YOUR LOGO March 9, 2015 Lead Partner Mid Year Update Presentation – PPSD School Board.

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
1 R-2 Report: Success in algebra by the end of ninth grade A presentation to the Board of Education by Brad Stam, Chief Academic Officer Instructional.
Advertisements

BRISTOL WARREN REGIONAL SCHOOL DISTRICT Implementation of RI Educator Evaluation System
Central Union High School District Board of Trustees Meeting April 16, 2013.
Transitioning to the Common Core Common Core Academy - Summer 2011.
The Partnership for Assessment of Readiness for College and Careers (PARCC) Common Core Summer Institutes 1.
Common Core Implementation Plan Whittier City School District Board of Education Meeting April 7, 2014.
 Here’s What... › The State Board of Education has adopted the Common Core State Standards (July 2010)  So what... › Implications and Impact in NH ›
Leader & Teacher SLTs 2014 – ComponentEvaluation for TeachersEvaluation for School Leaders Setting GoalsTeachers set two SLTs in collaboration with.
Southern Regional Education Board HSTW An Integrated and Embedded Approach to Professional Development and School Improvement Using the Six-Step Process.
NEXT GENERATION BALANCED ASSESSMENT SYSTEMS ALIGNED TO THE CCSS Stanley Rabinowitz, Ph.D. WestEd CORE Summer Design Institute June 19,
Maximizing Reading Gains to Meet AYP Targets: Decision Support Analytics for School Board Providence School District, RI April 2014.
Curriculum Update January What are the big projects? Fall 2013 – Math Common Core Implementation Fall 2014 – English/Language Arts Common Core Implementation.
November, 2013 Next steps – Need to look at new assessment rubric and start looking at monitoring measurable objectives, identifying sub groups and targeted.
© 2012 Providence Public School District 1 Raising the Achievement of English Language Learners in the Providence Schools: Report of the Strategic Support.
Jackson Public School District Holistic Accountability in Action.
Leadership: Connecting Vision With Action Presented by: Jan Stanley Spring 2010 Title I Directors’ Meeting.
Strategic Planning Update Kentucky Board of Education January 31, 2012.
District Instruction Planning April 29, 2013 Wm Murphy.
Elementary & Middle School 2014 Mathematics MCAS Evaluation & Strategy.
Elementary & Middle School 2014 ELA MCAS Evaluation & Strategy.
OASD Annual Report October 14, 2013 Maximizing Opportunities For Success.
TIMBERLANE REGIONAL SCHOOL DISTRICT ACTION PLANS Timberlane Regional Middle School Timberlane Regional High School Timberlane Regional Music Department.
Evaluation Team Progress Collaboration Grant 252.
Curriculum Update Curriculum and Instructional Leaders Meeting July 19,
Clare-Gladwin RESD Fall 2013 Alignment for Career and College Readiness.
Brownsville Independent School District Department of Curriculum and Instruction Presentation by Dr. Salvador Cavazos Tuesday, June 17, 2008 Dr. Salvador.
Destination--- Common Core Staff Meeting/SSC February 2013.
SLC Capstone Meeting: Irvington High School June 2, 2008.
ISLN Network Meeting KEDC SUPERINTENDENT UPDATE. Why we are here--Purpose of ISLN network New academic standards  Deconstruct and disseminate Content.
Imagine School at Town Center Academic Update June 17, 2014.
1 PLCi Common Core Standards Initiative (CCSI) Oakland PLCi November 1, 2012.
1 Archdiocese of New York Academic Initiatives.
Las Cruces Public Schools Principal Evaluation Overview Stan Rounds Superintendent Stan Rounds Superintendent.
Common Core State Standards: Supporting Implementation and Moving to Sustainability Based on ASCD’s Fulfilling the Promise of the Common Core State Standards:
Hastings Public Schools PLC Staff Development Planning & Reporting Guide.
Kent ISD Collaborative Five Year Transition Plan to the Common Core State Standards Collaboration + Communication = Success!
2013 MASS Executive Institute. More Than a Decade of Progress: Grade 10 MCAS % proficient or higher 2.
TRHS Action Plan Goal 1 O Goal #1: In the School Year TRHS will further develop our Response to Instruction (RTI) model to ensure.
Georgia’s Changing Assessment Landscape Melissa Fincher, Ph.D. Associate Superintendent for Assessment and Accountability Georgia Department for Education.
The State of the State of NC Presented by: Ivanna Mann Thrower Anderson ESL/Title III Consultant.
Northwest ISD Target Improvement Plan Seven Hills Elementary
Proposed Areas of Focus & District Priority Board Meeting April 22, 2014 Kevin. L. O’Gorman, Chief Academic Officer Rodney Thompson, Superintendent.
 Growing concern over college enrollment and remedial courses in the United States  Dramatic improvement in education in countries such as Finland and.
Family Presentation Hamilton Public Schools February 24,
PIIC/PLN UPDATES AIU3 Coaches’ Workshop September 11, 2014.
1 What will the work look like per quarter to help reach the goal? School wide goal: In order to increase student achievement Brown School will use a balanced.
Teacher Data Teams FOR RTI MODULE 5 ..
Dr. Derrica Davis Prospective Principal Candidate: Fairington Elementary School.
Zimmerly Response NMIA Audit. Faculty Response Teacher input on Master Schedule. Instructional Coaches Collaborative work. Design and implement common.
APPR & SLO Solutions Innovation for Teaching & Learning RIGHT REASON TECHNOLOGIES YOUR SOLUTION FOR STUDENT SUCCESS.
“. BEAR VALLEY ELEMENTARY API: OVERALL AYP : ELA % of students scoring prof or adv on CST.
Kentucky Core Academic Standards Pike County Schools.
East Longmeadow Public Schools SMART Goals Presented by ELPS Leadership Team.
Huntsville City Schools School Year School Instructional Targets October 3,
Board of Education Workshop Wednesday, October 9, 2013.
Our State. Our Students. Our Success. DRAFT. Nevada Department of Education Goals Goal 1 All students are proficient in reading by the end of 3 rd grade.
Somers Public Schools Building and Departmental Goals
+ SCC March 17, CSIP Plan 3 areas – which we changed to 4 Literacy STEM Math Science PBIS.
English Learners Multilingual and Multicultural Education Department LCAP- Program & Goal Update DELAC March 9, 2017.
Introduction to Teacher Evaluation
Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA) State Plan: Update
Implementation Strategy: K-8, Algebra I, Algebra II and Geometry
Literacy Across Disciplines (LAD)
Tiger Academy Curriculum Committee
Organizational Meeting Friday, September 8, 2017
HCS Elementary Education Department
Measuring College and Career Readiness
Gary Carlin, CFN 603 September, 2012
Superintendent Goals Update MAY 7, 2013
English Learning Meeting June 12th, :00 – 2:15 pm
Presentation transcript:

