Staff Development Program Evaluation

We exist for the academic excellence of all students.

January 2011

1

Executive Summary

The purpose of the Staff Development Department is to add value to Springfield Public Schools’ mission statement: “We exist for the academic excellence of all students.” The following program evaluation provides evidence of added value in many ways including fiscal savings to the district, high customer satisfaction, and improved practices of classroom teachers through the support of Staff Development. Key points to note in the text include the following:

• High satisfaction among and low attrition rate of early career leaders is noted in the Evolving Leaders’ Induction Program.

• 100% of the participants in the Evolving Leaders’ Program believe the program has an impact on student learning.

• High satisfaction among and improved retention rate of beginning teachers is noted in the STEP UP Induction Program.

• The STEP UP Induction Program, now in its seventh year, has reduced the attrition rate of first- year teachers from 30.59% to an average of 12.83%.

• Six years of data indicate an annual net savings of $914,954.00 to the district through increased retention of beginning teachers.

• Satisfaction among principals remains consistently high regarding the STEP UP Induction Program.

• Classroom implementation of key instructional practices is evident as a result of training and

coaching beginning teachers.

• Certified staff reports that professional development improves student learning.

• Springfield Public Schools ranks first among comparable districts on the Third/Fourth Cycle MSIP Survey results for the impact of professional development on teaching practices.

• In a competitive job market, Springfield Public Schools has a favorable reputation and is known for the quality of its professional development. New hires state that one of the key reasons they chose Springfield Public Schools as their place of employment is directly linked to the systematic, high quality professional development provided for teachers.

2

Staff Development Program Evaluation January 2011

Program: Staff Development MSIP Standard 8.1 and Board of Education policy IM (Evaluation of Instructional Programs) require the goals of programs/services to be reviewed biennially by the Board. This report is the third biennial update using a format aligned to the seven criteria for performance excellence. Items one through six provide a basic profile of the program. Item seven includes data (results) specific to the identified goals and measures. 1. Leadership: The Director of Leadership Development, the Director of Teacher Development, and the Coordinator of Leader and Teacher Development serve as department leaders. As required by MSIP Standard 6.7, the District Professional Development Committee contributes to on-going program development and evaluation. While the District Professional Development Committee was suspended by the Missouri legislators (HB 1543) in June 2010 until the year 2014, this program evaluation will include the leadership role that the District Professional Development Committee held during this evaluation cycle. Although the District Professional Development Committee’s previous budgetary and oversight responsibilities are suspended, the committee will continue to meet quarterly as an advisory team to the Staff Development Department. Department responsibilities are addressed through the shared mission, vision, and commitments listed below.

Mission

The mission of the Staff Development Department is to increase student performance through high quality professional learning for certificated staff.

Vision

An exemplary Staff Development Department:

1. Consistently demonstrates a link between the services provided and performance. 2. Provides exceptional customer service every day. 3. Is dedicated to learning about “the work” and improving individual and collective skills. 4. Practices a high level of professionalism within and beyond the department. 5. Has well-defined and prioritized tasks for personnel, but is committed to accomplishing the

mission through an understanding that it is “our” work.

*Collective Commitments

To accomplish our vision, we will: 1. Keep our conversations professional and confidential (2,4). 2. Collect, analyze, and respond to process and performance data to inform our actions (1,2). 3. Selflessly listen and observe to identify and address actual and perceived needs (2,3,5). 4. Treat every person as a person of worth (1,2,4,5). 5. Consistently collaborate to review and refine our work (1,2,3,4,5).

*Collective Commitments are aligned to the Vision Statements as indicated by the numbers in parenthesis after each statement.

3

2. Program Goals and Indicators: Staff Development Department goals align directly with District SP5 Goal 3.1 (Recruit, develop, and retain high quality staff). Department goals, indicators, and measures are listed in section seven with results following each goal.

