priority cohort ii year 3 program and fiscal monitoring...

Baltimore City Public School System (BCPSS) Priority Cohort II Year 3 First Onsite Visit Feedback for 2013-2014 Title I School Improvement Grant (SIG), section 1003(g) Date Feedback Shared with BCPSS: October 28, 2013

1

Priority Cohort II Year 3 Program and Fiscal Monitoring Teams’ First Onsite Visit Feedback

Maryland State Department of Education—Title I School Improvement Grant (SIG), section 1003(g)

School Year 2013-2014

LEA: Baltimore City Public School System (BCPSS) LEA Turnaround Director: Kim Ferguson Date of MSDE Team’s LEA Visit: October 4, 2013 MSDE Priority Leads: Jim Newkirk & Gail Clark Dickson Date of MSDE Fiscal Team’s Visit: October 4, 2013 MSDE Priority Fiscal Lead: Kelly Coates Date of Benjamin Franklin: September 9, 2013 Priority Cohort II Team Members: Renee Williams & Michelle Daley Date of Frederick Douglass: September 11, 2013 Priority Cohort II Team Members: Judy Kowarsky & Gary Einhorn Date of Cherry Hill Visit: September 23, 2013 Priority Cohort II Team Members: Lynne Muller & Michelle Goady

Title I School Improvement Grant (SIG): The School Improvement Grant (SIG) Program, authorized under section 1003(g) of Title I of the Elementary and Secondary Act of 1965, provides funding through State educational agencies (SEAs) to local educational agencies (LEAs) with the lowest-achieving schools that have the greatest need for the funds and demonstrate the strongest commitment to use the funds to raise significantly the achievement of students. The United States Department of Education (USDE) views the large infusion of Federal funds into the SIG program through the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (ARRA) as a historic opportunity to address one of the most intractable challenges for America’s education system: turning around or closing down our Nation’s persistently lowest-achieving schools. USDE approved Maryland’s Flexibility Plan in May 2012 which included Maryland’s SIG II schools as Priority Schools. Special Note: In terms of identification, SIG II Schools are now named Priority Cohort II Schools.


2

LEA Monitoring—Purpose of the Priority Cohort II Year 3 Program and Fiscal Monitoring Teams’ First Onsite Visit: As approved by USDE, MSDE, through SIG Monitoring Teams, will conduct three onsite monitoring visits annually in each LEA and that receives a school improvement grant to ensure that the LEA is implementing its intervention model fully and effectively in Maryland’s Tier I and Tier II schools. As part of the first onsite visit, a MSDE Monitoring Team will interview members of the LEA Central Support Team which is the leadership body for planning, implementing, supporting, monitoring, and evaluating the LEA’s approved SIG Plan. In addition and on the same day, a MSDE Fiscal Team will monitor the schools’ and LEA’s SIG budgets.

School Monitoring—Purpose of the Priority Cohort II Year 3 Monitoring Team’s First Onsite Visit: As approved by USDE, MSDE, through SIG Monitoring Teams, will conduct three onsite monitoring visits annually in each SIG Priority School. This Priority SIG II Year 3 first onsite monitoring visit will focus on the impact of SIG on teaching and learning in the instructional classrooms of the LEA’s SIG II schools. MSDE’s Priority SIG II Year 3 Monitoring Teams will visit classrooms throughout the day for 20 minute intervals. Classrooms with long term substitutes will be visited by Monitoring Teams; however, classrooms with short term substitutes will not be visited.

Based on MSDE’s Priority SIG II Year 3 Monitoring Tool, the Monitoring Team will monitor the following 4 teaching and learning domains, including fourteen indicators aligned to each domain:

Domain 1: Instructional Planning (3 indicators);

Domain 2: Instructional Delivery (Strategies and Process) (3 indicators);

Domain 3: Teacher-Student Engagement (Techniques and Strategies) (4 indicators); and

Domain 4: Classroom Management (4 indicators). Adapted from Charlotte Danielson’s Framework for Teaching

The protocol for Priority Cohort II Year 3 First Onsite Visit consists of the following components:

Classroom Observations by Monitoring Team;

Tallying Observation Data; and

Collaborative Agreement of Classroom Evidence.


3

Table Organization of Priority Cohort II Year 3 Program and Fiscal Monitoring Teams’

First Onsite Visit Feedback for SY 2013-2014

Table 1 BCPSS Central Support Team Interview Questions and Responses

Table 2 Priority Cohort II Year 3 LEA Budget

Table 3 Priority Cohort II Year 3 Consolidated Budget

Table 4 Priority Cohort II Year 3 Instructional Domains and Indicators

Table 5 At-a-Glance Comparison between 2012-2013 and 2013-2014 Classroom Observations

Table 6 Benjamin Franklin School Classroom Instructional Tally Sheet

Table 7 Benjamin Franklin School Classroom Observation Feedback

Table 8 Benjamin Franklin School Budget

Table 9 Frederick Douglass School Classroom Instructional Tally Sheet

Table 10 Frederick Douglass School Classroom Observation Feedback

Table 11 Frederick Douglass School Budget

Table 12 Cherry Hill Classroom Instructional Tally Sheet

Table 13 Cherry Hill School Classroom Observation Feedback

Table 14 Cherry Hill School Budget


4

Table 1

LEA Commitments and Capacity LEAs that accept Title I 1003(g) school improvement funds agree to establish a central support team to oversee the implementation of the selected models in Tier I and Tier II schools as well as the strategies that the LEA will implement in Tier III schools. The Title I office must be represented on the Central Support Team. The team will coordinate the support, as well as monitor, and assess the progress for each of the identified schools.

Central Support Team for 2013-2014

Turnaround Office Kim Ferguson Director Ensure the effective implementation of school

based interventions through frequent monitoring of interventions at each school site.

