District-Determined Measure Example for
School Administrators
Action-Oriented Conversations in Teacher Teams
Content Area and Grade Range: Administrator DDM, grades 5-8
DDM Summary: This DDM assesses school leaders’ indirect impact on student learning by
measuring growth in the ability of teacher teams to participate in student-focused conversations,
encourage broad participation, address conflicts constructively, and follow-through on decisions that
will contribute to improvements in student learning.
Developed by: Alana Cyr, Assistant Principal (Nashoba Regional School District) and Bethany
Pritchard, Assistant Principal (Marlborough Public Schools)
Date updated: June 2015
Table of Contents
Introduction ............................................................................................................................ 2
Instrument .............................................................................................................................. 5
Administration Protocol ........................................................................................................ 5
Scoring Guide ........................................................................................................................ 9
Measuring Growth and Setting Parameters ....................................................................... 11
Piloting .................................................................................................................................. 12
Assessment Blueprint ......................................................................................................... 13
Assabet Valley Collaborative – DDM – Conversations in Teacher Teams 1
Introduction
Description of the Measure & Rationale
This measure provides information to school leaders about their impact on the development of
student-focused, action-oriented discussions in middle school teachers’ grade-level teams. The
central measure is a 12-item team survey to be completed individually by all members of the
school’s grade-level teams following two meetings per month between September and the end of
February. The survey requires under five minutes to complete; it also solicits team perceptions of
the extent to which their meeting focused on students’ learning, encouraged broad participation,
and involved committing to and following up on team actions to improve student learning.
This DDM is for school leaders whose core responsibilities include the development and supervision
of teacher teams that aim to improve instruction and student learning. The purpose of this DDM is to
provide administrators with timely feedback regarding staff members’ perceptions of their team’s
ability to broadly contribute to action-oriented discussions that aim to improve students’ learning.
Research indicates that teacher collaboration and work with expert colleagues are positively
associated with student learning, yet teachers’ team meetings vary greatly in their quality and
usefulness. Most school administrators are concerned with how best to support robust, studentfocused discussions that result in improvements for students. This DDM provides administrators
with frequent feedback from grade-level teams about the extent to which they are achieving studentfocused, action-oriented discussions.
To show growth over time, administrators are expected to directly observe teams at work and to
reflect on their own priorities for collaborative time in the school, as a means of more fully
understanding the feedback provided through this measure. Administrators will need to consider the
ways and the extent to which they provide support to teams, through direct feedback and provision
of tools, resources, and professional learning. In addition, administrators will need to consider how
their current practices may even undermine teams’ progress. For example, results of this measure
may indicate that teams spend their meetings discussing school- or district-assigned tasks or
specific matters that teams propose are important to their work, but are not “student-focused” or
“action-oriented,” as defined by this DDM. In order to demonstrate growth on this measure and
increase student-focused, action-oriented team meetings across the school, administrators may
need to revisit their own priorities and communications with teams, as well as the allocation of time
for teachers to accomplish tasks that are either required of them or deemed important to their work.
This DDM is designed as a growth measure to support continuous improvement in teachers’ team
discussions, rather than maintaining an already achieved performance target. This DDM may be
modified to serve as a target measure for any district that already has high-functioning, studentfocused, action-oriented teams across all of its schools.
Context
This measure was developed for use in two Massachusetts school districts. Nashoba Regional
School District is comprised of two K-5 schools, one Pre-K-8 school, two 6-8 middle schools, and
one 9-12 high school, which serve approximately 3,500 students from three referring rural and
Assabet Valley Collaborative – DDM – Conversations in Teacher Teams 2
suburban towns. Marlborough Public Schools is considered a small urban district of 4,543 students
and operates an early childhood center, three K-4 elementary schools, one 5-8 middle school, and a
9-12 high school, with an additional alternative program for high school students.
In these two nearby school districts, teacher teams are configured quite differently and meet on
different schedules. The developers decided that this DDM was better suited for one school where
teacher teams met on a six-day cycle, providing sufficient time to show progress in the quality and
focus of their team discussions. The other school context also informed the design of the DDM;, it
was unclear, however, whether the frequency of team meetings at this school would be sufficient to
show growth over time. It is recommended that any district adopting this DDM consider the
frequency, structure, and priorities already established for teachers’ team meetings and how this
DDM may need to be modified to align with the local context.
