5-JMS Needs Assessment Report Final.pdf

Springboard

Jean Massieu School of the Deaf Needs Assessment Report DRAFT

Dr. Gregory Firn 4-3-2026

Contents Needs Assessment Report

Process

Context

Executive Summary

Theory of Action

Priority Focus

Priority Focus Area 1:

“If… Then… Because…”

Priority Focus Area 2:

“If…Then…Because…”

Four Quadrant Problem Identification

Four Quadrant Problem Identification

Student Learning Outcomes

Summary

Analysis: Technical Problems and Adaptive Challenges: Student Outcomes:

Summary

Instructional Practices

Summary

Analysis: Technical Problems and Adaptive Challenges: Instructional Practice:

Instructional Practice Challenges by level of Control

Leadership

Summary

Analysis: Technical Problems and Adaptive Challenges: Leadership

School Culture

Summary

Technical Problems and Adaptive Challenges: School Culture

Further Analysis

Cluster Analysis

Student Learning Outcomes

Instructional Practices

Leadership

School Culture

Affinity Process

Priority Force Choice Results

Needs Assessment Report

Process Jean Massieu School of Deaf (JMS), as a designated Springboard school, participated in a three-step problem-based needs assessment process that included:

• Reviewing specific state of Utah accountability measures including current achievement and growth metrics and expected exit targets.

• Reviewing current reality and desired future

• The identification of problems and challenges with student outcomes, instructional practices, culture, and leadership1.

• Analyzing the causes and/or contributing factors to identified problems and challenges

• Differentiating technical problems (TP) from adaptive challenges (AC).

• Examining 1) patterns and trends, 2) systemic structures (policies, resources, schedules, etc.), and 3) the deeply held beliefs, assumptions, and/or values underpinning problems or challenges with current practices, tasks, activities, and routines.

• Prioritizing and analyzing TP and AC

Context The JMS is a specialized public school located in Salt Lake City, Utah, dedicated to providing bilingual-bicultural education for Deaf and Hard of Hearing (DHH) students.

Core Educational Philosophy

JMS is built on the belief that Deaf children are "cultural beings" who thrive when given full, natural access to language. Its model focuses on:

• ASL-English Bilingualism: Students develop proficiency in American Sign Language (ASL) as their primary instructional language while simultaneously mastering written and spoken English.

• Identity & Culture: The school fosters a keen sense of "Deaf Identity," ensuring students see themselves as valued members of a rich cultural minority rather than individuals with a "deficit."

1 Leadership is defined as distributed and not limited to a specific position or person.

• Direct Communication: Unlike mainstream settings where a student might rely on an interpreter, JMS provides an environment where teachers and peers communicate directly in the same language.

JMS is a Springboard school because the percentage of accountability points earned averaged over the past three years ranked the school as one of the five lowest performing non-Title I elementary, middle, or junior high schools.

To exit Springboard status, JMS is required to achieve a one-third reduction in the gap between the baseline of 29.05% (equivalent to 39.8 out of 137 points) and the target of 37.70% (or 51.65 out of 137 points). Additionally, the school must surpass the cut score set for the lowest 5% of Title I schools from the year it was identified.

Table 1:

Points Possible

Points Earned

Total Percent

Target Points

Exit Target Delta of Points To Exit

137 39.8 29.05% 51.65 37.70% 11.85

The Utah Accountability Technical Manual provides detailed information on the points and weighting of indicators for elementary and middle schools. In examining the accountability indicators for JMS (2016-2025), the school has showed consistent gains in achievement except for the 2023-2024 school year where the school experienced a drop (from 27.88% to 22.41%. However, the school corrected that decrease in 2025, improving from 22.41% to 28.83%. Yet, even with this positive improvement, the school unfortunately consistently performs lower when ranked against other schools in the state.

Beyond the scope of this needs assessment, it is noted that the school is engaged with the Utah Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) to support goals identified in a Legislative Performance Aduit focused on improving assessment benchmarking and strengthening the Educational Benefit Review process for JMS.

