Cronbach's Alpha: .859  17 items

Scale Mean if Item Deleted

Scale Variance if Item Deleted

Corrected ItemTotal Correlation

Cronbach's Alpha if Item Deleted

How much studentsCompare information from different sources before completing a task or assignment?

38.17

96.245

.467

.851

How much studentsEvaluate the credibility and relevance of online resources?

38.76

96.432

.539

.848

How much studentsAnalyze competing arguments, perspectives or solutions to a problem?

38.11

96.054

.468

.851

How much studentsHold a debate and argue for a particular point of view which may not be their own?

38.77

96.401

.510

.850

How much studentsUse technology to analyze information (e.g., databases, spreadsheets, graphic programs, etc.)?

38.47

95.582

.458

.852

How much studentsInvent a solution to a complex, openended question or problem?

38.25

92.962

.603

.845

How much studentsTry to solve complex problems or answer questions that have no single correct solution or answer?

38.13

94.550

.571

.847

How much studentsStructure data for use in written products or oral presentations (e.g., creating charts, tables or graphs)?

38.41

97.556

.430

.853

How much studentsMake a product that will be used by someone else?

38.81

96.731

.510

.850

How much studentsDecide how they will present their work or demonstrate their learning?

38.58

98.015

.408

.854

How much students Work with other students to set goals and create a plan for their team?

38.34

97.754

.436

.853

How much studentsWork as a team to incorporate feedback on group tasks or products?

37.95

100.082

.304

.859

How much studentsMonitor their own progress towards completion of a complex task and modify their work accordingly?

37.91

96.338

.457

.852

How much studentsAnalyze how different stakeholder groups or community members view an issue?

38.81

99.233

.400

.854

How much studentsInvestigate topics or issues that are relevant to their family or community?

38.22

94.718

.567

.847

How much studentsApply what they are learning to local situations, issues or problems?

38.24

96.237

.463

.852

How much students?Choose for themselves what examples to study or resources to use?

38.29

96.363

.478

.851

Table 3. STEM subscales list (PCA 1)
For section 2 (PCA2) (see Table 4), except for questions 2 and 10 that have moderate correlation values which means that these items display a moderate positive relationship to the total and have a good reliability, the remaining items have low correlation values and may be poor in reliability. Though, these items all together do have a significant contribution to the whole scale. This is evident from the fact that none of the “Cronbach’s alpha if item deleted” column has a value higher than the Cronbach’s alpha of 0.779 for the whole scale. Overall, the Cronbach’s alpha score for all the items (0.779) is satisfactory and confirms the reliability of the research instrument.
Cronbach's Alpha: .779  12 items

Scale Mean if Item Deleted

Scale Variance if Item Deleted

Corrected ItemTotal Correlation

Cronbach's Alpha if Item Deleted

How much do students  Draw their own conclusions based on analysis of numbers, facts, or relevant information?

32.57

45.253

.349

.771

How much do students  Test out different ideas and work to improve them?

33.02

43.332

.520

.753

How much do students  Use idea creation techniques such as brainstorming or concept mapping?

32.81

44.013

.429

.763

How much do students  Take initiative when confronted with a difficult problem or question?

32.84

44.966

.441

.762

How much do students  Summarize or create their own interpretation of what they have read or been taught?

32.38

44.781

.447

.761

How much do students  Create an original product or performance to express their ideas?

33.22

45.559

.365

.769

How much do students  Create joint products using contributions from each student?

32.92

44.632

.379

.768

How much do students  Plan the steps they will take to accomplish a complex task?

33.16

45.277

.379

.768

How much do students  Use peer, teacher or expert feedback to revise their work?

32.55

45.578

.361

.770

How much do students  Talk to one or more members of the community about a class project or activity?

33.53

42.066

.504

.754

How much do students  Choose their own topics of learning or questions to pursue?

33.27

44.409

.406

.765

How much do students  Respond to a question or task in a way that weighs the concerns of different community members or groups?

