RTT-D Application Howard County MD FINAL

10910 Clarksville Pike Ellicott City, MD 21042
Race to the Top - District Application for Funding U.S. Department of Education CFDA Number: 84.416
Contact: Linda Wise Deputy Superintendent, Curriculum, Instruction, and Administration (410) 313-6607 Linda_Wise@hcpss.org
TABLE OF CONTENTS
IV. APPLICATION ASSURANCES iv V. PROGRAM-SPECIFIC ASSURANCES FOR INDIVIDUAL LEA APPLICANTS..v. VII. OTHER ASSURANCES AND CERTIFICATIONS...x. VIII. ABSOLUTE PRIORITIES.xii. IX. SELECTION CRITERIA.1 A. VISION.1 (A)(1) Articulating a comprehensive and coherent reform vision..3 (A)(2) Applicants approach to implementation..7 (A)(3) LEA-wide reform & change....7 (A)(4) LEA-wide goals for improved student outcomes....14 B. PRIOR RECORD OF SUCCESS AND CONDITIONS FOR REFORM46 (B)(1) Demonstrating a clear track record of success.47 (B)(2) Increasing transparency in LEA processes, practices, and investments54 (B)(3) State context for implementation...55 (B)(4) Stakeholder engagement and support...59 (B)(5) Analysis of needs and gaps.63 C. PREPARING STUDENTS FOR COLLEGE AND CAREERS68 (C)(1) Learning...68 (C)(2) Teaching and Leading79 D. LEA POLICY AND INFRASTRUCTURE.89 (D)(1) LEA practices, policies, rules.89
(D)(2) LEA and school infrastructure91 E. CONTINUOUS IMPROVEMENT.99 (E)(1) Continuous improvement process99 (E)(2) Ongoing communication and engagement..101 (E)(3) Performance measures..102 (E)(4) Evaluating effectiveness of investments..113 F. BUDGET AND SUSTAINABILITY..118 (F)(1) Budget for the project...118 (F)(2) Sustainability of project goals..118 X. COMPETITIVE PREFERENCE PRIORITY.127 XI. BUDGET138 XII. OPTIONAL BUDGET SUPPLEMENT173 APPENDIX TABLE OF CONTENTS...178 APPENDICES..179
IV.
APPLICATION ASSURANCES
(CFDA No. 84.416)
Legal Name of Applicant's NCES District Howard County Public School System Applicant's Mailing Address: 10910 Clarksville Pike, Ellicott City, MD 21042 Organizational DUNS Number: Employer Identification Number: 030322424 52-6000968 Contact Position and Office: Deputy Race to the Top- District Contact Name: Superintendent, Curriculum, Instruction, (Single point of contact for communication) and Administration Linda Wise Contact E-mail Address: Contact Telephone: Linda wise@hcpss.org 410-313-6607 Required applicant Signatures: To the best of my knowledge and belief, all of the information and data in this application are true and correct. I further certify that I have read the application, am fully committed to it, and will support its implementation. I am aware that any false, fictitious, or fraudulent statements or claims may subject me to criminal, civil, or administrative penalties. (U.S. Code, Title 218, Section 1001)
iv.
Individual LEA, Lead LEA for the consortium, or eligible legal entity Consortium applicants must provide the NCES District ID for each LEA in the consortium, on a separate page and include in the Appendix. Applicants may obtain their NCES District ID at http :Ilnces.ed. govIcedidistrictsearch.
2 1
V.
PROGRAM-SPECIFIC ASSURANCES FOR INDIVIDUAL LEA APPLICANTS
Individual LEA applicants must complete the forms in this part. For consortia applicants, the Lead LEA or representative of the eligible legal entity must complete the forms in Part VI. ABSOLUTE PRIORITIES INDIVIDUAL LEA APPLICANT Absolute Priority 1 An applicant must address Absolute Priority 1 in its response to the selection criteria. Applicants do not write to Absolute Priority 1 separately. Absolute Priorities 2 through 5 Applicants do not write to Absolute Priorities 2 through 5 separately. Instead, they complete this part by identifying the one (and only one) of Absolute Priorities 2 through 5 that applies. Please check one of the priorities below. x Absolute Priority 2: Non-Rural LEAs in Race to the Top States. To meet this priority, an applicant must be an LEA in which more than 50 percent of participating students (as defined in this notice) are in non-rural LEAs in States that received awards under the Race to the Top Phase 1, Phase 2, or Phase 3 competition Absolute Priority 3: Rural LEAs in Race to the Top States. To meet this priority, an applicant must be an LEA in which more than 50 percent of participating students (as defined in this notice) are in rural LEAs (as defined in this notice) in States that received awards under the Race to the Top Phase 1, Phase 2, or Phase 3 competition. Absolute Priority 4: Non-Rural LEAs in non-Race to the Top States. To meet this priority, an applicant must be an LEA in which more than 50 percent of participating students (as defined in this notice) are in non-rural LEAs in States that did not receive awards under the Race to the Top Phase 1, Phase 2, or Phase 3 competition. Absolute Priority 5: Rural LEAs in non-Race to the Top States. To meet this priority, an applicant must be an LEA in which more than 50 percent of participating students (as defined in this notice) are in rural LEAs (as defined in this notice) in States that did not receive awards under the Race to the Top Phase 1, Phase 2, or Phase 3 competition. NOTE: Race to the Top Phase 1, 2, and 3 States are: Arizona, Colorado, Delaware, Florida, Georgia, Hawaii, Illinois, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Jersey, New York, North Carolina, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Tennessee and the District of Columbia. BUDGET REQUIREMENT INDIVIDUAL LEA APPLICANT By completing this part, the applicant assures that its Race to the Top District budget request conforms to the established budget ranges for the competition.
v.
The number of participating students is 10,544. The total Race to the Top District grant funds requested is $29,985,425.05, which is within the following range: (Check the one range of participating students (all as defined in this notice) that applies) $5-10 million - 2 ,000-5,000 participating students X $10-20 million - 5,001-10,000 participating students $20-30 million - 10,001-25,000 participating students $30-40 million - 25,001+ participating students
vi.
ELIGIBILITY REQUIREMENTS INDIVIDUAL LEA APPLICANT
By checking the applicable statement(s) below, the applicant assures that: X The applicant meets the definition of local educational agency (as defined in this notice). X The applicant is from one of the 50 States, the District of Columbia, or the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico. X This application is the only Race to the Top District application to which the applicant has signed on. X This application serves a minimum of 2,000 participating students (as defined in this notice). X At least 40 percent of participating students (as defined in this notice) across all participating schools (as defined in this notice) are students from low-income families, based on eligibility for free or reduced-price lunch subsidies under the Richard B. Russell National School Lunch Act, or other poverty measures that LEAs use to make awards under section 1113(a) of the ESEA OR if the applicant has not identified all participating schools (as defined in this notice) at the time of application, the applicant assures that within 100 days of the grant award it will meet this standard. X The applicant has demonstrated its commitment to the core educational assurance areas (as defined in this notice) and assures that -(i) The LEA, at a minimum, will implement no later than the 2014-2015 school year (A) A teacher evaluation system (as defined in this notice); (B) A principal evaluation system (as defined in this notice); and (C) A superintendent evaluation (as defined in this notice); (ii) The LEA is committed to preparing all students for college or career, as demonstrated by(check one that applies) X (A) Being located in a State that has adopted college- and careerready standards (as defined in this notice); or (B) Measuring all student progress and performance against collegeand career-ready graduation requirements (as defined in this notice); (iii) The LEA has a robust data system that has, at a minimum (A) An individual teacher identifier with a teacher-student match; and (B) The capability to provide timely data back to educators and their supervisors on student growth (as defined in this notice); (iv) The LEA has the capability to receive or match student level preschool through 12th grade and higher education data; and (v) The LEA ensures that any disclosure of or access to personally identifiable information in students education records complies with FERPA.
vii.
__ The application is signed by the superintendent or CEO, local school board president, and local teacher union or association president (where applicable).
APPLICATION REQUIREMENTS INDIVIDUAL LEA APPLICANTS By checking the applicable statement(s) below, the applicant assures that the: X State comment period was met. The LEA provided its State at least 10 business days to comment on the LEAs application and has submitted as part of its application package- The States comments OR evidence that the State declined to comment The LEAs response (optional) to the States comments (The submitted comments, evidence, and responses are located in Appendix 5, from pages 315 to 315 of the proposal.) x Mayor (or city or town administrator) comment period was met. The LEA provided its mayor or other comparable official at least 10 business days to comment on the LEAs application and has submitted as part of its application package The mayor or city or town administrators comments OR, if that individual declines to comment, evidence that the LEA offered such official 10 business days to comment The LEAs response (optional) to the mayor or city or town administrator comments (The submitted comments, evidence, and responses are located in Appendix 5, from pages 316 to 318 of the proposal.)
viii.
SIGNATURE BLOCK FOR CERTIFYING OFFICIAL FOR ALL RESPONSES TO SECTIONV

