| 2011-12 | KIPP Believe Primary | In Y1 teacher preparedness for students is rated universally high (8-10/10 ratings) in all domains except the social status of students (a single 5 rating). KPB demonstrates consistency across the school regarding teacher performance standards, and there is a plan in place for teachers not meeting their performance standards. | In Y2, the CMO controls much of the PD and performance evaluations. Teacher autonomy is rated inconsistently. Ratings of teacher preparedness for student behavior remains high. | In Y3, the CMO controls a quarter of performance evaluations and PD at KPB. Teacher autonomy is rated high (8 and 10). | | In Y5, there seems to be more teacher specific than schoolwide standards. Teachers' preparedness for both student academic status and student behavior remain highly rated (8-10/10). | In Y1, KBP demonstrates consistency regarding teacher performance standards, and there is a plan in place for teachers not meeting their performance standards. Support for staff from the school leader regarding preparation to teach is rated highly. Teacher preparedness in other domains (academic status of students, professional climate, student behavior) is rated highly as well with a single respondent rating a single domain at 5. In Y2, the CMO controls much of the PD and performance evaluations. Teacher autonomy is rated inconsistently. In Y3, the CMO controls a quarter of performance evaluation and PD functions. Teacher autonomy is rated consistently and highly in Y3. In Y5, there seems to be more teacher specific than schoolwide standards. Teacher preparedness for both academic and behavioral status of students is rated highly. |
| 2011-12 | Clark | In Y1, Clark demonstrates consistency across respondents regarding performance standards. In Y1, ratings of teacher preparation are high (10/10) in terms of Clark's professional climate, support from school leader, and the social status of their students. However, preparedness for student behavior is more mixed, ranging from 2-9/10. Similarly, preparation for the academic status of students ranges from 3-8/10. | Teacher preparedness to manage student behavior is rated inconsistently in Y2 (range from 5-9 out of 10). | | | In Y5 we see little change from Y2 regarding preparedness for the academic status of students but improvement in preparedness for student behavior. In Y5, Clark is more focused on individual classroom goals than schoolwide standards. | In Y1, Clark demonstrates consistency across respondents regarding performance standards. For teachers not hitting those standards, the school has a detailed intervention plan laid out; however, not all respondents are fully aware of that plan. Teacher preparedness is rated high for all domains except student behavior, which receives mixed ratings in both Y1 and Y2. In Y5, Clark seems more focused on classroom goals than the standards set by the principal. |
| 2011-12 | Tubman | In Y1 teacher preparedness for the academic status of students is rated lower than preparedness for social status, student behavior, professional climate or support from the principal. Tubman does not demonstrate consistency across adults in the building regarding performance standards for teachers, but this may be an artifact of Tubman differentiating standards per grade. | In Y2, respondents disagree on whether student performance affects PD. The CMO doesn't contribute to performance evaluations or PD. Preparedness for student behavior is rated slightly higher than in Y1 (which was already high: 7 or 8/10 in Y1, 8.5 or 9.5/10 in Y2). | | | In Y5, Tubman demonstrates consistency regarding teacher standards. Preparedness for the academic status of students and student behavior is rated highly (7-9/10). | In Y1, preparedness for the academic status of students is rated lower than readiness in other domains (social status of students, student behavior, professional climate, support from principal). Tubman does not demonstrate consistency regarding performance standards, but differences could be accounted for by differences in standards per grade. Tubman has a plan for teachers who are not meeting academic targets, but respondents are inconsistently or only vaguely aware of the plan's details. Support for staff by the school leader is rated high. In Y2, Tubman is inconsistent regarding whether student performance affects PD. The CMO does not contribute to performance evaluations or PD. In Y5, Tubman does come to demonstrate consistency regarding teacher standards. Further, Tubman rates preparedness for both academic status and behavior of students highly. |
