Instructional Coaching Program Evaluation

Instructional Coaching

Program Evaluation 2014-15 to 2016-17

Office of Assessment and Evaluation Clear Creek Independent School District

Office of Assessment and Evaluation

Instructional Coaching Program Evaluation

Presented to Board of Trustees on May 14, 2018

2017-2018 Board of Trustees Program Evaluation Team Page Rander, President Laura DuPont, Ph.D., Vice President Jay Cunningham, Secretary Charles Pond, Trustee Arturo Sanchez, Trustee Ann Hammond, Trustee Chris Reed, Trustee Greg Smith, Ph.D., Superintendent

Steven Ebell, Ed.D., Deputy Superintendent, Curriculum & Instruction Stephanie McBride, Executive Director for Professional Learning, Professional Learning Sharron Helmke, Ed. D., Coordinator of Instructional Coaching, Professional Learning

Jon Maxwell, Ph.D., Executive Director, Assessment and Evaluation Laura Gaffey, Data Analyst, Assessment and Evaluation Pat McKenna, Data Analyst, Assessment and Evaluation

Instructional Coaching Program Evaluation 2014-15 to 2016-17

Page | 1

Table of Contents for Instructional Coaching Program Evaluation

Table of Contents CCISD’s Strategic Plan Alignment .............................................................................................................. 2

Program Evaluation Topics ....................................................................................................................... 4

Executive Summary ................................................................................................................................... 5

Background Information on Instructional Coaching ................................................................................. 6

Analysis of Survey Results: Instructional Coaches .................................................................................. 19

Analysis of Survey Results: Teachers and Campus Administrators ........................................................ 22

Analysis of Survey Results: Teachers, Campus Administrators, and Instructional Coaches ................... 26

Analysis of Student Performance............................................................................................................ 32

Financial Data .......................................................................................................................................... 34

Superintendent Recommendations ........................................................................................................ 36

Resources ................................................................................................................................................ 37

Appendix A: Instructional Coaching Matrix ............................................................................................ 38

Appendix B: Instructional Coaches’ Survey Results ................................................................................ 40

Appendix C: Teachers’ and Campus Administrators’ Survey Results ..................................................... 45

Appendix D: Teachers’, Campus Administrators’, and Coaches’ Survey Results .................................... 52

Appendix E: Student Performance .......................................................................................................... 66

Appendix F: Job Description: Instructional Coach .................................................................................. 72

Appendix G: Job Description: Coordinator of Instructional Coaching .................................................... 75

Appendix H: Creating a Principal / Coach Partnership Agreement ........................................................ 78

Appendix I: Instructional Coaches' Survey: Core Content Coaches ........................................................ 81

Appendix J: Instructional Coaches' Survey: Teachers and Administrators ............................................. 85


Page | 2

CCISD’s Strategic Plan Alignment

The purpose of evaluating programs in CCISD shall be multi-faceted and shall result in findings, recommendations, and/or conclusions that:

• Ensure program alignment with the District strategic plan; • Assess strengths and weaknesses of the program; • Measure the success of the program in meeting its expressed goals; and/or • Result in improvements in, revisions to, or discontinuation of the program.

As part of CCISD’s program evaluation process, the Office of Assessment and Evaluation has completed a program evaluation for the Instructional Coaching program encompassing the three-year period from the 2014-15 through 2016-17 school years.

CCISD’s Strategic Plan includes the following seven strategies, and the Instructional Coaching Program aligns with each strategy as detailed below:

I. We will inspire learning through an array of personalized opportunities and experiences. Instructional coaches build teachers’ capacity to translate a generalized understanding of student-centered instruction into operationalized, content specific instructional design. Coaches facilitate teachers’ thinking regarding ways to ensure curriculum alignment and rigor of instruction while offering students personalized learning opportunities.

II. We will provide student support to meet the needs and aspirations of each student. Instructional coaches utilize a systematic approach to support teachers and students throughout the learning process which may consist of various types of coaching scenarios, including “peer coaching, school wide coaching, and accountable team leadership” (Learning Forward, 2016).

III. We will ensure safe and nurturing learning environments. Instructional coaches have many roles in their positions, including mentor, supporter, facilitator, and learner to name a few. In this role, coaches create and maintain relationships with teachers solely based on trust. CCISD’s core values are demonstrated and reciprocated by coaches and teachers as they continue their collaborative work.

IV. We will ensure each student understands and assumes his or her role as a productive citizen. As instructional coaches facilitate teachers’ thinking during the planning of first time instruction, they encourage teachers to highlight connections between classroom learning and real world applications, including how the content might be used within various professions. Coaches encourage teachers to challenge students’ mastery with virtual, real world scenarios and problems.


Page | 3

CCISD’s Strategic Plan Alignment

V. We will broaden and strengthen connections within our communities. Instructional coaches organize and lead teachers on learning walks that encompass various grade levels within and between campuses. Such learning walks are designed to improve the vertical alignment of content teaching, promote shared academic language and strategies, and mitigate differences in instructional practices that might create challenges for students moving from elementary to intermediate schools and from intermediate to high school (Killion & Harrison, 2006, p. 162).

Coaches spotlight and share innovative teacher practice at the campus and district levels, thereby facilitating the spread of effective instructional practices. Coaches do this by sharing effective coaching, data, and instructional practices during their own coaching Professional Learning (PL), by encouraging and supporting teachers in presenting at district PL and conferences, and by creating opportunities for teachers to learn from each other (Killion & Harrison, 2006, p. 194-195)

VI. We will ensure mutual understanding and support through effective communication. Instructional coaches are enrolled in an itslearning course where all information related to coaching is shared and stored. Additionally, coaches meet for professional learning on a regular basis, and then use that knowledge to support their work with teachers. Coaches meet with teachers in order to provide support and feedback before, during, and/or after classroom visits in order to maintain open lines of communication and trust.

Coaches model and promote effective communication with and among teachers by continuously engaging in respectful, open dialog with individual teachers and with teams of teachers. Coaches consistently model the use of engaged listening, questioning for clarity, positive presuppositions, and reflective thinking. When working with teams, coaches create and utilize structures and protocols that facilitate productive conflict and the creation of constructivist understandings (Killion & Harrison, 2006).

VII. We will build capacity for organizational change. Through the exploration of innovation, instructional coaches and teachers have the ability to grow and explore in order to inspire one another and cultivate professional learning environments. Instructional caches and teachers have many opportunities for professional learning, including time and opportunities for job-embedded professional learning; book studies; learning walks; and Professional Learning Communities (PLCs). The CCISD instructional coaching model facilitates and supports the capacity building process in teachers.


Page | 4

Program Evaluation Topics

1. Background Information: Instructional Coaching Program Components and Supporting Roles

2. Survey Data from Instructional Coaches

3. Survey Data from Teachers and Administrators

4. Survey Comparison Data (Teachers, Administrators, and Coaches)

5. Student Performance

6. Financial Data


Page | 5

Executive Summary

Data for student achievement and student progress were analyzed to determine if there were differences based on the instructional coaches’ years of experience. There were no statistically significant differences between the student outcomes for either achievement or progress by the years of experience for the instructional coaches. Differences were found when analyzed by the instructional coaching program structure by content area (full time instructional coaches; split instructional coaches; and no instructional coaches).

The measure of student performance was lowest in the areas of mathematics and ELA for campuses that had instructional coaches split, between either campuses or content areas. For science, the campuses that had no instructional coach performed the highest on the measure of student performance. For social studies, the campuses that had a split instructional coach performed the lowest, when compared to campuses that had no instructional coach for social studies. The results for social studies aligns with the teacher feedback from the survey. This was the content area that teachers rated attending, facilitating, or coaching team meetings as the least with either most or all teams. Teachers, campus administrators, and instructional coaches also rated the social studies area as the lowest in the impact of instructional coaches refining teaching. The social studies content area was also rated the lowest on the Instructional Coaching Matrix (see Appendix A) by teachers, campus administrators, and instructional coaches in most of the areas (Lifting Level of Instruction, Partners with Teachers, Alignment of Goals, and Expanding Teachers’ Use of Data) when compared to the other content areas with instructional coaches.

The program evaluation also found that longitudinal data was difficult to analyze for the entire instructional coaching program, as there were multiple implementation dates, depending on the grade levels, content areas, and individual campuses. The researchers believe that these initial program evaluation findings should be used as a baseline for the program moving forward.


Page | 6

Background Information on Instructional Coaching

Best Practices in Instructional Coaching “Although many models of coaching exist, one that promotes a high level of active adult learner engagement is instructional coaching using Jim Knight’s partnership coaching model, in which teachers engage in the coaching cycle with a coach or peer and have a significant voice in shaping their own learning. The power of instructional coaching comes through teachers’ active involvement in choosing the focus for coaching and their engagement in interpreting data collected during the coaching observation. Consistent with Learning Forward’s Standards for Professional Learning1, this element of teacher voice through active learning processes helps to promote deep understanding of new learning and increase motivation to implement it.” (Learning Forward, February 2015).

Instructional coaching models offer opportunities for job-embedded professional learning in order for the implementation of high quality instructional practices to occur. Expectations, responsibilities, and goals should be clearly defined for instructional coaches and teachers to fully understand their roles. A relationship based on trust is crucial to the success of instructional coaching programs. Lastly, districts may determine expectations regarding the time instructional coaches spend in instructional settings. “For example, Fairfax County Public Schools expects instructional coaches to spend 90 percent of their time working directly with teachers or teacher groups, while Buffalo Public Schools expects coaches to spend 80 percent of their time working with teachers and 20 percent of their time on data analysis and planning. Research suggests that instructional coaching programs are most effective when coaches spend more time in the classroom and working directly with teachers” (Hanover, 2016).

Learning Forward and the National Staff Development Council published explicit roles and responsibilities based on the framework for district leaders, principals, instructional coaches, and teachers which includes outcomes, rationale, and process descriptors.

Role of Coach Champion (Coordinator of Instructional Coaching) According to NSDC (Coaching Matters, 2012), “Coaches may get district-level support from a designated coach champion who is a district level administrator who has a vision for the coaching program and takes responsibility for overseeing the program. A champion—the program’s advocate or defender—may be a district curriculum leader, federal program director, director of special projects, an assistant superintendent, or someone who fills several of those roles simultaneously. Although district-level champions sometimes also serve in an evaluative role, the champion’s primary role is to support and work with coaches. Champions often facilitate conferences between the principal and the coach several times each school year to discuss the program’s integrity, successes, challenges, and opportunities for improvement; the coach’s work; and professional learning the coach may lead. These meetings ensure ongoing communication and maintain a focus on work expectations and program goals.”

1 “Standards for Professional Learning outline the characteristics of professional learning that leads to effective teaching practices, supportive leadership, and improved student results. The standards include: Learning Communities; Leadership; Resources; Data; Learning Designs; Implementation; and Outcomes” (Learning Forward, 2015).


Page | 7


Role of the Principal According to the National Staff Development Council (2009), the relationship between the instructional coach and the principal is “one of the significant factors influencing the success of the teacher leader.” Furthermore, the principal’s responsibilities include the following:

• “Introducing the concept of coaching to the staff and how coaching is one form of support forcontinuous professional development and student achievement;

• Introducing the coach to staff to establish credibility and describe coaches’ work;• Explaining agreements between the coach and principal about access to the coach’s services and

confidentiality;• Setting expectations for staff related to their interactions with the coach;• Meeting regularly with the coach to solve problems, address issues, and discuss his or her work, its

impact, and ways to improve it;• Ensuring the coach has access to district resource personnel who can provide expert information and

support in particular content areas, assessment, student populations, etc.;• Meeting regularly with the team of resource personnel within the school, such as reading teacher,

special education staff, other student learning resource personnel, and the coach to coordinate theirwork to maximize all resources, prevent unnecessary overlap of services, and ensure that as manyteachers and students as possible receive the desired support;

• Supporting the coach’s participation in national, state, and districtwide professional development;• Tapping the district resource personnel, including the coach champion to resolve conflicts; and• Adhering to district and state policies related to coaching”


Page | 8


Learningforward.org: Chapter 5: Roles of coaches

Role of the Coach “The role of the coach is to support the principal’s work to align staff development with school goals and improve instruction in every classroom.

1. Develop positive and supportive relationships with classroom teachers, administrators, and staff. 2. Help classroom teachers address learning challenges in individual classrooms through modeling, co-teaching, providing feedback, and facilitating grade-level or department teams. 3. Increase collaboration through quarterly meetings with coaching coordinator and principal to monitor progress of coaching plan and modify it as necessary. 4. Monitor and evaluate assessment data to determine improvements in instructional practice and student achievement. 5. Support classroom teachers in long- and short-range planning (co-planning) for increased student achievement. 6. Develop each teacher’s capacity to serve as a model of high-quality instruction. 7. Provide training to increase high-quality classroom instruction and appropriate use of support staff (e.g. training paraprofessionals, pre-AP support, RTI, etc.). 8. Fulfill identified responsibilities of teacher induction program, while building capacity of a team to support new teachers.”

Learningforward.org: Chapter 5: Roles of the classroom teacher

Role of the Classroom Teacher “The role of the classroom teacher is to provide high-quality instruction that results in increased student achievement.

1. With the coach, determine a system to monitor and measure increases in both teacher’s instructional development and student achievement through regular, ongoing classroom visits.

a. What student achievement and instructional data should we collect? b. How will the teacher and coach evaluate that data? c. What adjustments, if any, should we make to the coaching plan?

2. Develop increasing instructional knowledge through observation from and dialogue with instructional coach. 3. Develop a positive and supportive relationship with the instructional coach, classroom teachers, administrators, and staff. 4. Provide feedback about instructional coaching program.”


Page | 9


Ten Roles of Coaches Although coaches are not expected to support each of the following roles simultaneously, they do flow from one role to another within any given day. The specific roles that CCISD expects coaches to emphasize is expressed within the CCISD instructional coaching mission and purpose statements. According to Learning Forward (2006), there are ten roles, which instructional coaches play, and their specific purposes in CCISD are shown to the right of the Learning Forward purposes.

Coaching Roles Learning Forward Purpose In CCISD

Resource Provider

To expand teachers' use of a variety of resources to improve instruction

Facilitating the use of available district resources, as well as modeling the thinking for locating and assessing additional resources to further instructional goals

Data Coach To ensure that student achievement data is used to drive decisions at the classroom and school level

To facilitate an awareness of the variety of data that can be collected and a deeper understanding of the role data plays in assessing student needs and the impact of our teaching

Curriculum Specialist

To ensure implementation of the adopted curriculum

Facilitate awareness of curriculum standards and mastery expectations during instructional and assessment planning

Instructional Specialist

To align instruction with curriculum to meet the needs of all students

Collaboratively accessing teacher expertise and experience with diverse learners to intentionally choose best practices for instructional delivery

Mentor To increase the novice teacher's instructional skills and to support school-wide induction activities

Support new teachers in the early weeks, several times a day, supported by an accelerated gradual release model. Coordinate with Lead Mentor and Mentor to offer support during the early weeks

Classroom Supporter

To increase the quality and effectiveness of classroom instruction

To support delivery of standards based teaching that is responsive to evolving student needs

Learning Facilitator

To design collaborative, job-embedded, standards-based professional learning

Facilitates job-embedded learning through all interactions with teachers

School Leader

To work collaboratively (with formal and informal leaders) to plan, implement, and assess school change initiatives to ensure alignment with and focus on intended results, and to monitor, transfer, or practice from professional development into action

As a member of instructional leadership team to plan, implement, and assess school change initiatives to ensure alignment and focus on intended results.

Change Catalyst To create disequilibrium with the current state as an impetus to explore alternatives to current practice

To create a sense of safety in which cognitive dissonance, inquiry, and reflection can foster professional growth and refinement of teaching practice

Learner To constantly seek to become better at what he/she does

To model continual and on-going use of inquiry and reflection in pursuit of increased effectiveness, as indicated by student achievement


Page | 10


The characteristics of effective campus-based instructional coaches are shown in the chart below. “Coaches, mentors, and teacher leaders with these characteristics, in the right conditions, can have a significant effect on teachers’ instruction and student learning” (Killion & Harrison, 2006).

According to The Hechninger Report (Barshay, J., 2018), “Researchers began rigorously studying coaching in the late 1990s and have been ramping up in the past 10 years to see how well coaching works and if coaching programs are any better than the kind of training seminars that teachers typically attend to further their “professional development.” Now, a team of researchers has come to a frustrating conclusion: coaching can help but no one has figured out how to successfully expand coaching programs so that they reach many teachers.” Barshay continues by stating the three problems associated with the implementation of a large coaching model:

1. The quality of coaching deteriorates; 2. Lack of teacher enthusiasm; and 3. Scheduling difficulties

A possible solution mentioned in this article is to limit the number of teachers who participate in the coaching model and for coaches to not attempt to meet with all teachers. Another possible solution is to offer peer-coaching opportunities. Lastly, the use of technology could also be a possible solution by allowing flexibility for the coach to view lessons and provide feedback without doing so in person.