Superintendent or CEO of the LEA (Printed Name):
Signature of Superintendent or CEO of the LEA:
Date:
//-7-
J..D I~
ix.
VII.
OTHER ASSURANCES AND CERTIFICATIONS
Accountability, Transparency and Reporting Assurances The Superintendent or CEO of the individual LEA or Lead LEA, or Legal Representative of Eligible Legal Entity, assures that: The LEA or consortium will comply with all of the accountability, transparency, and reporting requirements that apply to the Race to the Top District program, including: o For each year of the program, the LEA or consortium will submit a report to the Secretary, at such time and in such manner and containing such information as the Secretary may require.
Other Assurances and Certifications The Superintendent or CEO of the individual LEA or Lead LEA, or Legal Representative of Eligible Legal Entity, assures or certifies the following: The LEA or consortium will comply with all applicable assurances in OMB Standard Forms 424B (Assurances for Non-Construction Programs) and to the extent consistent with the application, OMB Standard Form 424D (Assurances for Construction Programs), including the assurances relating to the legal authority to apply for assistance; access to records; conflict of interest; merit systems; nondiscrimination; Hatch Act provisions; labor standards; flood hazards; historic preservation; protection of human subjects; animal welfare; lead-based paint; Single Audit Act; and the general agreement to comply with all applicable Federal laws, executive orders and regulations. With respect to the certification regarding lobbying in Department Form 80-0013, no Federal appropriated funds have been paid or will be paid to any person for influencing or attempting to influence an officer or employee of any agency, a Member of Congress, an officer or employee of Congress, or an employee of a Member of Congress in connection with the making or renewal of Federal grants under this program; the applicant, and for consortia each LEA, will complete and submit Standard Form-LLL, Disclosure Form to Report Lobbying, when required (34 CFR Part 82, Appendix B); and the applicant will require the full certification, as set forth in 34 CFR Part 82, Appendix A, in the award documents for all subawards at all tiers. Any LEA receiving funding under this program will have on file with the State a set of assurances that meets the requirements of section 442 of the General Education Provisions Act (GEPA) (20 U.S.C. 1232e). Any LEA receiving funding under this program will have on file with the State (through either its Stabilization Fiscal Stabilization Fund application or another U.S. Department of Education Federal grant) a description of how the LEA will comply with the requirements of section 427 of GEPA (20 U.S.C. 1228a). The description must include information on the steps the LEA proposes to take to permit students, teachers, and other program beneficiaries to overcome barriers (including barriers based on gender, race, color, national origin, disability, and age) that impede access to, or participation in, the program. All entities receiving funds under this grant will comply with the Education Department General Administrative Regulations (EDGAR), including the following provisions as applicable: 34 CFR Part 74Administration of Grants and Agreements with Institutions
x.
All entities receiving funds under this grant will comply with the Education Department General Administrative Regulations (EDGAR), including the following provisions as applicable: 34 CFR Part 74-Administration of Grants and Agreements with Institutions of Higher Education, Hospitals, and Other Non-Profit Organizations; 34 CFR Part 75-Direct Grant Programs; 34 CFR Part 77- Definitions that Apply to Department Regulations; 34 CFR Part 80- Uniform Administrative Requirements for Grants and Cooperative Agreements to State and Local Governments, including the procurement provisions; 34 CFR Part 81General Education Provisions Act-Enforcement; 34 CFR Part 82- New Restrictions on Lobbying; 34 CFR Part 84-Governmentwide Requirements for Drug-Free Workplace (Financial Assistance); 34 CFR Part 85-Governmentwide Debarment and Suspension (Nonprocurement).
SIGNATURE BLOCK FOR CERTIFYING OFFICIAL FOR ALL ASSURANCES AND CERTIFICATIONS IN SECTION VII
Superintendent or CEO of individual LEA or Lead LEA, or Legal Representative of Eligible Legal Entity (Printed Name):
e-N e e-
Fo o.s e.
Date:
Signature of Superintendent or CEO of individual LEA or Lead LEA, al Re esentative ofEligible Legal Entity: or
11- 7- J.._ora.
xi.
VIII.
ABSOLUTE PRIORITIES
Absolute Priority 1 Absolute Priority 1: Personalized Learning Environments. To meet this priority, an applicant must coherently and comprehensively address how it will build on the core educational assurance areas (as defined in this notice) to create learning environments that are designed to significantly improve learning and teaching through the personalization of strategies, tools, and supports for students and educators that are aligned with college- and career-ready standards (as defined in this notice) or college- and career-ready graduation requirements (as defined in this notice); accelerate student achievement and deepen student learning by meeting the academic needs of each student; increase the effectiveness of educators; expand student access to the most effective educators; decrease achievement gaps across student groups; and increase the rates at which students graduate from high school prepared for college and careers. An applicant must address Absolute Priority 1 in its responses to the selection criteria. Applicants do not write to Absolute Priority 1 separately. Absolute Priorities 2 5 Absolute Priority 2: Non-Rural LEAs in Race to the Top States. To meet this priority, an applicant must be an LEA or a consortium of LEAs in which more than 50 percent of participating students (as defined in this notice) are in non-rural LEAs in States that received awards under the Race to the Top Phase 1, Phase 2, or Phase 3 competition. Absolute Priority 3: Rural LEAs in Race to the Top States. To meet this priority, an applicant must be an LEA or a consortium of LEAs in which more than 50 percent of participating students (as defined in this notice) are in rural LEAs (as defined in this notice) in States that received awards under the Race to the Top Phase 1, Phase 2, or Phase 3 competition. Absolute Priority 4: Non-Rural LEAs in non-Race to the Top States. To meet this priority, an applicant must be an LEA or a consortium of LEAs in which more than 50 percent of participating students (as defined in this notice) are in non-rural LEAs in States that did not receive awards under the Race to the Top Phase 1, Phase 2, or Phase 3 competition. Absolute Priority 5: Rural LEAs in non-Race to the Top States. To meet this priority, an applicant must be an LEA or a consortium of LEAs in which more than 50 percent of participating students (as defined in this notice) are in rural LEAs (as defined in this notice) in States that did not receive awards under the Race to the Top Phase 1, Phase 2, or Phase 3 competition. The applicant must identify, through the Program-Specific Assurances in Part V or VI, which one of the Absolute Priorities 2 through 5 applies to the applicant.
xii.
A. Vision (40 total points) (A)(1) Articulating a comprehensive and coherent reform vision (10 points) The extent to which the applicant has set forth a comprehensive and coherent reform vision that builds on its work in four core educational assurance areas (as defined in this notice) and articulates a clear and credible approach to the goals of accelerating student achievement, deepening student learning, and increasing equity through personalized student support grounded in common and individual tasks that are based on student academic interests. (A)(2) Applicants approach to implementation (10 points) The extent to which the applicants approach to implementing its reform proposal (e.g., schools, grade bands, or subject areas) will support high-quality LEA-level and school-level implementation of that proposal, including (a) A description of the process that the applicant used or will use to select schools to participate. The process must ensure that the participating schools (as defined in this notice) collectively meet the competitions eligibility requirements; (b) A list of the schools that will participate in grant activities (as available); and (c) The total number of participating students (as defined in this notice), participating students (as defined in this notice) from low-income families, participating students (as defined in this notice) who are high-need students (as defined in this notice), and participating educators (as defined in this notice). If participating schools (as defined in this notice) have yet to be selected, the applicant may provide approximate numbers. (A)(3) LEA-wide reform & change (10 points) The extent to which the application includes a high-quality plan describing how the reform proposal will be scaled up and translated into meaningful reform to support district-wide change beyond the participating schools (as defined in this notice), and will help the applicant reach its outcome goals (e.g., the applicants logic model or theory of change of how its plan will improve student learning outcomes for all students who would be served by the applicant). (A)(4) LEA-wide goals for improved student outcomes (10 points) The extent to which the applicants vision is likely to result in improved student learning and performance and increased equity as demonstrated by ambitious yet achievable annual goals that are equal to or exceed State ESEA targets for the LEA(s), overall and by student subgroup (as defined in this notice), for each participating LEA in the following areas:
(a) (b) (c) (d)
Performance on summative assessments (proficiency status and growth). Decreasing achievement gaps (as defined in this notice). Graduation rates (as defined in this notice). College enrollment (as defined in this notice) rates.
Optional: The extent to which the applicants vision is likely to result in improved student learning and performance and increased equity as demonstrated by ambitious yet achievable annual goals for each participating LEA in the following area: (e) Postsecondary degree attainment. In the text box below, the applicant should describe its current status in meeting the criteria and/or provide its high-quality plan for meeting the criteria. The narrative or attachments should also include any supporting evidence the applicant believes will be helpful to peer reviewers, including at a minimum the evidence listed in the criterion (if any), and how each piece of evidence demonstrates the applicants success in meeting the criterion. Evidence or attachments must be described in the narrative and, where relevant, included in the Appendix. For evidence or attachments included in the Appendix, note in the narrative the location where the information can be found and provide a table of contents for the Appendix. To provide a high-quality plan, the applicant should describe, at a minimum, the goals, activities, timelines, deliverables, and responsible parties (for further detail, see Scoring Instructions in Part XV or Appendix A in the NIA). The narrative and attachments may also include any additional information the applicant believes will be helpful to peer reviewers. Peer reviewers will reward applicants for developing goals that in light of the applicant's proposal are ambitious yet achievable. In determining whether an applicant has ambitious yet achievable annual goals, peer reviewers will examine the applicant's goals in the context of the applicant's proposal and the evidence submitted in support of the proposal. There is no specific goal that peer reviewers will be looking for here; nor will higher goals necessarily be rewarded above lower ones. For optional goal (A)(4)(e): Applicants scores will not be adversely impacted if they choose not to address optional goal (A)(4)(e). Recommended maximum response length: Eight pages (excluding tables)
(A)(1)
Fifteen second graders in Ms. Johnsons co-taught classroom began instruction on adding to 100, first using blocks, then a picture, and, finally, equations. Ms. Johnson and the special educator working with her divided the class into eight students in one group and seven in the other. They modeled the task and had students work through problems with partners and independently. The classroom was rich with ten-frames, base-ten blocks, and many opportunities to use concrete representations. While most educators would agree that this is a model of sound instruction with differentiation, co-teaching, use of hands-on materials, and engaging tasks, several students were still struggling. While some students easily grouped ones into tens, others needed additional support. Each time one of the teachers needed to support students, others waited. Some students did not meet the objectives of the lesson and were left struggling with addition. Within the confines of the current educational model, the teachers had done all they could to support all their students learning needs. What failed the students was not the teacher, the curriculum, or the resources. It was the instructional model. The vision of the Howard County Public School System (HCPSS)s Race to the Top -District (RTT-D) plan will be to redesign the very concept of school. We will create a system where all students are actively engaged in relevant instruction connected to their interests, personalized to their strengths and needs, and accessible anytime and anywhere. This vision will be realized through two main projects: (1) Learning for the Future: A Personalized Competency-based Approach; and (2) Making Learning Relevant: Connecting Learners to College and Careers by Engaging the Community. The goal of the HCPSS RTT-D initiative will be to build on the State of Marylands 2010 RTT grant, blended learning projects in other school systems, and the HCPSSs own ongoing reform efforts to support a program of bold, locally-directed improvements in learning and teaching. It will have two essential goals: (1) to improve student achievement and close achievement gaps as defined by
the State of Marylands academic goals in its RTT program; and (2) improve the effectiveness of teachers and administrators in promoting personalized academic learning. As a result, all students in the HCPSS will graduate from high school college- and careerready. Over the past 25 years, the HCPSS student population has doubled in size from 25,000 students to just over 51,000 students. The percentage of students receiving Free and Reduced Price Meals (FARMs) has increased from 9.7% in 2003 to 17.6% in 2011 (HCPSS BTE, 2003; HCPSS BTE, 2011). Many African American and Hispanic students receiving FARMs are performing below state and local standards. In fact, closing the achievement gap so that all students reach HCPSSs high standards continues to be the foremost goal of the HCPSS 2011 Bridge to Excellence plan (HCPSS BTE, 2011). The HCPSS is implementing the four core educational assurance areas of the RTT-D Program: college- and career-ready standards and assessments; data systems to improve instruction; great teachers and leaders; and turning around low-achieving schools. We are using the Common Core Curriculum. Our data systems and differentiated supports have been implemented in our highest-need schools. New teacher and principal competency-based evaluations will be in place next year. The HCPSS has programs in place to support underperforming students and help close achievement gaps. Schools use data to modify instruction and provide interventions to at-risk students. School leaders participate in professional learning communities to share best practices and collaborate. Instruction is extended beyond the school day and year. However, despite these efforts, we are not meeting the needs of all students. What HCPSS must do is reshape models for teaching and learning.
In our program, we will simultaneously improve the system we have right now AND build the teaching and learning environment we need for the future. Our blended, personalized learning model has benefited from lessons learned through the teaching and learning projects in such diverse educational systems as the KIPP Empower Academy charter school network, the Riverside and Mount Diablo Public Schools in California, Coral Gables High School in Florida, Belgreen High School in Russellville, Alabama, and the Academy School District in Colorado Springs. Our RTT-D program will be based on a blended instructional model where existing educational activities and spaces are adapted to develop a comprehensive approach to personalized pathways for student learning that extend beyond the school building. The HCPSS will provide in-person and virtual personalized options that will empower students and their parents to make choices about the time, place, pace, and presentation of instruction. Students will have access to innovative, personalized, self-paced online academic programs both during and beyond the school day to provide opportunities for acceleration, remediation, improved performance on SAT/ACT and AP exams, credit recovery, and peer collaboration. The HCPSS will use three different instructional models for our blended classrooms: the rotation model, the flipped model, and the self-blend model. In our rotation model, students will rotate on a fixed schedule between different learning modalities, such as smallgroup instruction, group projects, and individual online learning. In the flipped model, content and instruction will be primarily delivered online as students move through different learning modalities on a fluid schedule and the teacher provides face-to-face support through small group instruction, individual tutoring, and assistance with group projects. The self-blend model will allow students to take courses, access bundles of digital content, and receive instruction entirely online in order to supplement classroombased instruction. These personalized learning models challenge the traditional model that views time and place (seat time) as the
constant and achievement as the variable. Instead, blended learning will help ensure that students gain subject proficiency independent of the time, place, and pace of their learning and that there is increased academic equity in the HCPSS. One important approach that HCPSS will use in its RTT-D program is increasing students motivation for learning by increasing the relevance of instruction to real-life applications. To prepare students for their futures in an increasingly blended education and work environment, the learning environment in participating schools will mirror students lives beyond the classroom through the application of seven guiding principles: (1) empower students to have a voice; (2) connect concepts and content to real life; (3) focus on the process, not the outcome; (4) build in time to reflect and grow; (5) leverage online technology and social media in meaningful ways; (6) engage learners on multiple levels in multiple ways; and (7) support teachers to try new things. In the new HCPSS, by the time Mrs. Johnsons second graders reach high school they will have developed deep content knowledge in multiple subjects. Their work will be concretely represented as badges in their passports earned for content mastery, problem solving, displaying creativity and innovation, and successfully completing group work. Along the way to high school, their passports will come to reflect ongoing interests and goals that will help shape their college and career aspirations, as the picture below of a hypothetical passport indicates.
The HCPSSs RTT-D program will promote blended, personalized learning that increases student academic achievement and equity in 20 high-need schools.
The HCPSSs RTT-D program will (1) build and facilitate a vibrant online social community to leverage the expertise of students, educators, parents, and community members to improve academic achievement; (2) move toward a ubiquitous computer environment; and (3) offer multiple instructional paths before, during, and after the school day, with the ability to collaborate, take classes, build competencies, and engage in complex challenges at times and in ways that best match students strengths, interests, and pace. The implementation of a blended, personalized learning environment will help ensure that achievement gaps continue to be reduced and that all students graduate college- and career-ready. See Appendix 1 for the HCPSSs implementation model for our RTT-D program.
(A)(2)
(a) The HCPSS has identified 20 schools with the highest levels of student poverty and student needs on which to focus our efforts. The RTT-D program will include 13 elementary, 5 middle, and 2 high/special schools. The HCPSSs special school has is designed to meet the needs of students who have difficulty functional in traditional classroom settings. The 20 schools with the highest percentage of students receiving Free and Reduced Meals (FARMs) were chosen in order to maximize the number of impacted students. By maximizing the number of students included in the RTT-D program and focusing the program on the schools with the highest needs, the HCPSS will be prepared to expand its RTT-D strategies to its other 54 schools. School selection is based on the October 31, 2011 FARMs count and September 30, 2011 official enrollment numbers because the 2012 numbers will not be available until after this proposal has been submitted.
(b)(c) The table below provides a list of participating schools and economic and demographic data on the participating students. It uses 2011 counts for total students and students receiving FARMs and 4th quarter 2012 academic performance data to determine the number of high-need students.
(A)(3)
The strategies in the HCPSSs RTT-D program are broader and deeper scaled-up extensions of successful approaches already being
implemented at many of the 20 targeted schools, including collaborative data-based instructional decision-making and utilizing technology to expand instruction beyond the typical school day/year. These approaches already include implementing Maryland Common Core Standards, personalized learning in math and science, and using adaptive software in elementary mathematics instruction, such as Dreambox and First in Math.
The HCPSSs scale-up of its RTT-D program will occur as follows. During Year 1 of the grant, we will plan and design the technology, curricular support, and professional development to transition to an integrated, personalized learning approach to mathematics and science education at the 13 targeted elementary schools, including developing a talent network for professional learning. At the high school level, we will work with our business and higher education partners to expand existing work study, internship, mentorship, and college-credit course opportunities.
In Year 2, we will implement personalized learning in elementary mathematics/science classrooms and provide teachers at our targeted elementary schools with flexible, web-based professional development and digital learning communities as staff improve their teaching skills through professional development and partnerships with community organizations and businesses. At the targeted high school and special school, we will design, develop, and implement programs on college and career readiness skills, build virtual and flexible higher education and career opportunities, and support college and career goals at home.
In Year 3, student-centered personalized learning will be expanded to mathematics and science classrooms at the five targeted middle schools with middle school staff receiving flexible professional development options and joining learning communities that will increase connections to colleagues, curricular experts, and the larger community. We will continue expanding existing high school internship and mentorship programs and building connections with business and non-profit partners to provide additional flexible work-study leveraging digital technology. Middle school staff will join their high school colleagues in learning how to increase the
relevance of their instruction and linking classroom lessons to college and career goals.
In Year 4, personalized learning will be expanded to mathematics and science instruction at the targeted high school and special school and we will plan for language arts and additional content areas at all Howard County Schools. Professional development on student-centered personalization models and increasing the relevance of instruction will continue at all targeted schools as will the professional learning communities. The HCPSS will design expanded professional development and learning communities for other high needs schools. Finally, in the last year of the program, the HCPSS will develop a comprehensive, detailed, action-oriented plan to transform the other 54 schools into personalized learning environments based on our experience in the 20 targeted schools.
The logic model below illustrates how the HCPSS will improve student achievement and narrow achievement gaps, first in the 20 participating schools, and then for all HCPSS schools:
The HCPSS will use its RTT-D program as a catalyst to change teaching and learning in the entire school system.
10
Tables:
School Demographics Raw Data Actual numbers or estimates (Please note where estimates are used) A Grades/Subjects included in Race to the Top - District Plan # of Participating Educators B # of Participating Students C # of Participating high-need students D # of Participating low-income students E Total # of lowincome students in LEA or Consortium F Total # of Students in the School G % of Participating Students in the School (B/F)*100 Percentages H I
% of Total LEA or consortium lowincome population (D/E)*100 % of Participating students from lowincome families (D/B)*100
LEA (Column relevant for consortium applicants) Howard County Howard County Howard County Howard County Howard County Howard County Howard County Howard County
Participating School
Bollman Bridge ES Bryant Woods ES Cradlerock ES Deep Run ES Guilford ES
PK-5 PK-5 PK-5 PK-5 PK-5
102 60 78 96 66 53 80 69
622 360 497 706 523 367 609 446
176 82 128 161 122 72 152 101
206 192 202 259 172 109 303 166
9081 9081 9081 9081 9081 9081 9081 9081
622 360 497 706 523 367 609 446
100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100%
33.12% 53.33% 40.64% 36.69% 32.89% 29.70% 49.75% 37.22%
2.27% 2.11% 2.22% 2.85% 1.89% 1.20% 3.34% 1.83%
Jeffers Hill ES PK-5 Laurel Woods ES PK-5 Longfellow ES PK-5
11
School Demographics Raw Data Actual numbers or estimates (Please note where estimates are used) A Grades/Subjects included in Race to the Top - District Plan # of Participating Educators B # of Participating Students C # of Participating high-need students D # of Participating low-income students E Total # of lowincome students in LEA or Consortium F Total # of Students in the School G % of Participating Students in the School (B/F)*100 Percentages H I
% of Total LEA or consortium lowincome population (D/E)*100 % of Participating students from lowincome families (D/B)*100
LEA (Column relevant for consortium applicants) Howard County Howard County Howard County Howard County Howard County Howard County Howard County Howard County Howard County
Participating School
Phelps Luck ES Running Brook ES Stevens Forest ES Swansfield ES Talbott Springs ES Harpers Choice MS Lake Elkhorn MS Oakland Mills MS Patuxent Valley MS
PK-5 PK-5 K-5 PK-5 PK-5 6-8 6-8 6-8 6-8
94 72 59 78 84 68 69 64 80
722 435 283 562 588 510 465 400 660
185 117 108 128 152 99 119 62 122
352 185 149 226 299 171 213 157 203
9081 9081 9081 9081 9081 9081 9081 9081 9081
722 435 283 562 588 510 465 400 660
100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100%
48.75% 42.53% 52.65% 40.21% 50.85% 33.53% 45.81% 39.25% 30.76%
3.88% 2.04% 1.64% 2.49% 3.29% 1.88% 2.35% 1.73% 2.24%
12
Percentages
% of Total LEA or consortium lowincome population (D/E)*100 % of Participating students from lowincome families (D/B)*100 % of Participating Students in the School (B/F)*100 515 1138 9081 408 481 64 2743 77 4231 9081 9081 Total # of Students in the School Total # of lowincome students in LEA or Consortium # of Participating low-income students 112 # of Participating high-need students 515 1138 # of Participating Students # of Participating Educators Grades/Subjects included in Race to the Top - District Plan Participating School 70 127 136 10544 182 9081 136 10544 100% 100% 100% 100% 56.62% 40.13% 35.34% 35.85%
School Demographics
Raw Data Actual numbers or estimates (Please note where estimates are used)
0.85% 46.59%
2.00%
4.49%
Wilde Lake MS 6-8 Oakland Mills HS 9-12
LEA (Column relevant for consortium applicants)
Howard County Howard County Howard County TOTALS
Homewood
9-12
22 1491
13
(A)(4) LEA-wide goals for improved student outcomes (Note to applicant: Add more rows or subgroups as needed, e.g. to provide information on both proficiency status and growth, to address additional grade levels, subjects, etc.) (A)(4)(a) Performance on summative assessments (proficiency status and growth) Summative assessments being used (e.g., name of ESEA assessment or end-of-course test): 1. Reading Benchmark Levels for grades K 2 2. End of Year Mathematics Howard County Local Assessment for grades K 2 3. Maryland School Assessment (MSA) in Reading and Mathematics for grades 3 8 4. High School Assessment (HSA) in Algebra and English for grades 9 12 Methodology for determining status (e.g., percent proficient and above): 1. Reading Benchmark DataStatus determined by percent mastering expected Developmental Level on Quarter 4 Assessment. Kindergarten students should master Emergent level, first grade students should master Early 2 level, and second grade students should master Fluent level. 2. EOY Mathematics Local Assessment DataStatus determined by percent scoring at a Proficient level on the Post II Mathematics Assessment 3. Reading and Mathematics MSAStatus determined by percent scoring at Proficient or Advanced level 4. Algebra and English HSAStatus determined by percent receiving a passing score during administration year
Goal area
Subgroup
Baseline(s) SY 2010-11 (optional) SY 2011-12
Goals SY 2012-13 SY 2013-14 SY 2014-15 SY 2015-16 SY 201617 (PostGrant) 94.25% 90.00%
HCPSS Reading Benchmark Proficiency Status for grades K 2
OVERALL American Indian/Alaskan
88.50% 80.00%
88.70% 85.70%
90.42% 83.33%
91.38% 85.00%
92.33% 86.67%
93.29% 88.33%
14
Goal area
Subgroup
Baseline(s) SY 2010-11 (optional) SY 2011-12 94.80% 82.60% 74.30%
Goals SY 2012-13 94.67% 84.58% 79.17% SY 2013-14 95.20% 86.13% 81.25% SY 2014-15 95.73% 87.67% 83.33% SY 2015-16 96.27% 89.21% 85.42% SY 201617 (PostGrant) 96.80% 90.75% 87.50%
Asian Black/African American Hispanic/Latino of any race Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander White Two or More Races English Language Learner Free and Reduced Meals Special Education Reading Benchmark Proficiency Status for Identified HCPSS Elementary Schools (grades K 2)
93.60% 81.50% 75.00%
>95% 92.70% 91.00% 66.60% 71.90% 57.20%
>95% 92.50% 88.90% 67.30% 72.70% 56.80%
>95% 93.92% 92.50% 72.17% 76.58% 64.33%
>95% 94.53% 93.25% 74.95% 78.93% 67.90%
>95% 95.13% 94.00% 77.73% 81.27% 71.47%
>95% 95.74% 94.75% 80.52% 83.61% 75.03%
>95% 96.35% 95.50% 83.30% 85.95% 78.60%
OVERALL
82.80%
83.30%
85.67%
87.10%
88.53%
89.97%
91.40%
15
Goal area
Subgroup
Goals SY 2012-13 SY 2013-14 SY 2014-15 SY 2015-16 SY 201617 (PostGrant) 85.70% 96.10% 89.15% 85.15%
American Indian/Alaskan Asian Black/African American Hispanic/Latino of any race Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander White Two or More Races English Language Learner Free and Reduced Meals Special Education Mathematics EOY Local Assessment OVERALL
71.40% 92.20% 78.30% 70.30%
71.40% 92.10% 81.00% 72.20%
76.17% 93.50% 81.92% 75.25%
78.55% 94.15% 83.73% 77.73%
80.93% 94.80% 85.53% 80.20%
83.32% 95.45% 87.34% 82.68%
N/A 91.90% 89.20% 62.10% 71.90% 46.30% 81.60%
N/A 90.70% 83.30% 64.10% 73.00% 46.10% 80.90%
N/A 93.25% 91.00% 68.42% 76.58% 55.25% 84.67%
N/A 93.93% 91.90% 71.58% 78.93% 59.73% 86.20%
N/A 94.60% 92.80% 74.73% 81.27% 64.20% 87.73%
N/A 95.28% 93.70% 77.89% 83.61% 68.68% 89.27%
N/A 95.95% 94.60% 81.05% 85.95% 73.15% 90.80%
16
Goal area
Subgroup
Goals SY 2012-13 SY 2013-14 SY 2014-15 SY 2015-16 SY 201617 (PostGrant)
Proficiency Status for grades K 2 American Indian/Alaskan Asian Black/African American Hispanic/Latino of any race Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander White Two or More Races English Language Learner Free and Reduced Meals Special Education 77.30% 86.70% 73.60% 75.80% 90.00% 84.90% 76.90% 77.10% 81.08% 88.92% 78.00% 79.83% 82.98% 90.03% 80.20% 81.85% 84.87% 91.13% 82.40% 83.87% 86.76% 92.24% 84.60% 85.88% 88.65% 93.35% 86.80% 87.90%
>95% 84.60% 81.60% 73.30% 69.80% 60.20%
N/A 82.30% 79.80% 74.80% 73.30% 60.10%
N/A 87.17% 84.67% 77.75% 74.83% 66.83%
N/A 88.45% 86.20% 79.98% 77.35% 70.15%
N/A 89.73% 87.73% 82.20% 79.87% 73.47%
N/A 91.02% 89.27% 84.43% 82.38% 76.78%
N/A 92.30% 90.80% 86.65% 84.90% 80.10%
17
Goal area
Subgroup
Mathematics EOY Local Assessment Proficiency Status for Identified HCPSS Elementary Schools (grades K 2)
OVERALL American Indian/Alaskan Asian Black/African American Hispanic/Latino of any race Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander White Two or More Races English Language Learner Free and Reduced N/A
74.30%
75.90% N/A
78.58% N/A 84.42% 73.00% 75.75%
80.73% N/A 85.98% 75.70% 78.18%
82.87% N/A 87.53% 78.40% 80.60%
85.01% N/A 89.09% 81.10% 83.03%
87.15% N/A 90.65% 83.80% 85.45%
81.30% 67.60% 70.90%
78.20% 72.60% 72.30%
N/A 81.80% 77.60% 69.30% 67.30%
N/A 82.00% 75.40% 76.60% 70.10%
N/A 84.83% 81.33% 74.42% 72.75%
N/A 86.35% 83.20% 76.98% 75.48%
N/A 87.87% 85.07% 79.53% 78.20%
N/A 89.38% 86.93% 82.09% 80.93%
N/A 90.90% 88.80% 84.65% 83.65%
18
Goal area
Subgroup
Goals SY 2012-13 SY 2013-14 SY 2014-15 SY 2015-16 SY 201617 (PostGrant) 75.95%
Meals Special Education HCPSS Reading MSA Proficiency Status for Elementary Students (grades 3 5) 51.90% 46.20% 59.92% 63.93% 67.93% 71.94%
OVERALL American Indian/Alaskan Asian Black/African American Hispanic/Latino of any race Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander White Two or More Races English Language
94.00%
94.20%
95.00% 95.58% 97.25% 88.75% 89.17%
95.50% 96.03% 97.53% 89.88% 90.25%
96.00% 96.47% 97.80% 91.00% 91.33%
96.50% 96.91% 98.08% 92.13% 92.42%
97.00% 97.35% 98.35% 93.25% 93.50%
94.70% >95% 96.70% 86.50% 87.00% 97.00% 87.30% 87.90%
>95% 97.20% 97.20% 68.50%
N/A 97.30% 95.90% 64.30%
>95% 97.67% 97.67% 73.75%
>95% 97.90% 97.90% 76.38%
>95% 98.13% 98.13% 79.00%
>95% 98.37% 98.37% 81.63%
>95% 98.60% 98.60% 84.25%
19
Goal area
Subgroup
Learner Free and Reduced Meals Special Education Reading MSA Proficiency Status for Students in Identified HCPSS Elementary Schools (grades 3 5) 84.60% 72.00% 83.80% 64.30% 87.17% 76.67% 88.45% 79.00% 89.73% 81.33% 91.02% 83.67% 92.30% 86.00%
OVERALL American Indian/Alaskan Asian Black/African American Hispanic/Latino of any race Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander White N/A
88.70%
89.50% N/A
90.58% N/A 95.00% 86.33% 86.75%
91.53% N/A 95.50% 87.70% 88.08%
92.47% N/A 96.00% 89.07% 89.40%
93.41% N/A 96.50% 90.43% 90.73%
94.35% N/A 97.00% 91.80% 92.05%
94.00% 83.60% 84.10%
95.60% 85.10% 84.70%
>95% 95.70%
N/A 96.00%
>95% 96.42%
>95% 96.78%
>95% 97.13%
>95% 97.49%
>95% 97.85%
20
Goal area
Subgroup
Baseline(s) SY 2010-11 (optional) SY 2011-12 95.50% 62.30% 82.40% 64.30%
Goals SY 2012-13 97.42% 72.08% 85.33% 70.25% SY 2013-14 97.68% 74.88% 86.80% 73.23% SY 2014-15 97.93% 77.67% 88.27% 76.20% SY 2015-16 98.19% 80.46% 89.73% 79.18% SY 201617 (PostGrant) 98.45% 83.25% 91.20% 82.15%
Two or More Races English Language Learner Free and Reduced Meals Special Education HCPSS Mathematics MSA Proficiency Status for Elementary Students (grades 3 5)
96.90% 66.50% 82.40% 64.30%
OVERALL American Indian/Alaskan Asian Black/African American Hispanic/Latino of any race Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander
92.70%
93.90%
93.92% 86.83% 97.58% 85.92% 87.75%
94.53% 88.15% 97.83% 87.33% 88.98%
95.13% 89.47% 98.07% 88.73% 90.20%
95.74% 90.78% 98.31% 90.14% 91.43%
96.35% 92.10% 98.55% 91.55% 92.65%
84.20% >95% 97.10% 83.10% 85.30% 97.50% 86.30% 90.40%
81.30% N/A
84.42%
85.98%
87.53%
89.09%
90.65%
21
Goal area
Subgroup
Baseline(s) SY 2010-11 (optional) SY 2011-12 96.60% 95.00% 72.10% 83.80% 69.00%
Goals SY 2012-13 97.08% 96.42% 77.50% 83.08% 73.67% SY 2013-14 97.38% 96.78% 79.75% 84.78% 76.30% SY 2014-15 97.67% 97.13% 82.00% 86.47% 78.93% SY 2015-16 97.96% 97.49% 84.25% 88.16% 81.57% SY 201617 (PostGrant) 98.25% 97.85% 86.50% 89.85% 84.20%
White Two or More Races English Language Learner Free and Reduced Meals Special Education Mathematics MSA Proficiency Status for Students in Identified HCPSS Elementary Schools (grades 3 5)
96.50% 95.70% 73.00% 79.70% 68.40%
OVERALL American Indian/Alaskan Asian Black/African American Hispanic/Latino of any race Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific N/A
85.90%
89.80% N/A
88.25% N/A 93.83% 82.83% 84.83% 77.25%
89.43% N/A 94.45% 84.55% 86.35% 79.53%
90.60% N/A 95.07% 86.27% 87.87% 81.80%
91.78% N/A 95.68% 87.98% 89.38% 84.08%
92.95% N/A 96.30% 89.70% 90.90% 86.35%
92.60% 79.40% 81.80%
94.70% 84.70% 89.40%
72.70% N/A
22
Goal area
Subgroup
Goals SY 2012-13 SY 2013-14 SY 2014-15 SY 2015-16 SY 201617 (PostGrant) 97.65% 96.65% 83.05% 88.70% 79.40%
Islander White Two or More Races English Language Learner Free and Reduced Meals Special Education HCPSS Reading MSA Proficiency Status for Middle School Students (grades 6 8) 95.30% 93.30% 66.10% 77.40% 58.80% 95.40% 94.40% 71.10% 82.90% 62.10% 96.08% 94.42% 71.75% 81.17% 65.67% 96.48% 94.98% 74.58% 83.05% 69.10% 96.87% 95.53% 77.40% 84.93% 72.53% 97.26% 96.09% 80.23% 86.82% 75.97%
OVERALL American Indian/Alaskan Asian Black/African American Hispanic/Latino of any race
92.70% 90.30% 95.50% 84.60% 87.70%
91.20% 80.00% 94.90% 81.70% 82.30%
93.92% 91.92% 96.25% 87.17% 89.75%
94.53% 92.73% 96.63% 88.45% 90.78%
95.13% 93.53% 97.00% 89.73% 91.80%
95.74% 94.34% 97.38% 91.02% 92.83%
96.35% 95.15% 97.75% 92.30% 93.85%
23
Goal area
Subgroup
Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander White Two or More Races English Language Learner Free and Reduced Meals Special Education Reading MSA Proficiency Status for Students in Identified HCPSS Middle Schools (grades 6 8)
>95% 95.90% 94.80% 32.40% 79.60% 66.10%
89.50% 95.60% 94.40% 46.60% 75.90% 62.90%
90.38% 96.58% 95.67% 43.67% 83.00% 71.75%
91.25% 96.93% 96.10% 49.30% 84.70% 74.58%
92.13% 97.27% 96.53% 54.93% 86.40% 77.40%
93.00% 97.61% 96.97% 60.57% 88.10% 80.23%
93.88% 97.95% 97.40% 66.20% 89.80% 83.05%
OVERALL American Indian/Alaskan Asian Black/African American N/A
87.20%
82.10% N/A
89.33% N/A 92.58% 84.92%
90.40% N/A 93.33% 86.43%
91.47% N/A 94.07% 87.93%
92.53% N/A 94.81% 89.44%
93.60% N/A 95.55% 90.95%
91.10% 81.90%
87.60% 75.40%
24
Goal area
Subgroup
Goals SY 2012-13 SY 2013-14 SY 2014-15 SY 2015-16 SY 201617 (PostGrant) 92.40%
Hispanic/Latino of any race Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander White Two or More Races English Language Learner Free and Reduced Meals Special Education HCPSS Mathematics MSA Proficiency Status for Middle School Students (grades 6 8)
84.80%
75.30%
87.33%
88.60%
89.87%
91.13%
N/A 94.30% 92.20% 34.60% 78.10% 59.40%
N/A 92.50% 91.90% 29.50% 70.00% 49.40%
N/A 95.25% 93.50% 45.50% 81.75% 66.17%
N/A 95.73% 94.15% 50.95% 83.58% 69.55%
N/A 96.20% 94.80% 56.40% 85.40% 72.93%
N/A 96.68% 95.45% 61.85% 87.23% 76.32%
N/A 97.15% 96.10% 67.30% 89.05% 79.70%
OVERALL American Indian/Alaskan Asian
87.60% 83.90% 95.60%
89.50% 84.00% 95.90%
89.67% 86.58% 96.33%
90.70% 87.93% 96.70%
91.73% 89.27% 97.07%
92.77% 90.61% 97.43%
93.80% 91.95% 97.80%
25
Goal area
Subgroup
Black/African American Hispanic/Latino of any race Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander White Two or More Races English Language Learner Free and Reduced Meals Special Education Mathematics MSA Proficiency Status for Students in Identified HCPSS Middle Schools (grades 6 8)
72.50% 80.00%
75.60% 80.60%
77.08% 83.33%
79.38% 85.00%
81.67% 86.67%
83.96% 88.33%
83.30% 93.10% 87.00% 51.40% 67.10% 58.70%
89.50% 95.20% 90.00% 65.60% 71.80% 61.60%
86.08% 94.25% 89.17% 59.50% 72.58% 65.58%
87.48% 94.83% 90.25% 63.55% 75.33% 69.03%
88.87% 95.40% 91.33% 67.60% 78.07% 72.47%
90.26% 95.98% 92.42% 71.65% 80.81% 75.91%
91.65% 96.55% 93.50% 75.70% 83.55% 79.35%
OVERALL American Indian/Alaskan N/A
75.30%
77.80% N/A
79.42% N/A
81.48% N/A
83.53% N/A
85.59% N/A
87.65% N/A
26
Goal area
Subgroup
Baseline(s) SY 2010-11 (optional) SY 2011-12 90.20% 67.50% 74.50%
Goals SY 2012-13 88.83% 70.67% 76.92% SY 2013-14 89.95% 73.60% 79.23% SY 2014-15 91.07% 76.53% 81.53% SY 2015-16 92.18% 79.47% 83.84% SY 201617 (PostGrant) 93.30% 82.40% 86.15%
Asian Black/African American Hispanic/Latino of any race Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander White Two or More Races English Language Learner Free and Reduced Meals Special Education HCPSS HSA Algebra Pass Rates (grades 9 12) OVERALL American
86.60% 64.80% 72.30%
N/A 88.60% 83.30% 37.10% 60.30% 48.40% 63.20%
N/A 91.30% 84.30% 54.70% 65.70% 46.60% 61.10%
N/A 90.50% 86.08% 47.58% 66.92% 57.00% 69.33% 75.00%
N/A 91.45% 87.48% 52.83% 70.23% 61.30% 72.40% 77.50%
N/A 92.40% 88.87% 58.07% 73.53% 65.60% 75.47% 80.00%
N/A 93.35% 90.26% 63.31% 76.84% 69.90% 78.53% 82.50%
N/A 94.30% 91.65% 68.55% 80.15% 74.20% 81.60% 85.00%
70.00% N/A
27
Goal area
Subgroup
Goals SY 2012-13 SY 2013-14 SY 2014-15 SY 2015-16 SY 201617 (PostGrant) 88.95% 73.55% 78.95%
Indian/Alaskan Asian Black/African American Hispanic/Latino of any race Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander White Two or More Races English Language Learner Free and Reduced Meals Special Education HSA Algebra Pass Rates for Students in Identified HCPSS High Schools OVERALL 77.90% 47.10% 57.90% 79.40% 45.00% 52.50% 81.58% 55.92% 64.92% 83.43% 60.33% 68.43% 85.27% 64.73% 71.93% 87.11% 69.14% 75.44%
N/A 78.60% 70.10% 45.80% 45.90% 32.90% 50.40%
N/A 79.00% 65.00% 31.80% 44.50% 28.60% 50.00%
N/A 82.17% 75.08% 54.83% 54.92% 44.08% 58.67%
N/A 83.95% 77.58% 59.35% 59.43% 49.68% 62.80%
N/A 85.73% 80.07% 63.87% 63.93% 55.27% 66.93%
N/A 87.52% 82.56% 68.38% 68.44% 60.86% 71.07%
N/A 89.30% 85.05% 72.90% 72.95% 66.45% 75.20%
28
Goal area
Subgroup
(grades 9 12) American Indian/Alaskan Asian Black/African American Hispanic/Latino of any race Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander White Two or More Races English Language Learner Free and Reduced Meals Special Education N/A 75.00% 47.90% 52.30% N/A 90.00% 43.80% 46.70% N/A 79.17% 56.58% 60.25% N/A 81.25% 60.93% 64.23% N/A 83.33% 65.27% 68.20% N/A 85.42% 69.61% 72.18% N/A 87.50% 73.95% 76.15%
N/A 54.60% 55.60% 50.00% 43.30% 19.80%
N/A 60.00% 75.00% 31.30% 40.80% 14.70%
N/A 62.17% 63.00% 58.33% 52.75% 33.17%
N/A 65.95% 66.70% 62.50% 57.48% 39.85%
N/A 69.73% 70.40% 66.67% 62.20% 46.53%
N/A 73.52% 74.10% 70.83% 66.93% 53.22%
N/A 77.30% 77.80% 75.00% 71.65% 59.90%
29
Goal area
Subgroup
Goals SY 2012-13 SY 2013-14 SY 2014-15 SY 2015-16 SY 201617 (PostGrant) 88.40% 91.65% 93.15% 77.75% 78.65%
HCPSS HSA English Pass Rates (grades 9 12)
OVERALL American Indian/Alaskan Asian Black/African American Hispanic/Latino of any race Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander White Two or More Races English Language Learner Free and Reduced Meals
76.80% 83.30% 86.30% 55.50% 57.30%
78.90% 72.70% 85.30% 58.50% 66.90%
80.67% 86.08% 88.58% 62.92% 64.42%
82.60% 87.48% 89.73% 66.63% 67.98%
84.53% 88.87% 90.87% 70.33% 71.53%
86.47% 90.26% 92.01% 74.04% 75.09%
N/A 88.70% 78.70% 28.20% 46.20%
N/A 90.30% 78.90% 30.50% 51.80%
N/A 90.58% 82.25% 40.17% 55.17%
N/A 91.53% 84.03% 46.15% 59.65%
N/A 92.47% 85.80% 52.13% 64.13%
N/A 93.41% 87.58% 58.12% 68.62%
N/A 94.35% 89.35% 64.10% 73.10%
30
Goal area
Subgroup
Baseline(s) SY 2010-11 (optional) SY 2011-12 33.80%
Goals SY 2012-13 41.67% SY 2013-14 47.50% SY 2014-15 53.33% SY 2015-16 59.17% SY 201617 (PostGrant) 65.00%
Special Education HSA English Pass Rates for Students in Identified HCPSS High Schools (grades 9 12)
30.00%
OVERALL American Indian/Alaskan Asian Black/African American Hispanic/Latino of any race Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander White Two or More Races English Language Learner N/A N/A
56.50%
64.80% N/A
63.75% N/A 92.17% 55.33% 47.42%
67.38% N/A 92.95% 59.80% 52.68%
71.00% N/A 93.73% 64.27% 57.93%
74.63% N/A 94.52% 68.73% 63.19%
78.25% N/A 95.30% 73.20% 68.45%
90.60% 46.40% 36.90%
57.10% 54.60% 59.70%
N/A 82.30% 77.30%
68.20% 85.70% 68.20% N/A
70.85% 85.25% 81.08% N/A
73.50% 86.73% 82.98% N/A
76.15% 88.20% 84.87% N/A
78.80% 89.68% 86.76% N/A
81.45% 91.15% 88.65% N/A
31
Goal area
Subgroup
Free and Reduced Meals Special Education
38.50% 26.30%
50.60% 24.10%
48.75% 38.58%
53.88% 44.73%
59.00% 50.87%
64.13% 57.01%
(A)(4)(b) Decreasing achievement gaps (as defined in this notice) Specific methodology for determining achievement gap (as defined in this notice): For each identified goal area, the achievement gap estimate was determined by subtracting the proficiency status listed in table (A)(4)(a) for the target subgroup group from the proficiency status listed in table (A)(4)(a) for the All Students group.
Goal area
Identify subgroup and comparison group
Baseline(s)
Goals SY 2016-17 (PostGrant) 3.50% 6.75%
SY 2010-11 (optional) HCPSS Reading Benchmark Proficiency Status for grades K 2 Black/African American Hispanic/Latino of any race
SY 2011-12
SY 2012-13
SY 2013-14
SY 2014-15
SY 2015-16
7.00% 13.50%
6.42% 12.38%
5.83% 11.25%
5.25% 10.13%
4.67% 9.00%
4.08% 7.88%
32
Goal area
Baseline(s)
Goals SY 2016-17 (PostGrant) 10.95% 8.30% 15.65%
SY 2010-11 (optional) English Language Learner Free and Reduced Meals Special Education Reading Benchmark Proficiency Status for Identified HCPSS Elementary Schools (grades K 2) Black/African American Hispanic/Latino of any race English Language Learner Free and Reduced Meals Special Education Mathematics EOY Local Assessment Proficiency Status for grades K 2 Black/African American
SY 2011-12
SY 2012-13
SY 2013-14
SY 2014-15
SY 2015-16
21.90% 16.60% 31.30%
20.08% 15.22% 28.69%
18.25% 13.83% 26.08%
16.43% 12.45% 23.48%
14.60% 11.07% 20.87%
12.78% 9.68% 18.26%
4.50% 12.50% 20.70% 10.90% 36.50% 8.00%
4.12% 11.46% 18.98% 9.99% 33.46% 7.33%
3.75% 10.42% 17.25% 9.08% 30.42% 6.67%
3.37% 9.38% 15.53% 8.18% 27.38% 6.00%
3.00% 8.33% 13.80% 7.27% 24.33% 5.33%
2.63% 7.29% 12.08% 6.36% 21.29% 4.67%
2.25% 6.25% 10.35% 5.45% 18.25% 4.00%
33
Goal area
Baseline(s)
Goals SY 2016-17 (PostGrant) 2.90% 4.15% 5.90% 10.70%
SY 2010-11 (optional) Hispanic/Latino of any race English Language Learner Free and Reduced Meals Special Education Mathematics EOY Local Assessment Proficiency Status for Identified HCPSS Elementary Schools (grades K 2)
SY 2011-12
SY 2012-13
SY 2013-14
SY 2014-15
SY 2015-16
5.80% 8.30% 11.80% 21.40%
5.32% 7.61% 10.82% 19.62%
4.83% 6.92% 9.83% 17.83%
4.35% 6.23% 8.85% 16.05%
3.87% 5.53% 7.87% 14.27%
3.38% 4.84% 6.88% 12.48%
Black/African American Hispanic/Latino of any race English Language Learner Free and Reduced Meals Special Education
6.70% 3.40% 5.00% 7.00% 22.40%
6.14% 3.12% 4.58% 6.42% 20.53%
5.58% 2.83% 4.17% 5.83% 18.67%
5.03% 2.55% 3.75% 5.25% 16.80%
4.47% 2.27% 3.33% 4.67% 14.93%
3.91% 1.98% 2.92% 4.08% 13.07%
3.35% 1.70% 2.50% 3.50% 11.20%
34
Goal area
Baseline(s)
Goals SY 2016-17 (PostGrant)
SY 2010-11 (optional) HCPSS Reading MSA Proficiency Status for Elementary Students (grades 3 5)
SY 2011-12
SY 2012-13
SY 2013-14
SY 2014-15
SY 2015-16
7.50% 7.00% 25.50% 9.40% 22.00%
6.88% 6.42% 23.38% 8.62% 20.17%
6.25% 5.83% 21.25% 7.83% 18.33%
5.63% 5.25% 19.13% 7.05% 16.50%
5.00% 4.67% 17.00% 6.27% 14.67%
4.38% 4.08% 14.88% 5.48% 12.83%
3.75% 3.50% 12.75% 4.70% 11.00%
Reading MSA Proficiency Status for Students in Identified HCPSS Elementary Schools (grades 3 5)
Black/African American Hispanic/Latino of any race English Language Learner Free and Reduced
5.10% -0.50% 17.60%
4.68% -0.46% 16.13%
4.25% -0.42% 14.67% -13.25%
3.83% -0.38% 13.20% -11.93%
3.40% -0.33% 11.73% -10.60%
2.98% -0.29% 10.27% -9.28%
2.55% -0.25% 8.80% -7.95%
-15.90% -14.58%
35
Goal area
Baseline(s)
Goals SY 2016-17 (PostGrant) 9.05%
SY 2010-11 (optional) Meals Special Education HCPSS Mathematics MSA Proficiency Status for Elementary Students (grades 3 5) Black/African American Hispanic/Latino of any race English Language Learner Free and Reduced Meals Special Education Mathematics MSA Proficiency Status for Students in Identified HCPSS Elementary Schools (grades 3 5) Black/African American Hispanic/Latino of any race 18.10%
SY 2011-12
SY 2012-13
SY 2013-14
SY 2014-15
SY 2015-16
16.59%
15.08%
13.58%
12.07%
10.56%
9.60% 7.40% 19.70% 13.00% 24.30%
8.80% 6.78% 18.06% 11.92% 22.28%
8.00% 6.17% 16.42% 10.83% 20.25%
7.20% 5.55% 14.78% 9.75% 18.23%
6.40% 4.93% 13.13% 8.67% 16.20%
5.60% 4.32% 11.49% 7.58% 14.18%
4.80% 3.70% 9.85% 6.50% 12.15%
6.50% 4.10%
5.96% 3.76%
5.42% 3.42%
4.88% 3.08%
4.88% 3.08%
4.33% 2.73%
3.79% 2.39%
36
Goal area
Baseline(s)
SY 2010-11 (optional) English Language Learner Free and Reduced Meals Special Education HCPSS Reading MSA Proficiency Status for Middle School Students (grades 6 8) Black/African American Hispanic/Latino of any race English Language Learner Free and Reduced Meals Special Education Reading MSA Proficiency Status for Students in Identified HCPSS Middle Schools (grades 6 8) Black/African American
SY 2011-12
SY 2012-13
SY 2013-14
SY 2014-15
SY 2015-16
19.80% 8.50% 27.10%
18.15% 7.79% 24.84%
16.50% 7.08% 22.58%
14.85% 6.38% 20.33%
14.85% 6.38% 20.33%
13.20% 5.67% 18.07%
8.10% 5.00% 60.30% 13.10% 26.60%
7.43% 4.58% 55.28% 12.01% 24.38%
6.75% 4.17% 50.25% 10.92% 22.17%
6.08% 3.75% 45.23% 9.83% 19.95%
5.40% 3.33% 40.20% 8.73% 17.73%
4.73% 2.92% 35.18% 7.64% 15.52%
4.05% 2.50% 30.15% 6.55% 13.30%
5.30%
4.86%
4.42%
3.98%
3.53%
3.09%
2.65%
37
Goal area
Baseline(s)
Goals SY 2016-17 (PostGrant) 1.20% 26.30% 4.55% 13.90%
SY 2010-11 (optional) Hispanic/Latino of any race English Language Learner Free and Reduced Meals Special Education HCPSS Mathematics MSA Proficiency Status for Middle School Students (grades 6 8) Black/African American Hispanic/Latino of any race English Language Learner Free and Reduced Meals Special Education
SY 2011-12
SY 2012-13
SY 2013-14
SY 2014-15
SY 2015-16
2.40% 52.60% 9.10% 27.80%
2.20% 48.22% 8.34% 25.48%
2.00% 43.83% 7.58% 23.17%
1.80% 39.45% 6.83% 20.85%
1.60% 35.07% 6.07% 18.53%
1.40% 30.68% 5.31% 16.22%
15.10% 7.60% 36.20% 20.50% 28.90%
13.84% 6.97% 33.18% 18.79% 26.49%
12.58% 6.33% 30.17% 17.08% 24.08%
11.33% 5.70% 27.15% 15.38% 21.68%
10.07% 5.07% 24.13% 13.67% 19.27%
8.81% 4.43% 21.12% 11.96% 16.86%
7.55% 3.80% 18.10% 10.25% 14.45%
38
Goal area
Baseline(s)
Goals SY 2016-17 (PostGrant)
SY 2010-11 (optional) Mathematics MSA Proficiency Status for Students in Identified HCPSS Middle Schools (grades 6 8)
SY 2011-12
SY 2012-13
SY 2013-14
SY 2014-15
SY 2015-16
10.50% 3.00% 38.20% 15.00% 26.90% 16.10% 5.30% 17.40%
9.63% 2.75% 35.02% 13.75% 24.66% 14.76% 4.86% 15.95%
8.75% 2.50% 31.83% 12.50% 22.42% 13.42% 4.42% 14.50%
7.88% 2.25% 28.65% 11.25% 20.18% 12.08% 3.98% 13.05%
7.00% 2.00% 25.47% 10.00% 17.93% 10.73% 3.53% 11.60%
6.13% 1.75% 22.28% 8.75% 15.69% 9.39% 3.09% 10.15%
5.25% 1.50% 19.10% 7.50% 13.45% 8.05% 2.65% 8.70%
HCPSS HSA Algebra Pass Rates (grades 9 12)
Black/African American Hispanic/Latino of any race English Language Learner
39
Goal area
Baseline(s)
Goals SY 2016-17 (PostGrant) 8.65% 15.15%
SY 2010-11 (optional) Free and Reduced Meals Special Education HSA Algebra Pass Rates for Students in Identified HCPSS High Schools (grades 9 12) Black/African American Hispanic/Latino of any race English Language Learner Free and Reduced Meals Special Education HCPSS HSA English Pass Rates (grades 9 12) Black/African American Hispanic/Latino of any race
SY 2011-12
SY 2012-13
SY 2013-14
SY 2014-15
SY 2015-16
17.30% 30.30%
15.86% 27.78%
14.42% 25.25%
12.98% 22.73%
11.53% 20.20%
10.09% 17.68%
2.50% -1.90% 0.40% 7.10% 30.60% 21.30% 19.50%
2.29% -1.74% 0.37% 6.51% 28.05% 19.53% 17.88%
2.08% -1.58% 0.33% 5.92% 25.50% 17.75% 16.25%
1.88% -1.43% 0.30% 5.33% 22.95% 15.98% 14.63%
1.67% -1.27% 0.27% 4.73% 20.40% 14.20% 13.00%
1.46% -1.11% 0.23% 4.14% 17.85% 12.43% 11.38%
1.25% -0.95% 0.20% 3.55% 15.30% 10.65% 9.75%
40
Goal area
Baseline(s)
SY 2010-11 (optional) English Language Learner Free and Reduced Meals Special Education HSA English Pass Rates for Students in Identified HCPSS High Schools (grades 9 12) Black/African American Hispanic/Latino of any race English Language Learner Free and Reduced Meals Special Education N/A 18.00% 30.20%
SY 2011-12
SY 2012-13
SY 2013-14
SY 2014-15
SY 2015-16
48.60% 30.60% 46.80%
44.55% 28.05% 42.90%
40.50% 25.50% 39.00%
36.45% 22.95% 35.10%
32.40% 20.40% 31.20%
28.35% 17.85% 27.30%
10.10% 19.60%
9.26% 17.97% N/A 16.50% 27.68%
8.42% 16.33% N/A 15.00% 25.17%
7.58% 14.70% N/A 13.50% 22.65%
6.73% 13.07% N/A 12.00% 20.13%
5.89% 11.43% N/A 10.50% 17.62%
5.89% 11.43% N/A 10.50% 17.62%
41
(A)(4)(c) Graduation rates (as defined in this notice) Goal area
Subgroup
Goals SY 2012-13 SY 2013-14 SY 2014-15 SY 2015-16 SY 201617 (PostGrant) 91.4% N/A 93.0% 86.6% 84.5% N/A 90.5% 94.0% 62.7% 82.7% 73.2% 87.5% N/A > 95% 83.6% 88.6% N/A > 95% > 95%
HCPSS High school graduation rate
OVERALL American Indian/Alaskan Asian Black/African American Hispanic/Latino of any race Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander White Two or More Races English Language Learner Free and Reduced Meals Special Education OVERALL American Indian/Alaskan Asian Black/African American Hispanic/Latino of any race Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander White Two or More Races
89.8% N/A 92.2% 86.3% 82.7% N/A 88.7% 94.5% 60.6% 81.4% 69.0% 66.5% N/A 94.7% 61.5% 71.1% N/A 82.6% 89.7%
90.6% N/A 93.4% 85.8% 82.8% N/A 94.8% 93.9% 51.8% 80.6% 70.6% 87.7% N/A > 95% 80.7% 74.3% N/A 93.0% > 95%
90.1% N/A 92.3% 83.9% 81.0% N/A 89.0% 93.6% 52.0% 78.6% 65.9% 85.0% N/A > 95% 79.8% 86.4% N/A > 95% > 95%
90.4% N/A 92.5% 84.6% 81.9% N/A 89.4% 93.7% 54.7% 79.6% 67.7% 85.7% N/A > 95% 80.7% 87.0% N/A > 95% > 95%
90.8% N/A 92.7% 85.3% 82.8% N/A 89.8% 93.8% 57.3% 80.7% 69.5% 86.3% N/A > 95% 81.7% 87.5% N/A > 95% > 95%
91.1% N/A 92.8% 86.0% 83.7% N/A 90.1% 93.9% 60.0% 81.7% 71.3% 86.9% N/A > 95% 82.6% 88.0% N/A > 95% > 95%
High School graduation rate for identified High Schools
42
English Language Learner Free and Reduced Meals Special Education
N/A 53.4% N/A
N/A 71.4% N/A
N/A 81.0% N/A
N/A 81.9% N/A
N/A 82.7% N/A
N/A 83.6% N/A
N/A 84.5% N/A
43
(A)(4)(d) College enrollment (as defined in this notice) rates NOTE: College enrollment should be calculated as the ratio between college-enrolled students and their graduating cohort. For example, for SY 2010-11, the applicant should report college enrollment (as defined in this notice) as a percentage, to be calculated as follows: (College enrollment SY 2010-11) = Number of SY 2008-09 graduates enrolled in a higher-education institution during the 16 months after graduation (College enrollment rate) = (College enrollment SY 2010-11)(Cohort Population, e.g. total number of SY 2008-09 graduates)*100 Goal area Subgroup Baseline(s) Goals SY SY 2010-11 SY SY SY SY SY 2016-17 (optional) 2011-12 2012-13 2013-14 2014-15 2015-16 (PostGrant) College enrollment rate OVERALL 82.4% 83.9% 85.3% 86.8% 88.3% 89.7% 91.2% Asian 85.1% 86.3% 87.6% 88.8% 90.1% 91.3% 92.6% Black/African 78.6% 80.5% 82.5% 84.4% 86.4% 88.3% American 76.6% Hispanic/Latino of 64.1% 67.3% 70.6% 73.9% 77.1% 80.4% any race 60.8% White 85.1% 86.3% 87.6% 88.8% 90.1% 91.3% 92.6% English Language 75.9% 78.1% 80.3% 82.5% 84.7% 86.9% Learner 73.7% Free and Reduced 65.5% 68.7% 71.8% 74.9% 78.1% 81.2% Meals 62.4% Special Education 62.8% 65.9% 69.0% 72.1% 75.2% 78.3% 81.4%
44
Optional: (A)(4)(e) Postsecondary Degree Attainment Methodology for postsecondary degree attainment: Goal area LEA Baseline(s) SY 2010-11 (optional) Postsecondary degree attainment OVERALL [LEA 1] (Relevant for consortium applicants) [LEA 2] (Relevant for consortium applicants) [Add or delete rows as needed] SY 2011-12 Goals SY 2012-13 SY 2013-14 SY 2014-15 SY 2015-16 SY 201617 (PostGrant)
45
B) Prior Record of Success and Conditions for Reform (45 total points) (B)(1) Demonstrating a clear track record of success (15 points) The extent to which each LEA has demonstrated evidence of (1) A clear record of success in the past four years in advancing student learning and achievement and increasing equity in learning and teaching, including a description, charts or graphs, raw student data, and other evidence that demonstrates the applicants ability to (a) Improve student learning outcomes and close achievement gaps (as defined in this notice), including by raising student achievement, high school graduation rates (as defined in this notice), and college enrollment (as defined in this notice) rates; (b) Achieve ambitious and significant reforms in its persistently lowest-achieving schools (as defined in this notice) or in its low-performing schools (as defined in this notice); and (c) Make student performance data (as defined in this notice) available to students, educators (as defined in this notice), and parents in ways that inform and improve participation, instruction, and services. In the text box below, the applicant should describe its current status in meeting the criteria. The narrative or attachments should also include any supporting evidence the applicant believes will be helpful to peer reviewers, including at a minimum the evidence listed in the criterion (if any), and how each piece of evidence demonstrates the applicants success in meeting the criterion. Evidence or attachments must be described in the narrative and, where relevant, included in the Appendix. For evidence or attachments included in the Appendix, note in the narrative the location where the information can be found and provide a table of contents for the Appendix. Recommended maximum response length: Four pages (excluding tables)
46
(B)(1) (a) The HCPSS has worked diligently to reduce achievement gaps based on race, ethnicity, and receipt of special education, ESOL, or
FARMs. Since the current Maryland School Assessment (MSA) testing program began in the spring of 2003, students in the African American, Hispanic, Special Education, LEP, and FARMs student groups have made significant gains, both in absolute terms and relative to their peers in the All Students group. The table below illustrates the progress of each group on the mathematics and reading MSAs from 2003 to 2012. In 2011, the State of Maryland transitioned to the new federal race and ethnicity codes. Therefore, comparisons of student group achievement before and after 2011 cannot be precise.
HCPSS Maryland School Assessments, 2003-2012 (All Grades) Student Group All Students African American Hispanic FARMs Special Ed. LEP 2003 Reading MSA % Proficient or Advanced 82% 64% 60% 51% 45% 34% 2012 Reading MSA % Proficient or Advanced 93% 84% 85% 79% 65% 71% Change from 2003 to 2012 +11% +20% +25% +28% +20% +37% 2003 Math MSA % Proficient or Advanced 73% 47% 52% 40% 35% 57% 2012 Math MSA % Proficient or Advanced 91% 80% 86% 77% 63% 79% Change from 2003 to 2012 +18% +33% +34% +34% +28% +22%
In the last four years, students in the African American, Hispanic, FARMs, Special Education, and LEP student groups have made greater gains on the reading and mathematics MSAs than students in the All Students group with the exception of LEP students in reading. The table below illustrates these gains over the four-year period between 2008 and 2012:
47
HCPSS Maryland School Assessments, 2008-2012 (All Grades) Student Group All Students African American Hispanic FARMs Special Ed. LEP 2008 Reading MSA % Proficient or Advanced 91% 81% 80% 73% 58% 71% 2012 Reading MSA % Proficient or Advanced 93% 84% 85% 79% 65% 71% Change from 2008 to 2012 +2% +3% +5% +6% +7% +0% 2008 Math MSA % Proficient or Advanced 86% 69% 71% 60% 50% 70% 2012 Math MSA % Proficient or Advanced 91% 80% 86% 77% 63% 79% Change from 2008 to 2012 +5% +11% +15% +17% +13% +9%
The HCPSS continues to work to close achievement gaps in reading and mathematics proficiency. Four HCPSS Title I schools were identified as Focus Schools by the Maryland State Department of Education (MSDE) due to significant gaps in performance between the schools highest and lowest achieving student groups based on 2010 and 2011 MSA data. The HCPSS has recalculated the gap scores for these four schools based on 2011 and 2012 MSA data and found that all four schools have succeeded in reducing the size of their gaps by increasing the performance of students in the FARMs, Special Education, and LEP student groups. Similar, although less consistent, progress can be seen with the same student groups on the English, Algebra, and Biology High School Assessments (HSAs), which serve as part of the graduation requirements for students in Maryland. Below are charts showing progress on the HSAs from 2003 to 2012 and 2008 to 2012. In addition to the race/ethnicity code changes which were instituted with the 2011 assessments, the 2003 English HSA was administered to 9th grade students. Beginning in 2006, the English HSA was
48
administered to 10th graders.
HCPSS High School Assessments, 2003-2012 (High School Students Only, May Administration) Student Group 2003 2012 English English HSA % HSA % Proficient Proficient or or Advanced Advanced 63.7% 35.9% 44.2% 24.7% 14.8% 12.5% 87.8% 72.6% 77.9% 66.2% 46.3% 55.1% Change from 2003 to 2012 2003 2012 Algebra Algebra HSA % HSA % Proficient Proficient or or Advanced Advanced 72.6% 45.2% 49.6% 43.2% 33.1% 50.8% 84.9% 66.0% 72.8% 60.8% 42.3% 58.9% Change from 2003 to 2012 2003 Biology HSA % Proficient or Advanced 73.9% 50.3% 52.7% 35.9% 37.6% 34.2% 2012 Biology HSA % Proficient or Advanced 91.9% 77.8% 85.4% 72.6% 61.6% 71.1% Change from 2003 to 2012
All Students African Americans Hispanic FARMs Special Ed. LEP
+24.1% +36.7% +33.7% +41.5% +31.5% +42.6%
+12.3% +20.8% +23.2% +17.6% +9.2% +8.1%
+18.0% +27.5% +32.7% +36.7% +24.0% +36.9%
HCPSS High School Assessments, 2008-2012 (High School Students Only, May Administration) Student Group 2008 English HSA % Proficient 2012 English HSA % Proficient Change from 2008 to 2012 2008 Algebra HSA % Proficient 2012 Algebra HSA % Proficient Change from 2008 to 2012 2008 Biology HSA % Proficient 2012 Biology HSA % Proficient Change from 2008 to 2012
49
or or Advanced Advanced
or or Advanced Advanced
or Advanced
or Advanced
All Students African Americans Hispanic FARMs Special Ed. LEP
84.2% 65.3% 71.2% 52.5% 35.9% 36.1%
87.8% 72.6% 77.9% 66.2% 46.3% 55.1%
+3.6% +7.3% +6.7% +13.7% +10.4% +19.0%
89.1% 74.8% 71.1% 68.9% 58.8% 71.2%
84.9% 66.0% 72.8% 60.8% 42.3% 58.9%
-4.2% -8.8% +1.7% -8.1% -16.5% -12.3%
88.9% 74.8% 71.1% 64.2% 54.8% 71.7%
91.9% 77.8% 85.4% 72.6% 61.6% 71.1%
+3.0% +3.0% +14.3% +8.4% +6.8% -0.6%
Because of a shift to a four-year adjusted cohort graduation rate, comparable longitudinal data are not available. However, that three HCPSS high schools failed to make their graduation rate AMOs for the African American student group, two failed to make the AMO for the Hispanic student group, and two failed to make the graduation rate for the FARMs student group, speaks to the need for new strategies to help these and other students to be career- and college-ready. That the high school included in our RTT-D initiative failed to make their graduation rate AMOs for all three of these student groups, argues for the need for blended, personalized learning to support our highest poverty high schools.
Beginning in the 2012-2013 school year, the HCPSS instituted new system-wide targets to ensure that historically underrepresented students will be considered for Gifted and Talented (GT) programs and Advanced Placement (AP) courses and will be encouraged to take college entrance examinations such as the SAT and ACT. The transition to student-centered, personalized instruction at the 20 schools will accelerate the further closing of achievement gaps and inclusion of students in GT and AP courses by providing teachers
50
with superior assessment and data analysis tools for the delivery of instruction which will help them encourage students to move into more challenging programs. Increasing the emphasis on making classroom instruction relevant to reaching students college and career goals also will encourage more students to choose two- or four-year college programs of study after graduation. In 2011, 68.3% of HCPSS seniors polled 30 days before graduation indicated that they planned on attending a four-year college and 24.9% indicated they would be attending a two-year college. However, at Oakland Mills HS, the high school participating in the RTT-D program, only 56% of seniors indicated they would be attending a four-year college, with 27% attending a two-year college. The HCPSSs RTT-D program will result in similar four-year college attendance rates across all of its high schools graduating classes by making instruction more college- and career-relevant.
(b) The HCPSS is very excited about the progress it has made with many of its consistently lowest performing schools, including the
schools included in this RTT-D proposal. The model for an HCPSS turnaround school is Oakland Mills MS (OMMS). In 2010, OMMS was identified as a school in corrective action based on failure to make AYP in mathematics and reading for three consecutive years. OMMS made AYP in both mathematics and reading in 2011 and achieved its AMOs in 2012 due to the application of a number of interventions that had worked successfully at other schools, such as Deep Run ES, Phelps Luck ES, and Stevens Forest ES. These included implementing the Classroom-Focused Improvement Process (CFIP), a model for increasing student achievement which is centered on the careful analysis of data to identify students strengths and needs and the improvement in instruction to foster academic achievement. All schools listed in the RTT-D program are either currently using CFIP or will be trained on its use this year. In addition to CFIP, the HCPSS has used the individualization of instruction based on student data to increase student performance at OMMS. This approach has since been used to successfully increase performance at Bollman Bridge ES, Cradlerock ES, Running Brook ES, and Swansfield ES, schools which had failed to make AYP in the past but successfully met their AMOs during the 20112012 school year.
51
A third strategy which proved highly effective in turning around OMMS and other schools is providing staff with professional development and time in their schedules to implement collaborative planning based on the analysis of student data. At the administration level, principals and assistant principals of all of the elementary schools in the proposed RTT-D program currently meet in a Professional Learning Community (PLC) to discuss relevant research, brainstorm how to best implement new practices, and share lessons learned on how to increase student performance. Several of the schools in this proposal also have monthly School Improvement Steering Committee (SISC) meetings, where central office leaders from the School Administration, Curriculum, Title I and Academic Intervention, Special Education, and Student Services offices meet with administrators and staff leaders to monitor school improvement efforts and provide supports. At the high school level, the HCPSS has improved the ability of struggling students to successfully obtain course credits and fulfill graduation requirements through the implementation of beyond school day and year credit recovery and bridge plan project programs. The web-based credit recovery program provides students with the flexibility to receive credits for courses they had not successfully completed. To date, students have successfully completed 75 courses for credit through the evening school program, with an additional 50 credits earned through the beyond school year program. Similarly, for students who need to complete bridge plan projects to meet graduation requirements (in lieu of passing the Maryland High School Assessments), weekend and summer school programs provide students with small group and one-on-one assistance from HCPSS teachers. To date, students have successfully completed 37 projects during the summer school program and 37 projects during the weekend program.
(c) The HCPSS has increased access to student performance data by educators, students, and their families. All stakeholders can
utilize the www.mdreportcard.org site in order to access county- and school-level data on MSA and HSA performance, graduation rates, SAT achievement and participation, and other school-related information. As part of CFIP training, educators at all targeted school have learned how to utilize the HCPSS Inroads and Aspen data systems to access data on student performance and attendance.
52
The HCPSS recently developed the HCPSS Family Portal to provide family members with access to their students academic performance data, class schedules, and attendance data. So far, over 15,000 family members of secondary students have signed up to use the Family Portal since its rollout last year, approximately 54% of HCPSS families with students in middle or high school. At the targeted middle and high schools, over 1,200 family members have signed up, representing approximately 36% of families with students at those schools. Information through parent events and regular communication has been shared frequently to encourage greater participation. Students also have access to the Portal and educators are sharing additional data with students via the Portal.
(B)(2) Increasing transparency in LEA processes, practices, and investments (5 points) The extent to which each LEA has demonstrated evidence of A high level of transparency in LEA processes, practices, and investments, including by making public, by school, actual school-level expenditures for regular K-12 instruction, instructional support, pupil support, and school administration. At a minimum, this information must include a description of the extent to which the applicant already makes available the following four categories of school-level expenditures from State and local funds: (a) Actual personnel salaries at the school level for all school-level instructional and support staff, based on the U.S. Census Bureaus classification used in the F-33 survey of local government finances (information on the survey can be found at http://nces.ed.gov/ccd/f33agency.asp); (b) Actual personnel salaries at the school level for instructional staff only; (c) Actual personnel salaries at the school level for teachers only; and (d) Actual non-personnel expenditures at the school level (if available). In the text box below, the applicant should describe its current status in meeting the criteria. The narrative or attachments should also include any supporting evidence the applicant believes will be helpful to peer reviewers, including at a minimum the evidence listed in the criterion (if any), and how each piece of evidence demonstrates the applicants
53
success in meeting the criterion. Evidence or attachments must be described in the narrative and, where relevant, included in the Appendix. For evidence or attachments included in the Appendix, note in the narrative the location where the information can be found and provide a table of contents for the Appendix. Recommended maximum response length: One page
(B)(2) The HCPSS has increased the transparency of school-level expenditures for personnel salaries and non-personnel
expenditures to the public. In addition, the HPCSS has created an implementation plan to ensure increased transparency of schoollevel personnel salaries and non-personnel expenditures in the future.
The HCPSS publishes its total instructional costs, by level, in its annual budget report. The budget report is available electronically on its website and hard copies are sent to the Howard County Council and to Howard County libraries for public access. In addition, hard copies of the budget are available to the public through the Public Information Office. The budget report also breaks down instructional, non-personnel expenditures, such as supplies, materials, repair of equipment, maintenance agreements, and professional development by instructional level. Currently, the HCPSS provides school-level personnel salaries and non-personnel expenditures to the U.S. Department of Education biennially through the Civil Rights Data Collection project and through Freedom of Information Act requests. As part of its ongoing efforts to increase transparency, the HCPSS, during the 2012-2013 school year, has published the following financial information on its website, specifically on individual school profiles: Actual personnel salaries at the school level for all school-level instructional and support staff. Actual personnel salaries at the school level for instructional staff only.
54
Actual personnel salaries at the school level for teachers only. Actual non-personnel expenditures at the school level.
See Appendix 2 for the HCPSSs breakdown of financial information for participating schools.
(B)(3) State context for implementation (10 points) The extent to which each LEA has demonstrated evidence of Successful conditions and sufficient autonomy under State legal, statutory, and regulatory requirements to implement the personalized learning environments described in the applicants proposal. In the text box below, the applicant should describe its current status in meeting the criteria. The narrative or attachments should also include any supporting evidence the applicant believes will be helpful to peer reviewers, including at a minimum the evidence listed in the criterion (if any), and how each piece of evidence demonstrates the applicants success in meeting the criterion. Evidence or attachments must be described in the narrative and, where relevant, included in the Appendix. For evidence or attachments included in the Appendix, note in the narrative the location where the information can be found and provide a table of contents for the Appendix. Recommended maximum response length: Three pages
(B)(3)
Subject to state approval, the HCPSS has suitable conditions and autonomy under the State of Marylands legal, statutory, and regulatory requirements to implement its proposed personalized learning environment described in this RTT-D program. Under the current legislative and regulatory environment, the HCPSS has successfully utilized its autonomy to offer web-based original and credit recovery courses; workplace instruction and internships; data-driven targeted interventions through extended day, week, and
55
year programs; and mathematics education software to support classroom instruction. The Code of Maryland Regulations (COMAR) Title 13A, Subtitle 03, Chapter 06 promotes personalized learning in Maryland schools through the application of Universal Design for Learning (UDL) principles. These include providing students with multiple options for representation, action and expression, and engagement. The State of Maryland also encourages workplace education. COMAR Title 13A, Subtitle 05, Chapter 08 sets out the requirements for work-placed learning programs for students and provides tax credits for eligible employers.
In the realm of web-based flexible learning opportunities, the State of Maryland has a state-led online initiative with Maryland Virtual Learning Opportunities (MVLO), and several districts, including the HCPSS, to offer local online programs using courses approved by the Maryland State Department of Education (MSDE). MVLO was established by HB1197 (2002). HB1197 authorizes the MSDE to develop standards for teachers and other school system employees for online courses or services, to review courses and courseware to assure quality and alignment with the Maryland content standards and other appropriate standards, and to purchase and develop internet-based learning resources and courses for students and staff. The law required the MSDE to review courses and courseware to assure quality and alignment with the Maryland content standards and other appropriate standards. The original bill that authorized MVLO has been modified with additional legislation that de-centralizes elements of the MVLO program.
In 2010, HB1362 authorized school districts to establish a virtual public school subject to the approval of the MSDE. The legislation required the curriculum of a virtual school have an interactive program with significant online components Teachers in the virtual school must be state-certified, but the law does not require any additional training specifically in online instruction, although there are teacher requirements established by MVLO. Also, a virtual school must maintain an office in the state and is not allowed to provide funds for the purchase of instructional programs or materials to a student, parent, or guardian. The new law does not change an existing provision of charter school law that requires that students be physically present on school premises. Under this
56
provision, the HCPSS could establish a virtual public school program utilizing fully-online original credit courses approved by the MSDE.
In 2012, SB674 authorized county boards of education to request approval of online courses from the MSDE when a county board has completed the development and or review and approval of online courses and services. Under this provision, the HCPSS could review courses not currently approved by the MSDE to address local needs. Currently, the HCPSS has only created a Digital Education Program but has not requested approval of new online courses through the MSDE. The HCPSS has participated in the Quality Matters review process that the MSDE is using to review and approve online courses.
In 2012, changes were also made to Maryland education code Educ. Art. Sect. 7-10B, Educ. Ann. Code 7-1002 (COMAR 13A.03.02.05) regarding provisions for earning credit to reflect the new legislation enacted in 2010 and 2012. In addition to earning credits during the regular school day and year, credits may be earned, at the discretion of the local school system, through the means specified in BJ of this regulation as quoted below: D. Online Courses. (1) Consistent with local school system policy and procedure, credit may be given for correspondence courses and for Department-approved online courses. (2) If credit is to be applied the Department-approved online course shall be provided by the local education agency. (3) A vendor seeking Department approval of an online student or professional development course shall pay a nonrefundable fixed fee to the Department to cover the cost of a review. (4) The review shall be conducted by a panel of content experts designated by the Department. (5) The cost of a review will be a nonrefundable fixed fee of $1,400 per course.
57
(6) Upon review and approval by the State Board, the Department may increase the fee per online course review in FY 2016 and any subsequent years by no more than 20 percent per annum. If the Department increases the fee, it shall publish such increase on its website at www.marylandpublicschools.org. (7) Each Vendor shall submit the nonrefundable fee with each course to be reviewed. The Departments acceptance of the review fee does not guarantee the Departments approval of the online course. (8) The Department reserves the right to review previously approved courses every 3 years.
The existing legislation and COMAR regulations have the following impact on the proposed projects: if the HCPSS uses online courses, they must be approved by the MSDE. The HCPSS may offer approved online courses locally on a case-by-case basis or establish a virtual public school to expand the number of courses a student could take. For course needs not currently on the MSDEs list of approved courses, the HCPSS may choose to review and submit course reviews to the MSDE.
(B)(4) Stakeholder engagement and support (10 points) The extent to which each LEA has demonstrated evidence of Meaningful stakeholder engagement in the development of the proposal and meaningful stakeholder support for the proposal, including (a) A description of how students, families, teachers, and principals in participating schools (as defined in this notice) were engaged in the development of the proposal and, as appropriate, how the proposal was revised based on their engagement and feedback, including (i) For LEAs with collective bargaining representation, evidence of direct engagement and support for the proposals from teachers in participating schools (as defined in this notice); or (ii) For LEAs without collective bargaining representation, at a minimum, evidence that at least 70 percent of teachers from participating schools (as defined in this notice) support the proposal; and
58
(b) Letters of support from such key stakeholders as parents and parent organizations, student organizations, early learning programs, tribes, the business community, civil rights organizations, advocacy groups, local civic and community-based organizations, and institutions of higher education. In the text box below, the applicant should describe its current status in meeting the criteria. The narrative or attachments should also include any supporting evidence the applicant believes will be helpful to peer reviewers, including at a minimum the evidence listed in the criterion (if any), and how each piece of evidence demonstrates the applicants success in meeting the criterion. Evidence or attachments must be described in the narrative and, where relevant, included in the Appendix. For evidence or attachments included in the Appendix, note in the narrative the location where the information can be found and provide a table of contents for the Appendix. Recommended maximum response length: Three pages (B)(4) In order to ensure an ambitious initiative such as the transition to student-centered learning which is at the heart of this RTT-D proposal to succeed, all stakeholders in the targeted 20 schools were engaged in its development, revision, and implementation. The HCPSS has worked closely with the 20 targeted schools to obtain stakeholder feedback. Principals discussed the proposal with their leadership teams, consisting of the principal, assistant principal, content leaders, and intervention leaders, and shared feedback with Central Office personnel. These leadership teams are tasked with working collaboratively to analyze student data, identify areas of instructional need, and create year-long plans to improve student performance and create nurturing, supportive learning environments, making these teams ideally suited to providing staff feedback on the current proposal. In order to access a larger segment of the targeted schools stakeholders, a summary of the draft proposal was posted to the targeted schools websites with an online survey through Survey Monkey to collect additional staff feedback. Survey feedback revealed that 98.2% of responding staff members believed that it was very important or important to personalize instruction through a blended learning model; 97.9% felt it was very important or important to provide flexible professional development options to teachers
59
and staff; and 100% felt it was very important or important to provide students with relevant, hands-on "real life" learning experiences. Staff also indicated which activities they felt best supported each of the initiatives objectives and provided additional feedback through open-ended questions. One teacher noted: Students learn best when they see how it applies to them. If their education is not personalized, they are not invested. When they know teachers have taken the time to really get to know them, their learning preferences and their strengths and weaknesses, then they are more likely to invest their own time to learning." The staff survey results can be found in Appendix 3. A similar survey was provided to family members through Survey Monkey and through hard copies, both in English and Spanish. Similar to the staff results, survey feedback revealed that 98.5% of responding family members believed that it was very important or important to personalize instruction through a blended learning model; 97.4% felt it was very important or important to provide flexible professional development options to teachers and staff; and 96.9% felt it was very important or important to provide students with relevant, hands-on "real life" learning experiences. Like staff, family members were also able to indicate which activities they felt best supported each of the initiatives objectives and to provide additional feedback through open-ended questions. One family member noted: This is a way to help all our students. I truly believe our schools do a great job. But we must help the students that are struggling. This is a way to help that group of students." The family survey results can be found in Appendix 4. Family members were also invited to attend a Department of Student, Family, and Community Services Advisory Committee Meeting to learn more about the grant proposal, ask questions, and share their opinions. Over 50 people attended the meeting. They provided valuable feedback which was incorporated into this proposal. The HCPSS also previously solicited feedback from its stakeholders on the subjects addressed by this proposal as part of its ongoing improvement efforts. In the spring of 2011, the Howard County Public School System, in partnership with Prince Georges County Public Schools and IDEO, a design and innovation consulting firm, asked students, teachers, administrators, and parents about 21st
60
century learning approaches. These approaches included personalized instruction, utilization of technology in the classroom, and experiential learning. Students shared with us the challenges of learning in todays schools. Students highlighted limited access to computers and outdated textbooks and lessons that do not connect to their daily lives. They were frustrated by outdated lessons and teaching approaches that do not seem to connect to the electronic and digital world they now inhabit. Parents noted the pressures on students to achieve and their fear of failure. Parents also worried about their children developing the skills they need for college and beyond and wanted to better use the technology they already have to enhance and extend what their students learn at school. Teachers at all levels shared that they were frustrated by similar issues. Limited access to technology, a lack of training and support to use that technology, and a belief that lecturing was necessary to prepare students for college were repeated themes. Teachers stated that they were under constant pressure to meet state and federal standardized testing requirements, and, with little time to cover required content, they felt like they could not design new relevant and engaging experiences. Over 90% of teachers stated that online tools improve performance and 95% believed that online tools engage students. Finally, administrators felt hindered by current policies that restrict access and the use of technology at school for students and staff. From their perspective, limited district-wide resources (student access at school, professional development, and policies) were making it increasingly difficult to support the needs of their staff. The report generated from these conversations was important to developing this proposal. Throughout all these consultations and surveys, a clear pattern emerged. Parents, students, teachers, and administrators overwhelmingly agreed that the HCPSSs schools would be improved by using technology and social media more effectively; creating blended, personalized learning for students; using data more effectively; focusing more on career- and college-readiness; and creating more effective professional development
61
programs for teachers and administrators. These themes from stakeholders have become the core of this proposal. A list of our partners and letters of support can be found in Appendix 5.
62
(B)(5) Analysis of needs and gaps (5 points) The extent to which each LEA has demonstrated evidence of A high-quality plan for an analysis of the applicants current status in implementing personalized learning environments and the logic behind the reform proposal contained within the applicants proposal, including identified needs and gaps that the plan will address. In the text box below, the applicant should describe its current status in meeting the criteria and/or provide its high-quality plan for meeting the criteria. The narrative or attachments should also include any supporting evidence the applicant believes will be helpful to peer reviewers, including at a minimum the evidence listed in the criterion (if any), and how each piece of evidence demonstrates the applicants success in meeting the criterion. Evidence or attachments must be described in the narrative and, where relevant, included in the Appendix. For evidence or attachments included in the Appendix, note in the narrative the location where the information can be found and provide a table of contents for the Appendix. To provide a high-quality plan, the applicant should describe, at a minimum, the goals, activities, timelines, deliverables, and responsible parties (for further detail, see Scoring Instructions in Part XV or Appendix A in the NIA). The narrative and attachments may also include any additional information the applicant believes will be helpful to peer reviewers. Recommended maximum response length: Two pages
(B)(5)
The HCPSS has made progress in developing the foundations for a personalized learning environment, and its reform efforts logically flow from what has been learned through these efforts. The HCPSS has already instituted aspects of personalized learning environments at all school levels. High school students have been able to utilize adaptive technology beyond regular school hours to recover credit for courses they previously were unable to complete successfully. Students in the Gifted and Talent Research Program can enroll in college-level courses and take advantage of internship and mentorship opportunities. All high school students are given
63
flexibility in meeting graduation requirements through choosing one of three graduation pathway options. At the middle school level, a model similar to Response to Intervention (RTI) has been utilized. It identifies students who, despite good Tier I classroom instruction, persistently underperform in reading and/or mathematics and schedules those students for seminars in the subjects in which they are struggling, in addition to their regular classes, or provides them with during or beyond school day Tier II interventions to address deficit areas. Personalized learning environment elements have been most fully implemented at the elementary level in mathematics instruction. The HCPSS has established 75 minutes of daily mathematics instruction that is differentiated to meet the needs of each student. A multi-group rotational model is employed utilizing a two or three-group model. However, this current model presents challenges for teachers because of the amount of time needed to plan. While these personalized learning approaches have helped provide successful instructional outcomes for most students, they do not go far enough to provide true student-centered learning. Achievement gaps still exist in both reading and mathematics for students in certain racial/ethnic groups and for students receiving special services. Based on the 2012 MSA results, average reading scores for African American and Hispanic student are still approximately 10% below those for all students and average mathematics scores lag 5-11% in comparison to all students. For student receiving special education services, average scores in reading and mathematics are nearly 30% lower than their peers in the All Students group. In addition to these gaps based on student groups, students in the schools targeted in this proposal also show performance deficits when compared to their peers at HCPSS schools with less concentrated poverty. Since the implementation of the MSAs as the benchmarking assessment for Maryland Schools under No Child Left Behind, schools in the targeted group have failed to make AYP/AMOs 32 times compared to 24 times for all the other 54 county schools. The table in Appendix 6 outlines the goals, activities, timelines, deliverables, and responsible parties to achieve personalized learning.
64
Below is a brief summary that lists project goals, existing efforts, and gaps that the RTT-D program will address. Goals, Existing Efforts, and Gaps
Project Goal Existing Efforts Gaps
Personalize instruction through studentcentered blended learning models
Connect student learning to college and career readiness by making instruction relevant to higher education and workforce development Create new professional development programs to foster personalized learning
Individualized mathematics instruction at ES RTI interventions at middle schools Flexible credit recovery options at some HS and special schools Graduation pathways Work study options Advanced level classes, some for college credit High School G/T Research Program Beyond school day and year offerings Joint courses at HCPSS and Howard County Community College Professional Learning Communities School Improvement Steering Committees
Achievement gaps based on race/ethnicity, special services, and school-level FARMs levels Pace in overcoming achievement gaps in past four years Gaps in advanced level/GT course enrollment based on race/ethnicity special services Achievement gaps based on race/ethnicity, special services, and school-level FARMs levels Closing of gaps has slowed down in past four years Gaps in advanced level/GT course enrollment based on race/ethnicity special services Gaps in SAT/ACT participation based on race/ethnicity and special services Lack of focus on understanding personalized learning Lack of focus on using technology and social media to personalize learning Little training available on how to implement personalized learning environments
65
C. Preparing Students for College and Careers (40 total points) (C)(1) Learning (20 points) The extent to which the applicant has a high-quality plan for improving learning and teaching by personalizing the learning environment in order to provide all students the support to graduate college- and career-ready. This plan must include an approach to implementing instructional strategies for all participating students (as defined in this notice) that enable participating students to pursue a rigorous course of study aligned to college- and career-ready standards (as defined in this notice) and college- and careerready graduation requirements (as defined in this notice) and accelerate his or her learning through support of his or her needs. The quality of the plan will be assessed based on the extent to which the applicant proposes an approach that includes the following: Learning: An approach to learning that engages and empowers all learners, in particular high-need students, in an age-appropriate manner such that: (a) With the support of parents and educators, all students (i) Understand that what they are learning is key to their success in accomplishing their goals; (ii) Identify and pursue learning and develop goals linked to college- and career-ready standards (as defined in this notice) or college- and career-ready graduation requirements (as defined in this notice), understand how to structure their learning to achieve their goals, and measure progress toward those goals; (iii) Are able to be involved in deep learning experiences in areas of academic interest; (iv) Have access and exposure to diverse cultures, contexts, and perspectives that motivate and deepen individual student learning; and (v) Master critical academic content and develop skills and traits such as goal-setting, teamwork, perseverance, critical thinking, communication, creativity, and problem-solving; (b) With the support of parents and educators, there is a strategy to ensure that each student has access to (i) A personalized sequence of instructional content and skill development designed to enable the student to achieve his or her individual learning goals and ensure he or she can graduate on time and college- and career-ready; (ii) A variety of high-quality instructional approaches and environments; (iii) High-quality content, including digital learning content (as defined in this notice) as appropriate, aligned with
66
college- and career-ready standards (as defined in this notice) or college- and career-ready graduation requirements (as defined in this notice); (iv) Ongoing and regular feedback, including, at a minimum (A) Frequently updated individual student data that can be used to determine progress toward mastery of college- and career-ready standards (as defined in this notice), or college- and career-ready graduation requirements; and (B) Personalized learning recommendations based on the students current knowledge and skills, college- and career-ready standards (as defined in this notice) or college- and career-ready graduation requirements (as defined in this notice), and available content, instructional approaches, and supports; and (v) Accommodations and high-quality strategies for high-need students (as defined in this notice) to help ensure that they are on track toward meeting college- and career-ready standards (as defined in this notice) or college- and career-ready graduation requirements (as defined in this notice); and (c) Mechanisms are in place to provide training and support to students that will ensure that they understand how to use the tools and resources provided to them in order to track and manage their learning. In the text box below, the applicant should describe its current status in meeting the criteria and/or provide its high-quality plan for meeting the criteria. The narrative or attachments should also include any supporting evidence the applicant believes will be helpful to peer reviewers, including at a minimum the evidence listed in the criterion (if any), and how each piece of evidence demonstrates the applicants success in meeting the criterion. Evidence or attachments must be described in the narrative and, where relevant, included in the Appendix. For evidence or attachments included in the Appendix, note in the narrative the location where the information can be found and provide a table of contents for the Appendix. To provide a high-quality plan, the applicant should describe, at a minimum, the goals, activities, timelines, deliverables, and responsible parties (for further detail, see Scoring Instructions in Part XV or Appendix A in the NIA). The narrative and attachments may also include any additional information the applicant believes will be helpful to peer reviewers. Recommended maximum response length: Eight pages
67
(C)(1)
(a) In a few years, David, a 7th grader, will have a full passport of diverse learning experiences. When he, his teachers, and his parents look at his virtual passport, a profile of his educational journey, they see his grade level, demographic information, and standardized test scores, as well as stamps for the educational milestones he has met. By using a variety of learning tools, resources, and learning formats, David has collected photos, journals, essays, and assessments of the interest-driven projects that he designed and produced. This collection of digital assets and collaborative experiences combined with his anticipated education and career goals, lay out plans for future journeys. By showing his accomplishments, laying out his goals, and co-designing his learning, Davids future is richer.
As the world becomes more digital, constant engagement, participation, and creation become expectations for all. Schools must prepare students for the demands of higher education, the workplace, and civic participation. To make this vision a reality for every student, the HCPSS will transform the way it teaches, assesses, and engages with students. The HCPSS will honor students as partners in the design, implementation, monitoring, and evaluation of their learning. Personalizing learning will help ensure that all students graduate from high school ready to enter college or the workforce.
Personalized instruction at both the student and staff level will be anchored in research-based best practices and will be designed to maximize motivation for learning. Increasing motivation is an often-cited key to boosting student achievement (Biancarosa & Snow, 2004; Kamil et al., 2008). Motivational elements that can be maximized through personalized learning practices include intrinsic motivation, relevance, perceived autonomy, self-efficacy, collaboration, and mastery goal pursuit (Cambria & Guthrie, 2010;
68
Greenleaf, et al., 2011). Student-centered learning will nurture these elements by providing students with authentic input and choice in their learning, emphasizing progress and student success in mastering skills and content, and making instruction more collaborative and relevant through project-based work and connections to a learning community.
The HCPSS also recognizes that there are many non-cognitive factors which lead to student success in K-12 education, college, and careers. A recent University of Chicago Consortium on Chicago School Research report (Farrington et al., 2012) indentified five categories of non-cognitive factors which impact student success: (1) Academic Behaviors going to class, participating, organizing materials, doing homework, studying; (2) Academic Perseverance self-discipline, self-control, delaying gratification, grit; (3) Academic Mindsets feelings of belonging in the academic community, self-confidence, seeing learning as relevant and valuable; (4) Learning Strategies study skills, self-regulatory strategies, goal-setting; and (5) Social Skills interpersonal skills, empathy, cooperation, taking responsibility. Davids passport will reflect these non-cognitive factors because they are part of the RTT-D programs blended, personalized learning environment.
Central to making learning relevant to all students will be technology-supported, project-based learning that aims to help ameliorate problems in the students own communities. Local business, higher education, and the public sector actors, in partnership with students, will identify authentic challenges and collaboratively plan to overcome those challenges through the application of the skills and knowledge students have acquired in the classroom. These challenges will be presented to a virtual community of students, teachers, and students family members in collaborative online forums. For example, a local soup kitchen is struggling to efficiently feed needy families and keep food costs in line with budgetary constraints. David and his classmates, with the help of their families and teachers, might work with the soup kitchen to collect and analyze data (e.g., number of customers, food budget, and food costs) and brainstorm innovative solutions. The nearby Johns Hopkins University Applied Physics Laboratory might use this virtual community to share STEM design challenges to promote engineering as a career choice, or the local Horizon Foundation
69
might ask participants to create successful outreach programs to decrease consumption of sugary drinks. By giving David the opportunity to participate in a variety of project-based learning challenges, he may become passionate about a field or topic of which he was previously unaware, and this passion may drive his college and career choices. Real-world challenges not only will provide students with examples of how their in-school learning can be applied in a variety of college and career contexts, but they also will engage families and community organizations as partners that will continue students education beyond the school day. Student participation in these projects will reveal the connections between school and the larger world, build students feelings of self-efficacy and mastery, and create and strengthen social connections among students, staff, families, and community partners.
(b) For David, and all students, there will be goals, short and long-term, set and evaluated on a regular basis. Personalized learning aims to maximize the achievement of every student based not only on their demonstrated strengths and needs but also on their interests and long-term goals. Personalized learning removes barriers based on time, location, pace, and delivery and provides instruction in ways that parallel how students and their families access information and operate in the larger world. The HCPSS will provide in-person and virtual personalized options that will empower students and their parents to make choices about the time, place, pace, and presentation of instruction. Students will have access to innovative, personalized, self-paced online academic programs both during and beyond the school day to provide opportunities for acceleration, improved performance on SAT/ACT and AP exams, credit recovery, and peer collaboration. As discussed above, the HCPSS will use three different instructional models for our blended classrooms: a rotation model, in which students will rotate on a fixed schedule between different learning modalities, such as small group instruction, group projects, and online learning; a flipped model, where content and instruction will be primarily delivered online, students will move through different learning modalities on a fluid schedule, and the teacher will provide face-to-face support as needed through small group instruction, individual tutoring, and assisting with group projects; and a self-blend model that will encourage students to take
70
courses, access bundles of digital content, and receive instructional entirely online in order to supplement their classroom-based instruction. These personalized learning models will focus efforts on student mastery of skills and content and allow students, staff, and families options for obtaining proficiency based on the students particular strengths, needs, and interests. Central to these models is the inclusion of project-based digital learning. Project-based learning will initially focus on applying mathematical concepts and skills to real-life problems. Following the recommendations from the National Academy of Sciences in its 2012 publication, A Framework for K-12 Science Education: Practices, Crosscutting Concepts, and Core Ideas (National Academy of Sciences, 2012), students will use project-based learning to concretize the natural links between mathematics and science and everyday life. Cutting-edge technologies will be developed and harnessed to connect learning to real-world problems. As students grapple with the application of mathematical practices to all content areas, a focus will be placed on engaging students in the scientific and engineering practices identified by the National Academy. When possible, real-life data sets relevant to the students interests (e.g., how much and what types of food are thrown out in the school cafeteria and what types of items and how much of these items does the school recycle) will be utilized. Central to this project-based learning is contextualizing mathematics within a wide-range of real-life activities. Similar project-based learning opportunities, leveraging interactive technologies, will be created within other content areas and applied in classrooms as the RTT-D initiative grows to include other subjects. Students like David will have secure online passports (profiles) that include goals, skills, interests, projects and progress made in both academic and non-cognitive skills and knowledge. As he demonstrates command of multiplying fractions, for example, it will become part of his passport as will the recycling project he chose to participate in on his own. In order to prepare teachers to personalize instruction, the HCPSS has already provided multiple professional development opportunities on Universal Design for Learning (UDL), a research-based framework that addresses learner diversity at the beginning of the design or planning effort. Using UDL to design academic goals and curriculum will dramatically change how we teach, how
71
students engage in learning, and how we measure what students learn. Using UDL principles allows us to embed flexibility and personalization in all aspects of instruction from the onset, rather than trying to retrofit a rigid curriculum, set of instructional materials, or test for each student who happens to learn a different way (Rose & Gravel, 2010). UDL requires that effective educational tasks be both rigorous and flexible enough that they can be successfully completed in a variety of ways. The HCPSS understands that establishing flexible personalized learning environments not only requires training but also important changes in school policy. These will include redefining the use of time (Carnegie Unit/calendar); creating performance-based, multiple modality, time-flexible assessments of students; providing equity in access to interactive technologies; funding programs that incentivize completion; and a Pre-K-12 continuum that encourages students to pursue work opportunities, internships, AP credits and community college/four-year college credits while in high school (Wolf, 2010, p. 22). By the time David graduates from high school, he will have participated in virtual internships, collaborated across social networks, and earned college credit.
Perhaps most importantly, the HCPSS personalized learning models will nurture student motivation, student autonomy, student selfconfidence, and student resiliency. The creation of a learning environment which allows students to experiment and be creative without negative consequences, and which explicitly interprets temporary failures as a necessary part of learning and success will foster resiliency and grit. With the desire to learn, the dispositions for success, and the strategies needed to set and reach goals and benchmarks, students will be in control of their learning. Below are the two main projects of the RTT-D to personalize the learning environment. These projects will be led by the Division of Instruction and the Departments of School Administration and Curricular Programs. See Appendix 7 for more detailed project plans, goals and deliverables.
Project #1: Learning for the Future: A Personalized Competency-based Approach
72
Project Goals: (1) pilot personalized and blended learning models that support anytime and anywhere learning; (2) implement learning analytics to enable teachers to provide immediate feedback to students and personalize instruction; and (3) create and facilitate learning communities for students, teachers, and parents that provide just in time support, flexible options, and opportunities for collaboration and reflection Project #2: Making Learning Relevant: Connecting Learners to College and Careers by Engaging the Community Project Goals: (1) create and model innovative approaches to teaching and learning so that students learn anywhere, anytime through flexible scheduling, interactive and adaptive tools, and content; (2) pilot blended and online options for students to earn college credit prior to graduation, earn high school credits online, and/or participate in workforce development opportunities; and (3) create and facilitate learning communities for students, teachers, family members and the community that provide just in time support, flexible options, and opportunities for collaboration and reflection. Major activities for both projects: Evaluate and address structural and logistical barriers to providing anytime, anywhere personalized learning. Design and pilot various blended learning models (e.g. station-rotation, self-blend, flipped). Use multi-layered dashboards to discern meaning from learning analytics that guide instruction and communicate progress. Implement a wide variety of learning tools, resources, and learning formats to support a competency based instructional model and promote the acquisition and application of core knowledge and essential skills such as collaboration, initiative, global awareness, creativity, critical thinking, and perseverance. Move toward a ubiquitous computing environment, allowing students to learn anytime, anywhere.
73
Provide students and teachers with opportunities to interact with and grapple with dynamic, real-world problems that companies face while making explicit connections to classroom teaching and learning. Provide online and blended college courses for credit via virtual pathways and for high school credit. Research and implement a social learning community for students, teachers, family, and community members. Provide connections with businesses, higher education and the community to encourage and implement real world application and problem solving.
Staff will provide instructional accommodations to students with higher-needs (underperforming students who do and do not receive ESOL, special education, or 504 services) based on the Universal Design for Learning (UDL) framework (Rose & Gravel, 2010). Accommodations will focus on holding students to high standards in learning content and skills but will allow flexibility in representation, action and expression, and engagement. These accommodations may include options for perception (custom displays, alternatives to auditory or visuals), options for language (vocabulary support, clarified syntax or structures), options for comprehension (activation of background knowledge, memory supports), options for physical action (alternative response, navigation options, assistive technologies), options for expressive skills (use of various media), supports for sustaining effort, and supports for self-regulation. In addition, accommodations to engage family and community members in planning, implementation, and ongoing improvement will include flexible meeting times and locations, translation of materials, and interpretation services. Deliverables include: Digitized performance dashboards, portable academic histories/profiles (passports) with achievement and competency stamps, student-created learning games, student-created apps, collaborative online school communities, collaborative, co-designed learning pathways, business collaboration, mobile game-based simulations, and augmented reality modules.
(c) Student management of their own learning is not a new idea. The Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development
74
(OECD), which oversees the Programme for International Student Assessment (PISA), the triennial assessment of 15-year-old students academic knowledge and skills across 70 countries, published a seminal piece on shifting management of student learning from teachers to the students themselves in 2004. This report cited research to show that students who regulate their own learning, perform better than teacher-managed peers and outlined the key components of successful student management: (1) students need to be willing to learn; (2) students need to set their own goals and develop concrete strategies to reach those goals; (3) students need to be provided with a toolbox of flexible, effective learning strategies; and (4) students need to be motivated to learn, able to work with autonomy, and to possess the self-confidence and resiliency to interpret success and failure appropriately (OECD, 2004).
The HCPSS will ensure that its students possess these four requirements for effectively tracking and managing their own learning. Students will attain subject mastery because instruction will be engaging, relevant (tied directly to the students current interests as well as their college and career aspirations), and part of a supportive community (not simply a nurturing, supportive classroom environment, but the larger virtual learning community of Howard County). Teachers will leverage adaptive educational software and more frequent assessments to instruct students on setting long-term goals and shorter-term benchmarks, tracking progress, and deciding when to make adjustments when progress is not on track. Students will be explicitly taught a variety of effective learning strategies to develop their own learning toolbox. This toolbox will become part of their personal learning profile and will be available as a constant reference.
75
(C)(2) Teaching and Leading (20 points) The extent to which the applicant has a high-quality plan for improving learning and teaching by personalizing the learning environment in order to provide all students the support to graduate college- and career-ready. This plan must include an approach to implementing instructional strategies for all participating students (as defined in this notice) that enable participating students to pursue a rigorous course of study aligned to college- and career-ready standards (as defined in this notice) and college- and careerready graduation requirements (as defined in this notice) and accelerate his or her learning through support of his or her needs. The quality of the plan will be assessed based on the extent to which the applicant proposes an approach that includes the following:
Teaching and Leading: An approach to teaching and leading that helps educators (as defined in this notice) to improve instruction and increase their capacity to support student progress toward meeting college- and career-ready standards (as defined in this notice) or college- and career-ready graduation requirements (as defined in this notice) by enabling the full implementation of personalized learning and teaching for all students such that: (a) All participating educators (as defined in this notice) engage in training, and in professional teams or communities, that supports their individual and collective capacity to (i) Support the effective implementation of personalized learning environments and strategies that meet each students academic needs and help ensure all students can graduate on time and college- and career-ready; (ii) Adapt content and instruction, providing opportunities for students to engage in common and individual tasks, in response to their academic needs, academic interests, and optimal learning approaches (e.g., discussion and collaborative work, project-based learning, videos, audio, manipulatives); (iii) Frequently measure student progress toward meeting college- and career-ready standards (as defined in this
76
notice), or college- and career-ready graduation requirements (as defined in this notice) and use data to inform both the acceleration of student progress and the improvement of the individual and collective practice of educators; and (iv) Improve teachers and principals practice and effectiveness by using feedback provided by the LEAs teacher and principal evaluation systems (as defined in this notice), including frequent feedback on individual and collective effectiveness, as well as by providing recommendations, supports, and interventions as needed for improvement. (b) All participating educators (as defined in this notice) have access to, and know how to use, tools, data, and resources to accelerate student progress toward meeting college- and career-ready graduation requirements (as defined in this notice). Those resources must include (i) Actionable information that helps educators (as defined in this notice) identify optimal learning approaches that respond to individual student academic needs and interests; (ii) High-quality learning resources (e.g., instructional content and assessments), including digital resources, as appropriate, that are aligned with college- and career-ready standards (as defined in this notice) or college- and career-ready graduation requirements (as defined in this notice), and the tools to create and share new resources; and (iii) Processes and tools to match student needs (see Selection Criterion (C)(2)(b)(i)) with specific resources and approaches (see Selection Criterion (C)(2)(b)(ii)) to provide continuously improving feedback about the effectiveness of the resources in meeting student needs. (c) All participating school leaders and school leadership teams (as defined in this notice) have training, policies, tools, data, and resources that enable them to structure an effective learning environment that meets individual student academic needs and accelerates student progress through common and individual tasks toward meeting college- and career-ready standards (as defined in this notice) or college- and career-ready graduation requirements (as defined in this notice). The training,
77
policies, tools, data, and resources must include: (i) Information, from such sources as the districts teacher evaluation system (as defined in this notice), that helps school leaders and school leadership teams (as defined in this notice) assess, and take steps to improve, individual and collective educator effectiveness and school culture and climate, for the purpose of continuous school improvement; and (ii) Training, systems, and practices to continuously improve school progress toward the goals of increasing student performance and closing achievement gaps (as defined in this notice). (d) The applicant has a high-quality plan for increasing the number of students who receive instruction from effective and highly effective teachers and principals (as defined in this notice), including in hard-to-staff schools, subjects (such as mathematics and science), and specialty areas (such as special education).
In the text box below, the applicant should describe its current status in meeting the criteria and/or provide its high-quality plan for meeting the criteria.
The narrative or attachments should also include any supporting evidence the applicant believes will be helpful to peer reviewers, including at a minimum the evidence listed in the criterion (if any), and how each piece of evidence demonstrates the applicants success in meeting the criterion. Evidence or attachments must be described in the narrative and, where relevant, included in the Appendix. For evidence or attachments included in the Appendix, note in the narrative the location where the information can be found and provide a table of contents for the Appendix.
78
To provide a high-quality plan, the applicant should describe, at a minimum, the goals, activities, timelines, deliverables, and responsible parties (for further detail, see Scoring Instructions in Part XV or Appendix A in the NIA). The narrative and attachments may also include any additional information the applicant believes will be helpful to peer reviewers.
Recommended maximum response length: Eight pages
(C)(2)
(a) Mr. Troy, a high school mathematics teacher at HCPSS, will be part of shaping professional learning. He has taught for seven years and received satisfactory evaluations. He describes himself as a learner and wants to improve his teaching. He also coaches soccer and has a family. Like many educators, finding time is one of his greatest challenges.
Digital learning extends the reach of great teachers and leaders. A recent focus group of HCPSS teachers identified barriers to implementation of 21st century learning models, including a lack of access to technology, the training and support needed to effectively use that technology, and a belief that lecturing was necessary to prepare students for higher education. Teachers are feeling pressure to meet state and federal standardized testing requirements and feel they lack time to design relevant and engaging instructional experiences. As one teacher stated, I know a lot about everything, but I never have time to get in and get dirty with the materials. Personalizing learning through technology can provide teachers with the time and access they need to innovate instruction and better engage students.
We need to provide our teachers with the same level of personalization we will provide to our students. For Mr. Troy, who must leave the classroom for the soccer field and the field for his family, planning is done before school and professional learning opportunities are not necessarily available then. After his children are in bed, he searches the Internet for ideas, but this is an
79
individual pursuit. The HCPSS will create virtual forums for Mr. Troy to collaborate with other educators who are teaching the same subjects and community practitioners who can share their field experiences to make his lessons richer and more relevant. The HCPSS will also make learning bundles available online so staff can increase their content knowledge about what they are currently teaching, receive guidance on strategies to become a highly effective teacher, or simply learn more about a topic of interest. These tools will allow the adult learner to master his craft.
The HCPSSs professional learning program will be critical to achieving the goals of the RTT-D program. If paraprofessionals, teachers, and administrators do not feel engaged and supported in the transition to a blended, personalized learning environment, then the RTT-D grant will not be successful. Virtual learning communities will allow staff to easily connect with their colleagues to address instructional and behavioral challenges, collaborate on data analysis and lesson-crafting during common planning time, and participate in job-embedded professional development. These opportunities will be made possible through the use of self-paced, self-directed online professional learning bundles and personal learning networks through which teachers can collaborate in real time.
The HCPSSs RTT-D program in professional learning will be guided by Tony Wagners widely discussed The Global Achievement Gap: Why Even Our Best Schools Dont Teach the New Survival Skills Our Children Need and What We Can Do About It (2008). According to Wagner, our nations schools do not teach students how to be critical thinkers and problem-solvers. To prepare young people for productive adulthoods and civic engagement, Wagner recommends that schools concentrate on instilling seven skills for the 21st century: (1) critical thinking and problem-solving; (2) curiosity and imagination; (3) collaboration across networks and leading by influence; (4) agility and adaptability; (5) initiative and entrepreneurialism; (6) effective oral and written communication; and (7) accessing and analyzing information. The HCPSS agrees with Wagner these skills are at the core of blended, personalized
80
learning but to foster these skills in students we first must foster them in educators.
(b) The HCPSS will provide professional learning programs to help paraprofessionals, teachers, and administrators improve their instruction and better access and utilize web-based tools, data, and other resources to support student progress toward meeting college- and career-readiness standards. Improvements in teaching and leading will be supported by:
1. Using digital instruction and data-sharing systems to drive individualized learning. While there is currently a great deal of student data which is accessible to teachers and administrators, many staff do not utilize it because the systems are not user-friendly or because student data is divided between applications, making it hard to obtain complete pictures of the students strengths and needs. The HCPSS will create a secure, user-friendly platform to provide staff with an integrated, complete passport to learning for each student. This passport will incorporate existing data on task competency, interest areas, and receipt of services and will integrate the more frequent skill-level data points which will be provided by adaptive software assessments. Staff will not only receive professional learning on how to access the new system and use data to drive personalized instruction, but will also receive training on how to share such data with the students themselves and use it to motivate and engage them to take ownership of their own learning. Staff will also receive ongoing support on how to analyze data-based evidence of student progress on particular skills or content areas into students pathways towards their college and career goals. For Mr. Troy, studying his students passports will help inform his next instructional steps.
2. Engaging staff and students in a student-centered learning model. Transitioning staff towards a student-centered learning model will require ongoing professional development supported by peer, administrative, and Central office staff. Research-based best practices will be utilized to help teachers understand their expanded roles, support authentic-project
81
based learning, create student-driven personalized learning paths, and implement competency-based assessment. Staff will be supported through a blended instructional model which will include traditional face-to-face professional development, online courses, webinars, and social media networks. Professional development will be content-focused, hands-on, collaborative, and ongoing. Professional development staff and administrative and curricular leaders will hold regular online office hours to address staff questions and concerns and ensure that teachers do not feel they left to transition to the new model on their own. 3. Ensure educators know how to support each students college and career readiness. By creating virtual mentors for teachers that hold flexible office hours to provide teachers with feedback, direction, coaching, mentoring, and other resources to support staff based on their needs, teachers also will experience how virtual internships, mentors, or other opportunities will be offered to students. Bundles about motivation and engagement will be available for faculty. Teachers will learn not only how to better facilitate learning in academic skills and content, but also how to nurture the non-cognitive factors which lead to success in college and careers, such as autonomy, self-confidence, and perseverance. 3. Supporting student achievement through the creation of virtual professional learning communities for administrators, teachers, students and other stakeholders. The HCPSS recognizes that the best resource for teachers and administrators during times of transition is usually their fellow teachers. To that end, new professional learning communities (PLCs) and augmented, flexible work days for teachers will be created to support the transition to personalized studentcentered learning. The HCPSS will expand existing face-to-face and online (blended) professional learning communities so that staff can engage in ongoing learning, problem solving, and reflection using technologies that have direct application to the classroom. Both omnibus and content- and grade-level specific social media sites will connect administrators and teachers across all 20 participating schools to help staff better negotiate the transition to personalized instruction. Staff PLCs
82
will connect teachers and paraeducators with content and instructional experts, and each other, so that challenges in applying new strategies can be addressed quickly and effectively. Monitored PLCs will also be created which allow students to work collaboratively beyond the school day with their peers in online learning games or on classroom projects. Other PLCs will give parents greater access to teachers and administrators, and provide school staff with immediate feedback from stakeholders when making decisions that affect the entire school community.
Meeting the goal of transforming teaching and learning to student-centered models will necessitate an online social learning platform. Currently, HCPSS teachers and students are increasingly and independently using a leading social learning platform for PK-12 collaboration in teaching and learning. As of October 2012, 1,350 teachers and 14,300 students from all schools across the district are using this platform, with adoption increasing fivefold in the past 12 months alone. In the RTT-D initiative, we will continue using this platform to (1) foster more efficient communication among stakeholders (e.g., teachers and teachers, teachers and students, teachers and parents); (2) create dynamic teacher professional learning through private closed online groups that offer easy mechanisms for replication and learning across geographies; (3) collect data about hard-to-measure skills and traits such as teamwork and communication to better map the full 360-degree range of inputs, influences, and milestones of a students learning pathway to that students learning outcomes; (4) compile and display content suggestions that take into consideration the standardsaligned learning objective, the learning style of the student, the topic being taught, and other data inputs; and (5) create scalable technical assistance and training on use of the platform via webinars and connections to third party publishers and developers of online content, including those publishers with whom our district currently has relationships, to coordinate the technical integration of their content on the platform.
As the U.S. Department of Educations Enhancing Teaching and Learning through Educational Data Mining and Learning
83
Analytics argued, school systems can use their IT to mine and display data in ways that will personalize student learning and promote better teaching (U.S. Department of Education, 2012). In its RTT-D program, the HCPSS will do exactly this and provide teachers with the training to understand and use the type of displays shown below to improve learning with their own students:
The HCPSSs professional development program will help teachers use data more effectively to personalize learning.
(c) The HCPSS has examined a variety of sources to determine how to create an effective professional learning program. These include the North American Council for Online Learning, University of Central Florida Blended Learning Toolkit for faculty development, Learning Forward, Harvard University Advanced Leadership, PD 360 of the School Improvement Network, the Education Alliance at Brown University, and the New York City Public Schools iZone. The HCPSS also examined what other unionized school districts have done to prepare their staffs for blended, personalized learning.
As part of the professional learning plan, the HCPSS will establish a digital mentoring program whereby successful, experienced school personnel coach and mentor less experienced personnel using digital tools and via flexible means. There exist wide disparities among educators in their instructional skills and digital literacy levels that a mentoring program can help address.
84
Professional learning also will include the HCPSSs multi-disciplinary School Improvement Teams and Leadership Teams. These Teams will work closely with School Improvement Steering Committees to review progress, refine implementation, and provide needed support in all participating schools. To be successful, they must be part of the RTT-Ds comprehensive professional learning program.
Building on past successes turning around struggling schools, the HCPSS has also provided professional development on how to use data and specific data-driven instructional improvement models such as the Classroom-Focused Improvement Process (CFIP) to identify students in need of additional instructional supports and provide those students with effective interventions. Staff at all of the participating RTT-D schools have either received such professional development or are receiving it this school year. Teachers at the participating schools will have a foundation on utilizing data to drive instruction onto which professional learning on other aspects of personalized learning can be built.
(d) Appendix 8 describes in greater detail the professional development activities that will support the HCPSS RTT-D programs. Professional development activities will support the two projects described in (C)(1) (Learning for the Future: A Personalized Competency-based Approach and Making Learning Relevant: Connecting Learners to College and Careers by Engaging the Community), by transforming professional learning for teachers and school leaders through online and blended instruction focused on supporting student-centered learning models.
The goal of these professional development activities will be to increase the number of students who have effective and highly effective teachers and principals. It will first be applied to our 20 participating schools, beginning in mathematics and science instruction. Eventually, all teachers and administrators will participate in the professional development program begun through the
85
RTT-D program: Create and facilitate on-demand professional learning opportunities that provide just in time support, flexible options for learning, and opportunity for professional collaboration, reflection, and monitoring of progress. Support staff as they re-envision their own roles by exploring new ways of blending digital learning tools with other services and resources to leverage their professional strengths and passions in working directly or indirectly with learners. Establish professional peer communities to develop staff knowledge about deepening and accelerating student learning and closing achievement gaps. Create technology infused professional development opportunities for educators to increase digital literacy as well as the ability to employ technology in relevant, real-world ways in the classroom. Use multi-layered dashboards to discern meaning from learning analytics that guide instruction and communicate progress. Implement a wide variety of learning tools, resources, and learning formats to support a competency based instructional model and promote the acquisition and application of core knowledge and essential skills such as collaboration, initiative, global awareness, creativity, critical thinking, and perseverance.
Deliverables include: Digitized performance dashboards, portable professional learning histories/profiles (passports) with achievement and competency stamps, teacher-created learning games, teacher-created apps, collaborative online school communities, collaborative, co-designed professional learning bundles and pathways, business connections, mobile game-based simulations and augmented reality modules.
86
D. LEA Policy and Infrastructure (25 total points) The extent to which the applicant has a high-quality plan to support project implementation through comprehensive policies and infrastructure that provide every student, educator (as defined in this notice), and level of the education system (classroom, school, and LEA) with the support and resources they need, when and where they are needed. The quality of the plan will be determined based on the extent to which-(D)(1) LEA practices, policies, rules (15 points) The applicant has practices, policies, and rules that facilitate personalized learning by (a) Organizing the LEA central office, or the consortium governance structure (as defined in this notice), to provide support and services to all participating schools (as defined in this notice); (b) Providing school leadership teams in participating schools (as defined in this notice) with sufficient flexibility and autonomy over factors such as school schedules and calendars, school personnel decisions and staffing models, roles and responsibilities for educators and noneducators, and school-level budgets; (c) Giving students the opportunity to progress and earn credit based on demonstrated mastery, not the amount of time spent on a topic; (d) Giving students the opportunity to demonstrate mastery of standards at multiple times and in multiple comparable ways; and (e) Providing learning resources and instructional practices that are adaptable and fully accessible to all students, including students with disabilities and English learners; and (D)(2) LEA and school infrastructure (10 points) The LEA and school infrastructure supports personalized learning by (a) Ensuring that all participating students (as defined in this notice), parents, educators (as defined in this notice), and other stakeholders (as appropriate and relevant to student learning), regardless of income, have access to necessary content, tools, and other learning resources both in and out of school to support the implementation of the applicants proposal; (b) Ensuring that students, parents, educators, and other stakeholders (as appropriate and relevant to student learning) have
87
appropriate levels of technical support, which may be provided through a range of strategies (e.g., peer support, online support, or local support); (c) Using information technology systems that allow parents and students to export their information in an open data format (as defined in this notice) and to use the data in other electronic learning systems (e.g., electronic tutors, tools that make recommendations for additional learning supports, or software that securely stores personal records); and (d) Ensuring that LEAs and schools use interoperable data systems (as defined in this notice) (e.g., systems that include human resources data, student information data, budget data, and instructional improvement system data). In the text box below, the applicant should describe its current status in meeting the criteria and/or provide its high-quality plan for meeting the criteria. The narrative or attachments should also include any supporting evidence the applicant believes will be helpful to peer reviewers, including at a minimum the evidence listed in the criterion (if any), and how each piece of evidence demonstrates the applicants success in meeting the criterion. Evidence or attachments must be described in the narrative and, where relevant, included in the Appendix. For evidence or attachments included in the Appendix, note in the narrative the location where the information can be found and provide a table of contents for the Appendix. To provide a high-quality plan, the applicant should describe, at a minimum, the goals, activities, timelines, deliverables, and responsible parties (for further detail, see Scoring Instructions in Part XV or Appendix A in the NIA). The narrative and attachments may also include any additional information the applicant believes will be helpful to peer reviewers. Recommended maximum response length: Seven pages
88
(D)(1)
(a) The HCPSS Central Office will provide support and services to all participating schools in the RTT-D program. The Superintendent, Dr. Renee A. Foose, will have ultimate oversight of the RTT-D program. The Division of Finance and Operations, the Division of Curriculum, Instruction, and Administration, and the Division of Accountability will oversee the RTT-D program on a daily basis. The Division of Curriculum, Instruction, and Administration will use its district-wide resources to institute a blended, personalized learning environment in participating schools. This Division will provide direct support to schools that facilitate personalized learning through the offices of: School Administration; Elementary and Secondary Curriculum; Professional Development; Student, Family, and Community Services; and Special Education and Student Services. The HCPSS Central Office will coordinate district-wide meetings that involve senior management and the community relating to the RTT-D program. The HCPSS will forcefully and publically voice its support for the RTT-D program as part of the school systems long-range strategic plan. The HCPSS will use its long-standing partnerships with businesses, community-based organizations, and nonprofit organizations to strengthen and improve the RTT-D program and provide it with additional resources.
(b) The HCPSS school leadership teams in the participating schools have sufficient flexibility and autonomy over factors such as school schedules and calendars, school personnel decisions and staffing models, roles and responsibilities for educators and noneducators, and school-level budgets. All participating schools are provided with differentiated staffing positions which school administrators can assign to teach any subject or grade level. Twelve of the 13 participating elementary schools in our RTT-D program receive additional staffing through Title I A funds and already have the flexibility to personalize learning for students. Through Title I, 21st Century Community Learning Center funds, and academic intervention programs, School Leadership Teams have the flexibility to decide how to best use need-based funds in terms of programs (before, during, or after school), students to target, subjects needing additional support, and how to provide interventions (small group programs, small group tutoring, and oneto-one tutoring). The HCPSS has also recently made an addition to Policy 8080 (Acceptable Use of Technology) to allow for
89
flexibility in schools where new technologies, instructional methods and web-based resources are being piloted. This policy can be found in Appendix 9.
(c) The HCPSS currently provides students with the opportunity to earn credits based on demonstrated mastery, not the amount of time spent on a topic, and will substantially expand these programs through RTT-D funding. For example, during the summer of 2011, the HCPSS provided an alternative summer school option for targeted 9th grade students in danger of not advancing to 10th grade. Students were required to attend on-site classes two to three days a week and could also access the Apex course site online on non-face-to-face days to accelerate their learning. This approach will be dramatically expanded under the HCPSSs RTT-D program. In the new RTT-D blended, personalized learning environment, students will be able to earn credits both inside and outside their schools anytime, anywhere, and at their own pace. This means that demonstrated mastery of a subject and the granting of credits will be determined by assessments, projects, profiles, or other artifacts of learning and not hours of seat time.
(d) Under the RTT-D program, and in keeping with existing application of Universal Design for Learning (UDL) principles, students will have the opportunity to demonstrate mastery of standards at multiple times and in multiple comparable ways. The HCPSS currently provides opportunities through its evening school, Comprehensive Summer School, and two of its beyond school day programs for students to use web-based programs to recover credits for courses unsuccessfully completed. Students in certain programs are also provided with opportunities for dual enrollment at Howard Community College so that they can gain college credit while enrolled in their home schools. These approaches will be greatly expanded under the RTT-D program. With blended, personalized learning, HCPSS students will have a wide variety of opportunities to demonstrate the mastery of standards at multiple times and in multiple comparable ways as follows: (1) traditional classroom-based learning and assessments; (2) in-school online learning assessments; (3) anytime, anywhere web-based learning and assessments; (4) learning as demonstrated by student portfolios and projects; (5) dual enrollment in academic courses at HCPSS and Howard County Community College and other local
90
colleges and universities; and (6) dual enrollment in vocational certification programs at HCPSS and Howard County Community College.
(e) The HCPSSs RTT-D program will provide learning resources and instructional practices that are adaptable and fully accessible to all students, including students with disabilities and English learners. Currently, all students have access to rigorous curricula. For students with disabilities and with English learners, this is done in classes that are co-taught by content teachers, reading specialists, special educators, teachers in the English for Speakers of Other Languages (ESOL) Program, Title I teachers, and other interventionists. To provide additional learning resources, Universal Design for Learning principles have been integrated into curriculum and assessment development and technology has been leveraged to provide access to resources and tools to support learning. These approaches will be greatly expanded under the RTT-D program. Students with disabilities and English learners will be provided with adaptable and fully accessible learning resources and instructional practices in the following ways: co-taught classes; use of the Universal Design for Learning in all curriculum and assessment development; classrooms that combine formal instruction with structured time for self-paced online learning; web-based learning anytime, anywhere; special online learning resources for students with disabilities and English learners; learning through the development of student portfolios; and dual enrollment in vocational certification programs at HCPSS and Howard County Community College.
(D)(2)
(a) In the HCPSSs RTT-D program, all participating students, parents, educators, and other stakeholders, regardless of income, will have access to the content, tools, and learning resources both inside and outside of school to support the HCPSSs student-centered, personalized learning approach. Existing vehicles for data access include: the Automatic System for Performance Evaluation of the
91
Network (ASPEN), which maintains student and teacher level data accessible by staff, students, and families; Inroads, which houses a variety of student-, school-, and county-level academic testing data; the Integrated Financial and Administrative Solution (IFAS), which contains the systems human resources and financial data; and the Collaborative Learning Community (CLC), which is the HCPSS email and conference portal. The Wireless Phase I project, completed in 2011, has increased Internet access throughout the HCPSS by providing at least ten strategically placed Aruba brand wireless access points for student and staff use at each school. The Wireless Phase II project, completed in August 2012, provided full wireless access to all high school and middle school offices, media centers, planning rooms, and instructional areas. Remaining schools are scheduled to be completed by September 2013. The new wireless networks will complete the extensive network redesign, started in 2008, that upgraded the LAN switching, routing, and security infrastructure to enable the HCPSS to support the 21st century learning environments that are part of this plan.
The One Maryland Broadband Network (OMBN), led by the Maryland Department of Information Technology with Howard County as a key partner, was granted $115 million under the Recovery Acts Broadband Technology Opportunities Program to build a high-speed fiber optic network that will directly connect 1,006 community anchor institutions and span 4,200 square miles across the State of Maryland. With completion of the project just a month away, all HCPSS schools will have access to broadband, supporting 21st century teaching and learning by making web-based applications and file sharing faster and more reliable. Schools can take advantage of video conferencing, streaming media, and distance learning for advanced classes and deep content applications. Greater access to high-definition, robust content such as public-television archives, connections with public libraries, hospitals, and local colleges and universities will make learning more vibrant as content and best practices can be quickly shared between PK-12 classrooms and the community.
92
In 2010, the HCPSS Technology Department completed an initiative to standardize student and staff network logins so all students and staff now have unique user accounts and passwords that are consistent with HCPSS Policy 3040 (Technology Security). These accounts are the single authentication credential required for access to all HCPSS-provided online resources on any device. In 2011, all the HCPSS teacher laptops were upgraded and all elementary and middle school general-purpose desktop and mobile labs were replaced with netbooks to provide each classroom with access to twice as many computing devices. Last year, the HCPSS completed a pilot project that involved speech language pathologists, special education teachers, and a select group of students using iPads, with promising results. Building on this extensive existing technological infrastructure, the HCPSSs RTT-D program will use three important technology tools to support a blended, personalized learning environment. First, we will develop and implement multi-layered dashboards for students, teachers and parents to access content and applications, and collaborate across classrooms, schools and communities. This will provide continuous access to electronic files and applications on desktops; ensure secure, regular backups; extensive storage; and facilitate disaster recovery.
Second, we will implement a web-based learning analytics solution focused around providing teachers with real-time data about their students so instruction can be altered, supplemented, and supported. It will provide teachers with specific research-based strategies to help drive instruction and improve student learning. Learning analytics will be used to interpret data produced by and gathered on behalf of students in order to assess academic progress, predict future performance, and identify areas for support. The analysis models that process and display the data will assist teachers in meeting the needs of their students. The use of learning analytics has been used in successful programs across the country like School of One in New York and in Fairfax County, Virginia. The NMC Horizon Project, a decade-long research project designed to identify and describe emerging technologies likely to have an impact on learning, teaching, and creative inquiry, has noted that learning analytics will be one of six emerging technologies that
93
will affect higher and K-12 education (Horizon Report, 2012).
Third, the RTT-D program will use Mahara, an open source ePortfolio tool, to provide students with an online space to showcase
their learning and network with other students with similar learning interests. With the ability to post portfolios to the Internet, students can demonstrate academic mastery to teachers, parents, employers, and post-secondary institutions. Mahara is being used in the HCPSSs elementary schools and in the high schools Gifted and Talented Programs. Mahara will be expanded to all participating schools and training will be provided to students, teachers, and families.
In the new blended, personalized learning environment, students, teachers, families, and community partners will work together to support virtual learning networks in Howard County. We will provide a social, collaborative, online site where students, teachers, principals, district administratorsas well as parents, caregivers, support providers, and community members can connect and work together to promote and enhance learning experiences from content and curriculum selection to feedback, assessment, and managing iterative progress against learning objectives.
In order for all students to be able to access these tools at any time and any place, the HCPSS will work with its partners, including the Bright Minds Foundation and the Howard County Library, to provide families with low-cost Internet connections. Loaner technology will be accessible to students and families who do not currently have a computer or networked device (e.g., iPad, smart phone) in their homes. For those initially unable to obtain home Internet access, information will include how to securely use the Family Portal from computers in libraries and community centers across Howard County.
(b) In the HCPSSs RTT-D program, parents, educators, and other stakeholders will have access to training and online support from the HCPSS to use new software and tools effectively. Through the creation of a social server system, students and teachers will (1)
94
find technology and instructional experts, communities, and content from a personalized dashboard; (2) share knowledge with individuals and across communities through a unified posting model; (3) communicate and collaborate with colleagues in the context of a particular project or topic; and (4) work anywhere with mobile access. Participating schools will host multiple family events such as Technology Open Houses, where family members will learn about the technology utilized in their childs classrooms through hands-on demonstrations, and Digital Learning at Home Nights, where staff will help families utilize online educational resources, such as the four discussed above, to support their childs learning at home. Families who choose to engage in online learning networks will also have access to web-based tutorials, online technology courses, and technical and instructional support from HCPSS staff and partners. The HCPSS will work with its community partners to develop a lending library of technology and software that parents and students can use to continue instruction at beyond the school day. (c) In the HCPSSs RTT-D program, information technology systems will enable parents and students to export information in an open data format and to use the data in other electronic learning systems or software that securely stores personal records. Currently, the HCPSS Family Portal is an online tool that allows parents/guardians to monitor their childs progress in school anytime and anywhere. In the RTT-D program, the HCPSS will help parents and students better access student data to improve student learning.
(d) The HCPSS central office and schools currently use an interoperable data system. Current data systems record student schedules and attendance (ASPEN), access student data (Inroads), and house staff and financial information (IFAS). The two student data systems, ASPEN and Inroads, readily interface with each other. Each system has particular technical advantages which make them well-suited to house part of a students total data record. Data from these systems can be viewed in open-source format and combined with other student data as needed. Aside from upgrades already planned as part of the operating budget, the HCPSS will not need to modify its interoperable data systems for its RTT-D program.
95
E. Continuous Improvement Because the applicants high-quality plan represents the best thinking at a point in time, and may require adjustments and revisions during implementation, it is vital that the applicant have a clear and high-quality approach to continuously improve its plan, This will be determined by the extent to which the applicant has (E)(1) Continuous improvement process (15 points) A strategy for implementing a rigorous continuous improvement process that provides timely and regular feedback on progress toward project goals and opportunities for ongoing corrections and improvements during and after the term of the grant, The strategy must address how the applicant will monitor, measure, and publicly share information on the quality of its investments funded by Race to the Top District, such as investments in professional development, technology, and staff; (E)(2) Ongoing communication and engagement (5 points) Strategies for ongoing communication and engagement with internal and external stakeholders; and (E)(3) Performance measures (5 points) Ambitious yet achievable performance measures, overall and by subgroup, with annual targets for required and applicant-proposed performance measures, For each applicant-proposed measure, the applicant must describe (a) Its rationale for selecting that measure; (b) How the measure will provide rigorous, timely, and formative leading information tailored to its proposed plan and theory of action regarding the applicants implementation success or areas of concern; and (c) How it will review and improve the measure over time if it is insufficient to gauge implementation progress. The applicant must have a total of approximately 12 to 14 performance measures. The chart below outlines the required and applicant-proposed performance measures based on an applicants applicable population. (Note: A table is provided below to support responses to performance measures in the applicants narrative.)
Applicable
Performance Measure
96
Population All
PreK-3
4-8
9-12
a) The number and percentage of participating students, by subgroup (as defined in this notice), whose teacher of record (as defined in this notice) and principal are a highly effective teacher (as defined in this notice) and a highly effective principal (as defined in this notice); and b) The number and percentage of participating students, by subgroup (as defined in this notice), whose teacher of record (as defined in this notice) and principal are an effective teacher (as defined in this notice) and an effective principal (as defined in this notice). a) Applicant must propose at least one age-appropriate measure of students academic growth (e.g., language and literacy development or cognition and general learning, including early mathematics and early scientific development); and b) Applicant must propose at least one age-appropriate non-cognitive indicator of growth (e.g., physical wellbeing and motor development, or social-emotional development). a) The number and percentage of participating students, by subgroup, who are on track to college- and careerreadiness based on the applicants on-track indicator (as defined in this notice); b) Applicant must propose at least one grade-appropriate academic leading indicator of successful implementation of its plan; and c) Applicant must propose at least one grade-appropriate health or social-emotional leading indicator of successful implementation of its plan. a) The number and percentage of participating students who complete and submit the Free Application for Federal Student Aid (FAFSA) form; b) The number and percentage of participating students, by subgroup, who are on track to college- and careerreadiness based on the applicants on-track indicator (as defined in this notice); c) Applicant must propose at least one measure of career-readiness in order to assess the number and percentage of participating students who are or are on track to being career-ready; d) Applicant must propose at least one grade-appropriate academic leading indicator of successful implementation of its plan; and e) Applicant must propose at least one grade-appropriate health or social-emotional leading indicator of successful implementation of its plan.
97
(E)(4) Evaluating effectiveness of investments (5 points) Plans to evaluate the effectiveness of Race to the Top District funded activities, such as professional development and activities that employ technology, and to more productively use time, staff, money, or other resources in order to improve results, through such strategies as improved use of technology, working with community partners, compensation reform, and modification of school schedules and structures (e.g., service delivery, school leadership teams (as defined in this notice), and decision-making structures). In the text box below, the applicant should describe its current status in meeting the criteria and/or provide its high-quality plan for meeting the criteria. The narrative or attachments should also include any supporting evidence the applicant believes will be helpful to peer reviewers, including at a minimum the evidence listed in the criterion (if any), and how each piece of evidence demonstrates the applicants success in meeting the criterion, Evidence or attachments must be described in the narrative and, where relevant, included in the Appendix, For evidence or attachments included in the Appendix, note in the narrative the location where the information can be found and provide a table of contents for the Appendix. To provide a high-quality plan, the applicant should describe, at a minimum, the goals, activities, timelines, deliverables, and responsible parties (for further detail, see Scoring Instructions in Part XV or Appendix A in the NIA), The narrative and attachments may also include any additional information the applicant believes will be helpful to peer reviewers. In determining whether an applicant has ambitious yet achievable performance measures and annual targets, peer reviewers will examine the applicant's performance measures and annual targets in the context of the applicant's proposal and the evidence submitted in support of the proposal, There is no specific annual target that peer reviewers will be looking for here; nor will higher targets necessarily be rewarded above lower ones, Rather, peer reviewers will reward applicants for developing ambitious yet achievable performance measures and annual targets that in light of the applicant's proposal are meaningful for the applicants proposal and for assessing implementation progress, successes, and challenges. Recommended maximum response length: Eight pages (excluding tables)
98
(E)(1) The HCPSS uses a research-based framework for continuous improvement that emphasizes the importance of educators reflecting on
practice. A key component of the framework is the Plan, Do, Study, Act (PDSA) cycle which is used to improve processes and results. This cycle is an integral component of program and school improvement processes in the HCPSS and is used extensively by staff members at the central office and by principals and teachers in schools. As a department, office, or school moves through the cycle, they implement a set of strategies that may include reviewing relevant research, providing professional development to staff, working in collaborative teams to implement best practices, monitoring interim results, adjusting implementation, studying end-of-year results, and making decisions about future actions. Each years school improvement plan is informed by the lessons learned from the previous year and developed to address the gaps which exist between current performance at the beginning of the school year and the school systems expectations for end-of-year performance. The plan is then implemented during the school year with ongoing monitoring. Qualitative and quantitative data gathered throughout the year measure how well the school improvement plan addressed the gaps between expectations and achievements, and the next years plan is developed accordingly. Steering committees made up of central office personnel, school leaders, teachers, family members, and community partners will oversee the RTT-D projects in a similar manor. These steering committees will meet at least quarterly to problemsolve solutions to barriers to effective implementation, reallocate resources, and make adjustments to program activities based upon student-, classroom-, school-, and project-level data.
The main indicators for success of the RTT-D program will be (1) increased student performance on a variety of measures of academic success, particularly reading and mathematics performance and the State of Maryland RTT test score goals; and (2) reduction in the achievement gaps based on race/ethnicity and receipt of special services. The HCPSSs Office of Assessment will create a detailed evaluation plan that will assess RTT-D initiatives both on their effectiveness at achieving these student-centered goals and on the effects their implementation has on all stakeholders. To that end, the Office of Assessment will develop templates that schools can use to track student progress at the individual student, student group, grade, and school level on measures of mathematics and reading proficiency, including but not limited to the Maryland School Assessments and PARCC assessments, the Measures of Academic Progress (MAP) and local HCPSS
99
assessments, On/Above/Below teacher-rated instructional levels, software-based formative and summative assessments, and other nonacademic results. Teacher and principal evaluation data will also be used to ensure that (1) the HCPSS increases its number of effective and highly effective teachers and principals; and 2) there are no disparities in the percentage of students from various student groups who receive instruction from an effective or highly effective teacher or whose schools are led by effective or highly effective principals. The Office of Assessment will also create reports that central office staff will be able to use to look at similar results at each school and across schools. HCPSS schools participating in the RTT-D program will include the personalization of instruction as a major strategy in their school improvement plans. Using the data templates constructed by the Office of Assessment, they will oversee the analysis of school-level data and use these measures to drive the schools priorities for improvement. Student academic achievement and positive-learning behaviors will also be assessed by measuring graduation rates, post-secondary education enrollment rates, drop out rates, participation in advanced level course offerings, SAT/ACT participation and performance, AP exam participation and performance, advanced standing in a State-approved Career and Technology Education program of study, internal and external suspensions, office referrals, and dangerous behaviors. The Office of Assessment will also assess the impact of RTT-D reforms through student, staff, and parent surveys of the school environment.
The progress of particular RTT-D initiatives will be assessed through quantitative (student performance) and qualitative (stakeholder satisfaction) measures. Once baseline levels have been established, the Office of Assessment will support schools in measuring progress towards specific benchmarks in student performance and stakeholder satisfaction. Measurements related to particular reforms will also be created to evaluate implementation. For example, the success of family programs in encouraging student learning at home may be assessed through student and family surveys of at-home learning activities. Aggregate measures of progress, both quantitative and qualitative, will be shared with all stakeholders. Annually, formal reports will be made to the Board of Education, while data will be shared monthly with the administrators and leadership teams of participating schools. On an ongoing basis, progress will be shared with families and community partners through the participating schools websites, the Family Portal, and newsletters as well as through the HCPSS learning communities.
100
As the U.S. Department of Educations Enhancing Teaching and Learning through Educational Data Mining and Learning Analytics pointed out, school systems can use their information technology systems to mine and display data in ways that will provide feedback on progress toward goals and objectives and pinpoint areas where corrections are needed (U.S. Department of Education, 2012). In its RTT-D program, the HCPSS will do exactly this with data that can be clearly understood and shared with educators and stakeholders during and after the grant, as illustrated below in the types of displays that we will use:
The HCPSS will use academic dashboards to provide staff and students with important feedback about progress toward goals.
(E)(2)
The data obtained through these analyses will be shared with the steering committees that will guide implementation and revision of the reform efforts and that will include representatives from all stakeholder groups. Updates will be discussed regularly at School Support Team meetings, Leadership meetings, and central office staff meetings. Data will also be shared with the leadership and staff of participating schools, as well as the students and their families through e- and hard copy newsletters, school websites, the Family Portal, and family events. Schools will reflect these goals, objectives, and strategies within their School Improvement Plans. These School Improvement Plans will be discussed during School Improvement Team meetings.
101
The HCPSS Board of Education will receive regular updates on the progress of the RTT-D initiatives and make presentations and reports accessible to the public through the HCPSS website and local television broadcasts of the board meetings. Monthly updates will be posted on the HCPSS website: www.hcpss.org. The HCPSS views its stakeholders, staff, students, families, and community members, as partners in its reform efforts. In order to receive the greatest benefit from the unique expertise and perspectives of each of its stakeholder groups, the HCPSS will develop an effective and comprehensive communication plan, share data on the progress of its initiatives, solicit stakeholder feedback, and include stakeholder representatives on the steering committees which will oversee its RTT-D projects.
(E)(3)
The HCPSS has selected the quantitative measures below for its RTT-D program because, collectively, they will provide detailed data to measure a wide variety of essential characteristics of our evolving blended, personalized learning program. Most importantly, these quantitative measures will enable us to determine: (1) levels of student academic mastery; (2) the extent of gaps in academic achievement; and (3) the effectiveness of the professional development program, Sections (E) (1) and (E) (2) explain how the HCPSS will review, report, and improve measures over time.
Currently, the HCPSS rates teachers and principals as either Effective or Not Effective and does not use the Highly Effective rating. However, the HCPSS will adopt the three rankings beginning with its implementation of the new evaluation framework for teachers and principals during the 2013-2014 school year, and is currently piloting the new evaluation framework. For its baseline, it is using a 7% highly effective figure based on a 2012 study by the New York State Department of Education.
Applicable Population: All participating students Performance Measure (All Applicants a) a) The number and percentage of participating students, by subgroup (as defined in this notice), whose teacher of record (as defined in this notice) and principal are a highly effective teacher (as defined in this notice) and a highly effective principal (as defined in this notice).
102
SY 2016-17 (Post-Grant)
The HCPSS does not currently track teacher effectiveness by student group. It will do so with the advent of the new evaluation systems in SY 13-14. If variations are seen as data is collected, changes to the goals will be made.
% with Highly Effective Teachers/Principal (P/Q)*100
% with Effective Teachers/Principal (P/Q)*100 Total # of Participating Students # of Participating Students with Effective Teacher/Principal % with Effective Teachers/Principal (M/N)*100 Total # of Participating Students # of Participating Students with Effective Teacher/Principal % with Effective Teachers/Principal (J/K)*100
17%
17%
11082
Total # of Participating Students # Participating Students with Highly Effective Teacher/Principal
11082
Applicable Population: All participating students
1884
1884
SY 2015-16
SY 2015-16 SY 2014-15 Target