For detailed information pertaining to whole school and student group performance see the Data Gateway on the USBE website for the School Report Card and Accountability Indicator data).

https://www.schools.utah.gov/assessment/_assessment_/_resources_/_accountability_/25AccountabilityTechnicalManualDRAFT.pdf https://datagateway.schools.utah.gov/

Executive Summary The JMS is a unique school serving students who are deaf and hard of hearing. The school’s leadership and educators are highly dedicated and are committed to providing a safe, nurturing, and rich educational experience..

For context, several challenges identified through the needs assessment process are primarily outside the control of the school. Two of these challenges are worth noting to provide an informed understanding of circumstances educators find themselves working daily to address.

The two main challenges are: 1) language deprivation and limited first language (L1) development, and 2) a systemic disconnect between home and school caused by inaccessible communication, lack of family resources, and external barriers that isolate families and hinder effective partnership.

Language Deprivation

Language deprivation is a significant challenge because it is not just about "not hearing sounds"; it is about the brain missing the critical window for foundational cognitive development. Identified in the needs assessment process were several behavioral challenges related to the cognitive development including delays in executive functioning, impulse control, self-regulation to name three that impact the learning environment.

Unlike many other disabilities, the primary struggle for a child who is Deaf or Hard of Hearing (DHH) is not the biological condition itself, but the lack of access to a fluid, accessible language (like Sign Language) during the first few years of life.

Associated with language deprivation are deficiencies in development of a solid first-language (L1) foundation that often leads to a lag in literacy development.

Though beyond the scope of this needs assessment, the challenges with language deprivation are not a result of deafness itself, but a result of an inaccessible environment.

The school is keenly aware that providing early access to American Sign Language (ASL) alongside spoken language support (a "bilingual-bicultural" approach) is a common strategy to ensure the brain gets the input it needs.

However, the school has little or no control over the home environment and therefore, with respect to the needs assessment, must focus on those factors that are within their control or significant influence.

Systemic Disconnect

While the school possesses the capacity to implement strategies that enhance engagement between the school and students' families, external barriers remain beyond their control. The school retains significant authority over their internal environment and can regularly review and refine strategies to address, mitigate, or lessen the negative effects of these external circumstances.

It is noted that school leadership expressed a need to revisit strategies and actions steps to address these systemic disconnects.

The needs assessment process identified two priority focus areas which, if executed with fidelity, are expected to enable the school to establish a solid foundation for ongoing improvement. These focus areas have given rise to two theories of action that fall within the school's sphere of control or considerable influence.

Additional Context

School leadership has provided additional context that includes:

JMS serves a highly specialized population of 109 K–12 students:

• 99 students are on IEPs

• 10 students have 504 Plans (with approximately half in grades K–2 and not included in state testing)

• (We had 49 students take RISE for 3rd-8th last year and anticipate about 45 this year)

It is important to emphasize that students at JMS who have IEPs have documented academic needs. The school does not develop IEPs for students who only require related services; these are students with significant language and academic delays.

Given this context, the expectation that students who are reading two or more grade levels below would perform at or near grade level on standardized assessments such as RISE is not a reasonable or appropriate measure of school effectiveness. While we absolutely expect and value student growth, proficiency-based accountability does not reflect the reality of our student population.

As a result, the ability for JMS to exit Springboard status may depend less on instructional improvement and more on cohort variability (e.g., the proportion of students on 504 plans versus IEPs in a given year), which is not a meaningful or equitable indicator of school performance.

JMS remains committed to continuous improvement and collaboration. However, meaningful progress will require:

• accountability measures that prioritize student growth and language development

• increased focus on early language access and family support systems

• recognition of ASL-rich environments as a foundational strength

• system-level solutions that do not place additional burden on classroom teachers

In summary, improvement efforts must be grounded in a Deaf-centered framework that reflects the realities of language acquisition and ensures that accountability measures are both appropriate and equitable for this population.

