Child pages
  • 2013-14 Self and Peer Review Instructions for Principle 2 of the CORE Waiver

CORE Principle 2 and Waiver-Wide Items for District Self and Peer Review

Quick Navigation

 

Step 1

Complete a self-review using this template and send to your peer-review partner by May 22, 2014.

For each item on the rubric, you will be asked to:

  • Provide a brief narrative, including a summary of actions taken to address the topic.
  • Provide select examples to evidence the summary provided in the narrative. Artifacts may be attached to the template.
  • Provide a brief analysis that includes what worked (e.g., two to three bullet points), lessons learned (e.g., two to three bullet points), areas for improvement (e.g., two to three bullet points), and, if you are ready to do so, next steps (optional at this stage, may include implementation plan revisions)
  • Self-rating (in this first round, level 4 will be considered meeting expectations)
  • Other comments

Step 2

Participate in peer-review discussion on May 28, 2014. 

In the peer-review discussion, you will add:

  • Comments from your peer(s)
  • Implications for your district
  • Implications for our work as a CORE collaborative

Step 3

Confer with CORE staff afterward on your district’s final ratings in advance of the Oversight Panel.

This self- and peer-review will respond to the following three expectations in the rubric included with the CORE Waiver:

  • Expectation 1. LEA has meaningfully engaged stakeholders around SQIS implementation
  • Expectation 2. LEA has complied with data collection requirements per the Waiver MOU
  • Expectation 3. LEA has faithfully implemented SQIS Requirements
    • (For the purposes of this review process, we will focus on the SQIS requirements related to school interventions, supports and other actions in Principle 2 of the CORE Waiver).

Rubric

School Quality Improvement System Implementation Check-In Preliminary Rubric

Expectation

5 (Highest Score) 

2

1 (Lowest Score)

LEA has meaningfully engaged stakeholders around School Quality Improvement System implementation

Conducted regular stakeholder engagement on the full School Quality Improvement System which includes:

  • CCSS and SBAC implementation
  • Teacher and principal evaluation systems
  • SQII score
  • Implications of SQII score
  • Designation of schools to administrators, teachers, other staff, parents, and the local community in multiple, easy-to-access fashions

 

LEA consulted on all aspects of the waiver to some, but not all, stakeholders in multiple, easy-to-access fashionsLEA Consulted on partial aspects of the waiver to some, but not all, stakeholders in multiple, easy-to-access fashionsLEA attempted to consult partial aspects of the waiver to relevant stakeholdersLEA did not attempt to consult on the waiver to relevant stakeholders
LEA has complied with data collection requirements per the Waiver MOU
LEA collected all required data and reported all data requested by CORE to data partner in a timely fashion and in desired form(s)LEA collected all required data and reported all data requested by CORE to data partnerLEA collected all required data and reported all data requested by CORE to data partner, but did not do so in a timely mannerLEA failed to collect all required data, but has prepared a compensatory plan of actionLEA failed to collect all required data or failed to resolve outstanding data issues with data partner
LEA has faithfully implemented School Quality Improvement System Requirements

Faithfully implemented all School Quality Improvement System requirements, including:

  • CCSS and SBAC implementation
  • Teacher and principal evaluation systems
  • Interventions for all Priority Schools, Focus Schools, and schools that did not meet SQIGs

 

LEA implemented all LEA-level requirements and most school-level interventionsLEA implemented most LEA-level requirements and most school-level interventionsLEA implemented some LEA-level requirements and some school-level interventionsLEA did not attempt to implement interventions for Priority Schools, Focus Schools, and schools that did not meet SQIGs

Expectation 1

LEA has meaningfully engaged stakeholders around SQIS implementation

Please keep the following questions in mind when providing your summary of actions.

  • Which stakeholders did you involve (e.g., teachers, school staff, district staff, local community, parents, students, school board)?
  • Did you provide information in multiple ways and in an easily accessible manner (e.g., translated, in person meetings, letters, online)?
  • Did you meaningfully differentiate the topics addressed and the format of the engagement by the stakeholder group/purpose of the engagement activity?
  • When thinking about meaningfully engaging stakeholders, what was the quality of the engagement in terms of the purpose(s) of your stakeholder engagement efforts (e.g., knowledge building, capacity building, consultation, feedback)?
    • Did you present the information clearly and provide opportunities to gain understanding
    • Do you have evidence that feedback data was analyzed for themes and then addressed?
  • Do you have evidence that actions taken were reported back to stakeholders? (Level 5) and/or provide input?