L Total # of Participating Students K J I # of Participating Students with Effective Teacher/Principal % with Effective Teachers/Principal (G/H)*100 Total # of Participating Students H # of Participating Students with Effective Teacher/Principal G % with Effective Teachers/Principal (D/E)*100
% with Highly Effective Teachers/Principal (M/N)*100
15%
10972
10972
15%
1646
SY 2014-15
% with Highly Effective Teachers/Principal (J/K)*100
13%
Target
10863
Total # of Participating Students
# Participating Students with Highly Effective Teacher/Principal
1412
Performance Measure (All Applicants b) b) The number and percentage of participating students, by subgroup (as defined in this notice), whose teacher of record (as defined in this notice) and principal are an effective teacher (as defined in this notice) and an effective principal (as defined in this notice).
SY 2013-14
SY 2013-14
% with Highly Effective Teachers/Principal (G/H)*100
11%
11%
1412
10863
13%
1646
10756
1183
SY 2012-13
# Participating Students with Highly Effective Teacher/Principal
958
958
Total # of Participating Students
SY 2012-13
% with Highly Effective Teachers/Principal (D/E)*100
9%
9%
1183
10756
10649
10649
Total # of Participating Students # of Participating Students with Effective Teacher/Principal
Baseline [Provide Year]
10544
10544
% with Highly Effective Teachers/Principal (A/B)*100
7%
7%
% with Effective Teachers/Principal (A/B)*100 Total # of Participating Students B
738
738
# of Participating Students with Effective Teacher/Principal
Highly Effective Teacher or Principal
Principal
Teacher
Effective Teacher or Principal All participa ting students Subgroup Subgroup
103
All participating students
Teacher Principal
10488
10544
99.5%
10649
10649
100%
10756
10756
100%
10863
10863
100%
10972
10972
100%
11082
11082
100%
10544
10544
100%
10649
10649
100%
10756
10756
100%
10863
10863
100%
10972
10972
100%
11082
11082
100%
The HCPSS does not currently track teacher effectiveness by student group. It will do so with the advent of the new evaluation systems in SY13-14. If variations are seen as data is collected, changes to the goals will be made.
Performance Measure (All Applicants c) [Please describe the Performance Measure in the cells below, as well as the methodology for calculating the measure.] c) MSA/PARCC proficiency Mathematics
Target
Applicabl e Populatio n 3-8
Subgroup
Baseline SY 20112012
SY 201213
SY 201314
SY 201415
SY 201516
SY 201617 (PostGrant)
All participating students African American Hispanic FARMS LEP Special Ed.
84.1% 76.6% 83.1% 75.5% 65.6% 55.4% 86.1% 80.6% 80.7% 77.0% 51.8%
85.7% 78.9% 84.8% 78.0% 69.0% 59.9% 87.5% 82.5% 82.6% 79.3% 56.6%
87.3% 81.3% 86.5% 80.4% 72.5% 64.3% 88.9% 84.5% 84.6% 81.6% 61.4%
88.9% 83.6% 88.2% 82.9% 75.9% 68.8% 90.3% 86.4% 86.5% 83.9% 66.3%
90.5% 86.0% 89.9% 85.3% 79.4% 73.2% 91.7% 88.4% 88.4% 86.2% 71.1%
92.1% 88.3% 91.6% 87.8% 82.8% 77.7% 93.1% 90.3% 90.4% 88.5% 75.9%
MSA/PARCC proficiency Reading
3-8
All participating students African American Hispanic FARMS LEP
104
Special Ed.
57.9%
62.1%
66.3%
70.5%
74.7%
79.0%
(E)(3) Performance Measures Required for applicants with participating students in grades PreK-3 (Note to applicants: Delete chart if the PreK-3 population is not part of your proposal) Performance Measure (Grades PreK-3 a, b) [Please describe the Performance Measure in the cells below, as well as the methodology for calculating the measure.]
Target
Applicabl e Populatio n
Subgroup
SY 201213
SY 201314
SY 201415
SY 201516
All participating students AfricanAmerican a)
75.9%
72.6% 72.3% 70.1% 46.2% 76.6% 17.2% 24.7% 13.1% 21.4% 31.5% 17.2%
78.31% 75.34% 75.07% 73.09% 51.58% 78.94% 15.48% 22.23% 11.79% 19.26% 28.35% 15.48%
80.72% 78.08% 77.84% 76.08% 56.96% 81.28% 13.76% 19.76% 10.48% 17.12% 25.20% 13.76%
83.13% 80.82% 80.61% 79.07% 62.34% 83.62% 12.04% 17.29% 9.17% 14.98% 22.05% 12.04%
85.54% 83.56% 83.38% 82.06% 67.72% 85.96% 10.32% 14.82% 7.86% 12.84% 18.90% 10.32%
87.95% 86.30% 86.15% 85.05% 73.10% 88.30% 8.60% 12.35% 6.55% 10.70% 15.75% 8.60%
HCPSS Reading Benchmark Proficiency Status for grades K 2
Hispanic
K-2
FARMs Spec. Ed. LEP All participating students AfricanAmerican Hispanic
b) PBIS DataPercent of Students in target schools who received at least one Office Referral
PreK-3
FARMs Spec. Ed. LEP
105
Applicable Population: Grade 8 Students Enrolled in Math Performance Measure (Grades 4-8 a) a) The number and percentage of participating students, by subgroup, who are on Course track to college- and career-readiness based on the applicants on-track indicator (as defined in this notice).
97.65%
97.60%
97.25%
97.70%
97.15%
97.90%
% who are on track to college- & career-readiness (P/Q)*100 Total # of Participating Students # Participating Students who are on track to college- & career-readiness % who are on track to college- & career-readiness (M/N)*100 Total # of Participating Students # Participating Students who are on track to college- & career-readiness % who are on track to college- & career-readiness (J/K)*100 Total # of Participating Students # Participating Students who are on track to college- & career-readiness % who are on track to college- & career-readiness (G/H)*100 Total # of Participating Students
97.18%
97.12%
96.70%
97.24%
96.58%
97.48%
SY 2015-16 SY 2014-15 SY 2013-14