| 2012-13 | Carver Prep | In Y1, Carver Prep demonstrates consistency regarding the understanding of teacher performance standards. No consistent plan is in place for teachers who do not meet performance targets. Ratings of support from school leader to prepare teachers to teach are incredibly high. All domains of preparedness are rated highly. | Teacher preparedness ratings for student behavior remain high (8-9/10). | In Y3, Carver Prep demonstrates consistency regarding the performance standards for teachers. For teachers who don't meet performance targets, there seems to be a consensus around the idea of solution-focused steps and feedback. | In Y4 teacher preparedness for both academic status of students and student behavior are rated highly (8-10/10). | | In Y1, Carver Prep demonstrates consistency regarding performance standards. Carver Prep has no consistent plan in place for teachers who do not meet performance targets in Y1. Carver Prep reports excellent support from school leader to prepare teachers to teach (10s) and all other domains of preparedness are also rated highly (7-10/10). In Y3, Carver Prep has established consistent understanding of the performance standards for teachers. For teachers who do not meet performance targets, there is adherence to the idea of solution focused steps and feedback. In Y4, teacher preparedness for both academic status of students and student behavior is rated highly. |
| 2012-13 | Carver Collegiate | In Y1, Carver Collegiate demonstrates consistency in understanding performance standards, although not in terms of intervention plans should teachers fail to meet targets. Professional climate and school leader are rated highly (10/10). Preparedness for academic status and social status of students is rated 7-9/10, but preparedness for student behavior is sometimes rated lower (5/10). | In Y2, student performance helps determine PD focus. Teachers autonomy is rated moderate to high (6-7/10). The CMO controls half of performance evaluation process and PD. Ratings of teacher preparedness for student behavior goes up from Y1 (7-8/10). | In Y3, Carver Collegiate has a good understanding of performance standards to hit. Carver Collegiate also seems more aware than in previous years of potential next steps after not meeting targets. | Teacher preparedness for student academic status and student behavior is rated highly in Y4 (7.5-9.5/10). | | In Y1, Carver Collegiate demonstrates consistency regarding the understanding of performance standards. However, there is no consistent understanding of the school's plan to intervene with teachers who fail to meet targets. Ratings of support for preparing teachers are high (10/10). In Y2, student performance helps determine PD focus. Ratings of teacher autonomy are moderately high (6-7/10), and the CMO shares responsibility equally with school for performance evaluations and PD. In Y3, Carver Collegiate demonstrates a consistent understanding of performance standards to hit and understanding of intervention has improved. In Y4, Carver Collegiate teacher preparedness for student academics and behavior are still rated highly. |
| 2012-13 | Cohen | In Y1, Cohen demonstrates consistency regarding performance standards and regarding their plan to address teachers not meeting performance targets. Ratings of teacher preparedness for students' academic status, social status, and student behavior were split, ranging from 4 or 6 of 10 to 8 or 9 of 10. Support to teachers from school leadership and professional climate is rated moderate to high (7-9/10). | In Y2, student performance does not inform PD focus at Cohen. PD is 100% controlled by the CMO as are performance evaluations. The ratings of teacher preparedness for student behavior range from 5-7.5/10. | In Y3, Cohen demonstrates consistency regarding performance standards, with teachers having individualized goals. | In Y4, teacher preparedness for student behavior is rated highly (8-10/10), but preparedness for students' academic status is rated lower (7-7.5/10). | | In Y1, Cohen demonstrates consistency regarding performance standards, with a rough plan in place to address teachers not meeting performance targets. Teacher support regarding preparation to teach is rated moderately high to highly (7-9/10). Teacher preparedness for students' academic status, social status, and student behavior were mixed. In Y2, student performance does not drive PD focus. PD is 100% controlled by the CMO as are performance evaluations. Teacher preparedness for student behavior in Y2 is rate from 5-7.5/10. In Y3, Cohen continues to demonstrate consistency about performance standards, with teachers having classroom specific goals. In Y4, teacher preparedness for student behavior is rated highly (8-10/10) but still preparedness for students' academic status (7-7.5/10) is rated less strongly. |
