District Support Survey Results

1. District Support Survey Results May, 2011

2. Background • The survey was designed for the 58 participants in the monthly Chiefs’ Meetings (the group most involved in all aspects of the district support work) • The survey had three purposes: • Understand individuals’ current beliefs related to the reform effort • Solicit feedback on support to date • Receive suggestions for future support • The survey was open from April 13 – May 13; three e-mails were sent to encourage participation, and potential respondents were reminded in-person during the individual district meetings • 30 of the 58 potential respondents participated (52%); 10 of 19 Chiefs, and 20 of 39 non-chiefs

3. Summary of findings • There is a high level of “understanding and conviction” among district leaders: • At least 87% of respondents agreed that they understand and support the state’s plan, and that their own district’s plan aligns to the state plan, represents an improvement over what they have done before, and will dramatically improve student achievement. • This understanding and conviction has increased since the initial Race to the Top win: • 83% of respondents agreed that they understand the State’s plan better than they did before the support program began, and that their district’s plan has improved since their 90-day plan submission. • There are opportunities to improve districts’ perception of DOE, and to better meet districts’ needs: • Only 57% of respondents agree that they view the Department favorably, and only 46% of respondents agree that DOE is effectively meeting their district’s needs. Over 25% of respondents disagree that they view DOE more favorably than in the past, and that DOE is meeting their needs more effectively than in the past – however, this could be because DOE has not changed in this respect (rather than regressing). • The components of the support program were valuable, more so than the “sum of the parts” (support overall): • Only 59% of respondents agreed that the support DOE provided was valuable, but 70-85% agreed that many of the actual components were valuable (chiefs meetings, visits, planning resources, written feedback, calls with Sec. Lowery, meetings with DOE staff, and district examples). Approx. 2/3 of respondents found facilitators and liaisons valuable. Written comments included positive feedback for the support provided, and negative feedback regarding changing requirements and a lack of differentiated support. • There are mixed feelings regarding the value of future supports: • District examples, DOE coordination and dedicated liaisons/facilitators are most favorable (at 71-75%), while chiefs meetings and online resources received 68% approval and 63% approval, respectively. • Non-Chief respondents tended to be more positive than Chiefs regarding key beliefs and the value of supports: • Non-Chief respondents were more likely than Chiefs to agree that past supports were valuable and that future supports would be valuable; and were more likely to agree that they understand Delaware’s plan (90% to 80% for Chiefs), that their plan represents an improvement over the 90-day plan submission (90% to 70% for Chiefs), and that Delaware’s plan will dramatically improve student achievement (65% to 55.5% for Chiefs). Chiefs were more likely to agree that their district has the capacity to effectively implement its plan (80% to 68.5% for non-Chiefs). Interestingly, non-Chiefs view DOE more favorably (60% to 50% for Chiefs), but are less likely to feel that DOE is effectively meeting their district’s needs (40% to 60% for Chiefs).

4. SURVEY RESULTS

5. Survey results – All Respondents (30) Overall beliefs and support to date:

6. Survey results – All Respondents (30) Overall beliefs and support to date: Major Strengths (85-100% Agree) I support Delaware’s vision (“every student in our system will graduate college and career ready, with the freedom to choose his or her life’s course) (100%) My district’s plan is aligned to the state plan (97%) I support Delaware’s plan (90%) I understand Delaware’s plan for achieving our vision (87%) My district’s plan represents an improvement over what my district has done before (87%) My district’s plan will dramatically improve student achievement (87%) Minor Strengths (70-84% Agree) My district’s plan represents an improvement over our 90-day plan submission (83%; 47% strongly agree) I understand Delaware’s plan better now than I did before the support program began (September 2010) (83%) My district has the capacity to effectively implement our plan (72%) Minor Areas for Improvement (50-69% Agree) I believe Delaware’s plan will dramatically improve student achievement (62%) The support DOE has provided has been valuable to me and/or my district (59%) I view the Department favorably (57%) Major Areas for Improvement (0-49% Agree) DOE is effectively meeting my district’s needs (47%) I view the Department more favorably than I did before the support program began (40%) DOE is meeting my district’s needs more effectively than is has in the past (37%)

