School Effectiveness Review - Baltimore City Public Schools

Office of Achievement and Accountability

Division of School Evaluation and Accountability

School Effectiveness Review

Samuel F.B. Morse Elementary

June 1-2, 2011

100 Cummings Center, Suite 236C Beverly, Massachusetts 01915

www.schoolworks.org

200 East North Avenue Baltimore, Maryland 21202

www.baltimorecityschools.org

©2011 SchoolWorks LLC and Baltimore City Public Schools. All rights reserved.

Table of Contents

Part I: Introduction and School Background 1

Introduction to School Effectiveness Review 1

School Background 1

Part II: Summary of Performance Levels 3

Part III: Findings on Core Values of Effective Schools 4

Core Value 1: Highly Effective Instruction 4

Core Value 2: Talented People 7

Core Value 3: Engaged Families and Community 8

Core Value 4: Strategic Leadership 10

Appendix A: Performance Level Rubric 12

Appendix B: SER Team Members 13

©2011 SchoolWorks LLC and Baltimore City Public Schools. All rights reserved. 1

Part I: Introduction and School Background

Introduction to School Effectiveness Review

The goal of the School Effectiveness Review (SER) is to provide an objective and research-based analysis of

the work schools are doing to impact student achievement. Based on research and school-level best

practices, four core values were identified for review: highly effective instruction, talented people, engaged

families and community, and strategic leadership. In addition, a rubric was created to determine the extent

to which each core value and accompanying key actions are being implemented. Each of these core values

closely aligns with core values held by City Schools for great school leaders and great teachers1 and is

observable in a set of key actions. Together, these core values, key actions, and supporting indicators form

the City Schools’ School Effectiveness Standards.

An SER team, comprised of representatives from SchoolWorks (an educational consulting company) and

representatives from City Schools who have extensive knowledge about schools and instruction, gathered

information from teachers, students, parents, and leadership during a two-day site visit. During the visit, the

SER team observed classrooms, reviewed selected school documents, and conducted focus groups and

interviews with school leadership, teachers, students, and parents. The SER team analyzed evidence

collected over the course of the SER to determine the extent to which key actions have been adopted and

implemented at the school. This report summarizes the ratings in the four core values and key actions,

provides evidence to support the ratings, and – based on a rubric – allocates a performance level for each

key action. More information about the SER process is detailed in the School Effectiveness Review protocol,

available upon request from SchoolWorks and/or City Schools.

School Background

Samuel F.B. Morse Elementary School serves approximately 358 students in pre-kindergarten through fifth

grade. The school is located on South Pulaski Street in the Carrollton Ridge Neighborhood of Baltimore,

Maryland – more commonly known as Southwest Baltimore. The principal has been at the school for six

years as assistant principal and has officially served as principal since January 2011. The following tables

provide information about the school’s student demographics and student achievement data.

Due to extreme weather conditions, Baltimore City Public Schools were dismissed early on the first day of the School Effectiveness Review site visit to Samuel F.B. Morse Elementary School, June 1, 2011.

1 Core values for great school leaders are defined by the draft effectiveness standards for school leaders; core values for great

teachers are defined by City Schools’ draft instructional framework. Given that these standards are still emerging, the School Effectiveness Standards will be revised during the summer of 2011 to reflect the greatest degree of alignment possible among all three sets of standards.


Student Demographics

Year

2009-2010 2008-2009 2007-2008

Student Race/Ethnicity (%)

African American 74.1 76.6 76.3

American Indian 0.9 1.1 1.1

Asian American 0.3 0.0 0.0

Hispanic 1.1 1.1 0.6

White 23.6 21.3 22.0

Students Receiving Specialized Services

Special Education 13.3 14.3 15.7

FARM 95.4 92.8 83.0

English Language Learners (ELL) 0.0 0.0 0.0

Student Achievement Data – Maryland State Assessment (MSA) Performance

Year

2009-2010 2008-2009 2007-2008

MSA Reading (% Proficient/Advanced)

59.6 60.4 53.7

MSA Mathematics (% Proficient/Advanced)

73.5 69.3 52.2


Part II: Summary of Performance Levels

Based on trends found in the collected evidence, the SER team assigns a performance level to each key action.