Work closely with school based leadership teams and act as the main point of contact for the project management team.

Tier I and Tier II 53 hrs/month

Kate Dachille Specialist Support schools with grant implementation. Ensure compliance with programmatic requirements.


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


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

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


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


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


Tanya Williams Network 10 Facilitator Manages Network team to ensure strategic, quality school support. Collaborates with Executive Director to align school supports


Deborah Sharpe Network 15 Executive Director

Oversees a group of schools and supports the principal in all aspect of school turnaround.



5

a. How often will the LEA 1003g central support team meet?

The Central Support team will meet monthly (first Friday). There will be a School Improvement Monitoring cycle that will happen on an ongoing basis and that will focus on the implementation of the grant to fidelity.

Darryl Kennedy Network 11 Executive Director



TBD Network 9 Executive Director



Diane Bragdon Network 10 Executive Director



LEA Staff Loryn Lesser John Zesiger Urenda Hudson Veronica Harris

Student Support Liaisons

Work in schools to support the wrap around services for all students

Tier I and Tier II Up to 40 hrs/month

Frank Lucienne Annalisa Benjamin-Harris Adrienne Chavis Francine Sellman

Data Specialists Works in schools to support data reviews. Tier I and Tier II Up to 40 hrs/month

Dan Oliver Ron Krach Charlene Footman Tom Coleman

Math Academic Content Liaison

Works in schools to support data reviews and progress towards Math targets.


Sarah Pasko Erin Vaughn Kristen McQuillan Melissa Loftus

Literacy Academic Content Liaison

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


Monique Armstrong Jenee Tucker Shana McIver Bruce Nelson

Family and Community Engagement Specialists

Work in schools to support the engagement of parents and community partners.


Corey Dotson Wendy Gigler Lakeysha Hill Nia Jones

Human Capital Specialist Work with the Operations Specialist to Support schools on staffing needs and troubleshoot staffing issues

Tier I and Tier II

Up to 40 hrs/month

Dr. Maria Navarro Acting Chief Academic Officer

Manage the oversight of the Turnaround Director.

Tier I and Tier II

12 hours/month

Tasha Franklin Johnson Director, Office of Federal Programs

Administering the Title I grant through grant oversight

Tier I and Tier II 20 hours/month

Sharron Steele CAO’s office Designees from the CAO’s office will serve as monitors throughout the year.

Tier I and Tier II 16hrs/month


6

b. How often will they report on their work and the work on Tier I, II and III schools to the Superintendent?

The work of the Priority schools will be reported in memo format through the Chief of Staff to the Chief Executive Officer (CEO).

c. How often will they report on their work and the work on Tier I, II and III schools to the Board of Education?

The work of the Priority schools will be reported via memo to the School Board of Commissioners on a quarterly basis.

d. Has the LEA 1003(g) central support team met prior to the submission of the grant application to review the individual school descriptions and to discuss how it will coordinate and manage the support, monitoring and assessment outlined in those plans? _____ Yes _____ No X N/A If no, briefly describe the plans for the central support team to begin work on the Tier I, II, and III schools?

Not applicable for Priority Cohort 1 Year 4 Monitoring by MSDE

e. What role has or will the LEA 1003(g) central support team play in the creation of annual goals for student achievement and annual review/assessment of progress based on these goals described in sections 2 and 3 of this proposal? The Turnaround Office staff and central support team will work in collaboration with the schools to determine the trajectory for growth based upon annual measurable objectives.

f. What steps will the LEA take to ensure that the school improvement funds are utilized (1) in a timely way and (2) effectively and efficiently to support the required components of the selected intervention? Specifically, what assurances will the LEA make that schools and LEA support teams have access to these funds, even during annual rollover processes? How will the LEA support principals’ timely and effective use of these funds?

City Schools, Business Manager assures that funds are utilized to implement the selected interventions. This individual, the Business Manager, works closely with school-based staff and other central office staff to ensure that the allocations are made in a timely manner and that they are being used effectively. Additionally, the Business manager provides fiscal oversight. The Business Manager works closely with the LEA’s Grants Office to ensure compliance.


7

g. Within this proposal, the LEA identified actions taken or in the planning to support individual Tier I and Tier II schools’ implementation of the selected interventions. Looking across the commitments made for the schools, and considering as well the strategies selected by the LEA for identified Tier III schools, what additional actions will the LEA take to ensure that the selected interventions are implemented as designed and to make the other changes such as:

(1) realignment of other resources; Schools will be given a per pupil allocation for spending through local funding. In addition, Title I, Part A funding, will be available to Cherry Hill Elementary/Middle School. The schools that have external operators will be able to realign their resources to targeted interventions. City Schools will also leverage Race to the Top funds both from the SEA and LEA to ensure schools can meet their targets.

(2) removal of expectations that might run counter to the approach outlined in the selected intervention; Schools will work with the Office of Turnaround to outline how they will reach given benchmarks. The schools can make adjustments to the traditional school calendar, or create alternatives schedules. The schools will have autonomy in budget, staffing and programming. The schools will be supported to make best use of collaborative planning time and to embed professional development within the typical school day. The schools will have the flexibility to use their people, time and money to ensure that their school dramatically improves student achievement.

(3) timely modification of practices and policies (those anticipated ahead of time and those that will emerge during implementation);

The central office support team meets regularly with the school based support team to proactively rethink polices that may impact the expedited turnaround of schools. In the past, new schools were left to enter the staffing process and compete for talent with other schools in the district. In support of the turnaround and restart models, the Office of Human Capital (OHC) modified communication and recruiting practices to provide greater access to employees for these schools. Additional Information:

Communication: The Office of Human Capital, in partnership with other central office leaders, visits each of the impacted schools’ existing staff to discuss the respective school model, the direction of the initiative and lay out the case for change. A key component for existing staff is the voluntary transfer process, with relaxed requirements which encouraged top performers to consider restart and turnaround schools (i.e. “time in position” requirements were relaxed).

