New London
Public Schools
Scientific Research-Based Interventions
(SRBI) Assessment
January 2014
Summary Report of Qualitative and Quantitative
Findings
Glen Martin Associates
41 State Street, Suite 604-02
Albany, NY 12207
Phone: (518) 486-8885 Fax: (518) 486-8886
www.glenmartinassociates.com
NEW LONDON PUBLIC SCHOOLS
SRBI ASSESSMENT
Introduction
The Scientific Research-Based Interventions (SRBI) Assessment Toolkit, developed by the
Connecticut State Department of Education (CSDE) and the State Education Resource Center
(SERC), is comprised of (1) a self-assessment instrument for educators, (2) a site visit interview
protocol for external consultants, and (3) a team consensus form that is completed collaboratively
by educators and consultants. All three components of the toolkit were used as part of SERC’s
program quality review in New London.
SERC is currently coordinating a State Personnel Development Grant (SPDG) for the CSDE. With
SPDG funding, the SRBI Assessment Toolkit is being refined for statewide use. For example, during
the 2013-2014 academic year, SERC is field-testing online versions of the Self-Assessment and
Team Consensus tools, along with a standard template for school- and district-level reporting. The
online tools are being piloted at SPDG and non-SPDG sites. Herewith, SERC is pleased to pilot a
reporting format that includes both quantitative data (ratings from team members after a
consensus-building session) and qualitative observation summaries completed after SERC
consultants visited school sites. The latter are designed to address some of the limitations inherent
in the self-report nature of the Self-Assessment instrument.
Methodology
1. SRBI Self-Assessment Instrument. The self-assessment is comprised of 45 indicators that
describe a school’s level of SRBI implementation across four general areas: System of
Instruction, System of Assessment, System of Decision Making, and Leadership. Each
indicator is rated according to a 4-point scale where “0” = no implementation; “1” = initial
implementation; “2” = partial implementation; and “3” = full implementation. The SelfAssessment is completed prior to the site visit made by SERC consultants. A team of
educators, typically representing the School Leadership Team, (e.g., principal, literacy
specialist, behavior specialist, ESL teacher, classroom teacher, and/or special education
teacher) individually completes the self-assessment online. Individuals are asked to rate the
school’s level of implementation of each indicator and cite specific evidence to support their
answer. SERC consultants review all individual responses prior to making the site visit.
2. Site Visit. As per the site visit protocol, SERC consultants interview administrators and
teachers, toured the building, conducted informal classroom walkthroughs, and observed an
instructional/data intervention team. Consultants take detailed notes during these activities
and use their observations to inform the consensus-building process in the next step.
3. SRBI Team Consensus. SERC consultants facilitate a collaborative review of individual selfassessment data and assist team members to reconcile or discern the level of “best fit”
based on content gathered during Step 1 (i.e., individual self-reported rankings) and Step 2
(i.e., site visit observations). The goal of this process is to reach consensus regarding
implementation levels (not yet, initial, partial, or full) and priority rating (low, medium, or
high) for each of the 45 indicators. SERC staff record consensus data via an online tool,
referred to as the SRBI Team Consensus Form.
Summary Results
In fall 2013, SRBI Self-Assessments and Team Consensus Forms were submitted for five New
London schools. The following figures present data from the Team Consensus Forms, i.e., the mean
scores and average percentage of points assigned, per section and overall by the schools. As is
shown, the overall mean score across all five schools was 2.1, which is just slightly above “partial”
implementation.