YOUR LOGO March 9, 2015 Lead Partner Mid Year Update Presentation – PPSD School Board

YOUR LOGO

Important Considerations AMO Changes Change in metrics from NECAP to STAR Transition from Paper Pencil to Technology Assessments ELA Curriculum Change to Springboard Competing Needs for Technology Hardware

YOUR LOGO Current Data-Driven Conclusions ( ) ALL ON TRACK STAR Math Scores Math 1 st Time Credit Acquisition Accelerated Math Intervention Instructional Practices MIXED RESULTS STAR ELA Scores ELA 1 st Time Credit Acquisition Reading Plus Instructional Practices

YOUR LOGO

CENTRAL HIGH SCHOOL Oct. 2011: Actual Baseline Oct. 2012: Actual Oct. 2013: Actual NECAP ELA Proficiency Overall (11 th grade; teaching year) NECAP Writing Proficiency Overall (11 th grade; teaching year) NECAP Math Proficiency Overall (11 th grade; teaching year) MOUNT PLEASANT HIGH SCHOOL Oct. 2011: Actual Baseline Oct. 2012: Actual Oct. 2013: Actual NECAP ELA Proficiency Overall (11 th grade; teaching year) NECAP Writing Proficiency Overall (11 th grade; teaching year) NECAP Math Proficiency Overall (11 th grade; teaching year) JSEC HIGH SCHOOL Oct. 2011: Actual Baseline Oct. 2012: Actual Oct. 2013: Actual NECAP ELA Proficiency Overall (11 th grade; teaching year) NECAP Writing Proficiency Overall (11 th grade; teaching year) NECAP Math Proficiency Overall (11 th grade; teaching year)

YOUR LOGO MPHS Reading Plus The average comprehension rate for the 9 th grade is 81% The average comprehension rate for the 10 th grade is 83% 62% (142 students) of student are currently meeting their weekly goals of completing two See Readers 51 students have already made at least 1 level gain (increased by one grade level) in their reading thus far this school year 35.8 is the average number of See Readers completed per student

