Spring 2008 Metro RESA Needs Assessment · Web viewWhen asked to rate their system’s need for the following Metro RESA Job Alike Groups, comprised of 19 groups, the following table

Spring 2008 Metro RESA Needs Assessment

Spring 2011 Metro RESA Needs Assessment

Description of the Needs Assessment Process

A Needs Assessment was conducted during the 2011 school year regarding Metro RESA services that will be needed in the FY 2012 school year. SurveyMonkey was employed to collect and analyze responses to questions of perceived need. Two groups were polled:

1. Teachers (406 teachers responded by rating their system’s need for 18 Professional Development Programs provided at or through Metro RESA). Two open-ended questions were also asked:

a. “If you indicated that online courses are critical or needed, in what content area/subject is this most needed”?

b. “How can Metro RESA better meet your professional learning or school improvement needs?”

2. Central Office and Administrator Staff (166 administrators replied with their perceived need for the following MRESA services/programs):

a. School Improvement Programs (9 programs)

b. GA Pyramid/Response to Intervention…RtI…(7 Interventions)

c. Special Education Programs (4 programs)

d. English Language Learners Programs (10 programs)

e. Professional Development Programs (17 programs)

f. Endorsements (7 endorsements)

g. Cross-Systems Collaboration Services (3 services)

h. Job Alike Groups (19 groups)

The administrators were additionally asked “How can Metro RESA better meet your professional learning or school improvement needs?”

Three times as many teachers responded in FY 2011 than did the previous year and two times as many administrators completed the online response form than did the FY 2010 group.

Explanation of the Needs Assessment Form:

Teachers and administrators who took advantage of and/or signed up for MRESA services during FY 2011 were encouraged to evaluate that assistance via the online SurveyMonkey process, which employed the following Likert Rating scale: 1=Not needed by my school or system, 2=Needed- but not critical, and 3=Critical Need. This was done to obtain a better picture of future need.

Analysis of the Needs Assessment Results:

Two variables were calculated and used to prioritize needs: (1) the percentage of individuals marking each of the three Likert choices and (2) the average Likert rating for specific MRESA services (the closer to a 3.0…or Critical Need… the better).

Page 19

MRESA services identified as the greatest needs

The next two tables rank Metro RESA professional development programs and other services (training sequences/modules) in order of greatest need identified by each of the two respondent groups (teachers and administrators)… based on the various questions contained in the total survey instrument.

Table 1: Highest Ranked Metro RESA Professional Development Programs

(406 teachers responded)

Programs to assist “Struggling Learners” was the top identified need in this table, as far as teachers are concerned. Next in order of importance, are the “Research-Based Practices in GPS”…Math, Science, and Social Studies. Also of significance, is that16 of the 18 programs had an average rating at 2.00 or above…which is in the “Needed” to “Critical” range.

Table 2: Highest Ranked Professional Development Programs

(166 Administrators/Central Office Staff responded to the overall survey, but 11 skipped this section)

Programs to assist “Struggling Learners” was the top identified need in Table 2. Next in order of importance, are the “Research-Based Practices in GPS”…Math, Science, and English Language Learners (ELL). Also of significance, is that all 17 of the listed programs had average ratings above 2.00 …in the “Needed” to “Critical” range.

Comparison of Teachers & Administrators on the need for Professional Development Programs

There is substantial agreement between the rankings of the teacher and administrator groups as far as most needed professional development programs. The top three rated programs were identical for both groups. As for the lowest five rated programs, there was also strong agreement. The only divergence between the two rater groups was for:

Classroom Management (rank 12 vs. 5)

Metro RESA Differentiation Module (rank 5 vs. 12)

Reseach-based Practices in GPS Social Studies (rank 4 vs. 9)

All other items are within three ranks of each other.

Teacher Survey Results

Four hundred and six (406) teachers responded to the Metro RESA SurveyMonkey Needs Assessment. The table below contains the distribution of teachers across the metro school systems. [Some respondents did not identify school system].

