121107_RTT-D Application Howard County MD FINAL

7/30/2019 121107_RTT-D Application Howard County MD FINAL

1/331


2/331

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


3/331

(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


4/331


5/331

V. PROGRAM-SPECIFIC ASSURANCES FOR INDIVIDUAL LEA APPLICANTS

Individual LEA applicants must complete the forms in this part. For consortia applicants, theLead 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 theselection 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 completethis 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 thispriority, 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 theRace 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 (asdefined in this notice) are in rural LEAs (as defined in this notice) in States that receivedawards 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 meetthis priority, an applicant must be an LEA in which more than 50 percent of participatingstudents (as defined in this notice) are in non-rural LEAs in States that did not receive awardsunder 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 thispriority, 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 notreceive 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 budgetrequest conforms to the established budget ranges for the competition.


6/331

The number of participating students is 10,544. The total Race to the Top District grantfunds requested is $29,985,425.05, which is within the following range: (Check the one rangeof participating students (all as defined in this notice) that applies)

$5-10 million - 2 ,000-5,000 participating students

$10-20 million - 5,001-10,000 participating studentsX $20-30 million - 10,001-25,000 participating students

$30-40 million - 25,001+ participating students


7/331

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 Commonwealthof Puerto Rico.

X This application is the only Race to the Top District application to which the applicanthas signed on.

X This application serves a minimum of 2,000 participating students (as defined in thisnotice).

X At least 40 percent of participating students (as defined in this notice) across allparticipating schools (as defined in this notice) are students from low-income families, basedon eligibility for free or reduced-price lunch subsidies under the Richard B. Russell NationalSchool Lunch Act, or other poverty measures that LEAs use to make awards under section1113(a) of the ESEA OR if the applicant has not identified all participating schools (asdefined 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 (asdefined in this notice) and assures that --

(i) The LEA, at a minimum, will implement no later than the 2014-2015school 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, asdemonstrated by(check one that applies)

X (A) Being located in a State that has adopted college- and career-ready standards (as defined in this notice); or

(B) Measuring all student progress and performance against college-and 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 theirsupervisors on student growth (as defined in this notice);

(iv) The LEA has the capability to receive or match student level preschoolthrough 12th grade and higher education data; and

(v) The LEA ensures that any disclosure of or access to personallyidentifiable information in students education records complies with FERPA.


8/331


9/331


10/331

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 theSecretary 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 consistentwith the application, OMB Standard Form 424D (Assurances for ConstructionPrograms), including the assurances relating to the legal authority to apply for assistance;access to records; conflict of interest; merit systems; nondiscrimination; Hatch Actprovisions; labor standards; flood hazards; historic preservation; protection of humansubjects; animal welfare; lead-based paint; Single Audit Act; and the general agreementto comply with all applicable Federal laws, executive orders and regulations.

With respect to the certification regarding lobbying in Department Form 80-0013, noFederal appropriated funds have been paid or will be paid to any person for influencing orattempting to influence an officer or employee of any agency, a Member of Congress, anofficer or employee of Congress, or an employee of a Member of Congress in connectionwith the making or renewal of Federal grants under this program; the applicant, and forconsortia each LEA, will complete and submit Standard Form-LLL, Disclosure Form toReport Lobbying, when required (34 CFR Part 82, Appendix B); and the applicant willrequire the full certification, as set forth in 34 CFR Part 82, Appendix A, in the awarddocuments 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. Departmentof Education Federal grant) a description of how the LEA will comply with therequirements of section 427 of GEPA (20 U.S.C. 1228a). The description must includeinformation on the steps the LEA proposes to take to permit students, teachers, and otherprogram beneficiaries to overcome barriers (including barriers based on gender, race,color, national origin, disability, and age) that impede access to, or participation in, theprogram.

All entities receiving funds under this grant will comply with the Education DepartmentGeneral Administrative Regulations (EDGAR), including the following provisions asapplicable: 34 CFR Part 74Administration of Grants and Agreements with Institutions


11/331


12/331

VIII. ABSOLUTE PRIORITIES

Absolute Priority 1

Absolute Priority 1: Personalized Learning Environments. To meet this priority, anapplicant must coherently and comprehensively address how it will build on the coreeducational assurance areas (as defined in this notice) to create learning environments thatare designed to significantly improve learning and teaching through the personalization of strategies, tools, and supports for students and educators that are aligned with college- andcareer-ready standards (as defined in this notice) or college- and career-ready graduationrequirements (as defined in this notice); accelerate student achievement and deepen studentlearning by meeting the academic needs of each student; increase the effectiveness of educators; expand student access to the most effective educators; decrease achievement gapsacross student groups; and increase the rates at which students graduate from high schoolprepared 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, anapplicant 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 receivedawards 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, anapplicant 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 3competition.

