school effectiveness review - baltimore city public … · 2016-01-28 · school effectiveness...

Office of Achievement and Accountability

Division of School Evaluation and Accountability

School Effectiveness Review

2015 - 2016

Margaret Brent Elementary/Middle School

November 3-4, 2015

200 East North Avenue Baltimore, Maryland 21202

www.baltimorecityschools.org

2 Baltimore City Public Schools, 2015-16

Table of Contents

Part I: Introduction and School Background ....................................................................................................... 3

Introduction to the School Effectiveness Review ............................................................................................ 3

School Background .......................................................................................................................................... 3

Part II: Summary of Performance Levels ............................................................................................................. 4

Part III: Findings on Domains of Effective Schools .............................................................................................. 5

Domain 1: Highly Effective Instruction ............................................................................................................ 5

Domain 2: Talented People ........................................................................................................................... 11

Domain 3: Vision and Engagement ............................................................................................................... 14

Domain 4: Strategic Leadership ..................................................................................................................... 19

Performance Level Rubric.................................................................................................................................. 22

Appendix A: School Report Comments ............................................................................................................. 23

Appendix B: SER Team Members ...................................................................................................................... 24


Part I: Introduction and School Background

Introduction to the School Effectiveness Review

Baltimore City Public Schools (City Schools) developed the School Effectiveness Framework and the School

Effectiveness Review process in 2009. The School Effectiveness Review (SER) uses trained school reviewers

to measure a school’s effectiveness against City Schools’ School Effectiveness Standards. The School

Effectiveness Standards are aligned with City Schools’ effectiveness frameworks for teachers and school

leaders.

The SER provides an objective and evidence-based analysis of how well a school is working to educate its

students. It generates a rich layer of qualitative data that may not be revealed when evaluating a school

solely on student performance outcomes. It also provides district and school-level staff with objective and

useful information when making strategic decisions that impact student achievement.

The SER team, comprised of representatives from City Schools who have extensive knowledge about schools

and instruction, gathered information from teachers, students, parents, and leadership during a two-day site

visit. During the visit, the SER team observed classrooms, reviewed selected school documents, and

conducted focus groups with school leadership, teachers, students, and parents. The SER team analyzed

evidence collected over the course of the SER to determine the extent to which key actions have been

adopted and implemented at the school. This report summarizes the ratings in the four domains and related

key actions, provides evidence to support the ratings, and – based on a rubric – allocates a performance

level for each key action. More information about the SER process is detailed in the School Effectiveness

Review protocol, located on the City Schools website and available upon request from the Office of

Achievement and Accountability in City Schools.

School Background

Margaret Brent Elementary/Middle school serves approximately 341 students in Pre-Kindergarten through

eighth grades. The school is located on East 26th Street in the Charles Village neighborhood of Baltimore,

Maryland. The principal, Ms. Pamela Smith, has been at the school for three years. For more information

about the school’s student demographics and student achievement data, please see the School Profile,

located on the City Schools website.


Part II: Summary of Performance Levels Based on trends found in the collected evidence, the SER team assigns a performance level to each key action.

Domains and Key Actions

Performance Levels

Level 4: Highly Effective

Level 3: Effective

Level 2: Developing

Level 1: Not Effective

Domain 1: Highly Effective Instruction

1.1 Teachers plan highly effective instruction. Effective

1.2 Teachers deliver highly effective instruction. Effective

1.3 Teachers use multiple data sources to adjust practice. Effective

1.4 School leadership supports highly effective instruction. Effective

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

Domain 2: Talented People

2.1 The school implements systems to select, develop, and retain effective teachers and staff whose skills and beliefs represent the diverse needs of all students.

Effective

2.2 The school has created and implemented systems to evaluate teachers and staff against individual and school-wide goals, provide interventions to those who are not meeting expectations, and remove those who do not make reasonable improvement.

Effective

Domain 3: Vision and Engagement

3.1 The school provides a safe and supportive learning environment for students, families, teachers, and staff.

Effective

3.2 The school cultivates and sustains open communication and decision-making opportunities with families about school events, policies, and the academic and social development of their children.

Highly Effective

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

Domain 4: Strategic Leadership

4.1 The school establishes growth goals that guide strategic planning, teaching, and adjusting of practice to meet student needs.

Effective

4.2 The school allocates and deploys the resources of time, staff talent, and funding to address the priorities of growth goals for student achievement.

Effective


Part III: Findings on Domains of Effective Schools

Domains and Key Actions

Performance Levels

Level 4: Highly Effective

Level 3: Effective

Level 2: Developing

Level 1: Not Effective


Teachers implement standards-based daily lessons, units, and long-term plans using appropriate

curriculum planning documents. According to school leadership and teachers, teachers use the

Baltimore City Public Schools (City Schools) Common Core curriculum for Math and English Language

Arts (ELA) available on the district Blackboard site, which includes Agile Minds for middle school math.

School leadership and teachers added that teachers also use the SABES program for science in grades

third through fifth. Further, teachers stated that they also use the Next Generation Science Standards

(NGSS). A review of Year at a Glance, weekly planning sequences and SABES sequences confirmed the

various types of curriculum. Review of lessons plans revealed that most included standards. For

example, one standard in a lesson plan was PK.RF.2.a – recognize and produce rhyming words. The

associated objective read “Students will know and be able to produce rhyming words by orally

replacing the initial sound and creating new rhyming words.”

Teachers design daily lessons that meet learners’ unique needs. In focus groups, school leadership

and teachers reported that teachers differentiate through small groups based on data, and also

include accommodations and modifications for students with Individual Education Programs (IEPs).

