priority cohort 1 year 4 program and fiscal monitoring...
Post on 25-Jan-2020
1 Views
Preview:
TRANSCRIPT
Baltimore City Public School System (BCPSS) Priority Cohort 1 Year 4 First Onsite Visit Feedback for 2013-2014 Title I School Improvement Grant (SIG), section 1003(g), FY 2009 Date Feedback Shared with BCPSS: October 28, 2013
Program Improvement and Family Support Branch Division of Student, Family, and School Support Maryland State Department of Education Page 1
Priority Cohort 1 Year 4 Program and Fiscal Monitoring Teams’
First Onsite Visit Feedback
Maryland State Department of Education—Title I School Improvement Grant (SIG), section 1003(g) School Year 2013-2014
LEA: Baltimore City Public School System (BCPSS) LEA Turnaround Director: Kim Ferguson Date of SIG Team’s LEA Visit: October 11, 2013 MSDE Priority Leads: Jim Newkirk, Gail Clark Dickson Date of SIG Fiscal Team’s Visit: October 11, 2013 MSDE Fiscal Priority Lead: Kelly Coates Date of Booker T. Washington Visit: September 10, 2013 SIG Team Members: Renee Williams, Christy Rather Date of Augusta Fells Savage Visit: September 12, 2013 SIG Team Members: Christy Rather, Janet Reed Date of Commodore John Rodgers Visit: September 17, 2013 SIG Team Members: Jim Newkirk, Richard Scott Date of Calverton Visit: September 19, 2013 SIG Team Members: John McGinnis, Alicia Mezu
Title I School Improvement Grant (SIG): The School Improvement Grant (SIG) Program, authorized under section 1003(g) of Title I of the Elementary and Secondary Act of 1965, provides funding through State educational agencies (SEAs) to local educational agencies (LEAs) with the lowest-achieving schools that have the greatest need for the funds and demonstrate the strongest commitment to use the funds to raise significantly the achievement of students. The United States Department of Education (USDE) views the large infusion of Federal funds into the SIG program through the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (ARRA) as a historic opportunity to address one of the most intractable challenges for America’s education system: turning around or closing down our Nation’s persistently lowest-achieving schools. USDE approved Maryland’s Flexibility Plan in May 2012 which included Maryland’s SIG I schools as Priority Schools. Special Note: In terms of identification, SIG I Schools are now named Priority Cohort 1 Schools.
Baltimore City Public School System (BCPSS) Priority Cohort 1 Year 4 First Onsite Visit Feedback for 2013-2014 Title I School Improvement Grant (SIG), section 1003(g), FY 2009 Date Feedback Shared with BCPSS: October 28, 2013
Program Improvement and Family Support Branch Division of Student, Family, and School Support Maryland State Department of Education Page 2
LEA Monitoring— Purpose of the Priority Cohort 1 Year 4 Program and Fiscal Monitoring Teams’ First Onsite Visit: As approved by USDE, MSDE, through SIG Monitoring Teams, will conduct three onsite monitoring visits annually in each LEA that receives a school improvement grant to ensure that the LEA is implementing its intervention model fully and effectively in Maryland’s Tier I and Tier II schools. As part of the first onsite visit, a SIG Monitoring Team will interview members of the LEA Central Support Team which is the leadership body for planning, implementing, supporting, monitoring, and evaluating the LEA’s approved SIG Plan. In addition and on the same day, a MSDE SIG Fiscal Team will monitor the LEA’s SIG budgets.
School Monitoring— Purpose of the Priority Cohort 1 Year 4 Monitoring Team’s First Onsite Visit: As approved by USDE, MSDE, through Priority Cohort I Monitoring Teams, will conduct three onsite monitoring visits annually in each Priority Cohort I School. This Priority Cohort I Year 4 first onsite monitor visit will focus on the impact of SIG on teaching and learning in the instructional classrooms of the LEA’s Priority Cohort I Schools. MSDE’s Priority Cohort I Year 4 Monitoring Teams will visit classrooms throughout the day for 20 minute intervals. Classrooms with long term substitutes will be visited by Priority Teams; however, classrooms with short term substitutes will not be visited.
Based on MSDE’s Priority Cohort I Year 4 Monitoring Tool, the Priority School Team will monitor the following 4 teaching and learning domains, including fourteen indicators aligned to each domain:
Domain 1: Instructional Planning (3 indicators);
Domain 2: Instructional Delivery (Strategies and Process) (3 indicators);
Domain 3: Teacher-Student Engagement (Techniques and Strategies) (4 indicators); and
Domain 4: Classroom Management (4 indicators). (Adapted from Charlotte Danielson’s Framework for Teaching)
The protocol for the Priority Cohort I Year 4 First Onsite Visit consists of the following 3 components:
Classroom Observations by Priority School Team;
Priority Team Tallying Observation Data; and
Collaborative Agreement of Classroom Evidence.
Baltimore City Public School System (BCPSS) Priority Cohort 1 Year 4 First Onsite Visit Feedback for 2013-2014 Title I School Improvement Grant (SIG), section 1003(g), FY 2009 Date Feedback Shared with BCPSS: October 28, 2013
Program Improvement and Family Support Branch Division of Student, Family, and School Support Maryland State Department of Education Page 3
Table Organization of Priority Cohort 1 Year 4 Program and Fiscal Monitoring Teams’
First Onsite Visit Feedback for SY 2013-2014
Table 1 BCPSS Central Support Team Interview Questions and Responses
Table 2 SIG I Year 3 LEA ARRA Budget
Table 3 SIG I Year 3 Instructional Domains and Indicators
Table 4 At-a-Glance Comparison between 2012-2013 and 2013-2014 Classroom Observations
Table 5 Booker T. Washington Middle School Classroom Instructional Tally Sheet
Table 6 Booker T. Washington Middle School Classroom Observation Feedback
Table 7 Booker T. Washington Middle School Budget
Table 8 Augusta Fells Savage Institute of Visual Arts High School Classroom Instructional Tally Sheet
Table 9 Augusta Fells Savage Institute of Visual Arts High School Classroom Observation Feedback
Table 10 Augusta Fells Savage Institute of Visual Arts High School Budget
Table 11 Commodore John Rodgers Elementary/ Middle School Classroom Instructional Tally Sheet
Table 12 Commodore John Rodgers Elementary/Middle School Classroom Observation Feedback
Table 13 Commodore John Rodgers Elementary/Middle School Budget
Table 14 Calverton Elementary/ Middle School Classroom Instructional Tally Sheet
Table 15 Calverton Elementary/Middle School Classroom Observation Feedback
Table 16 Calverton John Rodgers Elementary/Middle School Budget
Baltimore City Public School System (BCPSS) Priority Cohort 1 Year 4 First Onsite Visit Feedback for 2013-2014 Title I School Improvement Grant (SIG), section 1003(g), FY 2009 Date Feedback Shared with BCPSS: October 28, 2013
Program Improvement and Family Support Branch Division of Student, Family, and School Support Maryland State Department of Education Page 4
TABLE 1
LEA Commitments and Capacity LEAs that accept Title I 1003(g) school improvement funds agree to establish a central support team to oversee the implementation of the selected models in Tier I and Tier II schools as well as the strategies that the LEA will implement in Tier III schools. The Title I office must be represented on the Central Support Team. The team will coordinate the support, as well as monitor, and assess the progress for each of the identified schools.
Turnaround Executive Committee for 2013-2014
Turnaround Office Kim Ferguson Director Ensure the effective implementation of school
based interventions through frequent monitoring of interventions at each school site.
Work closely with school based leadership teams and act as the main point of contact for the project management team.
Tier I and Tier II 53 hrs/month
Kate Dachille Specialist Support schools with grant implementation. Ensure compliance with programmatic requirements.
Tier I and Tier II 53 hrs/month
Deborah Oliver Business Manager Ensure fiscal spending of the allocated resources and to liaise between the Schools, City Schools Grants office and Turnaround.
Tier I and Tier II 53 hrs/month
Network Staff Dawn Shirey Network 15 Facilitator Manages Network team to ensure strategic, quality
school support. Collaborates with Executive Director to align school supports.
Tier I and Tier II 40 hrs/month
Byra Cole Network 11 Facilitator Manages Network team to ensure strategic, quality school support. Collaborates with Executive Director to align school supports.
Tier I and Tier II 30 hrs/month
Patricia Roberts-Rose Network 9 Facilitator Manages Network team to ensure strategic, quality school support. Collaborates with Executive Director to align school supports
Tier I and Tier II 20 hrs/month
Tanya Williams Network 10 Facilitator Manages Network team to ensure strategic, quality Tier I and Tier II 10 hrs/month
Baltimore City Public School System (BCPSS) Priority Cohort 1 Year 4 First Onsite Visit Feedback for 2013-2014 Title I School Improvement Grant (SIG), section 1003(g), FY 2009 Date Feedback Shared with BCPSS: October 28, 2013
Program Improvement and Family Support Branch Division of Student, Family, and School Support Maryland State Department of Education Page 5
school support. Collaborates with Executive Director to align school supports
Deborah Sharpe Network 15 Executive Director
Oversees a group of schools and supports the principal in all aspect of school turnaround.
Tier I and Tier II 40 hrs/month
Darryl Kennedy Network 11 Executive Director
Oversees a group of schools and supports the principal in all aspect of school turnaround.
Tier I and Tier II 30 hrs/month
TBD Network 9 Executive Director
Oversees a group of schools and supports the principal in all aspect of school turnaround.
Tier I and Tier II 20 hrs/month
Diane Bragdon Network 10 Executive Director
Oversees a group of schools and supports the principal in all aspect of school turnaround.
