priority cohort i year 4 program and fiscal monitoring teams...

Prince George’s County Public Schools (PGCPS) Priority Cohort 1 Year 4 First Onsite Visit Feedback for 2013-2014 Title I School Improvement Grant (SIG), section 1003(g), FY 2009 Date Feedback Shared with PGCPS: October 17, 2013

Program Improvement and Family Support Branch Division of Student, Family, and School Support Maryland State Department of Education

Priority Cohort I Year 4 Program and Fiscal Monitoring Teams’

First Onsite Visit Feedback

Maryland State Department of Education—Title I School Improvement Grant (SIG), section 1003(g) School Year 2013-2014

LEA: Prince George’s County Public Schools (PGCPS) LEA Turnaround Director: Dr. C. Michael Robinson (as of November 2013) Date of MSDE Team’s LEA Visit: October 4, 2013 MSDE Priority Leads: Jim Newkirk, Gail Clark Dickson Date of MSDE Fiscal Team’s Visit: October 4, 2013 MSDE Priority Fiscal Lead: Kelly Coates Date of G. James Gholson Visit: September 10, 2013 Priority Cohort I Team: Kristine Angelis, Paula Isett Date of Drew Freeman Visit: September 12, 2013 Priority Cohort I Team: Sally Dorman, Richard Scott Date of Benjamin Stoddert Visit: September 17, 2013 Priority Cohort I Team: Robert Murphy, Gail Clark Dickson Date of Thurgood Marshall Visit: September 19, 2013 Priority Cohort I Team: Robert Murphy, Danielle Susskind

Title I School Improvement Grant (SIG): The School Improvement Grant (SIG) Program, authorized under section 1003(g) of Title I of the Elementary and Secondary Act of 1965, provides funding through State educational agencies (SEAs) to local educational agencies (LEAs) with the lowest-achieving schools that have the greatest need for the funds and demonstrate the strongest commitment to use the funds to raise significantly the achievement of students. The United States Department of Education (USDE) views the large infusion of Federal funds into the SIG program through the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (ARRA) as a historic opportunity to address one of the most intractable challenges for America’s education system: turning around or closing down our Nation’s persistently lowest-achieving schools. USDE approved Maryland’s Flexibility Plan in May 2012 which included Maryland’s SIG I schools as Priority Schools. Special Note: In terms of identification, SIG I Schools are now named Priority Cohort 1 Schools.



LEA Monitoring—Purpose of the Priority Cohort 1 Year 4 Monitoring and Fiscal Teams’ First Onsite Visit: As approved by USDE, MSDE, through SIG Monitoring Teams, will conduct three onsite monitoring visits annually in each LEA and that receives a school improvement grant to ensure that the LEA is implementing its intervention model fully and effectively in Maryland’s Tier I and Tier II schools. As part of the first onsite visit, a SIG Monitoring Team will interview members of the LEA Central Support Team which is the leadership body for planning, implementing, supporting, monitoring, and evaluating the LEA’s approved SIG Plan. In addition and on the same day, a MSDE SIG Fiscal Team will monitor the LEA’s SIG budgets.

School Monitoring—Purpose of the Priority Cohort 1Year 4 Monitoring Team’s First Onsite Visit: As approved by USDE, MSDE, through SIG Monitoring Teams, will conduct three onsite monitoring visits annually in each SIG Priority School. This Priority SIG I Year 4 first onsite monitor visit will focus on the impact of SIG on teaching and learning in the instructional classrooms of the LEA’s SIG I schools. MSDE’s Priority SIG I Year 4 Monitoring Teams will visit classrooms throughout the day for 20 minute intervals. Classrooms with long term substitutes will be visited by SIG I Teams; however, classrooms with short term substitutes will not be visited.

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

Domain 1: Instructional Planning (3 indicators);

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

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

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

The protocol for the Priority SIG I Year 4 First Onsite Visit consists of the following 4 components:

Classroom Observations by SIG Team; and

SIG I Team Tallying Observation Data; and Collaborative Agreement of Classroom Evidence.



Table Organization of Priority Cohort 1 Year 4 Program and Fiscal Monitoring Teams’

First Onsite Visit Feedback for SY 2013-2014

Table 1 PGCPS Turnaround Executive Committee Interview Questions and Responses

Table 2 Priority Cohort I Year 3 LEA ARRA Budget

Table 3 Priority Cohort I Year 3 Consolidated Budget

Table 4 Priority Cohort I Year 3 Instructional Domains and Indicators

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

Table 6 G. James Gholson Middle School Classroom Instructional Tally Sheet

Table 7 G. James Gholson Middle School Classroom Observation Feedback

Table 8 G. James Gholson Middle School Budget

Table 9 Benjamin Stoddert Middle School Classroom Instructional Tally Sheet

Table 10 Benjamin Stoddert Middle School Classroom Observation Feedback

Table 11 Benjamin Stoddert Middle School Budget

Table 12 Drew Freeman Middle School Classroom Instructional Tally Sheet

Table 13 Drew Freeman Middle School Classroom Observation Feedback

Table 14 Drew Freeman Middle School Budget

Table 15 Thurgood Marshall Middle School Classroom Instructional Tally Sheet

Table 16 Thurgood Marshall Middle School Classroom Observation Feedback

Table 17 Thurgood Marshall Middle School Budget



Table 1

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

Turnaround Executive Committee for 2013-2014

The Turnaround Executive Committee has changed its name to Priority Executive Committee. PGCPS shared the following tentative changes in staff on their Priority Executive Committee for the 2013-2014 school year:

Duane Arbogast, Chief Academic Officer;

Helen Coley, Associate Superintendent;

Debra Mahone, Director of School Improvement and Accountability;

Gladys Whitehead, Director of Curriculum and Instruction;