Item

When to Complete this Item

Response/Information

NarrativeSELF-REVIEW
  • Check off when response has been completed and added
EvidenceSELF-REVIEW
  • Check off when response has been completed and added
AnalysisSELF-REVIEW
  • Check off when response has been completed and added
Self-RatingSELF-REVIEW
  • Check off when response has been completed and added
Peer CommentsPEER-REVIEW
  • Check off when response has been completed and added
Implications for DistrictPEER-REVIEW
  • Check off when response has been completed and added
Implications for the CORE CollaborativePEER-REVIEW
  • Check off when response has been completed and added

Expectation 2

LEA has complied with data collection requirements per the Waiver MOU

Please keep the following questions in mind when providing your summary of actions.

  • Has your district signed the MOU with the Gardner Center?
  • Level 3: Has your district begun compiling the data that has been identified as “must have for the SQII”/”must have for SQII analysis” with a plan in place to submit all such data by the end of June?
  • Level 4: Has your district compiled the data that has been identified as “must have for the SQII”/”must have for SQII analysis” and will all such data be submitted by the end of May?
  • Level 5: Has your district already supplied all of the data that has been identified as “must have for the SQII”/”must have for SQII analysis,” along with some of the continuous improvement data elements?

Item

When to Complete this Item

Response/Information

NarrativeSELF-REVIEW
  • Check off when response has been completed and added
EvidenceSELF-REVIEW
  • Check off when response has been completed and added
AnalysisSELF-REVIEW
  • Check off when response has been completed and added
Self-RatingSELF-REVIEW
  • Check off when response has been completed and added
Peer CommentsPEER-REVIEW
  • Check off when response has been completed and added
Implications for DistrictPEER-REVIEW
  • Check off when response has been completed and added
Implications for the CORE CollaborativePEER-REVIEW
  • Check off when response has been completed and added

Expectation 3

LEA has faithfully implemented SQIS Requirements

Please keep the following questions in mind when providing your summary of actions.

  • CORE/LEA level requirements
    • Reward schools: recognition
    • Priority schools: notification, facilitate/support pairings (e.g., monitoring, technical assistance, data use and collection), facilitate/support plan writing (e.g., Turnaround Principles for non-SIG), participate in pairings institute data collection & use), facilitate/support plan writing
    • Focus schools: notification, facilitate/support CoPs (e.g., monitoring, technical assistance,
    • Other Support schools: notification, facilitate/support CoPs, facilitate/support plan writing
  • School-level requirements
    • Reward schools: If paired, actively engaged in partnering activities; sharing practices (level 5)
    • Priority schools
      • SIG: continue with plan, actively engaged in partnering activities
      • Non-SIG: needs assessment, plan development with respect to the turnaround principles and interventions (this year)
    • Focus schools: Develop/revise needs assessment (which includes/addresses reason for identification), develop/revise school improvement plan (which includes/addresses reason for identification), implement plan, participate in CoPs & PDSA cycles/cycles of inquiry
    • Other support schools: Develop/revise needs assessment (which includes/addresses reason for identification), develop/revise school improvement plan (which includes/addresses reason for identification), implement plan, participate in CoPs & PDSA cycles/cycles of inquiry
  • The term “faithfully” will be defined as implementing with fidelity to the true spirit of the SQIS (e.g., shared responsibility, moral imperative, peer learning, and accountability) and in accordance with the requirements above.

Item

When to Complete this Item

Response/Information

NarrativeSELF-REVIEW
  • Check off when response has been completed and added
EvidenceSELF-REVIEW
  • Check off when response has been completed and added
AnalysisSELF-REVIEW
  • Check off when response has been completed and added
Self-RatingSELF-REVIEW
  • Check off when response has been completed and added
Peer CommentsPEER-REVIEW
  • Check off when response has been completed and added
Implications for DistrictPEER-REVIEW
  • Check off when response has been completed and added
Implications for the CORE CollaborativePEER-REVIEW
  • Check off when response has been completed and added

This page has no comments.