3. Customer/Stakeholder Focus: Teachers, principals, the Missouri Department of Elementary and Secondary Education, and the U.S. Department of Education are the primary customers of the Staff Development Department. Input and requirements from primary customers are obtained through, but not limited to, the following key processes:

1. Evaluation/feedback forms provided at professional development sessions 2. Representative input through elected teacher and appointed principal representatives

serving on the District Professional Development Committee through 2010 3. Principals’ Leadership Cadre 4. Annual District Professional Development Needs Assessment Survey 5. Annual surveys of key customers: Principals, STEP UP teachers, Evolving Leaders, and

other customers served through the Staff Development Department 6. Informal interviews with teachers and leaders 7. Exit interviews of early career teachers 8. Missouri School Improvement Program (MSIP) Standards and Survey 9. No Child Left Behind (NCLB)—Title IIA Guidance

Goal 1: Increase the capacity of early career instructional leaders Performance Indicators 1. Retention of early career leaders

2. High levels of customer satisfaction

Goal 2: Increase the capacity of early career teachers Performance Indicators 1. Retention of early career teachers

2. High levels of customer satisfaction

3. Impact of professional learning on the instructional practices of beginning teachers

Goal 3: Increase awareness, understanding, and implementation of high-yield, cross-curricular and grade-level strategies among teachers Performance Indicators 1. High levels of customer satisfaction

2. Alignment of site professional learning with school improvement goals

Goal 4: Facilitate the Professional Development Committee as required by MSIP 6.7 and Senate Bill 380 Performance Indicators 1. Compliance with all MSIP standards for professional development

Goal 5: Monitor customer satisfaction with the services of the Staff Development Department Performance Indicators 1. Satisfaction with Staff Development Department’s service

2. Perception of new hires: Springfield Public School’s support for teachers through Staff Development

4

4. Measurement and Analysis Processes: Department staff members, specific program facilitators, and the District Professional Development Committee (DPDC) regularly evaluate programs and services. Each program facilitated through the department has an identified leader who is required to complete a Professional Development Plan form prior to program implementation. Additionally, each school site creates site plans that align with its School Improvement Plan (SIP). These plans include stated outcomes, measures, and actions. Data for the identified measures are then collected, analyzed, and annually reported for each site and district- level Professional Development plan. Furthermore, in an attempt to shorten the improvement cycle, the Staff Development Department has initiated a quarterly review process for key department goals. As required by MSIP Standard 6.7, the *District Professional Development Committee is responsible for evaluating the professional development programs supported by PDC funds. This process begins with an annual review of student performance data, district goals, Needs Assessment Survey results, MSIP requirements, and teacher reflections. The evaluation reports for PDC action plans are also reviewed. The findings of this data analysis provide the foundation for the resulting PDC action plans. *Although the District Professional Development Committee is currently suspended (June, 2010), the committee conducted this evaluation in 2009-2010. This committee will serve in an advisory role through 2010-2013. 5. Staff Profile:

Service to primary customers is provided through the roles of the Director of Leadership Development, Director of Teacher Development, the Coordinator of Leader and Teacher Development, Staff Development Specialists (STEP UP Coaches), and Staff Development Administrative Assistants. 6. Key Work Processes/Program Responsibilities:

1. Plan, implement, and monitor leadership development programs (Evolving Leaders’ Induction Program, August Leadership Institute, biennial Summer Leadership Academy, Whole Faculty Study Groups, Cognitive CoachingSM)

2. Plan, implement, and monitor beginning teacher development programs (New Teacher Induction Week, STEP UP Induction Program, and related mentoring programs)

3. Provide support and training related to the School Improvement Planning (SIP) process 4. Publish quarterly newsletter (Focus on Learning) 5. Coordinate the work of the District Professional Development Committee as required by Senate

Bill 380 and MSIP Standard 6.7 (Through June, 2010) 6. Coordinate and facilitate Summer Academies for teachers 7. Coordinate and facilitate follow-up support for Summer Academies 8. Coordinate contract days for professional development (Curriculum Institute) 9. Serve as a liaison to community organizations and businesses on collaborative projects related

to professional learning (LIFT, local universities, etc.)