The developers acknowledge that staff trust is a necessary pre-condition for the success of this
DDM, as well as central office support for the priorities described in this measure.
Description of the Development Process
This DDM was developed during October 2014 – June 2015 under a DDM Leadership Grant (FC217) awarded to the Assabet Valley Collaborative by the Massachusetts Department of Elementary
and Secondary Education (ESE). In partnership with Teachers21, Risk Eraser, and with primary
support from the Learning Innovations Program at WestEd (Woburn, MA), the Collaborative
convened six building administrators – three principals and three assistant principals – representing
schools spanning grades Pre-K-12 from five participating districts. Participants worked in smaller
teams of one to three to strengthen and apply their assessment literacy toward the development of
several direct and indirect measures of student growth.
Participants grew their expertise over six sessions by engaging in a guided DDM development
process framed by a series of questions, including: (1) Why are we doing this work together? (2)
What is most important to measure? (3) How shall we measure what’s most important? (4) How can
we strengthen and refine our measure? (5) How can we prepare our measure for broader use? (6)
How will we measure growth? Throughout, participants engaged in large group discussion and
critique, as well as team collaboration and problem solving.
This measure has not yet been piloted. Districts in and beyond the Assabet Valley Collaborative
may decide if they would like to pilot and/or modify the attached tools and processes for use as a
DDM in their district. Because this is a newly developed measure, it is important that districts
engage administrators in examining results from the first year of implementation and identifying,
over time, any revisions or refinements that may further strengthen the quality of the assessment,
scoring tools, administration protocol, and/or growth parameters to suit the circumstances and
realities of each district’s local context.
Content Alignment & Rationale
This measure is aligned to the following Core Course Objective (CCO)1:
1
A CCO is a statement that describes core, essential, or high priority content (knowledge, skills, or abilities), identified
by those who designed the assessment, which is drawn, synthesized, or composed from a larger set of curriculum or
professional standards.
Assabet Valley Collaborative – DDM – Conversations in Teacher Teams 3
Educators engage in student-centered, action-oriented team discussions; encourage
broad participation, diverse perspectives, and constructive approaches to resolving
conflicts; and hold follow-up discussions to reflect on the results of actions the team has
taken to improve instruction and student learning.
By action-oriented discussions, we mean that team discussions explore student-learning challenges
that lead to identifying actions to address these challenges through instruction, intervention, and/or
student supports. These discussions may extend over a series of meetings before the team is ready
to take action, but the discussions convey intent to take action to improve outcomes for students;
teams follow-up to ensure that this intent translates to action in the classroom and in learning for the
team.
By broad participation, we mean not only that the team solicits, considers, probes, and works
productively with the diverse perspectives and experiences that reside within the team, but also
draws on the perspectives, expertise, and resources in the surrounding school and district to meet
the needs of students most effectively.
The professional leadership standards that informed this CCO are listed in the Content Chart below,
which also indicates the weight that each receives in the scoring of this DDM.
Content (Job Responsibility)
Weight
CCO: Educator teams participate in student-centered discussions,
meaning that discussions focus on specific student learning
challenges and explore options for addressing these. (See survey
items 3, 4,)


Leadership Standard II-C-2 Time for Collaboration: Is transparent and
forthcoming about expectations for all team meetings. Creates and
implements a schedule that maximizes meeting time for all teams.
Effectively prevents time-wasting activities.
Leadership Standard IV-A-3. Meetings: Plans and leads well-run and
engaging meetings that have clear purpose, focus on matters of
consequence, and engage participants in a thoughtful and productive
series of conversations and deliberations about important school
matters.
33.3% of the
measure
CCO: Educator teams encourage broad participation, diverse
perspectives, and constructive approaches to resolving
conflicts. (See survey items 6, 7.)

Leadership Standard IV-F-2. Conflict Resolution: Consistently
employs a variety of strategies to resolve conflicts in a constructive
and respectful manner and empowers staff to use these approaches.
CCO: Educator teams commit to action and follow-up to reflect
on the results of this action to improve instruction and student
learning. (See survey items 9, 10)
33.3% of the
measure
33.3% of the
measure
Assabet Valley Collaborative – DDM – Conversations in Teacher Teams 4


Leadership Standard II-C-2 Time for Collaboration: Is transparent and
forthcoming about expectations for all team meetings. Creates and
implements a schedule that maximizes meeting time for all teams.
Effectively prevents time-wasting activities.
