priority cohort 1 year 4 program and fiscal monitoring...

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

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.



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.



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



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.


Deborah Oliver Business Manager Ensure fiscal spending of the allocated resources and to liaise between the Schools, City Schools Grants office and Turnaround.


Network Staff Dawn Shirey Network 15 Facilitator Manages Network team to ensure strategic, quality

school support. Collaborates with Executive Director to align school supports.


Byra Cole Network 11 Facilitator Manages Network team to ensure strategic, quality school support. Collaborates with Executive Director to align school supports.


Patricia Roberts-Rose Network 9 Facilitator Manages Network team to ensure strategic, quality school support. Collaborates with Executive Director to align school supports


Tanya Williams Network 10 Facilitator Manages Network team to ensure strategic, quality Tier I and Tier II 10 hrs/month



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.


Darryl Kennedy Network 11 Executive Director



TBD Network 9 Executive Director



Diane Bragdon Network 10 Executive Director



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.


Sarah Pasko Erin Vaughn Kristen McQuillan Melissa Loftus

Literacy Academic Content Liaison

Work in schools to support data reviews and progress towards Reading targets.


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.


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



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?



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.



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.



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.



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.



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.



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)



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


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


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)



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


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


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)



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


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


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



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



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:


60%

PARTIALLY MET


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:


100%

MET


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.



Domain 2: Instruction Delivery- Strategies and Process

Indicator 4: Teacher presents concepts, skills, and directions clearly using correct oral and written language.

Indicator Score:


90%

MET


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:


100%

MET


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


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.



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:


60%

PARTIALLY MET


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:


90%

MET


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%


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


observations


In all classrooms, student groups were organized to maximize learning and build on student strengths.



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.


observations 90% MET


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.


observations 80% MET


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:


80%

MET


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.



Indicator 14: Teacher manages student behavior effectively which creates a learning environment of respect and rapport.


observations

90%

MET


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.



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.



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%


Key:


0 - Not Proficient






TABLE 9 Augusta Fells Savage Institute of Visual Arts High School, Baltimore City Public School System


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


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 Score: 3 out of 10

classrooms

30%

Not Met


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 Score:


50%

Not Met


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.





Indicator Score:


50%

Not Met


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 Score:

5 out of 10

classrooms

50%

Not Met


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 Score:


57.14%


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



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.



Indicator Score:

8 out of 10

classrooms

80%

Met


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



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.




Indicator Score:

7 out of 9

classrooms

77.78%

Met


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



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.



Indicator Score:

9 out of 9

classrooms





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.


Indicator Score:

8 out of 9

classrooms

88.89%

Met



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 Score:


100%

Met


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.




Indicator Score:

8 out of 9

classrooms

88.89%

Met



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.



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.



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%


Key:


0 - Not Proficient






TABLE 12 Commodore John Rodgers Elementary/Middle School, Baltimore City Public School System




Indicator Score:

9 points out of

10 total observations

90% MET


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 Score:

7 points out of


70%

MET


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 Score:

7 points out of


87.5%

MET


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.





Indicator Score:

7 points out of


70%

MET


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 Score:

8 points out of


80%

MET


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 Score:

8 points out of


80%

MET


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.





Indicator Score:

8 points out of


80%

MET


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


77.78%

MET


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.



Indicator Score:

8 points out of


88.89%

MET


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.





Indicator Score:

9 points out of


90%

MET


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.



Indicator Score:

7 points out of


77.78%

MET


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.


Indicator Score:

9 points out of


90%

MET


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.




Indicator Score:

10 points out of


100%

MET


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 Score:

9 points out of


90%

MET


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.



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.



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%


Key:


0 - Not Proficient






TABLE 15 Calverton Elementary/Middle School, Baltimore City Public School System




Indicator Score:


100%

MET


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 Score:


100%

MET


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 Score:


100%

MET


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.





Indicator Score:


100%

MET


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 Score:


100%

MET


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 Score:


100%

MET


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.





Indicator Score:


100%

MET


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:


100%

MET


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 Score:


100%

MET


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 Score:


100%

MET


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.





Indicator Score:


100%

MET


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.


Indicator Score:


100%

MET


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 Score:


100%

MET


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.




Indicator Score:


100%

MET


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.



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.

priority cohort 1 year 4 program and fiscal monitoring...

Documents