I J K
96.71%
96.64%
96.15%
96.78%
96.01%
97.06%
(E)(3) Performance Measures Required for applicants with participating students in grades 4-8 (Note to applicants: Delete chart if the 4-8 population is not part of your proposal)
96.24%
96.16%
95.60%
96.32%
95.44%
96.64%
95.77%
95.68%
95.05%
95.86%
95.3%
95.2%
94.5%
94.87%
95.4%
94.3%
95.8%
96.22%
Target
All participating students AfricanAmerican
# Participating Students who are on track to college- & career-readiness G % who are on track to college- & career-readiness (D/E)*100 F
Spec. Ed.
Hispanic
FARMS
LEP
SY 2012-13
Total # of Participating Students E # Participating Students who are on track to college- & career-readiness D
PreK-3
c) Average Attendance Rate for Students in Grades PreK-3 at Target Schools
% who are on track to college- & career-readiness (A/B)*100 C Total # of Participating Students B # Participating Students who are on track to college- & career-readiness A
Subgroup
106
Students enrolled in Grade 8 at the End of Year at the Target Schools African-American Hispanic FARMs Spec. Ed. LEP
240
901
26.6%
309
910
33.96%
379
919
41.24%
451
928
48.60%
524
937
55.92%
599
946.37
63.29%
56 19 34 n/a n/a
415 119 344 n/a n/a
13.5% 16.0% 9.9% n/a n/a
93 29 66 n/a n/a
419 120 347 n/a n/a
22.20% 24.17% 19.02% n/a n/a
130 40 98 n/a n/a
423 121 350 n/a n/a
30.73% 33.06% 28.00% n/a n/a
168 50 131 n/a n/a
427 122 354 n/a n/a
39.34% 40.98% 37.01% n/a n/a
207 61 164 n/a n/a
431 123 358 n/a n/a
48.03% 49.59% 45.81% n/a n/a
247 72 199 n/a n/a
435.31 124.23 361.58 n/a n/a
56.74% 57.96% 55.04% n/a n/a
Performance Measure (Grades 4-8 b, c) [Please describe the Performance Measure in the cells below, as well as the methodology for calculating the measure.]
b) MSA/PARCC Reading Proficiency
Target
Applicable Population
Subgroup
SY 201213
SY 201314
SY 201415
SY 201516
3-8
All participating students AfricanAmerican Hispanic FARMS Spec. Ed. LEP
86.1% 80.6% 80.7% 77.0% 57.9% 51.8%
87.49% 82.54% 82.63% 79.30% 62.11% 56.62% 7.94%
88.88% 84.48% 84.56% 81.60% 66.32% 61.44% 7.06%
90.27% 86.42% 86.49% 83.90% 70.53% 66.26% 6.17%
91.66% 88.36% 88.42% 86.20% 74.74% 71.08% 5.29%
93.05% 90.30% 90.35% 88.50% 78.95% 75.90% 4.41%
c) PBIS DataPercent of students in target schools
6-8
All participating students
8.82%
107
who received at least one out of school suspension
AfricanAmerican Hispanic FARMS Spec. Ed. LEP
12.15% 13.50% 7.63% 8.48% 12.92% 14.36% 12.54% 13.93% n/a n/a 84.3% 76.7% 83.1% 75.5% 55.4% 65.6% 95.7% 95.5% 95.7% 94.8% 94.1% 97.3% 85.87% 79.03% 84.79% 77.95% 59.86% 69.04% 96.13% 95.95% 96.13% 95.32% 94.69% 97.57%
10.80% 6.78% 11.49% 11.14% n/a 87.44% 81.36% 86.48% 80.40% 64.32% 72.48% 96.56% 96.40% 96.56% 95.84% 95.28% 97.84%
9.45% 5.94% 10.05% 9.75% n/a 89.01% 83.69% 88.17% 82.85% 68.78% 75.92% 96.99% 96.85% 96.99% 96.36% 95.87% 98.11%
8.10% 5.09% 8.62% 8.36% n/a 90.58% 86.02% 89.86% 85.30% 73.24% 79.36% 97.42% 97.30% 97.42% 96.88% 96.46% 98.38%
6.75% 4.24% 7.18% 6.97% n/a 92.15% 88.35% 91.55% 87.75% 77.70% 82.80% 97.85% 97.75% 97.85% 97.40% 97.05% 98.65%
d) MSA/PARCC Mathematics 3-8 Proficiency
e) Average attendance rate for students in grades 3-8 at target schools
4-8
108
(E)(3) Performance Measures Required for applicants with participating students in grades 9-12 (Note to applicants: Delete chart if the 9-12 population is not part of your proposal) The HCPSS does not currently collect this data but will in its RTT-D program.. For baseline data, we will use SAT/ACT/PSAT participation rates,
Performance Measure
(Grades 9-12 a)
a) The number and percentage of participating students who complete and submit the Free Application for Federal Student Aid (FAFSA) form.
Applicable Population: Data are only reported for students at Oakland Mills HS. *Data from Homewood are not included in the figures reported below.
Baseline SY 2011-12
A B Total # of Participating Students C % who completed and submitted FAFSA (A/B)*100 D
Target
SY 2012-13
E Total # of Participating Students F % who completed and submitted FAFSA (D/E)*100 G # Participating Students who have completed and submitted FAFSA
SY 2013-14
H Total # of Participating Students I % who completed and submitted FAFSA (G/H)*100 J
SY 2014-15
K Total # of Participating Students L % who completed and submitted FAFSA (J/K)*100 M # Participating Students who have completed and submitted FAFSA
SY 2015-16
N Total # of Participating Students O % who completed and submitted FAFSA (M/N)*100 P # Participating Students who have completed and submitted FAFSA
Q Total # of Participating Students R % who completed and submitted FAFSA (P/Q)*100
Subgroup
# Participating Students who have completed and submitted FAFSA
All participating 10th, 11th and 12th grade students SAT/ACT/PSAT African-American Hispanic FARMS
633
897
70.6%
666
906
73.51%
700
915
76.50%
734
924
79.44%
768
933
82.32%
804
942
85.35%
252 95 226
374 137 334
67.4% 69.3% 67.7%
267 100 239
378 138 337
70.63% 72.46% 70.92%
282 105 252
382 139 340
73.82% 75.54% 74.12%
298 110 265
386 140 343
77.20% 78.57% 77.26%
314 115 279
390 141 346
80.51% 81.56% 80.64%
330 120 293
394 142 350
83.76% 84.51% 83.71%
109
Spec. Ed. LEP All participating 11th and 12th grade students SAT/ACT ONLY African-American Hispanic FARMS Spec. Ed. LEP
45 7
76 14
59.2% 50.0%
49 8
77 14
63.64% 57.14%
53 8
78 14
67.95% 57.14%
56 9
79 14
70.89% 64.29%
60 10
80 14
75.00% 71.43%
64 11
81 14
79.01% 78.57%
262
584
44.9%
297
590
50.34%
333
596
55.87%
370
602
61.46%
407
608
66.94%
445
614
72.48%
99 24 66 3 0
243 80 210 47 0
40.7 30% 31.4% 6.4% --
114 30 81 7 n/a
245 81 212 47 n/a
46.53% 37.04% 38.21% 14.89% n/a
130 36 96 12 n/a
247 82 214 47 n/a
52.63% 43.90% 44.86% 25.53% n/a
146 42 112 16 n/a
249 83 216 47 n/a
58.63% 50.60% 51.85% 34.04% n/a
162 49 128 21 n/a
251 84 218 47 n/a
64.54% 58.33% 58.72% 44.68% n/a
179 55 145 25 n/a
254 85 220 47 n/a
70.47% 64.71% 65.91% 53.19% n/a
Applicable Population: First Time Freshmen and Seniors who Performance Measure (Grades 9-12 b) c) The number and percentage of participating students, by subgroup, who are on completed requirements for a MD State Diploma track to college- and career-readiness based on the applicants on-track indicator (as defined in this notice).
Baseline SY 2011-12
A B Total # of Participating Students C % who are on track to college- & career-readiness (A/B)*100 D
Target
SY 2012-13
E Total # of Participating Students F % who are on track to college- & career-readiness (D/E)*100 G # Participating Students who are on track to college- & career-readiness
SY 2013-14
H Total # of Participating Students I % who are on track to college- & career-readiness (G/H)*100 J # Participating Students who are on track to college- & career-readiness
SY 2014-15
K Total # of Participating Students L % who are on track to college- & career-readiness (J/K)*100 M # Participating Students who are on track to college- & career-readiness
SY 2015-16
N Total # of Participating Students O % who are on track to college- & career-readiness (M/N)*100 P # Participating Students who are on track to college- & career-readiness
Q Total # of Participating Students R % who are on track to college- & career-readiness (P/Q)*100
Subgroup
# Participating Students who are on track to college- & career-readiness
# Participating Students who are on track to college- & career-readiness
110
All First-Time Freshmen Enrolled in Identified Schools in 20112012 SY African-American Hispanic FARMS Spec. Ed. LEP All Seniors Enrolled in Identified Schools who Completed Requirements for a MD Diploma in 2011-2012 SY African-American Hispanic FARMS Spec. Ed. LEP
224
287
78.1%
233
290
80.34%
242
293
82.59%
251
296
84.80%
260
299
86.96%
269
302
89.07%
94 27 68 17 n/a
128 41 100 34 n/a
73.4% 65.9% 68% 50% n/a
98 28 72 19 n/a
129 41 101 34 n/a
75.97% 68.29% 71.29% 55.88% n/a
102 29 76 21 n/a
130 41 102 34 n/a
78.46% 70.73% 74.51% 61.76% n/a
106 30 80 23 n/a
131 41 103 34 n/a
80.92% 73.17% 77.67% 67.65% n/a
110 31 84 25 n/a
132 41 104 34 n/a
83.33% 75.61% 80.77% 73.53% n/a
115 33 88 26 n/a
133 41 105 34 n/a
86.47% 80.49% 83.81% 76.47% n/a
89
282
31.6%
110
285
38.60%
131
288
45.49%
152
291
52.23%
174
294
59.18%
196
297
65.99%
21 n/a 17 n/a n/a
119 n/a 97 n/a n/a
17.7% n/a 17.5% n/a n/a
31 n/a 25 n/a n/a
120 n/a 98 n/a n/a
25.83% n/a 25.51% n/a n/a
41 n/a 33 n/a n/a
121 n/a 99 n/a n/a
33.88% n/a 33.33% n/a n/a
51 n/a 42 n/a n/a
122 n/a 100 n/a n/a
41.80% n/a 42.00% n/a n/a
62 n/a 51 n/a n/a
123 n/a 101 n/a n/a
50.41% n/a 50.50% n/a n/a
72 n/a 60 n/a n/a
124 n/a 102 n/a n/a
58.06% n/a 58.82% n/a n/a
Performance Measure
Applicable Population: [e.g., grade bands or subject areas]
(Grades 9-12 c)
c) Applicant must propose at least one measure of career-readiness in order to assess the number and percentage of participating students who are or are on track to being career-ready. [Please describe the Performance Measure here, as well as the methodology for calculating the measure.]
Baseline
Target
111
[Provide Year]
A B Total # of Participating Students C % on track (A/B)*100 D # Participating Students on track
SY 2012-13
E Total # of Participating Students F % on track (D/E)*100 G # Participating Students on track
SY 2013-14
H Total # of Participating Students I % on track (G/H)*100 J # Participating Students on track
SY 2014-15
K Total # of Participating Students L % on track (J/K)*100 M # Participating Students on track
SY 2015-16
N Total # of Participating Students O % on track (M/N)*100 P # Participating Students on track
Q Total # of Participating Students R % on track (P/Q)*100
Subgroup
# Participating Students on track
All Graduates AfricanAmerican Hispanic FARMS Spec. Ed. LEP
228
247
92.3%
232
249
93.2%
236
251
94.0%
240
254
94.5%
245
257
95.3 % 93.5 % 90.6 % 96.3 % n/a n/a
250
260
96.2 % 94.5 % 90.9 % 96.4 % n/a n/a
93
104
89.4%
95
105
90.5%
97
106
91.5%
99
107
92.5%
101
108
103
109
26
31
83.9%
27
31
87.1%
28
32
87.5%
28
32
87.5%
29
32
30
33
74 n/a n/a
79 n/a n/a
93.7% n/a n/a
75 n/a n/a
80 n/a n/a
93.8% n/a n/a
77 n/a n/a
81 n/a n/a
95.1% n/a n/a
77 n/a n/a
81 n/a n/a
95.1% n/a n/a
79 n/a n/a
82 n/a n/a
80 n/a n/a
83 n/a n/a
Performance Measure (Grades 9-12 d, e) [Please describe the Performance Measure in the cells below, as well as the methodology for calculating the measure.]
Target
Applicable Population
Subgroup
SY 201213
SY 201314
SY 201415
SY 201516
112
Average attendance rate for Students in grades 9-12 at target schools
9-12
92.80% 92.0% 91.0% 92.6% 89.3% 86.7% 94.2% 91.90% 93.34% 90.37% 88.03% 94.78% 11.99% 13.32% 18.83% 10.95% 20.66% 30.86% n/a 16.95% 9.86% 18.59% 27.77% n/a
93.60% 92.80% 94.08% 91.44% 89.36% 95.36% 10.66% 15.06% 8.76% 16.53% 24.69% n/a
94.40% 93.70% 94.82% 92.51% 90.69% 95.94% 9.32% 13.18% 7.67% 14.46% 21.60% n/a
95.20% 94.60% 95.56% 93.58% 92.02% 96.52% 7.99% 11.30% 6.57% 12.40% 18.52% n/a
96.00% 95.50% 96.30% 94.65% 93.35% 97.10% 6.66% 9.42% 5.48% 10.33% 15.43% n/a
Percent of students who received at least one out of school suspension
9-12
(E)(4)
The HCPSSs plans to evaluate the effectiveness of its RTT-D program are directly linked to the HCPSS logic model in Section (A). For the full preliminary research plan and logic model, see Appendix 9. The evaluation will use both quantitative (growth and gap reduction on student assessments, behaviors, and graduation and post-secondary enrollment rates) and qualitative (focus groups, individual interviews, surveys) data. Evaluation will be ongoing so that additional resources can be obtained and activities can be modified throughout implementation to ensure that the desired outputs, outcomes, and impacts are realized. Ongoing evaluation will include the following indices:
113
Sufficiency of Resources: 1. Have necessary technology and infrastructure improvements been made? Data sources will include: Feedback through focus groups, interviews, and surveys of staff, students, and families 2. Has professional development been improved through leveraging technology? Data sources will include: Feedback through focus groups, interviews, and surveys of teachers and administrators; numbers of teachers taking advantage of professional development opportunities; and teacher evaluation ratings 3. Have additional partnerships with families and community stakeholders been established? Data sources will include: Feedback through focus groups, interviews, and surveys of staff, students, families, and community members; numbers of community partners; and the number of family members participating on School Improvement Teams, in the PTA, and in other school/family partnerships
Success of Activities: 1. To what extent have flexible anytime/anywhere personalized learning opportunities been implemented? Data sources will include: Feedback through focus groups, interviews, and surveys of staff, students, and families; number of students using web-based programs for credit recovery; number of students earning college credits in high school; samples of learning plans, teacher portfolios, lessons, and assessments; and classroom observations 2. To what extent has authentic, project-based learning been implemented? Data sources will include: Feedback through focus groups, interviews, and surveys of staff, students, and families; samples of learning plans, teacher portfolios, lessons, and assessments; and samples of student work 3. To what extent have student-driven, personalized learning paths been created? Data sources will include: Feedback through focus groups, interviews, and surveys of staff, students, and families; samples of learning plans, teacher portfolios, lessons, and assessments; classroom observations; samples of student work; and student assessment data 4. To what extent has mastery and competency based learning taken place? Data sources will include: Feedback through focus groups,
114
interviews, and surveys of staff, students, and families; samples of learning plans, teacher portfolios, lessons, and assessments; classroom observations; samples of student work; and student assessment data
Increased Outputs: 1. To what extent has intrinsic motivation, autonomy, mastery-goal pursuit, collaboration, and self-efficacy improved? Data sources will include: Feedback through focus groups, interviews, and surveys of staff, students, and families; and classroom observations 2. To what extent has students time on task increased? Data sources will include: Feedback through focus groups, interviews, and surveys of staff and students; classroom observations; and time on task log data from educational software 3. To what extent has is instruction more data-driven, responsive, and aligned with assessment? Data sources will include: Feedback through focus groups, interviews, and surveys of staff and students; samples of learning plans, teacher portfolios, lessons, and assessments; classroom observations; samples of student work; and student assessment data 4. To what extent has family and community engagement and support increased? Data sources will include: Feedback through focus groups, interviews, and surveys of staff, students, and families; numbers of community partners; number of participants at family nights; number of students, families, and community members participating in learning networks; and number of family members participating on School Improvement Teams, in the PTA, and in other school/family partnerships
Improved Outcomes:
1. To what extent has mathematics/STEM performance been improved, both in terms of accelerating student-level achievement and
reducing achievement gaps between student groups? Data sources will include: Student performance data (instructional levels, benchmark data, local assessment data (MAP), and state assessment data)
2. To what extent has reading/disciplinary literacy performance been improved, both in terms of accelerating student-level achievement
and reducing achievement gaps between student groups? Data sources will include: Student performance data (instructional levels,
115
benchmark data, local assessment data (MAP), and state assessment data)
3. To what extent have disruptive behaviors, office referrals, suspensions, and absences been reduced and over-representation of certain
student groups reduced? Data sources will include: Number of office referrals; number of suspensions; and attendance data 4. To what extent have more students graduated from high school prepared for college and careers increased and graduation gaps been reduced? Data sources will include: Student completion data; grade 12 documented decision data; number of students entering higher education; number of students earning a 3 or better on AP exams; SAT/ACT performance and participation data; and the number of students with advance standing in a State-approved Career & Technology Education program of study
Greater Impact: 1. To what extent have there been significant reductions in achievement gaps? Data sources will include: Student performance data (instructional levels, benchmark data, local assessment data (MAP), and state assessment data) 2. Do all students graduate college and career ready? Data sources will include: Feedback through focus groups, interviews, and surveys of staff, students, and families; student completion data; Grade 12 documented decision data; number of students entering higher education; number of students earning a 3 or better on AP exams; SAT/ACT performance and participation data; and the number of students with advance standing in a State-approved Career & Technology Education program of study.
116
F. Budget and Sustainability (20 total points) The extent to which (F)(1) Budget for the project (10 points) The applicants budget, including the budget narrative and tables (a) Identifies all funds that will support the project (e.g., Race to the Top District grant; external foundation support; LEA, State, and other Federal funds); and (b) Is reasonable and sufficient to support the development and implementation of the applicants proposal; and (c) Clearly provides a thoughtful rationale for investments and priorities, including-(i) A description of all of the funds (e.g., Race to the Top District grant; external foundation support; LEA, State, and other Federal funds) that the applicant will use to support the implementation of the proposal, including total revenue from these sources; and (ii) Identification of the funds that will be used for one-time investments versus those that will be used for ongoing operational costs that will be incurred during and after the grant period, as described in the proposed budget and budget narrative, with a focus on strategies that will ensure the long-term sustainability of the personalized learning environments; and (F)(2) Sustainability of project goals (10 points) The applicant has a high-quality plan for sustainability of the projects goals after the term of the grant. The plan should include support from State and local government leaders and financial support. Such a plan may include a budget for the three years after the term of the grant that includes budget assumptions, potential sources, and uses of funds. In the text box below, the applicant should describe its current status in meeting the criteria and/or provide its high-quality plan for meeting the criteria. The narrative or attachments should also include any supporting evidence the applicant believes will be helpful to peer reviewers, including at a minimum the evidence listed in the criterion (if any), and how each piece of evidence demonstrates the applicants success in meeting the criterion. Evidence or attachments must be described in the narrative and, where relevant, included in the Appendix. For evidence or attachments included in the Appendix, note in the narrative the location where the information can be found and provide a table of contents for the Appendix.
117
To provide a high-quality plan, the applicant should describe, at a minimum, the goals, activities, timelines, deliverables, and responsible parties (for further detail, see Scoring Instructions in Part XV or Appendix A in the NIA). The narrative and attachments may also include any additional information the applicant believes will be helpful to peer reviewers. Recommended maximum response length: Six pages (excluding tables) (Enter text for (F)(1) in Part XI: Budget. Enter text for (F)(2) here.)
(F)(2)
The funds provided by the grant will be supplemented by in-kind resources and personnel to support planning and implementation. Project Leads, technical support, and curriculum specialists are currently working on similar initiatives within the HCPSS and are eager to work on this project to advance digital education and next generation teaching and learning. Program sustainability will be possible with the addition of five instructional resource teachers. Two resources teachers will support expansion of personalized learning models to all 74 HCPSS schools, two will support all schools in making instruction relevant to college and career readiness, and one will support all schools with ongoing professional development on these and other student-centered learning topics. While the grant will fund these positions in years 2-4, the operational budget will include these staff members starting in the 2017-2018 school year. The Technology Department has completed several projects that will enable the school system to move forward with new instructional initiatives and plans to support this project with operational funds for systems support, data and file management, and upgrades to network infrastructure. The Technology Department will also fund the two technician positions starting in the 2017-2018 school year.
Short-term investments will include: consultant fees for professional learning opportunities; research and implementation of new learning environments; design and implementation of blended models for instruction; and preliminary training and the development of professional learning modules. Current human and capital resources allocated as part of the Division of Instructions budget as well as the Digital Education Program budget will continue to support the implementation of digital curricular materials beyond the
118
grant period. The Office of Professional and Organizational Development is committed to budget support during and after the life of the grant to scale implementation of personalized, research-based strategies and innovative practices through professional learning communities (PLCs) and online professional learning modules. In year 2, the HCPSS will develop a reorganization plan to align the resources and personnel to best meet the goals and targets of the grant funded projects.
The HCPSS RTT-D projects will have two essential goals: (1) to improve student achievement and close achievement gaps as defined by the State of Marylands academic goals in its RTT program; and (2) to improve the effectiveness of teachers and administrators in promoting academic achievement and closing achievement gaps. To meet these goals, the systemic four-year plan for this RTT-D grant application includes a focus in three areas: (1) personalizing instruction through blended learning models; (2) connecting student learning to college and career readiness by making instruction relevant to higher education and workforce development; and (3) increasing professional learning for teachers and school leaders on student-centered learning models. These projects will be supported with two additional projects focused on (4) strengthening information and data sharing and (5) ensuring continuous improvement through evaluation.
The HCPSS is committed to expanding the initiatives beyond the targeted schools and into other higher needs schools and, eventually, all HCPSS schools. It is imperative to personalize the learning environment, provide students with personalized learning paths, create and implement flexible scheduling options, and provide students and staff with on-demand learning opportunities. Applying lessons learned from current efforts to turning around low-performing schools, these learning models will improve student academic performance and reduce achievement gaps by enabling all students and staff to spend more time deepening knowledge and applying that knowledge to real-life situations. Leveraging digital technology and interactive instructional tools to deliver adaptive instruction and assessments will be the key to both providing student-centered instruction and tracking student progress. Implementation will begin with mathematics instruction at the elementary school level and grow to include reading/disciplinary
119
literacy instruction in middle and high school classrooms at all 20 targeted schools through the four-year grant period. Program efficiencies created as a result of the program implementation would be re-allocated into the program budget to sustain and expand these initiatives past 2017.
The HCPSS will use the grant to ensure system leaders, teachers, and other educators become fluent with personalized learning models and can support their colleagues during expansion to all HCPSS schools. Providing opportunities to explore the options introduced by the grant will allow the school system to create a knowledge base which will be able to be tapped after the duration of the grant. By having already created materials, applications, curriculum, and other tools, it will be easier to continue the work after the grant is over.
The HCPSS will build on lessons learned from implementing college- and career-ready standards and assessments and leveraging the opportunities existing beyond school day, release time, and in-class initiatives to provide students with flexibility in engaging in higher education and career opportunities during their PK-12 instruction. Implementation countywide will grow to include other high schools and institutions of higher education. The HCPSS is committed to leveraging technology to provide students and teachers with authentic learning experiences which are flexible (anytime, everywhere) and project-based. By the 2017-2018 school year, the HCPSS is committed to continuing implementation at its other schools using a mix of blended learning models (stationrotation, self-blend, flipped).
The HCPSS also has a strong network of hundreds of local businesses, organizations, and foundations that will continue to support efforts and the implementation of next generation teaching and learning opportunities. An example of such a partner is the Bright Minds Foundation, which supports equity, equality, innovation, and lifelong learning in the Howard County Public Schools. The Lazarus Foundation was created with the mission of refurbishing and redistributing used computers and has worked with the
120
HCPSS to distribute them to deserving students via their PCs4Kids Program. As part of its Bridging the Digital Divide Campaign, with a targeted goal of raising $1,000,000, between December 2008 and May 2011, the Bright Minds Foundation has purchased and distributed 345 refurbished desktop computers, printers, and office software via contract with the Lazarus Foundation, which provided equipment and training as part of the purchase price.
In December 2011, Bright Minds distributed twenty-five refurbished laptops, printers, and software bundles to middle school students in collaboration with local private companies from the banking and technology industries and will continue to pursue this avenue in the future. Both foundations provide computers to many high-need students who cannot otherwise afford them, contributing an estimated total of $250,000 in technology during each of the past four years. Through a partnership with Comcast, the Internet Essentials program offers home Internet service for $9.95 a month to families who currently receive free meals under the Free and Reduced-price Meals program (FARMs). This program provides families additional opportunities to increase access to the digital content provided to our students. With One Broadband Maryland, we are fortunate that we will have infrastructure for high speed broadband in place in all of our schools by the start of the grant period. The HCPSS will also apply for additional grants for greater permeation of personalized learning access for all.
Budget for three years beyond the grant: Learning for the Future Project Costs: Project Lead: The project lead will no longer be needed beyond the grant period. Technical Assistant: Salary ($65,000) and fringe ($29,723) will be supported by the Curricular Offices operating budgets. Resource Teachers: Salary ($75,000) and fringe ($31,988) for each of the two teachers will be supported by the Curricular Offices operating budgets.
121
Curriculum Writing: Most curricula will be written during the grant period. Modifications and additions will be made as needed and supported by the Curricular Offices operating budgets. Adaptive Software: Site licenses for adaptive software ($500,000) for all 74 HCPSS schools and the HCPSS social network ($150,000) will be supported by the Curricular Offices operating budgets. Applications Development: Most development will be completed within the grant period. Additional programming will be supported by the Technology Departments operating budget. Probeware: The value added of the probeware will be evaluated during the grant period. If it adds value, the costs of the probeware ($30,000 per school) will be supported by the Curricular Offices operating budgets. Office Supplies: Most large office supply purchases will be made during the grant period. Additional supplies will be purchased through the Curricular Offices operating budgets.
Source of Funds Beyond Grant Period: Textbook Funds: With the move to computer-based learning, the HCPSS anticipates saving $1 million a year in textbook costs. This cost savings, reflected in the Curricular Offices operating budgets, will fund grant activities starting in the 20172018 school year.
Making Learning Relevant Project Costs: Project Lead: The project lead will no longer be needed beyond the grant period. Technical Assistant: Salary ($65,000) and fringe ($29,723) will be supported by the Curricular Offices operating budgets. Resource Teachers: Salary ($75,000) and fringe ($31,988) for each of the two teachers will be supported by the Curricular Offices operating budgets. Curriculum Writing: Most curricula will be written during the grant period. Modifications and additions will be made as needed and supported by the Curricular Offices operating budgets. Family Program Development: Development of the family programs will take place during the grant period.
122
Implementation of the program will be supported by the operating budget of the Department of Student, Family, and Community Services. Applications Development: Most development will be completed within the grant period. Additional programming will be supported by the Technology Departments operating budget. Tuition: As opportunities to earn college credits are expanding to all HCPSS schools, families will absorb the costs associated with college tuition. Office Supplies: Most large office supply purchases will be made during the grant period. Additional supplies will be purchased through the Curricular Offices operating budgets. Source of Funds Beyond Grant Period: Additional funds will be added to the operating budget to support these programs, beginning in Fiscal Year 2017.
Professional Development: All ongoing professional development costs will be supported by the operating budget of the Office of Professional and Organizational Development. Costs savings realized by the ending of other significant PD initiatives (e.g., transition to the Common Core Curriculum, implementation of the new Teacher and Principal evaluation systems) will fund grantrelated professional learning activities beginning in the 2017-2018 school year. Data and Information Systems: All ongoing technology costs, including the salaries if the two technicians, will be supported by the operating budget of the Department of Technology. Costs savings realized by ending other significant projects (e.g., implementation of wireless networks) will fund grant-related technology activities beginning in the 2017-2018 school year. Continuous Improvement: Evaluation: The Office of Assessment will take over all evaluation activities beginning in the 20172018 school year. Utilizing tools and procedures developed with the help of the outside evaluator during the grant period, the Office of Assessment does not anticipate any significant additional costs.
123
X.
COMPETITIVE PREFERENCE PRIORITY
Competitive Preference Priority (10 total points) Competitive Preference Priority: Results, Resource Alignment, and Integrated Services. The Department will give priority to an applicant based on the extent to which the applicant proposes to integrate public or private resources in a partnership designed to augment the schools resources by providing additional student and family supports to schools that address the social, emotional, or behavioral needs of the participating students (as defined in this notice), giving highest priority to students in participating schools with high-need students (as defined in this notice). To meet this priority, an applicants proposal does not need to be comprehensive and may provide student and family supports that focus on a subset of these needs. To meet this priority, an applicant must (1) Provide a description of the coherent and sustainable partnership that it has formed with public or private organizations, such as public health, before-school, after-school, and social service providers; integrated student service providers; businesses, philanthropies, civic groups, and other community-based organizations; early learning programs; and postsecondary institutions to support the plan described in Absolute Priority 1; (2) Identify not more than 10 population-level desired results for students in the LEA or consortium of LEAs that align with and support the applicants broader Race to the Top District proposal. These results must include both educational results and other education outcomes (e.g., children enter kindergarten prepared to succeed in school, children exit third grade reading at grade level, and students graduate from high school college- and career-ready) and family and community supports (as defined in this notice) results; (3) Describe how the partnership would (a) Track the selected indicators that measure each result at the aggregate level for all children within the LEA or consortium and at the student level for the participating students (as defined in this notice); (b) Use the data to target its resources in order to improve results for participating students (as defined in this notice), with special emphasis on students facing significant challenges, such as students with disabilities, English learners, and students affected by poverty (including highly mobile students), family instability, or other child welfare issues; (c) Develop a strategy to scale the model beyond the participating students (as defined in this notice) to at least other highneed students (as defined in this notice) and communities in the LEA or consortium over time; and (d) Improve results over time; (4) Describe how the partnership would, within participating schools (as defined in this notice), integrate education and other services
124
(e.g., services that address social-emotional, and behavioral needs, acculturation for immigrants and refugees) for participating students (as defined in this notice); (5) Describe how the partnership and LEA or consortium would build the capacity of staff in participating schools (as defined in this notice) by providing them with tools and supports to (a) Assess the needs and assets of participating students (as defined in this notice) that are aligned with the partnerships goals for improving the education and family and community supports (as defined in this notice) identified by the partnership; (b) Identify and inventory the needs and assets of the school and community that are aligned with those goals for improving the education and family and community supports (as defined in this notice) identified by the applicant; (c) Create a decision-making process and infrastructure to select, implement, and evaluate supports that address the individual needs of participating students (as defined in this notice) and support improved results; (d) Engage parents and families of participating students (as defined in this notice) in both decision-making about solutions to improve results over time and in addressing student, family, and school needs; and (e) Routinely assess the applicants progress in implementing its plan to maximize impact and resolve challenges and problems; and (6) Identify its annual ambitious yet achievable performance measures for the proposed population-level and describe desired results for students. In the text box below, the applicant should describe its current status in meeting the priority and/or provide its high-quality plan for meeting the priority. The narrative or attachments should also include any supporting evidence the applicant believes will be helpful to peer reviewers, including at a minimum the evidence listed in the priority (if any), and how each piece of evidence demonstrates the applicants success in meeting the priority. Evidence or attachments must be described in the narrative and, where relevant, included in the Appendix. For evidence or attachments included in the Appendix, note in the narrative the location where the information can be found and provide a table of contents for the Appendix. To provide a high-quality plan, the applicant should describe, at a minimum, the goals, activities, timelines, deliverables, and responsible parties (for further detail, see Scoring Instructions in Part XV or Appendix A in the NIA). The narrative and attachments may also include any additional information the applicant believes will be helpful to peer reviewers.
125
Recommended maximum response length: Six pages (excluding tables)
126
(1)
To support the plan described in Absolute Priority 1, the Howard County Public School System (HCPSS) and its public and private partners will implement two projects described below.
Project #1: Satellite Judy Centers In order for the larger HCPSS initiative to succeed, students must first come to our schools ready to learn and thrive in the school environment. To ensure that students and parents are prepared for K-12 education, the HCPSS will create satellite Judy Centers at 12 participating elementary schools. Cradlerock Elementary School, a HCPSS Title I school and one of the schools included in our RTTD proposal, has been fortunate to house a Judith P. Hoyer Early Child Care and Family Education Center (Judy Center) since 2006. Judy Centers provide a central location for parents and children to access early childhood education and support services for children aged birth through kindergarten who reside in certain Title I school districts. Judy Centers promote school readiness through partnerships with a variety of community partners, including Head Start, public libraries, child care resource centers, family support centers, the Maryland Infants and Toddlers Program, and health care providers. The Judy Center at Cradlerock Elementary currently partners with the Office of Childrens Services, the Department of Social Services, Head Start, Ready at Five, Howard County Recreation and Parks, and the Howard County Library to help Cradlerock families ensure that their children are prepared to enter kindergarten ready to learn. The Judy Center works closely with the Howard County Public School System and the administration of Cradlerock Elementary School to achieve its goal of school readiness for all Cradlerock children.
The Judy Centers success is evidenced by the fact that incoming kindergarten students at Cradlerock Elementary show similar levels of school readiness on the Maryland Model for School Readiness Kindergarten Assessment as the county average, despite Cradlerock Elementary having nearly 41% of its students qualify for Free and Reduced-price Meals (FARMs), compared to the county average of
127
17.6%. Because of the success of the Judy Center model in leveraging community resources to help families support school readiness, the HCPSS will implement satellite Judy Centers at the other 12 elementary schools which are included in the RTT-D proposal. While these satellite centers will not be able to provide resources 10-12 hours each day, year round, as do the official Judy Centers, they will utilize the same community partnership model and serve as a central location for receipt of services, concentrating on school readiness, but also assisting families of current students by linking them to appropriate social service providers. The HCPSS will expand upon the existing partnerships established by the Cradlerock Judy Center and include new private and public organizations to meet the specific needs of the 12 additional communities which will be served by the satellite centers.
Project #2: Provide Conflict-Resolution and Coping Skills to Students and Families in Middle, High, and Special School The HCPSS recognizes that there are many non-cognitive factors which lead to student success in K-12 education, college, and careers. In order to strengthen these factors, the HCPSS will implement activities to support student resiliency, including coping skills training, family crisis counseling, and team-building exercises. A recent University of Chicago Consortium on Chicago School Research report (Farrington et al., 2012) indentified five categories of non-cognitive factors which impact student success: (1) academic behaviors going to class, participating, organizing materials, doing homework, studying; (2) academic perseverance selfdiscipline, self-control, delaying gratification, grit; (3) academic mindsets feelings of belonging in the academic community, selfconfidence, seeing learning as relevant and valuable; (4) learning strategies study skills, self-regulatory strategies, goal-setting; and (5) social skills interpersonal skills, empathy, cooperation, taking responsibility. In addition to these non-cognitive factors, student success can be impacted by stressors both within and beyond the school day, including family crises and conflicts.
The HCPSS has found success in strengthening these non-cognitive factors and reducing negative stressors through having students engage in Restorative Dialogue Circle Time. This program, implemented in partnership with Howard Community College and funded through 21st CCLC grants, has been successful in teaching high school students conflict-resolution and coping skills which strengthen
128
the non-cognitive factors described above. Such skills also ameliorate behavioral challenges to academic success and increase student resiliency to ensure increased attendance, greater academic engagement, timely graduation, and increased likelihood of attending college. With RTT-D Competitive Priority funding, the HCPSS will expand its existing partnership with Howard Community College to provide skills training to students at its five targeted middle schools, Oakland Mills High School, and the Homewood Center.
We believe that providing students with these essential skills beginning earlier in their lives will significantly increase their positive impact on student performance. The HCPSS also will forge a partnership with the National Family Resiliency Center (NFRC) to provide support for families undergoing transition (divorce, separation, remarriage) to reduce barriers to student achievement and maximize student learning at home. Building upon a successful event at Oakland Mills HS last school year, the HCPSS also will have students at the five middle schools, OMHS, and the Homewood Center participate in Challenge Day, an experiential program which builds non-cognitive factors for student success by breaking down barriers between students, increasing students self-confidence and self-esteem, and creating positive peer supports within the schools. Implementing this program beginning with younger students will increase its benefits substantially.
(2) Competitive Preference Priority: Population-Level Desired Results
129
Population Group
Elementary
Type of Result
Educational
Desired Results
Incoming K students are school-ready when they enter the HCPSS
Partners
Head Start, The Judy Center, Howard County Library, Howard County daycare/Pre-K providers; Ready at Five; Office of Childrens Services; the Department of Social Services; Howard County Recreation and Parks Head Start, The Judy Center, Howard County Library, Howard County daycare/Pre-K providers; Ready at Five; Office of Childrens Services; the Department of Social Services; Howard County Recreation and Parks Head Start, The Judy Center, Howard County Library, Howard County daycare/Pre-K providers; Ready at Five; Office of Childrens Services; the Department of Social Services; Howard County Recreation and Parks Head Start, The Judy Center, Howard County Library, Howard County daycare/Pre-K providers; Ready at Five; Office of Childrens Services; the Department of Social Services; Howard County Recreation and Parks Howard County Community College, National Family Resiliency Center,
Elementary
Family and Community
Families of incoming K students will meet with an administrator or teacher from their childs elementary school prior to the start of his/her first day of school and been introduced to the HCPSS
Elementary
Families of incoming K students will visit the Judy Center or a satellite Judy Center and received some form of assistance in preparing their students to be Kindergarten-ready
Elementary
Families will visit a satellite Judy Center and receive some form of assistance in receiving needed services and/or learning ways to support student learning at home
Middle
Educational/Family Suspension and office referral rates at OMHS and and Community Homewood will decrease and attendance rates will increase as the result of students receiving
130
conflict-resolution and coping skills training and families receiving counseling during times of transition Middle Family and Community At least 50% of family identified by counselors or Pupil Personnel Workers (PPWs) as good candidates will receive counseling and support through the National Family Resiliency Center
Challenge Day
National Family Resiliency Center
High
Educational/Family Graduation rates at OMHS and Homewood will and Community increase as the result of students receiving conflict-resolution and coping skills training and families receiving counseling during times of transition Educational/Family Suspension and office referral rates at OMHS and and Community Homewood will decrease and attendance rates will increase as the result of students receiving conflict-resolution and coping skills training and families receiving counseling during times of transition Family and Community At least 50% of family identified by counselors or Pupil Personnel Workers (PPWs) as good candidates will receive counseling and support through the National Family Resiliency Center
Howard County Community College, National Family Resiliency Center, Challenge Day
High
Howard County Community College, National Family Resiliency Center, Challenge Day
High
National Family Resiliency Center
(3) The table below shows the data sources which will be used to track the indicators described above and how frequently the data
will be collected and reported.
131
Population Group
Elementary (PK/K) Elementary (PK/K)
Type of Result
Educational
Indicator of Success
Incoming K students are school-ready when they enter the HCPSS Families of incoming K students will meet with an administrator or teacher from their childs elementary school prior to the start of his/her first day of school and been introduced to the HCPSS Families of incoming K students will visit the Judy Center or a satellite Judy Center and received some form of assistance in preparing their students to be Kindergarten-ready Families will visit a satellite Judy Center and receive some form of assistance in receiving needed services and/or learning ways to support student learning at home Suspension and unsafe behavior rates at OMHS and Homewood will decrease and attendance rates will increase as the result of students receiving conflict-resolution and coping skills training and families receiving counseling during times of transition At least 50% of family identified by counselors or Pupil Personnel Workers (PPWs) as good candidates will receive counseling and support through the National Family Resiliency Center
Data Sources
Maryland Model for School Readiness; Family and staff surveys Logs of family visits; Family surveys
Frequency of Data Collection/Reporting