Leadership Standard IV-A-3. Meetings: Plans and leads well-run and
engaging meetings that have clear purpose, focus on matters of
consequence, and engage participants in a thoughtful and productive
series of conversations and deliberations about important school
matters.
100%
Instrument
This measure is comprised of a Team Meeting Feedback Survey, which requires less than five
minutes for teachers to complete. The purpose is to provide administrators with timely feedback
regarding staff members’ perceptions of their team’s ability to encourage broad and productive
participation in student-focused, action-oriented discussion and follow-through on team-determined
actions. The survey solicits feedback from members of all core grade-level teams, which include
classroom teachers (math, science, ELA, and social studies), as well as any specialists who attend
or are invited to these meetings on a regular basis.
The survey is comprised of 12 items, including three team meeting context questions, e.g., date,
grade level, six required multiple-choice questions, and four optional open-response questions,
which invite further reflection or feedback. Multiple-choice items often represent a Likert scale, with
ratings of Strongly Disagree, Somewhat Disagree, Somewhat Agree, and Strongly Agree.
This survey tool, designed as a Google Form to facilitate ongoing compilation of results, provides
the only data that is formally tracked and evaluated for this DDM. Teachers are asked to complete
the survey individually at the close of their team meetings twice per month or, if needed, within 24
hours of the meeting. Administrators evaluate school-wide results of the survey three times per year
(end of October, end of December, and end of February). When results are downloaded as an
Excel file, administrators may also disaggregate data to strengthen understanding of team-level
patterns and progress over time, thereby informing more targeted supports.
Administration Protocol
The Administration Protocol addresses how the measure is intended to be implemented to best
support a common conversation about growth, as well as to strengthen the consistency of the
administration and reliability of results across schools in a district.
Assabet Valley Collaborative – DDM – Conversations in Teacher Teams 5
When is the measure administered?
All teachers on core grade-level teams in grades 5-8 – classroom teachers of ELA, mathematics,
science, and social studies, as well as specialists and support personnel who regularly attend these
team meetings – complete the Team Feedback Survey during the final five minutes of their team
meeting twice per month between mid-September and the end of February. This timeframe allows
teams to focus on start-of-year logistics and information sharing in early September, but then
conveys the expectation moving forward for meetings to become increasingly student-centered and
action-oriented. In addition, this timeframe recognizes that teachers’ team meetings are often
disrupted and erratic during the spring (March-May) when state, district, and/or end-of-year testing
occurs in classrooms. Therefore, mid-September to the end of February represents the most likely
period that teams will be able to demonstrate growth in the designated team meeting skills.
The request to use the final five minutes of team meetings for this task is to convey respect for
teachers’ time and to avoid asking teachers to fit another task into their busy work days. It is not
necessary that all teachers on a team respond to the survey for the same meetings, although it will
likely be helpful for teams to establish a predictable routine, such as completing the survey at the
close of the first two meetings of every month. This will also help to prevent teachers from
accidentally completing the form too frequently, which could skew results. (See section on
deviations to the protocol, below.)
This design assumes that teachers meet with their grade-level or common planning time teams at
least twice per month. If teams meet more frequently, teachers decide independently for which two
meetings they will submit the survey; they do not need to be the same two meetings as their
colleagues because this measure is based on school-wide trends and progress. Feedback on any
and every meeting will add to the administrator’s understanding of the extent to which studentfocused, action-oriented team discussions are occurring across the school.
How is the measure administered?
Staff Meeting
Administrators must first introduce and discuss the survey at an early September staff
meeting. In particular, it is important to clearly communicate that the survey is a DDM for the
administrator. Teachers will be familiar with DDMs, but may not realize that the administrator also
has DDMs. Also, administrators should make clear that the DDM is aimed at school-wide progress
with teachers’ teamwork. This may mean the administrator sometimes needs to disaggregate the
data to better understand where or how to provide supports to teams most effectively, but the DDM
results are based on school-wide trends of improvement.
Second, administrators must introduce the priorities for team meetings that are described in this
DDM, which may be different from their previous priorities. The goal is for teachers’ team meetings
to (1) be student-centered, (2) encourage broad participation, and (3) demonstrate an actionorientation. The rationale for this should be made clear to teachers. Administrators may want to
involve teachers in a text-based protocol to read and reflect on an article about effective teams,
Assabet Valley Collaborative – DDM – Conversations in Teacher Teams 6
and/or ask teachers to work together to chart what each of these priorities might look like in action
for their own teams.
