Kids In The Middle Grant from the Nesholm Family Foundation

School Board Briefing/Proposed Action Report
Informational (no action required by Board)
DATE:
FROM:
LEAD STAFF:
I.
Action Report (Board will be required to take action)
January 22, 2015
Dr. Larry Nyland, Superintendent
Michael Stone, Director of Grants, Fiscal Compliance & Strategic
Partnerships, [email protected]; Michael Tolley, Associate
Superintendent of Teaching & Learning, [email protected]
TITLE
Kids In The Middle Grant from the Nesholm Family
Foundation
II.
For Introduction: March 2, 2016
For Action:
March 16, 2016
WHY BOARD ACTION IS NECESSARY
Per Board Policy No. 6114, Gifts, Grants, Donations and Fundraising Proceeds, Board action is
necessary to accept a grant that exceeds $250,000 per school year.
III. FISCAL IMPACT/REVENUE SOURCE
Fiscal impact to this action will be an acceptance of funds in the amount of $531,655. Funds are
in direct support to middle schools.
The revenue source for this motion is the Nesholm Family Foundation, via the Alliance for
Education.
Expenditure:
One-time
Annual
Other Source
N/A
IV. POLICY IMPLICATION
Per Board Policy No. 6114, Gifts, Grants, Donations and Fundraising Proceeds, Board action is
necessary to accept a grant that exceeds $250,000 per school year.
V.
RECOMMENDED MOTION
I move that the Board authorize the Superintendent to accept the Kids In The Middle grant funds
from the Nesholm Family Foundation, in the amount of $531,655.
VI. BOARD COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION
This motion was discussed at the Curriculum & Instruction Policy Committee meeting on
February 8, 2016. The Committee reviewed the item and moved it forward to the full Board with
a recommendation for approval.
VII. BACKGROUND INFORMATION
Since 2002-03, the Nesholm Family Foundation has provided $6.1M in total to the District,
averaging $475,000 per year, in support of the Kids in the Middle grant. This grant, awarded
each year to the three highest poverty middle schools, Aki Kurose, Denny International, and
Mercer, focuses on literacy improvements as the key to student learning and achievement. To
this end, the Kids in the Middle initiative works to develop teachers’ knowledge, skills and
practices in reading and writing instruction; maintain high professional standards; and apply
research tested instructional practice. By giving teachers the support they need to develop crucial
skills to narrowing the achievement gap in reading and writing, Kids in the Middle enables
teachers to better serve students in becoming readers who experience both the pleasure and
power of being independent, college and career ready readers.
Each of the three schools receives funds to increase reading and writing achievement. Use of the
monies is earmarked for: an additional Assistant Principal to focus on literacy instruction and
teacher evaluation; substitute teachers and professional development time; supplies, travel and
other expenses approved by the Nesholm Foundation; and textual materials. Additionally,
Mercer middle school receives a .2 FTE teacher.
In addition to the grant awarded to the middle schools, the Nesholm Family Foundation provides
professional development and instructional coaching for all three of the middle schools through
an independent contract with Teachers College Reading and Writing Project Network. The
Nesholm Family Foundation also contracts with Sound Mental Health to provide a mental health
professional in each school as a means of addressing the socio-emotional challenges students
experience that interfere with learning.
VIII. STATEMENT OF ISSUE
Whether the Board should accept the receipt of grant funds from the Nesholm Family
Foundation.
IX. ALTERNATIVES
Alternative action would be to not accept the funds. This is not recommended as these funds
provide much needed support toward Strategic Goal 1: Ensure Educational Excellence & Equity
for Every Student, Strategy 2: Elevate professional practice by investing in effective, culturally
responsive teachers, staff and leaders.
