# data[].attributes.body
I’m having a hard time reading/interpreting the top charts of HQIM adoption.

HQIM varies in correlation to student outcomes. 3-8 generally has negative correlation and HS has positive. Same trend for SWD, but mixed for ELs.

HS ELs with HQIM do better on ACCESS, but worse on ELA MCAS.

No correlation with VOCAL.

# data[].attributes.body
In grades 3-8, students at schools with no HQIM are doing better on MCAS than students at schools with HQIM. In grades 9-12, the trend is the opposite (students at schools with HQIM are doing better than students at schools with no HQIM - ELs are the one exception but the difference is only .5 of a percentage point).

# data[].attributes.body
HQIM appears to have limited impact on student performance on MCAS as illustrated by range of students with greater %M/E where HQIM is not present in their schools

# data[].attributes.body
Schools with no HQIM in K-8 have higher criterion reference than those with HQIM. In HS, criterion reference for both and none are almost the same

# data[].attributes.body
SWD in K-8 M/E expectations in ELA and math at a higher rate than those in schools with HQIM

# data[].attributes.body
57 schools use HQIM, 11 do not. 35 schools use HQIM in both math and ELA, 15 use in only math, and 7 use in only ELA

# data[].attributes.body
Overall, elementary schools are meeting and/or exceeding more in schools that are NOT using HQIM.

# data[].attributes.body
At the high school level, more schools using HQIM are meeting and/or exceeding.

# data[].attributes.body
For ELs, more students are meeting and/or exceeding in ELA in HS that are NOT using HQIM, while appears to be the opposite for Math.

# data[].attributes.body
VOCAL results average the same/similar across HQIM vs. non-HQIM use

# data[].attributes.body
Scatterplots are tough to interpret. The grade 10 filters both show math only in the middle row - should the ELA filter have ELA only?

# data[].attributes.body
Scatterplots are difficult to interpret. Would like to discuss these more together.

# data[].attributes.body
SWDs or MLs performance does not appear to be impacted by the presence of HQIM in their schools; scatterplots show %M/E hovering on lower end of plot scale

# data[].attributes.body
All distributions of SWDs and ELs in K-8 ELA and math dramatically shift from the 1st and 2nd quartiles deep into the 1st. A little less dramatic in math

# data[].attributes.body
Same as above for grade 10. Non HQIM schools EL %M/E very low.

# data[].attributes.body
Half of districts are meeting weekly or bi-weekly (with the majority of the rest meeting monthly) and meetings appear to include everything we offered for the most part.

# data[].attributes.body
Most ILTs (more than half) meet 2x per month.

Most District meetings happen monthly (more than half), though almost half meet weekly.

While meetings focus on a range of activities (based on the list provided), most respondents indicated that Updates are addressed at these meetings (more than Reviewing Student Data or Planning, for example). More respondents indicated that they receive feedback from the district than those who indicated they give feedback to the district.

# data[].attributes.body
Most school based ILTs meet 2x/month; most DILTs meet monthly; the focus of district meetings are updates-related

# data[].attributes.body
Most ILT and District Meetings occur monthly and/or bi-weekly. Most topics are related to updates and feedback.

# data[].attributes.body
33 districts had a TFM in the past 2 years, of which 16 had findings in ELE5 and 3 did not

# data[].attributes.body
(Aside from continued discouragement about low and inequitable outcomes broadly and generally) I’m feeling very curious. I don’t think I’m surprised by any of it - but am wondering if we have any hypotheses between the variation in HQIM adoption compared to these outcomes. How the number of years with HQIM might impact the charts.

Reflecting a bit more, too, I’m feeling hopeful in one aspect that we’ve seen an uptick in the # of schools adopting HQIM. We approach the work that this is a foundational element of equitable learning experiences (with the caveat of still developing HQIM for English Learners). So in some ways we could say that the work of DESE is having an input on school and district actions (even if we can’t yet draw the correlation to student perspective and outcomes).

# data[].attributes.body
No surprises; Encouraged to see most ILTs meet 2x a month, although would like to see greater frequency; discouraged to see the heavy focus on “updates” in DILTs vs looking at the student experience through student work or data; actually feel empowered to press on in the work - we need to get at it!

# data[].attributes.body
I am surprised that more HQIM implementers have lower outcomes for students. Level of implementation seems to be the next place to look. Also, are there other demographics of schools we should be looking at to understand the difference in outcomes? What other data will be we be receiving over the next few months that we can go deeper into this finding in May?

# data[].attributes.body
What surprised you?

The data around HQIM at the elementary-level: more schools meeting and/or exceeding when not using HQIM. This made me wonder whether this is due to implementation quality, the stage they are at (year 1, 2, etc.), or whether what they have been using is actually stronger than HQIM.

What encouraged you?

Impact of HQIM at the HS level

Wondering?

There was no significant change in the VOCAL data across HQIM and/or non-HQIM schools. I am not surprised by this but curious to dig in and look at those specific questions and how students are interpreting and answering these questions.

I am curious to look at the correlation between HQIM and meeting/exceeding data in schools that are not requiring assistance to better understand if HQIM is having an impact.

I think it would also be interesting to triangulate ILT/district meetings, HQIM, and MCAS. Are places where ILTs are more focused on planning seeing more growth?

I am wondering about the number of years people have been in district/school positions and the years of experience among teachers in these districts?

# data[].attributes.body
Surprised by the fact that more students are M/E expectations in schools that do not use HQIM. Similar questions to those above - is this about the fact that those who have adopted HQIM are earlier on in the process of implementing curriculum and therefore need more time/support to do it well? Does this intersect with other variables? Also surprised that the opposite is true in HS - especially since there is less HQIM generally in the HS space

Not surprised by EL data, though it does make me wonder how we can better support the interpretation of this data (for us and for schools) - how does MCAS achievement correlate with ACCESS level and MP%? Where are we seeing largest and smallest growth for ELs on MCAS, rather than just achievement?

# data[].attributes.body
I am concerned that even for schools with all students doing well in M/E on MCAS (with or without HQIM), SWDs and ELs are not experiencing the same outcomes. Can we see a scatter plot for % making progress on ACCESS?

# data[].attributes.body
No surprises; Encouraged to see most ILTs meet 2x a month, although would like to see greater frequency; discouraged to see the heavy focus on “updates” in DILTs vs looking at the student experience through student work or data; actually feel empowered to press on in the work - we need to get at it!

# data[].attributes.body
Do we have a position on how often ILTs should be meeting?

# data[].attributes.body
It looks like looking at student data and giving feedback to district are areas we could promote

# data[].attributes.body
No surprises; Encouraged to see most ILTs meet 2x a month, although would like to see greater frequency; discouraged to see the heavy focus on “updates” in DILTs vs looking at the student experience through student work or data; actually feel empowered to press on in the work - we need to get at it!

# data[].attributes.body
The way the TFM data was displayed here wasn’t super-helpful. I’d like to be able to look at ELE 5 findings alongside outcomes for ELs, like ACCESS MP%, MCAS performance, etc.