Further, administrators must clearly explain what each of these ideas mean, drawing on the
definitions provided in this DDM:
o
Team discussions explore student-learning challenges and lead to the identification of
actions the team will take to address these challenges through instruction, intervention,
and/or student supports. These discussions may extend over a series of meetings before
the team is ready to take action, but the discussions convey intent to take action to
improve outcomes for students. Teams then follow up to ensure that this intent translates
to action in the classroom and learning for the team.
o
By broad participation, we mean not only that the team solicits, considers, probes, and
works productively with the diverse perspectives and experiences that reside within the
team, but also draws on the perspectives, expertise, and resources in the surrounding
school and district to meet the needs of students most effectively.
To increase teachers’ commitment to these team priorities, administrators may want to involve
teachers in further defining these ideas. They must also be aware, however, that changes to these
definitions may require changes to other aspects of the DDM, such as the Core Course Objective,
survey items, and Assessment Blueprint. Teacher commitment and involvement are strongly
encouraged, but administrators must be aware of the subsequent changes that would need to be
made to the broader DDM and have the knowledge, skills, and/or support to make these changes.
Third, teachers must be introduced to the Team Meeting Feedback Survey. Administrators should
state explicitly that survey responses are anonymous, meaning that teachers are not asked to
identify themselves when completing the survey and individual responses will never be shared with
the teams or school. It is important to reiterate the administrator’s interest in supporting teams to
achieve school-wide improvement. Administrators should point out that items #3 and #4 relate to
student-focused discussion, items #6 and #7 relate to working productively with broad participation,
and items #9 and #10 relate to an action-orientation.
Administrators should also note that items #5, #8, and #11 are optional, but encouraged if time
allows since this will help the administrator better understand how he or she may provide supports
or resources to help teams progress toward these priorities. Administrators should convey the
understanding that the survey measures only team members’ perceptions of these criteria, but that,
overall, across the team’s members, administrators should be able to identify patterns and trends in
these perceptions that can inform the kinds of supports, resources, and professional learning that
might be appropriate to support each team’s progress.
Finally, administrators must engender teachers’ trust that the results of the Team Meeting Survey
will never be used in any punitive way, and that the administrator is trying to use the results to
improve his or her own practice to support teams appropriately. Administrators should explain to
teams that they plan to observe team meetings periodically to better understand the survey
Assabet Valley Collaborative – DDM – Conversations in Teacher Teams 7
feedback, to learn more about how teachers actually work together in their teams, and to be able to
identify and facilitate sharing of helpful team practices across the school. Teachers may initially be
concerned about what happens if their meetings do not address the stated priorities or may express
concerns that other factors, such as school or district agendas, field trips, parent issues, or testing
schedules, determine the extent to which they can achieve these goals. Administrators should be
ready to think with teachers about how they, collectively, might shift current practices, such as the
allocation of time and tasks, to achieve progress. Administrators must then follow through on the
results of these conversations, to earn teachers’ trust and to ensure growth with this DDM.
Email
After the initial staff meeting discussion, administrators must send an email to staff that clearly and
succinctly reiterates the purpose of the Team Meeting Feedback Survey, as noted above, and
requesting that teachers individually complete the Team Meeting Feedback Survey during the final
five minutes of at least two team meetings per month. Administrators should also encourage
teachers to let them know if they have any questions or concerns about this request.
This email provides the survey link, requests that teachers bookmark the survey site on their
Internet browsers, and includes the following directions:
1. During the last five minutes of two team meetings per month, please complete this brief 12item survey. The purpose of the survey is to provide me with information about the extent to
which you believe your full team is broadly engaged in student-focused discussions and
following through on actions that will contribute to improved instruction and student learning.
2. Periodically, I will analyze all survey responses to identify school-wide patterns and trends
over time with the aim of providing appropriate and helpful supports and professional learning
opportunities to ensure all teams are getting the most from their team meetings.
3. The aim is to strengthen team participation in student-focused, action-oriented discussions.
This means that team discussions lead to the identification of actions to strengthen
instruction or provide interventions or supports for student learning and that teams follow up
to examine and learn from what occurred as a result of these actions.
Ongoing Communications
Administrators should maintain the visibility of these team priorities throughout the year that
includes providing feedback and follow-up to the staff about progress, sharing useful tools and
strategies from teams across the school, and/or providing professional learning opportunities and
new resources as part of ongoing staff meetings or development time. This improvement orientation
also reinforces the non-punitive nature of this work and the administrator’s interest in supporting
continuous improvement.