X.
RESEARCH AND DATA SOURCES / BENCHMARKS
Appendix A: Aki Kurose Middle School data presentation
Appendix B: Denny International Middle School data presentation
XI. TIMELINE FOR IMPLEMENTATION / COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT
Upon approval of this motion, the District will move forward with setting up the grant funds at
Aki Kurose, Denny International, and Mercer, as outlined on the attached letter of commitment.
XII. ATTACHMENTS
•
•
Letters of commitment from the Nesholm Family Foundation and from the Alliance For
Education
Student achievement reading data from Aki Kurose Middle School, Denny International
Middle School and Asa Mercer Middle School
November 3, 2015
Michael Stone, Interim Director of Grants, Fiscal Compliance & Strategic Partnerships
Seattle Public Schools
PO Box 34165, MS 33-182
Seattle, WA 98124-1165
RE: 2015-16 Nesholm Family Foundation Commitment for the Kids in the Middle Initiative
Dear Michael:
This letter is to confirm the conditional commitment of the Nesholm Family Foundation to reimburse
specific costs of the Kids in the Middle initiative at three middle schools up to $531,655 as described in
the attached letter to the Alliance for Education (AFE). As authorized by the Foundation, the Alliance
for Education (AFE) will reimburse SPS only for the costs specifically identified in the letter up to the
specified limits for each. The term of this support is the 2015-16 school year (8/1/2015-7/31/2016).
Each reimbursement to SPS is subject to the Foundation’s approval of each invoice. SPS shall submit
invoices and reimbursement requests to AFE monthly with documentation showing expenditures for
these specific allowable expenses tracked on the detail level (this pertains to the "budget to actual"
control level). SPS shall not charge indirect or other costs to the Foundation or the Alliance. The
Alliance shall transmit each invoice and the related documentation to the Foundation and shall pay each
invoice only after the Foundation has approved payment. In your invoicing, please use the following:
• Project Name: Nesholm: Middle School Literacy Support 2015-16
• Code: 1C52-16
This commitment to SPS from AFE is subject to the commitment from the Foundation to AFE per the
attached letter from the Foundation. In the event the Foundation withdraws, terminates or amends the
commitment to AFE, the commitment from AFE to SPS will be terminated as well. To acknowledge
your understanding of the terms of this subgrant, please sign where indicated below. Then please scan
and email the document to me at [email protected]. If you wish to discuss any of the terms of this
agreement, please contact me at 206-205-0342.
Sincerely,
Mark A. Taylor
Grants Director
By the authorized signature, Seattle Public Schools agrees to the terms stated above:
_________________________________________________________________
Michael Stone, Interim Director of Grants, Fiscal Compliance & Strategic Partnerships
__________
Date
cc: Amy Ward; Kenny Ching; Min Yee; Ester Abenojar
509 Olive Way Suite 500 Seattle WA 98101 ph 206.343.0449 www.alliance4ed.org
2007-08 2008-09 2009-10
WASL WASL
MSP
Reading
Writing
7th
Math
Science
8th
6th: 61%
(+13%)
7th: 46 %
8th: 64%
(+13%)
6th: 42%
7th: 53%
8th: 52%
59%
75%:(+1
6%)
6th: 24%
7th: 22%
8th: 24%
6th: 48%
7th: 46%
8th: 51%
19%
2010-11
MSP
2011- 12
MSP
2012-13
MSP
2013-2014
MSP
6th- 73%
6th: 53%
(+11%)
7th: 37%
8th: 57%
(+5%)
6th: 59%
(+6%)
7th: 51%
(+14%)
8th: 47%
59%
64%
(+5%)
57%
65% (+8%)
65%
6th: 31%
(+7%)
7th: 23%
(+1%)
8th: 39%
(+15%)
6th: 25%
7th: 33%
(+10%)
8th: 35%
6th: 45%
(+20%)
7th: 29%
8th: 38%
(+3%)
6th: 57%
(+12%)
7th:
46%(+17%)
8th: 29%
6th – 61%
(+4%)
6th- 67%
7th – 53%
(+7%)
7th- 55%
35%
(+16%)
8th: 31%
8th: 49%
(+18%)
8th: 36%
8th – 53%
(+17%)
6th – 62%
(+3%)
7th – 57%
(+6%)
7th- 57%
8th- 61%
8th – 60%
(+13%)
8th – 53%
(+24%)
8th- 53%
56%
65%
Aki Featured at SLI:
Rise in Reading
63%
60%
59%
55%
52%
50%
45%
47%
40%
35%
30%
2010-2011
2011-2012
2012-2013
2013-2014
Highlights in Reading
Reading Four Year Plan
80%
73%