Some teachers added that they differentiate instruction according to student learning modalities,

such as audio and visual, by providing choice activities. Other teachers indicated they provide

modified assignments to students who are English Language Learners (ELL), or allow them to translate

from their native language into English. A review of lesson plans confirmed that most plans included

small groups (embedded or in attached profiles), as well as the use of graphic organizers, gradual

release and higher level questioning. For example, in one lesson plan, a differentiation section was

included, which listed varied activities for three student groups – students will work on

transformations; students will work on identifying rational vs. irrational numbers and independent

group work. However, not all plans included differentiation.

Teachers set and track goals based on students’ performance levels. According to school leadership

and teachers, teachers create and track grade-level goals, in addition to Student Learning Objectives

(SLOs), for students in both literacy and math based on i-Ready and Amplify data. Teachers added that

goals are usually growth measures (a certain percentage of students improving by a certain

interval/grade level by the mid-year point). A review of SMART goals confirmed that teachers set

goals for each grade in math and reading and determine strategies to achieve the goals. For example,

review of SMART goals revealed that a goal for a particular grade level was “By June 2016, students

Key action 1.1: Teachers plan highly effective instruction. Effective


will be able to add and subtract to 1000 by using two or more strategies to solve problems based on

place value, properties of operations, and/or the relationship between addition and subtraction.”

Additional goals included goals for various subgroups, according to student performance, such as

“50% of students who scored basic on unit tests 1 and 2 will score proficient on unit test 5.” Regarding

tracking, teachers and school leadership indicated that teachers progress monitor goals related to

Amplify, and plan to re-visit progress towards goals when mid-year data is available for i-Ready.

Teachers use and communicate standards-based lesson objectives and align learning activities to the

stated lesson objectives. The site visit team observed that in 91% of classes (n=11), lesson objectives

identified student learning outcomes and were communicated to students (posted, explained or

referenced during the lesson.) Additionally in 91% of classes, learning activities and resources were

aligned with lesson objectives. For example, in one class, the objective posted read “Today I will use

my graphic organizer to complete a descriptive paragraph about my pumpkin,” which students did

during the class.

Teachers present content in various ways and emphasize key points to make content clear. In 100% of

classes visited (n=11), the site visit team observed that teachers presented accurate, grade-level

content. Additionally, in 82% of classes, teachers presented content in two or more ways to make

content clear. For example, in one class, a teacher modeled how to assemble a coil pot. Further, in

100% of classes, teachers consistently modeled academic vocabulary and standard grammatical

structures. For example, in the same class, the teacher used terms such as “glaze, coil and texture.”

Most teachers use multiple strategies and tasks to engage all students in rigorous work. In 91% of

classes observed (n=11), all tasks had a clear and intentional purpose. Additionally, in 73% of classes,

teachers provided access to grade-level material for all students by scaffolding and/or differentiating

tasks. For example, in one class in which students learned about rounding, the teacher modeled for

students before allowing them to practice independently. However, in only 45% of classes, students

had opportunities and time to grapple with complex texts and/or tasks.

Most teachers use evidence-dependent questioning. The site visit team observed that teachers asked

questions at key points throughout the lesson in 100% of classes visited (n=11). Additionally, in 55% of

classes, teachers asked questions requiring students to justify, cite evidence or explain their thought

processes. Further, in 64% of classes, teachers asked questions that were clear and scaffolded. For

example, in one class in which students made inferences regarding a text, the teachers asked

questions such as “What do you think the cat was thinking? What would he say? Why is he grabbing

the mice?”

Key action 1.2: Teachers deliver highly effective instruction. Effective


Teachers check for student understanding and provide specific academic feedback. The site visit team

noted that in 100% of classes (n=11), teachers conducted one or more checks for understanding that

yielded useful information at key points throughout the lesson. Additionally, in 82% of classes,

teachers provided specific academic feedback to communicate current progress and next steps to

move forward. For example, in one class, a teacher rotated during independent student work and

provided feedback such as “We started with fifty, right? What else do you add? Which gives you how

much?”

Teachers facilitate student-to-student interaction and academic talk. The site visit team observed that

teachers provided one or more opportunities for student-to-student interaction in 82% of classes

(n=11). Additionally, in 55% of classes, during student-to-student interactions, students engaged in

discussions with their peers to make meaning or content or deepen their understanding. For example,

in one class, students worked together to solve math problems and assisted one another in correcting

errors. Finally, in 100% of classes, students used academic talk.

Teachers analyze students’ progress toward goals. According to school leadership and teachers,

students are grouped based on their performance on the i-Ready assessments and Dynamic Indicators

of Basic Early Literacy Skills (DIBELS) results, as well as district and teacher-created assessments and

exit tickets. Teachers and school leadership added that teachers analyze student performance

according to i-Ready performance (grouping students; determining strengths and weaknesses; and

determining a plan to increase student achievement through the use of various strategies) and

progress monitor students monthly to determine which skills to remediate, and also monitor progress

towards SLO goals. School leadership further indicated that the school is grappling with how to

determine student growth for iReady between test administration in the beginning and middle of the

year, since the assessment measure is new to the district. A review of i-Ready data print-outs revealed

that they included student groupings, needs analysis and priorities.

