2016 tell oregon an analysis of district level … · 2016 tell oregon: district level teacher...

2016 TELL Oregon: District Level Teacher Working Conditions and Student Diversity

110 Cooper Street | Suite 500 | Santa Cruz, CA 95060 | (p) 831.600.2200 | www.newteachercenter.org 1

2016 TELL Oregon An Analysis of District Level Teacher Working Conditions

And Student Diversity


2

INTRODUCTION

In 2016, Oregon educators shared their perceptions of the teaching conditions at their schools through the

Teaching, Empowering, Leading, and Learning (TELL) Oregon Survey. More than 18,000 of Oregon’s educators

(54%) responded to the survey, and 712 out of 1,245 Oregon schools (57%) met the response rate threshold of

40 percent required for school-level reporting. Of the 199 Oregon school districts surveyed, 77 (39%) met the

35% response rate and minimum 20 respondent threshold required for district-level reporting. Data from the

survey were made available in the spring of 2016 at www.telloregon.org. Disaggregated response rates are

presented on page 4.

The aim of this research brief is to explore the relationship between teacher working conditions and student

diversity in Oregon school districts. Response data from the 2016 TELL Oregon Survey are used to estimate dis-

trict-level teacher working conditions. District-level diversity statistics (proportion of non-white students) as well

as NCES Urban Locale data were provided by the Oregon Department of Education. The purpose of this re-

port is to help stakeholders better understand the relationship between teaching conditions and student diver-

sity in Oregon.

SUMMARY OF FINDINGS

Teacher Working Conditions are less positive in high diversity districts. In general, teaching conditions

are less positive in High Diversity districts (see Figure 1). In particular, results suggest that High Diversity districts

need more support around the area of Managing Student Conduct than do districts with lower levels of diver-

sity (see Figure 2g).

Particular teaching conditions vary by urban locale. Generally speaking, there are no large differences

between urban locales and other locale types when comparing the teaching conditions composite. Howev-

er, results suggest that differences exist between urban locales and other locale types in the areas of Commu-

nity Support & Involvement, Managing Student Conduct, and Use of Time. Whereas educators from less popu-

lated areas tend to report more positive teaching conditions around Managing Student Conduct (see Figure

4g) and Use of Time (see Figure 4h), the opposite trend is found for Community Support & Involvement (see

Figure 4a).

The widest gap in teacher working conditions is between high and low diversity school districts in

cities. Selected districts under the City urban locale designation represent the greatest discrepancy in teach-

ing conditions between high and low diversity districts (average difference of 5% overall). In particular, districts

in the City—High Diversity group appear to need the most support around Managing Student Conduct, an

area representing a 10% gap between the low and high diversity City groups.

Teaching and Learning Conditions Assessed by the TELL Survey

http://www.telloregon.org


3

Responses from educators from districts with higher levels of diversity are consistently less positive in

the areas of Community Support & Involvement, Managing Student Conduct, and Teacher Leader-

ship across urban locales . Results suggest that districts with higher levels of diversity across all urban locales

could use support related to Community Support & Involvement (see Figure 5a—average difference of 7%).

Additionally, Managing Student Conduct (see Figure 5g) and Teacher Leadership (see Figure 5b) appear to

be areas that high diversity districts need support. These findings are particularly pertinent when paired with

the findings of the 2014 TELL Oregon Student Achievement Outcomes report which identified Community Sup-

port & Involvement and Managing Student Conduct as teaching condition areas that correlate strongly with

student achievement (New Teacher Center, 2015).

ABOUT TELL

The TELL Oregon Survey is a full-population survey based on the NTC TELL Survey first developed in the North

Carolina Governor’s Office in 2002. It has since been replicated in more than 20 states and captured the voic-

es of more than 1.5 million educators, providing critical data to support school improvement efforts. The TELL

survey is a valid and reliable instrument1 designed to measure educator perceptions about the presence of

teaching and learning conditions that research has shown increase student learning and teacher retention2.

Specifically, the survey is designed to report educators’ perceptions of teaching and learning conditions orga-

nized into the following eight constructs: Time, Facilities and Resources, Professional Development, School

Leadership, Teacher Leadership, Instructional Practices and Support, Managing Student Conduct, and Com-

munity Support and Involvement (see Table 1).