Core Values and Key Actions

Performance Levels

Level 4: Highly Effective

Level 3: Effective

Level 2: Emerging

Level 1: Not Effective

Core value 1: Highly effective instruction

1.1 Teachers plan highly effective instruction. Effective

1.2 Teachers deliver highly effective instruction. Emerging

1.3 Teachers use multiple data sources to adjust practice. Emerging

1.4 School leadership supports highly effective instruction. Not Effective

1.5 Teachers establish a classroom environment in which teaching and learning can occur. Highly Effective

Core value 2: Talented people

2.1 The school creates and implements systems to select, develop, and retain effective teachers and staff whose skills and beliefs represent the diverse needs of all students.

Emerging

2.2 The school has created and implemented systems to evaluate teachers and staff against individual and school-wide goals, provide interventions to those who are not meeting expectations, and remove those who do not make reasonable improvement.

Emerging

Core value 3: Engaged families and community

3.1 The school provides a safe and supportive learning environment for students, families, teachers, and staff.

Effective

3.2 The school cultivates and sustains open communication and decision-making opportunities with families about school events, policies, and the academic and social development of their children.

Not Effective

3.3 The culture of the school reflects and embraces student, staff, and community diversity. Emerging

Core value 4: Strategic leadership

4.1 The school establishes growth goals that guide strategic planning, teaching, and adjusting of practice to meet student needs.

Not Effective

4.2 The school allocates and deploys the resources of time, staff talent, and funding to address the priorities of growth goals for student achievement.

Emerging

4.3 The school provides regular opportunities for teachers and staff to engage in job embedded, collaborative planning and adjustment of practice.

Emerging


Part III: Findings on Core Values of Effective Schools

Core Values and Key Actions

Performance Levels

Level 4: Highly Effective

Level 3: Effective

Level 2: Emerging

Level 1: Not Effective

Core Value 1: Highly Effective Instruction

Teachers at Morse Elementary School develop standards-based daily lessons that align student

learning objectives, learning activities and assessments. School leaders and teachers reported that –

although there is no formal submission process – current daily lesson plans are available in every

classroom. The SER team confirmed that teachers had current daily lesson plans available during

classroom observations. Daily lessons made available in the classroom and provided by the school

for review included standards-based learning objectives, activities, and assessments. For example,

the SER team reviewed a fourth grade lesson plan based on the standard: Identify and explain the

relationship between a literary text and its historical context. The objective based on the standard

was: “We will understand the relationships between the Tall Tale Paul Bunyan and the True Tale

about Paul Bunyan by comparing and contrasting the two on a Venn diagram.” Lesson activities

included whole class and small group work identifying similarities and differences. Students

submitted their own Venn diagram consisting of at least five similarities and differences as their

assessment.

Teachers design daily lesson plans that are grade level appropriate. Document review of lessons

provided by the school revealed that lessons are aligned with grade-level standards. In focus groups,

school leadership and teachers also reported that they are on a March-to-March schedule,

indicating that many classes work on standards for the next grade level in the last months of the

school year.

Teachers have access to and utilize curriculum-planning documents. In focus groups, teachers and

school leadership reported that they use Maryland’s Voluntary State Curriculum (VSC). A review of

the school’s lesson plans revealed that lessons reference the VSC.

Teachers deliver content that is grade-level appropriate. Seventy-nine percent (n=14) of classrooms

observed by the SER team featured appropriate grade-level content. For example, third grade

students were observed subtracting whole numbers using mental mathematics; first grade students

were observed creating word families based on long vowel sounds.

Teachers do not provide students with opportunities to learn through a variety of instructional

strategies. Whole group instruction was the dominant instructional method during class

observations. Just 21% of classes observed featured small group or paired learning.

Key action 1.1: Teachers plan highly effective instruction. Effective

Key action 1.2: Teachers deliver highly effective instruction. Emerging


Teachers do not differentiate instruction to accommodate students’ varied learning styles and/or

academic readiness. While planning documents provided by the school included specific plans for

student’s unique needs, teachers were not observed differentiating instruction to accommodate

students’ varied learning styles and/or academic readiness. For instance, a lesson plan indicated that

a second classroom teacher would work with specific students on story cues during a lesson on the

elements of narrative texts. The same lesson identified students on individual education plans (IEP)

who would be encouraged to use initial consonant sounds. However, 93% of observed classes did

not include any differentiated instruction. In nearly every instance where classes were dominated by

whole group instruction, students worked on the same activity and used the same text as their

peers. Classroom observations did not include any evidence of learning centers or tiered activities.

Only one observed class featured groups of students working at various levels of difficulty.