YOUR LOGO MPHS STAR Reading Data (Proficiency)

YOUR LOGO MPHS STAR Reading Data MPHS Performance Measures Actual [Benchmark] Actual [Benchmark] Actual Change* STAR Reading % Below Benchmark N/A BOY: 89% MOY: 87% EOY: 87% BOY – EOY: 2% reduction BOY: 89% MOY: 87% 2% reduction Ninth GradeN/A BOY: 88% MOY: 86% EOY: 86% BOY – EOY: 2% reduction BOY: 88% MOY: 87% 1% reduction Tenth GradeN/A BOY: 90% MOY: 85% EOY: 85% BOY – EOY: 5% reduction BOY: 91% MOY: 88% 3% reduction Eleventh GradeN/A BOY: 92% MOY: 90% EOY: 90% BOY – EOY: 2% reduction BOY: 88% MOY: 83% 5% reduction Twelfth GradeN/A BOY: 87% MOY: 86% EOY: 88% BOY – EOY: 1% increase BOY: 90% MOY: 88% 1% reduction *Target growth rate for STAR is a minimum of a 7% reduction in students that score “Below Benchmark” between BOY and EOY.

YOUR LOGO JSEC Reading Plus The average comprehension rate for the 9 th grade is 73% The average comprehension rate for the 10 th grade is 80% 37% (89 students) of student are currently meeting their weekly goals of completing two See Readers 51 students have already made at least 1 level gain (increased by one grade level) in their reading 16.6 is the average number of See Readers completed per student

YOUR LOGO JSEC STAR Reading Data

YOUR LOGO JSEC STAR Reading Data JSEC Performance Measures Actual [Benchmark] Actual [Benchmark] Actual [Target] STAR Math % Below Benchmark 5 N/A BOY: 89% MOY: 89% EOY: 87% BOY – EOY: 2% reduction BOY: 89% MOY: 89% No Change Ninth GradeN/A BOY: 87% MOY: 90% EOY: 85% BOY – EOY: 2% reduction BOY: 91% MOY: 93% 2% increase Tenth GradeN/A BOY: 88% MOY: 88% EOY: 81% BOY – EOY: 7% reduction BOY: 89% MOY: 88% 1% reduction Eleventh GradeN/A BOY: 86% MOY: 89% EOY: 87% BOY – EOY: 1% increase BOY: 86% MOY: 86% No Change Twelfth GradeN/A BOY: 93% MOY: 87% EOY: 94% BOY – EOY: 1% increase BOY: 91% MOY: 90% 1% reduction *Target growth rate for STAR is a minimum of a 7% reduction in students that score “Below Benchmark” between BOY and EOY.

YOUR LOGO Central Reading Plus Data The average comprehension rate for the 9 th grade is 77% The average comprehension rate for the 10 th grade is 83% 37% (166 students) of student are currently meeting their weekly goals of completing two See Readers 230 students have already made at least 1 level gain (increased by one grade level) in their reading 38 is the average number of See Readers completed per student

YOUR LOGO Central STAR Reading Data

YOUR LOGO CHS STAR Reading Data CHS Performance Measures Actual [Benchmark] Actual [Benchmark] Actual [Target] STAR Math % Below Benchmark 5 N/A BOY: 87% MOY: 87% EOY: 87% BOY – EOY: No Change BOY: 91% MOY: 87% 4% reduction Ninth GradeN/A BOY: 87% MOY: 88% EOY: 88% BOY – EOY: 1% increase BOY: 93% MOY: 89% 4% reduction Tenth GradeN/A BOY: 90% MOY: 90% EOY: 86% BOY – EOY: 4% reduction BOY: 90% MOY: 86% 4% reduction Eleventh GradeN/A BOY: 88% MOY: 84% EOY: 88% BOY – EOY: No Change BOY: 90% MOY: 88% 2% reduction Twelfth GradeN/A BOY: 83% MOY: 83% EOY: 84% BOY – EOY: 1% increase BOY: 91% MOY: 87% 4% reduction *Target growth rate for STAR is a minimum of a 7% reduction in students that score “Below Benchmark” between BOY and EOY.

