heading1_sa (currently arial 16 bold) - pearson...

Template IntroductionAttached is the SIM Secondary Stage 2 supplemental overview. This overview should not be submitted as a lone document. It should always accompany the three-stage template.

The overview is a word document so you can work in the document to include the customer’s name and your contact information. Any information that is highlighted needs your attention before you submit the proposal. Either fill in the information needed or delete the comment and text if you choose not to include the information in the proposal.

CustomizationIf you need to add/delete/change any of the information in the template for a more customized response, Iowa City Proposal Services can help you edit the template to meet your needs. Fill out the appropriate form on Salesforce.com or contact Mary Beth Rozmus, Proposal Manager, at [email protected], JoAnn Goerdt, Proposal Writer at [email protected], or Nicole Schrobilgen, Proposal Coordinator at [email protected].

vgoerjo, 02/27/86,

Delete before you submit with template

mailto:[email protected]



Schoolwide Improvement Model (SIM) Secondary, Stage 2

Schoolwide Improvement Model—Secondary—Stage 2 | 1

Table of Contents

Pearson’s Schoolwide Improvement Model (SIM)

What SIM Is Designed to Do....................................................................2

The Ingredients of Improvement: An Overview of SIM’s Components...................................................................................3

A Component-by-Component Walk Through of SIM.............................5

Getting to the Core of Things: Implementing SIM...............................24

Examining Efficacy: Evaluating SIM.....................................................31

SIM Scope of Work.................................................................................32

Attachment 1: Foundation SIM for Secondary School in Action: Stage Two Implementation Focus, Settings, and Supports................35

vgoerjo, 06/24/13,

PLEASE NOTE: Common Core State Standards (CSSS) are referenced in this proposal. Mentions of CCSS will need to be edited out if submitting to a customer in non-CCSS state. PLEASE DELETE THIS COMMENT BEFORE SUBMITTING TO THE CUSTOMER.


Pearson’s Schoolwide Improvement Model (SIM): An Innovative System of School Improvement Designed to Build Your School’s Capacity to Create its Future The Schoolwide Improvement Model (SIM) from Pearson is a school improvement model built on the foundations of the research-proven America’s Choice and Learning Teams school improvement models. SIM draws on the extensive experience gained implementing these models in more than 1,000 schools over the past twenty years and is purpose-built to be responsive to the current needs and circumstances of schools seeking to improve their performance.

What SIM Is Designed to Do

Prepare Your Students to be College and Career ReadySIM is focused on helping schools prepare all students for college and careers, taking its lead from the definition of college and career readiness that is articulated in the Common Core State Standards (CCSS) and the standards for college and career readiness established by specific states.

Help Your Students Achieve the Common Core State StandardsConsistent with the focus on college and career readiness, SIM is designed to help schools meet the demands of the CCSS. SIM has been crafted from the ground up to support CCSS implementation. It features a schoolwide instructional focus on critical aspects of college and career readiness. In addition, content area concentrations in English language arts (ELA) and mathematics provide scaffolding to help teachers align their instruction to the CCSS and assessments by attending to the “Instructional Shifts” as defined by Common Core in Literacy and Mathematics. Teachers also work with their own curriculum materials to achieve the curriculum and instructional alignment that is required for students to perform at high levels on the new assessments.

Provide High-Quality Instruction for All StudentsSIM focuses on high-quality instruction for all students by placing a primary emphasis on building the quality of the core instructional program—Tier 1 as defined in Response to Intervention (RtI). At the foundation of RtI is the concept that the instructional needs of the vast majority of students should be accommodated within the core instructional program. If we take seriously the idea of high standards for all students, then we need to focus on how to organize instruction and learning within the core instructional program to meet that expectation. When the quality of “first” instruction is maximized, the number of students requiring supplementary support through Tier 2 and Tier 3 interventions is likely to be reduced as more students’ learning needs are met within the regular classroom. In this way, Tier 2 and Tier 3 interventions can be reserved for students whose needs cannot be met within the regular classroom and targeted specifically to these students’ needs.

Reach Every Student, Every Subject, Every DayComprehensive and sustainable school improvement requires more than a focus on English language arts and mathematics. Essential as these core subjects are, they occupy only a portion of each student’s


day at school and involve only a fraction of the teaching faculty. Schoolwide improvement requires a schoolwide approach: One that impacts—every day—teaching and learning for all students across all content areas (both core and elective) and leads to change in the systems that organize and link programs and practices throughout the school. SIM is designed to achieve schoolwide, high-quality instruction for all students in your school.

The Ingredients of Improvement: An Overview of SIM’s ComponentsSIM has five components, each contributing to comprehensive, schoolwide improvement.

Standards-Aligned Curriculum, Instruction, and AssessmentStandards-based learning and the alignment of curriculum, instruction, and assessment to standards forms the foundation of SIM. The model builds a collective commitment to systemic improvement to provide high-quality instruction for all students by combining content area concentrations in math and ELA with a schoolwide focus on instructional practices that support students’ development of college and career readiness. SIM Stage 2 deepens the focus on the aligned instructional system by explicitly connecting the spirit of the standards to the instructional shifts and leads the school through the assessment analysis cycle to monitor and determine student progress.

High-Performance Leadership, Management, and OrganizationSIM Stage 2 trains leadership teams to support school improvement efforts at every level by:

Empowering staff through distributed leadership

Balancing support and pressure to help teachers transform their practices

Focusing the school on organization-wide activities proven to positively impact student success

Develop & nurture collaboration, using a systems approach to engage the entire school in shared responsibility & shared learning

Provide anchor for development of a data-driven culture and nurture use of data among Workgroups

High Achievement and EngagementSIM complements the focus on standards-aligned instruction with strategies to build a school- and community-wide commitment to high expectations for student achievement. Broad support for students’ commitment to their academic success coupled with standards-aligned instruction connects students’ engagement in learning with their social and emotional development. It also generates an environment that fosters timely interventions for students at risk.

Data-Driven CultureSIM Stage 2 supports the emergence of a data-driven school culture by expanding the work of the school leadership team by weaving the process of developing a data-driven culture into the collaborative planning process with classroom teachers. This focus on building habits of appropriate and effective use of data to guide decisions extends over time to an ever increasing number of teachers and school staff, thereby impacting and improving all aspects of school policy and practice.


Sustainability for Continuing ImprovementCapacity building for continuing improvement is a primary focus of SIM’s design. Our proprietary, validated technical support system promotes continuous improvement via distributed leadership and collaboration, as well as through professional development, coaching, and technical support. The technical support system incorporates structures and processes for monitoring, adjusting, and sustaining implementation over time to ensure school-level capacity building and a gradual transfer of responsibility from Pearson staff to school staff that enables the school to take the driver’s seat in its improvement process.

The wheel below depicts the relationships among SIM’s five components: (1) Standards-Aligned Curriculum, Instruction, and Assessment; (2) High-Performance Leadership, Management, and Organization; (3) High Achievement and Engagement; (4) Data-Driven Culture; and (5) Sustainability for Continuing Improvement.

Helping Students Succeed. The five components of the SIM model interact to promote academic success and to prepare students for college and careers.

Three concentric circles surround SIM’s “hub” of College and Career Ready Students. In the middle circle, Standards-Aligned Curriculum, Instruction and Assessment (also referred to as Standards-Aligned Instruction) and High-Performance Leadership, Management, and Organization (also referred to as Leadership) are locked together to show their tight connection. The primary role of Leadership is to provide the guidance and support needed to achieve Standards-Aligned Instruction.


The component of High Achievement and Engagement overlaps with both Standards-Aligned Instruction and Leadership to underscore the role of the latter two components in building community belief in the importance of establishing high expectations for all students. The overlap also emphasizes the critical connections between students’ in-class and out-of-class life and experiences in shaping their engagement in learning, their belief in their capacity to keep learning, and their commitment to college and careers.

The fourth component, Data-Driven Culture, also overlaps with both Standards-Aligned Instruction and Leadership. A “data-driven culture” means a culture in which data collection and analysis—and the use of this information to inform decisions about all aspects of school operations and activity—is both systematic and customary. Systematic data use and analysis cannot become “the way we do things around here” without Standards-Aligned Instruction to provide the underpinning and High Performance Leadership to show the way.

Sustainability for Continuing Improvement is about the “how” of SIM rather than the “what.” This fifth component encompasses the other four and describes how the tasks of the other components are achieved. It reflects the ultimate aim of building capacity to sustain schoolwide improvement beyond the formal period of SIM implementation and reach the point of self-directed, self-managed improvement.

A Component-by-Component Review of SIM

All About Teaching: The Standards-Aligned Curriculum, Instruction, and Assessment Component of SIM Features a Schoolwide Instructional Focus and Content-Area ConcentrationsSIM’s first component Standards-Aligned Curriculum, Instruction, and Assessment has two sub-components:

Schoolwide Instructional Focus (or SIF)

Content-Area Concentrations

The Content-Area Concentrations, in turn, have two areas of focus:

English language arts (ELA)

Mathematics

SIM’s Schoolwide Instructional Focus Homes in on Academic Language and College and Career Readiness CompetenciesSIF is the approach that guides school faculty through a process of weaving vital aspects of college and career readiness into their instruction. SIF has two primary foci:

Academic Language

College and Career Readiness Competencies

SIF helps create a shared approach across content areas and grade levels with practical strategies for helping all students achieve college and career readiness. In this way, the school can support students’ progress toward college and career readiness every day, throughout the day, and across the span of their school experience.