70%
60%
59% 61%
57% 57%
52%
51%
50%
40%
59% 61%
56%
47%
34%
30%
20%
10%
0%
6th Grade
7th Grade
2010-2011
2011-2012
8th Grade
2012-2013
2013-2014
Cohort Data
Percent Meeting Standard by Cohort
80%
73%
70%
67%
60%
50%
52%
52%
53%
54%
46%
61%
57%
53%
47%
46%
Math
class of
2018…
Reading
class of
2018…
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
Math
class of
2020…
Reading
class of
2020…
Math
class of
2019…
Reading
class of
2019…
6th Grade Reading
7th Grade Reading
8th Grade Reading
MAP Growth
–
Reading
% Meeting Typical Growth
70%
70%
60% 59%
59%
60%
57%
54% 55%
54%
52%
52%
49%
50%
62%
62% 63%
61%
60%
59%
58%
60%
56%
55%
53%
52%
60%
60%
58%
58%
56%
56%
40%
30%
30%
55%
54%
54%
52%
52%
50%
50%
20%
58%
57%
50%
40%
58%
20%
48%
10%
10%
0%
2010 2011 2012 2013 2014
SPS 6th
Aki 6th
46%
0%
2010 2011 2012 2013 2014
SPS 7th
Aki 7th
44%
2010 2011 2012 2013 2014
SPS 8th
Aki 8th
What We Attribute to Our
Gains
Shared Weekly
Lesson Plan
Peer
Observations
Shared Experiencesstudents were able to
see other students’
work during Gallery
Walks
Collaboration
Collaboration
Collaboration
Data Days
- Reviewing of Data
- Creating Plans to
Re-Teach
Sharing of
Resources
& Ideas
Intentionality around
students who
attended extended
day & spring break
camp
2014-2015 Next Steps
New (all male) Team
Closely Planning – Release day to plan out Unit 2 together in great detail w/ support of
Kapp
More Release Days planned for: unit planning, data review (Amplify)
Intensive Time with Kapp around methods work & setting STRONG reading expectations
Twice Monthly Peer Visits
6 grade team looped up w/ their students & continue their daily collaboration
Closely Planning- Release day to plan out Unit 2 together in great detail w/ support of Kapp
More Release Days planned for: unit planning, data review (Amplify)
Entire 7th grade team is apart of our Extended Day Literacy Program
Twice Monthly Peer Visits
New team- w/ Veteran Aki ELA Teachers
Shared Planning & Weekly Shared Plans
Release Day for Planning-TBD
Full Inclusion in ELA with Co-Teaching (2 classrooms)
Twice Monthly Peer Visits
Launch of the AP Book
Club- Semester 1
Purpose: To find new ways to inspire our Aki readers to get
excited about reading & involved in an academic club
Out of My Mind
13 Reasons Why
Enrique’s Journey
Trash
Info: AP Book Club
O 4 Titles for Semester 1
O 5 copies of each title in
each classroom
O 12 ELA classrooms
total
O 240 books total will be
purchased and given to
classroom libraries
O 20 books per
classroom
O Mrs. DuBois will visit
each ELA block to
“Book Talk” the 4
titles
O Students sign up to
be apart of the book
club
O End of the semester
lunch celebration to
debrief the book
Our 6th graders thinking deeply
about their reading..
Peace Cranes Say Thanks!
DENNY INTERNATIONAL
MIDDLE SCHOOL
DATA PRESENTATION
OCTOBER 2014
MSP: 6th Grade Reading
2007 2008 2009 2010 2011
2012
2013
2014
Denny
52.6
55.6
61.2 56.2
67.6
63.8
74
75.1
WA State
68 68.9
72 64.6
70.6
70.7
71.5
72.7
Diff. w/State
15.4
13.3
10.8
8.4
3
6.9
-3.5
-2.4
100
80
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
60
40
20
0
-20
Denny
WA State
Diff. w/State
MSP: 7th Grade Reading
100
2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013
2014
Denny
53.2 42.6
40 55.6 47.4
59
63.2
57.4
WA State
68.7
63.1 59.3 63.4 56.5 71.3
68.8
67.7
Diff. w/State 15.5 20.5 19.3 7.8
9.1 12.3
5.6
10.3
90
80
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
Denny
WA State
Diff. w/State
MSP: 8th Grade Reading
100
90
80
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
Denny
WA State
Diff. w/State
READING MSP DATA:
WHAT DOES IT TELL US?
Denny Reading MSP Scores: % of All Students at Standard
Colors indicate same cohort of current students
2007-08
WASL
2008-09
WASL
2009-10
MSP
2010-11
MSP
2011-12
MSP
2012-13
MSP
2013-14
MSP
5th
?
?
61%
56%
60%
62%
66%
6th
55.6%
61.2%
56.2%
67.4%
63.8%
73.7%
75.1%
7th
42.6%
40%
55.6%
47.4%
58.6%
63%
57.4%
8th
61.1%
62.2%
68.6%
67.2%
61.7%
61.5%
68.6%
READING MSP DATA:
WHAT DOES IT TELL US?
Denny Reading MSP Scores: % Compared to State %
