Joint Governance Board Meeting CMS and Project L.I.F.T. Joint Governance Board Meeting November 22, 2016

Meeting Agenda Welcome and Call to Order Good News Report Public/Private Partnership Reflection and Discussion Research for Action: Qualitative and Quantitative Reports  Q&A and Discussion ~Break- 10 minutes~ CMS Turnaround Effort: Beacon Report Moving Ahead: The Future of L.I.F.T. Discussion Transition Announcements and Adjournment

West Charlotte High School 4-Year Graduation Cohort Rate 90% Goal 86% 78% 76% 71% 54% Pre-LIFT Launched Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5

Graduation Rates: Where we started… 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 % Increase/Decrease Garinger High Five schools 92 86 88 80 Harding University High 89 93 87 78 76 -13% West Charlotte High 51 54 56 71 77 35%  West Mecklenburg High 58 64 68 85 84 29% Vance High 70 82 81 22% Our stand in this work is summed up in the promise statement, evolved differently, but it’s about the promise.Will take time, no one who wants it better than us, will take collaboration teamwork and trial and error, way more kids to serve than beacon and lift can serve so must stay the course

West Charlotte Graduation Rate: Quality of the Diploma Graduates earned $4.5 million in scholarships in 2016, up from $1.8 million a year earlier. A third of graduating class attending college or going into the military this fall. West Charlotte High School’s graduation rate continues to move closer to the goal of 90%. This year’s data is not official yet, but based on early calculations we are closer to 90% than ever! The graduation rate at WC has been a heavy lift. Just 4 years ago, the grad rate was 56%. This year’s graduating class is a special group of students. 4 years ago, as Project LIFT was launching, they launched into their high school education as freshmen at West Charlotte High School. This is the first group of students to graduate that have been a part of LIFT since it started. The anticipated increase in the graduation rate this year is evidence, that the work we are doing is paying off. Our students are not only graduating in higher numbers. Last year The class of 2016 earned $4.5 million, up from $1.8 million in scholarship dollars a year earlier. About a third of West Charlotte High School’s graduating walked across the stage and received their passports to a future in the military or college as well. Many of these students were first generation college students. Let’s celebrate the amazing work the West Charlotte High School principal, teachers, counselors and staff invested in not only increasing the grad rate but also in ensuring that students leave high school with a post-secondary plan that will give them a good chance to thrive as adults. Now, let’s celebrate you! Graduation starts at the moment a child walks through the doors of your schools as a pre-kindergartener. It takes teachers, counselors, and support staff to usher them through each grade level…each year is an important building block for the next. The graduation rate is just as much about the work done in elementary and middle school as it is about what happens in high school. For those of you who have made contributions to these students lives, thank you!

State Growth Designations: 3-Year Trajectory   Growth Designation 2013-14 2014-15 2015-16 Ashley Park Met Did Not Meet Exceeded Druid Hills Bruns Walter G. Byers Statesville Road Allenbrook Thomasboro Ranson West Charlotte In 2015-16, 88% of Project L.I.F.T. Schools Met/Exceeded State Growth Expectations!

Talent Opportunity Culture Impact 75% of the first schools in NC exceeded growth expectation 5 of 6 Opportunity Culture schools met or exceeded growth expectation 68 leadership positions (created over last 4 years) 258% increase in Opportunity Culture applications (over last 4 years) 2500 applications for 68 positions Pay increase $4600 up to $23,000 90% teacher retention (on average)

Talent Less than five vacancies across all of the Project L.I.F.T. Schools in each year of the initiative. A CMS leader described a notable impact on staff culture and retention in the L.I.F.T. Learning Community: “Typically our high-poverty schools are difficult to staff. Through Project L.I.F.T.’s efforts, we have a lot more longevity in those schools than we had before or than we have in others…I think having that stability added into a low-performing school really has made a significant difference.” – Cited in RFA Report

Time L.I.F.T. Academy has significantly contributed to the increased graduation rate at West Charlotte High School and impacted the personal lives/futures of many students L.I.F.T. Academy strategy is being replicated in 5 additional schools in CMS.