The approach is designed to preserve and enhance the unique characteristics of teaching and learning in each content area while also building shared supports for students’ growth and schoolwide expectations for students’ performance. Job-embedded professional development helps each department infuse SIF into its content area thereby supporting all students’ progress toward college and career readiness.

Why SIF Targets Academic LanguageAcademic Language is the formal discourse, both written and oral, that is used in schools, colleges, and work settings. It is the vehicle used in these contexts to convey complex information (as well as analyze it), express ideas, present arguments, propose solutions, and defend points of view. It differs from conversational language in terms of informational density, grammatical complexity, and use of technical and abstract vocabulary.

Academic Language does not come naturally. It must be learned. Students with a strong foundation of literacy can make the transition relatively easily, but they are still likely to need explicit instructional support to become competent users of Academic Language. Students entering middle and high school with a limited foundation of literacy struggle with Academic Language and require consistent and explicit instructional supports if they are to gain access. English language learners require carefully scaffolded instructional support to meet the challenge of learning Academic Language.

In order to deepen the focus on Academic Language, SIF (Stage 2) embraces the Instructional Shifts of Common Core that call for reading and writing grounded in evidence from text and regular practice with complex text and its academic vocabulary. SIF builds on the initial focus of close reading by addressing strategies that build and activate prior knowledge in order to deepen comprehension of complex text. In addition, reading and writing strategies are introduced that teach targeted skills through contextualized and explicit instruction.

Why SIF Targets College and Career Readiness CompetenciesCollege and Career Readiness Competencies strengthen students’ capacity for self-directed, independent learning. They align with the concept of building executive functions and higher-order thinking. These are the competencies that allow people to be self-managing and tackle complex tasks, alone or in collaboration with others, without the need for constant direction. Examples include planning and organizing, prioritizing, collaborating, and seeking feedback.

Each Stage, SIF focuses on selected strategies that have wide applicability across the curriculum for developing Academic Language and College and Career Readiness Competencies. These strategies are the focus of schoolwide professional development. Continuing teacher collaboration supports their use across the school.

SIF Responds to the Diverse Needs of LearnersSIF embraces the needs of all students striving to achieve college and career readiness. By scaffolding access to Academic Language and College and Career Readiness Competencies, the approach pays specific attention to the diverse needs of learners. In particular, SIF focuses on the needs of:

English language learners (ELLs)

Students with disabilities


The SIF strategies embed scaffolds to support access for ELLs and students with disabilities. These are highlighted in the schoolwide professional development and continuing collaboration helps teachers practice incorporating the scaffolds into their instruction.

Scaffolds to support ELLs are built on the following five research-based practices for language learning (also referred to as the Essential Practices for Language Learning):

Five Essential Practices for Language Learning1. Develop oral language through meaningful conversation and context.

2. Teach targeted skills through contextualized and explicit instruction.

3. Build vocabulary through authentic and meaningful experiences with words.

4. Build and activate background knowledge.

5. Teach and use meaning-making strategies.

These practices provide critically important lifelines for ELLs, helping them gain access to content as they acquire English language proficiency. They also have value for students in general, because they serve to further clarify and/or reinforce concepts. Thus, these five intentional supports for academic language development enhance instruction across the curriculum for all students.

SIF Stage 1 focused deeply on developing oral language through meaningful conversation and context. Also, SIF Stage 1 focused on building vocabulary through authentic and meaningful experience with words. In addition to building on the previous learning, SIF Stage 2 will focus on building and activating background knowledge and teaching targeted skills through contextualized and explicit instruction.

The scaffolds that support access to learning for students with disabilities are based on the principles of Universal Design for Learning. These principles, listed below, have value for all students, but provide vital supports for students with disabilities.

UDL Principles Scaffolding Access to Learning for All StudentsI. Provide multiple means of representation: Provide options for perception Provide options for language, mathematical expressions, and symbols Provide options for comprehension

II. Provide multiple means of action and expression: Provide options for physical action Provide options for expression and communication Provide options for executive functions

III. Provide multiple means of engagement: Provide options for recruiting interest Provide options for sustaining effort and persistence Provide options for self-regulation

Each Stage, SIF focuses on selected strategies that have wide applicability across the curriculum that address the principles that scaffold access to learning for all students as defined by the Universal Design


for Learning. These strategies are the focus of schoolwide professional development. Continuing teacher collaboration supports their use across the school.

SIF’s Foundation of Instructional Supports (Learning Routines and Rituals and Effective Instructional Practices) is the Cornerstone of Improved Performance in the Classroom SIF’s foundation of instructional supports for helping all students learn Academic Language and develop College and Career Readiness Competencies includes the building of learning routines and rituals and the development of effective instructional practices.

Learning Routines and Rituals refer to how learning time is organized and how learning is conducted in the school. The idea of “rituals” applies especially to the roles and responsibilities of teachers and students working as a learning community. Consistent and effective Learning Routines and Rituals help establish and maintain a safe and orderly learning environment. Their benefits, however, extend well beyond classroom management.

They contribute to a strong learning-focused school culture that is evidenced by the following features:

Effective use of time during the school day to maximize students’ time for learning

Classes conducted as robust learning communities that build students’ capacity for independent learning and simultaneously allow teachers to provide differentiated instruction for students, based on need, as a regular part of daily instruction

Building on Stage 1, SIF Stage 2 will focus on establishing routines and rituals that provide differentiated instruction for students, based on need, as a regular part of daily instruction. Furthermore, teachers will begin to focus on deepening students’ capacity as independent learners by creating opportunities for students to self-assess and monitor their own progress.

Effective Instructional Practices refer to a concise set of instructional practices that correspond to current understanding of how people learn. Effective Instructional Practices have application to learning at all grade levels and across all content areas. Articulated at the lesson level, they help emphasize the importance of lesson planning and review in the context of both unit and course planning. In addition, analyzing instructional artifacts including student work is emphasized in order to focus on differentiating instruction. Effective Instructional Practices also provide a common language to support communication about effective instruction across grade levels and content areas without compromising the important differences between them.

SIF Strategies Reinforce and Build on Each Other Over the Course of Implementation to Create a Robust Instructional CultureFor each stage of implementation, SIF targets defined areas that foster the development of Academic Language and College and Career Readiness Competencies. These are combined with complementary areas of focus that specifically support access to learning for ELLs and students with disabilities, as well as enhance the foundational instructional supports of Learning Routines and Rituals and Effective Instructional Practices. SIF goals are schoolwide scaffolds to move systematically through the instructional shifts of CCSS, create a mental model for CCR and how this aspiration can be supported academically, behaviorally, and socially, and allow the entire school to incorporate strategies that will ultimately impact student outcomes. Over the course of a three-stage implementation, the school’s work


builds cumulatively to create a robust, schoolwide instructional culture focused on college and career readiness.

The focus for Stage One implementation was “Talking to Learn.” This included strategies for developing students’ capacity to reason and justify using the language of the content areas they study, to collaborate effectively on learning tasks, and to work productively without needing constant direction from the teacher. This focus includes scaffolds for ELLs’ vocabulary and oral language development and scaffolds that apply Universal Design for Learning principles to support access for all students to using language to learn.

In Stage Two, SIF focuses on “Reading and Writing to Learn” with a complementary focus on students’ planning and organizing their work and taking responsibility for self assessment and revision to improve their work products. Connected with this focus are scaffolds for building and activating students’ background knowledge and using contextualized and explicit instruction to help ELL students access academic language. Similarly, teachers are supported to apply Universal Design for Learning principles in order to support all students’ access to learning.The focus on “Reading and Writing to Learn” attends to the practices articulated in the College and Career Readiness Standards that underpin the CCSS, especially close reading strategies and supporting written arguments with evidence. Related to academic oral language that are established in the first, we establish a limited set of goals, and guide each department in contributing to the achievement of these goals schoolwide. Academic reading and writing take on different characteristics in different content areas. This focus applies to all content areas. For example, the CCSSMP require students to construct viable arguments and express reasoning through classroom discussion and written work. By addressing reading and writing academic language, math teachers build students’ capacity for communicating mathematical reasoning. We guide the subject departments to articulate those different characteristics and have them reflected in students’ learning while also emphasizing the shared foundations of academic reading and writing that support students’ development of college and career readiness.

“Learning through Research” is the focus of Stage Three. Research and the use of evidence to build and support claims and arguments are central to college and career readiness. This focus helps schools build research into learning across the curriculum. It incorporates strategies for building students’ capacity to determine priorities, reflect on their work practices, and set goals for learning. Supporting this focus are scaffolds to support students’ meaning making strategies and consideration of multiple means of engagement that provide access to learning for all students.

How Teachers Work With SIF At the beginning of each stage of SIM implementation, all teachers participate in professional development focused on SIF. This professional development brings to life a select number of goals for implementation schoolwide. It emphasizes the importance for students of achieving a common approach but also invites teachers in each content area to shape an approach that is consistent with learning in that content area.

During the professional development activities, teachers work in their department groups to promote “job-alike” thinking and deliberation. These groups, known as “Workgroups” continue throughout the, meeting on a regular basis to continue the work initiated through the professional development. The Workgroups provide a setting for teachers to plan and discuss ways of incorporating SIF strategies into their lessons,


such as using sentence frames to help students learn the process and expression of logical reasoning and justification. At subsequent Workgroup meetings, teachers share student work arising from their lessons, reflect on their experience, and plan anew. Over the course of the year, the Workgroups enable teachers to collaborate on developing and refining applications of the SIF strategies that fit comfortably with their content area and contribute to a schoolwide approach to building college and career readiness.