5

7. Results, Strengths, and Opportunities for Improvement: Goal 1.1 Results

Goal 1: Increase the capacity of early career instructional leaders Performance Indicator Measures

1. Retention of early career leaders 1. Percent retention of early career leaders

Figure 1.1.1 Source: SPS Personnel Actions and Participant Interviews, 2003-10

6

Attrition of Early Career Leaders(Defined as No Longer Practicing in a Formal Leadership Role)

21.4%

12.1%

40%

16%

0.0%5.0%

10.0%15.0%20.0%25.0%30.0%35.0%40.0%45.0%

2001 MO Study 2003-2008 SPS

Perc

entag

e

Left after 2 yrsLeft after 6 yrs

Figure 1.1.2 Source: SPS Personnel Actions and Participant Interviews, 2003-08 Key Points for Goal 1.1

• The Springfield Public Schools’ Evolving Leaders’ program has completed eight full academic years of implementation. The data is cumulative (Figure 1.1.1).

• The “Performance Concerns” category includes individuals who transferred out of leadership positions but remained in the district (Figure 1.1.1).

• The “Other District” category is defined as those who were current leaders in SPS when they left SPS for employment in another district (Figure 1.1.1).

• The “Other” category includes primarily personal circumstances (Figure 1.1.1). • By including those who retired while in a leadership role, retention increases to 80%.

(Figure 1.1.1). Attrition comparing the Missouri study and SPS does not include individuals who retired while in a leadership role (Figure 1.1.2).

• Available data from a 2001 Missouri Study (Patrick B. Forsyth, Oklahoma State University and Timothy O. Smith, University of Missouri) indicates the average attrition rate for early-career leaders after two years in a leadership role is 21.4% and after six years is 40%. The SPS attrition rate after two years compares favorably at 12.1% and after six years at 16%---less than half of the state average (Figure 1.1.2).

• This study serves as the benchmark data against which the Evolving Leaders Program compared itself for the first six years of implementation (Figure 1.1.2).

• The study did not exceed 6 years; therefore, Figure 1.1.2 includes only six years. For complete attrition and retention data of Evolving Leaders, please see Figure 1.1.1.

7

Goal 1.2 Results

Goal 1: Increase the capacity of early career instructional leaders Performance Indicator Measures

2. High levels of customer satisfaction 1. Satisfaction of early career leaders with support received through the Evolving Leaders’ Induction Program

2. Rating of impact of professional learning on the capacity of early- career leaders to impact student performance

Table 1.2 Source: Annual SPS Evolving Leaders Participant Survey Key Points for Goal 1.2

• Surveys are completed annually and include both year one and year two participants. • 100% of participants in the Evolving Leaders’ Program value the program and 100% believe

the program has an impact on student learning (Table 1.2). • Analysis of qualitative data from mid- and end-of-year reflection forms indicates the following

results: o All (100%) participants perceived high levels of meaningful support (Table 1.2). o “Time” and skill in coaching teachers/staff are consistently identified as the greatest

challenge for early career leaders. • In response to customer feedback, Staff Development initiated a program improvement

designed to build the capacity of leaders in the skill of coaching teachers. Thus, in 2005-2006, Cognitive CoachingSM was designated as a component of Evolving Leaders’ second-year training. Since that time, 159 district leaders, including principals, literacy and math coaches, Instructional Specialists, STEP UP coaches, and Evolving Leaders have completed the eight-day Cognitive CoachingSM Foundation Seminar provided in Springfield Public Schools. In June, 2009, Advanced Cognitive CoachingSM was offered through the Staff Development Department. Forty-nine area leaders, including twenty-seven Springfield Public School leaders, attended. In the 2009 -2010 academic year, Evolving Leaders’ program facilitators made another program improvement by adding meta-coaching for leaders in their third year.

• Supporting leaders with opportunities to continue to build their capacity in Cognitive CoachingSM led to the creation of a Cognitive CoachingSM Cadre (C3). This voluntary cadre of leaders is open to all leaders who have had Cognitive CoachingSM and meets monthly.