YOUR LOGO MPHS Accelerated Math Intervention

YOUR LOGO MPHS STAR Math Data

YOUR LOGO MPHS STAR Math Data MPHS Performance Measures Actual [Benchmark] Actual [Benchmark] Actual [Target] STAR Math % Below Benchmark 5 BOY: N/A MOY: 70% EOY: 66% BOY: 70% MOY: 62% EOY: 55% BOY – EOY: 5% reduction BOY: 66% MOY: 62% 4% reduction Ninth Grade BOY: N/A MOY: 69% EOY: 68% BOY: 80% MOY: 72% EOY: 63% BOY – EOY: 7% reduction BOY: 74% MOY: 66% 8% reduction Tenth Grade BOY: N/A MOY: 70% EOY: 66% BOY: 64% MOY: 59% EOY: 45% BOY – EOY: 19% reduction BOY: 76% MOY: 76% No Change Eleventh Grade BOY: N/A MOY: 72% EOY: 64% BOY: 68% MOY: 59% EOY: 52% BOY – EOY: 16% reduction BOY: 60% MOY: 59% 1% reduction Twelfth GradeN/A BOY: 65% MOY: 55% EOY: 60% BOY – EOY: 5% reduction BOY: 61% MOY: 57% 4% reduction *Target growth rate for STAR is a minimum of a 7% reduction in students that score “Below Benchmark” between BOY and EOY.

YOUR LOGO JSEC Accelerated Math Intervention

YOUR LOGO JSEC STAR Math Data

YOUR LOGO JSEC STAR Math Data JSEC Performance Measures Actual [Benchmark] Actual [Benchmark] Actual [Target] STAR Math % Below Benchmark 5 BOY: N/A MOY: 67% EOY: 61% BOY: 66% MOY: 63% EOY: 58% BOY – EOY: 8% reduction BOY: 68% MOY: 60% 8% reduction Ninth Grade BOY: N/A MOY: 71% EOY: 66% BOY: 79% MOY: 78% EOY: 79% BOY – EOY: No Change BOY: 71% MOY: 61% 10% reduction Tenth Grade BOY: N/A MOY: 63% EOY: 54% BOY: 64% MOY: 61% EOY: 59% BOY – EOY: 5% reduction BOY: 75% MOY: 63% 12% reduction Eleventh Grade BOY: N/A MOY: 65% EOY: 61% BOY: 59% MOY: 51% EOY: 45% BOY – EOY: 14% reduction BOY: 59% MOY: 60% 1% increase Twelfth GradeN/A BOY: 62% MOY: 63% EOY: 52% BOY – EOY: 10% reduction BOY: 64% MOY: 53% 11% reduction *Target growth rate for STAR is a minimum of a 7% reduction in students that score “Below Benchmark” between BOY and EOY.

YOUR LOGO Central Accelerated Math Intervention

YOUR LOGO Central STAR Math Data

YOUR LOGO CHS STAR Math Data CHS Performance Measures Actual [Benchmark] Actual [Benchmark] Actual [Target] STAR Math % Below Benchmark 5 BOY: N/A MOY: 67% EOY: 61% BOY: 64% MOY: 61% EOY: 62% BOY – EOY: 2% reduction BOY: 65% MOY: 48% 17% reduction Ninth Grade BOY: N/A MOY: 70% EOY: 62% BOY: 73% MOY: 66% EOY: 66% BOY – EOY: 7% reduction BOY: 67% MOY: 50% 13% reduction Tenth Grade BOY: N/A MOY: 60% EOY: 55% BOY: 58% MOY: 60% EOY: 61% BOY – EOY: 3% increase BOY: 65% MOY: 48% 12% reduction Eleventh Grade BOY: N/A MOY: 70% EOY: 67% BOY: 56% MOY: 56% EOY: 53% BOY – EOY: 3% reduction BOY: 60% MOY: 44% 16% reduction Twelfth GradeN/A BOY: 68% MOY: 61% EOY: 64% BOY – EOY: 4% reduction BOY: 71% MOY: 50% 21% reduction *Target growth rate for STAR is a minimum of a 7% reduction in students that score “Below Benchmark” between BOY and EOY.

YOUR LOGO

MPHS Student Leading Indicators Leading Indicators Baseline DataPerformance Benchmarks Performance Measures Actual [Benchmark] Actual [Benchmark] Current [Target] Student Attendance Data* 82.9% 87.4% [84%] 88.3% [85%] 85.5% [86%] Chronic- Excessive Absence Rate ** 57.1% 49.0% [55.1%] 42.0% [53.1%] 42.4% [51.1%] Out-of-School Suspensions ** [94] *Student Attendance is for ALL students thus includes those students that enroll AFTER the contractually inclusive (Lead Partner Metrics) date of 9/19/2014. ** Chronic Absences and Out-of-School Suspensions include ONLY those students that fall within the contractual inclusion date of enrollment by 9/19/2014.