At each of the communication sessions, external operators are invited to attend and discuss their respective schools and opportunities. Employees are given a chance to interact with the operator to determine a fit, and learn more about the instructional philosophy of the organization.


8

Teacher Recruiting: During the district’s voluntary transfer process, the Turnaround Office developed a process for restarts/turnarounds to have first access to the strongest candidates. In the past, the voluntary transfer list was posted on a common dashboard, and all principals had equal access. This year, the report was culled three times for primary review and action by turnarounds and restarts. The schools were able to initiate discussions with HQ teachers. This ‘first bite at the apple’ allowed for the schools with the highest need to get the highest priority in staffing their schools with the best, most qualified talent. The early communication points led to earlier interviews. The interview process was ramped up for these schools. Where a simple interview may have been the protocol, both external operators and central office staff developed a rigorous process which included face to face interviews, a review of student data, sample lessons (in some cases), instructional observations, and feedback from existing leadership. These schools used considerably more data points-on a larger scale- than ever before to evaluate and recommend staff.

(4) engaging in reflective and sustained, collaborative conversation and planning to ensure that improvement efforts can be sustained once this funding ends?

The Director of Turnaround Schools began long-range planning with the school operators and school leaders from the onset of the school turnaround. These planning sessions involve creating a long-range strategic plan for district allocations for the schools beyond the life cycle of the grant. Additionally, the school system’s Title I, Part A funding will support sustainability.

h. What are the major challenges to full and effective implementation of all components of the SIG grant that the LEA 1003 (g) central support team has identified and how will the team address these challenges in the early phases of the work? 1. Challenge: Identifying highly effective staff for every position within Turnaround Schools Solution: City Schools implemented an informal observation protocol to identify staff members who demonstrate

turnaround potential. Implement targeted recruitment strategies through channels of highly motivated and high performing teachers. Provide incentives.

2. Challenge: Identification of highly effective school leaders Solution: Create a job description and a posting specifically for a “turnaround principal.” A pool of qualified applicants

will be created through a rigorous selection process. Put incentives in place for additional compensation and performance bonuses.

3. Challenge: Ensuring that all elements of the school model and state requirements can be adequately funded.

Solution: Team approach to the roll out of funds to ensure that every school receives the funds required for school model implementation.


9

TABLE 2 Priority Cohort II Year 3 LEA Budget LEA: Baltimore City Public Schools MSDE Fiscal Reviewer: Kelly Coates Monitoring Date: October 11, 2013 Total Priority School II Year 3

Allocation: $ 89,210.86

LEA Budget Spent: $ 0

Percent of LEA Budget Spent: 0 %

Spend Down Data as of: October 11, 2013

Salaries & Wages Contractual Services Supplies & Materials Other Budgeted: $ 43,012.50 Budgeted: $ 0 Budgeted: $ 5,293.36 Budgeted: $ 2,493

Technology: $0

Encumbered: $ 0 Encumbered: $ 0 Encumbered: $ 0 Encumbered: Technology: $ 0

Spent (amount): $ 0 Spent (%): 0 %



Technology (amt.) $0

1. How much of the LEA budget has been expended to date (amount and %)? BCPSS LEA has spent $0. This amount is 0% of their approved SIG II Year 3 budget, awaiting funds.

2. Is the LEA spending consistent with budget timeline? If not, what steps are being taken to expend the funds as planned? BCPSS explained that the LEA is on target in spending on their timeline, awaiting funds.

3. What action steps or planned activities have not taken place that would impact the LEA budget? BCPSS shared that all activities are on schedule, awaiting funds.

4. Has a budget amendment been submitted? If yes, what budget changes were requested for the LEA? No budget amendments are anticipated.

5. How often are LEA expenditures monitored? Who monitors? Grant Administration will monitor on a monthly basis.

6. Did the LEA provide evidence and documentation of the Priority School Inventory? Yes No (funds have not been spent)

7. Did the LEA provide evidence of time and effort for staff funded with Priority School funds (2nd and 3rd monitoring visit only)? Yes No N/A


10

TABLE 3

Priority Cohort II Year 3 Consolidated Budget LEA: Baltimore City Public Schools MSDE Fiscal Reviewer: Kelly Coates Monitoring Date: October 11, 2013

SIG II 1003(g) Title I, Part A Total Allocation Amount Spent Percent Spent

Amount Encumbered Spend Down Data as of :

$ 3,096,469

$ 0

$ 0

$ 0

October 11


11

TABLE 4

Priority Cohort II Year 3 Instructional Domains and Indicators Domain Indicator

#1 Instructional

Planning

1. The teacher states the lesson objective (written and orally) in student learning outcomes which demonstrate high expectations.

2. The teacher aligns instructional and learning activities to the lesson objective. 3. The teacher aligns assessment (ongoing, formative, and summative) to the lesson objective.

#2 Instructional

Delivery

(Strategies and Process)

4. Teacher presents concepts, skills, and directions clearly using correct oral and written language. 5. Teacher provides a variety of feedback (oral and written) that advances student learning while

checking for understanding. 6. Teacher adapts plans as needed. (Differentiation of content, process, product; unexpected

situation; teachable moment, etc.)

#3 Teacher-Student

Engagement

(Techniques and Strategies)

7. All students are actively engaged in meaningful tasks designed to challenge their thinking processes.

8. All students are engaged by the use of questioning and discussion strategies that encourage higher order thinking rather than emphasis on recall.

9. Teacher reinforces skills, processes, and procedures introduced through modeling, shaping, and student practice.

10. All students effectively participate in a variety of groupings (whole group, small group, and independent) throughout the lesson.

