaining” column.
Sustaining The school provides learning experiences that show strong and consistent evidence of the following: a. Students know the learning objectives for the lesson. b. Students recognize the connection between today’s learning and long-term outcomes. c. All students have their learning checked with immediate feedback regarding their progress toward the day’s learning objectives. d. Students make “real world” connections about how their learning can be applied. e. Students understand what it looks like to know or perform “well”. f. Students can accurately assess how close they are to mastering expected learning outcomes.
Refining There is strong and consistent evidence of the standard as described in the “Sustaining” column. In addition, the school has implemented systems, including student input, to review evidence of these strategies to ensure that all students know what they are learning, why they are learning it, and how that learning can be applied.
57
Quality Indicator 1: Quality Learning Experiences for All Students Standard
Standard 8: Academic Intervention and Enrichment Supports** A quality school provides resources and programs before, during, and after school that ensure that all students have the academic intervention and broader enrichment supports they need to be academically successful and engaged as a whole person.
Undeveloped
There is little evidence of the standard as described in the “Sustaining” column.
Beginning
There is some evidence of the standard as described in the “Sustaining” column.
Developing
There is substantial evidence of the standard as described in the “Sustaining” column.
Sustaining There is strong and consistent evidence that the school provides: a. Classroom strategies and school-wide systems identify which students are struggling and need academic support and which students are mastering targets and need academic enrichment. b. Classroom strategies and school-wide systems identify specifically why students are struggling to reach expected learning targets. c. School-wide systems efficiently refer students to needed academic supports, monitor their effectiveness, and adjust—ensuring that students “get in and get out” as progress occurs. d. Patterns of shared student characteristics are considered when identifying student academic needs and providing supports. e. Classroom and school-wide strategies—before, during, and after school—provide a variety of: “Universal” academic supports (e.g., classroom & on-line resources, teacher “office” hours, ASP homework help, advisory class); “Targeted” academic supports (e.g., classroom push-in or pull-out homogeneous grouping, specific EL supports, ELD or intervention class, 504 accommodations, Saturday or summer programs); “Intensive” academic supports (Small-group intervention class, assigned tutor or mentor, Special Ed IEP and class) f. Classroom and school-wide strategies—before, during, and after school—provide a variety of academic enrichment opportunities for identified students (e.g., “elective” or ASP academic content; leadership; technology; media).
Refining
There is strong and consistent evidence of the standard as described in the “Sustaining” column. In addition, the school has implemented systems, including student input, to review evidence of these supports to ensure that all students experience needed academic intervention and enrichment.
**This standard and rubric describe how a school provides a coordinated and integrated system of academic supports and enrichment that promote quality learning experiences for all students. In Quality Indicator 2, Standard 2, the standard and rubric describe how the school provides a coordinated and integrated system of other supports and enrichment—specifically health, safety, social-emotional, and youth development services—that are necessary to promote quality learning experiences for all students.
58
Quality Indicator 1: Quality Learning Experiences for All Students Standard
Undeveloped
Beginning
There is little evidence of the standard as described in the “Sustaining” column.
There is some evidence of the standard as described in the “Sustaining” column.
Developing
Standard 10: Equitable Access to Curriculum A quality school provides curriculum and courses (including A-G and AP courses at the high school level) that prepare students for college, and it ensures equitable access to such curriculum and courses, for all students, through academic interventions that catch and support students to complete a college preparatory course work.
There is substantial evidence of the standard as described in the “Sustaining” column.
Sustaining There is strong and consistent evidence that the school provides the following: a. Diverse groups of students are proportionally represented in the academic programs. b. The school offers academic interventions that identify and support specific learners who experience ongoing discrimination or who are part of historically lower-achieving groups, which gives them access to challenging curriculum and enables them to achieve high standards. c. These specific students are fully integrated into a challenging core curriculum with appropriately trained teachers. d. All teachers and staff in key gatekeeping roles (e.g., counselors) have received training about access and equity issues, and operate with clear guidelines for ensuring full access.
Refining
There is strong and consistent evidence of the standard as described in the “Sustaining” column. In addition, the school has implemented systems, including student input, to review evidence of these supports to ensure that all students have equitable access to curriculum.
59
Quality Indicator 1: Quality Learning Experiences for All Students Standard
Undeveloped
Beginning
Developing
Standard 11: College-going Culture and Resources A quality school has a collegegoing culture with staff and teachers who provide college preparedness resources to inform students and families about the importance of college, their college options, the entrance requirements, and the supports needed to successfully complete college.
There is little evidence of the standard as described in the “Sustaining” column.
There is some evidence of the standard as described in the “Sustaining” column.