Appendix A presents the individual items that make up each construct. In addition, the formulas used to cal-

culate the overall composite and construct level rates of agreement, the primary TELL metrics used in this brief,

are provided in Appendix A.

Table 1.

Teaching and Learning Conditions Assessed by the TELL Survey

TELL Construct Description

Facilities and Resources Availability of instructional, technology, office, communication, and school

resources to educators

Community Support & Involvement Community and parent/guardian communication and influence in the school

School Leadership Ability of school leadership to create trusting, supportive environments and address

teacher concerns

Managing Student Conduct Policies and practices to address student conduct issues and ensure a safe school

environment

Instructional Practices & Support Data and support available to teachers to improve instruction and student learning

Teacher Leadership Teacher involvement in decisions that impact classroom and school practices

Professional Development Availability and quality of learning opportunities for educators to enhance their

teaching

Use of Time Available time to plan, to collaborate, to provide instruction, and to eliminate

barriers in order to maximize instructional time during the school day

1Swanlund, A. (2011). Identifying working conditions that enhance teacher effectiveness: The psychometric evaluation of

the Teacher Working Conditions Survey. Chicago. IL: American Institutes for Research.

2See selected references.


4

RESPONSE RATES & DEMOGRAPHICS

The 2016 TELL Oregon survey was administered in the spring of 2016 from February 1st through March 15th.

Over 18,000 educators responded to the survey. Over 95% of those responses came from Oregon public

school teachers and other education professionals (see Table 2). Because these analyses include data aggre-

gated above the school district level, respondent data from districts not meeting the district response rate

threshold of 35% and minimum of 20 responses are also included.

The response rates for Elementary, Middle, and High Schools were comparable, ranging from 50-60% (see Ta-

ble 3). The response rate from educators at Special schools was significantly lower (32%) which is consistent

with findings in previous years.

This study examines the relationship between teacher

working conditions and districts with differing levels of

student diversity. Within this framework, the study analyz-

es variation among the four major urban locale designa-

tions (’City’, ‘Suburb’, ‘Town’, ‘Rural’). As such, response

rates were calculated for each of these groupings as

well.

The cutoff point for the High/Low Diversity district desig-

nation was 40% such that districts with a student popula-

tion of 40% or more non-white students was designated

as ‘High Diversity.’ The difference in response rates be-

tween High and Low diversity school districts are dis-

played in Table 4. High Diversity districts had higher re-

sponse rates than Low Diversity districts. This is may be

due in part to differences in population size, as discussed

below.

As shown in Table 5, the survey response rate was much

higher in Urban and Suburban school districts as com-

pared to school districts designated as ‘Town’ or ‘Rural’.

The more populated districts garnered response rates

above 60% whereas the response rate for the less popu-

lated districts was 45% or lower.

Table 3.

Response Rate by Grade Level

Grade Level Respondent

Total N

Educator

Total N

Response

Rate

Elementary 9,463 16,533 57%

Middle 3,202 5,379 60%

High School 5,114 10,179 50%

Special 487 1,521 32%

Total 18,266 33,612 54%

Table 2.

Percent of Total Respondents by Role

Educator Role Percentage of Total

Respondents (N)

Teacher 91% (16,651)

Principal 2% (353)

Assistant Principal 1% (192)

Other Educational Professional 6% (1,070)

Total 100% (18,266)

*Note. The respondent category “Teachers” includes

instructional coaches, department heads, literacy specialists,

etc. The respondent category “Other Education Professionals”

includes school counselors, school psychologists, social

workers, etc. The respondent category “Educational Support

Personnel” includes instructional or clerical support personnel.

Table 5.

Response Rate by Urban Locale

Urban

Locale

Respondent

Total N

Educator

Total N

Response

Rate

City 7,098 11,215 63%

Suburb 5,554 8,913 62%

Town 3,923 8,741 45%

Rural 1,661 4,615 36%

Total 18,236 33,484 54%

*Note. Three districts did not have an associated Urban

Locale (“Multnomah ESD”, “Oregon Department of

Education” and “ODE YCEP District”)

Table 4.

Response Rate by District Diversity

Grade Level Respondent

Total N

Educator

Total N

Response

Rate

High Diversity

(>40% non-white) 10,312 15,034 69%

Low Diversity

(<40% non-white) 7,954 18,578 43%

Total 18,266 33,612 54%


5

The response rates for the districts identified for the matched comparison analysis are presented in Table 6. The

total number of respondents included in the matched high and low diversity comparison districts account for

nearly 14,000 of the total 18,266 educators who responded to the survey in 2016.