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 notreceive 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, anapplicant 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 3competition.

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.


13/331

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 coreeducational assurance areas (as defined in this notice) and articulates a clear and credible approach to the goals of accelerating studentachievement, deepening student learning, and increasing equity through personalized student support grounded in common andindividual 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) willsupport 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 thatthe 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) fromlow-income families, participating students (as defined in this not ice) 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 translatedinto meaningful reform to support district-wide change beyond the participating schools (as defined in this notice), and will help theapplicant reach its outcome goals (e.g., the applicants logic model or theory of change of how its plan will improve student learningoutcomes 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 asdemonstrated by ambitious yet achievable annual goals that are equal to or exceed State ESEA targets for the LEA(s), overall and bystudent subgroup (as defined in this notice), for each participating LEA in the following areas:

1


14/331


15/331


16/331

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 career-

ready.

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 andlocal 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. WhatHCPSS must do is reshape models for teaching and learning.

4


17/331

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 theself-blend model. In our rotation model, students will rotate on a fixed schedule between different learning modalities, such as small-

group 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 classroom-

based instruction. These personalized learning models challenge the traditional model that views time and place (seat time) as the

5


18/331

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) focuson the process, not the outcome; (4) build in t ime 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.

6


19/331

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 4 th 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

7


20/331

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

8


21/331

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:

9


22/331


23/331

Tables:

School DemographicsRaw Data

Actual numbers or estimates(Please note where estimates are used)

Percentages

A B C D E F G H I

LEA(Column

relevant for consortiumapplicants)

ParticipatingSchool

Gr a d e s / S u b j e c t s

i n c l u d e d i nR

a c e t o

t h e T

o p-Di s t r i c t

P l an#

of P

a r t i c i p a t i n g

E d u c a t or s

# of P


S t u d e n t s

# of P


h i gh -n e e d s t u d e n t s

# of P


l o w-i n

c om e s t u d e n t s

T o t a l #

of l o w-

i n c om e s t u d e n t s i n

L E A

or C on s or t i um

T o t a l #

of S t u d e n t s i n

t h e S c h o ol

% of P


S t u d e n t s i n

t h e

S c h o ol

( B / F ) * 1 0 0

% of P


s t u d e n t s f r om l o w-

i n c om e f a mi l i e s

( D / B ) * 1 0 0

% of T

o t a l L E A

or

c on s or t i um l o w-

i n c om e p o p ul a t i on

D / E * 1 0 0

HowardCounty

Bollman Bridge ES PK-5 102 622 176 206 9081 622 100% 33.12% 2.27%

HowardCounty

Bryant Woods ES PK-5 60 360 82 192 9081 360 100% 53.33% 2.11%

Howard

County

Cradlerock

ES PK-5 78 497 128 202 9081 497 100% 40.64% 2.22%HowardCounty Deep Run ES PK-5 96 706 161 259 9081 706 100% 36.69% 2.85%HowardCounty Guilford ES PK-5 66 523 122 172 9081 523 100% 32.89% 1.89%HowardCounty Jeffers Hill ES PK-5 53 367 72 109 9081 367 100% 29.70% 1.20%HowardCounty

Laurel Woods ES PK-5 80 609 152 303 9081 609 100% 49.75% 3.34%

HowardCounty

Longfellow ES PK-5 69 446 101 166 9081 446 100% 37.22% 1.83%

11


24/331

School DemographicsRaw Data

Actual numbers or estimates(Please note where estimates are used)

Percentages

A B C D E F G H I

LEA(Columnrelevant for consortiumapplicants)