New London Public Schools
Page | 1
Figures 1: Aggregate SRBI Self-Assessment Team Consensus Results (n=5 schools)
Figure 1: Mean Score per Section and Overall
3
2
2.2
1.9
1.9
2.3
2.1
1
0
Instruction Assessment Decision
Making
Leadership
Overall
Variation per Checklist Section and Overall
On the next page, Figure 3 demonstrates the variation across individual schools in the percentage of
points per section and overall on the SRBI Team Consensus Form. As is shown, the greatest
variation occurred on the section related to Decision Making, with schools’ implementation ratings
ranging from a low of 38% (Winthrop Elementary) to a high of 95% (New London High). The
smallest variation (although still quite large) occurred on the Leadership section, with
implementation ranging from a low of 59% (Winthrop Elementary) to a high of 96% (New London
High). Overall, New London High School had the highest consensus ratings across all 4 sections.
Figure 3 also includes a summary of the areas of strength and improvement noted by SERC
consultants during the site visit. These summaries are informed by the practices that consultants
observed in each building.
New London Public Schools
Page | 2
Figure 2: How to Interpret Figure 3
100%
Highest school score
80%
60%
40%
20%
0%
Median district
aggregate score
Lowest school score
Contains the middle 50% of aggregate scores for
ALL participating schools. This box allows for
comparison between an overall district aggregate
score and an individual school’s data. (See explanation
of data points in the three items below). The line in
the middle of the box is the median.

Mean (average) for an individual school
Highest score for an individual school
Lowest score for an individual school
New London Public Schools
Page | 3
Figure 3: % of Points per Section & Overall – Variation Across New London Schools
JENNINGS ELEMENTARY
Site Visit Observations
Areas of Strength:
 Expressed commitment
among staff to value and
respect what children bring
to the learning environment,
including native language,
and to utilize this
understanding to scaffold
new learning.
 Active involvement of
leadership in grade level
meetings. Leadership
models asking questions to
promote instructional
decision-making among
grade level teachers.
 Evidence that grade-level
teams are held accountable
for instructional decisions.
Team Consensus
Areas for Improvement:
 A need to articulate an
approach to teaching in
the school that can be
explained by teachers and
reflected in practice.
 Information used to make
instructional decisions
should extend beyond
quantifiable data
regarding discrete skills
and include, for example,
qualitative data regarding
academic focus and
learner responses to
instruction.
100%
80%
60%
40%
20%
0%
Instruction
Assessment
Decision
Making
Leadership
Overall
Leadership
Overall
NATHAN HALE MAGNET ELEMENTARY
Site Visit Observations
Areas of Strength:
 Assessments, intervention
logs, and student work is
reviewed on a weekly basis
and feedback is provided to
teachers by the
administration.
 School staff engage in a very
thorough and formal process
for identifying specific
weekly learning goals/focus
areas for intervention;
students are involved in
tracking progress.
 Evidence of a strong
professional and
New London Public Schools
Areas for Improvement:
 Consistent
implementation and
monitoring of effective
teaching strategies.
 Redesign school
structures to provide
time for delivery of Tier 2
interventions that are
supplemental to core
instruction.
Team Consensus
100%
80%
60%
40%
20%
0%
Instruction
Assessment
Decision
Making
Page | 4
collaborative culture for
continuous learning and
collective responsibility for
every child’s learning.
WINTHROP ELEMENTARY MAGNET
Site Visit Observations
Areas of Strength:
 Additional time is provided
for interventions and
enrichment.
 Continuous professional
development is provided by
administration, math and
literacy coaches, and partner
organizations.
 Staff meets regularly to
review data, discuss
students, and plan to
address behavior and
academic needs.
 Teachers recognize and feel
a sense of responsibility to
respond to the fact that
some students are not
engaged and some families
are not satisfied with the
level of rigor in the learning
environment.
Team Consensus
Areas for Improvement:
 Develop collective
understanding and
consistency in
implementing quality
instruction.
 Maximize the increased
use of planning time via
clear protocols and
procedures for reviewing
data and planning
instruction/intervention.
 Prioritize professional
learning to focus greater
attention, understanding,
and application of an
inquiry-based approach
to teaching and learning
to fulfill theme of magnet
school.
