The displays below summarize how the perceptions and practices of your school staff have changed over time. The first year for which we have data will vary depending on when each construct or item was added to the survey. The staff responding to the survey may have changed from year to year as your staff composition has changed.

School Climate

These constructs and items represent teachers’ perceptions of academic expectations and staff perceptions of student-staff relationships and workplace trust and satisfaction.

The academic press construct represents teachers’ perceptions that school staff expect all students to strive for high levels of academic performance by setting high academic expectations, challenging students to work hard, and encouraging students to persist.

The student-staff relationships construct represents staff members’ perceptions that school staff foster positive relationships with all students. High levels indicate that staff members perceive they are caring and respectful toward students, talk to students about the future, and check in with students about their lives outside of school.

*Asked only of teachers.

Notes: Responses fall on the following scale: 1 = strongly disagree, 2 = disagree, 3 = disagree a little, 4 = neither agree nor disagree, 5 = agree a little, 6 = agree, 7 = strongly agree.

*Asked of all staff other than school leaders.

Notes: Responses fall on the following scale: 1 = strongly disagree, 2 = disagree, 3 = disagree a little, 4 = neither agree nor disagree, 5 = agree a little, 6 = agree, 7 = strongly agree.

Instructional Systems and Supports

Instructional Systems

These constructs and item represent the degree to which teachers agree their school has clear instructional structures that guide teaching and learning.

The instructional vision construct represents teachers’ perceptions that their school has a clear instructional vision that helps guide their work in the classroom and their development as a teacher.

The schoolwide competency-based instructional systems construct represents teachers’ perceptions that the school has well-developed competency systems that guide instruction including common language to talk about the competencies and rubrics that define different levels of mastery and help teachers understand student growth.

The student understanding of competencies construct represents teachers’ perceptions that students understand the competencies and the expectations for demonstrating mastery.

Notes: Items asked of teachers only. Responses fall on the following scale: 1 = strongly disagree, 2 = disagree, 3 = disagree a little, 4 = neither agree nor disagree, 5 = agree a little, 6 = agree, 7 = strongly agree.

Coaching

Coaching Frequency

The following construct and items represent the frequency with which teachers report that they received specific types of coaching and support from someone on their school’s instructional leadership team each school year.

The instructional support construct represents the frequency with which teachers report participating in a variety of coaching and support activities from someone on the school’s instructional leadership team, either 1:1 or in a group setting with other colleagues. These activities include looking at student work to clarify performance expectations or to determine next steps for instruction, receiving feedback on lesson plans based on student work review, reviewing lessons to identify critical elements for student learning, and practicing instructional strategies.

Notes: Items asked of teachers only. Responses fall on the following scale: 1 = never, 2 = once or twice this year, 3 = a few times this year, 4 = monthly or almost monthly, 5 = two or three times a month, 6 = once a week or more.

Coaching Feedback

The following item represents the degree to which teachers agree that observation feedback they received each school year helped them identify specific ways to improve their teaching practice.

Notes: Item asked of teachers who receive feedback on their teaching from someone on their school’s instructional leadership team based on a classroom observation. Responses fall on the following scale: 1 = strongly disagree, 2 = disagree, 3 = disagree a little, 4 = neither agree nor disagree, 5 = agree a little, 6 = agree, 7 = strongly agree.

Instruction

Competency-based Instructional Approaches

These items address the frequency with which teachers report utilizing specific competency-based instructional practices each school year.

Notes: Items asked of teachers only. Responses fall on the following scale: 1 = never, 2 = seldom, 3 = sometimes, 4 = often, 5 = always.

Rigor and Purpose

For the following construct and items, teachers were asked to report how many of their classes included assignments that exhibited different aspects of rigor and purpose.

The academic rigor construct represents teachers’ reports of how many of their classes include assignments that address complex items that lack an obvious answer, require multiple drafts so students can strengthen their argument and make their final product clearer, and challenge students to do their best work.