Table 4 – School Systems represented

When asked to rate their system’s need for Professional Development programs, comprised of 17 possible programs, Table 1 on Page 2 presented the ranking of most needed (rank ordered by the average rating: 1 = Not Needed by my school/system, 2=Needed-but not critical, and 3=Critical Need).

Synopsis of Table 1 results: Programs to assist “Struggling Learners” was the top identified need in this table, as far as teachers are concerned. Next in order of importance, are the “Research-Based Practices in GPS”…Math, Science, and Social Studies. Also of significance, is that16 of the 18 programs had an average rating at 2.00 or above…which is in the “Needed” to “Critical” range.

Teachers were also asked: “If you indicated that online courses are critical or needed, in what content area/subject is this most needed? There were 169 responses to that question. These are summarized below (e.g., 77 respondents indicated math is most needed):

Table 5 – In what content area/subject are online courses most needed

77 Math

10 Tech integration into instruction

53 Science

8 Language Arts

23 All areas or core areas

8 Online courses

22 Reading

6 Struggling learners

21 Social Studies

6 GPS

15 Writing

15 ELA or ELL

“How can Metro RESA better meet your professional learning or school improvement needs” was the final question on the Teacher Survey. One hundred and sixty-seven (167) teachers responded, with 239 skipping the question. A summarization of the replies is presented below:

MRESA Related Concerns

1. Low or no cost requests (or need for financial assistance)18

2. Provide training at local schools (or variety of sites)18

3. MRESA does a good job/wonderful opportunities/great classes14

4. Requests for after-school, summer, Saturday workshops12

5. More online classes11

6. Continue opportunities/keep up your support11

7. More awareness of MRESA needed (improve communication)10

8. More courses/multiple dates or times 8

Staff Development Related Requests

1. More hands-on instruction/practical activities 9

2. Lessons focused on differentiation 8

3. Struggling learners management (co-teaching models ?) 8

4. Best Practices research-based in content areas 5

5. More modeling of lessons 4

6. Not enough time to practice strategies 4

Content Related Needs

1. Math Endorsement (or math content & manipulatives)10

2. Reading Endorsement (or reading based training) 7

3. Science Endorsement (plus Earth Science/ Science training) 7

4. More technology/technology resources (recent not Excel/Word) 5

5. ESOL/ELL training needs 4

6. Misc. TAPP issues (e.g., more info, better contacts, feedback) 4

Central Office and Administrator Staff Survey Results

One hundred and sixty-six (166) central office or administrator staff responded to the Metro RESA SurveyMonkey Needs Assessment. Table 6 contains the distributions of administrators across the metro school systems. [19 respondents skipped this item].

Table 6 – School Systems represented

[19 respondents skipped this item]

Table 7 – Administrator’s Position Level

[28 respondents skipped this item]

When asked to rate their system’s need for the following School Improvement programs, comprised of 9 possible programs, the following table presents the 9 programs ranked as most needed (ranking determined by this assignment: 1 = Not Needed by my school/system, 2=Needed-but not critical, and 3=Critical Need).

Table 8 - Survey Question 1: Please rate your system's need for the following School Improvement Programs:

Central Office and Administrator Staff Responses

High to Low Rankings

“Effective Assessment Practices”…of the School Improvement listing…was the biggest need in the table above (2.34 average rating), as far as administrators are concerned. Also of importance, is that all 9 of the above programs had an average rating at 2.01 or above…which is in the “Needed” to “Critical” range.

When asked to rate their system’s need for training programs with regard to the Georgia Pyramid/Response to Intervention (RtI), comprised of 7 possible training sequences, Table 9 presents the 7 training sequences ranked as most needed (ranking determined by this assignment: 1 = Not Needed by my school/system, 2=Needed-but not critical, and 3=Critical Need).

Table 9 – Survey Question 2: Please rate your school or system's need for the following training with regards to the Georgia Pyramid/Response to Intervention (RtI)



“Effective Math” and “Effective Behavioral Interventions & Resources” were the top rated training sequences (2.60 and 2.48 average ratings). All 7 of the above interventions and/or resources programs had an average rating at 2.16 or above…which is in the “Needed” to “Critical” range.