100%
80%
60%
40%
20%
0%
Instruction
Assessment
Decision
Making
Leadership
Overall
Leadership
Overall
BENNIE DOVER JACKSON MIDDLE
Site Visit Observations
Areas of Strength:
 Double-block schedule
allows for small group
intervention.
 Weekly time for common
planning and data team
meetings.
 Clear focus on school
improvement by using
weekly staff meeting to
New London Public Schools
Areas for Improvement:
 Use of research-based
instructional practices for
academics and behavior
that are appropriate and
responsive to students’
strengths and needs.
 Clearly articulated plan
and delivery of
interventions to small
Team Consensus
100%
80%
60%
40%
20%
0%
Instruction
Assessment
Decision
Making
Page | 5

reflect on current school
practices in relation to
school improvement goals.
Professional Learning
Practice, one block every
day is used by instructional
coaches to provide
professional development,
observe practice, and model
instruction.
groups and individual
students with similar
needs.
NEW LONDON HIGH
Site Visit Observations
Areas of Strength:
 Strong leadership team with
an understanding and clear
focus on improving student
achievement.
 School schedule provides
opportunity to provide Tier
2 and Tier 3 instruction.
 Content area data teams
meet more than once a week
to review data, look at
student work, and plan
instruction.
 Staff encourages family
engagement by
implementing school-wide
initiative to provide
assignments that require
communication between
students and
parents/guardians.
 Professional development is
fluid and informed by realtime data collected through
walkthroughs.
Administrative team uses
videos and peer visits to
support teacher growth.
New London Public Schools
Areas for Improvement:
 Greater consideration for
student voice, social
emotional needs,
strengths, and interests
when discussing students
in need of intervention.
 Improvement of
instruction and
monitoring of
implementation of
instruction as detailed by
school improvement plan.
 Interventions should take
into consideration current
instructional practices
and their effectiveness
with like peers.
 Further clarify, explain,
and improve the “gradual
release model” of
instruction used in the
school, so that teachers
can discuss and represent
in practice.
Team Consensus
100%
80%
60%
40%
20%
0%
Instruction
Assessment
Decision
Making
Page | 6
Leadership
Overall
Results per Individual Indicators
SERC consultants observed many high quality practices throughout all schools. As shown above,
many of these practices are common among a majority of the schools. Other high quality practices
were present in one or two schools, and are worthy of replication in all. Below are
recommendations that will strengthen the district’s multi-tiered system of academic and behavior
supports to improve student achievement.
1. Decision-Making: Grade-, school-, and district-level data teams will allow teachers and
administrators the opportunity to evaluate the effectiveness of programs and instruction as
they make the shift to the Common Core State Standards. Data teams can smoothly
integrate processes to help educators develop insight and capacity for “what works” and
assist in discerning what instructional approaches should look and sound like.
2. Improvement of Core Instruction: The district would benefit from adopting procedures
for intervention planning and progress monitoring for all schools. Many great things are
happening. It would be most beneficial to conduct analysis of instructional effectiveness
across schools to replicate what’s working, with specific attention to strategies validated by
research and practice.
3. Data Management: A district data management system would enhance the disaggregation
and use of multiple data sources by data teams, support teachers’ progress monitoring
efforts across grades, and strengthen understanding of the needs of whole child in order to
more effectively target instruction and allocate staffing.
Tables 1-4 on the following pages present results for each indicator on the SRBI Team Consensus
Form. For each indicator, you will see the consensus level of implementation (not yet, initial,
partial, or full) assigned by each school. The last column provides the number of schools to assign
the indicator a priority rating of “high.”
Table 1: Section I - System of Instruction
SRBI Indicator
a. System in place to evaluate curriculums, instruction, and
learning environments on a regular basis to determine
effectiveness based on outcomes of all students.
b. Evidence-based and culturally relevant practices are known
and utilized by all staff.
c. An alignment of curriculum, instruction, assessment and
professional development is evident.
d. Core general education practices are accessible by all students
(regardless of language spoken at home, culture, ability).
e. Continuum of support for all students is clearly defined and
articulated (addressing both academics and behavior).
f. Core Reading curriculum is reflective of components of
comprehensive literacy (phonemic awareness, phonics,
fluency, vocabulary, oral and written comprehension).
