school effectiveness review - baltimore city public ... · the school effectiveness review ... on...

Office of Achievement and Accountability

Division of Research Services

School Effectiveness Review

2016 - 2017

National Academy Foundation

February 7-8, 2017

200 East North Avenue Baltimore, Maryland 21202

www.baltimorecityschools.org

2 Baltimore City Public Schools, 2016-17

Table of Contents

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Domain 4: Strategic Leadership ..................................................................................................................... 18

Performance Level Rubric.................................................................................................................................. 21

Appendix A: School Report Comments ............................................................................................................. 22

Appendix B: SER Team Members ...................................................................................................................... 23


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

National Academy Foundation serves approximately 835 students in sixth through twelfth grades. The school

is located on North Caroline Street in the Dunbar-Broadway neighborhood of Baltimore, Maryland. The

principal, Ms. Danielle Rembert, has been at the school for five 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. Developing

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.

Effective

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

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.

Developing


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

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

uses the Baltimore City Public Schools’ (City Schools’) curriculum for core subject areas, including

Agile Minds for Math.. Additionally, school leadership stated that for Career and Technology

Education (CTE) subject areas, they use the National Academy Foundation (NAF) curriculum and

industry standards for the academies (Finance, Information Technology, Engineering, and Hospitality

& Tourism) as well as Project Lead the Way (PLTW) (high school) and Gateway to Technology (middle

school) for engineering. Further, school leadership stated that they use Read 180, Do the Math and

Building Vocabulary as supplementary interventions. A review of lesson plans revealed that teachers

follow the district’s instructional model for the subject areas, and include Common Core State

Standards (CCSS). For example, in one lesson plan the objective was “Students will be able to draw

connections between Chinua Achebe’s purpose (why he wrote Things Fall Apart) and the poem The

Second Coming through poetry analysis/close reading in relation to the essential question and by

building upon background knowledge” and the CCSS were identified as ELA-Literacy R.L.9-10.2

(determining a theme or central idea), ELA-Literacy R.L.9-10.4 (determine meaning of words and

phrases), and ELA-Literacy R.L.9-10.9 (analyze how an author draws on and transforms source

materials in a specific work).

Teachers design daily lessons that meet learners’ unique needs. School leadership and teachers

reported that teachers include tiers/groups with different activities in lesson plans; which a review

of lesson plans confirmed. For example, in one lesson plan under the mini-lesson, students are

grouped according to their depth of knowledge. Tier 1: students will compare and contrast through

identifying specific literary elements; Tier 2: students will distinguish relevant and irrelevant

comparisons and use textual evidence to support its relevance within the story’s plot; Tier 3: students

will draw and justify Venn diagram elements using textual evidence. School leadership and teachers

further stated, and a review of lessons confirmed, that teachers include accommodations and

modifications for students in lesson plans.

Key action 1.1: Teachers plan highly effective instruction. Effective


Teachers do not consistently set and track goals based on students’ performance levels. According

to school leadership teachers set Student Learning Objectives (SLOs); which some teachers

confirmed. For example, a review of one SLO showed the goal as “Students in target group A will

achieve mastery growth of 0.75 by the end of year assessment on iReady. Students in target group B

will have a mastery goal of 1.0 by the end of year assessment on iReady”. In addition, the SLO stated

that the teacher will monitor student’s progress towards these goals through exit tickets, quizzes,

interim assessments, Agile Mind topic online assessments, and iReady tests. Further, school

leadership stated that teachers hold student conferences to let students know their achievements

and how they are progressing. Some teachers confirmed that they conduct student conferences

using iReady data. However, not all teachers could clearly articulate expectations of setting and

tracking goals based on student performance levels.

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

stated lesson objectives. In 95% of classes (n=20), lesson objectives identified the student learning

outcome and were communicated to students. Additionally, in 90% of classes the learning activities

and resources were aligned to lesson objectives. For example, in one classroom, the objective stated

that “students will be able to analyze the relationship between courage and bravery in order to

determine whether or not Mrs. Dubose becomes a sympathetic character” and the learning activity

and resources associated with the lesson objective included reading chapter 11 of the book To Kill a

Mockingbird.