There is substantial evidence of the standard as described in the “Sustaining” column.
Sustaining The school provides learning experiences that show strong and consistent evidence of the following: a. Students connect how their learning in class prepares them for future college and/ or career opportunities. b. Teachers are explicit that certain skills and dispositions (e.g., peer collaboration, study/organizational habits) particularly prepare students to be successful in college and careers. c. School staff helps students develop concrete plans for the future and counsels them about college and career options. d. Students use a variety of resources to understand the importance of college, their college options, the entrance requirements, and the supports needed to complete college. e. Families use a variety of resources to understand the importance of college, their college options, the entrance requirements, and the supports needed to complete college.
Refining
There is strong and consistent evidence of the standard as described in the “Sustaining” column. In addition, the school has implemented systems, including student input, to review evidence of these conditions to ensure that a college-going culture and resources are experienced by all students.
60
Quality Indicator 2: Safe, Supportive, & Healthy Learning Environments The Oakland Unified School District is committed to supporting high levels of learning for every student, ensuring that students are prepared for success in college, in their careers, and as citizens. Central to this commitment is the creation of learning environments that are safe, supportive, and healthy for all students. “Safe, Supportive, and Healthy Learning Environments” recognize that all members of the school community thrive when there is a broad, coordinated approach to identifying and meeting the needs of all members. The quality school is a safe, healthy center of its community. Its students, their families, the community, and school staff feel safe because school relationships, routines, and programs build respect, value individual and cultural differences, and restore justice—in the classrooms, hallways, and surrounding neighborhood. Its members are healthy and ready to learn, work, and parent because they have access to services—before, during, and after the school day—that address their academic, emotional, social, and physical needs. In such a quality school, the adults in the community coordinate their support so that students plan for and are prepared for future success. The following rubrics enable key school stakeholders to assess the development of a school toward the “Safe, Supportive, & Healthy Learning” standards, based on evidence from a range of sources. In addition, school leaders, central office personnel, and coaches will use these rubrics to design improvement strategies and support schools’ ongoing development. The unit of analysis for these rubrics is the school, not programs or individuals within the school. These rubrics will not be used for the evaluation of school leaders, teachers, or other school personnel.
Undeveloped Beginning Developing Sustaining Refining
There was little evidence found that the school implemented the practice(s) and/or build the conditions described in the standard. There was some evidence found that the school implemented the practice(s) and/or build the conditions described in the standard. There was substantial evidence found that the school implemented the practice(s) and/or build the conditions described in the standard. There was strong & consistent evidence found that the school implemented the practice(s) and/or build the conditions described in the standard. There was strong & consistent evidence found that the school implemented the practice(s) and/or build the conditions described in the standard, and the school has implemented systems to review evidence of these practices/conditions.
61
Quality Indicator 2: Safe, Supportive, & Healthy Learning Environments Standard
Undeveloped
Beginning
Developing
Standard 1: Safe and Healthy Center of Community A quality school is safe and a healthy center of the community. Safety procedures are in place to maintain order and keep all members safe. It is an open, fun and attractive space for the community to use before, during, and after the school day.
There is little evidence of the standard as described in the “Sustaining” column.
There is some evidence of the standard as described in the “Sustaining” column.
There is substantial evidence of the standard as described in the “Sustaining” column.
Sustaining The school provides learning environments that show strong and consistent evidence of the following: a. The campus (inside and out) is well maintained and attractive. Adults and students contribute to keep the facilities this way. b. Safety procedures are in place and evident (emergency plan, supervision schedules, responses to safety concerns, custodial schedules, drills, etc.); they are known and followed by respective stakeholders. c. Mechanisms are in place to communicate about and manage district/school staff/families/ community partners regarding emergencies/incidents affecting the site in a timely way. d. Systems are in place for community to access facilities before, during, and after the school day and to ensure space is taken care of. e. The school is utilized by parents, students and community before, during, and after the school day.
Refining
There is strong and consistent evidence of the standard as described in the “Sustaining” column. In addition, the school monitors, reviews, and adjusts these practices with input from the various stakeholders of the school, including students, in order to ensure that the school functions as a safe and healthy center of the community.
62
Quality Indicator 2: Safe, Supportive, & Healthy Learning Environments Standard
Standard 2: Coordinated and Integrated System of Support Services A quality school provides 1) health and social-emotional services and 2) a youth and community development component to help students acquire the attitudes, competencies, values, and social skills they need to facilitate academic learning.
Undeveloped
There is little evidence of the standard as described in the “Sustaining” column.
Beginning
There is some evidence of the standard as described in the “Sustaining” column.
