ISU CoP Surveys

US Department of Education RSN Services Feedback – Teacher and Leader Effectiveness/Standards and Assessment CoP

The Department of Education and the Reform Support Network (RSN) are committed to providing quality technical assistance (TA) services to Race to the Top (RTT) States. The RSN provides TA to grantees in the form of webinars, working groups, convenings, products, and individualized technical assistance through five communities of practice and work streams:

     • Teacher and Leader Effectiveness/Standards and Assessments
     • Instructional Improvement/Data Systems
     • School Turnaround
     • SEA Capacity Building
     • Stakeholder Communications and Engagement.

In order to better understand the perceived impact of RSN support in helping states work towards achievement of their RTT goals, we invite those who have been actively involved in these CoPs/work streams to complete this survey. Please answer the following questions based upon your knowledge of the support provided through the RSN and how it has impacted education reform efforts in your State. The survey will take approximately 20 minutes with additional time depending upon how many CoPs and work groups you have been involved with. The valid OMB control number for this information collection is XXXX-XXXX.

1) How long have you been involved with the RSN?

( ) Less than 3 months

( ) 3 to 6 months

( ) 6 months to 1 year

( ) 1 to 2 years

( ) More than 2 years

2) Please rate the quality of RSN Support provided to your State during RTT implementation.

	Poor Fair	Good	Very Good	Excellent	Not Aware (NA)
a. High-quality content	( )	( )	( )	( )	( )
b. Usefulness/Relevance	( )	( )	( )	( )	( )
c. Timeliness	( )	( )	( )	( )	( )
d. Assistance in dealing with implementation challenges	( )	( )	( )	( )	( )

3) Please rank order the following attributes of RSN technical assistance from those that are the most helpful (5) to least helpful (1).

________a. Increases knowledge or informs attitudes for myself and my colleagues

________b. Supports professionals working in education reform to have better access to current expertise, resources and support.

________c. Provides assistance in a manner that is useful to our needs (e.g., individualized assistance, publications, working groups).

________d. Provides timely and current assistance when I need it.

________e. Provides a means to connect with my colleagues in other States around common challenges.

4) As a result of the assistance received through the RSN (Choose top three choices. Optional – Please specify any examples from your work)

[ ] a. Knowledge/awareness regarding key issues in education reform has increased.

(Please specify: _________________________________________________)

[ ] b. Attitude/beliefs regarding key issues in education reform were informed.

(Please specify: _________________________________________________)

[ ] c. Our State was able to develop, improve, support, or advocate for priority policies.

(Please specify: _________________________________________________)

[ ] d. Our State was able to develop, improve, support, or advocate for quality practices.

(Please specify: _________________________________________________)

[ ] e. Our State improved our communication around our comprehensive reform goals

(Please specify: _________________________________________________)

[ ] f. Our State improved our collaboration with other States

(Please specify: _________________________________________________)

[ ] g. Our RTT implementation was of higher quality

(Please specify: _________________________________________________)

[ ] h. Other: _________________________________________________

5) If the RSN did not exist, please select the various ways in which your education reform work around these topics might be affected. (Choose top three choices)

[ ] a. It would be harder to connect with other States experiencing similar challenges

[ ] b. I would not have adequate access to experts in education reform issues

[ ] c. It would cost more money to get the information and resources needed

[ ] d. It would be harder to stay informed of effective practice

[ ] e. It would be more difficult to identify and solve implementation challenges

[ ] f. It would be harder to implement and sustain effective policies and programs

[ ] g. It would make my job more difficult

[ ] h. Other: _________________________________________________

[ ] i. Not applicable/Our work related to RTT would not be affected

6) In the past year, when you participated in RSN technical assistance, how often did your participation inform your work?

( ) Never ( ) Rarely ( ) Sometimes ( ) Often ( ) Always

The RSN operates the following Communities of Practice/Workstreams. You will be asked a few questions about the CoP/Workstream that you have been involved with.

Teacher and Leader Effectiveness/Standards and Assessments (TLE/SA)Community of Practice – The goal of the TLE/SA CoP is to help States design, implement and refine comprehensive systems of educator effectiveness and help States prepare for and make the transition to college- and career-ready standards and aligned assessments by 2014–2015. The TLE/SA CoP hosts the Student Learning Objectives (SLO) work group, the Quality Evaluation Rollout (QER) work group, and the Transitions work group.

Instructional Improvement and Data Systems (IIDS) Community of Practice – The IIDS CoP is intended to provide data system support for the Race to the Top State initiatives as well as more focused functional and technical/data system support in the area of instructional improvement.

School Turnaround (ST) Community of Practice – The purpose of the ST CoP is to create an environment for States to come together to share lessons learned and promising practices on turning around persistently low-achieving schools, particularly in the areas of human capital systems, evaluating turnaround, community engagement and performance management. The School Turnaround CoP hosts the Performance Management work group.