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

of classes observed (n=20), content was grade-level appropriate and communicated accurately.

Further, in 100% of classes observed, teachers consistently modeled academic vocabulary and

standard grammatical structures. Finally, in 90% of classes, teachers presented content in two or more

ways to make content clear. For example, in one classroom the teacher presented the content to the

whole group and then had the students participate in a hands-on activity and complete a reflection

question.

Teachers use multiple strategies and tasks to engage all students in rigorous work. In 95% of

classrooms (n=20), all tasks had a clear and intentional purpose. Continuing, in 85% of classes,

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

tasks. Examples of scaffolding included a gradual release where the teacher first modeled the activity,

then students worked independently. In 70% of classes observed students had opportunities and time

to grapple with complex texts or tasks. For example, in one class students were asked to analyze a

primary source (political cartoons) as part of a lesson focused on freedom of speech.

Key action 1.2: Teachers deliver highly effective instruction. Effective


Teachers use evidence-dependent questioning. In 100% of classes observed (n=20), teachers asked

questions at key points throughout the lesson. In 95% of classes teachers asked questions that were

clear and scaffolded. Additionally, in 75% of classes teachers asked questions that required students

to justify, cite evidence or explain their thought processes at key points throughout the lesson. An

example of a class in which students had to justify or cite evidence included the teacher asking “based

on the information that you read about climate and the economy, what theory can you create that

addresses each of these topics? What is the relationship between the British and the Dutch?”

Teachers check for student understanding and provide specific academic feedback. In 95% of

classrooms (n=20), teachers conducted one or more checks for understanding that yielded useful

information at key points throughout the lesson. In 85% of classes observed teachers provided specific

academic feedback to students to communicate current progress and next steps to move forward.

For example, one teacher redirected students who were answering incorrectly and provided

scaffolding to support their responses.

Most teachers facilitate student-to-student interaction and academic talk. In 55% of classes (n=20),

teachers provided one or more opportunities for student-to-student interaction. The most frequent

examples of student-to-student interactions observed were partner turn and talks and small group

activities. In 50% of classes students engaged in discussions with their peers during student-to-student

interactions to make meaning or deepen their understanding of the content. One example of a small

group collaboration in which students deepened their understanding was when students had to

individually go to a corner of the room that matched whether they strongly agreed, agreed, disagreed,

or strongly disagreed with a statement (4 corners), discuss with their peers why they choose that

corner, and then pick a team leader to synthesize the information to share out with the whole group.

Additionally, in 90% of classes, students used academic talk or generated questions related to the

lesson content.

Teachers do not consistently analyze students’ progress toward goals. School leadership stated that

teachers are reviewing data to monitor students’ progress but currently there is not a formal school-

wide data process in which they are required to analyze data. Teachers stated that they use iReady

data reports and student profiles to help inform how they group students; which a review of an iReady

report needs analysis confirmed. Some teachers stated that during department meetings they review

trends across grade levels to identify students’ needs. Other teachers stated that school-wide data is

discussed during Instructional Leadership Team (ILT) meetings and then the information is

disseminated to teachers during department meetings.

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


Teachers modify instruction in response to data. School leadership stated that teachers use the iReady

lessons based on students’ profile reports. In addition, school leadership and teachers stated that

teachers are re-teaching during the Do Now activity, differentiating instruction, scaffolding and tiering

students into small groups. Some teacher also stated that they may modify their presentation of the

content (adding more visuals), quizzes, and homework assignments based on student’s needs. A

review of lesson plans confirmed that teachers are modifying instruction through mini-lessons (re-

teaching) and tiering of students which includes differentiation of objectives.

Teachers appropriately recommend students for tiered interventions (including opportunities for

acceleration). School leadership stated that they have strategically placed additional support of staff

in English and math classes to allow teachers to pull small groups and provide more differentiation

within their classes. A review of an ILT meeting agenda confirmed that the team was reviewing school-

wide flexible grouping during a November 30 meeting. Teachers stated that every student is enrolled

in a regular math class and an intervention math class for every grade. In addition, school leadership

and teachers stated that they offer interventions such as Read 180, Do the Math and approaches to

Algebra and geometry. A review of a Read 180 lesson plan confirmed that teachers are using this as

an intervention for 9th and 10th grader students. Teachers also identified APEX and NAF’s Evening

Academy as ways in which students could make up needed credits for graduation; which a review of

a flyer confirmed. As for opportunities for acceleration, school leadership stated that the school offers

honors courses in both middle and high school and Advanced Placement (AP) courses as well as the

engineering pathway (Project Lead the Way) for high school.

