Prince George’s County Public Schools (PGCPS) 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 PGCPS: October 17, 2013
Program Improvement and Family Support Branch Division of Student, Family, and School Support Maryland State Department of Education Page 1
Priority Cohort I 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: Prince George’s County Public Schools (PGCPS) LEA Turnaround Director: Dr. C. Michael Robinson (as of November 2013) Date of MSDE Team’s LEA Visit: October 4, 2013 MSDE Priority Leads: Jim Newkirk, Gail Clark Dickson Date of MSDE Fiscal Team’s Visit: October 4, 2013 MSDE Priority Fiscal Lead: Kelly Coates Date of G. James Gholson Visit: September 10, 2013 Priority Cohort I Team: Kristine Angelis, Paula Isett Date of Drew Freeman Visit: September 12, 2013 Priority Cohort I Team: Sally Dorman, Richard Scott Date of Benjamin Stoddert Visit: September 17, 2013 Priority Cohort I Team: Robert Murphy, Gail Clark Dickson Date of Thurgood Marshall Visit: September 19, 2013 Priority Cohort I Team: Robert Murphy, Danielle Susskind
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.
Prince George’s County Public Schools (PGCPS) 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 PGCPS: October 17, 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 Monitoring and Fiscal Teams’ First Onsite Visit: As approved by USDE, MSDE, through SIG Monitoring Teams, will conduct three onsite monitoring visits annually in each LEA and 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 1Year 4 Monitoring Team’s First Onsite Visit: As approved by USDE, MSDE, through SIG Monitoring Teams, will conduct three onsite monitoring visits annually in each SIG Priority School. This Priority SIG 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 SIG I schools. MSDE’s Priority SIG I Year 4 Monitoring Teams will visit classrooms throughout the day for 20 minute intervals. Classrooms with long term substitutes will be visited by SIG I Teams; however, classrooms with short term substitutes will not be visited.
Based on MSDE’s Priority SIG I Year 4 Monitoring Tool, the SIG I Year 4 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 SIG I Year 4 First Onsite Visit consists of the following 4 components:
Classroom Observations by SIG Team; and
SIG I Team Tallying Observation Data; and Collaborative Agreement of Classroom Evidence.
Prince George’s County Public Schools (PGCPS) 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 PGCPS: October 17, 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 PGCPS Turnaround Executive Committee Interview Questions and Responses
Table 2 Priority Cohort I Year 3 LEA ARRA Budget
Table 3 Priority Cohort I Year 3 Consolidated Budget
Table 4 Priority Cohort I Year 3 Instructional Domains and Indicators
Table 5 At-a-Glance Comparison between 2012-2013 and 2013-2014 Classroom Observations
Table 6 G. James Gholson Middle School Classroom Instructional Tally Sheet
Table 7 G. James Gholson Middle School Classroom Observation Feedback
Table 8 G. James Gholson Middle School Budget
Table 9 Benjamin Stoddert Middle School Classroom Instructional Tally Sheet
Table 10 Benjamin Stoddert Middle School Classroom Observation Feedback
Table 11 Benjamin Stoddert Middle School Budget
Table 12 Drew Freeman Middle School Classroom Instructional Tally Sheet
Table 13 Drew Freeman Middle School Classroom Observation Feedback
Table 14 Drew Freeman Middle School Budget
Table 15 Thurgood Marshall Middle School Classroom Instructional Tally Sheet
Table 16 Thurgood Marshall Middle School Classroom Observation Feedback
Table 17 Thurgood Marshall Middle School Budget
Prince George’s County Public Schools (PGCPS) 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 PGCPS: October 17, 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
The Turnaround Executive Committee has changed its name to Priority Executive Committee. PGCPS shared the following tentative changes in staff on their Priority Executive Committee for the 2013-2014 school year:
Duane Arbogast, Chief Academic Officer;
Helen Coley, Associate Superintendent;
Debra Mahone, Director of School Improvement and Accountability;
Gladys Whitehead, Director of Curriculum and Instruction;
Robert Gaskin, Acting Chief of Human Resources;
Tiffany Bascombe, Human Resources Specialist;
Joan Rothgeb, Special Education Director;
Dr. Michael Robinson, Turnaround Director;
Janice Briscoe, Student Services Specialist;
Sharon Hodges, Teacher Development Supervisor;
Gail Gilmore, Special Education Specialist;
Cora Rose, Special Education Specialist;
Rhonda Pitts, Talent Development Specialist;
Clarence Stukes, Chief of Supporting Services;
Carl Belcher, Supporting Services Supervisor;
Patrick Louis-Pierre, Specialist in Liaisons, Technology Applications, Testing, and Evaluation;
Peggy Harrington, Specialist in Liaisons, Technology Applications, Testing, and Evaluation;
Pauline Carey, Specialist in Liaisons, Technology Applications, Testing, and Evaluation;
Glenda Willis, PBIS Coordinator;
Myra Grzeskiewicz, Turnaround Compliance Specialist;
Prince George’s County Public Schools (PGCPS) 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 PGCPS: October 17, 2013
Program Improvement and Family Support Branch Division of Student, Family, and School Support Maryland State Department of Education Page 5
a. How often will the LEA 1003g central support team meet?
PGCPS shared the following responses to this question:
The meetings will be determined at a later date but probably will occur quarterly.
The budget subcommittee meets monthly.
b. How often will they report on their work and the work on Tier I, II and III schools to the Superintendent? PGCPS shared the response to this question has not been determined.
c. How often will they report on their work and the work on Tier I, II and III schools to the Board of Education?
PGCPS shared the following responses to this question:
The Turnaround Office presents annually to the school system’s Board of Education, generally in the spring of each year.
The individual Board of Education members visit the school system’s Priority Schools independently and throughout the school year.
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? __X___ Yes _____ No
Rhonda Hawkins, Turnaround Reading Specialist;
Felice DeSouza, Turnaround Mathematics Specialist;
Kia McDaniel, ESOL Director;
Allyson Huey, Director of Employee Relations;
Darrell Haley, Supervisor and Budget Analyst;
Danielle Curtis, Senior Budget Analyst;
Tracey Adesegun, Title I Coordinating Supervisor; and Leslie Ingram Johnson, Title I Senior Budget Analyst.
Prince George’s County Public Schools (PGCPS) 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 PGCPS: October 17, 2013
Program Improvement and Family Support Branch Division of Student, Family, and School Support Maryland State Department of Education Page 6
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 annual goals will be developed by the Instructional Director and Principals of the school system’s Priority Schools.
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?
The Turnaround Director will provide leadership in the implementation of the school system’s Priority Cohort I schools.
Under the Turnaround Director, the Priority Schools’ Budget Subcommittee meets monthly with the Turnaround Office to ensure fiscal accountability on spending in a compliant manner.
Under the Turnaround Director, the Priority Schools’ Compliance Specialist ensures the funds are being used effectively and efficiently to support the required components/strategies/activities of the selected intervention.
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;
(2) removal of expectations that might run counter to the approach outlined in the selected intervention;
(3) timely modification of practices and policies (those anticipated ahead of time and those that will emerge during implementation); and
(4) engaging in reflective and sustained, collaborative conversation and planning to ensure that improvement efforts can be sustained once this funding ends?