Page | 11


Instructional Coaching in CCISD According to CCISD’s Professional Learning Website, “Instructional Coaches are content facilitators who support professional learning by providing assistance with various forms of Job-Embedded Professional Learning (JEPL), as well as working directly with teachers in their schools and classrooms to assist with the application of new knowledge and skills necessary to improve the academic performance of all students (Killion & Harrison, 2006). Coaches work with team members to achieve individual, campus, and district goals by building capacity in team members through discussion, modeling, observation, and reflection.” (CCISD, 2017)

While elementary coaches have been in existence since 2007 in CCISD, the instructional coaching program expanded to include secondary campuses in 2014-15 when the Coordinator of Instructional Coaching position was created. Prior to 2014, secondary campuses had content specialists (science and mathematics) roles, which have evolved to the instructional coach role.

Mission Statement for Instructional Coaching

The mission of instructional coaches in CCISD, a district that believes the teacher is the single most important factor in student achievement, is to ensure that each teacher experiences personalized, job-embedded professional learning to promote student success during initial instruction through professional learning focused on partnerships, teacher choice, reflection, and collaboration.

Purpose Statement for Instructional Coaching

The purpose of instructional coaching in CCISD is to partner with teachers for personalized professional learning and to facilitate teacher self-reflection of instructional practice designed to increase student learning.  Coaches are a catalyst for change.  In a partnership role, coaches seek to engage colleagues in change by speaking honestly, through reflection and self-assessment.  The coach’s role is to support teachers’ growth towards the principal’s expectation of teaching and learning as outlined by our district.

Key Ideas that Support CCISD’s Vision for Instructional Coaching: • Coaches assist principals in moving the campus forward • Coaches need focus and clear sense of direction from the principal • Coaches and principals leverage success when they enter

into a partnership agreement • Coaches must deeply understand content, initiatives and coaching techniques in order to

dramatically impact instruction and student outcomes Instructional Coaching 2017-18 Vision and Plans (itslearning-Administrators’ course)


Page | 12


The History of Instructional Coaching in CCISD Although instructional coaching roles at the elementary level existed prior to 2013-14, there was not a district-wide instructional coaching program in CCISD until the 2013-14 school year.

In 2013-14, Learning Forward provided a six-day Coaching Academy for intermediate specialists whose roles would be converted to instructional coaches effective the fall of 2014. Elementary instructional coaches were being supported by their content coordinators and were trained in Cognitive Coaching by a representative from Cognitive Coaching and three in-district trainers in training.

In July of 2014, the Coordinator of Instructional Coaching position was created and filled in CCISD. The following list of events and professional learning occurred during the 2014-15 school year:

• Presented the role of the coach to administrators at August administrators retreat, especiallyfocused on the role of coaches in improving initial instruction vs. remediation work, especiallystudent pull-outs

• Learning Forward Coaching Academy occurred for all intermediate and high school coaches• Cognitive Coaching offered (eight days in one year)• Depth of Knowledge (DOK) training with certified DOK trainer• Crucial Conversations offered to a select group of coaches by a certified trainer• Gave one brief (20 minute) presentation to APs at one of their regular meetings• Coordinator of Instructional Coaching’s focus was defined to include the following:

o Emphasis on intermediate work supporting the work of Advanced Learning Partnerso Decision to let high school administrators and coaches request support on their

schedule, but high schools moved into the role faster than anticipated because thedeans embraced it

o Decision not to actively include elementary campuses or coaches this year• Coaching Advisory Committee formed and convened; wrote mission and purpose statements;

made recommendations for a coaching PL sequence• Support for intermediate coaches through occasional PL sessions, including working with

teams and understanding the change process (3 ½ days of PL meetings in addition to LearningForward Academy (6 days))

• Intermediate coaches’ book study: Never Underestimate your Teachers (2013) by R. Jackson• Campus visits and support calls with all intermediate and most high school campuses (Utilized

job embedded professional learning for coaches by providing on-going campus visits andconference calls to support evolving needs)


Page | 13


During the 2015-16 school year, the following lists events and professional learning which occurred: • Presented the role of the coach to administrators at the administrators retreat (second year).• Instituted meetings at the beginning of the year for principals and coaches to review their

learning goals with Education Support Center (ESC) staff. Assistant Superintendents attendedin addition to content coordinators, Coordinator of Instructional Coaching, and Director ofProfessional Learning. Teams were to come in with their campus goals written and with a planfor the coaches’ work within that plan. Secondary meetings were 1 hour each; elementarywere 45 minutes.

• Implemented committee’s recommendation for coaching PL:o For all coaches: Weekly coaching PL with ½ day content and ½ coaching PL (despite

the schedule, only 3 half day sessions occurred because most were needed forcontent learning); Two technology sessions and one assessment session for coacheswere offered, but attendance could not be required

o For first year coaches: CCISD contracted with Learning Forward to lead the 2 dayCoaching Academy

o For second year plus Coaches: Customized Jim Knight Instructional Coaching Training (3 days—2 for coaches,

1 for coaches plus their principals) presented by certified trainers. Thistraining first introduced the idea of focusing on student needs rather thanprovision of adult learning and introduced the idea of using videotape forcoaching)

Depth of Knowledge (DOK) training with certified trainer Crucial Conversations with a certified trainer offered for coaches who could

attend, both elementary and secondary Cognitive coaching with the first four days in the spring of year 3 and the last

four days in the fall of a coach’s fourth year• Customized the job description for instructional coach to better represent the duties of a

CCISD coach and to replace the seven different job descriptions that were then being used forthe position.

• Shifted to a new hiring process: All instructional coaching candidates are first screened by theCoaching Coordinator and then the content coordinators. Interviews are scheduled throughthe ESC and interview committee included principals and campus representatives, contentcoordinator, and coaching coordinator (prior to this many principals hired without consultingcontent coordinators and preferred to transfer a teacher from their own campus).


Page | 14


During the 2016-17 school year, the following lists events and professional learning which occurred: • Created an in-house version of the coaching academy specifically tailored to the needs of

CCISD coaches (6 days beginning in September and ending in January)o Recruited two current coaches (one elementary and one secondary) to assist in

creating and delivering the CCISD Coaching Academy Represent the needs of coaches Build their capacity as designers and presenters of PL Give them a more systems-wide view of the program

o Deans and principals were invited to attend as desired.• Began the year with Goal meetings for all campuses• Continued with same four-year PL plan, with the following additions:

o Crucial Influencer with a certified trainero Crucial Accountability with a certified trainero Moved secondary coaching PL to Wednesday and elementary on Fridays—1st and 3rd

of each month (3 have occurred; most are needed for content; the Crucial trainingshad to be set up as coaching PL days)

• Met with both APs and with Aspiring Leader program participants to discuss the role of theinstructional coach in meeting campus goals

• Under the direction of the Executive Director of Professional Learning, content coordinatorsand the Coordinator of Instructional Coaching revised the mission and purpose statements.

• Principals and Deans noticed a shift in in-house job applicants being stronger candidates,more informed about what coaches do based upon their own campus experiences

• Coaches’ book study: Student Centered Coaching K-8 and Student Centered Coaching inSecondary (2011)


Page | 15


CCISD Coaching Model In CCISD, a coaching model has been developed that fosters collaborative partnerships between instructional coaches and teachers, focused on improving the teaching/learning connection. The emphasis in this type of coaching is assisting teachers in planning initial instruction that appropriately scaffolds the learning to meet the needs of each learner, thus building student confidence along with concept mastery. The coaches’ focus is always on helping teachers leverage their professional expertise and experience to design increasingly inclusive and effective instruction. Coaches support delivery of these well-designed lessons through modeling and co-teaching with teachers, fostering development of increased self-efficacy and professional excellence. Subsequent reflective conversations assist teachers in fully appreciating the impact of their instructional designs and delivery, thereby helping teachers create meaningful and lasting professional growth, leading to improved student achievement.

Coaches are a catalyst for change. Research shows that for teacher practice to change, teachers must receive “timely and consistent” support and feedback during “situational problem solving in complex contexts” (Stoelinga & Mangin, 2010).

In CCISD, instructional coaching falls under professional learning--coaching is the foremost method of delivery for professional learning.

The vision in CCISD is to move closer to a holistic approach to coaching, in which the coaches’ work directly supports the campus goal or problem of practice. For elementary, it is important to focus on learning progressions in addition to their campus goal. In a learning school, instructional coaches are in classrooms during instruction, at the table during instructional planning, and engaged in frequent, planned conversations with the leadership team. CCISD’s commitment is to support principals and coaches with tools and insights that ensure instructional coaching is impacting student outcomes.

Plans for 2017-18 Coaches' Meeting Schedule:

• Every other Friday (elementary)• Every other Wednesday (secondary)• Extra Elementary Support: 5 additional Fridays focused on learning progressions• End of Year Retreat

Coaches' Meetings consist of: • AM-focused on curriculum, best practices, initiatives and learning progressions, etc.• PM-focused on instructional coaching methods and tools

Coaching for Impact: • Strong relationships with teachers and knowing what they do well• Meeting with teachers during planning to ensure a deep understanding of the curriculum and

the best possible lessons are planned that combine everyone's strengths• In classrooms to support the delivery of lessons as planned• Reflecting with teachers to help them analyze and understand student results and to build

self-efficacy with the teaching-learning connection


Page | 16


The table below shows the number of instructional coaches for each content area by level (elementary, intermediate, and high school).

Number of Core Content Instructional Coaches Humanities

(intermediate only)*

Literacy/ ELA Mathematics Science

Elementary 25 18 4 Intermediate 10 10 10 High School 5** 5 5 Total 10 30 33 19

*Humanities coaches are only at the intermediate level and support ELA and Social Studies teachers. **While 5 ELA coaches are shown in the table above, only 1 is a full-time coaching position, and the other 4 are coaches who also have teaching roles (see full description in narrative below).

The number of coaches by campus by level vary, as shown in the table above and are explained in more detail below.

Elementary: Literacy: Each elementary campus has at least one literacy coach with the exception of two

campuses. Twenty-three campuses have one literacy coach, and one elementary campus has two literacy coaches.

Mathematics: Eight elementary campuses do not have mathematics coaches; eighteen elementary campuses have one mathematics coach.

Science: Twenty-two elementary campuses do not have science coaches; four elementary campuses have one science coach.

Intermediate:

Humanities coaches are only at the intermediate level and support ELA and Social Studies teachers.

Humanities: Each intermediate campuses has one Humanities coach; however, only one campus has a full-time humanities coach who is not split between campuses, but is split between content areas as well. The remaining nine campuses share coaches with another campus and content area.

Mathematics: Each intermediate campus has one mathematics coach; however, only two campuses have full-time coaches who are not split between campuses. The remaining eight campuses share coaches with another campus.

Science: Each intermediate campus has one science coach; however, only two campuses have full-time coaches who are not split between campuses. The remaining eight campuses share coaches with another campus.

High School: Only one high school campus has full-time instructional coaches for all content areas with the

exception of Social Studies (ELA, Mathematics, and Science); two campuses have coaches who have a 50/50 split between teaching and coaching; two high school campuses have coaches who coach two periods and teach classes the remaining periods.

ELA: Each comprehensive high school campus has one ELA coach; however, four ELA coaches have teaching roles as well.

Mathematics: Each comprehensive high school campus has one mathematics coach Science: Each comprehensive high school campus has one science coach


Page | 17


Learning Forward’s Community of Practice According to Learning Forward, “A core tenet of the PD Redesign Community of Practice is to pursue continuous improvement cycles for improving the management of PD, codified by the cycle of inquiry shown below.” Over a period of time, district teams in the community “engage in continuous improvement cycles to improve how they manage their professional learning systems, with each team conducting multiple inquiry cycles to propel rapid learning and improvement. Complementing the inquiry work teams conduct within their districts are opportunities to problem solve collectively with other districts in the community. District teams serve as critical friends to one another, sharing expertise and demanding mutual accountability.”

This type of partnership is a long-term goal for CCISD, as this process is not yet occurring.

https://learningforward.org/learning-opportunities/redesign-pd-community-of-practice/cycle-of-inquiry




Page | 18

Surveys

Surveys were distributed in January 2018 to all instructional coaches, core content teachers, and campus administrators.

Instructional coaches completed the survey, and those coaches who are split between campuses and content areas were asked to complete the survey multiple times for each campus and/or content area.


Page | 19

Analysis of Survey Results: Instructional Coaches

Please refer to Appendix B: Instructional Coaches’ Survey Results for graphs and charts that correlate with the narrative for pages 19-20.

Refining Instruction and District Support According to the Instructional Coaches, 96.7% either Agree or Strongly Agree that they support teachers in refining their thinking, as well as district level administrators supporting their work. When instructional coaches were asked if they support teachers in refining their teaching, 96.7% agreed.

Attending, Facilitating, or Coaching Teams The goal for the CCISD Instructional program includes moving coaches from just meeting with the teacher teams, to facilitating the team meetings, to ultimately coaching teacher team meetings. According the survey, 72.6% of the Instructional Coaches stated that they were meeting with either most or all of their teacher teams; 52.8% of Instructional Coaches believe they are facilitating all or most of their teacher teams, while 72.6% stated they were coaching most of all of their teacher teams; 4.4% of Instructional Coaches stated that they were not meeting with any teacher teams; 15.4% and 2.2% of Instructional Coaches stated that they were not facilitating or coaching any teams, respectively.

The CCISD Instructional Coaching program’s goal includes moving the program to the highest level of implementation, which is defined as the “Optimizing” level on the continuum (please see Appendix A). The Instructional Coaches were asked to determine where they believed they, themselves and their campus landed on the continuum for their specific content area for each explicit area that makes up the entire Instructional Coaching program (Lifting Level of Instruction, Partners with Teachers, Engages Teachers, Alignment of Goals, Expanding Teachers’ Use of Data, and Alignment to Curriculum).

Matrix Standards Lifting Level of Instruction For the component of Lifting Level of Instruction, a majority of the mathematics and ELA Instructional Coaches responded that they were in the Facilitating level (51.7% and 51.9%, respectively). The science Instructional Coaches also had a majority respond Facilitating level (50.0%), but also a large number responded one level lower, the Guiding level (44.0%). The humanities (for social studies) Instructional Coaches were split between the Facilitating level and the Forming level (42.9% for both), with a few responding with the Optimizing level (14.3%). The humanities (for ELA) Instructional Coaches had a majority with the Forming level (50.0%).

Partners with Teachers For the component of Partners with Teachers, a majority of the humanities (for social studies), humanities (for ELA), and ELA Instructional Coaches responded that they were in the Facilitating level (28.6%, 50.0%, and 40.7%, respectively). The science Instructional Coaches also had a majority respond Facilitating level (44.4%), but also a large number responded one level higher, the Optimizing level (38.9%). The mathematics Instructional Coaches were split between the Guiding, Facilitating, and Optimizing levels (27.6% to 31.0%), with a few responding with the Forming level (13.8%).

Engages Teachers For the component of Engages Teachers, a majority of the humanities (for ELA) responded that they were in the Optimizing level (40.0%). A majority of the humanities (for social studies) responded that they were in the Facilitating level (42.9%). A majority for both the ELA and mathematics Instructional Coaches responded that they fell in the Guiding level (40.7% and 48.3%, respectively). The science Instructional Coaches were split evenly between the Guiding, Facilitating, and Optimizing levels (33.3% for each).


Page | 20

Analysis of Survey Results: Instructional Coaches

Alignment of Goals For the component of Alignment of Goals, a majority of the humanities (for social studies), ELA, mathematics, and science Instructional Coaches responded that they were in the Optimizing level (71.4%, 59.3%, 48.3%, and 61.1%, respectively). The humanities (for ELA) Instructional Coaches had a majority respond Facilitating level (50.0%), but also a large number responded one level higher, the Optimizing level (40.0%).

Alignment to Curriculum For the component of Alignment to Curriculum, a majority of the humanities (for ELA) responded that they were in the Facilitating level (60.0%). A majority of the mathematics Instructional Coaches responded that they were in the Optimizing level (41.4%), but also a large number responded two levels lower, the Guiding level (34.5%). A majority of the ELA Instructional Coaches responded that they fell in the Guiding level (33.3%), but also a large number responded one level lower, the Forming level (29.6%). Both the humanities (social studies) and the science Instructional Coaches were split evenly between levels. Science Instructional Coaches were split between Optimizing and Guiding (38.9% for both), while the humanities (for social studies) were split between Facilitating and Guiding (42.9%).

Expanding Teachers’ Use of Data For the component of Expanding Teachers’ Use of Data, a majority of the humanities (for ELA), humanities (social studies), ELA, and science Instructional Coaches responded that they were in the Guiding level (60.0%, 57.1%, 51.9%, and 66.7%, respectively). The mathematics Instructional Coaches also had a majority respond Guiding level (41.4%), but also a large number responded two levels higher, the Optimizing level (37.9%).

Overall The table and graph below displays the number of times a level was the majority response for the different content area Instructional Coaches.

Forming Guiding Facilitating Optimizing Total 1.5 10.3 10.3 7.8

Overall, it appears that most Instructional Coaches believe that they are in either the Guiding or Facilitating levels, with the fewest majorities in the Forming level.

