MS SIG Indicator Rubric MS SIG Indicator Rubric – Revised June, 2014 1 ORGANIZATIONAL STRUCTURES Not Addressed or No Evidence Emerging/ Limited Evidence Full Implementation (Supported by Multiple Sources) Exceeds Standard (Sustained Practice and Aligned with Evidence of Impact) 1 2 3 4 1. LEA and school conducted needs assessment (NA) to inform the SIG implementation plan LEA and school conduct NA that does not include input and participation from all key stakeholder groups (parents, students, staff, community members) or omits critical data identifying needs, such as performance framework, fiscal, or school climate data. LEA and school conduct comprehensive NA that includes participation and input from a representative group of all external and internal stakeholders (parents, students, staff, and community members). NA determines needs through use of data collection instruments such as surveys, sign-in sheets, agendas, minutes, performance framework (leading and lagging progress data), and other school data to identify comprehensive school improvement goals. In addition to those stated in Full Implementation, LEA and school communicate results of NA with all staff and stakeholders through various means (newsletters, meetings, mail outs, events, and media) and continuously monitor and review NA priorities for school improvement (district and school leadership team meeting agendas, sign in sheets, minutes, MS SOARS entries). 2. LEA personnel are organized and assigned to support schools in their SIG implementation LEA organizational chart does not include all SIG assigned personnel and/or job descriptions lack specificity to support SIG implementation. LEA organizational chart includes SIG assigned personnel; job descriptions include prescribed duties and responsibilities to support SIG implementation. In addition to those stated in Full Implementation, LEA has a process in place to sustain school improvement efforts with locally funded personnel through a continuous review of their effectiveness in providing support to schools to increase student achievement and build staff capacity.
22
Embed
MS SIG Indicator Rubric - Indistar SIG ImplemmentRubric... · MS SIG Indicator Rubric 1 MS SIG Indicator Rubric – Revised June, 2014 ORGANIZATIONAL STRUCTURES Aligned with Evidence
This document is posted to help you gain knowledge. Please leave a comment to let me know what you think about it! Share it to your friends and learn new things together.
Transcript
MS SIG Indicator Rubric
MS SIG Indicator Rubric – Revised June, 2014 1
ORGANIZATIONAL STRUCTURES
Not
Addressed
or No
Evidence
Emerging/ Limited
Evidence
Full Implementation
(Supported by Multiple
Sources)
Exceeds Standard
(Sustained Practice and
Aligned with Evidence of
Impact)
1 2 3 4
1. LEA and school conducted needs
assessment (NA) to inform the SIG
implementation plan
LEA and school conduct
NA that does not include
input and participation from
all key stakeholder groups
(parents, students, staff,
community members) or
omits critical data
identifying needs, such as
performance framework,
fiscal, or school climate
data.
LEA and school conduct
comprehensive NA that
includes participation and
input from a representative
group of all external and
internal stakeholders
(parents, students, staff,
and community members).
NA determines needs
through use of data
collection instruments such
as surveys, sign-in sheets,
agendas, minutes,
performance framework
(leading and lagging
progress data), and other
school data to identify
comprehensive school
improvement goals.
In addition to those stated in
Full Implementation, LEA
and school communicate
results of NA with all staff
and stakeholders through
various means (newsletters,
meetings, mail outs, events,
and media) and
continuously monitor and
review NA priorities for
school improvement (district
and school leadership team
meeting agendas, sign in
sheets, minutes, MS
SOARS entries).
2. LEA personnel are organized and
assigned to support schools in their
SIG implementation
LEA organizational chart
does not include all SIG
assigned personnel and/or
job descriptions lack
specificity to support SIG
implementation.
LEA organizational chart
includes SIG assigned
personnel; job descriptions
include prescribed duties
and responsibilities to
support SIG
implementation.
In addition to those stated in
Full Implementation, LEA
has a process in place to
sustain school improvement
efforts with locally funded
personnel through a
continuous review of their
effectiveness in providing
support to schools to
increase student
achievement and build staff
capacity.