Tier I and Tier II 10 hrs/month
LEA Staff Loryn Lesser John Zesiger Urenda Hudson Veronica Harris
Student Support Liaisons
Work in schools to support the wrap around services for all students
Tier I and Tier II Up to 40 hrs/month
Frank Lucienne Annalisa Benjamin-Harris Adrienne Chavis Francine Sellman
Data Specialists Works in schools to support data reviews. Tier I and Tier II Up to 40 hrs/month
Dan Oliver Ron Krach Charlene Footman Tom Coleman
Math Academic Content Liaison
Works in schools to support data reviews and progress towards Math targets.
Tier I and Tier II Up to 40 hrs/month
Sarah Pasko Erin Vaughn Kristen McQuillan Melissa Loftus
Literacy Academic Content Liaison
Work in schools to support data reviews and progress towards Reading targets.
Tier I and Tier II Up to 40 hrs/month
Monique Armstrong Jenee Tucker Shana McIver Bruce Nelson
Family and Community Engagement Specialists
Work in schools to support the engagement of parents and community partners.
Tier I and Tier II Up to 40 hrs/month
Corey Dotson Wendy Gigler Lakeysha Hill Nia Jones
Human Capital Specialist Work with the Operations Specialist to Support schools on staffing needs and troubleshoot staffing issues
Tier I and Tier II
Up to 40 hrs/month
Dr. Maria Navarro Acting Chief Academic Officer
Manage the oversight of the Turnaround Director. Tier I and Tier II
12 hours/month
Tasha Franklin Johnson
Director, Office of Federal Programs
Administering the Title I grant through grant oversight
Tier I and Tier II 20 hours/month
Sharron Steele CAO’s office Designees from the CAO’s office will serve as monitors throughout the year.
Tier I and Tier II 16hrs/month
Baltimore City Public School System (BCPSS) Priority Cohort 1 Year 4 First Onsite Visit Feedback for 2013-2014 Title I School Improvement Grant (SIG), section 1003(g), FY 2009 Date Feedback Shared with BCPSS: October 28, 2013
Program Improvement and Family Support Branch Division of Student, Family, and School Support Maryland State Department of Education Page 6
a. How often will the LEA 1003g central support team meet?
The Central Support team will meet monthly (first Friday). There will be a School Improvement Monitoring cycle that will happen on an ongoing basis and that will focus on the implementation of the grant to fidelity.
b. How often will they report on their work and the work on Tier I, II and III schools to the Superintendent?
The work of the Priority schools will be reported in memo format through the Chief of Staff to the Chief Executive Officer (CEO).
c. How often will they report on their work and the work on Tier I, II and III schools to the Board of Education?
The work of the Priority schools will be reported via memo to the School Board of Commissioners on a quarterly basis.
d. Has the LEA 1003(g) central support team met prior to the submission of the grant application to review the individual school descriptions and to discuss how it will coordinate and manage the support, monitoring and assessment outlined in those plans? ______Yes _____ No If no, briefly describe the plans for the central support team to begin work on the Tier I, II, and III schools?
Not applicable for Priority Cohort 1 Year 4 Monitoring by MSDE
e. What role has or will the LEA 1003(g) central support team play in the creation of annual goals for student achievement and annual review/assessment of progress based on these goals described in sections 2 and 3 of this proposal?
The Turnaround Office staff and central support team will work in collaboration with the schools to determine the trajectory for growth based upon annual measurable objectives.
f. What steps will the LEA take to ensure that the school improvement funds are utilized (1) in a timely way and (2) effectively and efficiently to support the required components of the selected intervention? Specifically, what assurances will the LEA make that schools and LEA support teams have access to these funds, even during annual rollover processes? How will the LEA support principals’ timely and effective use of these funds?
Baltimore City Public School System (BCPSS) Priority Cohort 1 Year 4 First Onsite Visit Feedback for 2013-2014 Title I School Improvement Grant (SIG), section 1003(g), FY 2009 Date Feedback Shared with BCPSS: October 28, 2013
Program Improvement and Family Support Branch Division of Student, Family, and School Support Maryland State Department of Education Page 7
City Schools will hire an individual in 2013-2014 to specifically assure that funds are utilized to implement the selected interventions. This individual, the business manager, will work closely with school-based staff and other central office staff to ensure that the allocations are made in a timely manner and that they are being used effectively. Additionally, the business manager will provide fiscal oversight. Both grant specific positions will work closely with the LEA’s Grants Office ensures fiscal compliance.
g. Within this proposal, the LEA identified actions taken or in the planning to support individual Tier I and Tier II schools’ implementation of the selected interventions. Looking across the commitments made for the schools, and considering as well the strategies selected by the LEA for identified Tier III schools, what additional actions will the LEA take to ensure that the selected interventions are implemented as designed and to make the other changes such as:
(1) realignment of other resources; Schools will be given a per pupil allocation for spending through local funding. In addition, BCPSS will use the school system’s Title I, Part A funding, as part of its required 20% reservation, for its priority schools in Cohort I. The schools will have the ability to align their resources to the targeted interventions. The schools that have external operators will be able to realign their funding resources where necessary to ensure the flexibility to meet the needs of their targeted interventions. City Schools will also leverage Race to the Top funds both from the SEA and LEA to ensure schools can meet their targets.
(2) removal of expectations that might run counter to the approach outlined in the selected intervention; Schools will work with the Office of Turnaround that will outline how they will reach given benchmarks. The schools can make adjustments to the traditional school calendar, or create alternatives schedules. The schools will have autonomy in budget, staffing and programming. The schools will be supported to make best use of collaborative planning time and to embed professional development within the typical school day. The schools will have the flexibility to use their people, time and money to ensure that their school dramatically improves student achievement.
(3) timely modification of practices and policies (those anticipated ahead of time and those that will emerge during implementation); The central office support team will meet regularly with the school based support team so to proactively rethink polices that may impact the expedited turnaround of schools. In the past, new schools were left to enter the staffing process and compete for talent with other schools in the district. In support of the turnaround and restart models, the Office of Human Capital (OHC) modified communication and recruiting practices to provide greater access to employees for these schools. The Turnaround Office will also have an Operations Specialist who will work with schools to ensure staffing needs are being met.
Baltimore City Public School System (BCPSS) Priority Cohort 1 Year 4 First Onsite Visit Feedback for 2013-2014 Title I School Improvement Grant (SIG), section 1003(g), FY 2009 Date Feedback Shared with BCPSS: October 28, 2013
Program Improvement and Family Support Branch Division of Student, Family, and School Support Maryland State Department of Education Page 8
Additional Information:
Communication: The Office of Human Capital, in partnership with other central office leaders, visited each of the impacted schools’ existing staff to discuss the respective school model, the direction of the initiative and lay out the case for change. A key component for existing staff was the voluntary transfer process, with relaxed requirements which encouraged our top performers to consider restart and turnaround schools (i.e. “time in position” requirements were relaxed). At each of the communication sessions, external operators were invited to attend and discuss their respective schools and opportunities. Employees were given a chance to interact with the operator to determine a fit, and learn more about the instructional philosophy of the organization. Teacher Recruiting: During the district’s voluntary transfer process, a process was developed for restarts/turnarounds to have first access to the strongest candidates. In the past, the voluntary transfer list was posted on a common dashboard, and all principals had equal access. This year, the report was culled three times for primary review and action by turnarounds and restarts. The schools were able to initiate discussions with HQ teachers. This ‘first bite at the apple’ allowed for the schools with the highest need to get the highest priority in staffing their schools with the best, most qualified talent. The early communication points led to earlier interviews. The interview process was ramped up for these schools. Where a simple interview may have been the protocol, both external operators and central office staff developed a rigorous process which included face to face interviews, a review of student data, sample lessons (in some cases), instructional observations, and feedback from existing leadership. These schools used considerably more data points-on a larger scale- than ever before to evaluate and recommend staff.
(4) engaging in reflective and sustained, collaborative conversation and planning to ensure that improvement efforts can be sustained once this funding ends? The Director of Turnaround Schools will begin long-range planning with the school operators and school leaders from the onset of the school turnaround. These planning sessions will involve creating a long-range strategic plan for district allocations for the schools beyond the life cycle of the grant. Additionally, the school system’s Title I, Part A funding will assist in sustainability of the intervention model in the system’s Priority Cohort I Schools.
Baltimore City Public School System (BCPSS) Priority Cohort 1 Year 4 First Onsite Visit Feedback for 2013-2014 Title I School Improvement Grant (SIG), section 1003(g), FY 2009 Date Feedback Shared with BCPSS: October 28, 2013
Program Improvement and Family Support Branch Division of Student, Family, and School Support Maryland State Department of Education Page 9
h. What are the major challenges to full and effective implementation of all components of the SIG grant that the LEA 1003 (g) central support team has identified and how will the team address these challenges in the early phases of the work? 1. Challenge: Identifying highly effective staff for every position within Turnaround Schools Solution: City Schools implemented an informal observation protocol to identify staff members who demonstrate
turnaround potential. Implement targeted recruitment strategies through channels of highly motivated and high performing teachers. Provide incentives.
2. Challenge: Identification of highly effective school leaders Solution: Create a job description and a posting specifically for a “turnaround principal.” A pool of qualified applicants
will be created through a rigorous selection process. Put incentives in place for additional compensation and performance bonuses.
3. Challenge: Ensuring that all elements of the school model and state requirements can be adequately funded.
Solution: Team approach to the roll out of funds to ensure that every school receives the funds required for school model implementation.