00.5

11.5

22.5

33.5

Humanities(ELA)

Humanities (SocStud)

ELA Math Science

Maj

ority

of R

espo

nses

Instructional Coach Content Area

Instructional Coaching Levels per Content Area

Forming Guiding Facilitating Optimizing


Page | 21

Analysis of Survey Results: Instructional Coaches’ Comments

Instructional coaches had an opportunity to respond to open ended questions. The questions and the three most common responses are shown below:

What are the strengths of the Instructional Coaching program in CCISD? • Professional Learning opportunities for Coaches• Support, reflection, collaboration, and planning among the community of coaches• Building capacity in teachers

What are the challenges of the Instructional Coaching program in CCISD? • Being split between two campuses• Lack of time to complete duties (dividing time between coaching and teaching roles at the high school level),

and lack of time to complete other tasks as assigned (aside from coaching responsibilities)• Ongoing support needed from teachers and administrators and inconsistency of coaching role from campus to

campus

What are your suggestions for revisions to the program? • Full time coaches and more availability of coaches to engage in complete coaching cycles

For intermediate coaches, having humanities coach either one campus and two content areas or two campusesand one content area. For high school coaches, a full-time ELA coach is needed to support the workshop model,and for elementary, coaches for each content area are needed.

• Creating an ongoing culture of learning for coaches, teachers, and administrators• Training opportunities for new coaches in addition to PL as mentioned above

What impact have you had on your teachers’ instructional practices? • Teacher transformation-trying new instructional techniques; utilizing data to guide instruction; taking risks;

and implementing a backwards design methodology• Alignment of instruction, common assessments, TEKS, and PL when planning for instruction• Implementation of PL

In what areas do you think you have been most successful? • Building relationships with teachers to foster a trusting environment, which allows them to take more risks• Development of teacher leaders• Teachers are planning for instruction with different purposes (including reflection) in mind

In what areas do you think you have been least successful? • Guiding teachers to independent self-reflection• Shifting teacher mindset to a growth mindset• Time management (balancing roles and managing to meet with teachers at all grade levels/content areas)


Page | 22

Analysis of Survey Results: Teachers and Campus Administrators

Please refer to Appendix C: Teachers’ and Campus Administrators’ Survey Results for graphs and charts that correlate with the narrative for pages 22-24.

Refining Instruction and District Support When asked if the Instructional Coaches were supporting teachers in refining their instruction, the teachers and administrators responded either Agree or Strongly Agree (88.0% or above) for ELA (88.4%), mathematics (88.0%), and science (89.8%) Instructional Coaches. The responses for the Humanities (for social studies) were lower for Agree or Strongly Agree at 76.0%.

According to the teachers and campus administrators, 96.1% either Agree or Strongly Agree that district level administrators support the implementation of collaborative professional learning.

Attending, Facilitating, or Coaching Teams The goal for the CCISD Instructional program includes moving Instructional Coaches from just meeting with the teacher teams, to facilitating the team meetings, to ultimately coaching teacher team meetings. Teachers and administrators were asked if Instructional Coaches met, facilitated, or coached teacher teams. The responses are summarized in the tables below:

ICs Attend Meetings Selected or No Teams Most or All Teams Humanities (Social Stud) 39.6% 60.4% ELA 22.9% 77.1% Mathematics 23.5% 76.5% Science 22.1% 77.9%

ICs Facilitate Meetings Selected or No Teams Most or All Teams Humanities (Social Stud) 45.5% 54.5% ELA 30.7% 69.3% Mathematics 32.5% 67.5% Science 31.8% 68.2%

ICs Coach Meetings Selected or No Teams Most or All Teams Humanities (Social Stud) 42.5% 57.5% ELA 21.0% 79.0% Mathematics 21.2% 78.8% Science 18.5% 81.5%

These results indicate that the humanities (for social studies) are meeting, facilitating, and coaching fewer teacher teams, when compared to the other content area Instructional Coaches. The humanities Instructional Coaches are found at only Intermediate campuses, and most are split between two campuses. All humanities Instructional Coaches also work with two content areas (ELA and social studies). For the tables above, results were split depending which content area the teacher or campus administrator were associated.


Page | 23


Matrix Standards The teachers and campus administrators were also asked to respond about where the Instructional Coaches were on the matrix for each area (see Appendix A for more details). The table below shows where the majority of teachers and campus administrators rated their Instructional Coaches on the matrix for each area of Instructional Coaching.

Lifting Level of Instruction Forming Guiding Facilitating Optimizing Humanities (Social Stud) X ELA X Mathematics X Science X Partners with Teachers Humanities (Social Stud) X ELA X Mathematics X Science X Engages Teachers in Reflective Conversations Humanities (Social Stud) X X ELA X Mathematics X Science X Alignment of Goals Humanities (Social Stud) X X ELA X Mathematics X Science X Alignment of Curriculum Humanities (Social Stud) X ELA X X Mathematics X X Science X Expanding Teachers' Use of Data Humanities (Social Stud) X ELA X Mathematics X Science X

From the data, it appears that most teachers and campus administration believe that the Instructional Coaches are in the Facilitating level for Lifting Level of Instruction, Partners with Teachers, Engages Teachers in Reflective Conversations, Alignment of Goals, and Expanding Teachers’ Use of Data. The Alignment of Curriculum area had a majority of responses at the Optimizing level, with ELA and mathematics being split with Guiding level as well. The feedback also indicates that the humanities (social studies) Instructional Coaches showed the most variance from other content areas, specifically in the Engages Teachers in Reflective Conversations, Alignment of Goals, and Expanding Teachers’ Use of Data.


Page | 24


Matrix Standards Lifting Level of Instruction The majority of teachers and administrators (ranging from 41.2% to 60.5%) felt that their coaches fit into the Facilitating level.

Partners with Teachers The majority of teachers and administrators (ranging from 25.8% to 44.5%) felt that their coaches fit into the Facilitating level.

Engages Teachers in Reflective Conversations The majority of teachers and administrators (ranging from 32.0% to 45.4%) felt that their coaches fit into the Facilitating level.

Alignment of Goals The majority of teachers and administrators (ranging from 24.0% to 40.1%) felt that their coaches fit into the Facilitating level.

Alignment of Curriculum The majority of teachers and administrators (ranging from 34.3% to 45.7%) felt that their coaches fit into the Optimizing level.

Expanding Teachers’ Use of Data The majority of teachers and administrators (ranging from 30.5% to 54.3%) felt that their coaches fit into the Facilitating level.


Page | 25

Analysis of Survey Results: Teachers’ and Campus Administrators’ Comments

Teachers and administrators had an opportunity to respond to open ended questions. The questions and the three most common responses are shown below:

What are the strengths of the Instructional Coaching program in CCISD? • Supporting teachers through Professional Learning, collaborative planning sessions, and the

utilization of data to drive instruction• Coaches share resources, strategies, materials, and ideas to facilitate learning• Curriculum alignment and knowledge of TEKS

What are the challenges of the Instructional Coaching program in CCISD? • Time constraints with coaches who also have a teaching role or are split between campuses• Teachers are unclear regarding coaching role and related responsibilities• Coaches being off campus due to meetings and/or being split between campuses

What are your suggestions for revisions to the program? • More coaches

o each campus needs full time coacheso coaches should be assigned to one campus as opposed to being splito equitable number of coaches at each campus neededo bilingual coaches neededo social studies coaches neededo more science coaches neededo more time spent in classroomso grade band specific coaches (K-2 and 3-5) needed

• Clarification of instructional coaching role• More time with coaches

What impact have the coaches had on your/your teachers’ instructional practices? • Help with implementing best instructional practices• Help with planning (with alignment to TEKS); modeling lessons; professional learning;

assessment development; data analysis; and encouraging teachers to take risks• Provide ideas and organizational strategies to teachers

In what areas do you think the coach(es) have been most successful? • Team Planning• Curriculum and Assessments• Support

In what areas do you think the coach(es) have been least successful? • Not enough time and availability• Lack of visibility in classrooms and not enough modeling of lessons• Lack of full coaching cycles


Page | 26

Analysis of Survey Results: Teachers, Campus Administrators, and Instructional Coaches

Please refer to Appendix D: Teachers’, Campus Administrators’, and Instructional Coaches’ Survey Results for graphs and charts that correlate with the narrative for pages 26-31.

Survey Results: Teachers, Campus Administrators, and Coaches When looking at the responses to the survey from teachers, campus administrators, and Instructional Coaches, there appears to be agreement about the support coming from district level administrators for the implementation of collaborative professional learning. The responses ranged from 95.8% (teachers) to 98.8% (campus administrators) for either Agree or Strongly Agree.

The survey responses from teachers, campus administrators, and Instructional Coaches about refining teaching within the district was analyzed for each content area supported by Instructional Coaches. The following were the average for teachers, campus administrators, and Instructional Coaches who responded either Agree or Strongly Agree for each content area:

• Humanities (social studies): 82.8%• ELA: 95.4%• Mathematics: 94.0%• Science: 94.3%

For each content area, the teachers were the lowest for Agree or Strongly Agree. Humanities (Social Studies) was the only content area where the average was below 94.0%.

The teachers, campus administrators, and Instructional Coaches responses for if Instructional Coaches attend, facilitate, or coach teacher team meetings were compared. The table below shows where the majority of each group (teachers, campus administrators, and Instructional Coaches) responded for these questions.

Attend Team Meetings No Teams Selected Teams Most Teams All Teams Humanities (Social Stud) T,C A A ELA C T,A Mathematics T,A,C Science C T,A Facilitate Team Meetings

Humanities (Social Stud) T,C C A ELA C T,A,C Mathematics T,A,C Science C T,A Coach Team Meetings Humanities (Social Stud) T,C A ELA T,A,C Mathematics T,A,C Science C C T,A,C

T=Teachers; A=Campus Administrators; C=Instructional Coaches If a letter shows in more than one column on a single row, the majority split between levels

From the table above, it appears that the most consistency and alignment of data occurs for ELA, mathematics, and science. The responses had the most variance in the area of Humanities (social studies).


Page | 27

Analysis of Survey Results: Teachers, Campus Administrators, and Instructional Coaches

The teachers, campus administrators, and Instructional Coaches were all asked to respond about where the Instructional Coaches were on the continuum for each area (see Appendix A for more details). The table below shows where the majority of teachers (T), campus administrators (A), and Instructional Coaches (C) rated the Instructional Coaches on the continuum for each area of Instructional Coaching.

Lifting Level of Instruction Forming Guiding Facilitating Optimizing Humanities (Social Stud) C T,A,C ELA T,A,C Mathematics T,A,C Science T,A,C Partners with Teachers Humanities (Social Stud) T T,A,C ELA T,A,C Mathematics C T,A Science T,A,C Engages Teachers in Reflective Conversations Humanities (Social Stud) T T,A,C ELA C T,A Mathematics C T,A Science C T,A,C C Alignment of Goals Humanities (Social Stud) T T T T,A,C ELA T A,C Mathematics T A,C Science T A,C Alignment of Curriculum Humanities (Social Stud) A,C A,C T,A ELA T,A,C A T,A Mathematics T T,A,C Science C T,A,C Expanding Teachers' Use of Data Humanities (Social Stud) T,A,C ELA C T,A Mathematics C T,A Science C T,A

T=Teachers; A=Campus Administrators; C=Instructional Coaches If a letter shows in more than one column on a single row, the majority split between levels

When analyzing the table above, in most areas, the teachers and campus administrators aligned, while the Instructional Coaches were usually one level below. Lifting Level of Instruction, Partners with Teachers, and Engages Teachers in Reflective Conversations were mainly in the Facilitating level. Alignment of Goals was mainly in Optimizing. Alignment of Curriculum was split between Guiding and Optimizing, while Expanding Teachers’ Use of Data was split between Guiding and Facilitating.


Page | 28

Analysis of Survey Results: Teachers, Campus Administrators, and Coaches

Refining Instruction and District Support Teachers and administrators were asked the following question: Each role listed below supports teachers in refining their instruction…” Coaches were asked the following question: “As an instructional coach, I support teachers in refining their teaching.”

The largest percentage of those who disagree and strongly disagree with the statement, “Each role listed below supports teachers in refining their instruction…,” are the teachers (29.7%) when asked about the humanities coach as a supporting role. The largest percentage of those who agree and strongly agree in each group regarding refining instruction is the ELA coaches (87.5% of teachers; 98.6% of administrators; and 100.0% of coaches).

When asked about the support of district level administrators’ support of their campus’ implementation of collaborative professional learning, 95.8% of teachers agreed; 98.8% of administrators agreed; and, 96.7% of coaches agreed.

Attending Team Meetings Of all content areas, humanities is the most inconsistent with team meeting attendance of coaches. Teachers and coaches’ responses closely align on the “Selected Teams” (44.6% and 42.9%, respectively), while administrators’ responses were much lower (11.1%).

Teachers and administrators’ responses closely align (56.6% and 61.1%, respectively) for the ELA coach on the “All Teams” response, while the coaches indicate a much lower response (37.0%).

Responses for the mathematics content area are closely aligned for teachers (56.0%) and administrators (58.0%) who responded that coaches attend meetings with “All teams;” while coaches’ responses are slightly lower (51.7%).

Teachers and coaches’ responses align for the science coach with the “All Teams” response (53.7% and 54.0%, respectively).

Facilitating Team Meetings Teachers and coaches’ responses are closely aligned (41.1% and 42.9%, respectively) for the humanities (social studies) coach for “Selected teams;” teachers and administrators’ responses are closely aligned for “Most teams.”

For the ELA coach, administrators and coaches’ responses are identically aligned with 29.6% for each group for “Selected teams;” all three groups are closely aligned for “Most teams;” and, teachers and administrators’ responses are closely aligned (51.4% and 50.7%, respectively) for “All teams.”

For the mathematics coach, all groups are closely aligned with their responses for “Most Teams.”

For science coaches, there is a bit of a discrepancy between coaches responses and teachers and administrators’ responses for the “Most teams” response. Teachers and administrators are closely aligned (21.6% and 24.5%, respectively); however, coaches responded to that question with a higher percentage of 55.6%.


Page | 29


Coaching Team Meetings For humanities, teachers (23.0%) and administrators (22.2%) agree that the coach coaches “Most teams,” while teachers (29.7%) and coaches (28.6%) are closely aligned to their response of “All teams.”

For ELA, teachers and administrators are more closely aligned in their responses for “Selected teams,” Most teams,” and “All teams.” Coaches’ responses are higher than teachers and administrators for the responses previously listed; however, coaches responded lower than the other two groups for “All teams” with 48.1%.

For mathematics, the responses are a bit inconsistent; however, teachers and administrators’ responses are closely aligned for the “All teams” answer (60.4% and 62.3%, respectively).

For science, administrator and coaches’ responses are closely aligned for the “Most teams” response (34.0% and 33.3%, respectively). Teachers and administrators’ responses for “All teams” are closely aligned at 58.0% and 54.0%, respectively).

Matrix StandardsLifting Level of Instruction During Collaborative Planning The content area that has the closest alignment between teachers (58.3%), administrators (60.3%), and coaches (51.7%) is mathematics, and all groups felt that the coach fits into the Facilitating level. All other content areas have discrepancies between all groups surveyed.

Partners with Teachers to Address Specific Student Learning Needs For humanities, teachers, administrators, and coaches agreed that the coach fits into the Facilitating level (25.8%, 25.9%, and 28.6%, respectively).

For ELA, teachers (43.7%) and coaches (40.7%) agree that the coach fits into the Facilitating level.

For mathematics, teachers (43.7%) and administrators (46.3%) agree that the coach fits into the Facilitating level, while teachers (28.7%) and coaches (27.6%) also feel that the coach fits into the Optimizing level.

For science, there is a close alignment for all groups for both the Facilitating (44.7%, 42.9%, and 44.4%) and Optimizing (31.6%, 36.7%, and 38.9%) levels.

Engaging Teachers in Reflective Conversations For humanities, teachers and administrators’ responses are closely aligned for the Guiding level (31.5% and 33.3%, respectively). Discrepancies are evident between groups with the exception of coaches and administrators for the Facilitating level.

For ELA, teachers and administrators’ responses align for the Guiding level (26.8% and 27.1%, respectively), and all three groups are closely aligned for the Optimizing level (15.8%-18.5%).

For mathematics, teachers and administrators’ responses align for the Guiding (26.8% and 28.8%) and Facilitating levels (45.6% and 43.9%).

For science, teachers and administrators’ responses align for the Guiding (26.8% and 25.0%), Facilitating (44.0% and 45.8%), and Optimizing (17.6% and 20.8%) levels.


Page | 30


Alignment of Goals (Campus to Classroom Goals) For humanities, discrepancies are evident, with no groups being in alignment with their responses.

For ELA, all three groups are in alignment for the Facilitating level (36.9%, 33.8%, and 33.3%). Teachers and administrators are in alignment for the Guiding level (23.1% and 23.9%, respectively).