| 2012-13 | Craig | In Y1, Craig uses strategies including observation, research, parent engagement, and modeling to intervene if teachers don't hit performance standards, although there is not a consistent understanding of this process across the school. Teacher preparedness is rated moderately highly to highly in all domains at Craig in Y1 (7-10/10) | In Y2, the CMO controls 70% of PD at Craig. Student performance drives PD. The CMO also controls 50% of performance evaluations. Data are missing regarding teacher autonomy ratings, but what data we do have indicate autonomy is high (rated 8/10). Teacher preparedness for student behavior is rated moderate to high (6.5-8/10). | In Y3, performance standards seem focused solely on bringing up scores. Craig demonstrates consistency regarding next steps if targets go unmet. | Teacher preparedness for student behavior and academic status are rated moderately high to highly (7.5-10). | | In Y1, Craig does not demonstrate consistency regarding the understanding of interventions if performance standards are not met. Teachers support regarding preparation to teach is rated moderately high to highly (7-9/10). Ratings for all other domains of preparedness (academic and social status of students, professional climate, student behavior) are high as well. In Y2, the CMO controls 70% of PD, and PD focus is driven by student performance. The CMO also controls 50% of performance evaluations. Teacher preparedness for student behavior in Y2 is rated moderate to high (6.5-8/10). In Y3, performance standards seem focused on bringing up scores. Craig demonstrates consistency regarding next steps if targets are not met. In Y4, Craig teacher preparedness for student behavior and student academic status are rated 7.5-10/10. |
| 2012-13 | Crescent Leadership Academy | In Y1, professional climate and support to teachers are rated highly at CLA. However, other domains of preparedness show variable ratings (3-10/10). CLA demonstrates consistency regarding performance standards. | In Y2, CLA demonstrates inconsistency regarding whether PD is affected by student performance. Teacher autonomy is rated 7-9/10. The CMO does not control PD or performance evaluations for teachers. Ratings of preparedness for student behavior vary widely (2-10/10). | In Y3, CLA demonstrates consistency in the understanding of performance standards but still does not display consistency in the process of intervention when targets go unmet. | In Y4 ratings of preparedness for student behavior and student academic status go up to 7-10/10. | | In Y1, CLA demonstrates consistency regarding performance standards. Teacher support and professional climate are rated highly, but ratings diverge on teacher preparedness for students' social status, academic status, and behavior. In Y2, there's disagreement at CLA as to whether PD is affected by student performance and disagreement on preparedness for student behavior. Teacher autonomy is rated 7-9/10. The CMO does not control PD or performance evaluations. In Y3, the agreement continues re performance standards, but consistency is not demonstrated regarding interventions when targets are not met. |
| 2012-13 | John McDonogh | In Y1, performance standards are not contractual, but there is a schoolwide goal of 70% passing rates on assessments. John McDonogh does not yet have a process in place for intervening with teachers who fail to meet targets; the school hopes to set up one on one supports with a DCI, but human capital challenges have prevented this from occurring in Y1. All preparedness domains are receiving ratings of 8-10 except professional climate (7/10) and teacher support (6/10). | In Y2, the CMO does not control PD or performance evaluations. Student performance drives PD. The data on teacher autonomy is limited, but what information we do have indicates high (10/10) teacher autonomy. Teacher preparedness for student behavior is rated 6-10/10. | | | | In Y1, we can see early challenges at John Mc: performance standards are not contractual, although there are schoolwide goals of 70% passing rates. Staffing challenges stymie the installation of planned interventions for teachers not meeting targets. Teacher preparedness for students' academic and social status and student behavior are rated highly, but ratings for professional climate and support are lower. In Y2, the CMO does not control PD or performance evaluations. Student performance drives PD. Teacher autonomy is rated highly (but note missing data). Preparedness for student behavior ratings are divided (6-10/10). |
| 2012-13 | McDonogh 42 | In Y1, McDonogh 42 demonstrates consistency regarding performance targets. There is a plan for intervention with teachers not meeting goals, including conferencing and monitoring. Preparedness in all domains is rated highly (8-10/10). | In Y2, PD at McDonogh 42 is driven by student performance and is controlled 50-80% by the CMO. The CMO controls 10-50% of performance evaluations. Teacher autonomy is rated moderately highly (7-8/10). Teacher preparedness for student behavior is rated highly (9/10). | In Y3, McDonogh 42 focused on improving student scores to raise all students to a certain level. The school is much more data-driven than in Y1 or Y2. | In Y4, preparedness for student behavior and student academic status continues to be rated highly (8-10/10). | | In Y1, McDonogh 42 demonstrates consistency regarding performance targets. Intervention for teachers not meeting targets comes in the forms of conferencing and monitoring. Teacher preparedness for the academic status of students, the social status of students, student behavior, and professional climate are all rated highly. In Y2, PD is driven by student performance and is controlled 50-80% by the CMO. The CMO controls 10-50% of performance evaluation process. Teacher autonomy is rated moderately highly (7-8/10). Preparedness for student behavior is rated highly (9/10). In Y3, McD42 is focused on improving student scores to raise all students to a certain level. The school is much more data-driven than in previous years. In Y4 teacher preparedness for student academic levels and behaviors is rated highly (8-10/10). |
