Redesign Plan

Implementation Timeline and Benchmarks - Guidance

Draft as of 06/17/10

Provided below are sample portions of an Implementation Timeline and Benchmarks to support districts and schools in developing action strategies and measurable benchmarks for each Essential Condition of School Effectiveness, as called for in the Redesign Plan.

The following pages provide examples of measurable implementation benchmarks for two district/schools at different levels of need. Example #1 is a district/school that has some systems in place (Mid Capacity). Example #2 is a district/school that is lacking in a number of core functions (Low-Capacity). Additional descriptions of each scenario used to generate each example are provided below.

Please note:Though the Implementation Timeline and Benchmarks should address all 11 essential Conditions For School Effectiveness across the three-year timeframe of the Redesign Grant, as well as the requirements of the selected federal intervention model (turnaround, transformation, or restart), districts can prioritize, order, and group strategies being implemented in a way that makes the most sense to implement their proposed redesign plan. Districts should not feel confined by the format of the table presented on page 12 of the Redesign Plan Requirements document. For example, certain strategies might address more than one essential condition and districts may cross-reference as needed and this encouraged wherever possible.

Example 1 - Mid-Capacity District – Transformation Model

The district used in this example proposes a plan to implement the Transformation intervention model in the selected middle school It has a strong core of teacher leaders and a functioning instructional leadership team, but a history of high principal turnover and internal resistance to taking risks, sharing information, and changing the school schedule. As a result, the strong teacher leaders tend to work together and provide high quality instruction in their own classrooms. The quality of instruction in other classrooms varies widely, and there is no accepted system within the school to hold teachers accountable for using effective classroom routines and instructional strategies. The district has a process for placing high quality principals in schools, but previous efforts to build leadership capacity in this school have been derailed due to a lack of principal flexibility/autonomy to make structural changes.

One would expect benchmarks for some of the other Essential Conditions to address principal autonomy, as well as other factors. For instance, we might expect that strategies and benchmarks around using coaches, or team leaders, to monitor and support content area teachers, to be included in EC-Professional Development. Similarly, we might expect strategies and benchmarks related to the development and implementation of a school schedule that provides teachers with daily and weekly common planning time and additional time for student supports. Additionally we would expect strategies and benchmarks for collecting and analyzing student data to be included in EC-Assessment, and to be linked to the work of the teachers in team meetings and in common planning time.

Example 1 - Mid-Capacity District –Transformation Model, continued

Essential Conditions

/

Strategies Summary

Effective district systems for school support and intervention
The district has systems and processes for anticipating and addressing school staffing, instructional, and operational needs in timely, efficient, and effective ways, especially for its lowest performing schools. / 1.
2.
3.
Effective School Leadership
The district and school take action to attract, develop, and retain an effective school leadership team that obtains staff commitment to improving student learning and implements a clearly defined mission and set of goals. /
  1. Hire new principal (Transformation 1A)
  2. Development of written code of conduct for student behavior, classroom routines, and professional interactions.
  3. Development of clear and written instructional guidance around core instructional strategies, focusing on Math.
  4. Development and implement a school schedule that provides teachers with daily and weekly common planning time.
  5. Partner with <external provider> to train staff on effective use of team meetings and professional learning.
  6. Develop and implement pilot teacher and administrator evaluation systems with financial incentives (for recruitment) and rewards (for retention) in accordance with federal requirements(Transformation 1B, 1C, 1D)

Principal’s staffing authority
The principal has the authority to make staffing decisions based on the School Improvement Plan and student needs, subject to district personnel policies, budgetary restrictions and the approval of the superintendent. / 1.
2.
3.
…

Example 1 - Mid-Capacity District – Transformation, continued

Effective School Leadership - Detail

Description of Strategies to address Effective School Leadership
Based on our needs assessment and experience working with <school A>, the following actions and strategies will be implemented to support School A’s implementation of its Transformation Model. Under the leadership of its new principal, School A will develop and implement a written code of conduct for student behavior, classroom routines, and professional interactions. Similarly, the school will develop clear instructional guidance around core instructional practices, focusing in particular on Mathematics. The school’s existing leadership team, including the new principal, will work with <external provider> over the summer (August) to examine the school’s current schedule and develop, to be implemented in fall 2010, a schedule that provides professional staff with daily and weekly dedicated common planning time. Over the course of the 2010-11 school year, the leadership team will work with <external provider> to develop and implement common protocols for teacher and administrator team meetings, including training on how to use data to modify instruction. Training will be coordinated with the school’s implementation of Tiered Instruction as a schoolwide approach. School A will be required to implement the district’s to-be-developed teacher evaluation system beginning in Year Two (September 2011).

Strategies (activities, initiatives, training)

/ Year One Measurable Benchmarks / Year Two and Year Three Benchmarks
Strategy #1
(Transformation 1A[1])
Hire new principal /
  • Principal is hired by August 1, 2010, (Artifact)[2]
/ Principal continues to lead the school, contingent on attainment of mutually agreed upon measurable benchmarks
Strategy #2
Development of written code of conduct for student behavior, classroom routines, and professional interactions /
  • Code of conduct written and approved by school leadership team by October 1, 2010, as evidenced by the Code of Conduct (Artifact)
  • Training on code of conduct provided to school staff by November 1, 2010, as determined by training agenda (Artifact)
  • Specified classroom routines are used regularly in 75 percent of all classrooms (4/2011), as evidenced by a target learning walk protocol (Monitoring):
/ Year Two Benchmarks
  • Written code of conduct is understood by 90 percent of staff (November 2011)
  • Specified classroom routines are used regularly in 85 percent of all classrooms (12/2011)
Year Three Benchmarks
  • Specified classroom routines are used regularly in 95 percent of all classrooms as determined by a learning walk protocol (12/2012)