Technology In 2013, the distribution of 2000 XO devices led to complete 1:1 technology enhanced teaching/learning in grades 3-8 in LIFT Schools. The roll out of the XO devices informed the broader district approach in its technology implementation efforts. Over 700 families now have devices and broadband connectivity in their homes as a result of L.I.F.T. garnered partnerships and CMS support.

Parents and Community For the first time in many years, all Project L.I.F.T. schools have PTSAs (Parent Teacher Student Associations). A handful of these PTSAs are lead by community members whose children do not attend L.I.F.T. schools.

West Charlotte High School Football Field & Field House Renovations Collaboration and Partnership Mecklenburg County CMS Project L.I.F.T. Lowes ESPN

Replication/Influence beyond L.I.F.T High School Graduation Academies at 5 High Schools Opportunity Culture Legislation Smaller Feeder Pattern with Highest Need Schools Beacon Initiative (now learning community) UVA Professional Development for Turnaround Leaders Human Resources: Best Practices for Recruitment Mobile Medical Clinic/Dental Clinic Communities in Schools model now replicated across the district Getting Ahead Program is now being sponsored/replicated by Charlotte Housing Authority

Public Private Partnership Public-private partnership is strong and has been lauded at the state and national level. Inspired by a collective vision Grounded in trust and collaboration Maintained a learning stance Willingness to innovate Endured through transitions and challenges L.I.F.T. Board is deeply committed to the project; uses learning to inform decisions beyond L.I.F.T. investment

Meeting Agenda Welcome and Call to Order Good News Report Public/Private Partnership Reflection and Discussion Research for Action: Qualitative and Quantitative Reports  Q&A and Discussion ~Break- 10 minutes~ CMS Turnaround Effort: Beacon Report Moving Ahead: The Future of L.I.F.T. Discussion Transition Announcements and Adjournment

Evolution of the Partnership September 2010 CMS Investment Study Group begins early planning January 2011 Joint announcement of initiative and partnership July through November 2011 Transition in Leadership CMS Superintendent resigns L.I.F.T. Executive Director hired School board changes January 2012 Joint meeting to discuss the initiative; begin formalizing partnership February 2012 Formal Collaboration Agreement signed between L.I.F.T. Board and CMS school board; smaller learning community established June 2012 Year 1 implementation begins January 2013 Joint decision to implement continuous learning calendar schools Partnership has evolved since the beginning of the initiative n 2010 Major milestone was the formal collaboration agreement and commitment to partner toward mutual goal At the same time, there was a realization that there was a need to increase communication and coherence

Evolution of the Partnership 2012-13 Year 2 of the initiative; Opportunity Culture and L.I.F.T. Academy officially launch in L.I.F.T. 2014-15 Year 3 of the initiative and CMS superintendent transition; 2015-16 Year 4 of the initiative; school board changes A year of stability

Efforts to Cultivate Partnership CMS leadership and school board representation on L.I.F.T. Governance Board Regular school board updates On-going support and collaboration on various other initiatives Through a change in superintendent and a reorganization of CMS the partnership has continued to evolved through communication and collaboration

Public Private Partnership Reflection Conversation Starter Questions: What is your assessment of the partnership? Strengths Areas of Growth What adjustments may need to be made to ensure collaboration and communication? What are your priorities for leveraging the partnership moving forward?

Meeting Agenda Welcome and Call to Order Good News Report Public/Private Partnership Reflection and Discussion Research for Action: Qualitative and Quantitative Reports  Q&A and Discussion ~Break- 10 minutes~ CMS Turnaround Effort: Beacon Report Moving Ahead: The future of L.I.F.T. Discussion Announcements and Adjournment

Project LIFT Year Four Findings Prepared by Research for Action• November 2016

Project LIFT Theory of Action Evidence of strong implementation and positive outcomes in Year Four

Implementation Evaluation Part I: Implementation Evaluation

Implementation Presentation Overview Evaluation Overview Research Questions Data Sources Implementation Findings: Contextual Factors, Goals, Content Areas Findings: LIFT Pillars Moving Forward Sustainability and Year Five Evaluation

Implementation Evaluation Overview Year Four Implementation Evaluation Overview

Year Four Implementation Research Questions What key strategies continue to drive Project LIFT implementation across the four focus areas within LIFT schools? What successes, barriers and challenges characterize Year Four implementation? How are LIFT staff and principals working with CMS administrators to identify key elements of Project LIFT to sustain the initiative?