Evolving Leaders End-of-Year Satisfaction Survey

2007-2008 % in

Agreement n = 24

2008-2009 % in

Agreement n = 19

2009-2010 % in

Agreementn = 20

I value the impact of the Evolving Leaders Induction Program on leadership development. 100% 100% 100%

I believe the Evolving Leaders Induction Program impacts student learning. 100% 100% 100%

8

Goal 2.1 Results Goal 2: Increase the capacity of early career teachers

Performance Indicator Measures 1. Retention of early career teachers 1. Attrition rate of early career teachers

Figure 2.1.1 Source: 2004-2010 Personnel Actions and STEP UP Exit Interview Figure 2.1.2 Sources: 2004-2010 Personnel Actions and STEP UP Exit Interviews

G O O D

9

Figure 2.1.3 Sources: 2004-2010 Personnel Actions and STEP UP Exit Interviews

10

Attrition

Before STEP UP With STEP UP

Year 1 Cost Ave # Ts % Total Cost % Total Cost Savings Net Savings

District $480,000 98 31% $1,488,825 12.80% $620,344 $868,481 $388,481

Title IIA Grant $173,000 $215,481

Year 2 $80,600 88 20% $860,489 9% $404,936 $455,553 $374,953

Year 3 $55,000 63 11% $361,410 4.50% $154,890 $206,520 $151,520

Total/Yr $788,600 249 $2,710,724 $1,180,170 $1,530,554 $914,954

Per Teacher/Year *$2,052 $9,036 $6,984

*Forty-three percent (43%) or $875 of the per teacher cost goes directly to STEP UP teachers as exception pay and benefits upon completion of program requirements. Key Points for Goal 2.1

• The six-year comparable data for the STEP UP Induction program continues to show consistent results. The last three years of the program have produced close to the desired goal of 10% or less attrition for first-year teachers (Figure 2.1.1).

• National statistics show a 30-50% attrition rate for beginning teachers at the end of their first year of teaching. Currently, the six-year average for attrition of first-year teachers in Springfield Public Schools is 12.83 %.

• Figure 2.1.2 disaggregates the retention/attrition data according to the reasons for leaving Springfield Public Schools. Data indicate that more teachers leave for personal circumstances (6.59% of leavers) such as a spouse’s job transfer, advanced education, or starting a family than all the other reasons combined (6.25%).

• Figure 2.1.3 compares the Springfield Public Schools baseline cohort attrition rate at the end of three consecutive years with the four STEP UP cohorts which have three or more years of service. A comparison of the attrition rates of teachers served by the STEP UP program compares favorably to the baseline data for both beginning teachers and teachers in years two and three; such improvements indicate STEP UP has impacted the efficacy, craftsmanship, and consciousness about teaching and learning for these early-career teachers.

Cost Savings of the STEP UP Induction Program to Springfield Public Schools

Table 2.1 Source: Departmental calculations based on known program expenditures and estimated attrition costs.

11

• Factors other than a strong induction program can also impact attrition/retention. These include, but are not limited to, hiring/interviewing practices and timelines, satisfaction with working conditions, satisfaction with principal leadership, competitive salary/benefits, economic factors, and personal circumstances.

• The fiscal impact of the STEP UP Induction program is described in Table 2.1. Key points to note:

o Baseline data reflects the attrition rate of teachers who began teaching in 2000-2001. The attrition of this cohort was followed for three consecutive years (Figure 2.1.3).

o Studies indicate that replacing a teacher costs an average of 150% of the teacher’s compensation (Research Brief, April 15, 2003).

o Six years of data indicate an annual net savings of approximately $914,954.00 as a result of increased retention of early- career teachers (Table 2.1).

o With STEP UP, the net savings per retained teacher is approximately $6,984.00 (Table 2.1).

o The total savings to the district increases in successive years.