Annual
Long results will be checked and informally reported monthly. Formal annual report for survey results.
Elementary (PK/K)
Logs of family visits and Long results will be services received; Family checked and informally surveys reported monthly. Formal annual report for survey results. Logs of family visits and Long results will be services received; Family checked and informally surveys reported monthly. Formal annual report for survey results. Office referral, suspension, and attendance data Informal reporting every quarter. Annual formal report.
Elementary (PK-5)
Middle (6-8)
Educational/ Family and Community
Middle (6-8)
Logs of family use of Annual formal report NFRC resources; surveys of students and families
132
(NFRC) High (12) Educational/ Family and Community Graduation rates at rates of college enrollment at OMHS and Homewood will increase as the result of students receiving conflict-resolution and coping skills training and families receiving counseling during times of transition Suspension and unsafe behavior rates at OMHS and Homewood will decrease and attendance rates will increase as the result of students receiving conflict-resolution and coping skills training and families receiving counseling during times of transition At least 50% of family identified by counselors or Pupil Personnel Workers (PPWs) as good candidates will receive counseling and support through the National Family Resiliency Center (NFRC) HS program completion data; Grade 12 documented decisions data Annual formal report.
High (9-12)
Educational/ Family and Community
Office referral, suspension, and attendance data
Informal reporting every quarter. Annual formal report.
High (9-12)
Logs of family use of Annual formal report NFRC resources; surveys of students and families
The data from the above tables will be the focus for quarterly meetings of the Project Management Teams that will oversee each of the two projects. These teams will be made up of the administrators and other appropriate instructional leaders (e.g., Pre-K and K instructional team leaders and high school counselors) of the schools participating in the project, staff from central office (curriculum, administration, special education and student services, and student, family, and community services), family members from those schools, and representatives from the partnership organizations. Title I staff will participate on the Project Management Teams at the elementary schools and will ensure that Title I interventions and Family Programs support the students participating in Project #1. Data will be disaggregated by student groups and schools and grade levels to target support to students with disabilities, English
133
language learners, students receiving FARMs, and homeless students. ESOL teachers and pupil personnel workers and special educators from Special Education and Student Services will be members of all Project Management Teams and will bring knowledge of the supports needed for particular students. The Teams will utilize the data and team members expertise to continuously improve programs and services, redirect resources, and provide additional support to ensure that indicators of success are met. The teams will use the benchmarks indicated in the chart below to ensure that progress is continual and that student achievement is accelerated. As successful programs are in place at the participating schools, the team also will work with central office curriculum and administrative staff and representatives from principal and teacher professional learning communities to replicate these programs at other higher needs schools by shifting use of existing academic intervention and grant resources (Title I, 21st CCLC).
(4) At the elementary level, the satellite Judy Centers will serve as points of integration, not only for services provided to families
with students entering the HCPSS, but also for services available to students and families currently enrolled at the 13 RTT-D elementary schools. Existing partnerships focused on making students school-ready can be leveraged to support the ongoing needs of students and their families. At the middle and high school level, guidance counselors and other school personnel will utilize the Restorative Dialogue Circle Time, services provided through the National Family Resiliency Center, and Challenge Day activities as
opportunities for having conversations with students and their families to identify supports that could be provided to reduce stressors and maximize student learning at home.
(5)
Professional learning opportunities will be provided to all staff at participating schools to support the two projects. By the start of project implementation, all staff at participating schools will have received training on utilizing data to drive instruction through data conversations or the Classroom-Focused Improvement Process (CFIP). Staff therefore will be well-prepared to use data to assess students assets and needs and personalize services and programs based on that data. The Office of Professional and Organizational
134
Development and Department of Student, Family, and Community Services will support schools with additional professional development (e.g., on data-driven instruction and family engagement), as needed. With three exceptions (Jeffers Hill ES, Longfellow ES, and Patuxent Valley MS), all participating schools have conducted a needs and assets inventory of their school and community as part of applying for 21st CCLC grant funds, and continue to conduct annual family surveys as part of their Title I and/or 21st CCLC programs. County funds will be used to conduct these inventories and family surveys at the three remaining schools before the projects begin in order to personalize programs and services to the schools and communitys specific strengths and needs.
The Project Management Teams described in (3) will oversee the implementation and evaluation of the three projects to ensure accelerated improvement on the indicators. Teams will work with each schools School Improvement Team to align programs and services with each schools improvements strategies and goals. They also will meet with the School Improvement Support Committee at those schools that failed to make or are at risk of failing to make their annual AMOs. Meetings will be held quarterly, supplemented with ongoing collaboration between web-based professional learning networks. Families of participating students will serve on the Project Management Teams and participate in decision-making through survey feedback and web-based professional learning networks. Focus groups and individual interviews will provide additional feedback on project-specific questions.
As discussed in (3), the progress of each indicator will be tracked with quantitative and qualitative data. The Office of Academic Intervention and Title I Programs and Office of Assessment will work closely with the Project Management Teams to provide them with quarterly updates, annual reports, and data analyses.
(6) Competitive Preference Priority: Performance Measures

(Note: May use performance measures from (E)(3) as appropriate)
Performance Applicable Baseline(s) Target
135
Measure
Population
SY 2010-11 (optional)
SY 2011-12
83.50% 86.80% 75.00% 79.00% 67.50% 61.90% 9.20% 14.20% 9.10% 15.40% 7.40% 15.20% 8.30% 10.90% 5.90% 13.10% n/a 21.80% 0.50% 0.60% 0.80% 0.70% 1.10% 1.90% 1.80%
SY 2012-13
85.15% 88.12% 77.50% 81.10% 70.75% 65.71% 8.28% 12.78% 8.19% 13.86% 6.66% 13.68% 7.47% 9.81% 5.31% 11.79% n/a 19.62% 0.45% 0.54% 0.72% 0.63% 0.99% 1.71% 1.62%
SY 2013-14
86.80% 89.44% 80.00% 83.20% 74.00% 69.52% 7.36% 11.36% 7.28% 12.32% 5.92% 12.16% 6.64% 8.72% 4.72% 10.48% n/a 17.44% 0.40% 0.48% 0.64% 0.56% 0.88% 1.52% 1.44%
SY 2014-15
88.45% 90.76% 82.50% 85.30% 77.25% 73.33% 6.44% 9.94% 6.37% 10.78% 5.18% 10.64% 5.81% 7.63% 4.13% 9.17% n/a 15.26% 0.35% 0.42% 0.56% 0.49% 0.77% 1.33% 1.26%
SY 2015-16
90.10% 92.08% 85.00% 87.40% 80.50% 77.14% 5.52% 8.52% 5.46% 9.24% 4.44% 9.12% 4.98% 6.54% 3.54% 7.86% n/a 13.08% 0.30% 0.36% 0.48% 0.42% 0.66% 1.14% 1.08%
SY 2016-17 (PostGrant)
91.75% 93.40% 87.50% 89.50% 83.75% 80.95% 4.60% 7.10% 4.55% 7.70% 3.70% 7.60% 4.15% 5.45% 2.95% 6.55% n/a 10.90% 0.25% 0.30% 0.40% 0.35% 0.55% 0.95% 0.90%
% of participating Kindergarten students assessed as fully ready for school on MMSR
All students African American Hispanic FARMs LEP Special Education
% of participating middle school students with at least one suspension
% of OMHS and Homewood students with at least one suspension
% of participating middle school students with at least one suspension for an unsafe behavior
% of participating
All students
136
OMHS and Homewood students with at least one suspension for an unsafe behavior Average attendance rate participating MS students
African American Hispanic FARMs LEP Special Education All students African American Hispanic FARMs LEP Special Education
2.20% 2.00% 2.80% n/a 5.90% 95.50% 95.30% 95.30% 94.50% 97.20% 93.50% 91.60% 90.60% 92.70% 88.80% n/a 86.60% 31.60% 17.70% n/a 17.50% n/a n/a
1.98% 1.80% 2.52% n/a 5.31% 95.95% 95.77% 95.77% 95.05% 97.48% 94.15% 92.44% 91.54% 93.43% 89.92% n/a 87.94% 38.44% 25.93% n/a 25.75% n/a n/a
1.76% 1.60% 2.24% n/a 4.72% 96.40% 96.24% 96.24% 95.60% 97.76% 94.80% 93.28% 92.48% 94.16% 91.04% n/a 89.28% 45.28% 34.16% n/a 34.00% n/a n/a
1.54% 1.40% 1.96% n/a 4.13% 96.85% 96.71% 96.71% 96.15% 98.04% 95.45% 94.12% 93.42% 94.89% 92.16% n/a 90.62% 52.12% 42.39% n/a 42.25% n/a n/a
1.32% 1.20% 1.68% n/a 3.54% 97.30% 97.18% 97.18% 96.70% 98.32% 96.10% 94.96% 94.36% 95.62% 93.28% n/a 91.96% 58.96% 50.62% n/a 50.50% n/a n/a
1.10% 1.00% 1.40% n/a 2.95% 97.75% 97.65% 97.65% 97.25% 98.60% 96.75% 95.80% 95.30% 96.35% 94.40% n/a 93.30% 65.80% 58.85% n/a 58.75% n/a n/a
Average attendance rate OMHS and Homewood students
Graduation Rates OMHS & Homewood
137
XI.
BUDGET
(Budget Requirements and Evidence for Selection Criteria (F)(1) and Optional Budget Supplement)
Budget Requirements (from Program Requirement 1) (1) An applicants budget request for all years of its project must fall within the applicable budget range as follows: Number of participating students 2,000-5,000 or Fewer than 2,000, provided those students are served by a consortium of at least 10 LEAs and at least 75 percent of the students served by each LEA are participating students (as defined in this notice) 5,001-10,000 10,001-25,000 25,001+ $10-20 million $20-30 million $30-40 million Award range $5-10 million
The Department will not consider an application that requests a budget outside the applicable range of awards, not including any optional budget supplements included in the application. Budget Summary and Narrative Instructions (Evidence for Selection Criterion (F)(1)) In the following budget parts and subparts, the applicant is responding to Selection Criterion (F)(1). The applicant should use its budget narrative and tables to address the specific elements of Selection Criterion (F)(1), including the extent to which:
138
The applicants budget, including the budget narrative and tables-(a) Identifies all funds that will support the project (e.g., Race to the Top District grant; external foundation support; LEA, State, and other Federal funds); and (b) Is reasonable and sufficient to support the development and implementation of the applicants proposal; and (c) Clearly provides a thoughtful rationale for investments and priorities, including-(i) A description of all of the funds (e.g., Race to the Top District grant; external foundation support; LEA, State, and other Federal funds) that the applicant will use to support the implementation of the proposal, including total revenue from these sources; and (ii) Identification of the funds that will be used for one-time investments versus those that will be used for ongoing operational costs that will be incurred during and after the grant period, as described in the proposed budget and budget narrative, with a focus on strategies that will ensure the long-term sustainability of the personalized learning environments. The budget narrative should be of sufficient scope and detail for the Department to determine whether the costs are necessary, reasonable, and allowable. For further guidance on Federal cost principles, an applicant may wish to consult OMB Circular A-87. (See www.whitehouse.gov/omb/circulars). The applicant will provide summary and itemized costs for projects that the applicant believes are necessary in order to implement its proposal. The applicants budgets should reflect the work associated with fully implementing the high-quality plans and other aspects of its proposal described under the selection criteria and competitive preference priority. Some projects might address one selection criterion or the competitive preference priority, while others might address several selection criteria. To support the budgeting process and in addition to instructions and forms included in this application package, we strongly suggest that applicants use the Race to the Top District electronic budget spreadsheets prepared by the Department to build the applicants budget. These electronic budget spreadsheets have formulas built into them that are intended to help applicants produce the budget tables that they submit as part of their response to selection criterion (F)(1). Applicants should include the relevant tables in the appropriate place in their proposal (e.g., by copying and pasting from the electronic budget spreadsheets into the appropriate place in the Applicants proposal). Please note that the Race to the Top District electronic budget spreadsheets will not be used by peer reviewers to judge or score the applicants proposal. Only the budget summaries and narratives in the applicants proposal will be reviewed and scored by peer reviewers. However, the electronic budget spreadsheets will be used by the Department to conduct its budget review for grantees.
139
1. Overall Budget Summary a. Subpart 1: Overall Budget Summary Table. This is the cover sheet for the budget summary (see Budget Table 1-1). In the Overall Budget Summary Table, the applicant should include the budget totals for each budget category and each year of the grant. These line items are derived by adding together the line items from each of the Project-Level Budget Summary Tables. (Note: the electronic budget spreadsheet should generate these sums automatically, which the applicant should copy and paste into the application proposal.) b. Subpart 2: Overall Budget Summary Narrative. The budget narrative that accompanies the Budget Summary Table should respond to Selection Criterion (F)(1) and be of sufficient scope and detail for the Department to determine whether the costs are necessary, reasonable, and allowable. This subpart should also include a summary of the projects that the applicant has included in its budget, including the project name, associated criteria, total grant funds requested, and total budget (see Budget Table 2-1). (Note: the electronic budget spreadsheet should generate this summary automatically, which the applicant should copy and paste into the application proposal.) 2. Project-Level Detail a. Subpart 3: Project-Level Budget Summary Tables. This is the cover sheet for each project-level budget (see Budget Table 3-1). (Note: the applicant should complete the electronic budget spreadsheets and copy and paste the information into the application proposal.) This should include the sums of project-level itemized costs described in the Project-Level Budget Narrative. b. Subpart 4: Project-Level Budget Narratives. The Project-Level Budget Narrative accompanies the Project-Level Budget Summary Table for each project and provides the rationale for the budget. The narrative should address Selection Criterion (F)(1), including an overview of each project for which the applicant requests grant funds and include itemized project costs for each project, by budget category and for each project year (See Budget Table 4-1). Identify here, per Selection Criterion (F)(1), whether the costs will be one-time investments or ongoing operational costs. 3. Optional Budget Supplement: Overall Budget Summary (as described in Part XII). If the applicant intends to apply for one or more optional budget supplements, the applicant should include a Budget Summary Table and Narrative using Subpart 1 and Subpart 2 to describe the supplements budget for the four years of the grant. Please title this Optional Budget Supplement Budget Summary. The applicant should include and number a separate budget summary table and narrative for each optional budget supplement included in its proposal. 4. Optional Budget Supplement: Project-Level Detail (as described in Part XII). If the applicant intends to apply for one or more optional budget supplements, the applicant should include a Project-Level Budget Summary Table and Narrative using
140
Subpart 3 and Subpart 4 to describe the supplements budget for each of its optional budget supplement projects over the four years of the grant. Please title this part Optional Budget Supplement Project-Level Detail. The applicant should include separate project-level detail tables and narrative for each optional budget supplement included in its proposal.
141
BUDGET SUBPART 1: OVERALL BUDGET SUMMARY Note: See budget summary narrative and instructions above, in particular Subpart 1: Overall Budget Summary Table. Budget Table 1-1: Overall Budget Summary Table Evidence for: [Fill in (F)(1) or Optional Budget Supplement] Budget Categories 1. Personnel 2. Fringe Benefits 3. Travel 4. Equipment 5. Supplies 6. Contractual 7. Training Stipends 8. Other 9. Total Direct Costs (lines 1-8) 10. Indirect Costs* 11. Total Grant Funds Requested (lines 9-10) 12. Funds from other sources used to support the project 13. Total Budget (lines 11-12) Project Year 1 (a)
$1,676,299.17 $226,236.89 $5,000.00 $0.00 $930,000.00 $2,899,336.00 $0.00 $0.00 $5,736,872.05 $375,191.43 $6,112,063.49 $1,635,625.00 $7,747,688.49
Project Year 2 (b)

$2,291,282.50 $431,033.11 $25,000.00 $0.00 $1,550,500.00 $3,731,456.00 $0.00 $0.00 $8,029,271.61 $525,114.36 $8,554,385.97 $1,635,625.00 $10,190,010.97
Project Year 3 (c)

$2,305,282.50 $432,104.11 $20,000.00 $0.00 $1,647,500.00 $3,641,456.00 $0.00 $0.00 $8,046,342.61 $526,230.81 $8,572,573.42 $1,635,625.00 $10,208,198.42
Project Year 4 (d)