School leadership holds and promotes a clear instructional vision of high student achievement.

School leadership stated that the instructional focus is to personalize instruction for students through

tiering and flexible groups, differentiation, standard based objectives (Teach 1), and using Depth of

Knowledge or Bloom’s taxonomy to increase rigor (Teach 3). Teachers confirmed that the

instructional vision was focused on Teach 1 and 3 of the Instructional Framework. School leadership

and teachers stated that the vision was communicated through the ILT and peer-to-peer informal

observations focused on Teach 1 and Teach 3. A review of an ILT meeting agenda from October 5

confirmed that differentiation through tiering and assessing the peer review tool were topic items

covered. In addition, a review of peer-to-peer informal observations confirmed the following look

fors: purposeful tasks, scaffolding and differentiated tasks, opportunities to engage with complex

texts and rigorous tasks, students’ application of prior skills and learning, and student perseverance.

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


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

standards-based units, lessons, and pacing. School leadership and teachers stated that lesson plan

checks are conducted as part of the walkthrough tool and then feedback is given through the tool

and conversations with school leadership; which learning walk templates confirmed. In addition,

school leadership and teachers stated that lesson plans and pacing are discussed during collaborative

planning meetings with their content liaison. Further, school leadership stated that a lesson planning

template is required for Early Career Teachers (ECT). Teachers confirmed that lesson plans for ECT

are reviewed during the new teachers Professional Learning Community. Finally, school leadership

stated that district staff from the learning network are working with teachers in the math department

around pacing.

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

planning, teaching, and adjustment of practice. School leadership stated that teachers are conducting

peer to peer informal observations monthly that are focused on Teach 1 and Teach 3; which teachers

confirmed. Continuing, school leadership stated that they conduct walk-throughs and provide

feedback to teachers verbally and in written forms. A review of an informal observation form

confirmed that feedback is provided to teachers as praise, polish and next steps. Teacher also stated

that district support staff informally observe teachers and provide feedback during department

meetings; which a review of community learning network 9 classroom checklists confirmed.

School leadership demonstrates an understanding of data analysis; however, does not ensure the

use of a complete student learning data-cycle. School leadership stated that at the time of the site

visit they had not formally adopted a school-wide data analysis process. However, school leadership

stated that teachers know the basics steps of a data analysis cycle (plan, assess, teach, assess, and

adjust) and content liaisons make sure that teachers are using data to inform instruction during their

collaborative planning meetings. Some teachers confirmed that they are discussing data during their

collaborative planning meetings. However, teachers could not consistently speak to a complete

student learning data-cycle. A review of collaborative planning meetings revealed that some

departments are reviewing data such as Literacy Design Collaborative, iReady, PARCC, and agile mind.


Teachers build a positive, learning-focused classroom culture. In 100% of classes observed (n=20), all

teacher-initiated interactions with students were positive and respectful. Additionally, student-

initiated interactions with teachers were positive and respectful in 95% of classes observed. In 90% of

classes observed student-initiated interactions with their peers were positive and respectful. For

example, in one class a student was observed re-explaining directions of the assignment to another

student. Finally, in 80% of classes visited, students were actively engaged as participants in class work

and discussion.

Teachers reinforce positive behavior and sometimes redirect off-task or challenging behavior, when

needed. In 90% of classes (n=20), teachers promoted and reinforced positive behavior. For example,

a teacher was observed saying, “I like the way you answered that, good job.” Additionally, in 70% of

classes, less than 10% of students demonstrated off-task behavior or were not complying with the

lesson’s directions or activity. Finally, in 90% of classes, teachers spent less than 10% of their time

redirecting students. However, some teachers did not redirect all off-task behavior, and students were

observed sleeping in class or using their phones.