Teachers modify instruction in response to data. According to school leadership and teachers, the

primary modifications made to instruction are small groups, which are flexible, and based on i-Ready

data. School leadership and teachers added that on a school-wide level, based on data from the

previous year (as well as i-Ready beginning of year data profiles), there is a focus on vocabulary

(English language arts) and numbers and operations (Math), according to skills with which students

struggle. Further, teachers noted that they discuss adjustments to instruction during collaborative

planning meetings, to target skill focus areas, and adjustments may also include additional practice

and intensive supports. A review of SMART goals revealed that strategies (primarily small groups)

were included, to focus instruction around skills that students had not mastered.

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


Teachers appropriately recommend students for tiered interventions (including opportunities for

acceleration). According to school leadership and teachers, the school has a Success For All (SFA)

program, which serves as both an intervention and acceleration opportunity for literacy. Additionally,

school leadership, staff and teachers reported that each grade has seven intervention blocks

throughout the week, split between literacy and Math, and many teachers have arranged for students

to be pulled out into groups (high and low groups according to i-Ready and DIBELS data). Teachers

further indicated that they do not use a school-wide intervention program for these blocks, but rather

use resources according to students’ deficits, such as i-Ready lesson sets, Do the Math, First in Math

and fluency kits. A review of goal sheets and staff bulletins confirmed the intervention blocks. A

review of emails also revealed that the principal informs teachers of which groups students should be

in, according to i-Ready scores, and suggests activities for various groups, such as use of computers,

PARCC readings, and vocabulary booklets, for example.

School leadership holds and promotes an instructional vision of high student achievement. In focus

groups, school leadership and teachers reported that the instructional vision is centered around

student engagement and student talk, with teachers serving as a facilitator or guide. School

leadership added that other areas include rigor, peer to peer interactions (which teachers

confirmed) and higher order thinking skills (HOTS). Teachers also stated that differentiation (mainly

through small groups) is an expectation in classroom instruction. Some teachers added that there is

also a focus on environmental features, such as process charts and posting objectives. Other

teachers noted the arts-integration focus of the school, as well as writing, which has been a topic of

professional development sessions. A review of informal feedback confirmed that focus on various

Teach components of the district’s Instructional Framework (rigor, objectives and student

interactions) and a collaborative planning agenda revealed that word walls and anchor charts were

discussed.

School leadership ensures that teachers engage in the planning of the curricula through oversight of

standards-based units, lessons and pacing. According to school leadership, school leadership

facilitates weekly collaborative planning meetings, during which planning and pacing are discussed

as curriculum maps are reviewed; a review of collaborative planning agendas confirmed that

curriculum and planning are discussed. School leadership added that they are meeting with district

office staff, who will support teachers with instructional planning and pacing. Further, school

leadership and teachers stated that during informal observations, lesson plans are reviewed, and

should be available on desks in binders, and objectives are required to be posted. Teachers further

indicated that instructional pacing is also monitored through data entry, and has been more of a

challenge in regards to math. A review of staff bulletins confirmed that expectations outlined for

teaching include lesson plans being available on desks, and posting objectives in classes.

Key action 1.4: School leadership supports highly effective instruction. Effective


School leadership provides formative feedback and guidance to teachers about the quality of

planning, teaching, and adjustment of practice. In focus groups, school leadership reported that

they are in classrooms every week to observe teachers using the Instructional Framework, and all

but a few of teachers had been observed at the time of the site visit. School leadership added that

they surveyed teachers to determine how many observations with feedback they wanted prior to

the first formal observation, and the general consensus was one time. School leadership and

teachers stated that school leadership conferences with teachers after informal observations,

discussing glows and grows and instructional strategies; some teachers stated they received an

email with detailed feedback. However, school leadership also indicated that if teachers needed

additional support, they may be observed more frequently. Finally, teachers reported that the

feedback from school leadership is beneficial. A review of informal feedback revealed that it is

aligned with the Instructional Framework and includes evidence along with areas of strength and

growth. For example, one area to be addressed noted on informal feedback was: “Though you read

the objective to the class, don’t forget to explain the significance of the lesson objective and the

criteria for meeting the lesson objective... what they will need to be able to do by the end of the

lesson. This is critical in being rated effective in this indicator. Don’t forget you can even incorporate

a turn and talk about your objective and have students discuss this with each other – what they

thought continuous meant.”

School leadership demonstrates an understanding of data analysis and is beginning to ensure the

use of a complete student learning data-cycle. According to school leadership, the data cycle that

teachers follow includes: data analysis, identification and implementation of strategies and re-

assessment. School leadership added that the use of data is different this year than in previous

years, due to the new i-Ready assessments, and they are implementing components of the data

cycle gradually so as not to overwhelm teachers. Teachers further stated that data is reviewed and

discussed during collaborative planning and staff meetings and teachers are required to bring their

data with them. Continuing, during team meetings, leadership noted that teachers set goals and

determine strategies after processing the data, and next steps will include looking at individual

students in each class. Review of i-Ready profiles confirmed that students are grouped and priorities

are determined; students needing differentiated instruction for specific skills are also noted.

Teachers build a positive, learning-focused classroom culture. During classroom observations, the site

team noted that in 82% of classrooms observed (n=11), all teacher-initiated interactions with students

were positive and respectful. For example, teachers were observed praising students by saying

“awesome job” and calling students “friends” and telling them they were happy to see them.

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

Effective


Additionally, in 91% of classrooms, all student-initiated interactions with teachers were positive and

respectful. Further, in 91% of classes, all student-to-student interactions were positive and respectful.

Lastly, in 100% of classes, students were active participants in class work and discussion.

Teachers reinforce positive behavior and redirect off-task or challenging behavior, when needed. In

100% of classes observed (n=11), the site team noted that teachers promoted and/or reinforced

positive behavior. For example, teachers were observed praising students for being ready or

displaying proper signals. Additionally, in 82% of classes, less than ten percent of teacher time was

used for redirection or discipline. Lastly, in 82% of classes, less than ten percent of students were not

complying with lessons’ directions or working on intended activities.