Robert Gaskin, Acting Chief of Human Resources;

Tiffany Bascombe, Human Resources Specialist;

Joan Rothgeb, Special Education Director;

Dr. Michael Robinson, Turnaround Director;

Janice Briscoe, Student Services Specialist;

Sharon Hodges, Teacher Development Supervisor;

Gail Gilmore, Special Education Specialist;

Cora Rose, Special Education Specialist;

Rhonda Pitts, Talent Development Specialist;

Clarence Stukes, Chief of Supporting Services;

Carl Belcher, Supporting Services Supervisor;

Patrick Louis-Pierre, Specialist in Liaisons, Technology Applications, Testing, and Evaluation;

Peggy Harrington, Specialist in Liaisons, Technology Applications, Testing, and Evaluation;

Pauline Carey, Specialist in Liaisons, Technology Applications, Testing, and Evaluation;

Glenda Willis, PBIS Coordinator;

Myra Grzeskiewicz, Turnaround Compliance Specialist;



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

PGCPS shared the following responses to this question:

The meetings will be determined at a later date but probably will occur quarterly.

The budget subcommittee meets monthly.

b. How often will they report on their work and the work on Tier I, II and III schools to the Superintendent? PGCPS shared the response to this question has not been determined.

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


The Turnaround Office presents annually to the school system’s Board of Education, generally in the spring of each year.

The individual Board of Education members visit the school system’s Priority Schools independently and throughout the school year.

d. Has the LEA 1003(g) central support team met prior to the submission of the grant application to review the individual school descriptions and to discuss how it will coordinate and manage the support, monitoring and assessment outlined in those plans? __X___ Yes _____ No

Rhonda Hawkins, Turnaround Reading Specialist;

Felice DeSouza, Turnaround Mathematics Specialist;

Kia McDaniel, ESOL Director;

Allyson Huey, Director of Employee Relations;

Darrell Haley, Supervisor and Budget Analyst;

Danielle Curtis, Senior Budget Analyst;

Tracey Adesegun, Title I Coordinating Supervisor; and Leslie Ingram Johnson, Title I Senior Budget Analyst.



If no, briefly describe the plans for the central support team to begin work on the Tier I, II, and III schools?

Not applicable for Priority Cohort 1 Year 4 Monitoring by MSDE

e. What role has or will the LEA 1003(g) central support team play in the creation of annual goals for student achievement and annual review/assessment of progress based on these goals described in sections 2 and 3 of this proposal? The annual goals will be developed by the Instructional Director and Principals of the school system’s Priority Schools.

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

The Turnaround Director will provide leadership in the implementation of the school system’s Priority Cohort I schools.

Under the Turnaround Director, the Priority Schools’ Budget Subcommittee meets monthly with the Turnaround Office to ensure fiscal accountability on spending in a compliant manner.

Under the Turnaround Director, the Priority Schools’ Compliance Specialist ensures the funds are being used effectively and efficiently to support the required components/strategies/activities of the selected intervention.

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

(1) realignment of other resources;

(2) removal of expectations that might run counter to the approach outlined in the selected intervention;

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

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




G. James Gholson, Drew Freeman, and Benjamin Stoddert Middle Schools are using PGCPS’ Title I, Part A funds to sustain the intervention model.

Thurgood Marshall Middle School is using compensatory funds to sustain the intervention model.

PGCPS asked and received approval for 2.5 million with compensatory funds to support the system’s priority schools.

PGCPS is asking for an additional 1.5 million in compensatory funds for SY 2014-2015 to support the school system’s priority schools.

PGCPS is looking at a more district approach when implementing, supporting, monitoring, and evaluating the school system’s priority schools.

Extending learning continues to be a focus and what extended learning should like in each school. PGCPS agrees the students are better off and safer when they are in schools. But the downside to extended learning, classroom teachers are tired physically, even though they receive a stipend for the additional time. Where extended learning has worked, the school has a community partner like Noah and Boys’ and Girls’ Club. Transportation continues to be a challenge for extended learning.

More emphasis needs to be on Family Engagement in the system’s Priority Schools.

In terms of staffing, the agreement at the executive level for differentiated staff in priority schools have been a positive step.

In terms of staff recruitment, there has been many priority schools’ recruitment fairs which has been positive. To support this activity, there is a staffing specialist in Human Resources assigned to the school system’s priority schools.

Collective Bargaining with the Teachers’ Association still continues to be a challenge. h. What are the major challenges to full and effective implementation of all components of the SIG grant

that the LEA 1003 (g) central support team has identified and how will the team address these challenges in the early phases of the work?


PGCPS understand that the Priority School Principals are under a great deal of stress. The school system is asking a great deal of these people to manage a complex organization. The school system does not have an answer to deal with principal stress.

Staff turnover is still high because the schools have a stressful environment. This stress is coming from many areas such as teacher evaluation, common core transition, and school culture and climate.

PGCPS understands the priority schools have difficulty in turning around the teaching and learning environments because of the communities that surround these schools. PGCPS recognizes the importance of having police, social services, and faith-based organizations are key partners. Even though there has been much improvement, the school system recognizes that more work needs to be done.