When asked to rate your system’s need for the following Special Education programs comprised of 4 possible modules, the following table presents the 4 modules ranked in order of most needed (ranking determined by this assignment: 1 = Not Needed by my school/system, 2=Needed-but not critical, and 3=Critical Need).

Table 10 – Survey Question 3: Please rate your school or system's need for the following Special Education programs:



The Special Education module for ”Struggling Learners” was the highest ranked need both in the above table and across the whole survey, attaining an average rating of 2.58. All 4 modules listed in the above table were rated at 2.14 or above.

When asked to rate your system’s need for the following English Language Learner programs comprised of 10 possible programs, the following table presents the 10 programs ranked in order of most need (ranking determined by this assignment: 1 = Not Needed by my school/system, 2=Needed-but not critical, and 3=Critical Need).

Table 11 – Survey Question 4: Please rate your school or system's need for the following English Language programs:



“RTI and ELLS” and “Scaffolding Instruction for ELLs” were the top rated training sequences (2.34 and 2.33 ratings). Nine of the 10 above interventions and/or resource programs had an average rating at 2.00 or above…which is in the “Needed” to “Critical” range. [“Technical Support to Systems” was just under 2.0].

When asked to rate your system’s need for the following Professional Development programs comprised of 17 possible programs, the following table presents the 17 modules/programs ranked in order of most needed (ranking determined by this assignment: 1 = Not Needed by my school/system, 2=Needed-but not critical, and 3=Critical Need

Table 12 – Survey Question 5: Please rate your school or system’s need for the following English Language programs:


“Struggling Learners” and “Research-based Practices in GPS Math” (both rated 2.53) were the two top needed items. Next in line was “Research-based GPS Science” (2.47). All 17 of the above programs had an average rating of 2.02 or above.

When Administrators were asked: “If you indicated that online courses were critical or needed, in which content area/subject is this most needed?” Fifty-four administrators (54) replied…many with multiple responses.

Table 13 – In what content area/subject are online courses most needed (Question 6)

30 Math

2 Social Studies

15 Science

1 Tech integration into instruction

11 All areas or core areas

1 Classroom Management

9 Reading or Language Arts

6 ELA

4 Exceptional Education

3 Writing

The order of needs in the preceding table is almost identical to the order of the teacher response listing.

When asked to rate their system’s need for the following Endorsements, comprised of 7 endorsements, the following table presents the endorsements ranked as most needed (ranking determined by this assignment: 1 = Not Needed by my school/system, 2=Needed-but not critical, and 3=Critical Need).

Table 14 – Survey Question 7: Please rate your system's need for the following Endorsements:


The highest rated endorsement was K-5 Math (2.31 rating). All endorsements except the Teacher Support Specialist were rated over 2.00. [It was slightly under].

When asked to rate their system’s need for the following Cross-Systems Collaboration Services, comprised of 3 services, the following table presents the services ranked in order of need (ranking determined by this assignment: 1 = Not Needed by my school/system, 2=Needed-but not critical, and 3=Critical Need).

Table 15 – Survey Question 8: Please rate your system's need for the following Cross-Systems Collaboration Services:


As might be expected in a period of teacher furloughing, layoffs, and budget cuts, such Metro RESA services were not of the greatest concern. They were ranked near the 2.00 or below value. Forty percent (40%) of the Central Office Staff respondents were Instructional Coaches, and it is unlikely that they would be overly concerned about recruitment efforts in the next year.

When asked to rate their system’s need for the following Metro RESA Job Alike Groups, comprised of 19 groups, the following table presents the services ranked in order of need (ranking determined by this assignment: 1 = Not Needed by my school/system, 2=Needed-but not critical, and 3=Critical Need).