Developing
There is substantial evidence of the standard as described in the “Sustaining” column.
Sustaining The school provides learning environments that show strong and consistent evidence of the following: a. A broad menu of on-site strategies, services and partnerships respond to student/family needs. b. Students are provided healthy food and health-focused physical activity. c. Health education is integrated into classrooms, programs, and services. d. The school has a youth development component (citizen/values programs, advisory, leadership class, student council, internships, etc.) to help students acquire the attitudes, competencies, values, and social skills they need to facilitate academic learning. e. Strategies and/or organizational structures (e.g., houses, academies, etc.) provide social supports for all students. Staff can modify these strategies/ structures to meet student needs. f. All services at the school are coordinated efficiently and effectively to support student learning.
Refining
There is strong and consistent evidence of the standard as described in the “Sustaining” column. In addition, the school monitors, reviews, and adjusts these practices with input from the various stakeholders of the school, including students, in order to ensure that the school provides a coordinated and integrated system of academic and learning support services.
63
Quality Indicator 2: Safe, Supportive, & Healthy Learning Environments Standard
Undeveloped
Beginning
Developing
Sustaining Refining The school provides learning environments that show strong and consistent evidence of the following: There is strong and a. Systems are in place to identify which students are consistent evidence of the Standard 5: struggling and why they are struggling and to support standard as described in the Identifies At-Risk Students their health/social emotional issues. “Sustaining” column. and Intervenes* There is little There is some There is b. Systems are in place to refer students to the supports In addition, the school A quality school identifies evidence of evidence of substantial that address their need(s) following the RTI model. monitors, reviews, and at-risk students and the standard the standard evidence of the c. Systems are in place to identify service gaps and seek adjusts these practices with intervenes early, to help as described as described standard as resources to fill them. input from the various students develop concrete in the in the described in the d. Teachers are part of these strategies/services and stakeholders of the school, plans for the future to “Sustaining” “Sustaining” “Sustaining” provide/work closely with these services to ensure including students, in order counsel them about college column. column. column. student needs are met. to ensure that the school and career options, and to e. Parents/families are engaged as partners with the school provides a coordinated and engage parents in this in supporting their students and know how their children integrated system of advising. are being supported. academic and learning f. At-risk students receive the necessary support to ensure support services. that they have access to college and career options. * This standard complements QI-1.8 (systems of academic support services to promote student learning). This standard focuses on health, safety, and social-emotional services to support at-risk students in accessing student leaning, including access to college and career options.
64
Quality Indicator 2: Safe, Supportive, & Healthy Learning Environments Standard
Undeveloped
Beginning
Developing
Sustaining The school provides learning environments that show strong and consistent evidence of the following: Standard 6: a. Students and parents feel safe and free from threat, Inclusive, Welcoming, and bullying, and/or discrimination. Caring Community* b. Students and parents trust staff. A quality school creates an c. Students and their families are “known” by school staff. inclusive, welcoming, safe, d. Procedures and practices support new students and their caring and nurturing families to quickly feel like members of the school community which: 1. Fosters There is little There is some There is community. respectful communication evidence of evidence of substantial e. Staff, students, and their families intentionally build among students, families, the standard the standard evidence of the caring and supportive relationships across different staff, and community. 2. as described as described standard as individual and cultural “lines”. Values individual and cultural in the in the described in the f. Interactions are characterized by caring communication. differences. 3. Engages and “Sustaining” “Sustaining” “Sustaining” g. Procedures and practices support students to resolve partners with students, column. column. column. and heal conflicts and “restore justice” to the school families, and community. 4. community. Creates a positive school h. Structures and activities before/during/and after school climate that includes behavior create a safe and inclusive environment for students management as well as (main office, playground, hallways, cafeteria, etc.) structures that recognize i. The school has effective behavior management schoolimprovement, achievement, wide that creates a positive school climate (rewards, and growth. progressive discipline plan, celebrations to recognize improvement/ achievement, daily routines that reinforce culture of the school, etc.) *This standard addresses systems and practices outside of the classroom and it complements QI 1.2
Refining
There is strong and consistent evidence of the standard as described in the “Sustaining” column. In addition, the school monitors, reviews, and adjusts these practices with input from the various stakeholders of the school, including students, in order to ensure that students and their families experience an inclusive, welcoming, safe, caring and nurturing community.