Theory of Action The school administration developed a Theory of Change (ToC) for JMS that incorporates specific leadership actions to efficiently initiate, guide, and oversee the change required to achieve the intended outcomes of each Theory of Action (ToA). The ToAs emphasize primary priorities identified through a thorough assessment of technical issues and adaptive challenges influencing inconsistent student performance. These are organized with "if," "then," and "because" statements to clarify logic and purpose.

Based on the challenges outlined, the issues are grouped into two high-leverage focus areas under the school's control. These priorities address root causes rather than surface symptoms and aim to alleviate staff workload while enhancing student outcomes. While the priority areas may seem broad, they remain highly interconnected and mutually dependent.

Priority Focus

Priority Focus Area 1:

Coherent ASL-Centered Instructional System (Curriculum, Assessment, and Tier 1 Instruction)

Develop and implement a unified, ASL-centered instructional framework that aligns curriculum, assessment, and Tier 1 instruction to ensure all students can access grade-level content while systematically building foundational language skills.

• This is a priority because it addresses:

• The need for appropriate, ASL-aligned curriculum and assessment tools

• Wide variability in student language and academic levels

• Challenges in delivering grade-level instruction

• Staff overextension due to creating and adapting materials independently

At the same time, it is essential to ground this work in the unique context of Deaf education. The primary factor impacting student outcomes at JMS is not necessarily instructional quality, but rather, as noted language deprivation prior to school entry.

Students often arrive without a fully developed first language, requiring the school to simultaneously:

• Build foundational language (ASL)

• Develop English literacy

• Deliver grade-level academic content

This context differs fundamentally from general education and must be considered when evaluating both instructional practices and student outcomes.

While a more coherent instructional system can reduce unnecessary variability, improve efficiency, and support staff sustainability, it is important to recognize that a unified curriculum alone will not resolve the core challenge of diverse and often delayed language acquisition. Additionally, the high number of students requiring Tier 2 and Tier 3 supports reflects entry-level language needs rather than deficiencies in Tier 1 instruction.

The current narrative around performance should also be balanced. While there are clear opportunities for growth, JMS provides an ASL-rich environment that supports language development in ways not captured by traditional accountability systems, which are not well-aligned to Deaf education contexts.

As next steps are considered, it is critical that conclusions and recommendations are grounded in the linguistic and educational realities of students who are DHH and aligned with appropriate, meaningful measures of success.

“If… Then… Because…”

If JMS develops and implements a unified, ASL-centered instructional framework that aligns curriculum, assessment, and Tier 1 instruction, then all students will have more consistent access to grade-level content while systematically building foundational language skills, and staff will be better supported with shared tools and expectations, because students enter with widely varying and often underdeveloped language foundations due to language deprivation prior to school entry, requiring simultaneous development of ASL, English literacy, and academic content—making a coherent yet flexible system essential to reduce unnecessary variability, support instructional responsiveness, and reflect the unique context of Deaf education where outcomes are influenced more by language access than by instructional quality alone.

Priority Focus Area 2:

Staff Capacity & Family Language Partnership System Strengthen staff expertise, clarify roles, and build sustainable family partnerships to support ASL and language development, reducing staff overload while improving student communication and learning outcomes.

This is a priority because these addresses:

• Insufficient professional development opportunities

• Overextended staff and role overload

• Lack of family language capacity and support

• Limited infrastructure for family engagement

Without building adult capacity (both staff and families), student language gaps will persist.

Consider creating a sustainable support system that further strengthens and leverages:

• Staff expertise in Deaf education and language development

• Role clarity and workload balance

• Family ability to support ASL and communication at home.

