Color Value >+1SD above the mean >mean <mean <-1SD below the mean Cumulative Average by Building: School implementation scale Team Functioning Survey Effect size/Difference in Cumulative Average by Building: 2015 to 2016 School implementation scale results

Scoring Implementation Level Criteria Score Exceptions Need 3-5 Weighting: 1= 2016 SIS and 2016 TFS: <-1SD below the mean; effect size <0 (a) 2= 2016 SIS and 2016 TFS: >-1SD and <mean; effect size >0, <.1 (b) 3= 2016 SIS and 2016 TFS: >mean and <+1SD; Effect size >.1, <.4 (c) 4= 2016 SIS and 2016TFS: >+1SD; Effect size >.4 (d) Met CFA submission target (as of 5/18/16) = 1 Calculating Score (a*1)+(b*2)+(c*3)+(d*4)+CFA=score See colored underlines matches legend on slide 1 Implementation Level Criteria Score Exceptions Need 3-5 Emerging 6-7 Implementing 8-10 >10 but CFA submission target not met Implementing Plus 11-13 CFA submission target must be met to be at this level

Effect Size comparing 2015 to 2016 responses on SIS Example Number of instructional staff responses for SIS and TFS in years 2016 and 2015 Met CFA submission target as indicated in the May 18, 2016 report from Dana Count of the number of items in each category. See weighting description on slide 2. Calculated score and status. See slide 2. School Implementation Scale (SIS) average across all responses in the building for 2016 only Effect Size comparing 2015 to 2016 responses on SIS Team Functioning Survey (TFS) average across all responses in the building for 2016 only 1 point for meeting CFA submission target.

Bold items included in the CW-specific analysis