How are deviations to protocols addressed?
It is possible that teachers may complete the Team Feedback Survey more than two times per
month, either because they forgot if they had already completed it twice that month, or because they
want to provide more frequent updates to the school administrator. Surveys are anonymous, so
administrators cannot track if individual teachers are submitting their surveys with greater
frequency. If this occurs, the perspectives of particular individuals may skew results. For example, if
Assabet Valley Collaborative – DDM – Conversations in Teacher Teams 8
one team member is particularly dissatisfied with his or her team’s work and completes the survey
after every meeting, perhaps four times a month instead of two, this might skew results toward
looking like teams are not making progress. This would be particularly problematic if done by
multiple teachers.
In response, administrators are encouraged to download survey results as an Excel file and sort the
data by team-level to gain a view of whether teachers on each team are, in fact, completing the
Team Feedback Survey twice per month. If not, administrators should revisit their communications
with staff or with particular grade-level teams to learn more about why surveys are not being
completed as requested. Administrators also need to ensure that staff understands that the results
are to help the administrator improve supports and guidance to teams and are not an accountability
measure for teams or an assessment of individuals on the teams.
If online administration of the Team Meeting Feedback Survey is not an option, administrators will
need to arrange for support staff to manage data entry based on the return of paper versions of the
survey.
Districts may need to modify the frequency of survey administration and analysis of results
according to team meeting schedules and expectations in their local context. In addition, if team
meetings are not typically disrupted due to the school testing schedules in the spring, the district
may decide to extend this DDM to a fourth period (beginning of March through end of April) and
adjust the scoring process and growth parameters accordingly. Alternatively, if districts have
established slightly different priorities for team focus, this DDM’s Core Course Objective and related
descriptors on the Team Feedback Survey may be adjusted to reflect these district priorities.
How will special accommodations be provided?
No special accommodations are needed for this indirect measure. Administrators should work with
teachers, however, to understand the extent to which team conversations result in actions that
benefit the full range of students in the school. As part of this effort, administrators should consider
supports and professional development that may help teams understand the kinds of modifications
and accommodations that may be necessary to ensure that all students are able to demonstrate the
full extent of their learning through classroom assessments and learning activities.
Scoring Guide
Administrators may want to track Team Meeting Survey data on a weekly or bi-weekly basis to
inform the provision of ongoing supports and interventions. This DDM, however, asks administrators
to formally analyze the survey results at only three intervals during the year, each encompassing
approximately six weeks: (1) mid-September to the end of October, providing a baseline measure
near the start of the school year; (2) beginning of November to the end of December, providing a
mid-point check on progress; and (3) beginning of January to the end of February, providing the
final indication of progress.
When using Google Forms, the data requested below can be quickly collected from the provided
Summary Data sheet.
Assabet Valley Collaborative – DDM – Conversations in Teacher Teams 9
Administrators should maintain a record, such as the following, to track results for the DDM. They
may want to set up more detailed records to track results at the team level, or at more frequent
intervals to inform their thinking about team supports, resources, and/or interventions for progress
over time, as well as the results of those supports.
SCORING CHART
School-Wide Responses
Mid-September to
Beginning of November
End of October
to End of December
Focused on Student Learning
Item 3
Item 4
Work Productively with Broad Participation & Diverse Perspectives
Item 6
Item 7
Action-Oriented with Follow-Through
Item 9
Item 10
Overall Average
Average
Beginning of January
to End of February
Percentage
Point Gain
Going down the column for the current time period, administrators should insert into each white cell
the total school-wide percent of responses indicating Strongly Agree for each item. In the final
white cell in the bottom row, administrators should calculate (or insert a formula to automatically
calculate) the overall average percent of teachers indicating Strongly Agree for the indicators on the
survey. This item-by-item tracking will help the administrator see where teams may need the
greatest support. Analysis of the open-ended response items on the survey should provide the
administrator with information about how best to target supports, resources, and/or professional
learning opportunities.
In the far right column, administrators should calculate the gain in percentage points for each item
across the three periods shown on the chart in order to gain a more specific view of particular areas
of strength and weakness. This is done by subtracting the initial percent recorded at the end of
October, from the final percent recorded at the end of February.