SIM’s Content-Area Concentrations Complement the Schoolwide Instructional Focus and move Your School toward Achieving the CCSS in ELA and Math The Content-Area Concentrations within the SIM component of Standards-Aligned Instruction are ELA and mathematics. In addition to and in conjunction with SIF, the focus on these core content areas provides support for achieving strong alignment of curriculum and instruction with the CCSS and related assessments. Not only do the Content-Area Concentrations promote high-quality instruction for all students in these two critical content areas themselves, the focus on ELA and math provides models of aligned practice that can inform instructional improvement in the other content areas.

SIM’s ELA Content-Area Concentration Provides Teachers Hands-On Experience with Standards-Aligned Curriculum, Instruction, and Assessments and Enables Students to Achieve the CCSS in LiteracyThe Content-Area Concentration in ELA is provided in addition to SIF to assist ELA teachers in strengthening the academic reading and writing skills of their students, consistent with the requirements of the CCSS. Teachers work initially with Foundation Units that model strong alignment of curriculum and instruction with the CCSS. These units also embed instructional strategies reflecting the SIF to develop students’ facility with Academic Language and their College and Career Readiness Competencies.

The Foundation Units provide hands-on experience with standards-aligned instruction and curriculum. They also serve as models that teachers can analyze and use as foundations for creating instructional units that employ the school’s own curriculum materials to align instruction with the demands of the CCSS. As implementation proceeds, this process incorporates yearlong and vertical curriculum planning to achieve effective alignment of curriculum and instruction with the CCSS and its related assessments.

For ELA, the models of aligned curriculum and instruction reflect a workshop approach that blends instruction in both reading and writing. The approach provides a balance of whole group, small group, and individual instruction, and scaffolds the development of students’ academic behaviors to allow them to act as independent and responsible learners. The Foundation Units and related professional development guide teachers in establishing Learning Routines and Rituals, as well as Effective Instructional Practices.The ELA instructional models and supports immerse students in close reading and analysis of examples of critical genres such as expository, essay, and argument so that they can research, organize, and draft their own versions of each genre. The instructional models offer teachers strategies for guiding students’ study of organizing patterns (such as chronology, general/specific, comparison, and cause and effect) in the texts that the students read and the texts that they write. They also provide guidance for explicit instruction in the tools of writing (such as cohesion, style, and grammar) that make writing effective. Focused attention is given to academic vocabulary and sophisticated syntax to elevate students’ written language.

Alignment with the CCSS reading standards requires attention to text complexity. Accordingly, teachers focus on compatible close reading strategies to improve comprehension, especially the comprehension of


complex informational and literary texts. Model lessons illustrate how to teach students to do the following:

Make ideas in different parts of a text cohere

Gather evidence to support an explanation, summary, claim, or comparison

Use visual representations and graphic organizers to enhance comprehension

Demonstrate understanding gained from close, analytic reading and write about it coherently

Analyze, integrate, and present supporting evidence in writing

Emphasis is also placed on facilitating academic classroom discussions to enhance text comprehension.

For ELLs, the focused attention to language development and academic vocabulary is especially beneficial, as is the in-depth focus on the essential features of writing genres and text structures. The explicit use of instructional scaffolds such as graphic organizers, collaborative discourse, and small group and partner work, as well as the intentional use of metacognitive strategies, particularly support students with special needs.

The alignment of instruction to standards and assessments is further supported by a series of performance tasks. For each grade level, the Performance Assessments—consistent with the progressively more rigorous demands of the CCSS—ask students to read closely and respond to increasingly complex and demanding material. Rubrics and samples of student work reflecting a range of performance levels relative to the CCSS accompany the Performance Assessments. In addition to helping teachers and students grasp the demands of increasing text complexity, these Performance Assessments provide a range of scaffolding to support students’ making responses. The Performance Assessments are not tied to a specific instructional unit. Rather, they provide models of tasks students might encounter in assessments of their achievement of the CCSS.

As with the Foundation Units, the Performance Assessments serve a range of purposes that support alignment of curriculum and instruction to the CCSS and related assessments. Teachers can work with students to complete them and examine their students’ performances relative to the benchmarked examples. The Performance Assessments also provide models of scaffolding that teachers can apply in their own instruction.


SIM’s Math Content-Area Concentration Provides Teachers Hands-On Experience with Standards-Aligned Curriculum, Instruction, and Assessments and Enables Students to Achieve the CCSS in MathematicsThe Content-Area Concentration in Math is provided in addition to SIF to assist math teachers to align their curriculum and instruction with the requirements of the CCSS and related assessments. Key to this process is the development of an instructional environment that fosters effective learning of math. Accordingly, SIM’s Content-Area Concentration in Math includes strategies for:

Establishing a climate of disciplined inquiry that brings to life the Standards for Mathematical Practice included in the CCSS

Providing differentiated instruction by way of analyzing instructional artifacts, including student work to make instructional decisions

Focusing the instructional shifts, which emphasize the importance of building solid conceptual understanding, fluency, and application of mathematics in context.

Grade-appropriate, short instructional units called Foundation Intros support the process of creating the right environment for learning math through the introduction of a workshop approach to classroom instruction that balances whole class, small group and individual instruction, as well as independent work.

The math workshop is framed by routines and rituals that are consistent with those used in other content areas. It is, however, specifically designed to establish environments effective for learning math. Building a common approach to instruction on the part of the math department at the secondary level allows teachers to develop independent learners and thinkers among their students in a structured and coherent way.

The Foundation Intros also embed instructional strategies reflecting the SIF to develop students’ facility with Academic Language and their College and Career Readiness Competencies. As they teach the Foundation Intro relevant to their grade, teachers gain hands-on experience in these instructional practices so that they can incorporate them into their continuing instruction. With this solid foundation “under their belts,” they can move on to incorporate additional practices relevant to building students’ Academic Language and College and Career Readiness Competencies.

Alignment with the CCSS math standards requires meticulous attention to the sequencing of math concepts and content in the CCSS, as well as attention to the associated changes in content emphasis. SIM’s Math Content-Area of Concentration focuses on building teachers’ understanding of how the sequencing of concepts and content in the CCSS lays a pathway to students’ achievement in advanced mathematics.

The process of aligning the school’s math curriculum with the CCSS is further supported by grade-specific Foundation Units. The Foundation Units focus on critical concepts, especially concepts that are typically challenging for students to learn. They also serve as models of standards-aligned curriculum and instruction that teachers can analyze and use as foundations for creating instructional units that employ the school’s own curriculum materials to align instruction with the demands of the CCSS. As implementation proceeds, this process incorporates yearlong and vertical curriculum planning to achieve effective alignment of curriculum and instruction with the CCSS and its related assessments.


Each Foundation Unit includes a series of formative assessment tasks. These tasks model the kinds of tasks that students might be expected to tackle and complete in order to demonstrate competence at a given level within the framework of the CCSS. Each series of tasks also models scaffolding of students’ performance. The scaffolding ranges from a high level to guide performance, to a reduced level, all the way through to completely unscaffolded Performance Tasks.

How Teachers Work in the Content-Area ConcentrationsThe SIF professional development lays a foundation for English and Math teachers on which they build their Content-Area Concentrations with the support of additional focused professional development. Like teachers in the other subject departments, English and Math form Workgroups. These provide the vehicle for teachers to collaborate on using the Foundation Units to help incorporate SIF strategies into their practice and work towards alignment of their curriculum and instruction to the CCSS and related assessments.

All About Leadership: The High-Performance Leadership, Management, and Organization Component of SIM Drives Implementation and Change While the Standards-Aligned Instruction component of SIM provides the focus for much of its content, SIM’s Leadership component serves as the engine that drives the implementation process and monitors progress towards improved student achievement. The school’s “Leadership Team,” in turn, serves as the Leadership component’s ignition and navigator. The Leadership Team for SIM implementation should be the key leadership team in the school.1

Research strongly supports the concept of distributed leadership as a critical support for school improvement. Schools in which the principal distributes roles and responsibilities for making decisions and accomplishing tasks are more successful at transforming themselves. The practice of distributed leadership is characterized by interconnectedness. In other words, the results of decisions and practices made in the context of distributed leadership impact everyone involved in those decisions and practices. Because distributed leadership involves more people in the process of change, resistance decreases and buy-in increases. Its success depends upon individual members of the Leadership Team accepting responsibility to communicate, share information, participate, follow through on tasks, and do their jobs.

Schools with well-functioning distributed leadership are characterized by:

More staff members communicating with one another about teaching and learning

More colleagues discussing and implementing strategies to improve student performance

The school’s fully employing the professional expertise of staff, especially subject-area expertise, to move forward

Principals benefit from distributing responsibilities, because it leaves them with more time to focus on instructional leadership. An additional benefit of the strategy is that it builds capacity across the school as a whole and contributes to the preparation of future school leaders.

1 We use the term “Leadership Team” throughout descriptions of SIM, but understand that the title of this group of school leaders may differ from school to school to accommodate existing naming conventions. Because the SIM Leadership Team should serve as the key leadership team in the school, SIM’s implementation may result in some role adjustments of decision-making groups.


Led by the school principal, the Leadership Team includes the principal, assistant principal(s), and key stakeholders. For SIM implementation, these key stakeholders include department heads (who will usually also serve as workgroup facilitators)2 and designated leaders for functions related to student services and community engagement. The members of the Leadership Team share in the responsibilities of problem solving, decision making, and communicating a unified and clear message to the school community.

