Está en la página 1de 10

TO: M-SCEA

FROM: Shelby County Schools Dept. of Professional Development & Support


DATE: July 4
th
, 2014
RE: District-Wide Professional Development Survey Analysis
Introduction
The Department of Professional Development and Support within Shelby County Schools (SCS) partnered with M-
SCEA to create and administer a district-wide survey in order to elicit feedback on teachers experience of SCS
professional development, coaching, and teacher leadership opportunities in the 2013-14 school year. This
memorandum is intended to summarize survey feedback and note trends in the characteristics of survey respondents;
their satisfaction with support; their perception of the efficacy of coaching and professional development and its
impact on teacher practice; and their perception of the TEM evaluation system as it relates to PD.
Characteristics of Respondents
Response rate
The share of teachers and coaches who responded to the survey vary by coaching model and role type. Nearly all
subgroups response rates were high enough to be interpreted as the district population-level perceptions of
professional development, with the exception of coached teachers in PAR schools and PLC Coaches in PAR schools.
Data from these two subgroups (*) can only be interpreted as the perceptions of respondents themselves and
should not be used to represent all coached teachers in PAR schools or all PLC Coaches in PAR schools.
Coach
model
Role
Total population
#
Total responses
#
1

Responses %
TCM Learning Coaches 393 201 51.1%
TCM Master Teachers and PLC Coaches/LTs 339 255 75.2%
TCM Coached teachers, LIS, counselors 1753 829 47.3%
TCM Non-coached teachers, LIS, counselors 6326 1350 21.3%
PAR PAR CTs and PLC Coaches* 23 18 78.3%
PAR Coached teachers, LIS, counselors* 152 60 39.5%
PAR Non-coached teachers, LIS, counselors 459 222 48.4%

Performance ratings
Respondents were asked to self-report their TEM overall effectiveness score from 2012-13 if they had previously
worked in legacy Memphis City Schools or Shelby County Schools.
On average, all groups (coached and non-coached teachers, and those teachers serving as coaches) reported a TEM
score Above or Significantly Above expectations, which echoes the historic distributions of performance scores that
tended to be skewed toward the highest possible ratings. On average, projected end-of-year TEM scores for 2013-14
are similar, although slightly lower for coached teachers, who are anticipated to average Meeting Expectations (Figure
1).

1
Data on total population derived from coaching rosters and teacher observation score data in MLP OASYS.

Figure 1
Respondents average 2012-13 TEM scores (self-reported) and 2013-14 TEM scores (projected)

During a formal TEM observation, a teacher receives a score of 1 5 on eleven TEM rubric indicators. If two or more
indicators are scored 1 or 2, that teacher is identified to roll onto support and added to the caseload of a Learning
Coach or PAR CT. All new teachers (i.e., new hires) receive yearlong coaching from a Learning Coach or PAR CT.
It is notable that teachers on support in both coaching models are rated, on average, Meeting Expectations or higher
overall. There is only a nominal difference between the performance scores of coaches and the teachers they support.
For example, among survey respondents, the difference between a Learning Coach and their coached teachers is, on
average, only 0.40 points, and both averages translate to a rating of Above Expectations.
Additional respondent demographic characteristics




Learning Coaches Master Teachers PLC Coaches PAR CTs
Avg. # years classroom
experience
12.9 13.4 11.2 9.3
Avg. # years experience
of teachers supported
10.4 - - 9.4
Avg. # years
district experience
4.3 4.1 2.2 0.9
Avg. years in current
teacher-leader role
1 2 or more 2 or more 1
Avg. years as any
type of coach/mentor
2.5 4.5 5.4 5.1
Most frequent subject
taught
Middle ELA Elementary K-2 - -
Most frequent subject
of teachers supported
Elementary K-2 - - Middle/High Math
3.8
3.5
3.4
3.3
4.2
4.0
4.3
4.2
4.5 4.5
4.6
4.5
0
1
2
3
4
5
2012-13 Self-Reported
TCM
2012-13 Self-Reported
PAR
2013-14 Projected
TCM
2013-14 Projected
PAR
Coached teachers Non-coached teachers Coaches Meeting Expectations