Goal 2.2 Results

Goal 2: Increase the capacity of early career teachers

Performance Indicator Measures 2. High levels of customer satisfaction 1. Percent of STEP UP teachers satisfied with

support/development received through the STEP UP Induction program

2. Percent of principals satisfied with the STEP UP Induction program

STEP UP End-of-Year Satisfaction Survey

2004-2008

2008-2010

First -Year Teachers % in

Agreement % in

Agreement

Tier I n=415 n=172

My STEP UP coach provided professional guidance and resources. 96.90% 97.08%

Because of my participation in STEP UP, I have implemented strategies to increase student engagement. 92.30% 99.42%

Implementation of the professional learning I experienced in STEP UP impacted my students’ performance. 88.00% 97.11%

Support and collaboration from my STEP UP coach increased my classroom management and lesson design skills. 93.30% 95.91%

Table 2.2.1 Source: STEP UP Tier I Teacher Survey, May 2004-May 2010

12

Table 2.2.2 Source: STEP UP Tier II Teacher Survey, May 2008-May 2010

Table 2.2.3 Source: STEP UP Mentor/Mentee Survey, October 2010

Table 2.2.4 Source: Principals’ Biennial Satisfaction Survey, 2007-2008 and 2009-2010

STEP UP End-of-Year Satisfaction Survey 2008-2009

2009-2010

Second -Year Teachers % in

Agreement % in

AgreementTier II n=67 n=89

My STEP UP coach possesses the knowledge, attitudes, and skills needed to support my development as an early career teacher.

98.51% 98.88%

Because of my participation in STEP UP, I have implemented strategies to increase student engagement.

95.52% 94.38%

Implementation of the professional learning I experienced in STEP UP impacted my students' performance.

94.03% 95.51%

My skills as a teacher increased as a result of my participation in formal coaching, collaboration, and/or team teaching with my STEP UP coach.

97.01% 96.63%

*Mentor/Mentee Survey 2010-2011

*Administered after piloting online Mentor/Mentee training module. % in

Agreement n=49

Staff Development shows respect for my time by providing the flexibility of online Mentor/Mentee training formats. 100.00%

The online Mentor/Mentee format is an effective and efficient use of District resources. 95.92%

I was able to achieve learner objectives as effectively with on-line learning as I have been in face-to-face workshop experiences. 93.88%

The online Mentor/Mentee format allowed for rich collaboration during processing time. 93.88%

I prefer online professional learning over face-to-face collaboration with colleagues and workshop facilitators. 83.67%

*Principals' Satisfaction Survey 2007-2008 2009-2010

*Includes only the Principals with STEP UP teachers at their sites. % in

Agreement n=16

% in Agreement

n=40 Teachers served in the STEP UP program . . . Receive on-going support from their STEP UP Coach. 93.75% 100.00% Are implementing strategies to increase student engagement. 100.00% 100.00% Are developing exemplary professional norms. 93.75% 97.50% Are developing the ability to determine how teacher actions impact student performance. 100.00% 100.00%

Are improving their craftsmanship in managing a class. 100.00% 100.00%

13

Key Points for Goal 2.2

• Data indicate strong consensus regarding high levels of satisfaction with support from coaches and with the impact of the program on classroom management and student engagement (Table 2.2.1).

• Results indicate professional learning through the STEP UP program is being implemented in classrooms (Table 2.2.1).

• An opportunity for improvement noted in the last Staff Development Program Evaluation (January 2009) was to explore differentiation through technology for STEP UP teachers. Subsequently, strategic plans were developed that included actionable steps toward online learning. In August, 2010, the state mandated Mentor/Mentee initial meeting was formatted for online delivery. When surveyed, participants indicated high levels of satisfaction with online learning (Table 2.2.3).

• As one of Staff Development’s customers, principals’ satisfaction with the services their beginning teachers are receiving through STEP UP is actionable data. Survey Data from principals indicate high levels of satisfaction with the support their beginning teachers receive from the STEP UP program (Table 2.2.4).

• Qualitative data from principals and district leaders indicate a desire to provide similar levels of support for new hires with one and two years of teaching experience.

