In order to save time, we'll take questions on the school health and effectiveness dashboard. 

For EPWH, do we need to be concerned about the scores? 

Answer: Attendance is a priority, we're focused on suspensions at that school. 

One thing that's new this month, is getting picture of progress. Overall, the dashboard presents a robust picture of where schools are. 

iReady is the baseline, and we're going to talk about that next. 

How does iReady relate to EUA? 

Answer: iReady takes a whole year look. The EUA data looks more at the subset of content they are learning in a give period. For Math, we start with a lot of review from the prior year, so the high scores now show kids have retained last year, but we expect this to level out.

In the past we've shared that the Fall data doesn't provide a great assessment of where are scholars are at, given it's purpose. That said, we're at the point to share how these assessments inform our strategy, and how we use this information to set goals. 

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1wgeyk9_HJqnQV8MKkn20XcLaV_CmItjM/view

We have two major assessments taken at the network. iReady is taken three times a year in ELA and Math and they give us a great sense of where our scholars stand. The OST is given once a year to 3-8 graders in the spring. We use this data to see how our scholars are doing. 

From Fall 22 to Fall 23, we have not seen much change. That said, this doesn't consider who has been with us for a longer period of time. We actually see that the scholars who have been with us longer do actually achieve at higher rates. 

That said, with those who have been with us the longest, we still have half of scholars 3 or more grade levels behind.  

What lies ahead are the goals we've set within our strategic plan. These goals are ambitious, but achievable based on our research of peer schools. 

iReady produces a growth model for each scholar. It allows us to predict which schools will meet their goals. They need to hit their stretch goals. 

All of this modeling would not be possible without the infrastructure work we've done on our data. We've brought in some engineers to support our efforts. We have a clean stack and the data wall finally works. We are finally able to show principals and leadership the data they need to make decisions in the moment. 

We sent a lot of documents in BOT, these are our team strategic plans. 

The Academic team strategic plan aligns to our four year goals as well as having priorities for each function for these four years as well. This ties to our belief that you need to layer in various strategies over time. This looks different for each function, given their priorities/workstreams. 

An example would be T&L versus Student Services. They are different in scope. 

Each function has their own strategic plan. This makes sure that initiatives for each major priority are aligned to our key goals and pillars. They all come back to the same through line.  

A number of our schools are in various stages of oversight, due to school-specific issues. We are in network-level oversight for special education.

For special education, we got a notice from CMSD that they are going ramp up oversight of our special education this school year. We started by sharing that we were going to update our monitoring tools, and loop them in periodically to monitor and discuss together. 

We've shared regular data with them, shared reports, and conducted school visits. At this time, there are no concerns about our practices, protocols, or data. We anticipate we will be able to resolve this increased oversight. 

We have two more campuses that need to complete their visits/audits, but we don't anticipate any challenges. 

We also have two other issues. At WH and Cliffs, we were flagged for chronic absenteeism. We actually already had been planning process improvements for attendance policies and procedures. These have been resolved. Trainings were complete in August. 

At Willard and Glenville we have to develop improvement plans. We were able to use our school-based strategic plans through the acadmic roadmap to serve this purpose. We're required by law to work with the state to get support on the implementation from local resource teams, which we are doing. No additional actions for us to take. 

Aditi brought language options for the committee's innovation goal: 

• Supports management to explore opportunities for educational innovation
• Supports management to explore, develop, and pilot opportunities for educational innovation
• Supports management to explore, develop, and pilot opportunities for educational innovation to best meet the needs of Breakthrough students and families
• Encourages management to explore, develop, and pilot opportunities for educational innovation to best meet the needs of Breakthrough students and families

Excited we're having this conversation. Great to tie back to students/families/our community. Board needs to move the boulders to the let the work happen – leads to support versus encourage. 

Garet, Danielle, and Andrew both voiced a preference for #3. Important to show there are multiple stages to this work. The word pilot is important. 

No tension between innovation and our current plan. There are different strategies on the ground now. Differentiation is not new to us, we give leaders and teacher the opportunity to innovate, but they are required to have a plan.  

In terms of next steps, next month we'll add to our already established goals. We'll review at a group and then vote on the goals. This will then go to the board. Early next year, we then need to huddle on what we actually want to do to address this work. 

What to include with the board: 

• Data/Dashboard
• Story around scholars staying with us over time + academic outcomes
• Trajectory to SY24 goals