YOUR LOGO MPHS 1 st Time Credit Acquisition JSEC Leading Indicators Baseline DataPerformance Benchmarks First Time Credit Acquisition Rate Actual [Benchmark] Actual [Benchmark] Projected* Algebra I52% (62/119)68% (110/161) 77% (170/222) 71.9% Geometry78% (122/156)86% (179/209) 84% (84/100)75.4% Intro to Literature 80% (117/146)87% (223/257) 90%(129/144)86.0% World Literature81% (224/277)86% (124/145) 89% (196/220)77.6% * rate shown is the percentage of those students projected to attain first time credit. The goal for is 80%. Unit Recovery has commenced to accelerate first time credit acquisition.

YOUR LOGO JSEC Student Leading Indicators Leading Indicators Baseline DataPerformance Benchmarks Performance Measures Actual [Benchmark] Actual [Benchmark] Actual [Target] Student Attendance Data % 83.8% [84%] 82.7% [85%] 83.2% [86%] Chronic- Excessive Absence Rate % 59.7% [53.8%] 59.7% [50.8%] 50.5% [47.8%] Out-of-School Suspensions [194] *Student Attendance is for ALL students thus includes those students that enroll AFTER the contractually inclusive (Lead Partner Metrics) date of 9/19/2014. ** Chronic Absences and Out-of-School Suspensions include ONLY those students that fall within the contractual inclusion date of enrollment by 9/19/2014.

YOUR LOGO JSEC 1 st Time Credit Acquisition JSEC Leading Indicators Baseline DataPerformance Benchmarks First Time Credit Acquisition Rate Actual [Benchmark] Actual [Benchmark] Projected* Algebra I61% (71/116)53% (105/199) 75% (81/108) 75% Geometry76% (96/127)74% (139/189) 79% (88/111) 73% Intro to Literature 79% (131/166)72% (136/190) 77% (75/97) 77% World Literature80% (176/220)80% (111/138) 83% (114/137) 92% * rate shown is the percentage of those students projected to attain first time credit. The goal for is 80%. Unit Recovery has commenced to accelerate first time credit acquisition.

YOUR LOGO CHS Student Leading Indicators Leading Indicators Baseline DataPerformance Benchmarks Performance Measures Actual [Benchmark] Actual [Benchmark] Current [Target] Student Attendance Data* 82.9% 87.4% [84%] 88.3% [85%] 85.5% [86%] Chronic- Excessive Absence Rate ** 57.1% 49.0% [55.1%] 42.0% [53.1%] 42.4% [51.1%] Out-of-School Suspensions ** [94] *Student Attendance is for ALL students thus includes those students that enroll AFTER the contractually inclusive (Lead Partner Metrics) date of 9/19/2014. ** Chronic Absences and Out-of-School Suspensions include ONLY those students that fall within the contractual inclusion date of enrollment by 9/19/2014.

YOUR LOGO

MPHS ELA Instructional Practice Implementation Teacher Proficient in Two or More Look Fors Teacher Proficient in One Look For Teacher Proficient in None of the Look Fors

YOUR LOGO MPHS ELA Instructional Practice Implementation Teacher Proficient in Two or More Look Fors Teacher Proficient in One Look For Teacher Proficient in None of the Look Fors

YOUR LOGO MPHS Math Instructional Practice Implementation Teacher Proficient in Two or More Look Fors Teacher Proficient in One Look For Teacher Proficient in None of the Look Fors

YOUR LOGO MPHS Math Instructional Practice Implementation Teacher Proficient in Two or More Look Fors Teacher Proficient in One Look For Teacher Proficient in None of the Look Fors

YOUR LOGO JSEC ELA Instructional Practice Implementation Teacher Proficient in Two or More Look Fors Teacher Proficient in One Look For Teacher Proficient in None of the Look Fors

YOUR LOGO JSEC ELA Instructional Practice Implementation Teacher Proficient in Two or More Look Fors Teacher Proficient in One Look For Teacher Proficient in None of the Look Fors

