1. MARCH 16-17, 2011 NEW YORK CITY, NY EVALUATION RESULTS Michelle Bissonnette U.S. Department of Education

2. Table of Contents Who Responded ? Results Overall Summit Evaluation Evaluation of Sessions Evaluation of Logistics and Support Evaluation Comments

3. Who Responded?

4. Who Responded? Participants: Attendees engaged in dialogue at the center table Attendees: Invited guests in audience observing dialogue and participating in Q&A Response Rate: Percent of each group who completed an evaluation 19% 43% Chart: See accessible version in notes 4

5. Overall Summit Evaluation

6. Item 3A. The summit as a whole was useful – I am glad I attended. (5 = Strongly Agree, 1= Strongly Disagree) Chart: See accessible version in notes Average Score Participants: 4.74 Attendees:4.48 All:4.61 6

7. Item 3B. The issues discussed were relevant to my work. (5 = Strongly Agree, 1= Strongly Disagree) Chart: See accessible version in notes Average Score Participants: 4.58 Attendees:4.44 All:4.51 7

8. Item 3C. I learned about policies and practices that will help me when I return home. (5 = Strongly Agree, 1= Strongly Disagree) Chart: See accessible version in notes Average Score Participants:4.31 Attendees:4.08 All:4.19 8

9. Item 3D. I made valuable professional connections. (5 = Strongly Agree, 1= Strongly Disagree) Chart: See accessible version in notes Average Score Participants:4.03 Attendees:3.98 All:4.00 9

10. Item 3E. The OECD background paper was informative and will serve as useful tool as I continue this work. (5 = Strongly Agree, 1= Strongly Disagree) Chart: See accessible version in notes Average Score Participants:4.31 Attendees:4.33 All:4.32 10

11. Item 3F. The meeting logistics and pre-meeting communications were effective. (5 = Strongly Agree, 1= Strongly Disagree) Chart: See accessible version in notes Average Score Participants:4.12 Attendees:4.03 All: 4.07 11

12. Evaluation of Sessions

13. Item 4A. Quality, relevance and usefulness of Framing the Issues session (5 = Excellent, 1= Poor) Chart: See accessible version in notes Average Score Participants:4.58 Attendees:4.36 All:4.47 13

14. Item 4B. Quality, relevance and usefulness of Teacher Recruitment and Preparation session (5 = Excellent, 1= Poor) Chart: See accessible version in notes Average Score Participants:4.43 Attendees:4.11 All:4.27 14

15. Item 4B. Quality, relevance and usefulness of Teacher Development, Support and Retention session (5 = Excellent, 1= Poor) Chart: See accessible version in notes Average Score Participants:4.41 Attendees:4.13 All:4.27 15

16. Item 4B. Quality, relevance and usefulness of Teacher Evaluation and Compensation session (5 = Excellent, 1= Poor) Chart: See accessible version in notes Average Score Participants:4.41 Attendees:4.07 All: 4.24 16

17. Item 4B. Quality, Relevance and Usefulness of Teacher Engagement in Reform session (5 = Excellent, 1= Poor) Chart: See accessible version in notes Average Score Participants:4.12 Attendees:4.19 All: 4.15 17

18. Item 4C. Please indicate your level of satisfaction with the format of the sessions. (5 = Excellent, 1= Poor) Item 4C. Session Format Part I – Participant Discussion Chart: See accessible version in notes Average Score Participants:4.59 Attendees:4.32 All:4.45 Item 4C. Session Format Part II – Attendee Q&A Chart: See accessible version in notes Average Score Participant: 4.15 Attendee: 3.97 All: 4.06 18

19. Item 4D. Quality, relevance and usefulness of What Have We Learned? session (5 = Excellent, 1= Poor) Chart: See accessible version in notes Average Score Participants:4.22 Attendees: 4.42 All: 4.32 19

20. Evaluation of Logistics & Support

21. Item 5A. Travel and hotel information was clear and timely. (5 = Strongly Agree, 1= Strongly Disagree) Chart: See accessible version in notes Average Score Participants:4.45 Attendees:4.05 All: 4.25 21

22. Item 5B. American Museum of Natural History was an effective setting for day one. (5 = Strongly Agree, 1= Strongly Disagree) Chart: See accessible version in notes Average Score Participants:4.25 Attendees:3.98 All:4.11 22

23. Item 5B. The Hilton NY was an effective setting for day two. (5 = Strongly Agree, 1= Strongly Disagree) Chart: See accessible version in notes Average Score Participants:4.60 Attendees:4.44 All: 4.52 23

24. Item 5B. My questions and concerns were addressed in a timely and complete manner. (5 = Strongly Agree, 1= Strongly Disagree) Chart: See accessible version in notes Average Score Participants: 4.50 Attendees:4.21 All: 4.35 24

25. Evaluation Comments

26. Comments on Format: Tony Mackay – brilliant moderator Rich + very good Great to have unions and ministers together Keep questions/comments from observers/audience focused on session topic. Submit questions from audience in advance. Include more time for Q&A or vary format of sessions throughout day. 26

27. Comments on Format: More time for discussion and networking Sessions began to feel a bit redundant Greater variety of session format: breakouts, mixed seating during meals Include more teachers at the table. Extend the summit so there is more time to process and engage. Video screens and interpreters a must School leaders/principal representatives – what is our role in the summit? 27

28. Participants/Attendees found helpful or insightful: Framing document/session Rapporteurs’ summaries Learning from international experiences esp. Hong Kong, Singapore and Finland Hearing how unions and management work in collaboration High achieving countries’ clearly defined systemic change Hearing about: – the common challenges of all education systems – similar problems from which we can learn and translate solutions for our own unique contexts 28

29. General Feedback: THANK YOU! BRAVO! EXCELLENT! STUNNING! Please continue this summit in future. Suggested readings/research for attendees Materials/logistical information available earlier A teacher exchange could add a lot to understanding between the countries. This was an outstanding and historic event that began a very important conversation with the objective to improve teaching and learning. 29

30. THANK YOU!