Satisfaction with coaching and professional development
One goal of this survey was gauging teachers satisfaction with the coaching and/or professional development
provided to them in Shelby County Schools during the 2013-14 school year, including perceptions of the different
support providers roles, perceptions of the best or most helpful feedback received in 2013-14, and the source of
development and support that educators feel advances their work and the achievement of their students.
In the survey, teachers were asked to respond using a 6-point scale of agreement, satisfaction or confidence (e.g.,
strongly agree, agree, somewhat agree, somewhat disagree, etc.). The percent of agreement, satisfaction or
confidence reported below is the sum of responses in the top two positive categories (e.g., strongly agree + agree).
Teachers perceptions of coaching and professional development
All schools in the Shelby County district employed one of two possible coaching models: Tiered Coaching (TCM) or
Peer Assistance & Review (PAR). Stakeholders satisfaction with the model itself differed from their satisfaction with
individual support providers within the model, such as Learning Coaches, PAR CTs, PLC Coaches, or even school
Principals. This was true for both Tiered Coaching and PAR (Figure 2 3).
Teachers satisfaction with the model was lower, on average, in Tiered Coaching schools (45.2%) than in PAR schools
(56.9%), although satisfaction with the experience of working with a Learning Coach was higher (73%) than
satisfaction with the experience of working with a PAR CT (58.5%). See Figures 2 and 3 for more detail.
Figure 2



Figure 3

72.1%
59.6%
41.9%
75.6%
76.8%
75.2%
57.3%
73.0%
45.2%
Overall, how satisfied are you with the coaching
and/or support you have received through your
Principal?
Overall, how satisfied are you with the coaching
and/or support you have received through your PLC
Coach/Lead Teacher?
Overall, how satisfied are you with the coaching
and/or support you have received through your
Master Teacher?
Overall, how satisfied are you with the coaching
and/or support you have received through your
Principal?
Overall, how satisfied are you with the coaching
and/or support you have received through your PLC
Coach/Lead Teacher?
Overall, how satisfied are you with the coaching
and/or support you have received through your
Master Teacher?
Overall, how satisfied are you with the coaching
and/or support you have received through your PIT
Crew member?
Overall, how satisfied are you with the coaching
and/or support you have received through your
Learning Coach?
Overall, how satisfied are you with the Tiered
Coaching Model as a method of teacher
development?
Tiered Coaching teachers: % Satisfied or Very Satisfied
C
o
a
c
h
e
d

T
e
a
c
h
e
r
s

N
o
n
-
c
o
a
c
h
e
d

T
e
a
c
h
e
r
s




Satisfaction rates are the highest when teachers are coached/supported by a Principal, and also high among coached
teachers in Tiered Coaching schools, who report satisfaction rates greater than 70% with all support roles except PIT
Crew. One notable outlier is non-coached teachers who were supported at least once by a Master Teacher; the
majority (58.1%) were only somewhat satisfied or dissatisfied with the experience.
Respondents were also asked whether support providers and school leaders in their building share a common vision
of what effective teacher support and development looks like. The response rates mirror the satisfaction results
above, suggesting that if support providers norm their vision of effective PD, they may have a more positive
relationship with the teachers they coach.
Figure 4

Teachers perceptions of how these roles turned them into more effective practitioners are presented in a later section
of this memo.
75.6%
65.9%
61.5%
66.0%
58.5%
56.9%
Overall, how satisfied are you with the coaching
and/or support you have received through your
Principal?
Overall, how satisfied are you with the coaching
and/or support you have received through your
PLC Coach/Lead Teacher?
Overall, how satisfied are you with the coaching
and/or support you have received through your
Principal?
Overall, how satisfied are you with the coaching
and/or support you have received through your
PLC Coach?
Overall, how satisfied are you with the coaching
and/or support you have received through your
PAR CT?
Overall, how satisfied are you with the PAR model
as a method of teacher development?
PAR Teachers: % Satisfied or Very Satisfied
70.40%
61.00%
51.90%
65.70%
73.60%
PLC Coaches
Master Teachers
PIT Crew
Learning Coaches/
PAR CTs
Principals
All Teachers Average % Agree or Strongly Agree
... share a common vision of what effective teacher
support and development looks like.
C
o
a
c
h
e
d

T
e
a
c
h
e
r
s

N
o
n
-
c
o
a
c
h
e
d

T
e
a
c
h
e
r
s


Coaches perception of coaching and professional development
Coaches and teacher-leaders were also provided professional development in order to hone their coaching craft.
Satisfaction rates were uniformly high (between 71.8 92.9%) across roles, both in relation to the role occupied and
to the support and management provided.
Table 1
I am satisfied with My teacher-leader role PD provided to my role
Learning Coaches 71.8% 76.3%
PAR CTs 86.7% 86.7%
Master Teachers/PLC Coaches 84.5% 74.6%