Table 16 – Survey Question 9: Please rate your system's need for the following Job Alike Groups:


As mentioned before, forty percent (40%) of the respondents of the Central Office Staff survey were Instructional Coaches, and it is uncertain as to their knowledgeable of the full range of Metro RESA Job Alike groups. The same might be true regarding the Principal/Assistant Principal subset of respondents…representing an additional 33% of the respondent group. Consequently, the top rated Job Alike groups were those that directly impacted Instruction, the Classroom, and School Improvement …and which were typically the concerns of previous years. Various school system Job-Alike (support-related) groups received ratings below 2.00.

“How can Metro RESA better meet your professional learning or school improvement needs” was the final question on the Administrator Survey. Thirty-two (32) central office staff/administrators responded and 134 skipped the question. A summarization of the replies is presented below:

Wonderful experience/great job4

More classes/more frequently within school year4

Continue to keep us informed2

Continue workshops at local schools2

CCGPS standards training is helpful2

[Miscellaneous other replies were recorded.]

Summary of the Results

The previous tables listed Metro RESA services, modules, and sequences which were ranked from most needed to least needed…as determined via the Average Rating column. The top three identified needs (“Struggling Learners” and “Research-based Practices in GPS Math” and “Research-based Practices in GPS Science”) were rated “Critical” by almost 40% of the respondent groups…and in some cases by 50%. Math and Science continue as the academic content areas of greatest need.

Stopped here

Open-Ended Question (“How can Metro RESA better meet your professional learning or school improvement needs?)

Eighty-six (86) persons responded to the above question (40% of the total group). A summarized capsule of replies is presented below:

· Good job, keep up what you are doing (13 responses)

· Need for more on-site training, not just at MRESA (7 responses)

· More math classes and hands on (5 replies)

· More student behavioral modification/class management training (5 replies)

· Lower the cost, more cost effective training (4 replies)

· Keep me better updated, become more visible (4 replies)

· More Professional Development in Science (3 replies)

· More online classes, online chats (3 replies)

Table 3: Rate your system's need for the following Professional Development programs (Teachers vs. Administrators)

Teachers (406 teachers)Administrators

Needed - but notCritical

Administrator Rank

Needed - but notCritical

critical toneed for my

Rating

critical toneed for my

Rating

my schoolschool or

Avg.Teacher Rank

my schoolschool or

Avg.