$2,291,282.50 $431,033.11 $20,000.00 $0.00 $762,500.00 $2,827,456.00 $0.00 $0.00 $6,332,271.61 $414,130.56 $6,746,402.17 $2,989,748.40 $9,736,150.57
Total (e)
$8,564,146.67 $1,520,407.22 $70,000.00 $0.00 $4,890,500.00 $13,099,704.00 $0.00 $0.00 $28,144,757.89 $1,840,667.17 $29,985,425.05 $7,896,623.40 $37,882,048.45
142
All applicants must provide a break-down by the applicable budget categories shown in lines 1-13. Columns (a) through (d): For each project year for which funding is requested, show the total amount requested for each applicable budget category. Column (e): Show the total amount requested for all project years. *If the applicant plans to request reimbursement for indirect costs, complete the Indirect Cost Information form at the end of this Budget part. BUDGET SUBPART 2: OVERALL BUDGET SUMMARY NARRATIVE Note: See budget summary narrative and instructions above, in particular Subpart 2: Overall Budget Summary Narrative. The HCPSS RTT-D budget will focus on supporting our personalized learning and making instruction relevant to college and career readiness efforts. These will be supported by projects on improving professional learning, data infrastructure, and evaluation. Funds will be used to add seven additional staff, whose salaries will transfer to the HCPSS operating budget at the end of the grant period. Workshop wages will enable staff to receive necessary professional learning and will be used to engage highly effective current and retired teachers to provide professional development, mentoring, family programs, and curriculum writing. Workshop wages will also be used to hire three project leads to oversee the personalized learning, instructional relevance, and professional learning projects. Accompanying FICA and retirement and healthcare costs will also be paid from the grant as fringe costs. Contracted wages funds will primarily be used to obtain site licenses and technical support for existing software packages and to develop or personalize additional technological supports. Contracted wages will also be used to hire an external evaluator to assess progress and target areas for improvement. Supplies funds will be used to purchase classroom technology and provide everyday office supplies to support project leads and their staff. Travel funds will support professional learning efforts, with selected staff visiting schools which have successfully implemented similar reform efforts and conferences to learn how to better utilize technology to enhance instruction. These staff will then return to the HCPSS and share out their experiences and lessons learned. The HCPSS will provide in-kind support by reprioritizing existing central office staff and programs to focus 10-50% of their time on the RTT-D initiatives. Participating principals will also devote a percentage of their time to these projects, approximately 3% for all
143
RTT-D activities. Also, in year 4, the HCPSS will take absorb a significant portion of the year 3 infrastructure costs to transition to fully taking them on beyond the grant period.
Project Name
Budget Table 2-1: Overall Budget Summary Project List Evidence for: (F)(1) Primary Associated Additional Associated Total Grant Funds Criterion Criteria Requested and location in and location in application application
C(1)(b), Section I-V, pp. 70-74 C(1)(c), pp. 74-75 $ 5,635,357.69 $
Total Budget
Learning for the Future: A Personalized Competency-based Approach Making Learning Relevant: Connecting Learners to College and Careers by Engaging the Community Improving Professional Learning Improving Data Infrastructure Continuous Improvement - Evaluation Framework
9,629,573.69
C(1)(a), Section I-V, pp. 68-70
N/A
4,282,952.51
4,778,952.51
C(2)(a), Section I-IV, pp. 79-81 C(1)(b), Section I-III, pp. 70-74 E(1), pp. 99-101
N/A D(2)(a-d), pp. 91-95 N/A
$ $ $
6,522,578.11 12,278,841.54 1,265,695.20
$ $ $
8,574,862.11 13,632,964.94 1,265,695.20
144
29,985,425.05
$ 37,882,048.45
Total for Grant Funds
Total Budget
145
BUDGET SUBPART 3: PROJECT-LEVEL BUDGET SUMMARIES Note: See budget summary narrative and instructions above, in particular Subpart 3: Project-Level Budget Summary Tables. Table 3-1: Project-Level Budget Summary Table: Evidence for (F)(1) Project Name: Learning for the Future: A Personalized Competency-based Approach Primary Associated Criterion and Location in Application: C(1)(b), Section I-V, pp. 70-74 Additional Associated Criteria (if any) and Location in Application: C(1)(c), pp. 74-75 Budget Categories 1. Personnel 2. Fringe Benefits 3. Travel 4. Equipment 5. Supplies 6. Contractual 7. Training Stipends 8. Other 9. Total Direct Costs (lines 1-8) 10. Indirect Costs* 11. Total Grant Funds Requested (lines 9-10) 12. Funds from other sources used to support the project 13. Total Budget (lines 11-12)
$1,363,151.98 $89,150.14 $1,452,302.12 $998,554.00 $2,450,856.12 $1,854,092.35 $121,257.64 $1,975,349.99 $998,554.00 $2,973,903.99 $1,211,092.35 $79,205.44 $1,290,297.79 $998,554.00 $2,288,851.79 $861,092.35 $56,315.44 $917,407.79 $998,554.00 $1,915,961.79 $310,000.00 $755,984.00 $678,000.00 $605,984.00 $110,000.00 $530,984.00 $110,000.00 $180,984.00
Project Year 1 (a)

$251,433.33 $45,734.65
Project Year 2 (b)

$443,900.00 $126,208.35
Project Year 3 (c)

$443,900.00 $126,208.35
Project Year 4 (d)

$443,900.00 $126,208.35
Total (e)
$1,583,133.33 $424,359.70 $0.00 $0.00 $1,208,000.00 $2,073,936.00 $0.00 $0.00 $5,289,429.03 $345,928.66 $5,635,357.69 $3,994,216.00 $9,629,573.69
146
All applicants must provide a break-down by the applicable budget categories shown in lines 1-13. Columns (a) through (d): For each project year for which funding is requested, show the total amount requested for each applicable budget category. Column (e): Show the total amount requested for all project years. *If the applicant plans to request reimbursement for indirect costs, complete the Indirect Cost Information form at the end of this Budget part.
Table 3-1: Project-Level Budget Summary Table: Evidence for (F)(1) Project Name: Making Learning Relevant: Connecting Learners to College and Careers by Engaging the Community Primary Associated Criterion and Location in Application: C(1)(a), Section I-V, pp. 68-70 Additional Associated Criteria (if any) and Location in Application: N/A Budget Categories 1. Personnel 2. Fringe Benefits 3. Travel 4. Equipment 5. Supplies 6. Contractual 7. Training Stipends 8. Other 9. Total Direct Costs (lines 1-8) 10. Indirect Costs* 11. Total Grant Funds Requested (lines 9-10) 12. Funds from other sources used to support the project
$335,455.17 $21,938.77 $357,393.94 $124,000.00 $1,264,195.54 $82,678.39 $1,346,873.92 $124,000.00 $1,249,195.54 $81,697.39 $1,330,892.92 $124,000.00 $1,171,195.54 $76,596.19 $1,247,791.72 $124,000.00 $10,000.00 $63,992.00 $10,000.00 $719,792.00 $10,000.00 $704,792.00 $10,000.00 $626,792.00
Project Year 1 (a)

$218,265.83 $43,197.34
Project Year 2 (b)

$410,732.50 $123,671.04
Project Year 3 (c)

$410,732.50 $123,671.04
Project Year 4 (d)

$410,732.50 $123,671.04
Total (e)
$1,450,463.33 $414,210.45 $0.00 $0.00 $40,000.00 $2,115,368.00 $0.00 $0.00 $4,020,041.78 $262,910.73 $4,282,952.51 $496,000.00
147
13. Total Budget (lines 11-12)
$481,393.94
$1,470,873.92
$1,454,892.92
$1,371,791.72
$4,778,952.51
Table 3-1: Project-Level Budget Summary Table: Evidence for (F)(1) Project Name: Improving Professional Learning Primary Associated Criterion and Location in Application: C(2)(a), Section I-IV, pp. 79-81 Additional Associated Criteria (if any) and Location in Application: N/A Budget Categories 1. Personnel 2. Fringe Benefits 3. Travel 4. Equipment 5. Supplies 6. Contractual 7. Training Stipends 8. Other 9. Total Direct Costs (lines 1-8) 10. Indirect Costs* 11. Total Grant Funds Requested (lines 9-10)
$1,308,854.90 $85,599.11 $1,394,454.01 $1,602,753.73 $104,820.09 $1,707,573.82 $1,612,824.73 $105,478.74 $1,718,303.46 $1,597,753.73 $104,493.09 $1,702,246.82 $5,000.00 $107,600.00 $5,000.00 $107,600.00 $5,000.00 $107,600.00 $5,000.00 $107,600.00
Project Year 1 (a)

$1,106,600.00 $84,654.90 $5,000.00
Project Year 2 (b)

$1,336,650.00 $128,503.73 $25,000.00
Project Year 3 (c)

$1,350,650.00 $129,574.73 $20,000.00
Project Year 4 (d)

$1,336,650.00 $128,503.73 $20,000.00
Total (e)
$5,130,550.00 $471,237.08 $70,000.00 $0.00 $20,000.00 $430,400.00 $0.00 $0.00 $6,122,187.08 $400,391.03 $6,522,578.11
148
12. Funds from other sources used to support the project 13. Total Budget (lines 11-12)
$513,071.00 $1,907,525.01
$513,071.00 $2,220,644.82
$513,071.00 $2,231,374.46
$513,071.00 $2,215,317.82
$2,052,284.00 $8,574,862.11
Table 3-1: Project-Level Budget Summary Table: Evidence for (F)(1) Project Name: Data and Information Systems Primary Associated Criterion and Location in Application: C(1)(b), Section I-III, pp. 70-74 Additional Associated Criteria (if any) and Location in Application: D(2)(a-d), pp. 91-95 Budget Categories 1. Personnel 2. Fringe Benefits 3. Travel 4. Equipment 5. Supplies 6. Contractual 7. Training Stipends 8. Other 9. Total Direct Costs (lines 1-8) 10. Indirect Costs*
$2,513,410.00 $164,377.01 $2,984,230.00 $195,168.64 $3,649,230.00 $238,659.64 $2,378,230.00 $155,536.24 $605,000.00 $1,755,760.00 $857,500.00 $1,974,080.00 $1,522,500.00 $1,974,080.00 $637,500.00 $1,588,080.00
Project Year 1 (a)

$100,000.00 $52,650.00
Project Year 2 (b)

$100,000.00 $52,650.00
Project Year 3 (c)

$100,000.00 $52,650.00
Project Year 4 (d)

$100,000.00 $52,650.00
Total (e)
$400,000.00 $210,600.00 $0.00 $0.00 $3,622,500.00 $7,292,000.00 $0.00 $0.00 $11,525,100.00 $753,741.54
149
11. Total Grant Funds Requested (lines 9-10) 12. Funds from other sources used to support the project 13. Total Budget (lines 11-12)
$2,677,787.01
$3,179,398.64
$3,887,889.64
$2,533,766.24 $1,354,123.40
$12,278,841.54 $1,354,123.40 $13,632,964.94
$2,677,787.01
$3,179,398.64
$3,887,889.64
$3,887,889.64
Table 3-1: Project-Level Budget Summary Table: Evidence for (F)(1) Project Name: Continuous Improvement - Evaluation Framework Primary Associated Criterion and Location in Application: E(4), pp. 99-101 Additional Associated Criteria (if any) and Location in Application: N/A Budget Categories 1. Personnel 2. Fringe Benefits 3. Travel 4. Equipment 5. Supplies 6. Contractual 7. Training Stipends 8. Other 9. Total Direct Costs (lines 1-8)
$216,000.00 $324,000.00 $324,000.00 $324,000.00 $216,000.00 $324,000.00 $324,000.00 $324,000.00
Project Year 1 (a)
Project Year 2 (b)
Project Year 3 (c)
Project Year 4 (d)
Total (e)
$0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $1,188,000.00 $0.00 $0.00 $1,188,000.00
150
10. Indirect Costs* 11. Total Grant Funds Requested (lines 9-10) 12. Funds from other sources used to support the project 13. Total Budget (lines 11-12)
$14,126.40 $230,126.40
$21,189.60 $345,189.60
$21,189.60 $345,189.60
$21,189.60 $345,189.60
$77,695.20 $1,265,695.20 $0.00
$230,126.40
$345,189.60
$345,189.60
$345,189.60
$1,265,695.20
151
BUDGET SUBPART 4: PROJECT-LEVEL BUDGET NARRATIVE Note: See budget summary narrative and instructions above, in particular Subpart 4: Project-Level Budget Narratives. The following budget is for Project #1: Learning for the Future: A Personalized Competency-based Approach. The RTT-D funds will
be used for salaries (to fund 1 project lead, 1 technical assistant, and 2 resource teachers), workshop wages (to fund curriculum writing), fringe benefits (FICA, as well as retirement and health care for the salaried positions), contractual services (to fund software development and site licenses), supplies (for software and office supplies for the project lead, technical assistant, and resources teachers), and indirect costs using a rate of 6.54% on all costs, excluding equipment. Most costs will be ongoing through the grant. Funding will shift to the HCPSS operating budget supported by cost savings from reduced text book purchases. It is also anticipated that most curriculum writing and software development costs will be minimal after the 4-year grant period.
Note: This table is not part of the electronic budget spreadsheets. Please enter text for each project into this table or provide the information in another format that the applicant may choose. Please reproduce this table as needed. Table 4-1: Project-Level Itemized Costs Cost Assumption (including whether the cost is one-time investment or ongoing operational cost)
Cost Description
Total
1. Personnel: Explain the importance of each position to the success of the project and connections back to specific project plans. If curriculum vitae, an organizational chart, or other supporting information will be helpful to reviewers, attach in the Appendix and describe its location. $62,400/year for years 2-4; year 1 at $228,800 Project Lead $41,600 as it is anticipated s/he will only Oversee implementation of transition to personalized work 8 months during year 1 learning, beginning with elementary mathematics/science, and expanding to include all 20 schools and 1 employee reading/disciplinary literacy Part time ($65/hr X 80 hrs a month) Good management is crucial to the success of the project $65,000/year; year 1 at $43,333.33 as it is $238,333.33 Technical Assistant anticipated s/he will only work 8 months Oversees fiscal and legal compliance; keeps the projects during year books; serves as assistant to Project Lead 1 employee Will ensure fiscal accountability and compliance with all
152
applicable federal, state, and local laws and regulations
Full time $450,000
$75,000/year Resource Teachers Will work directly with all participating schools to 2 employees implement student-centered personalized learning Full time Will serve as the day-to-day contacts and advisors to support Years 2-4 only (school-based teaching staff and administration at all participating schools. implementation will not begin until year 2) Will also liaison with the curriculum offices to ensure alignment of curriculum and instruction. $25/hr Workshop Wages for Curriculum Writing Will create curricula and resources to support personalized 6660 hours of curriculum writing for each learning, beginning with elementary mathematics/science, of the 4 years and expanding to include all levels and reading/disciplinary literacy The HCPSS must have curricula which is aligned to the Maryland State Common Core Standards, HCPSS goals, and the personalized learning framework 2. Fringe Benefits: Explain the nature and extent of fringe benefits to be received and by whom. Salaried positions (Technical Assistant, Resources Teachers) FICA at 7.65% of salary Retirement at 15% of salary Healthcare at $15,000 year (approximate, depends on coverage selected) Temporary positions (Project Lead and Curriculum Writing) FICA at 7.65% of workshop wages
$666,000
$355,907.50
$68,452.20
3. Travel: Explain the purpose of the travel, how it relates to project goals, and how it will contribute to project success. N/A N/A N/A 4. Equipment Explain what equipment is needed and why it is needed to meet program goals. Consistent with SEA and LEA policy, equipment is defined as tangible, non-expendable, personal property having a useful life of more than one year and an acquisition cost of $5,000 or more per unit.
153
N/A N/A N/A 5. Supplies Explain what supplies are needed and why they are necessary to meet program goals. Consistent with LEA policy, supplies are defined as tangible personal property excluding equipment. Adaptive Software (e.g., Dreambox, Apex) $300,000 per year X first 2 years $800,000 Will be used at participating schools to provide additional $100,000 per year X second 2 years support in targeted subjects (first mathematics/science, then reading/disciplinary literacy) and for credit recovery Probeware $368,000 year 2 only $368,000 Will be used for project-based mathematics/science learning at all participating schools Various office and instructional supplies (e.g., toner, file $10,000 a year X 4 years ($10,000 is the $40,000 folders, pens, etc.) budget for office supplies of similarly-sized HCPSS offices) Support the project office 6. Contractual Explain what goods/services will be acquired, and the purpose and relation to the project for each expected procurement. NOTE: Because grantees must use appropriate procurement procedures to select contractors, applicants do not need to include information in their applications about specific contractors that may be used to provide services or goods for the proposed project if a grant is awarded. Personalized Learning Applications Development Site licenses for social learning application $2,073,936 = $150,000 a year for 4 years Create/modify/purchase adaptive software, beginning with elementary mathematics/science, and expanding to include Application development for edmodo-type all 20 schools and reading/disciplinary literacy software = $24,000 a year for 4 years X 66.6% (time devoted to this project) = $15,984 a year X 4 yrs Instructional designers = $50/hr X 50 hrs a year X 2 designers = $15,000 a year X 4 yrs Design firms = $75,000 per project; 3 projects in year 1, 1 in year 2 = $300,000 Development of learning analytics = $350,000 a year for 4 years
154
7. Training Stipends Explain what training is needed, and the purpose and relation to the project. NOTE: The training stipend line item only pertains to costs associated with long-term training programs and college or university coursework, not workshops or short-term training supported by this program. Salary stipends paid to teachers and other school personnel for participating in short-term professional development should be reported in Personnel (line 1). N/A N/A N/A 8. Other Explain other expenditures that may exist and are not covered by other categories. N/A N/A N/A 9. Total Direct Costs: Sum lines 1-8. $ 5,289,429.03 n/a n/a 10. Total Indirect Costs Identify and apply the indirect cost rate. $ 345,928.66 6.54% 6.54% 11. Total Grant Funds Requested Sum lines 9-10. n/a
n/a
$ 5,635,357.69
12. Funds from other sources used to support the project Identifies all non-grant funds that will support the project (e.g., external foundation support; LEA, State, and other Federal funds) The HCPSS will provide inkind support of this project through 10% of curriculum staff time, 1% of participating principals time, and 10% of the budget of the Office of Instructional Technology. All of these resources will be devoted to this RTT-D project. 10% of the salary of 13 instructional coordinators (average salary of $105,000 per year) for the four grant years 10% of the salary of 15 instructional facilitators (average salary of $95,000 per year) for the four grant years 10% of the salary of 25 resource teachers (average salary of $75,000 per year) for the four grant years 10% of the budget of the Office of $3,994,216
155
Instructional Technology (yearly budget of $4,802,620) for the four grant years 10% of the budget of the Digital School initiative (yearly budget of $297,920) for the four grant years 1% of the salary of the 20 participating principals (average salary of $110,000 per year) for the four grant years
13. Total Budget Sum lines 11-12. n/a
n/a
$9,629,573.69
156
The following budget is for Project #2: Making Learning Relevant: Connecting Learners to College and Careers by Engaging the
Community. The RTT-D funds will be used for salaries (to fund 1 project lead, 1 technical assistant, and 2 resource teachers), workshop wages (to fund curriculum writing), fringe benefits (FICA, as well as retirement and health care for the salaried positions), contractual services (to fund software development, site licenses, and college course fees), supplies (office supplies for the project lead, technical assistant, and resources teachers), and indirect costs using a rate of 6.54% on all costs, excluding equipment. Most costs will be ongoing through the grant. Funding will shift to the HCPSS operating budget supported by additional funds secured through the operating budget. It is also anticipated that most curriculum writing and software development costs will be minimal after the 4-year grant period.
Cost Description
Total
1. Personnel: Explain the importance of each position to the success of the project and connections back to specific project plans. If curriculum vitae, an organizational chart, or other supporting information will be helpful to reviewers, attach in the Appendix and describe its location. $62,400/year for years 2-4; year 1 at $228,800 Project Lead $41,600 as it is anticipated s/he will only Oversee implementation of making classroom instruction work 8 months during year 1 relevant to college and career readiness goals 1 employee Good management is crucial to the success of the project Part time ($65/hr X 80 hrs a month)
157
Technical Assistant Oversees fiscal and legal compliance; keeps the projects books; serves as assistant to Project Lead Will ensure fiscal accountability and compliance with all applicable federal, state, and local laws and regulations
$65,000/year; year 1 at $43,333.33 as it is anticipated s/he will only work 8 months during year 1 employee Full time
$238,333.33
$75,000/year Resource Teachers Will work directly with all participating schools to support 2 employees college and career readiness skill development Full time Will serve as the day-to-day contacts and advisors to support Years 2-4 only (school-based teaching staff and administration at all participating schools. implementation will not begin until year 2) Will also liaison with the curriculum offices to ensure alignment of curriculum and instruction. $25/hr Workshop Wages for Curriculum Writing Will create curricula and resources to support making 3330 hours of curriculum writing for each instruction college and career relevant of the 4 years The HCPSS must have curricula which is aligned to the Maryland State Common Core Standards, HCPSS goals, and the college and career readiness Workshop Wages for Family Program Development and $20/hr planning; $30/hr instruction Implementation Each of the 20 schools will receive $2500 each of the four years to use to plan and Will create family programs to introduce students and their implement family programming families to college and career options, showcase personalized learning and classroom instruction, and inform families about the community-wide social learning networks Engaging families and community members as full partners is crucial to the success of the RTT-D initiatives 2. Fringe Benefits: Explain the nature and extent of fringe benefits to be received and by whom. Salaried positions (Technical Assistant, Resources Teachers) FICA at 7.65% of salary Retirement at 15% of salary Healthcare at $15,000 year (approximate,
$450,000
$333,000
$200,000
$355,907.50
158
$58,302.95 Temporary positions (Project Lead, Curriculum Writing, and Family Programming) 3. Travel: Explain the purpose of the travel, how it relates to project goals, and how it will contribute to project success. N/A N/A N/A 4. Equipment Explain what equipment is needed and why it is needed to meet program goals. Consistent with SEA and LEA policy, equipment is defined as tangible, non-expendable, personal property having a useful life of more than one year and an acquisition cost of $5,000 or more per unit. N/A N/A N/A 5. Supplies Explain what supplies are needed and why they are necessary to meet program goals. Consistent with LEA policy, supplies are defined as tangible personal property excluding equipment. Various office and instructional supplies (e.g., toner, file $10,000 a year X 4 years ($10,000 is the $40,000 folders, pens, etc.) budget for office supplies of similarly-sized HCPSS offices) Support the project office 6. Contractual Explain what goods/services will be acquired, and the purpose and relation to the project for each expected procurement. NOTE: Because grantees must use appropriate procurement procedures to select contractors, applicants do not need to include information in their applications about specific contractors that may be used to provide services or goods for the proposed project if a grant is awarded. Learning Community Applications Development graphic Application development for social learning $2,115,368 designers and application developers; website development software = $24,000 a year for 4 years X and hosting 33.3% (time devoted to this project) = $7,992 a year X 4 yrs Credit Recovery Site Licenses Graphic designers = $100/hr X 40 hrs a Purchase/modification/licenses for augmented reality month 4 months for year 1, 12 months for applications years 2-3 Higher Education tuition for students to receive college Website development and hosting - $15,000 credits a year for four years Workforce development partnerships Tuition to allow students to earn college
depends on coverage selected) FICA at 7.65% of workshop wages
159
credits at local community college $18,000 a year X 3 grant years; $15,000 at local 4year college or similar institution X 4 grant years; college credits at additional institutions $520,800 X 3 grant years Partnership with local workforce development non-profits to increase work study opportunities = $10,000 year 1; $35,000 year 2; $20,000 each year, years 34 Augmented reality software development = $30,000 per project X 5 projects
7. Training Stipends Explain what training is needed, and the purpose and relation to the project. NOTE: The training stipend line item only pertains to costs associated with long-term training programs and college or university coursework, not workshops or short-term training supported by this program. Salary stipends paid to teachers and other school personnel for participating in short-term professional development should be reported in Personnel (line 1). N/A N/A N/A 8. Other Explain other expenditures that may exist and are not covered by other categories. N/A N/A N/A 9. Total Direct Costs: Sum lines 1-8. $ 4,020,041.78 n/a n/a 10. Total Indirect Costs Identify and apply the indirect cost rate. $262,910.73 6.54% 6.54% 11. Total Grant Funds Requested Sum lines 9-10. n/a
n/a
$ 4,282,952.51
160
12. Funds from other sources used to support the project Identifies all non-grant funds that will support the project (e.g., external foundation support; LEA, State, and other Federal funds) The HCPSS will provide inkind support of this project through 10% of curriculum staff time, 1% of participating principals time, and 10% of the budget of the Office of Instructional Technology. All of these resources will be devoted to this RTT-D project. 10% of the salary of 2 instructional staff members (combined average salary of $220,000 per year) for the four grant years 50% of the salary of the Coordinator for Digital Learning ($95,000 a year) for the four grant years 50% of the salary of the Digital Learning Technical Assistant ($65,000 per year) for the four grant years 1% of the salary of the 20 participating principals (average salary of $110,000 per year) for the four grant years $496,000.00
n/a
$4,778,952.51
The following budget is for Project #3: Improving Professional Learning. The RTT-D funds will be used for salaries (to fund 1 project
lead, and 1 resource teacher), workshop wages (to fund beyond school hours professional development or substitutes for during-school pd), fringe benefits (FICA, as well as retirement and health care for the salaried positions), contractual services (to fund training on new technology), supplies (office supplies for the project lead and resources teacher), travel expenses (to attend conferences and visit other schools successfully implementing personalized learning and college and career relevance initiatives) and indirect costs using a rate of 6.54% on all costs, excluding equipment. Most costs will be ongoing through the grant. Funding will shift to the HCPSS operating budget as other professional development initiatives are completed (e.g., transition to the Common Core, institution of the new teacher evaluation systems).
Note: This table is not part of the electronic budget spreadsheets. Please enter text for each project into this table or provide the information in another format that the applicant may choose. Please reproduce this table as needed. Table 4-1: Project-Level Itemized Costs
161
Cost Description
Cost Assumption (including whether the cost is one-time investment or ongoing operational cost)
Total
1. Personnel: Explain the importance of each position to the success of the project and connections back to specific project plans. If curriculum vitae, an organizational chart, or other supporting information will be helpful to reviewers, attach in the Appendix and describe its location. $62,400/year for years 2-4; year 1 at $228,800 Project Lead $41,600 as it is anticipated s/he will only Oversee creation and implementation of personalized work 8 months during year 1 professional learning opportunities for staff and creation/expansion of online and in-person professional 1 employee learning communities Part time ($65/hr X 80 hrs a month) Good management is crucial to the success of the project $75,000/year $225,000 Resource Teacher Will work directly with all participating schools to provide 1 employee professional learning support on the RTT-D initiatives Full time Will serve as the day-to-day contacts and advisors to support Years 2-4 only (school-based teaching staff and administration at all participating schools. implementation will not begin until year 2) Will also liaison with the office of professional development to ensure alignment with all other professional learning. $85 a day for substitutes = 1500 staff X $85 $4,000,000 Workshop Wages for Professional Learning day X 5 days each = $637,500 per year Staff will receive workshop wages for attending professional learning opportunities beyond school hours; substitutes will $20/hr for BSD workshop wages = 18125 be employed to cover classrooms during professional additional hours for professional learning learning which occurs during the school day each year Staff must have the time to engage in professional learning for the RTT-D initiatives to be successful 5 in person mentors at $50/hr X 30 hours a $471,750 Workshop Wages for Mentors month X 4 months (year 1) and 11 months Highly effective current and retired teachers will work with (years 2-4) staff who need additional support, either in-person or online 5 in person mentors at $35/hr X 30 hours a Ensuring all teachers are effective teachers is critical to month X 4 months (year 1) and 11 months providing successful personalized learning to all students
162
(years 2-4) 10 staff members X $50 ($30 an hour Workshop Wages for Presenters presenting, $20 planning) X 28 hours (year Highly effective current and retired teachers will present to 1), 118 hours years 2 & 4, and 146 hours staff on: personalized learning, making instruction relevant, year 3 integrating technology, utilizing social networks Staff must be provided with high-quality professional development opportunities for successful implementation of the RTT-D initiatives 2. Fringe Benefits: Explain the nature and extent of fringe benefits to be received and by whom. Salaried positions (Resources Teacher) FICA at 7.65% of salary Retirement at 15% of salary Healthcare at $15,000 year (approximate, depends on coverage selected) Temporary positions (Project Lead, PD workshop wages or FICA at 7.65% of workshop wages substitutes, Mentors, Presenters) $205,000
$95,962.50
$375,274.58
3. Travel: Explain the purpose of the travel, how it relates to project goals, and how it will contribute to project success. Visits to schools and school districts successfully $1000 per trip (flight, hotel, etc.) X 5 staff implementing similar reforms in order to learn from their X 2 trips each year for years 1 and 2 experiences and apply them to the HCPSS RTT-D initiatives $1000 per conference (flight, fees, hotel, Staff attendance at conferences to learn more about etc.) X 10 staff X 2 conferences each year personalized learning, adaptive technology options, using for years 2-4 data to drive instruction, making instruction relevant, extending learning beyond the classroom, etc. Staff participants will share what they have learned with participating teachers and administrators at online and in person professional learning opportunities 4. Equipment
$70,000.00
163
Explain what equipment is needed and why it is needed to meet program goals. Consistent with SEA and LEA policy, equipment is defined as tangible, non-expendable, personal property having a useful life of more than one year and an acquisition cost of $5,000 or more per unit. N/A N/A N/A 5. Supplies Explain what supplies are needed and why they are necessary to meet program goals. Consistent with LEA policy, supplies are defined as tangible personal property excluding equipment. Various office and instructional supplies (e.g., toner, file $5,000 a year X 4 years ($5,000 is the $20,000 folders, pens, etc.) budget for office supplies of similarly-sized HCPSS offices) Support the project office 6. Contractual Explain what goods/services will be acquired, and the purpose and relation to the project for each expected procurement. NOTE: Because grantees must use appropriate procurement procedures to select contractors, applicants do not need to include information in their applications about specific contractors that may be used to provide services or goods for the proposed project if a grant is awarded. Professional development provided by technology and $2900 per session for hardware vendor X $430,400 software vendors on utilizing technology to support student 34 sessions a year X 4 years learning $4500 per session for hardware vendor X 2 sessions a year X 4 years $15,000 in ongoing professional development/support for adaptive learning vendor X 4 years 7. Training Stipends Explain what training is needed, and the purpose and relation to the project. NOTE: The training stipend line item only pertains to costs associated with long-term training programs and college or university coursework, not workshops or short-term training supported by this program. Salary stipends paid to teachers and other school personnel for participating in short-term professional development should be reported in Personnel (line 1). N/A N/A N/A 8. Other Explain other expenditures that may exist and are not covered by other categories. N/A N/A N/A 9. Total Direct Costs:
164
Sum lines 1-8. n/a 10. Total Indirect Costs Identify and apply the indirect cost rate. 6.54% 11. Total Grant Funds Requested Sum lines 9-10. n/a
n/a
$ 4,020,041.78
6.54%
$400,391.03
n/a
$ 6,522,578.11
12. Funds from other sources used to support the project Identifies all non-grant funds that will support the project (e.g., external foundation support; LEA, State, and other Federal funds) The HCPSS will provide inkind support of this project through 10% of the budget of the Instructional Technology Office and 1% of participating principals time. All of these resources will be devoted to this RTT-D project. 10% of the budget for the Instructional Technology Office ($4,910,710 a year) for the four grant years 1% of the salary of the 20 participating principals (average salary of $110,000 per year) for the four grant years $2,052,284.00
n/a
$8,574,862.11
165
The following budget is for Project #4: Data and Information Systems. The RTT-D funds will be used for supplies and contracted services
(software development and licenses) to create a vibrant data infrastructure which will support personalized learning and learning networks for students, staff, families, and community members. While development costs should not extend beyond the grant term, the Technology Department will absorb all remaining costs, including the two technicians. These costs will be funded by cost savings realized from the end of ongoing infrastructure improvement projects, including the wireless networking.
Cost Description
Total
1. Personnel: Explain the importance of each position to the success of the project and connections back to specific project plans. If curriculum vitae, an organizational chart, or other supporting information will be helpful to reviewers, attach in the Appendix and describe its location. $50,000/year $400,000 Technicians Will support the RTT-D with technical assistance 2 employees Need devoted technicians to ensure success of project. Full time 2. Fringe Benefits: Explain the nature and extent of fringe benefits to be received and by whom. Salaried positions (Resources Teacher) FICA at 7.65% of salary Retirement at 15% of salary Healthcare at $15,000 year (approximate, depends on coverage selected) 3. Travel: Explain the purpose of the travel, how it relates to project goals, and how it will contribute to project success. N/A N/A 4. Equipment
$210,600
N/A
166
Explain what equipment is needed and why it is needed to meet program goals. Consistent with SEA and LEA policy, equipment is defined as tangible, non-expendable, personal property having a useful life of more than one year and an acquisition cost of $5,000 or more per unit. N/A N/A N/A 5. Supplies Explain what supplies are needed and why they are necessary to meet program goals. Consistent with LEA policy, supplies are defined as tangible personal property excluding equipment. Technology to support personalized learning and making Smart Board Technology at $1300 each X $3,622,500 instruction relevant to college and careers. Including but not 450 limited to: classroom smart boards, mobile labs, and web Mobile labs at $2500 X 40 enabled devices Web-enabled portable devices at $625 each X 4700 6. Contractual Explain what goods/services will be acquired, and the purpose and relation to the project for each expected procurement. NOTE: Because grantees must use appropriate procurement procedures to select contractors, applicants do not need to include information in their applications about specific contractors that may be used to provide services or goods for the proposed project if a grant is awarded. Technical support for instructional hardware and software $60/hr X 2 support staff; year 174 hours a $7,292,000 month for 4 months; years 2-4: 82 hours a Programmer to develop applications for personalized month for 12 months learning, data systems, and relevant instruction $100/hr X 30 hrs a month X 12 months X 2 Development of a virtual desktop years Creation of a social server Creation and implementation of virtual Development of learning analytics to better personalize desktop = $1,370,00 a year X 4 years instruction Creation and implantation of a social server = $100,00 X 3 years Creation and implementation of learning analytics = $350,00 a year X 3 years 7. Training Stipends Explain what training is needed, and the purpose and relation to the project. NOTE: The training stipend line item only pertains to costs associated with long-term training programs and college or university coursework, not workshops or short-term training supported by this program. Salary stipends paid to teachers and other school
167
personnel for participating in short-term professional development should be reported in Personnel (line 1). N/A N/A 8. Other Explain other expenditures that may exist and are not covered by other categories. N/A N/A 9. Total Direct Costs: Sum lines 1-8. n/a n/a 10. Total Indirect Costs Identify and apply the indirect cost rate. 6.54% 6.54% 11. Total Grant Funds Requested Sum lines 9-10. n/a
N/A
N/A
$ 11,525,100.00
$753,741.54
n/a
$12,278,841.54
12. Funds from other sources used to support the project Identifies all non-grant funds that will support the project (e.g., external foundation support; LEA, State, and other Federal funds) A percentage of the supplies and contracted services from year 3 of the grant will be absorbed by the HCPSS in year 4 to transition to the HCPSS budget supporting all activities beyond the grant cycle 13. Total Budget Sum lines 11-12. n/a Supplies: $885,000 Contracted Services: $386,000 Indirect at 6.54%
$1,354,123.40
n/a
$13,632,964.94
The following budget is for Project #5: Continuous Improvement: Evaluation. The RTT-D funds will be used for contracted services to
hire an outside evaluator to work with the HCPSS Office of Assessment to evaluate the extent to which the RTT-D initiatives are reaching their benchmarks and to suggest avenues for improvement. Beyond the grant term, evaluation will be taken over by the HCPSS Office of Assessment,
168
utilizing tools and procedures development during the grant. Additional costs beyond the grant term should be minimal.
Cost Description
Total
1. Personnel: Explain the importance of each position to the success of the project and connections back to specific project plans. If curriculum vitae, an organizational chart, or other supporting information will be helpful to reviewers, attach in the Appendix and describe its location. N/A N/A N/A 2. Fringe Benefits: Explain the nature and extent of fringe benefits to be received and by whom. N/A N/A N/A 3. Travel: Explain the purpose of the travel, how it relates to project goals, and how it will contribute to project success. N/A N/A N/A 4. Equipment Explain what equipment is needed and why it is needed to meet program goals. Consistent with SEA and LEA policy, equipment is defined as tangible, non-expendable, personal property having a useful life of more than one year and an acquisition cost of $5,000 or more per unit. N/A N/A N/A 5. Supplies Explain what supplies are needed and why they are necessary to meet program goals. Consistent with LEA policy, supplies are defined as tangible personal property excluding equipment. N/A N/A N/A 6. Contractual
169
Explain what goods/services will be acquired, and the purpose and relation to the project for each expected procurement. NOTE: Because grantees must use appropriate procurement procedures to select contractors, applicants do not need to include information in their applications about specific contractors that may be used to provide services or goods for the proposed project if a grant is awarded. Outside evaluator to assess progress and target avenues of $135/hr X 200 hours a month; year 1: 8 $1,188,000 improvement months; years 2-4 12 months 7. Training Stipends Explain what training is needed, and the purpose and relation to the project. NOTE: The training stipend line item only pertains to costs associated with long-term training programs and college or university coursework, not workshops or short-term training supported by this program. Salary stipends paid to teachers and other school personnel for participating in short-term professional development should be reported in Personnel (line 1). N/A N/A N/A 8. Other Explain other expenditures that may exist and are not covered by other categories. N/A N/A N/A 9. Total Direct Costs: Sum lines 1-8. $1,188,000 n/a n/a 10. Total Indirect Costs Identify and apply the indirect cost rate. 6.54% 11. Total Grant Funds Requested Sum lines 9-10. n/a
6.54%
$77,695.20
n/a
$ 1,265,695.20
12. Funds from other sources used to support the project Identifies all non-grant funds that will support the project (e.g., external foundation support; LEA, State, and other Federal funds) N/A 13. Total Budget Sum lines 11-12. N/A N/A
170
n/a
n/a
$ 1,265,695.20
BUDGET: INDIRECT COST INFORMATION To request reimbursement for indirect costs, please answer the following questions: 1. Does the applicant have an Indirect Cost Rate approved by its State Educational Agency? YES X NO
If yes to question 1, please provide the following information: Period Covered by the approved Indirect Cost Rate (mm/dd/yyyy): From: 7/1/2012 To: 6/30/2013
Current approved Indirect Cost Rate: 6.54% Approving State agency: Maryland State Department of Education (Please specify agency)
Directions for this form: 1. Indicate whether or not the applicant has an Indirect Cost Rate that was approved by its State Educational Agency. 2. If No is checked, the applicant should contact the business office of its State Educational Agency. 3. If Yes is checked, indicate the beginning and ending dates covered by the approved Indirect Cost Rate. In addition, indicate the name of the State agency that approved the approved rate. 4. If Yes is checked, the applicant should include a copy of the Indirect Cost Rate agreement in the Appendix.
171
XI.
OPTIONAL BUDGET SUPPLEMENT (Note to applicant: Reproduce Part as needed)
An eligible applicant may apply for additional funding (beyond the applicable maximum level provided) up to a maximum of $2 million for each optional budget supplement to address a specific area that is supplemental to the plan for addressing Absolute Priority 1. The request for additional funding must be designed as a separate project that, if not funded, will not adversely affect the applicants ability to implement its proposal and meet Absolute Priority 1. Applications for this funding will be judged on the extent to which the applicant has a clear, discrete, and innovative solution that can be replicated in schools across the Nation. In determining the extent to which the request for an optional budget supplement meets this standard, the Department will consider (1) The rationale for the specific area or population that the applicant will address (e.g., strategies to assess hard to measure skills and traits such as perseverance, critical thinking, and communication; strategies for increasing diversity across schools and LEAs and within schools and classrooms; data systems; predictive algorithms; content-tagging schemes; new curriculum and online supports for students re-entering school from the juvenile justice system; or a credit recovery program design to support English learners newly entering into secondary school and the quality and feasibility of the proposal for addressing that area); (2) A high-quality plan for how the applicant would carry out activities that would be co-developed and implemented across two or more LEAs (either participating in the full Race to the Top District application, or not participating in the full Race to the Top District application); and (3) The proposed budget (up to $2 million) for each budget supplement, and the extent to which the proposed budget will be adequate to support the development and implementation of activities that meet the requirements of this notice, including the reasonableness of the costs in relation to the objectives, design, and significance of the proposed project activities and the number of students to be served. Note, an optional budget supplement may include a proposal to utilize, across two or more districts, robust measures of student status and growth that assess hard to measure skills and traits such as goal-setting, teamwork, perseverance, critical thinking, communication, creativity, and problem-solving across multiple academic domains and enable evaluation of group and individual learning experiences. The Department believes that utilizing these measures will contribute to the continuous improvement of personalized learning experiences and the tools and resources that support their implementation. In the text box below, the applicant should describe its current status in meeting the criteria and/or provide its high-quality plan for meeting the criteria.
172
The narrative or attachments should also include any supporting evidence the applicant believes will be helpful to peer reviewers, including at a minimum the evidence listed in the criterion (if any), and how each piece of evidence demonstrates the applicants success in meeting the criterion. Evidence or attachments must be described in the narrative and, where relevant, included in the Appendix. For evidence or attachments included in the Appendix, note in the narrative the location where the information can be found and provide a table of contents for the Appendix. To provide a high-quality plan, the applicant should describe, at a minimum, the goals, activities, timelines, deliverables, and responsible parties (for further detail, see Scoring Instructions in Part XV or Appendix A in the NIA). The narrative and attachments may also include any additional information the applicant believes will be helpful to peer reviewers. Recommended maximum response length: Four pages per Optional Budget Supplement. Applicants may submit multiple Optional Budget Supplement proposals. Table 3-1: Project-Level Budget Summary Table: Project Name: Supplemental Budget: Satellite Judy Centers & Supporting Non-Cognitive Strengths Primary Associated Criterion and Location in Application: C(2)(a), Section I-IV, pp. 70-74 Additional Associated Criteria (if any) and Location in Application: N/A Budget Categories 1. Personnel 2. Fringe Benefits 3. Travel 4. Equipment 5. Supplies 6. Contractual 7. Training Stipends 8. Other Project Year 1 (a)
$285,587.20 $21,847.42 $0.00 $0.00 $60,000.00 $89,950.00 $0.00 $0.00
Project Year 2 (b)

$285,587.20 $21,847.42 $0.00 $0.00 $60,000.00 $89,950.00 $0.00 $0.00
Project Year 3 (c)

$285,587.20 $21,847.42 $0.00 $0.00 $60,000.00 $89,950.00 $0.00 $0.00
Project Year 4 (d)

