Multi-YearPartnershipsImpact

THE IMPACT OF MULTI-YEAR
PARTNERSHIPS: RESULTS
FROM THREE SCHOOLS
Transforming underperforming schools is not easy. Such
schools often contend with rapid staff turnover, high
absenteeism, and sometimes growing morale problems
(Lawson, 2002). Addressing challenges such as these takes
time.
Partners in School Innovation’s mission
is to transform teaching and learning
in the lowest-performing public schools
so that every student, regardless of
background, thrives.
hen we at Partners in School
Innovation establish a part-
nership with a school district,
we know that supporting the transforma-
tion of their struggling schools is going to
be a three- to five-year engagement. Our
partnership is intentionally designed so
that there will be enough time for schools
to develop and sustain the skills they need
to thrive on their own. During that time,
staff members from Partners work shoul-
der-to-shoulder with teachers, administra-
tors, and coaches to strengthen teaching,
learning and achievement. We use an
equity-focused, continuous-improvement
approach that builds on school and district
strengths.
Our Theory of Impact states that with
consistent, high-quality delivery of our
school-transformation approach, we will
build adult capacity, which will produce
breakthrough student achievement results.
We monitor delivery of our approach with
a Program Implementation Tracker and
assess school and district capabilities with
detailed, research-based rubrics that we
have developed. Results from local and
state assessments have served as our gauge
of progress in student achievement.
This report describes the improvement
made in three schools with which we have
had multi-year partnerships. Two of the
three cases offer some confirmation of our
theory of impact, and one shows mixed
results despite a comprehensive imple-
mentation of our approach. Before that
discussion, however, the report explains in
detail how we work with schools.
HOW WE WORK
Our staff members are educators with
experience in urban schools.
To carry out our work, we assign a District
Transformation Director to work with a
school district’s central office staff and a Di-
rector of School Transformation to oversee
our School Innovation Partners (SIPs), who
provide support at school sites and facilitate
networks.
SIPs come to the job with several years’
experience as teachers in urban school dis-
tricts or charter schools, with many having
served as teacher-leaders, instructional
coaches, or school administrators. Our dis-
trict-level directors have generally worked
as SIPs for a few years or come to Partners
1
March 18, 2015
W
THEORY OF IMPACT
BUILD
Increased Adult
Capacity in
Leadership,
Instruction and
Use of Data
BREAKTHROUGH
Student Achievement
DELIVER
A Consistent,
High-Quality,
Research-Based
Approach

with a wealth of experience as education
leaders.
The level of support that a school receives
from SIPs depends in part on the school’s
needs and in part on the resources avail-
able. In some cases, a school district con-
tracts with Partners to provide only “light
touch” support, which can take different
forms. However, with most of our partner
schools, we provide “intensive” support.
Under many intensive-support arrange-
ments, two SIPs spend a total of 3½ days
per week on site. In other cases, just one
SIP provides support for 3½ days per week.
The latter model will likely become the most
common approach going forward.
Partners in School Innovation focuses
on three domains.
When SIPs partner with a school, they
concentrate on three domains of effective
practice:
1. Results-Oriented Leadership.
2. Systems for Professional Learning.
3. The Core Instructional Program.
Our focus on these three domains arose
from Partners’ 2008 analysis of research on
best practices for transforming schools. Be-
low is a discussion of our methods of bring-
ing about improvement in each domain.
Results-Oriented Leadership
To ensure that new systems and ways of
working will be established—and sus-
tained—we work with school leaders on
developing a clear and compelling vision,
setting rigorous goals, developing clear
strategies and plans, distributing leadership,
monitoring implementation and adjusting
practice based on deep understanding of
results. Effective leadership is not achieved
by completing this simple checklist of ac-
tions; rather, leaders must develop partic-
ular mindsets and leadership qualities as
well as content knowledge. Leaders must be
results-oriented, equity-focused, strategic
and committed to continuous improvement
for themselves and their schools.
Partners starts by learning about the school
leaders’ values, sharing our own, and to-
gether articulating an inspiring call to action
for the school staff and community. We
help leaders communicate strong beliefs
about social justice, teaching, learning, and
the use of data to motivate others. Part-
ners then supports leaders in developing a
shared long-term vision for student achieve-
ment and works with them to develop a
framework that specifies student learning
objectives, teaching methods and how
student learning will be assessed.
Distributed Leadership: Partners also sup-
ports principals in developing an instruc-
tional leadership team, which includes
teacher representatives of each grade and/
or department, as well as any instructional
coaches and other administrators. “Dis-
tributed leadership” is an essential part of
school transformation not only because
principals cannot do this work in isolation,
but also because the reforms are more
likely to be integrated into teacher prac-
tice if teachers have a part in shaping the
instructional focus and are able to advocate
for changes with their peers.
Student Learning and Instructional Qual-
ity: One of our key methods for helping a
school improve its instruction is the inculca-
tion of a process called Results-Oriented Cy-
cle of Inquiry (ROCI). The process includes
five steps designed to help individuals
sharpen their focus on results and develop
habits that fuel continuous improvement.
ROCI focuses everyone’s attention directly
on student-learning; stimulates people to
learn from their successes and to diagnose
and address their shortfalls; and then leads
them to implement and monitor their pro-
visional solutions. In this way, ROCI helps
Partners in
School Innovation’s
Results-Oriented
Cycle of Inquiry