Jennings
Nathan
Hale
Winthrop
Bennie
Dover
New
# to Assign
London HS High Priority
1
1
0
0
2
0
g. Core Math curriculum addresses State Framework (Algebraic
Reasoning: Patterns and Functions, Numerical and
Proportional Reasoning, Geometry and Measurement and
Working with Data: Probability and Statistics).
0
h. A social/emotional learning (SEL) curriculum is in effect and
represents core competencies (self-management, social
awareness, relationship skills, and responsible decision
making).
1
New London Public Schools
Page | 7
i. School-wide behavior expectations are clearly defined, taught,
and reinforced.
1
j. There is a culture of strengthening and building relationships
(adult to adult, adult to student, student to student).
0
k. There is a focus on implementation and replication of
evidence-based practices (e.g., practices that have been
effective with all subgroups as evidenced by . . .).
0
l. Reflective practice fosters continuous improvement of teaching
and learning.
m. Time for supplemental intervention is in addition to core
instruction/programming.
n. Developed or is planning to develop scientific research-based
intervention materials.
0
1
0
o. Interventions have clearly described protocols/procedures.
2
p. Intervention intensity is determined through review of data for
considerations about frequency, duration, size of grouping, and
effectiveness of instruction/intervention.
q. Use and allocation of staff to provide various interventions is
reviewed on a regular basis.
r. Core general education curriculum is reflective of multiple
racial/cultural perspectives.
Level of Implementation:
0
2
1
Not Yet
Initial
Partial
Full
Table 2: Section II - System of Assessment
SRBI Indicator
Jennings
Nathan
Hale
Winthrop
Bennie
Dover
New
# to Assign
London HS High Priority
a. Common district assessments are used to evidence
effectiveness of core instruction, predict which students
might need supplemental supports, and clarify/target
specific instructional needs.
0
b. Assessment methods are in place to provide the necessary
data to inform instructional decisions and demonstrate
improvement in student performance over time (e.g.,
common assessments, performance assessments, portfolio
assessment, curriculum-based measurements).
0
c. Teachers collaborate to examine student work and create
probes/short and quick assessments for targeted skill areas.
1
d. Assessments are sensitive to students’ instructional level
and language proficiency and are culturally relevant.
1
e. An established data-management system, tied to grade level
content standards and benchmarks, allows ready access to
students’ progress monitoring data for staff and families.
2
f. Data are collected, analyzed, summarized and displayed to
inform instruction in the core curriculums based on
students’ true peer group (e.g., SES, race, language, ability).
3
g. Teachers use progress monitoring data to evaluate
instructional effectiveness and to be informed about the
changes necessary to better meet students’ needs (e.g., Data
Teams).
2
h. Decision-making rules and cut points for interventions are
clearly defined.
1
New London Public Schools
Page | 8
i. Teachers use progress monitoring data frequently to
monitor students’ response to instruction/intervention and
to identify students in need of additional support early on.
0
j. Progress monitoring during supplemental instruction (tier 2
and tier 3) focuses on targeted skills and occurs
systematically to determine progress.
0
k. There is sufficient time allotted to interpret and use data and
other information related to student performance for the
improvement of instruction.
1
Level of Implementation:
New London Public Schools
Not Yet
Initial
Partial
Full
Page | 9
Table 3: Section III - System of Decision Making
SRBI Indicator
Jennings
Nathan
Hale
Winthrop
Bennie
Dover
New
# to Assign
London HS High Priority
a. There is a school-wide data team that disaggregates and
analyzes multiple sources of student data (e.g., achievement
and behavioral expectations) to find patterns/trends in
order to make appropriate programmatic changes.