School leadership provides timely access to student data in a format that can be used to make

classroom level decisions. Document review revealed that the school utilizes state assessment data,

benchmark data, MathWorks and Dynamic Indicators of Basic Early Literacy (DIBELS) data. School

leadership and teachers also reported that weekly grade-level meetings supported by the school’s

instructional support teacher (IST) included regular data analysis. The school’s IST has posted

relevant benchmark data in an accessible office where teachers can view the data. The IST has also

prepared templates for data analysis that ask teachers what standards need to be addressed and

require teachers to determine re-teach or re-group strategies as a result of their data analysis.

Completed documents confirmed that teachers are actively engaged in this process.

The school does not use data to assign students to support services, interventions, or opportunities

for acceleration beyond regular classroom instruction. Such programs are not currently in place. (A

reading intervention will be introduced next year.) At the time of the site visit, neither leadership

nor teachers could identify any specific intervention program used for struggling learners. The SER

team also did not find any evidence of efforts to continually move students from proficient to

advanced or acceleration programs for students.

Teachers do not use formative school-based assessments as a data point for measuring student

progress. While interviews confirmed that teachers regularly examine standardized assessments,

there was no evidence of a process for examining classroom data from teacher-generated

assignments, or tests and formative assessments. The school performance plan (SPP) for the 2010-

11 school year indicated that the examination of student work should have been a focus for

teachers this year; however, such a focus was not in evidence at the time of the SER.

School leadership does not hold or promote a clear instructional vision of high student achievement.

In focus groups, school leadership, students, parents, or teachers could not articulate a common

vision for the school. Leadership indicated that it would like the school’s mission to focus more on

parents; students reported that the mission was to “never give up.” Parents believed the mission of

the school emphasized testing; teachers offered a wide range of responses that touched on student

achievement. Priority strategies and plans that would tie to any vision are equally unclear. The SPP

indicated that, this year, balanced literacy, Open Court, tiered intervention, and differentiation are

Key action 1.3: Teachers use multiple data sources to adjust practice. Emerging

Key action 1.4: School leadership supports highly effective instruction. Not Effective


central to the school’s efforts; however, when asked about the school’s goals, vision, or mission,

none of these initiatives were referenced.

School leadership does not consistently provide professional development aligned to school-wide

goals and teachers’ developmental needs. There is evidence that professional development

provided early in the year on positive behavior intervention support (PBIS) and lesson plan

development has had an impact; however, current professional development is not focused on a

clear vision for instruction. School leadership and staff were unable to provide or articulate a school-

wide professional development plan. Teachers reported an unfocused range of professional

development topics and stated that their last professional development opportunity was in January.

School leadership tried to ensure that data are used to adjust practice. While there is evidence that

teams meet to look at data and discuss the adjustment of instruction, teachers are left on their own

to adjust practice; the school has no systematic process for monitoring teachers’ progress on

meeting student needs. In focus groups, teachers and leaders also reported that the school lacks

specific intervention programs for struggling learners.

School leadership provides feedback and guidance to teachers through formal and informal

feedback, but feedback is not directed at predefined instructional priorities. Feedback in notes or

emails typically offered several pieces of praise and polish. It is not, however, focused by a shared

instructional vision that would drive professional development and feedback. When asked what kind

of corrective or critical feedback they had received, examples included: using a binder to better

organize some materials; updating bulletin boards; and encouragements. While helpful, these

comments did not address a shared focus, such as improving the quality of small group work. In

focus groups, school leaders and teachers confirmed that the feedback offered teachers is not

focused on a shared instructional vision.

Teachers implement routines to maximize instructional time. In 93% of observed classrooms (n=14),

teachers spent less than 10% of their time managing transitions. Hallway transitions were also

observed to be orderly and efficient.

Teachers reinforce positive behavior, redirect off-task behavior, and de-escalate challenging

behavior. The SER team observed teachers redirect off-task behavior and de-escalate challenging

behavior through routines and statements such as, “criss-cross-apple-sauce” and “1, 2, 3, eyes-on-

me.” Classroom observations also revealed that positive behavior is reinforced with the use of

points/tickets. In a focus group, students reported that the students with good behavior are

recognized during morning announcements.

Students comply with staff directions. In 64% of observed classroom, 10% or less of students

demonstrated off-task behavior. In an additional 29% of observed classrooms, 20% or less of

students demonstrated off-task behavior. When off-task behavior did occur, it was typically

addressed without issue. The SER team did not observe teachers struggling to engage students or

classes of students defined by non-compliance. In a focus group, students also agreed that most

students did what they are told.