The Leadership Team has five key roles:

Establish and maintain the vision of improvement for the school

Drive and manage the implementation process

Provide the organization needed to support SIM implementation

Monitor the progress and quality of implementation, and redirect the work of school improvement as needed to maintain progress towards improved student achievement

Develop and nurture collaboration by using a systems approach to change that actively engages the entire school in shared responsibility and shared learning

Each of these roles is developed through professional development and systematic technical support provided by Pearson Education Specialists throughout implementation on a systematic basis to create an ongoing loop of information and response to information that fosters a continuous cycle of improvement. This support is an integral part of the SIM Technical Support System, which is designed to guide implementation and build the school’s capacity to sustain its process of improvement. With its crucial role as driver of implementation, the Leadership Team is a primary focus for the SIM Technical Support System3.

2 Workgroup Facilitators have an integral role in the work of the Leadership Team to assure strong linkages among implementation settings. Accordingly, in cases where the department head does not also serve the role of Workgroup Facilitator, the teacher who does take that role will be an additional member of the Leadership Team.3 The SIM Technical Support System is discussed in greater detail in the Implementing SIM section below.


Leadership Team Meeting Rotation

Aug. Sept. Oct. Nov. Dec. Jan. Feb. March April May

Initial ImplementationMeeting (Explore PM tools)

DDC Module DDC Module

Prog

ress

Mon

itorin

g(U

se te

ache

r com

pass

rubr

ic d

ata

and

poss

ible

ben

chm

ark/

com

mon

as

sess

men

t dat

a)

Implementation Perception Survey

DDC (work meeting)

{Goal setting, testing targets, benchmarking}

Prog

ress

Mon

itorin

g(U

se te

ache

r com

pass

rubr

ic d

ata

and

poss

ible

ben

chm

ark/

com

mon

as

sess

men

t dat

a)

DDC Module

End

Of Y

ear R

evie

w(Im

plem

enta

tion

perc

eptio

n su

rvey

, agg

rega

te re

ports

from

PM

tool

s)

**Set up Focus Walk guidelines**

ImplementationMeeting{Engagement Launch/Data}

DDC (work meeting)

{Goal setting, testing targets, benchmarking}

Implementation Meeting{Status meeting}

DDC Module

Guided Practice

Focus Walk (Teacher Compass)

**Gather baseline data for entire school

Guided Practice


Guided Practice


Guided Practice


Guided Practice


Guided Practice


Guided Practice


All About the Data: The Data-Driven Culture Component of SIM Makes Data Use “The Way We Do Things” at Your SchoolResearch provides substantial evidence of the importance of an effective data-driven culture as a necessary driver of a high-performing school. Having a data-driven culture means that systematic use of data is embedded into the daily functioning of the school. Data use stops being a separate, isolated activity and is, instead, incorporated into meetings, curriculum planning, professional development, and, most importantly, into daily teaching and learning as a matter of course. The school understands that quality data are an integral part of teaching and learning and emphasizes collaborative use of data as a keystone for success. There is an atmosphere of openness, where all are viewed as learners and are open to examining their practice in order to build on strengths and make needed improvements. There is an institutional willingness to use data systematically to reveal important patterns and answer questions about policy, methods, and outcomes.

Attributes of a strong data-driven culture include the following:

Vision: A clearly articulated vision for data use and belief about the value of data in improving teaching and learning

Commitment: Commitment from all staff to use data to guide ongoing instructional and programmatic improvements

Modeling: Modeling of use of data by school leaders


Conditions: Protected time collaboration and regular professional development to improve data literacy among staff

Focus: Focus on data quality, security, utility, and timeliness

Beginning with an initial focus on the Leadership Team as the vital setting for establishment of cultural norms for the school, this component of SIM sows and grows the elements necessary for the creation of a Data-Driven Culture. The strategy entails the following:

Building an understanding of the role and value of a data-driven approach to progress monitoring and instructional problem solving


Building the Leadership Team’s capacity to oversee, monitor, evaluate, and support school improvement through SIM implementation

Improving the Leadership Team’s ability to use data from multiple sources to identify and think critically about SIM implementation

Activities designed to develop the capacity of the Leadership Team to systematize the processes of connecting performance and instruction scaffold the Leadership Team’s learning about data use. These activities are conducted in a series that is repeated throughout the year. Each series of activity starts with a knowledge-sharing professional development module. These modules include the content, information, techniques, and protocols for effectively using data. The topics developed in these modules reflect the building blocks of an effective Data-Driven Culture. The modules are:

The Language of Assessment and Data

Investigating Data

Analyzing Student Work

Triangulating and Reframing

Describing Current Practice

Identifying Strategies to Address Problems of Practice

Measuring and Improving

Each of these knowledge-building modules connects to a cycle of guided practice and application by the Leadership Team. These cycles of knowledge-building, guided practice, and application are connected together in a recursive cycle that lays the foundation of a schoolwide data culture. (See Table 1)

As implementation deepens, the focus of building a Data-Driven Culture widens to include the practices of subject departments and other functional areas of the school, including discipline, safety, and student services. From these settings, the process of connecting performance and instruction progressively becomes embedded in the daily functioning of the school.

In addition to its work with the data knowledge modules, the Leadership Team meets quarterly for Progress Monitoring Meetings. These meetings occur regularly throughout implementation and use information from systematically and continually employed progress monitoring tools and techniques (the


SIM Progress Monitoring System) to improve implementation. Multiple data sources help the Leadership Team investigate, track, and address critical areas of SIM implementation throughout the year. These activities, in turn, foster growth of the school’s Data-Driven Culture.

All About Being There for the Students: The High Achievement and Engagement Component of SIM Invites Broad Community Support and Builds Students’ Belief in Their Ability to AchieveLike Data-Driven Culture, the High Achievement and Engagement component overlaps with both the Standards-Aligned Instruction and the Leadership components of SIM. The High Achievement and Engagement component draws together the complex web of connections between students’ engagement in and commitment to learning and their circumstances and experience outside the classroom environment, including the messages they absorb about the importance of doing well in school and their capacity to do so.

On the one hand, High Achievement and Expectations concerns macro-level school policies and programs that connect the school with its larger community. On the other hand, this component revolves around the most individual of issues, personalization. That is, the question of how students develop confidence in themselves as learners so they can create ambitions and cultivate hope and promise for their futures. Integrating the macro with the micro requires close linkages between work on this component and the work of the school’s Leadership Team and between this component and the work of teachers and students on Standards-Aligned Instruction.

Work on High Achievement and Engagement centers on the following three areas:

Connecting a classroom culture of engagement to a school culture of high expectations and support for achievement

Instituting a Graduation Risk Insight (GRI) system connected to supports for students’ social and emotional development

Engaging the community in supporting high expectations

Expanding Classroom Engagement to a Schoolwide Culture of High ExpectationsConnecting the work on building a classroom culture of engagement to a school culture of high expectations takes into account students’ sense of belonging to the school, their connections to teachers and other adults, their friendships with peers, their sense that they are known both as learners and as people, and their belief in their ability to succeed academically. This is an important aspect of the work of the Engagement Workgroup, whose members are the staff who provide student services: the dean(s), counselor(s), social worker(s), psychologist(s), and the community outreach coordinator, if the school has one. It might also include the attendance secretary and security staff. The specific membership will vary from school to school. But the intention is to include the staff whose roles impact students’ experience of school outside of classrooms and whose roles involve contact with community groups and agencies. Membership should also include the principal and/or an assistant principal who has responsibility for the functions and student services reflected in the membership of the workgroup.

The Engagement Workgroup participates in professional development on student engagement, including what research indicates about the importance of relationships, connections, and supports in sustaining


students’ commitment to school. From this foundation, the Engagement Workgroup embarks on a collaborative process of investigation of the school’s policies and practices and how these align with the goal of sustaining students’ commitment to school. This may lead to consideration of policies and practices across many aspects of school operations, from procedures for entering the school building to management of the hallways and lunchroom, to policies for handling tardiness, absences, and discipline referrals.

The Engagement Workgroup’s collaborative investigative process mirrors the cyclic approach of the Leadership Team and Department Workgroups. The Engagement Workgroup shares its progress and findings with the Leadership Team on a regular basis. The Leadership Team also provides the setting for drawing connections between the Department Workgroups’ efforts to support students’ classroom engagement and the Engagement Workgroup’s focus on students’ commitment to school overall.

SIM’s Graduation Risk Insight System and Social and Emotional SupportsSIM includes a program for monitoring students’ progress in relation to motivation, engagement, and capacity to manage themselves as learners, the Graduation Risk Insight (GRI) system. Our software aggregates the most relevant and predictive data points from your school’s student information system to identify the students mostly likely to drop out. By pulling together readily available data contained on the school’s student information system (including, but not limited to, a student's grade point average, discipline history, attendance, and grade level), the program provides a Graduation Risk Value (GRV) for teachers and counselors that helps them determine where to spend their time most effectively to prevent students from leaving school without a diploma. Reports generated by the GRI are an important source of information for the Engagement Workgroup, since the system’s data points link directly to factors impacting student engagement.

Coupled with the GRI is a process to guide the school in the establishment of an effective system of interventions for students at risk. This includes a process for identifying supplementary social and emotional supports for students who need them. Strategies include the assignment of mentors and a planning process for providing the assistance students need to address issues they struggle with and their barriers to engagement in school. The intervention protocol also focuses attention on addressing the needs of students with multiple risk factors for dropping out of school. Ensuring these students have the intensive support they need to get back on track often involves coordinating community agencies as well as school and district resources.