7. Positive Neutral Negative Pos/Neg Survey results – All Respondents (30) Overall beliefs and support to date: (Written Comments) It remains to be seen how our plans will impact student achievement. Data showing improved achievement may be masked because the assessment has dramatically changed. Overall the Race to the Top application has merit, but the sheer number of initiatives and requirements is problematic in maintaining a focus. Race to the Top has not addressed two issues that will directly lead to student achievement on a State level. The School year/day and the amount of planning time vs. instruction time that is required on a broader scale when compared to other international countries. U.S. and Delaware still teach too much and plan to little, even though 90 minutes is a start, but left to districts to implement. The support provided by DOE in terms of the RTTT application has been very well received by the district. In terms of other initiatives at DOE and the implementation, the support has not been as strong. Examples include DCAS and DPAS II. There are some DOE staff (specific to RTTT and regular employees) that are more responsive and understand the needs of the district more than others. 1) There are still some DOE staff that do not understand the larger picture of RTTT and impose requirements on districts that distract from implementing the plan or are simply not working in conjunction with the bigger picture. 2) It would be helpful if all DOE staff understood that district needs vary and a differentiated approach is more effective for districts. To think ahead, the data coaches and development coaches are examples where approach and support could look different in different districts and even in different schools.

8. Positive Neutral Negative Pos/Neg Survey results – All Respondents (30) Overall beliefs and support to date: (Written Comments) I believe that DOE has done a remarkable job at rolling out the Race to the Top plan within such a tight timeframe. I would ask that in the future added sensitivity is given to changing templates mid-course and the havoc that creates for a school district. I also implore you to reconsider the approach the State is taking to Domain 5. It is hasty, and it is not based on true, authentic multiple measures as originally intended. In a rush to have something in place, we are sacrificing quality and modeling sound data analysis practice. Everything does not have to be based on computer generated data--though it certainly has its place. As it stands now, Component 5 will be solely based on the DCAS 70%-30% (until Part III is finalized). This is placing our attention solely on math and ELA and minimizing the importance of other content/specialty areas that contribute to the WHOLE child. Let's reconsider and add a district-assessment portion for Part 3 (50%). ALL teachers would then be substantially accountable to the math and reading scores, while at the same time having their teaching assignment validated. Teachers would appreciate this (students would benefit) and it would add a wonderful layer to the Common Planning Period initiative. DOE has been leading us on a wild goose chase with ever changing requirements on the Plan. More often than not, the requirements set forth by DOE during 2010-2011 have presented roadblocks to my District in our efforts to make our plan more effective in addressing the identified needs of our students and staff. There have been mixed, confusing communications from various DOE groups and a lack of timely and/or complete responses to questions regarding DCAS issues, curriculum work at the state level, and clarification of the mixed messages. While DOE staff has been tireless in their work to implement the state's scope of work, the effort has not always aligned with the needs or schedules of a school district. Additional support in revising the plan would have been helpful. I am not sure if it was our approach or incomplete feedback from our liaisons that made the revision process seem difficult.

9. Survey results – All Respondents (30) Specific support to date:

10. Survey results – All Respondents (30) Specific support to date: Major Strengths (85-100% Agree) District examples (at Chiefs’ meetings and online) (85%) Minor Strengths (70-84% Agree) Chiefs meetings (81%) Visits (78%) Planning resources online (rubric, sample plan sections, etc.) (71%) Individual written feedback after draft submissions (71%) Calls with Secretary Lowery after draft submissions (70%) District meetings with other DOE staff (70%) Minor Areas for Improvement (50-69% Agree) Facilitator (67%) Liaison (64%) Feedback for all districts after draft submissions (61%) County workshops (59%) Receipt of PD clock hours (50%) Major Areas for Improvement (0-49% Agree) N/A