Data Sources for Year Four Implementation Analyses Interviews 2 LIFT Governance Board Members 12 LIFT Staff 9 LIFT Principals 4 LIFT Partners 1 LIFT Consultant 5 CMS staff Document Review LIFT Program Documents Online Media Coverage

Project LIFT Contextual Factors Findings: Project LIFT Contextual Factors

Leadership and Capacity Perceived improvements to LIFT Learning Community leadership and capacity Strong support for school leaders Director of School Leadership position and revised coaching and shepherding structure especially helpful Areas for growth Some staff still “stretched thin” School-level capacity around STEM, coaching & leadership, and parent & community engagement

Communication Overall, positive reports about communication between and across stakeholder groups. Principal satisfaction with LIFT office’s role filtering communication Four LIFT staff described improved communication between CMS and the LIFT office Effective LIFT office-school communication strategies Improved communication within LIFT office and across and within LIFT schools LIFT-wide strategies and common PD supported improved communication Filtering communication between CMS and LIFT schools

CMS & LIFT Goal Alignment Findings: CMS & LIFT Goal Alignment

Goal Alignment Stakeholders viewed CMS and LIFT goals as mutually supportive and aligned Overall satisfaction with LIFT’s degree of discretion to implement those goals All CMS staff interviewed reported that LIFT goals aligned well with CMS goals, using phrases like well-aligned or “complete alignment.” Mutually supportive

Findings: LIFT Content Areas

School Culture Perceived improvements in school culture attributed to LIFT’s focus on culture Improved attendance, positive relationships, fewer behavioral incidents, improved processes for addressing student behavioral/socio-emotional issues Ongoing challenges Supporting students when current interventions aren’t sufficient Teacher PD and staff supports for supporting youth Next steps Focus on restorative practice School culture staff position Focus included: ongoing coaching and support from the Center for Transformative Teacher Training (CT3) to help teachers and administrators implement No Nonsense Nurturing (NNN); LIFT staff support and coaching on multi-tiered systems of support (MTSS); 2 new parent and community engagement coordinators; the work of district Behavior Modification Technicians; and the supports provided by partners such as Communities in Schools (CIS) and the WINGS after-school program.

Literacy: Implementation New Curricula All principals satisfied Majority say one of the year’s biggest successes Challenges resolved over the course of the year Teacher resistance Preparing teacher leaders without early literacy experience Coordinating the roles and messages of multiple coaches

Literacy: Outcomes Perceived improvements in literacy instruction and teacher practice as a result of the literacy curricula Perceived interim improvements in students’ literacy skills and test scores

Findings: LIFT Pillars

Talent: Emerging Focus on Coaching

Talent: Emerging Focus on Coaching Principals largely positive about the new coaching structure Perceived coaching improving practice for principals and teachers Perceived improvement to coaching structure over the course of the school year Structure improvement: more streamlined communication, which helped to coordinate the efforts of the multiple coaches involved.

Talent: Refining Existing Strategies LIFT staff supported community-wide and school-specific PD Increased positivity about Opportunity Culture Appreciation for bonuses and other recruitment and retention tools LIFT as a “training group” for school leaders seen as positive, but also challenging for schools

Time: Maintaining Focus on CLCs Overall satisfaction with CLCs and LIFT Academy Fewer challenges with scheduling and intersessions Areas for growth Resolving CMS-CLC calendar conflicts (attendance, hiring, testing) Intersession logistics

Technology: Deepening Integration & School-Based Leadership Continued evolution of technology integration strategies Focus on math and science integration Some ongoing challenges with hardware and software policies DTLs serve as school-based resources and models for technology integration