Goal 2.3 Results

Goal 2: Increase the capacity of early career teachers Performance Indicator Measures

3. Impact of professional learning on the instructional practices of beginning teachers

1. Percentage of teachers implementing key strategies

Figure 2.3 Source: SPS Classroom Observations 2004-2010 before and after implementation of program Improvements as recommended in a previous Program Evaluation Cycle, January 2007

14

Key Points for Goal 2.3

• The data for Goal 2.3 were collected through 186 classroom observations (Figure 2.3). The STEP UP program was initiated in 2004-2005. When the program began, teachers could elect to take the required Classroom Management module either in the summer before school started or during the school year. (The module was offered once each semester.) Data were collected to study if when the teachers took the class impacted their classroom management. Based on those findings, a recommended program improvement was implemented. Currently, Classroom Management I, previously offered throughout the school year, is now completed by all STEP UP teachers by early September. Significant increases in the implementation of critical components of classroom management are results of this program improvement

(Figure 2.3). • These results indicate that the greatest improvement in critical Tier I components is the use of

visible lesson objectives. Clear learning objectives for students increase the probability of greater student achievement when the learning objectives are known to students and success indicators are clearly articulated (Hattie, 2009).

• The Staff Development and Quality Improvement & Accountability Departments recently engaged in an exploratory study to look for comparisons of student achievement between first year teachers who receive support through STEP UP and those teachers with one or two years of experience who do not qualify for STEP UP services. It was determined that due to the small number of teachers fitting the criteria (STEP UP vs. non-STEP UP for assessed grade levels) that an extrapolation of findings was not viable for generalizing programmatic impact. The departments recognize this as an opportunity for study and will continue to seek meaningful ways of making these comparisons.

Goal 3.1 and 3.2 Results

Goal 3: Increase awareness, understanding, and implementation of high-yield, cross-curricular and grade level strategies among teachers

Performance Indicators Measures 1. High levels of customer satisfaction 1. Percent of certificated, instructional staff (teachers and principals)

satisfied with staff development as measured by perception of the impact on instruction and student learning

2. District rank in comparable district cohort

2. Alignment of site professional learning with school improvement goals

1. Percent of certificated, instructional staff indicating alignment between professional learning and school improvement goals

15

Comparable Districts: MSIP Survey Results

Missouri Department of Elementary and Secondary Education, 2010

Total % responding in Agreement PDC Annual Needs Assessment

Survey

School Year

Critical Questions 02-03 03-04 04-05 05-06 06-07 07-08

08-09

09-10

Number of Certificated Staff Completing Survey 1400 1405 1474 1577 1408 1584 1584 1559

1. Are staff members aware of the goals of the school improvement plan (SIP)?

89% 92.3% 94.7% 95.4% 95.1% 94.5% 98.4% 98.3%

2. Are site professional development activities aligned with SIP goals?

88.4% 94% 95.5% 96.5% 96.5% 94.3% 98.5% 99.7%

3. Has participation in staff development resulted in changes in teaching practices?

77.7% 86.3% 88.2% 90.1% 88.6% 90.1% 95.1% 96.4%

4. Has student learning improved as a result of staff development? 85.7% 90.2% 90.3% 90.0% 88.3% 86.7% 96.9% 98.1%

Figure 3.1 Source: Missouri Department of Elementary and Secondary Education, 2010

Table 3.1 Source: Comparable Data on key questions (SIP and Professional Learning) from PDC Annual Needs Surveys 2002-2010

16

Table 3.2 Source: Whole Faculty Study Group End-Of-Session Surveys, April, 2009-2010 Key Points for 3.1 and 3.2

• The District Professional Development Committee’s Annual Needs Assessment Survey results indicate significant improvements over time in the alignment of site professional development to school improvement goals; the results also reflect a trend of high percentages regarding the impact of professional development on teaching practices and student performance (Table 3.1).

• Awareness of school improvement plan (SIP) goals and alignment of site professional development to the SIP has steadily increased to over 98% agreement or strong agreement since 2001 (Table 3.1), indicating increased ownership in site-based learning.