65
Quality Indicator 3: Learning Communities Focused on Continuous Improvement The Oakland Unified School District is committed to supporting high levels of learning for every student, ensuring that students are prepared for success in college, in their careers, and as citizens. We believe that thriving schools consistently endeavor to develop as robust learning communities. A “Learning Community Focused on Continuous Improvement” describes a school that consistently and collaboratively works to improve the school and to produce higher and more equitable outcomes by students. The school staff – in collaboration with students, families and the broader community – study, reflect, and learn together to strengthen their individual and collective efforts. They consistently look at data, plan, monitor, and evaluate their work. Through these efforts, they share decision-making, responsibility, and accountability. OUSD’s approach to learning communities is rooted in the literature on Professional Learning Communities (PLCs) developed by Richard DuFour, Rebecca DuFour, and Robert Eaker. They define a PLC as “characterized by a set of core beliefs and practices: a commitment to the learning of each student and structures that support teachers’ focus on student learning. When a school functions as a PLC, adults within the school embrace high levels of learning for each student as both the reason the school exists and the fundamental responsibility of those who work within it.” This Learning Communities rubric focuses on the members of the community whose primary responsibility is student learning: teachers and those that support teachers. This group of individuals is not de facto a learning community; however, they develop into a learning community as they collaborate, build trust, challenge one another, and support one another – in service of student learning. This rubric enables schools to self-assess against the quality school learning community standards, based on evidence from a range of sources. In addition, the Quality Community School Development office, other central office personnel, and coaches will interact around this rubric to develop growth plans and support schools’ ongoing development. The unit of analysis for this rubric is the school, not individuals or teams within the school.
Undeveloped Beginning Developing Sustaining Refining
There was little evidence found that the school implemented the practice(s) and/or built the conditions described in the standard. There was some evidence found that the school implemented the practice(s) and/or built the conditions described in the standard. There was substantial evidence found that the school implemented the practice(s) and/or built the conditions described in the standard. There was strong & consistent evidence found that the school implemented the practice(s) and/or built the conditions described in the standard. There was strong & consistent evidence found that the school implemented the practice(s) and/or built the conditions described in the standard, and the school has implemented systems to review and improve these practices/conditions.
66
Quality Indicator 3: Learning Communities Focused on Continuous Improvement Standard
Standard 1: Professional Learning Communities A quality school makes sure that teachers work together in professional learning communities (PLC) focused on student progress
Undeveloped
There is little evidence of the standard as described in the “Sustaining” column
Beginning
There is some evidence of the standard as described in the “Sustaining” column
Developing
There is substantial evidence of the standard as described in the “Sustaining” column
Sustaining There is strong and consistent evidence of the following: a. Most teachers meet in Professional Learning Communities at least once a month for collaborative planning and inquiry focused on student learning. b. Teachers use PLC time to map curriculum backwards from high leverage, important learning goals/outcomes/standards; collaboratively make curricular choices; and plan instruction and assessments. c. Teachers in PLCs regularly look at evidence of student learning (formative and summative assessment data or student work) to understand students’ level of mastery of the learning objectives. d. Based on this evidence of student learning, teachers in PLCs share best practices, trouble shoot dilemmas, and plan re-teaching and extension activities. e. All teachers take responsibility for creating and maintaining a quality PLC by participating fully, supporting a clear agenda, recording notes and decisions, and following-up with assigned tasks.
Refining There is strong and consistent evidence of the standard as described in the “Sustaining” column. In addition, the school has implemented systems to review and improve the practices that ensure effective Professional Learning Communities focused on student progress.
67
Quality Indicator 3: Learning Communities Focused on Continuous Improvement Standard
Standard 2: Data Collection and Analysis A quality school ensures that staff members regularly analyze multiple kinds of data about student performance and their experience of learning and then employ this analysis to improve student learning.
Undeveloped
There is little evidence of the standard as described in the “Sustaining” column
Beginning
There is some evidence of the standard as described in the “Sustaining” column
Developing
There is substantial evidence of the standard as described in the “Sustaining” column
Sustaining
There is strong and consistent evidence of the following: Individually and collectively, staff members frequently – a. Collect multiple kinds of data about student performance and their experience of learning. b. Use their data analysis to identify specific needs for reteaching, intervention, and extension for individual students. c. Use their data analysis to identify trends and patterns among groups of students to inform programmatic decisions, personnel deployment, curricular choices, and instructional strategies.
Refining There is strong and consistent evidence of the standard as described in the “Sustaining” column.
In addition, the school has implemented systems to review and improve the practices that ensure effective data collection and analysis.
68
Quality Indicator 3: Learning Communities Focused on Continuous Improvement Standard
Standard 4: Professional Learning Activities A quality school has professional learning activities that are embedded in practice, promote teacher leadership, and support teachers to evaluate and revise their classroom practices.