teachers and other instructional leaders
bring about sustained organizational learn-
ing and improvement.
Systems for Professional Learning
Research indicates that successful schools
have systems in place to support the
continuous improvement of teaching. Such
systems include a professional learning
plan that aligns the content of professional
development, the agenda of grade level
collaboration, and the focus of instructional
coaching.
Partners helps instructional leaders within
schools to design and implement collab-
orative professional learning systems.
Teachers must regularly work alongside
their colleagues toward common goals and
get support in developing responses to
the everyday dilemmas of practice. In our
School Transformation Approach, the three
primary factors in professional learning are:
• Protected and effective teacher
collaboration time. Regularly setting
aside time signals that collaboration
is important, and it allows teachers to
share best practices, plan meaningful
instruction, and use data to understand
what is working and not working in the
classroom.
• Strong instructional coaching. Instruc-
tional coaching ensures that all teach-
ers have the individualized support
they need to continuously improve
their instruction in alignment with the
school’s vision and goals.
• Relevant and actionable professional
development. Educators benefit from
professional development that is
tailored to their specific circumstances
and that can be readily applied in the
classroom.
The Core Instructional Program
Research shows the importance of having a
curriculum aligned to state/district stan-
dards; rigorous instruction that is culturally
responsive, differentiated, and that reflects
a growth mindset; and a system of summa-
tive and formative assessments aligned to
standards. Partners works with schools to
strengthen all three components of their
instructional program:
• Curriculum. We work with teacher
teams to prioritize essential skills and
knowledge and determine a common
standard of proficiency for their grade
level or course, create backward maps
and unit plans aligned to the Common
Core State Standards, and plan lessons
using culturally responsive materials
and instructional strategies.
• Instruction. Through systems of coach-
ing, collaboration and professional
development, we support teachers to
improve their pedagogical practice and
build their skills around lesson planning
and delivery, including differentiation,
learning environment, student invest-
ment and support for English learners.
• Assessment. We also support schools
to develop comprehensive assessment
systems, including diagnostic, forma-
tive, benchmark and summative tests.
We work with leaders and teachers to
disaggregate student achievement data
along lines of ethnicity, English profi-
ciency or gender to unearth trends and
make targeted adjustments to instruc-
tional programs and lesson delivery.
We systematically monitor program
implementation.
Partners has developed a list of specific
actions for SIPs to take during the school
year to bring about improvement in the
three domains described above. Some of
the actions are to be implemented at the
beginning of the school year—for example
establishing or re-establishing the part-
nership between Partners and the school,
setting goals, and creating plans for the
year. Other actions, such as supporting
school leaders and staff, occur repeatedly
during the remainder of the school year.
And some steps such as closing or renewing
the partnership are taken near the end of
the year.
Our goal is to execute at least 90% of the
specific actions in each of our partner
schools each year. This goal is supported
by research: Gross, Booker, and Gold-
haber (2009) found that schools achiev-
PARTNERS IN SCHOOL INNOVATION
THE IMPACT OF MULTI-YEAR PARTNERSHIPS:
RESULTS FROM THREE SCHOOLS
3

ing more than 90% implementation of
research-based school reform strategies
experienced gains in reading, math, and
science test scores that were three to five
times higher than schools with less than
10% implementation.
Each action has a standard of completion
so that SIPs can know whether they have
fulfilled each duty. For example, the action,
“support teacher teams to use data to
adjust intervention plans” has the following
standard of completion:
Based on data, teams have identified students
needing interventions, have identified what
interventions they will receive, who will provide
the intervention, and how it will be monitored.
SIP support for intervention planning can take the
form of:
• Direct/Co-facilitation of intervention planning.
• Coaching someone else to facilitate the pro-
cess of intervention planning.
The list of actions and standards of comple-
tion exist in an electronic database known
as the Program Implementation Tracker.
SIPs enter data into the tracker and review
their progress with their Director of School
Transformation and program support
staff at least once per month. This regular
assessment of progress allows us to adjust
our support to ensure that our schools are
receiving consistent and high-quality ser-
vices. This record of our work in each school
helps us understand how our support may
or may not have contributed to increases in
school capacity and student achievement
and adjust our approach going forward. In
this way, we model the ROCI mindset that
we foster in schools.
We regularly assess schools’ progress.
When we partner with a school, we make
multiple assessments of its strengths and
challenges to understand what to build on
and where to focus our efforts. Reviews are
conducted in the fall of the initial year of a
partnership and in the spring of each year
that the partnership is in effect. The as-
sessment, called the School Transformation
Review (STR), is guided by a rubric that we
developed based on research and refined
based on our experience with fostering
systemic change. Both the process and the
rubric provide school leaders with the lan-
guage needed to identify, discuss, and gain
agreement on what constitutes powerful
instruction.
The rubric describes 76 practices deemed
by researchers to be essential to trans-
forming schools, particularly those serving
low-income students of color. These essen-
tial practices are organized into the three
domains of our transformation approach.
The table below shows the number of
items in each domain and a sample item
from each domain. (See Appendix A for the
complete rubric.)
When conducting a School Transformation
Review, we observe classrooms, interview
school leaders and hold focus groups with
teachers to rate the school on each item
on the rubric. Reviews are generally done
in one intensive day of data collection by
three Partners staff members—some who
have been working at the school and some
who have not (to reduce bias).
Before the review, we spend substantial
time making sure that our entire team
shares a nuanced understanding of the
ratings so that we can be confident that a
school will receive similar ratings no matter
who the raters are. This training has been
effective: an internal analysis of raters’
scores in 2013 revealed that our field staff
tend to rate schools very similarly. Yet, after
each school-review, the raters go through
a triangulation process to arrive at final
ratings that reflect a consensus based on
evidence.
Ratings are done on a six-stage scale. The
scale pertains to the prevalence, intention-
ality and consistency of implementation of
each item. At the lowest end of the scale is
the “no evidence” rating, indicating that a
given practice is not being implemented at
all. The highest possible rating is “sustain-
ing,” which indicates that the practice is
being implemented almost always and that
there are structures in place to sustain the
practice. The School Transformation Review
Rating Scale is displayed below.
4
Overview of School Transformation Rubric
School Transformation Review Rating Scale