Baltimore City Public School System (BCPSS) Priority Cohort 1 Year 4 First Onsite Visit Feedback for 2013-2014 Title I School Improvement Grant (SIG), section 1003(g), FY 2009 Date Feedback Shared with BCPSS: October 28, 2013
Program Improvement and Family Support Branch Division of Student, Family, and School Support Maryland State Department of Education Page 10
TABLE 2
SIG I Year 3 LEA ARRA Budget
SIG I Year 3 funds ended June 30, 2013. BCPSS is currently in the process of closing out this grant. Invoices are being paid and other expenses will go through the journal process. A final Annual Financial Report (AFR) will be
submitted to MSDE by the allowable timeframe in order for the school system to liquidate encumbrances.
Baltimore City Public School System (BCPSS) Priority Cohort 1 Year 4 First Onsite Visit Feedback for 2013-2014 Title I School Improvement Grant (SIG), section 1003(g), FY 2009 Date Feedback Shared with BCPSS: October 28, 2013
Program Improvement and Family Support Branch Division of Student, Family, and School Support Maryland State Department of Education Page 11
TABLE 3
Priority Cohort I Year 4 Instructional Domains and Indicators Domain Indicator
#1 Instructional
Planning
1. The teacher states the lesson objective (written and orally) in student learning outcomes which demonstrate high expectations.
2. The teacher aligns instructional and learning activities to the lesson objective. 3. The teacher aligns assessment (ongoing, formative, and summative) to the lesson objective.
#2 Instructional
Delivery
(Strategies and Process)
4. Teacher presents concepts, skills, and directions clearly using correct oral and written language. 5. Teacher provides a variety of feedback (oral and written) that advances student learning while
checking for understanding. 6. Teacher adapts plans as needed. (Differentiation of content, process, product; unexpected
situation; teachable moment, etc.)
#3 Teacher-Student
Engagement
(Techniques and Strategies)
7. All students are actively engaged in meaningful tasks designed to challenge their thinking processes.
8. All students are engaged by the use of questioning and discussion strategies that encourage higher order thinking rather than emphasis on recall.
9. Teacher reinforces skills, processes, and procedures introduced through modeling, shaping, and student practice.
10. All students effectively participate in a variety of groupings (whole group, small group, and independent) throughout the lesson.
#4 Classroom
Management
(for Teaching and Learning)
11. Teacher organizes instructional learning time to maximize student time on task. 12. Teacher establishes and manages classroom procedures and routines that promote learning. 13. Teacher uses space, equipment, and materials to support instruction including the use of
technology to engage. 14. Teacher manages student behavior effectively which creates a learning environment of respect and
rapport.
NOTE: These instructional domains and indicators are used for classroom observations during the 1st onsite monitoring visit.
Baltimore City Public School System (BCPSS) Priority Cohort 1 Year 4 First Onsite Visit Feedback for 2013-2014 Title I School Improvement Grant (SIG), section 1003(g), FY 2009 Date Feedback Shared with BCPSS: October 28, 2013
Program Improvement and Family Support Branch Division of Student, Family, and School Support Maryland State Department of Education Page 12
Table 4 “These charts reflect a snapshot of the teaching and learning observed and summarized by the MSDE monitoring team on the day of the onsite monitoring visit
for each of the Priority Schools.” Augusta Fells At-A-Glance 2012-13 & 2013-14 Comparison Classroom Observations
Domain # Augusta Fells Savage (12-13) Augusta Fells Savage (12-13)
1st Visit 3rd Visit 1st Visit 3rd Visit
Instructional Planning
1 91.6 M -- 75.0 M 40.00 NM
2 83.3 M ↓ 50.0 NM 30.00 NM
3 83.3 M ↓ 66.6 PM 50.00 NM
Instructional Delivery
4 81.8 M -- 75.0 M 50.00 NM
5 63.6 PM -- 63.6 PM 50.00 NM
6 70.0 M ↓ 54.5 PM 57.14 NM
Teacher Student
Engagement
7 81.8 M ↓ 50.0 NM 80.00 M
8 77.7 M ↓ 63.6 PM 71.43 M
9 90.9 M -- 75.0 M 77.78 M
10 81.8 M ↓ 12. NM 100.00 M
Classroom Management
11 75.0 M ↓ 66.6 PM 100.00 M
12 91.6 M -- 90.0 M 88.89 M
13 83.3 M -- 100. M 100.00 M
14 91.6 M -- 91.6 M 88.89 M
TOTAL 81.9 M 66.8 PM 70.29 M
Calverton Comparison between 2012-13 and 2013-14 Classroom Observations
Domain # Calverton (2012-13) Calverton (2013-14)
1st Visit 3rd Visit 1st Visit 3rd Visit
Instructional Planning
1 100. M -- 100. M 100.00 M
2 93.3 M -- 85.7 M 100.00 M
3 81.8 M -- 91.6 M 100.00 M
Instructional Delivery
4 73.3 M -- 92.8 M 100.00 M
5 86.6 M -- 92.3 M 100.00 M
6 91.6 M -- 87.5 M 100.00 M
Teacher Student Engagement
7 100. M -- 92.8 M 100.00 M
8 85.7 M -- 92.8 M 100.00 M
9 92.8 M -- 92.8 M 100.00 M
10 70.0 M -- 90.9 M 100.00 M
Classroom Management
11 100. M -- 85.7 M 100.00 M
12 93.3 M -- 100. M 100.00 M
13 100. M -- 100. M 100.00 M
14 93.3 M -- 100. M 100.00 M
TOTAL 90.1 M -- 97.0 M 100.00 M
Booker T. Washington At-A-Glance 2012-13 & 2013-14 Comparison Classroom Observations
Domain # Booker T. Washington (12-13) Booker T. Washington (13-14)
1st Visit 3rd Visit 1st Visit 3rd Visit
Instructional Planning
1 60.0 PM ↓ 33.3 NM 80.00 M
2 50.0 NM ↑ 66.6 PM 60.00 PM
3 60.0 PM ↑ 72.7 M 100.00 M
Instructional Delivery
4 90.0 M ↓ 66.6 PM 90.00 M
5 70.0 M ↓ 66.6 PM 100.00 M
6 70.0 M ↓ 60.0 PM 20.00 NM
Teacher Student
Engagement
7 60.0 PM ↑ 75.0 M 60.00 PM
8 60.0 PM ↑ 90.9 M 90.00 M
9 50.0 NM ↑ 91.6 M 90.00 M
10 40.0 NM ↑ 75.0 M 100.00 M
Classroom Management
11 40.0 NM ↑ 81.8 M 90.00 M
12 40.0 NM ↑ 58.3 PM 80.00 M
13 40.0 NM ↑ 91.6 M 80.00 M
14 30.0 NM ↑ 83.3 M 90.00 M
TOTAL 54.2 PM ↑ 72.4 M 80.71 M
Commodore At-A-Glance Comparison between 2012-13 and 2013-14 Classroom Observations
Domain # Commodore John Rodgers (12-13) Commodore John Rodgers (13-14)
1st Visit 3rd Visit 1st Visit 3rd Visit
Instructional Planning
1 88.8 M -- 76.9 M 90.00 M
2 78.5 M -- 100. M 70.00 M
3 83.3 M -- 100. M 87.50 M
Instructional Delivery
4 92.3 M -- 100. M 70.00 M
5 92.3 M -- 91.6 M 80.00 M
6 91.6 M -- 84.6 M 80.00 M
Teacher Student Engagement
7 85.7 M -- 86.6 M 80.00 M
8 85.7 M -- 80.0 M 77.78 M
9 100. M -- 86.6 M 88.89 M
10 71.4 M -- 100. M 90.00 M
Classroom Management
11 100. M -- 100. M 77.78 M
12 100. M -- 92.3 M 90.00 M
13 91.6 M -- 100. M 100.00 M
14 91.6 M -- 93.3 M 90.00 M
TOTAL 89.5 M -- 97.0 M 83.71 M
KEY
↑ : Rating Increased -- : Rating Remained the Same ↓ : Rating Decreased
*0-50%, Indicator is NOT MET (NM) for the school *51-69% Indicator is PARTIALLY MET (PM) for the school *70-100% Indicator is MET (M) for the school
Baltimore City Public School System (BCPSS) Priority Cohort 1 Year 4 First Onsite Visit Feedback for 2013-2014 Title I School Improvement Grant (SIG), section 1003(g), FY 2009 Date Feedback Shared with BCPSS: October 28, 2013
Program Improvement and Family Support Branch Division of Student, Family, and School Support Maryland State Department of Education Page 13
Table 5 Priority Schools First Onsite Visit Classroom Observation Tally Sheet for Booker T. Washington Middle School
Cla
ssro
om
Ob
serv
ati
on
In
dic
ato
rs
Cla
ssro
om
1
Cla
ssro
om
2
Cla
ssro
om
3
Cla
ssro
om
4
Cla
ssro
om
5
Cla
ssro
om
6
Cla
ssro
om
7
Cla
ssro
om
8
Cla
ssro
om
9
Cla
ssro
om
10
To
tal
Pro
fici
en
t o
r A
bo
ve
O
bse
rva
tio
ns
*To
tal
% P
rofi
cie
nt
or
Ab
ov
e O
bse
rva
tio
ns
*In
dic
ato
r M
ET
(M
),
Pa
rtia
lly
ME
T (
PM
), N
OT
M
ET
(N
M)
1 1 1 1 1 0 0 1 1 1 1 8 80.00% M
2 1 0 1 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 6 60.00% PM
3 x x 1 1 x x x x x 1 3 100.00% M
4 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 9 90.00% M
5 1 1 1 1 x 1 1 1 1 1 9 100.00% M
6 x 0 x 0 x 0 1 x 0 x 1 20.00% NM
7 1 0 1 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 6 60.00% PM
8 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 9 90.00% M
9 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 9 90.00% M
10 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 10 100.00% M
11 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 9 90.00% M
12 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 8 80.00% M
13 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 0 1 8 80.00% M
14 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 9 90.00% M
TOTAL 12 8 13 11 7 5 13 12 10 13 104 80.71% M
Key:
*0-50%, Indicator is NOT MET for the school
0 - Not Proficient
*51-69% Indicator is Partially MET for the school
1 - Proficient or Above
*70-100% Indicator is MET for the school
X - No Opportunity to Observe the Indicator in the Classroom
Baltimore City Public School System (BCPSS) Priority Cohort 1 Year 4 First Onsite Visit Feedback for 2013-2014 Title I School Improvement Grant (SIG), section 1003(g), FY 2009 Date Feedback Shared with BCPSS: October 28, 2013
Program Improvement and Family Support Branch Division of Student, Family, and School Support Maryland State Department of Education Page 14
TABLE 6 Booker T. Washington Middle School, Baltimore City Public School System
Priority Cohort I Year 4 First Monitoring Classroom Observation Feedback, 2013-2014
Domain 1 : Instructional Planning Indicator 1: The teacher states the lesson objective (written and orally) in student learning outcomes which demonstrate high expectations. (Identifies what students should know and be able to do at the end of the lesson.)