FINDINGS

The results presented in this section examine teacher working conditions in relation to a variety of aspects and

aggregated at a few different levels. First,

teacher working conditions are analyzed by dis-

trict diversity designation (High/Low Diversity).

Then, results by Urban Locale designation are

presented. Finally, results from an analysis of

High Diversity and Low Diversity comparison dis-

tricts matched by Urban Locale are provided.

The districts matched for the final analysis are

presented in Appendix B.

The teacher working conditions measures used

for each of these analyses are Rate of Agree-

ment (RA) metrics. These measures represent

the percentage of respondents who selected

‘Strongly Agree’ or ‘Agree’ for a given survey

item. These are calculated at the respondent

level and aggregated up to the respective

groupings for analysis. Formulas and additional

details are presented in Appendix A.

Teacher Working Conditions and Student Diversity Designation

The cutoff point for a district to be considered ‘High Diversity’ was a non-white student population of 40% or

more. Of the 199 Oregon school districts, 32 were designated as ‘High Diversity.’ The remaining 167 districts

were designated as ‘Low Diversity’ (see Table 7).

When comparing the average overall composite rate of agreement on the TELL survey between educators

from High and Low Diversity districts, we see that educators from higher diversity districts are generally less posi-

tive about their teaching conditions (see Figure 1). Please note that when asterisks are present in figures 1 and

2a-h a statistically significant difference exists between the two comparison groups.

Table 6.

Response Rate by Matched Districts

Matched Districts

Designation

Respondent

Total N

Educator

Total N

Response

Rate

City - High Diversity 5,229 7,277 72%

City - Low Diversity 1,405 3,310 42%

Suburb - High Diversity 3,838 5,175 74%

Suburb - Low Diversity 1,110 1,907 58%

Town - High Diversity 889 1,415 63%

Town - Low Diversity 860 1,530 56%

Rural - High Diversity 240 509 47%

Rural - Low Diversity 362 580 62%

Total 13,933 21,703 64%

Table 7.

Number of Districts

by District Diversity Designation

Diversity # Districts

High Diversity 32

Low Diversity 167

Total Oregon Districts 199

73 76

0

20

40

60

80

100

High Diversity Low Diversity

Ra

te o

f A

gre

em

en

t

Figure 1. Overall Composite

by Diversity Designation

Note: ***p<.0001; **p<.01; *p<.05

***


6

79 81

0

20

40

60

80

100


Ra

te o

f A

gre

em

en

tFigure 2a. Community Support &

Involvement by Diversity Designation

Note: ***p<.0001; **p<.01; *p<.05

***

77 81

0

20

40

60

80

100


Ra

te o

f A

gre

em

en

t

Figure 2b. Teacher Leadership


Note: ***p<.0001; **p<.01; *p<.05

***

75 77

0

20

40

60

80

100


Ra

te o

f A

gre

em

en

t

Figure 2c. Facilites & Resources


Note: ***p<.0001; **p<.01; *p<.5

***79 80

0

20

40

60

80

100


Ra

te o

f A

gre

em

en

t

Figure 2d. Instructional Practices &

Support by Diversity Designation

Note: ***p<.0001; **p<.01; *p<.05

**

78 80

0

20

40

60

80

100


Ra

te o

f A

gre

em

en

t

Figure 2e. School Leadership


Note: ***p<.0001; **p<.01; *p<.05

***

69 68

0

20

40

60

80

100


Ra

te o

f A

gre

em

en

t

Figure 2f. Professional Development


Note: ***p<.0001; **p<.01; *p<.05

*

76 81

0

20

40

60

80

100


Ra

te o

f A

gre

em

en

t

Figure 2g. Managing Student Conduct


Note: ***p<.0001; **p<.01; *p<.05

***

53 57

0

20

40

60

80

100


Ra

te o

f A

gre

em

en

t

Figure 2h. Use of Time


Note: ***p<.0001; **p<.01; *p<.05

***


7

When examining each of the specific constructs that encompass teacher working conditions, it is clear that

the difference between high and low diversity districts varies depending on the area of focus (see Figures 2a-

2h). For instance, teachers in low diversity districts report particularly more positively about teaching conditions

related to Managing Student Conduct and Use of Time. On the other hand, viewing through this lens also re-

veals that teaching conditions are very similar in specific areas such as Instructional Practices & Support and

Community Support & Involvement and, in one area (Professional Development), educators from high diversi-

ty districts reported more positively than respondents from low diversity districts.