Partners has established specific
school- improvement goals.
Because we intentionally partner with
schools that are not performing up to their
potential, it is highly unlikely that we will
see a school at the sustaining level on any
of the practices that we assess. Wherever a
school’s practices are on our School Trans-
formation Review rating scale, we discuss
the results of the STR with the school’s staff
so they can understand the ratings and
monitor their growth. In addition, we mea-
sure progress on STR ratings against annual
improvement objectives that are set inter-
nally and designed to motivate Partners
staff to help schools progress toward the
transforming stage. That stage is the target
because our overall objective is to help
schools achieve and maintain system-wide
change. Each year, we strive to close part
of the gap between the stage the school
was at in its initial STR and the transforming
stage. The annual gap-closure goals vary
by domain; this is because experience has
taught us that change is harder to achieve
in some domains. For example, bringing
about improvement in the core instruction-
al program involves many teachers, which
makes change more difficult to achieve than
in a school’s leadership, which involves a
very small number of people.
According to our theory of impact, com-
prehensive delivery of our approach, as
measured by the percentage of essential
practices completed each year, should lead
to increased adult capacity in the three
domains, which manifests in improved STR
ratings. Student achievement should then
increase as a result of that capacity-build-
ing. STR and student assessment data from
several of our partner schools indicate that
our theory of impact holds true when cer-
tain facilitating conditions are in place.
With some of our schools, we have
achieved high implementation rates and
relatively strong growth in STR ratings and
student test scores. In other schools, STR
growth and student achievement growth
were low when our implementation rates
were low. However, some of our schools
demonstrate mixed results. An example of
each type of school is described below.
DATA ON ADULT AND STUDENT
LEARNING
This section reviews the progress of three
schools that we have partnered with for
three or more years between 2008 and
2013. The analysis focuses on improvement
in STR ratings and student achievement.
The rating of each STR domain is the aver-
age rating of the items within the domain.
Student assessment data is reported as
the percent of students scoring proficient
or advanced on the California Standards
Test in English Language Arts (CST-ELA).
To preserve confidentiality, the schools
are referred to as School A, School B, and
School C.
In School A, our implementation
rates were high, and adult and student
learning were as well.
School A is one of Partners’ success stories.
As the table below shows, our SIPs were
able to execute nearly all of the actions that
we deem important in each of the three
years of the partnership. During that time,
the school’s STR ratings grew markedly at
first but more slowly in years two and three.
Student achievement improved, if not
consistently, at least substantially overall.
The year before Partners began working
with School A, about one quarter of the
students scored proficient or advanced on
the CST-ELA. Three years later, about half of
the school performed at that level—notable
improvement in a relatively short time.
In our first year of partnership with School
A, 2010-11, we focused on creating a
theory of action and establishing systems
and structures to foster teacher devel-
opment and accelerate student learning.
For example, we helped institute weekly
collaboration sessions for groups of teach-
ers. To maximize the effectiveness of these
sessions, we helped school leaders set ex-
pectations for the groups and worked with
coaches as they guided teachers through
data analysis and instruction-planning.
We also worked with teams of teachers to
identify high-priority academic standards
so that instruction would be focused on the
most important skills. This teacher collabo-
ration acted as a catalyst for other positive
developments in the school.
5

The following year, we worked with the
school to deepen the practices described
above and moved into new realms as
well. Our SIPs helped school leaders set
clear expectations for instruction, with
an emphasis on supporting English learn-
ers across content areas. To ensure that
teachers were adhering to expectations,
instructional coaches provided regular feed-
back on teachers’ practices, and teachers
continued to work together to analyze data
from classroom assessments to monitor
their instruction collectively. In addition, we
collaboratively planned the order in which
state standards would be addressed in the
classroom.
In 2012-13, we used ROCI to improve mul-
tiple elements: data analysis, professional
development, and instructional coaching.
In addition, we helped the staff enhance its
instructional leadership by having teachers,
rather than coaches, drive the school’s
professional learning systems. That was
part of a general effort to enable the school
to sustain the systems it had created even
after funding from a federal grant that it
had received ran out and our SIPs were no
longer working with the school.
School B’s adult learning slowed as
our implementation rates fell.
In School B, STR ratings and student test
performance improved when implemen-
tation rates were high but slowed or even
declined when implementation rates went
well below 90%.
We began working with School B in the late
fall of 2010. Getting a late start, we pro-
vided a limited scope of service that year,
focusing on the school’s leaders and helping
them develop a theory of action. Within the
subset of essential practices that we set out
to execute, we achieved a 100% implemen-
tation rate. That year, student test per-
formance rose substantially, and the staff
improved in all three domains. However,
the school was still mostly in the readiness
stage of school-transformation.
In the second year, the two original SIPs
were replaced by highly experienced Part-
ners staff members. These experienced SIPs
built trust with the principal, which allowed
for the discussion of challenging topics.
The veteran SIPs also helped the school’s
instructional leadership team (ILT) become
more deeply involved in the transforma-
tion efforts of the school. Aiding this effort
was the ILT’s participation in quarterly
meetings of instructional leadership teams
from throughout the district. Progress
could be seen in School B’s establishment
of twice-monthly classroom walkthroughs
by the principal and a member of the
district’s Instructional Services team. The
walkthroughs alternately focused on English
language arts and English language devel-
opment.
In the second half of the year, two addi-
tional SIPs who were new to Partners were
brought in to help, thus giving the school a
great deal of support. We worked to align
professional development topics to the
priorities of the school, including English
language development, and began to get
teachers working well together in grade
level teams. One grade level team—the
6
School B’s Implementation Rates, STR Ratings, and Student Achievement
School A’s Implementation Rates, STR Ratings, and Student Achievement