or systemsystemor systemsystem

1

Struggling Learners

15538.2%19848.8%2.42

11

Struggling Learners

5535.5%8856.8%2.53

2

Reseach-based Practices in GPS

Math

13934.2%17543.1%2.34

22


Math

5132.9%8957.4%2.53

3


Science

16039.4%15437.9%2.33

33


Science

5736.8%8252.9%2.47

4


Social Studies

17543.1%13232.5%2.25

46

Reseach-based Practices with

ELLs

6642.6%6843.9%2.39

5

Metro RESA Differentiation

Module

16741.1%14836.5%2.24

512

Classroom Management

6441.3%7045.2%2.34

6


ELLs

15538.2%13032.0%2.20

69

Assessment Practices

6743.2%6642.6%2.34

7

Best Practices in GPS

Reading/Language Arts/Writing

18244.8%13032.0%2.20

710

Reading and Writing Across the

Curriculum

6441.3%6843.9%2.33

8

Integration of Technology into

Instruction

18345.1%13433.0%2.17

88


Instruction

7145.8%6743.2%2.33

9


19147.0%12430.5%2.16

94


Social Studies

7850.3%5837.4%2.30

10


Curriculum

17342.6%13032.0%2.15

107



6743.2%6441.3%2.30

11

Use of Interactive White Boards

in Instruction

17643.3%13132.3%2.14

1111


in Instruction

7045.2%6340.6%2.30

12


18345.1%11327.8%2.09

125


Module

6240.0%6340.6%2.27

13

Teaching the Elements and

Genre of Writing

18445.3%10626.1%2.08

1316

Online Classes in various

content areas

7246.5%5032.3%2.15

14

Metro RESA Best Practices

Modules

19046.8%9623.6%2.06

1415

Reader's/Writer's Workshop

7447.7%4629.7%2.13

15


16841.4%10225.1%2.05

1517

Instructional Coaches Training

6743.2%4529.0%2.11

16


content areas

15638.4%10626.1%2.02

1614


Modules

7447.7%4327.7%2.08

17


13332.8%10124.9%1.99

1718

Lesson Study

6340.6%4227.1%2.02

18

Lesson Study

15838.9%6917.0%1.8713


Genre of Writing

Not on Administrator Form

Response

Response

Count

Percent

1

Atlanta Public Schools

42

10.6%

2

Buford City Schools

3

0.8%

3

Clayton County Schools

25

6.3%

4

Cobb County Schools

62

15.7%

5

Decatur City Schools

3

0.8%

6

Dekalb County Schools

90

22.7%

7

Douglas County Schools

29

7.3%

8

Forsyth County Schools

11

2.8%

9

Fulton County Schools

36

9.1%

10

Gwinnett County Schools

22

5.6%

11

Marietta City Schools

17

4.3%

12

Rockdale County Schools

32

8.1%

13

Other

24

6.1%

Total

396

* Some respondents did not respond.

Response

Response

Count

Percent

1

Atlanta Public Schools

14

9.5%

2

Buford City Schools

1

0.7%

3

Clayton County Schools

8

5.4%

4

Cobb County Schools

17

11.6%

5

Decatur City Schools

2

1.4%

6

Dekalb County Schools

46

31.3%

7

Douglas County Schools

17

11.6%

8

Forsyth County Schools

3

2.0%

9

Fulton County Schools

10

6.8%

10

Gwinnett County Schools

8

5.4%

11

Marietta City Schools

5

3.4%

12

Rockdale County Schools

9

6.1%

13

Other

7

4.8%

Total

147

* Some respondents skipped this item.

Response

Response

Count

Percent

1

Principal

26

18.8%

2

Assistant Principal

16

11.6%

3

Superintendent

1

0.7%

4

Associate/Assistant

Superintendent

5

3.6%

5

Director

16

11.6%

6

Coordinator

14

10.1%

7

Instructional Coach

51

37.0%

8

Other

9

6.5%

Total

138

* Some respondents skipped this question.

Needed -

Not Needed

but not

Critical

by my

critical to

need for my

Rating

Response

school or

my school

school or

Avg.

Count

system

or system

system

N/A

1

Effective Assessment Practices

22

13.3%

62

37.3%

77

46.4%

5

3.0%

2.34

166

2

Georgia Pyramid/Response to Interventions (RtI)

23

13.9%

69

41.6%

66

39.8%

8

4.8%

2.27

166

3

Parental Involvement

27

16.3%

63

38.0%

70

42.2%

6

3.6%

2.27

166

4

Leadership Training

28

16.9%

72

43.4%

63

38.0%

3

1.8%

2.21

166

5

School Improvement Planning

37

22.3%

55

33.1%

69

41.6%

5

3.0%

2.20

166

6

Test Score/Data Analysis

32

19.3%

67

40.4%

62

37.3%

5

3.0%

2.19

166

7

System Improvement Planning

34

20.5%

58

34.9%

58

34.9%

16

9.6%

2.16

166

8

School Keys/GAPSS Analysis System Training

35

21.1%

69

41.6%

52

31.3%

10

6.0%

2.11

166

9

Awareness Walks Training

41

24.7%

71

42.8%

42

25.3%

12

7.2%

2.01

166

Needed -

Not Needed

but not

Critical

by my

critical to

need for my

Rating

Response

school or

my school

school or

Avg.