#4 Classroom

Management

(for Teaching and Learning)

11. Teacher organizes instructional learning time to maximize student time on task. 12. Teacher establishes and manages classroom procedures and routines that promote learning. 13. Teacher uses space, equipment, and materials to support instruction including the use of

technology to engage. 14. Teacher manages student behavior effectively which creates a learning environment of respect and

rapport.

NOTE: These instructional domains and indicators are used for classroom observations during the 1st onsite

monitoring visit.


12

Table 5 “These charts reflect a snapshot of the teaching and learning observed and summarized by the MSDE monitoring team on the day of the onsite monitoring visit for each Priority School.”

Ben Franklin At-A-Glance Comparison between 2012-13 and 2013-14 Classroom Observations

Domain # Ben. Franklin (2012-13) Ben. Franklin (2013-14)

3rd Visit 1st Visit 3rd Visit

Instructional Planning

1 93.33% M 100.00% M

2 73.33% M 100.00% M

3 92.86% M 90.00% M

Instructional Delivery

4 100.00% M 100.00% M

5 87.50% M 100.00% M

6 100.00% M 90.00% M

Teacher Student Engagement

7 93.75% M 100.00% M

8 100.00% M 100.00% M

9 100.00% M 100.00% M

10 50.00% NM 100.00% M

Classroom Management

11 93.75% M 90.00% M

12 93.75% M 100.00% M

13 100.00% M 100.00% M

14 100.00% M 100.00% M

TOTAL 91.31% M 97.86% M

Cherry Hill At-A-Glance Comparison between 2012-13 and 2013-14 Classroom Observations

Domain # Cherry Hill (2012-13) Cherry Hill (2013-14)



1 50.00% NM 87.50% M

2 73.33% M 90.00% M

3 81.25% M 90.00% M


4 81.25% M 90.00% M

5 75.00% M 100.00% M

6 68.75% PM 77.78% M


7 93.75% M 90.00% M

8 75.00% M 70.00% M

9 73.33% M 80.00% M

10 75.00% M 66.67% PM


11 87.50% M 80.00% M

12 87.50% M 80.00% M

13 93.75% M 70.00% M

14 87.50% M 80.00% M

TOTAL 78.78% M 82.28% M

Fred. Douglass At-A-Glance Comparison between 2012-13 and 2013-14 Classroom Observations

Domain # Frederick Douglass (2012-13) Frederick Douglass (2013-14)



1 81.25% M 70.00% M

2 71.43% M 60.00% PM

3 76.92% M 80.00% M


4 76.92% M 90.00% M

5 76.92% M 80.00% M

6 50.00% NM 66.67% PM


7 86.67% M 100.00% M

8 76.92% M 100.00% M

9 85.71% M 100.00% M

10 76.92% M 100.00% M


11 78.57% M 100.00% M

12 93.33% M 100.00% M

13 92.86% M 100.00% M

14 93.33% M 100.00% M

79.84% M 89.05% M

KEY

↑ : Rating Increased *0-50%, Indicator is NOT MET (NM) for the school

-- : Rating Remained the Same *51-69% Indicator is PARTIALLY MET (PM) for the school

↓ : Rating Decreased *70-100% Indicator is MET (M) for the school


13

TABLE 6

Priority Schools First Onsite Visit Classroom Observation Tally Sheet for: Benjamin Franklin High School

Cla

ssro

om

O

bse

rva

tio

n

Ind

ica

tors

Cla

ssro

om

1

Cla

ssro

om

2

Cla

ssro

om

3

Cla

ssro

om

4

Cla

ssro

om

5

Cla

ssro

om

6

Cla

ssro

om

7

Cla

ssro

om

8

Cla

ssro

om

9

Cla

ssro

om

10

To

tal

Pro

fici

en

t o

r A

bo

ve

Ob

serv

ati

on

s

*To

tal

% P

rofi

cie

nt

or

Ab

ov

e

Ob

serv

ati

on

s

*In

dic

ato

r M

ET

(M

),

Pa

rtia

lly

ME

T (

PM

),

NO

T M

ET

(N

M)

1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 10 100.00% M

2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 10 100.00% M

3 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 9 90.00% M

4 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 10 100.00% M

5 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 10 100.00% M

6 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 9 90.00% M

7 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 10 100.00% M

8 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 10 100.00% M

9 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 10 100.00% M

10 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 x 9 100.00% M

11 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 9 90.00% M

12 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 10 100.00% M

13 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 10 100.00% M

14 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 10 100.00% M

TOTAL 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 10 136 97.86% M

*0-50%, Indicator is NOT MET for the school

Key:

*51-69% Indicator is Partially MET for the school

0 - Not Proficient *70-100% Indicator is MET for the school

1 - Proficient or Above

X - No Opportunity to Observe the Indicator in the Classroom


14

TABLE 7 Benjamin Franklin High School Baltimore City Public School System

Priority Cohorts II First Onsite Monitoring Visit Classroom Observation Feedback 2013-2014

Domain 1 : Instructional Planning

Indicator 1: The teacher states the

lesson objective (written

and orally) in student

learning outcomes

which demonstrate high

expectations. (Identifies

what students should

know and be able to do

at the end of the lesson.)

Indicator

Score:

10 points out

of 10

observations

100%

MET

Summary of Evidence to support the Indicator Score

In most classrooms, the objective is written in terms of what students will learn and

be able to do.

In most classrooms, the teacher and student connected the objective to previous

and future learning during the lesson.

In most classrooms, the objective represented high expectations and rigor.

Indicator 2:

The teacher aligns

instructional and

learning activities to

the lesson objective.

Indicator

Score:

10 points out

of 10

observations

100%

MET


In most classrooms, learning activities are matched to instructional outcomes.