YOUR LOGO JSEC Math Instructional Practice Implementation Teacher Proficient in Two or More Look Fors Teacher Proficient in One Look For Teacher Proficient in None of the Look Fors

YOUR LOGO JSEC Math Instructional Practice Implementation Teacher Proficient in Two or More Look Fors Teacher Proficient in One Look For Teacher Proficient in None of the Look Fors

YOUR LOGO Central ELA Instructional Practice Implementation Teacher Proficient in Two or More Look Fors Teacher Proficient in One Look For Teacher Proficient in None of the Look Fors

YOUR LOGO Central ELA Instructional Practice Implementation Teacher Proficient in Two or More Look Fors Teacher Proficient in One Look For Teacher Proficient in None of the Look Fors

YOUR LOGO Central Math Instructional Practice Implementation Teacher Proficient in Two or More Look Fors Teacher Proficient in One Look For Teacher Proficient in None of the Look Fors

YOUR LOGO Central Math Instructional Practice Implementation Teacher Proficient in Two or More Look Fors Teacher Proficient in One Look For Teacher Proficient in None of the Look Fors

YOUR LOGO

Scope of Work Transfer Process Common Core Aligned Professional Development Common Formative and Summative Assessments Digital Intervention Implementation Literacy Across the Curriculum (Tri- School Initiative) Teacher Leader Development Administrator Development

YOUR LOGO Sustainability Timeline: A Modular Approach Module 1 Director Models Scope Implementation September 24 th Module 2 Director and Teacher Leader Co-Lead/Develop November 19 th Module 3 Teacher Leader leads, Director Supports and Collaborates February 4 th Module 4 Teacher Leaders leads, Director Provides Feedback April 8 th

YOUR LOGO A Closer Look: Professional Development M1 Director develops the presentation with Teacher Leader feedback. Director presents majority, Teacher Leader presents minority. M2 Director and Teacher Leader co-develop the outline and presentation. Teacher Leader presents majority, Director presents the minority. M3 Teacher Leader develops the outline with Director feedback. Teacher Leader leads the presentation of the Anchor Standard/ SMP. M4 Teacher Leader implements the entire standard independently, from outline to CPT presentation.

YOUR LOGO

Each Teacher Leader and Tri-School Math and ELA Department has a different trajectory Therefore – each department and Teacher Leader has a differentiated support plan

YOUR LOGO 9 Teacher Leaders 3 ELA TLs3 ELL TLs3 Math TLs

YOUR LOGO OTI Report: Lead Partner Strengths JSEC + ELP showed great responsiveness to school requests Teachers appreciated structured approach for developing Common Assessments MPHS + Stakeholders recognized ELP staff for ability to provide good introductory PD Teachers communicated appreciation for the instructional focus and pacing provided by ELP CHS + School recognized ELP’s ability to provide strong math and ELA professional development Stakeholders appreciated the new strategies and topics covered during Summer ILT meetings.

YOUR LOGO OTI Report: Lead Partner Opportunities JSEC Δ Request for more coaching in classrooms Request for more planning time for CCSS implementation MPHS Δ Request for more coaching in classrooms Request for more support with capacity development for presentation development CHS Δ Expressed readiness for independence with professional development No additional classroom coaching support requested for Math or ELA

YOUR LOGO Customized Phase Out Approach (2015) School Needs OTI Findings Custom ELP Phase Out PlanJSEC ELP Phase Out: June 18 th Modules Three & Four Co-Led by ELP & School MPHS ELP Phase Out: June 18 th Modules Three & Four Co-Led by ELP & School CHS ELP Phase Out: January 30 th Modules Three & Four to be Led by School

YOUR LOGO

Enhanced Coaching Program PURPOSE Reinforce content area standards already trained last year and this year (i.e. content area maintenance) Train and support teachers in their first year with the Tri-Schools Bolster support with relevant ELL and SPED strategies Enhance the sustainability of training already implemented

YOUR LOGO Standards to be Maintenance Coached Mathematics SMP #1 SMP #4 SMP #6 ELA/ELL Anchor Standard 1 Anchor Standard 2 These standards will be implemented progressively. Teachers will be coached one standard at a time to maximize focus and attention. Coaching progress will be tracked and monitored via Look Fors.

YOUR LOGO PARCC testing will consume technology, time, and manpower. Lead Partner will support with scheduling and other logistics. Through SUSTAINABILITY, Teacher Leaders now drive transformation.

YOUR LOGO TextText