Table 2 Priority Cohort I Year 4 LEA Budget Prince George’s County Public Schools MSDE Fiscal Reviewer: Kelly Coates Monitoring Date: October 4, 2013 Total SIG II Year 3 Allocation:

$ 3,053,061 LEA Budget Spent:

$ 2,346,846 Percent of LEA Budget Spent:

77% Spend Down Data as of:

Oct 3, 2013

Salaries & Wages Contractual Services Supplies & Materials Other *Budgeted: $ 506,306 *Budgeted: $ 1,899,003 Budgeted: $ 61,953 *Travel Budgeted: $ 113,777

Registration & Membership Fees: $ 112,027

Encumbered: $ 0 Encumbered: $ 54,748 Encumbered: $ 0 Travel Encumbered: $ 13,804 Registration & Membership Fees Encumbered:

$ 677

Spent (amount): $ 513,631 Spent (%): 101%

Spent (amount): $ 1,391,885 Spent (%): 73%


Travel Spent(amount): $ 52,993 Spent (%): 47%

Registration & Membership Fees Spent (amount): $ 75,602

Spent (%): 67%

1. How much of the LEA budget, based on the LEA’s approved application, has been expended to date (amount and %)? PGCPS provided documentation that showed the LEA has spent $2,346,846. This amount is 77% of their approved SIG I Year 4 budget. Additional funds in the amount of $69,229 have been encumbered. Expended amount for fixed charges are included in the total spent.

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

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

4. Has a budget amendment been submitted? If yes, what budget changes were requested for this LEA? PGCPS will submit an amendment (#3) by January 2014 to redirecting final balances to already approved activities.

5. How often are LEA expenditures monitored by the LEA? Who monitors? PGCPS provided documentation that showed the monitoring is conducted monthly. The first one for this year will be conducted in December.

6. Did the LEA provide evidence and documentation of the Priority Cohort Inventory? Yes No

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



Table 3 Priority Cohort I Year 4 Consolidated Budget LEA: Prince George’s Public Schools MSDE Fiscal Reviewer: Kelly Coates Monitoring Date: October 4, 2013

Priority Cohort 1003(g) ARRA Total Allocation $ 6,923,075

Amount Spent $ 5,441,538

Percent Spent 79%

Amount Encumbered $ 257,550

Spend Down Data as of : Oct 3, 2013



Table 4

Priority Cohort I Year 3 Instructional Domains and Indicators Domain Indicator

#1 Instructional

Planning

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

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

#2 Instructional

Delivery

(Strategies and Process)

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

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

situation; teachable moment, etc.)

#3 Teacher-Student

Engagement

(Techniques and Strategies)

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

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

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

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

#4 Classroom

Management

(for Teaching and Learning)

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

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

rapport.

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



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

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

Domain # G. James Gholson (2012-13) G. James Gholson (2013-14)

1st

Visit 3rd

Visit 1st

Visit 3rd

Visit

Instructional Planning

1 37.5% NM -- 41.6% NM 70.00% M

2 31.2% NM ↑ 53.8% PM 70.00% M

3 20.% NM -- 38.4% NM 75.00% M

Instructional Delivery

4 35.7% NM ↑ 84.6% M 87.50% M

5 33.3% NM ↑ 53.3% PM 87.50% M

6 30.% NM -- 25.% NM 40.00% NM

Teacher Student

Engagement

7 25.% NM ↑ 57.1% PM 70.00% M

8 40.% NM ↑ 84.6% M 80.00% M

9 53.3% PM ↑ 84.6% M 80.00% M

10 7.6% NM ↑ 60.% PM 66.67% PM

Classroom Management

11 43.7% NM ↑ 64.2% PM 70.00% M

12 68.7% PM ↑ 86.6% M 80.00% M

13 62.5% PM ↑ 86.6% M 100.00% M

14 85.7% M ↓ 62.5% PM 70.00% M

TOTAL 41.0% NM ↑ 63.1% PM 74.76%

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

Domain # Drew Freeman (2012-13) Drew Freeman (2013-14)

1st Visit 3rd Visit 1st Visit 3rd Visit

structional Planning

1 37.5% NM ↑ 75.% M 71.43% M

2 50.% NM ↑ 75.% M 55.56% PM

3 61.5% PM ↑ 83.3% M 44.44% NM


4 56.2% PM -- 62.5% PM 70.00% M

5 68.7% PM ↑ 100.% M 70.00% M

6 6.25% NM ↑ 83.3% M 60.00% PM

Teacher Student Engagement

7 18.7% NM ↑ 62.5% PM 60.00% PM

8 50.% NM ↑ 62.5% PM 77.78% M

9 62.5% PM ↓ 50.% NM 80.00% M

10 6.25% NM ↑ 71.4% M 50.00% NM


11 56.2% PM -- 62.5% PM 90.00% M

12 87.5% M ↓ 62.5% PM 90.00% M

13 75.% M -- 75.% M 100.00% M

14 75.% M -- 100.% M 90.00% M

TOTAL 50.8% NM ↑ 74.1% M 72.09%

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

Domain # Benjamin Stoddert (2012-13) Benjamin Stoddert (2013-14)

1st

Visit 3rd

Visit 1st

Visit 3rd

Visit


1 78.5% M -- 87.5% M 88.89% M

2 73.3% M ↓ 68.7% PM 77.78% M

3 100.% M ↓ 50.% NM 100.00% M


4 71.4% M -- 86.6% M 77.78% M

5 60.% PM ↓ 50.% NM 80.00% M

6 90.9% M ↓ 53.3% PM 83.33% M


7 60.% PM -- 62.5% PM 70.00% M

8 50.% NM -- 50.% NM 88.89% M

9 57.1% PM -- 64.2% PM 71.43% M

10 50.% NM -- 44.4% NM 80.00% M


11 50.% NM -- 43.7% NM 87.50% M

12 53.3% PM ↑ 75.% M 90.00% M

13 66.6% PM ↑ 85.7% M 88.89% M

14 66.6% PM -- 68.6% PM 90.00% M

TOTAL 66.2% PM -- 66.2% PM 83.89%

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

Domain # Thurgood Marshall (2012-13) Thurgood Marshall (2013-14)