Teachers implement routines to maximize instructional time. In 90% of classrooms v (n=20), routines

and procedures ran smoothly with minimal prompting from teachers. For example, in one classroom

students were observed entering the room and immediately starting on the “Do Now” activity. In

addition, the teachers’ arrangement of the classroom and materials allowed for efficient classroom

movement and use in 90% of classes observed. Further, teachers spent less than 10% of instructional

time on transitions in 80% of classes. Finally, in 85% of classes observed students were idle waiting

for the teacher less than 10% of the time.

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

Effective



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

the diverse needs of all students. School leadership stated that they have hired tutors to push-in to

classes to support student’s academic needs in English and math classes. School leadership, teachers

and staff reported, and a review of the staff roster confirmed, the school has a full-time and part-

time guidance counselor, two full-time social workers, and a full-time psychologist on staff.

Continuing, school leadership and teachers stated that the school also has a College Bound advisor

for high school, three hall monitors and character coaches through C&C Advocacy to help with the

middle school. Finally, school leadership and teachers stated that the school has five academies

(Finance, Information Technology, Engineering, and Hospitality and Tourism) for career

development.

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

stakeholders in the assessment of candidates. According to school leadership and teachers the school

recruits from prospective staff from attending City Schools’ hiring fair, word of mouth, and some

alternative certification pipelines such as Teach for America (TFA) and Baltimore City Teaching

Residency (BCTR). In addition, school leadership stated that they also rely on the NAF’s advisory

board to help recruit industry leaders for the teaching positions within each academy. Further, school

leadership stated that the recruitment process includes a panel interview with school leadership,

teachers, and some students, a tour of the school, and a demonstration lesson by the candidate,

which teachers confirmed. A review of an email to a candidate outlined the steps in the interview as

three parts: 1) demonstration lesson 2) student interview 3) staff panel interview.

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

of effective teachers and staff. School leadership stated that they have professional development

days on Fridays, facilitated by the district’s strategic support team. In addition, school leadership and

teachers stated that teachers facilitated professional development during staff meetings. For

example, teachers stated that teachers have facilitated a discussion on Teach 1, the mandatory

reflection program, and differentiation for ESOL students. A review of a faculty meeting agenda from

January 10, 2017 confirmed that teachers facilitated a discussion on the mandatory reflection

program. In regards to retention, school leadership stated that to build a positive culture among staff

they created the NAF Niceties. A review of an email to staff stated that the vision of the NAF Niceties

is to “make work an easier place to live and give adults the opportunity to compliment each other

and lift each other up.” Teachers also stated that school leadership sends out a NAF Positivity

Communication email monthly based on a theme that includes an inspirational poem or story and

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


NAF kudos; which a review of emails confirmed. Finally, teachers indicated that “school leadership is

supportive and makes themselves available to teachers”.

School leadership has created mentoring and/or other induction programs, when applicable, to

support the development of all new teachers and staff and monitors the program’s effectiveness.

School leadership reported that the school has identified four site-based mentors to support all early

career teachers (with less than three years of teaching experience). Teachers confirmed that they

have a mentor and are receiving individual one-on-one support. In addition, school leadership and

teachers stated that early career teachers attend a new teacher PLC monthly to discuss topics such

as teaching strategies, differentiation, and scaffolding. A review of a NAF New Teacher PLC agendas

from September confirmed that new teachers are being provided resources and support around

lesson plans. School leadership and teachers also stated that the school held an induction in August

for all teachers new to NAF in which they discussed climate and culture. Finally, school leadership

stated that they monitor the program’s effectiveness by attending PLC meetings and communicating

with the content liaison on a regular basis.

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

According to school leadership and teachers, all teachers have received their formal evaluation,

which followed the City School’s process of a pre-conference, formal observation, and post-

conference/debrief. In addition, school leadership stated that they divide the formal observations

between the administrators. Teachers stated that the post-conference debrief includes suggestions

for improvement and next steps. A review of formal observations revealed that a rating is given for

each indicator, aligned with the Instructional Framework, as well as identifying areas of strength and

areas for improvement. For example, in one observation feedback suggested that the teacher ask

students to respond to questions by citing evidence stating that “this type of structure will create

independence in the students to perform T6 at the highest level.”