For mathematics, administrators and coaches’ responses align in the Facilitating (26.9% and 27.6%, respectively) and Optimizing (46.3% and 48.3%, respectively) levels.

For science, administrators and coaches are in alignment with their responses for the Facilitating level (29.2% and 27.8%).

Alignment of Curriculum, Instruction, and Assessment For humanities, discrepancies are evident, with no groups being in alignment with their responses.

For ELA, teachers and coaches are somewhat in alignment with their responses for the Guiding level (37.8% and 33.3%, respectively).

For mathematics, administrators and coaches are in alignment with their responses for the Forming (10.4% and 10.3%) and Optimizing (40.3% and 41.4%) levels.

For science, administrators and coaches are in alignment with their responses for the Facilitating (22.4% and 22.2%) level.

Expanding Teachers’ Use of Various Types of Data For humanities, there is a bit of alignment between administrators and coaches for the Optimizing (11.5% and 14.3%) level and with teachers and coaches for the Forming (13.0% and 14.3%) level.

For ELA, teachers and administrators are in complete alignment with their responses in the Facilitating level at 47.9%.

For mathematics, teachers and administrators are in alignment with their responses in the Facilitating (49.9% and 47.1%) level.

For science, teachers and administrators’ responses are somewhat aligned for the Forming, Guiding, Facilitating, and Optimizing levels.


Page | 31


Humanities Coaches’ Matrix Standards (as related to ELA teachers) Lifting the Level of Instruction Based on survey results, 50.0% of the humanities coaches feel that they are in the Forming level for the Lifting the Level of Instruction standard; the remaining 50.0% reported being in the Guiding or Facilitating levels.

Partners with Teachers Based on survey results, 50.0% of the humanities coaches feel that they are in the Facilitating level for the Partners with Teachers standard; the remaining 50.0% reported fitting into the Forming, Guiding, and Optimizing levels.

Engages Teachers in Reflective Conversations Based on survey results, 40.0% of the humanities coaches reported being in the Optimizing level for the Engages Teachers in Reflective Conversations standard; the remaining 60.0% reported fitting into the Forming, Guiding, and Facilitating levels.

Alignment of Goals Based on survey results, 90.0% of humanities coaches reported fitting into the Facilitating and Optimizing levels for the Alignment of Goals standard, while the remaining 10.0% reported fitting into the Forming level.

Alignment of Curriculum Based on survey results, 80.0% of humanities coaches reported fitting into the Facilitating and Optimizing levels for the Alignment of Curriculum standard; the remaining 20.0% reported fitting into the Guiding level.

Expanding Teachers’ Use of Data Based on survey results, 60.0% of humanities coaches reported fitting into the Guiding level for the Expanding Teachers’ Use of Data standard, while the remaining 40.0% are spread across the Forming, Facilitating, and Optimizing levels.


Page | 32

Analysis of Student Performance

Please refer to Appendix E: Student Performance for graphs that correlate with the narrative for pages 32-33.

Student Performance The State of Texas Assessment of Academic Readiness (STAAR) was analyzed by campus to determine if there were any differences between campuses that had full time Instructional Coaches, Instructional Coaches split between campuses or content areas, or no Instructional Coaches. The analyses included the average yearly change in achievement (passing rate) and progress (STAAR Progress Measure) for the content areas with Instructional Coaches, based on the change in economic disadvantaged rates over the past four years. The tables below show the percent of campuses that performed above and below the expected outcomes by economically disadvantaged rates for each content area for achievement and progress.

Achievement - Passing Rate Mathematics IC % Above Expected Results % Below Expected Results No IC 75.0% 25.0% Full Time IC 52.0% 48.0% Split IC 14.3% 85.7% ELA IC No IC 50.0% 50.0% Full Time IC 57.7% 42.3% Split IC 33.3% 66.7% Science IC No IC 47.4% 52.6% Full Time IC 41.7% 58.3% Split IC 90.0% 10.0% Social Studies IC No IC 100.0% 0.0% Split IC 40.0% 60.0%

Progress - STAAR Progress Measure Mathematics IC % Above Expected Results % Below Expected Results No IC 50.0% 50.0% Full Time IC 48.0% 52.0% Split IC 25.0% 75.0% ELA IC No IC 50.0% 50.0% Full Time IC 57.6% 42.4% Split IC 46.2% 53.8%

When analyzing achievement, campuses that had full time Instructional Coaches outperformed campuses with either no Instructional Coaches or split Instructional Coaches in the areas of ELA. For mathematics, campuses with no Instructional Coaches outperformed both campuses with full time Instructional Coaches and split Instructional Coaches, with the split Instructional Coaches having the lowest percentage of campuses performing above the expected results. For science, campuses with no Instructional Coaches outperformed both campuses with full time Instructional Coaches and split Instructional Coaches, with the split Instructional Coaches having the lowest percentage of campuses performing above the expected results.


Page | 33

Analysis of Student Performance

(Continued from previous page)

For social studies, campuses with no Instructional Coaches outperformed campuses with split Instructional Coaches. When analyzing progress for mathematics, campuses with no Instructional Coaches outperformed both campuses with full time Instructional Coaches and split Instructional Coaches, with the split Instructional Coaches having the lowest percentage of campuses performing above the expected results. For ELA, campuses with full time Instructional Coaches outperformed both campuses with no Instructional Coaches and split Instructional Coaches, with the split Instructional Coaches having the lowest percentage of campuses performing above the expected results.

When looking at the results of campuses that had full time Instructional Coaches and were identified as “High Quality” (scoring at the top ranges of each category from the teacher and campus administrator surveys), it was found that 100% of these campuses performed higher than expected for mathematics progress, based on economic disadvantaged rates. For ELA progress, 66.6% of identified campuses as high quality performed higher than expected, based on economic disadvantaged rates.


Page | 34

Financial Data

Instructional Coaches’ Salary Data Instructional Coaches’ salaries are funded through various budget codes (Campus Activity Funds, General, Local, State, and Federal). The chart below shows the number of budget codes and the specific codes used to fund salaries and the number of coaches. While some instructional coaching positions are funded through one budget code, others are funded through multiple codes.

Type of Budget Code 2014-15 2015-16 2016-17

Salaries N Salaries N Salaries N 1 Budget Code Federal $ 99,499 * $ 306,665 5 $ 450,111 7 General $ 1,179,769 19 $ 1,942,984 30 $ 1,495,774 22 State $ - - $ 75,155 * $ - - 2 Budget Codes Federal, Federal $ 60,641 * $ 63,266 * $ 119,011 * General, Campus Activity Funds $ 403,146 7 $ 311,621 5 $ 65,936 * General, Federal $ 1,624,990 27 $ 1,292,850 20 $ 1,973,438 30 General, State $ 73,293 * $ 133,474 * $ 223,595 * 3 Budget Codes * General, Federal, Campus Activity Funds $ 62,020 * $ - - $ 200,465 8

General, Federal, Federal $ 608,201 9 $ 648,388 10 $ 537,040 General, Federal, State $ 138,185 * $ - - $ 204,806 * 4 Budget Codes General, Federal, Federal, Federal $ 71,348 * $ 134,113 * $ 146,078 * General, Federal, Federal, State $ - $ - $ 69,074 * General, Federal, Federal, Campus Activity Funds $ - $ 37,835 *

Grand Total $ 4,321,092 70 $ 4,908,517 76 $ 5,523,164 83

*=less than 5 instructional coaches

Seven budget codes exist which encompass the categories shown above. The specific budget codes are listed below along with the category used in the table above:

• General Funds (199)• Federally Funded (Federal) (200-289)• Federally Funded Shared Service Arrangements (Federal) (290-379)• State Funded (State) (380-429)• State/Locally Funded Shared Service Arrangements (State) (430-459)• Locally Funded (Local) (460-499)• Campus Activity Funds (Campus Activity Funds) (461)

A coach’s salary may be funded using multiple budget codes. For example: In 2014-15, a specific coach’s salary was funded using a single budget code of 199 (General Funds); in 2015-16, the same single funding source was used (199); in 2016-17, two budget codes (199-General Funds and 211-Federally Funded) were used to fund this coach’s salary. Therefore, for the first two years in this table, this coach’s salary was listed under 1 Budget Code; however, in 2016-17, the coach’s salary was listed under 2 Budget Codes (General, Federal).

The number of instructional coaches has increased each year since 2014-15, and the combined amount used for salaries to fund these positions has ranged from $4,321,092.33 in 2014-15 to $5,523,164.29 in 2016-17.


Page | 35

Financial Data

Professional Learning Financial Data

Year Description Cost

2014-15

Professional Learning $17,200 Resources $2,246 Region IV $1,390 2014-15 Total $20,836

2015-16

Professional Learning $62,985 Resources $5,863 Region IV $10,800 Travel $3,278 2015-16 Total $82,926

2016-17

Professional Learning $6,232 Resources $4,039 Region IV $19,520 2016-17 Total $29,791

3 year total $133,552

While the three-year total for the professional learning part of the Instructional Coaching program was $133,552, the majority of the funds were spent during the 2015-16 school year on the Learning Forward Coaching Academy and the professional learning contract with Jim Knight, totaling nearly $61,000.

Financial Data Analysis The financial data shows that the costs for the Instructional Coaching program have been increasing for the past three years. Most of the costs associated with the program are for the salaries for the Instructional Coaches, and as more Instructional Coaches have been added, the costs have increased. The costs for professional learning related to Instructional Coaching ranged from $20,836 (2014-2015) to $82,926 (2015-2016) over that specific two year period. The costs for professional learning decreased from 2015-2016 to 2016-2017 by $53,135.


Superintendent Recommendations

1. Develop a plan to increase the number of instructional coaches to full-time equivalents at eachcampus that only has a half unit as resources become available.

2. Increase the percent of instructional coaches from 16.5% to 33.0% who are identified as Optimizingin the IC Matrix by June 30, 2020.

3. Increase student performance on all state assessment and college entrance exams by June 30, 2019.

Page l 36


Page | 37

Resources

Aguilar, E. (2016) The Art of coaching teams: Building resilient communities that transform schools. (Edition 1). Jossey-Bass: IN.

Barshay, J. (2018). Does every teacher need a coach? Retrieved from: http://hechingerreport.org/every-teacher-need-coach/ on March 27, 2018.

Bierly, C., Doyle, B., & Smith, A. (2016). Transforming schools: How distributed leadership can create more high-performing schools. Retrieved from: http://www.bain.com/publications/articles/transforming-schools.aspx on January 29, 2018.

Hirsh, Psencik, & Brown (2014). Becoming a learning system. Learning Forward: OH.

Killion, J. (2006). Taking the lead: New roles for teachers and school-based coaches. N National Staff Development Council: OH.

Killion, J. and Roy, P. (2009) Becoming a learning school. National Staff Development Council: OH.

Killion, Harrison, Bryan, & Clifton (2012). Coaching matters. Learning Forward: OH. Also retrieved from: https://learningforward.org/docs/coachingmatters/killiontoolch5-4.pdf on April 5, 2018.

Learning Forward (2015). Standards for Professional Learning. Retrieved from https://learningforward.org/standards-for-professional-learning on October 30, 2017.

Learning Forward (February 2015). Talking points: Data displays are an effective way to engage teachers. Volume 36, No. 1.

Learning Forward (2017). Community of practice cycle of inquiry. Retrieved from: https://learningforward.org/learning-opportunities/redesign-pd-community-of-practice/cycle-of-inquiry on October 30, 2017.

Love, Stiles, Mundry, & DiRanna (2008).The Data coach’s guide to improving learning for all students. Corwin: CA.

Stoelinga & Mangin (2010). Examining effective teacher leadership: A case study approach. EPI.

Sweeney, D. and Harris, L. (2011). Student centered coaching: The moves. Corwin: CA.

http://hechingerreport.org/every-teacher-need-coach/

http://www.bain.com/publications/articles/transforming-schools.aspx

https://learningforward.org/docs/coachingmatters/killiontoolch5-4.pdf

https://learningforward.org/standards-for-professional-learning%20%20on%20October%2030

https://learningforward.org/learning-opportunities/redesign-pd-community-of-practice/cycle-of-inquiry%20on%20October%2030

https://learningforward.org/learning-opportunities/redesign-pd-community-of-practice/cycle-of-inquiry%20on%20October%2030


Page | 38

Appendix A: Instructional Coaching Matrix

Standards Lifting Level of Instruction During Collaborative Planning

Partners with Teachers to Address Specific Student

Learning Need

Engages Teachers in Reflective Conversations to Foster

Awareness of the Teaching-Learning Connection

Optimizing

Our coach(es) works mostly with team leaders to support their leadership; Teams utilize a strong planning and data analysis process even when the coach is not present; Teachers focus intentional effort on designing strong first time instruction for all learners; Teachers and teams identify their own goals and collaboratively pursue growth; Teachers learn from and with each other even with or without coach facilitation

Our coach(es) support team leaders in guiding teams to plan with the needs of all students in mind; Teachers meet formally and informally during units to review progress, student learning, and discuss needed adjustments

Reflection with our coaches and/or colleagues is a frequent and consistent part of my day; Our coaches' questions help me to intentionally consider how I/my teachers want to shape my/their professional learning and growth

Facilitating

Our coach(es) facilitate team planning by guiding teachers through an intentional planning process including data analysis, assessment creation, and / or instructional planning; Coaches fully engage with the team as a collaborative partner, suggesting ideas, resources, etc.; Coaches’ language include “we might…”, “what if we …”

Our coach(es) facilitate planning of first time instruction that explores and plans for common gaps, misconceptions, and learning differences; Coaches use a gradual release model to support teachers during the delivery of instruction as they respond to student needs during first time instruction

Our coach(es) consistently ask me/my teachers reflective questions after we work together.

Guiding

Our coach(es) lead team planning and engage teachers in an intentional process; Coaches frequently or often direct teacher attention back to data, standards, or student needs; Coaches’ language includes “we should…,” “we need to…”

Our coach(es) support teachers’ awareness of specific learning needs; Coaches are sometimes or often in classrooms to directly support students

I sometimes engage in reflective conversations with coaches after we work together

Forming

Our coach(es) attend team planning and work towards helping teachers develop an intentional planning process; Coaches sometimes or often provide data analysis, resources (including reteach, remediation, or tutorial plans or resources); Coaches support teachers by assisting their work

Consideration of student learning needs primarily occurs during analysis of unit or summative assessment results.

I rarely engage in reflective conversations with coaches, even after we work together


Page | 39

Standards Alignment of Goals

(Campus to Classroom Goals)

Alignment of Curriculum, Instruction, & Assessment

Expand Teachers’ Use of Various Types of Data

Optimizing

I have an active part in establishing our campus goals to improve student outcomes; I choose meaningful personal, professional goals to support overall campus growth and to improve student outcomes; Our coach(es) support my/my teachers' work towards my/their personal, professional learning goals.

We/My teachers consistently begin planning sessions by reviewing the TEKS and/or the curriculum and discussing what student mastery involves and deciding on acceptable evidence of mastery; We/My teachers plan an instructional calendar of activities only after having written our assessment and agreed upon formative assessments for the unit; We/My teachers collaboratively review each assessment item and each instructional activity for alignment to the TEKS

We/My teachers meet together to analyze and discuss various types of data (student work, test results, student observations); We/My teachers use data to diagnose student learning needs for upcoming instruction; We/My teachers use data to evaluate the effectiveness of our instructional methods.

Facilitating

Our coach(es) knows the campus learning or growth goals and help me to write a personal, professional goal that is aligned to it

Our coach(es) are working to change the planning process to include writing common assessments, data analysis, and to make instruction more rigorous.

Our coach(es) consistently lead us through analysis of both assessment results and formative assessment results to help us/my teachers plan and adapt instruction; We/My teachers consistently consider student data with reference to the curriculum learning targets, I can statement, learning progressions, or the TEKS

Guiding

I choose a professional learning goal that is meaningful to me/my teachers, and our coach(es) help me work on it and document evidence

Our coach(es) guide us/my teachers through a planning process that reviews common assessments and data prior to planning daily instruction.

Our coach(es) support us/my teachers in using common assessment data and student learning progression outcomes to plan upcoming instruction.

Forming

I think that our coach(es) have a goal in mind for the campus, but I am unaware of it.

Our coach(es) join us/my teachers for planning and answers questions about the TEKS and the curriculum as they arise.

Our coach(es) encourages us to use common assessment data from prior years to write this year’s assessment and plan instruction.

Matrix developed by CCISD’s Executive Director for Professional Learning and Coordinator of Instructional Coaching coupled with the resources listed below:

• Becoming a Learning School, Killion & Roy (2009, p.90-91)• Taking the Lead, Killion & Harrison (2006, p.41-58) • Coaching Matters, Killion, Harrison, Bryan, & Clifton (2012, p.40-46)


Page | 40

Appendix B: Instructional Coaches’ Survey Results

Surveys were distributed in January 2018 to all instructional coaches, teachers, and principals. Instructional coaches completed the survey, and those coaches who are split between campuses and content areas were asked to complete the survey multiple times for each campus and/or content area.