MS SIG Indicator Rubric
MS SIG Indicator Rubric – Revised June, 2014 2
ORGANIZATIONAL STRUCTURES
Not
Addressed
or No
Evidence
Emerging/ Limited
Evidence
Full Implementation
(Supported by Multiple
Sources)
Exceeds Standard
(Sustained Practice and
Aligned with Evidence of
Impact)
1 2 3 4
3. LEA modified policies and
practices to support full and
effective implementation
Evidence of policy
modifications in a few key
areas (e.g., increased
learning time, incentives,
leader/staff evaluations,
fiscal resources) and/or
limited evidence of
changes in practice based
on policy modifications to
support full SIG
implementation.
LEA modified policies and
practices supporting full
and effective SIG
implementation (e.g.,
extended learning time,
organizational chart,
incentives, master
schedules, fiscal
resources).
In addition to those stated in
Full Implementation, district
leadership team maintains a
documented process to
review policies and
practices (e.g., input from
stakeholders, frequency of
review, description of review
criteria).
4. LEA provides operational flexibility
to the principal to lead the school
improvement process
Principal flexibility
evidenced by written
statement or evidence of
adjustments in scheduling,
calendars, human and/or
fiscal resource allocations.
LEA provides operational
flexibility to principal as
documented by principal’s
written statement and
evidence of flexibility may
include adjustments in
scheduling, calendars,
human and/or fiscal
resource allocations.
District leadership team
monitors the effectiveness
of decisions made by school
leadership to
transform/turnaround
schools and sustain
successful practices (as
evidenced by agendas,
minutes, sign in sheets,
progress data by school).
5. LEA has established a district
turnaround office to support SIG
implementation
Turnaround office
staff/District Leadership
Team meets inconsistently
as evidenced by meeting
schedule, agenda/minutes;
at least one component of
MS SOARS is not
addressed (e.g.,
implementing, monitoring,
LEA has established a
district turnaround office
(District Leadership Team)
as evidenced by a
schedule of monthly
meeting dates; meeting
agendas/minutes. LEA
utilizes MS SOARS as the
system for implementing,
In addition to those stated in
Full Implementation, district
and school leadership
teams collaborate quarterly
to review MS SOARS data
and other resources (i.e.,
fiscal, curriculum,
professional development,
technical assistance) to
MS SIG Indicator Rubric
MS SIG Indicator Rubric – Revised June, 2014 3
ORGANIZATIONAL STRUCTURES
Not
Addressed
or No
Evidence
Emerging/ Limited
Evidence
Full Implementation
(Supported by Multiple
Sources)
Exceeds Standard
(Sustained Practice and
Aligned with Evidence of
Impact)
1 2 3 4
reporting); and/or
documentation of technical
assistance in supporting
SIG implementation is
minimal.
monitoring, and reporting
SIG data. LEA documents
site visits and technical
assistance provided to
school in supporting SIG
implementation.
ensure SIG implementation
support.
6. LEA and school recruit, screen,
and select external partners
Inconsistent knowledge
and/or implementation of
established written protocol
for recruiting, screening,
selecting external partners.
LEA and school establish
and implement a written
protocol for recruiting,
screening, and selecting
external partners (e.g.,
selection criteria, aligned to
SIG needs/goals) that is
communicated to all
stakeholder groups.
In addition to those stated in
Full Implementation, district
maintains a database/list of
external partners whose
services are aligned with
district improvement goals.
7. LEA and school clearly specify
expectations of external partners in
contracts and continuously
evaluate their performance
Contracts with external
partners contain goals,
deliverables, and
benchmarks of progress,
aligned with school
improvement goals. Semi-
annually, or twice a year,
evidence exists that the
LEA and school implement
processes to continuously
monitor and evaluate the
outcomes of specified
services and make
adjustments where needed.