State Education Agency Capacity Building (CB) Community of Practice – The purpose of the SEA-CB CoP is to strengthen the organizational capacity of SEAs by supporting their ability to implement and sustain their proposed Race to the Top reforms over time. The SEA-CB CoP uses the concepts of system capacity, elements of performance management and the context for sustaining reform as its foundational categories for supporting the Race to the Top States in sustaining their reform initiatives. The SEA CoP hosts the Sustainability work group.

Stakeholder Communications and Engagement (SCE) Community of Practice – The purpose of the SCE CoP is to help Race to the Top grantees and other States successfully implement and sustain reforms through effective, strategic and coherent communications and engagement with multiple stakeholders through multiple partners, vehicles and platforms. The SCE CoP has supported States around strategic communications and social media.

Teacher and Leader Effectiveness/Standards and Assessments CoP

7) How would you describe your State’s level of participation in the Teacher and Leader Effectiveness/Standards and Assessments CoP over the past year?

( ) Low

( ) Medium-Low

( ) Medium

( ) Medium-High

( ) High

8) What types of technical assistance have you or your State participated in over the past year for the Teacher and Leader Effectiveness/Standards and Assessments CoP? (Check all that apply)

[ ] Webinar(s)

[ ] Working group(s)

[ ] Convening(s)

[ ] Development of product(s) or publication(s)

[ ] Individualized technical assistance

9) How satisfied have you been with the support provided to your State by the Teacher and Leader Effectiveness/Standards and Assessments CoP?

( ) Very Dissatisfied ( ) Dissatisfied ( ) Neither Satisfied nor Dissatisfied ( ) Satisfied ( ) Very Satisfied

10) Please rate the extent to which RSN support has helped your State/staff build capacity to accomplish your reform goals in Teacher and Leader Effectiveness for each of the following areas:

	Low Impact	Low-Medium	Medium Impact	Medium-High	High Impact
Successfully implement our RTT plan	( )	( )	( )	( )	( )
Continuously improve work quality and process	( )	( )	( )	( )	( )
Work more strategically and sustainably	( )	( )	( )	( )	( )

11) To what extent have the TA supports you received through the Teacher and Leader Effectiveness/Standards and Assessments CoP met your overall State needs as you move forward with your priority work?

( ) Not Met Needs ( ) Met Few Needs ( ) Met Some Needs ( ) Met Most Needs ( ) Met All Needs

12) As a result of your participation in the Teacher and Leader Effectiveness/Standards and Assessments CoP, how has your State changed or improved practice? (Please cite specific examples)

Teacher and Leader Effectiveness/Standards and Assessments CoP Working Groups

SLO: The Student Learning Objectives (SLO) Work Group provides approximately a dozen States with structured resource sharing, targeted consultation and field-advancing knowledge creation to implementing high-quality SLOs. Major deliverables from this work group include the SLO Library website for annotated SLOs, the SLO Quality Control Toolkit, a learning module and convening on SLO target setting, and a series of webinars on assessment literacy.

QER: The Quality Evaluation Rollout (QER) Work Group was formed to provide States on the brink of full implementation with an opportunity to learn from one another, discuss common issues and challenges and develop some tools to support this important work. Major deliverables from this work group include the Educator Evaluation Communications Toolkit, a series of learning modules on principal capacity to implement new reforms, a convening on evaluator rater accuracy, a convening on data analytics, and a convening on communicating about new evaluation systems.

Transitions: The Transitions Work Group helps States strengthen their implementation of key reforms and gather evidence about the outcomes of their efforts. It addresses the challenge of integrating major reforms—educator support and evaluation systems, college- and career-readiness standards (CCRS), assessments aligned with CCRS—while communicating effectively with educators about integrating these reforms. Transitions Work Group members attended a Transitions Work Group Kick-Off Convening in August 2013.

13) Please indicate the working groups you have participated in during the past year. (Select all that apply)

[ ] SLO

[ ] QER

[ ] Transitions

SLO Working Group Questions (appear only if checked)

a) How would you describe your State’s level of participation in the SLO Working Group over the past year?

( ) Low ( ) Medium-Low ( ) Medium ( ) Medium-High ( ) High

b) How satisfied have you been with the support provided to your State through the SLO working group?

( ) Very Dissatisfied ( ) Dissatisfied ( ) Neither Satisfied nor Dissatisfied ( ) Satisfied ( ) Very Satisfied

c) Please rate the extent to which RSN support has helped your State/staff build capacity to accomplish your reform goals in the SLO Working Group for each of the following areas:

	Low Impact	Low-Medium	Medium Impact	Medium-High	High Impact
Successfully implement our RTT plan	( )	( )	( )	( )	( )
Continuously improve work quality and process	( )	( )	( )	( )	( )
Work more strategically and sustainably	( )	( )	( )	( )	( )

d) What aspects of the SLO working group have been most useful and relevant for your work and why?

e) As a result of my participation in the SLO working group, my State has taken the following action steps (for example, changes in policy, procedures or programming):

SLO Working Group Resources

f) Can you cite an instance in which you have used materials developed by another State in this working group (SLO) or called on another State for information or feedback? If so, please describe.

( ) Yes: _________________________________________________

( ) No

g) Did you share information from this resource with others?