The table below shows the status of coaching roles by grade level band, according to survey results. Approximately 68% of instructional coaches have full time roles at one campus, while approximately 32% have split positions between two campuses, which occurs only at the intermediate level.

Grade Level Band

One campus

Split between two campuses Total

K-5 41 41 6-8 8 29 37 9-12 13 13 Total 62 29 91

Grade Level Band and Content Area N % K-5 41 45.1%

Literacy/ELA** 23 25.3% Mathematics 15 16.5% Science * 3.3%

6-8 37 40.7% Humanities (intermediate level only) as related to ELA teachers 10 11.0% Humanities (intermediate level only) as related to Social Studies teachers 7 7.7% Mathematics 10 11.0% Science 10 11.0%

9-12 13 14.3% Literacy/ELA* * 4.4% Mathematics * 4.4% Science 5 5.5%

Total 91 100.0%

*=less than 5 participants **ELA (English Language Arts) refers to the high school level, while Literacy refers to the elementary level; however, for purposes of this program evaluation, ELA will encompass both terms/content areas (ELA and Literacy).


Page | 41


N=91

The following graph shows the level of coach support of teams of teachers.

0.0%3.3%

50.5%46.2%

0.0%3.3%

46.2%50.5%

StronglyDisagree

Disagree Agree StronglyAgree

StronglyDisagree

Disagree Agree StronglyAgree

As an instructional coach, I support teachersin refining their teaching.

District level administrators support mycampus' implementation of collaborative

professional learning.

Supporting Teachers and Support of District Level Administrators

44.0%28.6%

23.1%4.4%

27.5%25.3%

31.9%15.4%

41.8%30.8%

25.3%2.2%

All teamsMost teams

Selected teamsNo teamsAll teams

Most teamsSelected teams

No teamsAll teams

Most teamsSelected teams

No teams

I att

end

team

mee

tings

tosu

ppor

tm

embe

rs a

sde

scrib

ed:

I fac

ilita

tete

amm

eetin

gs a

sde

scrib

ed:

I coa

ch te

ams

of te

ache

rs a

sde

scrib

ed:

Coaches' Support of Teams of Teachers


Page | 42


The survey questions listed only descriptors for each standard, which are based on levels of transformation (with the highest level listed first).

Standard: Lifting Level of Instruction Partners with Teachers

Optimizing

I work mostly with team leaders to support their leadership; Teams utilize a strong planning and data analysis process even when I am not present; Teachers focus intentional effort on designing strong first time instruction for all learners; Teachers and teams identify their own goals and collaboratively pursue growth; Teachers learn from and with each other even with or without my facilitation as a coach.

I support team leaders in guiding teams to plan with the needs of all students in mind; Teachers meet formally and informally during units to review progress, student learning, and discuss needed adjustments.

Facilitating

I facilitate team planning by guiding teachers through an intentional planning process including data analysis, assessment creation, and/or instructional planning; I fully engage with the team as a collaborative partner, suggesting ideas, resources, etc.; My language, as a coach, includes “we might…”, “what if we …”

I facilitate planning of first time instruction that explores and plans for common gaps, misconceptions, and learning differences; I use a gradual release model to support teachers during the delivery of instruction as they respond to student needs during first time instruction.

Guiding

I lead team planning and engage teachers in an intentional process; I frequently or often direct teacher attention back to data, standards, or student needs; My language, as a coach, includes “we should…,” “we need to…”

I support teachers’ awareness of specific learning needs; I am sometimes or often in classrooms to directly support students.

Forming

I attend team planning and work towards helping teachers develop an intentional planning process; I sometimes or often provide data analysis, resources (including reteach, remediation, or tutorial plans or resources); I support teachers by assisting their work.


42.9

%

0.0%

42.9

%

14.3

%

50.0

%

20.0

% 30.0

%

0.0%

33.3

%

7.4%

51.9

%

7.4%

24.1

%

17.2

%

51.7

%

6.9%

5.6%

44.4

% 50.0

%

0.0%


Lifting Level of Instruction

Humanties (Social Studies) Humanities (ELA)Literacy/ELA MathScience

14.3

%

14.3

%

28.6

%

42.9

%

20.0

%

10.0

%

50.0

%

20.0

%

14.8

%

18.5

%

40.7

%

25.9

%

13.8

%

31.0

%

27.6

%

27.6

%

11.1

%

5.6%

44.4

%

38.9

%Forming Guiding Facilitating Optimizing

Partners with Teachers



Page | 43



Standard: Engages Teachers in Reflective Conversations Alignment of Goals

Optimizing

Teacher reflection with me and/or colleagues is a frequent and consistent part of my day; My questions help teachers to intentionally consider how teachers want to shape their professional learning and growth.

I have an active part in establishing our campus goals to improve student outcomes; I choose meaningful personal, professional goals to support overall campus growth and to improve student outcomes; I support teachers' work towards their personal, professional learning goals.

Facilitating I consistently ask teachers reflective questions after we work together.

I know the campus learning or growth goals and help teachers to write a personal, professional goal that is aligned to it.

Guiding I sometimes engage in reflective conversations with teachers after we work together.

I choose a professional learning goal that is meaningful to teachers, and I help them work on it and document evidence.

Forming I rarely engage in reflective conversations with teachers, even after we work together.

I think that I have a goal in mind for the campus, but teachers are unaware of it.

0.0%

28.6

%

42.9

%

28.6

%

10.0

%

30.0

%

20.0

%

40.0

%

7.4%

40.7

%

33.3

%

18.5

%

0.0%

48.3

%

17.2

%

34.5

%

0.0%

33.3

%

33.3

%

33.3

%


Engages Teachers in Reflective Conversations


14.3

%

0.0%

14.3

%

71.4

%

10.0

%

0.0%

50.0

%

40.0

%

3.7%

3.7%

33.3

%

59.3

%

10.3

%

13.8

% 27.6

%

48.3

%

0.0%

11.1

% 27.8

%

61.1

%


Alignment of Goals



Page | 44



Standard: Alignment of Curriculum Expand Teachers' Use of Data

Optimizing

Teachers consistently begin planning sessions by reviewing the TEKS and/or the curriculum and discussing what student mastery involves and deciding on acceptable evidence of mastery; Teachers plan an instructional calendar of activities only after having written our assessment and agreed upon formative assessments for the unit; Teachers collaboratively review each assessment item and each instructional activity for alignment to the TEKS.

Teachers meet together to analyze and discuss various types of data (student work, test results, student observations); Teachers use data to diagnose student learning needs for upcoming instruction; Teachers use data to evaluate the effectiveness of their instructional methods.

Facilitating

I guide teachers through a planning process that reviews common assessments and data prior to planning daily instruction.

I consistently lead teachers through analysis of both assessment results and formative assessment results to help teachers plan and adapt instruction; Teachers consistently consider student data with reference to the curriculum learning targets, I can statement, learning progressions, or the TEKS.

Guiding

I am working to change the planning process to include writing common assessments, data analysis, and to make instruction more rigorous.

I support teachers in using common assessment data and student learning progression outcomes to plan upcoming instruction.

Forming I join teachers for planning and answer questions about the TEKS and the curriculum as they arise.

I encourage teachers to use common assessment data from prior years to write this year’s assessment and plan instruction.

0.0%

42.9

%

42.9

%

14.3

%

0.0%

20.0

%

60.0

%

20.0

%29.6

%

33.3

%

18.5

%

18.5

%

10.3

%

34.5

%

13.8

%

41.4

%

0.0%

38.9

%

22.2

%

38.9

%


Alignment to Curriculum


14.3

%

57.1

%

14.3

%

14.3

%

20.0

%

60.0

%

10.0

%

10.0

%

0.0%

51.9

%

22.2

%

25.9

%

10.3

%

41.4

%

10.3

%

37.9

%

11.1

%

66.7

%

16.7

%

5.6%


Expanding Teachers' Use of Data



Page | 45

Appendix C: Teachers’ and Campus Administrators’ Survey Results

The following table depicts the response rate of CCISD’s core content teachers and campus administrators by campus. The following groups were included in the survey distribution:

Teachers: • Elementary: All K-5 core content teachers (ELA, mathematics, science, and social studies)• Intermediate: All 6-8 core content teachers (ELA, mathematics, science, and social studies)• High School: 9-12 ELA, mathematics, and science teachers only

Principals: • Elementary: All elementary principals and assistant principals• Intermediate: All intermediate principals and assistant principals• High School: Each high school principal and all Deans of Instruction

Elementary Campuses N Intermediate Campuses N Armand Bayou Elementary 17 Bayside Intermediate 27 Bauerschlag Elementary 35 Brookside Intermediate 36 Bay Elementary 32 Clear Creek Intermediate 26 Brookwood Elementary 36 Clear Lake Intermediate 38 Clear Lake City Elementary 25 Creekside Intermediate 24 Ed White Elementary 26 League City Intermediate 39 Falcon Pass Elementary 29 Seabrook Intermediate 37 Ferguson Elementary 31 Space Center Intermediate 35 Gilmore Elementary 24 Victory Lakes Intermediate 28 Goforth Elementary 27 Westbrook Intermediate 42 Greene Elementary 28 High School Campuses* Hall Elementary 30 Clear Brook HS 47 Hyde Elementary 28 Clear Creek HS 57 Landolt Elementary 38 Clear Falls HS 57 League City Elementary 30 Clear Lake HS 48 McWhirter Elementary 41 Clear Springs HS 65 Mossman Elementary 41 Total 1,385 North Pointe Elementary 30 Parr Elementary 27 Robinson Elementary 21 Ross Elementary 31 Stewart Elementary 37 Ward Elementary 29 Weber Elementary 26 Wedgewood Elementary 33 Whitcomb Elementary 27

*Clear Horizons, Clear Path, and Clear View do not have core content instructional coaches.

Teachers=1,305 Administrators=80


Page | 46


The graph below shows the responses for teachers and administrators regarding each coaching role on their respective campuses. Please note that humanities refers to social studies and is only at the intermediate level.

Most of the teacher and administrator survey questions were not required, so while the total number of overall survey participants was 1,385, each question had a different number of participants based on their role. For example, mathematics teachers would not respond to survey questions about the literacy coach.

For each coaching role shown in the graph, the number of responses for the question above is listed below:

Humanities Coach (Social Studies) Literacy/ELA Coach Mathematics Coach Science Coach

100 812 708 374

N=1,385

8.0% 16

.0%

45.0

%

31.0

%

3.1% 8.

5%

30.4

%

58.0

%

2.4% 9.

6%

32.9

%

55.1

%

4.8%

5.3%

36.6

% 53.2

%

Strongly Disagree Disagree Agree Strongly Agree

Each role listed below supports teachers in refining their instruction: Humanities Coach

(Social Studies)ELA Coach

MathematicsCoachScience Coach

0.8% 3.2%

41.9%

54.2%


District level administrators support my campus' implementation of collaborative professional learning.


Page | 47


The following graphs show the level of coach support of teams of teachers (by type of coaching role).

The graphs above detail the coaches’ roles as they meet with teams of teachers. Depending on the campus need and the content area of the coach, coaches attend, facilitate, or coach teams of teachers as shown above.

4.0%

35.6

%

23.8

% 36.6

%

4.1%

18.8

%

20.1

%

57.0

%

5.3%

18.1

%

19.8

%

56.7

%

11.3

%

10.7

% 24.2

%

53.7

%

No teams Selected teams Most teams All teams

The coach(es) attend team meetings to support members as described below:

Humanities Coach ELA Coach Mathematics Coach Science Coach

6.1%

39.4

%

22.2

% 32.3

%

9.3%

21.4

%

17.9

%

51.4

%

10.7

% 21.8

%

18.2

%

49.3

%

12.4

%

19.4

%

22.0

%

46.2

%


The coach(es) facilitate team meetings as described below:


6.9%

35.6

%

22.8

% 34.7

%

4.5%

16.6

%

18.5

%

60.5

%

4.4%

16.8

%

18.2

%

60.6

%

9.0%

9.5%

24.1

%

57.4

%


The coach(es) coach teams of teachers as described below:



Page | 48


The table below indicates the number of participants who responded for each question/standard below. These questions were not required, and teachers and administrators needed to only respond in regards to the specific coach(es) with whom they work.

Standard: Humanities Coach ELA Coach Mathematics

Coach Science Coach

Lifting Level of Instruction During Collaborative Planning (with designated teams)

97 782 675 331

Partners with Teachers to Address Specific Student Learning Needs 93 788 683 324

Engages Teachers in Reflective Conversations to Foster Awareness of the Teaching-Learning Connection

100 800 696 332

Alignment of Goals (Campus to Classroom Goals) 100 789 685 329

Alignment of Curriculum, Instruction, and Assessment 94 767 668 328

Expand Teachers' Use of Various Types of Data 95 774 675 322

Average 97 783 680 328


Page | 49



Standard: Lifting Level of Instruction During Collaborative Planning

Partners with Teachers to Address Specific Student Learning Needs

Optimizing

Our coach(es) works mostly with team leaders to support their leadership; Teams utilize a strong planning and data analysis process even when the coach is not present; Teachers focus intentional effort on designing strong first time instruction for all learners; Teachers and teams identify their own goals and collaboratively pursue growth; Teachers learn from and with each other even with or without coach facilitation.

Our coach(es) support team leaders in guiding teams to plan with the needs of all students in mind; Teachers meet formally and informally during units to review progress, student learning, and discuss needed adjustments.

Facilitating

Our coach(es) facilitate team planning by guiding teachers through an intentional planning process including data analysis, assessment creation, and / or instructional planning; Coaches fully engage with the team as a collaborative partner, suggesting ideas, resources, etc.; Coaches’ language include “we might…”, “what if we …”

Our coach(es) facilitate planning of first time instruction that explores and plans for common gaps, misconceptions, and learning differences; Coaches use a gradual release model to support teachers during the delivery of instruction as they respond to student needs during first time instruction.

Guiding

Our coach(es) lead team planning and engage teachers in an intentional process; Coaches frequently or often direct teacher attention back to data, standards, or student needs; Coaches’ language includes “we should…,” “we need to…”

Our coach(es) support teachers’ awareness of specific learning needs; Coaches are sometimes or often in classrooms to directly support students.

Forming

Our coach(es) attend team planning and work towards helping teachers develop an intentional planning process; Coaches sometimes or often provide data analysis, resources (including reteach, remediation, or tutorial plans or resources); Coaches support teachers by assisting their work.


17.5

%

17.5

%

41.2

%

23.7

%

11.4

%

15.0

%

60.5

%

13.2

%

13.0

%

16.6

%

58.5

%

11.9

%

15.1

%

16.6

%

59.8

%

8.5%


Lifting Level of Instruction

Humanities ELA Mathematics Science

26.9

%

12.9

%

25.8

% 34.4

%

14.8

%

11.4

%

44.5

%

29.2

%

14.8

%

11.6

%

43.9

%

29.7

%

12.3

%

10.8

%

44.4

%

32.4

%


Partners with Teachers



Page | 50



Standard: Engages Teachers in Reflective Conversations to

Foster Awareness of the Teaching-Learning Connection

Alignment of Goals (Campus to Classroom Goals)

Optimizing

Reflection with our coaches and/or colleagues is a frequent and consistent part of my day; Our coaches' questions help me to intentionally consider how I/my teachers want to shape my/their professional learning and growth.

I have an active part in establishing our campus goals to improve student outcomes; I choose meaningful personal, professional goals to support overall campus growth and to improve student outcomes; Our coach(es) support my/my teachers' work towards my/their personal, professional learning goals.

Facilitating Our coach(es) consistently ask me/my teachers reflective questions after we work together.

Our coach(es) knows the campus learning or growth goals and help me to write a personal, professional goal that is aligned to it.

Guiding I sometimes engage in reflective conversations with coaches after we work together.

I choose a professional learning goal that is meaningful to me/my teachers, and our coach(es) help me work on it and document evidence.

Forming I rarely engage in reflective conversations with coaches, even after we work together.

I think that our coach(es) have a goal in mind for the campus, but I am unaware of it.

26.0

% 32.0

%

32.0

%

10.0

%

12.4

%

26.9

%

44.9

%

15.9

%

12.1

%

27.0

%

45.4

%

15.5

%

11.1

%

26.5

%

44.3

%

18.1

%


Engages Teachers in Reflective Conversations


21.0

% 27.0

%

24.0

% 28.0

%

10.4

%

23.2

%

36.6

%

29.8

%

11.5

%

21.9

%

38.5

%

28.0

%

8.8%

21.9

%

40.1

%

29.2

%


Alignment of Goals



Page | 51



Standard: Alignment of Curriculum, Instruction, and Assessment Expand Teachers' Use of Various Types of Data

Optimizing

We/My teachers consistently begin planning sessions by reviewing the TEKS and/or the curriculum and discussing what student mastery involves and deciding on acceptable evidence of mastery; We/My teachers plan an instructional calendar of activities only after having written our assessment and agreed upon formative assessments for the unit; We/My teachers collaboratively review each assessment item and each instructional activity for alignment to the TEKS.