1st Visit 3rd Visit 1st Visit 3rd Visit


1 100.% M -- 71.4% M 90.00% M

2 78.5% M ↓ 64.2% PM 90.00% M

3 100.% M ↓ 42.8% NM 83.33% M


4 78.5% M ↓ 64.2% PM 90.00% M

5 66.6% PM -- 53.8% PM 66.67% PM

6 72.7% M ↓ 63.6% PM 85.71% M


7 71.4% M ↓ 50.% NM 70.00% M

8 76.9% M ↓ 57.1% PM 77.78% M

9 69.2% M ↓ 57.1% PM 100.00% M

10 62.5% PM ↓ 45.4% NM 100.00% M


11 75.% M ↓ 64.2% PM 62.50% PM

12 69.2% M ↓ 64.2% PM 66.67% PM

13 83.3% M -- 85.7% M 77.78% M

14 71.4% M ↓ 57.1% PM 90.00% M

TOTAL 76.8% M ↓ 60.1% PM 82.17%

KEY

↑ : Rating Increased -- : Rating Remained the Same ↓ : Rating Decreased



Table 6

Priority Schools First Onsite Visit Classroom Observation Tally Sheet for G. James Gholson Middle School

Cla

ssro

om

O

bse

rva

tio

n

Ind

ica

tors

Cla

ssro

om

1

Cla

ssro

om

2

Cla

ssro

om

3

Cla

ssro

om

4

Cla

ssro

om

5

Cla

ssro

om

6

Cla

ssro

om

7

Cla

ssro

om

8

Cla

ssro

om

9

Cla

ssro

om

10

To

tal

Pro

fici

en

t o

r A

bo

ve

O

bse

rva

tio

ns

*To

tal

%

Pro

fici

en

t o

r A

bo

ve

O

bse

rva

tio

ns

*In

dic

ato

r M

ET

(M

), P

art

iall

y

ME

T (

PM

), N

OT

M

ET

(N

M)

1 0 0 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 7 70.00% M 2 0 0 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 7 70.00% M 3 1 1 x x 0 x 1 x x x 3 75.00% M 4 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 x x 1 7 87.50% M 5 1 1 0 1 x 1 1 1 x 1 7 87.50% M 6 x x 1 1 x x x 0 0 0 2 40.00% NM 7 1 1 1 0 0 1 1 0 1 1 7 70.00% M 8 1 1 1 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 8 80.00% M 9 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 0 8 80.00% M 10 0 1 1 1 0 1 1 0 1 x 6 66.67% PM 11 1 1 1 0 0 1 1 1 1 0 7 70.00% M 12 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 0 1 1 8 80.00% M 13 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 10 100.00% M

14 0 1 1 1 0 1 1 0 1 1 7 70.00% M

TOTAL 9 11 12 10 2 12 13 6 10 9 94 74.76%

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

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

0 - Not Proficient

*0-50%, Indicator is NOT MET (NM) for the school *51-69% Indicator is PARTIALLY MET (PM) for the school *70-100% Indicator is MET (M) for the school



*70-100% Indicator is MET for the school

1 - Proficient or Above

X - No Opportunity to Observe the Indicator in the Classroom

Table 7

G. James Gholson Middle School, Prince George’s County Public Schools Priority Cohort I Year 4 First Onsite Monitoring Classroom Observation Feedback 2013-2014

Domain 1 : Instructional Planning

Indicator 1: The teacher states the lesson objective (written and orally) in student learning outcomes which demonstrate high expectations. (identifies what students should know and be able to do at the end of the lesson.)

Indicator Score:

7 points out of 10 total

observations 70.0% Met

Summary of Evidence to Support the Indicator Score

Of the 10 classrooms observed, all posted the “Essential Question”; however, 8 of the 10 classrooms posted both the essential question and an objective.

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

In most of the classrooms the connection with prior learning and the objective was made.

Indicator 2: The teacher aligns instructional and learning activities to the lesson objective.

Indicator Score:




In most classrooms learning activities were matched to instructional outcomes.

In some of the classrooms learning activities provided opportunities for higher-level thinking.

In many of the classrooms learning activities were moderately challenging.

Indicator 3: The teacher aligns assessment (ongoing, formative, and summative) to the lesson objective.

Indicator Score:




Because of the timing of the classroom observations, the Priority Observation Pair determined Indicator 3 was not available in 6 of the classrooms.

In a majority of the classrooms assessments did not provide opportunities for student choice.



A few of the classrooms had vague assessment criteria.

Domain 2: Instruction Delivery- Strategies and Process

Indicator 4: Teacher presents concepts, skills, and directions clearly using correct oral and written language.

Indicator Score:




In a majority of the classrooms, teachers’ vocabulary was appropriate to the age of the student.

In a majority of the classrooms the teachers’ explanation of content was clear and invited student participation and thinking.

Because of the timing of the classroom observations, the Priority Observation Pair determined Indicator 4 could not be observed in 2 classrooms.

Indicator 5: Teacher provides a variety of feedback (oral and written) that advances student learning while checking for understanding.

Indicator Score:




In a majority of the classrooms, teachers elicited evidence of student understanding during the lesson.

In a majority of the classrooms, teachers made consistent attempts to engage students in discussion.


Indicator 6: Teacher adapts plans as needed. (Differentiation of content, process, product; unexpected situation; teachable moment, etc.)

Indicator Score:


observations 40.0%

Not Met


Because of the timing of the classroom observations, the SIG Observation Pair determined Indicator 6 could not be observed in 5 classrooms.

In some classrooms teachers’ efforts to modify the lesson were only partially met.

In some classrooms teachers seized on a teachable moment to enhance a lesson.



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

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

Indicator Score:




In a majority of classrooms students were intellectually engaged in the lesson.

In a majority of classrooms the pacing of the lesson provided students the time needed to be intellectually engaged.