Undeveloped
There is little evidence of the standard as described in the “Sustaining” column
Beginning
There is some evidence of the standard as described in the “Sustaining” column
Developing
There is substantial evidence of the standard as described in the “Sustaining” column
Sustaining There is strong and consistent evidence that high quality professional learning activities help teachers improve student learning. Professional Learning Activities at the school are: a. Embedded in practice. They are useful to teacher practice with students, and model effective instructional strategies. b. Aligned to the vision and mission of the school. c. Targeted towards and responsive to the current needs of students and teachers. d. Developmental and differentiated to meet the needs of all teachers at the school. Professional Learning Activities at the school: e. Promote teacher leadership. f. Support teachers to evaluate and improve their classroom practices. g. May include: Whole staff learning opportunities Individual or small group coaching Supervision Peer Coaching Peer observations Lesson study Training in a specific item PLCs Participating in protocols such as “Looking at Student Work”, “Tuning”, Etc. Study groups or book studies
Refining
There is strong and consistent evidence of the standard as described in the “Sustaining” column. In addition, the school has implemented systems to review and improve the practices that ensure high quality professional learning activities for teachers.
69
Quality Indicator 4: Meaningful Student, Family and Community Engagement/Partnerships The Oakland Unified School District is committed to supporting high levels of learning for every student, ensuring that students are prepared for success in college, in their careers, and as citizens. Central to this commitment is meaningfully engaging students, families, and communities as key partners in this work. “Meaningful Student, Family, and Community Engagement/Partnerships” result when the school staff ensures that students, families and the community are partners in creating quality learning experiences for all students and a “full-service” school for the community. A quality school draws on the strengths and knowledge of the students, their families, and the community to become a center of support to the community and to meet the needs of all its members. Students, families, and community groups are “at the table”—giving voice to their concerns and perspectives; looking at data; planning, monitoring, evaluating the quality of the school; and participating in key decisions. The following rubrics enable key school stakeholders to assess the development of a school toward the “Meaningful Student, Family and Community Engagement/Partnerships” standards, based on evidence from a range of sources. In addition, school leaders, central office personnel, and coaches will use these rubrics to design improvement strategies and support schools’ ongoing development. The unit of analysis for these rubrics is the school, not programs or individuals within the school. These rubrics will not be used for the evaluation of school leaders, teachers, or other school personnel.
Undeveloped Beginning Developing Sustaining Refining
There was little evidence found that the school implemented the practice(s) and/or built the conditions described in the standard. There was some evidence found that the school implemented the practice(s) and/or built the conditions described in the standard. There was substantial evidence found that the school implemented the practice(s) and/or built the conditions described in the standard. There was strong & consistent evidence found that the school implemented the practice(s) and/or built the conditions described in the standard. There was strong & consistent evidence found that the school implemented the practice(s) and/or built the conditions described in the standard, and the school has implemented systems to review evidence of these practices/conditions.
Definitions Leaders: Principals are the primary leaders of their schools; some schools have assistant principals, coaches, and/or teachers who also have formal roles as leaders. In addition, every member of a school community has opportunities to function as a leader, depending on the school’s needs and the individual’s specific skills. School Staff: Staff includes the principal, other administrators, and teachers (certificated), as well as other adults who work in the school (classified). School Community: The community includes school staff, students, students’ families, individuals from the neighborhood, community-based organizations, and support providers who are associated with the school. Leadership Groups: Schools have a variety of groups that provide guidance for and make decisions regarding the school. All schools have school site councils (SSCs) that are responsible for strategic planning, and many schools have additional structures, such as an Instructional Leadership Team, which guide and support the ongoing work of the school.
70
Quality Indicator 4: Meaningful Student, Family and Community Engagement/Partnerships Standard Standard 2: Working together in Partnership A quality school creates the structures and mechanisms to work in partnership with students, families and community; as part of working together, they share information, influence, and support the creation of policies, practices, and programs that affect students, thus becoming agents of change.
Undeveloped
Beginning
Developing
There is little evidence of the standard as described in the “Sustaining” column.
There is some evidence of the standard as described in the “Sustaining” column.
There is substantial evidence of the standard as described in the “Sustaining” column.
Sustaining There is strong and consistent evidence of the following: a. The school has high-quality activities and strategies which build the capacity of students, families, and community to work together in partnership. b. The school creates structures and mechanisms to bring families of all racial, ethnic, socio-economic backgrounds which are representative of the student body as volunteers into the school. c. The school creates structures and mechanisms which continuously engage families, including those who are less involved to get their ideas, input, and involvement. d. Student, family, and community groups (Coordination of Services Team, After School programs, community agencies, etc.), in partnership with the school, set clear and measurable goals that are aligned with the school wide vision and goals.