Key action 1.5: Teachers establish a classroom environment in which teaching and learning can occur.

Highly Effective


Core Value 2: Talented People

The school has retained a significant number of staff over a long period of time. In focus groups,

teachers reported working at Morse Elementary School from 20 to 39 years and enjoying their work

at the school. Those same teachers also mentioned feeling valued and appreciated by the school’s

leadership. Document review of the school profile confirmed that 56.6% of the teachers have 10 or

more years of experience.

School leadership does not leverage a pipeline for teacher recruitment. While the school does not

currently have great recruitment needs, there is no process for reaching out to potential recruits

beyond the usual BCPS hiring fair. The BCPS hiring fair is the school’s only recruiting mechanism.

There is also no process for bringing the greater school community into hiring decisions. In a focus

group, parents reported that they are not aware of how they might be involved in hiring.

School leadership has not created mentoring and/or other induction programs to support teacher

and staff development. Leaders and teachers reported that there is no formal mentoring process;

also, any mentoring that does happen is based on ad hoc relationships. In focus groups, teachers

reported that, upon arriving at the school, they were left on their own to navigate the school and its

resources.

The school conducts formal evaluations for all teachers. Morse Elementary School is in compliance

with the BCPS Performance-Based Evaluation System (PBES). Document review of the school’s

evaluations confirmed that the school completed all formal evaluations. In focus groups, teachers

reported that they have all been evaluated in accordance with PBES.

School leadership has not created structures for feedback and evaluation aligned to school-wide

goals and initiatives in order to increase the capacity of teachers and other staff. The SER team

found neither document nor interview evidence articulating the school-wide professional

development goals for teachers and staff. Although the SPP indicated that balanced literacy and

tiered interventions would be a focus for improvement at the school this year, there was no

documentation or classroom evidence that either was in place or guiding teacher feedback or

professional development.

Families do not provide data to assist school leadership in determining whether the school is

meeting the needs of students. In focus groups, school leaders, teachers, and parents reported that

there is no established parent teacher organization (PTO) at Morse Elementary School. The SER

team acknowledged that recent theft of funds by a PTO member had been a significant setback;

however, it is important to note that, at the time of the site visit, there was no plan to reestablish

the PTO.

Key action 2.1: The school creates and implements systems to select, develop, and retain effective teachers and staff whose skills and beliefs represent the diverse needs of all students.

Emerging

Key action 2.2: The school has created and implemented systems to evaluate teachers and staff against individual and school-wide goals, provide interventions to those who are not meeting expectations, and remove those who do not make reasonable improvement.

Emerging


Core Value 3: Engaged Families and Community

The school addresses the needs of students in social and emotional crisis. Morse Elementary School

lost two beloved staff members this school year. School leadership reported that, after both of

these deaths, the school provided a grief counselor for students. Teachers also reported that, to

help students most affected by those losses, a girls club had been established to support one

another. School leadership also reported that the school has had strong relationships with Hope

Health – an organization that address social/emotional needs of students – and Kennedy Keirger

Hospital, whose staff has expertise working with Baltimore youth in crises.

Students, staff, and families reported feeling emotionally and physically safe at the school. In a focus

group, students reported that they feel physically and emotionally safe at the school. They cited the

locked doors and controlled front entry as important to the school’s safety. Students suggested that

they were emotionally safe when they reported that they can go to anyone at the school for help

with any problem. Students added that bullying is not a significant problem stating, “If someone is

bothering you, another student will find a teacher to help you.” In a focus group, parents confirmed

that the school is a safe place for the children. Teachers also reported that the school was safe.

The school recognizes and celebrates student success. Students received PBIS certificates for

positive behavior in observed classrooms; also, classrooms featured a PBIS visual display board of

students who behaved positively. Students reported that their good behavior is also recognized in

school announcements. Teachers and students reported that the school hosts quarterly student

celebrations, rewarding students for helpfulness, good citizenship, and academic achievement.

The school does not use multiple strategies to regularly communicate progress toward school-wide

goals and initiatives. Leadership reported, and document review confirmed, that flyers are sent

home in student backpacks. Students and teachers also reported that individual teachers reach out

to parents and families by telephone. However, in interviews, teachers and the principal stated that

the school newsletter, the Morse Code, has not been published since January.

Families are not active participants in school events and culture. In focus groups, school leaders,

parents, and teachers all confirmed that parent involvement is very limited and is a continuing

challenge at Morse Elementary School. The same focus groups indicated that only 14 parents

participated in a school-wide spaghetti dinner and that only 4 or 5 parents attended parent/teacher

conferences.