Prince George’s County Public Schools (PGCPS) 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 PGCPS: October 17, 2013
Program Improvement and Family Support Branch Division of Student, Family, and School Support Maryland State Department of Education Page 7
PGCPS shared the following responses to this question:
G. James Gholson, Drew Freeman, and Benjamin Stoddert Middle Schools are using PGCPS’ Title I, Part A funds to sustain the intervention model.
Thurgood Marshall Middle School is using compensatory funds to sustain the intervention model.
PGCPS asked and received approval for 2.5 million with compensatory funds to support the system’s priority schools.
PGCPS is asking for an additional 1.5 million in compensatory funds for SY 2014-2015 to support the school system’s priority schools.
PGCPS is looking at a more district approach when implementing, supporting, monitoring, and evaluating the school system’s priority schools.
Extending learning continues to be a focus and what extended learning should like in each school. PGCPS agrees the students are better off and safer when they are in schools. But the downside to extended learning, classroom teachers are tired physically, even though they receive a stipend for the additional time. Where extended learning has worked, the school has a community partner like Noah and Boys’ and Girls’ Club. Transportation continues to be a challenge for extended learning.
More emphasis needs to be on Family Engagement in the system’s Priority Schools.
In terms of staffing, the agreement at the executive level for differentiated staff in priority schools have been a positive step.
In terms of staff recruitment, there has been many priority schools’ recruitment fairs which has been positive. To support this activity, there is a staffing specialist in Human Resources assigned to the school system’s priority schools.
Collective Bargaining with the Teachers’ Association still continues to be a challenge. 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?
PGCPS shared the following responses to this question:
PGCPS understand that the Priority School Principals are under a great deal of stress. The school system is asking a great deal of these people to manage a complex organization. The school system does not have an answer to deal with principal stress.
Staff turnover is still high because the schools have a stressful environment. This stress is coming from many areas such as teacher evaluation, common core transition, and school culture and climate.
PGCPS understands the priority schools have difficulty in turning around the teaching and learning environments because of the communities that surround these schools. PGCPS recognizes the importance of having police, social services, and faith-based organizations are key partners. Even though there has been much improvement, the school system recognizes that more work needs to be done.
Prince George’s County Public Schools (PGCPS) 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 PGCPS: October 17, 2013
Program Improvement and Family Support Branch Division of Student, Family, and School Support Maryland State Department of Education Page 8
Table 2 Priority Cohort I Year 4 LEA Budget Prince George’s County Public Schools MSDE Fiscal Reviewer: Kelly Coates Monitoring Date: October 4, 2013 Total SIG II Year 3 Allocation:
$ 3,053,061 LEA Budget Spent:
$ 2,346,846 Percent of LEA Budget Spent:
77% Spend Down Data as of:
Oct 3, 2013
Salaries & Wages Contractual Services Supplies & Materials Other *Budgeted: $ 506,306 *Budgeted: $ 1,899,003 Budgeted: $ 61,953 *Travel Budgeted: $ 113,777
Registration & Membership Fees: $ 112,027
Encumbered: $ 0 Encumbered: $ 54,748 Encumbered: $ 0 Travel Encumbered: $ 13,804 Registration & Membership Fees Encumbered:
$ 677
Spent (amount): $ 513,631 Spent (%): 101%
Spent (amount): $ 1,391,885 Spent (%): 73%
Spent (amount): $ 18,943 Spent (%): 31%
Travel Spent(amount): $ 52,993 Spent (%): 47%
Registration & Membership Fees Spent (amount): $ 75,602
Spent (%): 67%
1. How much of the LEA budget, based on the LEA’s approved application, has been expended to date (amount and %)? PGCPS provided documentation that showed the LEA has spent $2,346,846. This amount is 77% of their approved SIG I Year 4 budget. Additional funds in the amount of $69,229 have been encumbered. Expended amount for fixed charges are included in the total spent.
2. Is LEA spending consistent with budget timeline? If not, what steps are being taken to expend the funds as planned? PGCPS explained that the LEA is on target in spending on their timeline.
3. What action steps or planned activities have not taken place that would impact the budget? PGCPS shared that all activities are on schedule.
4. Has a budget amendment been submitted? If yes, what budget changes were requested for this LEA? PGCPS will submit an amendment (#3) by January 2014 to redirecting final balances to already approved activities.
5. How often are LEA expenditures monitored by the LEA? Who monitors? PGCPS provided documentation that showed the monitoring is conducted monthly. The first one for this year will be conducted in December.
6. Did the LEA provide evidence and documentation of the Priority Cohort Inventory? Yes No
7. Did the LEA provide evidence of time and effort for staff funded with Priority Cohort funds (2nd and 3rd monitoring visit only)? Yes No N/A
Prince George’s County Public Schools (PGCPS) 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 PGCPS: October 17, 2013
Program Improvement and Family Support Branch Division of Student, Family, and School Support Maryland State Department of Education Page 9
Table 3 Priority Cohort I Year 4 Consolidated Budget LEA: Prince George’s Public Schools MSDE Fiscal Reviewer: Kelly Coates Monitoring Date: October 4, 2013
Priority Cohort 1003(g) ARRA Total Allocation $ 6,923,075
Amount Spent $ 5,441,538
Percent Spent 79%
Amount Encumbered $ 257,550
Spend Down Data as of : Oct 3, 2013
Prince George’s County Public Schools (PGCPS) 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 PGCPS: October 17, 2013
Program Improvement and Family Support Branch Division of Student, Family, and School Support Maryland State Department of Education Page 10
Table 4
Priority Cohort I Year 3 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.
Prince George’s County Public Schools (PGCPS) 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 PGCPS: October 17, 2013
Program Improvement and Family Support Branch Division of Student, Family, and School Support Maryland State Department of Education Page 11
TABLE 5 “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 Priority School.”