Parent & Community Engagement: New Approach Overall satisfaction with Parent & Community Engagement work Appreciation of school-based initiatives Appreciation of tiered supports for families Area for growth Ongoing high level of need in LIFT schools

Sustainability

Planning for Years 5 & 6 A time to “prove” what works Focus on (1) refining current initiatives and (2) new math curriculum Talent as a top priority Concerns and challenges Leadership turnover New student assignment model Talent recruitment as end of LIFT nears Replication and fidelity of implementation Funding extended learning and retention bonuses Talent priorities: bonuses, coaching, Opportunity Culture, talent management, and recruitment

Current Planning for Sustainability All interviewees were beginning to plan for and, in some cases, enact strategies for sustaining LIFT strategies and programs Fund initiatives with existing school budgets Build internal school capacity Adoption by CMS Fundraising

LIFT’s Spread beyond the Learning Community CMS adoption of LIFT strategies Opportunity Culture, Talent strategies, LIFT Academy, feeder pattern alignment, DDI, health interventions, 1:1 technology LIFT Partner engagement with non-LIFT schools UVA, BELL, CIS LIFT leadership and expertise Beacon, PD, informal learning, leader and teacher development pipeline LIFT as innovation lab LIFT partners, other districts Adoption of funding model Local initiatives

Recommendations

Recommendations: School Culture and Literacy Provide additional professional development and support for helping the most high-need students, particularly around mental health needs Literacy Apply lessons learned from K-8 literacy curriculum implementation to high school literacy instruction and practices Share promising practices and questions across K-8 schools

Recommendations: Talent & Time Streamline and coordinate coaching supports Continue to offer LIFT-wide supports, but also provide supports based on schools’ unique needs Identify strategies to support successful succession for school administrators Continue building on successes in revamping recruitment and hiring practices Time Continue to communicate and strategize with CMS about CLC logistics

Recommendations: Technology, Parent & Community Engagement, and Sustainability Continue supporting teachers in technology integration Continue leveraging CMS resources, while also addressing LIFT- specific needs Foster opportunities for DTLs to collaborate within and across schools Parent & Community Engagement Continue identifying innovative practices to augment support for student and families’ socio-emotional needs Sustainability Communicate about the last two years of LIFT and beyond

Questions

Part II: Student Outcomes

Outcomes Presentation Overview Context Previous Year’s Findings Improvements in This Year’s Analysis Analysis Overview Research Questions Methodology and Data Findings Elementary (3rd–5th Grade) Middle Years (6th–8th Grade) High School (9th–12th Grade)

Context

Year Three Findings Inconclusive results re: LIFT impact on academic outcomes Positive impact of LIFT on behavioral outcomes School-level comparisons may have underestimated effect of LIFT High student mobility makes it difficult to isolate LIFT effects at school level Students who leave LIFT tend to be higher-performing Even in most similar comparison schools, student population looks different than LIFT population

Improvements in Year Four Analysis 1. Student-level analysis: LIFT students compared to similar students in non-LIFT schools 2. Dosage: Impact on students who stay in a LIFT school for multiple years We followed two cohorts of students who stayed in LIFT schools for three years

Overview of Outcomes Analysis

Research Questions Has LIFT impacted student scale scores among Elementary (3rd-5th), Middle Years (6th-8th), and High School (9th-12th) students? Do multiple years of LIFT make a difference? Has LIFT impacted the percentage of Elementary, Middle Years, and High School students who are proficient?

Methodology Matched Comparison Group Identified students at non-LIFT schools with similar characteristics as LIFT students Based on race, gender, special education status, LEP status, behavioral indicators, and academic indicators Difference-in-Differences Research Design Compares how much LIFT students’ outcomes improved to how much non-LIFT students’ outcomes improved Assumption that LIFT students would have followed similar trend as non-LIFT students in absence of LIFT intervention