| 2012-13 | Brick Church Middle School | In Y1, Brick Church is not all clear on performance standards. Ratings of support to teachers are high (8-10/10) but ratings of professional climate are lower (6-8/10). Teacher readiness for social status and behavior of students is rated 7-10/10, but ratings diverge on teacher preparedness for students' academic status (5-8/10). | In Y2, the CMO controls 90% of PD and performance evaluations at Brick Church. Sometimes PD is based on student performance. Teacher autonomy in the classroom is rated 6-8/10. Teacher preparedness for student behavior is rated highly (8-9/10). | In Y3, Brick Church still does not demonstrate consistency regarding performance standards, but Brick Church does demonstrate consistency around intervention if targets go unmet (coaching). | Teacher preparedness for student behavior and academic status are rated 7-10/10. | | In Y1, Brick Church demonstrates no consistency regarding the understanding of performance standards. Support for teaching preparation is rated 8-10/10, but professional climate is rated lower. Ratings for teacher preparedness for student social status and behavior are high but diverge on preparedness for academic status. In Y2, the CMO controls 90% of PD and performance evaluations. Sometimes PD is based on student performance. Teacher autonomy in the classroom is rated 6-8/10; ratings of teacher preparedness for student behavior remain high. In Y3, Brick Church still does not demonstrate agreement about performance standards, but they do understand that not meeting targets would lead to coaching. In Y4 teacher preparedness for student behavior and academic status are both rated highly. |
| 2012-13 | Humes | In Y1, Humes does not demonstrate consistency regarding teacher performance standards. There is an extensive strategy and support plan for teachers not meeting performance targets, including online lessons. Teacher preparedness for professional climate and student behavior are rated 7-10/10. Teacher preparedness for the social and academic status of students is divergent, ranging from 5-10/10. | Teacher preparedness for student behavior is rated 7-9/10. | In Y3, Humes still demonstrates little consistency regarding teacher performance standards. | In Y4 teacher preparedness for student behavior and academic status are rated 7-9/10. | | In Y1, Humes does not demonstrate consistency regarding teacher performance. There is an extensive strategy and support plan for teachers not meeting performance targets, including online lessons. Teacher preparedness ratings for climate and student behavior range from 7-10/10 but ratings diverge around preparedness for the social and academic status of students. In Y2, teacher preparedness for student behavior rates 7-9/10. In Y3, Humes still does not demonstrate consistency regarding performance standards. In Y4, teachers preparedness for student behavior and academic status are rated 7-10/10. |
| 2012-13 | KIPP Memphis Academy Middle | In Y1, the KIPP regional office has a set of interventions for teachers not meeting targets. Teacher support regarding preparation to teach is rated highly (10/10). Teacher preparedness is also rated highly across all domains (8-10/10). | In Y2, it is unclear whether student performance drives PD, but KMAM's CMO controls 10% of PD. The CMO also controls 20% of performance evaluations. Preparedness for student behavior is rated highly (8-8.5/10). | In Y3, KMAM demonstrates consistency regarding performance standards. Teachers also have classroom-level goals. | Teacher preparedness for student behavior is rated highly (8-9.5/10). Teacher preparedness for the academic status of students has increased over time and is "much higher" than earlier. | | In Y1, the KIPP regional office has a set of interventions for teachers not meeting targets. Support for teachers regarding preparation to teach and professional climate are rated 10/10. All domains of preparedness are rated highly. In Y2, it is unclear whether student performance drives PD, but the CMO controls 10% of PD. The CMO also controls 20% of performance evaluations. Preparedness for student behavior is rated highly in Y2. In Y3, KMAM demonstrated consistency regarding teacher performance standards. Teachers also set classroom level goals. Preparation for student behavior is again rated highly in Y4. |