Gholson At-A-Glance Comparison between 2012-13 and 2013-14 Classroom Observations
Domain # G. James Gholson (2012-13) G. James Gholson (2013-14)
1st
Visit 3rd
Visit 1st
Visit 3rd
Visit
Instructional Planning
1 37.5% NM -- 41.6% NM 70.00% M
2 31.2% NM ↑ 53.8% PM 70.00% M
3 20.% NM -- 38.4% NM 75.00% M
Instructional Delivery
4 35.7% NM ↑ 84.6% M 87.50% M
5 33.3% NM ↑ 53.3% PM 87.50% M
6 30.% NM -- 25.% NM 40.00% NM
Teacher Student
Engagement
7 25.% NM ↑ 57.1% PM 70.00% M
8 40.% NM ↑ 84.6% M 80.00% M
9 53.3% PM ↑ 84.6% M 80.00% M
10 7.6% NM ↑ 60.% PM 66.67% PM
Classroom Management
11 43.7% NM ↑ 64.2% PM 70.00% M
12 68.7% PM ↑ 86.6% M 80.00% M
13 62.5% PM ↑ 86.6% M 100.00% M
14 85.7% M ↓ 62.5% PM 70.00% M
TOTAL 41.0% NM ↑ 63.1% PM 74.76%
Freeman At-A-Glance Comparison between 2012-13 and 2013-14 Classroom Observations
Domain # Drew Freeman (2012-13) Drew Freeman (2013-14)
1st Visit 3rd Visit 1st Visit 3rd Visit
structional Planning
1 37.5% NM ↑ 75.% M 71.43% M
2 50.% NM ↑ 75.% M 55.56% PM
3 61.5% PM ↑ 83.3% M 44.44% NM
Instructional Delivery
4 56.2% PM -- 62.5% PM 70.00% M
5 68.7% PM ↑ 100.% M 70.00% M
6 6.25% NM ↑ 83.3% M 60.00% PM
Teacher Student Engagement
7 18.7% NM ↑ 62.5% PM 60.00% PM
8 50.% NM ↑ 62.5% PM 77.78% M
9 62.5% PM ↓ 50.% NM 80.00% M
10 6.25% NM ↑ 71.4% M 50.00% NM
Classroom Management
11 56.2% PM -- 62.5% PM 90.00% M
12 87.5% M ↓ 62.5% PM 90.00% M
13 75.% M -- 75.% M 100.00% M
14 75.% M -- 100.% M 90.00% M
TOTAL 50.8% NM ↑ 74.1% M 72.09%
Stoddert At-A-Glance Comparison between 2012-13 and 2013-14 Classroom Observations
Domain # Benjamin Stoddert (2012-13) Benjamin Stoddert (2013-14)
1st
Visit 3rd
Visit 1st
Visit 3rd
Visit
Instructional Planning
1 78.5% M -- 87.5% M 88.89% M
2 73.3% M ↓ 68.7% PM 77.78% M
3 100.% M ↓ 50.% NM 100.00% M
Instructional Delivery
4 71.4% M -- 86.6% M 77.78% M
5 60.% PM ↓ 50.% NM 80.00% M
6 90.9% M ↓ 53.3% PM 83.33% M
Teacher Student Engagement
7 60.% PM -- 62.5% PM 70.00% M
8 50.% NM -- 50.% NM 88.89% M
9 57.1% PM -- 64.2% PM 71.43% M
10 50.% NM -- 44.4% NM 80.00% M
Classroom Management
11 50.% NM -- 43.7% NM 87.50% M
12 53.3% PM ↑ 75.% M 90.00% M
13 66.6% PM ↑ 85.7% M 88.89% M
14 66.6% PM -- 68.6% PM 90.00% M
TOTAL 66.2% PM -- 66.2% PM 83.89%
Marshall At-A-Glance Comparison between 2012-13 and 2013-14 Classroom Observations
Domain # Thurgood Marshall (2012-13) Thurgood Marshall (2013-14)
1st Visit 3rd Visit 1st Visit 3rd Visit
Instructional Planning
1 100.% M -- 71.4% M 90.00% M
2 78.5% M ↓ 64.2% PM 90.00% M
3 100.% M ↓ 42.8% NM 83.33% M
Instructional Delivery
4 78.5% M ↓ 64.2% PM 90.00% M
5 66.6% PM -- 53.8% PM 66.67% PM
6 72.7% M ↓ 63.6% PM 85.71% M
Teacher Student Engagement
7 71.4% M ↓ 50.% NM 70.00% M
8 76.9% M ↓ 57.1% PM 77.78% M
9 69.2% M ↓ 57.1% PM 100.00% M
10 62.5% PM ↓ 45.4% NM 100.00% M
Classroom Management
11 75.% M ↓ 64.2% PM 62.50% PM
12 69.2% M ↓ 64.2% PM 66.67% PM
13 83.3% M -- 85.7% M 77.78% M
14 71.4% M ↓ 57.1% PM 90.00% M
TOTAL 76.8% M ↓ 60.1% PM 82.17%
KEY
↑ : Rating Increased -- : Rating Remained the Same ↓ : Rating Decreased
Prince George’s County Public Schools (PGCPS) 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 PGCPS: October 17, 2013
Program Improvement and Family Support Branch Division of Student, Family, and School Support Maryland State Department of Education Page 12
Table 6
Priority Schools First Onsite Visit Classroom Observation Tally Sheet for G. James Gholson Middle School
Cla
ssro
om
O
bse
rva
tio
n
Ind
ica
tors
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
%
Pro
fici
en
t o
r A
bo
ve
O
bse
rva
tio
ns
*In
dic
ato
r M
ET
(M
), P
art
iall
y
ME
T (
PM
), N
OT
M
ET
(N
M)
1 0 0 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 7 70.00% M 2 0 0 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 7 70.00% M 3 1 1 x x 0 x 1 x x x 3 75.00% M 4 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 x x 1 7 87.50% M 5 1 1 0 1 x 1 1 1 x 1 7 87.50% M 6 x x 1 1 x x x 0 0 0 2 40.00% NM 7 1 1 1 0 0 1 1 0 1 1 7 70.00% M 8 1 1 1 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 8 80.00% M 9 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 0 8 80.00% M 10 0 1 1 1 0 1 1 0 1 x 6 66.67% PM 11 1 1 1 0 0 1 1 1 1 0 7 70.00% M 12 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 0 1 1 8 80.00% M 13 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 10 100.00% M
14 0 1 1 1 0 1 1 0 1 1 7 70.00% M
TOTAL 9 11 12 10 2 12 13 6 10 9 94 74.76%
*0-50%, Indicator is NOT MET for the school
Key: *51-69% Indicator is Partially MET for the school
0 - Not Proficient
*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
Prince George’s County Public Schools (PGCPS) 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 PGCPS: October 17, 2013
Program Improvement and Family Support Branch Division of Student, Family, and School Support Maryland State Department of Education Page 13
*70-100% Indicator is MET for the school
1 - Proficient or Above
X - No Opportunity to Observe the Indicator in the Classroom
Table 7
G. James Gholson Middle School, Prince George’s County Public Schools Priority Cohort I Year 4 First Onsite 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:
7 points out of 10 total
observations 70.0% Met
Summary of Evidence to Support the Indicator Score
Of the 10 classrooms observed, all posted the “Essential Question”; however, 8 of the 10 classrooms posted both the essential question and an objective.
Most objectives were written in terms of what students will learn and be able to do.
In most of the classrooms the connection with prior learning and the objective was made.
Indicator 2: The teacher aligns instructional and learning activities to the lesson objective.
Indicator Score:
7 points out of 10 total
observations 70.0% Met
Summary of Evidence to Support the Indicator Score
In most classrooms learning activities were matched to instructional outcomes.
In some of the classrooms learning activities provided opportunities for higher-level thinking.
In many of the classrooms learning activities were moderately challenging.
Indicator 3: The teacher aligns assessment (ongoing, formative, and summative) to the lesson objective.
Indicator Score:
3 points out of 4 total
observations 75.0% Met
Summary of Evidence to Support the Indicator Score
Because of the timing of the classroom observations, the Priority Observation Pair determined Indicator 3 was not available in 6 of the classrooms.
In a majority of the classrooms assessments did not provide opportunities for student choice.
Prince George’s County Public Schools (PGCPS) 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 PGCPS: October 17, 2013
Program Improvement and Family Support Branch Division of Student, Family, and School Support Maryland State Department of Education Page 14
A few of the classrooms had vague assessment criteria.
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 8 total
observations 87.5% Met
Summary of Evidence to Support the Indicator Score
In a majority of the classrooms, teachers’ vocabulary was appropriate to the age of the student.
In a majority of the classrooms the teachers’ explanation of content was clear and invited student participation and thinking.
Because of the timing of the classroom observations, the Priority Observation Pair determined Indicator 4 could not be observed in 2 classrooms.
Indicator 5: Teacher provides a variety of feedback (oral and written) that advances student learning while checking for understanding.
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, teachers elicited evidence of student understanding during the lesson.