$285,587.20 $21,847.42 $0.00 $0.00 $60,000.00 $89,950.00 $0.00 $0.00
Total (e)
$1,142,348.80 $87,389.68 $0.00 $0.00 $240,000.00 $359,800.00 $0.00 $0.00
173
9. Total Direct Costs (lines 1-8) 10. Indirect Costs* 11. Total Grant Funds Requested (lines 9-10) 12. Funds from other sources used to support the project 13. Total Budget (lines 11-12)
$457,384.62 $30,004.66 $488,791.48 $0.00 $488,791.48
$457,384.62 $30,004.66 $488,791.48 $0.00 $488,791.48
$457,384.62 $30,004.66 $488,791.48 $0.00 $488,791.48
$457,384.62 $30,004.66 $488,791.48 $0.00 $488,791.48
$1,829,538.48 $120,018.63 $1,955,165.92 $0.00 $1,955,165.92
The following budget is for Supplemental Budget Project: Satellite Judy Centers and Supporting Non-Cognitive Strengths.
The RTT-D funds will be used for workshop wages and supplies to set up satellite Judy Centers at the 12 participating elementary schools that do not have a Judy Center. These centers will focus on working with a number of local partners (Howard County Library, Department of Social Services, Howard County Health Department, Howard County Recreation and Parks) to provide services and programs to families to ensure children are fully ready to learn when they enter kindergarten. The centers will also serve a central location for obtaining information on social service supports for families of children from K-5. Workshop wages and contracted services will also be used to partner with Howard Community College, the National Family Resource Center, and Challenge Day to support middle and high school students noncognitive assets such as self-confidence, perseverance, grit, and social skills. These partners will provide community building activities, training on coping skills and conflict resolution, and services to students and families in crisis (divorce, separation, remarriage).
Cost Description
Total
1. Personnel:
174
Explain the importance of each position to the success of the project and connections back to specific project plans. If curriculum vitae, an organizational chart, or other supporting information will be helpful to reviewers, attach in the Appendix and describe its location. $20/hr X 2 staff X 13 schools X 10 $20,800 Local Early Child Council Participation meetings a year X 4 years Workshop wages for 2 staff members from each participation elementary school to engage in Local Early Child Councils (LECCs) to oversee school/community partnership to support school readiness Will support early identification and service provision to pre-K students Teachers: 4 hrs a day X $30 an hour X $1,044,748.80 Satellite Judy Center Staffing 110 days X 1 teacher X 12 sites X 4 Provide one teacher and one paraeducator to staff each of years = $633,600 the 12 satellite Judy Centers and provide families with access to support services and help supporting student Paraeducators: 4 hrs a day X $15.49 an learning at home. Hire one lead teacher to oversee all hour X 110 days X 1 para X 12 sites X 4 Satellite Judy Centers and liaison with central office staff. years = $327,148.80 In order for students to be successful in K-12 education, Lead Teacher: 5 hrs a day X $35 an hour they need to come to school ready to learn X 120 days X 4 years = $84,000 $20/hr planning rate $56,000 Family Programming Each middle, high school, and special school will receive $30/hr instruction rate $2,000 each year in workshop wages for staff to develop family events to support students non-cognitive strengths 2. Fringe Benefits: Explain the nature and extent of fringe benefits to be received and by whom. Temporary positions (Project Lead and Curriculum FICA at 7.65% of workshop wages $151,619.66 Writing) 3. Travel: Explain the purpose of the travel, how it relates to project goals, and how it will contribute to project success. N/A N/A N/A 4. Equipment Explain what equipment is needed and why it is needed to meet program goals. Consistent with SEA and LEA policy, equipment is defined as tangible, non-expendable, personal property having a useful life of more than one year and an acquisition cost of
175
$5,000 or more per unit. N/A N/A N/A 5. Supplies Explain what supplies are needed and why they are necessary to meet program goals. Consistent with LEA policy, supplies are defined as tangible personal property excluding equipment. Office supplies for each Satellite Judy Center $5000 X 12 sites X 4 years $240,000 Will support the success of the centers in providing services, tracking progress, and providing families with ways to support school readiness Supplies for Secondary Family Programs $1000 X 7 schools X 4 years $28,000 Will be used at participating schools to provide families with books and other take-aways for supporting noncognitive strengths at home 6. Contractual Explain what goods/services will be acquired, and the purpose and relation to the project for each expected procurement. NOTE: Because grantees must use appropriate procurement procedures to select contractors, applicants do not need to include information in their applications about specific contractors that may be used to provide services or goods for the proposed project if a grant is awarded. Partnership with Howard Community College to provide $50/hr X 7 consultants X 50 hours a year $359,800 coping skills and conflict resolution training at the seven X 4 years = $70,000 participating secondary schools NFRC partnership at $6500 per school Partnership with National Family Resource Center to per year X 7 schools X 4 years = provide counseling to students and their families in crisis $182,000 (divorce, separation, remarriage) Challenge Day at $3200 a day X 7 days + Partnership with Challenge Day to provide community $4550 travel expenses X 4 years = building activities at the seven participating secondary $107,800 schools 7. Training Stipends Explain what training is needed, and the purpose and relation to the project. NOTE: The training stipend line item only pertains to costs associated with long-term training programs and college or university coursework, not workshops or short-term training supported by this program. Salary stipends paid to teachers and other school personnel for participating in short-term professional development should be reported in Personnel (line 1). N/A N/A N/A
176
8. Other Explain other expenditures that may exist and are not covered by other categories. N/A N/A 9. Total Direct Costs: Sum lines 1-8. n/a n/a 10. Total Indirect Costs Identify and apply the indirect cost rate. 6.54% 11. Total Grant Funds Requested Sum lines 9-10. n/a
N/A
$ 1,835,147.28
6.54%
$ 120,018.63
n/a
$ 1,955,165.92
12. Funds from other sources used to support the project Identifies all non-grant funds that will support the project (e.g., external foundation support; LEA, State, and other Federal funds) n/a 13. Total Budget Sum lines 11-12. n/a n/a n/a
n/a
$ 1,955,165.92
177
APPENDIX TABLE OF CONTENTS
Attachment Title Appendix 1: HCPSS Implementation Plan Appendix 2: Employee Salary and Fringe Benefit Costs by School Appendix 3: Personalized Learning Survey: Staff Appendix 4: Personalized Learning Survey: Parents & Families Appendix 5: Partners & Letters of Support
Relevant Selection Criterion (A)(1) Articulating a comprehensive and coherent reform vision (B)(2) Increasing transparency in LEA processes, practices, and investments (B)(4) Stakeholder engagement and support (B)(4) Stakeholder engagement and support (B)(4) Stakeholder engagement and support
Page # 179 185 191 206 219
Appendix 6: Project Plans, Goals, Activities, Timelines and Deliverables Appendix 7: Professional Learning Plans, Goals, Activities, Timelines and Deliverables Appendix 8: Policy 8080-PR Appendix 9: Logic Model and Preliminary Research Plan Appendix 10: Evidence State Comment Period Was Met Appendix 11: Evidence Local Government Comment Period Was Met Appendix 12: Bibliography
(B)(5) Analysis of needs and gaps (C)(1) Learning
287 297
(C)(2) Teaching and Leading (D)(1) LEA practices, policies, rules; (E)(4) Evaluating effectiveness of investments (V) Program-Specific Assurances for Individual LEA Applicants (V) Program-Specific Assurances for Individual LEA Applicants
299 306
315 316
Citations in: (A)(1) Articulating a 319 comprehensive and coherent reform vision; (C)(1) Learning; (C)(2) Teaching and Leading; (D)(2) LEA and school infrastructure; (X) (1) Competitive Preference Priority
178
Appendix 1: HCPSS Implementation Plan
Designing for The Future: Transformative Changes for Next Generation Students and Educators Personalized learning requires not only a shift in the design of schooling, but also a leveraging of modern technologies. Personalization cannot take place at scale without technology. Personalized learning is enabled by smart e-learning systems, which help dynamically track and manage the learning needs of all students, and provide a platform to access myriad engaging learning content, resources and learning opportunities needed to meet each students needs everywhere at anytime, but which are not all available within the four walls of the traditional classroom (Wolf, 2010, p. 6)
The HCPSS is committed to embracing innovative processes and to providing world class education to all students. These processes aim to ensure that all students graduate from high school ready to enter college or the workforce. To facilitate and expedite this transformation, the HCPSS is applying for $20-30 million in grant funds through the U.S. Department of Educations Race to the Top District Competition (RTT-D). These funds would be used to implement a comprehensive approach to personalizing learning for staff and students based on research-based practices, with an emphasis on digital learning. The HCPSS would seek to forge explicit connections between home, school, and the world of work, to reduce existing achievement gaps based on poverty, race/ethnicity, and receipt of special services, to increase student engagement and to decrease drop-out rates, minimize suspensions and expulsions, and maximize performance for all students. The HCPSS has identified 20 schools with the highest levels of student poverty and student needs on which to focus our efforts. The program will include 13 elementary, 5 middle, and 2 high/special schools.
The vision of the Howard County Public School System (HCPSS)s RTT-D program will be to redesign the very concept of school. We will create a system where all students are actively engaged in relevant instruction connected to their interests, personalized to their strengths and needs, and accessible anytime and anywhere.
179
This vision will be realized through two projects: (1) Learning for the Future: A Personalized Competency-based Approach; and (2) Making Learning Relevant: Connecting Learners to College and Careers by Engaging the Community. As we re-think schooling, we are using several core elements to shape our vision and ideas.
What? Curriculum and Content Personalized learning aims to maximize the achievement of every student based not only on their demonstrated strengths and needs but also on their interests and long-term goals. Personalized learning removes barriers based on the time, location, pace, and delivery and provides instruction in ways that parallels how students and their families access information and operate in the larger world. The HCPSS will provide in-person and virtual instructional options to allow staff to receive personalized professional development in a time, place, pace, and media which is convenient for them.

Dynamic content and real-time data will be leveraged to adjust instruction and monitor student progress. Tools, resources, and workshops will provide teachers and leaders with work-embedded professional learning and assistance as needed. Expand existing internship and mentorship opportunities to help students develop flexible goals and plans and follow their progress beginning in Kindergarten and continuing beyond graduation.
Students are provided multiple opportunities to apply interdisciplinary content knowledge in project-based extensions and and teachers are provided with a variety of ways to provide support.
Questions we would like to pose:
What do courses and grade levels mean?
180
How can the community participate and develop real world problems for to students to solve? How can we use learning analytics to support student growth and learning?
How? Learning Modalities Educators and learners alike will participate in place-based and international-networked experiences in which their reputation is based on work and ideas. New learning providers will support youth-driven innovation through the acquisition of new resources and personalized learning paths which emphasize developing and gaining skills rather than delivering instruction.
Students will have access to innovative, personalized, self-paced online academic programs both during and beyond the school day (e.g. Dreambox, Conceptual Math, augmented reality STEM challenges) to build capacity and provide opportunities to work with peers.
Students will have opportunities to access online courses both during and beyond the school day using an online course provider to provide opportunities for acceleration, improved performance on SAT/ACT and AP exams, and/or credit recovery.
Staff will be able to easily connect with their colleagues to discuss issues, collaborate during common planning time, and participate in job-embedded Professional Learning (virtual, personal learning networks etc.,) as needed. This goal will be accomplished through the use of self-paced, self-directed online professional learning bundles, providing a personal learning network through which teachers can collaborate in real time, and will maintain its focus on shifting teacher dispositions toward 21st century teaching and learning through application in the classroom and reflective practice.
Students and teachers will have online profiles that include goals, skills, interests, and projects and progress made in those areas.

How can we work with policy in order to allow and encourage these kinds of projects? How do we balance parental interest with privacy laws? What will we do about students who dont have internet access at home?
181
Who? Human Capital This project will involve stakeholders at every level, requiring collaboration and hard work to create a modern school system that benefits the entire community.
Students will have a larger voice and more choice in their own education, working to develop goals and chart progress, as well as learning to work collaboratively with peers throughout the system.
Teachers will more easily communicate and collaborate with their colleagues and learn valuable skills in technology and personalized education, taking static lessons and adapting them to engage and inspire each student.
Leaders will provide support to teachers and play a greater role in evaluating the work of their staff and learning to intervene with staff when needed. Leaders will develop a deep understanding of change theory and models in guiding staff to move their instruction toward excellence, which in turn will positively impacting student achievement.
Parents will be able to follow progress of student efforts more easily and identify skills that need more work early. Community members will be a vital part of the school system, providing resources, interviews, internships, and learning opportunities.
When? Implementation Timeline Year one will focus in three different areas.
In Year one, we will formalize the prototype in our curriculum redesign process begun in Spring 2012. We will concentrate our curriculum and classroom redesign at the elementary level, specifically with an integrated approach in mathematics and science. In year two we will expand the redesign to middle school mathematics and science.
In order to meet changing college and career readiness needs, years one and two will feature a modification and expansion of our existing high school internship and mentorship programs. We will align existing partnerships and forge new partners in higher education and for-profit and non-profit enterprises to better connect learning with
182
the world of work and college and career readiness indicators. Years three and four will see an expansion of these opportunities into middle and elementary school where we will concentrate on exposure to careers and college, goal-setting, learning about different occupations, and making plans.
All four years will be heavily focused on the revitalization of professional learning. One aspect of this change will be comprehensive information, resources, and online collaborative environments on the proposed initiatives in curriculum and college and career readiness redesign. In addition, we will build out increased options and resources to enable all staff to be more technologically proficient and grow accustomed to seeking out resources online as needed.
Where? Learning Environment This proposal will build and facilitate a vibrant online social community to leverage expertise of students, educators, parents, and community so that we can solve problems in the world around us.

The system will make key progress in phasing out computer labs and moving toward a ubiquitous computer environment, allowing all students to take their education anywhere. Students and staff will be offered multiple paths to learn before, during, and after the school day, with the ability to collaborate, take classes, build competencies, and engage in complex challenges.
Working with a wide range of community partners, learning experiences will be developed and scattered across the county. The project will develop and apply a wealth of online resources, allowing students to access resources from and collaborations with community, business, and nonprofit leaders and use that information to make plans about their goals.
The project will explore how existing structures can be modified and adapted to support learning outside of the classroom (e.g. staggered start and end times, opening buildings to the community after hours) and personalized pathways for students during the day.
Questions we would like to pose
183
What are the options for students working off school grounds? What are the options for redesigning existing classrooms/schools? How will we address the issue of students who dont have access to internet at home?
How Much? Evidence of Learning Educators, having access to various data points, will be able to address large scale challenges like dropout rates and attendance, and integrate their data with other systems to look at their school or system as part of the larger community. In the classroom, learning analytics will provide teachers with immediate feedback and formative data to help determine student activities on an ongoing basis. Key to this will be a movement towards a competency-based system.

They will personalize learning by presenting guidance on the choices of what to learn, how to learn, and how to demonstrate learning They will motivate accelerated learning by recognizing achievement in a wide number of categories, skills, and projects They will simplify the management of competency-based environments, and allow for easy engagement by stakeholders outside of the classroom.

What data do we want to gather in order to demonstrate whether or not our students are truly succeeding? How can we integrate our systems so that accessing and assessing data is not a burden on teachers?
184
APPENDIX 2: EMPLOYEE SALARY AND FRINGE BENEFIT COSTS BY SCHOOL

Participating schools are highlighted LOC NAME ARL TYPE INSTRUC NON-INSTRUC TEACHER INSTRUC NON-INSTRUC TEACHER INSTRUC NON-INSTRUC TEACHER INSTRUC NON-INSTRUC TEACHER INSTRUC NON-INSTRUC TEACHER INSTRUC NON-INSTRUC TEACHER INSTRUC NON-INSTRUC TEACHER INSTRUC NON-INSTRUC TEACHER Sum of COUNT 28 9 26 37 56 10 38 66 128 30 110 158 108 14 76 122 106 14 79 120 74 16 61 90 54 10 41 64 60 15 52 75 67 13 52 80 80 9 40 89 113 33 99 146 66 10 53 76 53 9 41 62 56 15 50 Sum of FTE 28.00 9.00 26.00 37.00 54.50 9.50 37.00 64.00 128.00 28.50 110.00 156.50 106.10 13.58 75.10 119.68 103.70 13.00 77.20 116.70 74.00 15.33 61.00 89.33 53.50 9.50 41.00 63.00 59.00 14.33 51.50 73.33 66.60 12.50 51.60 79.10 77.90 9.00 37.90 86.90 113.00 31.33 99.00 144.33 65.80 10.00 52.80 75.80 51.90 8.50 40.40 60.40 54.70 14.33 49.20 Sum of Annual Sal 2,014,367 $476,862 $1,945,894 $2,491,229 3,005,286 $527,022 $2,537,357 $3,532,308 8,435,183 $1,362,311 $7,960,814 $9,797,494 5,675,045 $700,953 $4,870,461 $6,375,998 5,882,158 $639,894 $5,118,016 $6,522,052 4,374,180 $745,322 $4,056,904 $5,119,502 3,139,303 $505,460 $2,808,160 $3,644,763 4,059,420 $685,298 $3,862,600 $4,744,718 4,290,371 $615,224 $3,863,424 $4,905,595 4,076,490 $576,798 $2,860,473 $4,653,288 7,513,142 $1,504,426 $7,130,405 $9,017,567 3,909,584 $548,457 $3,516,663 $4,458,041 3,105,691 $493,387 $2,790,375 $3,599,078 3,830,700 $688,922 $3,683,229 Sum of TTL BENEFITS 449,439 $114,894 $433,923 $564,333 760,652 $146,201 $556,961 $906,853 1,782,388 $424,814 $1,570,590 $2,207,203 1,363,721 $197,351 $1,030,563 $1,561,071 1,471,309 $187,014 $1,122,362 $1,658,323 1,076,073 $260,028 $912,374 $1,336,102 707,822 $184,726 $586,391 $892,548 842,299 $251,911 $755,046 $1,094,210 1,064,589 $222,153 $887,625 $1,286,742 1,064,971 $149,981 $619,716 $1,214,952 1,666,044 $431,112 $1,498,429 $2,097,156 1,021,046 $148,715 $803,728 $1,169,761 790,954 $152,463 $650,121 $943,417 848,765 $239,996 $804,199
ARL Total ATHOLTON ELEM
ATHOLTON ELEM Total ATHOLTON HIGH
ATHOLTON HIGH Total BELLOWS SPRING ELEM
BELLOWS SPRING ELEM Total BOLLMAN BRIDGE ELEM
BOLLMAN BRIDGE ELEM Total BONNIE BRANCH MIDDLE
BONNIE BRANCH MIDDLE Total BRYANT WOODS ELEM
BRYANT WOODS ELEM Total BURLEIGH MANOR MIDDLE
BURLEIGH MANOR MIDDLE Total BUSHY PARK ELEM INSTRUC NON-INSTRUC TEACHER BUSHY PARK ELEM Total CEDAR LANE-FULTON CAMPUS INSTRUC NON-INSTRUC TEACHER CEDAR LANE-FULTON CAMPUS Total CENTENNIAL HIGH INSTRUC NON-INSTRUC TEACHER CENTENNIAL HIGH Total CENTENNIAL LANE ELEM INSTRUC NON-INSTRUC TEACHER CENTENNIAL LANE ELEM Total CLARKSVILLE ELEM INSTRUC NON-INSTRUC TEACHER CLARKSVILLE ELEM Total CLARKSVILLE MIDDLE INSTRUC NON-INSTRUC TEACHER
185

Participating schools are highlighted LOC NAME CLARKSVILLE MIDDLE Total CLEMENS CROSSING ELEM TYPE INSTRUC NON-INSTRUC TEACHER Sum of COUNT 71 53 11 41 64 39 6 21 45 77 13 55 90 85 13 62 98 101 13 73 114 56 14 47 70 86 14 68 100 71 17 63 88 73 15 62 88 53 15 46 68 69 14 54 83 76 12 54 88 108 31 94 139 57 15 Sum of FTE 69.03 53.00 10.00 41.00 63.00 38.60 6.00 20.60 44.60 74.60 12.08 53.10 86.68 82.00 12.50 59.00 94.50 100.50 12.08 72.50 112.58 56.00 12.83 47.00 68.83 85.50 13.67 67.50 99.17 69.60 15.83 62.10 85.43 72.60 14.33 61.60 86.93 51.40 14.00 44.90 65.40 67.60 13.25 52.60 80.85 75.50 11.50 54.00 87.00 107.40 28.75 93.40 136.15 56.10 13.33 Sum of Annual Sal $4,519,622 3,390,295 $503,962 $3,033,183 $3,894,257 2,526,299 $394,885 $1,784,204 $2,921,184 4,136,300 $651,772 $3,533,007 $4,788,072 4,814,976 $602,580 $4,209,156 $5,417,556 5,832,576 $578,302 $4,979,256 $6,410,878 3,509,319 $614,014 $3,262,534 $4,123,334 5,142,560 $721,663 $4,665,596 $5,864,224 4,502,258 $766,210 $4,286,530 $5,268,468 4,545,888 $674,050 $4,254,815 $5,219,938 3,439,984 $659,892 $3,251,712 $4,099,876 3,780,968 $690,893 $3,374,150 $4,471,861 4,347,822 $580,589 $3,688,779 $4,928,411 6,752,893 $1,446,250 $6,395,383 $8,199,143 3,709,992 $660,207 Sum of TTL BENEFITS $1,088,761 800,245 $118,317 $631,047 $918,562 599,329 $98,831 $386,000 $698,160 1,104,082 $188,804 $856,823 $1,292,886 1,278,533 $193,972 $991,194 $1,472,505 1,408,140 $167,237 $1,045,378 $1,575,378 820,758 $238,757 $707,673 $1,059,516 1,196,084 $191,843 $1,018,881 $1,387,927 1,077,987 $235,026 $973,889 $1,313,014 1,076,070 $245,143 $929,395 $1,321,213 811,275 $244,530 $743,727 $1,055,805 887,513 $198,048 $671,363 $1,085,561 1,076,208 $162,865 $850,377 $1,239,073 1,543,795 $441,482 $1,377,289 $1,985,277 931,496 $204,011
INSTRUC NON-INSTRUC TEACHER COUNTY DIAGNOSTIC CENTER Total CRADLEROCK ELEMENTARY INSTRUC NON-INSTRUC TEACHER CRADLEROCK ELEMENTARY Total DAYTON OAKS ELEM INSTRUC NON-INSTRUC TEACHER DAYTON OAKS ELEM Total DEEP RUN ELEM INSTRUC NON-INSTRUC TEACHER DEEP RUN ELEM Total DUNLOGGIN MIDDLE INSTRUC NON-INSTRUC TEACHER DUNLOGGIN MIDDLE Total ELKRIDGE ELEM INSTRUC NON-INSTRUC TEACHER ELKRIDGE ELEM Total ELKRIDGE LANDING MIDDLE INSTRUC NON-INSTRUC TEACHER ELKRIDGE LANDING MIDDLE Total ELLICOTT MILLS MIDDLE INSTRUC NON-INSTRUC TEACHER ELLICOTT MILLS MIDDLE Total FOLLY QUARTER MIDDLE INSTRUC NON-INSTRUC TEACHER FOLLY QUARTER MIDDLE Total FOREST RIDGE ELEM INSTRUC NON-INSTRUC TEACHER FOREST RIDGE ELEM Total FULTON ELEM INSTRUC NON-INSTRUC TEACHER FULTON ELEM Total GLENELG HIGH INSTRUC NON-INSTRUC TEACHER GLENELG HIGH Total GLENWOOD MIDDLE INSTRUC NON-INSTRUC
CLEMENS CROSSING ELEM Total COUNTY DIAGNOSTIC CENTER
186

Participating schools are highlighted LOC NAME GLENWOOD MIDDLE Total GORMAN CROSSING ELEM TYPE TEACHER INSTRUC NON-INSTRUC TEACHER INSTRUC NON-INSTRUC TEACHER INSTRUC NON-INSTRUC TEACHER INSTRUC NON-INSTRUC TEACHER INSTRUC NON-INSTRUC TEACHER INSTRUC NON-INSTRUC TEACHER INSTRUC NON-INSTRUC TEACHER Sum of COUNT 48 72 91 12 61 103 63 12 47 75 58 9 45 67 130 34 114 164 50 16 43 66 66 14 52 80 88 13 61 101 73 13 56 86 148 36 128 184 90 12 61 102 47 11 34 58 67 16 56 83 76 13 60 89 58 Sum of FTE 47.60 69.43 88.90 11.00 59.40 99.90 62.30 10.67 46.80 72.97 56.90 7.25 44.40 64.15 128.90 32.50 112.90 161.40 50.10 15.50 42.60 65.60 65.50 13.00 51.50 78.50 86.30 12.50 59.80 98.80 73.00 12.33 56.00 85.33 147.20 35.08 127.20 182.28 88.20 11.33 59.70 99.53 45.80 9.67 33.30 55.47 67.00 16.00 56.00 83.00 75.20 12.83 59.20 88.03 57.50 Sum of Annual Sal $3,470,569 $4,370,199 4,690,347 $548,123 $3,874,555 $5,238,470 3,580,954 $560,962 $3,160,993 $4,141,916 3,296,582 $415,909 $2,926,511 $3,712,492 8,049,076 $1,636,478 $7,569,973 $9,685,554 3,364,775 $750,534 $3,183,988 $4,115,309 3,931,150 $579,867 $3,539,195 $4,511,017 4,956,525 $632,108 $4,255,926 $5,588,632 4,213,126 $675,000 $3,678,031 $4,888,126 8,944,121 $1,646,732 $8,418,983 $10,590,854 4,925,702 $610,673 $4,165,764 $5,536,374 2,535,331 $563,368 $2,189,409 $3,098,699 4,136,302 $828,588 $3,838,874 $4,964,891 4,076,477 $658,420 $3,643,398 $4,734,897 3,947,765 Sum of TTL BENEFITS $835,209 $1,135,507 1,181,259 $168,985 $845,803 $1,350,244 889,833 $183,788 $689,219 $1,073,621 762,516 $118,233 $662,668 $880,748 1,856,253 $488,238 $1,680,212 $2,344,491 809,007 $224,806 $717,245 $1,033,813 858,546 $207,934 $746,852 $1,066,480 1,258,711 $200,096 $988,540 $1,458,807 1,006,448 $154,612 $833,667 $1,161,060 2,061,559 $588,692 $1,876,527 $2,650,250 1,279,717 $188,331 $932,325 $1,468,049 596,350 $184,839 $461,845 $781,189 906,560 $248,306 $753,162 $1,154,867 954,450 $182,307 $778,340 $1,136,757 861,029
GORMAN CROSSING ELEM Total GUILFORD ELEM
GUILFORD ELEM Total HAMMOND ELEM
HAMMOND ELEM Total HAMMOND HIGH
HAMMOND HIGH Total HAMMOND MIDDLE
HAMMOND MIDDLE Total HARPER'S CHOICE MIDDLE
HARPER'S CHOICE MIDDLE Total HOLLIFIELD STATION ELEM
HOLLIFIELD STATION ELEM Total HOMEWOOD CENTER INSTRUC NON-INSTRUC TEACHER HOMEWOOD CENTER Total HOWARD HIGH INSTRUC NON-INSTRUC TEACHER HOWARD HIGH Total ILCHESTER ELEM INSTRUC NON-INSTRUC TEACHER ILCHESTER ELEM Total JEFFERS HILL ELEM INSTRUC NON-INSTRUC TEACHER JEFFERS HILL ELEM Total LAKE ELKHORN MIDDLE INSTRUC NON-INSTRUC TEACHER LAKE ELKHORN MIDDLE Total LAUREL WOODS ELEM INSTRUC NON-INSTRUC TEACHER LAUREL WOODS ELEM Total LIME KILN MIDDLE INSTRUC
187

Participating schools are highlighted LOC NAME TYPE NON-INSTRUC TEACHER INSTRUC NON-INSTRUC TEACHER INSTRUC NON-INSTRUC TEACHER INSTRUC NON-INSTRUC TEACHER INSTRUC NON-INSTRUC TEACHER INSTRUC NON-INSTRUC TEACHER INSTRUC NON-INSTRUC TEACHER Sum of COUNT 15 49 73 47 10 35 57 129 37 111 166 69 11 49 80 65 11 50 76 102 32 89 134 84 17 69 101 60 15 52 75 123 36 110 159 82 17 66 99 62 11 48 73 123 33 102 156 61 14 49 75 58 15 47 73 Sum of FTE 14.00 49.00 71.50 46.50 9.33 35.00 55.83 128.50 35.50 110.50 164.00 67.00 10.00 47.50 77.00 64.00 10.50 49.00 74.50 101.60 30.17 88.60 131.77 84.00 15.83 69.00 99.83 59.10 14.33 51.60 73.43 121.60 34.08 108.60 155.68 81.40 16.33 65.40 97.73 61.80 10.50 47.80 72.30 122.40 31.25 101.40 153.65 61.00 13.33 49.00 74.33 57.50 13.83 47.00 71.33 Sum of Annual Sal $646,387 $3,692,414 $4,594,153 2,947,492 $525,598 $2,606,497 $3,473,091 8,236,246 $1,694,672 $7,736,092 $9,930,918 3,542,575 $504,200 $3,004,815 $4,046,775 4,103,919 $556,091 $3,673,691 $4,660,010 6,517,275 $1,397,327 $6,195,607 $7,914,602 5,102,232 $797,024 $4,695,904 $5,899,257 3,772,334 $732,058 $3,584,164 $4,504,392 7,804,182 $1,574,390 $7,431,823 $9,378,572 4,715,259 $752,270 $4,285,167 $5,467,529 4,005,664 $568,447 $3,615,367 $4,574,112 7,683,828 $1,441,139 $7,116,083 $9,124,967 3,418,203 $668,863 $3,123,980 $4,087,066 3,654,065 $656,383 $3,383,517 $4,310,448 Sum of TTL BENEFITS $213,348 $792,210 $1,074,377 749,507 $165,998 $598,999 $915,504 1,860,048 $534,783 $1,642,947 $2,394,831 889,000 $179,616 $702,137 $1,068,616 1,118,411 $145,283 $863,279 $1,263,694 1,531,706 $442,896 $1,395,278 $1,974,602 1,172,205 $245,412 $1,022,332 $1,417,617 863,865 $238,010 $760,031 $1,101,875 1,792,450 $500,842 $1,665,339 $2,293,292 1,121,553 $204,778 $952,162 $1,326,331 922,035 $162,126 $755,154 $1,084,161 1,669,314 $455,162 $1,474,335 $2,124,476 689,629 $237,441 $584,235 $927,071 889,578 $214,485 $748,422 $1,104,063
LIME KILN MIDDLE Total LISBON ELEM
LISBON ELEM Total LONG REACH HIGH
LONG REACH HIGH Total LONGFELLOW ELEM
LONGFELLOW ELEM Total MANOR WOODS ELEM
MANOR WOODS ELEM Total MARRIOTTS RIDGE HIGH
MARRIOTTS RIDGE HIGH Total MAYFIELD WOODS MIDDLE
MAYFIELD WOODS MIDDLE Total MOUNT VIEW MIDDLE INSTRUC NON-INSTRUC TEACHER MOUNT VIEW MIDDLE Total MT. HEBRON HIGH INSTRUC NON-INSTRUC TEACHER MT. HEBRON HIGH Total MURRAY HILL MIDDLE INSTRUC NON-INSTRUC TEACHER MURRAY HILL MIDDLE Total NORTHFIELD ELEM INSTRUC NON-INSTRUC TEACHER NORTHFIELD ELEM Total OAKLAND MILLS HIGH INSTRUC NON-INSTRUC TEACHER OAKLAND MILLS HIGH Total OAKLAND MILLS MIDDLE INSTRUC NON-INSTRUC TEACHER OAKLAND MILLS MIDDLE Total PATAPSCO MIDDLE INSTRUC NON-INSTRUC TEACHER PATAPSCO MIDDLE Total
188

Participating schools are highlighted LOC NAME PATUXENT VALLEY MIDDLE TYPE INSTRUC NON-INSTRUC TEACHER Sum of COUNT 76 17 61 93 90 14 67 104 94 11 63 105 143 36 122 179 118 31 105 149 75 12 55 87 73 10 53 83 60 11 46 71 54 9 39 63 72 13 54 85 76 13 59 89 54 10 36 64 64 11 50 75 142 17 102 Sum of FTE 75.00 16.00 60.00 91.00 89.00 13.58 67.00 102.58 92.10 10.50 62.10 102.60 141.60 34.33 120.60 175.93 117.80 29.25 104.80 147.05 72.80 12.00 53.80 84.80 72.50 9.00 53.00 81.50 59.60 10.33 45.60 69.93 53.80 8.50 38.80 62.30 71.40 11.83 53.40 83.23 75.80 12.25 58.80 88.05 53.00 9.33 35.00 62.33 62.30 10.33 49.30 72.63 138.50 17.00 99.50 Sum of Annual Sal 4,561,774 $750,509 $4,146,303 $5,312,284 5,020,752 $603,944 $4,435,767 $5,624,696 5,163,892 $575,076 $4,395,336 $5,738,968 8,553,090 $1,596,431 $8,036,821 $10,149,522 7,866,071 $1,351,289 $7,541,490 $9,217,361 4,338,986 $586,897 $3,775,418 $4,925,883 4,256,609 $425,425 $3,718,740 $4,682,033 3,369,396 $576,947 $2,996,913 $3,946,343 3,277,829 $460,498 $2,865,813 $3,738,327 4,214,583 $571,085 $3,687,619 $4,785,667 4,343,127 $605,719 $3,870,073 $4,948,846 2,970,531 $519,992 $2,458,273 $3,490,522 4,046,939 $525,002 $3,633,727 $4,571,941 7,399,651 $852,648 $6,394,780 Sum of TTL BENEFITS 1,038,154 $261,599 $876,928 $1,299,753 1,088,730 $176,850 $868,810 $1,265,580 1,255,543 $145,036 $943,872 $1,400,579 1,971,365 $565,934 $1,720,872 $2,537,299 1,806,138 $438,364 $1,667,993 $2,244,502 996,464 $173,291 $863,227 $1,169,755 1,085,463 $137,515 $890,475 $1,222,978 765,847 $151,151 $642,653 $916,998 820,178 $123,113 $688,576 $943,292 1,015,937 $226,084 $826,998 $1,242,021 1,065,100 $209,606 $896,945 $1,274,706 711,348 $154,026 $501,180 $865,374 1,009,435 $140,424 $819,334 $1,149,858 1,931,483 $277,615 $1,454,244
PATUXENT VALLEY MIDDLE Total PHELPS LUCK ELEM INSTRUC NON-INSTRUC TEACHER PHELPS LUCK ELEM Total POINTERS RUN ELEM INSTRUC NON-INSTRUC TEACHER POINTERS RUN ELEM Total RESERVOIR HIGH INSTRUC NON-INSTRUC TEACHER RESERVOIR HIGH Total RIVER HILL HIGH INSTRUC NON-INSTRUC TEACHER RIVER HILL HIGH Total ROCKBURN ELEM INSTRUC NON-INSTRUC TEACHER ROCKBURN ELEM Total RUNNING BROOK ELEM INSTRUC NON-INSTRUC TEACHER RUNNING BROOK ELEM Total ST. JOHNS LANE ELEM INSTRUC NON-INSTRUC TEACHER ST. JOHNS LANE ELEM Total STEVENS FOREST ELEM INSTRUC NON-INSTRUC TEACHER STEVENS FOREST ELEM Total SWANSFIELD ELEM INSTRUC NON-INSTRUC TEACHER SWANSFIELD ELEM Total TALBOTT SPRINGS ELEM INSTRUC NON-INSTRUC TEACHER TALBOTT SPRINGS ELEM Total THUNDER HILL ELEM INSTRUC NON-INSTRUC TEACHER THUNDER HILL ELEM Total TRIADELPHIA RIDGE ELEM INSTRUC NON-INSTRUC TEACHER TRIADELPHIA RIDGE ELEM Total INSTRUC VETERANS ELEM NON-INSTRUC TEACHER
189

Participating schools are highlighted LOC NAME VETERANS ELEM Total WATERLOO ELEM TYPE INSTRUC NON-INSTRUC TEACHER INSTRUC NON-INSTRUC TEACHER INSTRUC NON-INSTRUC TEACHER INSTRUC NON-INSTRUC TEACHER INSTRUC NON-INSTRUC TEACHER INSTRUC NON-INSTRUC TEACHER Sum of COUNT 159 114 12 76 126 85 11 61 96 42 9 30 51 132 42 113 174 67 15 54 82 58 11 42 69 7,122 1,737 1,754 1,720 1,911 Sum of FTE 155.50 111.90 12.00 74.40 123.90 82.20 11.00 58.70 93.20 41.60 9.00 29.60 50.60 131.30 39.72 112.30 171.02 66.70 13.67 53.70 80.37 57.10 10.33 41.60 67.43 6,989.52 1,705 1,719 1,690 1,875 Sum of Annual Sal $8,252,299 5,867,867 $639,653 $4,870,115 $6,507,520 4,941,349 $583,656 $4,304,740 $5,525,005 2,486,230 $577,840 $2,141,617 $3,064,070 8,433,511 $1,786,243 $7,915,486 $10,219,753 3,901,598 $624,939 $3,560,143 $4,526,537 3,516,250 $563,516 $3,076,013 $4,079,766 $409,439,123 100,936,538 100,430,863 100,076,663 107,995,060 Sum of TTL BENEFITS $2,209,099 1,517,354 $168,382 $1,091,858 $1,685,736 1,221,676 $207,512 $953,535 $1,429,188 605,887 $138,756 $460,004 $744,643 1,823,390 $623,382 $1,633,788 $2,446,772 873,183 $220,980 $760,740 $1,094,162 859,750 $148,746 $686,222 $1,008,496 $101,343,495 25,038,440 25,010,940 24,443,077 26,851,038
WATERLOO ELEM Total WAVERLY ELEM
WAVERLY ELEM Total WEST FRIENDSHIP ELEM
WEST FRIENDSHIP ELEM Total WILDE LAKE HIGH
WILDE LAKE HIGH Total WILDE LAKE MIDDLE
WILDE LAKE MIDDLE Total WORTHINGTON ELEM
WORTHINGTON ELEM Total Grand Total SUB-TOTALS
190
Appendix 3: Personalized Learning Survey - Staff
Personalized Learning Survey: Staff
1. At what level of school do you work?

Response Percent Elementary School Middle School High School 48.5% 29.7% 24.4% answered question skipped question Response Count 211 129 106 435 3
191
2. How important do you think it is to personalize instruction for all students?

Response Percent Very Important Important Not Important Not Important At All 72.9% 24.9% 1.2% 1.0% Comments: Response Count 298 102 5 4
75
answered question skipped question
409 29
192
3. How important do you think it is to increase technology use in the classroom?

109
411 27
193
4. Which of the following activities would you like the HCPSS to implement to support Goal #1?
Response Percent Family Technology Nights - Events where family members can see demonstrations of the classroom technology and how to use technology to support student learning at home Technology Access Events Opportunities to hear from low-cost vendors who provide technology and internet access for HCPSS families Loaner Technology Opportunities for families to check out technology (e.g., iPads, netbooks) to support student learning at home Online Learning Communities Web-based communities where teachers, family members, and students can exchange ideas to support student learning Other (please specify) 43.6% 175 62.3% 250 48.6% 195 62.1% 249 Response Count
53
401 37
194
5. How important do you think it is to provide professional development to teachers and staff on personalized instruction?
76
403 35
195
6. How important do you think it is to provide professional development to school leaders on how to support teachers and staff during times of change?
50
402 36
196
7. How important do you think it is to provide flexible professional development options for teachers and staff?
58
398 40
197
8. Which of the following activities would you like the HCPSS to implement to support Goal #2?`
Response Percent Online Learning Communities Web-based social networking sites for school leaders, teachers, and other staff to brainstorm solutions and share best practices Web-Based Professional Development Courses - Online professional learning experiences that allow staff to learn anytime, anywhere and at their own pace. Web-based courses confirm mastery of the content through online assessments Webinars - Brief, interactive online trainings for school leaders, teachers, and other staff on a variety of topics Other (please specify) 61.5% 241 74.2% 291 50.5% 198 Response Count
38
392 46
198
9. How important do you think it is to provide students with relevant, hands-on "real life" learning experiences?
57
399 39
199
10. How important do you think it is to provide students with increasing access to career opportunities as they move from elementary to middle to high school?
45
399 39
200
11. How important do you think it is to provide students with flexible opportunities to take college credit bearing classes while they are enrolled in HCPSS schools?
44
398 40
201
12. How important do you think it is to assist students in setting goals and developing plans to college and careers?
48
399 39
202
Response Percent Virtual Internships - Opportunities for students to gain work experience at a partner business which would involve mostly online tasks Web-based/Blended College Courses for Credit - Courses offered mostly or entirely online that would provide students with transferable college credits Credit Recovery - Computerbased, flexible courses to help students receive credits for HCPSS courses which they were previously unable to complete successfully Career-Specific Learning Communities - Web-based social networking sites where students, families, and teachers could interact with representatives from specific career fields Problem-Solving Learning Communities - Web-based social networking sites where students, families, teachers, and community members can work together to brainstorm and implement solutions 43.3% 166 59.3% 227 50.4% 193 50.9% 195 48.6% 186 Response Count
203
for problems facing the Howard County community Other (please specify)
29
383 55
14. Is there anything else you would like us to know to improve upon any of our three goals for the grant proposal?
Response Count 63 answered question skipped question 63 375
204
15. OPTIONAL: If the HCPSS proposal is approved and you would like to be part of future stakeholder steering groups for any of the three goals of the proposal, please indicate on which goals you would like to provide feedback:
Response Percent Goal #1: Personalize instruction through a blended learning model. Goal #2: Increase professional learning for teachers and school leaders on student-centered learning models. Goal #3: Connect student learning to college and career readiness by making instruction relevant to higher education and workforce development. Your Name and Contact Information (phone or email): 38.6% 51 47.0% 62 49.2% 65 Response Count
73
132 306
205
Appendix 4: Personalized Learning Survey - Parents & Families
Personalized Learning Survey: Parents and Families
1. What grade level does your child/do your children attend?

Response Percent Elementary School Middle School High School 74.9% 37.6% 21.8% answered question skipped question Response Count 570 286 166 761 7
206
2. How important do you think it is to personalize instruction for all students?

128
706 62
207
3. How important do you think it is to increase technology use in the classroom?