“If…Then…Because…”

If the school leverages and strengthens the expertise of staff through supportive coaching, clarifies staff roles to reduce overload, and builds a strong family language support system with meaningful school–family partnerships, then teachers will be more effective and less overwhelmed, families will be better equipped to support language development, and students will experience improved and more consistent language outcomes, because both staff and families will have the knowledge, structures, and support needed to collaboratively and sustainably address the complex language and learning needs of diverse DHH students.

Four Quadrant Problem Identification The following are the responses and summaries from the School Improvement Committee (SIC) work completed Monday, March 16, 2026, at Jean Massieu School of the Deaf (JMS).

Four Quadrant Problem Identification The Four Quadrant Problem Identification asked the SIC individually to reflect and record their perspective on specific challenges or problems impacting the school's performance, considering the data and their daily experiences in the following four areas:

1. Student Learning Outcomes: What academic struggles are evident?

2. Instructional Practices: What challenges exist in teaching and learning?)

3. Leadership: What are the challenges related to school administration and leadership?

4. School Culture: What are the social and emotional challenges?

The following are the responses, level of support (support being defined with agreement), choosing priority of importance (notes by asterisk or in some cases multiple asterisks) and identifying their priority as either a technical problem (TP), an adaptive challenge (AC) or both (I’ve used the label “Both” to signify both an identified TP and AC).

Note: L1 refers to a person’s first language

L2 refers to a person’s second language.

Student Learning Outcomes

Summary The responses highlight several interconnected challenges impacting student learning outcomes. The core issue across responses is language access—specifically, delayed, or limited exposure to American Sign Language (ASL) development and/or English (spoken and written) —which cascades into academic delays, behavioral challenges, and mismatches in curriculum and assessment.

1. Language Deprivation and Limited First Language (L1) Development A major concern is insufficient access to a strong first language (ASL). Many students enter school with delayed or underdeveloped language due to limited exposure at home, leading to ongoing language deprivation that affects all areas of learning.

2. Low Literacy and Academic Performance Students frequently demonstrate low reading levels and are often performing 2–3 grade levels behind. These gaps make it difficult to teach grade-level content and require significant remediation.

3. Communication Barriers and Behavioral Issues Communication breakdowns contribute to frustration and behavioral challenges.

Severe behavior issues further disrupt learning and require additional instructional support that is often lacking.

4. Inadequate Curriculum and Instructional Fit Existing curricula and instructional practices are often not well-designed for DHH learners. Teacher’s report needing to modify or “fill in gaps” to meet student needs, indicating a lack of appropriate, specialized resources.

5. Lack of Targeted Language Intervention There is insufficient intensive, individualized language instruction to help students “catch up,” especially for those with significant language delays.

6. Concerns with Assessment Practices Standardized testing is viewed as inappropriate or insufficient, as it does not account for DHH students’ unique language and learning profiles. There is a need for assessments designed specifically for Deaf students and opportunities to compare performance with Deaf peers.

Analysis: Technical Problems and Adaptive Challenges: Student Outcomes:

Primarily Technical Problems

(Problems with clear solutions, existing expertise, or tools that can be improved or implemented)

• Lack of appropriate curriculum for DHH students

• Limited or inappropriate assessment/testing tools for Deaf students

• Insufficient instructional resources aligned to student levels.

Primarily Adaptive Challenges

(Problems requiring shifts in beliefs, behaviors, systems, or long-term approaches)

• Language deprivation and delayed language development

• Limited/underdeveloped ASL (L1) due to home environment

• Lack of early and consistent language exposure

Both Technical + Adaptive Challenges

(Require both practical solutions AND shifts in practice, mindset, or systems)

• Low reading levels / students performing below grade level.

• Difficulty teaching grade-level content with large skill gaps

• Communication breakdowns leading to behavior issues.

• Severe behavioral challenges require more support.

• Need for individualized/intensive language instruction

• Curriculum not matching student needs (requiring constant adaptation)

Summary The challenges fall into a clear pattern:

• Root Cause (Adaptive):

Language deprivation and inconsistent early ASL exposure

• System Gaps (Technical):

Lack of appropriate/aligned curriculum, assessments, and structured interventions.