Contracts with external
partners contain
deliverables and
benchmarks of progress
toward achieving school
improvement goals.
Quarterly, or four times a
year, evidence exists that
the LEA and school
implement processes to
continuously monitor and
evaluate the outcomes of
specified services, including
teacher input, and make
adjustments where needed.
In addition to those stated in
Full Implementation,
quarterly round table
meetings are held with
district and school
leadership teams, and all
external partners to gather
and provide multi-directional
feedback on services
provided, expected
outcomes and goals as
evidenced by meeting
agenda, minutes, sign in
sheets.
MS SIG Indicator Rubric
MS SIG Indicator Rubric – Revised June, 2014 4
ORGANIZATIONAL STRUCTURES
Not
Addressed
or No
Evidence
Emerging/ Limited
Evidence
Full Implementation
(Supported by Multiple
Sources)
Exceeds Standard
(Sustained Practice and
Aligned with Evidence of
Impact)
1 2 3 4
At a minimum, a semi-
annual meeting is held with
the school leadership team
to provide feedback on
services provided.
8. All teachers meet in teams (vertical
and horizontal) with clear
expectations and time for planning
Team meeting structures
and expectations are
established for all teachers
(e.g., schedule, agenda,
focus, minutes, and roster).
All teachers are meeting in
teams in accordance with
written, established
structures and expectations
as evidenced by agendas,
participant rosters, and
meeting minutes that reflect
instructional focus.
In addition to those stated in
Full Implementation, all staff
contribute to school wide
efforts to build a supportive,
collaborative culture, identify
common goals and
assessments, and monitor
and evaluate progress
toward those goals as
evidenced by an expanding
collection of exemplars for
teacher use (examples:
instructional tools/strategies,
rubrics, common
assessments).
9. LEA and school have increased
learning time for all students
LEA and school have
developed a plan to
increase learning time for
all students in core areas.
Implementation of plan may
have begun for targeted
students.
LEA and school are
implementing their plan for
increased learning time for
all students in core areas.
In addition to those stated in
Full Implementation,
evidence exists that
increased learning time is
differentiated according to
individual student needs.
LEA may also facilitate the
expansion of increased
learning time throughout the
district with the provision of
MS SIG Indicator Rubric
MS SIG Indicator Rubric – Revised June, 2014 5
ORGANIZATIONAL STRUCTURES
Not
Addressed
or No
Evidence
Emerging/ Limited
Evidence
Full Implementation
(Supported by Multiple
Sources)
Exceeds Standard
(Sustained Practice and
Aligned with Evidence of
Impact)
1 2 3 4
resources, professional
development, technical
assistance, and cross-
school collaboration.
10. School continuously evaluates the
effectiveness of increased learning
time
School identifies
benchmarks and expected
outcomes of increased
learning time and develops
measures to monitor
progress toward goals
(e.g., student participation,
individualized academic
plans, curriculum-based
assessments).
In addition to those stated
in Emerging/Limited
Evidence, data is collected
throughout the month and
provided to the school
leadership team at least
monthly for review of
progress toward goals and
decisions related to needed
adjustments in programs
(as evidenced in leadership
team meeting notes,
changes to increased
learning time programs).
In addition to those stated
in Full Implementation,
school includes surveys
from parents and
community on quality,
relevance, and usefulness
of current increased
learning time programs
semi-annually to
recommend programmatic
changes.
LEADERSHIP
Not
Addressed
or No
Evidence
Emerging/ Limited
Evidence
Full Implementation
(Supported by Multiple
Sources)
Exceeds Standard
(Sustained Practice and
Aligned with Evidence of
Impact)
1 2 3 4
1. Principal promotes a culture of
shared accountability for meeting
school improvement performance
objectives
Principal provides
inconsistent messages
regarding expectations
around shared
accountability for meeting
Principal extends message
of expectations for shared
accountability by promoting
a culture of participation,
responsibility, and
In addition to those stated
in Full Implementation,
principal promotes a culture
of responsibility and
ownership in the community
MS SIG Indicator Rubric
MS SIG Indicator Rubric – Revised June, 2014 6
LEADERSHIP
Not
Addressed
or No
Evidence
Emerging/ Limited
Evidence
Full Implementation
(Supported by Multiple
Sources)
Exceeds Standard
(Sustained Practice and
Aligned with Evidence of
Impact)
1 2 3 4
school improvement
performance objectives.
ownership at the school; and
engages in discussions with
internal stakeholders about
school improvement.