The school does not have opportunities for families to participate in school-wide decisions. School

leadership, teachers, and parents all reported that the school’s PTO is currently defunct and needs

to be re-established. Parents interviewed by the SER team also did not report any knowledge of the

SPP, achievement goals, or teacher recruitment strategy.

Key action 3.1: The school provides a safe and supportive learning environment for students, families, teachers, and staff.

Effective

Key action 3.2: The school cultivates and sustains open communication and decision-making opportunities with families about school events, policies, and the academic and social development of their children.

Not Effective


Community partners provide resources to meet the needs of students and the school. South

Monroe Street Southern Methodist Church and its parent church in Columbia, Maryland have

worked with the school for years. The church has helped paint murals for the school and, most

recently, provided carpeting and a new computer lab. School leadership reported that Hope Health

– an organization that offers school-based health and mental health services for BCPS – has just

committed to extending its contract with Morse Elementary School and – as a result of their long-

standing relationships with school families – is adding additional staff to its efforts at the school at

no extra charge.

Although they existed in the past, the school is not currently providing programs that recognize the

needs of the community. School staff reported that – with the departure of the previous principal in

January 2011 – many programs were lost. School leadership reported that – because of low

attendance – a General Education Development (GED) class for parents was discontinued. There are

no parenting programs offered at the school for families and guardians; the school’s food bank is no

longer in existence.

The school’s curriculum and programs do not reflect a commitment to equity or an appreciation of

diversity. In focus groups, teachers reported that Black History Month was celebrated or recognized

at the school to varying degrees, depending on the year. However, no further evidence of curricula

or programs reflecting a commitment to equity or appreciation of diversity could be found at the

school.

Key action 3.3: The culture of the school reflects and embraces student, staff, and community diversity.

Emerging


Core Value 4: Strategic Leadership

School leadership is not guided by an action plan that is based on data related to student learning,

attendance, or behavior. The SER team found no evidence that Morse Elementary School has

implemented its current SPP. For example, interviews did not reveal a focus on balanced literacy or

tiered interventions, despite their importance to the SPP. As noted above, tiered interventions are

not in place at this time.

Teachers and staff do not participate in regular analysis of data and adjustment of growth goals. The

SPP features 10% growth goals, but neither the school’s leadership nor teachers referred to the

goals outlined by the plan. In focus groups, teachers and leaders did not report revisiting the SPP

goals or readjustment of targets based on student performance. While weekly data analysis by

grade-level teams shows evidence of a positive practice, there is no evidence that this data analysis

is connected to SPP goals. Document review did not reveal any evidence of school staff readjusting

student performance goals.

Families, community members, teachers, and students do not participate in initiatives to establish

school-wide goals, to improve teaching and learning, and to adjust practice. When asked about

school improvement planning in interviews, school leadership reported that only the leadership

team met during the summer to plan. In focus groups, teachers could not articulate a process for

moving improvements forward and reported that staff members do not participate in a broad-based

planning process.

The school’s schedule maximizes time on student learning. The SER team observed that in 93% of

classes observed, teachers spent less than 10% of their time on transitions. Document review of the

school schedule revealed that there is common planning time for all grade levels. In focus groups,

staff reported there they have sufficient time to plan and meet with their colleagues, formally and

informally.

School leadership is not leveraging teacher and staff talent. The SER team observed a wealth of

expertise, experience, and knowledge among the school’s veteran staff. However, without first

tapping the school’s internal expertise or developing its capacity to meet goals set by the SPP,

leadership reported that it is looking for a full-time IST to focus on literacy.

While teachers and staff make many individual efforts to improve the school, they are not

collectively using their time, talent, and funding to address a commonly held set of school priorities.

Various individual teachers reported that they organize fashion and talent shows, write multiple

grants, and mentor students. While commendable, these efforts are not connected to common

goals.

Key action 4.1: The school establishes growth goals that guide strategic planning, teaching, and adjusting of practice to meet student needs.

Not Effective

Key action 4.2: The school allocates and deploys the resources of time, staff talent, and funding to address the priorities of growth goals for student achievement.

Emerging


School leadership facilitates collaboration. The SER team observed, and evidence from documents

and focus groups confirmed, that independent teams meet to examine their data. However, this

effective practice is not maximized by monitoring what teachers do to change their instructional

practice.