Refining
There is strong and consistent evidence of the standard as described in the “Sustaining” column. In addition, the school has implemented systems to monitor the effectiveness of these practices to ensure that a school works together in partnership.
71
Quality Indicator 4: Meaningful Student, Family and Community Engagement/Partnerships Standard Standard 5: Student/Family Engagement on Student Progress A quality school communicates with families effectively so they know how the student is progressing and how they participate in the school community. It allows clear two-way channels for communication. The school uses strategies that help families overcome the language, cultural, economic, and physical barriers that can limit their full participation.
Undeveloped
There is little evidence of the standard as described in the “Sustaining” column.
Beginning
There is some evidence of the standard as described in the “Sustaining” column.
Developing
Sustaining
There is substantial evidence of the standard as described in the “Sustaining” column.
There is strong and consistent evidence of the following: a. The school has multiple high-quality activities and strategies which engage students and their family in knowing how the student is progressing academically and engaging in the school community. b. Families and school staff have trusting relationships and engage in regular, two-way, meaningful communication about student progress. c. These activities and strategies are designed to minimize language, cultural, economic, and physical barriers that can limit students and their families’ full participation. d. The school has created and implemented policies that encourage all teachers to communicate frequently with families about student academic progress and student engagement in the school community. These policies are well communicated with staff and families.
Refining
There is strong and consistent evidence of the standard as described in the “Sustaining” column. In addition, the school has implemented systems to review evidence of the effectiveness of these practices to ensure effective student/family engagement on student progress.
72
Quality Indicator 4: Meaningful Student, Family and Community Engagement/Partnerships Standard Standard 6: Family Engagement on Student Learning
Undeveloped
A quality school provides opportunities for families to understand what their child is learning (grade level standards); why they are learning it; what it looks like to know, perform, and interact “well” (i.e. with quality); and what potential career/college pathways are before them.
There is little evidence of the standard as described in the “Sustaining” column.
Beginning
There is some evidence of the standard as described in the “Sustaining” column.
Developing
Sustaining
Refining
There is substantial evidence of the standard as described in the “Sustaining” column.
There is strong and consistent evidence of the following: a. The school engages with families, not only about how their child is progressing academically and socially, but about the what, why, and “so what” of the academic program. That includes the overall academic vision and mission, what it looks like to do well academically and socially, and to map out toward what goals this quality of work is taking a student. b. These strategies help each student and their families overcome the language, cultural, economic, and physical barriers that can limit full understanding.
There is strong and consistent evidence of the standard as described in the “Sustaining” column. In addition, the school has implemented systems to review evidence of these practices to ensure effective family engagement on student learning.
Note: This standard draws a contrast with Standard 5 in the way that the school engages with families, not only about how their child is progressing academically and socially, but about the what, why, and “so what” of the academic program. Typically in this stage of development, a school engages with parents and families to discuss their overall academic vision and mission, to clarify what it looks like to do well academically and socially, and to map out toward what goals this quality of work is taking a student.
73
Quality Indicator 4: Meaningful Student, Family and Community Engagement/Partnerships Standard
Undeveloped
Beginning
Developing
There is little evidence of the standard as described in the “Sustaining” column.
There is some evidence of the standard as described in the “Sustaining” column.
There is substantial evidence of the standard as described in the “Sustaining” column.
Standard 7: Standards of Meaningful Engagement A quality school builds effective student, family, and community partnerships by implementing standards of meaningful student and family/ community engagement, which are developed and approved by these local key stakeholders.
Sustaining There is strong and consistent evidence of the following: a. The school has developed/adopted and implemented standards of meaningful engagement (either school or district approved) to build effective student, family, and community partnerships. b. The school sets goals and plans activities annually to bring students, families and community into the school and become authentic co-owners of the school and share responsibility for students’ learning. c. The school has programs and activities in place to support student engagement around events and decisions that affect them at school and in the community. d. The school has programs and activities in place to build student leadership and voice and teach children to become their own advocates in education.
Refining
There is strong and consistent evidence of the standard as described in the “Sustaining” column. In addition, the school has implemented systems to review evidence of these practices to insure standards of meaningful engagement.