We/My teachers meet together to analyze and discuss various types of data (student work, test results, student observations); We/My teachers use data to diagnose student learning needs for upcoming instruction; We/My teachers use data to evaluate the effectiveness of our instructional methods.

Facilitating

Our coach(es) are working to change the planning process to include writing common assessments, data analysis, and to make instruction more rigorous.

Our coach(es) consistently lead us through analysis of both assessment results and formative assessment results to help us/my teachers plan and adapt instruction; We/My teachers consistently consider student data with reference to the curriculum learning targets, I can statement, learning progressions, or the TEKS.

Guiding Our coach(es) guide us/my teachers through a planning process that reviews common assessments and data prior to planning daily instruction.

Our coach(es) support us/my teachers in using common assessment data and student learning progression outcomes to plan upcoming instruction.

Forming Our coach(es) join us/my teachers for planning and answers questions about the TEKS and the curriculum as they arise.

Our coach(es) encourages us to use common assessment data from prior years to write this year’s assessment and plan instruction.

10.6

%

23.4

%

20.2

%

45.7

%

19.7

%

36.9

%

8.2%

35.2

%

22.3

%

37.3

%

6.1%

34.3

%

16.2

%

35.1

%

6.7%

42.1

%


Alignment of Curriculum


11.6

%

38.9

%

30.5

%

18.9

%

4.5%

28.8

%

47.4

%

19.3

%

4.9%

25.6

%

49.6

%

19.9

%

6.5%

25.2

%

54.3

%

14.0


Expanding Teachers' Use of Data



Page | 52

Appendix D: Teachers’, Campus Administrators’, and Coaches’ Survey Results

District Level Administrators’ Support

Teachers=1,305 Campus Administrators=80 Instructional Coaches=91

The table below indicates the number of instructional coaches who responded to each question. These survey questions were required, so the number of respondents remains the same for each question/standard.

Humanities Coach-ELA

Humanities Coach-SS ELA Mathematics Science

10 7 27 29 18

0.8% 3.3%

42.1

% 53.7

%

0.0% 1.3%

37.5

%

61.3

%

0.0% 3.

3%

46.2

%

50.5

%


District level administrators support my campus' implementation of collaborative professional

learning.

Teachers Administrators Instructional Coaches


Page | 53


Teachers and administrators were asked the following question: Each role listed below supports teachers in refining their instruction…” Coaches were asked the following question: “As an instructional coach, I support teachers in refining their teaching.”

The table below indicates the number of participants for each question above.

Question/Statement: Humanities Coach ELA Coach Mathematics

Coach Science Coach

Teacher Admin. Teacher Admin. Teacher Admin. Teacher Admin. Each role listed below supports teachers in refining their instruction: 74 26 744 68 643 65 328 46

Refining Instruction

10.8

%

18.9

%

50.0

%

20.3

%

0.0% 7.

7%

30.8

%

61.5

%

0.0%

14.3

% 28.6

%

57.1

%

StronglyDisagree

Disagree Agree Strongly Agree

Humanities (Social Studies)-intermediate only

Teacher Administrator Coach

3.2% 9.

3%

31.7

%

55.8

%

1.5%

0.0%

16.2

%

82.4

%

0.0%

0.0%

44.4

% 55.6

%

StronglyDisagree


ELA


2.6% 10

.4%

33.4

%

53.5

%

0.0% 1.5%

27.7

%

70.8

%

0.0% 3.

5%

58.6

%

37.9

%

StronglyDisagree


Mathematics


5.5%

5.2%

37.2

% 52.1

%

0.0% 6.

5%

32.6

%

60.9

%

0.0%

0.0%

50.0

%

50.0

%

StronglyDisagree


Science



Page | 54


Humanities’ Coaches

N=10

Based on survey results, 90.0% of humanities coaches agreed that they support ELA teachers in refining their instruction.

0.0%10.0%

60.0%

30.0%


Refining Instruction: Humanities as related to ELA Teachers

(Coach Results)


Page | 55

5.4%

44.6

%

16.2

%

33.8

%

0.0%

11.1

%

44.4

%

44.4

%

0.0%

42.9

%

28.6

%

28.6

%


Humanities (Social Studies) Coach

Teachers Administrators Coaches


The table below indicates the number of participants for each question below.

Question/Statement: Humanities Coach ELA Coach Mathematics Coach Science Coach Teacher Admin. Teacher Admin. Teacher Admin. Teacher Admin.

The coach(es) attend team meetings to support members as described below: 74 27 737 72 642 69 313 50

The coach(es) attend team meetings to support members as described below:

4.5%

19.8

%

19.1

%

56.6

%

0.0% 8.

3%

30.6

%

61.1

%

3.7%

40.7

%

18.5

%

37.0

%


ELA Coach


5.9%

19.2

%

18.4

%

56.5

%

0.0%

8.7%

33.3

%

58.0

%

3.4%

17.2

% 27.6

%

51.7

%


Mathematics Coach


12.5

%

11.2

% 22.7

%

53.7

%

4.0% 8.

0%

34.0

%

54.0

%

0.0% 5.

6%

50.0

%

44.4

%


Science Coach



Page | 56




Coach Science Coach

Teacher Admin. Teacher Admin. Teacher Admin. Teacher Admin. The coach(es) facilitate team meetings as described below: 73 26 733 71 634 68 306 49

The coach(es) facilitate team meetings to support members as described below:

8.2%

41.1

%

21.9

% 28.8

%

0.0%

34.6

%

23.1

%

42.3

%

0.0%

42.9

%

42.9

%

14.3

%



Teachers Administrators Coaches10

.0% 20

.6%

18.0

%

51.4

%

2.8%

29.6

%

16.9

%

50.7

%

25.9

%

29.6

%

14.8

%

29.6

%


ELA Coach


11.0

% 20.8

%

18.1

%

50.0

%

7.4%

30.9

%

19.1

%

42.6

%

13.8

%

31.0

%

20.7

%

34.5

%


Mathematics Coach


13.4

%

17.6

%

21.6

%

47.4

%

6.1%

30.6

%

24.5

%

38.8

%

0.0%

27.8

%

55.6

%

16.7

%No teams Selected teams Most teams All teams

Science Coach



Page | 57




Coach Science Coach

Teacher Admin. Teacher Admin. Teacher Admin. Teacher Admin. The coach(es) coach teams of teachers as described below: 74 27 735 72 634 69 307 50

The coach(es) coach teams of teachers as described below:

For humanities, teachers (23.0%) and administrators (22.2%) agree that the coach coaches “Most teams,” while teachers (29.7%) and coaches (28.6%) are closely aligned to their response of “All teams.”

For ELA, teachers and administrators are more closely aligned in their responses for “Selected teams,” Most teams,” and “All teams.” Coaches’ responses are higher than teachers and administrators for the responses previously listed; however, coaches responded lower than the other two groups for “All teams” with 48.1%.

For mathematics, the responses are a bit inconsistent; however, teachers and administrators’ responses are closely aligned for the “All teams” answer (60.4% and 62.3%, respectively).

For science, administrator and coaches’ responses are closely aligned for the “Most teams” response (34.0% and 33.3%, respectively). Teachers and administrators’ responses for “All teams” are closely aligned at 58.0% and 54.0%, respectively).

9.5%

37.8

%

23.0

% 29.7

%

0.0%

29.6

%

22.2

%

48.1

%

0.0%

42.9

%

28.6

%

28.6

%



Teachers Administrators Coaches4.

9%

16.9

%

18.1

%

60.1

%

0.0%

13.9

% 22.2

%

63.9

%

0.0%

22.2

% 29.6

%

48.1

%


ELA Coach


4.9%

17.4

%

17.4

%

60.4

%

0.0%

11.6

% 26.1

%

62.3

%

0.0%

20.7

% 34.5

% 44.8

%


Mathematics Coach


9.8%

9.8%

22.5

%

58.0

%

4.0% 8.

0%

34.0

%

54.0

%

0.0%

33.3

%

33.3

%

33.3

%


Science Coach



Page | 58


Humanities’ Coaches

70% of Humanities coaches attend meetings with most or all teams; 30.0% facilitate team meetings with most or all teams; and 60.0% coach teams of teachers with most or all teams.

The table below indicates the number of participants who responded for each question/standard on the next few pages. These questions were not required, and teachers and administrators needed to only respond in regards to the specific coach(es) with whom they work.

Standard: Humanities Coach ELA Coach Mathematics Coach Science Coach Teacher Admin. Teacher Admin. Teacher Admin. Teacher Admin.

Lifting Level of Instruction During Collaborative Planning (with designated teams)

70 27 710 72 607 68 281 50

Partners with Teachers to Address Specific Student Learning Needs

66 27 717 71 616 67 275 49

Engages Teachers in Reflective Conversations to Foster Awareness of the Teaching-Learning Connection

73 27 730 70 630 66 284 48

Alignment of Goals (Campus to Classroom Goals) 74 26 718 71 618 67 281 48

Alignment of Curriculum, Instruction, and Assessment 68 26 696 71 601 67 279 49

Expand Teachers' Use of Various Types of Data 69 26 703 71 607 68 273 49

Average 70 27 712 71 613 67 279 49

20.0

%

10.0

% 20.0

%

50.0

%

30.0

% 40.0

%

0.0%

30.0

%

20.0

%

20.0

%

20.0

% 40.0

%

Noteams

Selectedteams

Mostteams

Allteams

Noteams

Selectedteams

Mostteams

Allteams

Noteams

Selectedteams

Mostteams

Allteams

The coach(es) attend teammeetings to support members as

described below:

The coach(es) facilitate teammeetings as described below:

The coach(es) coach teams ofteachers as described below:

Humanities Coach as Related to ELA Teachers


Page | 59


Lifting Level of Instruction During Collaborative Planning

18.6

%

21.4

% 34.3

%

25.7

%

14.8

%

7.4%

59.3

%

18.5

%

42.9

%

0.0%

42.9

%

14.3

%


Humanities (Social Studies)


11.8

%

15.1

%

59.7

%

13.4

%

6.9% 13

.9%

68.1

%

11.1

%

33.3

%

7.4%

51.9

%

7.4%


ELA


13.0

%

16.3

%

58.3

%

12.4

%

13.2

%

19.1

%

60.3

%

7.4%

24.1

%

17.2

%

51.7

%

6.9%


Mathematics


16.4

%

17.8

%

58.7

%

7.1%8.0% 10

.0%

66.0

%

16.0

%

5.6%

44.4

%

50.0

%

0.0%


Science



Page | 60


Partners with Teachers to Address Specific Student Learning Needs 31

.8%

10.6

%

25.8

% 31.8

%

14.8

%

18.5

% 25.9

%

40.7

%

14.3

%

14.3

%

28.6

%

42.9

%




16.0

%

11.9

%

43.7

%

28.5

%

2.8% 7.

0%

53.5

%

36.6

%

14.8

%

18.5

%

40.7

%

25.9

%


ELA


15.7

%

11.9

%

43.7

%

28.7

%

6.0% 9.

0%

46.3

%

38.8

%

13.8

%

31.0

%

27.6

%

27.6

%


Mathematics


12.4

%

11.3

%

44.7

%

31.6

%

12.2

%

8.2%

42.9

%

36.7

%

11.1

%

5.6%

44.4

%

38.9

%


Science



Page | 61


Engages Teaches in Reflective Conversations 31

.5%

31.5

%

30.1

%

6.8%11

.1%

33.3

%

37.0

%

18.5

%

0.0%

28.6

%

42.9

%

28.6

%




13.2

%

26.8

%

44.2

%

15.8

%

4.3%

27.1

%

51.4

%

17.1

%

7.4%

40.7

%

33.3

%

18.5

%


ELA


12.7

%

26.8

%

45.6

%

14.9

%

6.1%

28.8

%

43.9

%

21.2

%

0.0%

48.3

%

17.2

%

34.5

%


Mathematics


11.6

%

26.8

%

44.0

%

17.6

%

8.3%

25.0

%

45.8

%

20.8

%

0.0%

33.3

%

33.3

%

33.3

%


Science



Page | 62


Alignment of Goals (Campus to Classroom Goals) 28

.4%

28.4

%

21.6

%

21.6

%

0.0%

23.1

% 30.8

%

46.2

%

14.3

%

0.0%

14.3

%

71.4




11.4

%

23.1

%

36.9

%

28.6

%

0.0%

23.9

% 33.8

% 42.3

%

3.7%

3.7%

33.3

%

59.3

%


ELA


12.8

% 21.4

%

39.8

%

26.1

%

0.0%

26.9

%

26.9

%

46.3

%

10.3

%

13.8

%

27.6

%

48.3

%


Mathematics


10.3

% 21.7

%

42.0

%

26.0

%

0.0%

22.9

%

29.2

%

47.9

%

0.0%

11.1

%

27.8

%

61.1

%


Science



Page | 63


Alignment of Curriculum, Instruction, and Assessment

13.2

% 20.6

%

16.2

%

50.0

%

3.8%

30.8

%

30.8

%

34.6

%

0.0%

42.9

%

42.9

%

14.3




21.3

%

37.8

%

6.3%

34.6

%

4.2%

28.2

%

26.8

%

40.8

%

29.6

% 33.3

%

18.5

%

18.5

%


ELA


23.6

%

38.4

%

4.3%

33.6

%

10.4

%

26.9

%

22.4

%

40.3

%

10.3

%

34.5

%

13.8

%

41.4

%


Mathematics


18.6

%

36.2

%

3.9%

41.2

%

2.0%

28.6

%

22.4

%

46.9

%

0.0%

38.9

%

22.2

%

38.9

%


Science



Page | 64


Expanding Teachers’ Use of Various Types of Data

13.0

%

37.7

%

27.5

%

21.7

%

7.7%

42.3

%

38.5

%

11.5

%

14.3

%

57.1

%

14.3

%

14.3

%




4.7%

28.2

%

47.4

%

19.8

%

2.8%

35.2

% 47.9

%

14.1

%

0.0%

51.9

%

22.2

%

25.9

%


ELA


5.3%

24.4

%

49.9

%

20.4

%

1.5%

36.8

% 47.1

%

14.7

%

10.3

%

41.4

%

10.3

%

37.9

%


Mathematics


6.6%

24.5

%

55.3

%

13.6

%

6.1%

28.6

%

49.0

%

16.3

%

11.1

%

66.7

%

16.7

%

5.6%


Science



Page | 65


Coaching Standards

N=10

50.0

%

20.0

%

10.0

%

10.0

%

0.0%

20.0

%

20.0

%

10.0

%

30.0

%

0.0%

20.0

%

60.0

%

30.0

%

50.0

%

20.0

%

50.0

% 60.0

%

10.0

%

0.0%

20.0

%

40.0

%

40.0

%

20.0

%

10.0

%

Lifting Level ofInstruction

Partners withTeachers

Engages Teachersin Reflective

Conversations

Alignment of Goals Alignment ofCurriculum

ExpandingTeachers' Use of

Data

Humanities Coaches--as related to ELA teachers



Page | 66

Appendix E: Student Performance

Please note that the STAAR data included in Appendix E includes elementary, intermediate, and high school level assessments; however, the passing standard varies per content and grade level.

STAAR Achievement: Mathematics

The black dots represent campuses that do not have an Instructional Coach for mathematics. The blue dots represent campuses that have full time Instructional Coaches for mathematics; the green dots represent campuses that have full time Instructional Coaches for mathematics and have been identified as high quality from survey results, while the red dots represent campuses that have an Instructional Coach for mathematics, but the Instructional Coach (IC) is split between two campuses.

The graph above represents the average yearly change in the percent of students who attained the passing rate (Approaches Grade Level) or higher on the mathematics (grades 3-8 mathematics and Algebra I) STAAR or STAAR EOC assessments (combined if there were multiple grade levels assessed) for each campus for the past four years, compared to the average yearly change in the Economically Disadvantaged Rate for that campus. The line represents the expected passing rate for each campus, based on the Economically Disadvantaged Rate.

From the data above:

Mathematics IC % Above Expected Results % Below Expected Results No IC 75.5% 25.5% Full Time IC 52.0% 48.0% Split IC 14.3% 85.7%

The campuses without Instructional Coaches for mathematics had a higher percentage of campuses performing over the expected outcomes, based on Economically Disadvantaged Rates, when compared to the campuses with either full time Instructional Coaches or split Instructional Coaches. The campuses with split Instructional Coaches had the lowest percentage of campuses performing above the expected achievement level.

2014-2017 Average Yearly Change on Mathematics STAAR Achievement by Average Economically Disadvantaged Rate Change


Page | 67


STAAR Achievement: English Language Arts

The black dots represent campuses that do not have an Instructional Coach for ELA. The blue dots represent campuses that have full time Instructional Coaches for ELA; the green dots represent campuses that have full time Instructional Coaches for ELA and have been identified as high quality from survey results, while the red dots represent campuses that have an Instructional Coach for ELA, but the Instructional Coach (IC) is split between two campuses or content areas.