33.17

44.065

.431

.762

Table 4. STEM subscales list (PCA 2)
For section 3 (PCA3) (see Table 5), except for question 5 that have a moderate correlation value which means that this item display a moderate positive relationship to the total and have a good reliability, the remaining items have low correlation values and may be poor in reliability. Though, these items all together do have a significant contribution to the whole scale. This is evident from the fact that none of the “Cronbach’s alpha if item deleted” column has a value higher than the Cronbach’s alpha of 0.728 for the whole scale. Overall, the Cronbach’s alpha score for all the items (0.728) is satisfactory and confirms the reliability of the research instrument.
Cronbach's Alpha: .728  7 items

Scale Mean if Item Deleted

Scale Variance if Item Deleted

Corrected ItemTotal Correlation

Cronbach's Alpha if Item Deleted

Teachers ask students to explain how they get their answers.

17.87

6.808

.445

.697

Teachers can provide an alternative explanation or example when students are confused.

17.77

6.813

.366

.714

Teachers see their main role as being a facilitator of students’ own inquiry.

18.20

6.193

.467

.690

Teachers are comfortable being a "coinquirer" with their students.

18.32

6.323

.418

.704

Teachers create lessons/activities that tie their content with other things students are learning

18.07

6.201

.511

.679

Most teachers are able to adjust lessons to the proper level for individual students.

17.92

6.600

.433

.698

Teachers know how to include activities to foster student creativity.

18.18

6.629

.452

.694

Table 5. STEM subscales list (PCA 3)
For section 4 (PCA4) (see Table 6), all the items under this section have low correlation values and may be poor in reliability. Though, these items all together do have a significant contribution to the whole scale. This is evident from the fact that none of the “Cronbach’s alpha if item deleted” column has a value higher than the Cronbach’s alpha of 0.728 for the whole scale. Overall, the Cronbach’s alpha score for all the items (0.728) is satisfactory and confirms the reliability of the research instrument.
Cronbach's Alpha: .626  6 items

Scale Mean if Item Deleted

Scale Variance if Item Deleted

Corrected ItemTotal Correlation

Cronbach's Alpha if Item Deleted

Teachers and staff provide parents/guardians with useful information about student learning.

15.49

4.593

.362

.581

Teachers and staff are able to assist families in helping their children do well in school.

15.51

4.637

.307

.603

Teachers anticipate students' likely misperceptions or misunderstandings

15.43

4.730

.355

.584

Teachers can provide appropriate challenges for very capable students.

15.54

4.351

.394

.568

Teachers construct studentcentered activities.

15.51

4.291

.368

.580

Teachers locate resources for preparing lessons/activities that address/incorporate realworld examples.

15.33

4.780

.370

.580

Table 6. STEM subscales list (PCA 4)
Next, I identified where most schools answered the Effective Learning Teacher Survey and the Effective Learning Leader Survey “Almost never” or “Almost daily.” The table below shows the items with responses “Almost never” or “Almost daily” crosstabulated with their responses. Questions are on the Columns and the two targeted responses are on the Rows.
Table 7. Survey items with responses of “Almost Daily” and “Almost Never”
Whereas certain questions received “Almost never” responses (e.g.: Q52_4, Q52_7, Q52_15), only Elijah McCoy stood out in terms of variability (see Table 8). The table above was obtained after sorting the Teacher survey data by Schools in which a teacher is teaching. Standard deviation was used as a measure of variability for questions Q13_1 to Q66_14 with respect to each school.
It is therefore evident from the above table that Elijah McCoy school teachers have the highest variability in responses to the teacher survey questionnaire, closely followed by Annie Easley and Mae Jemisson.
School

Number of Teachers

Standard deviation of Responses (Q13_1 to Q66_14)