74
Quality Indicator 5: Effective School Leadership and Resource Management The Oakland Unified School District is committed to supporting high levels of learning for every student, ensuring that students are prepared for success in college, in their careers, and as citizens. We believe that the leaders of a school play a critical role in this success: supporting students, nurturing and guiding teachers, and empowering families and the community – thriving together as a full service community school. “Effective School Leadership & Resource Management” happens when school leaders work together to build a vision of quality and equity, guiding the efforts of the school community to make this vision a reality. Leaders focus the school community on instruction, ena bling positive academic and social-emotional outcomes for every student. Leaders guide the professional development of teachers and create the conditions within which teachers and the rest of the community engage in ongoing learning. These leaders manage people, funding, time, technology, and other materials effectively to promote thriving students and build robust, sustainable community schools. This rubric enables schools to self-assess against the quality school leadership standards, based on evidence from a range of sources. In addition, the Quality Community School Development office, other central office personnel, and coaches will interact around this rubric to develop growth plans and support schools’ ongoing development. The unit of analysis for this rubric is the school, not individuals within the school. A separate tool guides the development of individual leaders, based upon OUSD’s Leadership Dimensions. This rubric will not be used for the evaluation of school leaders. Undeveloped Beginning Developing Sustaining Refining
There was little evidence found that the school has implemented the practice(s) and/or build the conditions described in the standard. There was some evidence found that the school has implemented the practice(s) and/or build the conditions described in the standard. There was substantial evidence found that the school has implemented the practice(s) and/or build the conditions described in the standard. There was strong and consistent evidence found that the school has implemented the practice(s) and/or build the conditions described in the standard. There was strong and consistent evidence found that the school has implemented the practice(s) and/or build the conditions described in the standard, and the school has implemented systems to review and improve these practices/conditions.
Definitions Leaders: Principals are the primary leaders of their schools; some schools have assistant principals, coaches, and/or teachers who also have formal roles as leaders. In addition, every member of a school community has opportunities to function as a leader, depending on the school’s needs and the individual’s specific skills. School Staff: Staff includes the principal, other administrators, and teachers (certificated), as well as other adults who work in the school (classified). School Community: The community includes school staff, students, students’ families, individuals from the neighborhood, community-based organizations, and support providers who are associated with the school. Leadership Groups: Schools have a variety of groups that provide guidance for and make decisions regarding the school. All schools have school site councils (SSCs) that are responsible for strategic planning, and many schools have additional structures, such as an Instructional Leadership Team, which guide and support the ongoing work of the school.
75
Quality Indicator 5: Effective School Leadership and Resource Management Standard Standard 2: Partners with Students and Families in Decision Making A quality school has leadership that shares school improvement and decisionmaking with students and their families when together they look at data, develop key school plans (e.g., the master schedule, the school’s code of conduct, restorative justice strategies), monitor programs, and participate in hiring and evaluating staff. Students and their families share leadership through mandated representative bodies (e.g., School Site Council, English Language Advisory Council) and through other collaborative strategies as well. Standard
Undeveloped
Beginning
Developing
Sustaining
There is little evidence of this standard as described in the “Sustaining”" column.
There is some evidence of this standard as described in the “Sustaining”" column.
There is substantial evidence of this standard as described in the “Sustaining” column.
There is strong and consistent evidence that: a. Students and their families are involved, through various leadership structures, in monitoring results of school programs and creating/revising improvement plans. b. Students and their families participate in key school planning decisions in support of student outcomes. c. Students and their families provide input in hiring and evaluation processes. d. Students and their families participate in both mandated representative bodies (SSC, ELAC, etc.) and other collaborative structures.
Undeveloped
Beginning
Developing
Sustaining
There is substantial evidence of the standard as described in the “Sustaining” column.
There is strong and consistent evidence of the following: a. The school’s vision is focused on student learning and high expectations for all students. b. The school’s vision guides all aspects of the school’s programs and activities. c. The school’s leadership engages all constituents in aligning their efforts to the vision. d. Members of the school community are knowledgeable about and committed to the vision. e. School leaders consistently act on core beliefs which reflect the vision and mission.
Standard 4: Vision Driven A quality school has leadership which ensures that the school’s shared vision is focused on student learning, grounded in high expectations for all students, and guides all aspects of school life.
There is little evidence of the standard as described in the “Sustaining” column.
There is some evidence of the standard as described in the “Sustaining” column.
Refining There is strong and consistent evidence of this standard as described in the “Sustaining”" column. In addition, the school has implemented systems to review and improve the practices that ensure that there is shared reflection and decisionmaking with students and families.
Refining There is strong and consistent evidence of this standard as described in the “Sustaining”" column. In addition, the school has implemented systems to review and improve the practices that ensure that all aspects of the school are guided by the shared vision, focused on student learning and high expectations for all. 76
Quality Indicator 5: Effective School Leadership and Resource Management Standard
Undeveloped
Beginning
Developing
Sustaining
There is substantial evidence of the standard as described in the “Sustaining” column.