The graph above represents the average yearly change in the percent of students who attained the passing rate (Approaches Grade Level) or higher on the ELA (grades 3-8 reading, grades 4 & 7 writing, English I, and English II) STAAR or STAAR EOC assessments (combined if there were multiple grade levels assessed) for each campus, compared to the average yearly change in Economically Disadvantaged Rate for that campus, over the past four years. The line represents the expected passing rate for each campus, based on the Economically Disadvantaged Rate.

From the data above: English Language Arts IC % Above Expected Results % Below Expected Results No IC 50.0% 50.0% Full Time IC 57.7% 42.3% Split IC 33.3% 66.7%

The campuses with full time Instructional Coaches for English Language Arts had a higher percentage of campuses performing over the expected outcomes, based on Economically Disadvantaged Rates, when compared to the campuses with either no Instructional Coaches or split Instructional Coaches. The campuses with split Instructional Coaches had the lowest percentage of campuses performing above the expected achievement level.

2014-2017 Average Yearly Change on ELA STAAR Achievement by Average Economically Disadvantaged Rate Change


Page | 68


STAAR Achievement: Science

The black dots represent campuses that do not have an Instructional Coach for science. The blue dots represent campuses that have full time Instructional Coaches for science; the green dots represent campuses that have full time Instructional Coaches for science and have been identified as high quality from survey results, while the red dots represent campuses that have an Instructional Coach for science, but the Instructional Coach (IC) is split between two campuses.

The graph above represents the average yearly change in the percent of students who attained the passing rate (Approaches Grade Level) or higher on the science (grades 5 & 8 science and Biology) STAAR or STAAR EOC assessments for each campus, compared to the average yearly change in the Economically Disadvantaged Rate for that campus, over the past four years. The line represents the expected passing rate for each campus, based on the Economically Disadvantaged Rate.

From the data above: Science IC % Above Expected Results % Below Expected Results No IC 47.4% 52.6% Full Time IC 41.7% 58.3% Split IC 90.0% 10.0%

The campuses with full time Instructional Coaches for science had a lower percentage of campuses performing over the expected outcomes, based on Economically Disadvantaged Rates, when compared to the campuses with either no Instructional Coaches or split Instructional Coaches. The campuses with split Instructional Coaches had the highest percentage of campuses performing above the expected achievement level.

2014-2017 Average Yearly Change on Science STAAR Achievement by Average Economically Disadvantaged Rate Change


Page | 69


STAAR Achievement: Social Studies

The black dots represent campuses that do not have an Instructional Coach for social studies. The blue dots represent campuses that have full time Instructional Coaches for social studies, while the red dots represent campuses that have an Instructional Coach for social studies, but the Instructional Coach (IC) is split between two campuses.

The graph above represents the average yearly change in the percent of students who attained the passing rate (Approaches Grade Level) or higher on the social studies (grade 8 social studies and US History) STAAR or STAAR EOC assessments for each campus, compared to the average yearly change in the Economically Disadvantaged Rate for that campus, over the past four years. The line represents the expected passing rate for each campus, based on the Economically Disadvantaged Rate.

From the data above: Social Studies IC % Above Expected Results % Below Expected Results No IC 100.0% 0.0% Split IC 40.0% 60.0%

The campuses without Instructional Coaches for social studies had a higher percentage of campuses performing over the expected outcomes, based on Economically Disadvantaged Rates, when compared to the campuses with split Instructional Coaches. All of the campuses without Instructional Coaches are high schools and this data is based on STAAR/STAAR EOC assessments. The data is thus based on the US History STAAR EOC assessment and the grade 8 Social Studies STAAR assessment.

2014-2017 Average Yearly Change on Social Studies STAAR Achievement by Average Economically Disadvantaged Rate Change


Page | 70


STAAR Progress: Mathematics

The black dots represent campuses that do not have an Instructional Coach for mathematics. The blue dots represent campuses that have full time Instructional Coaches for mathematics; the green dots represent campuses that have full time Instructional Coaches for mathematics and have been identified as high quality from survey results, while the red dots represent campuses that have an Instructional Coach for mathematics, but the Instructional Coach (IC) is split between two campuses.

The graph above represents the average yearly change in the percent of students who attained the Met or Exceeded STAAR Progress rate or English Language Learner (ELL) Progress rate on the mathematics (grades 4-8 mathematics and Algebra I) STAAR or STAAR EOC assessments (combined if there were multiple grade levels assessed) for each campus, compared to the average yearly change in the Economically Disadvantaged Rate for that campus, for the past four years. The line represents the expected progress rate for each campus, based on the Economically Disadvantaged Rate.

From the data above: Mathematics IC % Above Expected Results % Below Expected Results No IC 50.0% 50.0% Full Time IC 48.0% 52.0% Split IC 25.0% 75.0%

The campuses without Instructional Coaches for mathematics had a higher percentage of campuses performing over the expected outcomes, based on Economically Disadvantaged Rates, with a rate very similar to the campuses with full time Instructional Coaches. The campuses with split Instructional Coaches had the lowest percentage of campuses performing above the expected progress level. The campuses identified as “High Quality” all performed over the expected progress, based on the average yearly change to the economic disadvantaged rate.

2014-2017 Average Yearly Change on Mathematics STAAR Progress by Average Economically Disadvantaged Rate Change


Page | 71


STAAR Progress: English Language Arts

The black dots represent campuses that do not have an Instructional Coach for ELA. The blue dots represent campuses that have full time Instructional Coaches for ELA; the green dots represent campuses that have full time Instructional Coaches for ELA and have been identified as high quality from survey results, while the red dots represent campuses that have an Instructional Coach for ELA, but the Instructional Coach (IC) is split between two campuses.

The graph above represents the average yearly change of the percent of students who attained the Met or Exceeded STAAR Progress rate or English Language Learner Progress rate on the ELA (grades 4-8 reading and English II) STAAR or STAAR EOC assessments (combined if there were multiple grade levels assessed) for each campus, compared to the average yearly change of the Economically Disadvantaged Rate for that campus, for the past four years. The line represents the expected progress rate for each campus, based on the Economically Disadvantaged Rate.

From the data above: English Language Arts IC % Above Expected Results % Below Expected Results No IC 50.0% 50.0% Full Time IC 57.6% 42.4% Split IC 46.2.0% 53.8%

The campuses with full time Instructional Coaches for ELA (two campuses) had a higher percentage of campuses performing over the expected outcomes, based on Economically Disadvantaged Rates, when compared to the campuses with no or split Instructional Coaches. Campuses that were identified as “High Quality” had 66.7% of the campuses performing above the expected outcome, based on economic disadvantaged rates.

2014-2017 Average Yearly Change on ELA STAAR Progress by Average Economically Disadvantaged Rate Change


Page | 72

Appendix F: Job Description: Instructional Coach

Department of Curriculum and Instruction Revised July 2015

Division: Campus Level/Curriculum and Instruction Wage/Hour Status: Exempt Reports to: Principal/Coordinator of Instructional Coaching

Pay Grade: Teacher Pay Scale Terms: Elementary 187

Intermediate 192

High School 198

Primary Purpose

Work collaboratively with teachers and administrators to provide job-embedded professional learning and opportunities for reflection to impact student learning. Work directly with teachers to plan and deliver highly effective first time instruction that provides equity of access for learners. Work with campus and district administrators, as well as other instructional coaches, to support data informed instruction and to research, identify, and foster the use of best instructional practices to meet the needs of learners.

Qualifications

Education/Certification

Bachelor’s degree in education from an accredited college or university Valid Texas Teacher Certification, specific to assigned area

Special Knowledge/Skills

Excellent communication and interpersonal skills Ability to work effectively with adult learners Working knowledge of computer software and multimedia tools Leadership and problem solving skills Embrace CCISD instructional philosophy and initiatives Demonstrated expertise in the following areas:

• Content knowledge• Standards-based instruction• Instructional strategies and best practices• Effective instruction for diverse learners• Data interpretation• Professional learning creation and delivery• Adult learning theory• Integration of technology


Page | 73

Experience

• Minimum of 5 years of successful teaching experience • Varied grade levels of instructional experience preferred • Experience working with diverse student populations preferred • Experience working with adult learners, planning and delivering

professional learning • Leadership experience (such as lead teacher, department head, curriculum

writer, etc.) preferred • Demonstrated technology skills, including effective integration of

technology into curriculum • Strong data analysis skills

Major Duties and Responsibilities

Provide job-embedded professional learning for campus teachers in meetings and in classrooms 1. Facilitating the instructional design process using district curriculum documents and

existing assessment data 2. Meeting with individual and teams of teachers to support the planning and

delivery of effective instruction designed to meet the needs of all learners 3. Using collaborative study as a process to derive solutions that impact student learning 4. Sharing theory, research, and resources to support best instructional practices 5. Supporting teacher directed, or campus-wide, inquiry into problems of practice

through observation, data collection, data analysis, and reflection 6. Providing opportunities for, and facilitating, reflection and self-assessment among

teachers 7. Supporting novice teachers’ design and delivery of effective instruction 8. Demonstrating and co-teaching in classrooms to model effective classroom

management, formative assessment and student centered instruction 9. Supporting teachers in designing and delivering re-teach, remediation, and tutorials 10. Guiding individual and teams of teachers in using data (formative and summative) to

inform the planning, monitoring, and assessing of student learning and instructional effectiveness.

11. Providing, or assisting with, other forms of job-embedded professional learning for CCISD staff, such as book studies, learning walks, PLCs, etc.

12. Modeling effective use of technology for teaching and learning during collaboration with teachers and through classroom demonstration.

Provide instructional leadership and serve as a role model

13. Developing relationships and connections with campus staff and district support personnel

14. Supporting administration in their role as instructional leaders 15. Providing feedback and support to teachers and administrators as they implement

CCISD and campus initiatives 16. Working with the Campus Administrative Team and campus teachers to enact

positive instructional change


Page | 74

Model a positive instructional focus and concern for the success of all learners 17. Remaining current in content and instructional pedagogy and model life-long

learning by: attending professional learning sessions, referencing current professional literature, and engaging in personalized PL to support campus and district development

18. Consistently using district approved and preferred technology for campus work and meetings

19. Presenting topics of current instructional or technology interest at district and regional professional learning events

Personal Growth and Work Habits 20. Actively pursue knowledge of professional literature and theory 21. Actively participate in all district supported professional learning for instructional

coaches 22. Actively support teachers in various grade levels, building increasing expertise about

district curriculum and the needs of learners 23. Establish and pursue yearly goals for growth as an instructional coach and a

content specialist 24. Research district policy, precedent, and current practices prior to taking action. 25. Participate as an effective team member who contributes to district, department,

and content goals 26. Demonstrate integrity and ethics 27. Respect the confidentiality of coaching relationships and of the campus administration 28. Seek to increase understanding of available technology and its integration

into the curriculum 29. Utilize time wisely for effective management of job responsibilities 30. Maintain punctuality in daily work times, appointments, and meetings 31. Meet task completion deadlines established by teams and by supervisor 32. Maintain effective relationships with campus and district staff 33. Work cooperatively with co-workers and supervisors to ensure that the goals

of the school/department are met 34. Maintain a positive and professional tone in all communication (i.e. email,

written, and verbal) 35. Perform other duties and accept other responsibilities as assigned

Working Conditions Mental Demands Effective verbal and written communication; concentration while performing duties; ability to maintain emotional and professional control under stress

Physical Demands/Environmental Factors Frequent district-wide travel; moderate standing, walking, bending, lifting


Page | 75

Appendix G: Job Description: Coordinator of Instructional Coaching Department of Curriculum and Instruction May 2014

Division: Professional Learning Wage/Hour Status: Exempt

Reports to: Executive Director for Professional Learning Terms: 230 days

Admin/Prg- 3

Primary Purpose

Direct, organize, and align a PK-12 system of instructional coaching and professional learning communities to ensure the complete alignment of the written, taught, and tested curriculum in order to build teacher capacity, drive instruction and continuously improve the academic progress of each student.

Qualifications

Education/Certification

Master’s degree in education related field Valid Texas teaching certificate required Valid Texas principal certificate preferred Experience

Minimum of 3 years experience as classroom teacher Campus leadership experience preferred

Special Knowledge/Skills

Knowledge of Instructional Coaching and Professional Learning Communities (PLC)

Leadership skills in the area of professional learning and team facilitation practices

Ability to work with and lead adult learners

Curriculum development and aligned implementation skills and experience

Ability to effectively communicate complex information to a wide variety of audiences

Technology skills including technology integration

Data analysis skills

Major Responsibilities and Duties

1. Communicate the direction of an aligned PK-12 instructional coaching model that isconsistent withthe CCISD Strategic Plan.


Page | 76

2. Work collaboratively with district/campus leaders, instructional coaches and teachers in the development and implementation of a Professional Learning Communities model that is consistent with the CCISD Strategic Plan 3. Meet regularly with campus leaders, instructional coaches, and teachers to collaborate and support the delivery of high-quality, engaging instruction. 4. Model instructional strategies and lessons for instructional coaches/teachers focused on the development of personalized learning. 5. Assist instructional coaches in the development of coaching protocols for lesson design, reflective conversations and data analysis to improve instruction and student performance across the district. 6. Plan, facilitate, present and evaluate professional learning for district/campus leaders, instructional coaches and teachers. 7. Work collaboratively with campus leaders, curriculum coordinators and other department support staff to develop knowledge and skills of instructional coaches. 8. Assist instructional coaches with ensuring the direction, goals, and objectives of the district are understood and implemented. 9. Model district-supported instructional strategies/lessons based on the district curriculum. 10. Exhibit professionalism at all times and view collaboration as a process to derive at a solution that will enhance student learning. 11. Work closely with instructional coaches using district and campus data to guide instruction to meet identified campus/student needs. 12. Build campus capacity through job-embedded professional learning based on data analysis. 13. Observe and provide feedback to campus leaders related to the implementation of an aligned PK-12 instructional coaching model and Professional Learning Communities (PLC). 14. Use knowledge of the digital learner; promote/model digital learning; and instructional coaching; and assist in integrating technology in instruction. 15. Provide leadership and technical expertise to campus leaders, teachers, and students for effective instructional technology integration.

The foregoing statements describe the general purpose and responsibilities assigned to this job and are not an exhaustive list of all responsibilities and duties that may be assigned or skills that may be required. The Clear Creek Independent School District is an equal opportunity employer. CCISD does not discriminate against any employee or applicant because of race, religion, gender, age, national origin or disability.

Budget

16. Compile budgets and cost estimates based on documented program needs

Supervisory Responsibilities

17. Assist principals and supervisors in evaluating the effectiveness of instructional coaches. 18. Implement data-driven decision making for improvement efforts based on best practices.


Page | 77

19. Manage and utilize policy effectively for maintaining systemic processes and practices.

Policy, Reports, and Law

20. Support the district mission, objectives, and strategies of CCISD.21. Prepare, maintain, and present all information, reports, and records as required.

Personal Growth and Work Habits

22. Collaborate with other personnel in a collegial, supportive manner.23. Perform other duties and accepting other responsibilities as assigned.24. Stay up-to-date professionally through the selection of quality professional learningopportunities for personal growth.25. Participate as an effective team member who contributes to district, department, andcontent goals.26. Demonstrate integrity and ethics.27. Display proficient levels of technology applications.28. Utilize time wisely for effective management of job responsibilities.29. Maintain punctuality in daily work times, appointments, and meetings.30. Meet task completion deadlines established by supervisor.31. Maintain friendly customer-service-driven interactions with all stakeholders, students,teachers, administrators, and co-workers.32. Work cooperatively with co-workers and supervisors to ensure that the goals of theschool/department are met.33. Maintain a positive and professional tone in all communication (i.e. email, written, andverbal).

Working Conditions

Mental Demands Effective daily communication; ability to maintain emotional control under stress

Physical Demand/Environmental Factors Frequent district-wide and occasional state-wide travel; occasional prolonged and irregular hours

The foregoing statements describe the general purpose and responsibilities assigned to this job and are not an exhaustive list of all responsibilities and duties that may be assigned or skills that may be required. The Clear Creek Independent School District is an equal opportunity employer. CCISD does not discriminate against any employee or applicant because of race, religion, gender, age, national origin or disability.


Page | 78

Appendix H: Creating a Principal / Coach Partnership Agreement Learning Design

Purpose:

• To align the instructional leadership work of both the administrator(s) andinstructional coach(es) to ensure cohesive support for teachers’ professional growthand increased student outcomes

• To establish norms for the on-going relationship between campus administrators andinstructional coaches

• To establish a plan for on-going conversations to communicate and review expectationsand impact for instructional coaches

• To identify conversational cues to facilitate conversation when issues of teacher / coachconfidentiality may be involved

Description:

Prior to the beginning of each school year, instructional coaches and administrators—including both the principal and assistant principals—meet to discuss and plan for the aligning, sharing, and reinforcing of instructional leadership in order to offer cohesive support for teachers’ learning and growth during the school year. All teams should conduct these meetings before or very near the beginning of school; even teams with returning members should revisit their prior agreements and adjust understandings in response to new or anticipated concerns. Although the conversation is important, it is equally important to arrive at explicit, written agreements so that understanding is both mutual and assured.