Colors indicate same cohort of current students
2007-08
WASL
2008-09
WASL
2009-10
MSP
2010-11
MSP
2011-12
MSP
2012-13
MSP
2013-14
MSP
?
?
-8.6%
-11.7%
-11.1%
-10.7%
-6.4%
6th -13.3%
-10.8%
-8.4%
-3.2%
-6.9%
+3.5%
+2.4%
7th -20.5%
-19.3%
-7.8%
-9.1%
-12.7%
-5.6%
-10.3%
-5.3%
-.8%
-1.5%
-5.6%
-5.8%
-3%
5th
8th
-5.2%
MSP: 7th Grade Writing
100
80
60
40
20
0
-20
Denny
WA State
Diff. w/State
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
MSP: 6th Grade Math
100
2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013
2014
Denny
34.3 35.7 42.3 52.4 58.7 60.1
62.1
70
WA State
49.6 49.1 50.9 51.9 58.8 61.5
59.4
63.6
Diff. w/State 15.3 13.4 8.6 -0.5
0.1
1.4
-2.7
-6.4
80
60
40
20
0
-20
Denny
WA State
Diff. w/State
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
MSP: 7th Grade Math
100
80
60
40
20
0
-20
Denny
WA State
Diff. w/State
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
MSP: 8th Grade Math
100
80
60
40
20
0
-20
-40
Denny
WA State
Diff. w/State
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
MATH MSP DATA: WHAT
DOES IT TELL US?
Denny Math MSP Scores: % of All Students at Standard
Colors indicate same cohort of current students
2007-08
WASL
2008-09
WASL
2009-10
MSP
2010-11
MSP
2011-12
MSP
2012-13
MSP
2013-14
MSP
5th
48.7%
50.2%
37.2%
50.2%
54.3%
48%
54%
6th
35.7%
42.3%
52.4%
58.5%
60.1%
62.5%
70%
7th
28.4%
40.1%
51.9%
59%
59.1%
61.6%
59.9%
8th
38.1%
34.8%
56.9%
66.8%
69.5%
76.4%
82.6%
MATH MSP DATA: WHAT
DOES IT TELL US?
Denny Math MSP Scores: % Compared to State %
Colors indicate same cohort of current students
2007-08
WASL
2008-09
WASL
2009-10
MSP
2010-11
MSP
2011-12
MSP
2012-13
MSP
2013-14
MSP
5th -12.4%
-11.7%
-16.4%
-11%
-9.4%
-14.6%
-9.5%
6th -13.3%
-8.6%
+.6%
-.3%
-1.3%
+3.2%
+6.4%
7th -22.1%
-11.7%
-3.4%
+2.1%
0%
-2.2%
+2.1%
8th -13.6%
-16%
+5.4%
+16.5%
+14%
+23.1% +26.7%
MSP: 8th Grade Science
100
80
60
40
20
0
-20
Denny
WA State
Diff. w/State
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
ASA MERCER INTERNATIONAL
MIDDLE SCHOOL
Opening a door to the world!
DATA AND ASSESSMENT
What students think about and do with assessment
results is as important as what adults think about and do
with them.
- Rick Stiggins
MSP Data Summary
1.
Reading at 7th and 8th grade significant increases. 6th grade took an
unusual dip but we will take a look at our tech error last year, noticing
more significant decreases in those classes.
2.
Mercer students generally out-perform students across the district and
across the state. Mercer students have reached or exceeded 80%
threshold in each tested area and grade in the past 2-3 years.
3.
Data reflects sustained success. This year 80% of our students met
proficiency in 5/8 tested subject areas.
4.
Achievement gaps for African American, Hispanic, Sped, and ELL
persist
READING 6
77
80
79
71
74
80
77
71
80
79
73
74
70
60
59
50
40
State
30
20
SPS
10
Mercer
0
2011
2012
2013
2014
MATH 6
79
80
60
59
62
75
78
71
70
66
70
79
77
64
59
50
40
State
30
SPS
20
Mercer
10
0
2011
2012
2013
2014
READING 7
90
81
80
69
70
60
71
74
76
74
69
75
70
68
63
57
50
State
40
SPS
30
20
Mercer
10
0
2011
2012
2013
2014
MATH 7
90
81
80
72
60
67
66
70
57
59
72
75
70
72
64
58
50
40
State
30
SPS
20
10
Mercer
0
2011
2012
2013
2014
WRITING 7
87
90
80
76
71
71
74
89
87
85
81
78
71
71
70
60
50
40
State
30
SPS
20
10
Mercer
0
2011
2012
2013
2014
READING 8
78
80
70
69
73
73
73
67
69
68
71
80
72
66
60
50
40
State
30
SPS
20
10
Mercer
0
2011
2012
2013
2014
MATH 8
90
80
80
73
70
62
72
70
63
61
56
60
80
50
58
53
50
State
40
30
SPS
20
Mercer
10
0
2011
2012
2013
2014
SCIENCE 8
90
84
79
80
70
87
84
62
77
75
74
66
86
65
67
60
50
40
State
30
SPS
20
10
Mercer
0
2011
2012
2013
2014
BILINGUAL
70
66
57
60
49
50
34
20
39
34
34
32
27
30
46
44
42
40
61
59
34
31
26
22
22
20
15
17
SPS
18
14
10
0
6th Math
6th Reading
7th Math
7th Reading 7th Writing
8th Math
State
8th Reading 8th Science
Mercer '14
HISPANIC
90
85
78
80
71
70
60
50
61
58
71
65
59
56
53
46
60
61
68
58
50
65
59
63
46
40
39
40
73
69
State
30
SPS
20
Mercer '14
10
0
6th Math
6th Reading
7th Math
7th Reading 7th Writing
8th Math