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, struggling teachers are identified through informal

walk-through observations and conversations with their content liaisons. Teachers confirmed that

struggling teachers are identified through informal and formal observations. Continuing, school

leadership stated that support is then provided to struggling teachers through their content liaison,

district network staff, district strategic support staff or alternative certification coaches. A review of

an email confirmed that the district’s strategic support team conducted walk-throughs and then

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


provided professional development to teachers on rigor and scaffolding. Teachers stated that

support is provided from the content liaison and their peers within their collaborative planning

sessions. Finally, school leadership reported that informal conversations with teachers and then the

use of a Performance Improvement Plans (PIP) holds teachers accountable. However, at the time of

the site visit, there were no teachers with a PIP.

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

identified needs and in alignment with the school’s instructional vision. School leadership stated that

the district’s strategic support team provides professional development to all staff once a month on

Fridays. In addition, school leadership and teacher stated that they receive professional development

during collaborative planning and staff meetings. School leadership stated that the first cycle of PD

was an introduction to differentiation and more rigorous instruction. Teacher confirmed

differentiation and added that topics have included scaffolding, close reading, and the Instructional

Framework. A review of NAF’s Professional Development Plan 2016-17 outlines meeting dates and

topics for the Faculty Meetings, Content Team Meetings, and Grade Level Team Meetings. For

example, content team meeting agenda topics include standard based instruction (Teach 2), the data

cycle, unpacking Teach 3, defining differentiation, and the difference between differentiation and

scaffolding.



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. School leadership,

teachers, students, parents, and community partners articulated the school’s mission and vision of

preparing students to be college and career ready. Continuing, school leadership stated that their

motto is “we can, we will, we must be future ready”; which students and teachers confirmed. A

review of school family council meeting agendas confirmed that the motto is printed at the bottom

and “NAF Be Future Ready” is printed on several other documents. Teachers and students stated that

the school is preparing them to be future ready through the different career academies (Finance,

Information Technology, Engineering, and Hospitality and Tourism) in which students earn a

certificate, and are preparing students for college through the advanced placement classes offered.

Finally, the school website confirmed that the school’s vision is “A college and career, academy-

based, public school dedicated to students’ achievement in academics, citizenship, and athleticism

in a transformative learning environment.”

Students, staff, and families feel physically and emotionally safe at the school. School leadership,

parents, and students stated that the school is physically safe, and attributed that to secure doors,

cameras, sign-in procedures, and drills. All stakeholders mentioned that hall monitors provide

another set of eyes that help ensure safety. A few teachers and parents stated that the middle school

building has more incidents of unsafe behaviors but teachers also stated that staff and administration

diffuse situations quickly. As for emotional safety, teachers and some students stated that the school

uses restorative practice, however it is more consistent in the middle school. Continuing, students

stated that they have adults in which they feel comfortable talking with, such as teachers, social

worker, and counselor. Finally, school leadership reported there is an open-door policy and all

teachers have the principal’s personal cell phone number. Teachers confirmed that the principal

makes herself available and most teachers stated that they can provide feedback or voice concerns

to school leadership.

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

faculty, and staff success. School leadership, students, and some teachers reported that the school

holds an athletic award dinner program. A review of the Fall Athletic Award Dinner Program

confirmed that students are recognized for different awards such as Scholar Athletes, Unsung Hero,

Outstanding Sportsmanship, and Most Valued Athlete. In addition, teachers and students reported

there is a student of the month and awards for honor roll, principals honor roll, and perfect

attendance. Parents confirmed that students are recognized for perfect attendance as well as

student of the month and the site visit team observed perfect attendance and student of the month

certificates posted in the hallway. According to school leadership and teachers, staff are

acknowledged and celebrated through staff events, NAF positivity communication, attendance

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

Effective


awards, NAF Niceties (peer shout outs), luncheons and random acts of kindness. Teachers also stated

that the hospitality committee recognizes staff birthdays and host social gatherings. A review of a

NAF Niceties from November confirmed that a staff member was thanked for going above and

beyond.