2
b. A variety of teams (e.g., grade level, content) meet regularly
(once a week) to review students’ progress and to determine
effective strategies and interventions.
0
c. There is evidence of collaboration through data teams and
coaching/collaborative opportunities across disciplines (e.g.,
general ed. and special ed.) for improved student outcomes.
0
d. Decisions regarding changes in instruction and intervention
are based on a systematic, data driven decision-making
model.
3
e. Function of student behavior is assessed early on.
1
f. School staff collaborates with families to determine student
needs and intervention plans.
2
g. There is a focus on improved student outcomes vs. eligibility
for special education.
0
Not Yet
Level of Implementation:
Initial
Partial
Full
Table 4: Section IV - Leadership
SRBI Indicator
Jennings
Nathan
Hale
Winthrop
Bennie
Dover
New
# to Assign
London HS High Priority
a. School Leadership Team communicates effective schools’
research and evidence-based practices.
0
b. School leadership articulates rationale for SRBI practices
and integrates its principles with school values and mission.
0
c. There is a plan for the implementation of SRBI and staff are
committed to long-term commitment for transformational
change.
1
d. Leadership organizes allocation of staff time and resources
and identifies resources for SRBI implementation and
improved student performance.
1
e. Leadership builds capacity of staff to ensure sustainability of
effective practice (e.g., connects professional growth plans
with school improvement goals).
0
f. Leadership provides consistent and systematic observations
of teachers to ensure fidelity of instruction/intervention
(e.g., walkthroughs).
0
g. School Leadership Team provides ongoing professional
development and support for school staff to maximize the
utilization and effectiveness of the interventions in the
general classroom.
1
h. Leadership facilitates PD around school climate and cultural
competence.
0
i. Leadership models and supports a culture of collaborative
inquiry and continuous improvement.
0
Level of Implementation:
New London Public Schools
Not Yet
Initial
Partial
Full
Page | 10
Appendix A SRBI Self-Assessment Team Consensus Snapshots
Page 7
Page 8
Page 9
Page 10
Page 11
New London Public Schools
Jennings Elementary School
Nathan Hale Magnet Elementary School
Winthrop Elementary Magnet School
Bennie Dover Jackson Middle School
New London High School
Page | 11
APPENDIX A
SCIENTIFIC RESEARCH-BASED INTERVENTIONS (SRBI) SELF-ASSESSMENT
2013-14
JENNINGS ELEMENTARY SCHOOL
TEAM CONSENSUS
Level of Implementation
Mean Implementation Level per Section and Overall
3
1.9
2
1.4
1.3
1.3
Assessment
Decision
Making
1.5
1
0
Instruction
Leadership
Overall
System of Assessment
3
Level of Implementation
Level of Implementation
System of Instruction
2
1
0
a
b
c
d
e
f
g
h
i
j
k
l
m
n
o
p
q
3
2
1
0
r
a
b
c
d
e
SRBI Indicator
Level of Implementation
Level of Implementation
2
1
0
c
d
e
f
g
Jennings Elementary School
i
j
k
0=Not Yet
3
2
1
0
a
SRBI Indicator
Level of Implementation:
h
Leadership
3
b
g
SRBI Indicator