Indicator Score
8 points out of 10 observations
80%
MET
Summary of Evidence to Support the Indicator Score
In most classrooms, the objective was written in terms of what the students would learn and be able to do.
In most classrooms, the teacher and students connected the objective to previous learning.
In most classrooms, the objective was related to “big ideas” of the discipline.
Indicator 2: The teacher aligns instructional and learning activities to the lesson objective.
Indicator Score:
6 points out of 10 observations
60%
PARTIALLY MET
Summary of Evidence to Support the Indicator Score
In some classrooms, the learning activities were matched to instructional outcomes.
In some classrooms, the teacher provided a variety of appropriately challenging materials and resources.
In a few classrooms, the learning activities were moderately challenging.
In a few classrooms, the learning resources were suitable, but there was a limited variety.
Indicator 3: The teacher aligns assessment (ongoing, formative, and summative) to the lesson objective.
Indicator Score:
3 points out of 3 observations
100%
MET
Summary of Evidence to Support the Indicator Score
Because of the timing of the classroom observations, the Priority Observation Pair determined Indicator 3 could not be observed in 7 classrooms.
In 3 classrooms, all the learning outcomes had a method for assessment.
In 3 classrooms, all the assessment types matched learning expectations.
In 3 classrooms, the assessment criteria were clearly written.
Baltimore City Public School System (BCPSS) Priority Cohort 1 Year 4 First Onsite Visit Feedback for 2013-2014 Title I School Improvement Grant (SIG), section 1003(g), FY 2009 Date Feedback Shared with BCPSS: October 28, 2013
Program Improvement and Family Support Branch Division of Student, Family, and School Support Maryland State Department of Education Page 15
Domain 2: Instruction Delivery- Strategies and Process
Indicator 4: Teacher presents concepts, skills, and directions clearly using correct oral and written language.
Indicator Score:
9 points out of 10 observations
90%
MET
Summary of Evidence to Support the Indicator Score
In most classrooms, the teacher made no content errors.
In most classrooms, the vocabulary and usage were correct and completely suited to the lesson.
In most classrooms, the vocabulary was appropriate to the students’ ages and levels of development.
Indicator 5: Teacher provides a variety of feedback (oral and written) that advances student learning while checking for understanding.
Indicator Score:
9 points out of 9 observations
100%
MET
Summary of Evidence to Support the Indicator Score
Because of the timing of the classroom observations, the Priority Observation Pair determined Indicator 5 could not be observed in 1 classroom.
In most classrooms, the teacher elicited evidence of student understanding during the lesson.
In some classrooms, the feedback included specific and timely guidance for students.
In some classrooms, students were invited to assess their own work and make improvements.
In a few classrooms, the teacher made frequent use of strategies to elicit information about individual student understanding.
Indicator 6: Teacher adapts plans as needed. (Differentiation of content, process, product; unexpected situation; teachable moment, etc.)
Indicator Score:
1 point out of 5 observations
20%
NOT MET
Summary of Evidence to Support the Indicator Score
Because of the timing of the classroom observations, the Priority Observation Pair determined Indicator 6 could not be observed in 5 classrooms.
In several classrooms, the teacher’s efforts to modify the lesson were only partially successful.
In several classrooms, the teacher ignored indications of student boredom or lack of understanding.
In one classroom, students were unable to read the necessary items from the board. However, the teacher did not make any written or verbal adjustments.
Baltimore City Public School System (BCPSS) Priority Cohort 1 Year 4 First Onsite Visit Feedback for 2013-2014 Title I School Improvement Grant (SIG), section 1003(g), FY 2009 Date Feedback Shared with BCPSS: October 28, 2013
Program Improvement and Family Support Branch Division of Student, Family, and School Support Maryland State Department of Education Page 16
Domain 3: Teacher-Student Engagement (Techniques and Strategies)
Indicator 7: All students are actively engaged in meaningful tasks designed to challenge their thinking processes.
Indicator Score:
6 points out of 10 observations
60%
PARTIALLY MET
Summary of Evidence to Support the Indicator Score
In some classrooms, most students were intellectually engaged in the lesson.
In some classrooms, materials and resources supported the learning goals and required intellectual engagement, as appropriate.
In some classrooms, the pacing of the lesson provided students the time needed to be intellectually engaged.
In a few classrooms, the learning tasks required only recall or had a single correct response method, which made no room for deeper thinking or contextual learning.
Indicator 8: All students are engaged by the use of questioning and discussion strategies that encourage higher order thinking
rather than emphasis on recall.
Indicator Score:
9 points out of 10 observations
90%
MET
Summary of Evidence to Support the Indicator Score
In some classrooms, teacher made effective use of wait time.
In some classrooms, teacher built on and used student responses to questions to effectively progress the lesson.
In some classrooms, students were able to have discussions without ongoing mediation by teacher.
Indicator 9: Teacher reinforces skills, processes, and procedures introduced through modeling, shaping, and student practice.
Indicator Score: 9 points out of 10
observations MET 90%
Summary of Evidence to Support the Indicator Score
In most classrooms, the teacher stated clearly what the students would be learning.
In most classrooms, the teacher explained content clearly and invited student participation and thinking.
In one classroom, the teacher modeled what was expected and the process to follow in the task at hand.
Indicator 10: All students effectively participate in a variety of groupings (whole group, small group, and
Indicator Score: 10 points out of 10
observations
Summary of Evidence to Support the Indicator Score
In all classrooms, student groups were organized to maximize learning and build on student strengths.
Baltimore City Public School System (BCPSS) Priority Cohort 1 Year 4 First Onsite Visit Feedback for 2013-2014 Title I School Improvement Grant (SIG), section 1003(g), FY 2009 Date Feedback Shared with BCPSS: October 28, 2013
Program Improvement and Family Support Branch Division of Student, Family, and School Support Maryland State Department of Education Page 17
independent) throughout the lesson.
100% MET
In all classrooms, whole groups worked on a particular lesson and then broke into small group or independent work on the lesson.
Domain 4: Classroom Management (for Teaching and Learning)
Indicator 11: Teacher organizes instructional learning time to maximize student time on task.
Indicator Score: 9 points out of 10
observations 90% MET
Summary of Evidence to Support the Indicator Score
In the majority of classrooms, the pacing of the lesson was appropriate for students to be intellectually engaged.
In some classrooms, the students interacted well with each other.
Indicator12: Teacher establishes and manages classroom procedures and routines that promote learning.
Indicator Score: 8 points out of 10
observations 80% MET
Summary of Evidence to Support the Indicator Score
In some classrooms, student behavior was generally appropriate and the teacher acknowledged good behavior.
In most classrooms, the teacher consistently monitored student behavior. Not all responses to the teacher were effective.
In most classrooms, routines seemed to function smoothly.
Indicator 13: Teacher uses space, equipment, and materials to support instruction including the use of technology to engage.
Indicator Score:
8 points out of 10 observations
80%
MET
Summary of Evidence to Support the Indicator Score
All classrooms were safe, and all students were able to see and hear the teacher conducting the lesson.
In most classrooms, the seating arrangement supported the instructional goals and learning activities.
In most classrooms, the teacher made appropriate use of Smart Boards and other technology. However, there were a few classrooms where no technology was used.
Baltimore City Public School System (BCPSS) Priority Cohort 1 Year 4 First Onsite Visit Feedback for 2013-2014 Title I School Improvement Grant (SIG), section 1003(g), FY 2009 Date Feedback Shared with BCPSS: October 28, 2013
Program Improvement and Family Support Branch Division of Student, Family, and School Support Maryland State Department of Education Page 18
Indicator 14: Teacher manages student behavior effectively which creates a learning environment of respect and rapport.
Indicator Score: 9 points out of 10
observations
90%
MET
Summary of Evidence to Support the Indicator Score
In the majority of classrooms, discussion between teacher and student was respectful.
In most classrooms, students were respectful of each other.
In most classrooms, rapport between teacher and student was good.