145
707 61
208
4. Which of the following activities would you like the HCPSS to implement to support Goal #1?
Response Percent Family Technology Nights - Events where family members can see demonstrations of the classroom technology and how to use technology to support student learning at home Technology Access Events Opportunities to hear from low-cost vendors who provide technology and internet access for HCPSS families Loaner Technology - Opportunities for families to check out technology (e.g., iPads, netbooks) to support student learning at home Online Learning Communities Web-based communities where teachers, family members, and students can exchange ideas to support student learning Other (please specify) 59.0% 402 48.3% 329 30.7% 209 57.1% 389 Response Count
65
681 87
209
5. How important do you think it is to train teachers and staff on personalized instruction?
102
701 67
210
6. How important do you think it is to train school leaders on how to support teachers and staff during times of change?
71
700 68
211
7. How important do you think it is to provide students with relevant, hands-on "real life" learning experiences?
119
684 84
212
8. How important do you think it is to provide students with increasing access to career opportunities as they move from elementary to middle to high school?
91
681 87
213
9. How important do you think it is to provide students with flexible opportunities to take college credit classes while they are enrolled in HCPSS schools?
94
678 90
214
10. How important do you think it is to assist students in setting goals and developing plans to college and careers?
86
679 89
215
Response Percent Virtual Internships - Opportunities for students to gain work experience at a partner business which would involve mostly online tasks Web-based/Blended College Courses for Credit - Courses offered mostly or entirely online that would provide students with transferable college credits Credit Recovery - Computerbased, flexible courses to help students receive credits for HCPSS courses which they were previously unable to complete successfully Career-Specific Learning Communities - Web-based social networking sites where students, families, and teachers could interact with representatives from specific career fields Problem-Solving Learning Communities - Web-based social networking sites where students, families, teachers, and community members can work together to brainstorm and implement solutions 46.4% 306 50.4% 332 44.6% 294 64.8% 427 54.9% 362 Response Count
216
for problems facing the Howard County community Other (please specify)
52
659 109
12. Is there anything else you would like us to know to improve upon any of our three goals for the grant proposal?
Response Count 88 answered question skipped question 88 680
217
13. OPTIONAL: If the HCPSS proposal is approved and you would like to be part of future stakeholder steering groups for any of the three goals of the proposal, please indicate on which goals you would like to provide feedback:
Response Percent Goal #1: Personalize instruction through a blended learning model. Goal #2: Increase professional learning for teachers and school leaders on student-centered learning models. Goal #3: Connect student learning to college and career readiness by making instruction relevant to higher education and workforce development. Your Name and Contact Information (phone or email): 58.0% 134 27.3% 63 Response Count
57.6%
133
149
231 537
218
Appendix 5: Partners & Letters of Support
219
220
221
222
223
224
225
226
227
228
229
230
231
232
233
234
235
236
237
238
239
240
241
242
243
244
245
246
247
248
249
250
251
252
253
254
255
256
257
258
259
260
261
262
263
264
265
266
267
268
269
270
271
272
273
274
275
276
277
278
279
280
281
282
283
284
285
286
Appendix 6: Project Plans, Goals, Activities, Timelines and Deliverables Learning for the Future: A Personalized Competency-based Approach Project Goals: Pilot personalized and blended learning models that support anytime and anywhere learning. Implement learning analytics to enable teachers to provide immediate feedback to students and personalize instruction. Create and facilitate learning communities for students, teachers, and parents that provide just in time support, flexible options, and opportunities for collaboration and reflection.
Goal: Pilot personalized and blended learning models that support anytime and anywhere learning. Activities Timeline Deliverable Responsible Party Evaluate structural and logistical Y1 Questionnaire and focus group Principals and School barriers to providing anytime, Improvement Teams; Bob Cole, anywhere personalized learning in Coordinator of Digital Education; elementary and middle school External Evaluation Team settings. Provide support to teaching staff Y 2-4 Selection and training of on-site instructional Principals and School through blended learning support staff and virtual mentors Improvement Teams; Juliann opportunities. Dibble, Director of Professional and Organizational Development Provide cloud-based, multiY 2-4 Implementation of a virtual desktop/multiMichael Borkoski, Technology layered visual dashboards and layered visual dashboards for students, teachers Officer content applications for all and parents to access content and applications, participating students and staff. and collaborate across classrooms, schools and communities Move toward a ubiquitous Y 3-4 Phase out computer labs Michael Borkoski, Technology computing environment, allowing Officer students to learn anywhere. Research alternative models of Y 1-2: Redesigned school structure/guidelines for Principals and School blended class structures, schools Improvement Teams; Julie Wray, instructional supports, and teacher Coordinator of Instructional schedules in elementary and HCPSS will reevaluate the traditional model of Technology; Bob Cole, middle school settings. the school day (class structure, teacher Coordinator of Digital Education; schedules and instructional time). Examples external design team 287
Appendix 6: Project Plans, Goals, Activities, Timelines and Deliverables include: staggered start and end times, opening buildings to the community after hours, and staff augmentation during the work day Report of findings
Design and pilot various blended learning models (e.g. stationrotation, self-blend, flipped). Implement a variety of assessments for students to promote choice and represent each learners unique potential to the world.
Y 2-4
External evaluation team; external design team Principals and School Improvement Teams; Kay Sammons, Coordinator of Elementary Mathematics; Karen Learmouth, Coordinator of Elementary Science; Bill Barnes, Coordinator of Secondary Mathematics; Mary Weller, Coordinator of Secondary Science Kay Sammons, Coordinator of Elementary Mathematics; Karen Learmouth, Coordinator of Elementary Science; Bill Barnes, Coordinator of Secondary Mathematics; Mary Weller, Coordinator of Secondary Science Principals and School Improvement Teams; External evaluation team
Y 2-4
Demonstrate mastery of core knowledge and essential skills through performance-based assessments and digital portfolios
Implement a wide variety of learning tools, resources, and learning formats to acquire and apply core knowledge and essential skills such as collaboration, initiative, global awareness, creativity, critical thinking, and perseverance Evaluate the effectiveness of the pilot/s and make recommendations for implementation at other schools.
Y 1-4
Development and implementation of the resources; sharing on public open source site
Y4
Report of findings
288
Appendix 6: Project Plans, Goals, Activities, Timelines and Deliverables Goal: Implement learning analytics to enable teachers to provide immediate feedback to students and personalize instruction. Activities Research and identify digital adaptive learning programs that align with Common Core and provide analytics on student progress and growth. Timeline Deliverable Y1 Implementation of learning analytics software to track student progress and growth Responsible Party Principals and School Improvement Teams; Bob Cole, Coordinator of Digital Education; Kay Sammons, Coordinator of Elementary Mathematics; Karen Learmouth, Coordinator of Elementary Science; Bill Barnes, Coordinator of Secondary Mathematics; Mary Weller, Coordinator of Secondary Science Principals and School Improvement Teams; Bill Barnes, Coordinator of Secondary Mathematics; Mary Weller, Coordinator of Secondary Science; Julie Wray, Coordinator of Instructional Technology; Kay Sammons, Coordinator of Elementary Mathematics; Karen Learmouth, Coordinator of Elementary Science; External Evaluation team Bill Barnes, Coordinator of Secondary Mathematics; Mary Weller, Coordinator of Secondary Science; Kay Sammons, Coordinator of Elementary Mathematics; Karen Learmouth, Coordinator of Elementary Science External evaluation team
Implement flexible, collaborative learning environments aimed at real world application, connections to college and careers, and rigorous application of the Common Core State Standards in mathematics and science. Revise existing curriculum documents to support a competency based instructional model.
Y 2-4
Gathering and evaluation of formative feedback on implementation
Y1-3
List of competencies for specified courses
Use multi-layered visual dashboards to discern meaning from learning analytics that guide instruction and communicate progress Monitor personal performance feedback from multiple digital data streams and dashboards to inform students learning and development
Y 2-4
Focus Groups and evaluation of the dashboard to support instructional practice Feedback on performance via learning analytics and other digital data
Y 2-4
Juliann Dibble, Director of Professional and Organizational Development; Bill Barnes, Coordinator of Secondary Mathematics; Mary Weller, Coordinator of Secondary Science; Kay Sammons, Coordinator of Elementary Mathematics; Karen Learmouth, Coordinator
289
Appendix 6: Project Plans, Goals, Activities, Timelines and Deliverables of Elementary Science Principals and School Improvement Teams; Juliann Dibble, Director of Professional and Organizational Development; external digital learning partner; External evaluation team Principals and School Improvement Teams; Bob Cole, Coordinator of Digital Education; Juliann Dibble, Director of Professional and Organizational Development
Develop professional learning Y 1-3 modules to support teachers as they use identified digital learning programs. Implement the digital adaptive Y 2-4 programs and provide flexible professional learning to support implementation.
Evaluate the impact on instruction and make adjustments based on the feedback Student-driven, personalized learning paths; authentic projectbased learning opportunities
Online learning communities and resources will be integrated as part of our RttT-D reform vision that supports individual district goals across all areas including those relating to teacher capacity and performance, student achievement and success, parent and community engagement and system efficiency and accountability. Goal: Create and facilitate learning communities for students, teachers, and parents that provide just in time support, flexible options, and opportunities for collaboration and reflection. Activities Timeline Deliverable Responsible Party Research and implement a social Y 2-4 Online site where students, teachers, Principals and School learning community for students and principals, district administratorsas Improvement Teams; teachers. well as parents, caregivers, support Rebecca Amani-Dove, providers and community members Director of can connect and work together to Communications; Michael promote and enhance learning Borkoski, Technology experiences from content and Officer curriculum selection to feedback, assessment, and managing iterative progress against learning objectives. Research and implement a social Y 3-4 Online site where teachers, principals, Principals and School learning community/online resource district administrators and parents, Improvement Teams; site for family members and the caregivers, support providers and Rebecca Amani-Dove, community. community memberscan connect and Director of work together to promote and enhance Communications; Michael learning experiences. Borkoski, Technology 290
Appendix 6: Project Plans, Goals, Activities, Timelines and Deliverables Officer Principals and School Improvement Teams; Julie Wray, Coordinator of Instructional Technology
Plan and implement opportunities for students to seek out and work with mentors, peer learning groups, and digital and human learning specialists to support and further their learning experiences Plan and facilitate collaboration, information sharing, and resource development while collecting ongoing feedback on the project. Create and facilitate learning opportunities for family and community members.
Y 1-4
Evaluation of student work, experiences and collaboration
Y 2-4
Report on project processes and outcomes to inform changes/improvement
External evaluation team
Y 2-4
Family Technology Nights - Events where family members can see demonstrations of the classroom technology and how to use technology to support student learning at home; Technology Access Events Opportunities to hear from low-cost vendors who provide technology and internet access for HCPSS families;
Provide opportunities for families to check out technology (e.g., iPads, netbooks) to support student learning.
Y 2-4
Implement loaner technology program for families participating in the project; establishment of Web-based communities where teachers, family members, and students can exchange ideas to support student learning
Principals and School Improvement Teams; Diane Martin, Director of Student, Family and Community Services; Bill Barnes, Coordinator of Secondary Mathematics; Mary Weller, Coordinator of Secondary Science; Kay Sammons, Coordinator of Elementary Mathematics; Karen Learmouth, Coordinator of Elementary Science Diane Martin, Director of Student, Family and Community Services; Michael Borkoski, Technology Officer
291
Appendix 6: Project Plans, Goals, Activities, Timelines and Deliverables Provide connections with businesses, higher education and the community to encourage and implement real world application and problem solving. Y 2-4 Opportunities to compete in cybersecurity, web design, rapid prototyping, and mobile development challenges Staff fellowship opportunities where fellows learn everything from how to integrate technology into their teaching of the Common Core to how to code, develop, and pitch new iOS edtech apps. Natalie Belcher, Instructional Facilitator for Centralized Career Academies; Robert Cole, Coordinator of Digital Education; external business partners
Making Learning Relevant: Connecting Learners to College and Careers by Engaging the Community. In 21st Century workplaces, collaboration, problem solving, risk taking, creative thinking, and flexibility are highly valued. As we prepare students for the world after graduation, learning should center on these principles to offer students a greater ability to navigate and participate as digital citizens no matter their path in life. Engaging families in this process will be essential. The HCPSS will undertake several projects in order to accomplish these objectives: re-development of alternative services provided through Homewood Center, development of a virtual early college model for students accelerating dual enrollment credit, and the expansion of workforce development opportunities. Project Goals: Create and model innovative approaches to teaching and learning so that students learn anywhere, anytime through flexible scheduling, interactive and adaptive tools, and content. Pilot blended and online options for high school students to earn college credit prior to graduation, earn high school credits online, and/or participate in workforce development opportunities. Create and facilitate learning communities for students, teachers, family members and the community that provide just in time support, flexible options, and opportunities for collaboration and reflection. Goal: Create and model innovative approaches to teaching and learning so that students learn anywhere, anytime through flexible scheduling, interactive and adaptive tools, and content. Activities Evaluate structural and logistical barriers to providing anytime, anywhere personalized learning in a high school Timeline Y1 Deliverables Questionnaire and focus group Responsible Party Principals and School Improvement Teams; External Evaluation Team and Digital
292
Appendix 6: Project Plans, Goals, Activities, Timelines and Deliverables setting. Provide support to teaching staff through blended learning opportunities. Education Coordinator Principals and School Improvement Teams; Juliann Dibble, Director of Professional and Organizational Development Michael Borkoski, Technology Officer; external data consultants
Y 2-4
Selection and training of on-site instructional support staff and virtual mentors Implementation of a virtual desktop/ multi-layered visual dashboards for students, teachers and parents to access content and applications, and collaborate across classrooms, schools and communities Phase out computer labs
Provide cloud-based, multi-layered visual Y 2-4 dashboards and content applications for all participating students and staff.
Move toward a ubiquitous computing environment, allowing students to learn anywhere. Research alternative models of blended class structures, instructional supports, and teacher schedules in high schools.
Y 3-4
Michael Borkoski, Technology Officer Principals and School Improvement Teams; Julie Wray, Coordinator of Instructional Technology; Bob Cole, Coordinator of Digital Education; external design team
Y 1-2:
Redesigned school structure/guidelines for schools HCPSS will reevaluate the traditional model of the school day (class structure, teacher schedules and instructional time). Examples include: staggered start and end times, opening buildings to the community after hours, and staff augmentation during the work day Design documentation
Design and pilot various blended learning Y 2-4 models (e.g. station-rotation, self-blend, flipped). Evaluate the effectiveness of the pilot/s Y4 and make recommendations for implementation at other schools. Redesign curriculum materials and Y 2-4 resources in collaboration with students, business, and community members in
External design team; Principals and School Improvement Teams Principals and School Improvement Teams; External evaluation team Bill Barnes, Coordinator of Secondary Mathematics; Mary Weller, Coordinator of Secondary
Report of findings
Secondary mathematics and science and career technology education resources aligned with the Common 293
Appendix 6: Project Plans, Goals, Activities, Timelines and Deliverables mathematics and science. Provide students and teachers with opportunities to interact with and grapple with dynamic, real-world problems that companies face while making explicit connections to classroom teaching and learning. Y 2-4 Core and to future careers and their related education pathways Integration of math and science challenges and problem solving using gamification, augmented reality and other tools to supplement traditional content acquisition. Science Principals and School Improvement Teams; Bill Barnes, Coordinator of Secondary Mathematics; Mary Weller, Coordinator of Secondary Science; Julie Wray, Coordinator of Instructional Technology
Goal: Pilot blended and online options for high school students to earn college credit prior to graduation, earn high school credits online, and/or participate in workforce development opportunities. Activities Timeline Deliverables Responsible Party Provide support to teaching staff through Y 2-4 Selection and training of on-site Principals and School blended learning opportunities. instructional support staff and virtual Improvement Teams; Juliann mentors Dibble, Director of Professional and Organizational Development Redesign mathematics and science Y 2-4 Secondary mathematics, science, and Bill Barnes, Coordinator of curriculum materials and resources in career technology education resources Secondary Mathematics; Mary aligned with the Common Core and to Weller, Coordinator of Secondary collaboration with students, business, and community members. future careers and their related Science; Natalie Belcher, education pathways Instructional Facilitator for Centralized Career Academies Provide online and blended college Y 2-4 Courses offered mostly or entirely Principals and School courses for credit via virtual pathways. online that would provide students Improvement Teams; Bob Cole, with transferable college credits Coordinator of Digital Education Expand the use of online and blended Y 2-4 Computer-based, flexible courses to Principals and School courses for high school credit. help students receive credits for Improvement Teams; Bob Cole, HCPSS courses which they were Coordinator of Digital Education previously unable to complete successfully 294
Appendix 6: Project Plans, Goals, Activities, Timelines and Deliverables
Evaluate the effectiveness of the pilot/s and make recommendations for implementation at other schools.
Y4
Report on project process and outcomes to inform changes/improvement
Principals and School Improvement Teams; External evaluation team
Goal: Create and facilitate learning communities for students, teachers, family members and the community that provide just in time support, flexible options, and opportunities for collaboration and reflection. Activities Timeline Deliverables Responsible Party Create opportunities for students to work Y 2-4 Development and documentation of Principals and School with business start-ups, existing students case studies Improvement Teams; Natalie companies and nonprofits, take on Belcher, Instructional Facilitator internships, and participate in reverse for Centralized Career mentoring. Academies; Bob Cole, Coordinator of Digital Education; Penny Zimring, Instructional Facilitator, Gifted and Talented Programs Develop professional learning for Y 1-4 Evaluate the impact on instruction and Principals and School teachers and staff involving students in a make adjustments based on the Improvement Teams; Juliann feedback Dibble, Director of Professional reverse technology integration mentor program. and Organizational Development Provide online site where teachers, Y 2-4 Development of a collaborative social Principals and School principals, district administrators and and peer collaborative sites where Improvement Teams; Rebecca Amani-Dove, Director of parents, caregivers, support providers and students, families, and teachers community memberscan connect and interact with representatives from Communications; Michael Borkoski, Technology Officer; work together to promote and enhance specific career fields. learning experiences. external learning consultants Plan and implement staff with digital opportunities for intern and externships with businesses. Y 2-4 Summer Professional Learning program in year 2-4 for teachers in partnership with business partners where they learn everything from how to integrate technology into their 295 Principals and School Improvement Teams; Juliann Dibble, Director of Professional and Organizational Development; Natalie Belcher, Instructional
Appendix 6: Project Plans, Goals, Activities, Timelines and Deliverables teaching of the Common Core to how to code, develop, and pitch new iOS edtech apps Evaluation of students connected with proven entrepreneurs interested in developing and testing new concepts Provide staff with fellowship opportunities where they learn everything from how to integrate technology into their teaching of the Common Core to how to code, develop, and pitch new iOS edtech apps. At the core of the summer program opportunities is the desire to break through the digital divide that exists in our schools; students with opportunities to compete in cybersecurity, web design, rapid prototyping, and mobile development challenges. students with teaching opportunities in a reverse mentoring program with teachers. Facilitator for Centralized Career Academies; external business partners Principals and School Improvement Teams; Natalie Belcher, Instructional Facilitator for Centralized Career Academies; Bob Cole, Coordinator of Digital Education; Penny Zimring, Instructional Facilitator, Gifted and Talented Programs; external business partners
Provide students with the opportunity to experience work in a variety of careers via traditional and virtual internships.
Y 2-4
296
Appendix 7: Professional Learning Plans, Goals, Activities, Timelines and Deliverables Professional Learning for Teachers and Leaders Project Goal: Transform professional learning for teachers and school leaders through online and blended instruction focused on supporting student-centered learning models. Activities Create and facilitate on-demand professional learning opportunities that provide just in time support, flexible options for learning, and opportunity for professional collaboration, reflection, and monitoring of progress. Identify and support learning agents to support teacher and staff learning. Timeline Deliverable Y1-4 A multi-faceted, collaborative network will provide online and face-to-face consulting, coaching, and facilitation to support all aspects of the professional learning plan: the Professional Learning Bundles, Eportfolios, Personal Learning Network, and Open Space Technology meetings. Y 2-4 Selection and training of on-site instructional support staff and virtual mentors Responsible Party External social learning partner; Juliann Dibble, Director of Professional and Organizational Development; Principals and School Improvement Teams Principals and School Improvement Teams; Juliann Dibble, Director of Professional and Organizational Development Principals and School Improvement Teams; Juliann Dibble, Director of Professional and Organizational Development; external learning consultants Principals and School Improvement Teams; Juliann Dibble, Director of Professional and Organizational Development
Develop professional learning for Y 1-4 teachers and staff involving students in a reverse technology integration mentor program.
Feedback on professional learning (blended modules, virtual mentoring)
Support staff as they re-envision their own roles by exploring new ways of blending digital learning tools with other services and resources to leverage their professional strengths and passions in working directly or indirectly with learners.
Y 1-4
Feedback on professional learning and the practice of blending digital learning tools with other resources
297
Appendix 7: Professional Learning Plans, Goals, Activities, Timelines and Deliverables
Establish professional peer communities to develop staff knowledge about deepening and accelerating student learning and closing achievement gaps.
Y 1-4
Provide opportunities for teachers to self-assess their dispositions toward teaching and learning and shift their thinking to meet the needs of 21st century learners.
Y 1-4
Virtual learning agents will hold flexible office hours which will provide various time and frequency during which teachers may seek feedback, direction, coaching, mentoring, and/or resources to support them in the professional learning cycle. Evaluation of the instructional modules will serve as the deliverable. Research study and report on teacher dispositions and technology. The findings of this report will inform professional learning modules
Principals and School Improvement Teams; Juliann Dibble, Director of Professional and Organizational Development; External evaluation team
Create technology infused professional Y 1-4 development opportunities for educators to increase digital literacy as well as the ability to employ technology in relevant, real-world ways in the classroom.
Self-paced, self-selected professional learning modules consisting of three components: Activate Your Thinking, Deepen Your Knowledge, and Apply it to Your Practice.
Principals and School Improvement Teams; Juliann Dibble, Director of Professional and Organizational Development; External design team Principals and School Improvement Teams; External learning consultant; Juliann Dibble, Director of Professional and Organizational Development; Julie Wray, Coordinator of Instructional Technology
298
Appendix 8: Policy 8080-PR
I.
Dissemination of Information A. Notification of the provisions of this policy and these implementation procedures will be given annually to all students, families, employees, and service providers. Methods may include: 1. Announcements in schools over the public address system at the beginning of the school year and at other times as appropriate Publications in school and system newsletters, handbooks, and other documents Notification posted in areas that provide access to technology (e.g., media center, computer lab) Notification posted on school and system websites Reviews for students by classroom teachers, media specialists, or other appropriate employees Incorporation, whenever possible and appropriate, into the process of accessing software and/or files.
2.
3.
4. 5.
6.
B.
Principals are responsible for notifying all students, families, employees, volunteers, interns, and contractors in their schools of the responsibilities of users of Howard County Public School System (HCPSS) technology and of guidelines for network activities at the beginning of the school year, with reminders throughout the year. The Use of School Facilities Office is responsible for notifying individuals or organizations seeking to use HCPSS technology as part of an agreement to use HCPSS facilities under Policy 10020 Use of School Facilities by Non-School Groups of the provisions of this policy and these implementation procedures. Department supervisors are responsible for notifying those under their supervision of the provisions of this policy and these implementation procedures annually.
C.
D.
299
II.
Responsibilities of Use A. All users of HCPSS technology must comply with the following: 1. Users are responsible for taking reasonable precautions to protect HCPSSowned technology equipment against damage and/or theft. Users are responsible for using HCPSS technology, whether onsite or remotely, in an ethical, responsible, and legal manner. Users will not reveal personally identifiable information about others to any third party unless required to do so by their professional responsibilities. Disclosure of student information is addressed in Policy 9050 Student Records and Confidentiality. Users will not engage in unauthorized activities. These include, but are not limited to: a. b. c. d. e. f. g. h. i. Accessing data for which users do not have privilege Accessing information prohibited by the provisions of this policy and these implementation procedures Knowingly deploying computer viruses or software with malicious intent Violating copyright laws or the privacy rights of others Plagiarism Accessing technology via another users account credentials or facilitating unauthorized access The destruction of HCPSS technology or the unauthorized manipulation of data, or disrupting network activity Circumventing or disabling technology protection measures put in place by the Technology Security Analyst Using technology on the HCPSS network which is not in compliance with current HCPSS computer standards unless approved in writing by the Superintendent/Designee.
2.
3.
4.
5.
Users are responsible for securing and safeguarding data stored on HCPSS technology.
B.
All employees, volunteers, interns, and contractors using HCPSS technology must comply with the following: 1. Employees, volunteers, interns, and contractors are to use HCPSS technology in a responsible, ethical manner consistent with their professional responsibilities.
300
2.
Employees, volunteers, interns, and contractors will not create, access, download, store, or print content that is violent, defamatory, vulgar or sexually explicit, or that would otherwise cause a disruption to the school environment, unless required by their professional responsibilities. For the protection of all parties, when using e-mail to correspond with parents and students, employees must use the HCPSS e-mail system. Employees are responsible for all e-mail sent from their accounts. Employees, volunteers, interns, and contractors must ensure that they comply with the confidentiality requirements of Policy 9050 Student Records and Confidentiality when creating backup copies of student records or transmitting confidential student records electronically. Employees, volunteers, interns, and contractors responsible for central office, departmental, or school electronic publications such as websites and newsletters will ensure that: a. b. c. d. e. f. Principals or department supervisors approve the content of all publications Only approved users post content to HCPSS online resources Written permission is obtained and kept on file for all copyrighted material or student work used in publications Students are not identified by name in photographs used in publications unless written permission from their parents is obtained and kept on file Commercial links and/or advertising are monitored for appropriateness and, where applicable, comply with Policy 4010 Donations Student publications are subject to Policy 9030 Student Publications and Productions.
3.
4.
5.
6.
Employees, volunteers, interns, and contractors assigning directed Internet use for students will prescreen online resources in order to specify those which are applicable to the curricular needs of the assignment and the developmental level of the student(s). Employees are responsible for providing appropriate adult supervision and monitoring of learning activities. Independent Internet activities are permitted at the high school level only. Employees assigning independent Internet activities will ensure that such activities are applicable to the curricular needs of the assignments and the developmental levels of the students and that signed HCPSS parent permission forms for independent student access are on file for all students participating in the activities. Each high school must provide for the distribution, collection, and maintenance of the permission forms (see section II.C.6).
7.
301
8.
To ensure student safety and acceptable standards of computer use, it is important that all students be given instruction on the acceptable use of technology. Principals are responsible for designating the persons who will instruct the students in the following topics: a. b. c. d. e. f. g. The contents of this policy and these implementation procedures Procedures for accessing appropriate online resources Provisions contained in the HCPSS Internet Use permission forms (high school students only) Copyright issues Privacy issues Safety and security guidelines, including the use of the Internet Making appropriate judgments about locating and using information that matches the learner's instructional level and the learning objectives of the assignment Discriminating among types of information sources and assessing the appropriateness of using the Internet as a resource for a specific learning activity Rigorous appraisal of the source.
h.
i. 9.
When sending confidential material electronically, the sender must alert the recipient that the message contains confidential student information in accordance with FERPA (Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act). The use of student identifiers must be avoided in e-mail.
10. Online resources which support collaborative discussions (i.e., Wikis, blogs, instant messaging, threaded discussions, social networking sites) must be approved through the software approval process (Policy 8040 Selection of Instructional Materials) prior to use. 11. Online resources used for instruction and associated student-generated work must have the ability to monitor for appropriateness. Students must adhere to Policy 1000 Civility, the Student Code of Conduct, and Policy 1040 Safe School Environments when accessing and posting to these online resources. 12. All employees, volunteers, interns, and contractors will be required to authenticate to HCPSS computers using individual account credentials. Access privileges for employees to HCPSS technology will be granted on an as-needed basis and subject to established guidelines. When employees are transferred and/or professional responsibilities change, appropriate supervisors are responsible for reviewing access privileges and ensuring that access is terminated or modified as appropriate. The Office of Human Resources is responsible for notifying the Technology Security Analyst of
302
change of employment status for any employee so that individual accounts and access privileges can be cancelled. 13. Periodically, HCPSS approves pilots to explore out new learning materials, approaches and innovations. In the case of pilots, where new ideas, devices and methods are being tested, exceptions to policy may be made. For example, in pilot schools where HCPSS technology is provided for student use inside or outside of school, guided and independent Internet activities may be permitted. a. Employees assigning independent Internet activities will ensure that such activities are applicable to the curricular needs of the assignments and the developmental levels of the students b. Employees assigning independent Internet activities will ensure that signed HCPSS parent permission forms are collected and are on file for each student participating in the activities. c. Each school must provide for the distribution, collection, and maintenance of the permission forms (see section II.C.6). d. Parents and students must comply with all requirements outlined in the parent agreement. C. All students using HCPSS technology must comply with the following: 1. Students are responsible for their behavior while utilizing school system technology. Students may not reveal personally identifiable information (e.g., home phone numbers, addresses, or social security numbers) except in specific circumstances where such information is required to complete academic assignments. In such circumstances, prior written consent from the parent or legal guardian of the student whose information is being posted or transmitted is required. Students may not use HCPSS technology unless directed to do so by an instructor or administrator or unless the technology has been previously approved for student use. Students will not create, access, download, store, or print content that: a. b. c. d. e. Depicts profanity, obscenity, the use of weapons, or violence Promotes use of tobacco, drugs, alcohol, or other illegal or harmful products Contains sexually suggestive messages Is sexually explicit or obscene Depicts gang affiliation
2.
3.
4.
303
f. g. h. i.
Contains language or symbols that demean an identifiable person or group or otherwise infringe on the rights of others Causes or is likely to cause a disruption to school activities or the orderly operation of the school Contains rude, disrespectful, or discourteous expressions inconsistent with civil discourse or behavior Constitutes bullying, cyberbullying, harassment, or intimidation in violation of Policy 1040 Safe School Environments, or Policy 1060 Bullying, Cyberbullying, Harassment, or Intimidation.
Reasonable exceptions to this provision may be made for students conducting educational research under the direction of a teacher. Specific permission must be granted regarding the nature of the research to be conducted and the type of files related to that research which might be accessed/created. 5. Students in grades pre-K through 8 may not search the Internet independently. Searches conducted by students in grades pre-K through 8 must be confined to approved online databases. Where independent access to the Internet is assigned (see section II.B.7), parent permission is required, and both the student and the parent or legal guardian must sign the HCPSS Internet Use permission form. By signing this form, the student agrees to the provisions of this policy.
6.
III.
Violation of Policy A. Any employee who suspects a violation of this policy or these implementation procedures must report the alleged violation to the appropriate administrator or supervisor for investigation. The administrator or supervisor must report the suspected violation to the Security Coordinator, who is the staff member responsible for the security services within HCPSS. In cases that may be criminal in nature (threats, stalking, harassment, etc.) or that may pose a safety threat, an investigation should be conducted in consultation and cooperation with the Security Coordinator, Technology Security Analyst, and the Systems Administrator. In cases of potential harm to an individual, there is a duty to warn obligation which requires immediate follow-through and communication with the individual in danger and others who are in a position to protect that individual from harm. November 26, 2002
B.
C.
D.
ADOPTED:
304
AMENDED: January 21, 2003 May 10, 2007 March 11, 2010 EFFECTIVE: July 1, 2010
305
Appendix 9: Logic Model & Preliminary Research Plan
Logic Model
306
Research Questions:
Sufficiency of Resources: 1. Have necessary technology and infrastructure improvements been made? 2. Has professional development been improved through leveraging technology? 3. Have additional partnerships with families and community stakeholders been established?
Proposed Outcomes Research Question addressed 1,2 Data sources Data collection method (frequency) Reporting
More opportunities for educators to have access to technology- based content, resources, and instructional tools using online learning environments. (ST) Increased ability to use real-time data to make instructional adjustments based on student needs. (MT)
Teacher feedback Descriptions, documentation, logs of PD opportunities provided Teacher feedback
Surveys (after each PD activity) focus groups (after certain PD activities) Interviews (as follow-up to relevant PD) Focus groups (after relevant PD activity) Surveys (part of Safe and Nurturing Environment
Frequent reporting Annual report
Access to data on student progress and achievement for parents. (MT) 1, 3 Parent feedback Community members feedback
307
Survey) Interviews (as follow-up to relevant PD) Focus groups (after relevant PD activity) Surveys (after each PD activity) Interviews (as follow-up to relevant PD) Focus groups (after relevant PD activity) Frequent reporting Annual report
Professional Learning Communities that are responsive to educator variability, provide flexible supports and varied options for on-going learning (ST) 2 Teacher feedback Administrator feedback Feedback from partners that provide PD Descriptions, documentation, agendas of PD opportunities provided Professional Learning plans Sample teacher Eportfolios Teacher selfassessments Teacher feedback Administrator feedback Grant program staff feedback Teacher feedback Student assessment data
Greater capacity of educators to effectively use technology in an integrative way to drive effective instruction, engage students, increase achievement, and assess student learning in real time (MT)
1, 2
Classroom observations (based on planned teacher observations)
Annual report
System-wide processes and tools to maximize the opportunities for scalability and sustainability of the on-demand professional learning during and after the grant period (LT)
1, 2
Interviews (annually with project staff)
Interim report Annual report
Flexible, collaborative learning environments for teachers, students, families, and community partners aimed at supporting real world application, connections to college and careers, and rigorous application of the Common Core State Standards (LT)
2, 3
Surveys (part of Safe and Nurturing Environment Survey) Interviews (annually)
Annual report
308
Success of Activities: 1. To what extent have flexible anytime/anywhere learning opportunities been implemented? 2. To what extent has authentic, project-based learning been implemented? 3. To what extent have student-driven, personalized learning paths been created? 4. To what extent has mastery and competency based learning taken place?
Proposed Outcomes Research Question addressed 1, 2 Data sources Data collection method (frequency) Reporting
More opportunities for students to earn college credits in high school and participate in workforce development opportunities
Student data on participation in these programs Businesses Community organizations Student data on participation in these programs
Greater access to credit recovery programs for high needs credit deficient students to satisfy graduation requirements (MT) 1, 2
Surveys (part of Safe and Nurturing Environment Survey) Interviews (annually) Review of HCPSS records
Annual Report
Annual Report
309
Personalized online learning activities for students to build deeper understanding and fluency in math.
1,3,4
Teacher feedback Student assessment data
Surveys (part of Safe and Nurturing Environment Survey) Interviews (multiple points throughout the year) Classroom observations (based on planned teacher observations) Focus groups, interviews, surveys (annual) Quarterly/semester When data are released Focus groups, interviews, surveys (annual) Quarterly/semester When data are released Focus groups, interviews, surveys (annual) When data are released Classroom observations (based on planned teacher observations) Focus groups, interviews, surveys
Annual Report
Increased ability to use real-time data to make instructional adjustments based on student needs. Deeper student learning and increased equity through personalized support in building conceptual understanding and fluency in mathematics/science.
Teacher feedback
Frequent reporting Annual report Annual Report
Student benchmarks Student state assessment data Teacher feedback Student self-reports Student benchmarks Student state assessment data Teacher feedback Student self-reports Student assessment data Teacher feedback Student self-reports
Deeper student learning and increased equity through personalized support in building conceptual understanding and fluency in reading/disciplinary literacy.
Annual Report
Personalized learning environments for students that use collaborative, data-based strategies and 21st-century tools to deliver instruction and supports tailored to a diverse student body.
Annual Report
310
(annual)
Increased Outputs: 1. To what extent has intrinsic motivation, autonomy, mastery-goal pursuit, collaboration, and self-efficacy improved? 2. To what extent has students time on task increased? 3. To what extent has is instruction more data-driven, responsive, and aligned with assessment? 4. To what extent has family and community engagement and support increased?
Proposed Outcomes Research Question addressed 1 Data sources Data collection method (frequency) Reporting
Increased non-cognitive factors for student success: intrinsic motivation, autonomy, mastergoal pursuit, collaboration, and self-efficacy
Teacher feedback Parent feedback Student self-reports
Focus groups, interviews, and surveys (annual)
Annual report
Increased time on task
Educational software data logs Teacher feedback
Monthly data analysis Interviews/surveys
311
Instruction is personalized based on student data. 3 Flexible, collaborative learning environments for teachers, students, families, and community partners aimed at supporting real world application, connections to college and careers, and rigorous application of the Common Core State Standards 4
Student self-reports Administrator feedback Teacher feedback Teacher effectiveness rating Student self-reports Stakeholder feedback
(annual) Observations (at least twice a year) Interview/survey (annual) Annual Interview/Survey (Annual) Interviews (annual) Focus groups (annual) Surveys (annual) Annual report Frequent reporting Annual reports
Improved Outcomes: 1. To what extent has mathematics/STEM performance been improved, both in terms of accelerating student-level achievement and reducing achievement gaps between student groups? 2. To what extent has reading/disciplinary literacy performance been improved, both in terms of accelerating student-level achievement and reducing achievement gaps between student groups? 3. To what extent have disruptive behaviors, office referrals, suspensions, and absences been reduced and over-representation of certain student groups reduced? 4. To what extent have more students graduated from high school prepared for college and careers increased and graduation gaps been reduced?
Proposed Outcomes Research Data sources Data collection method Reporting
312
Question addressed Deeper student learning and increased equity through personalized support in building conceptual understanding and fluency in mathematics and science. Deeper student learning and increased equity through personalized support in building conceptual understanding and fluency in reading/disciplinary literacy. Reduction in disruptive behaviors and increase in student attendance. Reduction in overrepresentation of following students groups: African American/Black, FARMs, Special Education Students who are prepared to be successful in college and career opportunities after graduation. Reduction in college enrollment gaps between all students group and the following student groups: African American/Black, Hispanic of Any Race, FARMs, LEP, Special Education. 1 4 Student benchmarks Student state assessment data Student benchmarks Student state assessment data Office referral data Suspension data Student attendance data Student completion data Grade 12 documented decisions data
(frequency)
Quarterly/semester When data are released Quarterly/semester When data are released Quarterly/semester
Quarterly/semester updates Annual report Quarterly/semester updates Annual report Quarterly/semester
Annual
Annual report
Greater Impact: 1. To what extent have there been significant reductions in achievement gaps? 2. Do all students graduate college and career ready?
Proposed Outcomes Research Question addressed Data sources Data collection method (frequency) Reporting
313
Reduction in achievement gaps between all students group and the following student groups: African American/Black, Hispanic of Any Race, FARMs, LEP, Special Education. Students who are prepared to be successful in college and career opportunities after graduation.
Gap scores on School Progress Index based on student state assessment data Student completion data Grade 12 documented decisions data
Annual
Annual report
Annual
Annual report
314
Appendix 10: Evidence State Comment Period Was Met
315
Appendix 11: Evidence Local Government Comment Period Was Met
October 26, 2012 Dr. Renee A. Foose Superintendent Howard County Public School System 10910 Clarksville Pike Ellicott City, MD 21042 ATTN: Race to the Top-District Program Dear Dr. Foose: I have reviewed the Howard County Public School Systems Race to the Top-District application, and am fully supportive of the objectives it contains. I applaud your embrace of individualized instruction efforts and a greater use of technology to close the achievement gap that unfortunately persists in Howard County schools. Please know that I remain committed to cooperation and collaboration with HCPSS, and I as always extend an offer to work together to identify areas where savings and efficiencies can be achieved as this project moves forward, through areas such as joint purchasing and utilization of the Inter-County Broadband Network. I am interested in receiving regular updates on this exciting project as it moves forward. Additionally, I encourage HCPSS to work closely with educators and their representatives to address concerns about evaluation processes that are part of the Race to the Top initiative, and to include educators and their representatives in the planning process. Again, thank you for your embrace of this project. Sincerely, Tricia Murphy Grant Support Services Howard County Public School System Email: tricia_murphy@hcpss.org
Ken Ulman Howard County Executive
316
317
318
APPENDIX 12: BIBLIOGRAPHY
Biancarosa, C., & Snow, C. E. (2006). Reading NextA Vision for Action and Research in Middle and High School Literacy: A Report to Carnegie Corporation of New York (2nd ed.).Washington, DC: Alliance for Excellent Education.
Cambria, J., & Guthrie, J.T. (2010). Motivating and engaging students in reading. The New England Reading Association Journal, 46(1), 16-29.
Farrington, C.A., Roderick, M., Allensworth, E., Nagaoka, J., Keyes, T.S., Johnson, D.W., & Beechum, N.O. (2012). Teaching adolescents to become learners. The role of noncognitive factors in shaping school performance: A critical literature review. Chicago: University of Chicago Consortium on Chicago School Research.
Greenleaf, C., Litman, C., Rosen, R., Boscardin, C., Herman, J., & Schneider, S.A., et al. (2011). Integrating Literacy and Science in Biology: Teaching and Learning Impacts of Reading Apprenticeship Professional Development. American Educational Research Journal, 48(3), 647717.
Howard County Public School System (2003). Bridge to Excellence Comprehensive Master Plan. Ellicott City, MD: Howard County Public School System.
Howard County Public School System (2011). Bridge to Excellence Comprehensive Master Plan: 2011 Annual update. Ellicott City, MD: Howard County Public School System.
Johnson, L., Adams, S., and Cummins, M. (2012). NMC Horizon Report: 2012 K-12 Edition. Austin, Texas: The New Media Consortium.
Kamil, M. L., Borman, G. D., Dole, J., Kral, C. C., Salinger, T., and Torgesen, J. (2008). Improving Adolescent Literacy: Effective Classroom and Intervention Practices: A
319
Practice Guide. Washington, DC: National Center for Education Evaluation and Regional Assistance, Institute of Education Sciences, U.S. Department of Education.
National Academy of Sciences. (2012). A Framework for K-12 Science Education: Practices, Crosscutting Concepts, and Core Ideas. Committee on a Conceptual Framework for New K-12 Science Education Standards. Board on Science Education, Division of Behavioral and Social Sciences and Education. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.
Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. (2004). Learning for Tomorrows World: First Results from PISA 2003. Paris: OECD Publications.
Rose, D. H., & Gravel, J. W. (2010). Universal design for learning. In P. Peterson, E. Baker & B. McGraw (Eds.), International Encyclopedia of Education (pp. 119-124). Oxford: Elsevier.
U.S. Department of Education, Office of Educational Technology. (2012). Enhancing Teaching and Learning Through Educational Data Mining and Learning Analytics: An Issue Brief, Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Education.
Wagner, Tony. (2008). The Global Achievement Gap: Why Even Our Best Schools Dont Teach the New Survival Skills Our Children Need and What We Can Do About It. New York: Basic Books.
Wolf, M.A. (2010). Innovate to Educate: System [Re]Design for Personalized Learning; A Report from the 2010 Symposium. Washington, D.C.: Software & Information Industry Association in collaboration with ASCD and the Council of Chief State School Officers.
320

RTT-D Application Howard County MD FINAL

Загружено:

Сведения о документе

Исходное описание:

Оригинальное название

Авторское право

Доступные форматы

Поделиться этим документом

Поделиться или встроить документ

Параметры публикации

Этот документ был вам полезен?

Это неприемлемый материал?

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

RTT-D Application Howard County MD FINAL

Загружено:

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

10910 Clarksville Pike Ellicott City, MD 21042

(CFDA No. 84.416)

PROGRAM-SPECIFIC ASSURANCES FOR INDIVIDUAL LEA APPLICANTS

ELIGIBILITY REQUIREMENTS INDIVIDUAL LEA APPLICANT

SIGNATURE BLOCK FOR CERTIFYING OFFICIAL FOR ALL RESPONSES TO SECTIONV

Signature of Superintendent or CEO of the LEA:

OTHER ASSURANCES AND CERTIFICATIONS

(a) (b) (c) (d)

Bollman Bridge ES Bryant Woods ES Cradlerock ES Deep Run ES Guilford ES

PK-5 PK-5 PK-5 PK-5 PK-5

622 360 497 706 523 367 609 446

176 82 128 161 122 72 152 101

206 192 202 259 172 109 303 166

9081 9081 9081 9081 9081 9081 9081 9081

622 360 497 706 523 367 609 446

100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100%

33.12% 53.33% 40.64% 36.69% 32.89% 29.70% 49.75% 37.22%

2.27% 2.11% 2.22% 2.85% 1.89% 1.20% 3.34% 1.83%

Jeffers Hill ES PK-5 Laurel Woods ES PK-5 Longfellow ES PK-5

PK-5 PK-5 K-5 PK-5 PK-5 6-8 6-8 6-8 6-8

722 435 283 562 588 510 465 400 660

185 117 108 128 152 99 119 62 122

352 185 149 226 299 171 213 157 203

9081 9081 9081 9081 9081 9081 9081 9081 9081

722 435 283 562 588 510 465 400 660

100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100%

48.75% 42.53% 52.65% 40.21% 50.85% 33.53% 45.81% 39.25% 30.76%

3.88% 2.04% 1.64% 2.49% 3.29% 1.88% 2.35% 1.73% 2.24%

Wilde Lake MS 6-8 Oakland Mills HS 9-12

LEA (Column relevant for consortium applicants)

Howard County Howard County Howard County TOTALS

Baseline(s) SY 2010-11 (optional) SY 2011-12

Goals SY 2012-13 SY 2013-14 SY 2014-15 SY 2015-16 SY 201617 (PostGrant) 94.25% 90.00%

HCPSS Reading Benchmark Proficiency Status for grades K 2

OVERALL American Indian/Alaskan

Baseline(s) SY 2010-11 (optional) SY 2011-12 94.80% 82.60% 74.30%

93.60% 81.50% 75.00%

>95% 92.70% 91.00% 66.60% 71.90% 57.20%

>95% 92.50% 88.90% 67.30% 72.70% 56.80%

>95% 93.92% 92.50% 72.17% 76.58% 64.33%

>95% 94.53% 93.25% 74.95% 78.93% 67.90%

>95% 95.13% 94.00% 77.73% 81.27% 71.47%

>95% 95.74% 94.75% 80.52% 83.61% 75.03%

>95% 96.35% 95.50% 83.30% 85.95% 78.60%

Baseline(s) SY 2010-11 (optional) SY 2011-12

71.40% 92.20% 78.30% 70.30%

71.40% 92.10% 81.00% 72.20%

76.17% 93.50% 81.92% 75.25%

78.55% 94.15% 83.73% 77.73%

80.93% 94.80% 85.53% 80.20%

83.32% 95.45% 87.34% 82.68%

N/A 91.90% 89.20% 62.10% 71.90% 46.30% 81.60%

N/A 90.70% 83.30% 64.10% 73.00% 46.10% 80.90%

N/A 93.25% 91.00% 68.42% 76.58% 55.25% 84.67%

N/A 93.93% 91.90% 71.58% 78.93% 59.73% 86.20%

N/A 94.60% 92.80% 74.73% 81.27% 64.20% 87.73%

N/A 95.28% 93.70% 77.89% 83.61% 68.68% 89.27%

N/A 95.95% 94.60% 81.05% 85.95% 73.15% 90.80%

Baseline(s) SY 2010-11 (optional) SY 2011-12

Goals SY 2012-13 SY 2013-14 SY 2014-15 SY 2015-16 SY 201617 (PostGrant)

>95% 84.60% 81.60% 73.30% 69.80% 60.20%

N/A 82.30% 79.80% 74.80% 73.30% 60.10%