second grade teachers—took part in a
district-wide network of peers just as the
school’s ILT did.
Before the third year of partnership began,
the two veteran SIPs and one of the newer
SIPs moved on to other work. The remain-
ing SIP became the lead, and she was paired
with a new Partners staff member. The turn-
over in SIPs, and the relatively low experi-
ence level among SIPs in two of three years,
likely prevented progress with the school
principal, who had had a difficult time
prioritizing and internalizing Partners’ goals
from the beginning. We focused our efforts
on the teaching staff in the third year, which
led to improvement in professional learning
systems. Overall, however, the implementa-
tion rate declined, and we did not observe
improvement in the other two domains or
large gains in student achievement.
Despite high program-implemen-
tation rates, School C made uneven
progress.
In School C, adult and student learning did
not improve as consistently as we expected
based on the high implementation rates
that we achieved. When implementation
rates ranged from 93% to 98% in years two
through four of the partnership, STR ratings
and student test scores had both increases
and decreases. In year five, the imple-
mentation rate fell to 76%, and test scores
dipped as well, but STR ratings increased
somewhat. The dip in scores on state tests
in year five was especially surprising given
that students had shown great progress on
interim reading assessments administered
by the school just a few months prior.
In the first two years of the partnership, we
focused on supporting the school’s leaders
to articulate a theory of action and establish
a structure in which teachers could collab-
orate effectively, analyze data, and plan
standards-based instruction.
In our third year, the work focused on
maintaining these practices while narrow-
ing the instructional focus to high-priority
standards, aligning professional develop-
ment to the school’s goals, and developing
a strategy for instructional coaching. In ad-
dition, the partnership worked on building
school culture with a staff that was largely
new to the school. (The federal govern-
ment had provided School C with a School
Improvement Grant, but the funding was
conditioned on replacing the principal and
at least half of the teachers.)
The final two years of the partnership
focused on three areas: increasing teachers’
capacity to lead weekly ROCI, strengthening
the ILT’s capacity to select and monitor the
instructional focus, and increasing teacher
investment in the Theory of Action and stu-
dent achievement goals. The focus during
those two years was on teachers because
the new principal did not invest himself
in the reforms that Partners was trying to
promote.
It is unclear why we did not see a strong
association between our program-imple-
mentation rates and improvement in adult
and student learning. One possibility is that
the large turnover in staff at the beginning
of year three disrupted progress in adult
learning. One can see substantial growth
in STR ratings in year two with one staff,
stalled progress in year three with a largely
new staff, and moderate growth in years
four and five as school-transformation
efforts began taking root with the new staff.
However, student achievement was rela-
tively flat during years four and five so there
are more questions to be answered.
Another possibility is that school-improve-
ment efforts were based a little too much
on material tested on a particular formative
assessment and that that material was not
well-aligned to the material tested on the
CST-ELA. It is also possible that SIPs, while
completing a high percentage of the actions
listed in our Program Implementation
Tracker, did not execute them with a level
of robustness necessary to cause significant
gains in adult learning. Yet another possibil-
ity is that we executed certain priorities in
the school’s theory of action with robust-
7
School C’s Implementation Rates, STR Ratings, and Student Achievement
* Our system of tracking program implementation did not exist or was not comparable with the system in place since 2010.

ness but those priorities did not address the
root causes of low student achievement.
CONCLUSION
As the data above show, underperforming
schools can improve if given focused support
over several years. However, progress is
often gradual and sometimes mixed. Part-
ners has identified three general scenarios
that help us understand what may cause
mixed results. The first involves a turn-
over in leadership. In some cases, we have
helped schools achieve great gains early in
a partnership, only to see those gains erode
as a new leader enters mid-way through
the partnership and discontinues some of
the practices that we had helped establish.
School C provides an example of what can
happen when there is turnover in school
leadership.
The second scenario involves “light touch”
support. We have generally struggled to
achieve our goals in schools where the part-
nership is not intensive (meaning that SIPs
are deployed to the site less than 3½ days
per week). Our tools and approach were
designed for an intensive partnership, and
we have yet to consistently adapt them in a
light-touch partnership.
The third scenario consists of staffing chal-
lenges. If Partners has to replace a SIP during
a partnership because of turnover within
the organization, or there is a mismatch be-
tween a SIP and a school, it can be difficult
to implement our school-transformation
approach with impact.
As we continue to monitor the progress
of our partner schools, we will refine our
understanding of what it takes to facilitate
school transformation. We will continue
following our own results-oriented cycle of
inquiry to continuously improve the support
we provide.
References
Gross, B., Booker, T.K., and Goldhaber, D. Boosting
Student Achievement: The Effect of Comprehensive
School Reform on Student Achievement, Education-
al Evaluation and Policy Analysis 31 (June 2009):
111–26.
Lawson, H. A. (2002). Meeting the Needs of Low Per-
forming Urban Schools. A Policy and Practice Brief.
8