In most classrooms, the lessons were well structured, with reasonable time

allocation.

In most classrooms, activities permitted students’ choices.

Indicator 3:

The teacher aligns

assessment

(ongoing,

formative, and

summative) to the

lesson objective.

Indicator

Score:

9 points out

of 10

observations

90%

MET


In most classrooms, all learning outcomes had a method for assessment.

In most classrooms, teacher-designed assessments were authentic with real world

application, as appropriate.

In most classrooms, teachers made adjustments based on formative assessment

data.


15

Domain 2: Instruction Delivery- Strategies and Process Indicator 4:

Teacher presents

concepts, skills, and

directions clearly

using correct oral and

written language.

Indicator

Score:

10 points out

of 10

observations

100%

MET


In most classrooms, the vocabulary was appropriate for the students’ age and levels of

development.

In most classrooms, all students seemed to understand the presentation.

In most classrooms, teachers’ explanation of content was clear, concise and invited

students’ participation and thinking.

Indicator 5:

Teacher provides a

variety of feedback

(oral and written) that

advances student

learning while

checking for

understanding.

Indicator

Score:

10 points out

of 10

observations

100%

MET


In most classrooms, the teacher elicited evidence of student understanding during

the lesson.

In most classrooms, when necessary, the teacher made adjustments to the lesson to

enhance understanding by the group of students.

In most classrooms, the teacher asked a variety of questions to assess students’

understanding, and made frequent use of strategies to elicit information about

their understanding.

In most classrooms, the teacher monitored students’ understanding was

sophisticated and continuous strategies. Teachers were constantly “taking the

pulse” of the class. Indicator 6:

Teacher adapts plans

as needed.

(Differentiation of

content, process,

product; unexpected

situation; teachable

moment, etc.)

Indicator

Score:

9 points out

of 10

observations

90%

MET


In most classrooms, teachers successfully made minor modifications to the lesson.

In most classrooms, teachers seized opportunities on teachable moments to

enhance a lesson.

In most classrooms, teachers incorporated students’ interest and questions into the

heart of the lesson.


16

Domain 3: Teacher-Student Engagement (Techniques and Strategies)

Indicator 7:

All students are

actively engaged in

meaningful tasks

designed to

challenge their

thinking processes.

Indicator

Score:

10 points out

of 10

observations

100%

MET


In most classrooms, most students were intellectually engaged in the lesson.

In most classrooms, materials and resources supported learning goals and required

intellectual engagement.

In most classrooms, the pacing of the lesson provided students the time needed to

be intellectually engaged.

In most classrooms, students had an opportunity for reflection and closure on the

lesson to consolidate their understanding.

Indicator 8: All students are

engaged by the use of

questioning and

discussion strategies

that encourage

higher order thinking

rather than emphasis

on recall.

Indicator

Score:

10 points out

of 10

observations

100%

MET


In all classrooms, teachers made effective use of wait time.

In all classrooms, teachers build on and use student responses to questions

effectively.

In most classrooms, students were able to talk about class work without ongoing

mediation from teacher.

Indicator 9:

Teacher reinforces

skills, processes, and

procedures introduced

through modeling,

shaping, and student

practice.

Indicator

Score:

10 points out

of 10

observations

100%

MET


In all classrooms, teachers clearly stated what students would learn.

In some classrooms, teachers modeled the process to be followed in the task at

hand.

In most classrooms, teacher’s explanation of content was clear, invited student

participation, and provoked thought.


17

Indicator 10:

All students effectively

participate in a variety of

groupings (whole group,

small group, and

independent) throughout

the lesson.

Indicator

Score:

9 points out

of 10

observations

90%

MET


In most classrooms, students were grouped in an organized manner to maximize

learning and build on their strengths.

Domain 4: Classroom Management (for Teaching and Learning)

Indicator 11:

Teacher organizes

instructional learning

time to maximize

student time on task.

Indicator

Score:

9 points out

of 10

observations

90%

MET


In the majority of classrooms, pacing of the lesson gave students the time needed to be

intellectually engaged in the lesson.

In the majority of classrooms, most students interacted well with each other.

Indicator12:

Teacher establishes

and manages

classroom

procedures and

routines that

promote learning.

Indicator

Score:

10 points out

of 10

observations

100%

MET


In all classrooms, routines ran smoothly and distribution and collection of

materials and supplies were efficient.

In most classrooms, student behavior was generally appropriate.

In most classrooms, the teacher monitored behavior and responded effectively to

student misbehavior.


18

Indicator 13:

Teacher uses space,

equipment, and

materials to support

instruction including

the use of technology

to engage.

Indicator

Score:

10 points out

of 10

observations

100%

MET


All classrooms are safe and students are able to see and hear the teacher during

instruction.

Most classrooms are arranged to support instructional goals and activities.

In all classrooms, teachers utilized Smart Boards and other technology.

Indicator 14:

Teacher manages

student behavior

effectively which

creates a learning

environment of

respect and rapport.

Indicator

Score:

10 points out

of 10

observations

100%

MET


In many classrooms, teachers demonstrated a general caring and respect for their

students by teacher and student sharing what was good in their life.

In most classrooms, there was no disrespectful behavior among the students.

In most classrooms, conversation between teacher and student was respectful.


19

TABLE 8 Priority Cohort II Year 3 Benjamin Franklin High School Budget LEA: Baltimore City Public Schools MSDE Fiscal Reviewer: Kelly Coates Monitoring Date: October 11, 2013 Total Priority Cohort II Year 3


School Budget Spent: $ 0

Percent of School Budget Spent: 0 %


Salaries & Wages Contractual Services Supplies & Materials Other Budgeted: $ 522,426 Budgeted: $ 103,618.64 Budgeted: $ 3,688 Travel Budgeted: $ 0

Encumbered: $ 0 Encumbered: $ 0 Encumbered: $ 0 Travel Encumbered: $0




Travel Spent(amount): $ 0 Spent (%): 0%

1. How much of the school budget, based on the LEA’s approved application, has been expended to date (amount and %)? Benjamin Franklin High School has spent $ 0. This amount is 0 % of their approved SIG II Year 3 budget, awaiting funds.