Notes: Items asked of teachers only. Responses fall on the following scale: 1 = none, 2 = a few, 3 = about half, 4 = most, 5 = all.

Authenticity

The following items represent the number of times that teachers report asking students to engage in specific authentic activities each school year.

Notes: Items asked of teachers only. In these items, teachers reported how many times they have asked their students to do the following activities in their classes. Responses fall on the following scale: 0 = never, 1 = once, 2 = twice, 3 = three times, 4 = four or more times.

Teacher Self-efficacy

The following items represent the extent to which teachers agree with statements about their instructional self-efficacy aligned to initiative priorities.

Primary Person Model

Survey items in this section were only asked of school staff who reported having an assigned caseload of students whose academic progress they support as part of a formal primary person system.

Overall Primary Person System

The following display shows the percent of respondents who report serving as a primary person.

Caseload

The following display shows the average caseload of students across all primary people.

Caseload Support Type

The following item shows the percent of primary people who have dedicated time in their schedule to meet 1-1 with students.

Notes: Item only asked of primary people who responded that they support students on their caseload 1-1.

Primary Person Meeting Frequency

The following items show, across the primary people, the percent of students with whom primary people report meeting with each frequency. Meetings with students could be in person, virtual, or on the phone, but do not include text or email communications.

Notes: Items only asked of primary people who responded that they support students on their caseload 1-1.

Meeting Length

The following item provides the mean length of meetings with students with whom primary people meet regularly (at least two or three times a month during the school year).

Notes: Item only asked of primary people who responded that they support students on their caseload 1-1.

Differentiation and Data Use

The following construct and items represent the degree to which primary people report differentiating their approach based on students’ levels of engagement and success in school, as well as their perceptions of data use and accessibility.

The differentiation construct represents the extent to which primary people agree that they determine the frequency, length, and focus of meetings based on each student’s level of engagement and success in school.

*Items only asked of primary people who responded that they support students on their caseload 1-1.

Notes: Responses fall on the following scale: 1 = strongly disagree, 2 = disagree, 3 = disagree a little, 4 = neither agree nor disagree, 5 = agree a little, 6 = agree, 7 = strongly agree.

Primary Person System Effectiveness

The following items represent the extent to which primary people agree that they understand their role and that the system is effective in supporting students.

Notes: Responses fall on the following scale: 1 = strongly disagree, 2 = disagree, 3 = disagree a little, 4 = neither agree nor disagree, 5 = agree a little, 6 = agree, 7 = strongly agree.

Case Conferencing

On the survey, case conferences are defined as 1-1 meetings in which school staff support a student in setting academic goals, developing strategies to meet these goals, and monitoring their progress.

Caseload and Protocol Use

*Item only asked of staff who responded that they conduct case conferencing.

Case Conferencing Coaching

The case conferencing coaching construct represents the frequency with which primary people report that their primary person manager provides case conferencing support, such as observing their case conferences with students, providing feedback based on these observations, and role playing next steps.

Notes: Items only asked of staff who responded that they conduct case conferencing. Responses fall on the following scale: 1 = never, 2 = once or twice this year, 3 = a few times this year, 4 = monthly or almost monthly, 5 = two or three times a month, 6 = once a week or more.

Case Conferencing Self-efficacy and Support

The following construct and items represent the extent to which primary people agree that they are efficacious at facilitating case conferences with students and have adequate support for case conferencing as well as easy access to the data they need.

The case conferencing facilitation – self-efficacy construct represents the extent to which primary people agree that they can effectively facilitate case conferences with students, including supporting students in developing their own goals and making progress toward these goals.

*Item only asked of staff who receive feedback from the primary person manager on their case conferencing.

Notes: Items only asked of staff who responded that they conduct case conferencing. Responses fall on the following scale: 1 = strongly disagree, 2 = disagree, 3 = disagree a little, 4 = neither agree nor disagree, 5 = agree a little, 6 = agree, 7 = strongly agree.

Student Ownership

The following items represent the extent to which primary people agree that students take ownership of case conferencing and their academic progress.