Count

system

or system

system

N/A

1

Effective Math Interventions and Resources

9

5.5%

45

27.3%

103

62.4%

8

4.8%

2.60

165

2

Effective Behavioral Interventions and Resources

11

6.7%

59

36.2%

85

52.1%

8

4.9%

2.48

163

3

Effective Written Interventions and Resources

12

7.3%

64

38.8%

82

49.7%

7

4.2%

2.44

165

4

Implementing Interventions, Progress Monitoring and

Fidelity

17

10.3%

56

33.9%

86

52.1%

6

3.6%

2.43

165

5

Effective Reading Interventions and Resources

17

10.4%

67

40.9%

74

45.1%

6

3.7%

2.36

164

6

RTI Assessment: Universal Screening, Building Tier 1

Supports and Progress Monitoring

26

15.7%

58

34.9%

74

44.6%

8

4.8%

2.30

166

7

Overview of RTI/ The Georgia Student Achievement

Pyramid of Interventions: Building capacity in your

school/system

36

21.8%

61

37.0%

61

37.0%

7

4.2%

2.16

165

Needed -

Not Needed

but not

Critical

by my

critical to

need for my

Rating

Response

school or

my school

school or

Avg.

Count

system

or system

system

N/A

1

Struggling Learners

9

5.5%

49

29.9%

102

62.2%

4

2.4%

2.58

164

2

Effective Behavior Management

16

9.8%

52

31.7%

92

56.1%

4

2.4%

2.48

164

3

Co-Teaching

22

13.4%

64

39.0%

73

44.5%

5

3.0%

2.32

164

4

Autism

29

17.7%

73

44.5%

50

30.5%

12

7.3%

2.14

164

Needed -

Not Needed

but not

Critical

by my

critical to

need for my

Rating

Response

school or

my school

school or

Avg.

Count

system

or system

system

N/A

1

RTI and ELLs

19

11.9%

59

37.1%

69

43.4%

12

7.5%

2.34

159

2

Scaffolding Instruction for ELLs

16

10.1%

66

41.5%

65

40.9%

12

7.5%

2.33

159

3

Writing with ELLs 6-12 Grades

18

11.3%

60

37.7%

53

33.3%

28

17.6%

2.27

159

4

ELLs Research-Based Strategies for Mainstream

Teachers

20

12.6%

66

41.5%

54

34.0%

19

11.9%

2.24

159

5

Balanced Literacy for ELLs (K-5)

19

11.9%

66

41.5%

44

27.7%

30

18.9%

2.19

159

6

Strategies for working with SIFE (student with

interrrupted formal education) students

28

17.6%

64

40.3%

48

30.2%

19

11.9%

2.14

159

7

Spanish for Educators

29

18.2%

75

47.2%

43

27.0%

12

7.5%

2.10

159

8

CLIMBS Institute (Content & Language

Integration as a Means of Bridging Success)

29

18.2%

62

39.0%

40

25.2%

28

17.6%

2.08

159

9

ELLs: Connecting language, literacy, and culture

training through ASCD videos

27

17.0%

72

45.3%

38

23.9%

22

13.8%

2.08

159

10

Technical Support to Systems

37

23.3%

69

43.4%

35

22.0%

18

11.3%

1.99

159

Needed -

Not Needed

but not

Critical

by my

critical to

need for my

Rating

Response

school or

my school

school or

Avg.