The intervention protocol serves as a guide for the school’s audit of existing supports and identification of supplementary supports required to meet students’ needs. It also focuses attention on building a systematic approach to provision of social and emotional supports, one that limits the risk of overlooking some students, seeks to provide support in a timely way, and can survive changes in key personnel and funding programs.

As implementation proceeds and a systemic approach is established, the GRI reports provide measures of the system’s effectiveness as well as identifying individual students at risk for dropping out of school.


Bringing the Community Along on the Journey to a Culture of High ExpectationsA school must broadcast its mission of college and career readiness clearly and repeatedly to the community. Its communication strategy should be designed to help parents and the wider community understand the critical importance of this mission for each student and for the wellbeing of the community as a whole. Persuasive, effective conveyance of this message can enlist a wide spectrum of community organizations in support of the mission. This aspect of the High Achievement and Engagement component rests with the school’s leadership. But the Engagement Workgroup also has a role to play, especially in helping to building partnerships with agencies that can provide supports for students’ continuing engagement in their education.

Partnering with community organizations can take the form of contractual engagements or more informal relationships. Partners can range from businesses to cultural and religious groups to organizations providing social services to sports associations. Collaborations with community organizations can help identify practical ways of connecting with adults in their role as parents by reaching out to them in settings they frequent, rather than asking them to make special trips to the school.

Among the important areas of need for parent and community engagement at the secondary level is support for students’ career exploration and future goal setting. Adult mentors in the community can provide supplementary support to students identified as needing assistance in developing appropriate career readiness behaviors that relate to motivation and self-regulation. These adult mentors can also help students to identify and set their sights on future goals.

As implementation proceeds, the Engagement Workgroup explores these and other ways of forging bonds between the school and its community in jointly supporting the goals of high achievement and student engagement.

All About Your Future: The Sustainability for Continuing Improvement Component of SIM Envisions a Future Where Your School Continues on the Road to Achievement Independent of PearsonSustainability for Continuing Improvement focuses on the “how” of SIM. From the outset, SIM puts the school in the driver’s seat of its own evolution. How does SIM do it? It incorporates structures and processes for sustaining, monitoring and adjusting implementation over time to ensure school-level capacity building and a gradual transfer of responsibility from Pearson staff to school staff.

SIM provides a framework for improvement through which a school builds capacity gradually in an organic and sustainable way:

SIM starts with a College and Career Readiness-focused approach to CCSS-aligned instruction, curriculum and assessment, and engagement

It fortifies this foundation with a schoolwide approach to schoolwide improvement designed to touch every student in the school, as well as the systems that link and organize the school’s programs and practices


SIM then overlays this framework with distributed leadership and collaborative practices developed from Learning Teams that foster trust and shared responsibility, thereby creating stable settings (called “Workgroups” and discussed in greater detail in the “Implementing SIM” section below) in which the important work of school improvement can get done

Stable settings give rise to systems, which have a longer life than the individuals who created them. Systems make it possible for practices to be shared across the school community, and for the school community to become less dependent on the knowledge and commitment of specific individuals. Systems help to sustain a program or practice after the people who initiated it have moved on to other roles.

The operation of the SIM Technical Support System reinforces and promotes change by creating an infinite loop of implementation data gathering and adjustment that keeps implementation on track and is designed to support development of the school’s capacity to monitor and direct its improvement process. (See Objectives of SIM’s Progress Monitoring System)

Each of the above aspects of SIM has sub-aspects and/or areas of overlap with other features of the model’s design. For example, the focus on standards-aligned instruction includes responding to the diverse needs of ELLs and students with special needs. The schoolwide approach to school improvement not only contemplates content area instruction, it highlights the need for an early warning system, such as our GRI system, to effectively intervene and prevent students from leaving school without a diploma.

The impact of systems on school culture can be as personal as a teacher’s taking standards-aligned instructional practices learned through her Department Workgroup and using them as a foundation for creating instructional units that employ the school’s own curriculum materials to align instruction to the CCSS; thereby supporting her students’ College and Career Readiness. Or, it can be as far-reaching as the cycle of data knowledge development, guided practice and implementation monitoring which touches nearly every aspect of school organization, as depicted in the following chart.


Effective distributed leadership and collaborative practices, in turn, have a ripple effect that, with time, reaches the furthest corners of school attitudes and operation. These two things are, therefore, not only important in and of themselves, they are consistent with a schoolwide approach to schoolwide improvement.

The interconnectedness of SIM’s five components with their myriad intersections with the model’s operational features is its great strength. SIM is comprised of wheels within wheels that generate their own momentum and feed continual improvement (sometimes with one part nudging another to get it moving).

Throughout implementation, Pearson Education Specialists provide technical support on a systematic basis to help get implementation practices underway, to monitor practice and provide feedback on progress together with scaffolding as needed in order to maintain progress, and to nurture the development of strong linkages among all of the school’s settings for SIM implementation.

Informed by data and reflecting our joint commitment to the goals and plans of your school, you and Pearson Education Specialists will work together. Our mission? To continually evaluate and refine the combinations of distributed leadership and collaboration, professional development, and coaching and technical support that will best serve your school as it progresses from the point at which it started toward the goal of self-directed and self-managed continuing improvement.


School Improvement—Theory of Action

The theory of action postulates that rich professional development, coupled with the establishment and support of and purposeful linkages between stable leadership and teacher workgroup settings will generate productive activity (#1). This activity, at both the individual teacher and institutional level, is directed toward improving the quality of instruction and student engagement.

The causal relationships are grounded in/ resting on research from Pearson Learning Teams (LT) and America’s Choice (AC). The first linkage is supported by multiple studies of the LT model that consistently demonstrate that when teachers engage in structured, collaborative inquiry in job-alike teams, grade level meetings become more focused on instruction (Ermeling, 2010; McDougall et al., 2007; Gallimore et al., 09). The McDougall study also revealed that through the promotion of distributed leadership, external assistance, and an increased focus on achieving measurable goals related to instruction, there are changes in the culture of learning and teaching in schools. In addition, the Consortium for Policy Research in Education (CPRE) study by Supovitz et al., 2002 on the AC model found a direct influence of professional development on teacher activity and found that the degree and impact of influence of PD on activity increased over time.

The theory of action further postulates that as the quality of teacher and institutional activity improves, learner (teacher) outcomes improve (#2). Multiple LT studies found that as grade level meetings become more focused on instructional goals and student outcomes, there are “meaningful instructional changes” in teacher practice (Ermeling, 2010; McDougall et al., 2007; Gallimore et al., 2009). In addition, researchers found that as implementation of the AC model improved, teachers reported significant changes to instructional practice, especially around use of routines and rituals and student centered learning (Passantino and Kannapel, 2004).

Finally, the theory of action suggests a link between improved teacher/institutional practice and student outcomes (#3). In a five-year comparison study funded by the Spencer Foundation, student achievement in Title 1 LT schools rose by 41 percent overall and 54 percent for Hispanic students; gains that were


significantly greater than those made by demographically matched comparison schools (Saunders et al., 2009). In 2006, Henry May, Jonathan Supovitz, and David Perda, on behalf of CPRE, published the findings of their longitudinal study of student performance of the Rochester City Public Schools. The study compared the performance of students in schools implementing the America’s Choice model with the performance of students in non-America’s Choice schools, analyzing 11 years of data, including data from before implementation of the design. A Longitudinal Study of the Impact of America’s Choice on Student Performance in Rochester, NY 1998–2003, (H. May et al. 2006), published in Educational Policy Evaluation and Analysis, concluded that students in America’s Choice schools performed statistically better than similar students in non-America’s Choice schools. Students in America’s Choice schools gained an additional 1.7 months per year in reading and 2.6 months per year in mathematics compared to similar students in other Rochester schools. This translates into 6.8 months in reading and 10.4 months in mathematics over a four-year period.

Why is College and Career Readiness the Ultimate Outcome? From the U.S. Department of Education 2010 policy report College- and Career-Ready Students: “The goal for America’s educational system is clear: Every student should graduate from high school ready for college or a career. Every student should have meaningful opportunities to choose from upon graduation from high school”.

According to the report, PISA Results Demonstrate Importance of College- and Career-Ready Agenda for All U.S. Students (Achieve, 2010), 15 year olds in the U.S. were at best, "middle of the pack," when compared to their peers in OECD countries. Only 30 percent of U.S. students are “capable of difficult reading tasks, such as locating embedded information, construing meaning from nuances of language and critically evaluating a text”. The report noted that these results “are a timely reminder that the work of states, districts, and schools has significant implications, not just for the future of individual students, but for the long-term viability of the U.S. economy and our ability to compete and lead on the world stage.” The report concludes that college and career readiness must be a priority for all states, district and schools “and the nation as a whole.”

Holzer and Lerman (2009) report that in U.S., nearly 8 in 10 future job openings in this decade will require workforce training or postsecondary education. High school graduates therefore need the foundational skills to enable them to learn additional academic and job-specific skills, both at the entry-level and throughout their careers if they are to earn a living wage and compete with their global peers. Improving the college and career readiness of all students will provide a better foundation of knowledge and skills to allow future workers to adapt to the changing requirements of a more technologically sophisticated and internationally competitive working world (ACT, 2008).

Report after report on post secondary trajectories of American students focuses on the current high economic and educational costs of failure to prepare students for college and the workforce. An OECD study estimates that if academic achievement rose to the college and career threshold, the annual increase to the U.S. GDP would be $507 billion. In another study, economists Hanushek and Woessman estimate that an increase of 25 points on the PISA assessment over twenty years would yield at $41 trillion increase in the U.S. GDP over the next forty years.