In a majority of the classrooms, teachers made consistent attempts to engage students in discussion.
Because of the timing of the classroom observations, the Priority Observation Pair determined Indicator 5 could not be observed in 2 classrooms.
Indicator 6: Teacher adapts plans as needed. (Differentiation of content, process, product; unexpected situation; teachable moment, etc.)
Indicator Score:
2 points out of 5 total
observations 40.0%
Not Met
Summary of Evidence to Support the Indicator Score
Because of the timing of the classroom observations, the SIG Observation Pair determined Indicator 6 could not be observed in 5 classrooms.
In some classrooms teachers’ efforts to modify the lesson were only partially met.
In some classrooms teachers seized on a teachable moment to enhance a lesson.
Prince George’s County Public Schools (PGCPS) 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 PGCPS: October 17, 2013
Program Improvement and Family Support Branch Division of Student, Family, and School Support Maryland State Department of Education Page 15
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:
7 points out of 10 total
observations 70.0% Met
Summary of Evidence to Support the Indicator Score
In a majority of classrooms students were intellectually engaged in the lesson.
In a majority of classrooms the pacing of the lesson provided students the time needed to be intellectually engaged.
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:
8 points out of 10 total
observations 80.0% Met
Summary of Evidence to Support the Indicator Score
In a majority of the classrooms teachers built on and used students responses to questions effectively.
In a majority of classrooms teachers made effective use of wait time.
Indicator 9: Teacher reinforces skills, processes, and procedures introduced through modeling, shaping, and student practice.
Indicator Score:
8 points out of 10 total
observations 80.0% Met
Summary of Evidence to Support the Indicator Score
In a majority of classrooms teachers stated clearly what the students would be learning.
In a majority of classrooms teachers modeled the process to be followed in the task.
In a majority of the classrooms students engaged with the learning task, indicating that they understood what they were to do.
Indicator 10: All students effectively participate in a variety of groupings (whole group, small group, and independent) throughout
Indicator Score:
6 points out of 9 total
observations
Summary of Evidence to Support the Indicator Score
In many of the classrooms instructional student groups were random or only partially supported the outcome.
In many classrooms teachers provided no differentiation for different students.
Prince George’s County Public Schools (PGCPS) 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 PGCPS: October 17, 2013
Program Improvement and Family Support Branch Division of Student, Family, and School Support Maryland State Department of Education Page 16
the lesson.
66.7%
Partially Met
Because of the timing of the classroom observations, the Priority Observation Pair determined Indicator 6 could not be observed in 1 classroom.
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 10 total
observations 70.0% Met
Summary of Evidence to Support the Indicator Score
In a majority of classrooms pacing of the lesson provided students the time needed to be intellectually engaged.
In a majority of classrooms students interacted with one another.
Indicator12: Teacher establishes and manages classroom procedures and routines that promote learning.
Indicator Score:
8 points out of 10 total
observations 80.0% Met
Summary of Evidence to Support the Indicator Score
In a majority of classrooms student behavior was generally appropriate and the teacher acknowledged good behavior.
In a majority of classrooms teachers frequently monitored student behavior. Teachers’ responses to student misbehavior were effective.
In a majority of classrooms routines functioned smoothly.
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 100.0%
Met
Summary of Evidence to Support the Indicator Score
All classrooms were safe and all students were able to see and hear.
In all classrooms the teachers made appropriate use of available technology.
Indicator 14: Teacher manages student behavior effectively which creates a learning environment
Indicator Score:
7 points out of 10 total
observations
Summary of Evidence to Support the Indicator Score
In a majority of classrooms talk between teacher and students and among students was uniformly respectful.
In a majority of classrooms teachers responded to disrespectful behavior among students.
Prince George’s County Public Schools (PGCPS) 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 PGCPS: October 17, 2013
Program Improvement and Family Support Branch Division of Student, Family, and School Support Maryland State Department of Education Page 17
of respect and rapport.
70.0% Met
In some classrooms the quality of interactions between teacher and students, or among students, was uneven, with occasional disrespect.
Table 8: Priority Cohort I Year 4 School Budget for G. James Gholson Middle School , Tier II MSDE Fiscal Reviewer: Kelly Coates Monitoring Date: October 4, 2013
Total Priority Cohort I Year 3
Allocation: $ 1,010,978 School Budget Spent:
$ 735,219 Percent of School Budget
Spent: 79% Spend Down Data as of:
Oct 3, 2013
Salaries & Wages Contractual Services Supplies & Materials Other *Budgeted: $ 560,988 Budgeted: $ 109,400 Budgeted: $ 39,203 Budgeted:
Travel: $ 34,500 *Registration & Membership Fees: $26,102
Equipment: $ 84,540
Encumbered: $ 0 Encumbered: $ 1,155 Encumbered: $ 1,564 Encumbered & Spent: Encumbered Travel: $ 15,892
Encumbered Fees: $ 0 Encumbered Equipment: $ 83,740
Spent (amount): $ 467,535 Spent (%): 83%
Spent (amount): $ 44,830 Spent (%): 41%
Spent (amount): $ 27,722 Spent (%): 71%
Travel Spent: $ 16,980 Travel Spent (%): 49%
Registration & Membership Fees Spent: $ 25,400
Registration & Membership Fees Spent (%): 97% Equipment Spent: 0
Equipment Spent (%): 0%
1. How much of the school budget, based on the LEA’s approved application, has been expended to date (amount and %)? PGCPS provided documentation that showed the school has spent $735,219. This amount is 79% of their approved SIG I Year 4 budget. Additional funds in the amount of $102,288 have been encumbered. Expended amount for fixed charges are included in the total spent.
2. Is school spending consistent with budget timeline? If not, what steps are being taken to expend the funds as planned? PGCPS explained that G. James Gholson Middle School is on target in spending on their timeline.
3. What action steps or planned activities have not taken place that would impact the budget? PGCPS shared that all activities are on schedule.
4. Has a budget amendment been submitted? If yes, what budget changes were requested for this school? PGCPS will submit an amendment (#3) by January 2014 to redirecting final balances to already approved activities.
5. How often are school expenditures monitored by the LEA? Who monitors? Schools are monitored monthly by the LEA. Myra Grzeskiewicz has monitored on August 8, 2013, August 29, 2013, and September 19, 2013.
6. Did the LEA provide evidence and documentation of the Priority School Inventory? Yes No
7. Did the LEA provide evidence of time and effort for staff funded with Priority School funds (2nd and 3rd monitoring visit only)?