Methodology: Two Types of Analyses Cross-Sectional Data (same grades over time) Cohort Data (same students over time) Students All students in 3rd-12th grade 2012-13 through 2015-16 Students who: Began 3rd or 6th grade in a LIFT school in 2012-13 Stayed in a LIFT school through 2014-15 Grade Levels 3rd-5th 6th-8th 9th-12th Students in LIFT 3rd-5th Students in LIFT 6th-8th LIFT Effect Effect of LIFT on all students: 2013-14 2014-15 2015-16 Effect of multiple years of LIFT dosage on the same students over time

Findings

High-Level Takeaways Graduation rate at WCHS is nearing 90% goal (85.9%) Some significant positive impact on academic outcomes within each of the three grade-level groups Strongest and most consistent impact on Reading outcomes for 6th–8th grade students More exposure to LIFT amplifies effects for 6th–8th grade students in both Reading and Math No evidence of dosage effect in 3rd–5th grade students

WCHS Graduation Rate Graduation rates at WCHS begin 20% lower Within four years, the gap shrunk to less than 4% WCHS graduation rate is nearing 90% - a target outcome for LIFT

Summary of Student Outcomes: All Grades and Subjects Impact of LIFT on Scale Scores   Reading/English II Math/Math I Biology 13-14 14-15 15-16 3rd – 5th Grade + 6th – 8th Grade 9th – 12th Grade - Impact of LIFT on Proficiency   Reading/English II Math/Math I Biology 13-14 14-15 15-16 3rd – 5th Grade + 6th – 8th Grade 9th – 12th Grade At the 3-5 grade level, LIFT had a positive impact in 2013-14 but no significant impact in 2014-15 or 2015-16 At the 9-12 grade level, the positive impact of LIFT was concentrated in 2015- 16 (for Math I and Biology)

Summary of Results: Dosage Impact of Multiple Years of LIFT on Scale Scores and Proficiency  LIFT Elementary Students 2012-13: 3rd Graders   2013-14: 4th Graders 2014-15: 5th Graders Reading Scale Scores Reading Proficiency Math Scale Scores + - Math Proficiency  LIFT Middle Years Students 2012-13: 6th Graders   2013-14: 7th graders 2014-15: 8th graders Reading Scale Scores + Reading Proficiency Math Scale Scores Math Proficiency

Elementary Students (3rd-5th Grade)

3rd–5th Grade Summary LIFT students made larger gains than comparison students in Reading scale scores, Math scale scores, and Math Proficiency in 2013-14 LIFT students and comparison students made similar gains in Reading scale scores, Math scale scores, and Math Proficiency in 2014-2015 and 2015-2016 LIFT students and comparison students followed a similar trend over the four years of study re: Reading Proficiency No strong evidence for positive LIFT dosage effect

3rd–5th Grade: Reading Scale Scores LIFT students began with lower Reading scale scores than comparison students In 2013-14, the gap was closed The gap reemerged in 2014-15 and 2015-16 2013-14 2014-15 2015-16 Reading Scale Scores +0.9* +0.5 +0.2 * Statistically significant at 10%; ** at 5%; *** at 1%

3rd–5th Grade: Math Scale Scores LIFT students began with lower Math scale scores than comparison students In 2013-14, LIFT students achieved higher scale scores than comparison students The gap reemerged in 2015-2016 2013-14 2014-15 2015-16 Math Scale Scores +1.3*** +0.0 -0.8 * Statistically significant at 10%; ** at 5%; *** at 1%

3rd–5th Grade: Math Proficiency Smaller percentage of LIFT students were proficient in the beginning In 2013-14, LIFT students outperformed comparison students The gap between LIFT and comparison students reemerged in 2015-16 But, proficiency rates for both groups rose in 2015-16 2013-14 2014-15 2015-16 Math Proficiency +5.4%* +0.9% -2.5% * Statistically significant at 10%; ** at 5%; *** at 1%

3rd Grade Cohort Dosage Effects  LIFT Elementary Students 2012-13: 3rd Graders   2013-14: 4th Graders 2014-15: 5th Graders Reading Scale Scores Reading Proficiency Math Scale Scores + - Math Proficiency No evidence of LIFT dosage effect on Reading Inconsistent LIFT dosage effect on Math

Middle Years Students (6th-8th Grade)