While some teachers and staff work together on improving classroom practice, their efforts are not

guided by a commonly held set of priorities for improving curricula, instruction, and assessment.

Just a few staff members organize school-wide events like a school fashion show, while other staff

members write successful grants for their own classroom. Teachers and leaders also reported that

the school committees that compose the school improvement team (attendance, hospitality,

technical, and PBIS) last met in January and – since the departure of the principal and the loss of

other key leadership personnel – have mostly been inactive this year.

Key action 4.3: The school provides regular opportunities for teachers and staff to engage in job embedded, collaborative planning and adjustment of practice.

Emerging


Appendix B: SER Team Members

The SER visit to the Samuel F.B. Morse Elementary was conducted on June 1-2, 2011 by a team of

representatives from SchoolWorks and City Schools.

Ledyard McFadden, Team Leader. Ledyard is the founder and President of SchoolWorks. He has more

than 19 years’ experience in education. Ledyard began his career as an ESL teacher in Costa Rica and,

later, at Chelsea High School in Chelsea, Massachusetts. Ledyard is a founding member of the Bridge

School in Chelsea, Massachusetts. In 1995, Ledyard became the Director of Finance and Operations of

City on a Hill Charter School in Boston, Massachusetts and assisted the school during start-up and its

first years of operations. Later, he served as the Northeast Regional Manager for Beacon Education

Management, where he developed several charter school applications, as well as coordinated and

assisted in the opening and start-up of these schools. As founder and President of SchoolWorks, Ledyard

has been instrumental in the development and implementation of charter school renewal protocols for

the Massachusetts Department of Education, New York State Education Department, Indianapolis

Mayor’s Office, New York Charter Schools Institute and New Hampshire Department of Education. From

2002 to 2004, he assisted in the development and implementation of Philadelphia’s school

accountability system for the Philadelphia School Reform Commission. He has served on multiple school

quality reviews and has provided support to charter schools, public school districts, departments of

education, and other educational organizations throughout the United States. He has recently assisted

in developing profiles of highly effective schools and districts. Ledyard holds a B.A. in English from

Pomona College and a Masters in Education from Harvard University.

Sandra Howard-Simmons. Sandra Howard-Simmons is a Student Support/Special Education Liaison in

the Baltimore City Public Schools (City Schools) Network’s Office. In addition to providing supports to 13

schools, Sandra has served on the School Effectiveness Review (SER) Team, The Transformation Schools

Review Team, developed Inclusion Action Plans in the City Schools/Maryland Coalition for Inclusive

Education (MCIE) partnership, become certified as an Orton-Gillingham Instructor, and attended

numerous conferences on implementing Common Core State Standards (CCSS). Prior to this body of

work, she held many school based and central office positions: teacher, mentor, department head,

inclusion specialist, coordinator of special education, Principal of Woodbourne Day School, and was the

consulting Principal for The SEED School, Maryland’s first public boarding school. Sandra is an alumnus

of Maryland State Department of Education (MSDE), Special Education Leadership Academy (SELA)-

Director’s cohort. When she is not participating on the Jobe Foundation or National Aquarium’s Henry

Hall Scholars Board she is serving as an adjunct at Coppin State University where she teaches classes in

Reading and Special Education. Sandra attended Harvard’s Urban Leadership Academy, earned

certification in Education Administration from the College of Notre Dame of Maryland, earned 15hrs in

Reading from Johns Hopkins University, an M.Ed from Coppin State University, and a B.A in

Telecommunications from Morgan State University.

Tim O’Brien. Tim is a consultant with SchoolWorks and a doctoral candidate at the Harvard Graduate

School of Education (HGSE) in the Education Policy, Leadership and Instructional Practice strand. Tim

works as a teaching assistant, supporting students in the School Leadership Program, and is a facilitator

and trainer for HGSE’s professional education programs, Data Wise and Instructional Rounds. Before


returning to school, Tim worked in the Office of Professional Development at DC Public Schools, where

he designed and facilitated the training for DC’s school-based instructional coaches. He also played a

critical role in implementing DC’s Teaching and Learning Framework and participated in numerous

school quality reviews. Prior to his work in DC, Tim has taught at the elementary, middle, and high

school levels and trained teachers in public and private schools at home and abroad. Tim holds a B.S. in

Secondary English Education from NYU and an Ed.M. in Learning and Teaching from Harvard University.

School Effectiveness Review - Baltimore City Public Schools

Documents

Transcript of School Effectiveness Review - Baltimore City Public Schools