			If yes, Please indicate who you have shared it with
	Yes	No
SLO Library	( )	( )
SLO Quality Control Toolkit	( )	( )
SLO Guide	( )	( )

h) Have you used the resources outside of a RSN-facilitated meeting?

			If yes, please indicate the types of events or situations where the resource has been used (i.e. …)
	Yes	No
SLO Library	( )	( )
SLO Quality Control Toolkit	( )	( )
SLO Guide	( )	( )

i) Did your use of this resource influence you to change something about your agency/state’s policy or practice or affirm existing policy/practice?

			If yes, please describe.
	Yes	No
SLO Library	( )	( )
SLO Quality Control Toolkit	( )	( )
SLO Guide	( )	( )

QER Working Group Questions (appear only if checked)

a) How would you describe your State’s level of participation in the QER working group over the past year?

( ) Low ( ) Medium-Low ( ) Medium ( ) Medium-High ( ) High

b) How satisfied have you been with the support provided to your State through the QER working group?

( ) Very Dissatisfied ( ) Dissatisfied ( ) Neither Satisfied nor Dissatisfied ( ) Satisfied ( ) Very Satisfied

c) Please rate the extent to which RSN support has helped your State/staff build capacity to accomplish your reform goals in the QER Working Group for each of the following areas:

	Low Impact	Low-Medium	Medium Impact	Medium-High	High Impact
Successfully implement our RTT plan	( )	( )	( )	( )	( )
Continuously improve work quality and process	( )	( )	( )	( )	( )
Work more strategically and sustainably	( )	( )	( )	( )	( )

d) What aspects of the QER working group have been most useful and relevant for your work and why?

e) As a result of my participation in this working group (QER), my State has taken the following action steps (for example, changes in policy, procedures or programming):

QER Working Group Resources

f) Can you cite an instance in which you have used materials developed by another State in this working group (QER) or called on another State for information or feedback? If so, please describe.

( ) Yes: _________________________________________________

( ) No

g) Did you share information from this resource with others?

			If yes, Please indicate who you have shared it with
	Yes	No
QER Communication Toolkit	( )	( )	___
Rater Accuracy Options Memo	( )	( )	___
Making Teacher Evaluation Manageable	( )	( )	___

h) Have you used the resources outside of a RSN-facilitated meeting?

			If yes, please indicate the types of events or situations where the resource has been used (i.e. …)
	Yes	No
QER Communication Toolkit	( )	( )	___
Rater Accuracy Options Memo	( )	( )	___
Making Teacher Evaluation Manageable	( )	( )	___

i) Did your use of this resource influence you to change something about your agency/state’s policy or practice or affirm existing policy/practice?

			If yes, please describe.
	Yes	No
QER Communication Toolkit	( )	( )	___
Rater Accuracy Options Memo	( )	( )	___
Making Teacher Evaluation Manageable	( )	( )	___

Transitions Working Group Questions (appear only if checked)

a) How would you describe your State’s level of participation in the Transitions working group over the past year?

( ) Low ( ) Medium-Low ( ) Medium ( ) Medium-High ( ) High

b) How satisfied have you been with the support provided to your State through the Transitions working group?

( ) Very Dissatisfied ( ) Dissatisfied ( ) Neither Satisfied nor Dissatisfied ( ) Satisfied ( ) Very Satisfied

c) Please rate the extent to which RSN support has helped your State/staff build capacity to accomplish your reform goals in the Transitions Working Group for each of the following areas:

	Low Impact	Low-Medium	Medium Impact	Medium-High	High Impact
Successfully implement our RTT plan	( )	( )	( )	( )	( )
Continuously improve work quality and process	( )	( )	( )	( )	( )
Work more strategically and sustainably	( )	( )	( )	( )	( )

d) What aspects of the Transitions working group have been most useful and relevant for your work and why?

e) As a result of my participation in this working group (Transitions), my State has taken the following action steps (for example, changes in policy, procedures or programming):

f) Can you cite an instance in which you have used materials developed by another State in this working group (Transitions) or called on another State for information or feedback? If so, please describe.

( ) Yes: _________________________________________________

( ) No

Overall RSN Support

17) How can the supports provided by the RSN be improved to better meet the needs of your State? (Please cite specific recommendations)

18) Are there other high-priority and urgent areas in which your State could use additional support from the RSN in order to sustain your education reform work?

Thank you for providing feedback on your experiences with the Reform Support Network. If you have any questions regarding this survey, please contact:

Christine Leicht, RSN Evaluation Lead
[email protected]

PRA Burden Statement

According to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, no persons are required to respond to a collection of information unless such collection displays a valid OMB control number.  The valid OMB control number for this information collection is 1880-0542.  Public reporting burden for this collection of information is estimated to average 20 minutes per response, including time for reviewing instructions, searching existing data sources, gathering and maintaining the data needed, and completing and reviewing the collection of information.  The obligation to respond to this collection is voluntary.  If you have comments or concerns regarding the status of your individual submission of this form, application or survey, please contact Danielle Smith, U.S. Department of Education, 400 Maryland Ave, S.E., Washington, DC 20202 directly. [Note: Please do not return the completed survey to this address.]