8th Reading 8th Science
AFRICAN AMERICAN
90
85
80
68
70
60
50
40
57
5957
54
44
39
61
52
44
40
60
57
60
55
50
48
43
34
58
48
41
34
20
10
6th Math
6th Reading
7th Math
7th Reading 7th Writing
8th Math
SPS
Mercer '14
30
0
State
8th Reading 8th Science
SPECIAL ED
70
62
58
60
54
50
48
46
40
34
34
29
23
39
37
34
30
21
50
48
32
31 31
29
42
31
22
17
20
14
10
0
6th Math
6th Reading
7th Math
7th Reading 7th Writing
8th Math
8th Reading 8th Science
State
SPS
NEXT STEPS
Next Steps
1.
Strengthen our coherent and consistent Tier 1 instruction for Gen Ed,
ELL, and Special Education.
2.
Strengthen classroom support for our most impacted classrooms,
paying particular attention to IA professional development and
progress monitoring of students.
1.
Inclusion and support for Special Ed students, disproportionally
impacts our African American students, particularly at 8th grade.
1.
Maintain effective processes and approaches while incorporating new
CCSS and Methods.
CCSS: Our Reality
Climate Survey:
Student questions (Conditions for learning)
• School Community & Safety
•
Academic Behaviors
•
Self Efficacy
(21 Century Skills)
• Future Orientation
•
Critical Thinking and Creativity
•
Interpersonal Skills
•
Technology
School
District
Climate Survey:
Staff questions (Conditions for learning)
•
School Community & Safety
•
Academic Behaviors
•
Self Efficacy
Staff
(21 Century Skills)
•
Future Orientation
•
Critical Thinking and Creativity
•
Interpersonal Skills
•
Technology
?
?
School
District
Big I deas of CCSS/21st Century Learning
Ed Research: Key Data Systems
1.
College and Career Readiness
2.
Application of learning in real
world situations
3.
Mercer student perceptions…
• School Community & Safety
•
Academic Behaviors
Inquiry and research
•
Self Efficacy
4.
Text based answers and writing
•
Future Orientation
5.
Argument, justification and
evidence
•
Critical Thinking and Creativity
6.
Writing for purpose, task, and
audience
•
Interpersonal Skills
7.
Structured communication &
collaboration
•
Technology
In terms of instructional shifts what stands out to you?
What elements are the right elements to focus on this year?
CCSS Transition PD Plan
School Wide CCSS Content and
Practice Focus Areas
1. Collaborative Discussions
2. Claims and Evidence
3. Complex Text
4. Performance Tasks/Text
Process
1. Focused, job embedded PLC
work
• CCSS – 80 Clock Hours
• Technology – 32 Clock
Hours
Resources & Support
1. Build a professional learning
framework
2. Professional learning
opportunities
Staff PD
Release time
Teacher embedded PD
Precise application and implementation
2014-15 ACADEMIC CSIP GOALS
Area
Math
Measures: Maintain the 2yr average % of students exceeding the state average,
as measured by the SBAC.
In 6th grade we will exceed the state average by 15%. In 7th grade we will exceed the
state average by 16%. In 8th grade we will exceed the state average by 20%.
Reading
In 6th grade we will exceed the state average by 4%. In 7th grade we will exceed the
state average by 2%. In 8th grade we will exceed the state average by 3%.
ELL
Exceed the state average in reading by 10%, in math by 30%, in writing by 35%, in
science by 46%. Increase the number of ELL students meeting WELPA AMO targets
from 81% to 86%.
Special Ed
Exceed the state average in reading by 12%, math by 7%, in writing by 31%, and in
science by 30%.
H ow The Pieces Fit Together
What We Know
•
Current practices to maintain
and new practices to incorporate
•
Specific new demands of CCSS
•
•
Strengths and areas for growth of
our students and community
Year 1 will be imperfect at the
very least
What We Need
•
Recommended best
practices to support an
effective transition
•
Resources and expertise
to support the transition
•
Areas of focus and time
Integrating what we know works with needs of today’s world
PROFESSIONAL
LEARNING
Professional Learning: What works!
Our theory of action has been and w ill continue to revolve around the
belief that the quality of instruction, coupled w ith the relationship
betw een adults and students, is the key to student performance.