Teachers implement routines to maximize instructional time. The site visit team observed that

routines and procedures ran smoothly with minimal prompting from the teacher in 82% of classes

visited (n=11). For example, in some classes, an agenda was posted that started with a Do Now.

Additionally, in 100% of classes, the teachers’ arrangement of classroom and materials allowed for

efficient classroom movement and use or access. Further, in 91% of classes, less than ten percent of

time was spent on transitions. Lastly, in 100% of classes, less than ten percent of students were idle

while waiting for the teacher.



School leadership has created and implemented an organizational and staffing structure that meets

the diverse needs of all students. According to school leadership, there are two sections of

kindergarten through third grades, with one third grade class that contained all boys and taught by a

male teacher, which teachers confirmed. School leadership and teachers added that resource classes

include Art, Music, Gym, Theatre and Library. Further, teachers, staff and school leadership reported

that related service providers include a social worker, school psychologist, a clinician from HOPE

Health, and the educational associate serves as the Individual Education Program (IEP) chair.

Continuing, school leadership and staff stated that Kennedy Krieger Institute provides support for

teachers and students, and the school has a coordinator for the Success For All (SFA) program. The

school’s roster confirmed all of the aforementioned positions.

School leadership leverages a pipeline for staff recruitment and uses some measures and includes

stakeholders in the assessment of candidates. In focus groups, school leadership reported that the

school uses a variety of pipelines to identify candidates, which include the district’s job fair, staff

referral, partnerships with local universities (such as Johns Hopkins and Towson) and alternative

certification pipelines such as Teach For America (TFA). Further some teachers stated they are TFA

teachers and a review of emails confirmed that TFA has placed teachers at the school. Additionally,

school leadership and teachers reported that the steps in the hiring process include an interview (with

leadership, teachers who teach in the same grade band and staff), as well as a tour of the school.

However, while leadership noted that some teachers conduct a demonstration lesson or provide an

instructional portfolio, no teachers could confirm that it was part of the interview process; though

some teachers reported they provided instructional portfolios. Finally, parents indicated that a parent

had participated on an interview panel.

School leadership includes staff members and other stakeholders in the development and retention

of effective teachers and staff. According to school leadership and staff, during collaborative planning

meetings, teachers conduct model lessons for one another related to the Instructional Framework

and received feedback. A review of collaborative planning meeting agendas confirmed that teachers

are in the first stage of peer to peer feedback, which are the model lessons during the meeting on

Teach indicators 1-6. Additionally, some teachers indicated that they would visit other schools to

observe teachers in the SABES program, and teachers would come to the school to observe them.

Further, school leadership and teachers reported that staff from the Kennedy Krieger Institute

supports teachers with classroom management and other areas according to teachers needs.

Continuing, school leadership and teachers stated that district office support staff attends

Key action 2.1: The school creates and implements systems to select, develop, and retain effective teachers and staff whose skills and beliefs represent the diverse needs of all students.

Effective


collaborative planning meetings as well to assist with planning and pacing. Lastly, school leadership

noted that teachers attended a Success for All (SFA) conference and receive support from SFA

regarding implementation of the program. Regarding retention, teachers indicated that the staff and

school feel like a family, there are abundant supports provided to teachers and staff, and families and

community partners support the school. A review of emails from district office support staff, Kennedy

Krieger Institute and SFA confirmed several of the external supports.

School leadership has created mentoring and informal induction programs, to support the

development of all new teachers and staff and monitors the program’s effectiveness. In focus groups,

school leadership and teachers stated that early career teachers have been assigned mentors, usually

teachers who are in their grade level teams, who provide supports such as observations and feedback.

School leadership added that mentors are teachers who are rated highly effective, according to

formal observations. School leadership and teachers further reported that teachers meet with

mentors formally and informally; teachers indicated they meet frequently. Regarding induction,

school leadership indicated that teachers new to the school receive a tour prior to the start of the

school year, and also informally share expectations. Review of emails confirmed that mentors

requested coverage in order to observe/provide model lessons for mentees, and also that TFA and

the school are working together to support teachers.

School leadership makes full use of the evaluation system to develop faculty and staff capacity.

According to school leadership and teachers, teachers have completed their Individual Development

Plans (IDPs) and a schedule for the first round of observations has been created, which the site visit

team reviewed. IDPs included items such as students’ strengths, areas of improvement, math and

reading goals and associated strategies. School leadership added that both the principal and

assistant principal serve as qualified observers, and this year, the evaluation process includes a

reflection tool for teachers to complete during the pre-observation conference. Further, teachers

expressed that the process is meaningful, and teachers are held accountable for goals set in IDPs. A

review of collaborative planning agendas confirmed the use of the pre-observation reflection tool.

Review of IDPs revealed that teachers were required to respond to questions such as “what is your

plan for student achievement this year?” Finally, school leadership indicated that teachers rated

effective and highly effective last year serve as mentors, and teachers who are strong in various

areas of the Instructional Framework will be identified as models for other teachers.

Key action 2.2: The school has created and implemented systems to evaluate teachers and staff against individual and school-wide goals, provide interventions to those who are not meeting expectations, and remove those who do not make reasonable improvement.