Baltimore City Public School System (BCPSS) Priority Cohort 1 Year 4 First Onsite Visit Feedback for 2013-2014 Title I School Improvement Grant (SIG), section 1003(g), FY 2009 Date Feedback Shared with BCPSS: October 28, 2013
Program Improvement and Family Support Branch Division of Student, Family, and School Support Maryland State Department of Education Page 19
TABLE 7
SIG I Year 3 Booker T. Washington Middle School Budget
SIG I Year 3 funds for Booker T. Washington Middle School ended September 30, 2013. BCPSS is currently in the process of closing out this school budget. Invoices are being paid and other expenses will go through the journal process. A final Annual Financial Report (AFR) will be submitted to MSDE by December 30, 2013 in order for the
school system to liquidate encumbrances for the school. For the 2013-2014 school year, BCPSS is using its Title I, Part A funds (20% reservation) for FY 2014 to sustain the school’s intervention model.
Baltimore City Public School System (BCPSS) Priority Cohort 1 Year 4 First Onsite Visit Feedback for 2013-2014 Title I School Improvement Grant (SIG), section 1003(g), FY 2009 Date Feedback Shared with BCPSS: October 28, 2013
Program Improvement and Family Support Branch Division of Student, Family, and School Support Maryland State Department of Education Page 20
TABLE 8 Priority Schools First Onsite Visit Classroom Observation Tally Sheet for Augusta Fells Savage Institute of Visual Arts High School
Cla
ssro
om
Ob
serv
ati
on
In
dic
ato
rs
Cla
ssro
om
1
Cla
ssro
om
2
Cla
ssro
om
3
Cla
ssro
om
4
Cla
ssro
om
5
Cla
ssro
om
6
Cla
ssro
om
7
Cla
ssro
om
8
Cla
ssro
om
9
Cla
ssro
om
10
To
tal
Pro
fici
en
t o
r A
bo
ve
O
bse
rva
tio
ns
*To
tal
% P
rofi
cie
nt
or
Ab
ov
e O
bse
rva
tio
ns
*In
dic
ato
r M
ET
(M
),
Pa
rtia
lly
ME
T (
PM
), N
OT
M
ET
(N
M)
1 1 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 4 40.00% NM
2 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 3 30.00% NM
3 0 1 1 0 0 0 1 1 1 0 5 50.00% NM
4 0 1 1 0 0 0 1 1 1 0 5 50.00% NM
5 0 1 1 0 0 0 1 1 1 0 5 50.00% NM
6 0 X 1 0 0 X 1 1 1 X 4 57.14% PM
7 1 1 1 1 0 1 0 1 1 1 8 80.00% M
8 1 1 1 1 0 X X 1 X 0 5 71.43% M
9 1 1 1 1 1 X 0 1 1 0 7 77.78% M
10 1 1 1 X 1 X X X 1 X 5 100.00% M
11 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 X 9 100.00% M
12 1 1 1 1 0 1 X 1 1 1 8 88.89% M
13 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 10 100.00% M
14 1 1 1 1 X 1 0 1 1 1 8 88.89% M
TOTAL 9 13 13 7 4 5 7 11 13 4 86 70.29%
*0-50%, Indicator is NOT MET for the school
Key:
*51-69% Indicator is Partially MET for the school
0 - Not Proficient
*70-100% Indicator is MET for the school
1 - Proficient or Above
X - No Opportunity to Observe the Indicator in the Classroom
Baltimore City Public School System (BCPSS) Priority Cohort 1 Year 4 First Onsite Visit Feedback for 2013-2014 Title I School Improvement Grant (SIG), section 1003(g), FY 2009 Date Feedback Shared with BCPSS: October 28, 2013
Program Improvement and Family Support Branch Division of Student, Family, and School Support Maryland State Department of Education Page 21
TABLE 9 Augusta Fells Savage Institute of Visual Arts High School, Baltimore City Public School System
Priority Cohort I Year 4 First Monitoring Classroom Observation Feedback, 2013-2014
Domain 1 : Instructional Planning
Indicator 1: The teacher states the lesson objective (written and orally) in student learning outcomes which demonstrate high expectations. (identifies what students should know and be able to do at the end of the lesson.)
Indicator Score:
4 out of 10 classrooms
40%
Not Met
Summary of Evidence to Support the Indicator Score
In most classrooms, the objective represented a mixture of low expectations and rigor.
In most classrooms, the objective was written with the needs of the “middle” group in mind.
In a few classrooms, the objective was written in terms of what students would learn and would be able to do.
Indicator 2: The teacher aligns instructional and learning activities to the lesson objective.
Indicator Score: 3 out of 10
classrooms
30%
Not Met
Summary of Evidence to Support the Indicator Score
In a few classrooms, learning activities were moderately challenging.
In most classrooms, learning resources were suitable, but there was limited variety.
In one classroom, the lesson activities were not structured or sequenced and were unrealistic in their expectations.
Indicator 3: The teacher aligns assessment (ongoing, formative, and summative) to the lesson objective.
Indicator Score:
5 out of 10 classrooms
50%
Not Met
Summary of Evidence to Support the Indicator Score
In some classrooms, only some of the instructional outcomes were addressed in the planned assessments.
In a few classrooms, the teacher included the use of formative assessments during instruction.
In some classrooms, the teacher made adjustments based on formative assessment data.
In one classroom, no formative assessments had been designed.
In another classroom, the assessments had no criteria.
Baltimore City Public School System (BCPSS) Priority Cohort 1 Year 4 First Onsite Visit Feedback for 2013-2014 Title I School Improvement Grant (SIG), section 1003(g), FY 2009 Date Feedback Shared with BCPSS: October 28, 2013
Program Improvement and Family Support Branch Division of Student, Family, and School Support Maryland State Department of Education Page 22
Domain 2: Instruction Delivery- Strategies and Process
Indicator 4: Teacher presents concepts, skills, and directions clearly using correct oral and written language.
Indicator Score:
5 out of 10 classrooms
50%
Not Met
Summary of Evidence to Support the Indicator Score
In some classrooms, the teacher’s explanation of the content consisted of a monologue or was purely procedural with minimal participation by students.
In other classrooms, the teachers’ explanation of the content was clear, and invited student participation and thinking.
In some classrooms, vocabulary and usage were correct but unimaginative.
In other classrooms, vocabulary was appropriate to the students’ ages and levels of development.
In one classroom, the teacher invited students to explain the content to the class.
Indicator 5: Teacher provides a variety of feedback (oral and written) that advances student learning while checking for understanding.
Indicator Score:
5 out of 10
classrooms
50%
Not Met
Summary of Evidence to Support the Indicator Score
In some classrooms, the teachers made no effort to determine whether students understood the lesson.
In other classrooms, the teachers elicited evidence of students understanding during the lesson.
In some classrooms, the feedback was absent or minimal.
In other classrooms, the feedback included specific and timely guidance for at least groups of students.
In one classroom, students utilized self-assessment and peer-assessment skills.
Indicator 6: Teacher adapts plans as needed. (Differentiation of content, process, product; unexpected situation; teachable moment, etc.)
Indicator Score:
4 out of 7 classrooms
57.14%
Summary of Evidence to Support the Indicator Score
Because of the timing of the classroom observation, the Priority Observation Pair determined Indicator 6 could not be observed in 3 classrooms.
In some classrooms, the teachers ignored indications of student boredom or lack of understanding.
In some classrooms, the teachers successfully made a
Baltimore City Public School System (BCPSS) Priority Cohort 1 Year 4 First Onsite Visit Feedback for 2013-2014 Title I School Improvement Grant (SIG), section 1003(g), FY 2009 Date Feedback Shared with BCPSS: October 28, 2013
Program Improvement and Family Support Branch Division of Student, Family, and School Support Maryland State Department of Education Page 23
Partially Met
minor modifications to the lesson.
In some classrooms, the teacher conveyed to students that he/she had other approaches to try when the students experience difficulty.
Domain 3: Teacher-Student Engagement (Techniques and Strategies)
Indicator 7: All students are actively engaged in meaningful tasks designed to challenge their thinking processes.
Indicator Score:
8 out of 10
classrooms
80%
Met
Summary of Evidence to Support the Indicator Score
In most classrooms, students were intellectually engaged in the lesson.
In most classrooms, materials and resources supported the learning goals and required intellectual engagement, as appropriate.
In one classroom, students had an opportunity for reflection and closure on the lesson to consolidate their understanding.
Indicator 8: All students are engaged by the use of questioning and discussion strategies that encourage higher order thinking rather than emphasis
on recall.
Indicator Score:
5 out of 7
classrooms
71.43%
Met
Summary of Evidence to Support the Indicator Score
Because of the timing of the classroom observation, the Priority Observation Pair determined Indicator 8 could not be observed in 3 classrooms.
In some classrooms, the teacher built and used student responses to questions effectively.
In some classrooms, the discussions enabled students to talk to one another.
In other classrooms the teachers used open-ended questions, inviting students to think and/or have multiple possible answers.
In one classroom, the teacher called on most students, even those that did not initially volunteer.
Baltimore City Public School System (BCPSS) Priority Cohort 1 Year 4 First Onsite Visit Feedback for 2013-2014 Title I School Improvement Grant (SIG), section 1003(g), FY 2009 Date Feedback Shared with BCPSS: October 28, 2013
Program Improvement and Family Support Branch Division of Student, Family, and School Support Maryland State Department of Education Page 24
Indicator 9: Teacher reinforces skills, processes, and procedures introduced through modeling, shaping, and student practice.
Indicator Score:
7 out of 9
classrooms
77.78%
Met
Summary of Evidence to Support the Indicator Score
Because of the timing of the classroom observation, the Priority Observation Pair determined Indicator 9 could not be observed in 1 classroom.
In most classrooms, the teacher stated clearly what the students would be learning.