School Transformation Rubric
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial license, 2014
Background and Purpose
The School Transformation Rubric specifies research-based best practices in instruction, teacher professional learning and leadership and thus provides a roadmap for the work
that school leaders and teachers undertake to continuously improve their instructional programs and accelerate student learning. Partners in School Innovation developed this
tool through careful analysis of our most successful schools, making sure to ground and frame our experiential knowledge in the most up to date research on effective teaching
and leadership practices. We use this tool to support instructional leaders in reflecting on their current capacity to carry out the essential practices necessary for school
transformation and help them use the resulting insights to guide school priorities, planning, resource allocation and practice.
Design and Structure
The School Transformation Rubric is organized into three domains, which each describe specific practices that effective schools use to continuously improve instruction and
accelerate learning, particularly for historically underserved groups of students.
The Results-Oriented Leadership domain describes the essential leadership practices needed to catalyze school transformation and continuous improvement. This
domain is divided into four capacity areas: Vision, Plan, Act, and Assess, Reflect, Adjust.
The Systems for Professional Learning domain describes the key structures and conditions that are vital for teachers to continuously improve their practice. The
essential practices in this domain are divided into three capacity areas: Teacher Collaboration, Instructional Coaching and Professional Development.
The Core Instructional Program domain describes research-based practices for standards-based planning, classroom practice, intervention and assessment. The
essential practices in this domain are divided into three capacity areas: Curriculum, Instruction and Assessment.
Key Terms
Establish - to build or bring something (a set of expectations, a framework, etc.) into being on a stable or permanent basis
Enroll - to invest someone in a process, idea, plan, etc.
School leaders - the instructional leaders within a school, including, but not limited to, principals, assistant principals, instructional coaches, and teacher leaders
SMART - an acronym used to describe goals that are specific, measurable, accelerated and yet attainable, relevant to all stakeholders, and time bound
Stages of Implementation
Consistency Frequency Quality Intentionality
No Evidence Not Present 0% N/A N/A 1
Readiness Rare/Sporadic 1-25% Minimal N/A 2
Emerging Sometimes True 26-50% Fair Not systematic 3
Implementing Often True 51-75% Good Systematic 4
Transforming Almost always true 76-100% Excellent Systematic 5
Sustaining Almost always true 76-100%
Excellent
Continuously improving quality
Systematic
Policies & culture support sustainability
6

Line Essential Practice Description
1 Results-Oriented Leadership
1.1 Vision
The vision paints a picture of what a school aspires to be and serves as inspiration for school leaders, teachers, students and other
community members in their day-to-day work.
1.1.01 Sense of Urgency School leaders establish a sense of urgency for school improvement (e.g. use data to spotlight needs, etc.).
1.1.02 Values & Beliefs School leaders communicate strong professional values and beliefs about social justice, schooling, teaching and learning.
1.1.03 Vision for Students School leaders enroll all stakeholders in a shared, long-term vision that promotes high expectations for students.
1.1.04
Instructional Program
Expectations
School leaders establish school-wide expectations for curriculum, instruction, assessment and intervention.
1.2 Plan
Effective plans specify rigorous goals aligned to a larger vision, name specific strategies that all members of the school community
believe will help them to reach and exceed their goals, and outlines how time, resources, and responsibilities will be focused on
the school's top priorities.
1.2.01 Student Achievement Goals School leaders establish clearly defined, measureable, accelerated student achievement goals (school-wide and for each significant subgroup).
1.2.02 Theory of Action
School leaders identify annual priorities for improving the instructional program (including curriculum, instruction, assessment and intervention) in
order to meet their student achievement goals.
1.2.03
Professional Learning Plan
(PLP)
School leaders develop a plan for supporting teachers to improve instruction that includes clear expectations, roles and responsibilities, structures,
and resources to support and monitor instructional improvement.
1.3 Act School leaders stay focused on their priorities and work relentlessly to develop their own skill to effectively implement their plans.
Implementation
1.3.01 Implement Plans School leaders stay focused on priority areas and follow through on implementation of plans.
1.3.02 Distribute Leadership
School leaders intentionally distribute leadership by enrolling teachers in decisions and implementation of school-wide plans (e.g. student
achievement goals, theory of action, etc.).
1.3.03 Transparency School leaders communicate decisions to staff in a transparent and timely manner such that staff feel informed about the work and decisions made.
1.3.04
Communicates
Expectations
School leaders communicate expectations for implementation of curriculum, instruction, assessment, and intervention and for engaging in
professional learning.
1.3.05 Open Communication School leaders are accessible to staff, maintain open and effective lines of communication, and encourage them to express diverse opinions.
1.3.06
Examination of
Race, Culture, Class &
Power
School leaders model an ongoing commitment to developing their own and their staff's cultural proficiency (e.g. framing meetings with an equity
lens, modeling analysis of disaggregated data, reflecting on their own cultural proficiency, etc.)