Process:

1. Set a meeting time dedicated to the purpose. Allow ample time for discussion (approximately1.5 to 2 hours). It is important to meet at a time when all members—principal, assistantprincipal(s), dean, all instructional coaches, and the LTC can be present for the full meeting.

2. During the meeting, with all team members present, draft norms (using Norm WritingProtocol) for this and all future team meetings.

3. Using the Problem of Practice Organizer and the Coaching Roles chart (attached) reviewthe 10 roles that coaches can be tasked with and consider the following questions:

• Review your campus goal or problem of practice. What impact on students’ and teachers’learning has been produced?

• What roles have the coaches been living in to this point? How effective has that been?

4. Review the Mission and Purpose Statements for Coaching in CCISD and discuss how thismission and purpose have manifested, or have yet to manifest, on the campus. Note yourreflections on the Success / Challenge Organizer.

• Where have the greatest successes been thus far?• What factors account for this success?• Where will the greatest challenges likely be this year?• What strengths and / or successes can we leverage to assist with the challenges?


Page | 79

While the purpose of this phase of the conversation is to establish shared expectations for coaching activities and priorities, it is important to remember that coaching is most productive if administration communicates expected results and the exact methodology is left to the coaches. This allows each coach to develop his or her own style of coaching and to honor teacher voice and choice within personal coaching relationships.

5. Assess the internal dynamics of the leadership team. On a post note, each member of the teamwill write two numbers, each between 1 and 5 (five is most positive feelings) representing

• For assistant principals and coaches—the on the top of the page will represent howcomfortable you feel talking honestly to the principal and other administrators, creating afeedback loop that really expresses what you need your principal to know.

• For principals-the number at the top of the page will represent how comfortable you feelwhen other members of this team speak openly to you about what they observe and feelabout the campus.

• For assistant principals and coaches—draw a line under the first number and under thatline write a number 1-5 that represents how comfortable you would feel disagreeing withan administrator’s decision or idea (in a closed door meeting only, not publicly)

• For principals- draw a line under the first number and under that line write a number 1-5that represents how comfortable you would feel if someone in this group openlydisagreed with your decision (behind closed doors only, not publicly to faculty)

• Put all of the post-its in a pile and with the group facilitator averages the two sets ofnumbers.

If the average of either set is four--the new year’s work should start with a focus on the internal dynamics of the leadership team. In the absence of trust and productive conflict, it will difficult to form a team cohesive enough and focused enough to affect real campus change. Work will need to be done within the leadership team before initiatives can be transmitted to the faculty and implemented. Effort will be wasted and teachers might become frustrated with what they perceive to be mixed messages.

If the average of either set is three or below--your team should contact Stephanie McBride or Sharron Helmke to lend support to your team’s formation and deepening collaboration to ensure that your teachers experience cohesive and aligned instructional leadership

6. Consider the questions listed on the Topics for Partnership Agreement List. While some ofthe questions may be more relevant than others, a brief consideration of each question isrecommended in order to ensure mutual understanding. Existing teams might wish to have eachteam member review the questions prior to the meeting and identify his or her key concerns fordiscussion. Teams with new members should consider talking through all the questions. Whilethis will require more time, it will also create a strong base for a lasting and productive workingrelationship.

7. Decide who will record decisions from the Topics for Partnership Agreement List. Thepartnership agreement resulting from this conversation should be written and signed by all teammembers to ensue mutual understandings have been reached. When and how will all partiesreview it and sign?

8. After you've completed discussion of the topics and reached a partnership agreement, reviewthe group norms drafted at the beginning of the meeting and revise as necessary in accordance


Page | 80

with the new agreement. Consider in particular a norm regarding confidentiality at team meetings.

9. Set a schedule for future meetings and agree on a template for an agenda that includes timelyupdates/departmental concerns, updates on our work towards our goal, and next steps andcommitments (Recommendations for Principal / Coach Weekly Meetings, attached). Discusswhat will happen when meetings need to be canceled—will they be rescheduled or skipped?What will happen if one or more of the team are not in attendance at a scheduled meeting. Sendcalendar appointments.

10. Take a moment to celebrate the work of the team and the commitments made to ensuringalignment for the benefit of teachers, and ultimately students.


Page | 81

Appendix I: Instructional Coaches' Survey: Core Content Coaches 1. Grade Level Band

o K-5 o 6-8 o 9-12

2. What is the current status of your coaching role? o Full-time at one campus o Split between two campuses

3. Your Current Content Area o Humanities (Intermediate level only) as related to ELA teachers o Humanities (Intermediate level only) as related to Social Studies teachers o Literacy/ELA o Math o Science

4. Campuses o Armand Bayou Elementary o Bauerschlag Elementary o Bay Elementary o Brookwood Elementary o Clear Lake City Elementary o Ed White Elementary o Falcon Pass Elementary o Ferguson Elementary o Gilmore Elementary o Goforth Elementary o Greene Elementary o Hall Elementary o Hyde Elementary o Landolt Elementary o League City Elementary o McWhirter Elementary o Mossman Elementary o North Pointe Elementary o Parr Elementary o Robinson Elementary o Ross Elementary o Stewart Elementary o Ward Elementary o Weber Elementary o Wedgewood Elementary o Whitcomb Elementary o Bayside Intermediate o Brookside Intermediate o Clear Creek Intermediate o Clear Lake Intermediate o Creekside Intermediate o League City Intermediate


Page | 82

o Seabrook Intermediate o Space Center Intermediate o Victory Lakes Intermediate o Westbrook Intermediate o Clear Brook HS o Clear Creek HS o Clear Falls HS o Clear Lake HS o Clear Springs HS

5. As an instructional coach, I support teachers in refining their teaching. o Strongly Agree o Agree o Disagree o Strongly Disagree

6. District level administrators support my campus' implementation of collaborative professional learning. o Strongly Agree o Agree o Disagree o Strongly Disagree

7. I attend team meetings to support members as described below: o All teams o Most teams o Selected teams o No teams

8. I facilitate team meetings as described below: o All teams o Most teams o Selected teams o No teams

9. I coach teams of teachers as described below: o All teams o Most teams o Selected teams o No teams


Page | 83

Please select the response that best describes your role as a coach for each of the standards listed below.

10. Lifting Level of Instruction During Collaborative Planning *(with designated teams) o I facilitate team planning by guiding teachers through an intentional planning process

including data analysis, assessment creation, and/or instructional planning; I fully engage with the team as a collaborative partner, suggesting ideas, resources, etc.; My language, as a coach, includes “we might…”, “what if we …” o I lead team planning and engage teachers in an intentional process; I frequently or often

direct teacher attention back to data, standards, or student needs; My language, as a coach, includes “we should…,” “we need to…” o I attend team planning and work towards helping teachers develop an intentional

planning process; I sometimes or often provide data analysis, resources (including reteach, remediation, or tutorial plans or resources); I support teachers by assisting their work. o I work mostly with team leaders to support their leadership; Teams utilize a strong

planning and data analysis process even when I am not present;Teachers focus intentional effort on designing strong first time instruction for all learners; Teachers and teams identify their own goals and collaboratively pursue growth; Teachers learn from and with each other even with or without my facilitation as a coach.

11. Partners with Teachers to Address Specific Student Learning Need o I facilitate planning of first time instruction that explores and plans for common gaps,

misconceptions, and learning differences; I use a gradual release model to support teachers during the delivery of instruction as they respond to student needs during first time instruction o I support team leaders in guiding teams to plan with the needs of all students in mind;

Teachers meet formally and informally during units to review progress, student learning, and discuss needed adjustments o I support teachers’ awareness of specific learning needs; I am sometimes or often in

classrooms to directly support students o Consideration of student learning needs primarily occurs during analysis of unit or

summative assessment results. 12. Engages Teachers in Reflective Conversations to Foster Awareness of the Teaching-Learning

Connection o I consistently ask teachers reflective questions after we work together. o I sometimes engage in reflective conversations with teachers after we work together. o Teacher reflection with me and/or colleagues is a frequent and consistent part of my

day; My' questions help teachers to intentionally consider how teachers want to shape their professional learning and growth. o I rarely engage in reflective conversations with teachers, even after we work together.

13. Alignment of Goals (Campus to Classroom Goals) o I know the campus learning or growth goals and help teachers to write a personal,

professional goal that is aligned to it. o I choose a professional learning goal that is meaningful to teachers, and I help them

work on it and document evidence. o I think that I have a goal in mind for the campus, but teachers are unaware of it. o I have an active part in establishing our campus goals to improve student outcomes; I

choose meaningful personal, professional goals to support overall campus growth and to improve student outcomes; I support teachers' work towards their personal, professional learning goals.


Page | 84

14. Alignment of Curriculum, Instruction, and Assessment o I guide teachers through a planning process that reviews common assessments and data

prior to planning daily instruction. o Teachers consistently begin planning sessions by reviewing the TEKS and/or the

curriculum and discussing what student mastery involves and deciding on acceptable evidence of mastery; Teachers plan an instructional calendar of activities only after having written our assessment and agreed upon formative assessments for the unit; Teachers collaboratively review each assessment item and each instructional activity for alignment to the TEKS. o I am working to change the planning process to include writing common assessments,

data analysis, and to make instruction more rigorous. o I join teachers for planning and answer questions about the TEKS and the curriculum as

they arise. 15. Expand Teachers' Use of Various Types of Data

o I consistently lead teachers through analysis of both assessment results and formative assessment results to help teachers plan and adapt instruction; Teachers consistently consider student data with reference to the curriculum learning targets, I can statement, learning progressions, or the TEKS.

o I support teachers in using common assessment data and student learning progression outcomes to plan upcoming instruction.

o Teachers meet together to analyze and discuss various types of data (student work, test results, student observations); Teachers use data to diagnose student learning needs for upcoming instruction; Teachers use data to evaluate the effectiveness of their instructional methods.

o I encourage teachers to use common assessment data from prior years to write this year’s assessment and plan instruction.

16. What are the strengths of the Instructional Coaching program in CCISD? 17. What are the challenges of the Instructional Coaching program in CCISD? 18. What are your suggestions for revisions to the program? 19. What impact have you had on your teachers’ instructional practices? 20. In what areas do you think you have been most successful? 21. In what areas do you think you have been least successful?


Page | 85

Appendix J: Instructional Coaches' Survey: Teachers and Administrators 1. Grade Level Band

o K-5 o 6-8 o 9-12

2. Your Role o Teacher o Administrator (All Elementary and Intermediate APs, All Principals, and HS Deans)

3. Your Content Area (Please select all that apply) o English Language Arts o Math o Science o Social Studies

4. Campuses o Armand Bayou Elementary o Bauerschlag Elementary o Bay Elementary o Brookwood Elementary o Clear Lake City Elementary o Ed White Elementary o Falcon Pass Elementary o Ferguson Elementary o Gilmore Elementary o Goforth Elementary o Greene Elementary o Hall Elementary o Hyde Elementary o Landolt Elementary o League City Elementary o McWhirter Elementary o Mossman Elementary o North Pointe Elementary o Parr Elementary o Robinson Elementary o Ross Elementary o Stewart Elementary o Ward Elementary o Weber Elementary o Wedgewood Elementary o Whitcomb Elementary o Bayside Intermediate o Brookside Intermediate o Clear Creek Intermediate o Clear Lake Intermediate o Creekside Intermediate o League City Intermediate o Seabrook Intermediate


Page | 86

o Space Center Intermediate o Victory Lakes Intermediate o Westbrook Intermediate o Clear Brook HS o Clear Creek HS o Clear Falls HS o Clear Lake HS o Clear Springs HS

5. District level administrators support my campus' implementation of collaborative professional learning. o Strongly Agree o Agree o Disagree o Strongly Disagree

Please select the response that best describes your coach's role(s) for each of the statements listed below. (Please respond only for all roles that apply.) For example: Teachers--If you teach only ELA and do not teach any science or math curriculum, please leave those rows blank. Administrators--If you do not have a particular coaching role on your campus, please leave that row blank.

The following questions were asked based on the following coaching roles: Humanities Coach (Social Studies)-Intermediate only Literacy/ELA Math Science

6. Each role listed below supports teachers in refining their instruction. o Strongly Agree o Agree o Disagree o Strongly Disagree

7. The coach(es) attend team meetings to support members as described below: o All teams o Most teams o Selected teams o No teams

8. The coach(es) facilitate team meetings as described below: o All teams o Most teams o Selected teams o No teams

9. The coach(es) coach teams of teachers as described below: o All teams o Most teams o Selected teams o No teams


Page | 87

Please select the response that best describes your coach's role(s) for each of the standards listed below.

10. Lifting Level of Instruction During Collaborative Planning *(with designated teams) o Our coach(es) facilitate team planning by guiding teachers through an intentional

planning process including data analysis, assessment creation, and / or instructional planning; Coaches fully engage with the team as a collaborative partner, suggesting ideas, resources, etc.; Coaches’ language include “we might…”, “what if we …” o Our coach(es) lead team planning and engage teachers in an intentional process;

Coaches frequently or often direct teacher attention back to data, standards, or student needs; Coaches’ language includes “we should…,” “we need to…” o Our coach(es) works mostly with team leaders to support their leadership; Teams utilize

a strong planning and data analysis process even when the coach is not present;Teachers focus intentional effort on designing strong first time instruction for all learners; Teachers and teams identify their own goals and collaboratively pursue growth; Teachers learn from and with each other even with or without coach facilitation. o Our coach(es) attend team planning and work towards helping teachers develop an

intentional planning process; Coaches sometimes or often provide data analysis, resources (including reteach, remediation, or tutorial plans or resources); Coaches support teachers by assisting their work.

11. Partners with Teachers to Address Specific Student Learning Needs o Our coach(es) facilitate planning of first time instruction that explores and plans for

common gaps, misconceptions, and learning differences; Coaches use a gradual release model to support teachers during the delivery of instruction as they respond to student needs during first time instruction. o Our coach(es) support team leaders in guiding teams to plan with the needs of all

students in mind; Teachers meet formally and informally during units to review progress, student learning, and discuss needed adjustments. o Our coach(es) support teachers’ awareness of specific learning needs; Coaches are

sometimes or often in classrooms to directly support students. o Consideration of student learning needs primarily occurs during analysis of unit or

summative assessment results. 12. Engages Teachers in Reflective Conversations to Foster Awareness of the Teaching-Learning

Connection o Our coach(es) consistently ask me/my teachers reflective questions after we work

together. o I sometimes engage in reflective conversations with coaches after we work together. o I rarely engage in reflective conversations with coaches, even after we work together. o Reflection with our coaches and/or colleagues is a frequent and consistent part of my

day; Our coaches' questions help me to intentionally consider how I/my teachers want to shape my/their professional learning and growth.

13. Alignment of Goals (Campus to Classroom Goals) o Our coach(es) knows the campus learning or growth goals and help me to write a

personal, professional goal that is aligned to it. o I choose a professional learning goal that is meaningful to me/my teachers, and our

coach(es) help me work on it and document evidence.


Page | 88

o I have an active part in establishing our campus goals to improve student outcomes; I choose meaningful personal, professional goals to support overall campus growth and to improve student outcomes; Our coach(es) support my/my teachers' work towards my/their personal, professional learning goals. o I think that our coach(es) have a goal in mind for the campus, but I am unaware of it.

14. Alignment of Curriculum, Instruction, and Assessment o Our coach(es) guide us/my teachers through a planning process that reviews common

assessments and data prior to planning daily instruction. o We/My teachers consistently begin planning sessions by reviewing the TEKS and/or the

curriculum and discussing what student mastery involves and deciding on acceptable evidence of mastery; We/My teachers plan an instructional calendar of activities only after having written our assessment and agreed upon formative assessments for the unit; We/My teachers collaboratively review each assessment item and each instructional activity for alignment to the TEKS. o Our coach(es) are working to change the planning process to include writing common

assessments, data analysis, and to make instruction more rigorous. o Our coach(es) join us/my teachers for planning and answers questions about the TEKS

and the curriculum as they arise. 15. Expand Teachers' Use of Various Types of Data

o Our coach(es) consistently lead us through analysis of both assessment results and formative assessment results to help us/my teachers plan and adapt instruction; We/My teachers consistently consider student data with reference to the curriculum learning targets, I can statement, learning progressions, or the TEKS. o Our coach(es) support us/my teachers in using common assessment data and student

learning progression outcomes to plan upcoming instruction. o We/My teachers meet together to analyze and discuss various types of data (student

work, test results, student observations); We/My teachers use data to diagnose student learning needs for upcoming instruction; We/My teachers use data to evaluate the effectiveness of our instructional methods. o Our coach(es) encourages us to use common assessment data from prior years to write

this year’s assessment and plan instruction. 16. What are the strengths of the Instructional Coaching program in CCISD? 17. What are the challenges of the Instructional Coaching program in CCISD? 18. What are your suggestions for revisions to the program? 19. What impact have the coaches had on your/your teachers’ instructional practices? 20. In what areas do you think the coach(es) have been most successful? 21. In what areas do you think the coach(es) have been least successful?

Instructional Coaching Program Evaluation

Documents

Transcript of Instructional Coaching Program Evaluation