In most classrooms, the students engaged with the learning tasks, indicating that they understood what they were to do.
In most classrooms, the teachers’ explanation of the content was clear and invited student participation and thinking.
In one classroom, the teacher pointed out possible areas of misunderstanding.
Indicator 10: All students effectively participate in a variety of groupings (whole group, small group, and independent) throughout the lesson.
Indicator Score:
5 out of 5
classrooms
100%
Met
Summary of Evidence to Support the Indicator Score
Because of the timing of the classroom observation, the Priority Observation Pair determined Indicator 10 could not be observed in 5 classrooms.
In most classrooms, instructional student groups were organized thoughtfully to maximize learning and build on student strengths.
In a few classrooms, the teacher provided a variety of appropriately challenging resources that are differentiated for students in the class.
In a few classrooms, teachers used several grouping structures.
Domain 4: Classroom Management (for Teaching and Learning)
Indicator 11: Teacher organizes instructional learning time to maximize student time on task.
Indicator Score:
9 out of 9
classrooms
Summary of Evidence to Support the Indicator Score
Because of the timing of the classroom observation, the Priority Observation Pair determined Indicator 11 could not be observed in 1 classroom.
Baltimore City Public School System (BCPSS) Priority Cohort 1 Year 4 First Onsite Visit Feedback for 2013-2014 Title I School Improvement Grant (SIG), section 1003(g), FY 2009 Date Feedback Shared with BCPSS: October 28, 2013
Program Improvement and Family Support Branch Division of Student, Family, and School Support Maryland State Department of Education Page 25
100%
Met
In most classrooms, the pacing of the lesson provided students the time needed to be intellectually engaged.
In most classrooms, students interacted with one another.
In a few classrooms, students had an opportunity for reflections and closure on the lesson to consolidate their understanding with each other and the teacher.
Indicator12: Teacher establishes and manages classroom procedures and routines that promote learning.
Indicator Score:
8 out of 9
classrooms
88.89%
Met
Summary of Evidence to Support the Indicator Score
Because of the timing of the classroom observation, the Priority Observation Pair determined Indicator 12 could not be observed in 1 classroom.
In most classrooms, student behavior was generally appropriate and the teacher acknowledged good behavior.
In most classrooms, the teacher frequently monitored student behavior. The teacher’s response to student misbehavior was generally effective.
In most classrooms, classroom routines functioned smoothly.
In a few classrooms, the teacher monitored student behavior without speaking such as just moving about the room.
Indicator 13: Teacher uses space, equipment, and materials to support instruction including the use of technology to engage.
Indicator Score:
10 out of 10 classrooms
100%
Met
Summary of Evidence to Support the Indicator Score
All classrooms were safe, and all students were able to see and hear.
Most classrooms were arranged to support the instructional goals and learning activities.
In most classrooms, the teachers made use of appropriate use of available technology.
In a few classrooms, there was a total alignment between the goals of the lesson and the physical environment.
Baltimore City Public School System (BCPSS) Priority Cohort 1 Year 4 First Onsite Visit Feedback for 2013-2014 Title I School Improvement Grant (SIG), section 1003(g), FY 2009 Date Feedback Shared with BCPSS: October 28, 2013
Program Improvement and Family Support Branch Division of Student, Family, and School Support Maryland State Department of Education Page 26
Indicator 14: Teacher manages student behavior effectively which creates a learning environment of respect and rapport.
Indicator Score:
8 out of 9
classrooms
88.89%
Met
Summary of Evidence to Support the Indicator Score
Because of the timing of the classroom observation, the Priority Observation Pair determined Indicator 14 could not be observed in 1 classroom.
In most classrooms, the talk between the teacher and students and the talk among students were uniformly respectful.
In a few classrooms, the teacher responded effectively to disrespectful behavior among students.
In a few classrooms, there was no disrespectful behavior among students.
In one classroom, the teacher demonstrated knowledge and caring about individual students’ lives beyond school.
Baltimore City Public School System (BCPSS) Priority Cohort 1 Year 4 First Onsite Visit Feedback for 2013-2014 Title I School Improvement Grant (SIG), section 1003(g), FY 2009 Date Feedback Shared with BCPSS: October 28, 2013
Program Improvement and Family Support Branch Division of Student, Family, and School Support Maryland State Department of Education Page 27
TABLE 10
SIG I Year 3 Augusta Fells Savage Institute of Visual Arts High School Budget
SIG I Year 3 funds for Augusta Fells Savage Institute of Visual Arts High School ended September 30, 2013. BCPSS is currently in the process of closing out this school budget. Invoices are being paid and other expenses will go
through the journal process. A final Annual Financial Report (AFR) will be submitted to MSDE by December 30, 2013 in order for the school system to liquidate encumbrances for the school. For the 2013-2014 school year, BCPSS is
using its Title I, Part A funds (20% reservation) for FY 2014 to sustain the school’s intervention model.
Baltimore City Public School System (BCPSS) Priority Cohort 1 Year 4 First Onsite Visit Feedback for 2013-2014 Title I School Improvement Grant (SIG), section 1003(g), FY 2009 Date Feedback Shared with BCPSS: October 28, 2013
Program Improvement and Family Support Branch Division of Student, Family, and School Support Maryland State Department of Education Page 28
TABLE 11 Priority Schools First Onsite Visit Classroom Observation Tally Sheet for Commodore John Rodgers Elementary/Middle School
Cla
ssro
om
Ob
serv
ati
on
In
dic
ato
rs
Cla
ssro
om
1
Cla
ssro
om
2
Cla
ssro
om
3
Cla
ssro
om
4
Cla
ssro
om
5
Cla
ssro
om
6
Cla
ssro
om
7
Cla
ssro
om
8
Cla
ssro
om
9
Cla
ssro
om
10
To
tal
Pro
fici
en
t o
r A
bo
ve
O
bse
rva
tio
ns
*To
tal
% P
rofi
cie
nt
or
Ab
ov
e O
bse
rva
tio
ns
*In
dic
ato
r M
ET
(M
),
Pa
rtia
lly
ME
T (
PM
), N
OT
M
ET
(N
M)
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 9 90.00% M
2 1 1 1 1 0 0 1 0 1 1 7 70.00% M
3 1 1 1 1 0 X 1 X 1 1 7 87.50% M
4 1 1 1 1 0 0 1 0 1 1 7 70.00% M
5 1 1 1 1 0 0 1 1 1 1 8 80.00% M
6 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 0 1 1 8 80.00% M
7 1 1 1 1 0 0 1 1 1 1 8 80.00% M
8 1 1 1 1 0 0 1 1 X 1 7 77.78% M
9 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 X 1 8 88.89% M
10 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 9 90.00% M
11 1 1 1 1 0 0 1 1 X 1 7 77.78% M
12 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 9 90.00% M
13 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 10 100.00% M
14 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 9 90.00% M
TOTAL 14 14 14 14 7 2 14 9 11 14 113 83.71%
*0-50%, Indicator is NOT MET for the school
Key:
*51-69% Indicator is Partially MET for the school
0 - Not Proficient
*70-100% Indicator is MET for the school
1 - Proficient or Above
X - No Opportunity to Observe the Indicator in the Classroom
Baltimore City Public School System (BCPSS) Priority Cohort 1 Year 4 First Onsite Visit Feedback for 2013-2014 Title I School Improvement Grant (SIG), section 1003(g), FY 2009 Date Feedback Shared with BCPSS: October 28, 2013
Program Improvement and Family Support Branch Division of Student, Family, and School Support Maryland State Department of Education Page 29
TABLE 12 Commodore John Rodgers Elementary/Middle School, Baltimore City Public School System
Priority Cohort I Year 4 First Monitoring Classroom Observation Feedback, 2013-2014
Domain 1 : Instructional Planning
Indicator 1: The teacher states the lesson objective (written and orally) in student learning outcomes which demonstrate high expectations. (identifies what students should know and be able to do at the end of the lesson.)
Indicator Score:
9 points out of
10 total observations
90% MET
Summary of Evidence to Support the Indicator Score
In the majority of the classrooms, the learning objective represented high expectations and rigor.
In the majority of the classrooms, the learning objective was written in terms of what students will learn and would be able to do.
In the majority of the classrooms, teachers posted learning targets as well as learning objectives.
Indicator 2: The teacher aligns instructional and learning activities to the lesson objective.
Indicator Score:
7 points out of
10 total observations
70%
MET
Summary of Evidence to Support the Indicator Score
In most classrooms the learning objectives were matched to instructional outcomes.
In most classrooms the delivered activities provided opportunities for student higher-level thinking.
In most classrooms the teachers provided a variety of appropriately challenging materials and resources.
In a few classrooms the learning activities were moderately challenging.
Indicator 3: The teacher aligns assessment (ongoing, formative, and summative) to the lesson objective.
Indicator Score:
7 points out of
8 total observations
87.5%
MET
Summary of Evidence to Support the Indicator Score
In a majority of the classrooms the teachers checked for understanding for each delivered instructional activity.
In the majority of the classrooms, the assessment types matched learning expectations.
In 1 classroom, the teacher used a rubric that was aligned to the learning objective.
In some classrooms the teacher designed assessments were authentic with real-world applications.
In 2 of the classrooms, this indicator was not observable.
Baltimore City Public School System (BCPSS) Priority Cohort 1 Year 4 First Onsite Visit Feedback for 2013-2014 Title I School Improvement Grant (SIG), section 1003(g), FY 2009 Date Feedback Shared with BCPSS: October 28, 2013
Program Improvement and Family Support Branch Division of Student, Family, and School Support Maryland State Department of Education Page 30
Domain 2: Instruction Delivery- Strategies and Process
Indicator 4: Teacher presents concepts, skills, and directions clearly using correct oral and written language.