Table 2
My PIT Crew member or
manager
is committed to
improving my
practice
provides me with
strategies,
techniques, and
resources to help
new teachers.
provides me with
strategies,
techniques, and
resources to help
veteran teachers.
Learning Coaches 84.7% 83.4% 80.6%
PAR CTs 92.9% 92.9% 92.9%
























What pushes teacher practice
In addition the gauging teacher satisfaction with professional development and support, this survey also elicited
teacher perceptions about the type of support that changes and improves teacher practice.

Satisfaction is different than a teachers sense that they have become more effective through their work with a
support provider, and coached teachers provided insight into the quality of their interactions with coaches, below:
Figure 5


Figure 6


A small majority (50 65%) of coached teachers in both Tiered Coaching and PAR schools believe that their support
providers have measurably improved their performance. It is unclear if teachers feel they have not improved their
performance across the year, or if they attribute their perceived performance growth to another cause than the peers
and leaders in their building.
Who should provide PD
65.1%
40.4%
62.0%
62.2%
48.9%
54.5%
67.4%
60.0%
The feedback teachers receive through Principals/APs
measurably improves teachers' classroom performance.
The feedback teachers receive through PIT Crew
measurably improves teachers' classroom performance.
I am a more effective teacher as a result of my PLC
Coach's work.
The feedback teachers receive through PLC Coaches
measurably improves teachers' classroom performance.
I am a more effective teacher as a result of my Master
Teacher's work.
The feedback teachers receive through Master Teachers
measurably improves teachers' classroom performance.
I am a more effective teacher as a result of my Learning
Coach's work.
The feedback teachers receive through Learning Coaches
measurably improves teachers' classroom performance.
Tiered Coaching Teachers (Coached Only): % Agree or Strongly Agree
58.8%
59.6%
54.9%
58.8%
52.9%
The feedback teachers receive through Principals/APs
measurably improves teachers' classroom performance.
I am a more effective teacher as a result of my PLC
Coach's work.
The feedback teachers receive through PLC Coaches
measurably improves teachers' classroom performance.
I am a more effective teacher as a result of my
PAR CT's work.
The feedback teachers receive through PAR CTs
measurably improves teachers' classroom performance.
PAR Teachers (Coached Only): % Agree or Strongly Agree

When asked to rate twelve different support roles, all groups of teachers attributed their occupational growth first
and foremost to their Principals and their peers, as shown in Table 3. When asked what additional types of future
support teachers desired, their rankings paralleled those from Table 3, citing In-person trainings, led by principals
and In-person trainings, led by peers as their top choices for professional development delivery.

Table 3
Top-three responses when teachers ranked support providers (those available to them) in order of significant
contribution to growth as a teacher

Teacher type Ranked First Ranked Second Ranked Third
Coached teachers (TCM) Principal (197) Peers (195) Learning Coach (60)
Non-coached teachers (TCM) Peers (455) Principal (281) Content Advisor* (78)
Coached Teachers (PAR) Principal (17) Peers (16) PLC Coach (7)
Non-coached teachers (PAR) Principal (56) Peers (56) PLC Coach (18)

*Non-coached teachers third rank was Other, but as it was unspecified, the fourth-ranked option, Content Advisor, was included here.
What levers to push
When asked to identify key levers for growth in their practice, teachers overwhelmingly referenced data analysis as a
skill they either desired to use more often or understand more deeply. Of the 1,244 teachers (both coached and non-
coached) who provided open responses on the areas they need to develop in order to increase student achievement,
over 200 referenced data, such as:
I need to rely more on student data to direct instruction. I use it, but I should use it more.
When it comes to data there isn't enough time to utilize it and look at it properly. [Id like to learn to]
effectively look at data and use it.
[Id like to] develop a quick system to analyze data in order to monitor and adjust instruction.
Additionally, teachers referenced general teaching techniques, including incorporating more rigor and differentiation
into daily lessons and improving classroom management.
When coached teachers were asked to rate their satisfaction with their coachs ability to provide support in data
analysis and more general techniques, slightly more respondents from the Tiered Coaching model agreed that their
coach was capable of providing such support than coached teachers in PAR schools, although a majority of both
groups found their coaches to be well-equipped:
Table 5
Coached Teacher % Agreement of Support Role Capability
LCs/PAR CTs are equipped to
provide
Review of Student
Achievement Data
Data Driven
Recommendations
Practice of teaching
techniques
Coached teachers (TCM) 73.2% 73.6% 77.3%
Coached Teachers (PAR) 69.2% 73.1% 74.5%
PLC Coaches are equipped to
provide
Review of Student
Achievement Data
Data Driven
Recommendations
Goal-setting with
teachers
Coached teachers (TCM) 76.1% 75.2% 76.4%
Coached Teachers (PAR) 84.9% 84.9% 84.9%