Teacher Working Conditions and Urban Locale

The data in Table 8 show that a higher proportion of districts are in less-populated areas. This finding is compa-

rable to the large disparity between the number of High and Low diversity districts presented in Table 7.

When examining the teaching conditions at the urban locale level, there is no drastic difference in terms of

the overall teaching conditions composite score. Each urban locale designation reported either a 74 or 75

percent rate of agreement in terms of the overall composite (see Figure 3). However, when analyzing the da-

ta by urban locale, variation is found between urban locales around specific teaching conditions. In particu-

lar, the widest variance across locales is seen in the constructs related to Community Support & Involvement,

Managing Student Conduct, and Use of Time. Furthermore, it appears that some urban locales report better

conditions in some areas, but lower in others (see Figures 4a-h). For example, respondents from urban districts

reported the most positively regarding School Leadership and Professional Development but least positively

about Facilities & Resources, Managing Student Conduct, and Use of Time. This finding seems to support the

idea that educator needs vary by urban locale. Please note that when asterisks are present in figures 3 and 4a

-h there is a statistically significant difference among the comparison groups.

Table 8.

Number of Districts by Urban Locale

Urban Locale # Districts

City 11

Suburb 19

Town 55

Rural 111

Missing/Not Coded 3

Total 199

74 75 74 75

0

20

40

60

80

100

City Suburb Town Rural

Ra

te o

f A

gre

em

en

t

Figure 3. Overall Composite

by Urban Locale

Note: ***p<.0001; **p<.01; *p<.05

*

81 8275 78

0

20

40

60

80

100


Ra

te o

f A

gre

em

en

t

Figure 4a. Community Support &

Involvement by Urban Locale

Note: ***p<.0001; **p<.01; *p<.05

***

79 79 77 80

0

20

40

60

80

100


Ra

te o

f A

gre

em

en

t

Figure 4b. Teacher Leadership

by Urban Locale

Note: ***p<.0001; **p<.01; *p<.05

**


8

Teacher Working Conditions and Matched Student Diversity Designation by Urban Locale

The Oregon Department of Education partnered with NTC to identify 50 districts across each of the Diversity

Designation/Urban Locales to be compared. Half (25) of the districts from each of the four urban locales are

high diversity districts and the comparison group are low diversity. The specific districts included are presented

in Appendix B.

As shown in Figure 5, respondents from the high diversity groups consistently report less positive teaching con-

ditions in terms of the overall teaching conditions composite. The overall composite rates of agreement are

relatively stable across urban locales with the exception of the Town-Comparison group which is five percent-

75 76 77 76

0

20

40

60

80

100


Ra

te o

f A

gre

em

en

tFigure 4c. Facilities & Resources

by Urban Locale

Note: ***p<.0001; **p<.01; *p<.05

**

79 80 79 79

0

20

40

60

80

100


Ra

te o

f A

ge

rem

en

t

Figure 4d. Instructional Practices &

Support by Urban Locale

Note: ***p<.0001; **p<.01; *p<.05

**

79 79 79 78

0

20

40

60

80

100


Ra

te o

f A

gre

em

en

t

Figure 4e. School Leadership

by Urban Locale

Note: ***p<.0001; **p<.01; *p<.05

69 69 68 66

0

20

40

60

80

100


Ra

te o

f A

gre

em

en

t

Figure 4f. Professional Develeopment by

Urban Locale

Note: ***p<.0001; **p<.01; *p<.05

**

76 78 80 82

0

20

40

60

80

100


Ra

te o

f A

gre

em

en

t

Figure 4g. Managing Student Conduct

by Urban Locale

Note: ***p<.0001; **p<.01; *p<.05

***

52 54 57 62

0

20

40

60

80

100


Ra

te o

f A

gre

em

en

t

Figure 4h. Use of Time

by Urban Locale

Note: ***p<.0001; **p<.01; *p<.05

***


9

age points lower than the city or suburban comparison groups (78%) and three points below Rural-

Comparison districts (76%). Please note that when asterisks are present in figures 5 and 6a-h a statistically signif-

icant difference exists between the paired comparison groups.