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

emotional needs. According to school leadership and teachers the school uses restorative practices

(a program that helps develop relationships and build community among students and staff as well

as offer a way to respond to conflicts), offers truancy court through the University of Baltimore (an

early intervention program that addresses the root causes of truancy) and has mentors for students

through My Brother’s Keeper and My Sister’s Keeper. Parents and students confirmed that

restorative circles are conducted in the middle school every morning. However, teachers stated that

it is only used as a reactive tool in the high school when conflicts occur. In addition, community

partners reported the school has a partnership with C&C Advocacy Inc., which provides

comprehensive mental healthcare to families and children. Teachers further stated that Johns

Hopkins Bayview provides an additional on-site therapist.

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. According to school leadership, teachers, parents, and students the school

communicates with families through Parent Link (an automated call system), flyers, letters, and

emails. In addition, school leadership reported using Facebook, the school website, class dojo, and a

Remind app as additional vehicles for communication. Continuing, school leadership and teachers

reported that the school translates documents into Spanish and uses Language Link (a translation

service) for those families whose primary language is not English. A review of flyers and letters home

confirmed these modes of communication.

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

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

School leadership, teachers, and students reported that the school has a School Family Council (SFC),

which meets monthly. A review of SFC agendas confirm meetings were held in October, November,

December, and January of this school year. School leadership also stated that the school holds grade

level meetings/family nights with students and parents. Students confirmed parent nights and adding

that the school had a back to school night. Finally, parents stated that the school has an open-door

policy however, it is challenging to get parents to attend events.

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.

Effective


School leadership establishes multiple structures for frequent, but not timely, communication with

teachers and staff members regarding policies, progress, and school culture. School leadership and

teachers stated that the main communication method is through email. Further teachers stated that

school leadership uses the Remind app, texts, automatic calls, and announcements to

communication information with them. However, teacher also stated that in some cases the

communication is not timely and last minute. A review of emails to staff and a NAF Non-Negotiables

and Expectations document confirmed these staff communication methods.

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

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

school builds relationships with the community through its advisory board in which members are

comprised of representatives from businesses and organizations throughout Baltimore City who

serve as mentors and provide internships for students. Further, community partners stated that the

advisory board helps support the school to ensure that students receive industry certification. In

addition, teachers stated that the school holds events, such as Restaurant Night, in which families

are invited. Finally, teacher and students stated that the school has a MECU student branch inside

the school where the finance students work and is open to students and staff.

The school’s curricula, resources and programs consider cultural diversity and some linguistic and

socioeconomic diversity. School leadership, teachers, parents, and students reported that students

in the international club are taking a trip to Europe (high school) and Puerto Rico (middle school) over

spring break. In addition, school leadership stated that speakers from diverse backgrounds will speak

to students related to topics studied in class or career fields, such as a Holocaust survivor. School

leadership, teachers, and students stated that some students saw the movie Hidden Figures. School

leadership, teachers and students reported, and a review of the master schedule confirmed that

Spanish is offered in high school only. In addition, school leadership reported that they are working

to increase their ESOL population by becoming a newcomer’s center. School leadership and teaches

stated that the school has a food bank. In addition, teachers stated that the school provides uniforms,

has a washer and dryer on-site, helps with the cost of field trips, and provides dental check-ups to

students in need. Parents and students confirmed that uniforms are provided. Finally, school

leadership and staff reported that the school has a food pantry through the Maryland Food Bank and

provides food baskets during holidays to families and the community.

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

Developing


The school is working to maintain a positive school culture and climate. School leadership stated that

the school is comprised of two buildings, one for high school and one for middle school. Continuing,

school leadership stated that the middle school building has more challenges but they are working

to improve the climate and culture. For example, school leadership stated that the middle school

uses restorative circles and mandatory reflection time has helped to improve the climate and reduce

suspension. Parents and students also echoed the challenges the middle school building faces stating

that they needed more hall monitors. In addition, teachers and students stated that there are also

some tensions between the African American and the Latino students and more attention needs to

be made to address this division. Teachers stated that the high school building has a staff member

that monitors the front door and helps direct visitors to the office, which the site team observed. In

addition, parents stated that the hall monitors in the high school building provide a calmer climate.

While on site, the team observed smooth transitions within the high school, while the middle school

building the site team observed students horse playing in the halls.