1.3.07 Relational Trust School leaders create an environment in which all members of the school community demonstrate respect, integrity and belief in one another.
Instructional Leadership Team
1.3.08 Establish Leadership Team
School leaders establish and charter an instructional leadership team that reflects a diversity of perspectives and shares collective responsibility for
working toward the school's vision, mission and core values.
1.3.09 Leadership Team Role
Leadership team supports implementation of the theory of action and professional learning plan (e.g. planning professional development, leading
collaboration, etc.).
1.4 Assess, Reflect, Adjust
School leaders monitor the implementation of their plans by regularly looking at impact on teacher practice and student learning
results. They identify successful practices, problem-solve challenges, and make adjustments to ensure goals are achieved.
1.4.01
Monitor Student
Achievement
School leaders monitor student achievement data (e.g. diagnostic, benchmark and summative) and analyze them against end-of-year goals.
1.4.02
Monitor Instructional
Program
School leaders monitor teacher practice to assess progress towards implementation of instructional priorities for curriculum, instruction,
assessment, and intervention.
1.4.03
Adjust Professional
Learning Plan
School leaders systematically adjust professional development, collaboration, and instructional coaching based on student achievement and teacher
practice data.
1.4.04 Adjust Leadership Practice School leaders reflect on their leadership practice and adjust as needed to meet school goals.
2 Systems for Professional Learning
2.1 Teacher Collaboration
Teachers work together in pursuit of shared goals for teaching and learning. They are supported to develop a professional learning
community in which they share best practices, plan meaningful instruction, and use data to guide them in adjusting to student
needs.
2.1.01 Time for Collaboration Regular and sufficient time for teacher collaboration is protected within the school schedule.
2.1.02 Collaboration Agreements School-wide agreements exist that clarify expectations for how teams use collaborative time.
2.1.03 Team Charter Teachers work together to define the purpose and work they will do in collaboration and establish working agreements.
2.1.04 Student Achievement Goals Teachers collectively define SMART and equitable goals for student achievement.
2.1.05 Backward Planning Teachers collectively develop units that specify the standards and skills they will teach in each unit in order to reach student achievement goals.
2.1.06 ROCI
Teacher collaboration is guided by Results-Oriented Cycles of Inquiry (setting and monitoring progress toward goals, planning instruction, reviewing
data, reflecting on classroom practice, and adjusting instructional plans).
2.1.07
Examination of Race,
Culture, Class & Power
Teachers seek to understand the role of race, culture, class and power in their work (e.g. reflecting on race based patterns of achievement, taking
student's cultural background into account while planning instruction, reflecting on their beliefs and expectations for students).

2.1.08 Collective Responsibility
Teachers take collective responsibility for reaching student achievement goals by sharing best practices, pooling resources, supporting each other's
professional growth and holding each other accountable to agreements.
2.1.09 Peer Coaching
Teachers support one another to continuously refine their practice (e.g. sharing best practices, engaging in lesson study, observing one another in
the classroom).
2.2 Instructional Coaching
Instructional coaching ensures that each teacher has the individualized support they need to continuously improve their
instruction in alignment with the school's vision and goals.
2.2.01
Protected time for
Coaching
Time for instructional coaching is protected within the school schedule.
2.2.02
Instructional Coaching
Strategy
Coaching resources are equitably distributed based on student need and/or instructional quality in order to build teacher capacity and impact
student achievement.
2.2.03
Alignment with PD and
Collaboration
Instructional coaches support the implementation of strategies addressed in professional development and teacher collaboration and/or support
teachers to develop prerequisite practices (e.g. classroom management).
2.2.04 Partnering with Teachers
Instructional coaches establish an effective partnership with teachers (e.g. building a relationship, investing them in the coaching, setting clear goals
for improving instruction, etc.).
2.2.05
Instructional Coaching
Cycles
Instructional coaches engage in coaching cycles that consistently include pre-conferences, modeling, observations, and debriefs with next steps.
2.2.06 Data Driven Reflection Instructional coaches use student achievement data to reflect on the effectiveness of and adjust their coaching support.
2.2.07
Support Reflection on Race,
Culture, Class and Power
Instructional coaches support teachers to understand dynamics of race, culture, class and power in the classroom in order to help them create a
more equitable and culturally responsive learning environment.
2.2.08 Peer Coaching System School leaders create and maintain a system that provides opportunities for teachers to observe one another and participate in peer coaching.
2.3
Professional
Development
High-quality professional development sessions provide relevant and timely opportunities for teachers to develop knowledge and
skills necessary to fulfill school-wide expectations and effectively meet the needs of their students.
2.3.01
Aligned Professional
Development
Teachers understand how professional development sessions are aligned with the school's vision, core values and instructional program priorities.
2.3.02
Builds a Professional
Learning Community
Professional development provides opportunities for teachers across grade levels and departments to work together as a professional learning
community (e.g. sharing examples of effective practice, drawing out one another's experience and skills, teacher-led workshops, etc.).
2.3.03
Enables Teachers to Take
Action
Professional development enables teachers to take immediate action (e.g. includes clear models and examples, provides time to plan next steps,
uses protocols and learning strategies that can be used in the classroom).
2.3.04 Clear Expectations Professional development sessions include clear expectations for application of new learning and/or implementation of strategies presented.
2.3.05
Collective Learning around
Race, Culture, Class and
Power
Professional development includes opportunities for developing personal and collective cultural proficiency, including the knowledge and skills
needed to deliver culturally responsive pedagogy.

3 Core Instructional Program
3.1 Curriculum
A rigorous curriculum is standards-based and includes units designed for students to achieve mastery of essential grade level skills
and knowledge. The curriculum is customized to create a rich learning experience to deeply engage and challenge students while
meeting the needs of diverse learners.
3.1.01 Standards-based Planning Teachers design, deliver and adjust curriculum (units and lessons) based on grade level standards.
3.1.02 Essential Learnings Teachers have a shared definition of the most essential skills and knowledge for their grade level or course.
3.1.03 Clearly Defined Proficiency Teachers have shared definitions of proficiency for the essential skills and knowledge within their grade level or course.
3.1.04
Alignment within Grade
Level
Teachers align curriculum with colleagues teaching the same grade level or course.
3.1.05 Vertical Alignment Teachers align curriculum across the grade levels, within their department and/or within their language program.
3.1.06
Culturally Relevant
Materials
Teachers use materials that are culturally relevant (e.g. materials portray students' culture and all cultures in a positive, authentic, and realistic light,
avoiding stereotypes and exposing students to many forms of diversity).
3.2 Instruction
The instructional strategies used to create an equitable learning environment, design effective lessons, provide differentiation and
invest students in the learning process must celebrate students' learning styles, backgrounds, and primary languages and provide
students with equitable access to new knowledge and skills.
3.2.01 Common Practice Teachers use common instructional strategies across classrooms.
Learning Environment
3.2.02 Classroom Management Teachers clearly communicate expectations, procedures, rules and consequences to their students.
3.2.03
Equitable Participation
Protocols
Teachers use strategies that encourage all students to participate in lessons (e.g. participation sticks, calling on students alphabetically, think-pair-
shares, etc.).
3.2.04 Relationships with Students Teachers make personal connections with students (e.g. sharing personal stories, using humor, affirming student effort and risk-taking, etc.).
3.2.05 Learning Space
Teachers create a physical space that facilitates student learning (e.g. clean and orderly, clearly defined work areas, students are able to access
materials they need, etc.).
Effective Lesson Design
3.2.06 Communicate Objectives
Teachers make the purpose and objective of lessons clear for their students (e.g. posting objectives, discussing why a skill is important, connecting
the lesson to larger goals, etc.).