Figures 6a through 6h present the results for each group by con-

struct. Of the four matched groups, the biggest average differ-

ence across all constructs was between the City—High Diversity

and the City—Comparison group (-5%). Of the eight constructs,

Managing Student Conduct represents the largest difference (-

10%) between the two City groups. Similarly, Managing Student

Conduct also represents the greatest difference (-8%) between

the Rural groups. The biggest difference (-8%) between Suburban

–High Diversity and Suburban–Comparison groups is around Use

of Time.

The outlier of these comparisons is revealed when analyzing the

Town level results. First, there is a much smaller average differ-

ence (-1%) between Town–High Diversity and Town–Comparison

groups, suggesting that perhaps teaching conditions are very

similar in these districts regardless of diversity level. Furthermore,

respondents from the Town–High Diversity group responded more

positively than their comparison group in the areas of Facilities &

Resources (+6%), Professional Development (+4%), Managing Stu-

dent Conduct (+2%), and Use of Time (+2%).

The biggest difference at the construct level across all groups is in

the area of Community Support & Involvement with an average

of seven percent difference between High Diversity districts and their comparison groups. Other notable areas

in which results suggest a consistent difference between High Diversity districts and their comparisons are Man-

aging Student Conduct (-5%) and Teacher Leadership (-5%).

Table 9.

Number of Districts

by Matched District Designation

Matched District

Designation # Districts

City - High Diversity 5

City - Low Diversity 5

Suburb - High Diversity 6

Suburb - Low Diversity 5

Town - High Diversity 10

Town - Low Diversity 11

Rural - High Diversity 4

Rural - Low Diversity 4

Total 50

*Note: See Table 6 for N Counts


10


11


12

SUMMARY

In general, teaching conditions are less positive in High Diversity districts (see Figure 1). In particular, results sug-

gest that High Diversity districts need more support around the area of Managing Student Conduct than do

districts with lower levels of diversity (see Figure 2g). Generally speaking, there are no large differences be-

tween urban locales when comparing the teaching conditions composite. However, results suggest that dif-

ferences exist between urban locales in the areas of Community Support & Involvement, Managing Student

Conduct, and Use of Time. Whereas educators from less populated areas tend to report more positive teach-

ing conditions around Managing Student Conduct (see Figure 4g) and Use of Time (see Figure 4h), the oppo-

site trend is found for Community Support & Involvement (see Figure 4a).

Based on the results of the comparison groups analysis, it appears that the teaching conditions in the selected

comparison (low diversity) districts are more positive across urban locales with the exception of the compari-

son at the town level (difference in overall composite of 1%). Selected districts under the City urban locale

designation represent the greatest discrepancy in teaching conditions between high and low diversity districts

(average difference of 5% overall). In particular, districts in the City—High Diversity group appear to need the

most support around Managing Student Conduct, an area representing a 10% gap between the low and high


13

diversity City groups (see Figure 6g). Furthermore, results suggest that high diversity districts across all urban lo-

cales could use support related to Community Support & Involvement (see Figure 5a—average difference of

7%). Additionally, Managing Student Conduct (see Figure 5g) and Teacher Leadership (see Figure 5b) appear

to be areas that high diversity districts could particularly use support. These findings are particularly pertinent

when paired with the findings of the 2014 TELL Oregon Student Achievement Outcomes report which identifies

Community Support & Involvement and Managing Student Conduct as teaching condition areas which most

highly correlate with student achievement outcomes (New Teacher Center, 2015).

LIMITATIONS

One limitation of this study is the relatively low survey response rate for the less-densely populated districts

(Town—45% and Rural—35%). Although the voices of more than 18,000 educators were captured overall, the

effort fell short in the more rural areas (see Table 5). Ideally, the response rate would be higher overall (54%

overall) but, particularly, an increase in response rate for the less-populated areas would allow for greater

confidence that the inferences drawn from these locales are truly representative of the respective popula-

tions. Given that there appears to be a relationship between the population density of a school district and

the level of diversity, the response rate issue is relevant in terms of districts with lower levels of diversity (see Ta-

ble 4).