Effective


School leadership provides timely support and interventions to struggling teachers and staff as

indicated by data and/or informal or formal observations and holds them accountable for

performance. According to school leadership, they have tried to create a “safe space” in the

beginning of the year in which to support teachers, and will move towards development of

Performance Improvement Plans (PIPs) if teachers continue to need support. In regards to supports,

school leadership added that they include additional observations with feedback, release time, and

accessing the buildings on the weekend to improve classroom environment. Review of emails

between school leadership and struggling teachers confirmed supports, and revealed that clear

expectations were communicated to staff regarding meeting deadlines around data entry. Emails

for district office staff also revealed that they were supporting struggling teachers regarding

classroom management and the curriculum.

School leadership engages faculty in a school-wide professional development plan based on

identified needs and in alignment with the school’s instructional vision. In focus groups, school

leadership and teachers stated that the school is following the district’s cycles of professional

learning (with a focus on routine writing and process writing), which is embedded in collaborative

planning meetings; a review of a professional development agenda from mid-October confirmed the

focus on routine writing. Additionally, school leadership reported that due to the school’s status as a

focus school, they applied for a grant and will be partnering with Teacher Created materials to

receive professional development throughout the year, to address sub-group achievement gaps.

Further, school leadership and teachers noted a focus on data cycles. Review of a professional

development agenda from October confirmed that topics included: routine writing, SLOs, revisiting

the mission and vision, and arts integration. School leadership also gathers feedback from teachers

through professional development evaluations, which include pluses and deltas. .



The school community shares an understanding of, and commitment to, the school mission, vision,

and values, including a clear understanding of strategic goals and initiatives. According to school

leadership, community partners and teachers, the primary focus of the school’s vision and mission is

excellence and giving your personal best, which students and parents confirmed. School leadership

and teachers added that they are re-crafting the vision, to expand the definition to include elements

such as community partner involvement and arts integration, which parents and community

partners confirmed. School leadership and teachers further indicated that there is a focus on the

whole child – academic, emotional and social – as well as involving community partners. Continuing,

students and community partners reported that college and career readiness was the ultimate aim.

The site visit team observed that the vision was posted in the hallway and in classes, and in review

of a survey on re-structuring the vision, staff was asked to provide pluses and deltas, and examples

of questions included were: “What do you know? Should anything be changed?” in an effort to

make the school a viable option for the community. The school vision posted in the hallway read “...

A community school with an expectation of excellence among all stakeholders. We work

collaboratively and intentionally to address the academic, social, and emotional needs of all

students through an arts integrated approach.” Finally, parents and teachers noted the mission is

shared through newsletters and in announcements.

Students, staff, and families feel emotionally safe at the school, and staff, families and most

students feel physically safe at the school. Regarding emotional health, School leadership, teachers

and staff indicated that staff can share feedback via plus/delta forms after meetings, and staff feels

comfortable expressing their opinions. School leadership, parents, staff and teachers stated that

there are a variety of related service providers, including a social worker, psychologist and HOPE

health staff with whom students can discuss any issues or concerns, as well as teachers and school

leadership. Parents noted that the school is also supportive when families experience grief and loss.

Regarding physical safety, in focus groups, school leadership and teachers reported that the school

is safe, due to locked doors, security cameras, and the small size of the school. Additionally, school

leadership stated that the bathrooms have recently been renovated and that furniture is kept in

working order; parents confirmed that the school makes fixing things a priority. Parents further

reported that the staff is personable and parents play a role in safety as well. However, some

students noted that other student behaviors (such as fighting and lack of respect) can be an issue. A

review of the staff handbook revealed there is an emergency plan and procedures for various types

of drills, such as fire.

Key action 3.1: The school provides a safe and supportive learning environment for students, families, teachers, and staff.

Effective


School leadership establishes structures for the acknowledgement and celebration of student,

faculty and staff success. According to school leadership, teachers, community partners, students

and parents, students are celebrated through quarterly awards ceremonies, in which they receive

academic awards such as certificates for i-Ready performance. Additionally, school leadership,

students and teachers noted that students participate in monthly parties for perfect attendance,

such as dances in the school’s gym. Further, school leadership, teachers and students reported that

student’s get Cool Kids pictures (through the SFA program) displayed on bulletin boards in the

school for being the Cool Kid of the week. Regarding staff celebration, school leadership and

teachers stated that teachers are recognized as ‘staff member of the month’ and ‘jack of all trades’,

and participate in birthday celebrations with cupcakes during staff meetings. Teachers indicated that

they also receive Cool Teacher recognition, based on data entry and pacing in SFA. Review of emails,

certificates and staff bulletins confirmed shout outs and perfect attendance awards. Finally,

community partners noted that classes are recognized for perfect attendance over the

announcements, which the site visit team observed.

The school develops systems that proactively attend to individual students’ social and emotional

needs. According to school leadership, staff and teachers, the community school site coordinator

developed a form for teachers to complete and submit, to identify students who need anything

from uniforms to peer relationships and match them with resources accordingly; review of the

support referral form by the site visit team confirmed this process. Additionally, school leadership,

staff and teachers reported that the social worker provides supports to students who have

experienced grief and loss, or are new to the school to work on acclimating them, and also conducts

bullying prevention workshops for students. Further, school leadership and staff noted that the

school has staff who serves as success coaches for students, to check in with specific students who

are at risk for chronic absenteeism, according to data from the previous year. Continuing, parents

and staff noted that character education is built into the Success For All curriculum, and includes

topics such as regulating emotions and conflict resolution. Continuing, staff noted that there is an

after school mentoring program for students through Johns Hopkins University. Parents also

indicated that they receive grief resources via the school through Roberta’s House. Finally, school

leadership, staff and teachers stated that the school has a student support team, which includes a

social worker and clinicians/therapists from HOPE health, who can provide behavioral, emotional

and social supports to students who undergo the student support team (SST) process. A review of

an SST request for support form revealed that it included any known issues relating to concerns,

class work performance, student observations, class assessments, and more. Review of intervention

plans revealed that they included various objectives relating to areas of concern, whether academic

or behavior.