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

Indicator Score:




In a majority of the classrooms teachers built on and used students responses to questions effectively.

In a majority of classrooms teachers made effective use of wait time.

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

Indicator Score:




In a majority of classrooms teachers stated clearly what the students would be learning.

In a majority of classrooms teachers modeled the process to be followed in the task.

In a majority of the classrooms students engaged with the learning task, indicating that they understood what they were to do.

Indicator 10: All students effectively participate in a variety of groupings (whole group, small group, and independent) throughout

Indicator Score:


observations


In many of the classrooms instructional student groups were random or only partially supported the outcome.

In many classrooms teachers provided no differentiation for different students.



the lesson.

66.7%

Partially Met

Because of the timing of the classroom observations, the Priority Observation Pair determined Indicator 6 could not be observed in 1 classroom.

Domain 4: Classroom Management (for Teaching and Learning)

Indicator 11: Teacher organizes instructional learning time to maximize student time on task.

Indicator Score:




In a majority of classrooms pacing of the lesson provided students the time needed to be intellectually engaged.

In a majority of classrooms students interacted with one another.

Indicator12: Teacher establishes and manages classroom procedures and routines that promote learning.

Indicator Score:




In a majority of classrooms student behavior was generally appropriate and the teacher acknowledged good behavior.

In a majority of classrooms teachers frequently monitored student behavior. Teachers’ responses to student misbehavior were effective.

In a majority of classrooms routines functioned smoothly.

Indicator 13: Teacher uses space, equipment, and materials to support instruction including the use of technology to engage.

Indicator Score:


observations 100.0%

Met


All classrooms were safe and all students were able to see and hear.

In all classrooms the teachers made appropriate use of available technology.

Indicator 14: Teacher manages student behavior effectively which creates a learning environment

Indicator Score:


observations


In a majority of classrooms talk between teacher and students and among students was uniformly respectful.

In a majority of classrooms teachers responded to disrespectful behavior among students.



of respect and rapport.

70.0% Met

In some classrooms the quality of interactions between teacher and students, or among students, was uneven, with occasional disrespect.

Table 8: Priority Cohort I Year 4 School Budget for G. James Gholson Middle School , Tier II MSDE Fiscal Reviewer: Kelly Coates Monitoring Date: October 4, 2013

Total Priority Cohort I Year 3

Allocation: $ 1,010,978 School Budget Spent:

$ 735,219 Percent of School Budget

Spent: 79% Spend Down Data as of:

Oct 3, 2013

Salaries & Wages Contractual Services Supplies & Materials Other *Budgeted: $ 560,988 Budgeted: $ 109,400 Budgeted: $ 39,203 Budgeted:

Travel: $ 34,500 *Registration & Membership Fees: $26,102

Equipment: $ 84,540

Encumbered: $ 0 Encumbered: $ 1,155 Encumbered: $ 1,564 Encumbered & Spent: Encumbered Travel: $ 15,892

Encumbered Fees: $ 0 Encumbered Equipment: $ 83,740




Travel Spent: $ 16,980 Travel Spent (%): 49%

Registration & Membership Fees Spent: $ 25,400

Registration & Membership Fees Spent (%): 97% Equipment Spent: 0

Equipment Spent (%): 0%

1. How much of the school budget, based on the LEA’s approved application, has been expended to date (amount and %)? PGCPS provided documentation that showed the school has spent $735,219. This amount is 79% of their approved SIG I Year 4 budget. Additional funds in the amount of $102,288 have been encumbered. Expended amount for fixed charges are included in the total spent.

2. Is school spending consistent with budget timeline? If not, what steps are being taken to expend the funds as planned? PGCPS explained that G. James Gholson Middle School is on target in spending on their timeline.


4. Has a budget amendment been submitted? If yes, what budget changes were requested for this school? PGCPS will submit an amendment (#3) by January 2014 to redirecting final balances to already approved activities.

5. How often are school expenditures monitored by the LEA? Who monitors? Schools are monitored monthly by the LEA. Myra Grzeskiewicz has monitored on August 8, 2013, August 29, 2013, and September 19, 2013.

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

7. Did the LEA provide evidence of time and effort for staff funded with Priority School funds (2nd and 3rd monitoring visit only)?



Yes No N/A

** Based on latest approved amendment

Table 9 Priority Schools First Onsite Visit Classroom Observation Tally Sheet for Benjamin Stoddert Middle School

Cla

ssro

om

O

bse

rva

tio

n

Ind

ica

tors

Cla

ssro

om

1

Cla

ssro

om

2

Cla

ssro

om

3

Cla

ssro

om

4

Cla

ssro

om

5

Cla

ssro

om

6

Cla

ssro

om

7

Cla

ssro

om

8

Cla

ssro

om

9

Cla

ssro

om

10

To

tal

Pro

fici

en

t o

r A

bo

ve

O

bse

rva

tio

ns

*To

tal

%

Pro

fici

en

t o

r A

bo

ve

O

bse

rva

tio

ns

*In

dic

ato

r M

ET

(M

), P

art

iall

y

ME

T (

PM

), N

OT

M

ET

(N

M)

1 0 1 1 1 1 1 x 1 1 1 8 88.89% M

2 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 0 x 1 7 77.78% M

3 x x x x x x 1 x 1 x 2 100.00% M

4 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 0 x 1 7 77.78% M

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

6 1 1 1 1 1 x x 0 x x 5 83.33% M

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

8 1 1 1 0 1 x 1 1 1 1 8 88.89% M

9 0 1 x 1 x x 1 1 0 1 5 71.43% M

10 1 1 1 x x x 1 0 x x 4 80.00% M

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

12 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 9 90.00% M

13 1 1 1 1 1 x 1 0 1 1 8 88.89% M

14 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 9 90.00% M

TOTAL 10 13 12 11 11 3 12 3 8 11 94 83.89%


Key:



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

0 - Not Proficient




Table 10

Benjamin Stoddert Middle School, Prince George’s County Public Schools Priority Cohort I Year 4 First Onsite Monitoring Classroom Observation Feedback 2013-2014



Indicator Score:

8 points out of 9 observations

88.89%

MET


Objectives were written in terms of what students will learn to be able to do.