• Classroom Impact (Both):

Low academic performance, behavior issues, and difficulty accessing grade-level content.

Most of the highest-impact challenges are adaptive at their core but require technical “supports” to address them effectively. They demand simultaneous system change (adaptive) and resource development (technical).

Instructional Practices

Summary The responses reveal several overlapping issues in instructional practices, centered on capacity, preparation, and alignment to student needs. Instructional practices are constrained by a combination of:

• Inadequate tools and training

• System-level capacity issues

• High variability in student language and academic readiness

As a result, teachers are forced to simultaneously build foundational language, teach academic content, and manage interventions—often without sufficient support or resources.

1. Lack of Appropriate Curriculum and Instructional Tools

There is a shortage of curriculum and materials specifically designed for Deaf learners that:

• Align with ASL and Deaf culture.

• Address language delays and deprivation As a result, teachers often create their own resources to fill gaps.

2. Insufficient Training and Professional Development

Educators report limited access to:

• Specialized training in Deaf education and instructional strategies

• Support for working with diverse DHH populations, including students from other countries This leaves staff underprepared to meet complex language and learning needs.

3. Overextended Staff and Capacity Constraints

Despite appearing well-staffed, schools struggle with:

• Staff being spread too thin.

• Limited time to meet Tier 1 instructional needs.

• Balancing multiple roles: teaching content, addressing behavior, and developing students’ first language This creates an unsustainable workload.

4. Challenges with Multi-Tiered Systems of Support (MTSS)

There are systemic difficulties implementing Tier 1, 2, and 3 supports:

• Too many students need Tier 2 interventions.

• Insufficient differentiation within tiers (especially Tier 2)

• Structural challenges in delivering consistent, effective support across tiers.

5. Wide Range of Student Needs and Skill Gaps

Teachers face classrooms with:

• Significant variability in language and academic levels (e.g., kindergarten-level students in upper grades)

• Students lacking foundational ASL skills This makes it difficult to deliver grade-level instruction while also addressing foundational gaps.

6. Limited Family and Language Support Systems

There is a lack of infrastructure (e.g., family liaisons) to:

• Support language development at home (L1/ASL)

• Partner with families to strengthen early language foundations This limits the effectiveness of school-based instruction.

7. Need for Better Assessment Systems Alignment

Current assessment tools are either inadequate for:

• Measuring both L1 (ASL) and L2 (English) development This makes it harder to tailor instruction effectively.

Analysis: Technical Problems and Adaptive Challenges: Instructional Practice:

Instructional challenges are deeply interconnected, with most high-impact issues falling into the “both” categories.

At the core is a central tension:

• The school is trying to deliver grade-level instruction.

• While students often need foundational language development first

Primarily Technical Problems

(Can be addressed with clearer tools, systems, training, or resources)

• Lack of DHH-aligned curriculum and instructional tools

• Limited assessment tools to assess progress and inform instructional practice for ASL (L1) and English (L2)

• Insufficient professional development in Deaf education practices

• Structural challenges with MTSS (Tier 1, 2, 3 organization and implementation)

Primarily Adaptive Challenges

(Require shifts in beliefs, roles, priorities, or ways of working)

• Staff are feeling overextended despite staffing ratios.

• Serving linguistically and culturally diverse DHH students

• Limited family engagement in developing ASL at home

• Tension between teaching grade-level content vs. building foundational language.

Both Technical + Adaptive Challenges

(Require both concrete solutions AND shifts in practice or thinking)

• Wide variability in student language and academic levels

• Teachers create their own materials due to lack of resources.