Indicator Score:
7 points out of
10 total observations
70%
MET
Summary of Evidence to Support the Indicator Score
In the majority of the classrooms, the teachers’ explanations of content were clear, and invited student participation and thinking.
In the majority of the classrooms, the vocabulary and usage were correct and completely suited to the lessons.
In most classrooms the teachers invited students to explain the content to the class or to classmates.
In 2 classrooms the vocabulary and usage were correct but unimaginative.
Indicator 5: Teacher provides a variety of feedback (oral and written) that advances student learning while checking for understanding.
Indicator Score:
8 points out of
10 total observations
80%
MET
Summary of Evidence to Support the Indicator Score
In the majority of the classrooms, the teachers elicited evidence of student understanding during the lessons.
In some classrooms the students were invited to assess their own work and make improvements.
In 2 classrooms the teachers made only minor attempts to engage students in self- or peer- assessment.
Indicator 6: Teacher adapts plans as needed. (Differentiation of content, process, product; unexpected situation; teachable moment, etc.)
Indicator Score:
8 points out of
10 total observations
80%
MET
Summary of Evidence to Support the Indicator Score
In most classrooms the teachers incorporated students’ interests and questions into the heart of the lessons.
In a few classrooms the teachers conveyed to students that he/she would not consider a lesson finished until every student understood.
In 2 classrooms, the teachers conveyed to students a level of responsibility for their learning but demonstrated an uncertainty as to how to assist them.
Baltimore City Public School System (BCPSS) Priority Cohort 1 Year 4 First Onsite Visit Feedback for 2013-2014 Title I School Improvement Grant (SIG), section 1003(g), FY 2009 Date Feedback Shared with BCPSS: October 28, 2013
Program Improvement and Family Support Branch Division of Student, Family, and School Support Maryland State Department of Education Page 31
Domain 3: Teacher-Student Engagement (Techniques and Strategies)
Indicator 7: All students are actively engaged in meaningful tasks designed to challenge their thinking processes.
Indicator Score:
8 points out of
10 total observations
80%
MET
Summary of Evidence to Support the Indicator Score
In a majority of the classrooms the students were intellectually engaged in the lessons.
In a majority of the classrooms the materials and resources supported the learning goals and required intellectual engagement.
In 2 classrooms the learning tasks required only recall or had a single correct response method.
Indicator 8: All students are engaged by the use of questioning and discussion strategies that encourage higher order thinking rather than
emphasis on recall.
Indicator Score:
7 points out of
9 total observations
77.78%
MET
Summary of Evidence to Support the Indicator Score
In most classrooms the teachers built on and used student responses to questions effectively.
In a few classrooms the students invited comments from their classmates during discussion.
In most classrooms the discussions enabled student to talk to one another, without ongoing mediation by the teachers.
In 2 classrooms the teachers called on many students but only a small number actually participated in the discussion.
In 1 of the classrooms, this indicator was not observable.
Indicator 9: Teacher reinforces skills, processes, and procedures introduced through modeling, shaping, and student practice.
Indicator Score:
8 points out of
9 total observations
88.89%
MET
Summary of Evidence to Support the Indicator Score
In a majority of the classrooms the teachers clearly communicated what the students would be learning.
In a majority of the classrooms, the students were engaged with the learning tasks, indicating that they understood what they were to do.
In some of the classrooms all students seemed to understand the presentation while the teachers invited students to explain the content to the class and/or to classmates.
In 1 of the classrooms, this indicator was not observable.
Baltimore City Public School System (BCPSS) Priority Cohort 1 Year 4 First Onsite Visit Feedback for 2013-2014 Title I School Improvement Grant (SIG), section 1003(g), FY 2009 Date Feedback Shared with BCPSS: October 28, 2013
Program Improvement and Family Support Branch Division of Student, Family, and School Support Maryland State Department of Education Page 32
Indicator 10: All students effectively participate in a variety of groupings (whole group, small group, and independent) throughout the lesson.
Indicator Score:
9 points out of
10 total observations
90%
MET
Summary of Evidence to Support the Indicator Score
In a majority of the classrooms the teachers provided a variety of appropriately challenging resources that were differentiated for students in the class.
In a majority of the classrooms the lessons included differentiation for individual student needs, including grouping.
Domain 4: Classroom Management (for Teaching and Learning)
Indicator 11: Teacher organizes instructional learning time to maximize student time on task.
Indicator Score:
7 points out of
9 total observations
77.78%
MET
Summary of Evidence to Support the Indicator Score
In a majority of the classrooms the pacing of the lesson provided students the time needed to be intellectually engaged.
In several classrooms the students interacted with one another.
In most classrooms, the students had opportunities for reflection and closure on the lesson to consolidate their understanding with each other and with the teacher.
In 1 of the classroom, this indicator was not observable.
Indicator12: Teacher establishes and manages classroom procedures and routines that promote learning.
Indicator Score:
9 points out of
10 total observations
90%
MET
Summary of Evidence to Support the Indicator Score
In most of the classrooms student behavior was entirely appropriate with no evidence of student misbehavior.
In most classrooms the teachers monitored student behavior without speaking and by just moving about the classroom.
In a majority of the classrooms the routines for distribution and collection of materials and supplies worked efficiently.
Baltimore City Public School System (BCPSS) Priority Cohort 1 Year 4 First Onsite Visit Feedback for 2013-2014 Title I School Improvement Grant (SIG), section 1003(g), FY 2009 Date Feedback Shared with BCPSS: October 28, 2013
Program Improvement and Family Support Branch Division of Student, Family, and School Support Maryland State Department of Education Page 33
Indicator 13: Teacher uses space, equipment, and materials to support instruction including the use of technology to engage.
Indicator Score:
10 points out of
10 total observations
100%
MET
Summary of Evidence to Support the Indicator Score
In all of the classrooms the teachers and students made extensive and imaginative use of available technology.
In all of the classrooms the learning environment was safe and all students were able to see and hear.
When applicable, modifications were made to the physical environment to accommodate students with special needs.
Indicator 14: Teacher manages student behavior effectively which creates a learning environment of respect and rapport.
Indicator Score:
9 points out of
10 total observations
90%
MET
Summary of Evidence to Support the Indicator Score
In all of the classrooms, the talk between teacher and students and among students was uniformly respectful.
In most of the classrooms the teachers demonstrated knowledge and caring about individual students.
In most of the classrooms the teachers’ responses to a student’s incorrect response respected the student’s dignity.
Baltimore City Public School System (BCPSS) Priority Cohort 1 Year 4 First Onsite Visit Feedback for 2013-2014 Title I School Improvement Grant (SIG), section 1003(g), FY 2009 Date Feedback Shared with BCPSS: October 28, 2013
Program Improvement and Family Support Branch Division of Student, Family, and School Support Maryland State Department of Education Page 34
TABLE 13
SIG I Year 3 Commodore John Rodgers Elementary/Middle School Budget
SIG I Year 3 funds for Commodore John Rodgers Elementary/Middle School ended September 30, 2013. BCPSS is currently in the process of closing out this school budget. Invoices are being paid and other expenses will go through the journal process. A final Annual Financial Report (AFR) will be submitted to MSDE by December 30, 2013 in order for the school system to liquidate encumbrances for the school. For the 2013-2014 school year, BCPSS is using its
Title I, Part A funds (20% reservation) for FY 2014 to sustain the school’s intervention model.
Baltimore City Public School System (BCPSS) Priority Cohort 1 Year 4 First Onsite Visit Feedback for 2013-2014 Title I School Improvement Grant (SIG), section 1003(g), FY 2009 Date Feedback Shared with BCPSS: October 28, 2013
Program Improvement and Family Support Branch Division of Student, Family, and School Support Maryland State Department of Education Page 35
TABLE 14 Priority Schools First Onsite Visit Classroom Observation Tally Sheet for Friendship Preparatory Academy at Calverton Elementary/Middle School
Cla
ssro
om
Ob
serv
ati
on
In
dic
ato
rs
Cla
ssro
om
1
Cla
ssro
om
2
Cla
ssro
om
3
Cla
ssro
om
4
Cla
ssro
om
5
Cla
ssro
om
6
Cla
ssro
om
7
Cla
ssro
om
8
Cla
ssro
om
9
Cla
ssro
om
10
To
tal
Pro
fici
en
t o
r A
bo
ve
O
bse
rva
tio
ns
*To
tal
% P
rofi
cie
nt
or
Ab
ov
e O
bse
rva
tio
ns
*In
dic
ato
r M
ET
(M
),
Pa
rtia
lly
ME
T (
PM
), N
OT
M
ET
(N
M)
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 10 100.00% M
2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 10 100.00% M
3 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 10 100.00% M
4 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 10 100.00% M
5 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 10 100.00% M
6 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 10 100.00% M
7 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 10 100.00% M
8 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 10 100.00% M
9 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 10 100.00% M
10 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 10 100.00% M
11 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 10 100.00% M
12 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 10 100.00% M
13 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 10 100.00% M
14 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 10 100.00% M
TOTAL 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 140 100.00%
*0-50%, Indicator is NOT MET for the school
Key:
*51-69% Indicator is Partially MET for the school
0 - Not Proficient
*70-100% Indicator is MET for the school
1 - Proficient or Above
X - No Opportunity to Observe the Indicator in the Classroom
Baltimore City Public School System (BCPSS) Priority Cohort 1 Year 4 First Onsite Visit Feedback for 2013-2014 Title I School Improvement Grant (SIG), section 1003(g), FY 2009 Date Feedback Shared with BCPSS: October 28, 2013
Program Improvement and Family Support Branch Division of Student, Family, and School Support Maryland State Department of Education Page 36
TABLE 15 Calverton Elementary/Middle School, Baltimore City Public School System
Priority Cohort I Year 4 First Monitoring Classroom Observation Feedback, 2013-2014
Domain 1 : Instructional Planning
Indicator 1: The teacher states the lesson objective (written and orally) in student learning outcomes which demonstrate high expectations. (identifies what students should know and be able to do at the end of the lesson.)