Elijah McCoy

14

3.684

Mae Jemisson

9

3.625

Benjamin Banneker

27

3.389

Shirley Jackson

7

2.957

Aprille Ericsson

17

3.365

Annie Easley

21

3.635

Richard Spikes

10

3.617

Total

105

Table 8. Variability among teachers
The following interpretations can be made from the correlation matrix in the Effective Learning Leader Survey, with respect to the correlation between the questions asked (see Technical report for full correlation matrix):
· The item “My school receives instructional resources commensurate with other schools in the district” is moderately positively correlated (r=0.665) with the item “My school has a sufficient number of nonlicensed staff to operate efficiently and effectively.” The correlation is significant (p=0.026<0.05).
· The item “My school receives instructional resources commensurate with student needs” is highly positively correlated (r=0.724) with the item “My school receives instructional resources commensurate with other schools in the district.” The correlation is significant (p=0.012<0.05).
· The item “Communication systems promote a flow of information across the entire school community, including central office personnel, parents, and community members” is highly positively correlated (r=0.753) with the item “My district HR department provides highly qualified applicants for open faculty positions in this school.” The correlation is significant (p=0.007<0.05).
· The item “Communication systems promote a flow of information across the entire school community, including central office personnel, parents, and community members” is highly positively correlated (r=0.742) with the item “My school is provided sufficient data and information to make informed decisions.” The correlation is significant (p=0.009<0.05).
· The item “Leaders, teachers, and staff at this school are knowledgeable about issues that matter to the community” is highly positively correlated (r=0.767) with the item “My school receives instructional resources commensurate with student needs.” The correlation is significant (p=0.006<0.05).
· The item “The district has clear and helpful policies for schools as to how to handle student conduct issues.” is highly positively correlated (r=0.881) with the item “My district HR department provides highly qualified applicants for open faculty positions in this school.” The correlation is significant (p=0.000<0.05).
· The item “The district has clear and helpful policies for schools as to how to handle student conduct issues.” is moderately positively correlated (r=0.646) with the item “My school is provided sufficient data and information to make informed decisions.” The correlation is significant (p=0.032<0.05).
· The item “Leaders, teachers, and staff at this school are knowledgeable about issues that matter to the community” is highly positively correlated (r=0.935) with the item “Communication systems promote a flow of information across the entire school community, including central office personnel, parents, and community members.” The correlation is significant (p=0.000<0.05).
· The item “The district supports efforts to create a safe environment in this school” is highly positively correlated (r=0.821) with the item “My district HR department provides highly qualified applicants for open faculty positions in this school.” The correlation is significant (p=0.002<0.05).
· The item “The district supports efforts to create a safe environment in this school” is highly positively correlated (r=0.711) with the item “Communication systems promote a flow of information across the entire school community, including central office personnel, parents, and community members.” The correlation is significant (p=0.014<0.05).
· The item “The district supports efforts to create a safe environment in this school” is highly positively correlated (r=0.890) with the item “The district has clear and helpful policies for schools as to how to handle student conduct issues.” The correlation is significant (p=0.000<0.05).
· The item “This school has explicit supports (resources, policies, processes, personnel) in place to support positive student behavior” is highly positively correlated (r=0.846) with the item “My school receives instructional resources commensurate with student needs.” The correlation is significant (p=0.001<0.05).
· The item “This school has explicit supports (resources, policies, processes, personnel) in place to support positive student behavior” is highly positively correlated (r=0.627) with the item “Community organizations are working effectively in this school to improve learning outcomes.” The correlation is significant (p=0.039<0.05).