Strategy #3
Development of clear and written instructional guidance around core instructional strategies, focusing on Math.
(Also applies to EC – Effective Instruction) /
  • Instructional guidance developed approved by school leadership team by November 1, 2010, as evidenced by a written instructional guidance document (Artifact)
  • Training on instructional guidance provided to school staff by January 15, 2010, as evidenced by training agenda (Artifact).
  • Specified instructional strategies are used regularly in 60 percent of all classrooms by April 2011, as evidenced by data collected through a learning walk protocol (Monitoring).
/ Year Two Benchmarks
  • Specified instructional strategies are used regularly in 80 percent of all classrooms (December 2011)
Year Three Benchmarks
  • Specified instructional routines are used regularly in 90 percentof all classrooms as determined by a learning walk protocol (December 2012)

Strategies (activities, initiatives, training)

/ Year One Measurable Benchmarks / Year Two and Year Three Benchmarks
Strategy #4
Development and implement a school schedule that provides teachers with daily and weekly common planning time
(Also applies to EC – Professional Development) /
  • New school schedule is implemented at the beginning of the 2010-11 school year, as evidenced by documented school schedule (Artifact)
  • Redesign team meets to evaluate strengths and weaknesses of the common planning time schedule and to propose modifications by June 2011, as evidenced by team meeting agenda and written analysis of strengths and weaknesses (Artifact)
/ Year Two Benchmarks
  • Revised school schedule is implemented at the beginning of the 2011-12 school year.

Strategy #5
Partner with <external provider> to train staff on effective use of team meetings and professional learning
(Also applies to EC – Professional Development) /
  • All school staff receive training on team meeting protocols and routines by December 2010, as evidenced by training agenda (Artifact)
  • Targeted professional learning strategies are implemented in 80 percent of content area and grade-level teams by April 2011, as evidenced by (1) evidence of protocols in written agendas (Artifact), (2) data collected through the Common Planning Time self-assessment toolkit (Monitoring): , and (3) survey of teachers related to knowledge acquisition and use of protocols and routines (Evaluation).
/ Year Two Benchmarks
  • System to monitor and support teacher planning time is implemented (9/2011)
  • 70 percent of teachers report that teaching planning time is “very useful” (4/2012)
  • Targeted professional learning strategies are implemented in 100% of content area and grade-level teams (4/2012)
Year Three Benchmarks
  • Targeted professional learning strategies are implemented in 100% of content area and grade-level teams (4/2013)

Strategy #6
(Transformation 1B, 1C, 1D)
Develop and implement pilot teacher and administrator evaluation systems with financial incentives (for recruitment) and rewards (for retention) in accordance with federal requirements[3] /
  • District and school leadership, teachers, and applicable collective bargaining representatives will conduct monthly planning sessions (September 2010-11 to March 2011) to discuss and develop these new evaluation/incentive/reward systems, as evidenced by planning meeting agendas and participant attendance sheet demonstrating participation of all stakeholders (Artifact).
  • A new teacher evaluation/incentive/reward system meeting federal requirements will be adopted by March 2011, or the district will adopt the model teacher evaluation contract language being developed by ESE, as documented by formal school committee adoption, in meeting notes (Artifact).
  • A new administrator evaluation/incentive/reward system will be adopted by March 2011, as documented by formal school committee adoption, in meeting notes (Artifact).
  • Teacher roundtables will be conducted describing the new evaluation and incentive systems (April – June 2011), as evidenced by agendas from teacher roundtables.(Artifact)
  • New staff will be hired using new incentive system (Spring-Summer 2011), as evidenced by written policy and hiring of teachers (Artifact)
/ Year Two Benchmarks
  • All teachers and administrators will be evaluated and rewarded using the new system (6/2012)
  • Subcommittee of teachers/principal will meet to tweak and evaluate the new system (June 2011)
Year Three Benchmarks
  • Staff reassignments will be made in accordance with district policy (9/2012)
  • Teachers and principal will continue to be evaluated and rewarded using the new system. (6/2013)

Developed by Brett Lane, INSTLL LLC, with the Massachusetts Dept. of Elementary and Secondary Education – Draft as of 6/15/10 1

[1]Transformation 1A: Replace the principal who led the school prior to commencement of the transformation model;

[2]Types of evidence include: (1) Artifacts (e.g., items generated as a result of an activity demonstrating that an action/meeting/training took place); (2) data collected through current or to-be-developed Monitoring Systems (e.g., learning walks, peer observations); and (3) data collected through External Evaluations (e.g., to document changes in culture, instructional practices, professional interactions)

[3]Transformation 1B: Use rigorous, transparent, and equitable evaluation systems for teachers and principals that-- (1) Take into account data on student growth as a significant factor as well as other factors such as multiple observation-based assessments of performance and ongoing collections of professional practice reflective of student achievement and increased high school graduations rates (2) Are designed and developed with teacher and principal involvement.

Transformation 1C: Implement such strategies as financial incentives, increased opportunities for promotion and career growth, and more flexible work conditions that are designed to recruit, place, and retain staff with the skills necessary to meet the needs of the students in the transformation school.

Transformation 1D: Identify and reward school leaders, teachers, and other staff who, in implementing this model, have increased student achievement and high school graduation rates (if applicable) and identify and remove those who, after ample opportunities have been provided for them to improve their professional practice, have not done so