| 2013-14 | Einstein Extension | In Y1, Einstein demonstrates consistency regarding expectations for teachers, but not regarding what would happen if teachers do not meet targets. Teacher support regarding preparation to teach is rated highly (8-9/10), but professional climate is rated lower (5-7/10). Preparedness for the academic and social status of kids are both rated 10/10, but preparation for student behavior diverges (4 -10/10). | In Y2, the CMO controls almost all of performance evaluation process and PD. Student performance does not determine PD focus. Teacher autonomy is rated 7-10/10. Unlike in Y1, preparedness for student behavior in Y2 is rated consistently high (9-10/10). | In Y3, Einstein demonstrates consistency regarding proficiency standards on assessments. Preparedness for student behavior is rated 10/10. | | | In Y1, Einstein demonstrates consistency regarding teacher expectations. When targets were not met intervention processes were not employed. Teacher support regarding preparation to teach is rated highly (8-9/10), but professional climate is rated lower. Preparedness for the academic and social status of students are both rated 10/10, but preparation for student behavior shows more variation (4-10/10). However, in Y2 teacher preparedness for student behavior is more consistently highly rated. In Y2 the CMO controls almost all of performance evaluation process and PD. PD is not based on student performance. Teacher autonomy in the classroom is rated highly (7-10/10). In Y3, Einstein demonstrates the consistency of standards regarding proficiency on assessments. Ratings of preparedness for student behavior remain 10/10. |
| 2013-14 | Cornerstone Lester | In Y1, Cornerstone demonstrates consistency regarding performance standards and actions to be taken if standards are unmet. Teacher support regarding preparation to teach is rated highly (8-10/10). Teacher preparedness across domains is high (7-10/10) except the academic status of students (6-7/10) and student behavior (5-6/10). | In Y2, performance evaluation process and PD are controlled 60% by Cornerstone's CMO, with PD sometimes based on student performance. Data are missing regarding autonomy in the classroom, but the data we have indicate moderate autonomy (6/10). Teacher preparedness for student behavior goes up in Y2 compared to Y1 (7-9/10). | In Y3, Cornerstone still exhibits a shared understanding of performance standards. Teacher preparedness for behavior goes up further in Y3 (9-10/10). | | | In Y1, Cornerstone demonstrates consistent understanding regarding performance standards and remediation to be taken if standards are not met. Teacher support regarding preparation to teach is rated highly (8-10/10), but teacher preparedness for student academic status and behavior are areas of concern for Cornerstone. In Y2, performance evaluation process and PD controlled 60% by Cornerstone's CMO, with PD sometimes based on student performance. Teacher preparedness for student behavior goes up (7-9/10). Classroom autonomy for teachers is rated 6/10, but there are limited observations. In Y3, Cornerstone continues to have a consistent understanding of performance standards. Teacher preparedness for student behavior is rated still higher (9-10/10) in Y3. |
| 2013-14 | Hanley | In Y1, Hanley demonstrates consistency regarding expectations for teachers. A plan is in place for teachers not meeting targets. Teacher support is rated 10/10. Teacher preparedness rates between 7 and 10 of 10 in all domains. | In Y2, PD is such that topics can be selected based on current student performance. Teacher autonomy in the classroom is rated 8/10. Teacher preparedness for student behavior remains high (9-10/10). | In Y3, Hanley demonstrates consistency regarding performance standards, with a dedicated focus on improved reading scores. Teacher preparedness for student behavior remains very high (9-10/10). | | | In Y1, Hanley demonstrates consistency regarding expectations for teachers. A plan is in place for teachers not meeting targets. Teacher support is rated 10/10. Teacher preparedness rates between 7 and 10 of 10 in all domains. In Y2, PD designs are such that topics can be selected based on student needs. Teacher autonomy rates 8/10. In Y3, Hanley again demonstrates consistency regarding performance standards, with a specific focus on improved reading scores. Teacher preparedness across all domains is high in Y1 and preparedness for student behavior is consistently high across all three years. |