· The item “This school has explicit supports (resources, policies, processes, personnel) in place to support positive student behavior” is highly positively correlated (r=0.624) with the item “Communication systems promote a flow of information across the entire school community, including central office personnel, parents, and community members.” The correlation is significant (p=0.040<0.05).
· The item “This school has explicit supports (resources, policies, processes, personnel) in place to support positive student behavior” is highly positively correlated (r=0.807) with the item “Leaders, teachers, and staff at this school are knowledgeable about issues that matter to the community.” The correlation is significant (p=0.03<0.05).
· The item “Principals are trusted to make sound professional decisions about instruction in this district.” is highly positively correlated (r=0.843) with the item “My school receives instructional resources commensurate with student needs.” The correlation is significant (p=0.01<0.05).
· The item “Principals are trusted to make sound professional decisions about instruction in this district.” is highly positively correlated (r=0.723) with the item “Leaders, teachers, and staff at this school are knowledgeable about issues that matter to the community.” The correlation is significant (p=0.012<0.05).
· The item “Principals are trusted to make sound professional decisions about instruction in this district.” is highly positively correlated (r=0.851) with the item “Leaders, teachers, and staff at this school are knowledgeable about issues that matter to the community.” The correlation is significant (p=0.001<0.05).
· The item “The district involves principals in decisions that directly impact the operations of my school” is highly positively correlated (r=0.826) with the item “The district supports school outreach efforts to engage parents and guardians at this school.” The correlation is significant (p=0.003<0.05).
· The item “Principals are trusted to make sound professional decisions about instruction in this district.” is highly positively correlated (r=0.851) with the item “Leaders, teachers, and staff at this school are knowledgeable about issues that matter to the community.” The correlation is significant (p=0.001<0.05).
· The item “Principals are trusted to make sound professional decisions about instruction in this district.” is highly positively correlated (r=0.826) with the item “The district supports school outreach efforts to engage parents and guardians at this school.” The correlation is significant (p=0.003<0.05).
· The item “Principals are trusted to make sound professional decisions about instruction in this district.” is moderately positively correlated (r=0.648) with the item “Leaders, teachers, and staff at this school are knowledgeable about issues that matter to the community.” The correlation is significant (p=0.031<0.05).
· The item “Sufficient resources are available to principals to participate in professional development opportunities.” is moderately positively correlated (r=0.645) with the item “The district supports school outreach efforts to engage parents and guardians at this school.” The correlation is significant (p=0.044<0.05).
· The item “Sufficient resources are available to principals to participate in professional development opportunities.” is moderately positively correlated (r=0.677) with the item “Leaders, teachers, and staff at this school are knowledgeable about issues that matter to the community.” The correlation is significant (p=0.022<0.05).
· The item “Sufficient resources are available to principals to participate in professional development opportunities.” is moderately positively correlated (r=0.624) with the item “The district involves principals in decisions that directly impact the operations of my school.” The correlation is significant (p=0.040<0.05)
· Discuss these areas NOT found in 7 elementary schools: values, Collaboration and planning, Curriculum and instruction, Professional learning, Communication.
Interpretation of anova results. When crossexamining the survey questions, including the Student Perception Survey (SPS) with the LEAP Framework for Effective Teaching (e.g.: variables I, LE, P1P6), there are some significant differences between schools.
For variable (I): Instruction. Since pvalue = 0.000 < 0.05, there is a significant difference between the groups i.e. different school teachers` responses on the survey are significantly different from each other.
For variable (LE): Learning environment. Since pvalue = 0.001< 0.05, there is a significant difference between the groups i.e. different school teachers` responses on the survey are significantly different from each other.