ParticipatingSchool

Gr a

d e s / S u b j e c t s

i n c l u d e d i nR

a c e t o

t h e T o p-Di s t r i c t

P l an#

of P a r t i c i p a t i n

g

E d u c a t or s

# of P a r t i c i p a t i n

g

S t u d e n t s


g

h i gh -n e e d

s t u d e n t s


g

l o w-i n c om

e s t u d e n t s

T o t a l #

of l o w-

i n c om e

s t u d e n t s i n

L E A

or C on s or t i um

T o t a l #

of S t u d e n t s i n

t h e S c h o ol

% of P a r t i c i p a t i n g

S t u d e n t s i n

t h e

S c h o ol

( B / F ) * 1 0 0

% of P a r t i c i p a t i n g

s t u d e n t s f r om l o

w-

i n c om e f a mi l i e s

( D / B ) * 1 0 0

% of T o

t a l L E A

or

c on s or t i um l o w-

i n c om e

p o p ul a t i on

D / E * 1

0 0

HowardCounty

Phelps Luck ES PK-5 94 722 185 352 9081 722 100% 48.75% 3.88%

HowardCounty

Running Brook ES PK-5 72 435 117 185 9081 435 100% 42.53% 2.04%

HowardCounty

StevensForest ES K-5 59 283 108 149 9081 283 100% 52.65% 1.64%

HowardCounty Swansfield ES PK-5 78 562 128 226 9081 562 100% 40.21% 2.49%HowardCounty

Talbott Springs ES PK-5 84 588 152 299 9081 588 100% 50.85% 3.29%

HowardCounty

HarpersChoice MS 6-8 68 510 99 171 9081 510 100% 33.53% 1.88%

HowardCounty

Lake Elkhorn MS 6-8 69 465 119 213 9081 465 100% 45.81% 2.35%

HowardCounty

Oakland Mills MS 6-8 64 400 62 157 9081 400 100% 39.25% 1.73%

HowardCounty

Patuxent Valley MS 6-8 80 660 122 203 9081 660 100% 30.76% 2.24%

12


25/331


26/331


27/331


28/331

Goal area Subgroup Baseline(s) Goals

SY 2010-11 (optional)

SY2011-12

SY2012-13

SY2013-14

SY2014-15

SY2015-16

SY 2016-17

(Post-Grant)

American Indian/Alaskan 71.40% 71.40% 76.17% 78.55% 80.93% 83.32% 85.70%

Asian 92.20% 92.10% 93.50% 94.15% 94.80% 95.45% 96.10%

Black/African American 78.30% 81.00% 81.92% 83.73% 85.53% 87.34% 89.15%

Hispanic/Latino of any race 70.30% 72.20% 75.25% 77.73% 80.20% 82.68% 85.15%

Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific

Islander N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A

White 91.90% 90.70% 93.25% 93.93% 94.60% 95.28% 95.95%

Two or More Races 89.20% 83.30% 91.00% 91.90% 92.80% 93.70% 94.60%

English Language Learner 62.10% 64.10% 68.42% 71.58% 74.73% 77.89% 81.05%

Free and Reduced Meals 71.90% 73.00% 76.58% 78.93% 81.27% 83.61% 85.95%

Special Education 46.30% 46.10% 55.25% 59.73% 64.20% 68.68% 73.15%

Mathematics EOY Local Assessment OVERALL 81.60% 80.90% 84.67% 86.20% 87.73% 89.27% 90.80%

16


29/331


30/331


31/331


32/331



SY2011-12

SY2012-13

SY2013-14

SY2014-15

SY2015-16

SY 2016-17

(Post-Grant)

Learner



Reading MSA Proficiency Status for Students in Identified HCPSS

Elementary Schools (grades 3 5) OVERALL 88.70% 89.50% 90.58% 91.53% 92.47% 93.41% 94.35%

American Indian/Alaskan N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A

Asian 94.00% 95.60% 95.00% 95.50% 96.00% 96.50% 97.00%



Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific

Islander >95% N/A >95% >95% >95% >95% >95%

White 95.70% 96.00% 96.42% 96.78% 97.13% 97.49% 97.85%

20


33/331


34/331


35/331


36/331


37/331


38/331



SY2011-12

SY2012-13

SY2013-14

SY2014-15

SY2015-16

SY 2016-17

(Post-Grant)


Hispanic/Latino of

any race 80.00% 80.60% 83.33% 85.00% 86.67% 88.33% 90.00% Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific

Islander 83.30% 89.50% 86.08% 87.48% 88.87% 90.26% 91.65%

White 93.10% 95.20% 94.25% 94.83% 95.40% 95.98% 96.55%

Two or More Races 87.00% 90.00% 89.17% 90.25% 91.33% 92.42% 93.50%




Mathematics MSA Proficiency Status for Students in Identified HCPSS Middle Schools (grades 6 8) OVERALL 75.30% 77.80% 79.42% 81.48% 83.53% 85.59% 87.65%

American Indian/Alaskan N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A

26


39/331


40/331


41/331


42/331


43/331


44/331


45/331


46/331


47/331


48/331


49/331

Goal area Identify subgroupand comparison

group Baseline(s) Goals


SY2011-12

SY2012-13

SY2013-14

SY2014-15

SY2015-16

SY2016-17(Post-Grant)




