Dashboard updates for this month: 

• We've added enrollment (from the time that pull the snapshot)
• We added unofficial in-year retention
• There is also the net promoter score from our fall data
• We do have the winter iReady data this month. Dashboard has the % of on-grade level scholars and % on track to meet their stretch goal target. 

We also are looking at scholar satisfaction data. It's highly predictive of outcomes. We're looking at both those that are very low or very high. We've noted that scholars with a higher sense of belonging have higher achievement. 

The goal for the dashboard is for all schools to reach 100%, but we can consider visualizing that (similar to how we measure and track attendance).

This is a part of the annual reflective process. Each principal presents to their staff, but we at the home office provide a template and the topics that they cover. 

We also coach principals to support the drafting and development of the presentations. We've attached a sampling of these presentations.

Q: Was there anything surprising for you in the data? 

The school study process is exhaustive, so it gives us a good sense of where schools are, so we are aware of how they doing. 

Pleased to see the collegial/optimistic tone. Overall, we know principals are in different stages of development. We see this in their schools and their results. 

Q: It was interesting to see how principals did or did not include data. Some included arcs and others included winter data. How were you hoping to see these? 

iReady shows us if we're on track to meet our end-of-year goals. The arcs are tied to their strategic plans. We require that principals share the most comprehensive view possible – they have a menu of options of how they can share their options. We often don't require things and give principals autonomy. We saw that the principals most directly linked to the strategic plans are those that rely on network-level support. 

Q: Will there ever be standard portions of these decks?

They are fairly standardized already, the tools and supporting materials are generated by the network. These are the presentations that allow them to tell their story as they see fit.  

We believe we're well positioned for scholars to make gains in ELA, but it is more grim for math. 

We continue to see a large percentage of scholars more than one grade level behind in math. 

We are also not seeing dramatic improvement in our scholars with special needs. While we are not seeing a disproportionate negative impact, they are not getting the instruction they need to make gains. 

Q: Our process from Fall to Winter this year vs. last year has not changed dramatically? Are there warning indicators about our approach? Does SPED? Suspension? Enrollment? 

We need to interrogate who the strategy is working for, and who isn't it working and why. There are two parts: for those that are two grade levels behind, we need to work on our basic skill building and teacher development AND the question we're not ready to walk away from is whether we're teaching the right stuff. We're three years into adopting the current curriculum, but asking who is this working for is the right question and why. 

Q: Do we compare SY23 Winter to SY24 Winter results? 

For planning, we look more to Fall - Winter - Spring to inform instruction. But we do look at the year-over-year to understand the greater impact of our work. We need to identify if any scholars are "running in place". It does not identify a tactical approach but gives a holistic approach. 

We also use the iReady data to be predictive of OST. This is our first foray into predictive analytics. This is meant to be supportive of principals and their teams, and it also helps us at the network-level understand who is on track to meet their goals.

Q: Are you using the predictive data to make real-time adjustments? 

We don't adjust the goals. This helps us provide support and provide greater support. We're using this data to explore and understand what's working. We don't have enough intel to make strategy shifts yet. 

Last time we spoke, we talked about the CMO Strategic Alignment. I walked through my vision and plan for the home office.

We discussed this at the board meeting in detail, and we've also started to roll it out/ We've had individual meetings with impacted staff members, group meetings, and then providing the space for folks to transition with dignity if they choose. 

We're going to go over the alignment at both an upcoming home office meeting as well as this month's board meeting. 

Q: Should we expect to see some disruption in insight data?

That may be true, and some of this is bringing folks along. A lot of what we're doing is not a surprise. I hope that if we do a good enough job narrating, we will likely see this show-up. 

Danielle: 

We landed on "Supports management to explore. develop, and pilot opportunities for educational innovation to best meet the needs of Breakthrough students and families. 

We need to vote to see if want to adopt this. Does anyone have any edits or questions? 

Q: Andrew, innovation is close to you. Is innovation one of the spaces you're excited to see the board being supportive of? 

I think it is explicitly an ask. We need to take risks to say we don't know it all and are open to learning. This bullet is tied to the work of this committee and to the learning work that we are doing together here. If this is tied to the work we're doing (kid and family focus) is additive. We hope to make similar shifts on other board committees soon. 

Danielle: 

We could do a deep dive/checklist to norm on what is a good idea to bring to the group. Ensure things are values aligned and accelerate learning. 

We then need to consider how we track and measure our progress toward these committee goals. 

Sam: 

We want to be able to filter out things, and then be able to explain why. Criteria could be helpful with that. 

Andrew: 

Innovation can be simple, it doesn't have to be revolutionary. Let's build a framework to test out our theories. It doesn't have to be the coolest new thing. We're a three-year-old CMO, and still learning. Everything we're building is a new structure and system. The innovation could just be best practices. 

For several years, we've been trying to figure out how to pilot structured tutoring. We wanted to know if we could do this at a micro-scale, and what would a broader roll out look like. We've partnered with Amplify Tutoring to do some virtual tutoring.

We picked schools that could participate. This launched in November, and we expect to get the first data later this month/next month. 

Overall, scholars have been consistent in using the tool. The goal is to see this have a positive impact on scholars and give us another data point on the process. 

Q: Interested to see if this can help. We know we need some extra support. Can this pan out in line with research?