Teachers have meaningful
roles in decision-making
processes as evidenced by
interview data, meeting
agendas and minutes, and
participant rosters. Shared
accountability also includes
developing a culture of high
expectations that may be
evidenced by student work
displays, student
engagement, newsletters,
and collaborative teacher
planning focused on
performance objectives.
by networking with
community groups, serving
in active roles in the
community, or providing
continuous updates of
progress toward achieving
shared accountability for
meeting school
improvement performance
objectives.
2. Principal communicates a
compelling vision for school
improvement to all stakeholders
Principal communicates
vision statement and
school goals in a variety of
formats with staff, students,
parents, and community.
Principal communicates vision statement and school goals in a variety of formats with staff, students, parents, and community to remind all of the school’s common purpose. Refers to the school’s vision statement consistently to guide discussions and decision making (e.g., about curriculum, instruction, budget and time allocations, adoption of new programs).
In addition to those stated in Full Implementation, the principal helps staff and students create a shared understanding of how the school’s vision relates to and drives their daily work. Encourages members of the community to focus on how they can contribute to achieving the school’s shared vision. Works with feeder schools to ensure that school visions are
MS SIG Indicator Rubric
MS SIG Indicator Rubric – Revised June, 2014 7
LEADERSHIP
Not
Addressed
or No
Evidence
Emerging/ Limited
Evidence
Full Implementation
(Supported by Multiple
Sources)
Exceeds Standard
(Sustained Practice and
Aligned with Evidence of
Impact)
1 2 3 4
aligned across schools and with the school system.
3. School leadership team meets
regularly to manage the school
improvement process
School leadership team
meets less than twice
monthly to review progress
on performance framework
and addresses applicable
plans and tasks. Evidence
consists of documentation
of leadership team meeting
agendas and minutes in
MS SOARS.
School leadership team
meets at least two (2) times
monthly to review progress
on performance framework
and addresses applicable
plans and tasks. Leadership
team members share
responsibility for overseeing
and/or completing school
improvement task
implementation and
communicating progress to
the entire faculty on a
monthly basis. Evidence
consists of documentation of
leadership team meeting
agendas and minutes in MS
SOARS.
In addition to those stated
in Full Implementation, all
team members share the
responsibility for facilitating
leadership team meetings.
4. School leadership team
continuously uses data to drive
school improvement
School leadership team
collects data on a regular
basis from multiple
sources, but no connection
between analysis of data
and decision making is
documented.
School leadership team establishes a systematic and ongoing cycle of continuous improvement that includes data collection from multiple sources to identify accomplishments and challenges. Attention is focused on results through consistently asking questions to prompt reflection (e.g., In what ways
In addition to those stated
in Full Implementation, uses
multiple methods of
communication (examples:
data walls, newsletters and
Web updates) to convey
progress toward goals to all
stakeholder groups.
Networks with other districts
and/or schools regarding
successful school
MS SIG Indicator Rubric
MS SIG Indicator Rubric – Revised June, 2014 8
LEADERSHIP
Not
Addressed
or No
Evidence
Emerging/ Limited
Evidence
Full Implementation
(Supported by Multiple
Sources)
Exceeds Standard
(Sustained Practice and
Aligned with Evidence of
Impact)
1 2 3 4
is this helping to achieve our goals? What was the result? What can we learn?). Results of data analyses are used to make decisions about school improvement efforts and are documented in MS SOARS.