3.2.07 Build on Prior Knowledge Teachers make new skills and content accessible to students by building on their strengths and prior knowledge.
3.2.08
Gradual Release of
Responsibility
Teachers facilitate student learning through gradual release of responsibility, appropriately balancing their lessons with modeling, guiding, and
providing opportunities for independent practice.
3.2.09 Higher-Order Thinking Skills Teachers engage students in higher-order thinking by providing opportunities to apply, analyze, synthesize and evaluate knowledge.
3.2.10 Check for Understanding Teachers systematically check for student understanding.
Differentiation
3.2.11
Individual Needs
Teachers provide instruction for the varying skill levels and learning needs of their students (e.g. provide graphic organizers/supports, provide
challenge activities, etc.).
3.2.12
Flexible Grouping
Teachers use flexible groups that appropriately support and challenge students at their individual skill levels.
3.2.13
Cooperative Learning
Teachers create opportunities for cooperative learning in which students of varying skill levels can learn from one another as they work together to
pursue collective learning objectives.
3.2.14 Classroom Interventions Teachers use strategic and intensive in-class interventions to provide additional support for students struggling with particular skills.
Student Investment
3.2.15 Establish Relevance Teachers connect topics of instruction and learning goals to familiar schema and relevant student experiences.
3.2.16 Student Goals Teachers work to invest students in meaningful learning goals.
3.2.17
Monitor Progress Toward
Goals
Teachers provide opportunities for students to monitor their own progress toward learning goals.
3.2.18 Feedback Teachers provide students explicit feedback on how to improve performance.
3.2.19 Growth Mindset Teachers cultivate a learning orientation by encouraging effort, persistence and problem solving.
Support for English Learners This section may be left blank if there is not a significant (>5%) population of English Learners at the school.
3.2.20 Accessible Content
Throughout the day, teachers make content instruction accessible to English learners using a repertoire of strategies (e.g. vocabulary frontloading,
sentence frames, visual scaffolds, etc.).

3.2.21
Structured Language
Practice
Teachers provide purposeful opportunities for students to engage in oral language practice (structured language practice, pair-shares, etc.) in order
to develop proficiency in English.
3.2.22 Language Objectives Teachers set language objectives that explicitly address English Language Development needs.
3.3 Assessment
Teachers use a comprehensive set of assessments and regularly analyze student-learning data to inform decisions about
instruction and intervention plans.
3.3.01
Comprehensive Set of
Assessments
Teachers use a comprehensive set of assessments (e.g. diagnostic, formative, benchmark, and summative).
3.3.02 Use of Disaggregated Data Teachers look for patterns of achievement by race, culture, and language status and use this data to reflect and adjust their practice.
3.3.03 Review of Data Teachers use data to monitor progress toward student achievement goals and to adjust their backward plans.
3.3.04 Reflect and Refine Practice Teachers use data to identify effective instructional strategies and make adjustments to their classroom practice and routines.
3.3.05
Use Diagnostic
Assessments to Place
Students
Teachers use diagnostic assessments to assign students to appropriate academic interventions.
3.3.06 Monitor Interventions Teachers use data to monitor student progress in intervention groups and adjust placement accordingly.

References:
Results-Oriented Leadership
Bryk, A. & Schneider, B. (2002). Trust in Schools: A Core Resource for Improvement. New York, New York, Russell Sage Foundation.
Deal T. E. & Peterson K.D. (2009). Shaping school culture: Pitfalls, paradoxes and promises. San Franscisco: Jossey-Bass.
Dufour, R. (2002). The learning centered principal. Education Leadership, 59(8) 12-15.
Elmore, Richard F., (2000). Building a New Structure for School Leadership. Washington, D.C.: Albert Shanker Institute.
Eubanks, E., Parish, R., & Smith, D. (1997). Changing the discourse in schools. In P. Hall (Ed.), Race, Ethnicity, and Multiculturalism: Vol. 1. Missouri Symposium on Research
and Educational Policy Series (pp.151-168). New York: Garland Press.
Ferrero, D. J. (2005). Pathways to reform: Start with values. Educational Leadership 62(5), 8-15.
Fullan, M. (2001). Leading in a culture of change. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Lambert, L. (2002). A framework for shared leadership. Education Leadership, 59(8) 37-40
Marzano,R.J., Waters, T., & McNulty, B.A. (2005). School Leadership That Works: From Research to Results. Aurora, CO: Mid-Continent Research for Education and Learning.
Marshall, K. (2006). What’s a principal to do? Education Week, 26(4), 36-37.
Ott, J.S. (1989). The organizational perspective. Pacific Grove, CA: Books/Cole.
Schmoker, M. M. (1996). Results: The key to continuous school improvement. Alexandria, VA: ASCD.
Schwann, C. and Spady W.(1998). Why change doesn't happen and how to make sure it does. Education Leadership, 55(7), 45-47.
Search Institute (2004). School climate and learning. Best Practice Briefs, 31, Michigan State University, Office of Community Partnerships.
Singleton, G.E. & Linton, C.W. (2005). Courageous conversations about race: A fieldguide for achieving equity in schools. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.
Sparks, D. (1999). The singular power of one goal. Journal of Staff Development, 20 (1), 54–58.
Waters, J.T., Marzano, R.J. & McNulty B. (2003). Balanced Leadership: What 30 years of research on leadership tells us about the effect on student achievement. Mid-
Continent Education Research Lab.