I ntentional data analysis, alignment of practices, standards
based planning and assessment, and progress monitoring.

Powerful teachers and powerful teaching.

Collaborative culture.

N imble systems of intervention.

Strong and enduring relationships.
M ercer Professional Learning
Our theory of action has been and w ill continue to revolve around the
belief that the quality of instruction, coupled w ith the relationship
betw een adults and students, is the key to student performance.

Staff PD : Common content

D epartment PLCs: Job embedded, calibrate standards (what),
share/learn methods (how), assess progress to the standards.

Grade Level PLCs: I n depth planning around content and methods,
assess student work and progress

Teacher mentorship and teacher leadership: Opportunities to learn
with colleagues and have support within discipline

Labsite/Classroom observations: Opportunities to visit teaching and
learning in action
TEACHER MENTORSHIP
AND NEW TEACHER
SUPPORT
2014-15
Professional Learning: What works!
Process: 20minutes
1. Form a group of 5.
2. Within group -count off 1, 2,
3, 4, 5.
3. Divide article into the 5 parts,
each person taking one part.
4. Read your section, noting 2-3
key pieces of information.
5. Be prepared to share with
your group.
Wisdom of geese
Essential Question:
What key learning strategies
work best for you?
MERCER INTERNATIONAL
TECHNOLOGY UNIVERSITY
2014-15
OVERVIEW
Integrate 21 st Century
Technology skills into the
classroom.
For example:








Typing skills
Microsoft Office skills
Photography
Video
iPad Apps
Annotating Documents
Fusion Pages (blogs, discussions, class documents)
Sharing
CCSS Transition Guide
7 Indicators of High Quality Transition:
1. Teams that include classroom teachers and administrators leading and accountable for common
understanding and implementation of CCSS.
2. Established common expectations for CCSS aligned instructional practice. Use of observational
tools to support and assess this practice in Math, ELA, Science, Social Studies, and Technical
subjects
3. On-going professional learning, including feedback and coaching systems, focused on deepening
knowledge of CCSS.
4. Use of data from CCSS aligned assessment system (classroom, interim, benchmark) that will inform
instruction and gauge effective implementation of CCSS.
5. Instructional resources
6. Family and community engagement in supporting the success of CCSS.
7. Decisions about staffing, time, and spending reflect a prioritization.
Moving Parts: Good chance it won’t be perfect out of the gate.
Aspen Institute