There is strong and consistent evidence of the following: a. The school leadership consistently articulates the need to interrupt patterns of inequities. b. School leadership guides the development and quality of services that support all students to have equal access to learning (including academic, social-emotional, health, family well-being, adult attitudes, etc). c. The school staff consistently engages in practices that interrupt patterns of inequity. d. The school staff frequently collects and analyzes learning data by subgroup in order to monitor and adjust practices designed to interrupt patterns of inequity. e. The school staff has implemented programs to address specific subgroup needs based on their learning data. f. Resources are used to meet the needs of all students equitably: staffing, technology, materials, space, etc. g. School leadership fosters an ongoing dialogue among school and community constituents across race, class, age, and school and community to engage in bold change to achieve equitable school results. h. School leadership acts in concert with allies to systematically address inequities; help others navigate the system and remove or circumvent institutional barriers to student opportunity and achievement.
Standard 5: Focused on Equity A quality school has leadership that creates and sustains equitable conditions for learning and advocates for interrupting patterns of historical inequities.
There is little evidence of the standard as described in the “Sustaining” column.
There is some evidence of the standard as described in the “Sustaining” column.
Refining
There is strong and consistent evidence of this standard as described in the “Sustaining”" column. In addition, the school has implemented systems to review and improve the practices that ensure that the leadership is focused on equity.
77
Quality Indicator 5: Effective School Leadership and Resource Management Standard
Standard 6: Supports the Development of Quality Instruction A quality school has leadership that guides and supports the development of quality instruction across the school to ensure student learning.
Standard
Standard 9: Culture of Mutual Accountability: Collaboratively develops outcomes & monitors progress A quality school has leadership which collaboratively develops outcomes, monitors progress, and fosters a culture of mutual accountability.
Undeveloped
There is little evidence of the standard as described in the “Sustaining” column.
Undeveloped
There is little evidence of the standard as described in the “Sustaining” column.
Beginning
There is some evidence of the standard as described in the “Sustaining” column.
Developing
There is substantial evidence of the standard as described in the “Sustaining ” column.
Beginning
Developing
There is some evidence of the standard as described in the “Sustaining” column.
There is substantial evidence of the standard as described in the “Sustaining ” column.
Sustaining There is strong and consistent evidence that the leadership of the school (principal, specialists, ILT, etc.): a. Guides, monitors, and supports curricular choices and interventions based on expected student learning outcomes and the school vision. b. Guides, monitors, and supports instructional practices that engage all students in high quality learning, are aligned with the school vision. c. Ensures that there is adequate professional learning, coaching, and supervision to develop quality instruction across the school.
Sustaining There is strong and consistent evidence that: a. The school staff has developed clear student outcomes and goals for learning and behavior b. The school staff has developed clear professional expectations and goals for staff c. The school staff monitors students’ progress d. The school staff monitors staff expectations e. The school staff follows clear processes and procedures to hold themselves accountable to one another and the goals and expectations f. There is a culture of mutual accountability within the staff – staff members have productive difficult conversations that continually improve their collaboration and work with students and families.
Refining There is strong and consistent evidence of this standard as described in the “Sustaining”" column. In addition, the school has implemented systems to review and improve the practices that ensure the development of quality instruction across the school to ensure student learning.
Refining There is strong and consistent evidence of this standard as described in the “Sustaining”" column. In addition, the school has implemented systems to review and improve the practices to collaboratively develop outcomes, monitor progress and have a culture of mutual accountability.
78
Quality Indicator 5: Effective School Leadership and Resource Management
STANDARD
Standard 10: Organizational Management A quality school has leadership which develops systems and allocates resources (time, human, financial, and material) in service of the school’s vision.
Undeveloped
There is little evidence of the standard as described in the “Sustaining” column.
Beginning
There is some evidence of the standard as described in the “Sustaining” column.
Developing
There is substantial evidence of the standard as described in the “Sustaining ” column.
Sustaining There is strong and consistent evidence that: a. The school’s resources are allocated in service of the school vision b. The school’s resources are maximized in service of the vision c. The school leadership effectively leverages district and community resources, grants and partnerships in service of the school vision d. The school leadership effectively uses the district’s budgeting systems (RBB, IFAS, etc.) to maximize use of state and federal funds in service of the school vision e. The assignment and use of TSAs, coaches, etc. are appropriate, effective, and focused in service of the school vision f. The school leadership seeks out additional resources to meet identified student needs and aligned to the school vision.
Refining
There is strong and consistent evidence of this standard as described in the “Sustaining”" column. In addition, the school staff regularly reflects on their approach to resource allocation, and has adjusted their approach and systems to better allocate resources in service of the school’s vision.
79