Prince George’s County Public Schools (PGCPS) 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 PGCPS: October 17, 2013
Program Improvement and Family Support Branch Division of Student, Family, and School Support Maryland State Department of Education Page 18
Yes No N/A
** Based on latest approved amendment
Table 9 Priority Schools First Onsite Visit Classroom Observation Tally Sheet for Benjamin Stoddert Middle School
Cla
ssro
om
O
bse
rva
tio
n
Ind
ica
tors
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
%
Pro
fici
en
t o
r A
bo
ve
O
bse
rva
tio
ns
*In
dic
ato
r M
ET
(M
), P
art
iall
y
ME
T (
PM
), N
OT
M
ET
(N
M)
1 0 1 1 1 1 1 x 1 1 1 8 88.89% M
2 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 0 x 1 7 77.78% M
3 x x x x x x 1 x 1 x 2 100.00% M
4 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 0 x 1 7 77.78% M
5 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 0 1 1 8 80.00% M
6 1 1 1 1 1 x x 0 x x 5 83.33% M
7 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 0 0 1 7 70.00% M
8 1 1 1 0 1 x 1 1 1 1 8 88.89% M
9 0 1 x 1 x x 1 1 0 1 5 71.43% M
10 1 1 1 x x x 1 0 x x 4 80.00% M
11 x 1 1 1 1 x 1 0 1 1 7 87.50% M
12 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 9 90.00% M
13 1 1 1 1 1 x 1 0 1 1 8 88.89% M
14 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 9 90.00% M
TOTAL 10 13 12 11 11 3 12 3 8 11 94 83.89%
*0-50%, Indicator is NOT MET for the school
Key:
Prince George’s County Public Schools (PGCPS) 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 PGCPS: October 17, 2013
Program Improvement and Family Support Branch Division of Student, Family, and School Support Maryland State Department of Education Page 19
*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
Table 10
Benjamin Stoddert Middle School, Prince George’s County Public Schools Priority Cohort I Year 4 First Onsite 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 9 observations
88.89%
MET
Summary of Evidence to Support the Indicator Score
Objectives were written in terms of what students will learn to be able to do.
Teacher and students connected objective to previous learning.
Objective represented high expectations and rigor.
Indicator 2: The teacher aligns instructional and learning activities to the lesson objective.
Indicator Score:
7 points out of 9 observations
77.78%
MET
Summary of Evidence to Support the Indicator Score
Learning and activities were matched to instructional outcomes.
The lesson activities were well structured, with reasonable time allocations.
Indicator 3: The teacher aligns assessment (ongoing,
Indicator Score:
2 points out of 2
Summary of Evidence to Support the Indicator Score
Assessment types match learning expectations.
Prince George’s County Public Schools (PGCPS) 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 PGCPS: October 17, 2013
Program Improvement and Family Support Branch Division of Student, Family, and School Support Maryland State Department of Education Page 20
formative, and summative) to the lesson objective.
observations
100%
MET
Teacher includes the use of formative assessments during instruction.
Because of the timing of the classroom observations, the Priority Observation Pair determined Indicator 3 could not be observed in 8 classrooms.
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 9 observations
77.78%
MET
Summary of Evidence to Support the Indicator Score
Teachers’ explanations of content were clear and invited student participation and thinking.
Vocabulary and usage were correct and completely suited to the lesson.
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 observations
80%
MET
Summary of Evidence to Support the Indicator Score
Teacher elicited evidence of student understanding during their lesson.
Feedback to students was specific and timely, and was provided from many sources, including other students.
Because of the timing of the classroom observations, the Priority Observation Pair determined Indicator 5 could not be observed in 2 classrooms.
Indicator 6: Teacher adapts plans as needed. (Differentiation of content, process, product; unexpected situation; teachable moment, etc.)
Indicator Score:
5 points out of 6 observations
83.33%
Summary of Evidence to Support the Indicator Score
Teachers incorporated students’ interests and questions into the heart of the lesson.
Teachers seized on a teachable moment to enhance a lesson.
Because of the timing of the classroom observations, the
Prince George’s County Public Schools (PGCPS) 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 PGCPS: October 17, 2013
Program Improvement and Family Support Branch Division of Student, Family, and School Support Maryland State Department of Education Page 21
MET
Priority Observation Pair determined Indicator 6 could not be observed in 4 classrooms.
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:
7 points out of 10 observations
70%
MET
Summary of Evidence to Support the Indicator Score Most students were intellectually engaged in the lesson.
Materials and resources supported the learning goals and required intellectual engagement as appropriate.
The pacing of the lessons provided students the time needed to be intellectually engaged.
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:
8 points out of 9 observations
88.89%
MET
Summary of Evidence to Support the Indicator Score
Teachers made effective use of wait time.
Discussions enabled students to talk to one another, without ongoing mediation by the teacher.
Indicator 9: Teacher reinforces skills, processes, and procedures introduced through modeling, shaping, and student practice.
Indicator Score:
5 points out of 7 observations
71.43%
MET
Summary of Evidence to Support the Indicator Score
Teachers explained content clearly and imaginatively, using metaphors and analogies to bring content to life.
All students seemed to understand the presentation. The teachers invited students to explain the content to class, or to classmates.
Because of the timing of the classroom observations, the Priority Observation Pair determined Indicator 9 could not be observed in 3 classrooms.
Prince George’s County Public Schools (PGCPS) 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 PGCPS: October 17, 2013
Program Improvement and Family Support Branch Division of Student, Family, and School Support Maryland State Department of Education Page 22
Indicator 10: All students effectively participate in a variety of groupings (whole group, small group, and independent) throughout the lesson.
Indicator Score:
4 points out of 5 observations
80%
MET
Summary of Evidence to Support the Indicator Score
Instructional student groups were organized thoughtfully to maximize learning and build on student strengths.
Teachers provided a variety of appropriately challenging resources that were differentiated for students in the class.
Because of the timing of the classroom observations, the Priority Observation Pair determined Indicator 10 could not be observed in 5 classrooms.
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 8 observations
87.50%
MET
Summary of Evidence to Support the Indicator Score
The pacing of the lesson provided students the time
needed to be intellectually engaged.
Students interacted with one another.
Students had opportunities for reflection and closure on the lesson to consolidate their understanding with each other and with the teacher.
Because of the timing of the classroom observations, the Priority Observation Pair determined Indicator 11 could not be observed in 2 classrooms.
Indicator12: Teacher establishes and manages classroom procedures and routines that promote learning.
Indicator Score:
9 points out of 10 observations
90%
MET
Summary of Evidence to Support the Indicator Score
Student behavior was generally appropriate and the teacher acknowledged good behavior.
Classroom routines functioned smoothly.
The teachers monitored student behavior without speaking by just moving throughout the classrooms.
Indicator 13: Teacher uses space,
Indicator Score:
Summary of Evidence to Support the Indicator Score
Prince George’s County Public Schools (PGCPS) 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 PGCPS: October 17, 2013
Program Improvement and Family Support Branch Division of Student, Family, and School Support Maryland State Department of Education Page 23
equipment, and materials to support instruction including the use of technology to engage.
8 points out of 10 observations
88.89%
MET
The teachers made appropriate use of available technology.
The classrooms were safe and all students were able to see and hear.
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
Talk between teacher and students and among students
was uniformly respectful.
Teachers made superficial connections with students.