2. Is school spending consistent with budget timeline? If not, what steps are being taken to expend the funds as planned? BCPSS explained that Benjamin Franklin High School is on target in spending on their timeline, awaiting funds.

3. What action steps or planned activities have not taken place that would impact the budget? BCPSS shared that all activities are on schedule, awaiting funds.

4. Has a budget amendment been submitted? If yes, what budget changes were requested for this school? No budget amendments are anticipated.

5. How often are school expenditures monitored by the LEA? Who monitors? Grant Administration will monitor on a monthly basis.

6. Did the LEA provide evidence and documentation of the Priority School Inventory? Yes No (awaiting funds)



20

TABLE 9 Priority Schools First Onsite Visit Classroom Observation Tally Sheet for: FREDERICK DOUGLASS HIGH SCHOOL

Cla

ssro

om

Ob

serv

ati

on

In

dic

ato

rs

Cla

ssro

om

1

Cla

ssro

om

2

Cla

ssro

om

3

Cla

ssro

om

4

Cla

ssro

om

5

Cla

ssro

om

6

Cla

ssro

om

7

Cla

ssro

om

8

Cla

ssro

om

9

Cla

ssro

om

10

To

tal

Pro

fici

en

t o

r A

bo

ve

O

bse

rva

tio

ns

*To

tal

% P

rofi

cie

nt

or

Ab

ov

e O

bse

rva

tio

ns

*In

dic

ato

r M

ET

(M

),

Pa

rtia

lly

ME

T (

PM

), N

OT

M

ET

(N

M)

1 1 1 1 1 0 0 1 1 0 1 7 70.00% M

2 0 0 1 1 1 0 1 1 0 1 6 60.00% PM

3 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 8 80.00% M

4 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 9 90.00% M

5 0 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 8 80.00% M

6 1 0 X 1 1 0 1 1 0 1 6 66.67% PM

7 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 10 100.00% M

8 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 10 100.00% M

9 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 10 100.00% M

10 1 X 1 1 X 1 1 X 1 1 7 100.00% M

11 1 X 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 9 100.00% M

12 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 10 100.00% M

13 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 10 100.00% M

14 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 10 100.00% M

TOTAL 12 9 13 14 12 9 14 13 10 14 120 89.05%


Key:


0 - Not Proficient

*70-100% Indicator is MET for the school




21

TABLE 10

Frederick Douglass High School Baltimore City Public School System

Priority Cohorts I First Onsite Monitoring Visit Classroom Observation Feedback 2013-2014

Domain 1 : Instructional Planning Indicator 1:

The teacher states the

lesson objective

(written and orally) in

student learning

outcomes which

demonstrate high

expectations.

(identifies what

students should know

and be able to do at

the end of the lesson.)

Indicator Score:

7 points out of 10

total observations

70%

MET


All teachers had objectives posted.

Most objectives were written in terms of what students will learn and be able

to do.

Most objectives referenced curricular frameworks or standards.

Indicator 2:

The teacher aligns

instructional and



Indicator Score:

6 points out of 10

total observations

60%

PARTIALLY

MET


Most teachers planned learning activities that were matched to the

instructional outcomes.

Most learning activities were well structured with reasonable time allotments.

Many learning activities were only moderately challenging.

Indicator 3:

The teacher aligns

assessment

(ongoing,

formative, and

summative) to the

lesson objective.

Indicator Score:

8 points out of 10

total observations

80%

MET


Most teachers planned assessments (ongoing, formative, and/or summative)

that matched the learning expectations.

Most teachers included the use of formative assessments in instruction.

In some cases, formative assessments were not fully developed.


22

Domain 2: Instruction Delivery- Strategies and Process

Indicator 4:

Teacher presents


directions clearly


written language.

Indicator

Score:

9 points out of 10

total observations

90%

MET


No teacher made any content errors.

All teachers used vocabulary suited to the lesson.

Some teachers invited students to explain the content to the class.

A few teachers invited students to explain content to their classmates in group

work.

A few teachers explained content clearly and imaginatively, using metaphors

and analogies to bring the content to life.

Indicator 5:

Teacher provides a

variety of feedback


advances student

learning while

checking for

understanding.

Indicator

Score:

8 points out of 10

total observations

80%

MET


Most teachers elicited evidence of student understanding during the lesson.

Many teachers gave frequent feedback which included specific and timely

guidance for at least groups of students.

Some teachers only requested global indications of student understanding.

Indicator 6:


as needed.

(Differentiation of

content, process,

product; unexpected


moment, etc.)

Indicator

Score:

6 points out of 9

total observations

67%

PARTIALLY

MET


Most teachers successfully made minor adjustments to their lessons as needed.

Many teachers incorporated students’ interests and questions into the heart of

the lesson.

Some teachers ignored indications of student boredom or lack of

understanding.


23


Indicator 7:

All students are

actively engaged in

meaningful tasks

designed to

challenge their

thinking processes.

Indicator

Score:

10 points out of

10 total

observations

100%

MET


Most students were attentive to the lesson and there was appropriate pacing of

instruction.

In most classrooms, materials and resources supported the learning goals and

required intellectual engagement.

In some classrooms, students had an opportunity for reflection and closure on the

lesson to consolidate their understanding.

Indicator 8:

All students are

engaged by the use

of questioning and

discussion

strategies that

encourage higher

order thinking

rather than

emphasis on recall.

