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.

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.

(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).

• 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?

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? 

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? 

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!