Prince George’s County Public Schools (PGCPS) 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 PGCPS: October 17, 2013
Program Improvement and Family Support Branch Division of Student, Family, and School Support Maryland State Department of Education Page 24
Table 11: Priority Cohort I Year 4 School Budget for Benjamin Stoddert Middle School , Tier II MSDE Fiscal Reviewer: Kelly Coates Monitoring Date: October 4, 2013
Total Priority Cohort I Year 3
Allocation: $ 953,012 School Budget Spent:
$ 811,966 Percent of School Budget
Spent: 85% Spend Down Data as of:
Oct 3, 2013
Salaries & Wages Contractual Services Supplies & Materials Other *Budgeted: $ 564,150 *Budgeted: $ 117,776 Budgeted: $ 48,500 Budgeted:
Travel: $ 31,030 Registration& Membership Fees: $ 25,102
Equipment: $ 10,200
Encumbered: $ 0 Encumbered: $ 766 Encumbered: $ 451 Encumbered & Spent: Encumbered Travel: $ 16,749
Encumbered Registration & Membership Fees: $ 0 Encumbered Equipment: $ 6,736
Spent (amount): $ 529,109 Spent (%): 94%
Spent (amount): $ 52,808 Spent (%): 45%
Spent (amount): $ 38,477 Spent (%): 79%
Travel Spent: $ 14,754 Travel Spent (%): 48%
Registration & Membership Fees Spent: $ 23,432
Registration & Membership Fees Spent (%): 93% Equipment Spent: $ 3,458 Equipment Spent (%): 34%
1. How much of the school budget, based on the LEA’s approved application, has been expended to date (amount and %)? PGCPS provided documentation that showed the school has spent $811,966. This amount is 85% of their approved SIG I Year 4 budget. Additional funds in the amount of $24,702 have been encumbered. Expended amount for fixed charges are included in the total spent.
2. Is school spending consistent with budget timeline? If not, what steps are being taken to expend the funds as planned? PGCPS explained that Benjamin Stoddert Middle School is on target in spending on their timeline.
3. What action steps or planned activities have not taken place that would impact the budget? PGCPS shared that all activities are on schedule.
4. Has a budget amendment been submitted? If yes, what budget changes were requested for this school? PGCPS will submit an amendment (#3) by January 2014 to redirecting final balances to already approved activities.
5. How often are school expenditures monitored by the LEA? Who monitors? Schools are monitored monthly by the LEA. Myra Grzeskiewicz has monitored on August 8, 2013 and September 9, 2013.
Prince George’s County Public Schools (PGCPS) 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 PGCPS: October 17, 2013
Program Improvement and Family Support Branch Division of Student, Family, and School Support Maryland State Department of Education Page 25
6. Did the LEA provide evidence and documentation of the Priority School Inventory? Yes No
7. Did the LEA provide evidence of time and effort for staff funded with Priority School funds (2nd and 3rd monitoring visit only)?
Yes No N/A * Based on latest approved amendment
Table 12 Priority Schools First Onsite Visit Classroom Observation Tally Sheet for Drew Freeman Middle School
Cla
ssro
om
O
bse
rva
tio
n
Ind
ica
tors
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
%
Pro
fici
en
t o
r A
bo
ve
O
bse
rva
tio
ns
*In
dic
ato
r M
ET
(M
), P
art
iall
y M
ET
(P
M),
NO
T M
ET
(N
M)
1 0 1 1 x 1 0 x x 1 1 5 71.43% M
2 1 1 1 x 1 1 0 0 0 0 5 55.56% PM
3 1 0 1 x 1 0 0 0 1 0 4 44.44% NM
4 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 7 70.00% M
5 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 7 70.00% M
6 0 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 0 0 6 60.00% PM
7 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 6 60.00% PM
8 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 x 0 1 7 77.78% M
9 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 0 1 1 8 80.00% M
10 0 1 0 1 1 1 x x 0 0 4 50.00% NM
11 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 9 90.00% M
12 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 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 1 1 1 1 0 9 90.00% M
TOTAL 11 13 12 11 14 12 6 5 7 5 96 72.09%
Prince George’s County Public Schools (PGCPS) 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 PGCPS: October 17, 2013
Program Improvement and Family Support Branch Division of Student, Family, and School Support Maryland State Department of Education Page 26
*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
Table 13
Drew Freeman Middle School, Prince George’s County Public Schools Priority Cohort I Year 4 First Onsite 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:
5 points out of 7 observations
71.43%
Met
Summary of Evidence to Support the Indicator Score
In most classrooms the lesson objective was written in terms of what students will learn and be able to do.
In most classrooms the learning objective represented high expectations and rigor.
In most of the classrooms the objective was related to “big ideas.” *Note: Indicator 1 was not observable in 3 out of the ten observations.
Indicator 2: The teacher aligns instructional and learning activities to the lesson objective.
Indicator Score:
5 points out of 9 observations
55.56%
Partially Met
Summary of Evidence to Support the Indicator Score
In some of the classes learning activities were matched to the instructional outcomes.
In some of the classes teachers provided a variety of instructional activities.
In some of the classes the lesson activities were well structured with reasonable time allocations.
Indicator 3: The teacher aligns
Indicator Score:
Summary of Evidence to Support the Indicator Score
Prince George’s County Public Schools (PGCPS) 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 PGCPS: October 17, 2013
Program Improvement and Family Support Branch Division of Student, Family, and School Support Maryland State Department of Education Page 27
assessment (ongoing, formative, and summative) to the lesson objective.
4 points out of 9 observations
44.44%
Not Met
In most of the classrooms assessment criteria was vague.
In most of the classrooms formative assessments were not present or fully developed.
In most of the classrooms formative assessment results for the whole class were used.
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 observations
70.0%
Met
Summary of Evidence to Support the Indicator Score
In a majority of classrooms the teachers made no content or vocabulary errors.
In a majority of classrooms teachers’ explanation of content was clear.
Indicator 5: Teacher provides a variety of feedback (oral and written) that advances student learning while checking for understanding.
Indicator Score:
7 points out of 10 observations
70.0%
Met
Summary of Evidence to Support the Indicator Score
In a majority of classrooms the teachers elicited evidence of understanding during the lesson.
In a majority of classrooms the feedback provided timely guidance for groups of students.
Indicator 6: Teacher adapts plans as needed. (Differentiation of content, process, product; unexpected situation; teachable moment, etc.)
Indicator Score:
6 points out of 10 observations
60.0%
Partially Met
Summary of Evidence to Support the Indicator Score
In some of the classrooms teachers made efforts to modify the lesson.
In some of the classrooms the teachers made attempts to incorporate student questions and interests in the lesson.
In a majority of the classrooms the teachers did not demonstrate differentiation of content, process, and product.
Prince George’s County Public Schools (PGCPS) 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 PGCPS: October 17, 2013
Program Improvement and Family Support Branch Division of Student, Family, and School Support Maryland State Department of Education Page 28
In some of the classrooms unexpected teachable moments were not seized upon to enhance the lesson.
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
60.0%
Partially Met
Summary of Evidence to Support the Indicator Score
In most of the classrooms the pacing of the lesson provided students the time needed to understand and process the materials.
In most of the classroom student engagement with the content was largely passive.
In most of the classrooms students had no choice on how they completed tasks.
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 observations
77.78%
Met
Summary of Evidence to Support the Indicator Score
Teachers made effective use of wait time.
Teachers built upon and used student responses to questions effectively.
Discussions enabled students to talk to one another, without ongoing mediation by the teacher.
Indicator 9: Teacher reinforces skills, processes, and procedures introduced through modeling, shaping, and student practice.
Indicator Score:
8 points out of 10 observations
80.0%
Summary of Evidence to Support the Indicator Score
When appropriate, the teachers modeled the process to be followed in the task.
Teachers’ explanation of the content was clear, and invited student participation and thinking.
Teachers pointed out possible areas for misunderstanding.
Prince George’s County Public Schools (PGCPS) 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 PGCPS: October 17, 2013
Program Improvement and Family Support Branch Division of Student, Family, and School Support Maryland State Department of Education Page 29
Met
Indicator 10: All students effectively participate in a variety of groupings (whole group, small group, and independent) throughout the lesson.