• Perceptual data indicates 96.9% (2008-2009) and 98.1% (2009-2010) of the teachers who responded to the survey believe that student learning has improved as a result of staff development (Table 3.1).

• Open-ended questions on the PDC Needs Assessment allow teachers to give specific feedback around effective staff development. Continuous Classroom Improvement, Cooperative Learning, and Whole Faculty Study Groups are rated in the top three district initiatives that teachers believe make a difference in teaching and learning.

• Based on customer feedback, an opportunity for improvement noted in the last program evaluation cycle was the need to give additional support to the site-based professional learning model, Whole Faculty Study Groups (WFSG). A plan was implemented to address this opportunity for improvement: Whole Faculty Study Group Re-Energizers. Since this program improvement initiated in 2008-2009, a total of twenty-two school-based teams have participated in the on-going sessions designed to support their work in WFSGs (Table 3.2).

• The number of MSIP survey respondents (Figure 3.1) include the following: o Springfield—1557 o Rockwood—1430 o Hazelwood—1135 o North Kansas City—1074 o Regional Cohort—1344

Whole Faculty Study Groups (WFSG) Re-Energizers 2008-2010

End-of-Session Survey Questions % in Agreement

n=79 1. I can make the connection between the Whole Faculty Study Group model

and my School Improvement Plan 100% 2. The ideas, skills and strategies presented at the WFSG Re-energizers will be

useful in improving student learning. 100%

3. The ideas, skills and strategies presented at the WFSG Re-energizers will impact my teaching/leadership role. 100%

4. The ideas, skills and strategies presented at the WFSG Re-energizers will impact what I say/do during my WFSG meetings. 100%

17

• Although Springfield Public Schools is not required to complete the official fourth cycle MSIP survey until 2010-2011, Springfield Public Schools’ teachers are asked to respond to the MSIP survey yearly for internal data purposes (Figure 3.1).

• Springfield Public Schools ranks first among comparable districts on the Third/Fourth Cycle MSIP professional development survey items (Figure 3.1).

Goal 4.1 Results

Goal 4: Facilitate the Professional Development Committee as required by MSIP 6.7 and Senate Bill 380

Performance Indicator Measures 1. Compliance with MSIP standards for

professional development 1. Percent and number of MSIP standards met for professional

development during the MSIP Accreditation Review

Table 4.1 Source: Third Cycle MSIP. Note: Fourth Cycle MSIP results will be available by the conclusion of the 2010-2011 academic year.

Fourth Cycle MSIP Standards for Professional Development

1. (MSIP 6.1.2) Teachers receive training on the curriculum review and revision process, curriculum alignment, and classroom assessment strategies.

2. (MSIP 6.7.1) The district has a written plan for professional development which includes the following:

1) PDC policies and procedures (including, but not limited to, mentoring provisions, PDC membership criteria, reimbursement procedures, request procedures, etc.)

2) professional development program objectives aligned with the CSIP 3) evaluation criteria for the overall professional development program 4) descriptions of the planned professional development activities which are directly related to areas of needed student improvement and aligned with the district’s CSIP 5) specific mentoring provisions (including a scope and sequence for the program, allocated resources, a description of all participants’ responsibilities, evaluation processes and procedures) 6) provisions for complying with specific program requirements, and all rules, regulations, and legislation related to professional development funding

3. (MSIP 6.7.2) The district provides intensive, on-going professional development activities that address curriculum and the instructional practices related to student achievement issues identified in the Comprehensive School Improvement Plan (CSIP). 4. (MSIP 6.7.3) For all staff members, professional development is an integral part of their job

responsibilities and expectations. 5. (MSIP 6.7.4) The district has identified a set of instructional strategies designed to meet the

assessed needs of students, and has made a long-term commitment to focus its professional development activities on implementing and reinforcing these strategies.

6. (MSIP 6.7.5) The district collects and utilizes information regarding the effectiveness of its professional development program in improving instruction and student achievement.