| 2013-14 | Klondike | In Y1, Klondike exhibits consistency regarding academic standards and next steps if standards go unmet. Teacher support for preparation to teach is rated highly (8-10/10). Professional climate and teacher preparedness for the academic status of students varies (5-10/10 and 4-10/10 respectively), but preparedness for student behavior and social status of students are rated highly (9-10/10). | In Y2, the CMO has no control over performance evaluation process although it controls about 40% of PD. Student performance does not drive PD. Teacher autonomy in the classroom is rated 7-8/10, although also subject to alignment with CMO expectations. Preparedness for student behavior is rated 8-9/10. | In Y3, Klondike exhibits consistent understanding regarding performance standards. Teacher preparedness for student behavior is rated 7.5-9/10. | | | In Y1, Klondike exhibits consistency regarding academic standards and next steps if standards go unmet. Teacher support for preparation to teach is rated highly (8-10/10). Teacher preparedness for student behavior and social status of students are rated highly as well. However, Y1 ratings of teacher preparedness for student academic status and professional climate vary In Y2, the CMO has no control over performance evaluation process although the CMO controls about 40% of PD, which is not based on student performance. Teacher autonomy in the classroom is rated 7-8/10. Teacher preparedness for student behavior is rated highly (8-9/10) in Y2. In Y3, Klondike exhibits consistent understanding regarding performance standards. Teacher preparedness for student behavior is rated 7.5-9/10. |
| 2013-14 | KIPP Memphis Preparatory Academy | In Y1, there is poor coordination and communication regarding performance standards at KMPM, but teacher support regarding preparation for teaching is rated 9/10. Teacher preparedness across all domains is high (8-10/10) except for academic status of students and social status of students, which show more variation. | In Y2, KMPM's CMO controls 20% of PD. KMPM does not consistently connect PD to student performance. The CMO controls 90% of performance evaluations, but teacher autonomy is rated moderately highly (7-8/10). Teacher preparedness for student behavior is rated 8.5-10/10. | In Y3, there is more consistency at KMPM about performance standards. Teacher preparedness for student behavior is rated 9/10. | | | In Y1, there is inadequate coordination and communication regarding performance standards at KMPM, but teacher support regarding preparation for teaching is rated 9/10. Teacher preparedness across all domains is high (8-10/10) except for academic status of students and social status of students, which show more variation. In Y2, the CMO controls 20% of PD. KMPM exhibits inconsistency regarding PD's connection to student performance. The CMO controls 90% of performance evaluations, but teacher autonomy is rated 7-8/10. Teacher preparedness for student behavior is rated highly. In Y3, KMPM demonstrates consistency regarding performance standards. Teacher preparedness for student behavior is again rated highly. |
| 2014-15 | Freedom Preparatory Academy | In Y1, Freedom Prep demonstrates consistency regarding performance standards, but the standards are very high, pushing for 20% of students to be two years above grade level and 100% on grade level. Teacher support concerning preparation to teach is rated 7- 10/10. Teacher preparedness is rated 7-10/10 in all domains. | In Y2, there is disagreement at Freedom Prep regarding whether student results inform PD. Ratings of teacher autonomy also vary (- 9/10). Ratings of teacher preparedness remain high across all domains. | | | | In Y1, Freedom Prep demonstrates consistency regarding performance standards, but the standards are ambitious, pushing for 20% of students to be 2 years above grade level and 100% on grade level. Teacher support with respect to preparation to teach is rated 7-10/10. In Y2, Freedom Prep exhibits inconsistency as to whether PD is informed by student results. Ratings of teacher autonomy also vary (6-9/10). |
| 2015-16 | KIPP East Community Primary | KIPP East demonstrates consistency regarding academic standards. There is no plan in place for teachers who do not meet targets. Teacher support regarding preparation to teach is rated highly (10/10) with particular enthusiasm. Teacher preparedness across all domains is rated 7-10/10 except for student behavior and student academic status, which both garnered some 6/10 scores. | | | | | KIPP East demonstrates consistency regarding academic standards. There is no plan in place for teachers who do not meet targets. Teacher support regarding preparation to teach is rated highly (10/10) with particular enthusiasm. Teacher preparedness across all domains is rated 7-10/10 except for student behavior and student academic status, which both garnered some 6/10 scores. |
| 2015-16 | Wilson | Wilson demonstrates the consistency of awareness of academic standards, although not regarding intervention process if targets are not met. Support for teachers regarding preparation to teach is rated 9/10. All teacher preparedness domains are rated highly (8-10/10). | | | | | Wilson demonstrates the consistency of awareness of academic standards, although not regarding intervention process if targets go unmet. Support for teachers regarding preparation to teach is rated 9/10. All teacher preparedness domains are rated highly (8-10/10). |