• Too many students needing Tier 2 support (weak Tier 1 effectiveness)

• Simultaneously addressing language development, academics, and behavior

• Bridging significant ASL (L1) gaps in students

• Need for differentiated and targeted interventions (especially Tier 2)

These require:

• Technical support (interventions, materials, systems)

• Adaptive shifts (rethinking instruction, prioritizing language, redefining Tier 1)

Instructional Practice Challenges by level of Control The instructional practice challenges can be organized by level of control or within the influence of the school. This will assist with clarifying where immediate action vs. longer-term influence is needed.

Cautionary Note: There are constraints that pose in many instances limitations on what action the school can take. However, there are opportunities to think differently about the instructional challenges worth discussing.

• The school has strong leverage over how instruction is organized, delivered, and supported internally.

• The school can improve alignment and effectiveness even when resources are imperfect.

• Most critical instructional challenges are not caused by what the school lacks, but by:

• How instruction is structured (high control)

• How priorities are defined (high control)

• How existing resources are used (moderate control)

• Low-control factors (student language gaps) create the challenge, but high-control decisions (instructional design, MTSS, priorities) determine how effectively the school responds.

• The school’s greatest opportunity is to redefine instructional coherence, Leadership Note: Leadership is distributed and not limited to a title or position.

Summary Leadership challenges are driven by limited capacity (time, staffing, funding) and insufficient access to specialized expertise, making it difficult for leaders to effectively prioritize, support staff, and drive improvement in a complex DHH educational environment.

The responses highlight several key leadership barriers centered on capacity, prioritization, and access to resources and expertise:

1. Limited Professional Learning and Training

Leaders and staff lack sufficient access to:

• Ongoing training in DHH-specific instruction, including ASL, English, and additional disabilities.

• Professional development tailored specifically for leaders in Deaf education.

• Opportunities to collaborate with other Deaf schools or experts.

2. Insufficient Collaboration Structures

There is a need for more:

• Structured time and systems for staff collaboration

• Shared learning opportunities across teams

This limits collective problem-solving and consistency in practice.

3. Staffing and Role Challenges

Schools face ongoing issues with:

• Inadequate staffing levels

• Unclear or stretched roles and responsibilities.

• Difficulty ensuring enough qualified personnel to meet diverse student needs.

Limited Funding and Resources

Leaders’ report on constraints related to:

• Insufficient funding to support staffing, training, and programming.

• Limited access to external resources and support.

4. Leadership Capacity and Overload

Leaders are often:

• Managing too many responsibilities

• Struggling to prioritize competing demands across instructional, behavioral, and organizational needs

5. Need for Continuous Improvement Systems

There is a recognized need for:

• Ongoing development and support for teachers and staff

• Systems that promote continuous improvement in instruction and outcomes

Analysis: Technical Problems and Adaptive Challenges: Leadership Leadership challenges are not just about lack of resources, but about managing complexity in a highly specialized setting.

• Technical fixes (more funding, staffing, PD) are necessary.

• But the deeper challenge is how leaders organize people, time, and priorities.

The most critical leadership work is adaptive:

• Focusing effort on the highest-impact areas (e.g., language and instruction)

• Distributing leadership and building staff capacity

• Creating coherence across competing demands

Primarily Technical Problems

(Can be addressed with clearer systems, resources, or access)

• Limited funding resources

• Inadequate staffing levels and positions

• Access to external professional development and collaboration (e.g., with Deaf schools/experts)

• Lack of structured collaboration time for staff

• Insufficient access to training for educators and leaders

These challenges have more tangible solutions such as reallocating budgets, creating schedules for collaboration, or securing PD opportunities.

Primarily Adaptive Challenges

(Require shifts in leadership mindset, priorities, and ways of working)

• Difficulty prioritizing among many competing needs.

• Leadership overload and role strain

• Balancing support for diverse learners (DHH, additional disabilities students)

• Leading continuous improvement in a complex instructional environment

These require leaders to rethink:

• How priorities are set

• What work is essential vs. non-essential?

