Title page
Contents
Why this study? 2
Research questions 4
Findings 7
Limitations 13
Implications 14
References 15
Table 1. Domains and dimensions for the Classroom Assessment Scoring System instructional observations for elementary school (grades 4-5) and secondary school (grades 6-12) grade... 6
Table 2. Classroom Assessment Scoring System domain score classifications 7
Table 3. All of the low-performing schools had a higher percentage of economically disadvantaged students than the state average, and 90 percent of the schools had a higher percentage... 8
Table 4. There was high variation in the quality of emotional support and instructional support in over 40 percent of low-performing schools in 2016/17 or 2017/18 12
Table 5. Higher instructional observation scores in all domains were associated with higher achievement growth in English language arts and math in low-performing schools in Massachusetts,... 13
Figure 1. Low-performing schools in Massachusetts served higher percentages of Black, Hispanic, economically disadvantaged, and English learner students compared with the state average,... 8
Figure 2. The percentages of students who met or exceeded expectations on state English language arts and math assessments were lower in low-performing elementary and secondary... 9
Figure 3. Schoolwide academic growth in low-performing schools in Massachusetts was lower than the state median, but some low-performing schools performed better, by subject and... 10
Figure 4. Average domain scores in low-performing schools in Massachusetts were highest for classroom organization in both elementary and secondary schools, 2016/17 or 2017/18 10
Figure 5. Average instructional observation scores within each domain varied across low-performing schools in Massachusetts, 2016/17 or 2017/18 11
Boxes
Box 1. Key terms 3
Box 2. Data sources, sample, and methods 5