As the year progresses, administrators should see increases in the percent of teachers indicating
Strongly Agree to each of the six items on the survey, resulting in a higher Overall Average by the
end of February. This percentage point gain is recorded in the lowest corner on the far right of the
chart.
Assabet Valley Collaborative – DDM – Conversations in Teacher Teams 10
The following chart illustrates how results might look for one sample school over time:
SCORING CHART
School-Wide Responses
Mid-September to
Beginning of November
End of October
to End of December
Focused on Student Learning
Item 3
45%
52%
Item 4
53%
50%
Work Productively with Broad Participation & Diverse Perspectives
Item 6
57%
66%
Item 7
59%
44%
Action-Oriented with Follow-Through
Item 9
48%
58%
Item 10
35%
48%
Overall Average
Average
49.5%
53%
Beginning of January
to End of February
Percentage
Point Gain
65%
60%
20
7
73%
62%
16
3
75%
66%
27
31
Percentage
Point Gain
17.3
66.8%
This example illustrates that, by the end of February, teams overall showed the strongest gains with
their action-orientation (items #9 and #10), as well as notable gains in focusing discussion on
student learning challenges (item #1). Teams, overall, showed progress with encouraging broad
participation, but showed the weakest gains with members’ perceptions of being able to work
productively with conflict and disagreement (item #7). In addition, teams show weak growth with
discussion of options for addressing student learning challenges, which, in conjunction with high
growth in their action-orientation, might suggest that team actions are based on quickly generated
solutions, rather than rich discussion of possible ways student learning challenges might be
addressed. To really understand these results more closely, administrators should review teamlevel results to determine whether they are truly reflective of the school-wide trends, or whether
there are notable team-level differences, which are likely in most schools. Administrators’ efforts
during the year should be to target supports, resources, and professional learning opportunities to
teams in a strategic manner, matching supports to teams to gain overall school-wide improvement.
Measuring Growth and Settings Parameters
Growth is determined by the change in percentage points between the overall average percent
indicating Strongly Agree to six survey items at the end of February compared with the end of
October. This gain score is shown in the lower right cell of the scoring chart in the previous section.
The following Growth Parameters describe estimated growth bands for school-wide studentfocused, action-oriented team discussions and represent estimations for low, moderate, and high
growth. These growth parameters have been differentiated to allow for different starting places in
each school within the district. For example, the first row, with the lowest initial overall average
percent (0%-33%), may be relevant to schools that are just beginning to work on student-focused,
Assabet Valley Collaborative – DDM – Conversations in Teacher Teams 11
action-oriented team discussions or have functioned previously with a very different set of priorities
than those described in this DDM. These schools have the greatest potential room for growth.
Alternatively, the third row, with the highest initial overall average percent (over 50%), may be
relevant to schools that are refining their team discussions or are primarily working on one or two of
the core content strands described in the Content Chart on page four. These schools have a
narrower area in which to show growth. These differentiated Growth Parameters describe
expectations that differ according to the starting places of each type of school within a district.
Based on the sample Scoring Chart, above, this school’s initial Overall Average at the end of
October was 49.5%, which would place it in the second row of the Growth Parameters Chart (Initial
School-Wide Overall Average at End of October: 35%-50%). Low, moderate, or high growth is then
determined by identifying the cell to the right that reflects the school’s Overall Percentage Point
Gain by the end of February. In this sample case, the school demonstrated a 17.5 percentage point
gain, which falls in the Low Growth band (less than a 20 percentage point gain).
ESTIMATED GROWTH PARAMETERS
Initial
School-Wide
Overall Average
End of October
0%-33%
34%-50%
>50%
Low Growth
Moderate Growth
High Growth
<25
percentage point gain
<20
percentage point gain
<15
percentage point gain
25-40
percentage point gain
20-35
percentage point gain
15-30
percentage point gain
>40
percentage point gain
>35
percentage point gain
>30
percentage point gain
Parameters are based on estimations of hypothetical results for a range of schools; this DDM has
not yet been piloted, however, so the reasonableness of these estimations has not yet been
validated. Districts that aim to adopt or modify this DDM should revisit and revise these estimates
based on careful review of data collected during the first years of administration in their own school
sites, i.e., until historical trends can be established and used to inform and refine these preliminary
parameters.
If the majority of teams achieve a level of performance where they commonly indicate perceptions
of Strongly Agree across the six survey items, administrators should confirm these perceptions
through team observations and discussions with team members. They can also consider whether to
change these from growth parameters to target parameters or whether to refine or revise the team
meeting criteria and associated survey items to better reflect areas in need of growth.