• How leadership is distributed across teams

Both Technical + Adaptive Challenges

(Require both concrete support AND shifts in practice or thinking)

• Staffing/role clarity and effectiveness

• Ongoing development of teachers and staff

• Building systems for collaboration and shared learning

• Providing effective training in ASL, English, and specialized DHH practices

These require:

• Technical solutions: clearer roles, PD systems, schedules

• Adaptive shifts: shared ownership, collaborative culture, redefining expertise, and responsibility

School Culture

Summary The responses point to a school culture shaped by overextension, gaps in family engagement, and systemic strain, all which impact relationships, and shared responsibility. The school culture reflects a misalignment of responsibility, where:

• Teachers carry most of the burden for language, academics, and social-emotional needs.

• Families are under-supported and under-engaged.

• Systems to bridge home and school are insufficient.

This results in a cycle of staff burnout, limited family partnership, and persistent student language gaps.

1. Overextended Staff and Role Overload

Teachers and staff are taking on multiple roles beyond instruction, including:

• Language developers (ASL and English)

• Counselors, caregivers, and behavioral supports

• Managers of IEPs, transitions, and diverse student needs

This creates a culture where educators feel overwhelmed and over-responsible for student success.

2. Weak Home–School Partnership

There is a significant disconnect between school and home:

• Limited parent involvement, especially after early childhood (PreK/K)

• Lack of consistent systems to facilitate communication between families and school

• Teachers carry the burden of building students’ language without sufficient family support.

3. Lack of Family Capacity and Resources

A number of families:

• They cannot communicate effectively with their child due to limited ASL knowledge.

• Do not have access to ongoing ASL learning or deaf education resources.

• Lose access to coaching and support after preschool years.

This contributes to ongoing language delays and reinforces school-based challenges.

4. Systemic Frustration and Cycles

Staff express frustration with:

• A “broken system” cycle where the same issues persist (language gaps, low family engagement, overload)

• Limited structural solutions to address root causes

5. Mindset and Cultural Barriers

• Presence of some fixed mindsets that may limit growth or change.

• Recognition that student challenges (e.g., ASL delays) are predictable given lack of home support.

6. External Barriers to Engagement

• Distance and logistical challenges affect family participation.

• Declining engagement as students gets older.

Technical Problems and Adaptive Challenges: School Culture The core cultural challenge is not just a lack of systems, but a misalignment in roles and responsibility:

• Teachers are expected to do too much alone.

• Families are not fully equipped or consistently engaged.

• Systems to connect the two are underdeveloped.

As a result, school culture reflects:

• Overload on staff (adaptive strain)

• Gaps in family partnership (adaptive + technical)

• Missing structures to support collaboration (technical)

Improving school culture will require:

• Technical fixes (family liaison roles, ASL programs, communication systems)

• AND adaptive work (rebuilding trust, redefining shared responsibility, shifting mindsets about family engagement)

Neither alone will be sufficient, the challenge is fundamentally both structural and relational. This will require.

• Redefining shared responsibility between school and families

• Shifting beliefs about family roles, capacity, and engagement

• Building a culture of collective ownership and partnership

Primarily Technical Problems

(Can be addressed with clearer systems, structures, or resources)

• Lack of a home–school liaison or structured communication system

• Limited access to ongoing family ASL training and resources

• Loss of family coaching/support after PreK/K

• Logistical barriers (e.g., distance affecting family participation)

Primarily Adaptive Challenges

(Require shifts in beliefs, relationships, roles, and shared responsibility)

• Overreliance on teachers to meet all student needs (language, behavior, emotional support)

• Limited parent involvement and engagement over time

• Families are not prioritizing or being able to engage in ASL learning.

• Fixed mindsets about what is possible for students or families.

• Frustration with a “broken system” and cyclical challenges

Both Technical + Adaptive Challenges

(Require both structural solutions AND shifts in mindset/practice)

• Teachers carry multiple roles leading to overload.

• Weak home–school partnerships

• Declining family engagement as students age.