Coaches self-reported even higher levels of confidence in their ability to carry out professional development in these
high-need areas than coached teachers reported about them:

Table 6
Support Role % Confidence in Ability to Meet Teacher Needs
Please rate your level of
confidence in your personal
ability to
Interpret Student
Achievement Data
Identify Teacher
Support Needs
Give Teacher
Performance
Ratings
Master Teachers 92.6% 89.9% 84.1%
Learning Coaches 86.4% 83.2% 75.4%
PAR CTs 100% 100% 93.3%
PLC Coaches 90.2% 90.8% 86.3%

In addition to identifying the areas they wish to develop, teachers were asked to name the best or most helpful piece
of feedback they have received to date. Analysis of the responses revealed several recurring themes that provide
insight into the type of verbal feedback to which teachers are most responsive:
Table 4
Content areas of coached teachers open response on the most helpful piece of feedback received this year
Most helpful piece of feedback received was Frequency %
Related to the TEM rubric 67 14%
Techniques to increase rigor/higher order thinking skills 42 9%
General encouragement 37 8%
Methods for classroom management 31 7%
Methods for differentiated instruction 21 4%
Techniques for data analysis 16 3%
Planning 7 1%
Other (response unclear; not content- or source- specific; etc.) 249 53%






Beliefs about development and the Teacher Effectiveness
Measure (TEM)
The SCS professional development model is intended to deploy professional development that is strategically aligned
to defined areas of teacher growth on the TEM evaluation system. Teachers perception of TEMs effectiveness as a
tool for professional development provides critical feedback regarding TEMs connection to both coaching models.

In the context of TEM, less than half of surveyed coached teachers from Tiered Coaching and PAR schools agree that
they get enough feedback on their practice, and few agree that the TEM system is fair or that rubrics are an effective
tool for professional development.

Conclusion
The Department of Professional Development and Support within Shelby County Schools (SCS) greatly values teacher
feedback on the professional development, coaching, and teacher leadership offerings in the 2013-14 school year.
The Department will use these data to inform the evolution of PD and coaching into school year 2014-15.


22.8%
50.0%
33.9%
26.1%
17.9%
43.5%
22.9%
19.1%
21.2%
44.9%
24.0%
23.1%
27.6%
49.1%
37.0%
31.1%
The TEM 3.0 evaluation system is fair.
Teachers get enough feedback on their
instructional practice.
The TEM 3.0 Rubrics are effective tools for
providing feedback to teachers.
The TEM 3.0 evaluation system is an effective tool
for professional development.
The TEM 3.0 evaluation system is fair.
Teachers get enough feedback on their
instructional practice.
The TEM 3.0 Rubrics are effective tools for
providing feedback to teachers.
The TEM 3.0 evaluation system is an effective tool
for professional development.
The TEM 3.0 evaluation system is fair.
Teachers get enough feedback on their
instructional practice.
The TEM 3.0 Rubrics are effective tools for
providing feedback to teachers.
The TEM 3.0 evaluation system is an effective tool
for professional development.
The TEM 3.0 evaluation system is fair.
Teachers get enough feedback on their
instructional practice.
The TEM 3.0 Rubrics are effective tools for
providing feedback to teachers.
The TEM 3.0 evaluation system is an effective tool
for professional development.
% Agree or Strongly Agree
T
C
M

C
o
a
c
h
e
d


T
e
a
c
h
e
r
s

T
C
M

N
o
n
-
c
o
a
c
h
e
d

T
e
a
c
h
e
r
s

P
A
R

N
o
n
-
c
o
a
c
h
e
d

T
e
a
c
h
e
r
s

P
A
R

C
o
a
c
h
e
d


T
e
a
c
h
e
r
s