Indicator Score:
10 points out of 10 observations
100%
MET
Summary of Evidence to Support the Indicator Score
All lesson objectives referenced curricular frameworks or blueprints to ensure accurate sequencing.
Objectives were differentiated to encourage individual student efforts.
In most classrooms, teacher and students connected objective to previous learning.
In all classrooms, objectives were related to “big ideas” of the discipline.
Indicator 2: The teacher aligns instructional and learning activities to the lesson objective.
Indicator Score:
10 points out of 10 observations
100%
MET
Summary of Evidence to Support the Indicator Score
In all classrooms, activities provided opportunities for higher-level thinking.
In most classrooms, activities permitted student choice.
Learning activities were matched to instructional outcomes.
In all classrooms, the lesson activities were well structured, with reasonable time allocations.
In many classrooms, teacher provided a variety of appropriately challenging resources that are differentiated for students in the class.
Indicator 3: The teacher aligns assessment (ongoing, formative, and summative) to the lesson objective.
Indicator Score:
10 points out of 10 observations
100%
MET
Summary of Evidence to Support the Indicator Score
In most classrooms, all the learning outcomes had a method for assessment.
In all classrooms, assessment types matched learning expectations.
In most classrooms, rubrics were aligned to learning objectives.
In most classrooms, teacher included the use of formative assessments during instruction.
In all classrooms, teacher made adjustments based on formative assessment data.
Baltimore City Public School System (BCPSS) Priority Cohort 1 Year 4 First Onsite Visit Feedback for 2013-2014 Title I School Improvement Grant (SIG), section 1003(g), FY 2009 Date Feedback Shared with BCPSS: October 28, 2013
Program Improvement and Family Support Branch Division of Student, Family, and School Support Maryland State Department of Education Page 37
Domain 2: Instruction Delivery- Strategies and Process
Indicator 4: Teacher presents concepts, skills, and directions clearly using correct oral and written language.
Indicator Score:
10 points out of 10 observations
100%
MET
Summary of Evidence to Support the Indicator Score
In most classrooms, the teachers made no content errors.
In all classrooms, vocabulary and usage were correct and completely suited to the lesson.
In most classrooms, teacher explained content clearly and imaginatively, using metaphors and analogies to bring content to life.
All students seemed to understand the presentation.
In all classrooms, the teacher invited students to explain the content to the class, or to classmates.
Indicator 5: Teacher provides a variety of feedback (oral and written) that advances student learning while checking for understanding.
Indicator Score:
10 points out of 10 observations
100%
MET
Summary of Evidence to Support the Indicator Score
In all classrooms, the teacher elicited evidence of student understanding during the lesson
In most classrooms, students were invited to assess their own work and make improvements.
Feedback included specific and timely guidance for at least groups of students.
In most classrooms, teacher monitoring of student understanding was sophisticated and continuous; the teacher was constantly “taking the pulse” of the class.
In most classrooms, feedback to students was specific and timely, and is provided from many sources, including other students.
Indicator 6: Teacher adapts plans as needed. (Differentiation of content, process, product; unexpected situation; teachable moment, etc.)
Indicator Score:
10 points out of 10 observations
100%
MET
Summary of Evidence to Support the Indicator Score
In most classrooms, teachers successfully made minor modifications to the lesson, as well as executed major lesson readjustments when needed.
In most classrooms, teacher incorporated students’ interests and questions into the heart of the lesson.
In most classrooms, the teacher conveyed to students that he/she had other approaches to try when the students experienced difficulty.
Baltimore City Public School System (BCPSS) Priority Cohort 1 Year 4 First Onsite Visit Feedback for 2013-2014 Title I School Improvement Grant (SIG), section 1003(g), FY 2009 Date Feedback Shared with BCPSS: October 28, 2013
Program Improvement and Family Support Branch Division of Student, Family, and School Support Maryland State Department of Education Page 38
Domain 3: Teacher-Student Engagement (Techniques and Strategies)
Indicator 7: All students are actively engaged in meaningful tasks designed to challenge their thinking processes.
Indicator Score:
10 points out of 10 observations
100%
MET
Summary of Evidence to Support the Indicator Score
In all classrooms, virtually all students were highly engaged in the lesson.
In most classrooms, students had an opportunity for reflection and closure on the lesson to consolidate their understanding.
In all classrooms, most students were intellectually engaged in the lesson.
Indicator 8: All students are engaged by the use of questioning and discussion strategies that encourage higher order thinking rather than
emphasis on recall.
Indicator Score:
10 points out of 10 observations
100%
MET
Summary of Evidence to Support the Indicator Score
In most classrooms, teacher used open-ended questions, inviting students to think and/or have multiple possible answers.
In many classrooms, students initiated higher-order questions.
In all classrooms, the teacher called on most students, even those who did not initially volunteer.
In all classrooms, the teacher made effective use of wait time.
Indicator 9: Teacher reinforces skills, processes, and procedures introduced through modeling, shaping, and student practice.
Indicator Score:
10 points out of 10 observations
100%
MET
Summary of Evidence to Support the Indicator Score
In most classrooms, the teacher pointed out possible areas for misunderstanding.
In many classrooms, teacher explained content clearly and imaginatively, using metaphors and analogies to bring content to life.
In many classrooms, all students seemed to understand the presentation. The teacher invited students to explain the content to the class, or to classmates.
Indicator 10: All students effectively participate in a variety of groupings (whole group, small group, and independent) throughout the lesson.
Indicator Score:
10 points out of 10 observations
100%
MET
Summary of Evidence to Support the Indicator Score
In most classrooms, teacher provided a variety of appropriately challenging resources that were differentiated for students in the class.
In all classrooms, lessons included differentiation for individual student needs, including grouping.
Baltimore City Public School System (BCPSS) Priority Cohort 1 Year 4 First Onsite Visit Feedback for 2013-2014 Title I School Improvement Grant (SIG), section 1003(g), FY 2009 Date Feedback Shared with BCPSS: October 28, 2013
Program Improvement and Family Support Branch Division of Student, Family, and School Support Maryland State Department of Education Page 39
Domain 4: Classroom Management (for Teaching and Learning)
Indicator 11: Teacher organizes instructional learning time to maximize student time on task.
Indicator Score:
10 points out of 10 observations
100%
MET
Summary of Evidence to Support the Indicator Score
In all classrooms, students had an opportunity for reflection and closure on the lesson to consolidate their understanding with each other and with the teacher.
Indicator12: Teacher establishes and manages classroom procedures and routines that promote learning.
Indicator Score:
10 points out of 10 observations
100%
MET
Summary of Evidence to Support the Indicator Score
In all classrooms, student behavior was entirely appropriate; no evidence of student misbehavior.
In all classrooms, the teacher monitored student behavior without speaking such as just moving about.
Students themselves ensured that transitions and other routines were accomplished smoothly.
Students respectfully intervened as appropriate with classmates to ensure compliance with standards of conduct.
Indicator 13: Teacher uses space, equipment, and materials to support instruction including the use of technology to engage.
Indicator Score:
10 points out of 10 observations
100%
MET
Summary of Evidence to Support the Indicator Score
In all classrooms, there was total alignment between the goals of the lesson and the physical environment.
In most classrooms, teacher and students made extensive and imaginative use of available technology.
In all classrooms, the teachers made appropriate use of available technology.
Baltimore City Public School System (BCPSS) Priority Cohort 1 Year 4 First Onsite Visit Feedback for 2013-2014 Title I School Improvement Grant (SIG), section 1003(g), FY 2009 Date Feedback Shared with BCPSS: October 28, 2013
Program Improvement and Family Support Branch Division of Student, Family, and School Support Maryland State Department of Education Page 40
Indicator 14: Teacher manages student behavior effectively which creates a learning environment of respect and rapport.
Indicator Score:
10 points out of 10 observations
100%
MET
Summary of Evidence to Support the Indicator Score
In all classrooms, teachers demonstrated knowledge and caring about individual students’ lives beyond school.
When necessary, students corrected one another in their conduct towards classmates.
There was no disrespectful behavior among students.
In all classrooms, the teachers’ responses to a student’s incorrect response respected the student’s dignity.
Baltimore City Public School System (BCPSS) Priority Cohort 1 Year 4 First Onsite Visit Feedback for 2013-2014 Title I School Improvement Grant (SIG), section 1003(g), FY 2009 Date Feedback Shared with BCPSS: October 28, 2013
Program Improvement and Family Support Branch Division of Student, Family, and School Support Maryland State Department of Education Page 41
TABLE 16
SIG I Year 3 Calverton Elementary/Middle School Budget
SIG I Year 3 funds for Calverton Elementary/Middle School ended September 30, 2013. BCPSS is currently in the process of closing out this school budget. Invoices are being paid and other expenses will go through the journal process. A final Annual Financial Report (AFR) will be submitted to MSDE by December 30, 2013 in order for the
school system to liquidate encumbrances for the school. For the 2013-2014 school year, BCPSS is using its Title I, Part A funds (20% reservation) for FY 2014 to sustain the school’s intervention model.
top related