For variable (P1P6): Indicators on teacher evaluation rubric for professionalism. Since pvalue = 0.000 < 0.05, there is a significant difference between the groups i.e. different school teachers` responses on the survey are significantly different from each other.
For variable (SPS): Student perception survey. Since pvalue = 0.102 > 0.05, there is no significant difference between the groups i.e. different school teachers` responses on the survey are not significantly different from each other.
For variable (LE1): Demonstrates knowledge of, interest in and respect for diverse students’ communities and cultures in a manner that increases equity. Since pvalue = 0.003< 0.05, there is a significant difference between the groups i.e. different school teachers` responses on the survey are significantly different from each other.
For variable (LE2): Fosters a motivational and respectful classroom environment. Since pvalue = 0.004< 0.05, there is a significant difference between the groups i.e. different school teachers` responses on the survey are significantly different from each other.
For variable (LE3): Implements high, clear expectations for students’ behavior and routines. Since pvalue = 0.001< 0.05, there is a significant difference between the groups i.e. different school teachers` responses on the survey are significantly different from each other.
For variable (LE4): Classroom resources and physical environment support students and their learning. Since pvalue = 0.031< 0.05, there is a significant difference between the groups i.e. different school teachers` responses on the survey are significantly different from each other.
For variable (I1): Clearly communicates the standardsbased contentlanguage objective(s) for the lesson, connecting to larger rationale(s). Since pvalue = 0.000< 0.05, there is a significant difference between the groups i.e. different school teachers` responses on the survey are significantly different from each other.
For variable (I2): Provides rigorous tasks that require critical thinking with appropriate digital and other supports to ensure students’ success. Since pvalue = 0.000< 0.05, there is a significant difference between the groups i.e. different school teachers` responses on the survey are significantly different from each other.
For variable (I3): Intentionally uses instructional methods and pacing to teach the contentlanguage objective(s). Since pvalue = 0.001< 0.05, there is a significant difference between the groups i.e. different school teachers` responses on the survey are significantly different from each other.
For variable (I4): Ensures all students’ active and appropriate use of academic language. Since pvalue = 0.000< 0.05, there is a significant difference between the groups i.e. different school teachers` responses on the survey are significantly different from each other.
For variable (I5): Checks for understanding of contentlanguage objective(s). Since pvalue = 0.000< 0.05, there is a significant difference between the groups i.e. different school teachers` responses on the survey are significantly different from each other.
For variable (I6): Provides differentiation that addresses students’ instructional needs and supports mastery of contentlanguage objective(s). Since pvalue = 0.000< 0.05, there is a significant difference between the groups i.e. different school teachers` responses on the survey are significantly different from each other.
For variable (I7): Provides students with academicallyfocused descriptive feedback aligned to contentlanguage objective(s). Since pvalue = 0.001< 0.05, there is a significant difference between the groups i.e. different school teachers` responses on the survey are significantly different from each other.
For variable (I8): Promotes students’ communication and collaboration utilizing appropriate digital and other resources. Since pvalue = 0.000< 0.05, there is a significant difference between the groups i.e. different school teachers` responses on the survey are significantly different from each other.