Indicator

Score:

10 points out of

10 total

observations

100%

MET


There was some discussion between students in some of the classrooms.

Close to half of the classrooms teachers used open-ended questions to encourage

students to think and/or have multiple possible answers.

In nearly all classrooms, the teacher called on students that had not already

volunteered to speak or participate in the lesson.

Indicator 9:

Teacher reinforces



through modeling,


practice.

Indicator

Score:

10 points out of

10 total

observations

100%

MET


In nearly all classes, the teacher stated clearly what the students would be

learning.

In some classes, the students understood the presentation and the teacher invited

students to explain the content to classroom.


24

Indicator 10:


participate in a variety

of groupings (whole

group, small group,

and independent)

throughout the lesson.

Indicator

Score:

7 points out of

7 total

observations

100%

MET


In a few rooms lessons were differentiated for individuals’ needs, including

grouping.

Overall, accommodations were made for individuals. For instance, late-comers

were brought up to speed and students were given opportunities to move around

the room to be more engaged.


Indicator 11:

Teacher organizes


time to maximize


Indicator

Score:

9 points out of

9 total

observations

100%

MET


In many classrooms the lesson provided student the time needed to be

intellectually engaged.

In some instances, students interacted with one another.

In various classrooms students have an opportunity to reflect on the lesson and to

consolidate their understanding with the teacher, and sometimes the students did

this with each other.

Indicator12:

Teacher establishes

and manages

classroom

procedures and

routines that

promote learning.

Indicator

Score:

10 points out of

10 total

observations

100%

MET


Across classrooms, student behavior was entirely appropriate and there was

virtually no evidence of student misbehavior.

In most classrooms, the teacher monitored student behaviors by moving about

and through other effective means of engaging students.

Throughout the classrooms observed, routines for distribution and collection of

materials and supplies worked efficiently.

Many teachers were adept at acknowledging good student behavior and

participation.


25

Indicator 13:

Teacher uses space,

equipment, and




to engage.

Indicator

Score:

10 points out of

10 total

observations

100%

MET


All observed classrooms and hallways appeared safe, well maintained and

welcoming.

Classrooms observed were arranged to support instructional goals.

Many teachers utilized technology and some were notably creative with the

technology.

Indicator 14:

Teacher manages

student behavior

effectively which

creates a learning

environment of


Indicator

Score:

10 points out of

10 total

observations

100%

Met

Summary of Evidence to support the Indicator Score (in complete sentences)

Dialogue between students and teachers and among students was uniformly

respectful in each of the observed classrooms.

Teachers’ responses to incorrect student responses were uniformly respectful of

student’s dignity.

Indicator

Score:

10 points out of

10 total

observations

100%

MET


Dialogue between students and teachers and among students was uniformly

respectful in each of the observed classrooms.

Teachers’ responses to incorrect student responses were uniformly respectful of

student’s dignity.


26

TABLE 11 Priority Cohort II Year 3 Frederick Douglass High School Budget LEA: Baltimore City Public Schools MSDE Fiscal Reviewer: Kelly Coates Monitoring Date: October 11, 2013 Total Priority Cohort II Year 3

Allocation: $ 1,279,584




Salaries & Wages Contractual Services Supplies & Materials Other Budgeted: $ 675,317 Budgeted: $ 380,000 Budgeted: $ 43,781 Travel Budgeted: $ 0




Spent (amount): $ 0 Spent (%): 0%


1. How much of the school budget, based on the LEA’s approved application, has been expended to date (amount and %)? Frederick Douglass High School has spent $ 0. This amount is 0 % of their approved SIG II Year 3 budget, awaiting funds.

2. Is school spending consistent with budget timeline? If not, what steps are being taken to expend the funds as planned? BCPSS explained that Frederick Douglass High School is on target in spending on their timeline, awaiting funds.







27

TABLE 12 Priority Schools First Onsite Visit Classroom Observation Tally Sheet for: CHERRY HILL ELEMENTARY/MIDDLE SCHOOL

Cla

ssro

om

Ob

serv

ati

on

In

dic

ato

rs

Cla

ssro

om

1

Cla

ssro

om

2

Cla

ssro

om

3

Cla

ssro

om

4

Cla

ssro

om

5

Cla

ssro

om

6

Cla

ssro

om

7

Cla

ssro

om

8

Cla

ssro

om

9

Cla

ssro

om

10

To

tal

Pro

fici

en

t o

r A

bo

ve

O

bse

rva

tio

ns

*To

tal

% P

rofi

cie

nt

or

Ab

ov

e O

bse

rva

tio

ns

*In

dic

ato

r M

ET

(M

),

Pa

rtia

lly

ME

T (

PM

), N

OT

M

ET

(N

M)

1 1 0 1 1 1 x 1 1 1 x 7 87.50% M

2 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 9 90.00% M

3 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 9 90.00% M

4 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 9 90.00% M

5 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 10 100.00% M

6 x 1 1 1 1 0 1 0 1 1 7 77.78% M

7 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 9 90.00% M

8 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 7 70.00% M

9 1 1 0 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 8 80.00% M

10 1 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 x 6 66.67% PM

11 1 1 0 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 8 80.00% M

12 1 1 0 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 8 80.00% M

13 0 0 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 7 70.00% M

14 1 1 0 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 8 80.00% M

TOTAL 11 11 7 14 13 4 14 12 14 12 112 82.28%


Key:


0 - Not Proficient

*70-100% Indicator is MET for the school




28

TABLE 13

Cherry Hill Elementary/Middle School Baltimore City Public School System

Priority Cohorts II First Onsite Monitoring Visit Classroom Observation Feedback 2013-2014

Domain 1 : Instructional Planning

Indicator 1: The teacher states the

lesson objective (written

and orally) in student

learning outcomes

which demonstrate high

expectations. (identifies

what students should

know and be able to do

at the end of the lesson.)