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

measureable and aligned to student need and school improvement. School leadership and teachers

reported that the school’s goals are to increase iReady scores for both reading and math by at least

1.5 years growth. In addition, school leadership and teachers stated that they have an attendance

goal. Teachers further stated that the goals were developed by the ILT, which includes the

department lead . A review of the School Performance Plan (SPP) showed that the school goals are

as follows: “1) 20% of students taking the [BOY] I-Ready Assessment will increase their reading level

by 1.5 grade levels as measured by the [EOY] I-Ready Assessment in May 2017. 2) 15% of students

taking the [BOY] I-Ready Assessment will increase their Math level by 1.5 grade levels as measured

by the [EOY] I-Ready Assessment in May 2017. 3) The school's overall attendance rate will increase

to a year-long average of 91%. Finally, 4) There will be a decrease in the amount of students who

have a GPA of under 2.0 in core classes from the end of year ILT tool of June 2016 to the end of year

ILT tool for June 2017 - High School Building will go from an overall 66.0% down to 50% or lower and

Middle School Building will go from 28.7% to 19% or lower thereby decreasing the amount of

students in this early warning indicator.”

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

leadership stated that their instructional goal was to take a deep dive into Teach 3 (use strategies

and tasks to engage all students in rigorous work) of the Instructional Framework, specifically focused

on differentiation, flexible/small groups, guided instruction, and tiering tasks. In addition, school

leadership stated that departments have additional goals. For example, a review of documents

confirmed that the English department set the following goal “40% of students taking the BOY iReady

assessment will increase their grade level by 1.5 reading levels as measured by the EOY iReady

assessment in May 2017”. Teachers confirmed stating that the social studies department is focusing

on writing, the science department is focused on project based learning, and the English department

is focused on vocabulary. School leadership also stated that as part of being a strategic academic

support school they are using Read 180, Achieve 3000, and close reading; which a review of the SPP

and teachers confirmed. School leadership and teacher also mentioned using truancy court and

home visits to support the attendance goal.

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

action plans as needed. School leadership and teachers stated that the ILT meets weekly. Further

school leadership and teachers stated that the ILT reviews the ILT tool monthly as well as a variety of

other data such as iReady scores, GPA, and PARCC. A review of ILT meeting agendas confirm that

they are discussing the following: professional cycle of learning, classroom observations, close

reading strategies, iReady data, CEO’s three focus areas, differentiation and tiering of instruction. In

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

Effective


addition, school leadership stated that they adjusted their SPP academic goals early after reviewing

some baseline data of their incoming students, decreasing from 40% of students to 20% and 15%. In

addition, school leadership stated that they had to adjust some of their strategies by bringing in

tutors and training them on Read 180. A review of a push-in support schedule confirmed this

adjustment as an additional strategy.

Budget distributions and resource allocations somewhat support teaching and learning. School

leadership and teachers stated that they have a couple of teacher vacancies. Further, teachers stated

that staff is not sufficient due to these vacancies, large class sizes, and the growing ESOL population.

Further, teachers and students stated that they have insufficient instructional materials, such as

books and paper. However, school leadership reported that the school has enough supplies but that

they purposefully ration it out to ensure enough for the whole year. Regarding technology, school

leadership and teachers indicated that the school needs more technology. School leadership

reported that they have some tablets, laptops, iPads, and a computer, however some of the

technology is earmarked for specific programs and this limits who has access to them. In addition,

teachers and students stated that some of the technology is not functioning properly.

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

essential responsibilities and decisions to appropriate individuals. School leadership and teachers

stated that teachers can serve on a variety of school committees such as: hospitality, attendance,

climate, school store/finance. In addition, school leadership stated that teachers serve as content

liaisons or experts supporting other teachers, serve as mentors, and participate on the ILT; which

teachers confirmed. A review of an ILT meeting agenda from November 9 confirmed that the content

liaisons shared information from peer reviews and identified trends. Teachers further stated that

school leadership does a great job of empowering teachers by having them lead professional

development sessions. Finally, teachers stated that teachers serve as grade level advisors, help with

prom, and write grants.