Indicator Score:
4 points out of 8 observations
50.0%
Not Met
Summary of Evidence to Support the Indicator Score
Instructional groups were random.
Teachers did not provide any differentiation for different students.
Teachers employed only total class presentation for an entire lesson. *Note: Indicator 10 was not observable in 2 out of the ten observations.
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
90.0%
Met
Summary of Evidence to Support the Indicator Score
The pacing of the lesson provided students the time needed to be intellectually engaged.
Students had an opportunity for reflection and closure on the lesson to consolidate their understanding.
With minimal guidance and prompting, students followed the established classroom routines.
Indicator12: Teacher establishes and manages
Indicator Score:
9 points out of
Summary of Evidence to Support the Indicator Score
Student behavior was generally appropriate and the teacher
Prince George’s County Public Schools (PGCPS) 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 PGCPS: October 17, 2013
Program Improvement and Family Support Branch Division of Student, Family, and School Support Maryland State Department of Education Page 30
classroom procedures and routines that promote learning.
10 observations
90.0%
Met
acknowledged good behavior.
Classroom routines functioned smoothly.
Students transitioned between instructional smoothly.
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
100.0%
Met
Summary of Evidence to Support the Indicator Score
The classrooms were safe, and all students were able to see and hear.
The teachers made appropriate use of available technology.
The classrooms were arranged to support the instructional goals and learning activities.
Indicator 14: Teacher manages student behavior effectively which creates a learning environment of respect and rapport.
Indicator Score:
9 points out of 10 observations
90.0%
Met
Summary of Evidence to Support the Indicator Score
Talk between teacher and students and among students was uniformly respectful.
Teachers made superficial connections with individual students.
The teachers’ responses to a student’s incorrect response respected the student’s dignity.
Prince George’s County Public Schools (PGCPS) 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 PGCPS: October 17, 2013
Program Improvement and Family Support Branch Division of Student, Family, and School Support Maryland State Department of Education Page 31
Table 14: Priority Cohort I Year 4 School Budget for Drew Freeman Middle School , Tier II MSDE Fiscal Reviewer: Kelly Coates Monitoring Date: October 4, 2013
Total Priority Cohort I Year 3
Allocation: $ 953,012
School Budget Spent: $ 714,531
Percent of School Budget
Spent: 75% Spend Down Data as of:
Oct 3, 2013
Salaries & Wages Contractual Services Supplies & Materials Other Budgeted: $ 566,810 Budgeted: $ 119,268 Budgeted: $ 48,470 Budgeted:
Travel: $ 34,500 Registration& Membership Fees:
$ 27,102
Encumbered: $ 0 Encumbered: $ 220 Encumbered: $ 25,635 Encumbered & Spent: Encumbered Travel: $ 14,844
Encumbered Fees: $ 0
Spent (amount): $ 463,119 Spent (%): 82%
Spent (amount): $ 53,701 Spent (%): 45%
Spent (amount): $ 23,175 Spent (%): 48%
Travel Spent: $ 19,032 Travel Spent (%): 55%
Registration & Membership Fees Spent: $ 19,309
Registration & Membership Fees Spent (%): 71%
1. How much of the school budget, based on the LEA’s approved application, has been expended to date (amount and %)? PGCPS provided documentation that showed the school has spent $714,531. This amount is 75% of their approved SIG I Year 4 budget. Additional funds in the amount of $40,699 have been encumbered. Expended amount for fixed charges are included in the total spent.
2. Is school spending consistent with budget timeline? If not, what steps are being taken to expend the funds as planned? PGCPS explained that Drew Freeman Middle School is on target in spending on their timeline.
3. What action steps or planned activities have not taken place that would impact the budget? PGCPS shared that all activities are on schedule.
4. Has a budget amendment been submitted? If yes, what budget changes were requested for this school? PGCPS will submit an amendment (#3) by January 2014 to redirecting final balances to already approved activities.
5. How often are school expenditures monitored by the LEA? Who monitors? Schools are monitored monthly by the LEA. Myra Grzeskiewicz has monitored on August 8, 2013 and September 4, 2013.
6. Did the LEA provide evidence and documentation of the Priority School Inventory?
Prince George’s County Public Schools (PGCPS) 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 PGCPS: October 17, 2013
Program Improvement and Family Support Branch Division of Student, Family, and School Support Maryland State Department of Education Page 32
Yes No
7. Did the LEA provide evidence of time and effort for staff funded with Priority School funds (2nd and 3rd monitoring visit only)? Yes No N/A
Table 15 Priority Schools First Onsite Visit Classroom Observation Tally Sheet for Thurgood Marshall Middle School
Cla
ssro
om
O
bse
rva
tio
n
Ind
ica
tors
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
%
Pro
fici
en
t o
r A
bo
ve
O
bse
rva
tio
ns
*In
dic
ato
r M
ET
(M
), P
art
iall
y
ME
T (
PM
), N
OT
M
ET
(N
M)
1 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 9 90.00% M
2 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 9 90.00% M
3 1 1 X 0 1 X 1 1 X X 5 83.33% M
4 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 9 90.00% M
5 1 1 0 0 1 X 1 1 0 1 6 66.67% PM
6 1 X 0 X 1 1 1 1 X 1 6 85.71% M 7 1 1 0 0 1 1 1 1 0 1 7 70.00% M
8 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 X 0 1 7 77.78% M 9 1 1 X 1 1 1 1 1 X 1 8 100.00% M
10 1 1 X X 1 1 1 1 X 1 7 100.00% M
11 1 1 0 0 1 1 1 0 X X 5 62.50% PM
12 1 1 0 0 1 X 1 0 1 1 6 66.67% PM
13 1 1 0 0 1 1 1 1 X 1 7 77.78% M
14 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 9 90.00% M
TOTAL 14 13 3 4 14 11 14 11 4 12 100 82.17%
Prince George’s County Public Schools (PGCPS) 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 PGCPS: October 17, 2013
Program Improvement and Family Support Branch Division of Student, Family, and School Support Maryland State Department of Education Page 33
*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
Table 16
Thurgood Marshall Middle School, Prince George’s County Public Schools Priority Cohort I Year 4 First Onsite 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
observations
90.0%
Met
Summary of Evidence to Support the Indicator Score
Objectives represented high expectations and rigor.
Teacher and students connected objectives to previous learning.
Objectives were related to “big ideas” of the discipline.
Indicator 2: The teacher aligns instructional and learning activities to the lesson objective.
Indicator Score:
9 out of 10 total observations
90%
Met
Summary of Evidence to Support the Indicator Score
Learning activities were matched to instructional outcomes.
The lesson activities were well structured, with reasonable time allocations.
Activities permitted student choice.
Indicator 3: The teacher aligns assessment (ongoing,
Indicator Score:
5 out of 6 total
Summary of Evidence to Support the Indicator Score
Assessment types matched learning expectations.
Prince George’s County Public Schools (PGCPS) 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 PGCPS: October 17, 2013
Program Improvement and Family Support Branch Division of Student, Family, and School Support Maryland State Department of Education Page 34
formative, and summative) to the lesson objective.
observations
83.33%
Met
Teacher made adjustments based on formative assessment data.
Rubrics were aligned to learning objectives. Because of the timing of the classroom observations, the
Priority Observation Pair determined Indicator 3 could not be observed in 4 classrooms.