HCPSS Reading MSA ProficiencyStatus for Middle School Students(grades 6 8)






Reading MSA Proficiency Status for Students in Identified HCPSS MiddleSchools (grades 6 8)


37


50/331


51/331




SY2011-12

SY2012-13

SY2013-14

SY2014-15

SY2015-16


Mathematics MSA Proficiency Status for Students in Identified HCPSS

Middle Schools(grades 6 8) Black/African American 10.50% 9.63% 8.75% 7.88% 7.00% 6.13% 5.25%





HCPSS HSA Algebra Pass Rates

(grades 9 12)

Black/African

American 16.10% 14.76% 13.42% 12.08% 10.73% 9.39% 8.05% Hispanic/Latino of any race 5.30% 4.86% 4.42% 3.98% 3.53% 3.09% 2.65%


39


52/331




SY2011-12

SY2012-13

SY2013-14

SY2014-15

SY2015-16




HSA Algebra Pass Rates for Studentsin Identified HCPSS High Schools(grades 9 12)


Hispanic/Latino of any race -1.90% -1.74% -1.58% -1.43% -1.27% -1.11% -0.95%




HCPSS HSA English Pass Rates(grades 9 12)



40


53/331


54/331


55/331


56/331


57/331


58/331


59/331

(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)

StudentGroup

2003 ReadingMSA % Proficient

or Advanced

2012 ReadingMSA % Proficient

or Advanced

Changefrom 2003 to

2012

2003 Math MSA% Proficient or

Advanced

2012 Math MSA% Proficient or

Advanced

Change from2003 to 2012

All Students 82% 93% +11% 73% 91% +18%AfricanAmerican

64% 84% +20% 47% 80% +33%

Hispanic 60% 85% +25% 52% 86% +34%

FARMs 51% 79% +28% 40% 77% +34%Special Ed. 45% 65% +20% 35% 63% +28%LEP 34% 71% +37% 57% 79% +22%

In the last four years, students in the African American, Hispanic, FARMs, Special Education, and LEP student groups have madegreater gains on the reading and mathematics MSAs than students in the All Students group with the exception of LEP students inreading. The table below illustrates these gains over the four-year period between 2008 and 2012:

47


60/331


61/331

administered to 10 th graders.

HCPSS High School Assessments, 2003-2012 (High School Students Only, May Administration)

StudentGroup

2003English

HSA %Proficient

orAdvanced

2012English

HSA %Proficient

orAdvanced

Changefrom

2003 to2012

2003Algebra

HSA %Proficient

orAdvanced

2012Algebra

HSA %Proficient

orAdvanced

Changefrom

2003 to2012

2003Biology

HSA %Proficient

orAdvanced

2012Biology

HSA %Proficient

orAdvanced

Changefrom 2003

to 2012

AllStudents 63.7% 87.8% +24.1% 72.6% 84.9% +12.3% 73.9% 91.9% +18.0%AfricanAmericans 35.9% 72.6% +36.7% 45.2% 66.0% +20.8% 50.3% 77.8% +27.5%Hispanic 44.2% 77.9% +33.7% 49.6% 72.8% +23.2% 52.7% 85.4% +32.7%FARMs 24.7% 66.2% +41.5% 43.2% 60.8% +17.6% 35.9% 72.6% +36.7%Special Ed. 14.8% 46.3% +31.5% 33.1% 42.3% +9.2% 37.6% 61.6% +24.0%LEP 12.5% 55.1% +42.6% 50.8% 58.9% +8.1% 34.2% 71.1% +36.9%

HCPSS High School Assessments, 2008-2012 (High School Students Only, May Administration)

StudentGroup

2008EnglishHSA %

Proficient

2012EnglishHSA %

Proficient

Changefrom

2008 to2012

2008AlgebraHSA %

Proficient

2012AlgebraHSA %

Proficient

Changefrom

2008 to2012

2008BiologyHSA %

Proficient

2012BiologyHSA %

Proficient

Changefrom 2008

to 2012

49


62/331

orAdvanced

orAdvanced

orAdvanced

orAdvanced

orAdvanced

orAdvanced

AllStudents 84.2% 87.8% +3.6% 89.1% 84.9% -4.2% 88.9% 91.9% +3.0%AfricanAmericans 65.3% 72.6% +7.3% 74.8% 66.0% -8.8% 74.8% 77.8% +3.0%