7. (MSIP 6.7.6) The district provides substantial time and resources for the professional development of all staff members.

Number (#) of MSIP Standards

Number (#) of MSIP Standards MET Percent (%) MET

7 7 100%

18

Goal 5.1Results

Goal 5: Monitor customer satisfaction with the services of the Staff Development Department.

Performance Indicators Measures 1. Satisfaction with Staff Development

Department’s services 1. Survey data from key customers of the staff

development department

Table 5.1 Source: Customer Satisfaction Survey 2008 – 2010 Key Point for Goal 5.1:

• Key customers of the Staff Development Department, including but not limited to principals, teachers, the Tefft Center staff, and district leaders, report high levels of satisfaction with the services offered by the Staff Development team.

2008-2009 2009-2010 Customer Satisfaction Survey

2008-2010 % in Agreement

n=289

% in Agreement

n=181 When I have a question or concern, the Staff Development/STEP UP office personnel treat me with respect.

98.62% 98.34%

My phone calls and emails to the Staff Development/STEP UP office are answered in a timely manner. 98.27% 98.34%

My questions for Staff Development/STEP UP are answered in a professional manner. 98.62% 98.34%

My requests of the Staff Development/STEP UP office are processed efficiently. 98.62% 97.24%

19

Goal 5.2 Results

Goal 5: Monitor customer satisfaction with the services of the Staff Development Department.

Performance Indicators Measures 2. Perception of new hires with staff development 1. Survey of new hires

Figure 5.2 Source: Survey of new hires at New Teacher Induction, August 2010 Key Point for Goal 5.2:

• Superintendent Ridder surveyed new 2010-11 teacher hires asking what factors most influenced their desire to work in Springfield Public Schools (SPS). Professional development was listed second only to the draw of community/family as a reason for choosing Springfield Public Schools as a place of employment.

20

Key Strengths:

1. High satisfaction among and low attrition rate of early career leaders is noted in the Evolving Leaders’ Induction Program. (Results: Figures 1.1.1, 1.1.2, and Table 1.2)

2. High satisfaction among and low attrition rate of beginning teachers is noted in the STEP UP

Induction Program. (Results: Figures 2.1.1, 2.1.2, 2.1.3, and Tables 2.2.1 and 2.2.2)

3. High satisfaction among principals, a key customer of Staff Development, regarding the STEP UP Induction Program remains consistent. (Results: Table 2.2.4)

4. Participants in the Evolving Leaders and STEP UP Induction Programs value the coaching they

receive. (Results: Tables 1.2, 2.2.1, and 2.2.2)

5. Classroom implementation of key instructional practices is evident as a result of training and coaching beginning teachers. (Results: Figure 2.3, and Tables 2.2.1 and 2.2.2)

6. Certified staff reports that professional learning improves student learning. (Results: Table 3.1)

7. Springfield Public Schools ranks first among comparable districts on the Third/Fourth Cycle MSIP Survey results for the impact of professional development on teaching practices. (Results: Figure 3.1)

8. In a competitive job market, Springfield Public Schools has a favorable reputation and is known for the quality of its professional development. (Results: Figure 5.2)

Key Opportunities for Improvement:

1. Leverage technology to differentiate learning opportunities for certified staff (Results 1.2, 2.2, 2.3, 3.1, and 5.1)

2. Support for Whole Faculty Study Groups/Data Teams (Results 3.2 and 5.1)

3. Forward thinking about skill set needs for teachers in the 21st Century classroom

(Results 3.1 and 5.1) Next Steps:

1. Continue to differentiate professional learning opportunities through the use of technology 2. Offer systematic opportunities for support of Whole Faculty Study Groups/Data Teams in order

to build capacity among teachers and leaders for high quality school improvement

3. Develop systematic learning opportunities for supporting teachers and leaders in implementing the Springfield Learning Model

Submitted by: Pam Hankins, Director of Leadership Development and Virginia Crawford, Director of Teacher Development Date: January 18, 2011