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 out of 10 total observations
90%
Met
Summary of Evidence to Support the Indicator Score
Teachers’ explanation of content was clear and invited student participation and thinking.
All students seemed to understand the presentation.
Teacher explained content clearly and imaginatively, using metaphors and analogies to bring content to life.
Indicator 5: Teacher provides a variety of feedback (oral and written) that advances student learning while checking for understanding.
Indicator Score:
6 out of 9 total observations
66.67%
Partially Met
Summary of Evidence to Support the Indicator Score
The teachers elicited evidence of student understanding during the lesson.
Teacher made frequent use of strategies to elicit information about the individual student understanding.
Feedback was generally global.
Indicator 6: Teacher adapts plans as needed. (Differentiation of content, process, product; unexpected situation; teachable moment, etc.)
Indicator Score:
6 out of 7 total observations
85.71%
Summary of Evidence to Support the Indicator Score
Teachers successfully made minor modifications to the lesson.
Teachers conveyed to students that he/she had other approaches to try when the students experience difficulty.
Prince George’s County Public Schools (PGCPS) 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 PGCPS: October 17, 2013
Program Improvement and Family Support Branch Division of Student, Family, and School Support Maryland State Department of Education Page 35
Met
Because of the timing of the classroom observations, the Priority Observation Pair determined Indicator 6 could not be observed in 3 classrooms.
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:
7 out of 10 total observations
70%
Met
Summary of Evidence to Support the Indicator Score
Virtually all students were highly engaged in the lessons.
The pacing of the lessons provided students the time needed to be intellectually engaged.
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 out of 9 total observations
77.78%
Met
Summary of Evidence to Support the Indicator Score
Teacher used open–ended questions, inviting students to think and/or have multiple possible answers.
The teachers called on most students, even those who did not initially volunteer.
Indicator 9: Teacher reinforces skills, processes, and procedures introduced through modeling, shaping, and student practice.
Indicator Score:
8 out of 8 total observations
100%
Summary of Evidence to Support the Indicator Score
Students engaged with learning task, indicating that they understood what they were to do.
All students seemed to understand the presentation. The teachers invited students to explain the content to the class, or to classmates.
Prince George’s County Public Schools (PGCPS) 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 PGCPS: October 17, 2013
Program Improvement and Family Support Branch Division of Student, Family, and School Support Maryland State Department of Education Page 36
Met
Because of the timing of the classroom observations, the Priority Observation Pair determined Indicator 9 could not be observed in 2 classrooms.
Indicator 10: All students effectively participate in a variety of groupings (whole group, small group, and independent) throughout the lesson.
Indicator Score:
7 out of 7 total observations
100%
Met
Summary of Evidence to Support the Indicator Score
The pacing of the lessons provided students the time needed to be intellectually engaged.
Students had the opportunities for reflection and closure on the lesson to consolidate their understanding with each other and with the teacher.
Because of the timing of the classroom observations, the Priority Observation Pair determined Indicator 10 could not be observed in 3 classrooms.
Domain 4: Classroom Management (for Teaching and Learning)
Indicator 11: Teacher organizes instructional learning time to maximize student time on task.
Indicator Score:
5 out of 8 total observations
62.50%
Partially Met
Summary of Evidence to Support the Indicator Score
Few students interacted with one another.
In most classrooms the pacing of the lesson provided the time needed to be intellectually engaged.
Indicator12: Teacher establishes and manages classroom procedures and routines that promote
Indicator Score:
6 out of 9 total observations
66.67%
Summary of Evidence to Support the Indicator Score
Student behavior was generally appropriate and the teacher acknowledged good behavior.
Student behavior was mostly appropriate, little evidence of student misbehavior.
Prince George’s County Public Schools (PGCPS) 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 PGCPS: October 17, 2013
Program Improvement and Family Support Branch Division of Student, Family, and School Support Maryland State Department of Education Page 37
learning. Partially Met
Procedures for transitions, and distribution/collection of materials, seemed to have been established but their implementation was rough.
Indicator 13: Teacher uses space, equipment, and materials to support instruction including the use of technology to engage.
Indicator Score:
7 out of 9 total observations
77.78%
Met
Summary of Evidence to Support the Indicator Score
The classrooms were arranged to support the instructional goals and learning activities.
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 out of 10 total observations
90%
Met
Summary of Evidence to Support the Indicator Score
Teachers demonstrated knowledge and caring about the individual students’ lives beyond school.
There was no evidence of disrespectful behavior among students.
The teachers’ responses to student incorrect responses respected the student’s dignity.
Prince George’s County Public Schools (PGCPS) 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 PGCPS: October 17, 2013
Program Improvement and Family Support Branch Division of Student, Family, and School Support Maryland State Department of Education Page 38
Table 17: Priority Cohort I Year 4 School Budget for Thurgood Marshall Middle School , Tier II MSDE Fiscal Reviewer: Kelly Coates Monitoring Date: October 4, 2013
Total Priority Cohort I Year 3
Allocation: $ 953,012 School Budget Spent:
$ 822,636 Percent of School Budget
Spent:86% Spend Down Data as of:
Oct 3, 2013
Salaries & Wages Contractual Services Supplies & Materials Other *Budgeted: $ 583,753 *Budgeted: $ 104,718 Budgeted: $ 47,000 Budgeted:
Travel: $ 34,500 *Registration& Membership Fees:
$ 24,102 Equipment: $700
Encumbered: $ 0 Encumbered: $ 1,251 Encumbered: $ 1,017 Encumbered & Spent: Encumbered Travel: $ 15,265
Encumbered Fees: $ 1,178 Encumbered Equipment: $ 0
Spent (amount): $ 551,500 Spent (%): 94%
Spent (amount): $ 31,805 Spent (%): 30%
Spent (amount): $ 32,248 Spent (%): 69%
Travel Spent: $ 17,936 Travel Spent (%): 52%
Registration & Membership Fees Spent: $ 23,276 Registration & Membership Fees Spent (%): 97%
Equipment: $ 657 Equipment Spent (%): 94%
1. How much of the school budget, based on the LEA’s approved application, has been expended to date (amount and %)? PGCPS provided documentation that showed the school has spent $822,636. This amount is 86% of their approved SIG I Year 4 budget. Additional funds in the amount of $18,711 have been encumbered. Expended amount for fixed charges are included in the total spent.
2. Is school spending consistent with budget timeline? If not, what steps are being taken to expend the funds as planned? PGCPS explained that Thurgood Marshall Middle School is on target in spending on their timeline.
3. What action steps or planned activities have not taken place that would impact the budget? PGCPS shared that all activities are on schedule.
4. Has a budget amendment been submitted? If yes, what budget changes were requested for this school? PGCPS will submit an amendment (#3) by January 2014 to redirecting final balances to already approved activities.
5. How often are school expenditures monitored by the LEA? Who monitors? Schools are monitored monthly by the LEA. Myra Grzeskiewicz has monitored on July 31, 2013 August 8, 2013 and September 27, 2013.
6. Did the LEA provide evidence and documentation of the Priority School Inventory?
Prince George’s County Public Schools (PGCPS) 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 PGCPS: October 17, 2013
Program Improvement and Family Support Branch Division of Student, Family, and School Support Maryland State Department of Education Page 39
Yes No
7. Did the LEA provide evidence of time and effort for staff funded with Priority School funds (2nd and 3rd monitoring visit only)?
Yes No N/A
* Based on latest approved amendment