Count

system

or system

system

N/A

1

Struggling Learners

8

5.2%

55

35.5%

88

56.8%

4

2.6%

2.53

155

2


Math

10

6.5%

51

32.9%

89

57.4%

5

3.2%

2.53

155

3


Science

11

7.1%

57

36.8%

82

52.9%

5

3.2%

2.47

155

4


ELLs

11

7.1%

66

42.6%

68

43.9%

10

6.5%

2.39

155

5


18

11.6%

64

41.3%

70

45.2%

3

1.9%

2.34

155

6


16

10.3%

67

43.2%

66

42.6%

6

3.9%

2.34

155

7


Curriculum

18

11.6%

64

41.3%

68

43.9%

5

3.2%

2.33

155

8


Instruction

16

10.3%

71

45.8%

67

43.2%

1

0.6%

2.33

155

9


Social Studies

13

8.4%

78

50.3%

58

37.4%

6

3.9%

2.30

155

10



19

12.3%

67

43.2%

64

41.3%

5

3.2%

2.30

155

11


in Instruction

18

11.6%

70

45.2%

63

40.6%

4

2.6%

2.30

155

12


Module

23

14.8%

62

40.0%

63

40.6%

7

4.5%

2.27

155

13


content areas

27

17.4%

72

46.5%

50

32.3%

6

3.9%

2.15

155

14


27

17.4%

74

47.7%

46

29.7%

8

5.2%

2.13

155

15


30

19.4%

67

43.2%

45

29.0%

13

8.4%

2.11

155

16


Modules

31

20.0%

74

47.7%

43

27.7%

7

4.5%

2.08

155

17

Lesson Study

39

25.2%

63

40.6%

42

27.1%

11

7.1%

2.02

155

Needed -

Not Needed

but not

Critical

by my

critical to

need for my

Rating

Response

school or

my school

school or

Avg.

Count

system

or system

system

N/A

1

K-5 Math Endorsement

24

15.6%

42

27.3%

64

41.6%

24

15.6%

2.31

154

2

Reading Endorsement

31

20.1%

58

37.7%

57

37.0%

8

5.2%

2.18

154

3

K-5 Science Endorsement

28

18.2%

54

35.1%

51

33.1%

21

13.6%

2.17

154

4

Teacher Leader Endorsement

31

20.1%

61

39.6%

54

35.1%

8

5.2%

2.16

154

5

ESOL Endorsement

38

24.7%

51

33.1%

49

31.8%

16

10.4%

2.08

154

6

Gifted Endorsement

42

27.3%

55

35.7%

46

29.9%

11

7.1%

2.03

154

7

Teacher Support Specialist Endorsement

42

27.3%

65

42.2%

33

21.4%

14

9.1%

1.94

154

Needed -

Not Needed

but not

Critical

by my

critical to

need for my

Rating

Response

school or

my school

school or

Avg.

Count

system

or system

system

N/A

1

Salary Studies

42

28.8%

44

30.1%

43

29.5%

17

11.6%

2.01

146

2

Teacher Recruitment

46

31.5%

51

34.9%

32

21.9%

17

11.6%

1.89

146

3

Metro Area Teacher Recruitment Consortium

(MATReC)

46

31.5%

52

35.6%

28

19.2%

20

13.7%

1.86

146

Needed -

Not Needed

but not

Critical

by my

critical to

need for my

Rating

Response

school or

my school

school or

Avg.

Count

system

or system

system

N/A

1

Professional Learning

28

20.0%

45

32.1%

57

40.7%

10

7.1%

2.22

140

2

Discipline and School Safety

25

17.9%

48

34.3%

52

37.1%

15

10.7%

2.22

140

3

Metro Area Instructional

Leaders (Curriculum Leaders)

25

17.9%

56

40.0%

46

32.9%

13

9.3%

2.17

140

4

ESOL

22

15.7%

58

41.4%

42

30.0%

18

12.9%

2.16

140

5

Title I/School Improvement

26

18.8%

56

40.6%

43

31.2%

13

9.4%

2.14

138

6

Literacy Consortium

37

26.4%

47

33.6%

34

24.3%

22

15.7%

1.97

140

7

Professional Development

Directors

39

27.9%

41

29.3%

35

25.0%

25

17.9%

1.97

140

8

Finance Directors

44

31.4%

34

24.3%

35

25.0%

27

19.3%

1.92

140

9

Media Specialists/Public

Libraries

41

29.3%

45

32.1%

30

21.4%

24

17.1%

1.91

140

10

Legislative Liaisons

41

29.7%

43

31.2%

27

19.6%

27

19.6%

1.87

138

11

M.A.I.L.(Curriculum Directors)

43

31.2%

42

30.4%

28

20.3%

25

18.1%

1.87

138

12

Personnel Directors

43

30.7%

41

29.3%

28

20.0%

28

20.0%

1.87

140

13

Facilities Directors

46

32.6%

39

27.7%

28

19.9%

28

19.9%

1.84

141

14

Purchasing Directors

47

33.6%

36

25.7%

27

19.3%

30

21.4%

1.82

140

15

Transportation Directors

45

33.8%

35

26.3%

24

18.0%

29

21.8%

1.80

133

16

Charter Schools

48

34.0%

43

30.5%

18

12.8%

32

22.7%

1.72

141

17

Pandemic Coordinators

46

32.9%

43

30.7%

15

10.7%

36

25.7%

1.70

140

18

AATD

39

28.9%

28

20.7%

12

8.9%

56

41.5%

1.66

135

19

Athletic Directors

53

37.9%

39

27.9%

14

10.0%

34

24.3%

1.63

140

Needed -

Not Needed

but not

Critical

by my

critical to

need for my

Rating

Response

school or

my school

school or

Avg.