Teacher and students connected objective to previous learning.

Objective represented high expectations and rigor.


Indicator Score:


77.78%

MET


Learning and activities were matched to instructional outcomes.

The lesson activities were well structured, with reasonable time allocations.

Indicator 3: The teacher aligns assessment (ongoing,

Indicator Score:

2 points out of 2


Assessment types match learning expectations.



formative, and summative) to the lesson objective.

observations

100%

MET

Teacher includes the use of formative assessments during instruction.




Indicator Score:


77.78%

MET


Teachers’ explanations of content were clear and invited student participation and thinking.

Vocabulary and usage were correct and completely suited to the lesson.


Indicator Score:


80%

MET


Teacher elicited evidence of student understanding during their lesson.

Feedback to students was specific and timely, and was provided from many sources, including other students.



Indicator Score:


83.33%


Teachers incorporated students’ interests and questions into the heart of the lesson.

Teachers seized on a teachable moment to enhance a lesson.

Because of the timing of the classroom observations, the



MET

Priority Observation Pair determined Indicator 6 could not be observed in 4 classrooms.



Indicator Score:


70%

MET

Summary of Evidence to Support the Indicator Score Most students were intellectually engaged in the lesson.

Materials and resources supported the learning goals and required intellectual engagement as appropriate.

The pacing of the lessons provided students the time needed to be intellectually engaged.


Indicator Score:


88.89%

MET


Teachers made effective use of wait time.

Discussions enabled students to talk to one another, without ongoing mediation by the teacher.


Indicator Score:


71.43%

MET


Teachers explained content clearly and imaginatively, using metaphors and analogies to bring content to life.

All students seemed to understand the presentation. The teachers invited students to explain the content to class, or to classmates.




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

Indicator Score:


80%

MET


Instructional student groups were organized thoughtfully to maximize learning and build on student strengths.

Teachers provided a variety of appropriately challenging resources that were differentiated for students in the class.




Indicator Score:


87.50%

MET


The pacing of the lesson provided students the time

needed to be intellectually engaged.

Students interacted with one another.

Students had opportunities for reflection and closure on the lesson to consolidate their understanding with each other and with the teacher.


Indicator12: Teacher establishes and manages classroom procedures and routines that promote learning.

Indicator Score:


90%

MET


Student behavior was generally appropriate and the teacher acknowledged good behavior.

Classroom routines functioned smoothly.

The teachers monitored student behavior without speaking by just moving throughout the classrooms.

Indicator 13: Teacher uses space,

Indicator Score:




equipment, and materials to support instruction including the use of technology to engage.


88.89%

MET

The teachers made appropriate use of available technology.

The classrooms were safe and all students were able to see and hear.

Indicator 14: Teacher manages student behavior effectively which creates a learning environment of respect and rapport.

Indicator Score:


90%

MET


Talk between teacher and students and among students

was uniformly respectful.

Teachers made superficial connections with students.



Table 11: Priority Cohort I Year 4 School Budget for Benjamin Stoddert Middle School , Tier II MSDE Fiscal Reviewer: Kelly Coates Monitoring Date: October 4, 2013


Allocation: $ 953,012 School Budget Spent:



Oct 3, 2013

Salaries & Wages Contractual Services Supplies & Materials Other *Budgeted: $ 564,150 *Budgeted: $ 117,776 Budgeted: $ 48,500 Budgeted:

Travel: $ 31,030 Registration& Membership Fees: $ 25,102

Equipment: $ 10,200

Encumbered: $ 0 Encumbered: $ 766 Encumbered: $ 451 Encumbered & Spent: Encumbered Travel: $ 16,749

Encumbered Registration & Membership Fees: $ 0 Encumbered Equipment: $ 6,736






Registration & Membership Fees Spent (%): 93% Equipment Spent: $ 3,458 Equipment Spent (%): 34%


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



5. How often are school expenditures monitored by the LEA? Who monitors? Schools are monitored monthly by the LEA. Myra Grzeskiewicz has monitored on August 8, 2013 and September 9, 2013.



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


Yes No N/A * Based on latest approved amendment

Table 12 Priority Schools First Onsite Visit Classroom Observation Tally Sheet for Drew Freeman Middle School

Cla

ssro

om

O

bse

rva

tio

n

Ind

ica

tors

Cla

ssro

om

1

Cla

ssro

om

2

Cla

ssro

om

3

Cla

ssro

om

4

Cla

ssro

om

5

Cla

ssro

om

6

Cla

ssro

om

7

Cla

ssro

om

8

Cla

ssro

om

9

Cla

ssro

om

10

To

tal

Pro

fici

en

t o

r A

bo

ve

O

bse

rva

tio

ns

*To

tal

%

Pro

fici

en

t o

r A

bo

ve

O

bse

rva

tio

ns

*In

dic

ato

r M

ET

(M

), P

art

iall

y M

ET

(P

M),

NO

T M

ET

(N

M)

1 0 1 1 x 1 0 x x 1 1 5 71.43% M

2 1 1 1 x 1 1 0 0 0 0 5 55.56% PM

3 1 0 1 x 1 0 0 0 1 0 4 44.44% NM

4 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 7 70.00% M

5 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 7 70.00% M

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

7 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 6 60.00% PM

8 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 x 0 1 7 77.78% M

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

10 0 1 0 1 1 1 x x 0 0 4 50.00% NM

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

12 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 9 90.00% M

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

14 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 9 90.00% M

TOTAL 11 13 12 11 14 12 6 5 7 5 96 72.09%




Key:

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

0 - Not Proficient




Table 13

Drew Freeman Middle School, Prince George’s County Public Schools Priority Cohort I Year 4 First Onsite Monitoring Classroom Observation Feedback 2013-2014



Indicator Score:


71.43%

Met


In most classrooms the lesson objective was written in terms of what students will learn and be able to do.