The school uses multiple strategies, languages and vehicles to communicate information about school

progress, policies, events, and the academic and social development of students to families and the

community. In focus groups, school leadership and teachers reported that the school communicates

with families in a variety of ways, including weekly newsletters (which community partners

confirmed), the school’s website, social media, letters, flyers progress reports, texts, emails and

Parent Link (an automated call system), which parents confirmed. Students confirmed that the school

communicates via letters, phone calls, texts and emails, and added that the school holds parent-

teacher conferences as well. Students, teachers and school leadership also noted the use of class dojo

as a tool to communicate with parents. School leadership, students and parents added that for

speakers of languages other than English, documents are translated (primarily in Spanish with the

assistance of the ESOL teacher and parent liaison) and translation services are available at school

events. Parent communication folders are also in English and Spanish, parents indicated. Community

partners noted that there is also a calendar in the school’s lobby. Review of flyers revealed they

covered a variety of topics - Back to School Night, the food pantry, open house and parents’ night out

– and review of letters revealed that they included a welcome from the principal, parent teacher

conference letters, the newsletter and translated letters as well. The weekly bulletin included topics

such as upcoming school events, community news and an open house that was open to community

partners as well.

The school establishes regular structures for two-way communication, which facilitate opportunities

for families and the community to participate in, or provide feedback on, school-wide decisions.

According to school leadership, teachers, community partners, students and parents, the school has a

School Family Council (SFC), which meets monthly and includes community partners as well as

parents, and just started a Parent Teacher Association (PTA). Review of an SFC meeting agenda

revealed that topics included discussion of the School Performance Plan and assessments (Amplify

and i-Ready) as well as enrichment opportunities, the school’s budget and climate/culture, which

parents and community partners also stated. Review of emails between the community school site

coordinator and parents also confirmed that the school has a PTA that is forming. Additionally, school

leadership, teachers and parents stated that the school hosts monthly ESOL breakfasts for families of

students who speak other languages at home; review of a flyer from September revealed that topics

discussed during a meeting in September included school rules, academics and supports for families,

and interpretation services were provided. Continuing, school leadership, teachers and parents noted

the school has family nights, such as Reading Night.

Key action 3.2: The school cultivates and sustains open communication and decision-making opportunities with families about school events, policies, and the academic and social development of their children.

Highly Effective


School leadership establishes multiple structures for frequent communication with teachers and staff

members regarding policies, progress and school culture. In focus groups, school leadership and

teachers stated that information is shared via staff bulletins (sent every Sunday), emails, texts, social

media and through conversations. Teachers added that information was also shared in meetings;

review of collaborative planning agendas included reminders from leadership. Review of the staff

bulletin revealed that topics included data entry in Power Teacher Grade book, expectations in the

staff handbook, the time and date of the faculty and SFC meetings, communication with parents,

detention and more.

School leadership, teachers, and staff build strong relationships with families and community

stakeholders from diverse backgrounds. According to school leadership and teachers, the community

site coordinator is the primary staff person responsible for building relationships with families and the

community, and garners resources from partners such as local churches and universities, a credit

union and area businesses. School leadership added that they host an inclusive winter program

around the holidays to which families are invited. Community partners and teachers stated that as

part of the school’s efforts to be an intentional community, staff builds relationships through

conducting community walks and home visits to meet and talk with various stakeholders and invite

them into the school community; the principal is also participating in community associations in the

Charles Village and Remington neighborhoods. Further, teachers and parents noted that school

events such as Open Houses and academic nights facilitate building relationships with families and the

community. Finally, in an effort to be intentional in building community, partners noted that the

principal is participating in professional development through Morgan State University.

The school’s curricula, resources and programs consider cultural and socioeconomic diversity; and are

planning to consider linguistic diversity. According to school leadership, students learn about other

cultures through books they read in their classes, such as Cinderella told from the perspective of other

cultures and the Success For All (SFA) curriculum, which included a unit on China recently, and

students performed in a Chinese Dragon parade. School leadership and teachers added that

celebrations throughout the year include an International Day and Black History Month celebration –

recently, there was an assembly to celebrate Hispanic Heritage month in order to engage families,

complete with a drumming performance. Regarding socioeconomic diversity, school leadership,

community partners, parents and teachers indicated that the school has a food pantry, with

distributions throughout the year at events such as Reading Night. Additionally, school leadership

indicated that students receive free uniforms and school supplies, which teachers confirmed, as well

as free vision screenings through Lens Crafters and teeth cleanings from mobile dental labs. Further,

parents, students stated that students participate in after school programs with Bridges through St.

Paul’s school. Continuing, community partners noted that parents can also receive employment

assistance via the student assistance referral form. Finally, school leadership reported that the school

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

Effective


plans to teach a foreign language through Rosetta Stone during the following semester, which review

of the principal’s budget tool confirmed.

The school is working to maintain a positive school culture and climate. According to school

leadership and teachers, the staff is positive and encouraging, messages clear expectations, and aims

to create an “intentional community.” Teachers added that staff participates in team building events,

such as bowling. Further, teachers and community partners noted the school is in a diverse

neighborhood, and families are encouraged to invest in the school. However, in focus groups,

teachers and staff reported that while the culture is positive overall, there is a need for a formal and

consistent student behavior management system in the school, regarding incentives or consequences.