In running a PostHoc test for this study, I wanted to know which elementary schools are significantly different from each other after the ANOVA test declared all the schools different in their responses. For the variable (Instruction), the results of the pairwise comparison of the Tukey test, based on responses of the teachers for the different schools Aprille Ericsson, Annie Easley, Richard Spikes, Elijah McCoy, Mae Jemisson, Benjamin Banneker, Shirley Jackson indicated that Aprille Ericsson and other schools do not differ pair wisely since all their respective pvalues > 0.05. Annie Easley, Richard Spikes, and Shirley Jackson differ since their respective pvalues < 0.05, but do not differ from the remaining schools. Richard Spikes, Annie Easley, and Benjamin Banneker differ since there pvalues < 0.05 but do not differ from the remaining schools. Elijah McCoy and other schools do not differ pair wisely since all their respective pvalues > 0.05. Mae Jemisson and other schools do not differ pair wisely since all their respective pvalues > 0.05. Benjamin Banneker and Richard Spikes differ pair wisely since their pvalues < 0.05, but do not differ from the remaining schools. Shirley Jackson differ from Annie Easley since their pvalue< 0.05 but Shirley Jackson do not differ from the remaining schools. College View and Benjamin Banneker) differ since their pvalues < 0.05 but do not differ for the remaining schools.
For the “Learning Environment” (LE), the results of the pairwise comparison of the Tukey test, based on responses of the teachers for the different schools labeled Aprille Ericsson, Annie Easley, Richard Spikes, Elijah McCoy, Mae Jemisson, Benjamin Banneker, Shirley Jackson. Aprille Ericsson and other schools do not differ pair wisely since all their respective pvalues > 0.05. Annie Easley differ from Shirley Jackson since their pvalues < 0.05, but do not differ from the remaining schools. Richard Spikes and other schools do not differ pair wisely since all their respective pvalues > 0.05. Elijah McCoy and other schools are not differ pair wisely since all their respective pvalues > 0.05. Mae Jemisson and other schools are not differ pair wisely since all their respective pvalues > 0.05. Benjamin Banneker and other schools are not differ pair wisely since all their respective pvalues > 0.05. Shirley Jackson differ from Annie Easley since their pvalue < 0.05, but do not differ from the remaining schools.
For the Professionalism rubric variables (P1P6), the results of the pairwise comparison based on the responses of teachers for the different schools labeled Aprille Ericsson, Annie Easley, Richard Spikes, Elijah McCoy, Mae Jemisson, Benjamin Banneker, Shirley Jackson. Richard Spikes and other schools do not differ pair wisely since all their respective pvalues > 0.05. Mae Jemisson and other schools do not differ pair wisely since all their respective pvalues > 0.05. Schools Aprille Ericsson’, Annie Easley, Elijah McCoy, Benjamin Banneker, Shirley Jackson differ since there pvalues < 0.05, but do not differ for the remaining schools.
For “Positive Classroom Culture and Climate” (LE1 and 2), the results of the pairwise comparison, Aprille Ericsson and other schools do not differ pair wisely since all their respective pvalues > 0.05. Annie Easley and other schools do not differ pair wisely since all their respective pvalues > 0.05. Richard Spikes and other schools do not differ pair wisely since all their respective pvalues > 0.05. Elijah McCoy and other schools do not differ pair wisely since all their respective pvalues > 0.05. Mae Jemisson and other schools do not differ pair wisely since all their respective pvalues > 0.05. Benjamin Banneker and other schools do not differ pair wisely since all their respective pvalues > 0.05. Shirley Jackson and other schools do not differ pair wisely since all their respective pvalues > 0.05. Based on responses of the teachers (LE2) for the different schools labeled Aprille Ericsson, Annie Easley, Richard Spikes, Elijah McCoy, Mae Jemisson, Benjamin Banneker, Shirley Jackson. Aprille Ericsson and other schools are not differ pair wisely since all their respective pvalues > 0.05. Annie Easley differ from Shirley Jackson since their pvalue < 0.05, but do not differ from the remaining schools. Richard Spikes and other schools do not differ pair wisely since all their respective pvalues > 0.05. Elijah McCoy and other schools do not differ pair wisely since all their respective pvalues > 0.05. Mae Jemisson and other schools do not differ pair wisely since all their respective pvalues > 0.05. Benjamin Banneker and other schools do not differ pair wisely since all their respective pvalues > 0.05. Shirley Jackson differ from Annie Easley differ since their pvalue < 0.05 but do not differ from the remaining schools.
