1. 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

2. 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

3. 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.

4. Bold items included in the CW-specific analysis