Getting to the Core of Things: Implementing SIMThe following description sets out the core for all SIM implementations. The core described below may be “flexed” to include additional components of school improvement or to increase the intensity of onsite support. Increased intensity of onsite support may be broadly implemented or limited to a select area, such as leadership support or support for a specific department. Any and all decisions relating to the flexing of SIM are made collaboratively with the school and district through the process of the Requirements Conference.

Requirements ConferenceThe Requirements Conference is a focused consultation between appropriate representatives of the school, the district, and Pearson. This consultation is guided by protocols designed to clearly identify the school’s needs and goals and to help determine the set of services and programs that offers the most effective match to the school’s requirements. The Requirements Conference sets the stage for development of a plan and contractual agreement. Implementation proceeds once an agreement is in place. It has three phases.

The Three Phases of SIM in Each StageEach stage, SIM follows a predicable implementation cycle, consisting of the following three phases, organized to support successful implementation:

Implementation Phase 1: Planning ConferenceThe Planning Conference takes place as soon as possible following completion of the contract to provide SIM. This conference is a full-day meeting of the principal and key school and district personnel with Pearson Education Specialists. The purpose of the meeting is to develop a detailed implementation plan, set a schedule of cooperative activities and project milestones, and establish shared accountability.

Implementation Phase 2: Launch Institute—Five Professional Development Activities that Reach Your Entire SchoolThe Launch Institute initiates the school’s process of improvement. It provides face-to-face professional development for the full school faculty led by Pearson Education Specialists. Dates for the Launch Institute are established in consultation with the school and district. Where possible, the Launch Institute should be completed before school opens for the year. The Launch Institute incorporates six linked professional development activities, as follows:

1. Leadership Team InstituteAnchoring the Launch Institute is a full-day institute for the Leadership Team designed to launch its work in steering the implementation process. The Leadership Team includes the principal, assistant principal(s), department heads (who will usually also serve as workgroup facilitators)4 and designated leaders for functions related to student services and community engagement. The institute’s content includes:

○ Leadership supports for the SIM components

○ The roles and responsibilities of Workgroups

4 Workgroup Facilitators have an integral role in the work of the Leadership Team to assure strong linkages among implementation settings. Accordingly, in cases where the department head does not also serve the role of Workgroup Facilitator, the teacher who does take that role will be an additional member of the Leadership Team.


○ Supporting CCSS implementation

○ The Schoolwide Instructional Focus (SIF) (including its purpose, goals for Stage 2, and role of the Leadership Team in supporting it)

○ Planning for the High Achievement and Engagement component

○ Establishing development of a Data-Driven Culture

○ Implementation expectations, including progress monitoring processes and systems

○ Implementation planning

2. Workgroup Facilitators Training SessionA “Workgroup” is a job-alike group of school staff with a shared focus and area of responsibility for implementation of SIM. This session provides an introductory training for the individuals who are designated the facilitator of a Workgroup (Workgroup Facilitator).

Each subject department constitutes a Workgroup. (The applicable department head usually serves as the Workgroup Facilitator, but another member of the department, as appropriate, may perform the role.) In addition, staff with responsibility for student services collaborate as the Engagement Workgroup.

This one full-day training session is designed to help Workgroup Facilitators become familiar with the function of the Workgroups, with the role of the Workgroup Facilitator, and to practice using shared protocols for supporting the success of the Workgroups.

3. Schoolwide Instructional Focus Institute for the Entire School FacultyA two-day institute for the entire school faculty lays the foundation for the school’s work on the Schoolwide Instructional Focus. It includes:

○ The purpose of having a Schoolwide Instructional Focus

○ The vital importance of College and Career Readiness for all students

○ Schoolwide goals for developing students’ ability to use Academic Language and their College and Career Readiness Competencies

○ Strategies for helping all students to develop the ability to use Academic Language and for helping them develop College and Career Readiness Competencies across content areas, including strategies that provide scaffolded support for English language learners and students with disabilities.

Throughout this institute, faculty work together by department. In doing so, they establish the practices of the Workgroups that provide the primary setting for continuing implementation throughout the year.


4. English Department InstituteA one-day institute for the English Department follows the Schoolwide Instructional Focus Institute. This institute focuses on improving the quality and rigor of instruction in ELA and lays the foundation for the English Department’s work on aligning curriculum and instruction to the CCSS English Language Arts standards and related assessments. This institute links closely with the content and activities of the Schoolwide Instructional Focus Institute to provide a coherent approach for ELA teachers.

The English Department Institute activities revolve around the Foundation Unit, which provides a model of standards-aligned instruction consistent with the CCSS. Teachers plan for teaching this unit to launch their year’s work on building aligned curriculum and instruction.

5. Mathematics Department InstituteA one-day institute for the Math Department follows the Schoolwide Instructional Focus Institute. This institute focuses on improving the quality and rigor of instruction in math and lays the foundation for the Math Department’s work on aligning curriculum and instruction to the CCSS Mathematics standards and related assessments. This institute links closely with the content and activities of the Schoolwide Instructional Focus Institute to provide a coherent approach for math teachers.

The Math Department Institute activities revolve around the Foundation Intro, a short instructional unit that provides a model of standards-aligned instruction consistent with the CCSS. Teachers plan for teaching this unit to launch their year’s work on building aligned curriculum and instruction.

Implementation Phase 3: Continuing Implementation throughout the YearSupport for continuing implementation throughout the year is provided through the settings established during the Launch Institute: Leadership Team, Department Workgroups, and the Engagement Workgroup.

What the Leadership Team DoesThe Leadership Team, as constituted in the Leadership Team Institute described above, is expected to meet on matters relating to SIM implementation for approximately one hour at least three times each month and for an extended period of two hours four times during the year (with intervals of approximately three months). These extended meetings are for the purpose of progress monitoring (Progress Monitoring Meetings).

Leadership Team meetings incorporate the following three important formats:

Professional Development. Four times a year, the team participates in a study of data knowledge and use to build the foundation necessary to establish a Data-Driven Culture. Content includes the language of assessment and data, investigating data, analyzing student work, and triangulating data to reframe performance problems into instructional issues. Two data-driven culture work sessions will also take place with the leadership team that sets aside time to thoroughly analyze schoolwide data, strategize, set student growth targets, and determine specific action steps.

Progress Monitoring. The process of progress monitoring begins prior to the start of school with data gathered during the early engagement conversations between school leadership and Pearson. This data becomes crucial to the Leadership Team as they develop an initial action plan for implementation prior to the beginning of school. The quarterly Progress Monitoring Meetings allow the


team to track and analyze implementation of SIM across the whole school using various progress monitoring tools, as well as data gathered from Workgroup meetings and classroom visits conducted by the principal and assistant principal(s).

Implementation Meetings. These leadership meetings occur at least every other week. Led by the principal, team members engage in decision making about the status of SIM implementation and problem solve issues where needed. During these meetings, the principal and assistant principal(s) share findings from classroom visits where they looked for evidence of the Workgroup learning and practices in which staff members are engaged. Workgroup Facilitators, in turn, report on implementation progress and challenges from their Workgroup meetings. The Leadership Team applies knowledge from Data-Driven Culture modules as team members analyze student work, address issues relating to the creation of a data collection system, and/or engage in periodic Focus Walks to monitor implementation schoolwide.

What the Department Workgroups DoEach subject department forms a Workgroup consisting of all of the teachers of that subject in the school to work on implementation of SIF. These Workgroup meetings focused on SIF implementation stimulate collaboration among teachers to work on instructional strategies to support students’ development of Academic Language and College and Career Readiness Competencies.

Workgroups meet during the year on a cycle that allows for flexibility in scheduling while assuring continuity of work on specific topics. Workgroup meetings are designed to fit into a class period to allow them to be held during the school day, but they can also take place before or after school.

Meeting protocols guide a process of teachers’ trying out strategies in their classrooms, sharing their experience with reference to student work and other artifacts, revising their approach based on their discussion and reflection and beginning the cycle of exploration anew.

The English and Math Workgroups operate differently to accommodate their respective Content-Area Concentrations.

English Department Workgroup: The English Department Workgroup focuses initially on independent reading and on teaching the Foundation Units. Additional Workgroup meetings use protocols for the following:

○ Analyzing student work

○ Lesson study

○ Close reading

○ Academic Language

○ Supporting the language development of all learners

Continuing implementation for the English Department involves a second professional development institute conducted as one full day or two half days during the year. This institute provides focused content regarding standards-aligned instruction and is linked closely to ongoing Workgroup activity.

Math Department Workgroup: Math Department Workgroup meetings are designed to support the Math Department’s implementation of SIF. Math Workgroup topics link to the content of the Math


Department Institute with an emphasis on establishing and maintaining effective Learning Routines and Rituals. Teachers’ use of the Foundation Intros and reflection on their classroom experiences informs and enriches this emphasis. The Foundation Units provide further experience in establishing effective learning environments for math and aligning curriculum and instruction with the CCSS.

Continuing implementation for the Math Department involves a second professional development institute conducted as one full day or two half days during the year. It provides focused content regarding standards-aligned instruction and is linked closely to ongoing Workgroup activity.

What the Engagement Workgroup Does The Engagement Workgroup focuses on its dual responsibilities of building student engagement and developing community support for high expectations. Primary areas of concentration include instituting the GRI system for dropout prevention and connecting it with supports for students’ social and emotional development. The Engagement Workgroup investigates school policies and practices that relate to personalization and student engagement, as well as strategies for building community involvement. It monitors reports of the GRI and proposes strategies for improvement. The Engagement Workgroup meets several times during the year.