When analyzing “Effective Classroom Management (LE3LE4), based on the teacher responses for Aprille Ericsson, Annie Easley, Richard Spikes, Elijah McCoy, Mae Jemisson, Benjamin Banneker, Shirley Jackson, Aprille Ericsson and other schools are not differ pair wisely since all their respective pvalues > 0.05. Annie Easley differ from Richard Spikes since their pvalue < 0.05 but do not differ from the remaining schools. Richard Spikes differ from Annie Easley since their pvalues < 0.05, but do not differ from the remaining schools. Elijah McCoy and other schools do not differ pair wisely since all their respective pvalues > 0.05. Mae Jemisson and other schools do not differ pair wisely since all their respective pvalues > 0.05. Benjamin Banneker and other schools do not differ pair wisely since all their respective pvalues > 0.05. Shirley Jackson and other schools do not differ pair wisely since all their respective pvalues > 0.05. When specifically looking at “Classroom resources and the physical environment” (LE4) for the different schools Aprille Ericsson and other schools do not differ pair wisely since all their respective pvalues > 0.05. Annie Easley and other schools do not differ pair wisely since all their respective pvalues > 0.05. Richard Spikes and other schools do not differ pair wisely since all their respective pvalues > 0.05. Elijah McCoy and other schools do not differ pair wisely since all their respective pvalues > 0.05. Mae Jemisson and other schools do not differ pair wisely since all their respective pvalues > 0.05. Benjamin Banneker and other schools do not differ pair wisely since all their respective pvalues > 0.05. Shirley Jackson and other schools do not differ pair wisely since all their respective pvalues > 0.05.
When examining “Masterful Content Delivery” (I14) the results are as follows for “Clearly communicates the standardsbased contentlanguage objective(s) for the lesson, connecting to larger rationale(s)”:
· Aprille Ericsson and other schools are not differ pair wisely since all their respective pvalues > 0.05.
· Annie Easley and (Richard Spikes) differ since there pvalues < 0.05 but do not differ for the remaining schools.
· Richard Spikes and (Annie Easley, Benjamin Banneker) differ since there pvalues < 0.05 but do not differ for the remaining schools.
· Elijah McCoy and other schools do not differ pair wisely since all their respective pvalues > 0.05.
· Mae Jemisson and other schools do not differ pair wisely since all their respective pvalues > 0.05.
· Benjamin Banneker differ from Richard Spikes since their pvalue < 0.05 but do not differ from the remaining schools.
Analyzing “Provides rigorous tasks that require critical thinking with appropriate digital and other supports to ensure students’ success (I2) show the following results:
· Aprille Ericsson and other schools are not differ pair wisely since all their respective pvalues > 0.05.
· Annie Easley and (Richard Spikes) differ since there pvalues < 0.05 but do not differ for the remaining schools.
· Richard Spikes differ from Annie Easley since their pvalue < 0.05 but do not differ from the remaining schools.
· Elijah McCoy and other schools are not differ pair wisely since all their respective pvalues > 0.05.
· Benjamin Banneker and other schools are not differ pair wisely since all their respective pvalues > 0.05.
· Shirley Jackson and other schools are not differ pair wisely since all their respective pvalues > 0.05.
· School Annie Easley and Mae Jemisson differ since their pvalues < 0.05, but do not differ for the remaining schools.
For teachers “Intentionally use[ing] instructional methods and pacing to teach the contentlanguage objective(s) (I3):
· Aprille Ericsson and other schools do not differ pair wisely since all their respective pvalues > 0.05.
· Annie Easley and other schools do not differ pair wisely since all their respective pvalues > 0.05.
· Richard Spikes and other schools do not differ pair wisely since all their respective pvalues > 0.05.
· Elijah McCoy and other schools do not differ pair wisely since all their respective pvalues > 0.05.
· Mae Jemisson and other schools do not differ pair wisely since all their respective pvalues > 0.05.
· Benjamin Banneker and other schools do not differ pair wisely since all their respective pvalues > 0.05.
· Shirley Jackson and other schools do not differ pair wisely since all their respective pvalues > 0.05.
When analyzing whether teachers ensure “all students’ active and appropriate use of academic language (I4):
· Aprille Ericsson and other schools do not differ pair wisely since all their respective pvalues > 0.05.
· Annie Easley and (Richard Spikes, Shirley Jackson) differ since their pvalues < 0.05 but do not differ for the remaining schools.
· Richard Spikes and (Annie Easley, Mae Jemisson, Benjamin Banneker) differ since their pvalues < 0.05 but do not differ for the remaining schools.
· Elijah McCoy and other schools do not differ pair wisely since all their respective pvalues > 0.05.