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

In most of the classrooms the objective was related to “big ideas.” *Note: Indicator 1 was not observable in 3 out of the ten observations.


Indicator Score:


55.56%

Partially Met


In some of the classes learning activities were matched to the instructional outcomes.

In some of the classes teachers provided a variety of instructional activities.

In some of the classes the lesson activities were well structured with reasonable time allocations.

Indicator 3: The teacher aligns

Indicator Score:




assessment (ongoing, formative, and summative) to the lesson objective.


44.44%

Not Met

In most of the classrooms assessment criteria was vague.

In most of the classrooms formative assessments were not present or fully developed.

In most of the classrooms formative assessment results for the whole class were used.



Indicator Score:


70.0%

Met


In a majority of classrooms the teachers made no content or vocabulary errors.

In a majority of classrooms teachers’ explanation of content was clear.


Indicator Score:


70.0%

Met


In a majority of classrooms the teachers elicited evidence of understanding during the lesson.

In a majority of classrooms the feedback provided timely guidance for groups of students.


Indicator Score:


60.0%

Partially Met


In some of the classrooms teachers made efforts to modify the lesson.

In some of the classrooms the teachers made attempts to incorporate student questions and interests in the lesson.

In a majority of the classrooms the teachers did not demonstrate differentiation of content, process, and product.



In some of the classrooms unexpected teachable moments were not seized upon to enhance the lesson.



Indicator Score:


60.0%

Partially Met


In most of the classrooms the pacing of the lesson provided students the time needed to understand and process the materials.

In most of the classroom student engagement with the content was largely passive.

In most of the classrooms students had no choice on how they completed tasks.

Indicator 8: All students are engaged by the use of questioning and discussion strategies that encourage higher order thinking rather than

emphasis on recall.

Indicator Score:


77.78%

Met


Teachers made effective use of wait time.

Teachers built upon and used student responses to questions effectively.

Discussions enabled students to talk to one another, without ongoing mediation by the teacher.


Indicator Score:


80.0%


When appropriate, the teachers modeled the process to be followed in the task.

Teachers’ explanation of the content was clear, and invited student participation and thinking.

Teachers pointed out possible areas for misunderstanding.



Met


Indicator Score:


50.0%

Not Met


Instructional groups were random.

Teachers did not provide any differentiation for different students.

Teachers employed only total class presentation for an entire lesson. *Note: Indicator 10 was not observable in 2 out of the ten observations.



Indicator Score:


90.0%

Met


The pacing of the lesson provided students the time needed to be intellectually engaged.

Students had an opportunity for reflection and closure on the lesson to consolidate their understanding.

With minimal guidance and prompting, students followed the established classroom routines.

Indicator12: Teacher establishes and manages

Indicator Score:

9 points out of


Student behavior was generally appropriate and the teacher



classroom procedures and routines that promote learning.

10 observations

90.0%

Met

acknowledged good behavior.

Classroom routines functioned smoothly.

Students transitioned between instructional smoothly.


Indicator Score:


100.0%

Met


The classrooms were safe, and all students were able to see and hear.

The teachers made appropriate use of available technology.

The classrooms were arranged to support the instructional goals and learning activities.


Indicator Score:


90.0%

Met


Talk between teacher and students and among students was uniformly respectful.

Teachers made superficial connections with individual students.

The teachers’ responses to a student’s incorrect response respected the student’s dignity.



Table 14: Priority Cohort I Year 4 School Budget for Drew Freeman Middle School , Tier II MSDE Fiscal Reviewer: Kelly Coates Monitoring Date: October 4, 2013


Allocation: $ 953,012

School Budget Spent: $ 714,531

Percent of School Budget


Oct 3, 2013

Salaries & Wages Contractual Services Supplies & Materials Other Budgeted: $ 566,810 Budgeted: $ 119,268 Budgeted: $ 48,470 Budgeted:

Travel: $ 34,500 Registration& Membership Fees:

$ 27,102

Encumbered: $ 0 Encumbered: $ 220 Encumbered: $ 25,635 Encumbered & Spent: Encumbered Travel: $ 14,844

Encumbered Fees: $ 0






Registration & Membership Fees Spent (%): 71%


2. Is school spending consistent with budget timeline? If not, what steps are being taken to expend the funds as planned? PGCPS explained that Drew Freeman Middle School is on target in spending on their timeline.



5. How often are school expenditures monitored by the LEA? Who monitors? Schools are monitored monthly by the LEA. Myra Grzeskiewicz has monitored on August 8, 2013 and September 4, 2013.