SIM Technical Support SystemThe SIM Technical Support System leverages the tight linkages between the components of SIM, as well as the connections among the Leadership Team, Department Workgroups and Engagement Workgroup. With these design and operational synergies as the foundation, Pearson Education Specialists provide technical support throughout implementation on a systematic basis to create a continuous loop of information and response to information that fosters a never-ending cycle of improvement.

Pearson Education Specialists:

Help get implementation practices underway

Monitor practice

Provide feedback on progress

Provide scaffolding as needed in order to maintain progress

Nurture the development of strong linkages among all of the school’s settings for SIM implementation

The SIM Technical Support System also includes reports that are generated on a systematic basis and shared with the principal and other stakeholders in real time. These technical support reports are designed to provide information relevant to goal achievement, to pinpoint specific issues, and to support timely response to keep implementation on course.

Gradual increase in the responsibility of school personnel for implementation guides the provision of technical support. For example, the purposes and use of protocols and other tools to support implementation are made explicit to facilitate their widespread use. Data is shared to support communication and problem solving. Education Specialists provide scaffolding in the context of a plan for passing responsibility to the principal or other staff members, as appropriate. In this way, the SIM Technical Support System actively supports Sustainability for Continuing Improvement.


Leadership Gets Special AttentionAs the engine for change, Leadership receives primary attention in terms of technical support. An Education Specialist participates in the Leadership Team settings each month. That participation includes facilitating the Data-Driven Culture professional development module, as well as providing technical support for the progress monitoring and implementation activities of the Leadership Team.

Allied with these activities, is guided practice by the Education Specialist. The Education Specialist works closely with the principal, assistant principals and other Leadership Team members in classroom visits to establish systematic practices for data gathering, analysis, and triangulation that are aligned to the SIF.

Technical support provided by Education Specialists reaches into the operations of the Workgroups on an as-needed basis via participation in selected meetings and communication with Workgroup Facilitators and as indicated by data gathered in the course of progress monitoring. The Leadership Team setting provides a venue for the continuing communication about needs and progress by and between the Education Specialist and the Leadership Team.

SIM Uses the Latest Technology to Support ImplementationTo increase the effectiveness and efficiency of your school educators and administrators in their school improvement efforts, SIM includes these tools and services:

Powerful, cloud technology-based progress monitoring capabilities customized for the iPad and laptop that use observational protocols from Johns Hopkins University

Anywhere, anytime 24/7 access to online tools and resources for Leadership Teams, Workgroup Facilitators, teachers and staff engaged in SIM work

Webinars on key implementation topics delivered live periodically and recorded for accessing later

Dropout prevention early-warning technology and dashboard

The Progress Monitoring SystemThe Progress Monitoring (PM) system is a comprehensive approach to monitoring, measuring, improving and reporting on program implementation as well as short and long-term outcomes related to SIM. It is used throughout all three stages and includes a suite of data collection tools and reports that will provide school Leadership Teams and Pearson Education specialists with information to support, investigate, and track implementation throughout the year. Objectives of the PM system include the following:

Link explicit evidence of change in behavior/practice at the school site to outcomes


Collect and report data (using variety of tools and modalities) to identify strengths and needs related to implementation

Stage 3 Implementation and Beyond: The Evolution ContinuesImplementation of SIM takes place over approximately three years to provide for full incorporation of each of the components described earlier. The establishment of a data-driven school culture focused on achieving college and career readiness for all students with closely-linked structures to support students’ progress that collectively generate sustainability for continuing school improvement is a process of evolution.

Implementation for Stage 3 begins with a late-winter/early spring Planning Conference, grounded in the information gathered through site-based progress monitoring and the Post-Assessment Survey (discussed below). Analysis of this data informs the process of consultation to determine the appropriate plan for supporting continuing implementation in the coming year.

Once agreement is reached, the cycle of work begins anew with professional development focused on the content and tasks of the year ahead. Continuing implementation is supported through the established settings of the Leadership Team and Workgroups, connected by systematic processes of knowledge development and goal-setting, action planning and implementation, and followed by data collection and analysis to form a united approach to achieving high quality instruction for all students consistent with the requirements of the CCSS and directed toward college and career readiness for all.

Examining Efficacy: Evaluating SIMEvaluation of SIM and of how well implementation is proceeding is integral to the model, because it informs continuing improvement—a fundamental precept of the model’s design. Consistent with the tight


linkages that characterize SIM in other areas (e.g., the interlocking nature of its five components and the interconnections between the defined settings (for example, Department Workgroups) for implementation, evaluation extends across all aspects of SIM and engages all participants in the process of evaluation. Comprehensive program evaluation is built into and included in every implementation.

Evaluating SIM involves two discrete streams of activity. The first stream focuses on all schools implementing SIM and has the following three data events:

During the engagement and implementation process, pre-data are collected on a series of variables including leadership practices, data culture, teacher collaboration, quality of instruction, and student engagement.

Post-data on these variables are collected at the end of the year.

Throughout the school year, information and data (including client perception data) on progress towards achievement of SIM goals are accumulated continually using, among other tools, the site-based progress monitoring techniques of the SIM Progress Monitoring System.

The second stream of evaluation activity is focused on a stratified random sample of schools implementing SIM. An evaluation team, composed of evaluation specialists, content specialists, and Education specialists from Pearson’s School Achievement Services group, visits the schools in the sample to collect data and validate findings. The team uses both quantitative and qualitative methods, tools, and approaches to gather data on implementation of SIM goals, leadership practices, data culture, teacher collaboration, quality of instruction, student engagement, and perception data.

The evaluation team uses the rich and multifaceted information to conduct a multi-level evaluation of SIM in order to examine a) the efficacy of the model itself as well as b) the quality of site-specific implementations. Actual outcomes are measured against expected outcomes to determine impact across a variety of data (including student achievement, instructional quality, use of data, and student engagement). Implementation reports will document implementation strength and fidelity, provide feedback to the schools for the purpose of celebrating successes as well as to improve implementation, and inform SIM planning for the subsequent year. Education Specialists collaborate with school and/or district administrators to analyze the data and to use it to guide further implementation.


SIM Scope of WorkThis figure contains a summary of the Scope of Work for a SIM implementation in a secondary school.

SIM Foundation Program for Each Implementing School—Secondary

Implementation Phase 1:Planning Conference

1 Day for the principal, key school and district personnel, and Pearson Education Specialist to develop a detailed implementation plan, set a schedule of cooperative activities and project milestones, and establish shared accountability.

Implementation Phase 2:Launch Institute

3-5 Days of face-to-face professional development for every administrator, teacher, and support staff led by Pearson Education Specialists to initiate the school’s process of improvement. The Launch Institute includes all Institute materials and access to all online resources for one year of implementation. The Launch Institute consists of:A. Leadership Team Institute1-Day Institute for the Leadership Team designed to launch the work of the Leadership Team in steering the implementation process. B. Overview and Visioning (combined with the Leadership Institute)Session for the Principal, Assistant Principal(s) and all staff. This session provides an overview of SIM and how the work on implementation unfolds. It builds on this foundation with an exercise that engages the school in creating a shared vision for teaching and learning in their school and the culture of high achievement and engagement that they will work to create. C. Workgroup Facilitators Training Session1-Day Session for Workgroup Facilitators to become familiar with the function of the Workgroups, the role of Workgroup Facilitator, and practice using shared protocols for supporting the success of the Workgroups.D. Schoolwide Instructional Focus Institute for the Entire School Faculty2-Day Institute for the entire school faculty to lay the foundation for the school’s work on the Schoolwide Instructional Focus. E. English Department Institute1-Day institute for the English Department (in addition to D), plus English as a Second Language and Special Education teachers and other teachers who support English instruction, to lay the foundation for the English Department’s work on aligning curriculum and instruction to the Common Core English Language Arts standards and related assessments. F. Mathematics Department Institute1-Day institute for the Math Department (in addition to D), plus English as a Second Language and Special Education teachers and other teachers who support English instruction, to lay the foundation for the Math Department’s work on aligning curriculum and instruction to the Common Core Mathematics standards and related assessments.


SIM Foundation Program for Each Implementing School—Secondary

Implementation Phase 3:Continuing Implementation—Leadership

Leadership settings supported annually onsite by Pearson Education Specialists including:Strategic planning sessions with the Principal (and Assistant Principal(s) as appropriate) providing real time support for building strategic leadership of the school’s improvement process, cultivating distributed leadership, aligning resource management to improvement goals, and guiding appropriate and timely interventions to create and sustain improvement momentum.Leadership Team settings supported annually onsite by Pearson Education Specialists (includes materials, online access to resources, data management and reporting) including:A. Leadership Team Professional Development MeetingMonthly session focused on study and use of data, facilitated by a Pearson Education Specialist, to build the foundation necessary in establishing a Data-Driven Culture including the language of assessment and data, investigating data, analyzing student work, and triangulating data to reframe performance problems into instructional issues.B. Guided PracticeGuided practice, facilitated and/or supported by a Pearson Education Specialist during the year, provides the school’s administration with expert partnership support during classroom observations. Guided Practice assists leadership with building linkage between implementation of the Schoolwide Instructional Focus and additional focus areas for Standards-Aligned Instruction in English and Math, and classroom practice. C. Leadership Team Progress MonitoringExtended sessions, conducted quarterly, plus a pre-engagement baseline establishment to develop an initial action plan, analyze whole school implementation of SIM, and analyze data gathered from Workgroup meetings and classroom visits conducted by the principal and assistant principal(s). A Pearson Education Specialist facilitates these sessions.D. Leadership Team Implementation Meetings Bi-monthly settings (facilitated and/or supported by a Pearson Education Specialist), led by the principal to debrief Workgroup meetings and classroom observations, learn methods of implementing solutions to issues, apply knowledge from Data-Driven Culture module in real time, and develop plans to be carried out between meetings with teachers.