Count

system

or system

system

N/A

1

Struggling Learners

34

8.4%

155

38.2%

198

48.8%

19

4.7%

2.42

406

2


Math

50

12.3%

139

34.2%

175

43.1%

42

10.3%

2.34

406

3


Science

38

9.4%

160

39.4%

154

37.9%

54

13.3%

2.33

406

4


Social Studies

44

10.8%

175

43.1%

132

32.5%

55

13.5%

2.25

406

5


Module

58

14.3%

167

41.1%

148

36.5%

33

8.1%

2.24

406

6


ELLs

60

14.8%

155

38.2%

130

32.0%

61

15.0%

2.20

406

7



56

13.8%

182

44.8%

130

32.0%

38

9.4%

2.20

406

8


Instruction

69

17.0%

183

45.1%

134

33.0%

20

4.9%

2.17

406

9


65

16.0%

191

47.0%

124

30.5%

26

6.4%

2.16

406

10


Curriculum

73

18.0%

173

42.6%

130

32.0%

30

7.4%

2.15

406

11


in Instruction

77

19.0%

176

43.3%

131

32.3%

22

5.4%

2.14

406

12


80

19.7%

183

45.1%

113

27.8%

30

7.4%

2.09

406

13


Genre of Writing

77

19.0%

184

45.3%

106

26.1%

39

9.6%

2.08

406

14


Modules

73

18.0%

190

46.8%

96

23.6%

47

11.6%

2.06

406

15


85

20.9%

168

41.4%

102

25.1%

51

12.6%

2.05

406

16


content areas

99

24.4%

156

38.4%

106

26.1%

45

11.1%

2.02

406

17


103

25.4%

133

32.8%

101

24.9%

69

17.0%

1.99

406

18

Lesson Study

115

28.3%

158

38.9%

69

17.0%

64

15.8%

1.87

406

Not Neededbut notCritical

by mycritical toneed for myRatingResponse

school ormy schoolschool orAvg.Count

systemor systemsystemN/A

1

Struggling Learners

85.2%5535.5%8856.8%42.6%2.53155

2


Math

106.5%5132.9%8957.4%53.2%2.53155

3


Science

117.1%5736.8%8252.9%53.2%2.47155

4


ELLs

117.1%6642.6%6843.9%106.5%2.39155

5


1811.6%6441.3%7045.2%31.9%2.34155

6


1610.3%6743.2%6642.6%63.9%2.34155

7


Curriculum

1811.6%6441.3%6843.9%53.2%2.33155

8


Instruction

1610.3%7145.8%6743.2%10.6%2.33155

9


Social Studies

138.4%7850.3%5837.4%63.9%2.30155

10



1912.3%6743.2%6441.3%53.2%2.30155

11


in Instruction

1811.6%7045.2%6340.6%42.6%2.30155

12


Module

2314.8%6240.0%6340.6%74.5%2.27155

13


content areas

2717.4%7246.5%5032.3%63.9%2.15155

14


2717.4%7447.7%4629.7%85.2%2.13155

15


3019.4%6743.2%4529.0%138.4%2.11155

16


Modules

3120.0%7447.7%4327.7%74.5%2.08155

17

Lesson Study

3925.2%6340.6%4227.1%117.1%2.02155

Documents

Spring 2008 Metro RESA Needs Assessment · Web viewWhen asked to rate their system’s need for the following Metro RESA Job Alike Groups, comprised of 19 groups, the following table