Students also indicated that some their peers can be “out of control.” Parents noted that the school is

a positive place due to the small size of the school and the community, and communication has

improved with the new administration. School leadership noted that in order to de-escalate negative

climate situations, they facilitate restorative practice conversations. Lastly, staff noted that they assist

in preventing situations from escalating by attending to students who consistently exhibit

inappropriate behavior.



School leadership and teachers establish goals for the improvement of student learning that are

measureable and aligned to student need and school improvement. In focus groups, school leadership

and teachers reported that the goals in the School Performance Plan (SPP) include: 40% of students in

grades 3-8 who are below grade level in math and reading would be at or above grade level by the

end of the year, according to i-Ready data. School leadership added that based on data from last

year, there is a school-wide focus on Vocabulary for English Language Arts and Numbers and

Operations for Math. Further, school leadership, teachers and community partners stated that there

is also an attendance goal of 94.5%. Continuing, school leadership and teachers noted that

attendance committee and the Instructional Leadership Team (ILT) created the goals through a

collaborative effort. Review of the draft SPP confirmed all aforementioned goals.

School leadership ensures the alignment of some school goals, action plans and key priorities. School

leadership reported that in order to achieve the attendance goal, success coaches are assigned to

students at risk of being chronically absent, who serve as mentors to them. School leadership added

that regarding the academic goals, the school has intervention days two days a week, which are

school-wide, for English Language Arts and Math, as well as Success For All daily for literacy. School

leadership and community partners added that the school also has a Saturday program that serves as

an intervention for sixth grade students. While teachers confirmed the intervention blocks aligned

with academic goals, however, they could not articulate strategies aligned with the attendance goal. A

review of the SPP confirmed that intervention blocks are strategies aligned with the academic goals,

and revealed that additional strategies included small group instruction and math and literacy family

nights. Review of the SPP also revealed that perfect attendance awards and home visits were some of

the strategies indicated to achieve the attendance goal.

School leadership and staff participate in regular analysis of school-wide data and plan to revisit and

adjust action plans as needed. According to school leadership and teachers, the Instructional

Leadership Team (ILT) reviewed data from the previous school year to create the School Performance

Plan (SPP) for the current year, including goals, focus areas and strategies. Additionally, school

leadership and teachers reported that grade level goals were also created to be aligned with the SPP,

and interventions are discussed in ILT and collaborative planning meetings. Further, teachers noted

that there are check-ins with the administration to discuss progress towards goals, focusing on

progress monitoring, to determine if they are on track. A review of staff bulletins and ILT agendas

confirmed that staff discuss the SPP, school-wide strengths and weaknesses according to i-Ready

assessment data, and brainstorm to discuss strategies and interventions. Finally, school leadership

indicated that when mid-year data is available, the SPP will be re-visited.

Key action 4.1: The school establishes growth goals that guide strategic planning, teaching, and adjusting of practice to meet student needs.

Effective


Budget distributions and resource allocations support teaching and learning. According to school

leadership and teachers, the school’s budget adjustment allows for an additional social studies

teacher, who will begin in January; otherwise, there are no vacancies. Additionally, school leadership

reported that in grades kindergarten through third, there are two sections of each grade with

approximately twenty students in each class. Further, school leadership and teachers stated that

teachers have an abundance of supplies, and are able to submit wish lists in the beginning of the year,

most of which is fulfilled. Regarding technology, school leadership and teachers noted that the school

has a computer lab and three mobile laptop carts, as well as smartboards. Parents indicated there are

also iPads in the school. However, teachers noted that there are large class sizes in grades four and

five (over thirty), which school leadership confirmed, and there is a need for additional technology,

though teachers noted that leadership and the community schools site coordinator are doing

everything possible to secure additional technology through partners. A review of the budget tool

revealed that stipends are given to mentors and teachers who provide coach classes.

School leadership leverages teacher and staff talent, expertise, and effectiveness by delegating

essential responsibilities and decisions to appropriate individuals. According to school leadership and

teachers, teachers serve in various roles such as literacy and math representatives, and on Success

For All (SFA) Solutions teams, such as attendance and climate. Parents and teachers added that

teachers run after school clubs and activities, such as Mission Fit and sewing, as well as Saturday

classes for students. Further, teachers and school leadership noted that teachers serve on the ILT and

in specialized roles such as the testing coordinator and the arts integration coach for the school.

Continuing, school leadership reported that teachers that are rated as Highly Effective on formal

evaluations serve as mentors to new teachers. Finally, as noted earlier, school leadership indicated

that staff members serve as success coaches for students. A review of staff meeting agendas and

invitations sent to teachers confirmed that they serve on committees, and revealed that in addition

to attendance and climate there are committees for parent and family involvement and community

connections, which are focused on school improvement.

School leadership consistently provides and focuses common staff time on instructional practices and

development in support of student achievement. In focus groups, school leadership and teachers

reported that teachers participate in collaborative planning meetings twice per week for forty-five

minutes and discuss instruction, routine writing, and interventions, as well as conduct demonstration

lessons, provide peer feedback, and set goals. Staff added that special education teachers attend

collaborative planning meetings as well and discuss strategies and schedules. A review of

collaborative planning team meeting agendas confirmed that teachers discuss goals, peer feedback,

Key action 4.2: The school allocates and deploys the resources of time, staff talent, and funding to address the priorities of growth goals for student achievement.

Effective


interventions and routine writing and revealed that they review data and SMART Goals, as well as

Common Core State Standards.