• Families’ inability to communicate with their children (ASL gaps)

Further Analysis

Cluster Analysis The following analysis was based on the initial clustering of responses from the four-quadrant problem/challenge identification. The problems, challenges and barriers resulted in a total of twenty-five cluster headings. They are:

Student Learning Outcomes

1. Language Deprivation and Limited First Language (L1) Development

2. Low Literacy and Academic Performance

3. Communication Barriers and Behavioral Issues

4. Inadequate Curriculum and Instructional Fit

5. Lack of Targeted Language Intervention

6. Concerns with Assessment Practices

Instructional Practices

7. Lack of Appropriate Curriculum and Instructional Tools

8. Insufficient Training and Professional Development

9. Over Extended Staff and Capacity

10. Challenges with Multi-Tiered Systems of Support (MTSS)

11. Wide Range of Student Needs and Skill Gaps

12. Limited Family and Language Support Systems

13. Need for Better Assessment Systems Alignment

Leadership Note: Leadership is distributed and not limited to a title or position.

14. Limited Professional Learning and Training

15. Insufficient Collaboration Structures

16. Staffing and Role Challenges

17. Limited Funding and Resources

18. Leadership Capacity and Overload

19. Need for Continuous Improvement Systems

School Culture

20. Overextended Staff and Role Overload

21. Weak Home–School Partnership

22. Lack of Family Capacity and Resources

23. Systemic Frustration and Cycles

24. Mindset and Cultural Barriers

25. External Barriers to Engagement

Affinity Process To make sense of these cluster headings, an affinity process was conducted. The first was organizing these clusters for the purpose of creating a map for systemic change. The twenty-five clusters aligned with one of five areas. Within each area is listed the cluster heading number and description.

1. Student Development & Instructional Gaps

Focuses on the direct academic and linguistic challenges students face and the classroom-level failures to meet them.

1. Language Deprivation and Limited First Language (L1) Development

2. Low Literacy and Academic Performance

3. Communication Barriers and Behavioral Issues

4. Inadequate Curriculum and Instructional Fit

7. Lack of Appropriate Curriculum and Instructional Tools

11. Wide Range of Student Needs and Skill Gaps

2. Systems, Data & Assessment

Focuses on the "gears" of the organization—how students are identified, tracked, and supported through formal structures.

5. Lack of Targeted Language Intervention

6. Concerns with Assessment Practices

10. Challenges with Multi-Tiered Systems of Support (MTSS)

13. Need for Better Assessment Systems Alignment

19. Need for Continuous Improvement Systems

3. Human Capital & Professional Capacity

Focuses on the adults in the building: their training, their workload, and their ability to collaborate.

8. Insufficient Training and Professional Development

9. Overextended staff and capacity

14. Limited Professional Learning and Training

15. Insufficient Collaboration Structures

16. Staffing and Role Challenges

20. Overextended Staff and Role Overload

4. Family & Community Engagement

Focuses on the bridge between the school and the home environment.

12. Limited Family and Language Support Systems

21. Weak Home–School Partnership

22. Lack of Family Capacity and Resources

25. External Barriers to Engagement

5. Organizational Culture & Leadership

Focuses on the high-level "vibe" and administrative constraints that dictate the environment.

17. Limited Funding and Resources

18. Leadership Capacity and Overload

23. Systemic Frustration and Cycles

24. Mindset and Cultural Barriers

Priority Force Choice Results A further analysis of these challenges to differentiate and prioritize the focus on those challenges, barriers, or problems that are within the control or influence of the school is essential, was conducted by school leadership. This resulted in the creation of the two Priority Focus Areas (see pages 6-7).

(7) Lack of Appropriate Curriculum and Instructional Tools

(8) Insufficient Training and Professional Development

(11) Wide Range of Student Needs and Skill Gaps

(12) Limited Family and Language Support Systems

(20) Overextended Staff and Role Overload

(9) Over Extended Staff and Capacity

(22) Lack of Family Capacity and Resources