· Mae Jemisson and (Richard Spikes) differ since their pvalues < 0.05, but do not differ for the remaining schools.
· Benjamin Banneker differ from Richard Spikes since their pvalue < 0.05, but do not differ from the remaining schools.
· Shirley Jackson differ from Annie Easley since their pvalue < 0.05, but do not differ from the remaining schools.
· Annie Easley and Mae Jemisson differ since their pvalues < 0.05, but do not differ for the remaining schools.
From the results of the pairwise comparison of the Tukey test for “HighImpact Instructional Moves” (I58), specifically with “Checks for understanding of contentlanguage objective(s) (I5), based on responses of the teachers for the different schools, Aprille Ericsson and other schools do not differ pair wisely since all their respective pvalues > 0.05. Annie Easley and other schools do not differ pair wisely since all their respective pvalues > 0.05. Richard Spikes differ from Benjamin Banneker differ since their pvalue < 0.05 but do not differ from the remaining schools. Elijah McCoy and other schools are not differ pair wisely since all their respective pvalues > 0.05. Mae Jemisson and other schools do not differ pair wisely since all their respective pvalues > 0.05. Benjamin Banneker, Richard Spikes and Shirley Jackson all differ since their pvalues < 0.05, but do not differ for the remaining schools. Shirley Jackson differ from Benjamin Banneker since their pvalue < 0.05, but do not differ from the remaining schools.
As teachers “Provide differentiation that addresses students’ instructional needs and supports mastery of contentlanguage objectives” (I6), the analysis of the pairwise comparison indicate that Aprille Ericsson and other schools are not differ pair wisely since all their respective pvalues > 0.05. Annie Easley and (Richard Spikes, Shirley Jackson) differ since their pvalues < 0.05, but do not differ for the remaining schools. Richard Spikes and (Annie Easley, Mae Jemisson) differ since their pvalues < 0.05 but do not differ for the remaining schools. Elijah McCoy and other schools do not differ pair wisely since all their respective pvalues > 0.05. Mae Jemisson and other schools do not differ pair wisely since all their respective pvalues > 0.05. Benjamin Banneker and (Richard Spikes, Shirley Jackson) differ since their pvalues < 0.05 but do not differ for the remaining schools. Shirley Jackson and (Annie Easley, Mae Jemisson) differ since their pvalues < 0.05, but do not differ for the remaining schools. Annie Easley and Mae Jemisson differ since their pvalues < 0.05, but do not differ for the remaining schools.
For “Provides students with academicallyfocused descriptive feedback aligned to contentlanguage objective(s)” (I7):
· Aprille Ericsson and other schools are not differ pair wisely since all their respective pvalues > 0.05.
· Annie Easley and other schools are not differ pair wisely since all their respective pvalues > 0.05.
· Richard Spikes and other schools are not differ pair wisely since all their respective pvalues > 0.05.
· Elijah McCoy and other schools are not differ pair wisely since all their respective pvalues > 0.05.
· Mae Jemisson and other schools are not differ pair wisely since all their respective pvalues > 0.05.
· Benjamin Banneker and other schools are not differ pair wisely since all their respective pvalues > 0.05.
· Shirley Jackson and other schools are not differ pair wisely since all their respective pvalues > 0.05.
Finally, for “Promotes students’ communication and collaboration utilizing appropriate digital and other resources” (I8):
· Aprille Ericsson and other schools do not differ pair wisely since all their respective pvalues > 0.05.
· Annie Easley and other schools do not differ pair wisely since all their respective pvalues > 0.05.
· Richard Spikes differ from Benjamin Banneker since their pvalue < 0.05 but do not differ from the remaining schools.
· Elijah McCoy and other schools do not differ pair wisely since all their respective pvalues > 0.05.
· Mae Jemisson and other schools do not differ pair wisely since all their respective pvalues > 0.05.
· Benjamin Banneker differ from Richard Spikes since their pvalue < 0.05 but do not differ from the remaining schools.
· Shirley Jackson and other schools do not differ pair wisely since all their respective pvalues > 0.05.
These Posthoc tests indicate that there is no significant difference between the responses of the teachers for the schools involved in the Effective Learning Teacher Survey, the Effective Learning Leader Survey (ELLS), and the Student Perception Survey (SPS).