Indicator

Score:

7 points out

of 8 total

observations

87.50%

MET


Lesson objectives were stated in many classrooms and posted in some classrooms.

Some teachers referred to the objective during instruction

The school-wide acronym SWBT (Students Will Be able To) for objectives was

employed in all cases where objectives were observed.

Indicator 2:

The teacher aligns

instructional and



Indicator

Score:

9 points out

of 10 total

observations

90%

MET


In most cases, learning activities matched the objective.

Teachers planned all instructional time so there was no time left over or wasted with

busy work.

Several instructional activities were provided during the lesson time.

Indicator 3:

The teacher aligns

assessment

(ongoing,

formative, and

summative) to the

lesson objective.

Indicator

Score:

9 points out

of 10 total

observations

90%

MET


In some classrooms, students self-assessed their work.

In one classroom, students assessed other student’s work.

Teachers frequently monitored and provided feedback as students worked.

Teachers asked prompting questions and assisted students in correcting miscues.


29

Domain 2: Instruction Delivery- Strategies and Process

Indicator 4:

Teacher presents


directions clearly


written language.

Indicator

Score:

9 points out

of 10 total

observations

90%

MET

Summary of Evidence to support the Indicator Score (in complete sentences)

Most teachers made no content or grammatical errors when presenting concepts,

skills and directions.

Teachers presented concepts with many clear examples.

Most teachers used appropriate written language.

Indicator 5:

Teacher provides a

variety of feedback


advances student

learning while

checking for

understanding.

Indicator

Score:

10 points out

of 10 total

observations

100%

MET


In all observations, teachers provided group and individual feedback to students.

Teachers often provided models or samples of the correct response.

Most teachers provided on-going positive verbal feedback.

Some teachers used visual feedback for understanding (“fist or five”).

Indicator 6:


as needed.

(Differentiation of

content, process,

product; unexpected


moment, etc.)

Indicator

Score:

7 points out

of 9 total

observations

77.78%

MET


Some teachers differentiated product based on student needs.

Teachers adjusted content based on student responses and apparent student

background knowledge.

Some teachers adapted plans to adjust for student behavioral needs.


30


Indicator 7:

All students are

actively engaged in

meaningful tasks

designed to

challenge their

thinking processes.

Indicator

Score:

9 points out of

10 total

observations

90%

MET


The majority of students were engaged in the learning.

In most classes, the pacing of the lessons provided time for the students to be engaged.

In most classes, the tasks challenged student’s thinking.

Indicator 8: All students are

engaged by the use of

questioning and

discussion strategies

that encourage

higher order thinking

rather than emphasis

on recall.

Indicator

Score:

7 points out of

10 total

observations

70%

MET


In almost every room, the teacher made effective use of “wait time”.

Teachers built on and used student responses effectively.

While there were several instances of low level questions, teachers attempted to use

higher level questioning techniques.

In a few classes, students were asked to predict and compare from the text, rather

than recall facts.

Indicator 9:

Teacher reinforces



through modeling,


practice.

Indicator

Score:

8 points out of

10 total

observations

80%

MET


In most classrooms, the teacher modeled the processes to be followed.

In most classrooms, students indicated that they understood what to do.


31

Indicator 10:


participate in a variety of

groupings (whole group,

small group, and

independent) throughout

the lesson.

Indicator

Score:

6 points out of

9 total

observations

66.67%

PARTIALLY

MET


A few teachers created a variety of grouping for student learning.

Most groups appeared to be randomly organized rather than organized to

maximize instruction.

Most teachers allowed children an opportunity to talk (turn and talk).

In several classes all the work was independent.


Indicator 11:

Teacher organizes


time to maximize


Indicator

Score:

8 points out of

10 total

observations

80%

MET


In all but one class, the pacing of the lesson provided students the time needed to be

intellectually engaged.

In most classrooms, there was little loss of instruction time due to behavior.

Indicator12:

Teacher establishes

and manages

classroom

procedures and

routines that

promote learning.

Indicator

Score:

8 points out

of 10 total

observations

80%

MET


In most classrooms, teachers established and managed classroom procedures that

promoted learning.

Student behavior was generally appropriate.

Most teachers acknowledged good behavior.


32

Indicator 13:

Teacher uses space,

equipment, and




to engage.

Indicator

Score:

7 points out of

10 total

observations

70%

MET


In some classrooms, teachers made appropriate use of the technology that was

available.

All classrooms were safe.

In most classrooms, the furniture was arranged to support learning.

Indicator 14:

Teacher manages

student behavior

effectively which

creates a learning

environment of


Indicator

Score:

8 points out of

10 total

observations

80%

MET


In most classrooms talk between teacher and students was uniformly respectful.

In most classrooms talk between students was uniformly respectful.

In all classrooms teachers responded to disrespectful behavior among students.


33

TABLE 14

Priority Cohort II Year 3 Cherry Hill Elementary/Middle School Budget LEA: Baltimore City Public Schools

MSDE Fiscal Reviewer: Kelly Coates Monitoring Date: October 11, 2013 Total Priority Cohort II Year 3





Salaries & Wages Contractual Services Supplies & Materials Other Budgeted: $ 372,435 Budgeted: $ 399,823 Budgeted: $ 0 Travel Budgeted: $ 0






1. How much of the school budget, based on the LEA’s approved application, has been expended to date (amount and %)? Cherry Hill Elementary School has spent $ 0. This amount is 0 % of their approved SIG II Year 3 budget, awaiting funds.

2. Is school spending consistent with budget timeline? If not, what steps are being taken to expend the funds as planned? BCPSS explained that Cherry Hill Elementary School is on target in spending on their timeline, awaiting funds.






priority cohort ii year 3 program and fiscal monitoring...

Documents