Piloting
This DDM will be piloted with teacher teams in 2015-16. In addition to piloting the Team Meeting
Feedback Survey, administrators will be piloting the administration protocol, assessing the
appropriateness of the estimated growth parameters, and gauging the overall school climate for
Assabet Valley Collaborative – DDM – Conversations in Teacher Teams 12
implementing this type of DDM. The developers acknowledge that staff trust is necessary precondition for the success of this DDM, as well as central office support for the priorities described in
this measure.
Assessment Blueprint
The assessment blueprint is not a task to be completed as part of the DDM, but is an elaboration of
the content table included in the introduction. It serves two purposes: (1) it is a roadmap for the
assessment development team to ensure balanced coverage of the most important content and (2)
it is a key for other potential users of the assessment by concisely indicating what content the
assessment is designed to measure, whether the goal is growth or target attainment, and the
difficulty of the items associated with each piece of content. (See pages 12 and 29 of Technical
Guide A for more information.)
Assabet Valley Collaborative – DDM – Conversations in Teacher Teams 13
(Note that this template does not calculate thirds precisely to show one full point for each item on
the survey.)
Assabet Valley Collaborative – DDM – Conversations in Teacher Teams 14
Team Meeting Feedback Form
Please use the closing 5 minutes of your team meeting to collectively discuss and respond
to the following questions. (If time is limited, your team may designate a team leader or
member to complete the form within one day of the team meeting; however, the full team
should periodically complete the form together.)
Your responses will help the school principal or assistant principal to provide relevant
supports to help your team achieve broad participation in action-oriented discussions that
focus on improving teaching and learning.
1. Date of today’s team meeting was?
2. Our team grade level:
a. 5
b. 6
c. 7
d. 8
3. Out team explored and tried to understand a particular challenge for students’ learning.
a. Strongly disagree
b. Somewhat disagree
c. Somewhat agree
d. Strongly agree
4. Our team discussed options for addressing the student learning challenge. Examples include
changes to instruction, lesson design, modifications to curriculum or assessment, grouping
strategies, and/or intervention or specialist support or evaluation.
a. Strongly disagree
b. Somewhat disagree
c. Somewhat agree
d. Strongly agree
5. What evidence leads you to believe that your team did or did not engage in student-focused
discussion today?
_________________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________________
Assabet Valley Collaborative – DDM – Conversations in Teacher Teams 15
6. At today’s meeting, the team encouraged broad participation and varied perspectives.
Broad participation means the team considers everyone's ideas, probes assumptions, and/or
identifies varied experiences that may contribute to, or expand, team understandings. Broad
participation also means the team draws on perspectives, expertise, and/or resources from
the school, district, or elsewhere.
a. Strongly disagree
b. Somewhat disagree
c. Somewhat agree
d. Strongly agree
7. Our team is able to address conflict or disagreement constructively and respectfully by using
strategies to develop consensus about the team's next steps. This question asks if you
believe your team has productive strategies to develop consensus if and when differences or
disagreements may occur.
a. Strongly disagree
b. Somewhat disagree
c. Somewhat agree
d. Strongly agree
8. What evidence leads you to believe that your team did or did not encourage broad
participation and work effectively with varied perspectives?
_________________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________________
9. By the end of today's meeting, our team determined what action steps to take next
and specified who is responsible for doing what and by when.
a. Strongly disagree
b. Somewhat disagree
c. Somewhat agree
d. Strongly agree
e. Does not apply
10. Our team identified a follow-up date to discuss the results of our actions and determined
what evidence or materials should come back at this time for review and discussion.
a. Strongly disagree
b. Somewhat disagree
c. Somewhat agree
d. Strongly agree
e. Does not apply
Assabet Valley Collaborative – DDM – Conversations in Teacher Teams 16
11. What evidence leads you to believe that your team did or did not plan for next
action steps and follow-up on today's discussion?
_________________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________________
12. What supports or resources would be helpful to your team to gain broad participation in
action-oriented discussions focused on teaching and learning? What would be helpful to your
team's progress?
_________________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________________
13. Thank you for taking the time to reflect on today's team meeting!
Please feel free to share any final thoughts or questions.
_________________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________________
Assabet Valley Collaborative – DDM – Conversations in Teacher Teams 17