11. Positive Neutral Negative Survey results – All Respondents (30) Specific support to date: (Written Comments) We have been supported throughout the process. The effort of DOE to provide supports throughout the process is greatly appreciated. Again, there are some DOE staff that are very knowledgeable and helpful. Rebecca Taber is particularly informed, provides valuable guidance and feedback and consistently provides support as requested. Her ability to listen effectively and follow through with ideas, suggestions, examples, etc. has been very much appreciated. The ""model deliverables"" document was a great resource. While hearing from other districts is helpful, roundtable discussion (with 5-7 at the table) around a topic is more valuable than formal presentations from 1 or 2 districts. It would allow for more back and forth that allows one to dig deeper into HOW they do it. Presentations are often one-way...then we go back to our business and there is often little to no transfer. Written feedback comments did not align with the comments made by Dr. Lowery and staff during the phone conferences. It appears that several individuals read the written drafts in isolation and reviewed/commented on their own small section of the plan. Their comments were addressed in the plan, just not in their section. This was a very frustrating process, especially since the facilitator would tell the team to not get too specific in the draft language....don't write down every little piece of the plan..and then the team would receive a negative comment in the written feedback for not providing more detail.

12. Survey results – All Respondents (30) Future support: District support next year will focus on helping districts implement their plans. Which components would be valuable to you and/or your district? Future support in order of popularity: Examples from other districts (76%) DOE coordination of un-funded initiatives (e.g., PLC training) (75%) Dedicated facilitator/liaison (71%) Chiefs’ meetings focused on PD/collaboration rather than administrative updates (non-Chief participants optional) (68%) Online resources (63%)

13. Positive Neutral Negative Survey results – All Respondents (30) Future support: District support next year will focus on helping districts implement their plans. Which components would be valuable to you and/or your district? : (Written Comments) On-line examples are particularly helpful........i.e. the Model Deliverable document. As long as we could have the same facilitator DOE supports for either coordination of initiatives or professional development can be useful to districts. The execution of these efforts depends on how valuable the support becomes. Other resources such as the longitudinal data dashboard. Learning Points to include more intervention tools for all grades including high school Portions of the Chiefs' meeting and examples from other districts would be fine. The difficulty is taking the entire meeting for these issues, which than forces additional meetings to be scheduled. Our district is collaborating just fine. We do not need PD.

14. Positive Neutral Negative Pos/Neg Survey results – All Respondents (30) What other support could DOE provide to help districts effectively implement their plans? Please share any additional comments or suggestions for improving DOE's support in the space below. It was very helpful to have additional people attend the Chief's meetings. I would suggest that you continue this practice for one of the monthly meetings as we begin implementing the plan. Please make sure that the Data Coaches and Development Coaches are effectively trained to provide the support that is needed. This is imperative. Also, the responsiveness of the facilitator and liaison is critical. Always be mindful of district and school calendar and the need to pull teachers from their classes. Trainings for board members to help them understand their roles in the management of a school district. Mentoring support for building administrators trying to juggle the task of instructional leader and building manager. Assistance developing screening tools and formative assessments for middle and high school math and reading. Assistance developing effective interventions for reading and math at the secondary level. Re-certification training for in-district LFS trainers. Ongoing PLC training throughout 2012 school year. It is understood that we needed to design a plan that aligned to the state RTTT and the district's needs. In the second round of writing the plan format was much more intuitive and was structured in a more practical and applicable manner. Our struggle was that we felt we needed additional and more explicit direction about how district's plan should be revised. The general meetings were helpful, but we still struggled with what the parameters were in regard to what we could and couldn't include. Maintain one plan without multiple modifications and hold districts accountable for that plan. Too much time spent in process this year and rewriting proposals in a new format. It would be helpful if DOE would try to differentiate support to districts based on their capacity to effectively implement their plans rather than trying to make all districts adhere to procedures and components that do not align with the priorities set by the district. The plans are district plans, not state-wide plans. While monitoring is an essential piece for DOE, it should not inhibit districts from the time needed to effectively be in schools working with staff, students, and parents to implement the plan.