14

REFERENCES

Borman, G., & Dowling, N. (2008). Teacher attrition and retention: A meta-analytic and narrative review of the

research. Review of Educational Research, 78(3), 367–409.

Boyd, D., Grossman, P., Ing, M., Lankford, H., Loeb, S., & Wyckoff, J. (2011). The influence of school administra-

tors on teacher retention decisions. American Educational Research Journal, 48(2), 303–333.

Buckley, J., Schneider, M., & Shang, Y. (2004). The effects of school facility quality on teacher retention in ur-

ban school districts. Chestnut Hill, MA: National Clearinghouse for Educational Facilities.

Bryk, A. S., & Schneider, B. (2002). Trust in schools: A core resource for improvement. New York: Russell Safe

Foundation.

Cortina, J. (2002). Big things have small beginnings: An assortment of “minor” methodological misunderstand-

ings. Journal of Management, 28(3), 339–362.

Ferguson, R., (with Hirsch, E.) (2014). How working conditions predict teaching quality and student outcomes.

In T. J. Kane, K. A. Kerr, and R. C. Pianta (Eds.), Designing teacher evaluation systems: New guidance

from the Measures of Effective Teaching project (pp. 332–381). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

IDRA Research Technology Group. (n.d.) Annotated SPSS output factor analysis. Retrieved from http://

www.ats.ucla.edu/stat/spss/output/factor1.htm

Johnson, S., Kraft, M., & Papay, J. (2011). How context matters in high-need schools: The effects of teachers’

working conditions on their professional satisfaction and their students’ achievement. Teachers College

Record, 114(10), 1–39.

Johnson, S. M. (2006, July). The workplace matters: Teacher quality, retention, and effectiveness. NEA Working

Paper. Washington, DC: National Education Association.

Johnson, S. M., & the Project on the Next Generation of Teachers. (2004). Finders and keepers: Helping new

teachers survive and thrive in our schools. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Kraft, M. A., & Papay, J. P. (2014, Jan. 30). Can professional environments in schools promote teacher develop-

ment? Explaining heterogeneity in returns to teaching experience. Educational Evaluation and Policy

Analysis, 36(4), 476–500.

Ladd, H. (2009). Teachers’ perceptions of their working conditions: How predictive of policy relevant out-

comes? CALDER Working Paper 33. Washington, DC: National Center for Analysis of Longitudinal Data

in Education.

Leana, C. R., & Pil, F. K. (2006). Social capital and organizational performance: Evidence from urban public

schools. Organization Science, 17(3), 353–366.

New Teacher Center. (2015). 2014 TELL Oregon Survey Student Achievement and Teacher Retention Analyses.

Santa Cruz, CA: New Teacher Center. Retrieved from https://telloregon.org/uploads/File/OR%

20student%20ach%20&%20teach%20retent%20brief%20final_feb_2015.pdf


15

Loeb, S., Darling-Hammond, L., & Luczak, J. (2005). How teaching conditions predict teacher

turnover in California schools. Peabody Journal of Education, 80(3), 44–70.

McLaughlin, M. W., & Talbert, J. E. (2001). Professional communities and the work of high school teaching.

Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Pogodzinski, B., Youngs, P., Frank, K., & Belman, D. (2012). Administrative climate and

novice teachers’ intent to remain teaching. The Elementary School Journal, 113(2), 252–275.

Steele, J., Hamilton, L., & Stecher, B. (2010). Incorporating student performance measures

into teacher evaluation systems. Santa Monica, CA: RAND Corporation.


16

APPENDIX A

TELL Items, Constructs, and Composite Calculations

Table A1.

TELL Constructs and Associated Items

Construct Survey Items

Use of Time—Available

time to plan, to collabo-

rate, to provide instruc-

tion, and to eliminate bar-

riers in order to maximize

instructional time during

the school day

Class sizes are reasonable such that teachers have the time available

to meet the needs of all students.

Teachers are allowed to focus on educating students with minimal in-

terruptions.

The non-instructional time provided for teachers in my school is suffi-

cient.

Efforts are made to minimize the amount of routine paperwork teach-

ers are required to do.

Teachers have sufficient instructional time to meet the needs of all stu-

dents.

Teachers are protected from duties that interfere with their essential

role of educating students.

Teachers have time available to collaborate with colleagues.