6th–8th Grade Summary Cross-Sectional Data Analysis: Consistent positive impact of LIFT on Reading scale scores and Proficiency No evidence of impact of LIFT on Math scale scores Cohort Data Analysis (Dosage Effects): Evidence of positive LIFT dosage effects on Reading and Math scale scores & Proficiency

6th–8th Grade: Reading Scale Scores LIFT students began with lower Reading scale scores than comparison group LIFT students began outperforming comparison group in 2013-2014 LIFT students continued to outperform in two subsequent years 2013-14 2014-15 2015-16 Reading Scale Scores +1.2*** +1.1** +0.9* * Statistically significant at 10%; ** at 5%; *** at 1%

6th–8th Grade: Reading Proficiency Smaller percentage of LIFT students were proficient in Reading at beginning of LIFT LIFT students began outperforming comparison group in 2013-2014 LIFT students continued to outperform in two subsequent years 2013-14 2014-15 2015-16 Reading Proficiency +4.2* +6.4*** +6.1** * Statistically significant at 10%; ** at 5%; *** at 1%

6th Grade Cohort Dosage Effect: Reading Scale Scores Reading scale scores among LIFT and comparison students were similar in their 6th grade year LIFT students’ Reading scale scores rose steadily in the following two years Comparison students’ scale scores remained relatively flat 7th grade 8th grade Reading Scale Scores +1.1** * Statistically significant at 10%; ** at 5%; *** at 1%

6th Grade Cohort Dosage Effect: Reading Proficiency Similar levels of proficiency in Reading at beginning of LIFT LIFT outperformed comparison students in 2013-14 (7th grade) and 2014-15 (8th grade) Larger LIFT impact in 8th grade indicates a positive dosage effect 7th grade 8th grade Reading Proficiency +4.7 +9.3** * Statistically significant at 10%; ** at 5%; *** at 1%

6th Grade Cohort Dosage Effect: Math Scale Scores Similar Math scale scores in 6th grade year LIFT cohort outperformed comparison group in both 2013-14 (7th grade) and 2014-15 (8th grade) Difference in performance grew over time 7th grade 8th grade Math Scale Scores +0.9** +1.2*** * Statistically significant at 10%; ** at 5%; *** at 1%

6th Grade Cohort Dosage Effect: Math Proficiency Smaller % of LIFT students proficient at beginning of LIFT LIFT students outperformed comparison students in 2013-14 (7th grade) and 2014-15 (8th grade) Larger LIFT impact in 8th grade indicates positive dosage effect 7th grade 8th grade Math Proficiency +7.3%* +8.3%* * Statistically significant at 10%; ** at 5%; *** at 1%

High School Students (9th-12th Grade)

9th–12th Grade Summary In 2015-16, positive impact of LIFT on: Math I: Scale Scores, Proficiency Biology: Scale Scores, Proficiency No evidence of LIFT impact on English II scale scores or Proficiency Continued increase in WCHS graduation rate Note: Cohort analyses were not possible for 9th-12th grade students because they do not take the same test every year

High School: Math I Scale Scores LIFT students began with significantly lower Math I scale scores Scale scores for both LIFT and comparison students dropped in 2013-2014 Math I scale scores for LIFT students started to increase in both subsequent years Comparison group scale scores remained flat By 2015-2016, LIFT scale scores were higher than those of comparison groups 2013-14 2014-15 2015-16 Math I Scale Scores +0.4 +0.8 +2.2*** * Statistically significant at 10%; ** at 5%; *** at 1%

High School: Math I Proficiency Smaller % LIFT students proficient at beginning of LIFT Gap shrunk in 2013-14 and 2014-15 In 2015-16, LIFT students outperformed comparison students 2013-14 2014-15 2015-16 Math I Proficiency +1.8% +6.4% +16.1%*** Dae’s Note: The difference in the 2015-16 gains in % students who are proficient is much larger (at 16%) than that of CCR (6.5%). * Statistically significant at 10%; ** at 5%; *** at 1%

High School: Biology Scale Scores LIFT students began with lower scale scores This gap in scale scores widened in 2013-14 By 2015-16, this gap narrowed significantly 2013-14 2014-15 2015-16 Biology Scale Scores -1.6* -0.8 +1.6* * Statistically significant at 10%; ** at 5%; *** at 1%

High School: Biology Proficiency About 10% fewer LIFT students proficient in Biology in 2013-2014 Gap remained in 2013- 14 and 2014-15 In 2015-16, the gap closed 2013-14 2014-15 2015-16 Biology Proficiency -7.5% -2.9% +10.9%** * Statistically significant at 10%; ** at 5%; *** at 1%

Questions?