The school collaborates with families and community partners to garner resources to meet the needs

of students and the school. According to school leadership, community partners and teachers, the

Homewood Community Partners Initiative and Johns Hopkins University have invested in the school

through funding for arts and specialty programs at the school, such as Arts Everyday instructors for

Music and Theatre and SFA. School leadership and community partners added that through the same

partnership, the principal has a mentor who is a retired principal from the district. Further, school

leadership and teachers reported that the Village Learning Place provides after school and summer

programming to students at no cost. Review of a project status update also revealed that Strong City

Baltimore is partnering to build a playground for the school. School leadership, community partners

and teachers noted that parents volunteer at the school in various capacities through a pledge to

volunteer at least two hours per quarter, such as in the cafeteria, in the office, tutoring students

through Story Pals and Math Matches and chaperoning field trips, which parents confirmed.


Performance Level Rubric

The SER team will use the following guidance to select a performance level for each key action. Note

that the quality standard for each performance level is based upon: the extent to which the SER team

finds multiple types1 and multiple sources2 of evidence AND the extent to which the SER team finds

evidence of high levels of adoption and/or implementation of a practice or system. The SER team will

also reflect on the Instructional Framework and School Leadership Framework in their analysis prior to

assigning a rating for each key action.

Rating Performance Level Quality Standard

1 Not Effective Evidence indicates that the key action is not a practice or system that has been adopted and/or implemented at the school, or the level of adoption/implementation does not improve the school’s effectiveness.

2 Developing Evidence indicates that the key action (including some indicators) is a practice or system that is emerging at the school, but that it has not yet been implemented at a level that has begun to improve the school’s effectiveness, OR that the impact of the key action on the effectiveness of the school cannot yet be fully determined.

3 Effective Evidence indicates that the key action (including most indicators) is a practice or system that has been adopted at the school, and is implemented at a level that is improving the school’s effectiveness.

4 Highly Effective Evidence indicates that the key action (including all indicators) is a practice or system that has been fully adopted at the school, and is implemented at a level that has had a strong, significant or sustainable impact on the school’s effectiveness.

1 “Multiple types of evidence” is defined as evidence collected from two or more of the following: document

review, stakeholder focus groups; and classroom observations. 2 “Multiple sources of evidence” is defined as evidence collected from three or more stakeholder focus groups;

two or more documents; and/or evidence that a descriptor was documented in 75% or more of lessons observed at the time of the visit.

Exte

nt

to w

hic

h S

ER T

eam

Fin

ds

Mu

ltip

le

Typ

es a

nd

Mu

ltip

le S

ou

rces

of

Evid

ence

Extent to which SER Team Finds Evidence of High

Levels of Adoption and/or Implementation

Evidence Relating to Strength of

Adoption/Implementation Key:

Not Effective:

Developing:

Effective:

Highly Effective:

Effective:

Highly Effective


Appendix A: School Report Comments


None


None


None


None


Appendix B: SER Team Members

The SER visit to the Margaret Brent Elementary/Middle School was conducted on November 3-4, 2015,

by a team of representatives from Baltimore City Public Schools.

Brianna Kaufman is the Manager for the School Effectiveness Reviews in the Office of Achievement and Accountability in Baltimore City Public Schools. Brianna began her career as an elementary art teacher in Bryan, TX. After obtaining her Master’s degree, she interned and worked at a number of art museums in the education department including the: Dallas Museum of Art, The National Gallery of Art in DC, and the Walters Art Museum. In 2008, Brianna made the shift from art education to general education reform as a Program Manager at the Fund for Educational Excellence. There she managed a grant from the Bill and Melinda

Gates Foundation that focused on College and Career Readiness. Prior to joining OAA, Brianna worked as the College and Career Readiness Education Specialist in the Office of Learning to Work at Baltimore City Public Schools. Brianna holds a Bachelor’s degree in elementary education from Texas Lutheran University, a Master’s degree in Art Education from University of North Texas, and a Master’s of Business Administration from Loyola University in Maryland.

Katherine Harris Toler is a Program Evaluator II in the Office of Achievement and Accountability in Baltimore City Public Schools. Prior to joining OAA, Ms. Toler was a District Mentor in the Office of Teacher Support and Development. In Baltimore City Public Schools, Ms. Toler has served as teacher, Academic Coach, Dean of Instruction, and High School Administrator. Ms.

Toler has also served as teacher in the Anne Arundel County Public School System, the Baltimore County Public School System and the Vance County Public School System in North Carolina. She holds a B.A. in English with a Concentration in Secondary Education from North Carolina Central University and a Masters of Education in School Improvement Leadership from Goucher College.

Mona Khajawi is a Program Evaluator II in the Office of Achievement and Accountability in Baltimore City Public Schools. She has had a variety of experience in the field of education, including teaching, program management and evaluation. Most recently, she worked in the capacity of Evaluation Specialist with City Year in Washington, D.C., assessing the quality of educational programming implemented by 140 AmeriCorps members in eleven schools

throughout the district. She initially gained exposure to evaluation while interning with the Academy for Educational Development, where she assisted in conducting reviews of a subset of the Gates-funded small schools in New York City. Previously, she also taught English in a rural high school in Ukraine, and served as an Assistant Program Coordinator of the AmeriCorps program at the Latin American Youth Center in Washington, D.C. Mona holds a Bachelor’s degree in English Literature from the University of Maryland, College Park, and a Master’s degree in Education Policy from Teachers College, Columbia University.

school effectiveness review - baltimore city public … · 2016-01-28 · school effectiveness...

Documents