Facilities and Resources—

Availability of instructional,

technology, office, com-

munication, and school

resources to teachers

Teachers have sufficient access to appropriate instructional materials.

Teachers have sufficient access to instructional technology, including

computers, printers, software and internet access.

Teachers have access to reliable communication technology, includ-

ing phones, faxes and email.

Teachers have sufficient access to office equipment and supplies such

as copy machines, paper, pens, etc.

Teachers have sufficient access to a broad range of professional sup-

port personnel.

The school environment is clean and well maintained.

Teachers have adequate space to work productively.

The physical environment of classrooms in this school supports teaching

and learning.

The reliability and speed of Internet connections in this school are suffi-

cient to support instructional practices.


17

APPENDIX A

Community Support &

Involvement—

Community and parent/

guardian communica-

tion and influence in the

school

Parents/guardians are influential decision makers in this school.

This school maintains clear, two-way communication with parents/

guardians and the community.

This school does a good job of encouraging parent/guardian involve-

ment.

Teachers provide parents/guardians with useful information about stu-

dent learning.

Parents/guardians know what is going on in this school.

Parents/guardians support teachers, contributing to their success with

students.

Community members support teachers, contributing to their success

with students.

The community we serve is supportive of this school.

Managing Student Con-

duct—Policies and prac-

tices to address student

conduct issues and en-

sure a safe school envi-

ronment

Students at this school understand expectations for their conduct.

Students at this school follow rules of conduct.

Policies and procedures about student conduct are clearly understood

by the faculty.

School administrators consistently enforce rules for student conduct.

School administrators support teachers' efforts to maintain discipline in

the classroom.

Teachers consistently enforce rules for student conduct.

The faculty work in a school environment that is safe.

Teacher Leadership—

Teacher involvement in

decisions that impact

classroom and school

practices

Teachers are recognized as educational experts.

Teachers are trusted to make sound professional decisions about in-

struction.

Teachers are relied upon to make decisions about educational issues.

Teachers are encouraged to participate in school leadership roles.

The faculty has an effective process for making group decisions to solve

problems.

In this school we take steps to solve problems.

Teachers are effective leaders in this school.


18

APPENDIX A

School Leader-

ship—The ability

of school leader-

ship to create

trusting, support-

ive environments

and address

teacher concerns

The faculty and leadership have a shared vision.

There is an atmosphere of trust and mutual respect in this school.

Teachers feel comfortable raising issues and concerns that are important to

them.

The school leadership consistently supports teachers.

Teachers are held to high professional standards for delivering instruction.

The school leadership facilitates using data to improve student learning.

Teacher performance is assessed objectively.

Teachers receive feedback that can help them improve teaching.

Teachers in this school receive feedback about their teaching on an ongoing

basis.

The procedures for teacher evaluation are consistent.

The school improvement team provides effective leadership at this school.

The faculty are recognized for accomplishments.

The school leadership communicates clear expectations to students and par-

ents.

Professional De-

velopment—

Availability and

quality of learning

opportunities for

educators to en-

hance their

teaching

Sufficient resources are available for professional development in my school.

An appropriate amount of time is provided for professional development.

Professional development offerings are data driven.

Professional learning opportunities are aligned with the school’s improvement

plan.

Professional development is differentiated to meet the needs of individual

teachers.

Professional development deepens teachers' content knowledge.

Teachers are encouraged to reflect on their own practice.

In this school, follow up is provided from professional development.

Professional development provides ongoing opportunities for teachers to work

with colleagues to refine teaching practices.

Professional development is evaluated and results are communicated to

teachers.

Professional development enhances teachers' ability to implement instruction-

al strategies that meet diverse student learning needs.

Professional development enhances teachers' abilities to improve student

learning.

Professional development in this school supports teachers in developing forma-

tive assessments aligned to standards.


19

APPENDIX A

Instructional Practices &

Support—Data and sup-

port available to teachers

to improve instruction and

student learning

State assessment data are available in time to impact instructional

practices.

Local assessment data are available in time to impact instructional

practices.

Teachers use assessment data to inform their instruction.

The curriculum taught in this school is aligned with state-based stand-

ards.

Teachers work in professional learning communities or cluster groups to

develop and align instructional practices.

Provided supports (i.e. instructional coaching, professional learning

communities, etc.) translate to improvements in instructional practices

by teachers.