System of Decision Making
a
f
b
c
d
e
f
g
h
i
SRBI Indicator
1=Initial
2=Partial
3=Full
Page | 12
APPENDIX A
SCIENTIFIC RESEARCH-BASED INTERVENTIONS (SRBI) SELF-ASSESSMENT
2013-14
NATHAN HALE MAGNET ELEMENTARY SCHOOL
TEAM CONSENSUS
Level of Implementation
Mean Implementation Level per Section and Overall
2.7
3
2.4
2.4
Assessment
Decision
Making
2.8
2.6
2
1
0
Instruction
Leadership
Overall
System of Assessment
3
Level of Implementation
Level of Implementation
System of Instruction
2
1
0
a
b
c
d
e
f
g
h
i
j
k
l
m
n
o
p
q
3
2
1
0
r
a
b
c
d
e
SRBI Indicator
Level of Implementation
Level of Implementation
2
1
0
c
d
e
f
g
Nathan Hale Magnet Elementary School
i
j
k
0=Not Yet
3
2
1
0
a
SRBI Indicator
Level of Implementation:
h
Leadership
3
b
g
SRBI Indicator
System of Decision Making
a
f
b
c
d
e
f
g
h
i
SRBI Indicator
1=Initial
2=Partial
3=Full
Page | 13
APPENDIX A
SCIENTIFIC RESEARCH-BASED INTERVENTIONS (SRBI) SELF-ASSESSMENT
2013-14
WINTHROP ELEMENTARY MAGNET SCHOOL
TEAM CONSENSUS
Level of Implementation
Mean Implementation Level per Section and Overall
3
2.0
2
1.8
1.7
Leadership
Overall
1.5
1.1
1
0
Instruction
Assessment
Decision
Making
System of Assessment
3
Level of Implementation
Level of Implementation
System of Instruction
2
1
0
a
b
c
d
e
f
g
h
i
j
k
l
m
n
o
p
q
3
2
1
0
r
a
b
c
d
e
SRBI Indicator
Level of Implementation
Level of Implementation
2
1
0
c
d
e
f
g
Winthrop Elementary Magnet School
i
j
k
0=Not Yet
3
2
1
0
a
SRBI Indicator
Level of Implementation:
h
Leadership
3
b
g
SRBI Indicator
System of Decision Making
a
f
b
c
d
e
f
g
h
i
SRBI Indicator
1=Initial
2=Partial
3=Full
Page | 14
APPENDIX A
SCIENTIFIC RESEARCH-BASED INTERVENTIONS (SRBI) SELF-ASSESSMENT
2013-14
BENNIE DOVER JACKSON MIDDLE SCHOOL
TEAM CONSENSUS
Level of Implementation
Mean Implementation Level per Section and Overall
3
2.1
2.3
2.0
2
1.9
1.4
1
0
Instruction
Assessment
Decision
Making
Leadership
Overall
System of Assessment
3
Level of Implementation
Level of Implementation
System of Instruction
2
1
0
a
b
c
d
e
f
g
h
i
j
k
l
m
n
o
p
q
3
2
1
0
r
a
b
c
d
e
SRBI Indicator
Level of Implementation
Level of Implementation
2
1
0
c
d
e
f
g
Bennie Dover Jackson Middle School
i
j
k
0=Not Yet
3
2
1
0
a
SRBI Indicator
Level of Implementation:
h
Leadership
3
b
g
SRBI Indicator
System of Decision Making
a
f
b
c
d
e
f
g
h
i
SRBI Indicator
1=Initial
2=Partial
3=Full
Page | 15
APPENDIX A
SCIENTIFIC RESEARCH-BASED INTERVENTIONS (SRBI) SELF-ASSESSMENT
2013-14
NEW LONDON HIGH SCHOOL
TEAM CONSENSUS
Level of Implementation
Mean Implementation Level per Section and Overall
2.7
2.7
2.9
2.9
2.8
Instruction
Assessment
Decision
Making
Leadership
Overall
3
2
1
0
System of Assessment
3
Level of Implementation
Level of Implementation
System of Instruction
2
1
0
a
b
c
d
e
f
g
h
i
j
k
l
m
n
o
p
q
3
2
1
0
r
a
b
c
d
e
SRBI Indicator
Level of Implementation
Level of Implementation
2
1
0
c
d
e
f
g
New London High School
i
j
k
0=Not Yet
3
2
1
0
a
SRBI Indicator
Level of Implementation:
h
Leadership
3
b
g
SRBI Indicator
System of Decision Making
a
f
b
c
d
e
f
g
h
i
SRBI Indicator
1=Initial
2=Partial
3=Full
Page | 16