Hispanic 71.2% 77.9% +6.7% 71.1% 72.8% +1.7% 71.1% 85.4% +14.3%FARMs 52.5% 66.2% +13.7% 68.9% 60.8% -8.1% 64.2% 72.6% +8.4%Special Ed. 35.9% 46.3% +10.4% 58.8% 42.3% -16.5% 54.8% 61.6% +6.8%LEP 36.1% 55.1% +19.0% 71.2% 58.9% -12.3% 71.7% 71.1% -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 graduat ion 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


63/331


64/331


65/331


66/331


67/331


68/331


69/331


70/331


71/331


72/331

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 21 st

60


73/331

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 d igital 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 t raining 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 t eachers 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 t echnology 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


74/331


75/331


76/331


77/331


78/331


79/331

college- and career-ready standards (as defined in this not ice) 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 graduationrequirements; and

(B) Personalized learning recommendations based on the students current knowledge and skills, college- andcareer-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 thatthey are on track toward meeting college- and career-ready standards (as defined in this notice) or college- andcareer-ready graduation requirements (as defined in this not ice); and

(c) Mechanisms are in place to provide training and support to students that will ensure that they understand how to use thetools 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 applicantssuccess 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 attachmentsmay also include any additional information the applicant believes will be helpful to peer reviewers.

Recommended maximum response length: Eight pages

67


80/331

(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. Thiscollection 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 o ften-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


81/331


82/331


83/331


84/331

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 o f 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 var iety 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 self-

confidence, 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 o f 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


85/331

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


86/331


87/331


88/331


89/331


90/331

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


91/331


92/331


93/331


94/331

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 curr icular leaders will hold regular online

office hours to address staff quest ions 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 student-

centered 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


95/331


96/331

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 d igital literacy levels that a mentoring program can help address.

84


97/331


98/331


99/331

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 andinfrastructure 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 determinedbased 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 supportand services to all participating schools (as defined in th is notice);

(b) Providing school leadership teams in part icipating schools (as defined in this notice) with sufficient flexibility andautonomy over factors such as school schedules and calendars, school personnel decisions and staffing models, roles andresponsibilities 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 spenton 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, includingstudents 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 otherstakeholders (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


100/331

appropriate levels of technical support, which may be provided through a range of strategies (e.g., peer support, onlinesupport, 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 makerecommendations 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 includehuman 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 applicantssuccess 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 attachmentsmay also include any additional information the applicant believes will be helpful to peer reviewers.

Recommended maximum response length: Seven pages

88


101/331


102/331

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 9 th grade students in danger of not advancing to 10 th

grade. Students were required to attend on-site classes two to three days a week and could also access the Apex course site online onnon-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, pro jects, profiles, or other artifacts of learning and not hours of seat t ime.

(d) Under the RTT-D program, and in keeping with exist ing 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 b lended,

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 o ther local

90


103/331

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 r igorous 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 otherinterventionists. 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


104/331


105/331


106/331


107/331

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 supportfrom 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 datasystems, 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


108/331


109/331

PopulationAll a) The number and percentage of part icipating 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) anda highly effective principal (as defined in this notice); and

b) The number and percentage of part icipating students, by subgroup (as defined in this notice), whose teacherof record (as defined in this notice) and principal are an effective teacher (as defined in this notice) and aneffective principal (as defined in this not ice).

PreK-3 a) Applicant must propose at least one age-appropriate measure of students academic growth (e.g., languageand literacy development or cognition and general learning, including early mathematics and early scientificdevelopment); and

b) Applicant must propose at least one age-appropriate non-cognitive indicator of growth (e.g., physical well-being and motor development, or social-emotional development).

4-8 a) The number and percentage of part icipating students, by subgroup, who are on t rack to college- and career-readiness 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 successfulimplementation 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.

9-12 a) The number and percentage of part icipating students who complete and submit the Free Application forFederal Student Aid (FAFSA) form;

b) The number and percentage of part icipating students, by subgroup, who are on t rack to college- and career-readiness 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 percentageof 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 successfulimplementation 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


110/331


111/331

(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 problem-

solve 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 academicsuccess, 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


112/331

assessments, On/Above/Below teacher-rated instructional levels, software-based formative and summative assessments, and other non-

academic results. Teacher and principal evaluation data will also be used to ensure that (1) the HCPSS increases its number o f effective and

highly effective teachers and principals; and 2) there are no disparities in the percentage of students from various student groups who receive

Documents

121107_RTT-D Application Howard County MD FINAL