Teachers are encouraged to try new things to improve instruction.

Teachers are assigned classes that maximize their likelihood of success

with students.

Teachers have autonomy to make decisions about instructional deliv-

ery (i.e. pacing, materials and pedagogy).

Teachers believe almost every student has the potential to do well on

assignments.

Teachers believe what is taught will make a difference in students’

lives.

Teachers require students to work hard.

Teachers collaborate to achieve consistency on how student work is

assessed.

Teachers know what students learn in each of their classes.

Teachers have knowledge of the content covered and instructional

methods used by other teachers at this school.


20

APPENDIX A

Composite and Construct Average Calculations

The construct averages and overall composite average are calculated at the respondent level and then ag-

gregated to the school level for these analyses. All of the items included are on the same Likert agreement

scale where 1 = Strongly Disagree, 2 = Disagree, 3 = Agree, 4 = Strongly Agree, and 5 = Don’t Know. For these

calculations, responses of “Strongly Disagree” and “Disagree” were coded as 0, responses of “Agree” and

“Strongly Agree” were coded as 1, and responses of “Don’t Know” were coded as missing.

The construct averages were then calculated by averaging the coded responses for the items associated

with each given construct (shown in Table 1A) at the respondent level. The equation (1) for the respondent-

level calculation is shown below.

The Overall Composite Average was calculated by averaging the Construct Averages at the respondent lev-

el. The equation (2) for the respondent-level Overall Composite is shown below.

Once calculated at the respondent level, these figures are then averaged across respondents at the school

level. The school-level equations are shown below.


21

APPENDIX B

District Groupings Matched by Diversity Level and Urban Locale

Table B1.

TELL Oregon 2016 Diversity Analysis—District Groupings

Matched District Designation School District District

Response Rate

Number of

Respondents

City—High Diversity

David Douglas SD 40 92.6 586

Hillsboro SD 1J 35.0 411

Parkrose SD 3 18.9 36

Portland SD 1J 72.7 2,232

Salem-Keizer SD 24J 88.9 1,964

City—Low Diversity

Bend-LaPine Administrative SD 1 70.3 680

Bethel SD 52 28.8 89

Corvallis SD 509J 52.8 195

Eugene SD 4J 22.5 206

Medford SD 549C 31.3 235

Suburb—High Diversity

Beaverton SD 48J 85.8 1,976

Centennial SD 28J 58.5 224

Forest Grove SD 15 38.3 133

Gresham-Barlow SD 10J 71.4 479

Reynolds SD 7 58.7 442

Tigard-Tualatin SD 23J 81.2 584

Central Point SD 6 70.6 154

Suburb—Low Diversity

Lake Oswego SD 7J 56.6 228

Oregon City SD 62 51.8 242

Sherwood SD 88J 86.2 232

West Linn-Wilsonville SD 3J 46.2 254


22

APPENDIX B

Matched District Designation School District

District

Response Rate

Number of

Respondents

Town—High Diversity

Brookings-Harbor SD 17C 57.7 45

Gervais SD 1 36.7 22

Hermiston SD 8 85.3 255

Jefferson County SD 509J 51.8 102

Milton-Freewater Unified SD 7 51.5 51

Mt Angel SD 91 71.7 38

North Wasco County SD 21 50.0 95

Stanfield SD 61 85.3 29

Umatilla SD 6R 47.1 40

Woodburn SD 103 66.3 212

Town—Low Diversity

Canby SD 86 54.3 138

Coos Bay SD 9 65.7 111

Crook County SD 54.2 83

Grants Pass SD 7 46.4 143

Junction City SD 69 58.2 64

Oregon Trail SD 46 69.8 157

Reedsport SD 105 37.1 13

Riddle SD 70 60.0 18

Seaside SD 10 50.0 49

Sheridan SD 48J 56.9 37

Siuslaw SD 97J 56.6 47

Rural—High Diversity

Dayton SD 8 66.2 47

Hood River County SD 36.1 88

North Marion SD 15 63.4 71

Nyssa SD 26 41.5 34

Rural—Low Diversity

Rainier SD 13 65.5 38

Silver Falls SD 4J 61.2 156

Sisters SD 6 53.2 42

South Lane SD 45J3 67.0 126

2016 tell oregon an analysis of district level … · 2016 tell oregon: district level teacher...

Documents