Implementation Phase 3:Continuing Implementation—Department Workgroups, Engagement Workgroup

Continuing Implementation for Workgroups consists of 12 meetings per department (including Workgroup materials, online resources, and support for Workgroup Facilitators) and onsite support of six meetings among all departments per month by a Pearson Education Specialist.A. Department Workgroups (per Department other than English and Math)12 meetings annually focusing on the implementation of the Schoolwide Instructional Focus through a recursive, disciplined process of inquiry, guided practice, and assessment.B. English and Math Departments12 meetings annually focusing on the implementation of standards-aligned curriculum and instruction and incorporating the Schoolwide Instructional Focus through a recursive, disciplined process of inquiry, guided practice, and assessment. 1½ Days of continued professional development (conducted over multiple sessions during the year and allied with the Workgroup meetings) for each of the English and Math Departments to provide more focused content on standards-aligned instruction. C. Engagement Workgroup12 meetings annually investigating school policies and practices that relate to personalization and student engagement, instituting the Graduation Risk Insight (GRI) system and connecting it with supports for students’ social and emotional development, and building strategies for engaging the community in supporting high expectations.2 half-Day sessions of professional development (conducted during the year and


SIM Foundation Program for Each Implementing School—Secondaryallied with the Workgroup meetings) for the Engagement Workgroup to develop a shared knowledge base and skills for tasks assigned to this Workgroup.

Implementation Phase 3:Continuing Implementation—Instructional Support

Support of all teachers in the context of their classroom practice (through coordinated support for Standards-Aligned Instruction) and strategic, job-embedded, direct onsite support of six teachers per month. Support typically includes some or all of the following in varying combinations, as needed:A. Classroom ObservationB. Monitoring of Practice and Provision of FeedbackC. Reporting on ProgressD. Providing Exemplars

Total Price for SIM Implementation (one school)

$150,000


AttachmentFoundation SIM for Secondary School in Action: Stage Two Implementation Focus, Settings, and Supports. This table provides a detailed sample work plan for the key stakeholders in a SIM implementation, including a breakdown of the focus, settings, and support school leaders, teachers, and other staff will experience in Stage 2 of SIM implementation.

Foundation SIM for Secondary School in Action:Stage 2 Implementation Focus, Settings, and Supports

Setting Membership Focus Meetings Pearson onsite Support

Planning Conference

Principal, AP’s, key school & district personnel

Develop implementation plan

Set schedule and projected milestones

Establish shared accountability

1 full day scheduled as soon as possible after contract is signed

Project Manager and Education Specialist facilitates meeting

*General Manager may facilitate if circumstances require

Leadership Team

Principal, AP’s, dept. chairs (workgroup facilitators), ELL and SPED dept. representative, student services, Parent Liaison

(may vary by school)

Establish and/or maintain vision of improvement


Drive and manage implementation with a focus on staying on track and making sure resources and attention are focused on quality implementation

Develop & nurture collaboration, using a systems approach to engage entire school in shared responsibility & shared learning

1 FD of professional development during Launch institute (Establish LdT, roles & responsibilities, visioning, and intro to PM tools)

1-hr focused on development of Data-driven Culture

At least 1 meeting (approx. 1 hr.) per month focused on implementation

Quarterly 2-hr. progress monitoring meetings

End of Year Review (approx. 2 hrs)

ES facilitates PD during Launch Institute

ES facilitates data-driven culture meeting

ES facilitates and supports implementation meetings

ES facilitates the End of Year Review




Administrative Team

Principal, AP’s Strategic leadership of improvement

Distributed Leadership

Timely intervention to create & sustain improvement momentum

Aligned resource management

Strategic planning sessions with ES to determine focus of school support

Guided Practice Inquiries with ES to monitor implementation

ES conducts strategic planning with principal (and AP’s as appropriate) prior to and upon completion of each visit

ES facilitates and support the Guided Practice Inquiries for monitoring implementation and gather data on teacher practice

Workgroup Facilitator’s Training

Department chairs (workgroup facilitators)

Review the roles and functions of workgroups

Refine and strengthen the role of the workgroup facilitator and workgroup members

Protocols to support effective collaboration in workgroups

Full-day training during Launch Institute

ES facilitates training

ES attends and supports workgroup meetings monthly and provides feedback & planning assistance to workgroup facilitators

All Faculty PD All faculty Schoolwide Instructional Focus (SIF) on development of “Key Instructional Shifts of the CCSS”–going deeper into Academic Language and college and career readiness learner competencies

Goals & strategies for Stage 2 implementation

2 Full-day sessions-during Launch Institute

Other options for delivery:

2 hr modules (can be delivered over the first semester of the school year)

ES (school team) facilitates SIF PD




English Department PD

All English teachers plus, ESL, SPED, & other teachers who support English Language arts or ELD instruction

Continue to build knowledge and skills relate to CCSS-aligned instruction to plan instruction using own curriculum materials

Incorporate SIF strategies into instruction

Enhance independent reading program (including more informational texts and text varieties) cultivating students’ ability to read complex text independently

Develop close reading of informational and literary texts

Develop argument as a text type and implement Argument unit to support CCSS-aligned instruction

1 day session-during Launch Institute

1 -day session-mid-year

ES will facilitate sessions and will schedule the mid-year session during the planning meeting




English Workgroup

Collaboration on the standards-aligned instruction aligned to CCSS, incorporating the SIF strategies and building on the content-focused PD

Engage in deeper development of knowledge and skills in use of data, including instructional artifacts and student work, to reflect on and drive instructional decisions

Implement cycles of planning, practice, and reflection on practice

ES will train new workgroup facilitators

Workgroup facilitators will lead the implementation cycle of the meetings with support from ES

ES attends workgroup meetings and provide feedback & planning support as a part of technical assistance

**ES provides in-class coaching/planning support/feedback as part of a coaching cycle to teachers in the departments




Math Department PD

Continue to build knowledge and skills relate to CCSS-aligned instruction to plan instruction using own curriculum materials

Incorporate SIF strategies into instruction

Develop deeper understanding of concepts as defined in the CCSSM (Teaching for Conceptual Understanding)

Further develop pedagogical strategies that support mathematical fluency (as defined by the instructional shifts for CCSS)

Develop knowledge and skills in use of data, including instructional artifacts and student work, to drive instructional decisions

1-day session-during Launch Institute

1-day session-mid-year

ES will facilitate sessions and will schedule the mid-year session during the planning meeting




Math Workgroup

Collaboration on the standards-aligned instruction aligned to CCSS, incorporating the SIF strategies and building on the content-focused PD

Implement focus on Data-driven decision-making to differentiate instruction



Workgroup

facilitators will lead the implementation cycle of the meetings with support from ES

ES attends workgroup meetings and provide feedback & planning support as a part of technical assistance

**ES provides in-class coaching/planning support/feedback as part of a coaching cycle to teachers in the departments

Department Workgroups (Depts. Other than English & Math)

Collaboration on incorporating the SIF strategies into teaching

Implement focus on data-driven decision making to differentiate instruction




ES facilitates PD session

ES attends Workgroup meetings periodically and provide feedback & support with planning




Engagement Workgroup

Principal, staff members responsible for student services & related functions, e.g. dean, counselor, community outreach coordinator, parent liaison, social worker, psychologist

**group may vary and will be determined on a school-by-school basis

Study research on student engagement & practices that support engagement

Investigate and develop school policies & practices that impact the quality of relationships, supports, and connection for students

Institute an early warning system for dropout prevention and monitor critical indicators of students’ progress toward college and career readiness

Analyze and plan interventions and policies around GRI and Engagement Survey data (teacher, student, and parent)

Communicate importance of and strategies for supporting student engagement to community

Half-day PD session(not a part of the Launch Institute)



ES facilitates PD session

ES attends Engagement Workgroup meetings periodically and provide feedback & support with planning

1. On-site support outlined in this column totals 40 days of on-site professional development and technical support. 2. The term Leadership Team is used throughout descriptions of SIM, but it is understood that the title of this group of school leaders may differ from school to school to accommodate existing naming conventions. Because the SIM Leadership Team should serve as the key leadership team in the school, SIM’s implementation may result in some role adjustments of decision-making groups. 3. The role of workgroup facilitator will normally be taken by the relevant department head, but not always, in which case another teacher may fill the role. In these instances, both the department head and workgroup facilitator would need to be part of the Leadership Team since the workgroup facilitator has an integral role in the Leadership Team in order to assure strong linkages among implementation settings. 4. As implementation proceeds, ES role will transition toward co-facilitation with principal and eventually to support for principal’s facilitation of these meetings. 5. See note above. 6. This training is for staff serving in the role of workgroup facilitator.


7. The principal and assistant principal(s) also participate in this training. 8. This support includes support for teacher workgroups and the Engagement Workgroup described below.9. The preferred configuration for this professional development is two consecutive full days. However, all professional development is designed in a modular format to allow for implementation in various configurations of time, as need determines. This note applies to all professional development. 10. Research on this concept supports workgroups of approximately 3–7 members. This may suggest the need for some departments to combine so long as job-alike requirement can be maintained, e.g., all CTE might form one workgroup. 11. In a large school, this workgroup might need to divide into two or more workgroups. 12. See note above.

heading1_sa (currently arial 16 bold) - pearson...

Documents