Next Steps: Remaining Year Four Analyses Student outcomes: Has LIFT impacted 5th and 8th grade students’ Science scale scores and/or Proficiency levels? Has LIFT impacted student attendance and out-of-school suspension among Elementary (3rd-5th), Middle Years (6th-8th), and High School (9th-12th) students? CLC outcomes: How do the Continuous Learning Calendars at LIFT schools affect student performance? Partner analyses: What role do key LIFT partners play in LIFT, and what contribution do they make to the initiative overall and student outcomes?

Year Five Research Questions What key strategies continue to drive LIFT implementation across the four focus areas within LIFT schools for Year 5? How has Project LIFT contributed to improvements across the LIFT schools? How do strategies vary across LIFT schools and grade bands? (e.g., CLC, PD, coaching, literacy, school culture) How does variation in LIFT implementation affect student outcomes? What do LIFT student outcomes indicate about LIFT’s impact? What perceived outcomes do LIFT stakeholders (LIFT staff, CMS staff, principals, teachers, parents) report? How do outcomes vary by grade band? By cohort? Does longer LIFT exposure produce larger gains in student outcomes than shorter LIFT exposure? How do the outcomes of LIFT students who transferred to non-LIFT schools compare to those of non-LIFT students?

Year Five Research Questions What role do key LIFT partners play in LIFT, and what contribution do they make to the initiative overall and student outcomes? What are the prospects for sustaining LIFT?

100 South Broad Street Suite 700 Philadelphia, PA 19110 www.researchforaction.org

Ten Minute Break

Meeting Agenda Welcome and Call to Order Good News Report Public/Private Partnership Reflection and Discussion Research for Action: Qualitative and Quantitative Reports  Q&A and Discussion ~Break- 10 minutes~ CMS Turnaround Effort: Beacon Report Moving Ahead: The Future of L.I.F.T. Discussion Transition Announcements and Adjournment

KONDRA

Meeting Agenda Welcome and Call to Order Good News Report Public/Private Partnership Reflection and Discussion Research for Action: Qualitative and Quantitative Reports  Q&A and Discussion ~Break- 10 minutes~ CMS Turnaround Effort: Beacon Report Moving Ahead: The Future of L.I.F.T. Discussion Transition Announcements and Adjournment

Budget: Years 1-5 Handout Budgeted Actual Variance Year 1 $12.8M $6.5 Year 5 $7.6M   Total $48M - Estimated Remaining Cash Balance: $4M Handout

Preparing for Planning: Discussion What considerations and questions do you have to inform the initiative moving forward? What data/information is needed for planning and decision making?

Meeting Agenda Welcome and Call to Order Good News Report Public/Private Partnership Reflection and Discussion Research for Action: Qualitative and Quantitative Reports  Q&A and Discussion ~Break- 10 minutes~ CMS Turnaround Effort: Beacon Report Moving Ahead: The Future of L.I.F.T. Discussion Transition Announcements and Adjournment

CMS State of the Schools Announcements CMS State of the Schools Vance High School Wednesday, December 7, 2016 Reception begins at 8am Program begins at 8:30am RSVP: stateofschools@cms.k12.nc.us or Call Todd Kimbrell at 980-344-0403

Donor Appreciation Luncheon Announcements Project L.I.F.T. Donor Appreciation Luncheon Foundation for the Carolinas Friday, January 6, 2017 Noon-1:30pm Next Board Meeting January 25, 2017 Druid Hills Academy Noon-2:00pm

Adjourn