6. Did the LEA provide evidence and documentation of the Priority School Inventory?



Yes No

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

Table 15 Priority Schools First Onsite Visit Classroom Observation Tally Sheet for Thurgood Marshall Middle School

Cla

ssro

om

O

bse

rva

tio

n

Ind

ica

tors

Cla

ssro

om

1

Cla

ssro

om

2

Cla

ssro

om

3

Cla

ssro

om

4

Cla

ssro

om

5

Cla

ssro

om

6

Cla

ssro

om

7

Cla

ssro

om

8

Cla

ssro

om

9

Cla

ssro

om

10

To

tal

Pro

fici

en

t o

r A

bo

ve

O

bse

rva

tio

ns

*To

tal

%

Pro

fici

en

t o

r A

bo

ve

O

bse

rva

tio

ns

*In

dic

ato

r M

ET

(M

), P

art

iall

y

ME

T (

PM

), N

OT

M

ET

(N

M)

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

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

3 1 1 X 0 1 X 1 1 X X 5 83.33% M

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

5 1 1 0 0 1 X 1 1 0 1 6 66.67% PM

6 1 X 0 X 1 1 1 1 X 1 6 85.71% M 7 1 1 0 0 1 1 1 1 0 1 7 70.00% M

8 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 X 0 1 7 77.78% M 9 1 1 X 1 1 1 1 1 X 1 8 100.00% M

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

11 1 1 0 0 1 1 1 0 X X 5 62.50% PM

12 1 1 0 0 1 X 1 0 1 1 6 66.67% PM

13 1 1 0 0 1 1 1 1 X 1 7 77.78% M

14 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 9 90.00% M

TOTAL 14 13 3 4 14 11 14 11 4 12 100 82.17%




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

0 - Not Proficient




Table 16

Thurgood Marshall Middle School, Prince George’s County Public Schools Priority Cohort I Year 4 First Onsite Monitoring Classroom Observation Feedback 2013-2014



Indicator Score:

9 points out of 10

observations

90.0%

Met


Objectives represented high expectations and rigor.

Teacher and students connected objectives to previous learning.

Objectives were related to “big ideas” of the discipline.


Indicator Score:

9 out of 10 total observations

90%

Met


Learning activities were matched to instructional outcomes.

The lesson activities were well structured, with reasonable time allocations.

Activities permitted student choice.

Indicator 3: The teacher aligns assessment (ongoing,

Indicator Score:

5 out of 6 total


Assessment types matched learning expectations.



formative, and summative) to the lesson objective.

observations

83.33%

Met

Teacher made adjustments based on formative assessment data.

Rubrics were aligned to learning objectives. Because of the timing of the classroom observations, the

Priority Observation Pair determined Indicator 3 could not be observed in 4 classrooms.



Indicator Score:


90%

Met


Teachers’ explanation of content was clear and invited student participation and thinking.

All students seemed to understand the presentation.

Teacher explained content clearly and imaginatively, using metaphors and analogies to bring content to life.


Indicator Score:


66.67%

Partially Met


The teachers elicited evidence of student understanding during the lesson.

Teacher made frequent use of strategies to elicit information about the individual student understanding.

Feedback was generally global.


Indicator Score:


85.71%


Teachers successfully made minor modifications to the lesson.

Teachers conveyed to students that he/she had other approaches to try when the students experience difficulty.



Met




Indicator Score:


70%

Met


Virtually all students were highly engaged in the lessons.



Indicator Score:


77.78%

Met


Teacher used open–ended questions, inviting students to think and/or have multiple possible answers.

The teachers called on most students, even those who did not initially volunteer.


Indicator Score:


100%


Students engaged with learning task, indicating that they understood what they were to do.

All students seemed to understand the presentation. The teachers invited students to explain the content to the class, or to classmates.



Met



Indicator Score:


100%

Met



Students had the opportunities for reflection and closure on the lesson to consolidate their understanding with each other and with the teacher.




Indicator Score:


62.50%

Partially Met


Few students interacted with one another.

In most classrooms the pacing of the lesson provided the time needed to be intellectually engaged.

Indicator12: Teacher establishes and manages classroom procedures and routines that promote

Indicator Score:


66.67%


Student behavior was generally appropriate and the teacher acknowledged good behavior.

Student behavior was mostly appropriate, little evidence of student misbehavior.



learning. Partially Met

Procedures for transitions, and distribution/collection of materials, seemed to have been established but their implementation was rough.


Indicator Score:


77.78%

Met


The classrooms were arranged to support the instructional goals and learning activities.

Modifications were made to the physical environment to accommodate students with special needs.


Indicator Score:


90%

Met


Teachers demonstrated knowledge and caring about the individual students’ lives beyond school.

There was no evidence of disrespectful behavior among students.

The teachers’ responses to student incorrect responses respected the student’s dignity.



Table 17: Priority Cohort I Year 4 School Budget for Thurgood Marshall Middle School , Tier II MSDE Fiscal Reviewer: Kelly Coates Monitoring Date: October 4, 2013


Allocation: $ 953,012 School Budget Spent:


Spent:86% Spend Down Data as of:

Oct 3, 2013

Salaries & Wages Contractual Services Supplies & Materials Other *Budgeted: $ 583,753 *Budgeted: $ 104,718 Budgeted: $ 47,000 Budgeted:

Travel: $ 34,500 *Registration& Membership Fees:

$ 24,102 Equipment: $700

Encumbered: $ 0 Encumbered: $ 1,251 Encumbered: $ 1,017 Encumbered & Spent: Encumbered Travel: $ 15,265

Encumbered Fees: $ 1,178 Encumbered Equipment: $ 0





Registration & Membership Fees Spent: $ 23,276 Registration & Membership Fees Spent (%): 97%

Equipment: $ 657 Equipment Spent (%): 94%


2. Is school spending consistent with budget timeline? If not, what steps are being taken to expend the funds as planned? PGCPS explained that Thurgood Marshall Middle School is on target in spending on their timeline.



5. How often are school expenditures monitored by the LEA? Who monitors? Schools are monitored monthly by the LEA. Myra Grzeskiewicz has monitored on July 31, 2013 August 8, 2013 and September 27, 2013.

6. Did the LEA provide evidence and documentation of the Priority School Inventory?



Yes No


Yes No N/A

* Based on latest approved amendment

priority cohort i year 4 program and fiscal monitoring teams...

Documents