Systems for Professional Learning
Ball, D.L., Cohen, D.K. (1999). Developing practice, developing practitioners: Toward a practice-based theory of professional education. In L. Darling-Hammond & G. Skyes
(Eds.) Teaching as the learning profession, 3-31. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Borko, H., Jacobs, J., & Koellner, K. (2010). Contemporary approaches to teacher professional development. In Bader,E., McGraw, B. & Peterson,P. (Eds.) International
Encyclopedia of Education, 3rd Ed. Oxford, UK: Elsevier.
Darling-Hammond, L. & Richardson, N. (2009). Teacher learning: What matters? Educational Leadership, 66(5), 46-53.
Dufour, R. (2004). What is a professional learning community? Educational Leadership, 61(8), 6-11.
Knight, J. (2009). Coaching. Journal of Staff Development, 39(11), 18-22.
Knight, J. (2008). Coaching: Approaches and perspectives. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.
Lewis, C, Perry, R., & Hurd, J.(2004). A deeper look at lesson study. Educational Leadership, 61(5), 18-23.
Reeves,C., Emerick, S. & Hirsch, E. (2007). Creating an atmosphere of trust: Lessons from exemplary schools, Center for Teaching Quality Research Brief.
Polinco, S and Back, A.J. (2004). The Heart of the Matter: Coaching as a Vehicle for Professional Development. Phi Delta Kappan, 85, (5), 398-400.
Schmoker, M. (2006). Results Now. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
Sousa, D.A. (2009). Brain-friendly learning for teachers. Education Leadership, 66.
Core Instructional Program
Brimijoin, K. Marquisee, E. & Tomlinson, C. (2003). Using data to differentiate instruction. Educational Leadership, 60(5), 70-72.
Brown-Chidsey, R. (2007). No more “waiting to fail”. Education Leadership 65(2), 40-46.
Calderón,M., Slavin, R., & Sánchez, M. (2011). Effective Instruction for English Learners. The Future of Children, 21(1), 103-127.
Cohen, E. & Benton, J. (1988). Making groupwork work. American Educator, 12(3) 10-17, 45-46.
Consortium on Reading Excellence (1999). Assessing reading: Multiple measures for kindergarten through eighth grade. Novato, CA: Arena Press.
Delpit, L. (1995). Other People’s Children: Cultural conflict in the classroom. New York, NY: The New Press.
Dutro, S. (2005). What’s language got to do with it: Considerations in courses of study for secondary English learners. Presentation for the California Secondary Summit, San
Diego, California.
Dweck, C. (2010). Mindsets and equitable education. Principal Leadership, 10(5), 26-29.

Farr, Stephan (2010). Teaching as leadership. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Fisher, D., & Frey, N. (2008). Better learning through structured teaching: A framework for the gradual release of responsibility. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision
and Curriculum Development.
Gay, G. (2000). Culturally responsive teaching: Theory, research, and practice. New York: Teachers College Press.
Greenstein, L. (2009). Every day in every classroom. Education Leadership, 67(3),
Goldenberg, C. (2008). Teaching English learners: What the research does and does not say.American Educator 2 (2), 8-23, 42-44.
Hollie, S. (2011) Culturally and linguistically responsive teaching and learning: classroom practices for student success. Huntington Beach, CA: Shell Education.
Jackson, F.R. (1994). Seven strategies to support a culturally responsive pedagogy. Journal of Reading, 37 (4), 298-303.
Ladson-Billings, G. (1990). Culturally relevant teaching: Effective instruction for black students. The College Board Review, 7 (15), 20-25.
Lemov, D. (2010). Teach like a champion: 49 techniques that put students on the path to college. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Marzano, R.J. (2009). When student track their progress. Education Leadership, 67(4), 86-87.
Marzano, R. (2007). The Art and Science of Teaching: A Comprehensive Framework for Effective Instruction. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum
Development.
McLaughlin, B. (1992). Myths and Misconceptions about Second Language Learning: What Every Teacher Needs to Unlearn. ERIC Identifier ED350885. Washington, DC: ERIC
Clearinghouse on Languages and Linguistics.
McTighe, J. and O’Conner, K. (2005) Seven practices for effective learning. Educational Leadership, 63(3),10-17 .
Parker Boudett, K. City, E.A. & Murnane, R.J. (2006). The “data wise” improvement process: Eight steps for using test data to improve teaching and learning. Harvard
Education Letter 22(1), 1-3.
Schmoker, M. (2010). Focus. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
Stiggins, R. & Dufour, R. (2009). Maximizing the power of formative assessments. Phi Delta Kappan 90(9), 640-644.
Wiggins, G. & McTigue, J. (2005) Understanding by Design. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
Wong, H.K. & Wong, R.T. (2009). The first days of school: how to be an effective teacher. Mountain View, CA: Henry K. Wong Publications.

Multi-YearPartnershipsImpact

More Related Content

What's hot

Similar to Multi-YearPartnershipsImpact

Multi-YearPartnershipsImpact