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

and development in support of student achievement. School leadership and teachers reported that

teachers meet during a common planning time weekly by department; which a review of the daily

planning period schedule confirmed. Further, teachers stated that the team lead facilitates these

meetings and topics discussed may include: Instructional Framework, close reading, or classroom

management. In addition, teachers stated that the agenda is set based on the previous ILT meeting’s

content and identified needs of teachers or the school. A review of a math collaborative team

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.

Developing


meeting agenda showed that teachers were reviewing lesson plans and discussing the Teach

indicators of the Instructional Framework.

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

needs of students and the school. School leadership, teachers, students, and community partners

reported that the school has a variety of partnerships with local businesses that offer job shadowing

and internships opportunities to students, such as Northrup Grumman, Hilton and Marriott hotels,

Cisco and MECU. A review of a partnership list confirmed the following partners: Domino Sugar,

Living Classrooms, Hyatt Hotel, Embassy Suite, Northrup & Grumman, Whiting-Turner, MECU, Urban

Alliance, and Whitman, Requardt & Associates, LLP. In addition, school leadership, teachers, and

community partners stated that they have a partnership with Travelers Insurance that provides

support for the student trip to Europe. A review of the January 23, 2017 meeting agenda with

Travelers Insurance showed that nine students are going on a global excursion trip departing April

5th -15th visiting London, Paris, and Barcelona. Finally, school leadership stated that some parents

volunteer to help with athletic events, however teachers stated that it is difficult to get parents

involved at the school.


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 National Academy Foundation was conducted on February 7-8, 2017 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.

Jessica Hargest is a Program Evaluator II in the Office of Achievement and Accountability in Baltimore City

Public Schools. Jessica began her career as a first grade teacher in Montgomery County Public Schools.

She then worked as a pre-kindergarten and Kindergarten teacher in a private setting. In those roles, she

was responsible for developing the curriculum, and ensuring the rigor of instruction aligned with the

needs of her students, and the community. Jessica then worked as the director of an early learning center

in Baltimore County. Most recently, she worked for the Governor’s Office for Children as a policy analyst.

Her primary function in that role was to ensure contract compliance with grantees. Jessica has her

Bachelor’s degree in Elementary Education from the University of Maryland, College Park. She is in the

process of completing her Master’s in Education for At Risk and Diverse Learners from Goucher College.


Christopher Wohn is a Program Evaluator II in the Office of Achievement and Accountability in Baltimore

City Public Schools. Dr. Wohn works on the Research Services team where he assists the District with

analysis of assessment data, early warning indicators of student success, and the evaluation of school

programs. Dr. Wohn was a teacher for three years in a Baltimore City High School where he taught

chemistry, physics, and the Project Lead the Way (PLTW) biomedical sciences curriculum. He received his

teaching certificate through the Baltimore City Teaching Residency (BCTR) program in 2013. He has a B.S.

in Biochemistry from the University of Maryland in College Park and a M.D. from the University of

Maryland Medical School.

Maria Jison was a teacher for 19 years teaching 6th grade Math for students with disabilities. She is

originally from the Philippines and was hired by Baltimore County Public She taught in Sussex County

Virginia and Prince Georges County in Maryland. Then in 2011 she had the opportunity to work for the

Bureau of Indian Education in New Mexico as the Director of Special Education in Alamo Navajo

Community Schools. She then returned to Maryland after 2 years and Baltimore City was hired as an

Educational Specialist Academics for Special Education however due to a restructuring the team was

transitioned to Teaching and Learning Department of Differentiated Instruction.

Dr. Lorraine Wizda worked as a school psychologist for 25 years and a supervisor of school psychologists

for 5 years. She has also served as a Coordinator in Student Support Services working with problem solving

teams, as a specialist for Special Education (academics), and teaches at the college level. She has a PhD

in School Psychology with a focus on urban issues. Currently she works with the Office of Differentiated

Learning as an Educational Specialist for Multi Tiered Systems of Support. She works on the District level

MTSS plan and also provides support to the six SWIFT partnership schools (School Wide Integrative

Framework for Transformation). This is a Federal U.S. Department of Education grant funded project

focusing on providing supports to all students, teachers, and families.

school effectiveness review - baltimore city public ... · the school effectiveness review ... on...

Documents